±Recent Visitors

Recent Visitors to Com-Central!

±User Info-big


Welcome Anonymous

Nickname
Password

Membership:
Latest: cgsimpson
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 0
Overall: 6646

People Online:
Members: 0
Visitors: 157
Total: 157
Who Is Where:
 Visitors:
01: CPGlang
02: Community Forums
03: CPGlang
04: Community Forums
05: CPGlang
06: Community Forums
07: Community Forums
08: Community Forums
09: Community Forums
10: Community Forums
11: Community Forums
12: Community Forums
13: CPGlang
14: Community Forums
15: Community Forums
16: Community Forums
17: Community Forums
18: Photo Gallery
19: Community Forums
20: CPGlang
21: CPGlang
22: CPGlang
23: Community Forums
24: Home
25: CPGlang
26: CPGlang
27: Home
28: CPGlang
29: Community Forums
30: Community Forums
31: Community Forums
32: Home
33: CPGlang
34: Community Forums
35: Community Forums
36: Community Forums
37: Downloads
38: Community Forums
39: CPGlang
40: Community Forums
41: Community Forums
42: Photo Gallery
43: Home
44: Community Forums
45: Home
46: Community Forums
47: Community Forums
48: CPGlang
49: CPGlang
50: CPGlang
51: Your Account
52: Community Forums
53: Home
54: Community Forums
55: CPGlang
56: Community Forums
57: Home
58: CPGlang
59: CPGlang
60: Community Forums
61: Community Forums
62: Community Forums
63: Home
64: CPGlang
65: Community Forums
66: Home
67: Community Forums
68: Community Forums
69: Member Screenshots
70: Home
71: Statistics
72: Community Forums
73: Community Forums
74: CPGlang
75: Community Forums
76: Community Forums
77: CPGlang
78: Community Forums
79: Community Forums
80: Community Forums
81: Community Forums
82: Community Forums
83: Your Account
84: Home
85: Community Forums
86: Community Forums
87: Community Forums
88: Community Forums
89: CPGlang
90: Community Forums
91: Community Forums
92: CPGlang
93: Community Forums
94: Home
95: Community Forums
96: Downloads
97: Community Forums
98: Community Forums
99: Community Forums
100: CPGlang
101: Community Forums
102: Community Forums
103: Community Forums
104: Community Forums
105: Community Forums
106: Community Forums
107: CPGlang
108: Community Forums
109: Community Forums
110: CPGlang
111: CPGlang
112: Community Forums
113: Community Forums
114: Community Forums
115: CPGlang
116: Community Forums
117: CPGlang
118: Home
119: Community Forums
120: Community Forums
121: Community Forums
122: Home
123: Community Forums
124: Community Forums
125: CPGlang
126: Community Forums
127: CPGlang
128: Home
129: CPGlang
130: Home
131: CPGlang
132: Community Forums
133: Community Forums
134: Community Forums
135: Community Forums
136: Community Forums
137: Home
138: Photo Gallery
139: Home
140: Community Forums
141: Community Forums
142: Community Forums
143: Photo Gallery
144: Home
145: Community Forums
146: Community Forums
147: Community Forums
148: Community Forums
149: Community Forums
150: Community Forums
151: Community Forums
152: CPGlang
153: Community Forums
154: CPGlang
155: Community Forums
156: Community Forums
157: CPGlang

Staff Online:

No staff members are online!
MBT70
The AFV ASSOCIATION was formed in 1964 to support the thoughts and research of all those interested in Armored Fighting Vehicles and related topics, such as AFV drawings. The emphasis has always been on sharing information and communicating with other members of similar interests; e.g. German armor, Japanese AFVs, or whatever.
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page     Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board

View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ChrisC
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 26, 2006
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2015 1:28 am
Post subject: MBT70

Can anyone tell me what I have here? These came into the museum and we are trying to get some background on them. Many look MBT70 ish














Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
3R22R
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 32
Location: Ste-Agathe des Monts QC
PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2015 3:46 am
Post subject: Re: MBT70

Top right and bottom left look M60A2 (ish)!

