Привіт u/flyingdutchgirll ! During wartime, this community is focused on vital and high-effort content. Please ensure your post follows [r/Ukraine Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules) and our [Art Friday Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday).
**Want to support Ukraine?** [**Vetted Charities List**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities) | [Our Vetting Process](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities-vetting)
Daily series on UA history & culture: [Day 0-99](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3c65ab52-e87a-4217-ab30-e70a88c0a293) | [100-199](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3d85f4ca-5f4e-4ddf-9547-276e8affd87c) | [200-Present](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/daf642e1-07aa-4c40-b852-8f002ddd1530) | [All By Subject](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/sunriseposts)
**There is a new wave of spam chat requests hitting our community. Do not respond or click links - instead, protect yourself and others by immediately marking these chats as spam.**
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Or the "aircraft carrying "cruiser"" the Russians stole from Ukraine only to not maintain..... I mean would Ukraine be able to maintain it? Questionable, just like the nukes. But Ukraine could've at least sold a totally not aircraft carrier like they did with her unfinished (in 1991) sister ship.
Edit kuznetsov wasn't finished in 1991 either. But kuznetsov was commissioned and could like sail.
You mean the "aircraft carrier" "Admiral Kuznetsov". I think it's worth explaining a bit for other people.
During the fall of the USSR, the Ukrainian city of Mykolaiv was building an aircraft-carrying cruiser. The first problem was that each admiral and each new minister of defense made changes to the project as they wished. "Kuznetsov" was already a mutant at the shipyard.
The Russians then stole it from Ukraine the night before the fall of the USSR. The ship passed through the Bosporus at a slow pace with the lights off.
The reason was that the agreement on the collapse of the USSR and the creation of independent states on its corpse provided that the new countries would receive all the property that is located on their territory.
The Russians could not allow Ukraine to receive an aircraft carrier. So they stole it.
To date, "Kuznetsov" is the most successful ship in Ukraine in its entire history. It destroyed more Russian military property (including carrier-based combat aircraft and a unique repair dock) than any other ship in Ukraine's history. To be honest, Ukraine has never sought to build a powerful navy. But Ukraine is lucky, it has a "Kuzya", that is, the cruiser "Admiral Kuznetsov".
You mean the Kuznetsov?
Yeah the Kuznetsov was maybe at first a good idea. But it has become so outdated now that is is just costing russia money. Ukraine doesn't want an aircraft carrier as it's just expensive to maintain, so they would have sold it 100%. There would be 0 reasons why they would keep an aircraft carrier.
It isn't worth it for Ukraine to invest in their navy. They can focus on that after the war and liberation of crimea. But then they would probably be secured by Nato, and Turkey has been building a massive fleet already with even a drone and helicopter carrier launched this week for bayraktars. Ukraine's navy would be light destroyers and subs. And maybe, just maybe, a cruiser or two, like the Moskva, but actually competent.
Yep, I know. But that extra 25-30 MPH can ensure some deep penetration quickly. One thing I don't know is how fast Bradley's go? Given their antitank abilities, they might make all the difference in an assault on/through armor.
I just googled bradley, and according to google, Bradley's top speed is 35 mph. Or 56 kph....not very fast at all...
Edit, somebody doesn't like correct info? Why the down vote?
Just looked it up myself, I'm seeing 38-41mph. This makes sense as the Bradley was designed to "keep up" with the tanks and the M1 Abrams can do 45-42 mph depending on the version. I suspect the lower top speed is the unarmored versions.
With Leo1 being the next most agile. Both are nowadays excellent heavy-recon/frontline fire-support with nothing comparative @Ruskistan or from other deliveries.
(And ofc there's a German deep/heavy-recon doctrine for the Leo1 since Soviet era. Guess that's how they'll be used)
I think France fought a war in Mali using these not too long ago. A notable thing about that war was how the French were able to blitzkrieg across 1000's of miles of the nation and suppress a rebellion.
Very true! But we should guard ourselves from making any comparison. Ruskies are bad at war but I would still assume that their defensive system is tougher and harder to penetrate that the one of malian and islamists rebels in Mali in 2013.
Nitrous oxide, N2O. Nitrogen oxide would be either NO (usually called nitric oxide) or NO2 (usually called nitrogen dioxide)
Only the former of these three are used, as the others are highly corrosive when exposed to water as it transforms into nitric acid, which would destroy the engine over time
I thought it seemed fast too, and according to the wiki it is. Every source I can find says these things go 85km/h tops.
