MBT-80 British German

Out of interest there are some errors in the "Cold War, Hot Science" book references regarding the M7 and M13A.

The 120mm M7 quoted as the replacement for the 110mm following the tri-national firing trials should really be the 120mm EXP-19M7.

This ordnance was later re-designed, especially the barrel configuration, specifically to suit fitment to the XM1 vehicle in terms of mounting centre of gravity, and redesignated as the EXP-19M13A. It used stub case ammunition.

The standard RARDE nomenclature for their ordnance designs was EXP-##M# e.g 110mm EXP-14M2. Sometimes an extra alpha character was used in addition as in the 120mm EXP-32M1A; 120mm EXP-32M1B.

I think the confusion arises because the last few characters are used (M7, M13 etc) rather than the full designation in working correspondance. This would have made sense and would be understood at the time as referring to a particular ordnance, but can be misused when seen out of context at a later date.
 
Old_ROF,

Thank you! I was actually curious about the discrepancies in the designations, it makes sense now. I am aware that it had originally been planned to retrofit the L30 to the Challenger 1 so I always assumed that the L11 and L30 would be relatively interchangeable- the L11 and its associated fire control systems in the Challenger 1 being one of that vehicles many carry-overs from the Chieftain/Khalid/Shir.

Do you know of any other guns that came out of RARDE that have not been mentioned in various other sources- is there a complete list anywhere? I am especially interested in medium and small calibre weapons- it seems that after the RARDEN was developed very little other work was undertaken on such weapons?
 
Sealordlawrence

As far as I am aware there has not been a comprehensive summary of the ordnance designs generated by the governement weapon establishment i.e ADE / ARDE / RARDE (initially located at Royal Arsenal Woolwich and then transferred to Fort Halstead in Kent) published anywhere. There was an internal RARDE document generated in the 1980's which was a summary of the 'History of the Tank Gun'.

As far as I know RARDE basically was only involved with 'large' calibre weapons (and associated ammunition of course) i.e. 76mm upwards and these covered both direct and indirect ordnance. i.e tank, anti-tank, artillery, naval and mortar systems.

The only exceptions being the aforementioned RARDEN in conjunction with RSAF Enfield and also some early developmental work on CTA concepts and LAW80 type systems.

Medium calibre weapons were covered either by BMARCO in Grantham as part of the Hispano-Suiza operation with their naval 20mm to 35mm AA systems, or again at RSAF Enfield with the 30mm and 25mm ADEN aircraft ordnance.
 
MBT-80 computer model for vulnerability testing from DEFE194/2797

MBT-80%20Top.jpg


MBT-80%20side.jpg


MBT-80%20Front.jpg
 
Here is a low res scan of the MBT80 image in William Suttie’s excellent book “The Tank Factory”. The book details that the new tank was to have the latest variant of Chobham armour, independent gunner’s and commander’s sights and an advanced power pack (~1,500 hp engine with new TN38 transmission). The fire control system was to include the “STAMP (Sight, Thermal, Armoured, Periscope), with a CO2 laser rangefinder, hence called STAMPLAR”. This sight wasn’t fully panoramic but could traverse 45 degrees to the left and right of the boresight. It was located on the loader’s side of the turret due to its size and is presumably the thing in front of the loader’s square hatch in the image.

To test the MBT80 a Chieftain was modified to represent the internal arrangement with the STAMPLAR to check that the loader could still do his job. Also a number of system development rigs were to be built by 1981, including three turrets, a hull and a fire control rig. Nine prototypes were planned to be delivered in 1983 with the production line starting from 1986 and an in service date of 1989. Despite all the new tech to be developed there was pressure to bring forward the in service date to 1987.

Not from this book (from Simon Dunstan’s “Challenger 2 MBT 1987-2006”) or directly related to the MBT80 but in the late 1980s the Director Royal Armoured Corps who had the official role of naming new tanks had wanted to call the Challenger 2 the Corsair. But it was left with Challenger 2 with both Vickers and the MOD blaming each other for the name. Perhaps the clean sheet MBT80 would have been called the Corsair if it was allowed to progress to in service delivery.
 

Attachments

  • MBT80.png
    MBT80.png
    182.2 KB · Views: 800
"Corsair"? Not really an MBT name. More of a naval aircraft or ship name. "Challenger 2" works for me.
 
Already posted on Tanknet, loose minute from 1978.


1. I believe we should start to think of a name for MBT 80. It has been the tradition in the Army to give our tanks names starting with C. Only VALENTINE, MATILDA and BLACK PRINCE have broken this tradition. There is however no compelling reason to stick to this tradition, I am told.


2. DRAC has held a ballot at RAC Conference producing the following three names in order of support:


a. GLADIATOR


b. LION


c. CAVALIER (A resurrection of an earlier name)


3. I agree that GLADIATOR has a good ring to it and does not appepear to be open to any unfortunate nicknames. LION I am not so keen on. The Germans have gone for wild animals with TIGER and LEOPARD and I believe we should keep out of that zoo.


