The MBT-70 was a pretty interesting concept for its time, a 152 mm gun/launcher, all 3 crewmembers sit in the turret, a 20 mm cannon slapped on the roof and rather... interesting design.
Joint programs only really do well when all partners have compatible requirements and expect to be fighting in the same or similar environment. Sweden and Finland have had several very successful programs as they both agree on not only the most likely opposition equipment but also the most likely terrain and battlefield conditions in which the equipment will be used. In the past the Dutch and the UK have had some successful joint programs as up until the 1970s although their navies were vastly different in size they both concluded that they would likely be fighting in the North Sea, The North Atlantic, and South East Asia and had a very similar list of potential opposition in each theatre thus needed ships capable of operating in those vastly different biomes.
@@ostiariusalpha it has to work in the jungles of the Pacific islands, in -30c conditions up to 50c to be able to deploy in the US, Norway or the middle east. juste like the sherman and other main tanks of the US.
This might not be necessarily true for the "same or similar environment" aspect: the AMX joint-venture between Italy and Brazil yielded a very successful ground-attack aircraft that was employed in vastly different environments between each countries' production aircraft (Italy used them in Kosovo/Bosnia, Lybia and Afghanistan, while Brazil's were mainly employed domestically against narcotraffickers). While this doesn't disprove your theory (and might even be the exception that proves the rule), surely there are other such cases.
I think the main problem with this project was the _uncompromising_ nature of the US military's expectations. It *had* to have that shitty gun launcher, it *had* to hold the driver in a turret-mounted gyroscopic wagie cage and Uncle Sam wouldn't have it any other way. I think there're other such cases where the US wanted a universal vehicle good at everything and things didn't turn out as expected.
The missile launcher at the time was ok though they should went with 120mm one which did have lower pent and slave to the laser pointer it was a good idea at the time and did learn a lot from it. The driver had to been put in the turret base on design of both the German and usa plan so they try to keep the driver facing forward though the sea sickness did suck.
I believe with modern technology they could be more successful, although creating a radically different and unproven (combat wise) system would be pretty unappealing by itself.
The problem was largely Rheinmetall. German defense companies throw a stink when their potential profit is at stake. Still, nobody was budging on the costs. That's why it got canned. It just cost too much.
I noticed you've somewhat slowed down your talking speed in the last year or so. Thank you for that, it helped me as a non-native process the information better. I could understand it before, but didn't manage to process the information quick enough. Intel from the MBT-70 helped father the Leopard 2 and the Abrams. So not all of the money did go to waste.
@@eesmaaura4961 It did. And it's incredible how often this happens to multinational projects, 2 - 5 countries want to co-create a vehicle, but the specifications are so different and so nuanced and the respective country's companies are bickering so much that only mush comes out.
I had found out about this wonderful vehicle from the game Wargame: Red Dragon and was instantly attached to it. The 20mm on the roof gave great defense against heli and infantry rushes, the extra HE from it being a 152mm also gave it a bonus vs infantry, and lastly you could fire the ATGM on the move, albeit it was a very weak ATGM in the game when you compared it to the USSR's barrel-launched ATGM's. When it was added into War Thunder, I was also happy, though at the time I was barely into tier 3 American ground, as I had preferred playing Air Arcade & occasionally Ground Arcade so I knew it would be a long time till I finally got to play it. It took me like 3 years of playing War Thunder till I finally started playing Realistic Air & Ground and after switching to Realistic started grinding much more RP/SL. When I did finally get the MBT-70, it had been power creeped by newer and more powerful vehicles. But I still enjoyed it solely due to the 20mm on the roof & the fast automatic reloading (pre-nerf).
Considering the T-64 was almost as mobile, more strategically mobile, had a better gun that could ALSO shoot missile (ones that actually worked too) and was better armored, without making the driver have a stroke, I find the program ultimately very disappointing. Especially when the T-64 is so old.
The US built a missile that worked on paper and then designed a gun to fire it that worked on paper. The result was a war winning combo... on paper. The Soviets built a good tank gun that worked great in the field and then designed a missile that could be fired from it. If the missile design didn't work, you still had a good tank gun and could simply try again with a different missile design. You really have to make sure that you don't have the cart before the horse.
@@Crosshair84 i wouldnt even argue that the design was good even in concept let alone on paper or practically, a comparatively low velocity gun is basically primarily reliant on shaped charge munitions for anti tank performance, and the lackluster kinetic ammunition for the MBT-70 and especially the lack of it in Sheridan and Starship indicate that that gun should have been a high velocity smoothbore to begin with. The Israelis even have missiles retroactively developed for their 120nm smoothbore.
That and the seemingly good mobility holds alot of potential. Biggest concern would be the armor protection though. I have doubts that the "don't be hit" concept would've fared well had it been in most conflict's.
@@polygonalfortress If we go the alternative route of it being adopted by Germany instead of going back to the drawing board to come up with the Leopard 2 it would have probably received later some armor packages with spaced panels and composite brackets. It would basically be a very agile Leopard 1 with a lower profile, better sensory equipment, better stabilization, a better armament and more versatility.
The autoloader wasn't faulty - it was too strong. It was deforming the missile casings due to the force it was loading them in with, it loaded APFSDS and other munitions just fine. Basically the missile was too weak for the German auto-loader.
"The Elites don't want you to know this, the 120mm M58 is free. You have 458 of them." -Germans in an autistic screaming match with the gun launcher applesauce room.
The problem was that it was so over budget that fixing the problems would have brought the numbers so low they'd need to achieve 5 kills per hull to beat the Soviets and have hulls remaining. That's incredibly impractical; more guns were needed, thus the cheaper M1 and Leopard 2 programs that seek to solve the problems more traditionally rather than more efficiently. Cold war strategic planning was very brutal.
Firstly, I love your videos! Secondly, could you have a look at the stingray, I've heard you mention it recently but I don't think you've done a video on it if not, the XM-800t could make an interesting video.
