Military Discussion Thread

[dm 9]

ah i'm not refering to you in this case.

Then dont quote me ;)

dude is not made to land people on a beach for example,it can't transport infantry.and i don't think will explode so easily.of course it can't resist against a javelin or milan.but an rpg 7 is something different.you should consider also this vehicle has a lower profile and a superior agility/speed comparated with other tanks.

So why make a fuss about it being amphibious? Around 60% of all waterways in europe are bridgeable using the NATO standard bridging equipment; chieftain/titan, Biber, Panzerschnellbrücke 2, and m60/m1 AVLBs, or any of the NATO General Support Bridges, or all of them using Ribbon bridge systems. Being able to float across the river at a leisurely 7km/h isnt a huge speed advantage.

I also never mentioned using it to land personnel, just its self. How else would it get ashore? :j:

As for AT survivability, the much heavier and better armoured Bradley, Warrior, Abrams, and various other armoured vehicles have been penetrated by RPG-7's. Its why they are deploying much more applique armour to those theatres of war. Face it - a standard AMX10RC, which can have no more than about 8 tons of armour, will not stand up to much. Vehicles in the same category are normally protected against somewhere between 14.5 and 23mm AP rounds. Which is not enough to defeat RPG strikes. Do you really think it has more than 330mm of armour protection? (Which is what the most BASIC model RPG-7 can penetrate).

As for lower profiles, its only 20 cm shorter than Challenger 2, and 15cm shorter than M1 Abrams, and they are fully-fledged MBTs. CVR(T) Scimitar (which would be the closest approximation in the British inventory) is 19cm shorter, 8.8 tons lighter and just as fast. The only difference is that the AMX has a bigger gun, which isnt really all that neccessary for recon.

well but in afghanistan tanks have not a bigger threats than rpg 7.and the amx10rc is 15 tons not 40.

No, because EFP IEDs are not a big threat :j:

Also, I know that the AMX 10 weighs 16.6 tons, what you have failed to see is my analogy:

Most AFV's deployed to Iraq/Afghanistan are equipped with ADDITIONAL armour which weighs approximately the same as the ENTIRE armour package of the AMX10RC. They have been fitted with that armour because their existing armour packages (where the ~40 tons comes from) is not enough to defeat the RPG and IED threat.

So for clarity:

AMX10RC: 16.6 tons, of which probably about 7 - 8 tons is armour.

CR2: 62.5 tons, of which approximately 30-40 tons is armour. Plus an additional 8-9 tons of armour in the old Dorchester Level 2 configuration (recent upgrades have replaced this with new ERA/chobham combinations, as well as extra mine protection, which would probably be even heavier)

M1A2: 69.5 tons, of which about 30 - 40 tons is armour. Plus an additional 7 - 10 tons as part of the TUSK upgrade.

Point being - these massively armoured vehicles are reciveing extra armour with the same overall weight as the entire armour of the AMX. The AMX is not "tough" by any stretch of the imagination.

dude you are thinking like a cod player.not an offence but...

first this vehicle is not created to engage MBT.but if that will ever happen you can even "win" that fight.

Uh, no. I'm thinking like someone who is trying to counter your ridiculous claims of "it can kill anything"

probably what you don't realize is:if an amxrc10 spot a challenger and if it start to shoot then you don't need to stay there until you have completely destroyed the other tank.you put an hit on it or 2(depends)and you move away.is not like a tank vs tank in berzerk map you know,and for me with 1 105 mm hit you can damage or stop that tank which is pretty much a good job.the reason why nato has switched from 105mm to 120 mm is not because 105 mm is totally pointless at the moment but because they want to maximise the power.

Also fairly sure I realise that a lot more than you do. I'm thinking in terms of real world engagements, NOT in terms of some ArmA match.

Plainly put, even if the AMX managed to get one, maybe two rounds off, the MBTs will cut it to bits like cheese.

And the reason NATO switched from 105 to 120mm was, plain and simply: T-62. Around the 1960s, development work was starting on future MBTs (or actually, the very first true western MBT - Chieftain) and the design required a gun that could penetrate 120mm of RHA armour. Incidentally, the size of gun they came up with to do this was also 120mm. Thus the various 120mm rifled and smoothbore cannons which are commonplace today were created.

Sure 120mm is "pointless" in Afghanistan, where they have no heavy armour. But it prooved its worth in both Iraq wars, dealing with all of Iraqs heavy armour with ease.

mmm i don't know how you desumed it but is not true.of course it has a turret stabilization system working togheter a FCS.it has NV.

source:

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMX-10RC (in italian i can't find in english on wikipedia)

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/amx/.

I came to this conclusion based on a quick bit of googleing:

fas.org

Specifically:

Stabilized: No

I can find plenty of reference which supports the night vision upgrades, but nothing mentioning the stabilisation of the main armament.

Oh, and to find it on the english wikipedia, either just search, or change the it to en. Its not rocket science.

dude to be honest we are talking about french.is 1 of the best, probably 1 of the 4 nations,which makes the best military vehicles/jets/weapons in the world.and we are in 2010,is not possible that a vehicle such as amx10rc can't shoot while moving.

Oh yes, it really is. Whilst I have no doubt as to the quality of french weapon systems, we're talking about a vehicle first built in the late 70's. Not everything on the battlefield is cutting edge...

curious.then how the nazis were able to make their(was not thinked by the nazis but well they adopted it)famous Blitzkrieg?you can advance you consolidate your position,you open the way for the rest of your army and then you wait for supplies...

anyway the fuel trucks and ecc. can even reach 100km on street so..

Yes, and we all saw (time and time again) what happens when you out-run your supply chain...

