The AMX 10RC did fine for its intended purpose (punching holes into buildings, bunkers or chasing soft armor vehicles across deserts), the problem is that it is not intended for static battlefields that are prone to mud buildup
For its intended purpose of recon - absolutely not suitable for the modern battlefield. But as a mobile indirect fire platform, it has a future as a kind of wheeled take on the new American M-10 Booker
Lol I love that excuse for everything, "it wasn't designed for it" So your vehicle can only successfully function against non near peer adversaries in mali?
IDK, mate. I had seen rather recently a video and some interviews with Ukrainians using this vehicle and they really like it. Moving fast, can come and support position under attack, provide some indirect fire, very fast to redeploy, quite easy to hide ( easier than a tank). Older electronics and fire control, less performing then tracked vehicle in mud/ snow. They dont trash it at all ( as much as I can understand).
Well, they aren't in a position where they can pick and choose. This is still a combat vehicle and will be able to do many combat oriented tasks it wasn't specifically intended for. Of course you won't complain about this vehicle since you'd be worse off if you didn't even have it to begin with.
Yeah cos its a fkn video, ukraine is known to say those kind of things for videos, they don’t want to appear ungrateful do they? That’d pss off the tax payers, and could end future aid. ACTUAL battle reports paint this thing as absolutely dog sht, whole crews have been liquidated by Russian shelling because it has no armour, the gun is also not stabilised which is another major complaint. The third complaint is that it genuinely has no place in this kind of attritional war, and theyd be right on this, hence why after the AMXs first deployment, they were never seen again except for in media. But hey they fooled you and 71 others at the tike of writing this, doesn’t surprise me, propaganda is for the weak and that sums up the whole Pro UA community
Ukrainian Marines are using the AMX-10RC very effectively as light rapidly mobile artillery. It lower velocity 105mm gun is very well suited to the role
I do data research on the war in Ukraine for Andrew Perpetua. I would say the AMX-10RC has been quite successful with the Ukrainian Marines, not as intended, but rather as a mobile indirect fire platform. Only 6 have been visually confirmed damaged/destoryed - 3 destroyed, 2 abandoned. They’re useful for firing across the Dnipro River in the Kherson direction.
There were many AMX-10 RCs destroyed which were mistaken as Leopard 2 Losses due to the added slat armor . Also if your armored vehicle with that thin armor is getting hit either by a 152mm or even a a 130mm or any Improvised Artillery shell + Mines IEDs , nothing will remain there & it is getting obliterated beyond recognition , just like the Soviet T-64s , T-72s , T-80s & more modern Russian T-90s & Ukrainian T-84s after getting a direct Carousel Ammo Rack hit
Historically, France has devoted particular attention to this type of weaponry since the Napoleonic Wars during which light cavalry played a crucial role in victories.
My Oncle Drove an AMX 13 in Algeria, he was from "La Legion Etrangère" (had a white 'Képi') is name was {Maurice Dedeurwaerder}. RIP "Maurice" on se netoille les oneyes!.
The French idea of using cavalry is interesting because not many other countries are doing the same. I like your view of this a lot. French people are awesome. They have different perspectives but in the end good ones. Thank you for the video.
It's a real shame that this platform at the very least for the chassis was never further explored. The ability to turn the whole vehicle around like a tank is so valuable, not to mention the way the drive line is laid out enabling it to keep a low silhouette is phenomenal when compared to other wheeled platforms like Centauro, the LAV series, and many others. It is unfortunate however that the French didn't even use the same cannon as the AMX-30 or something compatible with the Royal Ordinance L7. But the British could be criticized for this with both Challenger 1 & 2. (Sorry Mat) A new version of the AMX-10RC could of made up for the deficiencies in terms of armour, firepower, and a fire control system with a stabilized main gun, an APS, and more current ceramic armour. Really the AMX-10RC is much like a wheeled light tank like the Stingray. Changes in hull design could of allowed for development of 'over the tire type tracks' as commonly seen on wheeled skid-steers enabling better traction and flotation in muddy conditions. Its kinda a crying shame its not being developed any further.
Love your analysis on this vehicle. It really isn't a bad vehicle, it's just that the kit that is has and is being used for is less than ideal circumstances for the militaries utilizing it. Also, it being a bit antiquated and not updated to modern standards such as a stabilized gun. That being said, since you seem to like wheeled vehicles of the mobile gun variety. You should do on the Type 16 MCV that Japan has some time in the near future. I would love your in depth analysis on that platform. Keep cranking these videos out brother, they are great!
What I like about this vehicle is that it has a skid-steer (or differential steer) layout, much like an ATV or an XTV, which makes it mechanically more robust and compact compared to wheel-turning steering. If only it had a uniform open space between its three wheels per side, (instead of separate wheel wells) so that add-on tracks could be mounted as needed. I assume this is probably not what armed forces need or even can use, but at least in principle, it is kind of cool. Converting outdated tracked tanks to all-wheel drive, wheeled (skid-steer) AFVs is (Ukrainians did it several years ago with some of their old tanks), albeit somewhat eccentric, is still interesting for an armchair, speculating civilian, such as me.
The AMX-10RC is an infantry support vehicle. It was never meant to go head to head with tanks. It does however work well when its used like the Tank Destroyers of WW2, ambush shoot and scoot. The Stryker MGS has been canceled. I was a Scout in the U.S. Army for 15 years and served in the 2nd Stryker Brigade that ever stood up.
Hello Matt , This Vehicle also has a lighter counterpart called the Panhard ERC-90 both Lynx with the French AML-90's turret & Sagaie with TS-90 Turret from the rare Renault VBC-90 ( The VBC-90 was derived from the Renault VAB Wheeled APC . The ERC-90 was much lighter & easier for Airborne Operations & lightning warfare tactics by French Foreign Legion in the Sahel Region of Northern Africa
I think it’s pretty cool probably much more useful than a striker mgs they did very well in Africa coming up against t55 even t62 and probably quite useful in the desert, especially with its speed and decent gun range
The AMX 10RC had it's time, now it's quite outdated, and the french doctrine has changed too. That's why he is being replaced by the EBMR Jaguar, but I am scepticle (I'm french) about it's ratio effectivness/cost, I find him too tall, too complex and high tech for a mass produced, support and reconnaissance vehicle, althrough the DGA (Direction général de l'Armemenent) did learn a lot with the 10RC. Going from a 105mm to rapidfire 40mm, better protection, integraded into the new connected combat system. He is now also supported by small and more agile vehicle (VBL, Ford Ranger, Griffon, VAB, etc) and for the anti-drone protection we are still experimenting on the VAB chassis (VAB ARLAD) with a FLIR radar and 12.7mm machine gun, 12 just got brought into opperation in 2024. Conclusion, we replaced a cheap, small and overpowered for it's purpose vehicle, for an expensive, tall and overcomplex for massproduction vehicle.Escorted by more small and sole purpose vehicle.The future will tell us if the DGA is rights in it's decision. (sorry if I'm not clear, I'm still pregressing in english)
No Sir, you explained it perfectly. In my opinion the AMX 10RC is indirect fire support vehicle and reconnaisance vehicle, the 105mm gun is not suitable for destroying tank, but for fire support.
You were quite understandable, and I thank you for sharing that perspective! I think the AMX-10RC performed its roles commendably when used appropriately. It is up to the commander in the field to generate plans which use his resources to greatest advantage and effect -- and so, results in the field will vary; all officers are not equally capable, and war is democratic -- the enemy also gets a vote.
It's like saying Diego Maradona is useless cause you saw him playing darts terribly. It's designed to patrol the Sahel & be able to engage what it bumps into there.
I've seen people talk about how this vehicle or that was made obsolete in modern warfare since 2022, even some going as far as to say that drones and ATGMs make tanks as a whole obsolete. Not just in online think pieces but sometime military analysts, although some have been predicting the tank's death since; the Korean War (with portable AT mines and artillery), the Vietnam War (with Ambush tactics and the RPG-7), the Troubles (with the Barrett M82), Gulf War One (with the AWACS and Apache Gunship) and ever since the Javelin and Top Attack capabilities were developed. While I have no military background, I have studied history and things always take place in context so its good to see the nuance provided here.
Ukrainians have been using it to provide fire support from behind screening infantry. AMX-10 should be seen as a complement to IFVs. It shoots and scoots basically, and in that particular role it is very good.
Wheeled tank destroyers / (medium?) recon vehicles are an all time favourite of mine. I hope we see more of these designs in the future. Sure, Tanks are really cool. But they are also a logistical nightmare, especially here in Europe where there's a river every few kilometres.
I would not be surprised that AMX 10RC is not performing well WHEN not used in it's intended role. It's very, very specialized for specific French needs. Kind of "if you use the screw driver for hammering nails, it will suck indeed"!
2:32 those retractable nets instead of cages are just awesome. Sure, a hard-kill system against drones and ATGMs would be more impressive, but given the limited resources, the Ukrainians are doing a great job.
If I am allowed to write my opinion, the AMX is not a fail but this best armament is its radio not stabilized 105 mm gun that even not even same as UK made L7 (NATO standard, as You mention). Hitting one enemy scout vehicle is ok, but staying and attacking is a waste. It is not even good to hit fortified line, with drones ATGM and aviation. Scouting and reporting in contested land is its job. And I don't agree that You-Know-Who was forced but they choose.
As far as I understand France is one of the few countries that is still capable of producing the full range of military equipment. Which is quite admirable in a modern pussyfied Western Europe.
@Matsimus, as you said, the 105mm medium pressure cannon is not a serious threat against MBT (unless I suppose you can get a shot into the rear and take out the engine or hit the tracks), and is likely overkill against most APC/IFV in direct fire situations. In indirect fire situations, I don't think that it would provide the same amount of impact as something like a 120mm mortar. Thus for a fire support vehicle, a mortar carrier with the breach loading NEMO would seem to be a better solution, packing a much larger explosive payload. Plus it would have the ability to fire GPS/SAL rounds for CEP of ~5m. Plus with the ability to fire horizontally for direct fire situations and firing a 120mm dual shaped charge mortar shell (should one ever be developed by anybody but the Russians), it could be an actual threat to MBTs. For a recon vehicle having an amphibious capability to be able to independently cross rivers and small bodies of water would be far more important than packing a too little/too big cannon. Instead I would think that a 40mm chain gun would be a much more useful weapon for this type of vehicle. A 40mm would provide the punch to deal with reinforced bunkers as well as even well armored IFVs. Firing timed air burst rounds it would effective at targeting troops behind walls and buildings as well in open topped trenches. This vehicle would never be a tank hunter. But as we saw when the two Bradleys firing miniscule in comparison 25mm stumbled across a T-90 at point blank range, a vehicle with a chain gun isn't helpless against MBTs. That is because modern MBTs have, IMHO, a major weakness in their dependence on relatively fragile and unarmored external sensors. Nominally intended for use in anti-aircraft/missile/mortar/artillery/drone use, the 40mm can fire proximity fused rounds. Such rounds should be highly effective in blinding an MBT. So even if a 40mm armed recon vehicle couldn't destroy an MBT, it might stand a decent chance of surviving if it had a surprise encounter by spraying the entire front with dense cloud of highspeed shrapnel from rounds exploding just before impact that destroys all of the optics, range finders, etc. And of course it wouldn't be that hard to mount a ATGM launcher firing something like the fiber-optic guided Spike LR2 with a range of 10 km on such a vehicle that would actually allow it to destroy an MBT. In fact, if a fiber-optic tethered drone was added, then not only would its recon capability be greatly enhanced without detectable radio transmission, the tethered drone could provide the ability to spot MBT and other vehicles and hardened targets from beyond visual range (at least from ground level). This would allow the vehicle to fire Spike ATGMs from deep concealment without having to expose itself to the line-of-sight cannons on MBTs or line-of-sight targeting ATGMs like the Javelin.
France has used mortar guns in some other recon vehicles. I think that is more practical going forward. Especially if it is computer controlled like the Patria Nemo. With that, they would still have a direct fire defensive option but could also scoot and then shoot using indirect fire as another react to contact option. With drones taking up most of the short range recon duties, they can also observe targets for a mortar strike.With recon sensors and communications, this allows a mortar carrier to use harassing tactics to conduct a scouting mission in partner with a drone team and then a fighting withdrawal at the outer edge of line of sight of the enemy and beyond line of sight. A drone might not be able to spot everything and thus ground units will have to roll in at some point. That could be with an infantry fighting vehicle or a hybrid recon and mortar vehicle.