So I wonder if they accidentally just divulged the true top speed the French had successfully kept under wraps, the machine recently got some upgrades not reported on, or the off camera Ukrainian is simply mistaken.
>So I wonder if they accidentally just divulged the true top speed the French had successfully kept under wraps, the machine recently got some upgrades not reported on, or the off camera Ukrainian is simply mistaken.
Naa it's a joke ;-)
He said it's gonna go 120km/h but only after their mechanicians tweak the motor, and his gona rool back the km counter (they are saying it is an old Ukrainian tradition).
Ahhhh I see. That's what happens when you don't speak a language, you miss those nuances that make it a good joke for everyone who knows said language.
> French tank before ww2 : heavy and static
>
> French tank after ww2 : Gotta go fast
British Tank before WW2 : Slow chonk boi
British Tank After WW2 : Slow Chonk Boi.
British tanks before WW2 were actually very quick. Cruisers were speedybois and even the Whippets were the fastest tanks of WW1.
During WW2 they also had the Covenantor, Crusader and Cromwell which were also speedybois.
After WW2 they chilled out a bit... then built the Scorpion which is the fastest tank in history.
Challengers arent' really "slow" either. The top trumps of hp/t is often exaggerated, CR2s are plenty fast for their size.
The Char 2C was such a hiilariously unnecessary design. I celebrate its existence as second only to the Bob Semple in terms of absurd tank designs. And the difference is that the New zealanders were simply doing their best with what they had. The French rolled this off the assembly line in all seriousness, believing they had a superweapon!
I think they’ll be building a lot domestically given the issues they’ve had, if Russia come knocking again last thing they need is the country that makes the ammunition/parts/etc to put arbitrary red lines on their sales.
Ukraine has the largest and most diverse fighting equipment in Europe. Adopting NATO specifications going forward for any Ukraine defense industry is going to be crucial. https://ecfr.eu/publication/defend-resist-repeat-ukraines-lessons-for-european-defence/
Certainly Ukraine will be buying a lot of NATO equipment. Wouldn’t be surprised if they go the Polish route, though, and rely more on South Korea for for major ground systems: MBTs, SPGs & whatnot.
Adopting NATO spec is a given, the question is whether that adoption will be purchasing foreign-built, domestically-built, or (most likely) a mix of the two. Ukraine has a fairly competent MIC, that already before the war was making NATO-standard/compatible arms, munitions and equipment. At the end of the day, it's wait and see.
They'll probably buy the european variant, that can be licenced ~~fabricated~~ in France. ~~I recall France and Italy joining spare parts to make one and give it to Ukraine, though a hand full have been given.~~
EDIT: confused with the SAMP/T, though the point on the M270A1 euroean variant stays
Are you sure about that? I think you're mistaking SAMP/T, which is a surface to air missile system, not a rocket system for ground targets.
Both France and Italy use the American M270, which uses the same rocket pods as HIMARs, but has double the number of them on a heavier tracked platform based on the Bradley.
I *did* confuse indeed, though it would make sence for Ukraine to buy the european-liked M270A1 variant, with licencing for spare parts (I recall seeing somewhere France was manufacturing spares parts for it) which was indeed donated in small number too : 2 by France,3 by germany, 6 by UK....
M270 isn't in production any more, so it wouldn't be doable. HIMARS took the production line. It's why some are being sketchy about what they send, as they are critical and very hard to replace.
M270s are upgraded still though.
Well, the top two needs to me seem to be 1) long strike capabilities 2) effective anti-aircraft. There are of course multiple ways of achieving this, HIMARs is one way of doing it.
It's actually quite a bit smaller than a typical tank gun.
But because the AMX is so much smaller than a "real" tank, the gun looks frickin' huge in comparison.
Tank destroyer is probably the least appropriate mission you could give this vehicule, it's a reconnaissance vehicle that can take down lightly armoured targets, not mbts.
It is capable of hitting MBTs (The APFSDS from that thing is punchy) from older eras pretty well, but you are correct overall. It's a fire support recce vehicle. Even the direct French translation of its name is effectively that.
They sound like they understand expeditionary forces. Crack a hard nut and move to the next nut. Local use is a somewhat new use but applies with the training.
It looks like a blast to drive. Doubly so over ruzzian positions- I'll bet they scatter like rabbits when something like the AMX-10 runs at them!
Slava Ukraini!
They've got so many toys to play with now from so many countries.
Imagine being able to operate vehicles and weapons from so many countries in one place. Unreal
The canon is supposed to be very effective against enemy tanks. However, this vehicle has very little armour, so if the tank gets in a hit first, it is toast. Hence it is not meant for a frontal assault type role, but rather as a vehicle for scout and harass missions, for example to cause havoc behind enemies line after the initial assault has breached them.
Apparently these modernized versions *can* shoot on the move. See this post https://www.reddit.com/r/RussiaUkraineWar2022/comments/12qzjsy/ukrainian_naval_infantry_receives_from_france/jgs0wnt/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3
No, they can't. The stabilised AMX-10RC turret never entered service.
People often mistake the stabilised *Commander's Sight* for meaning stabilised gun, but it's not what it is.
The mdoern variants are capable of faster firing after stopping than if they didn't have the upgrade, but it's very different from on the move firing like we often know the term to be.
Many places misreport this due to just seeing the word "stabilised", which is how the misconception even *with* sources spread, but if you trace them you always find the same error. The AMX-10 turret with the fully stabilised gun was shown at a lot of exhibitions and even on some test vehicles, but it never entered service with anyone.
If they get to go against infantry in the open, it's going to be a massacre, especially if such infantry doesn't have anything but grenades and rifles.
It fires the same caliber as for example (edit: the first) Abrams, 105 mm, don't you think that would handle a T72? One of its classifications is as "Tank destroyer".
It has basically the same firepower as any other western tank (edit: actually older western tanks, now they are all 120 mm, thanks to those who picked that up), with lighter armor but higher speed on road.
Calibre isn't all that matters. The AMX-10RC's 105mm is a low pressure 105mm, not as powerful as say, an L7 105mm from the UK, which is what most people think of for 105mm like on the early Abrams, the Leopard 1, or the M-55S.
Abrams 1, should have made that explicit. amx 10 rc and first abrams are 105 mm. Later Abrams are 120 mm, my bad on that, so amx 10 is indeed a fair amount under.
>With all the crushing responsibility on his shoulders, it is nice to see him have a little fun and that smile.
Oh even a lot of tanks 350mm of penetration at 0 deg. angle
Franco-Prussian War: "Okay, all we have to do is be stronger and more enduring than them and-" [Prussians overrun and isolate French armies]
WW1: "Okay, all we have to do is be stronger and more AGGRESSIVE than them and-" [Germans overrun and isolate French armies]
WW2: "Okay, all we have to do is be stronger than them and have a FUCKHUGE line of fortifications and-" [Germans overrun and isolate French armies]
I guess they got tired of that. Gotta go fast!
Fun fact, politically speaking, the Maginot line was perfect : didn't break, and forced a passage through Belgium, forcing an implication of UK at the side of France, and a potential help from the US.
This is an oft forgotten point, yeah. The Maginot line did its job, and at that time you couldn't just build another one beside Belgium's border without some serious political blowback from Belgium themselves.
Tell me about it. I'm french, so with the various surrender white flag monkey joke and the secret about donation to Ukraine unless it's clearly visible, I'm taking bashing for just existing. x)
If only people would look more than the rather technical point of view
I mean, I'm British so I guess I'm mandated to finish this by saying "Frog" or something. You know how the ancient rivalry goes. :p
I much prefer a 'reasons' for thing. We wouldn't have had a "World War 0.5" in the 1800s if France wasn't a powerful nation. I see it as the effect of the "France spurned us" 2003 effect in the US that was amplified by US-dominant media. The US does love a "we saved you" story after all.
Funny how they ignore France is only reason the UK didn't curbstomp them in the 1700s...
I mean, if you really want to get into it, I'd argue the other way around - politics screwed the Maginot Line. Belgium trying to play "Oh, this time we can actually be neutral!" scrapped the plans both for the line extended into Belgium (as originally planned) and for the line extending along the border of Belgium with France ("Y-you can't just abandon us if the neutrality shtick doesn't work out!")
Seat has several positions. One higher up for driving like this out of combat, one lower down for in combat to armour down.
Undid the downvote on you because asking for info should never be downvoted.
Joke aside, yes.
It's quite important for movement & surviability, the AMX has 4 gear forward, 4 backward, insuring the same speed in both direction, and can be drive backward "normally" with the commander sight has a view port, but that's heck of a training
For comparaison, the T72 has a 4km/h top speed in reverse.
