I served at the beginning of the 80s in the ABC( Arme Blindé Cavalerie) on AMX30 b2 and I must say that it was not a bad machine, reliable, fast with a good big gun equipped with arrow shells. We trained to fire and reload faster than the Russian tanks which had an autoloader, and we got there after a few weeks of intense training. The pilots and the gunners were often of "small" size, 1m72 to slip more easily into these relatively narrow positions, me being 1.92 m my position as tank commander allowed me to stand up while observing at 360 degrees in the commander's cupola^^ on the other hand totally impossible to slip into the pilot's position without having the upper half of the body out of the hull... Our life expectancy on a battlefield was estimated at less than 20 minutes, when you are young you are "immortal". Thank you for this video which reminds me of good but already quite funny memories.
Thanks so much for your comment Olivier, it still blows my mind that actual crewmen and service members watch my videos - hope you had a great Christmas.
To be fair, all tanks in the 1960's were vulnerable to ATGW and HEAT warheads fired from infantry recoilless guns and post-WW2 tank guns. The German's and French accepted this and decided that thick, heavy armor was a waste of time. Under the circumstances they were probably correct. The situation did not change until the advent of composite armors in the 1970's, and reactive armor in the 1980's changed the equation.
@@MFitz12 T-64 was simply ahead of it's time, while the AMX-30 had a terrible stabilization method, subpar HEAT ammunition and no composite armor well into the 1970s
@@jjjr.1186" The IDF realised that the AMX-13 tank was too lightly-armoured and had a weak main gun. Losses were heavy at places like Rafah Junction and Jiradi Pass during the Six-Day War with many destroyed by heavier Arab-fielded Soviet armour, such as T-55 MBTs and IS-3 (tank) heavy tanks. Subsequently, Israel gradually phased out all of its AMX-13s following the Six-Day War, with most ending up being sold to the then newly established Singapore Army between 1968 and 1969."
I have a soft spot for the AMX-30 because of its unique design. It doesn't get as much attention as other tanks, but it deserves just as much love as the rest!
it's why i like french tanks. as a civilian, i can't really tell if they are effective or not (i think they kind of are, but i can't prove it so i guess i just have to shut up or else a "tank expert" will explain me with a huge essay why i should like something else). the only thing that i know is that they look cool / unique and always have something extraordinary included into their designs. (oscillating turrets, special shells, loads of armored cars ect...) it's kinda inspiring in some way : those machines are doing the job using unconventional methods. it's not because something works well that something else can't..
@@Liam-hk7sc For me which tanks are my favorite has very little to do with which tanks I think are good. I think the R35 and Pz2 are among my favorite WW2 tanks, even though neither of them compare particularly well with other WW2 tanks in terms of actual effectiveness.
@@gareththompson2708 90% of people who "like" tanks are not thinking this way, and so it leads to weird conversations where people try to impose their vision of what is good and thus what you should like... So i'm fine with you haha
Yep. AMX-30 & Leopard 1 are my personal favorites. These are really beautiful "medium" MBT, especially compared to "bulky" silhouette of M60 Patton and the "basic" shape of T-55.
My father was an army ground liaison officer with the RAF in the 1970s. He said that the French picked their tank crews for their low height, thereby allowing their armour to be of minimum size. The French supplied NATO with official photos of all their vehicles. These included a standard figure of a small, standard-height, moustachioed, crewman standing next to the vehicle in question. It was always the same guy, who the RAF pilots called "Hercule". When a slide came up for recognition, they would all shout out "Hercule" rather than "AMX30". My father reckoned that the Harrier wing could identify "Hercule" from several thousand feet, and certainly more easily than they could identify any individual type of French armour! (My father also used to carry a water pistol in case any pilots dozed off during AFV recognition lectures).
I read during Cold War too, Soviet also picked average stature men as T-55 or T-72 tank crews (in Steven Zaloga's book, published by Osprey Publishing). Especially because their tanks had low silhouette.
@@507rcc7 "the shell was introduced well before smooth bore canons were designed". Are you for real? First tank with smooth bored gun was soviet T-62, which mass production started in 1961. 5 yeras before AMX-30 was a thing.
As a former Sergeant then Staff Sergeant, tank leader then second to tank platoon leader on AMX30B in a mechanised infatry unit (5° RI based in Paris area then 16°BCP based in Saarburg - Germany, part of one of the 2 french army corps present, consequence of the WWII treaty given an occupation zone to France), I want to thank you for this itneresting video. The AMX 30B was outdated when I served it (in the 90's), but still its gun, latelyequipped with new ammunitions OFL 105 and OFL 2 105 (APFSDS) was to pierce most armours. There were 2 sort of motorisation : The SOFAM 12 GS with 720 HP then the Hispano-Suiza, sulzer 720 HP (in fact, I mearnt 680 ch and in my documentation it's writte 680 but I saw than on the net it was written 720... I am not a mech then I can't say who is right) and/or the hydrostatic. The first engine, i never saw it, h=it had been retired from the service far before I entered in service. The AMC 30 B2 then the AMX 30 B2 S brennus was a true improvement and had a better armour, a better engine and more of all, a better and more modern firing system. The AMX 30 B had an old (but efficient) Firing system based on co-incidence of picture (image). I mean, for the one who knows, the turret of the AMX 30 B had 2 external "eyes" on each side... the system is based on the fact that you had 2 pictures of the same tank, but it was working with the difference of the angle... the "game" was to make a single picture of the 2, it was giving you the distance of the tank once you had a cingle picture... then you ahd the "intuition" of the tank leader, which was going to influence you, + or - 50 or even 100 meters... Personally, I was priviledging the precision of the system and had good eyes, then II was giving the distance I had by the machine without changing it. I did 100 % hit every time (more than 100% even, because when we were doing military training camps of firing at platoon level, we had often more ammunitions (+5%) than targets. The vulnerability of the tank wasn't a problem as EVERY tanks were destroyable by HOT, RPG last versions, any performing AT ammunition etc... The advantage of the AMX 30 was its manouvrebility and its speed. It was also easy to find any problems on it, it was a "rustic" tank, strong, fast, responding. I liked to serve on it even if I was looking at the AMX Leclerc with envy. I have a last anecdot/story... " once upon a time ", in 1996 or in 1997 (hey, it's long time ago ! ), my platoon was on the Mailly PTS (South Firing Point of Mailly, a french military camp) and we did a little challenge with the Leclerc. We had to fire 6 hits as fast as possible. The "best" AMX 30 B team of the 4th company of the 5° RI (Mechanised infantry regiment, french historical regiment, created 1494, retired from french army organisation few months after it) against the Best Leclerc of the 501/503° RCC (Regiment de Chars de Combat or MBT regiment, a unit of cavalry) The Leclerc had a crew of 2 in the turret, the leader and the shooter. It's equipped with an autoloader. They took their best team, but didn't change it. Sure as normal french, and infantry men, our foxy Captain decided to cheat and to "make" a team for the crew of the turret. We were 3, i was named shooter as we had still conscript, I was considered better shooter (best ranking when in academy) as I was private sergeant... Then the leader was the most experienced leader, master sergeant and the radio-loader wasn't even a normal loader but a strong master sergeant specialist of radio. the fact he was strong had its importance as a 6'4 guy can easily grab a 105 mm ammo like if it was grapefruit lol ;) :D . The cavalry men never knew we cheat, of course. There were 4 fix targets and 2 moving ones. The Leclerc team fired first and did 6/6 in exactly 58 seconds. They were happy, the manual says 1 minute ! then we did 6/6... in 54 seconds. They were stunned. In the leclerc, it's the auto-loader which limits the speed of firing. In the AMX 30B, with a super experienced leader, a strong fast loader and a fast shooter, all is possible, it's the speed at aiming of the leader which determinates the time. The AMX 30B2 would have done even better in term of time as the COTAC using a laser, the aiming would have been faster even. Sure, with a team normally composed, the leclerc would have maybe win... and at company level, the cav regiment would have mostly win. The system of precision, the COSTAC... overall, Leclerc is a far better tank in every area and the human has less impact on it than on the AMX 30.