And whilst the trucks might be rated for 100km/h, standard military procedures often call for limited convoy speeds. You will find that the vast majority of military convoys operate in the 40 - 55 km/h range. So you can zoom ahead in your speedy recon vehicle, but you best hope you dont get too far, or you'll be out there for a long time on your own. Not cool in the day and age of Longbow radars and hellfire missiles.

but is not a "pure recon" vehicle.for that french forces can use this 1:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ERC_90_Sagaie

what is good with this vehicle is his versatility:agility,aphibious capability,good firepower,speed,ac130 capability.

I'm not doubting its versatility. I'm doubting its other qualities ;) Also, yaay, another ridiculously over-armed wheeled recon vehicle. Gotta give it to the designers, they love to put entirely unsuitable armament on wheeled chassis...

mmm that was a troll statment dude :rolleyes:

is in the same category with vehicles like these:

Oh yay, the good old "troll" defence. Awesome.

I call it crap because it really is. It was designed in the 70's for a niche job, which on the modern battlefield is rapidly becoming redundant.

It would make a reasonable fire support vehicle - never a good one, because of limited ammunition supply - but thats about it.

if you are fighting an asymmetrical war you don't need a fat 60 tons lazy beast which can be easily ambushed especially in some scenarios.this kind of vehicle are more suitable.

I'm sorry, but since when is 60 km/h lazy?

And in an ambush situation I know what I'd rather be in: the 62 ton (plus applique armour) tank.

Challenger 2 has proven survivability in these ambush situations time and again, surviving RPG hits over and over. In one documented case it survived 8 rpgs and a milan, and in another case one survived 70 rpg hits. Something this light wheeled vehicle could not even dream of doing.

Oh, and you can have all the speed in the world, but if your tyres are shot to shit, you're not going anywhere. If you've got run-flats you can limp away at a greatly reduced speed, but not for very long, and not for very far. But thats ok, because you're nice and close to your supply chain... right?

Edited June 5, 2010 by DM

[Tonci87 163]

LOL, this conversation is really funny ^^

(And BTW DM is right)

[*LK1* 10]

mmm is not anymore interesting this discussion you know.you keep specifing useless things and you are confusing the point of the discussion.

So why make a fuss about it being amphibious? Around 60% of all waterways in europe are bridgeable using the NATO standard bridging equipment; chieftain/titan, Biber, Panzerschnellbrücke 2, and m60/m1 AVLBs, or any of the NATO General Support Bridges, or all of them using Ribbon bridge systems. Being able to float across the river at a leisurely 7km/h isnt a huge speed advantage.

simple because you lose time if you need to wait for the bridging equipment.

because while you are fighting and you need to cross a river,during a tactical maneuver,you wouldn't wait for a NATO standard bridging equipment :rolleyes:

because the 40%(which is not a little percentage),according with your stats..,of all waterways in europe are not bridgeable...

i can see a a couple of serious reasons to make vehicles anphibious...

Being able to float across the river at a leisurely 7km/h isnt a huge speed advantage.

you dont need to have an HUUUUUGE advantage to justify the existence of a

engineering solution.is it an advantage?yes.then is enough for having it.

especially if you dont need to spend tons of money and time to add a feature.i wouldn't understimate the anphibious capability of a vehicle as you are doing.

I also never mentioned using it to land personnel, just its self. How else would it get ashore?

i know but i had a doubt since you have said:

Meh, I wouldnt want to be in or anywhere near this thing on a beach landing. If AT gunners even look at it it'll explode. And being big is not an advantage - it just makes you an easier target.

the anphibious capability is not only to let the vehicles land on a beach.

but even to cross rivers.so you may thought this vehicle is a sort of aav7a1

which is not.or maybe you have just used a wrong example.well np anyway.

this is not a big problem.

As for AT survivability, the much heavier and better armoured Bradley, Warrior, Abrams, and various other armoured vehicles have been penetrated by RPG-7's. Its why they are deploying much more applique armour to those theatres of war. Face it - a standard AMX10RC, which can have no more than about 8 tons of armour, will not stand up to much. Vehicles in the same category are normally protected against somewhere between 14.5 and 23mm AP rounds. Which is not enough to defeat RPG strikes. Do you really think it has more than 330mm of armour protection? (Which is what the most BASIC model RPG-7 can penetrate).

you are funny i don't need to face anything.since i never said is completely immune at any threat.this vehicles was made as a response of the military requests of the french army on the ex-colonies.and no.an rpg-7

isn't yet penetrated an abrams or warrior or a bradley.if you mean a double warhead probably it can.but not a simple crap rpg 7.i guess you are confusing damaging with penetrating :j:

sure this kind of old tube can damage an abrams but i dont think is able to penetrate his armour.

Bradley, Warrior, Abrams, and various other armoured vehicles have been penetrated by RPG-7's. Its why they are deploying much more applique armour to those theatres of war. Face it - a standard AMX10RC, which can have no more than about 8 tons of armour, will not stand up to much.

Vehicles in the same category are normally protected against somewhere between 14.5 and 23mm AP rounds.

which category?you were talking about bradley and abrams.noone of them are in the same category with the amx10rc.i told you in my last post which kind of vehicle are in the same category with this french vehicle.

As for lower profiles, its only 20 cm shorter than Challenger 2, and 15cm shorter than M1 Abrams, and they are fully-fledged MBTs. CVR(T) Scimitar (which would be the closest approximation in the British inventory) is 19cm shorter, 8.8 tons lighter and just as fast. The only difference is that the AMX has a bigger gun, which isnt really all that neccessary for recon.

omg.there is just a "little" mistake.a scimitar is completely different and not comparable.amx is not entirely dedicated to recon missions.do you know this vehicle during desert storm was on the front line with the french foreign legion to engage enemy tanks?