@@anddol1239 I feel like you wouldn't be using alot of 20mm if it was mainly intended for hitting helicopters/some fortified positions/thinly armored vics. It'd be overkill for infantry. So I think they'd be using their HEAT/coaxial MG more instead.
I believe the Chieftain touches on why 20mm cannons aren’t used much on tanks, though I forget which video. The issue with a 20mm cannon as a secondary weapon is that you don’t really gain any capability from it. A 7.62 is nearly equivalent in effectiveness against infantry, and a 12.7mm will cut it against most light vehicles or helicopters. Anything that a 12.7 can’t handle is probably something that you’d want to use a cannon round on. The major issue with the 20mm is the ammo capacity. 20mm ammo takes up a lot more room than you’d think, and takes up dramatically more room than 7.62 and 12.7. This isn’t even mentioning the amount of room the 20mm cannon itself will take up compared to a regular MG. Yeah, a 20mm will give you more effectiveness against light armor like IFVs or stuff like BRDMs and BTRs, but the cannon will handle them much faster. If you do decide to use the 20mm on those targets, you’re also using up ammo from the same pool that you’d be using against infantry, which is the majority of targets that will be faced.
@@610Blackhawk Yeah. It appears that a .50cal is the biggest defensive armament that makes much sense on a tank if you don't add a radar, too. With the cannon in an active protection role against missiles/drones/grenades there could be a point. On some kind of future starship tank project.
@@610Blackhawk I'd wager securing the ammo storage is another problem. One thing that makes 20mm cannons so powerful is that they usually use explosive rounds. Which dont react well to getting shot at. I wonder if at some point someone will try to put an autocannon with radar on a tank. If you look at something like the Boxer Skyranger, then its clear radars have become way more compact than back in the Gepard days.
Yeah it has always been a favorite of mine in Wargame: Red Dragon. It is a beast there although tough to fit in with Germany/USA's already good tank lineup.
Getting Germany and America to agree on a tank was a fools errand, and the driver being in the turret without being centered was insane, but at least it was an interesting concept.
this tank was ahead of its time just like the Colt polymer lower for the AR-15 back in the 60s. technology just wasn't at the level required to make it work well.
not really, both T-64 and M60 were superior to it mainly because its complexity which would probably resulted in poor reliability. Simply put it would end up like the Porsche Tiger (Ferdinand/Elephant): cutting edge superior technology on paper - mostly useless piece of metal in real life..
Hi, Spookston. I am the average War Thunder player and seethe and mald everytime I play the game for more then 10 minutes. Watching you dominate matches gives me confidence to sharpen my skills, even if other people think it brings people down, but personally I think it's just something to aspire to when you rise from the ashes of French, Italian, and Mid-Tier Russian player tears. Oh yeah, and your videos are informative, I guess.
The German autoloader wasn't exactly just "unreliable", interview of people involved at the time say it "loaded missiles fine but damaged the plastic casing", though it's not clear (at least to me) if the problem was with the missiles or the regular ammo, since the article also mentioned the plastic cases of the regular ammo not burning properly right before that. I've also never been able to check if Shillelagh has a plastic or metal body.
Did the germans build an Autoloader for the 152mm system? I always assumed they build one for their prefered 120mm. They later had a Leo2 turret with one (is in the WTS Koblenz these days)
@@mbr5742 Germany preferred the 120 but agreed early on to go for the 152. The initial plan was only to use the Rheinmetall autoloader, for the US as well, so obviously it had to be 152. There are US congress hearings transcripts mentioning how the German autoloader had some problems (the details are scrubbed), and how the US could make a design of their own which would be pretty much the same. I assume that implies at that point the US design still did not exist.
The 20mm secondary turret is still a fascinating concept. Do you think that secondary autocannons will become more popular in the future? Some projects forfuture MBTs include a remote controlled 30mm autocannon, and i actually find myself agreeing with these concept, because these weapons with modern ammo are actually capable of dealing with multiple modern threats. I also agree that the 20mm never made much sense in that role, considering it more of a bigger 50cal than an actual autocannon, 20mm did not have much explosive filler and could not really do much more than an M2 browning couldn't, exept having bit more range at the cost of less ammo and more wheight.
By the time autocannons become a thing on every MBTs. Infantry will be able to shoot nukes that will follow Tanks through space and time. The better the tanks the harder the anti-tanks weapons will hit. The idea of Tanks becoming obsolete has been going around my head lately. Which would be cool to witness it happen.
@@revolverDOOMGUY they were talking about the exact same thing as the question *you asked* in your first pargraph; talking about the future of autocannons on tanks. What do you think they were talking about lmao? did you even read their comment? I'm literally so confused by your reply lol. Fuck your tone in that comment.
3 of these (including the XM-803 in this) still exist at the US Armor and Cavalry collection. I had the pleasure to see all 3, and many others that can only be seen there. One I think even has some ERA layering on the turret.
@@Shaun_Jones no, till this day i have yet to see someone actually unironically say that. It seems a different most of these "Wehraboo's" live in people's head than actually existing in reality.
It baffles me that they wanted to put the crew all in one space, and chose the turret as the place to do it, when the hull would have made things a lot simpler AND reduced the turret's complexity and profile. I can't believe they didn't abandon the idea as soon as they realized that they'd need to put a turret-within-a-turret for the driver specifically, and all of the problems and costs that would entail just to attempt. I also find the idea of a gun-launcher being worth such huge compromises when designing a tank. Even assuming that the missile system worked well, those missiles wouldn't need a big gun to be used in the first place--so why bother putting them on tanks in the first place? Make two different vehicles--one that is a gun tank, and another that is a missile-launching vehicle that leverages the advantages of not needing all of the other aspects of a gun tank weighing it down/adding costs.
Two tanks is what the germans did (from the late 1960s on). But the germans of the cold war where special since they had a very short logistics tail and never needed to plan for a long war. So,lots of sturdy specialist vehicles where ok. On day 7 of the war the Anis would come and nuke everyone anyway
Another developmental hitch was that US manufacturers wanted to use imperial or "US" measurements (1.5" bolts, .75" bolts, 7/16th inch bolts, and so on) and the Germans obviously wanted to go Metric. The "solution" decided on was that the German vehicles would use Metric and US would use US units, which immediately terminates the idea of a joint project, IMO...
Even thou you said that driver had it own capsule, i still cant comprehend hot it work with the turret rotating around. I guess that's just one of the thing you wont understand how it work until you will see it with your own eyes.
The turret capsule would rotate infependently of the turret to keep the driver facing forward The problem was that it was off center so rotating the turret would also move the driver forward/backward and left/right
Actually, when you look into the nitty gritty... it would have been pretty good. Most of the problems were being addressed, i.e. the turret drive was being uprated to a 3k PSI model, the FCS was getting more debugging into it, and the barrels were getting replaced with ones that _weren't_ due to some penny pincher putting worn-out barrels in storage because he didn't want to send an order for new barrels. It made better sense to slap the turrets on the M60s instead of the M48s... I mean when one of the aircraft pilots who was part of the testing process outright stated it would have consistently swept them from the sky when they worked and would have been perfected if the hit-pieces-all-but-in-name weren't published...
Another goofy problem caused by it being a joint US and German venture. Some parts used imperial measurements while others used metric. So even maintenance and repair on the thing was a pain.
I would be curious to see the case of the driver motion sickness and if modern tech could avoid it. Was it the counter rotation mechanism itself, or was it the changing perspective of the optics which were off centre on the turret? Could useing cameras with or without a capsual solve the motion sickness issues?
I honestly didn't find out about it until Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker. Peace Sentinels brought both the German and American versions in country, with the German version using a 120mm gun and a 20mm antiaircraft gun and the American version using the 152mm Gun Launcher, though it didn't launch missiles from the main gun. Instead it would alternate between firing the main gun and launching missiles from tubes mounted aft and to the rear of the turret. The American version is the hardest of the two to acquire, especially at Elite levels.
I thought you'd join the MBT-70 (kpf-70) and the XM-803, due to the 803 being the American successor when the countries split. It was mentioned, but itd be nice to know what happened with it.
I think that it was a cool and actually promising design. The chasis was definitely good. Adding a better gun and you'd be already very far... (though the concept of the launcher was great)
Long story short, MBT-70 is a very good tank rejected for going over budget, fixable technical issues and divergent requirements from the partner nations developing the project.
As revealed by skylancer-3441 on Secret Projects Forum, the West Germans actually drafted a blueprint and mockup for a driver-in-hull variant of the KPz 70 / MBT-70. The blueprint revealed that the driver would have been relocated to the hull's right-front. If the driver-in-hull rotating cupola, auto-loader, and autocannon were also removed, perhaps a human loader could have occupied the turret space formerly used by the driver in the turret's left side. This driver-in-hull KPz 70 / MBT-70 variant with a three-man turret (commander, gunner, & loader) could have been _marginally_ more operable as a tank destroyer supporting conventional main battle tanks.
@@mbr5742 The Leopard 2 is a better main battle tank. The KPz 70 / MBT-70 was over-complicated and flawed and would not have worked as a MBT. But if the driver-in-turret rotating cupola, auto-loader, and autocannon were removed in favor of a driver-in-hull configuration with a human loader in the turret, perhaps the KPz 70 / MBT-70 could have been better employed as a tank destroyer supporting MBTs.
@@christopherwang4392 You could just let normal ATGM carriers or Leopard 2s do the tank destroying job. Imo, there’s no reason to justify the MBT-70 when the Leopard 2s exist. I’m also highly dubious the Shillaleigh Missiles had adequate penetration against T-72s or T-64s
What surprise me is that some of these things could have been ironed out really early if they had done some rapid prototyping. But I guess the concept was not around back then. (I mean, today the term relate mainly to 3D printing and software development.) Anyway, while I might use an anachronistic term, I do feel that the idea of just doing a quick mock-up to test out ideas would have saved them a lot of trouble. Simple things like trying the 3 man in a turret concept. Something I know cause a lot of trouble for drive due to how many have tested this out and always seem to have the same issue. The drive getting motion sick. A fail faster approach would have saved them a lot of headaches and money. And allowing for flexility in their design would also have help. Make a good base platform and then adopt different technologies. Allowing you to also make specialized versions if need (Like making it in to an AA platform or a recovery vehicle if needed). It would also make it more future-proof. But of course it is easy for me to say who have never engineered a tank or even work on a project close to this in scale. Being an armchair designer is as easy as being an armchair general.
Investing in the Chieftain as a stopgap T-64 foil would have saved a lot more money. No expensive gun launcher fails needed to happen. They just needed to swap the engine and insert one of their spicier selections of 120mm guns, maybe boost up the lower hull side another half inch to match the upper two inches. M103's can then be converted to M51's and have their parts inventoried for the new tank. Soviets would have been shitting the bed over that while the MBT-70 heavy project was on the back burner slowly turning into Mega Ultra Leopard 'brams (up to 80 tons, 155mm T58, DU backing plates, Lego tier interchangeable engine choices). Two big headache savers are tossing the gun launcher and having a standard suspension kit to replace the finnicky hydros. Germans would have agreed with a higher pressure 155mm gun that can also fling legacy artillery shells.
The MBT70 was armed with a 20mm autocannon because the crew wasn't expected to have any forthcoming support from the M48 Chaparral, FIM-92 Stinger, M163 VADS, or the crappy M247 Sergeant York in most situations. With that kind of wishful thinking, the tank was effectively going up a creek without a paddle if it was facing a competent enemy with considerable air assets.
York and Stinger didn't exist when this project was ongoing. I am sure the 20mm would have deterred helicopters pretty significantly and crazy Ivan dumb shit from Fishbeds/Floggers. The thing we always forget is the actual Soviet Airforce was not the US Naval/Airforce. In 1971 (MBT-70 cancellation date) they were still literally tumbling out of the sky with blown engines trying to intercept blackbirds (in fact they were doing this all the way through to the end of the Cold War). The same plane the YF-12 was based on, coincidently using what would become the Phoenixes used on the Tomcat. RIP unaware Fishbeds and bombers if they accelerated the timeline of that. I would guess the autocannon would end up being used to rip into light vehicles A LOT since the T-64 could be effectively pigeon holed.
Whow! What a tank for the 70s. But really today it probably is a better idea to put a 3 person crew in the hull. Keeping the turret the high point and almost unarmored. Or maybe do a 3 person crew but the driver still in the hull. Commander rear of turret. Gunner below the gun. Driver in the front and maybe not with the best of armor. Giving the commander the option to drive in emergencies. Really just stuff the driver in the hull and give him cameras to drive with. Just there to do the driving for the commander and not the one expected to be aimed for. With modern engines and drive train you can put the driver laying on the back with a VR headset on or basic screens driving the tank like it was a video game. And if the driver get hit the commander can open the hatch and play video games with his head in the open. ;) Since really what are you doing if a shot hits the low hull. Imagen having a 50ton tank and can drive it with a xbox controller standing outside or ontop of the tank! Wired hopefully... But knowing todays world maybe not.
Day 8 of Asking Spookston can you talk about an idea I have based off something you said in a past video (think it was the lend lease one). Sweden's tree should be turned into a "Nordic" Tree, which would have a Norwegian and Finnish tree, for the following reasons Sweden lacks heavies, and premiums. Plus they have a general lack of creative tanks as most are similar or copy pastes Norway made multiple tanks, concepts, and experimental designs. Finland made some tanks, modified certain soviet tanks (BT-42, KV-1B), and also captured multiple tanks Finland already exists within the Swedish tree with some vehicles, plus it could be an excuse to add Heavy Tanks to the Swedish trees like the IS-2, plus maybe even a T-34 This is in general, but remove the KV-1B from the German tree (they already have a KV-1) and move it to Sweden.
However it just got into a successful vehicle in fiction as it inspired heavily Hasbro to create the Gi Joe's MOBAT out of it, and subsecuently the Cobra's CAT.
The MBT-70 was a pretty interesting concept for its time, a 152 mm gun/launcher, all 3 crewmembers sit in the turret, a 20 mm cannon slapped on the roof and rather... interesting design.
I'd say very advanced for that time period too.
The big step forward... sadly it's too ambitious
I have a 1/35 scale model of it (well the KPZ-70) sitting in my cabinet lol. Looks pretty sexy.
Big problem is the armor is crap in my opinion.
It still stands out today.
Joint programs only really do well when all partners have compatible requirements and expect to be fighting in the same or similar environment. Sweden and Finland have had several very successful programs as they both agree on not only the most likely opposition equipment but also the most likely terrain and battlefield conditions in which the equipment will be used. In the past the Dutch and the UK have had some successful joint programs as up until the 1970s although their navies were vastly different in size they both concluded that they would likely be fighting in the North Sea, The North Atlantic, and South East Asia and had a very similar list of potential opposition in each theatre thus needed ships capable of operating in those vastly different biomes.
Examples are also italy, Germany and france, or Italy and the UK.
The main battlefield for both the American and German MBT-70 was to be in Germany.
@@ostiariusalpha 1:20 Germans wanted a tank tailored for Europe, but the US wanted one that could be used worldwide.
@@ostiariusalpha it has to work in the jungles of the Pacific islands, in -30c conditions up to 50c to be able to deploy in the US, Norway or the middle east.
juste like the sherman and other main tanks of the US.
This might not be necessarily true for the "same or similar environment" aspect: the AMX joint-venture between Italy and Brazil yielded a very successful ground-attack aircraft that was employed in vastly different environments between each countries' production aircraft (Italy used them in Kosovo/Bosnia, Lybia and Afghanistan, while Brazil's were mainly employed domestically against narcotraffickers).
While this doesn't disprove your theory (and might even be the exception that proves the rule), surely there are other such cases.
I think the main problem with this project was the _uncompromising_ nature of the US military's expectations.
It *had* to have that shitty gun launcher, it *had* to hold the driver in a turret-mounted gyroscopic wagie cage and Uncle Sam wouldn't have it any other way.
I think there're other such cases where the US wanted a universal vehicle good at everything and things didn't turn out as expected.
The missile launcher at the time was ok though they should went with 120mm one which did have lower pent and slave to the laser pointer it was a good idea at the time and did learn a lot from it. The driver had to been put in the turret base on design of both the German and usa plan so they try to keep the driver facing forward though the sea sickness did suck.
Which led to it only being universal in the sense of universaly shit.
Maybe, but we've also worked miracles, before. Not everything can be as successful as the F-35 or M-16 platform.
@@Tampa-Anon tf are you talking about? The f35 is one of the best, most universal, and cheapest 5th gen fighters on the market.
@@Tampa-Anon cope and rope
This had a lot of potential in my opinion, They definitely should have tried to make improvements.
I believe with modern technology they could be more successful, although creating a radically different and unproven (combat wise) system would be pretty unappealing by itself.
I think the US was being too stubborn, and if it opted to make some different choices the tank would have been successful
The problem was largely Rheinmetall. German defense companies throw a stink when their potential profit is at stake.
Still, nobody was budging on the costs. That's why it got canned. It just cost too much.
They did and it's called M1 Abrams??
@@cheyannei5983 Lol, you think american companies and politcians dont care about money? xD
I noticed you've somewhat slowed down your talking speed in the last year or so. Thank you for that, it helped me as a non-native process the information better. I could understand it before, but didn't manage to process the information quick enough.
Intel from the MBT-70 helped father the Leopard 2 and the Abrams. So not all of the money did go to waste.
Yea the Fact both nation can built better Machine at lower cost make all of MBT-70 project valuable in the long run.
@@eesmaaura4961 It did. And it's incredible how often this happens to multinational projects, 2 - 5 countries want to co-create a vehicle, but the specifications are so different and so nuanced and the respective country's companies are bickering so much that only mush comes out.
i am still lowering his scripted videos to 85% speed lol. But videos where he's speaking freely I am keeping it at default
Out of curiosity, what's your first language?