One of these, with the Swedish automatic mortar system (Mjolner?) might be exceptionally useful in a team. Two mortar vehicles, one direct-fire gun vehicle, one drone-control/ELINT/EW vehicle for C³I, two AAA mixed-battery vehicles.
Also Matt please do try a video on the new Japanese Type-16 MCV , which is a 105mm Armed , 8 X 8 wheeled Infantry support Vehicle + Light Tank destroyer that has been designed by Mitsubishi to be utilised by JGSDFs' New Rapid deployment units in the South China Sea
This vehicle is designed to be used in Africa where the French intended it to be used against guys that rarely have anything bigger than an AK-47. And it did well in those conditions. But if the enemy has bigger guns and this thing is spotted... Good night! So, I can only agree with pretty much everything you said here
The AMX 10RC isn't a "tank killer". It's a "modern" heavy recon vehicle, but with 70s tech. Now these types of vehicles get ATGMs to defend themselves against other vehicles/tanks, at the time they gave it a canon to do the same job (it was one of the few recon vehicles able to defend itself against tanks 40 years ago). So if someone uses them as frontline tanks or if you make them "hunt" modern MBTs it can't go well.
It's important to consider that the AMX10RC's "tech" got a pretty large upgrade in the 90s for the gulf war, with newer optics and fire control systems. The architecture is from the 70s tho (over wise we would call the Abrams 80s tech as well)
It is a "tank killer", but by French concept idea only in defense. French way of combat recon based on the Panhard as fast scouts for the attack and one more tank barrel in the linie if you have to defend (by firing out of well prepared positions with good camo). What concerns the Ukraine, this whole war is an example for the failures which have spread wildly in NATO since 1990th, most equipment bought from the US in by far smaller amounts than intend by their construction and no capability of producing them by their own. 3/4 of the supply in a real war has to cross the atlantic. Why NATO-Standard ammo and easier logistic, if you can have Poland, Czechs, Bulgaria, ... which all still use soviet cal. ammo which can not be produced in spain, 35 years after cold war.
I remember when the AMX-10RC came out in the 1980's. I remember a lot of the same criticisms being voiced about the vehicle in a Central Front scenario. And even then it being stressed how it it was meant for a recon role like the heavy armored cars in German Panzer units were. Maybe it it had been equipped with a 20-35 milometer autocanon there would not have been so much miss use of the vehicle. Just as because the US tank destroyers after the halftrack one all had a big gun and a turret soldiers not aware of the differences between a TD and a M4 tried to use them as tanks.
Certainly a similar role to the M-10 Booker, which has all the modern advantages but does the job. Would still make a useful infantry fire support gun when used with caution. Also looks well adapted to desert conditions, less so mud, so might have been intended for Africa.
They were never meant to engage tanks anyway. But the direct fire capability combined with great speed and operational range compared to a tank meant that it has a rather successful service history in Africa and other places France deploys to. In all metrics, it fulfilled its role for France.
Future vids? So France had a Panhard Sagaie light wheeled tank as well with a 90 mm gun ... ERC 90 F4 ...Also in my wonderfully old book from 2002 lol... The Vital Guide book of Modern Tanks and AFVs... There is also a Brazilian built wheeled Armoured car the Engesa EE-9 Cascavel with a 90mm main gun... Both cool looking recon vehicles
Wheeled lightly armored vehicles with 76-90mm low- to medium-pressure guns have proven widely useful in reconnaissance, scouting, and other direct infantry-support roles since the Second World War. If you are interested, you can dig in to the South African border war with Angola, and the French operations in the African sahel (I do believe I have misspelled that; the belt below the expanding Sahara Desert), as well as many, many, border skirmishes and counterinsurgencies in South America!
i like it as its a bit different as its a 6x6 well others are 8x8 witch definitely makes it unique id like to see a video of Type 16 MCV one day but keep it up
I'm very familiar with the French Foreign Legion, and that they've relied on this vehicle since the 70's, but I've also heard mixed reviews from Ukraine...well, it's said it cannot fire on the move and hit, it is claimed, seem like it may be a devastating feature for a fast moving recon vehicle. Always thought it is a cool vehicle though, maybe not for those operating it so much.
