AMX-30

>lets make our own Leopard 1 with a worse gun, no stabilizer and instead put a coax 20mm into the turret
Why? What were they thinking?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    yeah

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >a worse gun
    F1 105mm and L7 fire the same round
    >no stabilizer
    the leopard 1 wasnt stabilized either until the A1 in 1970
    >and instead put a coax 20mm into the turret
    for engaging light armor and low-flying helos

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >couldn't fire APDS
      >never got a stabilizer in thirty years of service
      >supposed to engage helicopters
      lol

      France has literally never made a good tank

      Char B1 was pretty based.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Char B1 was pretty based.
        one of the reasons they lost to germany

        https://i.imgur.com/6OO4PcJ.jpg

        >lets make our own Leopard 1 with a worse gun, no stabilizer and instead put a coax 20mm into the turret
        Why? What were they thinking?

        france can make badass light tanks

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/EwBZVmQ.jpg

          >char b1
          Not even the best interwar Fr*ch tank.

          Both B1 and Somua were good. They were just used in the wrong way and suffered from bad logistics

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >They were just used in the wrong way
            no they were simply outdated and outmatched
            they were WW1 tanks

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Lol weren't there many occasions of a single or a few B1 tanks holding an entire push of German tank battalions?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                and they still lost the war you homosexual, because the tanks were too slow, they were made for ww1 trench warfare.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The tanks weren't slow you dumb Black person, the reason why they lost is that the French air force was fricking non-existent, the French's entire defense plan relied on the fact that Belgium would fight back but instead the sub-humans know as Belgium's decided to just bend over for the Germans. The French tanks were far better than the germans in every way be it armor, firepower none of that matters when the germans are pouring out like a title wave and your getting bombed by planes.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >char b1
        Not even the best interwar Fr*ch tank.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Fr*ch
          you are a moron

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >couldn't fire APDS
        The frog high command read wartime bong reports about APDS (non-FS) performance, and weren't extremely enthused about it. That's why they went with that ball-bearing-rigged double shell. The idea being that the outer shell was spin-stabilized (like any shell going out of a rifled barrel), but the inner shell would remain mostly static (or, at the very least, spin a lot slower), thus maintaining the coherence of the HEAT jet.

        The french gun wasnt stabilized, but had a stabilized sight and some kinda funky "cannot fire until bore aligned with gunsight" frickery. Later upgrades to the AMX30 for spain and a couple others had stabilizers. By the time the french decided to mess with stabilizers they already had the decided to move to an entirely new tank (see: amx32, amx40, leclerc)

        Real life isnt warthunder, hard stabilizers werent all that important in the 1970s.

        >Real life isnt warthunder, hard stabilizers werent all that important in the 1970s.
        Early stabilizers were kinda shit above 25 km/h. For a tank whose speed is the actual "armor", going that slowly was a genuine liability. Stabilizers only started getting actually 'good' in the 1980s.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >For a tank whose speed is the actual "armor", going that slowly was a genuine liability.
          So better to, what, fire inaccurately on the move or stop to fire?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I think the initial idea was to do infantry-style leapfrogs, going from cover to cover, where they would indeed stop to shoot and provide fire support for the advancing element. Dunno how well that would've worked during actual combat, though.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              I mean they've seen combat in the Gulf. But mainly in open spaces, where they could leverage gun and fcs superiority.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Dunno how well that would've worked during actual combat, though.
              that was the primary way of firing on targets
              tanks would stop for a second to fire then start moving again

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >couldn't fire APDS
        What's this moronic take.
        What do you think OFL 105 F1 and F2 (depleted uranium) are?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >F1 105mm and L7 fire the same round
      So all 5.56x45 firearms are the same?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        yes absolutely, thanks for posting

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    France has literally never made a good tank

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Renault FT disagrees

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Leclerc.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Is the right answer

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >20mm
    Badassery over effectiveness

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The french gun wasnt stabilized, but had a stabilized sight and some kinda funky "cannot fire until bore aligned with gunsight" frickery. Later upgrades to the AMX30 for spain and a couple others had stabilizers. By the time the french decided to mess with stabilizers they already had the decided to move to an entirely new tank (see: amx32, amx40, leclerc)

    Real life isnt warthunder, hard stabilizers werent all that important in the 1970s.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      And yet nobody except countries under international arms embargoes like Spain, Chile and Greece bought the AMX-30.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Thats because leopards and american M48's and M60's were cheaper.

        Its actually part of a conspiracy by the ~~*americans*~~ to undermine french superiority.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >somehow more expensive than a Leopard despite being technologically less refined
          What the frick was going on in 1970s France?

          https://i.imgur.com/EwBZVmQ.jpg

          >char b1
          Not even the best interwar Fr*ch tank.

          That’s just some kinda T-34 and Sherman grandfather. The only cool interwar French tanks were their heavies or their cool light tanks like the R-35.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Its the price paid for technology blessed by God, as France is the rightful heir to the Roman Empire, and thus is God's chosen people.

