Talk:MBT-70

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the MBT-70 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pritzker Military Library C‑class Low‑importance

	This article is related to the Pritzker Military Museum & Library WikiProject. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.Pritzker Military LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/PritzkerTemplate:WikiProject Pritzker-GLAMPritzker Military Library-related articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Military history: Land vehicles / Technology / European / German / North America / United States C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military land vehicles task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, it doesn't seem so. The first version [1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]