"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (6 Viewers)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


One instance where I'm glad to be wrong.
 
Thanks I was following those too. But with the last constrains the more I can follow in other platforms the better.

Engineers yesterday @ twitter
 
I admit to not being surprised by this report on the AMX10RC. However I did expect the armour to be sufficient to deal with shrapnel.

Source The Guardian

A Ukrainian commander has claimed the highly mobile French AMX-10 RC infantry fighting vehicles – sometimes described as light tanks – are "impractical" for frontline attacks, claiming one four-man crew has already died because of the vehicle's thin armour.

President Zelenskiy of Ukraine thanked France's President Macron for sending light combat tanks to Kyiv, and Oleksiy Reznikov, Ukraine's defence minister, was filmed riding in one.

Kyiv said in April that the French vehicles – designed for armed reconnaissance and attacks on enemy tanks – were already in service.

But AFP reports that a 34-year-old battalion commander within the 37th Marine Brigade, who uses the call sign Spartanets, said the tanks' "thin armour" means they can be used as fire support, but not in frontline assaults.

"Unfortunately, there was one case when the crew died in the vehicle," the major told AFP.

"There was artillery shelling and a shell exploded near the vehicle, the fragments pierced the armour and the ammunition set detonated." The crew of four inside were all killed, he said.

"The guns are good, the observation devices are very good. But unfortunately there is thin armour and it is impractical to use them in the front line (attack)," Spartanets said.

The battalion commander reportedly compared the French-built vehicles unfavourably with MRAP-type armoured vehicles such as the US's Oshkosh and Britain's Husky, which he said could resist a direct strike by rocket-propelled grenades.
 
I hope you are right
 
Thumpalumpacus said:
They're recon vehicles, they shouldn't be an active part of an assault anyway.
Click to expand...
A recon vehicle doesn't need a 105mm gun. I think it has tried to be almost everything and is likely to be master of none. It has excellent sensors, a powerful gun, but once you put a 105mm on a fighting vehicle, then someone is going to want to use that gun.

When you use it and give away your position, you realise that you are in a big target with next to no armour and the enemy are going to fire back.

I have never been a fan of the concept of the AMX10RC but whatever the theory and irrespective of everyone's thoughts, I would have expected it to take shrapnel from artillery. That I did find disappointing.
 

The'AMX-10RC is part of a long line of French armoured cars with tank sized main cannon that date back to before WW2. The French have always done things their own way, and their light armoured units fit their particular doctrine (there's a chicken-egg argument about doctrine and systems there though).

Their armoured cars have roles that are not only recon, but battlefield and flanks/rear area security and rapid reaction (both offensive and defensive). A little similar to the US WW2 concept of tank destroyers - something fast and light that can kill anything it might encounter on the battlefield.

You can argue that there are better weapon systems to put on a 12-16 tonne vehicle to fill that role, but remember this as well - wheeled vehicles are cheap to make and operate when compared to tracked vehicles, and cannons are cheap compared to missiles. The AMX-10 and its predecessors were designed just as much for 'colonial' and internal security duties as they were for battlefield duties.

It's much cheaper and easier to deploy an armoured car to a hot spot in Africa (or indeed, Lyon or Paris) than for a tank or a tracked vehicle of equivalent size and weight.
 
Your note reminded me of the folly of the battlecruiser. No matter the eggshell armour and high mobility, once you field battleship size guns there will be those who want to use it like a battleship. Maybe that's why the British never made anything larger than their 75mm armed FV601 Saladin.
Jabberwocky said:
The'AMX-10RC is part of a long line of French armoured cars with tank sized main cannon that date back to before WW2. The French have always done things their own way
Click to expand...
It's not just the French putting tank-sized guns on armoured cars. For example, the USA's M1128 Mobile Gun System, South Africa's Rooikat, Italy's Centauro, Finland's Patria, Belgium's Cockerill, Portugal's Pandur, Taiwan's CM-32 Clouded Leopard, China's ZTL-11, and Japan's new Type 16 tank destroyer are all armed with 105mm guns.

The Centauro also has a later variant with a low pressure version of the same 120mm gun found in the Leopard 2 and Abrams. See link below.

Centauro II MGS 120 mm 105mm anti-tank 8x8 armored vehicle data

Centauro 2 II MGS 120 mm 105mm anti-tank 8x8 armored vehicle Italy technical data fact sheet pictures video
www.armyrecognition.com
 
Last edited:
Frog said:
It has never be conceived to be a front line attack vehicle.
And once and for all, it is not a light tank. A tank has tracks, period.
Click to expand...

If you're breaking through lines, you want good infantry backed up by some solid tanks or assault guns, topped out with arty/air suppression. The stuff has to either have heavy armor, the ability to go to ground immediately, or the distance to be safe that way.

Recon vehicles lack all requisites. They're still useful: pull up, sit still, engage sensors, and withdraw ASAP if spotted.

If you have recon assets in an assault force supported by surveillance drones, keep them in the back until a penetration is made, and then send them forward for the immediate securing of the area. At best, in this age of drones, they're exploitation forces.
 
Last edited:
Glider said:
I have never been a fan of the concept of the AMX10RC but whatever the theory and irrespective of everyone's thoughts, I would have expected it to take shrapnel from artillery. That I did find disappointing.
Click to expand...

Both armored vehicles and battleships work on the triad-trade-off of speed vs armor vs firepower. Given the mission of a recon vehicle, speed must needs be first. I think armor ought to be second, myself, because dead units don't report. Gunfire is bad if you're scouting or spying. You're not there to kill things. As my step-dad, a recon Marine in Vietnam, once told me, "our job was to snoop and poop".

A recon troop getting into a full-on assault is not being used well, imo. Recon to him was about not being seen, spotted, or engaged. While he was foot and not mechanized, I don't see that the principle is different, except that mech recon can be used to exploit a breakthrough, in some cases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 7 (members: 3, guests: 4)

Similar threads

M
Horizon Continues Development of Hybrid VTOL
Replies
0
Views
242
MIflyer
M
N
JF-17 are they worth it and can they hold their own?
Replies
4
Views
1K
RogerdeLluria
R
A
The coming $26 billion windfall for the Canadian Armed Forces. What to buy?
6 7 8
Replies
141
Views
17K
swampyankee
Bust The Dragons Jaw! An interesting read on the development and use of the first laser guided bombs in Vietnam.
Replies
7
Views
2K
syscom3
T
Asking help in determining year of Chinese military video
Replies
4
Views
1K
Weizenbrot
W
Menu
Log in
Register