No, because EFP IEDs are not a big threat

i'm not saying IED are not a threat mmm.but seems like you don't know that the best solution against IED is not to add extra armour package.this solution is used to make more resistant vehicles which are not made to deal with IED.

do you know US army is using strykers in iraq even because are more resistant against ied than bradleys?do you know a stryker is lighter than bradley?the key against IED is to have a vehicle which the lower part is not very close to the ground and the shape.

amx10rc is not made to deal with IED but for the 2 things explained above is much better than a bradley in this case.

Also, I know that the AMX 10 weighs 16.6 tons, what you have failed to see is my analogy:

Most AFV's deployed to Iraq/Afghanistan are equipped with ADDITIONAL armour which weighs approximately the same as the ENTIRE armour package of the AMX10RC. They have been fitted with that armour because their existing armour packages (where the ~40 tons comes from) is not enough to defeat the RPG and IED threat.

So for clarity:

AMX10RC: 16.6 tons, of which probably about 7 - 8 tons is armour.

CR2: 62.5 tons, of which approximately 30-40 tons is armour. Plus an additional 8-9 tons of armour in the old Dorchester Level 2 configuration (recent upgrades have replaced this with new ERA/chobham combinations, as well as extra mine protection, which would probably be even heavier)

M1A2: 69.5 tons, of which about 30 - 40 tons is armour. Plus an additional 7 - 10 tons as part of the TUSK upgrade.

Point being - these massively armoured vehicles are reciveing extra armour with the same overall weight as the entire armour of the AMX. The AMX is not "tough" by any stretch of the imagination.

thx for the known info but.i never said m1a2 or challenger are crap comparated with amx.and if you were exposing this dates to provetheir superiority you are failing.they have 2 different tasks simply.

Uh, no. I'm thinking like someone who is trying to counter your ridiculous claims of "it can kill anything"

Also fairly sure I realise that a lot more than you do. I'm thinking in terms of real world engagements, NOT in terms of some ArmA match.

Plainly put, even if the AMX managed to get one, maybe two rounds off, the MBTs will cut it to bits like cheese.

well if you are not able to understand a 105 mm is enough to damage anything you can see on a modern bf is not my problem.

and yes you are.as i said you are talking with the tpyical attitude of a cod 6 player.what you probably don't know,and i have to repeat it,a 105 mm is enough to disable even a challenger or what you want.you don't need to kill him.if you put a shell on the turret of the tank you have high chances to damage the thermal view/FCS or the movement capability of the turret.

if you shoot on the left or right side of a tank you have many chances to

block it.a 105 mm is enough to do these stuff.

and 1 more time.the task of an amx is not to engage enemy MBT even if he can do that.

so is completely no sense to claim"ah a challenger or an abrams" will always win!and also is a typical cod 6 immature attitude.it seems like you are doing a sort of national geographic comparison:which is the best? the bear or the lion?the snake or my daddy?jeees...

And the reason NATO switched from 105 to 120mm was, plain and simply: T-62. Around the 1960s, development work was starting on future MBTs (or actually, the very first true western MBT - Chieftain) and the design required a gun that could penetrate 120mm of RHA armour. Incidentally, the size of gun they came up with to do this was also 120mm. Thus the various 120mm rifled and smoothbore cannons which are commonplace today were created.

is called maximising the power.that doesn't mean that a 105 mm can't damage a modern tank.so let me know,are you trying to refute statments i never posted?

I came to this conclusion based on a quick bit of googleing:

fas.org

Specifically:

I can find plenty of reference which supports the night vision upgrades, but nothing mentioning the stabilisation of the main armament.

oh here we are.you come to a conclusion...:rolleyes:

well i have another conclusion since this vehicle was constantly updated from 1970,since was used as a "MBT" during the advance of the french foreign legion in desert storm i'm highly doubting that is not able to shoot while is moving...and even if is not written on your source,which i can't know and i'm not sure that is more credible than wikipedia(and wikipedia techincally is not a source but a collector of source..). that doesn't mean you are in true.means your source is not complete.

i mean is so easy to understand you are talking a big bullshit :j:...french foreign legion wouldn't use this vehicle like a front line tank during desert storm if was not able to shoot while is moving.

Oh yes, it really is. Whilst I have no doubt as to the quality of french weapon systems, we're talking about a vehicle first built in the late 70's. Not everything on the battlefield is cutting edge...

ever heard about "updating"?

Yes, and we all saw (time and time again) what happens when you out-run your supply chain...

And whilst the trucks might be rated for 100km/h, standard military procedures often call for limited convoy speeds. You will find that the vast majority of military convoys operate in the 40 - 55 km/h range. So you can zoom ahead in your speedy recon vehicle, but you best hope you dont get too far, or you'll be out there for a long time on your own. Not cool in the day and age of Longbow radars and hellfire missiles.

do i have said if you have a vehicle able to reach 85 km you need to drive wherever you want like a fool?

do you really need to explain me about the supply chain and how is dangerous to go outta there in the age of the longbow radar?

is speed make this vehicle able to reach any obj more faster than other armoured vehicles.that all.and is not a little advantage.

but of course that doesn't mean you can go wherever you want and you can forgive about the rest of you army.

I'm not doubting its versatility. I'm doubting its other qualities ;) Also, yaay, another ridiculously over-armed wheeled recon vehicle. Gotta give it to the designers, they love to put entirely unsuitable armament on wheeled chassis...

...................bah.

I call it crap because it really is. It was designed in the 70's for a niche job, which on the modern battlefield is rapidly becoming redundant.

that old word...."updating".

