Is the AMX10RC a tank?

[fsn]

To me Tracked & with a big gun = tank

Agreed. I would add "direct fire" to "gun". Put a howitzer in, you have a SPG.

[Big Insect]

Agreed. I would add "direct fire" to "gun". Put a howitzer in, you have a SPG.

Agreed.

Specific tracked 'tank destroyers' tend to muddy the water a bit though   

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Agreed.

Specific tracked 'tank destroyers' tend to muddy the water a bit though   

US army WWII - if it's got a lid it's a tank, no lid a tank destroyer..... cause it 45 the M10 and M36 grew "lids"

[sultanbev]

"I am not sure what range the gun has, but I suspect it might be longer than the original BMP 1 range? "
Effective range (70% base hit chance) of the 105mmL47 on the AMX-10RC was 1500m with HEAT, 1800m with FSAPDS.
Maximum effective range (30% base hit chance) was 2200m with HEAT, 2700m with FSAPDS.

The 73mm on the BMP-1 was 500m and 1250m respectively.

Mark

[Ithoriel]

As far as the future of MBTs is concerned, I share your view. The M1 Abrams weights in at 70 tons, and $9m. How much bigger and heavier and expensive can they get? At some point the contest between gun and armour will be won (maybe by the missile) and there will have to be a rethink. Otherwise, we'll end up with a C21 version of the Maus.

I look forward to the deployment of 21C "Ratte" .... possibly to counter "Ogre" land battleships

[fsn]

The MPF. A light armoured vehicle designed to support infantry. 105mm gun; not designed primarily to take on MBTs. This is a modern light tank. 

[Westmarcher]

En garde! A reposte, monsieur! 

Hmm. No, I see it differently. The IFV is there to take infantry into battle and support them with vehicle mounted weapons.

... but you previously stated that the IFV is not to fight ...

A tank is there to kick bottom and take names; to dominate and destroy. A tank (MBT in this case) needs to be supported by infantry (ask the Russians tankers in Ukraine about lack of infantry support) whereas the IFV is more flexible in usage, but overall less powerful.

As I say, some of us are fixated with MBT = tank. If it so happens that your (modern) IFV is at the top of the food chain in some local situation, it will "kick bottom and take names" and so be effectively a "tank."

An (faulty) analogy would be the battleship and the destroyer. The battleship is a big gun platform. The destroyer is anti-sub, anti-air, with a smaller gun. The battleship needs destroyers, but even if you equip destroyers with anti-ship missiles that can take down a battleship - they're not battleships. Destroyers are very useful, but if you want something bombarded on shore - you'd do better with a battleship (or a monitor; the AMX10RC of the seas.)

Modern (RN) destroyer = anti-air. Modern (RN) frigate = anti-sub. Battleship = obsolete. In modern Western navies, indiscriminate shore bombardment is a feature of the past. Although most modern frigates and destroyers have one large calibre bow gun, modern shore bombardment (by Western powers) is more likely to be executed with cruise missiles or other precision air attacks directed towards specific targets.

Easily enough I think.

Not bad but what's missing are the photos of WW1 tanks with their armour, tracks and guns and WW2 tanks with infantry riding on the backs of the tanks. The IFV not only has a mother but also a father.

The M2 Bradley IFV evolved from vehicles designed to carry infantry.

.. but also recognised the benefits of close support from the increased firepower of tanks (and the utility of infantry support riding on the tanks) so the evolution incorporated firepower at a higher level than the M113 APC (and a turret) and in consequence produced a hybrid between APC and light tank. With its extra internal space at the rear capable of carrying infantry or being used for medical evacuation, is the Merkava no longer a tank?

The M3/M5 Stuart light tank line effectively died with the M551 Sheridan. The light tank role (recce) being picked up by variants of other vehicles (like the M3 Bradley recce) 

When you compare the recce version of the Bradley (or CV90, or Ajax), can you not help thinking that this is a type of tank?

[sorry,must 'disengage' - Mrs Westie wants to watch a film on Netflix ...    ]

[fsn]

Touche!

En garde! A reposte, monsieur!  ... but you previously stated that the IFV is not to fight ...