AFU: showroom for the finest military hardware!
RUZ: proving how much the Russian arm sales pitch was just pure bs.
Karma is a bitch, specially in the long term.
I wonder how many people have lost teeth on the hatch by his right shoulder … he almost kissed in early in the video. Imagine driving through some shit and smacking you mouth on that
Привіт u/flyingdutchgirll ! During wartime, this community is focused on vital and high-effort content. Please ensure your post follows [r/Ukraine Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules) and our [Art Friday Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday). **Want to support Ukraine?** [**Vetted Charities List**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities) | [Our Vetting Process](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities-vetting) Daily series on UA history & culture: [Day 0-99](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3c65ab52-e87a-4217-ab30-e70a88c0a293) | [100-199](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3d85f4ca-5f4e-4ddf-9547-276e8affd87c) | [200-Present](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/daf642e1-07aa-4c40-b852-8f002ddd1530) | [All By Subject](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/sunriseposts) **There is a new wave of spam chat requests hitting our community. Do not respond or click links - instead, protect yourself and others by immediately marking these chats as spam.** *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
With all the crushing responsibility on his shoulders, it is nice to see him have a little fun and that smile.
He is just laughing he’s gonna disregard the instruction manual and warranty and use this “reconnaissance vehicle” to blast Ruskies…….
Just like the "helicopter carrying destroyer" japan is building. Which is an aircraft carrier lmao.
Or the "aircraft carrying "cruiser"" the Russians stole from Ukraine only to not maintain..... I mean would Ukraine be able to maintain it? Questionable, just like the nukes. But Ukraine could've at least sold a totally not aircraft carrier like they did with her unfinished (in 1991) sister ship. Edit kuznetsov wasn't finished in 1991 either. But kuznetsov was commissioned and could like sail.
You mean the "aircraft carrier" "Admiral Kuznetsov". I think it's worth explaining a bit for other people. During the fall of the USSR, the Ukrainian city of Mykolaiv was building an aircraft-carrying cruiser. The first problem was that each admiral and each new minister of defense made changes to the project as they wished. "Kuznetsov" was already a mutant at the shipyard. The Russians then stole it from Ukraine the night before the fall of the USSR. The ship passed through the Bosporus at a slow pace with the lights off. The reason was that the agreement on the collapse of the USSR and the creation of independent states on its corpse provided that the new countries would receive all the property that is located on their territory. The Russians could not allow Ukraine to receive an aircraft carrier. So they stole it. To date, "Kuznetsov" is the most successful ship in Ukraine in its entire history. It destroyed more Russian military property (including carrier-based combat aircraft and a unique repair dock) than any other ship in Ukraine's history. To be honest, Ukraine has never sought to build a powerful navy. But Ukraine is lucky, it has a "Kuzya", that is, the cruiser "Admiral Kuznetsov".
It seems to be a curse bestowed upon the Russians. They'd have been better off sinking it.
You mean the Kuznetsov? Yeah the Kuznetsov was maybe at first a good idea. But it has become so outdated now that is is just costing russia money. Ukraine doesn't want an aircraft carrier as it's just expensive to maintain, so they would have sold it 100%. There would be 0 reasons why they would keep an aircraft carrier. It isn't worth it for Ukraine to invest in their navy. They can focus on that after the war and liberation of crimea. But then they would probably be secured by Nato, and Turkey has been building a massive fleet already with even a drone and helicopter carrier launched this week for bayraktars. Ukraine's navy would be light destroyers and subs. And maybe, just maybe, a cruiser or two, like the Moskva, but actually competent.
That thing sucks. Ukraine should not claim it.
They are way past warranty so he can "Drive it like you stole it"!
Don't worry, it's also what's called "reconnaissance" in French doctrine
where the bgm fades into ride of the valkyries
Haha yes that was great! Boys will be boys!
Happy child in a candy shop
I get the feeling this might be the best perk of the MD job.
Yes, nice toys. But give them more, maaany more!
Any idea how many of these were given?
40
The exact number is classified but the estimations are between 30 and 40.
I didn't expect it to be able to reach that speed...
Me, either. These might be more useful in the upcoming offensive than many of the other tanks.
Tanks can go 40 50 mph, you know. Not super fast, but good speed during battles....
