Jump to content


AMX-30 will be IN GAME


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
38 replies to this topic

Waroch #21 Posted 29 August 2012 - 01:56 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 9689 battles
  • 3,332
  • Member since:
    11-18-2010

View PostAnthoniusii, on 27 August 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:

L7 and its versions in Greek army:
Uses ammos from :
USA
Israel
Germany
England
Holand

All those ammos are not exactly cloned.
They have minor to big changes but all are verified to that gun.

AMX-30- in everyones service -only ammo resource France.
Do you get the whole idea?
AMX-30B2 can not fire on move (2 lvl stabilisation like Leo1).
M48A5MOLF can !
AMX-30 was France's 2nd export success (1st was Mirage IV) though because France
sold tanks were US and Germany refused to sell.

rofl. I suppose i shouldn't spend too much time with somebody who considers the Mirage IV as France's first export success...
Now this :
Posted Image
is a Mirage IV. A strategic bomber, technologically very sophisticated and innovative for its time. It never was exported, as all the countries of the western world which could have used a strategic nuclear bomber already had their own.

As for the rest, you really should get some serious and objective info about French weapon systems (not on fanboys' websites if possible). You'll have the surprise to discover France was, and still is, one of the most important weapons seller around the world; and no, it didn't all started with the Mirage IV and the AMX 30, that was the case already long before that :rolleyes:

davl7 #22 Posted 29 August 2012 - 04:28 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 39708 battles
  • 89
  • [AGEM] AGEM
  • Member since:
    02-10-2011

View PostKellomies, on 29 August 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

Qatari (or somesuch) AMX-30s apparently mopped the floor well enough with Iraqi T-whatevers in the Gulf War you know...
Considering that the selfsame 105mm gun, bolted onto approximetely every conceivable platform the Israelis could cram it into, merrily butchered sundry well-armoured Soviet export machinery in several wars one does suspect the "not worth trying" approach to armour may not exactly have been baseless.


Right, because that was always the intent amirite guise?

hmmmmm

Cobat history

AMX-30

Qatari AMX-30s saw combat during the Gulf War at the Battle of Khafji, where on 30 January 1991 they counter-attacked in an attempt to retake the city of Khafji from Iraqi forces which had occupied it the night before. During the action, Qatari AMX-30s knocked out three Iraqi T-55s and captured four more.[129] At least one Qatari AMX-30 was lost during the battle.


Centurion

The Centurion later served in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, where it fought against US-supplied M47 Patton and M48 Patton tanks. It served with the Royal Australian Armoured Corps in Vietnam. Israel used Centurions in the 1967 Six Day War, 1973 Yom Kippur War, and during the 1975 and 1982 invasions of Lebanon. Centurions modified as APCs were used in Gaza, the West Bank and the Lebanese border. South Africa used its Centurions in Angola. The Royal Jordanian Land Force used Centurion tanks, first in 1970 to fend off a Syrian incursion within its borders during the Black September events and later in the Golan Heights in 1973.
The Israeli version of the Centurion earned its legendary status during the Battle of "The Valley of Tears" on the Golan Heights in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Less than 100 Centurion tanks of the 7th Armoured Brigade defeated the advance of some 500 Syrian T-55s and T-62s. The Sho't became emblematic of Israeli armour prowess.

not quite the same is it, i mean, honestly, given the choice, i know which i would take, i bet the AMX 30 is a good tank, but the Centurion is an awesome tank, fact.

Exocet6951 #23 Posted 29 August 2012 - 04:53 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 40798 battles
  • 2,097
  • [BALTO] BALTO
  • Member since:
    01-31-2011

View Postdavl7, on 29 August 2012 - 04:28 PM, said:

hmmmmm

Cobat history

AMX-30

Qatari AMX-30s saw combat during the Gulf War at the Battle of Khafji, where on 30 January 1991 they counter-attacked in an attempt to retake the city of Khafji from Iraqi forces which had occupied it the night before. During the action, Qatari AMX-30s knocked out three Iraqi T-55s and captured four more.[129] At least one Qatari AMX-30 was lost during the battle.


Centurion

The Centurion later served in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, where it fought against US-supplied M47 Patton and M48 Patton tanks. It served with the Royal Australian Armoured Corps in Vietnam. Israel used Centurions in the 1967 Six Day War, 1973 Yom Kippur War, and during the 1975 and 1982 invasions of Lebanon. Centurions modified as APCs were used in Gaza, the West Bank and the Lebanese border. South Africa used its Centurions in Angola. The Royal Jordanian Land Force used Centurion tanks, first in 1970 to fend off a Syrian incursion within its borders during the Black September events and later in the Golan Heights in 1973.
The Israeli version of the Centurion earned its legendary status during the Battle of "The Valley of Tears" on the Golan Heights in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Less than 100 Centurion tanks of the 7th Armoured Brigade defeated the advance of some 500 Syrian T-55s and T-62s. The Sho't became emblematic of Israeli armour prowess.

not quite the same is it, i mean, honestly, given the choice, i know which i would take, i bet the AMX 30 is a good tank, but the Centurion is an awesome tank, fact.
I don't get it, first you say you don't like intervening in "which nation has the best tank" subjects, then you do exactly that by citing historical events that simply cannot be compared.
Because you can't really compare the prowess of a slow armored tank with a well trained crew, defending on advantageous terrain against waves of tanks with shoddily trained crews, advancing through open ground, with those of a low-armored, mobile tank being used to counter-attack an occupied city.
It's apples and oranges there.

It doesn't make either tank bad, it just means that you can't say that because of it's history, the Cent is objectively better. They both has different uses, and while the Cent would be better at holding ground, the AMX30 would fare much better in a mobile war, such as the first Gulf war where indeed it did do pretty well, considering they took out some twenty tanks, including  T-72s, without suffering a single lose.

Kellomies #24 Posted 29 August 2012 - 04:59 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 15159 battles
  • 4,289
  • Member since:
    06-16-2011
Not the tank's fault its users weren't big on major land wars you know.
*shrug*
The Cent is also almost twice as heavy, half as fast, and I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that it's going to get killed just as dead by a direct hit from serious period guns. Which was kind of the point of the AMX-30/Leo 1 design; with period technology trying to defend against the rapidly improving HEAT and APDS munitions was going to entail a very serious weight penalty and likely be unsuccesful anyway (given what the 105mm guns did to Soviet designs that tried that route), why bother in the first place? Making the vehicle light and fast instead at least gave any number of logistics- and maneuverability-related benefits and allowed reaching advantageous positions (or getting away from serious trouble) with that much less time spent out in the open as a target...

Nixouf #25 Posted 29 August 2012 - 06:11 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 8499 battles
  • 1,020
  • Member since:
    01-13-2012

View PostExocet6951, on 29 August 2012 - 04:53 PM, said:

It's apples and oranges there.

It doesn't make either tank bad, it just means that you can't say that because of it's history,

It's not even tanks of the same era. Amx30/Leopard program was to replace the tanks like Centurion, which it did. Centurion is post WW2, Amx30/Leopard is sixties program. Better compare Renault FT with Char leclerc

sukhoi47 #26 Posted 13 October 2012 - 04:20 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 12251 battles
  • 16
  • Member since:
    05-06-2012
Well he probably was refering to Mirage III.... But nice confusion though XD
I'm coming back to the leopard1 : Its lack of armour is due to german (and NATO's) strategy The leos were supposed to locate fast in bunkers specially designed for them in the few regions soviet tanks could have attacked. So since the bunker provided the armor the best was to increase mobility by reducing tank armor...
The AMX 30 had better armor since it was supposed to fight on an open battlefield.
That increase of armor thickness wasn't very important but definetly helped against blast effects or standard airfighters' gun.
Anyway at the time armor thickness was only an effect of armies' strategies. Let me remember one of the main point of MBTs was to reduce armor (and neither did the chieftain had the armor of the most heavy tanks of 1950's)
Concerning the common develloppement of Leclerc auto loader with USSR............................
Well it's well known that after the french communist leader Mitterrand was elected in 1981 France left NATO and joined Warsaw pact......... French occupation zone in West germany was given to East Germany.... Farewell then became code name of the military cooperation between France and USSR....
XDDDD
I mean have you ever read the "cold war" article on Wikipedia ? Do you realize the total nonsense it is to say a NATO standard MBT like theeclerc having parts designed in the USSR ?  You are trolling that post man !

Exocet6951 #27 Posted 13 October 2012 - 05:10 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 40798 battles
  • 2,097
  • [BALTO] BALTO
  • Member since:
    01-31-2011

View Postsukhoi47, on 13 October 2012 - 04:20 PM, said:

Concerning the common develloppement of Leclerc auto loader with USSR............................
Well it's well known that after the french communist leader Mitterrand was elected in 1981 France left NATO and joined Warsaw pact......... French occupation zone in West germany was given to East Germany.... Farewell then became code name of the military cooperation between France and USSR....
XDDDD

Yes, a very well known series of events, that ended with the tragic 1982 Soviet/French cheese debacle, that ultimately ended their cooperation, and won France much needed favor to NATO.

H4RT_of_STEAL #28 Posted 13 October 2012 - 05:45 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 40960 battles
  • 1,376
  • [GO-HA] GO-HA
  • Member since:
    03-25-2011

View Postsukhoi47, on 13 October 2012 - 04:20 PM, said:

Well he probably was refering to Mirage III.... But nice confusion though XD
I'm coming back to the leopard1 : Its lack of armour is due to german (and NATO's) strategy The leos were supposed to locate fast in bunkers specially designed for them in the few regions soviet tanks could have attacked. So since the bunker provided the armor the best was to increase mobility by reducing tank armor...
The AMX 30 had better armor since it was supposed to fight on an open battlefield.
That increase of armor thickness wasn't very important but definetly helped against blast effects or standard airfighters' gun.
Anyway at the time armor thickness was only an effect of armies' strategies. Let me remember one of the main point of MBTs was to reduce armor (and neither did the chieftain had the armor of the most heavy tanks of 1950's)
Concerning the common develloppement of Leclerc auto loader with USSR............................
Well it's well known that after the french communist leader Mitterrand was elected in 1981 France left NATO and joined Warsaw pact......... French occupation zone in West germany was given to East Germany.... Farewell then became code name of the military cooperation between France and USSR....
XDDDD
I mean have you ever read the "cold war" article on Wikipedia ? Do you realize the total nonsense it is to say a NATO standard MBT like theeclerc having parts designed in the USSR ?  You are trolling that post man !
say what...you consider the amx30 to be better armoured the the leo1? ...not really. the first models were alsmost equal but the leo always had the edge over it...but the later generations added more and more armoru until it grew up to 5 tons heavier.
ok those are late production models but still, the amx never ahd superior armor

Timberjac #29 Posted 13 October 2012 - 05:47 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 22664 battles
  • 224
  • [L-R-A] L-R-A
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011

View PostColonel_Boom, on 05 July 2012 - 03:19 PM, said:

Firstly, it isn't the final tech tree. Don't think that because if you do then you will be disappointed or raging the Devs.

Well, to the AMX30. The project "Standardpanzer" consisted of 4 development teams. 1 of them was french. Dev team C had to stop before the first prototypes. So Team A and B were designing the Standardpanzer together later. The french guys developed on their own and the AMX 30 was the result while the other guys build prototypes for the Leopard which had 70mm front armor and could reach a topspeed of 73 km/h with a 830 HP engine.

The big problem is the ingame balancing. You can hardly bring in such tanks when the Batchat is already there. There could be the solution to make the types of armor relevant. But such a system will take some time to implement so you can be sure that these tanks will come next year or the following years afterwards...
For example the Leo used a 105mm L7A3 which was slightly modified to fit the gun into the turret and to reach -9 degrees of gun depression. The AMX 30 used its own 105mm DEFA gun.

mfg boom

The only real option. Delete batchat

Or make a tier VI light tanks for all countries and set the batchat here. Or better do a line of light tanks until tier 8 and set several frenchs tanks here.

AmazingChickens #30 Posted 13 October 2012 - 06:01 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 10219 battles
  • 294
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011
Replying to the person with the satanic Ned Flanders avatar :

Why would the centurion beat the amx?
They both have no issue penetrating each other so therefore most of the time the AMX would win due to having better fire control systems; it would shoot first destroying the centurion the only way for the centurion to win would be a tactical advantage, unfortunately the AMX's "useless" speed means that its more likley to get the advantage

PS: you forgot to mention what type of centurion, Im sure that the A41 wouldn't fare well with its 17 lbr (neither would one with a sword TBH but lets not go there).

Replying to topic:

How are they going to balance its 560mm pen heat round?

Edited by AmazingChickens, 21 October 2012 - 03:22 PM.


sukhoi47 #31 Posted 13 October 2012 - 07:30 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 12251 battles
  • 16
  • Member since:
    05-06-2012
I insist initial versions of Amx were (slightly) better armored as leo1s... It's only after Bundeswehr partly changed its sniping tactic that they added armor...
I know the usual un-historical datas of Wargaming but id these tanks were to be introduced they should be kept at their initial capacities...
Just imagine  a Brennus Amx vs tier 8 tanks XD
(tout aussi connu par les milieux pas du tout droitiers de Washington : PS=parti soviétique XD)

NemesiScorpene #32 Posted 14 October 2012 - 12:06 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Clan Diplomat
  • 16486 battles
  • 1,165
  • Member since:
    02-24-2012

View PostAnthoniusii, on 06 July 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:


Re-uses a autoloader designed by Russians!!
That co-operation started in the last years of Soviet Union when French wanted to develop AMX 40



I laugh !
There is no foreign technology in the Leclerc, except for the tracks which are based on the one of the Tiger, like all the MBT nowadays.

It's true that there is today some important cooperation between France and Russia (on Space tech, Aero IT, Engineering etc.) but the Leclerc was something like "ITAR free". The fact is that the Russian tank at the time get a similar philosophy in ammo way to the gun, but philosophy doesn't mean technology. It's similar to pretend that the firing while driving of the Abrams, T90 and Challenger are a cooperation with France, because the Leclerc can shot while moving too.
But it's false. And the one who have seen a Leclerc shooting when driving and a Challenger totally understand that. One can shot with the gun aiming 360° around the tank at full speed on a moving duck, whereas the other can just shot the front sector at 15 km/h on a steady plastron.

But, I guess you have some problem with French, so it comes into your opinion.

Kazomir #33 Posted 14 October 2012 - 12:12 PM

    Brigadier

  • Beta Tester
  • 16676 battles
  • 4,718
  • Member since:
    08-15-2010

View PostDerRizerPin, on 08 July 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

Someone say something awesome about the amx 30 because its one im after i consider myself getting it, Although i will wait to see its final release and stats first theirs no point in getting the amx 30 if its going to be a paper sheet.

Well it has 65 km/h max speed.

That makes it 25 km/h more than the Demi-chieftain.

Exocet6951 #34 Posted 14 October 2012 - 12:25 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 40798 battles
  • 2,097
  • [BALTO] BALTO
  • Member since:
    01-31-2011
And it has a 20mm autocannon, so if multi-gun support ever graces the amx-30, expect pew pew-ing US heavies in the rear armor!

GrahamSoul #35 Posted 10 November 2012 - 02:07 PM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 26511 battles
  • 34
  • Member since:
    01-03-2011
Doesn't it also have some sort of really accurate HE round?  Any-ways I'll probably go for this even it has not so good armour, 65kmh is pretty scary in wot.

Edited by GrahamSoul, 10 November 2012 - 02:08 PM.


Kellomies #36 Posted 14 November 2012 - 04:59 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 15159 battles
  • 4,289
  • Member since:
    06-16-2011
You're probably thinking of the apparently somewhat famous Obus G HEAT shell, which got around the problem of spin-stabilisation messing with jet formation by separating the warhead from the casing with ball bearings.

TxCRP #37 Posted 16 November 2012 - 12:00 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 6901 battles
  • 205
  • Member since:
    05-22-2011

View PostAnthoniusii, on 06 July 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:

Re-uses a autoloader designed by Russians!!
The millitary pack had exchange of millitary technologies such -for example-night vision devices from french and autoloader technology from soviets.

To end up with the autoload system :

Here is the manuel of the T-80 Russian tank of 1980 area developement (period where the leclerc was develop) in page 52 to 55 you can see how work the autoload system on this tank. A two part ammo (charge + projectile two separate part) coming vertical way from the hull and then loaded in the turret on the horizontal way to the tube. A very clever system that allow them to have small rounded turret but with a drawback when the ammorack was hit made the turret pop of like champagne bottle that why we can see picture of T-72 T-80.... destroy with the turret 30meter away from the hull
http://www.steelbeas..._versionid=5896

In this video you can see the loading system of a leclerc in action the ammo (charge + projectile in one element) comming from the back of the turret horizontaly direct load in the tube. The ammorack at the back of the turret (like most NATO tank Abrahams leopard) made it bigger but in case of hit it doesn't blow up the inside it's study to made the explode blast going out of the tank for more survibility to the crew.
http://www.bing.com/...BA9B80B&first=0

Edited by TxCRP, 16 November 2012 - 12:02 PM.


Waroch #38 Posted 17 November 2012 - 08:04 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 9689 battles
  • 3,332
  • Member since:
    11-18-2010

View PostAmazingChickens, on 13 October 2012 - 06:01 PM, said:


How are they going to balance its 560mm pen heat round?

it's less than that. Even the most sophisticated HEAT shells designs are limited to about four times the caliber of the gun, i.e. in the 400-450mm RHAe range for the obus G  105mm. Still better than the 350-380mm RHAe then in service in other countries.


View PostNemesiScorpene, on 14 October 2012 - 12:06 PM, said:


It's true that there is today some important cooperation between France and Russia (on Space tech, Aero IT, Engineering etc.) but the Leclerc was something like "ITAR free". The fact is that the Russian tank at the time get a

In tank designs too. Latest Russian tanks use French-made optics. Same goes for South Korea AFAIK

touristtam #39 Posted 26 November 2012 - 09:54 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12540 battles
  • 209
  • Member since:
    04-17-2011
Er .... all your "ma tank is better than your tank" discussion are pulling us away from the very simple question: WHEN?


=============================================================================================


For the Leo/AMX30: the philosophy was that more armour versus more speed wasn't even a question at that time.

Since any tank can be taken out with "infantry weapon" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MILAN for example), It should have better mobility. You have to consider, as well, that the soviet was considered to have an overwhelming higher number of vehicle, in case of a soviet invasion on Western Europe and we all know better mobility is worth more than heavier armoured vehicle (specially when those are in smaller number). Although the defence system of each nation in the NATO pact relied a lot more of preventing war with the Warsaw pact through air force and nuclear power.

As for the export, this has always been the case that the French, the British and the USA have been battling a way or another to sell their gear to other nation while trying to prevent other selling nation from doing the same. Just have a look at the army modernisation of Poland and the like in the aftermath of the Warsaw pact collapse. This is partly a political issue that should not be discussed with opinionated answer's on such a forum dedicated to a game.

Tam




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users