Talk:AMX-30

Operators

why is Israel included as operator?--82.135.28.22 15:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

why does it look so similar to the Koenigstiger? is it a copy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.46.141.18 (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't and it isn't. W. B. Wilson (talk) 08:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

In February 1964 Israel started preparations for a parallel licence production of the AMX 30 hull ... but this project was canceled for as yet undisclosed reasons around 1966

Almost the same thing happened in the Mirage 5 case. In the begining of 1960s, France was in very good terms with Israel becoming their major arms supplier. About 1965 onwards things started going downhill. France prefered to side towards Arab states and canceled many supply contracts. (Anyone know why?) Could the same issue have cause the AMX program to be canceled? Too bad cos would really like to see it being put thru its paces in the subsiquent Yom Kippur War. Bankrobber (talk) 07:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Different Picture

The picture on the upper right hand corner of the article is of the Spanish AMX-30E and not the original design. This makes it very confusing. The AMX-30E also has its own article with the exact same picture in the exact same spot. So we should take it down and use a picture on the bottom part of of the article to replace it. Am I right? LCoolo 4:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I've actually wanted to change the image, but I was going to wait until I started expanding the article. JonCatalán^(Talk) 21:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Name?

So is it AMX 30 or AMX-30? Let's establish some consistency. Koalorka (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The article should be consistent. The name is AMX-30. JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I double checked. It is consistent. JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The official name is AMX 30, without hyphen.--MWAK (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? All my sources include a hyphen, which is why I include it. JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, "AMX-30" is an anglophone convention, that is not used in the French sources — unless they deliberately want to conform to the English usage. Of course the matter is of little import. I presently haven't got the time (or indeed many sources available) to add much direct French information, but I think I could quickly clarify and source some crucial episodes in the development process, using Jeudy's Chars de France. However, I see the article is presently a FA candidate, so perhaps it is better to wait for the outcome of that procedure?--MWAK (talk) 08:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

If you have things to add, then I'd do it now. The only thing I would request is that the structure isn't changed, and the existing text is left more or less intact. It's best to do all of this before the FAC closes, so that there is no chance for a FAR afterwards. JonCatalán^(Talk) 16:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to be very careful. Found a interesting English source too, substantiating Oleg Granovsky's claim about a planned Israeli production. Remarkably, these negotiations were so secret that apparently not a trace of them can be found in the accessible Israeli archives :o).--MWAK (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Comparison to contemporary tanks

You really need the M60 Patton in that table. Its omission is glaring--Mongreilf (talk) 12:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I will add as soon as I get home from work. :) JonCatalán^(Talk) 21:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is it compared to the T-55, which is clearly an older design? Wouldn't it be better to compare it with the T-62? --Raoulduke47 (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The T-62 is just an elongated T-55, with a larger gun; furthermore, while the T-55 was older, it was still the most used tank at the time throughout the Soviet Bloc. JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but you chose the main armament as a criterion for comparison, so a new gun makes all the difference. And "contemporary" implies that they were designed and entered service at the same time, which is true for the T-62, but less so for the T-54/55 and the M-48. Anyhow there is no harm in including them all. More importantly, if you want to compare tanks, I think there should be a field for amour protection values. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't choose main armament as criteria for comparison; I chose it as one of the criteria, out of many. Contemporary means that they were in service at the same time, which remains true for the T-55. A comparison between the AMX-30 and the most used tank of the Warsaw Pact makes more sense than between the French tank and the T-62. I have included comparison tables in all of my tank related FA-status articles; these are the criteria that are included in all of them. JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

In service at the same time? The T-34/85 was still used by certain armed forces well into the 1990's, while others were using Leopard 2s or M1A1s. Does that make them comparable? I don't think so. My point being, the T-55 and M-48 were both designed in the immediate post-war period, and both used WWII-era guns. The AMX-30 and Leopard 1 were clearly one step ahead from there in tank design. The Soviet equivalent to this stage in tank development was the T-62, which incorporated several new features, such as a gun that could fire sabot rounds. Anyway, you added the M-60 without trouble, so I don't see why you're making such a fuss about the T-62.

And incidentally, FA-status does not necessarily equate with perfection. I guess you know this already, but the design of a tank is a compromise between three functions: mobility, firepower and protection. By omitting protection in your table, you are denying the reader the possibility of a proper comparison. The AMX-30, if memory serves, sacrificed armour protection in favour of mobility, but this does not show up in the current table.--Raoulduke47 (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is important to add the Soviet T-64 to the comparison table. The tank is certainly a much more "contemporary" Warsaw Pact machine than the T-55 is. I understand the reason for placing the T-55 there- it was in widespread usage, despite being an older design. However, the French kept the AMX-30 in service for so long that by the same logic it should be compared to the T-72 which would appear soon afterward and is considered contemporary of the M-60 which IS included in the table. I don't know if I would remove the T-55, but I would certainly add the T-64 if not the T-72 to the comparison table. This must especially be considered as the T-64 would likely have been the first tank the AMX-30 encountered in combat as it equipped the spearheads of Soviet armor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.160.226 (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Armour values

Some concern has been voiced over the apparent contradiction between the statement that the AMX 30 was at the time the MBT with the thinnest armour and the armour values given in the table: the Leopard 1 seems to have even less armour. However, this does not take into account the slope angle: on the hull the LOS thickness for the Leopard is 140 mm (= 70 mm at 60°) and the mantlet is rounded so the 60 mm is only the LOS value at the line where the curve touches the vertical plane, i.e. precisely where the gun trunnions behind it (which add a very real protection) have their highest LOS value. Dependent on how purist we want to be in OR matters, we could add the LOS values for the German and Soviet tanks :o).--MWAK (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Only if these values are supported by reliable sources. JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Added Link to GIAT over view manual on the AMX-30

Folks, I added an external link to the AMX-30 over view manual that was sent to the defense attaches at French embassies and the press in the 1970s. It has been used for so many articles, etc. it is basically a de fact public domain publication. I think anyone who has been constructing and editing this article will find it of interest. And last, all those involved in this article did a GREAT job. --Jackehammond (talk) 06:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

M60A3 was not a contemporary

The AMX-30 entered service in 1966. The M60A3 entered service in 1978. That's pushing the definition of "contemporary". Wouldn't the M60A1 from 1963 be a better comparison? -OOPSIE- (talk) 05:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That coaxial 20 mm autocannon?

It seems to me that the coaxial 20 mm autocannon is a very unusual feature, and merits more coverage. Other tanks mount a 7.62 general purpose machine gun as their coaxial armament. Is there any other tank that mounted a coaxial weapon heavier than a Browning M2?

So, how did the 20 mm work out? For other tanks wasn't the coaxial GPG intended as a short range anti-personnel weapon, intended to engage ground troops, who would represent a risk to the tank if they were armed with portable grenade launchers, or molotov cocktails? In that case wouldn't the larger number of rounds outweigh the 20 mm's greater lethality?

The article doesn't say how many 20 mm rounds the tank carried. I have a vague recollection it was only 150 or 200. Geo Swan (talk) 11:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC) Ginger gay cock black puppy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.76 (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Everything the article says must be cited by a reliable source. If I didn't cover the 20mm autocannon more it is because all the references used to cite the article don't talk about it either. JonCatalán^(Talk) 14:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

AMX-30..Combat history.

Surely the Kuwaiti tanks were involved in the war with their neighbour Iraq and not the Qatari Army. Two different countries many hundreds of kilometres apart.

98.118.119.141 (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)pbwilkins