MBT 70 family

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Nice pics of an MBT-70 prototype

http://tanxheaven.com/mbo/MBT-70/MBT-70.htm

 

[TinWing]

Here's a drawing.

 

[TinWing]

Here's a drawing.

This version appears to have the 152mm gun/missile launcher.

 

[Skybolt]

MBT-70 is a classic and like many classics it had a lot of forebears. I don't have much info on the German side. On the US side one of the most interesting forebears is the line of experimental tanks known collectively as T95. This was the second T95 series. The first one is a Pacific Car & Foundry 1945 project for a heavy tank started as T28.

One of the more distintive features of MBT-70 was the hydro suspensions. This is precisely what the T95 was built for. The serie was based on a mainb body with hudro suspension and a new large 85 inches turret ring. It was mated with different types of turret, some old, some coming from other projects, some new. In all there were eight version of the t95, as follows

E1 90 mm smooth bore gun in a recoiling mount
E2 same turret of the M48 Patton (90 mm)
E3 105 mm smoothbore gun in the turret of the T54E2 tank (this T54 is in itself an interesting project...)
E4 105 mm gun in the turret of the T96 (this T96 was a joint project of Ford Motor and Detroit Arsenal)
E5 105 mm gun in an M48E2 turret
E6 120 mm in a T96 turret
E7 105 mm in the E1 turret
E8 90 mm gun in a normal turret (without recoiling mount)

 

[Skybolt]

Another step in the evolution of the MBT-70. This one comes from the very early '60s. Emisherical turret a là M-48 with a M-60 - style machine-gun dome and Shillelagh launcher style like in the M-551

 

[JonCatalan]

 

[shokaku]

The only images i have on the T95

 

[uk 75]

Found this site from Whatifmodelers.

I have always been fsacinated by the MBt 70 and have a badly made Aurora model at home from schooldays. I was pleased to find that a large book on the M1 Abrams (one of a series on US AFVs) has chapters on the MBT 70 and also mentions the bridgelayer, recovery and engineer tank versions. The book is very expensive in the Uk (Motorbooks in London usually have copies at 55 Pounds) but seems worthwhile.
I also understand that the Bundeswehr were brifely considering a conventional hulled crew version of MBT 70 for its anti-aircraft tank.
Even today the MBT 70 looks modern and effective, though of course it was too fragile and complicated for the real world.
I wish someone would produce a more accurate model than the Aurora one and I have been loooking for someone to do me a scratchbuild in 70s US camo.

UK 75

 

[banken]

I hope i can please you with this

 

[uk 75]

That is an amazingly detailed model, respect.

Do you take commissions?

UK 75

 

[banken]

Sorry UK75 i did not make this model. I wish i had it but i d'ont.
I found it on a site called tracklink a modelling site for profesionals.
I have some more pics for you off this model.
http://www.track-link.net/
When you clic on this site you go to gallery,then you clic american modern tanks and then you schoud find it there under MBT-70.
Hope you enjoy it!

 

[uk 75]

MBT 70 anti-aircraft version

I was looking at a book on German anti-aircraft tanks the other day and found a reference to a proposal to mount an anti-aircraft turret on the MBT 70 hull. The account says that funds were set aside for drawings and a model, but gives no further details other than to say that the version would have to move the driver out of the turret and in to the hull. Added to the Engineer, Bridge and Recovery versions planned by the US Army this gives a whole host of interesting possible conversions of the old Aurora kit or scratchbuilds.
UK 75

 

[smurf]

Re: MBT 70 anti-aircraft version

Spielberger's book on the Leopards has a long section on MBT70 but I couldn't find mention of a Flakpanzer (though my German is not that good and I could have missed one).
However, moving the driver into the hull is a major design change, and one quite contrary to the MBT original objectives. Effectively a new tank. Can you tell us which book on German AA tanks, please?

