Tanks/Vehicles MBT-70 Prototype Replacement For The M60

[KB_TheDireWolf 700]

MBT-70

 

Stats:

Type:

Main Battle Tank

Countries of origin:

USA and West Germany

Number Built:

14 (Including KPz-70 German Version)

Weight:

50t

Length:

9.1 metres (29 ft 10 in)

Width:

3.51 metres (11 ft 6 in)

Height:

1.99 to 2.59 m (6 ft 6 in to 8 ft 6 in)

Crew:

3

Main armament:

auto-loading stabilized 152mm XM150E5 gun/launcher

Overall mass: 1230 kg

Overall length: 4654 mm

Barrel L/D: circa 28:1

(Ammo: MGM-51C Shillelagh SSM, APFSDS-T XM578 220-250 mm RHA at 2000 m, HEAT-T-MP M409, XM410 smoke, M625A1 canister, XM617 shrapnel, HE-T M65 sourced from “Abrams” R. P. Hunnicutt)

Secondary armament:

20mm M139 Cannon

Coaxial 7.62mm MG

Armour:

Spaced Armour of inner a softer steel that also served as a spall liner, and the outer of harder cold-rolled steel:

Weight:

50t

Engine:

1470 hp (1096 kW) Continental AVCR air-cooled V-12 diesel

Transmission:

HSWL 354

Engine power output (h.p.)1200

Engine power output (h.p.)1500

Number of reverse gears 4

Number of forward gears 4

 

Suspension:

"kneeling" hydropneumatic

Speed:

69 km/h (43 mph)

Background Information

The MBT-70 (German: KPz-70) was a 1960s joint U.S.-German project to develop a new main battle tank using a number of advanced design features. In 1969 the project was well over budget and Germany withdrew from the effort, developing a new main battle tank on their own instead (the Leopard 2). The US the development continued for a short time, but the per-unit cost had risen five times and in 1971 Congress overrode the Army's objections and the MBT-70's funding was redirected to create the M1 Abrams.

Leading up to the MBT-70 project it became clear that the USSR was planning to introduce an updated version of their T-62 design using an auto-loading gun and better armor (eventually delivered as the T-64). The new design would place the US's existing M60 tanks at a disadvantage, so they started looking at designs that would leapfrog any potential Soviet design. The same was true for the Germans, whose recently introduced Leopard 1 tanks were now looking like they would be outgunned only a few years after being introduced. An upgrade project for the Leopard was already underway, but it appeared this model would not be enough of an advance on the state of the art to be worthwhile.

KPz-70

Spoiler

 

Not signed in

 

Many of the features of the MBT-70 were ahead of their time. It used an advanced hydropneumatic suspension system that allowed for fast cross-country speeds even though it was to weigh 50 tons. The suspension could be raised or lowered on command by the driver, down to put the bottom of the tank just over 100 mm (4 inches) from the ground, or up to 28 inches (700 mm) for cross-country running.

The armor consisted of two spaced layers, the inner a softer steel that also served as a spall liner, and the outer of harder cold-rolled steel. The spacing was included to help defeat HEAT rounds, notably those on wire guided missiles, then the bane of the tank. The design included bulkheads, fireproof doors and blow-out sections in the ammunition storage area to minimize crew injury when a hit was received.

The MBT-70 was designed with a low silhouette, something which had not been addressed on the M60 whose high silhouette was considered a serious drawback. In fact the MBT-70 ended up so low, just over 6 feet (1.8 m) from the floor to the top of the turret, that there was no room for the driver in the main hull. Instead he was placed with the rest of the crew in the seemingly oversized turret, in a contra-rotating cupola that was geared to keep him facing forward. If needed, the cupola could be turned around to face to the rear, allowing the tank to be driven "backwards" at full speed. A low silhouette was a very distinct feature of the roughly contemporary turretless Swedish Stridsvagn 103, or S-Tank.

US versions were to mount the new Continental AVCR air-cooled V-12 diesel of 1470 hp (1096 kW). German versions originally used a similar Daimler-Benz model, but later moved to an MTU design of 1500 hp (1,100 kW). The MTU unit could be easily swapped out of the tank, along with the drive train, in 15 minutes. Both versions could reach 43 mph (69 km/h) on their engines, at the time an unheard-of speed for such a large tank.

The US version was armed with the new XM-150 auto-loading stabilized 152 mm gun/launcher system equipped with a laser rangefinder, then a new-fangled device. The gun was a medium-velocity design that fired artillery-sized shells in the anti-personnel and short-range anti-tank role using HEAT rounds. For long-range firing the gun switched to the Shillelagh missile instead. The result was a light gun with the same firepower as a much larger "standard" design. The Germans were always suspect of this design and instead planned to equip their versions with their newly-developed Rheinmetall 120 mm gun, also equipped with an auto-loader. Secondary armament for both consisted of a remote-controlled 20 mm cannon that popped up from a hatch behind the driver's cupola for anti-aircraft use, a 7.62 mm machine gun mounted alongside the main gun, and smoke dischargers on either side of the rear turret. The use of an auto-loader for both versions allowed the crew to be reduced to three, commander, gunner and driver.

A prototype series started in 1965, with one mild steel hull and six "complete" hulls of both the US and German versions, for a total of 14 hulls. The lower hull and drivetrain were tested in 1966, and full trials began in 1968. A problem that was not anticipated was that the drivers complained of disorientation when the turret was rotated, contrary to the predictions of the designers who felt the location of the cupola near the center of rotation would eliminate this effect. The German 120 mm proved excellent, but the XM-150 was a serious problem. The similar but smaller XM-81 mounted on the M551 Sheridan was proving just as finicky.

On the upside, the tank proved to be better than the M60 in all other ways. It was considerably faster, both in all-out speed and, more importantly, with about three times the acceleration. In cross-country performance the high power engine and excellent suspension allowed it to travel almost three times as fast as the M60 without causing problems for the crew. All of this led to a reduction in the time the tank was exposed to fire, in testing it was 1/3rd less likely to be seen while maneuvering than the M60, and it could run a 10 km (6 miles) obstacle course in 30 % less time.

By 1969 the MBT-70 cost five times what was projected, at $1 million a unit.

 

Germany backed out of the project and re-started development of what would become the Leopard 2. At this point, Congress also started to make noises about the price, which the Army responded to by introducing a lower-cost system based on the same design, known as the XM803. This succeeded only in producing an expensive system with capabilities similar to the M60 it was supposed to replace. Congress, angered by the delays and cost overruns, canceled the project in November 1971, and redistribute the funds to the new XM815. This project was later renamed XM1, the project that led to the M1.

 

Model of the MBT-70

 

Not signed in

Suspension in action

Spoiler

 

AVCR engine unit

Spoiler

155mm XM-150 firing a Shillelagh SSM

Spoiler

 

(Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBT-70, http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/mbt_70, http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=472 )

 

Edited February 21, 2017 by KB_TheDireWolf

[Smin1080p_WT 60,444]

Open for discussion  :salute:

[JygerHuntt 46]

Man I love this tank it would be nice if they put it in and good work on the post man it must ev been hard work :salute:

Edited February 1, 2015 by JaiggerHuntt

[mistomaxo 446]

you guys are thinking really far ahead when it comes to countering new vehicles. i dont know if we can evaluate the need for this machine given that none of us have tried vehicles like the t-62 or m60 ingame yet. something to keep in mind just in case, i guess

[Spitfire_ 7,306]

Good then we can get the T-64

[Abgeschossene 10,084]

Only if I get T-80U or T-64B.

[F1zzzy90908 5,681]

NO. Leopard 1 is already stretching it far enough. STOP IT

[MillyTealy 4,141]

No point putting this in unless as a counter for T-64. Leopard 1 and M60 will be perfectly comfortable against T-62A (and probably better), this would be OP.

 

And it would probably still make more sense to introduce M60A2 Starship before the MBT-70.

Edited February 1, 2015 by TealMillan

[Banelord300 11,943]

Only if USSR gets this.

[KB_TheDireWolf 700]

Only if USSR gets this.

more like the ST-10 but the T-62 is coming

[Kempston 342]

NO, it is just too OP. Nice vehicle however, just not suitable for WT

[ustinodj 5,952]

The only reason I agree to 60s tanks being added is because it balances stupid OP tanks like IS-4M and fully armored and reaload speed/penetration M103, and 60s tanks were more balanced than most other time zones with everyone having an L7 or equivalent. 