_________________
Guy
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Rick_Eshleman
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Apr 26, 2011
Posts: 907
Location: Lewes, Delaware, USA
PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2015 10:23 am
Post subject: Re: MBT70

Concepts. #63 looks like an MBT-70, #62 looks like an atomic (engine) tank, the next two (couldn't see any numbers) look like M60A2 pilots, next one seems like another atomic tank, last one another M60A2 type. All M60A2 types seem to have T95 Tank type suspensions. These drawings seem very much like Questionmark IV conceptual drawings. I made a copy of Questionmark IV that I found at MHI, Carlisle, PA 30 years ago. If I can find it I'll see if any of these drawings are in it. Rick
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail AIM Address Photo Gallery
Andrei
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Feb 05, 2006
Posts: 80

PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2022 4:26 pm
Post subject: Re: MBT70

Any news on these projects?


This one looks very interesting, maybe it is continuation of Questionmark III nuclear tank concepts? Any news on it after many years?


About this one -



Also the design is close to the Rheems "Hunter" ideas with conventional gun installed and driver moved to the hull center (after the turret)



Last edited by Andrei on Fri Jan 14, 2022 2:53 pm; edited 4 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile
Andrei
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Feb 05, 2006
Posts: 80

PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2022 4:28 pm
Post subject: Re: MBT70

- ChrisC
Can anyone tell me what I have here? These came into the


What is the year of these presentation?
Back to top
View user's profile
JiriTintera
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jun 21, 2007
Posts: 218
Location: Prague, Czech Republic
PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:27 am
Post subject: Re: MBT70

Dear colleague,
information about the tank "The Hunter" was once provided by the late Dontos.
Link:
www.com-central.net/in...&view=next
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Andrei
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Feb 05, 2006
Posts: 80

PostPosted: Fri Feb 04, 2022 4:15 pm
Post subject: Re: MBT70

Back to top
View user's profile
Andrei
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Feb 05, 2006
Posts: 80

PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2022 7:53 am
Post subject: Re: MBT70

FROM: GEN PALMER VCSA WASH DC

TO: GEN POLK CINCUSAREUR HEIDELBERG GER



SUBJECT: MBT-70 (U)

(U) Reference HBG 1865

DA Staff conclusions not yet ready on questions raised by Colonel Baltes regarding

MBT-70/XM803; however, the following constitutes an interim response:

a. Automatic Loader. The 700-round life for the automatic loader applies only to the R&D models. The APE (second generation) loaders, will incorporate all the knowledge gained from the R&D version and should have a life approaching 1500 rounds. At that point (1500 rounds) the loader would be removed from the tank, inspected, and selected parts, such as the rammer head and rammer chain, replaced as necessary. Since the required life of the gun tube is 500 effective-full-charge rounds (equivalent to firing 500 kinetic-energy rounds) or 1000 missiles, it can be expected that the loader inspection and repair will coincide with gun tube replacement. It should also be noted that, in peacetime, most tanks will complete a 6000-mile overhaul cycle without firing 1500 rounds.



b. Overhaul Criterion. The 6000-mile overhaul criterion for the MBT-70 was established several years ago. At that time, the overhaul criteria for the M60 and M48 series tanks was 5000 miles. A 6000-mile criteria for a more complex vehicle such as the MBT-70 was, therefore, considered a significant improvement. The M60 and M48 overhaul criteria has recently been extended to 6000. This extension is made possible by the use of a thorough mid-life service. It may be possible to extend the cycle of the MBT-70/XM803 by a similar mid-life service. However, this cannot be deter­mined at this point in the development cycle. To change the requirement for the MBT-70/XM803 at this time, would necessitate that the component reliability goals be raised, thereby increasing the cost of the tank.



c. Ammunition. The problems associated with combustible case ammunition have not been completely solved, but have been reduced to an acceptable level. In fact, the combustible case in some aspects is superior to the metal case. The ballistic compatibility between the XN411 TPT round and the XN409 HEAT round is not exact, but is so close that the TPT round can be fired from the SHERIDAN using the XM409 sight reticle. The MBT-70 firings at Aberdeen have been done with the XM411 round using the computer set for the XM409 round. In spite of any slight incompatibility, hit probability specifica­tions have been exceeded. Concerning the XM578 APFSDS round, firings of the new modification A’S rounds are underway at Aberdeen. The testing and development schedule for the XM578 are compatible with MBT-70/XM803 develop­ment schedule.



d. Ballistic Protection. The MBT-70 QMR requires frontal ballistic protection against the US/UK 105mm APDS at 800 meters and all-round pro­tection against 14.5mm at zero range. The revised Joint Military Characteristics used in defining the “austere” MBT specified 800-meter frontal protection against Soviet 115mm APFSDS. This change was made because the penetration capability of the two rounds was thought to be comparable. Further investigation, however, indicates that definitive data (upon which everyone agrees) is not available for the Soviet 115mm round. Thus, a test criteria based on 115mm APFSDS cannot be established. USAMC has recommended that the revised MBT-70/XM803 QMR, due for submission to DA on 1 Jun 70, reflect US/UK 105mm APDS rather than the Soviet round. Protection against the current US/UK 105mm APDS round has been achieved at 800 meters through the use of spaced-armor. Invulnerability to Soviet HEAT round based on armor protection alone is not feasible. External arrays such as side skirts (which are being planned for MBT-70/XM803) and bar armor (which at this time is not being considered) would reduce the likelihood of jet penetration of the main armor.



e. Fuel Storage. Colonel Baltes appears to have confused two separate items concerning the removal of nuclear shielding and fuel storage. By agreement with the FRG, the internal boron nuclear shielding was removed from the МВТ in order to save approximately 4400 lbs in weight. There are no plans to store fuel in the spaced-armor of the turret where the shielding was removed. There was a plan to store fuel in the spaced-armor at the front of the hull in order to achieve the 400-mile cruising range specified in the original QMR. Since USACDC has agreed to reduce the cruising range to 325 miles, this additional fuel is not required and plans to store fuel within the spaced armor have been dropped.



f. Secondary Armament. Interim position regarding the secondary armament has not been reached. An essential consideration is that the silhouette of the tank be kept low. In addition to retaining present cal .50 mount on top of commander’s day/night sight, other alternatives being considered are: deletion of secondary armament, use of pintle mounted cal .50,"use of pintle mounted 7.62mm machinegun, and use of a cal .50 as an additional coaxial machinegun in conjunction with any of the preceding.



g. Human Engineering Factors. Human Engineering Factors are being thoroughly considered not only by the contractor but by the Human Engineering Laboratory and by the Armor Center Team. Detailed reviews of both mockups and pilot hardware have been conducted.
Back to top
View user's profile
Andrei
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Feb 05, 2006
Posts: 80

PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2022 10:33 am
Post subject: Re: MBT70

Something very strange from 70-s - maybe sommeone knows any details on this turret?
Back to top
View user's profile
Doug_Kibbey
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 4677
Location: The Great Satan
PostPosted: Tue Jun 14, 2022 10:08 pm
Post subject: Re: MBT70

Do you have a date for that MBT-70 document? The XM-409 issue in particular was not limited to the combustible case, but also (and more seriously in their perception) to premature detonations. Usually in-tube. This was for sure being observed as late as 1969 even as they moved to standardize the system.
Ridiculously, the definition of "catastrophic failures" during gunnery included only failures that occurred after the trigger was pulled. This was reflected in the Catastrophic Event Probabilities with regard to gunnery.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page    Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 6 Hours



Jump to:  


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum