Jump to content


AMX-13/90 - T7 light tank


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

Arkhell #21 Posted 28 July 2011 - 01:21 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Beta Tester
  • 16942 battles
  • 6,748
  • Member since:
    09-20-2010
if you look at the first 2 pics you think: hmm thats pretty big for a light tank.

3th pic: no wait it's smaller tehn a leo actually -_-...

theta0123 #22 Posted 28 July 2011 - 01:59 PM

    Brigadier

  • Beta Tester
  • 8039 battles
  • 4,481
  • [FHA] FHA
  • Member since:
    07-08-2010

View PostXenomorphZeta, on 27 July 2011 - 11:53 PM, said:

T-54 is a medium tank, T-55 is an actual MBT...

Yes the T-54/T-55 is a frankenstien monster of mixed and mashed parts... but its not a full blooded MBT like the Abrams, Leopard I and Merkava....
A main battle tank is a tank wich takes over the roles of a light tank and who has firepower/armor comparable to the Heavy, and this tank replaces them.
The only diffrence between the T54 and T55, was that the T55 had a NBC protection kit,A new engine, slighty better sloped frontal hull armour, but reduced rear armour..But it was Still a medium tank

The first true main battle tanks, where the T62, Chieftain, M60 patton, Leopard 1, AMX 30. The M46-48 pattons, T54/55, centurion tank are main battle tanks only by name. With the Centurion tank being the closest to an actual MBT, because it was an "universal tank" and had taken over the role of both cruiser, light and infantry tanks.

Deleted_User_spa_746415 #23 Posted 28 July 2011 - 03:27 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 0 battles
  • 217
  • Member since:
    06-24-2011
So was the AMX-13 considered a light tank through out its life?

I somehow doubt it was classified an MBT...

ammarmar #24 Posted 28 July 2011 - 07:03 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 32863 battles
  • 2,872
  • Member since:
    01-29-2011
Classifications are tricky.

It's kind of silly to argue what is and what isn't an MBT. Tanks evolved, each new model had something in common with its predecessors and something new. It's very hard to draw a line.

Of course, tanks today are much different than tanks 50 years ago. They no longer rely that much on their armor or gun power. Armor is still there mainly to protect the crew (once hit, tank is more-or-less out of action anyway).

What wins the battle today is superior communications, battlefield awareness, passive and active observation devices etc.

pjfehily #25 Posted 28 July 2011 - 09:04 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 6268 battles
  • 72
  • Member since:
    07-06-2011
true you need new dev every month even if they are small just to keep it interesting

Snipe_307 #26 Posted 01 August 2011 - 06:07 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 1079 battles
  • 5
  • Member since:
    06-11-2011
I think that French tanks are good idea. We need something new. :D

theta0123 #27 Posted 01 August 2011 - 10:50 PM

    Brigadier

  • Beta Tester
  • 8039 battles
  • 4,481
  • [FHA] FHA
  • Member since:
    07-08-2010

View Postlavaboy, on 27 July 2011 - 06:19 PM, said:

This is stretching it a bit.

Yes it's a lovely looking tank, and yes it will probably be sweet to drive if you like light tanks but come on, it was in service from 1951 - 1992. That's 6 years after the war ended - as long as the war was.. to the present(ish) day, and buffed along its life with various minor additions and upgrades no doubt.

If the devs are looking for new tank ideas and the WW2 theme is becoming less relevant/essential I've got a few suggestions.
  • M1 Abrams
  • Merkava
  • Leopard 2
Allow me to french laugh



Tuccy #28 Posted 02 August 2011 - 10:32 AM

    Czech Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 14464 battles
  • 6,482
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    10-24-2010

View PostXenomorphZeta, on 27 July 2011 - 11:53 PM, said:

T-54 is a medium tank, T-55 is an actual MBT...

Yes the T-54/T-55 is a frankenstien monster of mixed and mashed parts... but its not a full blooded MBT like the Abrams, Leopard I and Merkava....
Actually, nope, up to T-72B the descendants of T-44 were Medium tanks - cheap, expendable. First USSR MBT was T-64, with advanced bells and whistles, morphing later to T-80, both lines came really together only with T-90 as it was found that T-72 line got closer and closer to T-64/80 line and would be superfluous to have two MBT lines (not that it worked fully out, due to factory turf fight).

Anyway, as for AMX-13, it was an interesting mix between light tank and tank destroyer and I look forward to it. Hiope we'd also get as Premium vehicle that Egyptian M4A2 Sherman with AMX-13 turret :)

theta0123 #29 Posted 02 August 2011 - 11:24 AM

    Brigadier

  • Beta Tester
  • 8039 battles
  • 4,481
  • [FHA] FHA
  • Member since:
    07-08-2010

View Posttuccy, on 02 August 2011 - 10:32 AM, said:

Actually, nope, up to T-72B the descendants of T-44 were Medium tanks - cheap, expendable. First USSR MBT was T-64, with advanced bells and whistles, morphing later to T-80, both lines came really together only with T-90 as it was found that T-72 line got closer and closer to T-64/80 line and would be superfluous to have two MBT lines (not that it worked fully out, due to factory turf fight).

Anyway, as for AMX-13, it was an interesting mix between light tank and tank destroyer and I look forward to it. Hiope we'd also get as Premium vehicle that Egyptian M4A2 Sherman with AMX-13 turret :)
aaah the M50 and M51 Super sherman.

Tuccy #30 Posted 02 August 2011 - 11:32 AM

    Czech Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 14464 battles
  • 6,482
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    10-24-2010

View Posttheta0123, on 02 August 2011 - 11:24 AM, said:

aaah the M50 and M51 Super sherman.
Nope, those were Israeli and used just French guns, but the Egyptians actually mated the entire turret of AMX-13 to Sherman, as  in:
Posted Image

And the French, conversely, mounted a turret of M-24 on AMX-13  :Smile-hiding:

MoPrime #31 Posted 02 August 2011 - 12:39 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 4694 battles
  • 432
  • Member since:
    11-15-2010
it looks like more a tank Destroyer then a Tank !!!

Maximillian #32 Posted 02 August 2011 - 07:38 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 28670 battles
  • 534
  • [MUTTS] MUTTS
  • Member since:
    07-08-2010
Interesting, do you know the reasoning behind mating the two? I have no problems seeing the superiority over the standard turret, aswell as the gun. But curious to what the main idea was. was it a attempt at "using up" existing stores of shermans with a bigger gun, or was there some deeper meaning?
Found this while looking for pics btw, a dug in sherman amx :Smile_honoring:
http://img215.images...2270sz2ovkh.jpg

Man, just found images showing the amx equipped with 4 SS11 AT missiles...thats a lot of firepower for a light tank :wub:
http://img52.imagesh...354lfjciy2k.jpg
Man, I look more and more forward to french tanks arrive in wot!

Tuccy #33 Posted 02 August 2011 - 09:19 PM

    Czech Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 14464 battles
  • 6,482
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    10-24-2010
You mean the idea behind Egyptian conversion? I think it is pretty simple: Sherman offered better protection, and more space for ammo, OTOH Egypt had only Sherman III and V, IE M4A2 and A4, and only with 75mm M3 gun. The French 75mm provided better penetration, but they were not ready (no knowledgebase, not much friends with France still etc.) to go through all the pains Israeli and French engineers had to go to mount the 75mm in Sherman turret, so they took (by their opinion) better hull and mated good gun to it, even if it meant changing turret.

Kazomir #34 Posted 03 August 2011 - 12:24 PM

    Brigadier

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

View Posttuccy, on 02 August 2011 - 11:32 AM, said:

Nope, those were Israeli and used just French guns, but the Egyptians actually mated the entire turret of AMX-13 to Sherman, as  in:
Posted Image

And the French, conversely, mounted a turret of M-24 on AMX-13  :Smile-hiding:
WTB this as premium tank ingame :D

AMX-13 is smaller than leo, lol, and faster, i wonder how you will be able to hit it from 100+ meters, hehe.

Battarias #35 Posted 18 August 2011 - 12:57 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 19613 battles
  • 90
  • Member since:
    03-30-2011
I want this tank yesterday! If WG is capable to model oscillating turret, papa's got a brand new bag!

Stop the presses, cancel all updates, forget German and Soviet tanks, this tank is the...excrement!

Could we possibly get the oscillating turret on the AMX-50 as well?

EDIT: Guess the tank on this video...

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=VQVT0bOPLqg

EDIT 2: Is it possible to keep the 'smiley face' oscillating turret looks?

http://2.bp.blogspot...00/amx13_06.jpg

Wallie81 #36 Posted 18 August 2011 - 01:39 PM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 7107 battles
  • 18
  • Member since:
    07-23-2010
From what I know the French autoloader turret will have several rapid fire shots and then a substantial reload time. Tho I don't know if this is possible in the current WOT game engine. Apart from that one would expect a T7 light to have better handling and speed in exchange for lower endurance(HP, armor). I would also imagine that the actual ammo count will be rather limited. If the autoloader holds 6 rounds, say 2 additional reloads, so 18 rounds in total.
But this is of course all speculation.

As for the MBT discussion, its rather misplaced when it takes place in this thread, but I'll add my 2 cents.

In my view you can't use the same sorting method that was used on medium/heavy tanks for determining what is and what isn't a MBT. The whole light/medium/heavy classification in WW2 evolved into MBT/AIFV concept over the years following WW2. As the T-54/55 has its roots in WW2 it is arguable whether to call it a MBT or not. But if you choose not to then you should at least recognize that is it the starting point of the MBT.
Classifing the T-72 as a medium tank is wrong. Just because it is cheap and/or doesn't have all the bells and whistles are not grounds for calling it a medium tank. The reason because it was cheap and expendable, as was mentioned, as opposed to its western counterparts is due to a difference in the idea of warfare. The USSR was about having more quantity, the west about more quality. The USSR did have 2 lines of tanks (T-54/55 > T-62/64 > T-72/80), the fact that with each step one was better equipped than the other does not change the fact that they are all classified as MBT.

Deleted_User_spa_746415 #37 Posted 18 August 2011 - 03:19 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 0 battles
  • 217
  • Member since:
    06-24-2011
Austrian TD... / light tank...

vitya_solowiew #38 Posted 18 August 2011 - 04:43 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 0 battles
  • 1
  • Member since:
    08-13-2011
легкие танки в бою просто не обходимы если игрок имеет понятие для чего он на поле боя то покостей врагам он наделает много /хотя че распинаюсь все равно ни кто не поймет :mellow: /

English in this section of the forum please

>Laughter


moe #39 Posted 24 August 2011 - 02:20 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 32164 battles
  • 778
  • Member since:
    09-09-2010
amx 13/90 characteristics

Tuccy #40 Posted 25 August 2011 - 08:00 AM

    Czech Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 14464 battles
  • 6,482
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    10-24-2010

View PostWallie81, on 18 August 2011 - 01:39 PM, said:

From what I know the French autoloader turret will have several rapid fire shots and then a substantial reload time. Tho I don't know if this is possible in the current WOT game engine. Apart from that one would expect a T7 light to have better handling and speed in exchange for lower endurance(HP, armor). I would also imagine that the actual ammo count will be rather limited. If the autoloader holds 6 rounds, say 2 additional reloads, so 18 rounds in total.
But this is of course all speculation.
That's generallyy how it was described in news about French tree...
Note: AMX-13 carried 32 rounds, ie 5 "reloads" and a bit.
What would be a nice feature - to be able to fill in empty slots in the autoloader before firing all shots. Say you engage enemy tank, fire 3 shots rapidly, then the tank is gone and you have time, so you pop down into cover and spend some time reloading these 3 rounds... Will have to suggest it ;)

Quote

As for the MBT discussion, its rather misplaced when it takes place in this thread, but I'll add my 2 cents.

In my view you can't use the same sorting method that was used on medium/heavy tanks for determining what is and what isn't a MBT. The whole light/medium/heavy classification in WW2 evolved into MBT/AIFV concept over the years following WW2. As the T-54/55 has its roots in WW2 it is arguable whether to call it a MBT or not. But if you choose not to then you should at least recognize that is it the starting point of the MBT.
Classifing the T-72 as a medium tank is wrong. Just because it is cheap and/or doesn't have all the bells and whistles are not grounds for calling it a medium tank. The reason because it was cheap and expendable, as was mentioned, as opposed to its western counterparts is due to a difference in the idea of warfare. The USSR was about having more quantity, the west about more quality. The USSR did have 2 lines of tanks (T-54/55 > T-62/64 > T-72/80), the fact that with each step one was better equipped than the other does not change the fact that they are all classified as MBT.
That's the catch - many tanks are de facto MBTs, even if designed as Mediums etc., just due to their use.
Centurion... Designed as Cruiser tank
M46/47/48 series: Designed as Medium tank
...
etc. T-54/55/62/72 were all officially described as Medium tanks, and as a different category to T-64/80 - the thought was to replace heavy tanks with MBTs in both breakthrough and serious tank killer role, and having Mediums  to fill in the gaps/exploitation etc. Of course in reality, the "Mediums" were de facto MBTs in their abilities, nonetheless the division was there officially and the MBTs were the first to get more advanced equipment (incl. tube-launched missiles etc.)

It's kinda the same way as Panther - Medium tank, but with a weight, frontal protection and armament of a contemporary Heavy. Heck, one could argue T-34 was first de facto MBT, as it had same gun as contemporary Heavy tank, and same frontal protection... Atleast until KVs got widely aplied add-on armor ;)

So let's just say that after the war, Medium got kinda blurry transformed into MBT :)




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users