Quoted: Regarding the AMX-30, how well did it stack up on paper? As I understood it, they were in the Leopard 1 class - well armed (even had a 20mm as a coax) but lightly armored for a tank in hopes of having a higher speed to out manuver (out retreat?) the enemy. How well would they have compared to the WarPac tanks?
|
As is generally the French way with armoured vehicle designs, they took a slightly different tack to 'conventional' without being revolutionary. At least, not counting WWI designs which really were revolutionary because nobody else had anything to be considered conventional against.
You are correct that they took the balance of maneuverability and firepower over armour, much in the same way as the Leopard 1 or to a point the M60 took that balance. It was the lightest of those three tanks, with the lowest ground pressure, and had the highest horsepower-to-weight ratio of any of the Western MBTs, (30% better than M60) making it something of the sports car of the bunch, and able to go over terrain and hills that would stump any other Western tank.
As you point out, the French decided to have a slightly larger coax. Initially it was a .50 cal, but the majority had 20mm. A nice idea in theory, but didn't work out too well in the field: It was discovered that if any target out there was worth using the 20mm on, the crew thought it was probably worth using a 105mm HEAT or HE round instead. Hence they went back to the .50 cal again for the Leclerc, which really wasn't that bad an idea: Witness a number of countries putting .50 cals on the main gun now, to include the US and Israel. They built some 1,600 AMX-30s for 13 countries, it was a decent export success. Of note is the fact that there is no fume extractor on the gun, they use a jet of compressed air instead. Again, this was carried on to Leclerc, so must have been a successful design. The 105mm is also a little longer than the L7 mounted on the Leopard 1 and M60, so a touch more powerful. In the early 1980s, the last generation came about, with thermal imagers, laser rangefinders, and all the other modern conveniences.
Overall, and with the benefit of hindsight, I'd personally rate it the third best tank of the 1970s (After Chieftain and Strv-103), dropping to fourth with the appearance of the T-72.
And what about the AMX-10 IFV's? How well do/did they stack up to a Bradley, Warrior, or one of the BMP's?
|
They're old. It's a 1960s design, quite good for its time, possibly beating the BMP as the first IFV in the world, and the hull was converted for a range of uses, much as the M113 was. Anything from missile-armed tank destroyers through radar vehicles. I'll wager the French are looking for a replacement by now.
NTM