Talk:AMX-30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article AMX-30 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 28, 2010.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
December 13, 2008 WikiProject A-class review Approved
December 21, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 14, 2008.
Current status: Featured article

Operators[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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.[edit]

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

No, they were Qatari tanks deployed to Saudi Arabia as part of the coalition forces. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

can you make a new article comparing new generation tanks like:Leclerc,Abrhams,Challenger,t-72,etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beuzou (talkcontribs) 16:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Amx30 proto 09.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Amx30 proto 09.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

re:Photo in upper right hand corner of the article[edit]

Actually, contrary to one of the earlier contentions, the vehicle in the first upper right hand photo of the article is just a standard French Army AMX-30B, not a B2 (note that this vehicle still has the stereoscopic range finder housings on the side of the turret, the B2s had these removed; also the B2 had a distinctive protective cover enclosing the cupola mounted 7.62x51mm NATO AA-NF-1 GPMG, an item lacking on the earlier AMX-30B), which in this case is in a desert paint scheme. The vehicle here is seen in the storage yard at the Saumur armor museum (I saw it when I was there several years ago). It was probably one of the small number of AMX-30Bs fitted with the ex-East German army mine roller equipment for use in Operation Desert Storm.

On a different subject: there were repeated reports throughout the 1970s and early 1980s that, depending on the source, France had sold Iraq between 100 and 200 AMX-30 MBTs. I am only aware of the 85 AUF-1/GCT 155mm SPGs (self propelled guns) and up to 18 ROLAND II TELs (transporter/erector/launchers). The GCTs were delivered ca. 1985-1986 and the ROLAND TELs were delivered between 1982 and 1985; also, a reported five or six AMX-30D ARVs were delivered in 1981. I am also aware that in 1981 and 1982 Iraq is reported to have received 100 or so AMX-10P MICVs (were these the artillery observation version and/or the mortar towing version for the 120mm Brandt MO-120-RT-61 rifled mortars that Iraq took delivery of during the war, or just the standard ICV?), and have seen photos of these vehicles taken at the armor graveyard at Taji; these vehicles would have normally accompanied the AMX-30s into battle, assuming there were any AMX-30s in Iraqi service to begin with. I suppose that the above mentioned AMX-30 based vehicles (the GCTs etc...) might account for the report of 100 AMX-30s, but 200 AMX-30s??? And if they did indeed take delivery of any of the MBTs, I have certainly never seen any photos of any alleged Iraqi AMX-30s from the period, and none seem to have been captured by either the Iranians between 1980 and 1988, nor by the Allies during the Gulf War of 1991. Can anyone here provide any enlightenment on this? Thus far no-one seems to be able to say. If they did have AMX-30s, were they the standard AMX-30B or were they the tropicalized AMX-30S as used by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and what Iraqi unit or units would have used them?SASH155 (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)SASH155, W.Thomas Alex. VA

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on AMX-30. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Tunisian operation[edit]

Dear fellow Wikipedians and AMX-30 enthousiasts.

Recently, someone brought to my attention on my Wikimedia talk page here: [1] that there is no verifiable operation of the AMX-30 by Tunisian forces. I cannot personally find anything myself either, and I have thus decided to remove Tunisia from the list of operators until a proper source is found. Feel free to supply one if you come across it. I will also update the map to reflect this change.

Yours, Jurryaany (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)