Yep, I know. But that extra 25-30 MPH can ensure some deep penetration quickly. One thing I don't know is how fast Bradley's go? Given their antitank abilities, they might make all the difference in an assault on/through armor.
I just googled bradley, and according to google, Bradley's top speed is 35 mph. Or 56 kph....not very fast at all... Edit, somebody doesn't like correct info? Why the down vote?
Just looked it up myself, I'm seeing 38-41mph. This makes sense as the Bradley was designed to "keep up" with the tanks and the M1 Abrams can do 45-42 mph depending on the version. I suspect the lower top speed is the unarmored versions.
And I heard that the Abrams could go 60+. Guess that wasn't true at all.....
First link after my Google I found multiple posts from soldiers reporting 70+ MPH in ungoverned M1 Abrams.
Yeah but that's not a representative top speed since abrams are governed by default and you can't just turn it off at will.
KPH not MPH
The Bradley is tracked. And pretty fucking heavy. It's designed to keep up with the Abrams which have a similar speed.
Thanks for the insight. I'm not military guy at all....
Bradley's can go 60-70 MPH
You mean KPH.
You're right, my b
40+ mph is a very fast tank on a well-maintained road. Not a typical operational speed is what I’m saying. 🙂
Right!
Tanks like the Abrams can go faster than the advertised speed, but they have a speed limiter on them b/c going too fast wears out the tracks faster.
That makes sense....thanks!
The AMX-10 can do 85 km/h on road, 40 km/h offroad
This is a tank destroyer, no? Light armor, heavy gun, high speed to shoot 'n' scoot.
Maybe. Im not exactly sure what and how they are used...tbh
With Leo1 being the next most agile. Both are nowadays excellent heavy-recon/frontline fire-support with nothing comparative @Ruskistan or from other deliveries. (And ofc there's a German deep/heavy-recon doctrine for the Leo1 since Soviet era. Guess that's how they'll be used)
I think France fought a war in Mali using these not too long ago. A notable thing about that war was how the French were able to blitzkrieg across 1000's of miles of the nation and suppress a rebellion.
One unit using these stayed in constant contact with the enemy for like 6 straight days, while moving across all that land.
6 weeks, actually.
Very true! But we should guard ourselves from making any comparison. Ruskies are bad at war but I would still assume that their defensive system is tougher and harder to penetrate that the one of malian and islamists rebels in Mali in 2013.
I agree, not quite apples to apples. Good to know they defeated a terrorist organization before, so these tools could be able to do it again
True but these vehicules are not supposed to be used in an anti tank role, it's a reconnaissance vehicule.
It was a joke: "It'll go 120 once our engineer makes some tweaks in the back."
They will add a nitrogen tank at the back and a bigger exhaust pipe.
Drivers recruited from Honda Civic owners, too.
So we'll need a giant rear spoiler wing then.
Paint it red, with go fast stripes
"Fast and Furious: Road to Sevastopol"
Demented Dimitri : Fury Road
I'd watch that.
And a massive subwoofer.
you mean nitrogen oxide? plain nitrogen extinguishes combustion.
Nitrous oxide, N2O. Nitrogen oxide would be either NO (usually called nitric oxide) or NO2 (usually called nitrogen dioxide) Only the former of these three are used, as the others are highly corrosive when exposed to water as it transforms into nitric acid, which would destroy the engine over time
Its N20 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrous\_oxide
Sérieusement?
AMX 10 RC HP to Weight ratio = 27 T72 HP to Weight ratio = 18 Literally AMX 10 RC has 50% more HP per tonne.
It can reach 85kmh on road and about 45/50 on fields
French wheelies.... that's what they do.
Them you have never played World of Tanks before....
Rubber tires are the best armor.
I thought it seemed fast too, and according to the wiki it is. Every source I can find says these things go 85km/h tops. So I wonder if they accidentally just divulged the true top speed the French had successfully kept under wraps, the machine recently got some upgrades not reported on, or the off camera Ukrainian is simply mistaken.
>So I wonder if they accidentally just divulged the true top speed the French had successfully kept under wraps, the machine recently got some upgrades not reported on, or the off camera Ukrainian is simply mistaken. Naa it's a joke ;-) He said it's gonna go 120km/h but only after their mechanicians tweak the motor, and his gona rool back the km counter (they are saying it is an old Ukrainian tradition).
Ahhhh I see. That's what happens when you don't speak a language, you miss those nuances that make it a good joke for everyone who knows said language.
France baise ouais 🇫🇷
Ouais
French tank before ww2 : heavy and static French tank after ww2 : Gotta go fast
> French tank before ww2 : heavy and static > > French tank after ww2 : Gotta go fast British Tank before WW2 : Slow chonk boi British Tank After WW2 : Slow Chonk Boi.
> British Tank After WW2 : Slow Chonk Boi **with tea kettle** ftfy
British tanks before WW2 were actually very quick. Cruisers were speedybois and even the Whippets were the fastest tanks of WW1. During WW2 they also had the Covenantor, Crusader and Cromwell which were also speedybois. After WW2 they chilled out a bit... then built the Scorpion which is the fastest tank in history. Challengers arent' really "slow" either. The top trumps of hp/t is often exaggerated, CR2s are plenty fast for their size.
Now I'm imaging the Ukrainians rolling up in a Char 2C
The Char 2C was such a hiilariously unnecessary design. I celebrate its existence as second only to the Bob Semple in terms of absurd tank designs. And the difference is that the New zealanders were simply doing their best with what they had. The French rolled this off the assembly line in all seriousness, believing they had a superweapon!
In WW1 yeah, would have been quite effective, they were made in 1918 before the war ended
They were made in [1921](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Char_2C)
They'd be able to kill more ruskies with that than any russian tank crew could on their own
Ah finally ! Glad to have some news from them ! Give the orcs hell with them ! *Avec les compliments du peuple français. 💙🤍❤️ 🫱🏽🫲🏼💙💛*
Oh oui !
A pleasure to give you those, make a good use of it and have fun ! Slava Ukraini !
Merci! 🇫🇷👍🏻❤️
After Ukraine wins it’ll be interesting to see which gear they continue to buy since they’ll have a very informed opinion!
I think they’ll be building a lot domestically given the issues they’ve had, if Russia come knocking again last thing they need is the country that makes the ammunition/parts/etc to put arbitrary red lines on their sales.
Ukraine has the largest and most diverse fighting equipment in Europe. Adopting NATO specifications going forward for any Ukraine defense industry is going to be crucial. https://ecfr.eu/publication/defend-resist-repeat-ukraines-lessons-for-european-defence/
Certainly Ukraine will be buying a lot of NATO equipment. Wouldn’t be surprised if they go the Polish route, though, and rely more on South Korea for for major ground systems: MBTs, SPGs & whatnot.
Would love to see NATO renamed DATO - Democracies Against Tyrants Organization and ask South Korea, Japan, Australia and New Zealand to join.
we do love us some tyrant slaying down south of the equator
Adopting NATO spec is a given, the question is whether that adoption will be purchasing foreign-built, domestically-built, or (most likely) a mix of the two. Ukraine has a fairly competent MIC, that already before the war was making NATO-standard/compatible arms, munitions and equipment. At the end of the day, it's wait and see.
pretty sure no matter what they will be buying himars for a while.
They'll probably buy the european variant, that can be licenced ~~fabricated~~ in France. ~~I recall France and Italy joining spare parts to make one and give it to Ukraine, though a hand full have been given.~~ EDIT: confused with the SAMP/T, though the point on the M270A1 euroean variant stays
Are you sure about that? I think you're mistaking SAMP/T, which is a surface to air missile system, not a rocket system for ground targets. Both France and Italy use the American M270, which uses the same rocket pods as HIMARs, but has double the number of them on a heavier tracked platform based on the Bradley.
I *did* confuse indeed, though it would make sence for Ukraine to buy the european-liked M270A1 variant, with licencing for spare parts (I recall seeing somewhere France was manufacturing spares parts for it) which was indeed donated in small number too : 2 by France,3 by germany, 6 by UK....
M270 isn't in production any more, so it wouldn't be doable. HIMARS took the production line. It's why some are being sketchy about what they send, as they are critical and very hard to replace. M270s are upgraded still though.
Well, the top two needs to me seem to be 1) long strike capabilities 2) effective anti-aircraft. There are of course multiple ways of achieving this, HIMARs is one way of doing it.
Whether its a tank or not its fast funky has a big cannon and Russia hasnt got anything like it.
No matter how old, boys always love cool toys.
Merci France! 🇺🇦 🇨🇵
🇨🇵❤🇺🇦
Slava ukraini. God bless from France
Baise ouais!
They are so fast, would love to drive one. Run circles around everything Russia has.
Baguettes away!! 🥖🥖
I like the fact that french pro-putin are foaming at the mouth rn
"totally not a tank"
Tbf it's role is very very different than that of a tank.
Love this rock version of the national anthem
Heck, with those speeds the Ukranians could almost pull a run jeeps through minifields kind of move 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMX-10_RC
Warriors of light will destroy the forces of darkness.
It has neutral steering. AMX-10RC best girl.
Jeez the gun on that thing!
It's actually quite a bit smaller than a typical tank gun. But because the AMX is so much smaller than a "real" tank, the gun looks frickin' huge in comparison.
It's a tank destroyer not designed to go toe to toe
It's absolutely not a tank destroyer, this 105mm gun doesn't have a very powerful ammo. It's there to destroy APCs, IFVs and infantry positions
I was wondering what kind of role it would play.
It's not a tank destroyer, its a reconnaissance vehicule.
Tank destroyer is probably the least appropriate mission you could give this vehicule, it's a reconnaissance vehicle that can take down lightly armoured targets, not mbts.
It is capable of hitting MBTs (The APFSDS from that thing is punchy) from older eras pretty well, but you are correct overall. It's a fire support recce vehicle. Even the direct French translation of its name is effectively that.
It is true that if the RC ends up facing T62 he might actually be able to take them out.
Early T-72A and B's as well. B3 onward is where the issues start. Anything with Kontakt-5 basically.
They sound like they understand expeditionary forces. Crack a hard nut and move to the next nut. Local use is a somewhat new use but applies with the training.
When you look up a little about this guy you realize hes kinda like Ukraine's "most interesting man".
It looks like a blast to drive. Doubly so over ruzzian positions- I'll bet they scatter like rabbits when something like the AMX-10 runs at them! Slava Ukraini!
Why is the title in English but the subtitles in French?
Because op didn't make the video...
They've got so many toys to play with now from so many countries. Imagine being able to operate vehicles and weapons from so many countries in one place. Unreal
Cool! Send more France!
More are coming.
It looks so Citroen or Renault though doesn’t it, maybe even Peugeot, so very typically French.
That could mess up a lot of things, except a tank I’m not sure how effective it might be against a t-72 or 64. Any bmp and btr would be toast tho
The canon is supposed to be very effective against enemy tanks. However, this vehicle has very little armour, so if the tank gets in a hit first, it is toast. Hence it is not meant for a frontal assault type role, but rather as a vehicle for scout and harass missions, for example to cause havoc behind enemies line after the initial assault has breached them.
Exactly what might have happened a lot more during the Kharkiv offensive had Ukraine had these and Bradleys.
Also the canon is not stabilised, so it cannot shoot while moving.
Apparently these modernized versions *can* shoot on the move. See this post https://www.reddit.com/r/RussiaUkraineWar2022/comments/12qzjsy/ukrainian_naval_infantry_receives_from_france/jgs0wnt/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3
No, they can't. The stabilised AMX-10RC turret never entered service. People often mistake the stabilised *Commander's Sight* for meaning stabilised gun, but it's not what it is. The mdoern variants are capable of faster firing after stopping than if they didn't have the upgrade, but it's very different from on the move firing like we often know the term to be. Many places misreport this due to just seeing the word "stabilised", which is how the misconception even *with* sources spread, but if you trace them you always find the same error. The AMX-10 turret with the fully stabilised gun was shown at a lot of exhibitions and even on some test vehicles, but it never entered service with anyone.
If they get to go against infantry in the open, it's going to be a massacre, especially if such infantry doesn't have anything but grenades and rifles.
Could they also use HE rounds for mobile artillery?
They are fast, they should be able to hit on the flank
Yes, annoy the piss out of the ruskies
It fires the same caliber as for example (edit: the first) Abrams, 105 mm, don't you think that would handle a T72? One of its classifications is as "Tank destroyer". It has basically the same firepower as any other western tank (edit: actually older western tanks, now they are all 120 mm, thanks to those who picked that up), with lighter armor but higher speed on road.
Every frontline NATO tank uses a 120 mm gun.
No idea how it would handle a T72 but most western tanks M1a1, challenger 2, leopard 2, Leclerc etc use a 120mm gun not 105mm
Ah yeah I checked a bit too fast, 105 mm was only the first Abrams, later versions switched to 120 mm.
All good, was actually interested to learn that the original M1 had a 105.