4. Unless a really strong contender starting with C emerges I think we would be well advised to call it GLADIATOR. I will give numbers of ECAB a little while to think about it and then, unless I receive any contrary views, I will put forward a note for agreement by the Army Board.


15 December 1978 VCGS
Click to expand...

Minute is signed JWS who is the most probably Vicechief of Imperial General Staff sir John Wilfred Stanier. DRAC should be Director Armoured Royal Corps (Sir Joseph Michael Palmer?) and ECAB would be Executive Committee of the Army Board. Like that "keep out of that zoo" passus, and mentioning about unfortunate nicknames remainds me a story about Churchill`s HMS Pitt and HMS Repair and Refit. Worth a grin.
 
Bob_Mackenzie said:
MBT-80 computer model for vulnerability testing from DEFE194/2797

MBT-80%20Top.jpg


MBT-80%20side.jpg


MBT-80%20Front.jpg
Click to expand...


Those wheels are never going to work...

;D
 
Found these images online.
The drawing is already here but the Tank Museum model is new
 

Attachments

  • MBT80.png
    MBT80.png
    190.1 KB · Views: 434
  • vjszfgj83oj11.jpg
    vjszfgj83oj11.jpg
    90.4 KB · Views: 370
  • MBT80.png
    MBT80.png
    190.1 KB · Views: 389
I remember reading about a rifled 120mm gun with unitary ammo that the Brits entered in competition with the German 120mm smoothbore but I can't remember it's designation. Was this gun ever considered for the MBT-80?
 
The L11 was still current and the L30 some way off.
 
Keyboard Commando said:
I remember reading about a rifled 120mm gun with unitary ammo that the Brits entered in competition with the German 120mm smoothbore but I can't remember it's designation. Was this gun ever considered for the MBT-80?
Click to expand...

I initially thought you might be mis-remembering the caliber. There was the EXP14 series of 110mm guns, some of which had unitary charge configurations.

But it appears there was also a 120mm design, the EXP19-M13A, which is briefly mentioned elsewhere on this site.

 
Last edited:
Some information regarding the Ordnance designations mentioned ab9ve in the MBT80 concept figure titles.

Ord BL, 120mm EXP3 M1-M6
Based on the Ord. 120mm Tk. L11 but with Crossley pad obturator and a three step, two piece breech block. This was later reconfigured to a two step, two piece breech block with a recoil energised auto tube loader.
Hence two (three) part separate loading ammunition

Ord BL, 120mm EXP24 M1
Modified version of 120mm EXP 19M13A for MVEE. SA cam required underneath which meant a re-design of the breech mech. Design study only.
Hence one piece loaded ammunition.

The breech configuration identified by MVEE for the 120mm EXP24 was used later for the 120mm EXP28.
Based on this the mock up shown must be based on using the EXP24 ordnance and ammunition configuration as the later EXP28 used crossley pad obturation and hence separate ammunition.
 
It really makes me think, what were the West German's/Heer thinking, when they agreed to be part of so many dead-end joint tank development programs with the French, United States and Britain, when one considers that their go it alone tank designs/programs like the Leopard 1 and Leopard 2 were so practical and successful....
I know and appreciate the notion of joint costs of R&D and production of numbers and commonality, but still, so much wasted time and effort with allies that again and again proved so indecisive....


Regards
Pioneer
 
Pioneer said:
It really makes me think, what were the West German's/Heer thinking, when they agreed to be part of so many dead-end joint tank development programs with the French, United States and Britain, when one considers that their go it alone tank designs/programs like the Leopard 1 and Leopard 2 were so practical and successful....
I know and appreciate the notion of joint costs of R&D and production of numbers and commonality, but still, so much wasted time and effort with allies that again and again proved so indecisive....


Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...
I mean the savings that come with comically and sharing R&D costs can be substantial, pluse consdering how any conventional war was going to happen on their soil haveing nato have as few different longstic streems as possible. Plus its not really there falt that France Britain and America had very different ideas about the future of tanks. Especially considering how all those idea were dropped and they all ended up with very conventional disines anyway (serisely, how different are the abrams, Chalanger, or lacerc that a leopard couldn't do the job gust as well, or the other way around, all these countries ended up at the same place anyway in the end).
 
Last edited:
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
A few MBT-80 concepts, including protection and internal vehicle arrangements, appear here.




View attachment 629363
View attachment 629364
View attachment 629365
Click to expand...
so if i understand these concepts correctly, the gas turbine engine would have had an aditional ammo storage in the hull because of its compactness. Is there any information on the amount of ammo carried in the different mbt-80 concepts?
Also i know this is an old thread, but i really think the "german" should be removed from the title to avoid confusion with the FMBT project.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom