MBT-70

>>29769879
Well it gave nearly every driver motion sickness from being in the turret.

When the turret moved the drivers seat would automatically be aligned with the forward direction of the hull. Constantly moving and causing great disorientation.

>>29769879
America and Germany couldn't agree and moved the fuck on with their lives and own development teams.

File: Sheridan.jpg (367KB, 1800x1196px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 1800x1196px

>>29769879
As I understand it there were issues with the 152mm cannon/launcher as well. At least there were on the Sheridan. Something about firing the cannon would knock the missile guidance system out of alignment, or vice versa.

File: 1458573649937.jpg (156KB, 1152x864px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1152x864px

>>29769879

In Germany, there were difficulties with various FCS components and with the Rheinmetall autoloader.
The latter problem resulted in the General Motors autoloader being installed in the US pilots. The Continental AVCR-1100 engine was modified, but questions still remained regarding its reliability. Also, the US manufactured turret drive did not perform satisfactorily without modification.
Despite these problems, considerable progress was made and the pilot vehicles demonstrated exceptional performance as far as speed and mobility were concerned. The 152mm gun-launcher also operated satisfactorily once the difficulties with the missile and the combustible case ammunition were resolved. However, the different viewpoints of the US and the German representatives regarding their respective requirements once again became apparent. For example, the tank was now about 4 tons above the original weight limit. The US did not consider this excessive in view of the level of protection provided. However, to the Germans, this was a serious handicap and they requested design changes to reduce the
weight. All of the development problems and proposed changes resulted in delays and rapidly escalating costs. In September
1969, Deputy Secretary of Defense David Packard requested a complete review of the program. The report of this review estimated that the cost to completion for the development and production engineering program would be 544 million dollars and the tanks could cost as much as 1.2 million dollars each. In view of these problems, it was not surprising that a Department of Defense news release on 20 January 1970 signaled the end of the joint program. In the future, each country would continue development to produce a tank best suited to their own requirements. For Germany, this resulted in the program that was to eventually produce the Leopard 2. In the US, the MBT70 was simplified to reduce costs and modified to use only US manufactured components.

>>29769879
It's like jarozowski's dune, tank that was never made but it was built. Just that all the bits and pieces never ended together on one vehicle.
The mbt70 lives on with all of us.

>>29769879
>What went wrong?
American and Germans never agreed about the fuel.
Americans wanted it to be diesel powered, Germans demanded it was powered by the blood of children( preferably Jew)

>ywn see a MBT-70 in service as the M1 in tri-color camo

>gun launched missile meme

It's good that this abomination died a deserved death

File: MGM-51 Shillelagh.webm (2MB, 450x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 450x360px

>>29770598

There were problems with the autoloader and the caseless munitions. Apparently it would warp or damage the shells and distort the shape of the the munitions.

>>29770685
Why cripple the missiles design by building it around the cannon?
Stretch the tank another couple feet in length, add a dozen VLS cells.
I really don't see why it isn't already done today.

>>29770739
VLS isn't all that useful for ground vehicles. It works for ships because they fire at much greater ranges, but for vehicles they need turrets to launch properly.

>>29770772
Hardly, they don't "need" the turret, thats only because most of these missiles are old designs which have to be pointed at the target.
Maybe some of them don't have sufficient thrust/weight to do it either.

>>29770206
IIRC, that's because of the lightweight Sheridan, the hull couldn't deal with the recoil. On a heavier hull, there shouldn't be any issue.

>>29770739
IIRC they crippled the cannon by building it around the missile.

Gun-launched missiles were a new concept and it just turned out that the Soviets' approach (building the missile around the gun and considering it an optional secondary capability instead of a fundamental part of the entire system) was the more practical one overall.

>>29770739
You will need a hell of a lot more than jsut a couple feet, to say nothing about the huge issues with internal arrangement. And missiles having a limited turning radius that makes a vertical launch inherently impractical in most ground combat scenarios.

>>29769879
The German design would have built to metric standards while the American would have been to big thumbs

>>29770739
>Why cripple the missiles design by building it around the cannon?

Modern ATGM's are ~152mm in diameter my listerine drinking friend.

File: shillelagh beamrider.jpg (171KB, 1231x464px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 1231x464px

You are now aware there was a beam riding Shillelagh developed.

>>29772510
The 'problem' with the missiles was it was beyond 1960's tech, and it was not allowed to mature properly before the MBT-70 was canned.

>>29770831
Requiring that tanks never be ocluded from airel view is a much larger penalty.

Did you honestly just suggest that ATGMs don't have a 1:1 Tw ratio?

>>29772581
A hellfire is larger than that
Gunfired also imposes a length limit, and requires a stronger stucture.
Existing ATGM's will be hopelessly inadequate soon enough.

>>29772731
Moving those goalposts already?

>>29772624
The problem was also that trying to build a gun around being able to launch the missile got you a pretty sub-par gun out of it.

>>29770598
Don't the Russians still use them? Apparently they've managed to work the bugs out.

>>29770739
VLS isn't good against surface targets at short range, the missiles aren't maneuverable enough to turn in time. Some vehicles have missile launchers on the sides of the turret, but those are likely vulnerable to damage.

>>29772629
>Did you honestly just suggest that ATGMs don't have a 1:1 Tw ratio?
There's no reason why they HAVE to be, with sufficient aerodynamics the requirement is just that thrust must be greater than drag (and drag can obviously be less than weight).

>>29769879
It was actually a very good tank.

The problem was it was expensive as fuck.

The 152mm cannon was pretty fucking impressive though, had APDS performance that wouldn't be matched until the DM23 came about.

>>29770206
That was the Sheridan, its issues had to do with how the gun was mounted and where the optical tracker was. The M60A2 despite being shit as well didn't have the issues the Sheridan did and the MBT-70 had a long barrel 152mm that dropped the missile acquisition time to just under 50m whereas with the Sheridan it was almost 200m.

>>29769906

Well I learned something today.

I why the fuck not have the driver down in the hull, maybe not with his own hatch and shit, but at least have his seat down there.

>>29774116
>measuring time in meters

>>29774141
Apparently there wasn't room

>>29774146
>doesn't know how the shilleshit worked

File: ORD_Lahat_Firing_2-view_lg.jpg (100KB, 500x283px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 500x283px

>>29774067
>Don't the Russians still use them?
The Juden do as well.

>>29770598

>GLMs are shit
>penetration of GLM are higher than most sabots and nearly twice the effective range of their guns and shittons more accurate

The only 'bad' thing a gun launched missile has is the cost per unit. They are still vastly more effective than any gun in service until someone sticks a 155mm gun on a tank. It's just the missiles range from 10 - 20x the price of a normal round BUT you do end up with T-55s with better penetration than 99% of tank rounds.

It's just the missile costs half as much as a T-55 does. But 950mm RHA penetration isn't bad for a 100mm WW2 level gun.

>>29774181
Either it had an acquisition time, in seconds, or a minimum range, in meters. Choose one, and only one.

>>29774206
>HEAT
>When HEAT protection between 2nd and 3rd gen MBTs went full fucking retard on both sides of the iron curtain

This is why GLMs are still a joke against heavy armor.

>>29774230
>implying they're not directly related

go be autistic somewhere else

>>29774155

Like not any room down at all? I just find that really hard to visiualize that there was NO way to just have him down in a little fixed forward pit that you accessed from the main crew area.

the autocannon, while effective, was a pain in the ass to use because of how it was mounted and test crews hated it because of that

now for a real shitshow MBT project, look up MBT-80

>>29774236

>heavy armor

Only against MODERN heavy armour. 950mm is still enough to kill the vast majority of tanks in the world. Turning a fucking T-55 into a T-72/ Merkava / Leclerc / Leopard 2A1 / M1 Abrams killer with a single missile isn't exactly an ineffective tactic and the problem is that anyone using a T-55 is probably fighting other T-55 - T-72s or some British/French export model from the 60s.

Of course the tanks I list don't include modern models or ERA etc. But it's still turning something obsolete into a threat for next to nothing.

>>29774285

Sorry. Not Leclerc. Mean't the AMX -30 or whatever else they had prior.

>>29774248
Under normal circumstances yes, because the velocity is known. But what if you're firing into a ridiculously strong headwind? Then it can make a difference.

The driver was in the turret so the entire crew had the maximum neutron shielding possible - the required plastic layer needs to be thick and have few gaps, and the modeling of the day showed the most effective solution was a shared crew compartment in the turret. Check it out - it's in Hunnicutt's book. The designers assumed the Soviet would come to the conclusion we did, which is the best way to kill armor is with enhanced radiation nukes. And no, they don't spare the infrastructure as much as kill tank crews - tanks are very resistant to overpressure and thermal pulse. Plus, due to neutron activation, the next crew who gets into the nuked T-62 will likely die themselves, just not as quickly as the first set of vatniks...

File: 20160423_144431.jpg (2MB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1920px

Postin pics of surviving MBT-70

File: 20160423_144451.jpg (1MB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1920px

>>29776362

File: 20160423_144542.jpg (1MB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1920px

>>29776371

File: 20160423_144700.jpg (1MB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1920px

>>29776391

File: 20160423_144711.jpg (1MB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1920px

>>29776404

>>29769879
>hydropneumatic
>housed the entire crew in the large turret
I would say it would have been a nightmare to navigate.
>152mm XM150 gun/launcher, which could use conventional ammunition and the Shillelagh missile for long range combat.
>>29770206

The M60A2 proved that the Shillelagh was shit. It had a minimum firing range of over 1km. That did not help that the actual turret design allowed the crew to be split and reliant on radio communication.

File: 20160423_145115.jpg (1MB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1920px

>>29776414

File: 20160423_145411.jpg (1MB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1920px

>>29776428

File: 20160423_145500.jpg (2MB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1920px

>>29776440

File: 20160423_145514.jpg (1MB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1920px

>>29776459

>>29774315
>But what if you're firing into a ridiculously strong headwind?

How often do you think people have tank battles in the middle of a typhoon?