I would just add that the AMX 30B2 (and not "valorisé") didn't forced the AMX 30B out of service in fact. the AMX 30B of the armoured cavalry units have been transformed in complete AMX 30B2. but In mechanised infantry, the AMX 30B were a bit less transformed. they received the better engine and the better transmission, but they just didn't change the firing system I was speaking in my first post. I served on AMX 30B in the 90's... and the improvements were done in the mid 70's for transmission and COTAC. then a second serie of improvements were done on AMX 30B2 in the 90's (surblindé, Brennus).
I was TC on AMX30B2 from 95 to 98 (then changed to Leclerc). AMX30B crew were engaging faster than us at PTS because range were known by TC while we used laser for ranging, 2s were lost per engagement... But at Lagne it was different, we had better results. You can see a niveau 2 at Suippes (stade B, crew level) firing (on Steelbeast Professionnal simulator) on my profile
@@507rcc7 Merci pour l'info Camarade. Je me souviens qu'à ces débuts, le Leclerc, que je regardais avec envie (je le regarde toujours avec envie même si j'ai quitté la "verte" pour la "bleue" ;) ), avait des difficultés pour les tirs quand il était fixe. En effet, il tirait mieux en roulant. Cela était dû à la compensation fournie par la suspension révolutionnaire du Leclerc. Je pense qu'ils ont remédié à ce problème par l'évolution des logiciels de tir etc... Tu sais quelque chose dessus, rien de stratégique bien sûr, auquel cas, ne réponds pas ;) . Tu es toujours en service ? J'ai 28+ années de service, je suis ADJ, Cdt de Brigade en GD :) . J'ai la nostalgie et je défends toujours les couleurs mais je suis déconnecté depuis 2002 où j'ai quitté les FFECSA (ex-FFSA)...
@@jpc7118 j'ai quitté l'active en 2009 après 15 ans de services et mon temps de chef de peloton Leclerc au 503RCC. Et la réserve en 2020. Le problème venait des équipages qui donnaient des consignes palonnier après la mesure, ce que la conduite de tir interprète comme une cible mobile.
Absolutely superb job! My first trip to the UK I went to the Tank Museum and I saw Leopard 1 running around the arena. It’s great how you put this into a broader context of the Cold War period giving us the big picture of tank development and national policy at that time, that unique gun and ammunition is fascinating. Thank you again, looking forward to future videos! 👍
Best explanation I have seen OR read of the complex HEAT ammunition used. Best analysis I have seen OR read of this tank’s armor configuration. Thank you.
Me too, one my favorite tank is the amx 50 Surbaissé, saddly it didnt get the time to shine since immediatly after the protoype was done HEAT shells got a big improvement (like the one that the amx 30 use), yet this thing could pierce threw an IS3 at 2km with a standard AP shell reloaded by a huge autoloader, i find this thing amazing!
Un bon reportage sur l'AMX30, où j'ai servi sur la version "ROLAND 2" pendant 5 ans. Le système d'arme était performant avec ses deux missiles sous poutre et ses huit missiles en soute avec un rechargement automatique. Côté châssis, je n'ai connu aucun problème mécanique; il était fiable et résistant. Une anecdote quand même, l'embrayage était à l'arrière et formait une cloche. Près d'une vingtaine d'écrous le maintenait au reste du moteur. Ces écrous avaient une rondelle qui était pliée afin que les vibrations du moteur de desserrent pas les écrous. Après un entretien nous sommes partis en manœuvre et nous avons cassé 9 embrayages sur les 10 véhicules présents....... les rondelles en place n'étaient pas celles préconisées (elles ne se pliaient pas). Avec les vibrations les écrous tombés dans les embrayages. Cette manœuvre a couté chère, mais c'était une erreur humaine. Sinon je n'ai que d'excellent souvenir de ce véhicule. Le bruit de l'Hispano-Suiza 12 cylindres avait une belle mélodie ;)
J'ai fait des expertises sur ce moteur chez HS moteur V12 4 culasses alu 4 soupapes/ cylindres Biturbo. Pour un moteur des années 60/70 top. Il a été repris par Renault par la suite.
While the AMX-30 might have been weak on protection compared to contemporary MBTs, many variants from it for a whole family of vehicles were devised. It also came out before development of ERA (Explosive, Reactive Armor) that would have helped a great deal to increase protection without a huge weight penalty. I'd consider it a very successful design, at least in terms of automotive engineering of AFVs.
Every western tanks are made with small armor as the main reason was the ammo are so effective they let at last no chance to an heavy armored tank so they made fast and heavily armed(more than 100 mm tube) That's the case of all ones except Swedish as he have to fight in prepared positions at ambush. Leo 1,(G) kuirassier (A) char 61/68(CH) Amx 13/30 (F) Patton were of that type
Great video, especially about the heat shell which is a masterpiece of military ingeenering. Also the amx 30 was knew to be very maneuverable (more than the leopard !) and high as a t55, if we exept the cupola. The lack of stabilizer and armor put it behind other mbt in end of 80s, despite having a full stabilized optics (knowed as COTAC fire control system)
Very good vidéo. The 30B2 also had a much improved fire control system (COTAC), derived from the one mounted on the AMX10RC, that markedly improved its first shot pH, and would have allowed it to make very effective "short halt" attacks. Not as good as the Leo 1 or 2's stabilization, but cheaper.... "Armageddon on a shoestring budget" could have been the French army's slogan in those days.
8:21 This version of the Amx 30 with grey blue camo, gun mounted smoke cartridges ejectors and fake hardware on the turret’s right side was used in Centac, a tactical training ground in Eastern France to stand in as Opposition Forces during weeklong combat scenarios.
Nice video :) Just want to point out that the modules you are highlighting at 7:54 are smoke grenade launchers. The soft kill active protection system is an IRCM module that can be seen on the left side of the roof at 6:45 (the house shaped thing with 10 round lenses on it). Keep up the good work !
@@RedWrenchFilms Soft kill are usually jammers of sorts like the one on t90, hard kill systems are those which are more complex and expensive, they usually work by firing a projectile towards the threat to destroy it or mess with it's direction.
Under De Gaulle, France left NATO 's integrated command structure to have ultimate control over it's independent nuclear arsenal. France did not leave NATO and has always been a reliable member of the organization. France eventually reintegrated the unified command structure under Sarkozy, NATO having agreed (in NATO 's interest) that the french nuclear deterrent would remain under french control.
I think the Yanks have been pissed off with France ever since :P Notice how they bagged France for not joining the Bushite invasion of Iraq, but ignored the Germans who also didn't join in. Despite the fact that France (and Germany) were fighting in Afghanistan. Must have been embarrassing for U.S. troops there fighting alongside the French.
@@thhseeking From what I understand, US troops respected the French they worked with. There was no embarrassment at all. Americans that are old enough to remember DeGaulle feel resentment because he was at first well recieved by the American people because we HAD a special relationship with France. DeGaulle quickly showed his ingratitude for American assistance, and we percieved that to include disdain for American sacrifice. For the record: America has never asked for any French land, except enough to bury her dead. The US was not the only country that ended up not liking DeGaulle, who was arrogant and petulant - and certainly no Caesar.
