As you will be aware, the French have given some AMX10RC's to Ukraine. They have been called "tanks" ... but are they?

[ramble]



I suppose it depends on how you define a "tank".

Oxford - a heavy armoured fighting vehicle carrying guns and moving on a continuous articulated metal track.
Cambridge - a large military fighting vehicle designed to protect those inside it from attack, driven by wheels that turn inside moving metal belts
Collins - A tank is a large military vehicle that is equipped with weapons and moves along on metal tracks that are fitted over the wheels.
Meriam-Webster - an enclosed heavily armed and armored combat vehicle that moves on tracks

These all seem to suggest that "tanks" should have tracks. These definitions would also include a M109, a ZSU23-4 and a Sturmtiger.   

So it's an armoured car? (See also the Guy Wheeled Tank which eventually gave in and became an armoured car.)

Compare the AMX10RC to the Boarhound and the AEC Mk III


Boarhound: weight 26 tonnes, armour up to 50mm, armament 57mm & 2mg
AEC Mk3: weight 14 tonnes, armour up to 65mm, armament 75mm & 2mg
AMX10RC: weight 16 tonnes, armour up to 45mm, armament 105mm & 2mg

The main difference then is the huge gun on the AMX - although the AEC probably has something comparable for its time. Does the big gun preclude the AMX10RC from being an armoured car? Replace that 105mm with a Bushmaster and it would definitely be an armoured car.


For me, tanks are defined by their function. I see tanks as armoured vehicles used to destroy material (especially enemy tanks) using direct fire weapons (usually from a enclosed rotating turret, but I'll accept the S-Tank.) There is also an implication of fairly heavy levels of protection.

The AMX10RC is, I believe, defined as a reconnaissance vehicle. It is too lightly armoured to stand up to a T62, although it's powerful gun gives it menace. If the AMX can get in the first shot, it's got a chance, but otherwise, use those reverse gears.

So is the AMX10RC a light tank? My definition above is definitely for MBTs, but light tanks need to have tracks - otherwise it's just an armoured car. Call it a CVR(T) or a Combat Car, but if it has tracks, it's a light tank. 

The French have a habit of putting big guns on their armoured cars - see the AML and the EBR, so should we be surprised by the big gun on the AMX10RC?


In summary then, I don't think the AMX10RC is a MBT, nor a light tank. To me, it is a heavy armoured car with a very big gun.
[/ramble]

It's certainly not a tank fsn (though the media will probably call it one as its got a turret with a large gun).

The French originally treated it as a fire support vehicle, and more latterly as a tank destroyer, though the article below points out that its not really that capable any more in that role against current tanks.

http://www.military-today.com/artillery/amx_10_rc.htm

From the article

QuoteHull and turret are of welded aluminum armor construction. Vehicle withstands hits from medium-caliber weapons and artillery shell splinters.

Definitely not a tank

Thank goodness! I was beginning to think I was being gaslit.

I suppose calling them "tanks" is more for political purposes.

QuoteThe French originally treated it as a fire support vehicle, and more latterly as a tank destroyer,

According to Wiki "RC" stands for "Roues-Canon", meaning "Wheeled gun".

My 1996 Janes defines it as a reconnaissance vehicle designed "to replace the Panhard EBR Armoured Car". Interestingly, Christopher Foss in Tanks and Armoured Fighting Vehicles (2002) describes both the AMX10RC and the EBR as "Reconnaissance Vehicles".

QuoteDefinitely not a tank

Agreed. 

It's supposed to be a recce vehicle. Too expensive and replaced in effect by the ERC90.

The best way to define what an AFV is is to look at the type of units it was issued to.

Thus an S-Tank is a tank, because it was issued to tank companies, and not to anti-tank companies.

In this case the AMX-10RC is a reconnaissance vehicle as it was issued to corps level recce regiments and then recce regiments of infantry divisions. Think of it as a scout jeep with some tinplate and a big gun and fancy electronics.

Or you could play a wargame with a squadron of them and see how well you do against a Soviet-era tank battalion.