 

[uk 75]

Re: MBT 70 anti-aircraft version

I know the boook you mean on the Leopards. The book I recalled was specifically on German anti-aircraft tanks (Flakpanzer) and was a slim volume, but sorry I cannot recall the authors. As you say, there was only a brief nod in the direction of MBT 70 when the Germans still thought it would replace their old M47s.

UK 75

 

[Rickshaw]

Re: MBT 70 anti-aircraft version

The German version of the MBT-70 did mount a 20mm cannon behind the commander's cupola for AA protection IIRC.

Moving the driver into the hull sounds like an eminently sensible idea, considering all the trouble having him in the turret caused (and was, I believe one of the reasons why the vehicle was considered a failure).

 

[smurf]

Re: MBT 70 anti-aircraft version

Moving the driver into the hull sounds like an eminently sensible idea, considering all the trouble having him in the turret caused (and was, I believe one of the reasons why the vehicle was considered a failure).

I agree with all you say, Rickshaw, but moving the driver means in effect designing a new tank.

 

[JAZZ]

Re: MBT 70 anti-aircraft version

I wouldn't have thought it was that difficult to shorten the driving interface that would have extended into the turret. I have also seen references to the MBT-70 SPAAG in an old IDR.

With the cancelation of the MBT-70, two SPAAG systems competed with each other, both used the Leopard-1 MBT Chasis. They were the Gepard (2x35mm) and the Matador (2x30mm) see attached.

 

[smurf]

Re: MBT 70 anti-aircraft version

Jazz said

I wouldn't have thought it was that difficult to shorten the driving interface

but you need about 25 cubic feet of hull space, with forward vision from it, and access to it, to accommodate the driver. You also need good magazine capacity for effective AA, which competes for hull space. It's not impossible, of course, but quite a lot bigger redesign job than fitting a twin 30mm turret to a Leopard, and a major point to MBT-70 was to keep all the crew together in the turret.

 

[JAZZ]

Re: MBT 70 anti-aircraft version

I guess we have to differrent perspectives of what 'a new tank' is. Rolf Hilmes and R.P Hunnicutt have both got books with some useful detailed drawings and comparisions.

Fitting a driver in the hull could be achieved by lengthening the hull (from 7301mm) by adding another 600mm (say to M1's 7920mm) the main problem ( the location of the turret ring) would be moved out of the way. Given the weight of the MBT versions turret V a lighter SPAAG turret, you may not even have to introduce an additional road wheel, it may become a spacing issue...sure their would have to be some tests..but to be called a differrent tank?

Another would be to redefine the forward fuel compartment, and play around with the location of the turrent ring.

From my point of view, such a lengthening and re-configuration of the drive station does not constitute a new tank. By illustration at my tipping point where something becomes a new vehicle is illustrated by the diffrence between the Marder hull and the Jagdpanzer Kanone hull, while the Jagdpanzer Kanone and Jagdpanzer Rakete is just a modification.

 

[smurf]

Re: MBT 70 anti-aircraft version

but to be called a differrent tank?

OK, "extensive modifications" !
It was the height of the hull that bothered me. A 600 mm extension means the driver is sitting upright in the hull?
See drawing from Hunnicutt 'Abrams'
My understanding is that 'all the crew in the turret' was to allow radiological protection to be easier. There is a comment I think in Hunnicutt, to the effect that if (in another context) you give that up, then you might as well design a new (and simpler) tank.
There was an initial MBT70 study for a ball turret with triaxial stabilisation and all 3 crew within. That might have been a better basis for an AA tank.

Incidentally, the original post mentioned

Added to the Engineer, Bridge and Recovery versions planned by the US Army

I couldn't see any reference to these in Hunnicutt. Are there any more details? Were these initial ideas for an integrated range of vehicles, or actual later proposals? My only thought is that the "fighting tank" version was so expensive that modifying it for support roles seems a bit unlikely - though they did not expect it to cost so much originally. You don't really need the fancy suspension in support vehicles, do you?

 

[JAZZ]

Re: MBT 70 anti-aircraft version

Once you get into the Engineer CE, Bridge AVLB and Recovery ARV versions the driving position would no longer be in such turret, they would adopt more conventional approaches which would be cheaper than modifying a MBT turret.