You missed the rest of that sentence. I said it was "to transport and support". I also said that it's armour is too thin to stand "in line of battle". When I said "to fight", I was possibly a little unclear. The purpose of an MBT is to shoot at things with its big gun. The purpose of an IFV is to carry infantry, and to give them fire support. In the case of fire support, it's antecedents could well be the StuG and the British Infantry tanks.

As I say, some of us are fixated with MBT = tank. If it so happens that your (modern) IFV is at the top of the food chain in some local situation, it will "kick bottom and take names" and so be effectively a "tank."

Ah! No. I think that the IFV may well become top of the food chain, but that doesn't make it a "tank". The carrier is the top of the naval food chain, but that doesn't make it a battleship.

Modern (RN) destroyer = anti-air. Modern (RN) frigate = anti-sub. Battleship = obsolete. In modern Western navies, indiscriminate shore bombardment is a feature of the past. Although most modern frigates and destroyers have one large calibre bow gun, modern shore bombardment (by Western powers) is more likely to be executed with cruise missiles or other precision air attacks directed towards specific targets.

Yeah. I was thinking WWII. The battleship was there to blow things up with its big guns. The destroyer was there (in the fleet) to protect the battleships. (Original purpose of the destroyer was to destroy torpedo boats.) As for indiscriminate shore bombardment, let's see when China invades Taiwan.

Not bad but what's missing are the photos of WW1 tanks with their armour, tracks and guns and WW2 tanks with infantry riding on the backs of the tanks. The IFV not only has a mother but also a father. ..

Umm. No.  My photos were to show the development of vehicles designed to carry infantry (to keep up with tanks?) If I take your idea to its logical conclusion we get ...

but also recognised the benefits of close support from the increased firepower of tanks (and the utility of infantry support riding on the tanks) so the evolution incorporated firepower at a higher level than the M113 APC (and a turret) and in consequence produced a hybrid between APC and light tank.

OK, but the addition of firepower is a logical development of the MGs on the halftrack. Like the Germans adding a 3.7cm gun to a SdKfz251. The BMP1 (I think) was the first IFV, designed to fight alongside the infantry it carried, not just be a battle taxi.

With its extra internal space at the rear capable of carrying infantry or being used for medical evacuation, is the Merkava no longer a tank? 

Like the S-Tank, the Merkava has some design features dictated by particular circumstances. The Israelis designed the Merkava to minimise casualties - hence the engine in the front for example. Carrying a few infantrymen in the tank is the successor to the tank rider. Not on top, pop 'em inside.  The Israelis have developed the Namer, which is basically a Merkava Kangaroo. This says to me that they can tell the difference.
 

When you compare the recce version of the Bradley (or CV90, or Ajax), can you not help thinking that this is a type of tank?

Honestly, no. I see it as a great way to maximise designs and common components. To bring things full circle, they fail to be tanks in the same way that the AMX10RC fails to be a tank. Their role is not primarily to destroy material. Their role is to sneak around and spy around corners.

 

[Westmarcher]

You have your views and I have mine.  Whilst I do get the impression your views may be grounded in the last wars (e.g., WW2, the Cold War, battleships?), I like to think that I've stepped back from stereotypes, abandoned previous misconceptions and now looked at the issue more logically in light of the origins and history of the first tanks. The result being that my own prejudices about the IFV have changed and that it should now be recognised as a type of "tank" even if you do not agree.

However, as for your rejoinder, there were a few things I was disappointed with.

For example, you say

You missed the rest of that sentence. I said it was "to transport and support".
- No I didn't miss the rest. You read it and quoted it in your post on 8/1/23.

Also,

As for indiscriminate shore bombardment, let's see when China invades Taiwan.
- .. as you will recall, I distinctly referred to "Western" powers ...
(and if the Chinese do, God forbid or help us all, it won't be with battleships).

As for your analogies and 'logic,' carriers and battleships have got nothing to do with the evolution of the armoured vehicle known to history as the tank. And the jibe about taking my idea to its logical conclusion, how is the charge of the Scots Greys a sensible conclusion? That, followed up with Jones the Butchers van didn't make a positive contribution with me either.

I'm finished.

[fsn]

I'm sorry if I have upset you, it was not my intention.

