Bro really thanks for highlighting the French performance in the Gulf War and how this stellar prowess contributed to change US army tactics. I knew you were a military history nerd but to that degree I salute you. Way too many people aren't aware of this fact.
wish I could take credit for this one! Justin Taylor wrote this episode and he did some great deep dive research on the vehicle. France has a great military history in the war on terror that often goes over looked. I want to do a whole video on the french foreign legion to highlight their bad assery
I think one under appreciated aspect (which you sort of covered) is that it also frees up actual tanks to do tank stuff instead of responding to infantry requests to blow holes in buildings
AT4 already do this for a fraction, these odd vehicles are paper tigers. It may be working as the soldier think it works. It's the reason why rifles couldn't be replaced with grenade and rocket launchers as the soldier didn't trust the weapon. It may be giving hope but it may as well be false hope since you're killing people with bad equipment in hope they will pull it off by sheer will as the anti tank weapons cook them alive. In africa it worked with these vehicles because Africa is relying on getting A to B and fear tactics. If Africa somehow decided to have the capacity to fight the paper tigers would end up burning. Russia rely on fear and paper tanks. Ukraine may pull it off. As long people are willing to sacrifice thinking they have a chance because they have these T-eddies with them who can spin around in a cricle.
amx 10 was proven as junk in the ukraine totally suicidal to ride into battle in that piece of cr.. It was junk even when designed-the whole idea of mounting a big direct fire gun on rubber wheels is ridiculous and that piece of sh.. costs more than a tank The Czech proved wheeled spgs are actually better in some cases than tracked and armies have been using wheeled recon vehicles and apcs for a long time but for an armored car to act like a tank is nonsensical It just proves French technology is obsolete compared to the Great Powers and French tactical thought is stagnant and has been for the last hundred and twenty years That horror doesnt even have add on armor It shouldnt have been designed in the first place and even if created it should not have been accepted but somehow the French designed it and their army took it in sorry to hurt your delusional feelings but although the truth hurts it also sets you free
I served in Iraq, and was in charge of operation preparation. AMX 10 RC was design to quickly move from France to Est German border for stopping waves of USSR T55 T62 tanks in case of massive invasion. Germany is well equiped with road, so that idea was to control them quicky. With T72 T80, French army rethink strategy of their use in both directions: reconnaissance, and very fast run inside ennemy ligne with wheeled combat infantery VAB in order to overflow them by speed with support of heavy artillery of the AMX. VAB HOT or MILAN to protect the task force against more powerful tanks. Kind of modern ligth cavalery mission. It has been proved very efficient so that French stop to use tracked tanks. US were so impressed in Iraq that they adapted our model of organisation and now, their are also developped and now use powerfull wheeled tanks.
That was a smart design choice to not use steerable wheels. It reduces complexity, weight & cost, while providing for a more rugged hydro-pneumatic suspension.
Before we start beating up the AMX-10, let's remember one thing, it can be there NOW! Rest of the world...crickets. I served on the US M60A1, and M60A3. The M60 series served from the 60s, all the way to the early 90s, it was the US's main battle tank. Both variants had a...ho-hum 105 cannon. When you pull the trigger there is nothing ho-hum about it. The A3 variant had the 105, but also stabilization, laser rangefinder, 50 cal M2, 8.62 coax, and a mini weather unit that factored in temp and barometric pressure. The main role of ANY vehicle with a large diameter gun is to lay down direct fire from overwatch, allowing maneuver units to take objectives all as part of a combined arms team. With Bradley's and Marders on the way, the AMX-10 can fill a needed gap until other resources are available. You fight with what you HAVE, not with what you DON'T HAVE. It's easy to play armchair general, but I bet Zelensky is smiling ear to ear about now.
He is not smiling ear to ear about losses of his army and upcoming massive Russian offensive that will if not put an end to the war at least cut Ukraine in half. Getting 50 of these AMX-10s will not change much the outcome. What is needed is 1000 of these.
@Tom K Nobody doubts that Zelensky isn't feeling the pain of his losses, he got my vote on day one when he chose to stay with his troops. And, my God, the Ukrainian people are the real heroes, they know exactly what staying means and exactly what the fighting is for. All I'm trying to say is this, everybody knows a battle is coming. The M1's, and I'm not saying America M1's because others may get there faster, are at best 6 months away. German Leopard 2's are maybe half that. Intelligence estimates are that most Russian T-90's and T-80's are used up. Differing sources have different figures, but typical T-72 has a range around 2500 meters, where the Leopards and Abrams are around 3500 meters. Battle analysis shows the average shot is around 2000+/-, so most of this range stuff is academic. Let's say the promised Bradley (25mm chain gun and TOWs ain't chicken feed) and Marders can be there in 2 months, does Zelensky just wring his hands and hope "boy I wish I had tanks", or does he accept the AMX-10 that can "only" shoot 2500 meters, build combat teams of artillery, Armor, and mechanized infantry, and take the fight to the Russian's when and where they don't expect it.
Salut à toi du Royal Cambouis, j'ai rencontré un M60 à plaine vitesse dans une forét prés du Neckcar lors de Pegase 82 , pas bien discret la grosse vache !!!!
I like the vehicles , I think they can play a nice role if used properly for sure. Like you said - and France gets to clear out it’s old inventory. Win win
Agreed. I don’t think stabilization matters. Get there. Stop. Fire. Like shoot and scoot. The Ukraine war is not fast paced blitzkrieg, proof is both sides are entrenching themselves, so I think it will do well
No tank alone have won war ever France is going down the tube just like everyone in the EU Putin in the other hand is doing very well OH, he also have everything to defend Russia and blow up the others.