            >but had a stabilized sight and some kinda funky "cannot fire until bore aligned with gunsight" frickery.
            Please don't tell me you got this bullshit from the WT forums because it has been disproven numerous times

            Im a proud french supremacist, ive yet to see the claim disproven.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >France is the rightful heir to the Roman Empire
              France got cucked by the Roman Empire. Well, 2/3rds of France got cucked, the rest was just disposed of.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                France only exists because of the Roman Empire in the first place. Basically everything about that country except its name has its roots in the Roman period. The entire we wuz Asterix 'n sheet larp is about as believable as Iraqis larping as Babylonians.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The pope said charlemagne was roman emperor, charlemagne was a proud frenchman (he just didnt know it yet), therefore france is rome. G*rmanics need not apply.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >muh pope said
                The pope should stick to doing what he does best, Epstein LARPing

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >charlemagne
                Who?
                >chARLEMAGNE
                >ALLEMAGNE
                just call him Karl der große like his people did/do
                https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allemagne
                >Verification not required

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >chARLEMAGNE
                >ALLEMAGNE
                C'est un gag? J'ai jamais rien lu d'aussi stupide et tiré par les cheveux

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Speak human you french dog
                Just cant cope with it that we are allways better than you.

                >See Amx-30

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              your haute cuisine is fricking great, but your legal system is unbelievable dogshit, wish we got rid of that garbage

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Its the price paid for technology blessed by God, as France is the rightful heir to the Roman Empire, and thus is God's chosen people.
              there was only one heir of the roman empire...

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous
              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Charlemagne founded the Holy Roman Empire.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Charlemagne beeing a german called "Karl der große"

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Big ̶B̶̶̶a̶̶̶z̶̶̶z̶̶̶a̶̶̶ Karl

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >
                >
                >

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              I studied in a french achool, The Simpsons ruined my love for France, then Eugen Systems and BC Freedom Academy made me love France again.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >I studied in a french achool
                What?
                >The Simpsons ruined my love for France, then Eugen Systems and BC Freedom Academy made me love France again.
                Yeah that's what alcohol can do to someone anon, it's called hangover. You'll be fine.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >France is the rightful heir to the Roman Empire
              Only true for the Ancien Regime, the French Revolution completely severed France from it's history and any claims it had from it. Enjoy your gay Republic, oh I'm sorry, I meant FIFTH republic lmao.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The French Republic was the long awaited restoration of Republican Rome. The storming of the Bastille is a direct analogy of the Romans storming the palace of Tarquinius.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >France is the rightful heir to the Roman Empire

              LOLno The Spanish Empire was, and now the USA is.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >and now the USA is
                meds

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >What the frick was going on in 1970s France?
            They were le tired

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >What the frick was going on in 1970s France?
            they were buying all the US gold they could for 20$ and ounce so they were inflating the Franc to pay for cheap ass US gold. the main reason the USA went with pure fiat to check France

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >but had a stabilized sight and some kinda funky "cannot fire until bore aligned with gunsight" frickery.
      Please don't tell me you got this bullshit from the WT forums because it has been disproven numerous times

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    hahaha brenus :DD

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      My beloved

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Germany: makes the worst tank of the cold war
    >France: "Hold my croissant"

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Germany makes the best tanks of the cold war

      Here I corrected that for you

      And before people start seething tell me how the other tanks heavier armour stood up to the threads they would have faced?

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >same armor as KV-1
    why even bother? just make a light tank

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Tanks in Ukraine seem to fire mostly from stationary positions.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The AMX-30 was designed with a non-stabilized main gun for several reasons:

    * **Weight:** Stabilizing a main gun adds a significant amount of weight to a tank, which can reduce its mobility and range. The AMX-30 was designed to be a highly mobile tank, and the French military felt that the benefits of stabilization were not worth the weight penalty.

    * **Cost:** Stabilizing a main gun is also a complex and expensive process. The French military was on a tight budget when the AMX-30 was designed, and they were not willing to spend the extra money on stabilization.

    * **Tactical doctrine:** The French military's tactical doctrine at the time emphasized rapid movement and short-range engagements. They believed that the AMX-30's maneuverability and firepower would be more important than the ability to fire accurately on the move.

    The lack of stabilization on the AMX-30's main gun did limit its effectiveness in certain situations. For example, it was difficult to fire accurately while moving at high speed or when the tank was traversing rough terrain. However, the AMX-30 was still a very capable tank, and it was used successfully in several conflicts, including the Yom Kippur War and the Iran-Iraq War.

    In more recent years, stabilization has become a standard feature on main battle tanks. This is because the development of new technologies, such as laser rangefinders and computer-aided targeting systems, has made it more important for tanks to be able to fire accurately on the move.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Thank you, ChatGPT.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >including the Yom Kippur War and the Iran-Iraq War
      I don't think the AMX-30 in tank configuration saw service in either of these.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The AMX-30 was not fielded in the Yom Kippur War. It was first introduced into service in 1966, a little over five years after the Yom Kippur War. During the Yom Kippur War, the main battle tanks used by the Israeli and Egyptian armies were the M60 Patton and the T-62, respectively.

        However, the AMX-30 did see combat in the 1973 War of Attrition, which was fought between Israel and Egypt from 1967 to 1970. The AMX-30s were used by the Israeli army, and they were credited with knocking out a number of Egyptian T-55 tanks.

        I hope this helps.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >1966
          >five years after Yom Kippur War
          >War of Attrition
          >1973
          Bro your ChatGPT broke hard.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >However, the AMX-30 did see combat in the 1973 War of Attrition, which was fought between Israel and Egypt from 1967 to 1970.The AMX-30s were used by the Israeli army, and they were credited with knocking out a number of Egyptian T-55 tanks.
            >The AMX-30s were used by the Israeli army
            No?

            You are correct. I apologize for the error in my previous response. Neither Israel nor Egypt ever fielded AMX-30 tanks during the Yom Kippur War or the War of Attrition.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >You are correct. I apologize for the error in my previous response.
              Damn, gotta love the GPTposting

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >You are correct. I apologize for the error in my previous response. Neither Israel nor Egypt ever fielded AMX-30 tanks during the Yom Kippur War or the War of Attrition.

              ChatGPT is programmed to lie so it is pretty much useless except as a toy. This is the result of teaching the AI to be woke.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >However, the AMX-30 did see combat in the 1973 War of Attrition, which was fought between Israel and Egypt from 1967 to 1970.The AMX-30s were used by the Israeli army, and they were credited with knocking out a number of Egyptian T-55 tanks.
          >The AMX-30s were used by the Israeli army
          No?

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Obvious -tard thread.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The Swedish military decided against a stabilizer for the stridsvagn 103 after making various tests. They decided that adding stabilization wasn't advantageous enough compared to just stopping and firing. And the Stridsvagn 103 was meant for rapid assaults against Soviet naval landings, not a tank destroyer. Rapid movement before halting to fire. I reckon the French thought the same.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      stabilizing only in vertical plane would be fricking worthless

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Stridsvagn 103
        >stabilizer
        the gun is fixed to the hull
        a stabilizer would go against what the "tank" was supposed to be

        Yeah, might have been during the idea stage where they threw around ideas for a native Swedish tank design.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Stridsvagn 103
      >stabilizer
      the gun is fixed to the hull
      a stabilizer would go against what the "tank" was supposed to be

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >They decided that adding stabilization wasn't advantageous enough compared to just stopping and firing.
      Yeah, when it was selected in 1958.
      Unfortunately after that there was no way to add stabilization due to the design with a fixed gun.
      The AMX, while designed, selected and entering service roughly the same time as the Strv 103 still has a turret, and stabilization would have greatly improved the combat capability of the tank, if nothing else even if the early stabilization sucked it helped the gunner reduce time until the gun was on target after a stop.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Has Italy ever made a genuinely good tank? I always keep hearing our tanks are shit.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They're sexy at least.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Centauro is a light tank, and it is based.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You could just run over those kids and they would go under hahahah. They should really fix that hahaha

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They are shit, but

      They're sexy at least.

      is right, they are sexy as hell

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        that just looks like a less fat chally 1 tho.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Those bolts on the applique armour are very aesthetic.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Has Italy ever made a genuinely good tank?
      Nope, but they also don't really need one. The only land borders are in the Alps, where you can at most get away with light tanks or TDs like the Centauro (which is genuinely good). You can see that reflected in the branches of their armed forces, where the navy and airforce are very good, while their army is just terùn welfare. If you're practically an island nation, you don't need a strong army as much as a competent navy and airforce.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >competent navy and airforce.
        Not an expert but I doubt we even have that.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >lets make our own Leopard 1 with a worse gun, no stabilizer and instead put a coax 20mm into the turret

    What's funny is that 20mm WAS stabilized.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The Frogs decided to go their own way because they are prideful. Many such cases.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Or maybe they just went their own way because they consider they can only count on themselves. Which is the right mindset any country and its army should have, really.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >coax 20mm into the turret
    This was the one thing they got right though.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Everyone knows Spain is the legal successor to the Eastern Roman Emperor

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      But San Marino is the only successor of the Roman Empire (the Eastern one is just we wuz romans n shieet)

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There's no successor to the Roman empire because it still exists. it just moved its capital like it loved to do back in the old days, this time on a strategically located bigass island.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Cringe

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The crew loved the shit out of the 20 mm and I love the shit out of it in War Thunder too. The Leclerc lacks the 20 mm and unfortunately I believe that makes it inferior.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I agree, although the Leclerc introduced a .50BMG coaxial machine gun at a time everyone went with a 7.62. Now everybody is going the french way, really makes you think.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *