For completeness’ sake, I posted this recently in the “What the Postman brought” piece (slightly edited for here) and copied it here to facilitate a wider audience:
After a voyage on a not-so-slow boat from China, for the princely sum of 46 quid, we have Drami’s Kpz-70; first the box art, which has been modified (around the 20mm cannon and the faces), and poor old Ron Volstad’s signature is not to be seen:
The plastic has now changed to green and the tracks to black:
They still haven’t opened up all the hatches - although I don’t quite know why I was expecting they would, so for me, out with the pin-vice drill to open up the Gunner’s hatch:
They do include a gun barrel for the 20mm though:
which is annoying as I’d prepared the ground with these (to be honest the main armament is moulded well enough):
What they have included is a complex 3D printed addition to the 20mm cannon mechanism; it’ll be fun removing that little lot:
Infuriatingly, this is not covered in the instructions at all; perhaps it’s intuitive - we can but hope. Of course, only relevant for those modellers who want the 20mm mount deployed as in action:
So, to sum up, a reasonable price; a colour change of plastic (including the tracks) and some extra detailing. What’s not to like? It is labelled on the box top as a “Beta version”; one can but hope that say, an “Alpha version” will be the US model. Hope that is(!)
I’m seeking clarification here; it seems to me to be widely promulgated that the German version of the MBT-70, should it have been successful, was to be fitted with a German 120mm gun; all well and good, and this seems to have gained some traction, but, I cannot find this listed anywhere in the references I have, either hard copy or my endless searches on-line. Now, I may well have missed something, and am more than ready to accept direction on this, not least as I was thinking of modelling the Dragon Kpz-70 with such a gun. It would look notably different and spark no small interest or so I thought.
Now, my references are limited, but I recently invested in the Lobitz tome on the Leopard 2 (my house is on on the market as I write), which seems to cover just about everything there is to know about the Leo 2, and includes a fairly concise piece on the MBT-70, but nowhere does it indicate that a German MBT-70 was destined to be fitted with a 120mm gun. Indeed, the formal listing, quoted by the author clearly states that the gun had to have a missile capability – ie the Shillelagh.
I also checked two of the Osprey/Vanguard books on the Leo 2 and the Abrams respectively; no mention there of a 120mm gun. So, so far, nothing definitive at all.
Of course, should I so wish, I can still have modelling fun by declaring any such fitting of a 120mm gun a What-if, but I’d like to get to the bottom of this if I can.
I don’t possess any of the Hunnicutt books, but wonder if there is mention within the Abrams volume re the armament conundrum? Perhaps someone can let me know. In any case, I’m after clarifying this; any help would be much appreciated.
Hi Brian, Not sure where I saw it but somebody wrote that there were plans for two versions of the German tank - one with the rocket gun and another with the 120mm conventional gun. That might have been nothing more solid than an aspiration, so maybe no paper trail? But it’s telling at Leo 2 was designed for the 120mm and not a rocket gun…
Well, I can certainly see the advantages of a Shillelagh-type system: wasn’t the selling point it’s greater range to facilitate the destruction of the Soviet heavy tank fleet (the threat of which, let’s not forget, was uppermost in the tactical planners’ and designers’ minds of the 60s). Of course, a 120mm can reach out to around 3000m and presumably do the same, but why pursue a twin-track solution when there were high hopes on the Shillelagh system? That said, perhaps the Germans planned on a mixed armament fleet of MBT-70s anyway.
I suspect that 120mm was chosen – for Leo 2 – as perhaps Chieftain had set the template? It would be no fun for the Germans to start from scratch developing a missile system after Shillelaghs’ flaws became evident. Perhaps that was indeed the reason for considering a fit (of a 120mm) to MBT-70; perhaps I’ve answered my own question!
But all this is pie in the sky: nowhere can I find anything definitive re the pursuit of a 120mm; it’s all very frustrating.
First there was the dual-use gun tube, with rifling for conventional shells and a straight slot “key way” for the rocket because it had to be launched without spin. That means either way there couldn’t be an efficient gas seal.
Then there was the rocket itself. Aside from the cost compared to a simple shell, it had a two-stage motor - the first stage punted it out of the gun tube to a distance of about 100 feet, at which point the main rocket kicked in to power it to the target. There are hilarious tales of test-fires where the rocket went about 100 feet, fell to the ground pointing any which way, and only then the main motor fired up, sending an essentially unguided missile off at a random direction.
As Tom has described, it was a mixture problems that sealed its fate (within the MBT-70 programme); that said, let’s not forget though, it was also fielded in Sheridan and the M60A2; in Sheridan mode it went to the Gulf and seems to have acquitted itself well enough. When trawling for info about this I came across several accounts whereby Sheridan crews extolled its virtues (when it worked) and its inherent lethality. We should perhaps factor in here that soldiers will always attempt to get the best from whatever they are issued, and make the most of it.
I suspect that with a little further development, it could have been a very versatile piece of kit, and of course, concomitant with that is the assumed successful development of the 152mm ammo designed for the gun/launcher as well. I imagine an APFSDS 152mm would make anyone’s teeth rattle at the receiving end. I can’t quite see a T-10 or T-64 even coping with that!
I am sure there is more to it than that - ie my somewhat scant knowledge of missile systems is just that - scant; it might also be noted that the French developed a not dissimilar missile - the ACRA - though that too never saw service.
I had a tank commander that served on Sherdans in vietnam and occasionally told stories about how powerfull the 152’s beehive round was and he mentioned no problems. I knew another guy who served on A2’s and he mentioned no problems with the rounds (but did tell stories about its cupola). I wonder if the problems mentioned are testing problems?
Page 119 of Abrams: A History of the American Main Battle Tank:
[The Germans] were less than enthusiastic about the 152mm gun-launcher. Early in the design study, the Delta-LASH system also had been considered as a main armament candidate. This consisted of the 120mm Delta gun previously described using the LASH (LAser Semi-active Homing) projectile in addition to the hypervelocity APFSDS round. Although this system was dropped early in the program, Germany continued the development of the 120mm high velocity gun and planned to arm at least some of their tanks with this weapon.
This appears to be the only mention of it, though.
I don’t have the time right now to also look through some of Spielberger’s books on the subject
Thanks Jakko; I suspected you might come through(!)
That’s actually very interesting; I certainly hadn’t heard of the Delta-LASH weapon before (what comes of not having a Hunnicutt series in the library I suppose). Interesting that there is mention of a APFSDS hyper-velocity round; one would have thought that that capability would/could be provided by the 152mm gun tube in any case - after all, 152mm calibre allows for an awful lot of propellant behind a sabot round.
Overall, this is, I suspect about the only info we’ll find; it’s certainly a first for me. I suppose, with a fair wind, that provided sufficient knowledge for me to continue with a planned 120mm gun tank version.
Thanks again - and indeed to all; not that I consider the subject closed by any means; all further discourse welcome, even if it encompasses the Shillelagh, and the 20mm come to that.
As an aside, I note that increasingly, new MBT designs are now incorporating remote weapons systems of increasing calibre size; I believe there is a French derivative sporting a 30mm cannon mounted. Does this not show the far-sightedness of those prescient designers from the 60s, who thought that say, a secondary weapon of a cannon was a good idea? Not just MBT-70, but I note that the 20mm option carried over into some of the Leopard 2 prototypes. Of course, it’s worth observing that unique amongst western tanks, the AMX 30 also sported a 20mm cannon throughout most of its service life I believe. Whether or not it had much utility I have no idea(!)
I wonder if the use of the 152mm gun in MBT70 was a case of the Germans compromising since their American partners were set on it? They certainly used rockets on the Jaguar, but that was to replace a main gun. It’s the classic tale of a weapon trying to be two things at the same time.
From all I’ve seen the conventional 152mm gun rounds were OK, and were the vast majority of what was used. The rocket was more problematic and was decidedly rare. A 152mm HE round would certainly do a lot to dismantle any MBT, whether or not it penetrated - a tank suddenly bereft of all its external fittings will be out of service just as much as one with a big hole in it!
By the way, will we see your MBT70/120mm in one of the Best Tank That Never Was campaigns? Hint, hint…
The thing is Tom, a purely HE round (HEP/HESH) is slower than a sabot round, so there’s always a chance of a miss. A kinetic round with 152mm’s worth of propellant behind it would be going some I would have thought, and would be quite accurate given the rate it is likely to have been travelling.
I’ve got so much on the go at the moment I might not manage a Kpz-70, though I have all the actors for the piece, including the wretched ACE Models 1/35 Munga, which so far, I haven’t found out how to tackle, but is almost essential for my perceived set up of the model (think Dragon’s kit box-art but with ammo and you’ll have an idea).
I’d like to say “Yes” it’ll be included, but my build rate is slackening off at the moment, so I might take a bit of a break.
But not a lot of barrel length to give it that velocity. With a lot of propellant to push it to very high velocity anyway through the XM150 barrel, it would probably also give a huge muzzle flash.
AFAIK, without having the book at hand to look it up: yes.
Barely. The case was supposed to burn up on firing, but often didn’t — leaving hot, melted bits of plastic in the chamber. Load the next round before those cool down, and it’s likely to go off while the breech is still open … This is why the M551 and M60A2 eventually lost their fume extractors and got a plain barrel instead: they were fitted with equipment that blew compressed air through the gun before the breech was opened, blowing out any smouldering remains of the case. MBT 70/KPz 70 kits invariably show the XM150 barrel with fume extractor, but I would kind of expect a production version to have a plain barrel, with compressed-air equipment inside the tank.
The 152 mm cases were also weak and could split with handling, spilling propellant. When they got damp, they swelled up which made loading difficult. In Vietnam, where this was discovered on the M551, the solution was waterproof liners, but that meant the loader had to strip those off the round before loading. On an MBT 70/KPz 70, presumably that would be done while filling the autoloader.
True - that swelling case was a problem! Not sure how well it would have played in an autoloader, with an unforgiving mechanical rammer fighting against a stuck fragile case…
A friend who worked on the Chally2 gun used to say all the tankies he met wanted a 155mm, because that packed enough punch to reduce any MBT to kit form.
I also wonder if the stubby XM150 gun would be accurate at range with a more powerful round. All in all it was a flawed system, hampered by the need to serve two purposes.
It may be Tom, that if the gun/missile mix had been fixed, then Shillelagh may have been the ammo of choice for long range engagements, and “normal” 152mm for closer targets. There wasn’t anything in the Soviet arsenal that was going to survive I would have thought, if hit, by either.
As Jakko identifies, the barrel was too short; of course, there would be nothing to prevent a longer barrel being fitted I would have thought, to address this problem, after all, the T-64’s gun is of a conventional length but can still fire a missile from it; perhaps the MBT-70 could have done the same?
From a modelling point of view, I like the stubby look of the gun as it is, it goes well with that squat, almost thuggish turret. It might be interesting thought to see what the tank would look like with a tube sans fume extractor as Jakko mentions. If I was a graphics Ninja I’d have a go at tampering with some pics, but I’m not(!) It might just have to wait until modelling time.
Here some Pics of mine. (Not already done) I build near out of box, only a matal barrel and a Friul had fit on. The racks from the smoke launchers in the kit are to short and needs to do it longer. The rear side (don’t know which is cortect) i build it into the “Munster” version using a Leopard 2 rear part.
Very nice to see! Looks great - excellent colour too. For all the interest expressed we don’t seem to see many built or on display.
How did you find the build? Mine - the only one completed so far - was destined to be a What-If Dutch version, so I made a few mods; I’ll add a pic below when I’ve finished woffling. I found it straightforward enough though; I was lucky in that the kit tracks were still viable, as I understand that sometimes they perish.
Anyway, nice to see; feel free to post more pics if you like.
My What If - although shown ad nauseum I admit:
I’m now fretting over the possibility of adding a longer barrel to one of my future builds (thanks Jakko - not(!)) see pic:
The build was okay for me (do modeling since 25 years) it is hard to find some correct pics of this. Sometimes i think we should do the best with any kits form the companys that give us. We do modeling and not copy an origin.
In my K70 i do a special construction … but i"ll “let the pics speach” we say (hope my english isn’t a full Katastrophe )
)
