- 27 December 2005
- Reaction score
Nice pics of an MBT-70 prototype
I agree with all you say, Rickshaw, but moving the driver means in effect designing a new tank.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).
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.I wouldn't have thought it was that difficult to shorten the driving interface
OK, "extensive modifications" !but to be called a differrent tank?
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?Added to the Engineer, Bridge and Recovery versions planned by the US Army
overscan said: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.
uk 75 said:Even today the MBT 70 looks modern and effective, though of course it was too fragile and complicated for the real world.
Grey Havoc said: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
...like putting the entire crew in the turret...
Colonial-Marine said:Grey Havoc said: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.
Colonial-Marine said: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.