Incidentally it's firepower isn't that good anymore. It's OFL105F3 FSAPDS round was reasonable for the early 1980s, with penetration of 32cm/1000m/90* and quite easily handle vanilla T-55, T-62, Centurion, M60A3 frontally, but it didn't come into service until 1987, and even those sent to GW1 didn't arrive with any at all - although they were issued FSAPDS in time for Desert Storm. Up till then it relied on the OCC105F3 HEAT round penetrating 35cm at all ranges.

The FSAPDS & HEAT would fail dismally against the current MBTs in the Ukraine war, festooned as they are with ceramic and reactive armours. As it would against contemporary late 1980s top of the range tanks of all sides.
As far as I've been able to find out, only the HEAT round has been improved since the 1980s, although there is no data on it's current penetration, or whether it has improved since the 1980s round.

People tend to think it has an equivalent gun to the AMX-30, but is in fact a shortened (105mmL47) gun with lower capabilities than the gun in the AMX-30.

Mark

Quote from: sultanbev on 07 January 2023, 09:52:48 AMThe best way to define what an AFV is is to look at the type of units it was issued to.

I agree with the thrust of your thesis (2nd Welsh Guards using Cromwells as a recce unit notwithstanding), I think it compliments my definition by role. If I were to wargame AMX10RC's against T62's, I'd adopt the S-Tank philosophy of using mobility and sniping rather than trying to slug it out - somewhat akin to the original purpose of the US Tank destroyer Force. However, this defensive tactic is at odds with the original task of probing ahead.   

Quote from: sultanbev on 07 January 2023, 09:52:48 AMvanilla ... Centurion

There ain't no such animal!

Quote from: fsn on 07 January 2023, 10:43:31 AMHowever, this defensive tactic is at odds with the original task of probing ahead.   

Yes, from what I remember from French websites, the doctrine of the French in the Cold War allocates the AMX-10RC units to probing into Germany to find the advancing Warpac forces ahead of the main armoured forces, and reporting back, preferably all whilst outside of French territory, just in case the Plutons had to be used. The recce would then guide the previously spread out converging armoured regiments onto the enemy columns and destroy them with manouevre and fire, whilst the recce probed aside to find open spaces between other advancing columns.
They did envisage having to fight their way into Germany to come to NATO assistance rather then pre-deploying as part of the overall defence. When you look at French TOE from this doctrinal point of view, their aneamic 1980s TOE (divisions that were only brigades in size, regiments that were only battalions) makes a little more sense.

Mark

Although, all said and done, the AMX-10RC is one of the coolest looking armoured cars around 

On that we can definitely agree.

QuoteIt's certainly not a tank fsn (though the media will probably call it one as its got a turret with a large gun).

According to many journalists any miltary vehicle with some form of armour, whether armed or not, is a "tank"!

Very true.

To those of us who know the origins of the tank from WW1 and its subsequent evolution; obviously not a tank.

But to members of the press and the general public, anything military with a turret and a gun and/or tracks is a tank. However, it must also be said that many military enthusiasts tend to get fixated on the idea that only MBTs are tanks.

Expanding the discussion, is the modern IFV a tank? I would argue that it is. Why?  It is armoured, tracked and sufficiently armed to provide fire support. It also takes the idea of "tank riders" a step further by having the facility to carry its own infantry support inside rather than outside the vehicle.  Additionally, depending on the main armament, it has the ability to take on various armoured vehicles, including MBTs if armed with a suitable anti-armour missile. 

So, for those who would argue that their nation's army does not have enough "tanks," I would argue that it has far more "tanks" than they might think.

[p.s. with the introduction of rubber tracks,* perhaps the dictionary definition requirement for the vehicle to have "metallic" tracks should now be revised?]
* presumably metal reinforced?

Certainly in the 80's and 90's "rubber" tracks meant rubber blokcs on the metal treads, to stop tanks chewing up the German roads....

Interesting to find that out, Ian. What would be referred to as rubber pads, nowadays? More accurately, the "rubber tracks" I'm thinking about are the composite ones fitted to the likes of The Netherlands' upgrade to their CV90s. 

Military Rubber Track Systems