The tri-axial stabalisation turret looks very interesting, a photo in Rolf Hilmes 'Main Battle Tanks' developments in design since 1945 shows an experimental turret on a leopard 1 chasis (albeit modified) page 49.

Just to round off an unofficial - what-if drawing of a MBT-70 chasis with a Matador SPAAG turret.

 

[smurf]

Re: MBT 70 anti-aircraft version

an experimental turret on a leopard 1 chasis

see M Shackleton Leopard 1 Trilogy Vol 1, Chapter 5 pp 146 and 147 for pictures and a brief account.

 

[smurf]

Re: MBT 70 anti-aircraft version

Looking for something else I came across this in Spielberger's Waffensysteme Leopard 1 und Leopard 2:
I take it all back! A redesign, but not too impossible, which would accommodate an AA version.

 

[cador]

who know which firms (US and German) built the MBT-70: i never read it. ;D

 

[moin1900]

USA = Fa. Allsion
German = Rheinische Stahlwerke, Krauss–Maffei, Keller & Knappisch, Atlas MaK
Here my source
http://www.panzerbaer.de/types/bw_kpz_70-a.htm
Many greetings

 

[ninjrk]

Apologies for posting in a two month old thread but I thought these photos that Vladimir has been nice enough to host for me might be useful. i took a lot of photos of the ballistic prototype at the Patton Museum a few years ago.
http://svsm.org/gallery/MBT70
Matt

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Nice pics!

No need to apologise for posting in an old topic. We operate more like a database- if you can add more info or pics to a topic, then post it, even if the topic is a year old.

 

[Rickshaw]

Does anybody know of any plastic/resin models of the MBT-70? There's the ancient and long out of production Aurora one which was roughly 1/48 but I've been long looking for a 1/35 one. Same for the M-103. Both sadly lacking from the catalogue IMO.

 

[Tuomasn]

Nice pics!

No need to apologise for posting in an old topic. We operate more like a database- if you can add more info or pics to a topic, then post it, even if the topic is a year old.

Perhaps the red text in the screen capture below has something to do with it? I've wondered about this a few times myself as I too think this is more an "acig" than "Key Publishing" type forum WRT topics.

 

[Artie Bob]

I remember working on the CBR protection system for the MBT-70 around 1964 or 1965. IIRC, that would have been the first US Army tank the with crew compartment so equipped.

Best regards,

Artie Bob

 

[Grey Havoc]

Even today the MBT 70 looks modern and effective, though of course it was too fragile and complicated for the real world.

From what I've heard, the armor scheme would still be effective today against most RPGs and a fairly wide range of land mines/ IEDs

 

[smurf]

If the book you are referring to is Hunnicutt's Abrams, given the current second hand prices if you can get one for £55 I suggest you snap it up. If it isn't Hunnicutt's book, what is it, please?

 

[Jemiba]

Four photos of the german counterpart to the MBT-70, the Kampfpanzer 70,
which, according to my source ("Kraftfahrzeuge und Panzer der Reichswehr, Wehr-
macht und Bundeswehr" by Wener Oswald) were identical, with exception of the
engine (MB 873 diesel engine/Continental 12) and the gun (120mm /152m)

 

[Przezdzieblo]

Hello

KPz 70 probably never got 120 mm gun. Two guns of this calibre were installed in VT 1-2, which was based on heavily modified KPz 70 hull.
Orginally the most of KPz 70 prototypes (PT 1, 2 and 4?) got US AVCR-1100 engine while one (PT 3?) was prepared for new 1500 hp engine from Daimler-Benz (which later turned into MTU MB 873 Ka-501 of Leopard 2). After KPz 70 program cancellation prototypes were used for powerpack evaluation.
There were some differences in various subsystems.