@@kaymarx9677 german.
I had found out about this wonderful vehicle from the game Wargame: Red Dragon and was instantly attached to it. The 20mm on the roof gave great defense against heli and infantry rushes, the extra HE from it being a 152mm also gave it a bonus vs infantry, and lastly you could fire the ATGM on the move, albeit it was a very weak ATGM in the game when you compared it to the USSR's barrel-launched ATGM's.
When it was added into War Thunder, I was also happy, though at the time I was barely into tier 3 American ground, as I had preferred playing Air Arcade & occasionally Ground Arcade so I knew it would be a long time till I finally got to play it. It took me like 3 years of playing War Thunder till I finally started playing Realistic Air & Ground and after switching to Realistic started grinding much more RP/SL. When I did finally get the MBT-70, it had been power creeped by newer and more powerful vehicles. But I still enjoyed it solely due to the 20mm on the roof & the fast automatic reloading (pre-nerf).
Did anyone else notice that PUMA at 0:47?
Spookston if you see this do a video on why autocannons on top of MBTs weren't a thing until now
LOL Spookston had a tunnel vision moment
Considering the T-64 was almost as mobile, more strategically mobile, had a better gun that could ALSO shoot missile (ones that actually worked too) and was better armored, without making the driver have a stroke, I find the program ultimately very disappointing. Especially when the T-64 is so old.
Mind you the T-64 was quite possibly the greatest MBT ever when it first showed up
@@logannicholson1850 it certainly was.
The US built a missile that worked on paper and then designed a gun to fire it that worked on paper. The result was a war winning combo... on paper.
The Soviets built a good tank gun that worked great in the field and then designed a missile that could be fired from it. If the missile design didn't work, you still had a good tank gun and could simply try again with a different missile design.
You really have to make sure that you don't have the cart before the horse.
@@Crosshair84 i wouldnt even argue that the design was good even in concept let alone on paper or practically, a comparatively low velocity gun is basically primarily reliant on shaped charge munitions for anti tank performance, and the lackluster kinetic ammunition for the MBT-70 and especially the lack of it in Sheridan and Starship indicate that that gun should have been a high velocity smoothbore to begin with. The Israelis even have missiles retroactively developed for their 120nm smoothbore.
@@Crosshair84 they are Sovêts and it was the union of Sovêt SRs. Learn to write not only loanings from French/Spanish/German/Dutch/Norse
Probably one of the best looking tanks imo
I love tanks with secondary auto cannons
Ayy
Same I loved that about the AMX-30s I hope we see more tanks like it in the future
How to make the KPz/MBT-70 good: put a 120mm in it, done.
That and the seemingly good mobility holds alot of potential. Biggest concern would be the armor protection though. I have doubts that the "don't be hit" concept would've fared well had it been in most conflict's.
@@polygonalfortress If we go the alternative route of it being adopted by Germany instead of going back to the drawing board to come up with the Leopard 2 it would have probably received later some armor packages with spaced panels and composite brackets.
It would basically be a very agile Leopard 1 with a lower profile, better sensory equipment, better stabilization, a better armament and more versatility.
@@DefinitelyNotEmma And an auto loader
@@Armageddon_71 but an agonizing driver role
No just use a different 150mm and give it an up armor package
The autoloader wasn't faulty - it was too strong. It was deforming the missile casings due to the force it was loading them in with, it loaded APFSDS and other munitions just fine. Basically the missile was too weak for the German auto-loader.
"And the pilot's capsule gave him motion sickness."
Maybe the projectile vomit would be more effective than the gun launcher system
"The Elites don't want you to know this, the 120mm M58 is free. You have 458 of them."
-Germans in an autistic screaming match with the gun launcher applesauce room.
This is one of those tank designs that really seems like they could have fixed the issues relatively easily but the factor of budget caught up.
The problem was that it was so over budget that fixing the problems would have brought the numbers so low they'd need to achieve 5 kills per hull to beat the Soviets and have hulls remaining.
That's incredibly impractical; more guns were needed, thus the cheaper M1 and Leopard 2 programs that seek to solve the problems more traditionally rather than more efficiently. Cold war strategic planning was very brutal.
Firstly, I love your videos!
Secondly, could you have a look at the stingray, I've heard you mention it recently but I don't think you've done a video on it if not, the XM-800t could make an interesting video.
The 20mm was prolly the best thing about this tank and should've become a standard for any tank after it. Anti-Everything!
There is one big weakness
-low amount of ammo
@@anddol1239 I feel like you wouldn't be using alot of 20mm if it was mainly intended for hitting helicopters/some fortified positions/thinly armored vics. It'd be overkill for infantry.
So I think they'd be using their HEAT/coaxial MG more instead.
I believe the Chieftain touches on why 20mm cannons aren’t used much on tanks, though I forget which video.
The issue with a 20mm cannon as a secondary weapon is that you don’t really gain any capability from it. A 7.62 is nearly equivalent in effectiveness against infantry, and a 12.7mm will cut it against most light vehicles or helicopters. Anything that a 12.7 can’t handle is probably something that you’d want to use a cannon round on.
The major issue with the 20mm is the ammo capacity. 20mm ammo takes up a lot more room than you’d think, and takes up dramatically more room than 7.62 and 12.7. This isn’t even mentioning the amount of room the 20mm cannon itself will take up compared to a regular MG. Yeah, a 20mm will give you more effectiveness against light armor like IFVs or stuff like BRDMs and BTRs, but the cannon will handle them much faster. If you do decide to use the 20mm on those targets, you’re also using up ammo from the same pool that you’d be using against infantry, which is the majority of targets that will be faced.
@@610Blackhawk
Yeah. It appears that a .50cal is the biggest defensive armament that makes much sense on a tank if you don't add a radar, too.
With the cannon in an active protection role against missiles/drones/grenades there could be a point. On some kind of future starship tank project.
@@610Blackhawk I'd wager securing the ammo storage is another problem. One thing that makes 20mm cannons so powerful is that they usually use explosive rounds. Which dont react well to getting shot at.
I wonder if at some point someone will try to put an autocannon with radar on a tank. If you look at something like the Boxer Skyranger, then its clear radars have become way more compact than back in the Gepard days.
"The MBT-70 is pretty famous, probably due to it's addition to War Thunder."
Me, an intellectual playing Peace Walker: "WHEN HEAVENS DIVIIIIIDE!"
Yeah it has always been a favorite of mine in Wargame: Red Dragon. It is a beast there although tough to fit in with Germany/USA's already good tank lineup.
An MBT-70 with applique armor and rocket launchers and the german variant with the 120mm, one can only dream
I remember it from Armoured Warfare
@@marinhaalternativa3829 Slapping AFVs with the HEAT for over 1k damage was always a blast lol.
brother that puma you left behind (0:47) is giving me nightmares in your place
The MBT-70 was an extremely popular tank during the lifespan of the Wargame series. People used it and compared it to the Leopard 2 IIRC.
This was very informative, thank you
Getting Germany and America to agree on a tank was a fools errand, and the driver being in the turret without being centered was insane, but at least it was an interesting concept.
I mean, the problem out of the two surely wasnt Germany.
Man don't know anything about these programs. But I am here to enjoy your voice
You should do a video on the RU 251, I rarely ever seen it get talked about in the war thunder community.
The MBT-70 looks really good, I my opinion at least, it's just a shame that it was hinderd by all the other problems tho
hot MBT-70's in your area, jokes aside it actually looks so good
love this series. short, informative, and to the point.
this tank was ahead of its time just like the Colt polymer lower for the AR-15 back in the 60s. technology just wasn't at the level required to make it work well.
not really, both T-64 and M60 were superior to it mainly because its complexity which would probably resulted in poor reliability. Simply put it would end up like the Porsche Tiger (Ferdinand/Elephant): cutting edge superior technology on paper - mostly useless piece of metal in real life..
Hi, Spookston. I am the average War Thunder player and seethe and mald everytime I play the game for more then 10 minutes. Watching you dominate matches gives me confidence to sharpen my skills, even if other people think it brings people down, but personally I think it's just something to aspire to when you rise from the ashes of French, Italian, and Mid-Tier Russian player tears.
Oh yeah, and your videos are informative, I guess.
The MBT 70 Rocks! GR8 vid.
Many thanx 👍👍
The German autoloader wasn't exactly just "unreliable", interview of people involved at the time say it "loaded missiles fine but damaged the plastic casing", though it's not clear (at least to me) if the problem was with the missiles or the regular ammo, since the article also mentioned the plastic cases of the regular ammo not burning properly right before that. I've also never been able to check if Shillelagh has a plastic or metal body.
Did the germans build an Autoloader for the 152mm system? I always assumed they build one for their prefered 120mm. They later had a Leo2 turret with one (is in the WTS Koblenz these days)
Missile had a metal body.
@@mbr5742 Germany preferred the 120 but agreed early on to go for the 152. The initial plan was only to use the Rheinmetall autoloader, for the US as well, so obviously it had to be 152. There are US congress hearings transcripts mentioning how the German autoloader had some problems (the details are scrubbed), and how the US could make a design of their own which would be pretty much the same. I assume that implies at that point the US design still did not exist.
At 0:46 that Puma is just chillin there lol
i love how everyone forgot that this particular tank has a hydraulic suspension
0:47 Battle of the autocannons
I remember this most prominently from Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker. Loved that game, it became especially fun once you unlocked the railgun
The 20mm secondary turret is still a fascinating concept. Do you think that secondary autocannons will become more popular in the future?
Some projects forfuture MBTs include a remote controlled 30mm autocannon, and i actually find myself agreeing with these concept, because these weapons with modern ammo are actually capable of dealing with multiple modern threats.
I also agree that the 20mm never made much sense in that role, considering it more of a bigger 50cal than an actual autocannon, 20mm did not have much explosive filler and could not really do much more than an M2 browning couldn't, exept having bit more range at the cost of less ammo and more wheight.
By the time autocannons become a thing on every MBTs. Infantry will be able to shoot nukes that will follow Tanks through space and time. The better the tanks the harder the anti-tanks weapons will hit.
The idea of Tanks becoming obsolete has been going around my head lately. Which would be cool to witness it happen.
@@Haaton-of-the-Basement you did not really read my comment did you?
@@revolverDOOMGUY they were talking about the exact same thing as the question *you asked* in your first pargraph; talking about the future of autocannons on tanks. What do you think they were talking about lmao? did you even read their comment? I'm literally so confused by your reply lol. Fuck your tone in that comment.
@@revolverDOOMGUY oh sorry. I did read your comment it just my mind went south.
@@HelghastStalker the Abrams M1A3 would like to have a word with you
3 of these (including the XM-803 in this) still exist at the US Armor and Cavalry collection. I had the pleasure to see all 3, and many others that can only be seen there. One I think even has some ERA layering on the turret.
That ghost shell at 1:10 burst a vessel in my brain
The MBT70 is one of the few good looking Western Post war tanks.
Despite all this the Kpz-70 is my favourite tank
FINALY NOT A HSTV-L RELATED VIDEO!!!!
it couldnt be bad, cuz i fucking love it
Not going to lie, that’s basically Wehraboos in a nutshell.
@@Shaun_Jones Sounds like an argument a Commie would make
@@DefinitelyNotEmma no, but you know how Wehraboos are always like “The Tiger/Panther/Bismarck can’t have flaws, it’s my favorite!”
@@Shaun_Jones no, till this day i have yet to see someone actually unironically say that. It seems a different most of these "Wehraboo's" live in people's head than actually existing in reality.
please add the iconic music you had at the beginning of the video. made the video better imo
XM-803 follow up? Because seeing how a bad program made worse sounds ripe for a good video.
Other than the autoloader being swapped for something with lower rpm, I assume this is still a great tank in wt.
Wake up babe, new spookston upload
Saw it’s german brother the Kpz-70 in a german museum this week…very impressive
It baffles me that they wanted to put the crew all in one space, and chose the turret as the place to do it, when the hull would have made things a lot simpler AND reduced the turret's complexity and profile. I can't believe they didn't abandon the idea as soon as they realized that they'd need to put a turret-within-a-turret for the driver specifically, and all of the problems and costs that would entail just to attempt.
I also find the idea of a gun-launcher being worth such huge compromises when designing a tank. Even assuming that the missile system worked well, those missiles wouldn't need a big gun to be used in the first place--so why bother putting them on tanks in the first place? Make two different vehicles--one that is a gun tank, and another that is a missile-launching vehicle that leverages the advantages of not needing all of the other aspects of a gun tank weighing it down/adding costs.
Two tanks is what the germans did (from the late 1960s on). But the germans of the cold war where special since they had a very short logistics tail and never needed to plan for a long war. So,lots of sturdy specialist vehicles where ok. On day 7 of the war the Anis would come and nuke everyone anyway
The last kill against the BMP-2M broke my brain
0:46 watch out for that puma bud
Spookston, you missed a puma near that Leo 2k at 0:46
nice video
The dude in the road at 0:47 must’ve been shitting himself as you drove past and killed his teammate
0:46 Missed the PUMA right there
Another developmental hitch was that US manufacturers wanted to use imperial or "US" measurements (1.5" bolts, .75" bolts, 7/16th inch bolts, and so on) and the Germans obviously wanted to go Metric. The "solution" decided on was that the German vehicles would use Metric and US would use US units, which immediately terminates the idea of a joint project, IMO...
Even thou you said that driver had it own capsule, i still cant comprehend hot it work with the turret rotating around. I guess that's just one of the thing you wont understand how it work until you will see it with your own eyes.
The turret capsule would rotate infependently of the turret to keep the driver facing forward
The problem was that it was off center so rotating the turret would also move the driver forward/backward and left/right
@@zjanez2868 sounds like a nice roller coaster. Step right up kids. Sit into MBT-70 driver seat and see how long you can last until you puke.
i miss this kind of video
kinda funny that the sargent York (M247) is considered awful in reality while it stomps in War Thunder
Actually, when you look into the nitty gritty... it would have been pretty good. Most of the problems were being addressed, i.e. the turret drive was being uprated to a 3k PSI model, the FCS was getting more debugging into it, and the barrels were getting replaced with ones that _weren't_ due to some penny pincher putting worn-out barrels in storage because he didn't want to send an order for new barrels.
It made better sense to slap the turrets on the M60s instead of the M48s...
I mean when one of the aircraft pilots who was part of the testing process outright stated it would have consistently swept them from the sky when they worked and would have been perfected if the hit-pieces-all-but-in-name weren't published...
Our boy Spookston still the GOAT
Back when the history Channel was amazing.
MBT 70, or the wonders of having a joint defense program with a parlementary government.
I still believe that a second attempt should be made on this design but with modern technology
But why. Both the Abrams and Leopard 2 are far better
I would love to see a video like this about the leopard 1
Another goofy problem caused by it being a joint US and German venture. Some parts used imperial measurements while others used metric. So even maintenance and repair on the thing was a pain.
im sry but cmon 0:46 and also how bad was the ikv91/ikv91-105?
I would be curious to see the case of the driver motion sickness and if modern tech could avoid it. Was it the counter rotation mechanism itself, or was it the changing perspective of the optics which were off centre on the turret?
Could useing cameras with or without a capsual solve the motion sickness issues?
vroom vroom wowowwoowowowowwoowowowwoowwooww -MBT-70 in the start
good information.
So thats why the Kpz70 has a 6 second reload and the mbt70 has a 7.5
Did you drive right past an enemy at 0:46? Lol PUMA go brrrrr
It's more easy to decide on ammo compatability than having to design a tank that satisfy everyone
I honestly didn't find out about it until Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker. Peace Sentinels brought both the German and American versions in country, with the German version using a 120mm gun and a 20mm antiaircraft gun and the American version using the 152mm Gun Launcher, though it didn't launch missiles from the main gun. Instead it would alternate between firing the main gun and launching missiles from tubes mounted aft and to the rear of the turret.
The American version is the hardest of the two to acquire, especially at Elite levels.
ah I see your a man of culture
It's the MOBAT from GI Joe.
I thought you'd join the MBT-70 (kpf-70) and the XM-803, due to the 803 being the American successor when the countries split. It was mentioned, but itd be nice to know what happened with it.
Hello! Hope you are doing well.
you forget to mention that the engine and hydropneumatic suspension where made by germany
did he drive past a enemy tank in 00:47 ?
...and then there is the conflict between the imperial and the metric system.
Quite a fev military and science programs failed because of it.
I think that it was a cool and actually promising design. The chasis was definitely good. Adding a better gun and you'd be already very far... (though the concept of the launcher was great)
Long story short, MBT-70 is a very good tank rejected for going over budget, fixable technical issues and divergent requirements from the partner nations developing the project.
What if mbt70 had a conventional layout crew with no autoloader and using german 120mm instead of 152mm gun launcher?
Then it's a fat leopard.
+1 bro :)
As revealed by skylancer-3441 on Secret Projects Forum, the West Germans actually drafted a blueprint and mockup for a driver-in-hull variant of the KPz 70 / MBT-70. The blueprint revealed that the driver would have been relocated to the hull's right-front. If the driver-in-hull rotating cupola, auto-loader, and autocannon were also removed, perhaps a human loader could have occupied the turret space formerly used by the driver in the turret's left side. This driver-in-hull KPz 70 / MBT-70 variant with a three-man turret (commander, gunner, & loader) could have been _marginally_ more operable as a tank destroyer supporting conventional main battle tanks.
But what are the benefit over a Leopard 2?
@@mbr5742 The Leopard 2 is a better main battle tank. The KPz 70 / MBT-70 was over-complicated and flawed and would not have worked as a MBT. But if the driver-in-turret rotating cupola, auto-loader, and autocannon were removed in favor of a driver-in-hull configuration with a human loader in the turret, perhaps the KPz 70 / MBT-70 could have been better employed as a tank destroyer supporting MBTs.
@@christopherwang4392 You could just let normal ATGM carriers or Leopard 2s do the tank destroying job. Imo, there’s no reason to justify the MBT-70 when the Leopard 2s exist. I’m also highly dubious the Shillaleigh Missiles had adequate penetration against T-72s or T-64s
What surprise me is that some of these things could have been ironed out really early if they had done some rapid prototyping. But I guess the concept was not around back then. (I mean, today the term relate mainly to 3D printing and software development.)
Anyway, while I might use an anachronistic term, I do feel that the idea of just doing a quick mock-up to test out ideas would have saved them a lot of trouble. Simple things like trying the 3 man in a turret concept. Something I know cause a lot of trouble for drive due to how many have tested this out and always seem to have the same issue. The drive getting motion sick. A fail faster approach would have saved them a lot of headaches and money. And allowing for flexility in their design would also have help. Make a good base platform and then adopt different technologies. Allowing you to also make specialized versions if need (Like making it in to an AA platform or a recovery vehicle if needed). It would also make it more future-proof.
But of course it is easy for me to say who have never engineered a tank or even work on a project close to this in scale. Being an armchair designer is as easy as being an armchair general.
Investing in the Chieftain as a stopgap T-64 foil would have saved a lot more money. No expensive gun launcher fails needed to happen. They just needed to swap the engine and insert one of their spicier selections of 120mm guns, maybe boost up the lower hull side another half inch to match the upper two inches. M103's can then be converted to M51's and have their parts inventoried for the new tank. Soviets would have been shitting the bed over that while the MBT-70 heavy project was on the back burner slowly turning into Mega Ultra Leopard 'brams (up to 80 tons, 155mm T58, DU backing plates, Lego tier interchangeable engine choices). Two big headache savers are tossing the gun launcher and having a standard suspension kit to replace the finnicky hydros. Germans would have agreed with a higher pressure 155mm gun that can also fling legacy artillery shells.
thoughts on the walker bulldog?
So that explain different ingame reload speeds of MBT-70 and Kpz-70. General Motors and Rheinmetall autoloader, respectively.
The MBT70 was armed with a 20mm autocannon because the crew wasn't expected to have any forthcoming support from the M48 Chaparral, FIM-92 Stinger, M163 VADS, or the crappy M247 Sergeant York in most situations.
With that kind of wishful thinking, the tank was effectively going up a creek without a paddle if it was facing a competent enemy with considerable air assets.
York and Stinger didn't exist when this project was ongoing. I am sure the 20mm would have deterred helicopters pretty significantly and crazy Ivan dumb shit from Fishbeds/Floggers. The thing we always forget is the actual Soviet Airforce was not the US Naval/Airforce. In 1971 (MBT-70 cancellation date) they were still literally tumbling out of the sky with blown engines trying to intercept blackbirds (in fact they were doing this all the way through to the end of the Cold War). The same plane the YF-12 was based on, coincidently using what would become the Phoenixes used on the Tomcat. RIP unaware Fishbeds and bombers if they accelerated the timeline of that. I would guess the autocannon would end up being used to rip into light vehicles A LOT since the T-64 could be effectively pigeon holed.
What were the issues with the American gun launcher system?
Whow! What a tank for the 70s. But really today it probably is a better idea to put a 3 person crew in the hull. Keeping the turret the high point and almost unarmored. Or maybe do a 3 person crew but the driver still in the hull. Commander rear of turret. Gunner below the gun.
Driver in the front and maybe not with the best of armor. Giving the commander the option to drive in emergencies. Really just stuff the driver in the hull and give him cameras to drive with. Just there to do the driving for the commander and not the one expected to be aimed for. With modern engines and drive train you can put the driver laying on the back with a VR headset on or basic screens driving the tank like it was a video game. And if the driver get hit the commander can open the hatch and play video games with his head in the open. ;) Since really what are you doing if a shot hits the low hull. Imagen having a 50ton tank and can drive it with a xbox controller standing outside or ontop of the tank! Wired hopefully... But knowing todays world maybe not.
"But it actually worked" Why is that so funny
When you put all your resources into technology and forget you're building a tank that's going to be operated by humans and shot at.
Day 8 of Asking
Spookston can you talk about an idea I have based off something you said in a past video (think it was the lend lease one). Sweden's tree should be turned into a "Nordic" Tree, which would have a Norwegian and Finnish tree, for the following reasons
Sweden lacks heavies, and premiums. Plus they have a general lack of creative tanks as most are similar or copy pastes
Norway made multiple tanks, concepts, and experimental designs.
Finland made some tanks, modified certain soviet tanks (BT-42, KV-1B), and also captured multiple tanks
Finland already exists within the Swedish tree with some vehicles, plus it could be an excuse to add Heavy Tanks to the Swedish trees like the IS-2, plus maybe even a T-34
This is in general, but remove the KV-1B from the German tree (they already have a KV-1) and move it to Sweden.
0:46 how did you miss the PUMA
Can we have a Kpz-70 too? Cause its a slight different design so might as well add it
I wish for a premium 120L44 version
cool vid
Can you do the SU 152
What’s your opinion on Germany Breaking out of nato standard and developing 130mm?
Fun fact, this tank is the basis for the GI Joe MOBAT...
My favorite tank right next to the xm8, I wonder how far the XM150E5 coulda went :/
XM8 made a lot more sense and works nicely.
>flechette
Jesus fuck, a 152mm shotgun must have made a woodchipper blush
However it just got into a successful vehicle in fiction as it inspired heavily Hasbro to create the Gi Joe's MOBAT out of it, and subsecuently the Cobra's CAT.