@@OutnBacker I don't doubt that the U.S.> troops respected the French troops in Afghanistan. I meant that they might have been embarrassed at the way that people in the U.S. were reacting because the French didn't want to join the Bushite invasion of Iraq. Of course, there was no mention of Germany not joining. They were in Afghanistan, too. DeGaulle was a somewhat polarising character. I'm in two minds about him. He was one of the few in the French military with a grasp of armoured warfare but was stifled by the conservative elements, but I also think he had a very high opinion of himself. I don't think that I ever said anything about the U.S.> asking for French land. I think the French people were happy to set aside land for the burying of Allied dead. And there's where a line needs drawing, between the French people, and the French government. And also between the government of the United States and its people. Not everyone in the U.S. believed the Bushite propaganda.
@@thhseeking Agreed. Governments rarely have the interests of the people in mind, but always seem to exploit them. However, in the case of Afghanistan/Bin Ladin/Al Queda, the vast majority of the American public was in favor of going in and killing him. It was Bush and his monied interetsts that attempted to do Nation Building. Some sources say that a single brigade of SpecOps, supported, could have done the job and gotten out - the way France works in Africa at times. Very efficient. Clearly, American leadership is not as moral as it used to be in past times. And, it is far more powerful and interconnected with global interests that I am not comfortable with.
Your channel is amazing. I've always been a big tank nerd and your channel has SOOOO much informative content on tanks that I can listen to while doing other things. I like to play these while running doordash or doing things around the house. You've earned yourself a new sub. Keep up the great work.
Venezuela still uses the AMX-30 in their arsenal, and those got modernized by the Spanish with Israeli technology. Their are now the army's main line together with the new T-72. In the video game Mercenaries 2: World in Flames, the AMX-30 is called "Jaguar" and is the main tank of the antagonist Venezuelan Army.
Now with Chonham armour the tanks are way heavier than their early cold war predecessors, also the Leo1 had a lighter protection, then from the M1 & Challenger onwards the weight started to grow, now an M1 almost double its weight respect to an older AMX30.
I am from Saumur in france (was), I see it running, it was far more agile than any other tank of the area, it can shoot and run. Compared to it chieftan it was super agile. The tank commander has the best visibility of all nato tanks, it has also a good function "hunter killer", see AMX 10 video of the chieftain to see the advantage of it, commander can control the shoot and replace the shooter. And 50mm at 270° is quite an important armor. Just know at the time a basic SS10 SS11 missile can shoot the strongest tank of nato and The armor of M60 has no chance against the 125mm of T72 and can be penetrated by the 115 and the 100 mm of older soviets tanks.
@@hadoken8688 Juste un coup de traitres des US qui refusent de certifier la bombe atomique sur l'Eurofighter. D'ou l'achat de F35 pour porter la bombe et obeir aux obligations de l'OTAN. Double jeu malhonnette bien sur.
@@hadoken8688 pas le choix, ils se sont fait piéger par les Ricains qui les ont obligé à prendre le F-35 pour maintenir leur force de dissuasion nucléaire (US) sur leur sol
It all about the people entering discussions from the German side having usually little to no authority to conclude until the deal is approved by the Bundestag… call it a good cop/bad cop bargaining technique… we all got really fed up with it in France…
* @@BingoPaletot heusement qu elle a quittée le programme eurofighter , il aurais des f18 c /d sur le charles de gaule et le rafale est le meilleur chasseur de 4 em generation , et qui taquine les f22 et f35 , j ai dit bien de f18 c/d mais meme pas les f18e/f qui sont plus gros et plus lourd !!!
AMX-30 armor, it was actually pretty good. It had 80 mm of armor angled at 68 degrees in frontal hull. Its turret was angled at 73 degrees with 80 mm of thickness. Gun mantlet has upwards of 150 mm of thickness. Leopard had only 70 mm angled at 60 degrees of frontal hull armor. Its turret had 52 mm angled at 65 degrees. Its mantlet armor was around 100 mm. Type 61 had 45 mm of armor angled at 60 degrees. Its turret armor was angled at 60 degrees and it had 40 mm of armor. Its mantlet had 120 mm of armor. AMX-30 being lightly protected is a historical myth. There were others less widely known tank with lesser protection. Not to mention Leopard 1 being less armored, with less slopped armor while AMX-30 had far steeper angles which were critical for achieving ricochet angles.
Very excellent. Thank You. Many questions were answered. de Gaulle reminds me of a person who can't wait to get invited to a party just so he can say, "No"!
@@valuggel8972 Yes but none of the other NATO nations got involved in Vietnam, & they didn't have to pull out of NATO. None of the other West European nations, as far as I Know, tried to keep the UK out of the Common Market. I think he was having a tantrum because France was reduced to a second rate world power & he wanted more influence & recognition.
@@valuggel8972 An addendum, I don't totally condemn de Gaulle. He gave France much hope during the Second World War. He also wisely pulled out of Algeria. (and almost got assassinated doing it) He still though, somewhat reminds me of a child who makes a lot of noise in order to be noticed.
De Gaulle was perhaps the most important European statesman of the 20th century. Without him, no German-French reconciliation, no EU, no French nuclear deterrent.
@@BingoPaletot I agree. My point was though, he always seemed to be a pompous arrogant ass to me. I have worked for extremely intelligent, capable people that always had a solution to a problem when nobody else could figure it out. People that I honestly looked up to. At the same time, I would ask myself, "Why is this guy such a jerk"? Maybe that goes along with the job. Who knows? Thanks for your comment.
Third time's the charm I guess, France's and Germany's collaborative tank project seems to be going well despite the issues between our two countries, let's hope it all works out finally!
You need to do more research into de Gaulle reasons. De Gaulle had demanded the US use nuclear weapons against the Viet Minh in what was then French Indochina because the French were losing badly. Both US presidents (Truman and Eisenhower) refused and de Gaulle blamed the US for France losing in Indochina.
What Ive always found curious about this is that the tank was designed for high speed but they never implemented a stabilizer capable of making the gun accurate at speed. Iirc that is.
@@TheDude50447 Well, yes, now that I look into it it seems the gun was simply stabilised, for values of stabilised. Hydraulic dampers kept the gun steady while the vehicle was moving.
@@adrien5834 That was only on a very few select 30b2s,counted on one hand,and the stabilization was only effective when the commander took control of the turret
Interesting to say that the tank was not thought during its design in the 1960s to withstand large shells, since already the 120mm guns was not the norm (105 mm more democratized) and the combat requirements were different. ATGMs was not for example still widely used, the TOW did not exist, anti-tank missiles were restricted to ENTAC and a few others, the only real threat to the AMX 30 could be the 85mm rocket from the RPG-7 of the Warsaw Pact troops. Otherwise extremely good video! A lot of research work and a very appreciable critical point of view! We can also see the AMX 30 play "OPFOR" in training ORION currently in court in France ;)
Hi - thanks for this. I'm fascinated by the way France flipped between slow, heavily armoured tanks pre-WWII to fast, weaker armoured tanks (especially their use of autoloaders) post-WWII. I wonder with the way the Russian tanks are performing in Ukraine with not great armour and with autoloader that the AMX-30 will too lose it's turret if hit.
I’m glad you enjoyed! The Germans had a very similar handbrake turn after the war - from Maus to Leopard… To be honest I think people are being overly harsh with the T-72s etc. A penetrating hit to the side of the turret or hull usually means pretty catastrophic damage and most of the crew dead regardless. Just a little less spectacular!
I thought that was smoke grenade launchers on the AMX-30, not APS? Also, just like with the M48/60 which were never designated as a "Patton". The Leclerc is also mistakenly called AMX Leclerc even though it was never built by AMX which no longer exists. Other than those nitpicks, awesome video.
@@jeandelacroix6726 It's literally designation is just Leclerc "insert Série you're talking about". Just like my previous comment on the M48s/M60s, their official designation is 90mm Gun Tank: M48. Tank, Combat, Full Tracked: 105-mm Gun, M60
Stop with french bashing. It's mostly because the L7's rifling was too tight for the HEAT round as the L7's APDS needed high rotation speed to hit accurately. The 105 mle 62 was designed around the G-shell which required low twist because it could accurately hit T62-sized targets at 3000m while L7s could do it at 2000 at best. This low twist of the mle 62 allowed for integration of APFSDS rounds without modification. Furthermore the gun IS compatible with NATO rounds that do not rely on spin such as APFSDS and HEATFS but not APDS. Hence at the (very) end of its life it got OCC M456 HEATFS round.
Video is wrong. It is NATO compatible. The gun was used to test 105 US APFSDS, and could fire NATO compliant HEATFS, as it recieved a GIAT HEATFS late in its life (don't remember the exact name of the round). The L7 wasn't compatible with G shell because of L7's high twist for APDS which make it incompatible with the low twist needed for G shell and HEATFS in general, though the HEATFS was equipped with slip band to make it L7 compatible (which the F1 didn't need bc low twist). In short, the L7 was less NATO compliant that the F1 because the F1 never needed modificiations to fire newer rounds while the L7 needed multiple updates to do so
Not sure that heavier modern tank are more capable : any shoot could break optics or main gun and rolling line... mobility and fast maintain keep a powerfull advantage...
I'm pretty sure this is the only MBT or just tank in general, armed with an autocannon alongside a standard turret hatch MG An enjoyable tank in War Thunder Mobile, provided your teammates are... Good... Have you made one for AMX-13?
The difference between France and West Germany was (is) the lack of independence of the latter, which is still de facto occupied by the US. De Gaulle wanted Europe to be independent from the US, hence it was also needed to distance itself from the military arm of US control (euphemistically called leadership) over Europe. Unfortunately for Europe the end of the Cold War didn’t improve the situation, it worsened it because all the former Warsaw Pact satellites were basically offered easy and fast EU membership if they joined NATO - buy one, get one for free policy - granting access to cheap labor, but also undermining the EU’s economic foundation. Right now the EU is a socio-economic mess, without any sign of independent foreign policy or economic self interest. De Gaulle was right.
Interesting. So the weak HEAT round (300mm pen) this tank has in World of Tanks is completely the opposite of the historical situation. Or were there different kind of HEAT rounds?
Yes, World of Tanks’ AMX-30 uses ahistorical ammunition. In addition to the HEAT shell missing 100mm of penetration as is stated in the video, the AP shell is completely fictional. The AMX-30 only ever fired HEAT until an APFSDS round was developed for it.
![Gunna - HIM ALL ALONG [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/w7Wf0h1Q8a4/mqdefault.jpg)
I served at the beginning of the 80s in the ABC( Arme Blindé Cavalerie) on AMX30 b2 and I must say that it was not a bad machine, reliable, fast with a good big gun equipped with arrow shells. We trained to fire and reload faster than the Russian tanks which had an autoloader, and we got there after a few weeks of intense training.
The pilots and the gunners were often of "small" size, 1m72 to slip more easily into these relatively narrow positions, me being 1.92 m my position as tank commander allowed me to stand up while observing at 360 degrees in the commander's cupola^^
on the other hand totally impossible to slip into the pilot's position without having the upper half of the body out of the hull...
Our life expectancy on a battlefield was estimated at less than 20 minutes, when you are young you are "immortal".
Thank you for this video which reminds me of good but already quite funny memories.
Thanks so much for your comment Olivier, it still blows my mind that actual crewmen and service members watch my videos - hope you had a great Christmas.
@@RedWrenchFilms Great thank you.
I hope you too and I take this opportunity to wish you a happy new year for you and for your channel.
@@olivierpuyou3621 I think soviet tanks were seporoire to the othere earoupean nations in there own Time
@@اسكندرفكار who asked?
@@Lomni its the simple truth.....the AMX 30 or the leopard had no chance against the T-64 ......cope with it
To be fair, all tanks in the 1960's were vulnerable to ATGW and HEAT warheads fired from infantry recoilless guns and post-WW2 tank guns. The German's and French accepted this and decided that thick, heavy armor was a waste of time. Under the circumstances they were probably correct. The situation did not change until the advent of composite armors in the 1970's, and reactive armor in the 1980's changed the equation.
No they lagged behind in armor development, while soviets would design the T-64 which had the world's first composite armor array in the 1960s
@@BrezhnevStan T-64 was a very different animal designed to different requirements.
@@MFitz12 T-64 was simply ahead of it's time, while the AMX-30 had a terrible stabilization method, subpar HEAT ammunition and no composite armor well into the 1970s
@@BrezhnevStan amx tanks were used by Israel to great effect. No tanks has ever been invulnerable.
@@jjjr.1186" The IDF realised that the AMX-13 tank was too lightly-armoured and had a weak main gun. Losses were heavy at places like Rafah Junction and Jiradi Pass during the Six-Day War with many destroyed by heavier Arab-fielded Soviet armour, such as T-55 MBTs and IS-3 (tank) heavy tanks. Subsequently, Israel gradually phased out all of its AMX-13s following the Six-Day War, with most ending up being sold to the then newly established Singapore Army between 1968 and 1969."
Funny enough, France and Germany are once again trying to develop a common tank for both nations. We'll see how long the project lasts this time.
At least this time they combined two already in production designs to make it.
wont last, the surrender monkeys (france) has proven they cant be trusted with anything.
France, poster child for contrarianism and weak military ideas that get it's people killed en masse.
Well, they’re not fighting so that’s progress.
Will last as long as it takes for each side to stick the other with the bill.
I have a soft spot for the AMX-30 because of its unique design. It doesn't get as much attention as other tanks, but it deserves just as much love as the rest!
it's why i like french tanks. as a civilian, i can't really tell if they are effective or not (i think they kind of are, but i can't prove it so i guess i just have to shut up or else a "tank expert" will explain me with a huge essay why i should like something else). the only thing that i know is that they look cool / unique and always have something extraordinary included into their designs. (oscillating turrets, special shells, loads of armored cars ect...) it's kinda inspiring in some way : those machines are doing the job using unconventional methods. it's not because something works well that something else can't..
@@Liam-hk7sc For me which tanks are my favorite has very little to do with which tanks I think are good. I think the R35 and Pz2 are among my favorite WW2 tanks, even though neither of them compare particularly well with other WW2 tanks in terms of actual effectiveness.
@@gareththompson2708 90% of people who "like" tanks are not thinking this way, and so it leads to weird conversations where people try to impose their vision of what is good and thus what you should like... So i'm fine with you haha
Yep. AMX-30 & Leopard 1 are my personal favorites. These are really beautiful "medium" MBT, especially compared to "bulky" silhouette of M60 Patton and the "basic" shape of T-55.
@@fabiandimaspratama For sure! They're both really sleek and stylish.
My father was an army ground liaison officer with the RAF in the 1970s. He said that the French picked their tank crews for their low height, thereby allowing their armour to be of minimum size. The French supplied NATO with official photos of all their vehicles. These included a standard figure of a small, standard-height, moustachioed, crewman standing next to the vehicle in question. It was always the same guy, who the RAF pilots called "Hercule". When a slide came up for recognition, they would all shout out "Hercule" rather than "AMX30". My father reckoned that the Harrier wing could identify "Hercule" from several thousand feet, and certainly more easily than they could identify any individual type of French armour! (My father also used to carry a water pistol in case any pilots dozed off during AFV recognition lectures).
now i want to find pictures with this Hercule
That sounds like a really fun time
We need the pictures of Hercule now !
@@clemlebleu After 40 years you will either have to apply to RAF archives, or the French Army.
I read during Cold War too, Soviet also picked average stature men as T-55 or T-72 tank crews (in Steven Zaloga's book, published by Osprey Publishing). Especially because their tanks had low silhouette.
The shell it fired is an engineering masterpiece in its own right.
Thank you Marshall Zhukov
It seems a bit over engineered when the same effect could have been reached with a smoothbore gun just by adding fins to the shell.
@@blumpfreyfranks8863 the shell was introduced well before smooth bore canons were designed.
And both HE and HEAT from smooth bore have shorter ranges
@@507rcc7 "the shell was introduced well before smooth bore canons were designed". Are you for real? First tank with smooth bored gun was soviet T-62, which mass production started in 1961. 5 yeras before AMX-30 was a thing.
@@skidzeess608 OBUS G, 1953, designed for AMX 13 at first
As a former Sergeant then Staff Sergeant, tank leader then second to tank platoon leader on AMX30B in a mechanised infatry unit (5° RI based in Paris area then 16°BCP based in Saarburg - Germany, part of one of the 2 french army corps present, consequence of the WWII treaty given an occupation zone to France), I want to thank you for this itneresting video.
The AMX 30B was outdated when I served it (in the 90's), but still its gun, latelyequipped with new ammunitions OFL 105 and OFL 2 105 (APFSDS) was to pierce most armours.
There were 2 sort of motorisation : The SOFAM 12 GS with 720 HP then the Hispano-Suiza, sulzer 720 HP (in fact, I mearnt 680 ch and in my documentation it's writte 680 but I saw than on the net it was written 720... I am not a mech then I can't say who is right) and/or the hydrostatic. The first engine, i never saw it, h=it had been retired from the service far before I entered in service. The AMC 30 B2 then the AMX 30 B2 S brennus was a true improvement and had a better armour, a better engine and more of all, a better and more modern firing system. The AMX 30 B had an old (but efficient) Firing system based on co-incidence of picture (image). I mean, for the one who knows, the turret of the AMX 30 B had 2 external "eyes" on each side... the system is based on the fact that you had 2 pictures of the same tank, but it was working with the difference of the angle... the "game" was to make a single picture of the 2, it was giving you the distance of the tank once you had a cingle picture... then you ahd the "intuition" of the tank leader, which was going to influence you, + or - 50 or even 100 meters... Personally, I was priviledging the precision of the system and had good eyes, then II was giving the distance I had by the machine without changing it. I did 100 % hit every time (more than 100% even, because when we were doing military training camps of firing at platoon level, we had often more ammunitions (+5%) than targets.
The vulnerability of the tank wasn't a problem as EVERY tanks were destroyable by HOT, RPG last versions, any performing AT ammunition etc... The advantage of the AMX 30 was its manouvrebility and its speed. It was also easy to find any problems on it, it was a "rustic" tank, strong, fast, responding. I liked to serve on it even if I was looking at the AMX Leclerc with envy.
I have a last anecdot/story... " once upon a time ", in 1996 or in 1997 (hey, it's long time ago ! ), my platoon was on the Mailly PTS (South Firing Point of Mailly, a french military camp) and we did a little challenge with the Leclerc.
We had to fire 6 hits as fast as possible. The "best" AMX 30 B team of the 4th company of the 5° RI (Mechanised infantry regiment, french historical regiment, created 1494, retired from french army organisation few months after it) against the Best Leclerc of the 501/503° RCC (Regiment de Chars de Combat or MBT regiment, a unit of cavalry)
The Leclerc had a crew of 2 in the turret, the leader and the shooter. It's equipped with an autoloader. They took their best team, but didn't change it.
Sure as normal french, and infantry men, our foxy Captain decided to cheat and to "make" a team for the crew of the turret. We were 3, i was named shooter as we had still conscript, I was considered better shooter (best ranking when in academy) as I was private sergeant... Then the leader was the most experienced leader, master sergeant and the radio-loader wasn't even a normal loader but a strong master sergeant specialist of radio. the fact he was strong had its importance as a 6'4 guy can easily grab a 105 mm ammo like if it was grapefruit lol ;) :D . The cavalry men never knew we cheat, of course.
There were 4 fix targets and 2 moving ones.
The Leclerc team fired first and did 6/6 in exactly 58 seconds. They were happy, the manual says 1 minute !
then we did 6/6... in 54 seconds. They were stunned.
In the leclerc, it's the auto-loader which limits the speed of firing. In the AMX 30B, with a super experienced leader, a strong fast loader and a fast shooter, all is possible, it's the speed at aiming of the leader which determinates the time. The AMX 30B2 would have done even better in term of time as the COTAC using a laser, the aiming would have been faster even.
Sure, with a team normally composed, the leclerc would have maybe win... and at company level, the cav regiment would have mostly win. The system of precision, the COSTAC... overall, Leclerc is a far better tank in every area and the human has less impact on it than on the AMX 30.
I would just add that the AMX 30B2 (and not "valorisé") didn't forced the AMX 30B out of service in fact. the AMX 30B of the armoured cavalry units have been transformed in complete AMX 30B2. but In mechanised infantry, the AMX 30B were a bit less transformed. they received the better engine and the better transmission, but they just didn't change the firing system I was speaking in my first post.
I served on AMX 30B in the 90's... and the improvements were done in the mid 70's for transmission and COTAC. then a second serie of improvements were done on AMX 30B2 in the 90's (surblindé, Brennus).
I was TC on AMX30B2 from 95 to 98 (then changed to Leclerc).
AMX30B crew were engaging faster than us at PTS because range were known by TC while we used laser for ranging, 2s were lost per engagement...
But at Lagne it was different, we had better results.
You can see a niveau 2 at Suippes (stade B, crew level) firing (on Steelbeast Professionnal simulator) on my profile
@@507rcc7 Merci pour l'info Camarade. Je me souviens qu'à ces débuts, le Leclerc, que je regardais avec envie (je le regarde toujours avec envie même si j'ai quitté la "verte" pour la "bleue" ;) ), avait des difficultés pour les tirs quand il était fixe. En effet, il tirait mieux en roulant. Cela était dû à la compensation fournie par la suspension révolutionnaire du Leclerc. Je pense qu'ils ont remédié à ce problème par l'évolution des logiciels de tir etc... Tu sais quelque chose dessus, rien de stratégique bien sûr, auquel cas, ne réponds pas ;) .
Tu es toujours en service ?
J'ai 28+ années de service, je suis ADJ, Cdt de Brigade en GD :) . J'ai la nostalgie et je défends toujours les couleurs mais je suis déconnecté depuis 2002 où j'ai quitté les FFECSA (ex-FFSA)...
@@jpc7118 j'ai quitté l'active en 2009 après 15 ans de services et mon temps de chef de peloton Leclerc au 503RCC.
Et la réserve en 2020.
Le problème venait des équipages qui donnaient des consignes palonnier après la mesure, ce que la conduite de tir interprète comme une cible mobile.
@@507rcc7 Merci pour l'info.
Absolutely superb job! My first trip to the UK I went to the Tank Museum and I saw Leopard 1 running around the arena. It’s great how you put this into a broader context of the Cold War period giving us the big picture of tank development and national policy at that time, that unique gun and ammunition is fascinating. Thank you again, looking forward to future videos! 👍
Thanks so much Phil, it really means a lot!
Best explanation I have seen OR read of the complex HEAT ammunition used. Best analysis I have seen OR read of this tank’s armor configuration. Thank you.
Thanks so much John
Its armor was better than Leopard 1, but British 105mm gun was best in NATO until Chieftain emerged in the late 1960s.
i have never seen such an in depth look with all the informaton, from the ammo, to the politics, to the armor, very well made!
French post war tanks are my favourite, theyre just different, especially the oscillating turrets which i love
Me too, one my favorite tank is the amx 50 Surbaissé, saddly it didnt get the time to shine since immediatly after the protoype was done HEAT shells got a big improvement (like the one that the amx 30 use), yet this thing could pierce threw an IS3 at 2km with a standard AP shell reloaded by a huge autoloader, i find this thing amazing!
their cars are different too.
Un bon reportage sur l'AMX30, où j'ai servi sur la version "ROLAND 2" pendant 5 ans. Le système d'arme était performant avec ses deux missiles sous poutre et ses huit missiles en soute avec un rechargement automatique. Côté châssis, je n'ai connu aucun problème mécanique; il était fiable et résistant. Une anecdote quand même, l'embrayage était à l'arrière et formait une cloche. Près d'une vingtaine d'écrous le maintenait au reste du moteur. Ces écrous avaient une rondelle qui était pliée afin que les vibrations du moteur de desserrent pas les écrous. Après un entretien nous sommes partis en manœuvre et nous avons cassé 9 embrayages sur les 10 véhicules présents....... les rondelles en place n'étaient pas celles préconisées (elles ne se pliaient pas). Avec les vibrations les écrous tombés dans les embrayages. Cette manœuvre a couté chère, mais c'était une erreur humaine. Sinon je n'ai que d'excellent souvenir de ce véhicule. Le bruit de l'Hispano-Suiza 12 cylindres avait une belle mélodie ;)
J'ai fait des expertises sur ce moteur chez HS moteur V12 4 culasses alu 4 soupapes/ cylindres Biturbo. Pour un moteur des années 60/70 top. Il a été repris par Renault par la suite.
@@marcsole4261 Merci pour la précision dont j'ignorais tout.
While the AMX-30 might have been weak on protection compared to contemporary MBTs, many variants from it for a whole family of vehicles were devised. It also came out before development of ERA (Explosive, Reactive Armor) that would have helped a great deal to increase protection without a huge weight penalty. I'd consider it a very successful design, at least in terms of automotive engineering of AFVs.
Every western tanks are made with small armor as the main reason was the ammo are so effective they let at last no chance to an heavy armored tank so they made fast and heavily armed(more than 100 mm tube)
That's the case of all ones except Swedish as he have to fight in prepared positions at ambush.
Leo 1,(G) kuirassier (A) char 61/68(CH) Amx 13/30 (F) Patton were of that type
I was just given a Solido diecast metal model of an AMX30 for Christmas. Great tank! Good video!
Great video, especially about the heat shell which is a masterpiece of military ingeenering. Also the amx 30 was knew to be very maneuverable (more than the leopard !) and high as a t55, if we exept the cupola. The lack of stabilizer and armor put it behind other mbt in end of 80s, despite having a full stabilized optics (knowed as COTAC fire control system)
COTAC wasn't stabilized
A later variant was sometimes referred as COSTAC but never adopted
Very good vidéo. The 30B2 also had a much improved fire control system (COTAC), derived from the one mounted on the AMX10RC, that markedly improved its first shot pH, and would have allowed it to make very effective "short halt" attacks. Not as good as the Leo 1 or 2's stabilization, but cheaper.... "Armageddon on a shoestring budget" could have been the French army's slogan in those days.
Thanks Nicolas!
8:21 This version of the Amx 30 with grey blue camo, gun mounted smoke cartridges ejectors and fake hardware on the turret’s right side was used in Centac, a tactical training ground in Eastern France to stand in as Opposition Forces during weeklong combat scenarios.
Great video! Those french are always up to something aren't they. Would love a video about the cromwell :)
I find it a shame that you didnt mention the amx 30 AuF1 has an autoloader for its 155, as wel as a sight that allows it to direct fire
Great review of the French MBT. How about more on their wheeled vehicles?
Good video on a tank that's not discussed that much. Nice seldom-seen footage, too.
Nice video :) Just want to point out that the modules you are highlighting at 7:54 are smoke grenade launchers. The soft kill active protection system is an IRCM module that can be seen on the left side of the roof at 6:45 (the house shaped thing with 10 round lenses on it). Keep up the good work !
Oh wow thanks for pointing that out - I thought the smoke launchers WERE the soft kill APS!
@@RedWrenchFilms Soft kill are usually jammers of sorts like the one on t90, hard kill systems are those which are more complex and expensive, they usually work by firing a projectile towards the threat to destroy it or mess with it's direction.
Under De Gaulle, France left NATO 's integrated command structure to have ultimate control over it's independent nuclear arsenal. France did not leave NATO and has always been a reliable member of the organization. France eventually reintegrated the unified command structure under Sarkozy, NATO having agreed (in NATO 's interest) that the french nuclear deterrent would remain under french control.
I think the Yanks have been pissed off with France ever since :P Notice how they bagged France for not joining the Bushite invasion of Iraq, but ignored the Germans who also didn't join in. Despite the fact that France (and Germany) were fighting in Afghanistan. Must have been embarrassing for U.S. troops there fighting alongside the French.
Thank you for saying it I'm tired of always see people says that France left NATO
@@thhseeking From what I understand, US troops respected the French they worked with. There was no embarrassment at all.
Americans that are old enough to remember DeGaulle feel resentment because he was at first well recieved by the American people because we HAD a special relationship with France. DeGaulle quickly showed his ingratitude for American assistance, and we percieved that to include disdain for American sacrifice.
For the record: America has never asked for any French land, except enough to bury her dead. The US was not the only country that ended up not liking DeGaulle, who was arrogant and petulant - and certainly no Caesar.
@@OutnBacker I don't doubt that the U.S.> troops respected the French troops in Afghanistan. I meant that they might have been embarrassed at the way that people in the U.S. were reacting because the French didn't want to join the Bushite invasion of Iraq. Of course, there was no mention of Germany not joining. They were in Afghanistan, too.
DeGaulle was a somewhat polarising character. I'm in two minds about him. He was one of the few in the French military with a grasp of armoured warfare but was stifled by the conservative elements, but I also think he had a very high opinion of himself.
I don't think that I ever said anything about the U.S.> asking for French land. I think the French people were happy to set aside land for the burying of Allied dead. And there's where a line needs drawing, between the French people, and the French government. And also between the government of the United States and its people. Not everyone in the U.S. believed the Bushite propaganda.
@@thhseeking Agreed. Governments rarely have the interests of the people in mind, but always seem to exploit them. However, in the case of Afghanistan/Bin Ladin/Al Queda, the vast majority of the American public was in favor of going in and killing him. It was Bush and his monied interetsts that attempted to do Nation Building.
Some sources say that a single brigade of SpecOps, supported, could have done the job and gotten out - the way France works in Africa at times. Very efficient.
Clearly, American leadership is not as moral as it used to be in past times. And, it is far more powerful and interconnected with global interests that I am not comfortable with.
Your channel is amazing. I've always been a big tank nerd and your channel has SOOOO much informative content on tanks that I can listen to while doing other things. I like to play these while running doordash or doing things around the house. You've earned yourself a new sub. Keep up the great work.
Love the calm unpretentious voice. Wasn't expecting to watch the entire video, but the presentation kept me glued.
Aw thank you so much 🙏
Very well done, taking on subjects others left by the wayside. But I'm biased. The AMX-30 proto is one of my favorite tanks. :P
Venezuela still uses the AMX-30 in their arsenal, and those got modernized by the Spanish with Israeli technology. Their are now the army's main line together with the new T-72. In the video game Mercenaries 2: World in Flames, the AMX-30 is called "Jaguar" and is the main tank of the antagonist Venezuelan Army.
Now with Chonham armour the tanks are way heavier than their early cold war predecessors, also the Leo1 had a lighter protection, then from the M1 & Challenger onwards the weight started to grow, now an M1 almost double its weight respect to an older AMX30.
It's Chobham the name of the British laboratory place who it was developed
@@badbotchdown9845 Sorry, typing error ....
I remember seeing the Pluton at the "musée des Blindés" in Saumur, it's so big!
I am from Saumur in france (was), I see it running, it was far more agile than any other tank of the area, it can shoot and run.
Compared to it chieftan it was super agile. The tank commander has the best visibility of all nato tanks, it has also a good function "hunter killer", see AMX 10 video of the chieftain to see the advantage of it, commander can control the shoot and replace the shooter.
And 50mm at 270° is quite an important armor. Just know at the time a basic SS10 SS11 missile can shoot the strongest tank of nato and The armor of M60 has no chance against the 125mm of T72 and can be penetrated by the 115 and the 100 mm of older soviets tanks.
Les allemands viennent de commander des avions F-35 plutôt que nos superbes Rafale , vive la collaboration E.U :/
@@hadoken8688 Juste un coup de traitres des US qui refusent de certifier la bombe atomique sur l'Eurofighter. D'ou l'achat de F35 pour porter la bombe et obeir aux obligations de l'OTAN.
Double jeu malhonnette bien sur.
@@hadoken8688 The French copy no one and no one copies the French.
@@hadoken8688 pas le choix, ils se sont fait piéger par les Ricains qui les ont obligé à prendre le F-35 pour maintenir leur force de dissuasion nucléaire (US) sur leur sol
@@remistiegler5302 Le rafale n'est pas compatible avec les bombes de l'OTAN ?
I've been enjoying your content, keep up the great work
Thanks Michael!
In most respects the French AMX-30 was better protected than the W German LEO-1!
In my opinion, one of the best looking tanks ever
You’ve peaked my interest with this video, just ordered the Haynes AMX-30 manual 😂 👍
Haha let me know if it’s any good - I could be tempted.
Great book like all the Haynes.
in cyprus we still operate them. i was there driver :) is a very quite tank - compared to t 80 for example
It is very sad that my country failed to purchase this Tank to replace the AMX-13 in the 80's.
What country?
9:18 wait that's a Mobile nuclear capable launching platform, that's a METAL GEAR!!!
Was also an obscure prototype SPAA using radar paired with dumb fire proxy fuse MRLS system called the AXM-30 Javelot
Très bien merci d'avoir mis le traducteur 😊
the AMX30B2 is honestly the prettiest tank i've ever seen to this day
Looking at modern active protection systems/apfsds rounds, I think they definitely had the right idea. Only protecting against autocannons.
My father served as a gunner in these machines during his military service
It SOUNDS pretty GOOD, actually.
Btw the leclerc is not designated as AMC-something, like the amx-30 or 50
Early development of the Leclerc is called AMX 56 before the project is handed to Nexter
@@Type75Advance it was AMX Leclerc. AMX 56 is a journalist's invention
Take my sub. Great video. More French tonks pls.
I watched this video while building a 1/35th amx 30 B2
Germany has a track record of leaving partnerships early.
How to steal tech 101
It all about the people entering discussions from the German side having usually little to no authority to conclude until the deal is approved by the Bundestag… call it a good cop/bad cop bargaining technique… we all got really fed up with it in France…
Not true. Panavia Tornado, Alpha Jet, Eurofighter Typhoon, to mention just the most prominent.
Not really, french always drops projects.
*
@@BingoPaletot heusement qu elle a quittée le programme eurofighter , il aurais des f18 c /d sur le charles de gaule et le rafale est le meilleur chasseur de 4 em generation , et qui taquine les f22 et f35 , j ai dit bien de f18 c/d mais meme pas les f18e/f qui sont plus gros et plus lourd !!!
I think it would be nice if you talked about AMX-32 and AMX-40 man
Good video man. Keep it up and you'll be on 100k subs in no time.
you forgot the soft kill APS on the brenus package
AMX-30 armor, it was actually pretty good. It had 80 mm of armor angled at 68 degrees in frontal hull. Its turret was angled at 73 degrees with 80 mm of thickness. Gun mantlet has upwards of 150 mm of thickness.
Leopard had only 70 mm angled at 60 degrees of frontal hull armor. Its turret had 52 mm angled at 65 degrees. Its mantlet armor was around 100 mm.
Type 61 had 45 mm of armor angled at 60 degrees. Its turret armor was angled at 60 degrees and it had 40 mm of armor. Its mantlet had 120 mm of armor.
AMX-30 being lightly protected is a historical myth. There were others less widely known tank with lesser protection. Not to mention Leopard 1 being less armored, with less slopped armor while AMX-30 had far steeper angles which were critical for achieving ricochet angles.
I really like the effort you put into your french accent ! Not perfect but you are trying and that’s nice.
The front armor was better as the front of the Panther. And the gun was very good.
Awesome content man, you should do a video on the M-22 Locust!!
Check out my glider tanks video :)
Awesome work 👍 thank you
It’s 20mm coax is just way too cool though
Very excellent. Thank You. Many questions were answered. de Gaulle reminds me of a person who can't wait to get invited to a party just so he can say, "No"!
He didnt want Europe to get messed in USAs wars...and oops, what happened...He was a wise dude.
@@valuggel8972 Yes but none of the other NATO nations got involved in Vietnam, & they didn't have to pull out of NATO. None of the other West European nations, as far as I Know, tried to keep the UK out of the Common Market. I think he was having a tantrum because France was reduced to a second rate world power & he wanted more influence & recognition.
@@valuggel8972 An addendum, I don't totally condemn de Gaulle. He gave France much hope during the Second World War. He also wisely pulled out of Algeria. (and almost got assassinated doing it) He still though, somewhat reminds me of a child who makes a lot of noise in order to be noticed.
De Gaulle was perhaps the most important European statesman of the 20th century. Without him, no German-French reconciliation, no EU, no French nuclear deterrent.
@@BingoPaletot I agree. My point was though, he always seemed to be a pompous arrogant ass to me. I have worked for extremely intelligent, capable people that always had a solution to a problem when nobody else could figure it out. People that I honestly looked up to. At the same time, I would ask myself, "Why is this guy such a jerk"? Maybe that goes along with the job. Who knows? Thanks for your comment.
Third time's the charm I guess, France's and Germany's collaborative tank project seems to be going well despite the issues between our two countries, let's hope it all works out finally!
Well in the last 40 years since the previous attempt the EU nations have come closer together
@@dominuslogik484 yes, and the fusion of Kraus and Nexter into KNDS helped a lot as well
Good looking MBT. All of those aerodynamic curves. It is like a sexier T-55.
Meanwhile in Warthunder the AMX-30 's internal components can dissipate the post penetration damage of the APFSDS.
Most NATO tanks were designed to be knocked out 4 times and repaired /returned to service with most crew surviving .
Love the AMX-30. Informative video.
5:57 this AMX-30 is specifically in Cypriot service, ΕΦ stands for Εθνική Φρουρά (National Guard) which are the Armed Forces of Cyprus
Pretty remarkable that just 9 years after the war France and Germany were discussing a military collaboration.
You need to do more research into de Gaulle reasons. De Gaulle had demanded the US use nuclear weapons against the Viet Minh in what was then French Indochina because the French were losing badly. Both US presidents (Truman and Eisenhower) refused and de Gaulle blamed the US for France losing in Indochina.
The British HESH rounds also used a ball bearing system to reduce rotation.
It was made first by French laboratory with germans engineers coming from fall Nazi Germany adopted later by every western forces
Excellent presentation!
keep up the good work!
What Ive always found curious about this is that the tank was designed for high speed but they never implemented a stabilizer capable of making the gun accurate at speed. Iirc that is.
@@adrien5834 Thats a false myth
@@adrien5834 i didnt know but that sounds pretty dangerous to wait Till the gun is randomly aligned
@@TheDude50447 Well, yes, now that I look into it it seems the gun was simply stabilised, for values of stabilised. Hydraulic dampers kept the gun steady while the vehicle was moving.
@@adrien5834 That was only on a very few select 30b2s,counted on one hand,and the stabilization was only effective when the commander took control of the turret
@@PoliviosSavva What do you mean? I can't even imagine how that would work...
Thank you great story
Very informative thanks
FR / DE coop in arms development will never work because both nations have very different policies regarding weapons exports.
AMX Pluton with 20O KT warhead was before for his time,even today are most powerfull medium light tank Ever built😢😢😢
I think it's just a missile lobber
Interesting to say that the tank was not thought during its design in the 1960s to withstand large shells, since already the 120mm guns was not the norm (105 mm more democratized) and the combat requirements were different. ATGMs was not for example still widely used, the TOW did not exist, anti-tank missiles were restricted to ENTAC and a few others, the only real threat to the AMX 30 could be the 85mm rocket from the RPG-7 of the Warsaw Pact troops.
Otherwise extremely good video! A lot of research work and a very appreciable critical point of view! We can also see the AMX 30 play "OPFOR" in training ORION currently in court in France ;)
Hi - thanks for this. I'm fascinated by the way France flipped between slow, heavily armoured tanks pre-WWII to fast, weaker armoured tanks (especially their use of autoloaders) post-WWII.
I wonder with the way the Russian tanks are performing in Ukraine with not great armour and with autoloader that the AMX-30 will too lose it's turret if hit.
I’m glad you enjoyed! The Germans had a very similar handbrake turn after the war - from Maus to Leopard…
To be honest I think people are being overly harsh with the T-72s etc. A penetrating hit to the side of the turret or hull usually means pretty catastrophic damage and most of the crew dead regardless. Just a little less spectacular!
Not all B2s are retired. There is still an opfor squadron for training equipped with B2.
No more....The last AMX30 B2 of the Centac 5th Régiment of Dragon were retired in 2021.
@@BFOP15 thanks, i wasnt aware!
@@BFOP15 what do they use now?
@@gunner678 Leclerc tanks, but I don't know from what unit they were taken.
@@BFOP15 i will ask my friend in 4th Curassiers. Nice looking tank the AMX 30, typically French!
not going to lie the stealth prototype verson of the AMX 30 looks good
"replaced by the amx Leclerc" RIP accuracy.
Chill Koala.
Not a biggie.
Le char Leclerc était fabriqué par GIAT, et non par les Ateliers d'Issy le Moulineaux ! fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Char_Leclerc
@@JosephV-ck8cg no shit sherlock why do you think i said "AMX" isn't accurate?
I thought that was smoke grenade launchers on the AMX-30, not APS? Also, just like with the M48/60 which were never designated as a "Patton". The Leclerc is also mistakenly called AMX Leclerc even though it was never built by AMX which no longer exists. Other than those nitpicks, awesome video.
Smoke launchers are a form of APS.
You clearly haven't seen late 1980s GIAT videos. It's literally called the AMX Leclerc in the vid
And the APS is only the thr BRENUS
@@jeandelacroix6726 It's literally designation is just Leclerc "insert Série you're talking about". Just like my previous comment on the M48s/M60s, their official designation is 90mm Gun Tank: M48. Tank, Combat, Full Tracked: 105-mm Gun, M60
@@Dovahkiin520 except no one used the full M60 designation to talk about the M60. The Leclerc was normally referred to as AMX Leclerc for a while
Wait, they decided to use an _incompatible_ 105mm gun?
Why?!
Why not just design their unrotated heat rounds for the L7?
It was fuelled mainly by spite from what I’ve read - didn’t want to rely on NATO for anything
@@RedWrenchFilms
Oh indeed it's _very_ French. 🤣
Stop with french bashing. It's mostly because the L7's rifling was too tight for the HEAT round as the L7's APDS needed high rotation speed to hit accurately. The 105 mle 62 was designed around the G-shell which required low twist because it could accurately hit T62-sized targets at 3000m while L7s could do it at 2000 at best. This low twist of the mle 62 allowed for integration of APFSDS rounds without modification. Furthermore the gun IS compatible with NATO rounds that do not rely on spin such as APFSDS and HEATFS but not APDS. Hence at the (very) end of its life it got OCC M456 HEATFS round.
Not incompatible - was able to fire NATO-standard 105×617mm ammo.
Video is wrong. It is NATO compatible. The gun was used to test 105 US APFSDS, and could fire NATO compliant HEATFS, as it recieved a GIAT HEATFS late in its life (don't remember the exact name of the round). The L7 wasn't compatible with G shell because of L7's high twist for APDS which make it incompatible with the low twist needed for G shell and HEATFS in general, though the HEATFS was equipped with slip band to make it L7 compatible (which the F1 didn't need bc low twist). In short, the L7 was less NATO compliant that the F1 because the F1 never needed modificiations to fire newer rounds while the L7 needed multiple updates to do so
Is the AMX 32 just an upgraded AMX 30 or is it a whole seperate tank? Great video btw
France was also originally I the euro fighter program but pulled out and made the Dassault Rafale instead
“Relying on speed as its armor”
British cruiser tank crewmen:
The AMX10 is not an heavy tank. It's a light tank for "hit and hide" operations.
Thanks. I really love this subject and vidéo .
Merci beaucoup pour cette vidéo !
That's an awesome video ! Keep it up ! +1 sub !
Japan and their Type 61, are you challenging me?
that most probably takes the award for most vulnerable MBT
Yeah they made a 50s style tank in the 60s (type 61)and a 60s style tank in the 70s (type 74)
Not sure that heavier modern tank are more capable : any shoot could break optics or main gun and rolling line... mobility and fast maintain keep a powerfull advantage...
I'm pretty sure this is the only MBT or just tank in general, armed with an autocannon alongside a standard turret hatch MG
An enjoyable tank in War Thunder Mobile, provided your teammates are... Good...
Have you made one for AMX-13?
subscribed, good footage,good info 👍
Nice video, my favorite mbt
Awesome video and channel. New subscriber!
Thank you
Great video
I love the french tech tree they are so amazing versatile powerful ❤❤❤
I love the look of that tank :)
The difference between France and West Germany was (is) the lack of independence of the latter, which is still de facto occupied by the US. De Gaulle wanted Europe to be independent from the US, hence it was also needed to distance itself from the military arm of US control (euphemistically called leadership) over Europe. Unfortunately for Europe the end of the Cold War didn’t improve the situation, it worsened it because all the former Warsaw Pact satellites were basically offered easy and fast EU membership if they joined NATO - buy one, get one for free policy - granting access to cheap labor, but also undermining the EU’s economic foundation. Right now the EU is a socio-economic mess, without any sign of independent foreign policy or economic self interest. De Gaulle was right.
Intresting material.
Interesting. So the weak HEAT round (300mm pen) this tank has in World of Tanks is completely the opposite of the historical situation.
Or were there different kind of HEAT rounds?
Yes, World of Tanks’ AMX-30 uses ahistorical ammunition. In addition to the HEAT shell missing 100mm of penetration as is stated in the video, the AP shell is completely fictional. The AMX-30 only ever fired HEAT until an APFSDS round was developed for it.
Yesterday i saw lile 10 of then in a museum
when you said it was better for each country to persue it’s own design is that a polite way of saying Germany told france to fuck off
Hahahah you nailed it
Remember that French tanks are better than the German ones.