MBT-70 vs. M1 Abrams: Which Tank Would Triumph?

Main Ideas and Recap - The MBT-70, a bold U.S.-Germany collaborative tank initiative from the 1960s, was impressive in theory yet proved unsuccessful in practice.

- Intended as a groundbreaking advancement in armored combat, featuring elements such as a 152mm cannon/launching system and hydraulic-pneumatic suspension, the project was eventually scrapped because of excessive budget increases and engineering challenges.

- The project's defeat ultimately led to the creation of the famous M1 Abrams, which, although having issues such as an energy-intensive turbine engine, turned out to be much more effective and dependable as a primary combat vehicle, excelling on the field where its predecessor fell short.

MBT-70 versus M1 Abrams – Battle of Tanks

In some ways, the M1 Abrams It originated from the unsuccessful MBT-70 initiative. Created during the 1960s, the MBT-70 set the stage for numerous elements that were eventually incorporated into both the M1 Abrams and the German Leopard 2.

Although created in the 1960s, the tank included many innovations that were seen as progressive for its era, including a strong 152 mm gun, improved armor, and a hydraulic pneumatic suspension mechanism.

But how does the tank compare to its replacement, the M1 Abrams What would happen if they faced each other directly?

Background: The MBT-70

The MBT-70 emerged in the 1960s through a joint project involving the United States and West Germany to develop a next-generation MBT able to challenge Soviet developments. The vehicle incorporated various advanced features, such as a hydropneumatic suspension system that enabled it to "crouch" for a reduced silhouette and enhanced steadiness. The MBT-70 placed all its crew members inside the turret, an unusual concept designed to enhance... nhance crew survivability .

Nevertheless, the initiative encountered challenges due to budget increases, engineering problems, and differing requirements Between the U.S. Army and the German Federal Armed Forces. Interaction between the two partners was limited and ambiguous, leading the designers to be uncertain about which modifications to make.

Moreover, German engineers maintained confidentiality over their proprietary methods from their American counterparts, adding complexity to the exchange of information and joint efforts. Ultimately, the Americans and the West Germans were unable to resolve their disagreements, leading to the project's ultimate failure. cancellation .

Protection

Regarding security, both the MBT-70 and the M1 Abrams featured highly sophisticated armor for their era. The MBT-70 featured spaced armor which featured two layers divided by an empty space. The exterior layer was constructed from tougher cold-rolled steel, whereas the interior layer was composed of more malleable steel that also functioned as a spall lining. This configuration sought to enhance defense against high-speed projectiles by making them bend or shatter when they hit the outer layer, while the inner layer captured and redirected debris.

On the other hand, the M1 Abrams utilizes advanced composite armor, referred to as Chobham armor which uses multiple layers of porcelain, metal, and additional substances to offer enhanced defense from both physical and chemical dangers.

This high-performance armor is engineered to take in and spread out the force from attacking bullets, greatly improving the safety of the personnel onboard. Subsequent models of the Abrams also feature an inner lining made of Kevlar, known as a spall liner, which stops fragments from scattering within the tank. Furthermore, the Abrams has the capability to be fitted with explosive reactive armor which also improves the tank's protection from explosive projectiles.

Mobility

Regarding movement capabilities, the MBT-70 featured a 1,470 horsepower engine The MBT-70 featured a 1,500-horsepower engine known as the KPz-70. This provided the vehicle with a notable power-to-weight ratio of approximately 9.2 hp/t for the MBT-70 model and 29.8 hp/t for the KPz-70 variant.

The vehicle was capable of reaching approximately 68 km/h on paved roads and had an operational range of about 644 km (400 miles). It included a hydropneumatic suspension mechanism that permitted the tank to lower itself, reducing its silhouette and increasing steadiness. This feature also offered variable ground clearance, which improved off-road capabilities.

In the meantime, the M1 Abrams is driven by the Honeywell AGT1500 combustion turbine unit Honeywell AGT1500 power generation system Honeywell AGT1500 jet propulsion engine Honeywell AGT1500 auxiliary power device Honeywell AGT1500 mechanical drive mechanism producing 1,500 horsepower, which provides the tank with a power-to-weight ratio ranging from approximately 26.9 hp/t to 23.8 hp/t based on the model.

It can achieve speeds as high as 45 mph (72 km/h) on smooth surfaces and roughly 30 mph (48 km/h) when driving over rough terrain. The M1 Abrams tank has a travel distance of about 426 km (265 miles) on roads and between 150–200 km (93–124 miles) when moving across open country. The Abrams’ engine provides significant performance in terms of both strength and velocity, though this comes with a reduction in overall range. The turbine-powered engine is a notorious gas-guzzler which could be considered among the tank's major vulnerabilities.

Firepower

In terms of weaponry, the MBT-70 featured a 152 mm XM150E5 gun/launcher This weapon was capable of firing standard high-explosive and penetrating ammunition along with MGM-51 Shillelagh missiles, providing versatility when dealing with various target types.

The tank also included a 20 mm Rh-202 automatic cannon as requested by the Germans, along with a 7.62 mm M73 or MG 3 co-axial machine gun. In theory, the MBT-70's weaponry appears formidable, yet in practice, the Cannon was found to be untrustworthy Cannon failed to prove dependable Cannon demonstrated inconsistency Cannon could not be counted on Cannon showed itself to be unstable Cannon did not live up to expectations Cannon turned out to be faulty Cannon lacked reliability Cannon wasn't trustworthy Cannon didn't perform as expected The weapon system had frequent mechanical issues and was identified as one of the main reasons for the project's failure.

The first version of the M1 came with a 105 millimeter M68A1 smoothbore cannon Later models, such as the M1A1 and M1A2, include the 120 mm M256 rifled barrel weapon. This firearm is an authorized reproduction of the Rheinmetall L/44 and is recognized for its precision and significant initial speed.

The tank also features a 0.50 caliber M2HB heavy machine gun along with two 7.62 mm M240 machine guns (one mounted co-axially and the other on a pintle). The APFSDS projectiles launched from the Abrams are constructed using depleted uranium , significantly enhancing their deadliness and ability to penetrate defenses.

It's not surprising that the M1 Abrams wins.

The MBT-70 featured numerous advanced elements for its era. However, during the period between its termination and the development of the M1 Abrams, technological progress had significantly advanced.

Thanks to improved armor and weaponry, the Abrams stands far ahead as the superior tank. The sole advantage the MBT-70 has is its greater mobility, thanks to more effective fuel consumption.

About the Author:

Isaac Seitz A defense columnist who earned his degree from Patrick Henry College's Strategic Intelligence and National Security program. He has also taken courses in Russian at Middlebury Language Schools and previously served as an intelligence analyst within the private industry.

More Military

The Actual Submarine Problem Faced by the U.S. Navy

The NATO Challenger 3 Tank: The Impossible Mathematical Puzzle NATO's Challenger 3 Tank: A Challenge Without a Solution The Challenger 3 Tank from NATO: An Unsolved Equation NATO’s Challenger 3 Tank: A Complex Riddle The Challenger 3 Tank of NATO: A Puzzling Enigma NATO's Challenger 3 Tank: A Question with No Answer The Challenger 3 Tank – NATO's Most Difficult Calculation NATO's Challenger 3 Tank: A Conundrum That Cannot Be Solved The Challenger 3 Tank as an Intractable Problem for NATO NATO's Challenger 3 Tank: A Formula Without Resolution

The Stealth Bombardier Possesses a Critical Vulnerability The B-2 Aircraft Contains a Deadly Weakness A Major Defect Exists in the B-2 Jet Fighter The B-2 Strategic Bomber Suffers from a Serious Shortcoming There Is a Significant Problem with the B-2 Plane The B-2 Weapon System Faces a Grave Issue An Important Flaw Impacts the B-2 Bomber The B-2 Airplane Has a Life-Threatening Drawback

Please follow National Security Journal chatting on MSN for the most recent updates on defense, international relations, finance, and government affairs with a balanced perspective.