Comments by "Andy Dee" (@AndyViant) on "What do French AMX-10RC mean for Ukraine?" video.

@Valorius LAV-25? Stryker M1128? T18 Boarhound? America has experimented with and used similar vehicles before. Really, this is not a tank. The only idiocy is assuming that it is a tank.
3
@RobinTheBot It's actually capable of destroying main battle tanks. There's no IFV's out there anywhere that survive direct hits from 105mm guns. If one of these shot a CV90, or a Bradley, you can kiss the IFV goodbye, since both only are rated defensively to stop 30mm autocannons. The AMX10-RCR probably has kind of similar defence as part of it's uparmour package too, except the Bradley is designed to be able to take that caliber from any angle. Don't get me wrong, if it's trying to go head to head against MBT's, or even IFV's it is being used wrong and they probably deserve the destruction that's likely coming to them, but the gun is capable of taking out a T72, let alone a BMP. But once again, why would they use them in such a stupid way? It's like throwing a gun at someone instead of shooting them with it - you could but why would you?
3
You think those drones that are being used cost $200? Bwahahaha!
3
@ThisPartIsAndrew not this version. They used to be, but with the additional armour packages added they aren't now. Too heavy. Having said that, greater resustance to autocannon fire and improvised explosives was deemed more important, just like with the LAV25 and AUSLAV
3
@ZioStalin Nah, it's a pivoting mechanism, technically. All wheels go in line, no steering involved.
2
:) There's been an uparmoured package on the AMX10-RCR which will be military classified info not on Wikipedia. Most likely that up armour package was specifically designed to counter the 25mm and 30mm autocannons (you know, like Russia and of course the US use, because France is one nation that always hedges their bets). So I'd think that it's probably unable to be frontally penetrated by 30mm API and API-T rounds from at least outside of 500 metres, but exactly where the 30mm autocannon on the BMP-2 and BMP-3 can penetrate it would be uncertain. It's probably still not gonna stop APDS rounds until at least 1500 metres or more. As such, the BMP WILL still be able to penetrate an AMX10-RCR at some distance. It's not gonna be invulnerable. Close range that BMP will shred the AMX just on fire rate alone. However, the AMX's 105mm with APFSDS will penetrate "Heavy Targets" read main battle tank to 1200 metres. It'll rip through a BMP from as far away as they can target it. Not that they'd bother since the same would happen even with HEAT or HE shells. So, front on, within 500 metres, the BMP will almost certainly win. Any further, the AMX will probably win, and has the fire control systems, thermal sights, battlefield intel to do so.
2
exactly like the LAV-25 was
2
@warham97 this is exactly why America built the Stryker. The logistics of it are that much better than mass use of Abrahms. Most other nations are going the same way. An armoured spearhead of MBT's if always going to be a front line for any extended war, but from there the logistics are all in favour of cheaper vehicles, like the Bradleys and Strykers. But even the Bradley are far more expensive to own, run, and much much harder and slower to deploy. America has over 4400 Strykers at $5 million each. Why? Because they can roll out a division of them to anywhere in the world, ready to face combat within 5 days. Good luck trying to transport a division of Abrams in that time...
2
It's not recon in the American meaning or the British meaning. It's more like an armoured cavalry that actually does manoeuvre the way horse cavalry used to, then strike, whilst still having the ability to perform reconnaissance tasks. The French have vehicles more dedicated to true reconnaissance roles like the various Panhard Armoured cars and Reconnaissance cars. Say for instance the ERC-90 Sagaie and EBRC Jaguar, and the AML 90, EBR and similar before them. A small scout car is always going to be easier to hide into do recon, or even a drone, than 20 odd tonnes of armoured truck. So what really are these then? They have the speed and stealth (tyres are much quieter than tracks) to get into ambush positions and then attack, and from those kinds of side on location that gun is MORE than big enough to take out main battle tanks. It also gives them the range to safely destroy most autocannon equipped IFV/AFV style vehicles as it's got an effective combat range of at least 4000 metres - a range at which no BMP (or Bradley) is going to be able to destroy it (except with an ATGM). Plus, it can work in a support role for infantry advances, as a large gun that can fire HE is very useful for infantry, and very bad news for opposing infantry. It can also perform indirect fire artillery missions. They're very flexible, to take advantage of opportunities, rather than being exceptionally good at any one thing. Being present at the right time and having the ability to take advantage of an opponent's weakness is one of the best weapons of all.
2
It's supposed to be able to kill a main battle tank up to 1200 metres away according to NATO standards. So, still pretty reasonable at killing tanks. But why wouldn't you just call in an artillery strike with it's recon capabilities and then go shoot up some infantry with high explosive shells instead?
1
@tellyboy17 the armour on this is notably better than people think it is. It was upgraded with an additional armour package in the gulf war and again to the RCR spec that Ukraine will get. It's also got active protection. Binkov hasn't really done a great job on explaining this, and the armchair experts who read something off wikipedia aren't getting the full story on this thing, because as a still current military vehicle it's still classified what its specifications are. Sure it's not going to stand up to direct hits from a t-72, but the "anything can kill it with ease" story is not correct
1
@Cataegis-2cb doesn't mean that both can't be used in different ways. The Bradley's also a lot stronger than the AMX10
1
Leopards, yes. Abrams not so much. Not enough volume of Abrams and the logistics for it are an absolute pig - it has poor range and the fuel is hard to source. Don't get me wrong it's still one of the , if not the very best tanks in the world with all the constant upgrades. But Leopard 2A6 is what Ukraine really needs. Diesel engines, good range, lower ground pressure than the heavy Abrams.
1
It basically works the same way tank tracks do, or skid steer loaders. Both noted for their ability to work in mud.
1
@ZioStalin ever seen a skid steer loader? They don't have steering wheels and I bet I can go much further offroad in a bobcat that you do in your 4wd.
1
@ZioStalin I'm an equipment operator by trade. If you can't use a skidsteer in mud then you're basically a bad operator, because they very capable of moving around off pavement. It's precisely what they are designed for. I also happen to own two 4wd turbo diesel duel cab trucks. One has a single diff lock, the other has twin diff locks. Both lifted up with big offroad tyres. Imagine trying to lecture me that tyres can't do anything offroad. Non steering wheels are going to be less prone to getting bogged down in mud that wheels with steering. Also far less likely to break CV's, which is related to movement required to provide steering. These are a much better idea than you think they are.
1
@ZioStalin big and heavy loaders are articulated. They don't actually have "steering" per se, they bend in the middle instead, and THAT is their steering mechanism. They don't have wheels that steer, no steering linkages, no CV shafts, no drag links or suspension - the whole vehicle is hinged in the middle with huge balloon tyres to provide that feature. Extra traction comes from partially filling the tyres with water or by running chains. But of course that means that you have horrible limitations on how the space is used. What's the biggest loader you've ever driven mate? The biggest I've regularly driven had an empty weight of over 33 tonnes/75000 pounds.
1
Not much. they don't have the logistics, the fuel supplies, the training. Honestly the US was doing the right thing in refusing to give them to Ukraine, but politics. So they will get a token number, of an outdated package, that will probably never be used for more than training.
1
How many years did the US use the M60 for? Hang on a second when was the last M1 Abrams made? Or the F-16?
1
This is exactly what the Striker Divisions are meant to do. They're a rapid deployment vehicle that can cover vast distances fast. You can have a strong military presence on ground months before you could get major armed divisions like tanks in place. Speed of deployment in rapid numbers is going to win out against better armour almost every time, or T-34's and Sherman tanks would never have beaten the Tiger in WW2.
1
It's primarily a recon vehicle that can be used to take advantage of opportunities that arise, whether by direct or indirect fire. While it's incredibly risky to go toe to toe with a Main Battle Tank or even a BMP-2 or BMP-3 (due to the penetration and fire rate of the 30mm autocannon) it certainly can be used against weaker targets, like convoys, with HE rounds. Also if it surprised a BMP from any angle it could take the shot, and even the flanks of an MBT, as it can pack both heat and APFSDS. But unless you saw a sole target you would more likely call it in and let artillery finish the job before they knew what hit them. It's a very capable vehicle if used correctly, but it's certainly not a tank.
