AMX-30B2 MBT

The AMX-30 is a main battle tank designed by GIAT Industries and first delivered to the French Army in 1966. It was designed with a focus on firepower and mobility, able to operate with minimal support services. The trade-off was limited armour protection (50 mm base), rendering it vulnerable to contemporary main battle tank weapons of NATO or the Warsaw Pact. It is perhaps the most successful post-war French armoured vehicle designed.

Design features included a fully sealed hull, allowing operations in nuclear, chemical, and biological contamination areas. The tank is also capable of fording water up to 2 m in depth. The armour is made of rolled plates and castings, completely welded. The turret is entirely cast and highly shaped for maximum protection. The tank can carry up to 47 rounds of ammunition.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• AMX-30
• GIAT
• Nexter
• main
• battle
• tank
• MBT
• tanks
• armored
• vehicles
• French
• Army

[MarshallJukov]

@VickersIndependent

Thats right - thats why i`ll take T-55 over M1 Abrams any day to fight environments like Vietnam or Afganistan or whatever war you need great mobility (coverage) and firepower to support your infantry. But the guy seems to fail to grasp why i`ll do that. In fact Soviet army prefered to use T-55s and T-62s in Afganistan exactly for the same reason - there was no tanks to kill and in terms of infantry support those tanks do their job well.

[MarshallJukov]

@ak907jk

There is more AP rounds than APERS rounds only in M1 Abrams, because it doesn`t have any APERS to begin with.

Here is ammo layout of T-90:

army .lv/image. php?img=13348. jpg

There is always minimum 18 HE-FRAG rounds, which can be extended depending on mission. M1 Abrams as i said - has no HE-FRAG, let alone 23 kg HE-FRAG with 3,6 kg of A-IX-2 explosives (twice as powerfull as TNT) and a smart detonator.

[MarshallJukov]

@ak907jk

Sorry but 120mm cannon itself isn`t means anyting - its ROUNDS that it shoots. And sorry again - Branley is even greater fraud than M1 Abrams.

Want to see what happens when you have no PROPER rounds?

Here you go

watch?v=2N-1E2F9pmc

BMD-4 and BMP-3 have 100mm cannon which fires HE-FRAG rounds up to 7km. Do not compare it with puny Bradleys 25mm which in addition has painfuly sloooowww rate of fire.

[VickersIndependent]

@MarshallJukov Combat experiences of Russian troops in Grozney and Canadian experiences in Afghanistan would also point to a tank built for infantry support. Also nothing quite shows force like a 105/100mm tank gun. It should also be noted that there more infantry support rounds for balanced tank guns like the 105mm with HE, HESH, WP-T, Cann, Flecc with HEAT and APFSDS round being second in line, all while the US Army foolishly spends money on more sabot rounds for the M1.

[ak907jk]

@MarshallJukov Also why is there more types of AT rounds in a tank than Anti infantry rounds. and if they were meant for anti infantry more than other tanks they would have side and rear guns they would be packing alot more anti-infantry capabilities the fact is that they are built to destroy each other and since you lost when it came to tank vs. tank you are now using the lie that they are meant for only infantry just because thats all the t55 can kill unlike Abrams kills everything equally.

[ak907jk]

@MarshallJukov ok a 120mm cannon is a little over kill for just a building and if they were meant to only be used as you say then all tanks would look CHAR 2C(FCM-2C) tank and having a low profile would not be of concern for tanks they are not meant to be just infantry fighting vehicles we already have those like the BMD-4 and Bradley I'm sure a 40mm 0r 30mm is sufficient for structures infantry support vehicles. and why is the t55 armed with anti tank missiles like you said it was?

[MarshallJukov]

@ak907jk

Abrams mighty TI provided it with mighty 23% friendly fire casualties, despite its own signature is massive due its hot exhaust. So you can drop this argument either.

Canister round has limited range, can not be used over heads of friendly troops and useless against fortifications or demolition works. Eitherway T-55 has such round too.

Machineguns are effective only at 1,5km (HMG) and MUCH less efficient than HE-FRAG. Useless against fortifications either. 

[ak907jk]

@MarshallJukov Again you are leaving out the Abrams thermal capabilities second gen. thermal alows to see heat signatures through most cover and the Abrams uses a canister round or beehive round that fires flechettes and is intended for use in direct fire against enemy troops. Ok if tanks are not built to fight tanks why the main gun or a turret and why is there a wider variety of anti-tank rounds than infantry rounds.Why not just put alot of machine guns on them your argument is flawed

[Pcordero87]

@ak907jk "as well if I know my info is right that is all that matters I could care less what other people think" dont get angry dude, we are just talking in a civilized way. at least from my part i dont intend to offend you or bash you in any way. check combatreform.o r g the articles supposedly come from ex military personnel so i think its worth looking and i think blacktail gets many of his info from that page.

[MarshallJukov]

@ak907jk

You do know that with apearance of Bazooka, panzerfaust and field guns MUCH more tanks was killed by THEM - NOT by other tanks. In era or absolute domninance of RPGs and man-portable ATGMs infantry and light vehicles present MUCH more serious threat to tanks than tanks?

And M1 Abrams simply has no means to effectively defeat such threats before they take a shot - BECAUSE IT HAS NO HE-FRAG.

Its poor mobility makes things even worse for it compared to T-55