Yup the jaguar they getting instead has started to be swapped in since 2020. But they still have the amx training facilities operational and logistics/parts still in production.
The thing about these is I always felt like this was one of the best recon vehicles in all of NATO. Far superior to using HMMVs and the French formation on an AMX-10 with two VBLs was a good platoon setup. One thing you didn’t mention here Cappy, these are slated to be replaced by the Jaguars. Which is already happening. So potentially half the French fleet can be freed up for export. The original gun used a unique round but that’s not a weakness in this case. The French actually have ammo for this and if they send the old ones they can send ALL of the ammo. I’ve seen these shoot, it’s a better mobile gun platform than the Stryker Dragoons. With HE and AP munitions these are gonna be useful just as backup but with the range and speed involved, this is better than any technical or recon vehicle Ukraine currently has. One more thing. This is a tank. Not by NATO standards but the French have never abandoned the doctrine of fielding light tanks. They just don’t use them to slug it out with MBTs. They use them for screens, recon and to mess with backfield supply lines after a breakthrough. Ask any French soldier and he’ll tell you this is a light tank. Which is obviously an important capability since the US Airborne just got something similar but actually bigger. I remember people poopooin’ these years ago. They were wrong then. These replaced the old Panhards and that little AMC-90 was probably the most ubiquitous piece of battlefield armor in the world for most of the Cold War. The concept is solid, even if the “big armies” don’t ascribe to it. The Ukrainians might just make these things as famous as the Israelis did the old 90’s.
Best recon before drones , maybe. Now it's just an easy target for artillery and ATGMs I wouldn't want to be in one of those while it crosses miles of open fields, that's how ukriane lost its first tanks.
Make them famous how? You do relise how huge that production capasity RF has just next door? And NATO idiots supply ukie with different scraps of tech with overstretched and overcomplicated (due to beyond redicilous variety of different tech, ammo, parts) logistics. Also whats the difference about wich kind of tanks you have since your opponent has air superiority? Not to mention unlimited cruise missles and hypersonic shit. I mean...I can only pity ukranians. Because NATO fasicts contribute to their demise as much as russians. You said it right: everyone just dumps their old crap to ukies for russians to blow up and for US MIC to take over military markets. EU markets as well, since US sells them energy now 4-5 times more expansive than russians did. Wich means that your productions facilities will mostly die or move to same US and you can forget about your heavy industry, tanks, whatever... Basically ukies were baited to annoy russians to become an expandable meat for fueling US economy at the cost of EU countries :) Anyone whos cheering for ukranians with all that nato junk wich wasnt even tested in war (colonial expeditions in poorly developed african and eastern countries where they engaged with wastly inferiour opponents has nothing to do with war where you fight an opponent whos using combined warfare and in many cases has far more advanced tech than you btw) is literally a braindead degenerate who contributes to the destruction of Ukraine, he claims to care about 🤷 World upside down
@Casimir III Those definitely seem like good points but I can also imagine the Ukrainians finding a very useful role for these in tandem with drones and friendly artillery as a spotter.
Ooooouuuurrrrrfffff Parce ce que Macaron 1er à mis l'Armée Française A L'OS , on n'a plus rien, on est à poil !!!!! Ah les roosbeefs !!!! La perfide Albion !!!
@@asm5987 Blah blah blah ! Belle propagande mais ça reste des conneries. C'est pas Macron qui a détruit l'armée française mais tous les gouvernements précédents depuis la fin de la guerre froide. Macron est au contraire le premier président qui a augmenté les budgets depuis 90. Alors tes opinions politiques alakon, t'es sympa mais tu te les garde si c'est pour dire des idioties.
Let's get it straight people. AMX-10 RC IS A TANK. In french. Within the French army, it is referred to as "char" - a tank; as opposed to "blindé" - an armored vehicle (VCBI, VBA, EBMR). It was purpose built as a **light** tank - a rapid reconnaissance vehicle to exploit a breakthrough made by MBTs and infantry and go after front reserve, command posts, barracks, depots and artillery in the 20-50 km depth with a potential for a 200 km-deep strike if it can go full speed on roads. It can also go on support missions in case of an infantry break-through, providing firepower able to annihilate anything but an MBT from the safety of the rear position and blow up buildings used as a fortifications to clear the way for the infantry it supports. The only thing that makes it not a tank in NATO classification is the fact that it has wheels as opposed to tracks, but that's a deliberate choice to make it better adapted to its role and provide capabilities it would not otherwise have. However, for a native french speaker that has been briefed by a the French Army Chief of Staff, it is a tank, called a tank, quacking like a tank and, except for wheels, looking like a tank.
I'm pretty sure it's not 🤔 from what I heard, it wasn't heavy enough when it was developed to be a tank (that thing was amphibious at the start). Later they added more armor that made it heavy enough to be classified as a tank, but since it started its life as a véhicule, it is officially a véhicule and can't change. So technically it has the characteristics of a tank, but on paper it's an armored vehicle
Not really... it's called a "véhicule militaire blindé de reconnaissance" which roughly translate to armored reconnaissance vehicule. Tanks are called "chars" in French, like the char Leclerc.
@@gastonjaillet9512 I’ve heard them consistently referred to as “chars” in public for at least 15 last years. Wikipedia in French also says char. Most of FR army comms says char. Teams working on them would often refer to them as “blindé”, but so do teams working on Leclercs. My point is that it’s not a “Lol, Macron is dumb, those clearly aren’t tank” but a “french experts briefing him in french called them tanks, in french, and he sure AF did not go to Ft Leavenworth to know the detailed differences between French and NATO nomenclatures, so he just translated it as a tank in his English speech”.
Great stuff! AMX-10 has a laser range finder and computer-assisted aiming, so the lack of stabiliser is not a deal breaker. It also has 6X6 drive and great hydraulics, which gives very good off-road capabilities. Besides it seems no one is launching offensives during the mud season anyway. There is lots of terrain in Ukraine to cover... so a rapid response unit will be very useful for their infantry. Wheeled vehicles are also easier to use and maintain than tracked vehicles.
Same. Been spoiled with so many T&P vids . Love me some Cappy. His just addition of humor to legit analysis makes him one of my favorite military tech people
the AMX-10 is great for France as it was mostly used in low level conflicts - rapid deployment (ie fits in an airplane and is light) was more important than heavy armor and firepower. And I think, that's where it can either fall down or be useful in Ukraine - having a few units stationed somewhere in the middle between two or three possible fronts, it is a force that can move quickly to concentrate firepower and take out the vehicles that support a tank rush, while AT-missiles should blunt the armored divisions. It could also be used after a breakthrough is reached to go behind enemy lines - if the terrain allows that. Downfall: if it is used as mobile ATGs to stop tanks.
If there’s a tank you want to bring into an urban environment it’s this one. The rear wheels can retract allowing the vehicle to stand up and drop rounds over a building. I’ve seen it operate in jungles. It’s use to support infantry is proven
Sorry but on the contrary it is made to fight at a distance, urban combat is very difficult and dangerous with ATGMs. Are successor the "Jaguar" is much more adapted to the urban combat with 8 more tons and a very powerful Chain gun.
The AMX-10 role is a lot like the tank destroyers of WW2, like the Hellcat. It couldn't slug it out with a tank. Had speed but only light armor. But they were great for recon and flanking the enemy with their speed. And, as the name implies, they were meant to destroy tanks. Get to the side then shoot and scoot. Of course the gun could be used against buildings, etc.
That was exactly what I was thinking - a quick reaction unit to plug a hole and stop a breakthrough, and I was thinking of the US tank destroyer doctrine of that time.
People give the French a bad wrap after WW2. They got out played and were considered the most powerful military in the world until the Germans out played them. They have historically one of, if not the most successful military's in the world. They know how to fight.
It's a bit the same role as the hussars of the Napoleonic era: Recognize, observe, strike if the occasion is favorable and fall back, excellent for helping hands, rapid assaults. Its 105mm gun destroys any T-72 at 2200 meters (it was designed for that) enough to make the Russians spend a shitty day.
In fact this vehicle is no mach against any T-72 or T-64 and can only be deployed against infantry and mechanized infantry. Practically no armour, lack of stabilization of the cannon plus weak 105 mm cannon makes it a sitting duck against any tank. Outdated leopard 1 or chellenger 1 would be much better in this role. What I am saying. Even guys in a pickup with few of javelins would be much better in this role than this French don't know what.
@@Mortablunt T-55s, T-62s and T-72s destroyed in Chad in 1980s beg to differ. You need a T-72BV or later to withstand an AMX-10 RC hit and optics + firecontrol to see it in time and fire at it before it disappears behind its cover. Basically, a T-72B2 Obr 2006; a T-90A Obr 2010, a T-80BVM or later. Which in turn would be prime targets for all the Milans, Javelins and NLAWs its accompanying infantry is packing specifically for that case.
Old T-72s, yes. But definitely not modern T-72's straight from Russia itself. Unless you managed to flank one. There's a reason why even some developing countries are retiring MBTs with 105mm gun.
Served in the 9th Hussars , we had EBR , we were told armed reconnaissance was going forward fast looking for trouble , not sneak around and scuttle away but engage , kicking butts and moving fast , when we got our butt kicked call for heavy armor , we had found where they were
J'ai servi au 10 éme du Génie am Otterstadt am Rhein, je suis rentré dans un EBR au 1er Spahis, je suis sorti avec un tire-bouchon, et donc à la française. Ce machin est fait pour les nains... Da Tovaritch ???
@@asm5987 it's even worst than that , there is two drivers on front and one back for a quick run for cover , to get out they had to remove the steering wheel first
@@sparkyfromel En France , nous parlons le Français, on ne jacte pas le rosbeef !!! Et mon gars, je crains que tu ne soit qu'un méchant mytho et que n'est servi qu'au mess des officiers à leur sucer la teub, bref que tu ne fut qu'un guerrier fanfreluche et gaudriole, un parfait macrotiste. Trois postes de pilote sur un engin, c'est soit délirant ou soit une envie de partouze avec palmade; dans tout les cas c'est surnuméraire! Sur l'EBR il y a certes deux pilotes, peu étre est la l'origine de ta confusion mentale, quand au volant non on ne le range pas dans le fion, on le visse aprés avoir pris place, et inversement pour la sortie !! Je fait 1m80 et ce machin esr fait pour les nains, toi tu dois arriver à la braguette de palmade.
@@asm5987 c'est pas trois postes c'est deux position de conducteurs , verifis sit tu veux , le site est en Anglais . la plus elementaire courtoisie est d'util;iser la langue. quant a tes obsenites , c'est la reflexion de ta vie , pas la mienne
@@sparkyfromel Ah le mossieur est bléssé !!! Mais qu'il pleure toutes les larmes de son pauvre corps.... Comme je l'ai écrit, je suis entré au poste de pilotage avant d'un EBR du 1er Spahi, c'est aprés étre sorti que le Spahi m'a indiqué que pour y étre affecté il fallait faire 1m70 au moins !!! Bref un truc à nains !! Ce n'est pas ''deux position'' sans s de conducteurs, mais un poste de pilote avant et un autre arriére, il est toujours rassurant de sortir d'un pétrin aussi vite qu'on en est entré! Le site est en anglais, non , je ne l'avais pas vu...je suis béte et je vomi sur les rosbeefs et leur engeance les amerloques.... une nation fondée avec des réfractaires religieux, des bagnards et des protituées.... ce n'est pas de courtoisie qu'ils ont besoin mais d'une grosse paluche dans leur museau...... Je fais toute confiance à Vladimir Valdimirovotch Poutine pour y arriver, il a réussi en Centre-Afrique, au Mali, en Syrie, il est chaud, il est à fond, il est prét !!! Encore une fois je remets en doute le fait que tu es fait quoi que ce soit au 9éme Hussards, un Hussard , un vrai a suffisament d'amour propre pour moucher le premier venu! Je suis persuadé que tu fus le factotum du mess des officiers, coté fanfreluche et gaudriole.... Serviteur.
@@carkawalakhatulistiwa Hitler COULD have captured Moscow but diverted forces to Stalingrad instead on their southern leg. It's considered one of Hitler's biggest blunders - the Battle of Stalingrad did not go well for Germany. This was true human wave tactics, nothing of the like we've seen in this war.
Advantages I see from the AMX-10RC in the Ukraine War: 1. it is fast and has long range, and could be effectively used for scouting ahead of the main armored force. This is better than using HMMVs for scouts (as USMC 1st Recon had used during the Gulf War, see "Generation Kill" ) as they offer some light arms protection against rifles and frags and there is a mine protected version too. 2. If while scouting it comes up to an enemy machine gun or BMP such as at a road block, it can destroy that with its cannon. 3. It will intimidate the Russia ground troops, and can be used to take out lightly armored ICVs or any logistics vehicles, and does so much cheaper than using Javelin missiles etc. Single 105MM round is sufficient for those vehicles/targets. If kept mobile, it can be a hard to hit target for Russian artillery, given their slow kill chain, shoot and scoot.
Everything they throw at the Russians will be killed. With no CAP everything Ukraine owns will sooner or later end up as scrap. They are trying to fight a 2D war in the 3D world.
I forgot about the *massive* role of artillery in this war... But you're absolutely right. When spring comes, if Ukraine is still on the offensive, the AMX might be the perfect tool
The problem I see is the heavy mechanisation of Russian forces, there going to run up against auto cannons and die very fast. Best to use them in quiet sectors as assault guns, they have HE and could be useful in that role. Otherwise they will have a short shelf life. Given the choice the Ukrainians would take an equal amount of bmp2.
Thank you so much for the detailed breakdown of this unique beast. As we all know that the French often do their own way, this vehicle is a Kick-Ass-Party-Crasher.
It's been said quite often, that the French copy no one, and no one copies the French. From this, the FAMAS assault rifle, even Citroen and Peugoet cars. This will have a limited role, but better than nothing. If used correctly, a LOT better than nothing.
@@markcollins2666 No one copies the French? You are kidding I hope? ALL modern armies are copied from the French army, organization, ranks, use of uniforms and even our good old beret (Béarnais since 1458) is used by armies of the anti world. I would not like to talk about military inventions such as smokeless powder, the ogival bullet, Minnié, battleships, submarines and even the first flight of a heavier than air plane by Clément Ader in 1890. No , no one is copying France.😋😋
@@olivierpuyou3621 , I was talking about modern French manufacturing, which is the subject at hand. And your beret is nowhere near as popular as you think. We, in the US Army refer to it as a "head sock". Even our Special Forces only wear it when they're ordered to!
@@markcollins2666 Fad changes, at the beginning of SF it took a visit by president Kennedy to authorize this "foreign headgear" all SF liked to wear, but was banned by the fort commander.
@@jean-pascalesparceil9008, fad changes is quite accurate. This was a power move, because the Fort Bragg post commander was also the commanding general of the 82'nd Airborne Division, and wanted control over SF, as part of the overall Airborne community. But SF rebelled, causing President Kennedy to make his decision to award them berets, but most importantly, removing them from the Airborne community's power. Vitally important. And that's why SF NCO's carried Kennedy's casket to his grave, carved from a single piece of African mahogany, weighing over 1200 pounds. And you can see that, right here on RU-vid.
Extremely interesting, thank you. I'd say the main weakness of the AMX is that it requires a very highly trained crew. This thing can be a game changer for the infantry, bmp killer and fast attack.
Even with every flaw you mentioned, the benefit of this is that it isn't instead of another vehicle, it is as well as anything else Ukraine can get their hands on. This is a good vehicle, with huge potential. Ukraine has shown time and time again that they are brilliant at using vehicles to the best of the vehicles' ability. I look forward to seeing what they do with these.
i disagree, ukrain has had billions of support from world wide yet haven defeated the russians who had way less support if at all, i think ukrain has shown its still corrupt cause the numbers dont add up. Id say they sell too much to the underworld in belgium/netherlands/finland/sweden and poland just to name a few instead of actually fighting the war.
Given how Ukrainians were capable to put Caesar artillery guns onto barges to bomb Snake Island, I have not doubt they'll make good use of AMX 10, despite their limitations.
That is certified bulls**t. Even under relatively calm sea conditions, there's no way a gun platform can achieve any sort of meaningful accuracy without proper stabilization. SPGs of course have no stabilizers, since they're not designed to fire on the move. So the chances that Ukrops fired their SPGs from barges with any meaningful effect on their targets is practically zero.
@@koskok2965 I just read that again in french news Le Figaro interviewing the Ukrainian commander who is claiming this action. Weather condition should have been extremely calm, but the size of the barge is an important factor here. Also, the black sea is an interior sea. There is no stabilizer, but it would depend higly on the speed of the gun targeting, which is purely automatic and thus depends on GPS of gun, GPS of target, plus gun attitude. I have no idea how fast attitude control is on the gun, however fast and automatic attitude is the main point of the entire design. Anyway, the NYT says that French officer correspondants were "astonished". Finally, the artillery guns on vehicles have better anti-recoil systems than usual artillery canons. I agree it could be propaganda. Also, we don't know in the end if it worked...
@@piwi2005 Thanks for the info. I suppose if the sea was extremely calm and the CAESAR has a totally overkill closed-loop aiming system, then that would result in a viable solution for accurate artillery fire. It just doesn't make much sense to me as a mechanical engineer, since the aiming system only has to bring the gun to the correct direction while the entire platform is completely stationary. There's no technical requirement for extremely fast response times. Designing the automated aiming system with response requirements as tight as a stabilizer should make the system more complex and expensive that it needs to be for its application, which is not a good thing.
The steering of that thing is particularly funky. It can spin in place but that means that unlike almost every other armored car it steers using two tiller levers like a WWII tank.
Love the videos. Quick and friendly correction about the intro, Napoleon did in fact capture Moscow during his invasion of Russia, but was forced to retreat after the Russians did not surrender and he began to run out of supplies
thanks I appreciate the kind words but I definitely mess up occasionally! I encourage people to look deeper and get into their own research on these topics if I'm able to spark some interest in a topic
Ukraine has been really good at finding creative uses for things. I wouldn't be surprised if this will be used defensively or kept in the rear until they reach a city.
Personally I think urban warfare is a bit of a red herring. While there will be a need for urban warfare I'm unsure how many large, relatively intact towns and cities exist in Eastern/South-Eastern Ukraine. And, more to the point, if the Ukrainians aren't just better off just laying siege to them. I suspect that there will only be pockets of urban fighting. The Ukrainians have been forcing this, as they have been able to range freely over the countryside (partisan activity) and force Russians to stick to the main supply routes, which pass through towns and cities. This forces Russian commanders to capture towns and cities. We already know that logistics (at least the last leg) within the Russian army is poor, and so a given force is unlikely to have significant stockpiles of food and ammunition. Morale is also poor. Once surrounded, can we expect units of Russian conscripts to 'hold out' for an extended time? Trading motivated, experienced Ukrainian soldiers (and other assets) for low quality Russian troops seems a poor trade. Compare that to simply waiting them out.
They are neat little machines with a more than a couple of tricks up their sleeve. The lack of armoring and lower caliber are deliberate decisions to allow for other capabilities most NATO armored vehicles don't have.
@Rico Thampaty yeah... their elite paratroopers are all but gone, the most elite of the elite tank guards are pretty beaten up and 0erforming terribly... But hey, they have a ton of barely trained conscripts with low morale... Such stronk, much babuska...
Out of any ground vehicles so far for now, this makes the most sense. Punch holes quickly towards the water and secure the gaps with the heavies. If Russian eyes on the ground watch where any group of vehicles go, it should be these.
@@OSTemli Russia also claims it won world War 2, despite that world War 2 was 50 years before Russia became Russia. And that Nazi Germany was a ally of the Soviet preceedor until the none aggression pact was violated, which lead to American and Brittish intervention allowing us to save what Russia was to become of its own accord
@@OSTemli Russia doesn't teach about what it did to Georgia, Belarus, Poland, Finland, 1900th century Ukraine and it denies what is been doing since the start of this current attack Also doesn't mention anything about why the American intervention of Afghanistan happened and how it related to the soviets, nor does it mention anything about its own ranking on the corruption index despite that it likes to preach about other poorly ranked countries despite that their ranked better. Russias entire foundation is word of mouth, gossip and fantasy
More like overwatch for Infantry, in urban combat. We sure could have used them here in the Philippines, during the siege of Marawi, a few years ago, with mech Infantry in M-113's Up against ISIS rats holed up in concrete city buildings.
A LOT cheaper than sending in an Abrams into urban terrain. However, some of these leading a Bradley/Abrams assault force would be terrifying. That's a lot of building penetrating firepower.
0:13 The main issue for Napoleon's army was not to take Moscow, which it was perfectly capable of doing. The main unexpected problem for this army was that control of Moscow had nothing to do with control of the vast Russian territories or the Russian population in general.
I thought the same. AMX-10 would make a good combination with Bradley. I have read in other places that the cannon of the AMX-10 can easily destroy the armour of the Russian tanks.
@@sidritkurti1173 I ve read that to but only in certain places so the problem is manouvering the piece without getting shot up by the tank you wanna destroy. And that might be one problem to maney though.
@@sidritkurti1173 the Russian army is down to using the T-62 as the mainstay replacing the T-72. All incoming Russian tanks have optics from the late seventies and they no longer have effective night vision or communication. Getting behind the Russian T-72 and T-90 will be easy giving these a fighting chance if they come up against them. The more likely scenario is that Marder and Bradley will take out tanks and these the infantry.
@@sidritkurti1173 Some tanks frontally (basically pre-1985 armor models, which represent about 10% of RU tank losses in Ukraine),. You would also need a post-2010 T-72/80/90 variant to have the thermals and firecontrol to see and shoot at an AMX-10 in before they see you, shoot at you and get to safety. Where the AMX-10 strength is its ability to blow to pieces any non-MBT vehicles and reinforced positions, pretty much as soon as they see them. Unlike Bradley missiles, active protection against an 105mm round going Mach 4 don't really exist.