[KB_TheDireWolf 700]

you guys are thinking really far ahead when it comes to countering new vehicles. i dont know if we can evaluate the need for this machine given that none of us have tried vehicles like the t-62 or m60 ingame yet. something to keep in mind just in case, i guess

 

 

NO. Leopard 1 is already stretching it far enough. STOP IT

 

 

No point putting this in unless as a counter for T-64. Leopard 1 and M60 will be perfectly comfortable against T-62A (and probably better), this would be OP.

 

And it would probably still make more sense to introduce M60A2 Starship before the MBT-70.

 

 

NO, it is just too OP. Nice vehicle however, just not suitable for WT

What if they don't allow the Shillelagh SSM for the MBT-70, It would fit in-game much better if it has for AT rounds the APFSDS-T XM578 that can penetrate 220-250 mm of RHA at 2000 m and the M409 HEAT round with 355mm RHA of penetration at all ranges (Keep in mind that the M103 has 380mm at all ranges with HEAT)

[MillyTealy 4,141]

 

What if they don't allow the Shillelagh SSM for the MBT-70, It would fit in-game much better if it has for AT rounds the APFSDS-T XM578 that can penetrate 220-250 mm of RHA at 2000 m and the M409 HEAT round with 355mm RHA of penetration at all ranges (Keep in mind that the M103 has 380mm at all ranges with HEAT)

 

MBT-70 can go 70km/h while having armor better than IS-4, you think that's going to be balanced when M-62A is basically T-55 with bigger gun while being is neither faster or better armored than it, and Leopard 1 might be as fast as MBT-70, but has worse gun than XM578, and has literally no armour whatsoever.

Edited February 1, 2015 by TealMillan

[Abgeschossene 10,084]

MBT-70 can go 70km/h while having armor better than IS-4, you think that's going to be balanced when M-62A is basically T-55 with bigger gun while being is neither faster or better armored than it, and Leopard 1 might be as fast as MBT-70, but has worse gun than XM578, and has literally no armour whatsoever.

 

It was more armored than it...

 

T-62 has 2mm more armor than T-55.

 

Second, the Leopard 1A1 has armor, slightly more than Panther.

[Abgeschossene 10,084]

more like the ST-10 but the T-62 is coming

 

Do you really think the T-62 vs this is balanced?

 

Wow... 

 

This thing TOTALLY WIPES THE ENTIRE BATTLEFIELD with the T-62.

[Tank50us 266]

I hate to burst your bubble dude, but I already suggested it here

 

Could an admin merge the two topics please?

[KB_TheDireWolf 700]

It was more armored than it...

 

T-62 has 2mm more armor than T-55.

 

Second, the Leopard 1A1 has armor, slightly more than Panther.

Um lol the armour is crap on the Leo 1 vs the T-55 Mod 51 and the T-62

[KB_TheDireWolf 700]

I hate to burst your bubble dude, but I already suggested it here

 

Could an admin merge the two topics please?

whelp I don`t know why that happen

[KB_TheDireWolf 700]

Do you really think the T-62 vs this is balanced?

 

Wow... 

 

This thing TOTALLY WIPES THE ENTIRE BATTLEFIELD with the T-62.

well the gun on the t-62 could penetrate 300mm of vertical RHA at a 1000 meter. Well the armour on the MBT on the hull is 190 mm with sloping its 380mm and I don't now its full effective thickness of the armour because of the spaced armour its got going on. :/

[Z3r0_ 4,128]

As much as I think this tank is awesome, this is just way too far outside the timeframe, so I'll have to say "no".

[Banelord300 11,943]

As much as I think this tank is awesome, this is just way too far outside the timeframe, so I'll have to say "no".

Agreed cut of for air is 1953 and this tank was in prototyp stage at 1969 thats a bit tofar even with no timeframe for GF.

[Abgeschossene 10,084]

well the gun on the t-62 could penetrate 300mm of vertical RHA at a 1000 meter. Well the armour on the MBT on the hull is 190 mm with sloping its 380mm and I don't now its full effective thickness of the armour because of the spaced armour its got going on. :/

 

And?

 

No tanks in the Cold war will be able to survive a penetrating hit anyway.

[kevQC 2,814]

You didn't even put no as a choice in the poll... srsly?

[Solid_Snake01 974]

 

IF you can find the L-44 120mm gun ammo types and their performance from the mid-60`s that would be great I couldn't find anything.

Probably something close to what we use today.

Edited February 1, 2015 by Solid_Snake01