It would make a reasonable fire support vehicle - never a good one, because of limited ammunition supply - but thats about it

well now i have a doubt,do you have a short memory or you are trolling me again?

it can carry 40 shell and it has 4000 bullets for the coax.is pretty much the standard for a MBTand is not a MBT.you cant carry more shells until you don't start to put some....right there.

Challenger 2 has proven survivability in these ambush situations time and again, surviving RPG hits over and over. In one documented case it survived 8 rpgs and a milan, and in another case one survived 70 rpg hits. Something this light wheeled vehicle could not even dream of doing.

good to know but is pointless for our discussion.

you wanna see me writing "challenger is much better of an AMX".

ok well in most of the cases it is.but that was not the point of the discussion.

LOL, this conversation is really funny ^^

(And BTW DM is right)

nah is not.when someone can't admit a fail and is changing intentionally the point of the discussion plus is reporting stuff you never said is not funny at all.is just boring.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

edit:

I came to this conclusion based on a quick bit of googleing:

fas.org

I came to this conclusion based on a quick bit of googleing:

fas.org

Specifically:

Quote:

Stabilized: No

lol what a bullshit i've searched on your link and is not written "stabilized :no"

plz dont trolling me out

Edited June 30, 2010 by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

[echo1 0]

dude to be honest we are talking about french.is 1 of the best, probably 1 of the 4 nations,which makes the best military vehicles/jets/weapons in the world.and we are in 2010,is not possible that a vehicle such as amx10rc can't shoot while moving.

This is truly the stuff of famous last words.

well i have another conclusion since this vehicle was constantly updated from 1970,since was used as a "MBT" during the advance of the french foreign legion in desert storm i'm highly doubting that is not able to shoot while is moving...and even if is not written on your source,which i can't know and i'm not sure that is more credible than wikipedia(and wikipedia techincally is not a source but a collector of source..). that doesn't mean you are in true.means your source is not complete.

Again, your point is basically "the French use it, so you must be wrong". So I guess in the absence of any proper argument I can fight fire with fire with two words - "Maginot line"

and yes you are.as i said you are talking with the tpyical attitude of a cod 6 player.what you probably don't know,and i have to repeat it,a 105 mm is enough to disable even a challenger or what you want.you don't need to kill him.if you put a shell on the turret of the tank you have high chances to damage the thermal view/FCS or the movement capability of the turret.

if you shoot on the left or right side of a tank you have many chances to

block it.a 105 mm is enough to do these stuff.

and 1 more time.the task of an amx is not to engage enemy MBT even if he can do that.

I'm sure if I shoot an Abrams with a 9mm in just the right place I can disable it... I think DM's point is that there's a difference between something that can do something on paper or in certain lucky circumstances, and something that can do something consistently and reliably.

Edited June 6, 2010 by echo1

[*LK1* 10]

Again, your point is basically "the French use it, so you must be wrong". So I guess in the absence of any proper argument I can fight fire with fire with two words - "Maginot line"

mmm is abit more comlplicated.but i would to know where your facts and dates are.since is very known after 1970 most of the tanks.and all the western tanks are equipped with FCS and stabilizator i wonder why the french shouldn't add it.

and it was constantly updated during these years.for me is pretty much obvious that this tank has a stabilizer.also because it was involved in a large operation as desert storm against iraqis t-72.and since what i've said above are matter of fact you should prove the contrare.i shouldn't pove something which most of the people could agree.

probably in some site which is not very accurate you will not find writing:

"m1a2 stabilizer:yes".you know.guess because is obvious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams

oh is not written m1a2 has a stabilizator...damn then they cant shoot while are moving :rolleyes:

anyway if you wanna believe that a tank of the french army,in 2010,used in afghanistan and africa is without a stabilizer you are free.sound ridicolous but you are free.

I'm sure if I shoot an Abrams with a 9mm in just the right place I can disable it... I think DM's point is that there's a difference between something that can do something on paper or in certain lucky circumstances, and something that can do something consistently and reliably.

yes probably even with a 9mm(lol).but i'm curious to know something from you.in your opinion a 105mm cannon is more similar to a 9mm bullet or to a 120mm cannon?you really should wait an experiment to understand if a 105mm shell hit the turret of an abrams can damage the FCS ecc..?

mmm do you know which cannon has used the m1a1 before being updated?

105 mm.mmm pretty much the yankees have risked to fight a war with a 9mm shooter instead of a proper cannon right?

Edited June 6, 2010 by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

[dm 9]

confusing the point of the discussion.

Nope, just expanding it from a simple "look at me my e-peen is the biggest"

simple because you lose time if you need to wait for the bridging equipment.

because while you are fighting and you need to cross a river,during a tactical maneuver,you wouldn't wait for a NATO standard bridging equipment

Agreed, but I would not want to be at the forward edge of battle in the AMX.

because the 40%(which is not a little percentage),according with your stats..,of all waterways in europe are not bridgeable...

i can see a a couple of serious reasons to make vehicles anphibious...

It depends on where that percentage is. If its all up in the mountains, then there really isnt a problem, as you wouldnt be fighting in aroured vehicles up there anyway. Its all about suitability to task.

i wouldn't understimate the anphibious capability of a vehicle as you are doing.

And I wouldnt over-estimate it. There is a reason that the vast majority of western vehicles have lost their amphibious capabilities over recent decades.

the anphibious capability is not made to let the vehicle land on a beach.

but to cross rivers simply.so you may thought this vehicle is a sort of aav7a1

which is not.or maybe you have just used a wrong example.well np anyway.

this is not a big problem.

No, amphibious means

capable of operating on both land and water

This means river crossing AND beach landing operations. The vast majority of vehicles intended ONLY to cross rivers are deep-water fording capable, not completely amphibious. (See Leopard or T-72 with their fording towers)

you are funny i don't need to face anything.since i never said is completely immune at any threat.this vehicles was made as a response of the military requests of the french army on the ex-colonies.

Thanks, I try. And are we fighting the ex colonies? No. So their role is outdated.

and no.an rpg-7isn't yet penetrated an abrams or warrior or a bradley.if you mean a double warhead probably it can.but not a simple crap rpg 7.i guess you are confusing damaging with penetrating

sure this kind of old tube can damage an abrams but i dont think is able to penetrate his armour.

There are PLENTY of documented cases of RPG-7's penetrating Bradleys and Abrams.

Also, its funny, on one hand you're ready to say that simply damaging a tank is not enough to knock it out, but on the other (when we talk about the 105 gun) you say that damage IS enough? Make your mind up please?

Again, the most BASIC RPG-7 warhead can penetrate 330mm of RHA steel armour. Whilst this isnt enough to scratch frontal armour, it is certainly enough to penetrate the side and rear aspects of well protected MBTs. Going back to the point in hand - it would cut through ANY part of the AMX like a hot knife through butter.

So when you say

of course it can't resist against a javelin or milan.but an rpg 7 is something different

and

in afghanistan tanks have not a bigger threats than rpg 7

I would say the RPG-7 is a fairly big threat. Especially to the AMX10RC.

which category?you were talking about bradley and abrams.noone of them are in the same category with the amx10rc.i told you in my last post which kind of vehicle are in the same category with this french vehicle.

No, the only reason I'm comparing them is because you said

of course it can't resist against a javelin or milan.but an rpg 7 is something different

An AMX10RC will NOT stand up to an RPG-7, I was comparing to larger, more heavily armoured vehicles to make that point.

do you know this vehicle during desert storm was on the front line with the french foreign legion to engage enemy tanks?

Yes, because it was originally designed as a tank destroyer. Something which is obsolete on the modern battlefield.

i'm not saying IED are not a threat mmm.but seems like you don't know that the best solution against IED is not to add extra armour package.this solution is used to make more resistant vehicles which are not made to deal with IED.

do you know US army is using strykers in iraq even because are more resistant against ied than bradleys?do you know a stryker is lighter than bradley?the key against IED is to have a vehicle which the lower part is not very close to the ground and the shape.

amx10rc is not made to deal with IED but for the 2 things explained above is much better than a bradley in this case.

Oh please do tell companies like Plasan-Sasa, Glouchester, Rafael, General Dynamics et al that their applique armour kits are "the wrong solution". I'm sure they'd be greatful for your informed input :j:

Yes, the BEST current defence against IED's is a v-shaped hull, but you cant reverse engineer that into a lot of vehicles, so an applique armour kit is the next best option.

And I hate to tell you this - but the AMX10 does NOT feature a v-shaped hull. It has a very flat bottom, so is just as vulnerable as Bradley or Warrior.

But again you have completely missed the point with my comparisons.

You said:

and since is lighter than normal tank... ...that means is a beast

Which I was trying to make the point that: light == very little armour. Thus very easy to penetrate. Hence my "if you even look at it it explodes" comments.

thx for the known info but.i never said m1a2 or challenger are crap comparated with amx.and if you were exposing this dates to provetheir superiority you are failing.they have 2 different tasks simply.

I was exposing this data for the same reason I just stated above - the AMX10RC has very little armour, so is not as much of a "beast" as you claim it to be.

well if you are not able to understand a 105 mm is enough to damage anything you can see on a modern bf is not my problem.

I can only assume that you have no experience with tank gunnery. Well I do. And let me tell you, even from a stationary position, making accurate shots to damage things like optics is incredibly hard. You might get lucky and hit them, but 99.9% of the time you strike somewhere unimportant and/or well armoured.

It doesnt work like you see in games where you can accurately shoot out certain parts of the vehicle then make a nifty flanking maneuvre.

Again, I'm sure the designers at defence companies and the generals in armies around the world are looking forward to your well educated insight about the destructive and penetrative powers of the 105mm platform. I'm sure it was purely political why they moved to 120/125mm systems over the older 105/115mm systems...

Maybe they just cant see it? Right?

and yes you are.as i said you are talking with the tpyical attitude of a cod 6 player.

Thankyou for again calling me a cod kiddie.

I present you with data and you call me that. Nice and mature there...

what you probably don't know,and i have to repeat it,a 105 mm is enough to disable even a challenger or what you want.you don't need to kill him.if you put a shell on the turret of the tank you have high chances to damage the thermal view/FCS or the movement capability of the turret.

if you shoot on the left or right side of a tank you have many chances to

block it.a 105 mm is enough to do these stuff.

Oh I am well aware of the strengths and weaknesses of many varied armoured vehicles.

Again, as above, unless you get lucky, your 105mm gun is going to do nothing, whilst their well armoured 120mm systems are going to return fire and cut you to bits.

The day of the tank destroyer is over. Thats why many nations have retired theirs. And you know what they've been replaced with? Helicopters.

and 1 more time.the task of an amx is not to engage enemy MBT even if he can do that.

Well considering its original designed purpose was that of tank destroyer, I'd say that yes, its purpose was to engage MBTs.

Hell, even the giat website advertises the AMX 10 RC as an "anti-tank vehicle"

so is completely no sense to claim"ah a challenger or an abrams" will always win!and also is a typical cod 6 immature attitude.

So I guess actually it does make sense. Oh, and thanks for calling me a cod kiddie again. Very mature...

is called maximising the power.that doesn't mean that a 105 mm can't damage a modern tank.so let me know,are you trying to refute statments i never posted?

No, if they were maximising power they would have gone with the 152 or 160mm systems in development in the 50's and 60's. Instead they went with the most appropriate system to defeat the percieved threat at that time.

Secondly, if 105mm is still so effective, why do NO modern main battle tanks use a 105mm gun? They ALL use a 120mm gun. But thats not because the 105mm is ineffective? Its because everybody wants to "maximise" their power, right?

oh here we are.you come to a conclusion...

well i have another conclusion since this vehicle was constantly updated from 1970,since was used as a "MBT" during the advance of the french foreign legion in desert storm i'm highly doubting that is not able to shoot while is moving...and even if is not written on your source,which i can't know and i'm not sure that is more credible than wikipedia(and wikipedia techincally is not a source but a collector of source..). that doesn't mean you are in true.means your source is not complete.

Again, not everything on the battlefield is up-to-date.

As I said, I can see plenty of reference to upgrades such as thermal imaging (which was taken from other tanks being scrapped) but only brief mention of adding a stabilisation system to the turret:

the Giat site mentions "Improved laying (rapidity/stability)." but does not mention a fully stabilised system. (Most weapons systems which feature full 2-axis stabilisation make a big deal out of it)

i mean is so easy to understand you are talking a big bullshit :j:...french foreign legion wouldn't use this vehicle like a front line tank during desert storm if was not able to shoot while is moving.

So I'm talking bullshit, with facts to back it up, and you're just making supposition that the FFL wouldnt use it if it didnt have all the systems you think it should have?

Nice...

ever heard about "updating"?

Yes, but as I said, there is no clear indication that such improvments are included in any updates.

do i have said if you have a vehicle able to reach 85 km you need to drive wherever you want like a fool?

do you really need to explain me about the supply chain and how is dangerous to go outta there in the age of the longbow radar?

is speed make this vehicle able to reach any obj more faster than other armoured vehicles.that all.and is not a little advantage.

but of course that doesn't mean you can go wherever you want and you can forgive about the rest of you army.

Yes, and when you sit there observing the enemy in your tin can, you would not feel particularly well protected (which was my whole point at the start of this massive discussion).

So, in your scenario, you've reached your objective, 700km away. You travelled there at say 75km/h, assuming there are paved roads all the way to your objective. That would mean you reach your objective more than 6 hours ahead of the rest of your battle group.

Assuming your objective is protected by MBTs (which given the AMX's design as a tank destroyer would be feasable) and ATGMs. You have to survive in a lightly armoured tin box, with 38 rounds of 105mm against MBTs and ATGMs for 6 and a half hours.

My point was, that in this scenario (which was your whole selling point for the AMX 10 being so awesome) you are DEAD. Very very very dead.

Your vehicle is armoured against 14.5 - 23mm (funnily I cant find any specifics as to the armour protection of the AMX10RC) and artillery splinters. Anybody with even the most basic of AT weapons is going to KILL your vehicle, not just damage it, but kill it.

In the real world, the AMX is best used as a dug-in ambush. So all that speed counts for nothing. You simply lay in wait for the best oppertunity to strike at the rear aspects of MBTs. Thats what it was designed for.

well now i have a doubt,do you have a short memory or you are trolling me again?

If you want me to troll you, I can. But so far I have presented nothing but facts, sprinkled with a generous helping of my wonderful opinions.

it can carry 40 shell and it has 4000 bullets for the coax.is pretty much the standard for a MBTand is not a MBT.you cant carry more shells until you don't start to put some....right there.

Yes, 38 rounds of main armament is ok as an MBT, but not as a fire support vehicle. You'd want a lot more ammunition than that for extended engagement periods.

Which, incidentally is what you'd be doing at the front of an advance, well ahead of your supply chain.

nah is not.when someone can't admit a fail and is changing intentionally the point of the discussion plus is reporting stuff you never said is not funny at all.is just boring.

I think you'll find that all my points are based on direct quotes of your posts.

And if its boring, just stop posting and leave?

lol what a bullshit.is not written stabilized :no

plz dont trolling me out.

Are you blind?

Seriously?

---------- Post added at 18:23 ---------- Previous post was at 18:21 ----------

I think DM's point is that there's a difference between something that can do something on paper or in certain lucky circumstances, and something that can do something consistently and reliably.

10 chars of :inlove:

Finally someone who gets the point.

[Serclaes 0]

simple because you lose time if you need to wait for the bridging equipment.

because while you are fighting and you need to cross a river,during a tactical maneuver,you wouldn't wait for a NATO standard bridging equipment :rolleyes:

because the 40%(which is not a little percentage),according with your stats..,of all waterways in europe are not bridgeable...

i can see a a couple of serious reasons to make vehicles anphibious...

And still you would have to wait for other forces to cross the river.

Also i doubt that it can pass the 40% of waterways taht are not bridgeable because those are either in very difficult terrain or too high speed.

you dont need to have an HUUUUUGE advantage to justify the existence of a

engineering solution.is it an advantage?yes.then is enough for having it.

especially if you dont need to spend tons of money and time to add a feature.i wouldn't understimate the anphibious capability of a vehicle as you are doing.

For example: No modern vehicle in the german army is amphibious anymore. Except maybe the Leopard with the 3m snorkel.

Not even the most modern recon vehicle (Fennek) is amphibious.

i'm not saying IED are not a threat mmm.but seems like you don't know that the best solution against IED is not to add extra armour package.this solution is used to make more resistant vehicles which are not made to deal with IED.

do you know US army is using strykers in iraq even because are more resistant against ied than bradleys?do you know a stryker is lighter than bradley?the key against IED is to have a vehicle which the lower part is not very close to the ground and the shape.

amx10rc is not made to deal with IED but for the 2 things explained above is much better than a bradley in this case.

The alternative to the Stryker is: the M113! Thats the vehicle the stryker originally replaced. And despite the cirtics the stryker had to suffer, it is a safer carrier vehicle than the M113.

thx for the known info but.i never said m1a2 or challenger are crap comparated with amx.and if you were exposing this dates to provetheir superiority you are failing.they have 2 different tasks simply.

Wait a second, the AMX10 is there to provide fire support and destroy tanks. The MBTs are there to destroy tanks and provide fire support. What Oo

well if you are not able to understand a 105 mm is enough to damage anything you can see on a modern bf is not my problem.

and yes you are.as i said you are talking with the tpyical attitude of a cod 6 player.what you probably don't know,and i have to repeat it,a 105 mm is enough to disable even a challenger or what you want.you don't need to kill him.if you put a shell on the turret of the tank you have high chances to damage the thermal view/FCS or the movement capability of the turret.

if you shoot on the left or right side of a tank you have many chances to

block it.a 105 mm is enough to do these stuff.

and 1 more time.the task of an amx is not to engage enemy MBT even if he can do that.

so is completely no sense to claim"ah a challenger or an abrams" will always win!and also is a typical cod 6 immature attitude.it seems like you are doing a sort of national geographic comparison:which is the best? the bear or the lion?the snake or my daddy?jeees...

No it says "this vehicle has become redundant".

[dm 9]

probably in some site which is not very accurate you will not find writing:

"m1a2 stabilizer:yes".you know.guess because is obvious.

oh is not written m1a2 has a stabilizator...damn then they cant shoot while are moving

O rly?

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams/

specifically:

Textron Systems provides the Cadillac Gage gun turret drive stabilisation system.

and

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m1-intro.htm

specifically:

A sophisticated fire control system provided main gun stabilization for shooting on the move

Aside from the "added a basic stabilisation" as quoted above, I can not find ANY reference for the AMX10RC having fire on the move capability.

anyway if you wanna believe that a tank of the french army,in 2010,used in afghanistan and africa is without a stabilizer you are free.sound ridicolous but you are free.

Yes, I will, and I wont sound ridiculous, because there are AFVs of almost every western army which lack fire on the move capability.

you really should wait an experiment to understand if a 105mm shell hit the turret of an abrams can damage the FCS ecc..?

Yup, because unless it penetrates or luckily hits the GPS, then it will do nothing.

mmm do you know which cannon has used the m1a1 before being updated?

105 mm.mmm pretty much the yankees have risked to fight a war with a 9mm shooter instead of a proper cannon right?

Hahaha, avoiding the pun you've shot yourself in the foot with this one.

The M1 was introduced with a 105mm gun in the 80s because thats what it was designed to use in the 70s.

When the west got ahold of details of T-72, it was discoved that the 105mm gun would not penetrate the frontal aspects of T-72. So they up-gunned it to 120mm. A system which would penetrate T-72.

Herf derf your way out of that one...

Edited June 6, 2010 by DM

[Tonci87 163]

Quote by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

and 1 more time.the task of an amx is not to engage enemy MBT even if he can do that.

Then it doesn´t need this huge gun!!!

It is just an completely overarmed light recon wehicle in my exes. That it has been used by the Frech during Desert Storm doesn´t say that its good. maybe it was everything they had. Do you have some stats how many Enemy Tanks were destroyed by those tin cans?

[NoRailgunner 0]

Guess the 2S25 Sprut-SD is much more "awesome" as tank-destroyer than this AMX RC10 vehicle - which is no longer in production anymore. :bb:

Just for info:

http://www.armyrecognition.com/french_army_france_wheeled_armoured_vehicle_uk/amx-10rc_reconnaissance_anti-tank_wheeled_armoured_vehicle_technical_data_sheet_information_uk.html

There are plans to replace the very old AMX RC10 with the Engin Blindé de Reconnaissance et Combat (EBRC) vehicle. Perhaps we will see more news about the Scorpion programm of the French Army incl. some real facts about modernization on Eurosatory 2010.

[Takko 10]

When the west got ahold of details of T-72, it was discoved that the 105mm gun would not penetrate the frontal aspects of T-72. So they up-gunned it to 120mm. A system which would penetrate T-72.

So why are there other western systems which were made even after the M1A1 and

are proven effective against these threats?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooikat

Yes, 38 rounds of main armament is ok as an MBT, but not as a fire support vehicle. You'd want a lot more ammunition than that for extended engagement periods.

Which, incidentally is what you'd be doing at the front of an advance, well ahead of your supply chain.

The vehicle mentioned above is quite comparable to the AMX.

It had 48 shells and was ahead of the supply chain, yet managed it to take out the

enemy tanks and mbts in an effective manner.

So what are you talking about?

[dm 9]

So why are there other western systems which were made even after the M1A1 and

are proven effective against these threats?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooikat.

When you say "these threats" are we talking russian build quality T-72A and B's or early model T-72's or foreign build quality T-72M's?

Because as we saw in the gulf, T-72M's are not a patch on the better quality A's and B's, which were the main reason for up-gunning (and up-armouring) the Abrams.

The vehicle mentioned above is quite comparable to the AMX.

It had 48 shells and was ahead of the supply chain, yet managed it to take out the

enemy tanks and mbts in an effective manner.

So what are you talking about?

Without specifics of the engagements I couldnt really say.

[Takko 10]

When you say "these threats" are we talking russian build quality T-72A and B's or early model T-72's or foreign build quality T-72M's?

To let me quote this:

Although only 76mm, these rounds feature the latest high velocity, armour-piercing fin stabilized, discarding sabot technology todestroy most modern tanks with a extremely high first round kill probability. The main difference between the Rooikat 76 and the Rooikat 105 is the main gun. Although the 105 is fitted with a re-designed turret the capabilities and equipment are fairly similar.

Armament:

The Rooikat's devastating 105mm GT7 quick firing anti-tank gun fires the full spectrum of standard NATO full pressure , 105mm tank ammunition (generation 1,2,3 rounds), all capable of destroying most main battle tanks.

So pretty much even your russian built quality T90.

http://newsite.ipmssa.za.org/content/view/95/28/

Thats why the AMX should be effective as well, since it does also use the same cannon.

[Daniel 0]

That's pretty impressive to claim that a 105mm gun has a high probability of getting a first round kill against modern main battle tanks, when 120mm guns on both Abrams and Challengers have struggled to both accidentally and deliberately destroy each other.

Looking forward to some informed opinions on this.

[dm 9]

That's pretty impressive to claim that a 105mm gun has a high probability of getting a first round kill against modern main battle tanks, when 120mm guns on both Abrams and Challengers have struggled to both accidentally and deliberately destroy each other.

Looking forward to some informed opinions on this.

Pretty much this.

Its all well and good going off the advertising propaganda, but as ch_123 said:

there's a difference between something that can do something on paper or in certain lucky circumstances, and something that can do something consistently and reliably.

[Vick 19]

dear naivety :rolleyes:

is a medium tank and not light.and...is the biggest ***amphibious*** vehicle avaible today.it has a 105 mm cannon(enough to kill or disable everything)and since is lighter than normal tank it has a max speed of 85 and autonomy of 1000km.that means is a beast and pretty much the best on his category.can be transported by c130.

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMX-10RC

think i know of an AMPHIBIOUS vehicle thats bigger...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOkrXimRnSc

[Tonci87 163]

Way to big and to slow

[stgn 39]

Well well, what do you know, MK16 SCAR, the 5.56mm version is dead in SOCOM.

http://www.military.com/news/article/spec-ops-command-cancels-new-rifle.html

STGN

[spooky lynx 73]

Well well, what do you know, MK16 SCAR, the 5.56mm version is dead in SOCOM.

http://www.military.com/news/article/spec-ops-command-cancels-new-rifle.html

STGN

Very strange decision... Now they will have even more problems with training and logistics because Mk17 will be retained in use. And I don't understand, how after such long tests and evaluations which showed SCAR's superiority, it "does not provide enough of a performance advantage over the M-4":confused: The only reason I see - Colt has more influence on higher army command than any other.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Its only about the Mk-16 5.56mm version ;)

SOCOM said it will instead purchase additional Mk-17 variants that use the heavier 7.62 mm round, more Mk-13 Enhanced Grenade Launchers, and a newly-designated Mk-20 Sniper Support Rifle. (Industry observers say the Mk-20 is basically the Mk-17 with longer barrel and other sharpshooter enhancements.)

Why wasting money buying another rifle if the M4/HK416 variants are good enough and the Mk16 doesnt have that great advantages to justify the purchase? SOCOM isnt airsoft.

[spooky lynx 73]

Its only about the Mk-16 5.56mm version ;)

Why wasting money buying another rifle if the M4/HK416 variants are good enough and the Mk16 doesnt have that great advantages to justify the purchase? SOCOM isnt airsoft.

But do M4, HK416 and Mk17 have much common in spares?:rolleyes: And are they easily converted in different variants as SCAR can be? If the SCAR doesn't have advantages, so all the SCAR program was BS? No ability of easy and fast convertion in different variants (CQ, normal, sharpshooter), no very common 5,56 and 7,62 models? The only weapons family which is like SCAR, is HK416/417. But I have no information about HK417 will be bought for army.

[stgn 39]

Not a strange decision the SCAR offer very few advantages to an M4 most of which are rarely needed like firring out of the water. The main advantage of the SCAR is the longer service life compared to an M4, but it comes at a price, of being more bulky, heavier, has a shorter barrel for the same length and considerably more expensive then the M4.

On of the reasons they are sticking with the MK17 is that it fills a role unfilled in SOCOM a 7.62 battle rifle.

STGN

[spooky lynx 73]

So if they need 7,62 rifle they should point attention to some of the .308 variants of AR-10 or SR-25.

I remember, what loud words had been said about SCAR program, about every its advantage. And now... Suddenly it doesn't have any noticeable advantages. BTW, its price would be much lower if it become not only SOF but whole army rifle instead of M4/M16 variants.

Edited June 26, 2010 by Spooky Lynx

[stgn 39]

About 7.62 well the MK17 is problery the best tested 7.62 modern battle rifle out there but there are ar10 versions designed to compete with it lets see how that pan out.

Well the M4 bashing has been strong in the previous years because everybody who is not colt want to knock it off its place as the "gold standard" assault rifle of today. You heard the same thing about the HK416 oh how much better it was but as people are starting to realize it offers no practical advantages to an basic M4 and costs considerably more and it weighs more, it does however have a much better service life then a Mk18 which was the main reason for its invention apparently, its at these short barrels lengths that the piston design has an advantage to the direct impingement of the AR15.

Don't think the projected price would go down much even if it was selected across the board, even M4's are getting more expensive and Colt is making thousands of them.

STGN

[spooky lynx 73]

The main reason of development and production of either Mk16 or HK416, ACR or some other 5,56 mm rifles is to get rifle more reliable in hard combat environment than any AR-15 family piece. So, as I've read in many articles (unfortunately, haven't dealed with any western weapon by myself and haven't compared their parameters), either 416 or SCAR proved their much growed reliability (if my memory doesn't cheat me, 4 times less jamming cases when SCAR compared with M4). Some people say that even development and production of M27 IAR is nothing like USMC's try to get some new carbines instead of M4 without superfluous debates and discussions in Congress.