You have your views and I have mine.  Whilst I do get the impression your views may be grounded in the last wars (e.g., WW2, the Cold War, battleships?), I like to think that I've stepped back from stereotypes, abandoned previous misconceptions and now looked at the issue more logically in light of the origins and history of the first tanks. The result being that my own prejudices about the IFV have changed and that it should now be recognised as a type of "tank" even if you do not agree.

I don't agree. My thesis is that the "tank" (even the first ones) were strike/assault vehicles, not infantry transport. The modern IFV does not descend from the WWI tank. I use WWII examples as to my mind the case is clearer. There tends to be fewer "types" of warships now than in 1944 as hulls are used for multiple functions.   

You missed the rest of that sentence. I said it was "to transport and support".
- No I didn't miss the rest. You read it and quoted it in your post on 8/1/23.

I think you may have taken the words, but missed the poinmt.

As for indiscriminate shore bombardment, let's see when China invades Taiwan.
- .. as you will recall, I distinctly referred to "Western" powers ...

You did refer to Western powers, but you ignore the point that bombardment is a choice open to those who have the will and the ability to do so. 

(and if the Chinese do, God forbid or help us all, it won't be with battleships).

No it won't be battleships, but by your logic they would be considered "battleships".

As for your analogies and 'logic,' carriers and battleships have got nothing to do with the evolution of the armoured vehicle known to history as the tank.

My analogy of the aircraft carrier is that in WWI the battleship was the primary naval weapon. It has been superseded by the aircraft carrier, but the aircraft carrier is not considered a battleship. Similarly, the IFV may well overtake the MBT as "queen of the battlefield", but it's not going to be a "tank".
 

And the jibe about taking my idea to its logical conclusion, how is the charge of the Scots Greys a sensible conclusion?

Apologies, no jibe was meant. You keep citing tank riders as the precursors to the IFV. I see tank riders as  infantry hitching a ride, just as in the Scots Greys picture. My contention is that tank riders were a necessary evil, an expedient rather than a product of design.

That, followed up with Jones the Butchers van didn't make a positive contribution with me either.

That was a joke at my expense - my line on vehicles designed to carry infantry.


Apologies again. I thought we were having a productive disagreement.

[Leon]

Let's keep this friendly guys, I've been enjoying the back and forth here.  I've never really considered what constitutes a tank beyond turret, tracks, big gun so I think I've simplified things too far to just what 'looks' like a tank?! 

When we released the recent Soviet IFVs some of them ticked all of my 'tank' boxes but didn't 'look' like tanks...  They looked like IFVs...

[fsn]

Apologies Leon. Apologies Westie.

No offence meant on my part.

[fsn]

I leave without comment the chap from the Telegraph trying to define a tank. From about 21:45.

[Westmarcher]

Let's keep this friendly guys, I've been enjoying the back and forth here.  I've never really considered what constitutes a tank beyond turret, tracks, big gun so I think I've simplified things too far to just what 'looks' like a tank?! 

When we released the recent Soviet IFVs some of them ticked all of my 'tank' boxes but didn't 'look' like tanks...  They looked like IFVs...

We've corresponded and it's all good between us, Leon. Perhaps I was feeling over sensitive at the time.

[Leon]

We'll be throwing the cat amongst the pigeons with the new Sci-Fi ranges, as I've got a lot of MBTs in there that'll be either anti-grav or wheeled...

[fsn]

    

Thanks for that.

[Big Insect]

We'll be throwing the cat amongst the pigeons with the new Sci-Fi ranges, as I've got a lot of MBTs in there that'll be either anti-grav or wheeled...

What about the ones that can teleport Leon ...

[FierceKitty]

We'll be throwing the cat amongst the pigeons with the new Sci-Fi ranges, as I've got a lot of MBTs in there that'll be either anti-grav or wheeled...

Leave me out of this!

[sultanbev]

What about the ones that can teleport Leon ...

Is that for Flames of War WW2 games, where teleporting platoons is quite normal?

[Orcs]

Is that for Flames of War WW2 games, where teleporting platoons is quite normal?

Yes and it does not matter what role the vehicle had, you just line them up like they are in a car park.