MBT-70/Kampfpanzer-70

[_PabloSniper_ 2,142]

to fight against T-10  :good:

[Cryptocurrency 1,197]

Layered and spaced armor that is quite thick and highly angled.yeah nty until composite armor and ceramics for t64 then sure you can add this.

[Ruslan_DR 686]

Layered and spaced armor that is quite thick and highly angled.yeah nty until composite armor and ceramics for t64 then sure you can add this.

 

> highly angled.

> same angles as leo 1 and pretty much M60.

 

M8 what have you been smoking. If that's the argument then we get APFSDS to deal with your slavbucket.

 

 

In other news, I was going to suggest we get all shells except missile and APFSDS, because the default 150 HEAT round (ww2 style) is NOT heat-fs, and pens 300mm, which makes it much more fair, just drop the missile and long rod penetrator, you've got a pretty balanced vehicle without them. 

 

AS well as this, you guys are doofuses, mobility, and agility don't mean jack **** in this game, you saw what they did to the leo, and gave it atrocious mobility when it should have apparently had much better, nerfed the maus' gun. I can't see why you people are complaining, this would be perfectly balanced if added because you know they're going to immediately nerf it to sh*t.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Ruslan_DR

[Guest]

to fight against T-10  :good:

YOU NECRO'D THIS HELLHOLE OF A THREAD FOR THAT?

(i'm having trouble not using caps to demonstrate my rage)

This tank will open a can of worms not seen since the addition of the friggin F2 sabre,which will lead to composite armored soviet tanks that will whoop the a$$ of every tank in the game.

NO NO NO NO NO

Not needed now,and i hope not ever.

Use Leo and M60 against T10M

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

YOU NECRO'D THIS HELLHOLE OF A THREAD FOR THAT?

(i'm having trouble not using caps to demonstrate my rage)

This tank will open a can of worms not seen since the addition of the friggin F2 sabre,which will lead to composite armored soviet tanks that will whoop the a$$ of every tank in the game.

NO NO NO NO NO

Not needed now,and i hope not ever.

Use Leo and M60 against T10M

 

pls need abram 5 T10M

 

 

trolls aside.... I think MBT would just be a fun end-game. I'msure the russians have something against it... like IS-7 or something... who knows  :dntknw:

Edited February 23, 2016 by BlitzkriegWulf

[Choogleblitz 10,205]

MBT-70

 

=

 

 

 

Both from 1969 :))))))))))))))))

[Asgar1205 1,471]

MBT-70

 

=

 

 

 

Both from 1969 :))))))))))))))))

is that the prodction model?..than it's from 1976...

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

MBT-70

 

=

 

 

 

Both from 1969 :))))))))))))))))

 

But glorious wikipedia, ever smart and all knowing has said they were produced only from 1976 onwards :(

 

 

"

KMDB (T-80UD) Designed 1967–1975 Manufacturer LKZ and Omsk Transmash, Russia
Malyshev Factory, Ukraine^[4] Unit cost USD $2.2 million T80U export, 1994.^[5] Produced 1976–1992^[6]

[Choogleblitz 10,205]

is that the prodction model?..than it's from 1976...

 

Nope. It's the Object 219.

 

 

 

But glorious wikipedia, ever smart and all knowing has said they were produced only from 1976 onwards :(

 

 

"

KMDB (T-80UD) Designed 1967–1975 Manufacturer LKZ and Omsk Transmash, Russia
Malyshev Factory, Ukraine^[4] Unit cost USD $2.2 million T80U export, 1994.^[5] Produced 1976–1992^[6]

 

 

See above

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

See above

 

 

I figure that past a certain point of development and after finding a good match making system.... there should be no reason to not get rid of the cut-off, I should imagine

 

 

As things stand currently, they keep making cut-off after cut-off, then breaking it to improve balance, then extending...

 

 

 

Basically because they say, "oh, 1970" (or whatever), and people find a tank that had prototype in December 20-somethingth, 1969,  and demand it... etc. feels like this infinite loop of making cutoff to preserve balance, implementing something that commanded the battlefields for the 70's... so :\

Edited February 23, 2016 by BlitzkriegWulf

[Sir_Timmey 121]

No, because to OP for germany!

 

Btw. you make a mistake in the titel. "Kampfpanzer" not "Kamphpanzer" ;)s

[Jagdel 195]

No, because to OP for germany!

Why? US get MBT-70, USSR - T64, and GB - Chieftain. And all be happy. ;)s

Edited March 6, 2016 by Jagdel

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

No, because to OP for germany!

 

From a nation where many supporters claim the developers/Gaijin are completely against them and biased, I would have imagined that they would just smile, say "Thank you" and enjoy KPz 70, while blowing everything in sight to bits?

[WakeUpdude 33]

Chieftan mk3 (1969)- added
Kpz70 (1969)- why not ???? Edited March 23, 2016 by WakeUpdude

[Mercedes4321 4,695]

I personally think that the kpz keiler is a slightly more realistic option for Germany, but I'm not entirely against this should they decide to add either version.

[Shinji_ 16]

I want that Tank!!!!! :DDD

[_PabloSniper_ 2,142]

Chieftan mk3 (1969)- added
Kpz70 (1969)- why not ????

 yes, why ?

 

i want one please gaijim

[Choogleblitz 10,205]

Few issues. One, it has composite armour. Two, it doesn't nor did it have the 120 mm. 

 

 

So if the T-64 gets a no, so does this. 

[Results45 2,200]

Few issues. One, it has composite armour. Two, it doesn't nor did it have the 120 mm. 

 

 

So if the T-64 gets a no, so does this. 

 

Hey Choogle, I think you told me once on another thread that the Kpz-70 would absolutely have the advantage over the Obj. 279.

 

Sure, the Kpz-70 can definitely punch through the 352mm of effective turret armor of Obj. 279 (as stated here), but does its own spaced/composite armor have better protection (in terms of RHAe effectiveness) than Object 279?

 

In any case, the Kpz-70 is sure to have the upper hand in mobility and firepower, but the armor protection between the two should be comparable (whether frontally or laterally). 

Edited May 6, 2016 by Results45

[Iron_physik 3,485]

+1

but only when other nations get a good counter for it

 

You have a mistake in the title of the thread

its Kampfpanzer 70

not kamphpanzer 70

[Dark_Lord__94@psn 1,900]

Well it's been a year we have the chieftain, T62 is on the way I would love to see this in game. 1500 hp 152 gun that was used on the Sheridan and M60A2 shooting star I believe is what it was called. This would be a nice tank to see.

[arczer25 5,202]

Well it's been a year we have the chieftain, T62 is on the way I would love to see this in game. 1500 hp 152 gun that was used on the Sheridan and M60A2 shooting star I believe is what it was called. This would be a nice tank to see.

gun is way longer than on M60a2 and Sheridan, capable of firing APFSDS.

[Results45 2,200]

gun is way longer than on M60a2 and Sheridan, capable of firing APFSDS.

 

Grandaddy-70 pretty much means the T-64 and MBT-80 as well ;p

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

+1

but only when other nations get a good counter for it

 

You have a mistake in the title of the thread

its Kampfpanzer 70

not kamphpanzer 70

 

There are already some decent counters to these.... 

 

MBT-70, KPz. 70 (Essentially the same tank... I'll just wait for Choogle and Arczer to sort me out...), T-64A, and like.. chieftain 10 or something. 

 

 

 

P.S., many people have tried correcting his title... I think OP is just gonna leave it as-is...

 

Well it's been a year we have the chieftain, T62 is on the way I would love to see this in game. 1500 hp 152 gun that was used on the Sheridan and M60A2 shooting star I believe is what it was called. This would be a nice tank to see.

 

M60A2's unofficial nickname (I think...?) was just "Starship", thanks to all of the technology crammed into it. The shooting star is the (P/F)-80.

 

Grandaddy-70 pretty much means the T-64 and MBT-80 as well ;p

 

MBT-80 was from 1979. That's just asking for trouble.

[Results45 2,200]

MBT-80 was from 1979. That's just asking for trouble.

 

I was gonna add IS-7 for Russia, T58 & T110 for US, Leo 1A6/Kpz Keiler for Germany, and the Super Conqueror for the Brits as well, but once people ask for composites (T-64 & MBT-70) the MBT-80's a no brainer.  :yes:  :dntknw: