Talk:MBT-70

Copyrighted material

Most of this article (except the images and the table) seems to be copied word by word from Fabian Prado's ARMOR Site!, which is also used as source (btw. it seems to be self-published). I already started to imporve/rewrite the page in my Userpage, I will replace this article as soon as I've finished this. So, if you wan't to contribute there, feel free. --Tim.vogt (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It's probably the other way round: Fpado lists he MBT-70 page as updated in July 2006. --Denniss (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't seem so. The first version had the same words in the same order(!!!) as fpardo's page (which btw. was started 1997, unluckily it is unknown how it looked prior). So, it seems like someone started the page with c&p. --Tim.vogt (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Please don't assume our site contains c&p material just because we have an article history and the other site not. Without exact knowledge of the creation date at fprado we can't assume anything. Especially as fprado does not state a single source. The first archived version of the MBT-70 article is of July 9 2006. Unless the article was moved we could assume c&p from our article. --Denniss (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

My point is, that the archieved version from the ARMOR-site is having the same word order as the oldest MBT-70 article on Wikipedia, while later versions (e.g. the wikipedia version from 1st June 2006 include minor changes. So F.Prado would have copied the article from 2003, which somehow shows how unsifignant the usage of web.archive.org in this case is. If you still believe [www.fprado.com/armorsite/mbt_70.htm www.fprado.com/armorsite/mbt_70.htm] copied from Wikipedia, then it shouldn't be used as source in this article. --Tim.vogt (talk) 21:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Metric vs. SAE engineering

Did the engineers design two different versions of this tank, one with metrically-calibrated parts and one with inch-calibrated parts, or did they have to finely engineer the tanks so that either metric or SAE parts would fit into the same tank? Axeman (talk) 01:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Presumably the parts were all the same size, whether metric or SAE. The same was done with Concorde, the French designers used metric measurements, the British, imperial. The parts from the two countries all fitted together just fine.

Surviving prototypes

While at Basic/AIT at Fort Knox (July - December 1997) I saw a restored prototype that is not listed here. Several sites list this hull as "restored in preparation for relocation to Fort Lee." What sort of research needs to be done to get that hull added to the list of surviving prototypes? —Sleet01 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

If you have photographs, add them to Wikimedia Commons. If you know other documents, provide required information (also URL if available) pointing to them. ⸻Nikolas Ojala (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Mobility section vs. Comparative table

The details of the MBT-70 and Kpz-70 do not line up in the Mobility section compared to the Comparative table. I attempted to updated the MBT-70 part which I was able to verify, but the sources provided for the Kpz-70 have conflicting information, although I am heavily inclined to belive the info from Jane's Weapon Systems 1969–1970 due to the data in the Comparative table listing the top Speed of the Kpz-70 at 68 km/h and range 580km, yet the MBT-70 has a top speed of 68 km/h but only a range of 645km. The Kpv-70 also has the more powerful engine at 1500bhp compared to the MBT-70 1475bhp which also points towards a slight speed difference.

The section on the MBT-70 in the comparative table sourced from Hunnicutt, Richard Pearce (1990), is wrong and is the data from the XM803 with its derated engine (1250bhp, top speed 64.37 km/h, range 643.7km alledgedly). Sionso (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)