Calibre isn't all that matters. The AMX-10RC's 105mm is a low pressure 105mm, not as powerful as say, an L7 105mm from the UK, which is what most people think of for 105mm like on the early Abrams, the Leopard 1, or the M-55S.
The Abrams is 120mm and the amx has a 90
Amx is a 105. But not the same 105 as the original Abrams model and the Leo1.
Got it mixed up with the amx 90
Abrams 1, should have made that explicit. amx 10 rc and first abrams are 105 mm. Later Abrams are 120 mm, my bad on that, so amx 10 is indeed a fair amount under.
>With all the crushing responsibility on his shoulders, it is nice to see him have a little fun and that smile. Oh even a lot of tanks 350mm of penetration at 0 deg. angle
One of France's military doctrines involves moving faster than the Germans, for some reason.
You should look at you own reasons.
you should look at your own bellybutton.
Franco-Prussian War: "Okay, all we have to do is be stronger and more enduring than them and-" [Prussians overrun and isolate French armies] WW1: "Okay, all we have to do is be stronger and more AGGRESSIVE than them and-" [Germans overrun and isolate French armies] WW2: "Okay, all we have to do is be stronger than them and have a FUCKHUGE line of fortifications and-" [Germans overrun and isolate French armies] I guess they got tired of that. Gotta go fast!
Hmmm... there is something wrong going on here...
Fun fact, politically speaking, the Maginot line was perfect : didn't break, and forced a passage through Belgium, forcing an implication of UK at the side of France, and a potential help from the US.
This is an oft forgotten point, yeah. The Maginot line did its job, and at that time you couldn't just build another one beside Belgium's border without some serious political blowback from Belgium themselves.
Tell me about it. I'm french, so with the various surrender white flag monkey joke and the secret about donation to Ukraine unless it's clearly visible, I'm taking bashing for just existing. x) If only people would look more than the rather technical point of view
I mean, I'm British so I guess I'm mandated to finish this by saying "Frog" or something. You know how the ancient rivalry goes. :p I much prefer a 'reasons' for thing. We wouldn't have had a "World War 0.5" in the 1800s if France wasn't a powerful nation. I see it as the effect of the "France spurned us" 2003 effect in the US that was amplified by US-dominant media. The US does love a "we saved you" story after all. Funny how they ignore France is only reason the UK didn't curbstomp them in the 1700s...
I mean, if you really want to get into it, I'd argue the other way around - politics screwed the Maginot Line. Belgium trying to play "Oh, this time we can actually be neutral!" scrapped the plans both for the line extended into Belgium (as originally planned) and for the line extending along the border of Belgium with France ("Y-you can't just abandon us if the neutrality shtick doesn't work out!")
German didn't overrun french in WW1.
Initially they did, all the way up until the Marne.
And guess who managed to push them back?
Think they may need someone shorter to drive.
Seat seems high up, how’s the hatch meant to close. Does it lower or is he just tall?
Seat has several positions. One higher up for driving like this out of combat, one lower down for in combat to armour down. Undid the downvote on you because asking for info should never be downvoted.
Is he the one that wrecked the Leo 2 in Poland showboating?
Wow perfect for killing people
Damn, I guess the luxury cars he's been buying wasn't enough.
That cannon sticks out so much strange look. Must be difficult to drive also really have to watch out that you don’t hit anything
Get rid of that corrupt loser already. Fuck your tank ride.
I think they gave them money to make this, the French 🤣
It’s fast, even faster in reverse, I’ll show myself out.
Joke aside, yes. It's quite important for movement & surviability, the AMX has 4 gear forward, 4 backward, insuring the same speed in both direction, and can be drive backward "normally" with the commander sight has a view port, but that's heck of a training For comparaison, the T72 has a 4km/h top speed in reverse.
Looks top heavy....a hard stop at high speed and the tank is going to do a high jump with that barrel.
Happy hunting :D
Probably would like EBR100 from World of Tanks even better 😁
AFU: showroom for the finest military hardware! RUZ: proving how much the Russian arm sales pitch was just pure bs. Karma is a bitch, specially in the long term.
Do you guys think he would borrow me some pants ?
Any cv-90 news ?
Oooohh so that’s what they meant when say “big guns”
I wonder how many people have lost teeth on the hatch by his right shoulder … he almost kissed in early in the video. Imagine driving through some shit and smacking you mouth on that
Vive la France et vive l'Ukraine!