1
Most scout drones aren't equipped with 105mm artillery. When one of them is, then I'll concede they are better than the AMX10
1
It's not a tank. It has to be used effectively to get the best out of it. Can it destroy most Russian tanks, even the older ones? Not front on without an extended firefight which it WILL NOT survive. That applies equally to stuff like BMP 2 and 3's. The fire rate and higher velocity of that 30mm Autocannon will Swiss cheese the AMX-10, at best leading to mutual destruction, but more likely a kill for the BMP - the BMP WILL penetrate the AMX-10 with ease up to at least a kilometer with AP-T shells, and well over double that if they have access to APDS. AND it will be firing at up to 550 rounds a minute. The AMX by comparison will be firing about what, 6 or 8 shots a minute? The AMX-10 needs a surprise attack to be effective frontally on virtually anything the Russians are using. But it can certainly use the abilities of mobility (where possible due to terrain) and more critically it's more advanced sights to take advantage of the Russian weaknesses. Those thermal sights mean that it can engage many Russian targets that are going to be completely unaware until too late, which is where it can start picking off BMP's, especially if they can take shots out near the distance limit of those thermals so the BMP cannot see to fight back, even with their ATGM's. Never choose a fair fight.
1
You really think a 105mm gun is useless? Not every target in warfare is a main battle tank. MBT versus MBT fights are actually very rare in warfare. Most MBT's get taken out by bombing, missiles or artillery.
1
and if you don't find a tank, the enemy is dead. Seems a pretty good deal for anyone who was gonna otherwise be infantry.
1
More like a Sd. Kfz. 234 (Puma to westerners)
1
@CharliMorganMusic and this is exactly why the Americans built a whole lot of Strykers, and why for the most part most nations are doing large scale purchases of similar vehicles. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and even the USA ran large numbers of LAV derived vehicles for many years. Germany, Australia, Netherlands and Lithuania now use the Boxers (as well as other armoured wheeled "fighting" vehicles). Japan uses the Type 87, the Italians the Freccia, the Centauro, and so on.
1
@youareliedtobythemedia WW2 was a win for Russia, given they did far more to achieve that win in Europe than any other nation. Heck, probably than all other nations combined. That doesn't mean that Russia 2022 is the same as Russia 1942 though.
1
Bradleys have a bit more armour and survivability, but are much much slower (like 40 kph slower) and have a much much weaker gun, despite the fast fire rate. I don't know the effectiveness of the active protection systems of either (and they both have them) to compare, so just ignoring those for purpose of this debate. Depending on the range, the uparmoured AMX-10 RC that was used in the Gulf War and then the even more upgraded AMX-10 RCR will probably be able to survive some Bradley shots, at least AP-I and AP-T frontally against the additional armour plating. Depleted Uranium APFSDS, not so much, and you can bet that's what America would use. ;). At any distance though the AMX-10 (any version) would probably one shot mission kill the Bradley with any offensive ammunition, and probably not just mission kill it but completely destroy it. That's the difference between 25mm and 105mm. It may only "seem" 4 times as big but it's actually 17 times as much area, and then of course the 25x137mm Bushmaster has a case 1/4th the length of the 105x527 OFL, so the volume is probably like 70 or 80 times as much. Of course, much of that difference in volume is going to be empty, or using a lower burning powder, because in this form it is designated a low pressure 105mm gun. The data I have has up to about 500gr total weight per shot for the 25mm bushmaster with 185gr of projectile. The 105 OFL is up to about 13.85kg or 13850gr and up to a 7.2kg projectile or 7200gr. 27 times the weight and 39 times the projectile size is a bit of a difference. They're similar, but not identical vehicles, in intent both with different doctrines on their use. Both clearly showed they were effective in Iraq against Soviet armour. Against insurgents, or in a town where the potential for an RPG from an unexpected angle is high I think I'd rather be in the Bradley - probably better armour and spall lining increases survivability. Anywhere else, probably the AMX-10 RCR, based on mobility and flexibility - you could be safely behind lines as a kind of mobile artillery.
1
@loremipsum3147 I guess 4wd's arent a thing. Nor skid steer loaders. I must have imagined it and Binkov's video must be all CGI because that certainly looks like wheeled vehicles driving through mud.
1
You realise France has nuclear missiles and 12 nuclear submarines right? Putin would have to be particularly suicidal to try that one...
1
Evidence, please? If Taiwan falls it will be due to a DIFFERENT war on the other side of the world where it is unlikely that AMX10-RC's are to even appear on the battlefield. The 12 French Nuclear submarines, on the other hand... they might be a little bit more important to Taiwan. And probably the Charles de Gaulle and it's 30 Rafale fighters.
1
It operates like a skid steer loader. You ever seen a skid steer loader operate in the mud?
1