P.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

From what I've heard, the armor scheme would still be effective today against most RPGs and a fairly wide range of land mines/ IEDs

I think he was talking about the 152mm gun/missile launcher and many of the features of the design. While technologies like gun launched missiles, laser rangefinders, hydropneumatic suspension, and etc. may seem reliable today, they were all cutting edge back then. Some of the other features seem plain foolish or overly complex from today's point of view, like putting the entire crew in the turret, or a remote control 20mm cannon that is stored in a hatch behind the driver's position when not in use.

The spaced armor was certainly an improvement from the pure RH steel like on the M60. Yet it wasn't as much of a leap foward as new composite armors like the Chobham design the Abrams uses. The front armor wouldn't be nearly as capable as that of the original M1, not to mention a new M1A2 SEP. When it comes to the rest of the armor I can't be sure, but the Abrams probably had the advantage in side armor protection at least.

 

[robunos]

...like putting the entire crew in the turret...

EDIT- have now done what I should have done before, and read through the relevant sections of the Hunnicutt book....

Don't forget, the MBT-70 was designed to operate on a nuclear battlefield, so NBC protection for the crew was essential.
By placing all the crew in the turret, this could be a much easier task, than if the driver was seated separately in the hull.
From Hunnicutt's 'Abrams', p.120 :-
"The entire crew was located in the turret...with this arrangement the turret could be controlled environmentally for protection against chemical and biological airborne contaminants..."
and from p.142 :-
[speaking about measures to reduce the tanks' weight in order to meet the German specification] "It was noted that some weight reduction could be achieved by eliminating the radiation shielding, but this approach raised new objections. One of the reasons for the selection of the driver-in-turret arrangement was the ease with which such shielding could be provided for the entire crew located in such close quarters. If this protection were no longer a requirement, perhaps a complete re-design should be considered."


cheers,
Robin.

 

[F-14D]

From what I've heard, the armor scheme would still be effective today against most RPGs and a fairly wide range of land mines/ IEDs

I think he was talking about the 152mm gun/missile launcher and many of the features of the design. While technologies like gun launched missiles, laser rangefinders, hydropneumatic suspension, and etc. may seem reliable today, they were all cutting edge back then. Some of the other features seem plain foolish or overly complex from today's point of view, like putting the entire crew in the turret, or a remote control 20mm cannon that is stored in a hatch behind the driver's position when not in use.

I don't know, the remote control cannon sounds like a worthwhile idea. It kind of defeats the purpose of a tank with super-protection if you have to open up and climb halfway out in order to use the secondary armament. I believe some articles have indicated the the overwhelming majority of Abrams crew that are killed are those who had to climb partway out to use the secondary weapons.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

I think remote controlled weapons are a fine idea, and systems like CROWS have certainly proven themselves. Yet the system on the MBT-70 was primarily an anti-aircraft weapon (did it have sufficient depression capability to engage ground targets?) and was a rather complex mounting that was unreliable and difficult to use in testing.

Another good idea in theory, not so good in practice using the technology of the time. Same can be applied to several other aspects of the MBT-70.

 

[F-14D]

I think remote controlled weapons are a fine idea, and systems like CROWS have certainly proven themselves. Yet the system on the MBT-70 was primarily an anti-aircraft weapon (did it have sufficient depression capability to engage ground targets?) and was a rather complex mounting that was unreliable and difficult to use in testing.

Another good idea in theory, not so good in practice using the technology of the time. Same can be applied to several other aspects of the MBT-70.

I didn't realize it was primarily anti-aircraft. That changes my opinion. Another example of an idea that was good in theory but not so good in practice was putting everyone in the turret. although the engineers expected there to be little or no problem because the driver's seat would counterrotate so he was always facing in the same direction, drivers repeatedly complained of disorientation.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

There isn't a huge number of MBT-70 photos on the interweb, but this this Korean blog has an impressive collection of MBT-70 photos and Wikipedia (which I am no fan of) has a few good diagrams.

Yahoo

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:MBT-70

Abrams: A History of the Main Battle Tank by Hunnicutt is supposed to have plenty of details on the program.