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

QuoteExpanding 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.

I would argue not. Its role is not to fight but to transport and support. Its armour is too thin to stand in "line of battle".

Then again, I wouldn't say that the Terminator is a tank. It's a T72 chassis with 2x30mm, 4xmissle launchers and 2xgrenade launchers. It's mission is to support MBTs so isn't (IMHO) a tank itself. It should perform better in urban environments than a T72 because of its ferocious armament, but I still can't bring myself to call it a tank.

I think I've talked myself into thinking that every tank has a big gun, but not everything with a big gun is a tank. 

OK, so the Matilda 1 was a tank, so was the the WWI female tank.

Panzer I and II were tanks, I suppose, but IMHO light tanks pushed into a big tank role.

FT17 was a tank even when only armed with a mg.


Dammit, what is a tank?!

QuoteDammit, what is a tank?!

Indeed! Now you are starting to see.   

When we think of tanks, we envisage a beast that can go toe to toe with other tanks - essentially today's main Battle Tank - and, I would argue, the main reason why modern MBTs have such thick armour and such large calibre guns and so bloody expensive as a result.

The first (British) tanks were not designed to fight other tanks; they were designed to cross shell holes and trenches, plough lanes through barbed wire, resist small arms fire and provide significant fire power (in the form of quick firing guns and/or machine guns) in close support of the infantry attack. Having the capability to take other tanks on, came later.

The vehicle you describe ("not to fight but to transport and support") is probably more appropriately know as the battle field taxi, the APC (Armoured Personnel Carrier). The IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle) is a step forward in that it is not only designed to transport the infantry but also provide direct fire support, if required.

The trend for new, modern IFVs seems to be to have larger calibre weapons also. For example, the CV9035 (a 35mm chain gun), the CV9040 (a 40mm Bofors), the troubled Ajax (a 40mm CTA) - also, the U.S. Army's requirement for a 50mm weapon for their future IFV. Certain ammo for guns as "small" as 30mm can also be programmed to perform in various ways at the point it leaves the muzzle with no guesswork (e.g., airbursts timed to explode at the exact distance to the target or only exploding when it enters a building). Many modern IFVs also have the ability to don additional armour (witness the Warrior IFV in the 2nd - if not also the 1st - Gulf War). It should also be borne in mind that APS (Active Protection System) is now starting to figure more in the defences of armoured vehicles nowadays.  Finally, if MBT opposition is encountered whilst supporting the infantry with direct fire support, whilst the IFVs should try to step back out of sight from the fight, if they do have an anti-tank capability included within their armament, they can still make a very positive contribution in support of the infantry.

I'm not saying that the MBT has had its day - it still has its uses, imho (although not perhaps in the same numbers as before, given their expense and the multiple threats nowadays to massed armoured formations) - but, all considered, when one compares the modern IFV to, say, the Stuart with its 37mm main gun and other early tanks of WW2, and the service they can perform in support of the infantry, it's hard not to consider modern IFVs as  "tanks."  Indeed, when I also think about the weight of a modern IFV compared to early WW2 tanks (with "add-on" armour, we're talking over 40 tons with some of these IFVs), how can we ignore the fact that they are effectively, evolved light (if not medium) "tanks." 

To me Tracked & with a big gun = tank

The AMX10RC is an armoured car (in my world) as whilst it has a reasonable gun, it has road wheels, which makes it actually more useful for fast advances.

We all tend to focus on MBTs as the main battlefield threat - but these armoured recce formations were also ideal for taking out unsupported APCs or AFVs (like BMPs etc). Which will proliferate in Eastern Ukraine.

I am not sure what range the gun has, but I suspect it might be longer than the original BMP 1 range?

QuoteThe vehicle you describe ("not to fight but to transport and support") is probably more appropriately know as the battle field taxi, the APC (Armoured Personnel Carrier). The IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle) is a step forward in that it is not only designed to transport the infantry but also provide direct fire support, if required.

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

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.

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.)

Quotehow can we ignore the fact that they (IFVs) are effectively, evolved light (if not medium) "tanks." 

Easily enough I think.

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

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)

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.