More MBT-70 questions for Major Rob and all interested parties! (Pix)

Modeling Subjects Armor
1

As a continuation of my previous post concerning the MBT-70 / Kpz. 70, I have some more Qs for Major Rob and the other prototypical armor experts.

Here’s a link to the previous thread for those who want the background story:
http://www.finescale.com/fsm/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=36180

And here are three pix from this month’s Panzer magazine, with translated captions:

“The MBT70 prototype, completed in 1967.”


“Prototype vehicle No. 1. Not equipped with vision devices.”


Click here to enlarge:
http://rongeorge.com/albums/upload/MBT_70_1967_Prototype_3.sized.jpg
“The same vehicle as pictured on the left page (the above pic), as seen from the front and above. It was still very simple at this point in its development.”

I think this is the vehicle I’m going to model with my 1/48 Aurora MBT-70. I’ll actually have to leave off a lot of the turret detail (hand rails, smoke dischargers, mysterious “tank”) and fill in the holes and grooves. I like that smooth look, though!

Questions:

  1. Of the remaining vehicles located at Aberdeen, Fort Knox, etc., is this vehicle one of them?

  2. There is some sort of alphanumeric designation cast on the upper glacis plate…can anyone make it out or know what it says?

  3. Silly question: the kit’s sponsons are bottomless, so I want to fill them in. Is it correct to assume that the bottom plates simply follow the angles of the visable lower edges of the sponsons? I can’t clearly make out that arrangement (particularly the forward sections) in any ref pix.

  4. I can’t find any ref pix of the engine deck of the early prototypes. Is the deck really as featureless as depicted in the kit? I mean, it’s smoooooth!

  5. The kit’s 152mm gun tube and bore evacuator seem quite thin for the scale. Anyone know the actual outer diameters of the tube and evacuator? Even better, can you help a mathematically challenged individual calculate what those diameters would be in 1/48? [8)]

As always, thanks for any and all assistance![:D]

2

Dont know how much this will help J-Hulk, but I have posted pics of the Aberdeen MBT 70 on the reference site. Here is the link. http://www.finescale.com/fsm/community/forum/topic.asp?page=2&TOPIC_ID=26174

As I can tell it looks nothing like the pics you posted. Bryan

3

The one at Aberdeen had the words NON BALLISTIC in raised letters (looked crude, like they were made by a weld bead). I do not know if this one is at either post. There are several here at Knox, some on display, others in storage.

4

Brian,

If you can locate the Tamiya M551 that should give you the OD of the gun launcher tube in 1/35th and then you can convert.

By the way, if you want a detailed run down on the fire control, just e-mail me.

5

Now that you’ve mentioned that, Rob, when I enlarge the top picture it looks like it might say :

a 00001
non-ballistic

The “non-ballistic” appears to be written almost in cursive. Very hard to make out, though, but could definitely be a weld bead.
You mentioned previously that the prototypes were not armored…would that be why “non-ballistic” might be written there?

Thanks again sharing your vast knowledge, Major!

And Bryan, thanks for that link. As you’ve seen, there’s a lot of variation to those prototypes! And I can clearly see “NON-BALLiSTiC” written on the glacis, with “A-000003” above it.
Thanks!

Yeah, lots of variation to those prototypes…yet no 1/35 kit…oh, well! [:D]

6

Good idea about the Sheridan tube, Steve…but was that exactly the same gun? I know they were both 152mm gun / launchers designed to fire normal rounds and missiles, but the MBT-70 tube seems to be a bit longer, so maybe the OD is different…probably close enough, though, eh? I’ll be getting the 1/35 Academy Sheridan sometime this month, so I can measure and crunch the numbers then.

Thanks for making your vast experience and knowledge available! [:D]

7

Yes, the non-ballistic refers to the armor being plain steel vs. rolled homogenous steel plate. Probably so no ballistic tests would be conducted on the vehicle of if the tank was standardized, that that vehicle would not end up being fielded to a combat unit.

The 152mm gun was unique and not the same as the main gun used on the M551 Sheridan or M60A2. What I did was find an aluminum tube for the gun and then a couple pieces of styrene tubes for the bore evacuator.

I added a .50 cal from one of the WW2 bomber machine gun detail sets. I forget if it was Verlinden or Aires or some other 1/48 scale M2.

I also was planning on making mine a what if project. What if the MBT70 was fielded. I figured there may be a couple of variants. One armed with the 152mm and another armed with the 120mm that the Germans wanted to use. I picked up a couple of the Zhengdefu M1A1s just for the grenade launchers and 120mm gun.

I have not gotten around to even seeing if these conversions would work or not. I was planning on using 1970s era MERDC camouflage on the tanks vs. the OD. I also had the notion (if I got another MBT70) to make a dozer tank. I have a leftover blade from the old Aurora ammo tractor that could be converted to look like a convincing dozer blade.

8

Thanks for all the additional info, Rob. Regardless of how this projects turns out, I’ve certainly learned a lot about this vehicle!

Any chance of posting a pic of your finished MBT-70, Rob?
Besides correcting the barrel, what else did you do to yours?

I’m still vacillating between doing mine OOB or full-on accurized…since I only have the one kit, I’m kind of leaning towards straight OOB…just as a tribute to the state of the hobby in the late Sixties! But then I see that skinny barrel…and all those holes in the hull sides for the “operational” suspension…and I start reaching for the spares box and the Evergreen!

Maybe I’ll do this one OOB, go e-fishing for another kit, and update that one…

Anyhooo, that’s my problem, eh? [:D]

Thanks for everone’s help! [:)]

9

Thanks for doing all the work of taking those pictures and then posting them! Really great stuff.