@@AndreiKucharavy I think that if Ukraine had those AMX-10 back at the Kharkiv offensive, the territory liberated would had been much larger. By now the towns of Svatove and Kremina probably would had been liberated back then.
AMX-10 is no wonderweapon. But it is a capable system. Having them at some front, or deploying them to some assaults, will have a positive effect on the battle. AMX-10 has relatively modern IR and thermal optics, good magnification, and laser range finders for accurate shots with less training. The suspension allows it to minimize its' profile while firing from behind cover. Being fast means it can be stored in camouflaged positions at a more rear guard location, and rapidly deployed where needed.
The other thing that makes the AMX-10 such a good weapon for the Ukrainians right now is how many of the older tanks the Russians are dishing up to the front. T54, T55, T62 etc. These are all pretty easy targets for the AMX-10. Using the older barrelled versions and their proprietary ammo is not really that much of an inconvenience either. While it may make logistics a little more complex, it does mean that there are large amounts of stored ammunition available RIGHT NOW which is critically important, given the ammunition shortages the whole of western Europe now faces. Even more important is that even with the proprietary rounds they still offer HE, HEAT and APFSDS that is NATO triple heavy rated to 2200m, so can perform all tasks a big gun may be used for - artillery support, direct fire, infantry support, anti material and anti tank. The only downside of these vehicles is that people might be tempted to use them in an incorrect way, just like Canadian LAV's or US Strykers, or even the Bradley.
these vehicles are crazy fast. perfect for dealing with an enemy invasion where the invaders have a quantitative advantage as it allows for fast reallocation of units wherever they are needed.
Definitely see these as a highly mobile fire control platform for open country (hopefully it’s signatures can be easily obscured) and as potential infantry support in built up areas. I think it would be useful in those roles if it’s able to chamber the ukes’ HESH round.
I think in Ukraine, if a rôle doesn't require a 105mm-cannon, the AMX-10RC won't be used there. The Ukraine has Recon and Fire Control vehicles already. What it lacks are Armoured Fighting Vehicles with cannons able to defeat an MBT, even if they have to flank it to be effective.
Napoleon captured Moscow without any railways, planes, cars and that was the problem if he had such logistic tools there were literally nothing to stop him from conquering Russia and going to India kicking the brits out.
B/c Russians were smart - Napoleon was very unhappy about smart enemy. Hence his defeat just few months later. Smart move by Russian command (which was not very ethnically Russian - more like ... German).
Yeah I was also thinking that could be a role it could fit, I doubt that the AMX is that well suited to this conflict as it has been in others so its important to use its strenghts
I say the AMX is a huge upgrade to the UAF. Remember that the AMX is powerful enough to tow truck any tank in use by the UAF. It also bridges the gap between support and MBT and is made for urban warfare. This will help recover damaged vehicles to not fall into russian hands, support gaps of the army and make rescue operations more viable
It is useful supplement for mobile firepower, but it is most definitely nowhere near powerful enough to tow any tank in use by UAF, as they are 2 or 3 times heavier than the AMX (40 ton T-64, 45 ton T-72 or T-80, and of course none of 60-70 ton Western tanks that are provided now).
@@lattegremo6016 agree, towing tanks is not really a role for the amx-10. It's an enemy scouter and a powerful cannon to support infantry as a light tank (as it's considered in frech language), not a tow truck or a tractor (or any more suitable recovery vehicles, like some Leopard versions or the M88 Hercules, eg., suitable for 70+ tons tanks)
@@2MinuteHockey well, the AMX-10 RC was never designed to tow equiment. But you're on point about being quiet due to it's wheeled system. It was broadly used by the Legion Étrangière (cavalry regiment) in places like Mali till recently, but it's RCR (Roues-Canon - wheeled cannon - Renovated) version has being phased out by the 2022 Jaguar, the new French (also used by Belgium at least) Reconaissance Vehicle. Still, due to their wheeled and not tracked systems, they are pretty good and fast manouvering vehicles supporting dismounted troops in urban environments (US Strykers would also perform well on these environments). They can be equipped with milan ATGM missiles, in case they meet some counterpart T-92 or T-90M. It's a vehicle designed to scout terrain and enemies and to support dismounted infantry (8 troopers can be held inside), not as a towing vehicle. Cheers.
Not enough space in the turret, unfortunately. It was designed before gun stabilization was a thing and its best use is to scoot-and-shoot from behind a cover anyway.
The aiming sytem is stabilized, so on the commander's signal the driver (pilot in French Army) stops and the gunner has just to push a lever for the gun to come to the aiming point.
When you know you have something like this as a fire support vehicle it is a huge morale boost. Sure it has shortcomings but in the face of an ATGM system so does a lot of heavy armour. That said, the 105 with HE and the mix of what that gun uses is going to prove helpful. It is relatively powerful, quiet, quick and it swims.
Speaking as a civilian, I supose it is a huge difference if you comand a russian defensive position, and instead of beeing atacked "only" by infantery, you are atacked by infantery AND this vehicle. If I opened the door of my bunker, and found the cannon of this vehicle pointed at me, I would certainly consider the idea of a surrender.......
Fun fact: Mexico does not have tracked tanks, but has more than 400 of the French ""wheeled tanks"" in different models, this is because Mexico is a very mountainous country, with very narrow roads, which meander through the hills and mountains, besides that the bridges do not support very heavy vehicles, so a tank like the M1 Abrams can easily get stuck in one of those roads and be destroyed without much problem.
Take it from someone who's seen em in action Brother... The AMX is a Tough, dependable vehicle. Ukraine should definitely be psyched 2 integrate 'em into the ranks- along with those Strykers.
I like French military assets a lot, they are different (in a good way). I really hope that Mirages 2000C will fly to Ukraine. Especial if they send version with RDM radar capable of firing Exocets.
The probability of the 2000C is indeed rather high. The Ukrainian govt is asking for the Rafale, just as they previously asked for the Leclerc, in both cases knowing the french would not give them their biggest guns, but the next thing on their arsenal. The 2000C, like the AMX10, is newly decomissioned. Now, like the AMX10, it wouldn't be a wonder weapon.
@@MN-vz8qm Wonder weapon no, I agree. On the other hand, Ukrainias are fighting against T-72B against which it can be used as a scout or tank-killer. Mirage would be nic anti-ship or ground atack plane. Against Su-27 even with Super 530D??? I dont know.
Even if they just use those to deliver beans & bullets forward and mobile fire support I think they'd probably be great. I get what you are saying about wheels in mud, but I've done donuts in a HEMTT. I've also seen an MLRS launcher (Bradley chassis) get stuck in mud. It all comes down to the mud you are talking about.
@@j.4332 the AMX-10RC is not afraid of muddy field ►hydrolic Suspensions and adjustable pressure for 16t 6x6, and good pneumatic, 5,3t/axle, and the the wheels are very close, improving behavior in muddy terrain.
You'll NEVER guess where France got its mobility fetish from. If a 'ricain sees a vehicle, his first reaction is "can we build it bigger?". If a Frenchman sees a vehicle, his first reaction is: "can we make this more mobile?" - See Caesar (CAmion Équippé d'un Système d'ARtillerie - Lorry equipped with an artillery system). Since Zündnadelschock 1866, Austria's reaction is "can we build it so it's able to shoot faster, more accurate and more compact?" - See Steyr A.U.G. and Glock pistols. Soviets would go "can we integrate it with an Anti Aircraft system?".
I was thinking in defensive dug out trenches. Where they could move up shoot and hide. Or in support role for mech infantry. Tanks first followed up by Bradley and infantry. With amc to support disembarked infantry.
Blitzkreig - Hmmm ........ If a reasonable number of those AMX 10s can get *behind* Russian lines with that sort of punch and long range endurance, then Putin's murderers have a huge problem. Their logistics will be well fkd
@@enysuntra1347 The French have been fans of armoured reconnaissance vehicle since the late 20's. In 1914 the french was a "mobile" army, leading to a lack of heavy artillery (the focus was on the lighter 75mm gun). France invented the quick motorized reaction force in 1914--using Paris taxis to move reenforcement to the marne battle. Good improv skills.. The Napoleonian army was also known for fast movements. The "static" army of 1940 was more of an exception, the result of multiple constraints: money, demography and PTSD (after the bloodbath of WW1).
Hey Cappy, small correction from Germany: we stopped importing russian gas in 2022 (about autumn) and oil in january 2023. So there's no dependance on Russian gas or oil left.
I could see it being used defensively in urban combat -- ambushing tanks etc. That gun can probably get through the side and rear of T-72's and the like at reasonably close ranges. Would also help compensate for the lack of a stabilizer.
For your information: Germany is now independent of Russian gas and oil deliveries. The threat to cut gas supplies has absolutely no longer an impact. Even if Russia offers cheap gas supplies, Germany will not come back as a customer. Everybody got burned enough the last time.
Well they might after a regime change and the russian give them a cut in NS2. I don't think they will close there new LNG ports but cheap gas is cheap gas even if you can afford more expensive gas.
@@arturobianco848 Cheap gas is not cheap, and it comes at a price. The largest gas customers like the chemical industries in Germany have made huge investments in Russian gas fields, pipelines, pumping stations etc. They owned these assets in joined ventures worth many billions of Euros and in return they contracted to buy large quantities of gas over the next decades, for up to thirty years. Putin made a bill and bought all of these assets for a very small fraction of the price, maybe 1% of its value. The new law prevented the investors to remain in control of their companies, they also no longer get the gas they are entitled to. Now they had to make new contracts on short term with other suppliers, needed to pay excessive prices last year to keep operating. It also needed new investments. Do you think they want to make deals with Russia a second time in a few years, break their new long term contracts to go back to Russian gas? At least Russia needs to give back all their assets or compensate for the investment, compensate for the loss of business and the higher gas prices they needed to pay elsewhere because Russia has broken its contracts. No, Russia has lost all its customers all over Europe forever, and nobody is interested in doing business after everything that happened. A contract with Russia means you might sit in the cold and in darkness during the winter if the government changes their mind. That is not very tempting. And the Russian government thinks gas is a means to play political games. Russia has lost all trust, there is no way back. Germany wants to become carbon-neutral and energy independent in the future.
Well, the Russians are fighting for their survival. The new Holocaust that the West started is terrible, and especially disgusting that it is supported by the townsfolk.
The French put in work. Full stop. During my deployments with Triple Canopy as a designated defensive marksman both of our QRF elements had shooters who had come from the Commandos Marine. Don’t get me wrong we had numerous guys from US SOF, veterans of various SF groups and our medics were a mix of career guys from the 3rd ID & my former unit the 82nd 1st/504th, but these guys were almost like a force multiplier by themselves 😂 while there were small differences in training doctrine, they certainly understood the importance and necessity of unit cohesion and were an invaluable asset during any operation
Im pretty sure it isn’t amphibious anymore because while making it more “modern” it got more armor and so is not amphibious anymore, I could be wrong though
This 6x6 is a heavy armored car, a well armed reconnaissance vehicle or infantry support vehicle in some armies. I wish the USMC had something like this!
No, please no. I spent too many hours at the vehicle ramp working on the 25s 😆. All joking aside, the new light tank would mesh well with the new light, mobil Marines doctrine. We won't always have air support.
The Marines are going to be running the ACV. Amphibious Combat Vehicle can deflate its tires from mounted so they can do a beach run, then inflate from mounted to run at 55mph on highways 10 minutes later.
@@JustAnotherAwesomeGuy Yeah, lot of guys I know had to either switch to the army, or get out. I understand the desire to be more mobile, but we won't always have the air. Especially fighting a near peer opponent. Infantry will always need fire support.
Don't joke about French MREs. Along with Itllian MREs, they are both great chow. Hell, they aren't chow. They are gourmet meals compared to US MREs. They are real food!
The AMX 10 is a huge upgrade to the old BMP 1's that Ukraine is currently using. The AMX 10, US Bradleys and the German Marder IFV's are going to be a game changer for Ukraine.
@@HAL--ov4qu BMP is the first IFV, with all the problems that usually go with the title "1st". Even the term IFV is pretty much a litteral translation of BMP.
@@victorzvyagintsev1325 I am just pointing out the old Soviet BMP's were basically garbage. They were very poorly made and crews were even known to pass out in them from the fumes. The armor was subpar, as was the armament.
This is one of the best vehicles to send to Ukraine as infantry support. The G2 gun can penetrate t72 and 80 armor for the occasional tank encounter. It can operate in urban environments to punch through walls for infantry. It can stop multiple Russian apc’s. It can move quickly to flank and take undefended territory or exploit gaps. If used correctly, coordinated with light infantry carriers like the m113, it is a game changer for offensive manuvers.
Its utter garbage. Ukrainian soldiers complain alot about lack of armour, firepower and mechanical issues with these vehicles. They have already lost 10% of these vehicles
Nah, I would rather be in T-62M. Better mobility in rough terrain due to tracks, much better armor, more capable main gun, stabilized gun, 2nd gen thermals.
A very interesting vehicle. I was dimly aware that the French army was out on the flank of the allies but never appreciated how well they’d done. I have a vague memory of French paratroop landings too along with the Americans.
NEVER underestimate the French. The french "Foreign Legion" (La Légion Étrangère) was the by FAR fastest and most advanced unit in the allied assault on Baghdad during the Iraq war.
Well, nice to present it in a way that shows its strength and weaknesses, and uniqueness regardless to similar systems.. I'll say that as a french some of those names were pronounced with a funny accent.
It was designed to float, but it becomes too heavy for that with the upgraded armor. I don't know if you can remove it or if it's a permanant upgrade 🤔
The US forces were left surprised and impressed by the French force's extended mobility during the 1st Gulf War. Indeed, both forces have a different approach to warfare: for recon, it is usual that the French HQ would send a nine-strong infantry squad to secure the perimeter, while US troops will send two Chinooks of 20 men each to secure and hold till release. What makes this difference, in my opinion, is the budget. It's cheaper to send fewer troops and cheaper to drive on wheels.
8:06 Chris being located behind the turret is like when he mentioned the infantry looking out the back of the Marder’s turret, protecting it up close. Infantry man gonna infantry
Nice vehicles for a breakthrough - good to leaven the mix of troop carriers, and nearly fast enough to catch even retreating Russian senior officers. These have been in service for a good while, long enough to smooth a lot of bugs out. I expect Ukraine will find plenty of uses for them. The lower weight means that getting them across rivers will be much faster than heavier true tanks - so early infantry support prior to exploitation. The close quarters grenades must be a great surprise for crude ambushers too. Vive La France!
Perhaps a good use of the AMX-10RC would be in a light armored brigade with an AMX-10RC/Stryker mix. That could be a follow-on force exploiting salients punched into enemy line by heavy armored Leopard/Marder and M1 Abrams/M2 Bradley brigades. Also light armored wheeled vehicles with heavy firepower are a good choice for logistics convoy protection.
I feel any western combat vehicle with their superior optics alone will help the Ukrainians win battles in combat. If You can see the threats from a distance it would help the infantry and with the capability to support and destroy targets.
Completely ignoring the fact that Russian tanks/equipment has same optics as their western counterparts (some even better that their western counterparts).
@@milosmilictrob2046 On that point, it depends, a T-73b3, T-80BVM, and T-90m all use relatively the same optics. Which are better than thermals on the leapard 2a5, M1a2, and Challenger 2. However, the Challenger 2s and M1a2Cs that are being sent are not the base variants, but variants with better optics than there Russian counterparts. It is the Leapards that are lacking behind. But the commander thermals gives it an edge over all Russian tanks but the T-90m.
It's gun may not be able to penetrate armor but it should be able to disable a t80 anyways by spalling effects inside the tank from a direct hit or damage to trees, turret, main gun, optics etc.
Thanks for watching! Go to curiositystream.com/TASKPURPOSE and use code TASKPURPOSE to save 25% off today. Thanks to Curiosity Stream for sponsoring today’s video.
How many military bases/ Installations we're lost under Nixon's and Biden's administration? Since Vietnam how many Military bases/ installations have the Democratic Nazis party lost vs How many the Republican party? It seems to me historically Democrats lose military bases Is that a fair statement?
The Wheeled Armoured Cars will make useful fire support vehicles for mop up units in secondary units that don't need logistically expensive to run Tanks. Their cannons can crack bypassed enemy infantry units that have been left behind by the main Ukrainian Armoured heavy units advances.
