Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Normal
Then you aren't reading my posts. They have been point after point of explanation of MBT-70 capability benchmarked to standard tank crewing practice. This the form of validation I have used over and over again in this thread in relation to a range of MBT-70 issues. Driver’s position, commander’s view, hydro pneumatic suspension, armour and frontal profile, etc. In each case I have explained how its system works in relation to how other more conventional tanks work and extrapolated the advantages and disadvantages of the difference MBT 70 configuration.What you have done is claim that I am wrong without contending a single one of these explanations and referenced your opinion to a single unsupported claim that you knew a MBT 70 trial crew member and that he just didn’t like it. You’ve also claimed that I don’t have any practical knowledge of tanks which is frankly wrong but because I respect the open opinion forum nature of this site I won’t try and flood this discussion with my tank references.Not at all. Much of the MBT 70s design ended up in the M1, like the high power to weight engine and night fighting sights. Many of the MBT 70’s analogue solutions have been made redundant by digital technology but the basic concepts live on (crew in hull is the new crew in turret). As I mentioned before the only reason we haven’t seen a crew in hull tank is more to do with finances than want of effort. The US Army has produced multiple prototypes and test beds from 1970 to now for such light, medium and heavy tanks but for various financial reasons haven’t received a production order.Since this thread has just been reduced to a semantical mud-slinging match I don’t see much point to it. If Rickshaw can actually come up with a single fact or point of analysis – and he hasn’t since his ridiculous ‘commander’s view is obstructed’ comment – then I don’t see much point in continuing this.
Then you aren't reading my posts. They have been point after point of explanation of MBT-70 capability benchmarked to standard tank crewing practice. This the form of validation I have used over and over again in this thread in relation to a range of MBT-70 issues. Driver’s position, commander’s view, hydro pneumatic suspension, armour and frontal profile, etc. In each case I have explained how its system works in relation to how other more conventional tanks work and extrapolated the advantages and disadvantages of the difference MBT 70 configuration.
What you have done is claim that I am wrong without contending a single one of these explanations and referenced your opinion to a single unsupported claim that you knew a MBT 70 trial crew member and that he just didn’t like it. You’ve also claimed that I don’t have any practical knowledge of tanks which is frankly wrong but because I respect the open opinion forum nature of this site I won’t try and flood this discussion with my tank references.
Not at all. Much of the MBT 70s design ended up in the M1, like the high power to weight engine and night fighting sights. Many of the MBT 70’s analogue solutions have been made redundant by digital technology but the basic concepts live on (crew in hull is the new crew in turret). As I mentioned before the only reason we haven’t seen a crew in hull tank is more to do with finances than want of effort. The US Army has produced multiple prototypes and test beds from 1970 to now for such light, medium and heavy tanks but for various financial reasons haven’t received a production order.
Since this thread has just been reduced to a semantical mud-slinging match I don’t see much point to it. If Rickshaw can actually come up with a single fact or point of analysis – and he hasn’t since his ridiculous ‘commander’s view is obstructed’ comment – then I don’t see much point in continuing this.
