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

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: 146

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