A More Simplified MBT-70 Turret?

[Christopher Wang]

Given the technological complexity of the MBT-70, was any thought given to designing a more simplified MBT-70 turret without the driver-in-turret rotating cupola, auto-loader, and remote-controlled autocannon?





This simplified version of the MBT-70 turret could be the high-end equivalent to Chrysler's K Tank turret proposal for the M60 Main Battle Tank.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Driver in turret was the whole point of MBT-70.

XM803 had a massively simplified turret.

 

[skylancer-3441]

There was some mockup with what looks to me like driver in hull,
also Germans apparently have considered such version of KPz 70

 

[Kat Tsun]

The purpose of MBT-70's driver-in-turret was to increase neutron radiation protection of the crew by surrounding them with high-z liquids (fuel) and borated liners to stop neutron radiation. It also reduced the armor volume, but this was ancillary, since the main point is to eliminate the tunnel formed by a driver's compartment. The only simplification that could be done, without compromising the radiation protection aspect, is getting rid of the folding masts like the commander's IR scope and 20mm cannon. Which XM803 did.

An actual "simplified MBT-70" is just a Leopard 2 I guess? Which has little better neutron radiation protection than M48 or M60, so it kinda defeats the purpose of MBT-70 in the first place: protecting a crew in nuclear combat against neutron radiation.

Most of the things in MBT-70 were bad, except for the MTU power pack and the German 120mm gun which made it into Leo 2, but the driver-in-turret was one of the least hokey bits about it, at least when viewed in the context of the time. It was silly but a good solution to the problem of neutron radiation incapacitating crews.

Incidentally, M1 has slightly better radiation protection than Leopard 2, since it has the driver shielded by fuel cells on either side, hydraulic fluid tanks on either side the turret, and another fuel cell between the engine and fighting compartment.

 

[Christopher Wang]

There was some mockup with what looks to me like driver in hull,
also Germans apparently have considered such version of KPz 70

It is interesting that the Germans actually had a proposal for a driver-in-hull version of the KPz 70 / MBT-70.

Is there a reason why the driver is located in the tank's right-front instead of the center-front?

For those curious, the German text below the attached image translates to "Accommodation of the Driver in the Tub [i.e. Hull]".


If the driver-in-hull rotating cupola, auto-loader, and autocannon are removed, perhaps a human loader could occupy the turret space formerly used by the driver in the turret's left side.

Imagine if we combine this simplified KPz 70 / MBT-70 turret with the above driver-in-hull version of the KPz 70 / MBT-70's hull. We could end up with a version of the KPz 70 / MBT-70 with a conventional tank layout and a four-man crew (commander, gunner, loader, and driver). This version of the KPz 70 / MBT-70 could perform the role of a tank destroyer supporting conventional main battle tanks.

 

[kocovgoce]

and the Russians try the same in the 60's and 70's with a tank in which the crew is placed in the turret, the same as in the American German model had a double cupola for the driver. In the right picture the turret with both internal domes for the driver and commander

 

[Kat Tsun]

There was some mockup with what looks to me like driver in hull,
also Germans apparently have considered such version of KPz 70

It is interesting that the Germans actually had a proposal for a driver-in-hull version of the KPz 70 / MBT-70.

Is there a reason why the driver is located in the tank's right-front instead of the center-front?

For those curious, the German text below the attached image translates to "Accommodation of the Driver in the Tub [i.e. Hull]".
View attachment 679550

If the driver-in-hull rotating cupola, auto-loader, and autocannon are removed, perhaps a human loader could occupy the turret space formerly used by the driver in the turret's left side.

Imagine if we combine this simplified KPz 70 / MBT-70 turret with the above driver-in-hull version of the KPz 70 / MBT-70's hull. We could end up with a version of the KPz 70 / MBT-70 with a conventional tank layout and a four-man crew (commander, gunner, loader, and driver). This version of the KPz 70 / MBT-70 could perform the role of a tank destroyer supporting conventional main battle tanks.

Leopard 2 with the prototype turrets (spaced armor) is literally what you are describing though. As I said, the only things worthwhile from MBT-70 were the 120mm gun and powerpack. These went into Leopard 2. The spaced armor was abandoned later on because it wasn't proof to 115mm long rod ammunition, which demanded Special Armor.

The 152mm gun, spaced high hardness armor, automatic cannon coaxial/CWS, and hydropneumatic suspension were all bad and abandoned for good reason.

 

[M Raffa putra H]

What I remember this is chrysler K or M60 152mm but I cannot find another picture

 

[jstar]

What I remember this is chrysler K or M60 152mm but I cannot find another picture
View attachment 703444

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/a-more-simplified-mbt-70-turret.39526/

 

[Scott Kenny]

What I remember this is chrysler K or M60 152mm but I cannot find another picture
View attachment 703444

Must be Chrysler K, because the M60A2 has a very different turret shape.

This is the A2:

If not for the searchlight, that would be a very narrow turret.