So like every other single military ground vehicle, when used outside of it's intended doctrinal use for which it was made, it's going to be a "failure". Even if the failure is on the part of the people who aren't using it as intended.
I remember reading news articles as soon as France announced sending AMX 10s to Ukraine. "FRENCH SUPER TANK", is what they were calling it. "tank designed to destroy Russian tanks" was repeated. I was waiting for people to start talking trash on them because they aren't tanks, and shouldn't be used as it. OF course a few weeks after deploying, people were saying exactly what I expected them to say...and worse, they would repost AMX 10 being destroyed and the anti-tank Soothsayers screaming "TANKS ARE OBSOLETE"
I honestly see this is a Cavalry vehicle, able to find and fix a maneuvering enemy element, allowing your armies heavy elements to destroy it. The only real failure I see is the lack of a NATO standard 105. Slap an Royal Ordnance L7 variant on there and this would be some hot shit, and VERY dangerous. For those that don't know, the RO L7 (aka known as the M68 in US service) is STILL a killer and has been kept very viable with modern upgrades to ammunition. I guarantee the reason it doesn't is because of French hard-headedness and desire to do things their own way. Oh well, a nice piece of kit. BTW, Mat, you didn't cover how many reverse speeds this thing has or it's top reverse speed... I am sure it is quite high. 😁🤣😁🤣
The british L7( in ukrainian service with the Leopard 1) has more punch than the french low pressure gun. ammo is not compatible.The italian Centauro or the US Stryker with 105mm may be better,but ukraine has to take what is offered.
A high reverse gear speed is *very* useful for an armored vehicle (even an MBT), and *especially* for a recon vehicle. One of the biggest flaws of Soviet/Russian MBTs is their pathetic reverse speed, meaning they *cannot* even hope to disengage from the enemy without showing their far more vulnerable rear at far too close a range to the enemy.
That's a cool looking one but the tires makes it kinda exposed? And imagine the recoil after each shot bouncing back on those tires, shifting your whole position for the crew trying to aim those long range shots xD
It is extremely cool looking and sometimes I wonder if that matters. I mean I realize it really shouldn’t, these are life and death matters and serious decisions by serious professionals. But the French have such a number of machines and weapons that look more cool than ours. So I can’t help wondering…
Stick-and-move, stick-and-move. This isn't an armored combat vehicle for set-piece slugging matches. Think of how the Ukrainians used the U.S. HIMARS -- not in the role American doctrine dictated, but creeping around to range on a worthy target -- and bring that range down from 40 kilometers to 5 km, and the area of effect to a bunker where an AT team is hiding, or a drone-control team has been triangulated to. The reconnaissance-designed and improved AMX-10 is much less easily detected than a column of tanks, and moves across many terrain types faster than tracked vehicles while having much greater range without refueling. If combined with spotter drones to sneak it through -- and I can easily see rigging the engine with a generator flywheel, to recharge drones -- I could see this as very sneaky (for a large armored vehicle with a honking long cannon).
@@_Matsimus_ Missed that one then. YT really dislikes showing enew material from existing channels you watch or are subscribed to these days. I dont have your professional experience, but it seems to me that the UK Army has completely lost its way @ armoured combat peer level, where we are allowing budget to overcome acquiring the right vehicles and equipment for the needed roles. Boxer makes sense as a second line troop carrier or in a counter insurgency/peace keeping role, but not as an IFV supporting Challengers. Mobile artillery is another massive capability issue. The US seem to be turning the corner, but we aren't. we're buying Ajax even though they cant fix the fundamental design problems they created by making it too heavy. etc.
Well it was designed as a tank-killer in a sense, mirroring the SADF in many ways (compare Ratel). It was meant to take out the T-55s and T-62s predominant on the African continent. It had different roles in different deployments and in Africa it was often on its own and had to fill the roles of tank, antitank platform, recon platform and assault gun all at once. As far as I am aware it has performed fantastically. Within the scope of a metropolitan deployment against peer adversaries, it was neither intended nor planned to be used as a tank killer of course. It was recon. I find it extremely interesting how first the USA and UK, then Germany all abandon recce by armoured cars due to the new threat environment and development of recce technology. But France did not, and still has not. The Jaguar is a perfect inheritor of AMX-10RC tradition. Wouldn’t it be exciting to hear a debate illustrating the two standpoints on this?
Apparently it doesn't have a stabilised gun, so can only fire accurately when stationary, NOT on the move. In the video you can only see it fire stationary for this reason. Stabilised gun is a must-have for such vehicle today. Not having it defeats the purpose of the gun on such vehicle, and a major disadvantage. Also the armor is inadequate by even the APC standards.
It can be used as artillery, it has both good accuracy in straight and lob shots. But again this is not the intended use either. It is for maneuver tactics, when it is breached and you need to move fast. This is the item we have in number, and number or mass can mean a lot in a war. High quality samples do nothing.
I quite like these sort of lightly armoured wheeled vehicles with a decent size gun. They kind of fascinate me. It'd be interesting to see what could be done with this sort of vehicle with modern tech. I wonder about a hybrid engine, so maybe each wheel could have it's own electric motor? And the ability to 'run silent.' Could be interesting in a recon vehicle.
This type of design is sadly outdated. These type of guns were made to be able to destroy tanks (of their time of course), now you use other tools for that. What replaces them is recon vehicles with 30-40mm autocanons and ATGMs. 90% of the time it does the same job for cheaper. Also autocanons vehicles will become even more popular now, because autocanons can often be used for self defense against drones.
I Consider it to be kinda like a slightly up armoured M1128 where the 105mm can be effective in breaching buildings and dug in troops with HE rounds, the 105mm is pretty pathetic against armour like modern tanks, unless they can flank them which it will have to be very lucky since any 125mm is going through it even HE. Could be useful with BTR80's and BMP/BMD's etc, but then their 30mm auto cannons and slice through the armour of the AMX also. Then checking the reports of the 105mm ammo apparently they are in terrible condition too with half of the stock pile being useless. Although as a fast recon in force with APC's like Stryker's and M113 with troops armed with Javelins for anti armour it will be good for supporting them if assaulting dug in positions. Although with all the drones flying about they can't hang about for to long.
Why is it that every time I see a wheeled vehicle, there are no side skirts of any kind? I asked because I understand that the more pliable nature of the rubber tires would make them difficult but some sort of skirting coming down about maybe a quarter to a third of the way would go a long way to help protect the tires. Or what about the solid tires? Or the ones with the holes that help to provide suspension in the absence of inflatability? You could cover those holes easily with panels of rubber that would not interfere with their operation and would help to keep debris out.
I've always looked at the gun as "just enough" to get you out of trouble and to break contact during a recon mission. Not meant to assault or support assault.
Absolutely deadly Tank with one of the longest combat uses of a Tank ever predominantly in upon North Africa. Mobility top of the line acceptable protection at close range devastating firepower. Also far easier to produce even mass produce were this still in production which this item is not😊😊
The biggest problems of this platform, in Ukr, as stated by real peoples who used the weapon, (unlike keyboard warriors here, myself included) are these: 1 - crappy gun /optics : no stabilization for the gun, so the vehicle cannot aim and shoot moving - needs to come to a full stop before executing fire. 2 - awful mobility in mud - many got easily stuck in mud and were abandoned once the crew realize they cannot get away. 3 - crappy armor - many ukr crews complained they got several crew-members killed / wounded when 152mm shells landed near, and fragments pierced the paper "armor". These failures were greatly amplified by unexperienced crews who, like Max here said, used the vehicle as a frontal assault weapon, instead as an "ambusher".
The Optic was very good, just no stab.. The mobility was good, all wheeled systeme have problem in 1m of mud .. and many caterpillar too. The Armor .. yes and no, when you tell to Ukrainian the AMX isnt an MBT an they used them like an MBT.. Yeah, the AMX captured by russian was hit by a 152mm who falling at 2meters of the vehicule.. Its a war.. When i was send in africa, i saw an AMX resisting at a 24kg IED, 2 wheels off, he drive 20km for go to the base.. Another was attacked by an pickup with a 2x14.5mm shoot him nearly 100shells, no wounded. But the pickup was send in space..
this recon car is great for what it does and that is everything but an assault gun. i just think that most people are drone crazy right now as if they are some kind of Vonderweapon.
It's a Hunter and Support vehicle, not a breakthrough vehicle. The fact Ukraine used it like a Breakthrough vehicle in one offensive is why it looked so poorly in Ukraine. It's a vehicle that is meant to stop the breakthrough tanks when they breakthrough and are vulnerable.
The M-10 Booker supports the infantry. Light armored unit with a 105mm gun. Ukraine can use it in the same way with the help of the Bradley or Marder IFV's
I feel like it should have been replaced in the early 2000s. It was good when introduced, but it is old, and it shows. I mean no disrespect, it was a great light tank and recon vehicle when it was introduced in the 1970s.
The AMX-10RC is not a tank killer. It's reconnaissance vehicule with a bigger gun than other reconnaissance vehicules (most of those vehicules have autocanon and can resist only autocanons fire), so it can destroy say ennemi reconnaissance vehicules. That's literally it. Of course having a big gun it is also being used as support vehicule and can engage in tank duel if the opportinuty occur, but it's not a tank killer indeed.
Well, to use it as an assault vehicle, as the AFU does it and not to use it as an reconnaissance vehicle as it is intended can only go wrong for the platform
The AMX-10RC is not a reconnaissance vehicle, it is a vehicle for supporting raids by motorized forces behind enemy lines, but it is not suitable in conditions when an RPG or an airborne drone can be used from every bush.
it is the same concept as the striker or the booker of US army, easy to send to battle field, easy to maintain. And able to give the firepower of a 105 to any point, it is design in the scout'N shoot tactice. It has a 105 that wad the caliber of the AMX30, not Nato compatible but design before the UK 105 L7 has been selected for Nato. It is also 50 years old you have to compare to the time of Leopard 1 that was not really more armored.
😅😅😅An army that surrendered in less than two weeks...and was defeated by the Vietnamese revolutionary forces...nothing is relied upon or taken from it.
I would say - as certified keyboard warrior, that AMX-10 RC is kinda ... very niche vehicle. Very useful in case of colonial/expeditionary wars. But really struggling in modern high intensity conflict, where it can't be easily used in it's dedicated role. It's really not a good reconnaissance vehicle. It's missing GSR and electronics for signals intelligence which would allow it to perform it's recon role while at stand-off distance. It's equipment currently puts it as pure fire support vehicle. And these tend to require heavier armor and possibly some active protection systems to be survivable. If I'm allowed to scare people with a freak vehicle again, try looking at Kleszcz - newer Polish reconnaissance vehicle, which kinda follows opposite idea to AMX-10 RC... it's basically a computer on wheels with a mast housing GRS and wide view optics to serve as sort of "base" for recon team. It's only armed with 12,7mm RCWS and very basic armor (idea goood, execution ... kinda meh because it's too tall and only 4x4 suspension...). Generally... I think they should give up on classification of AMX-10 RC as recon. They should keep it as fire support in VBCI armed battalions. In that role it can serve admirably. But recon... no, better not to try - unless opponent is at vastly lower technological level - where it can perform search & destroy tasks with significantly better strategic mobility than tanks.
To be fair the Ukraine conflict is only 1 war and a rather unusual war at that , people tend to get fixated on it because its got good youtube coverage and it fits a cold war clash that never really happened of a soviet invasion of a western leaning European nation
yea but Bradleys and CV90's actually serve a purpose and can transport troops and supplies. This thing in made for recon which is now done multitudes better by drones.
@@thesayxx Your bradley and CV 90 are helpless against fortified positions, legacy MBT such as T62 and T55 that are widely used on the front unless they cabn fire at their flanks or fire a missile at them. The AMX 10 RC can take out these with ease with its 105 mm canon.
The AMX 10RC did fine for its intended purpose (punching holes into buildings, bunkers or chasing soft armor vehicles across deserts), the problem is that it is not intended for static battlefields that are prone to mud buildup
Solid Statement.
You’re absolutely right.
For its intended purpose of recon - absolutely not suitable for the modern battlefield. But as a mobile indirect fire platform, it has a future as a kind of wheeled take on the new American M-10 Booker
Lol I love that excuse for everything, "it wasn't designed for it"
So your vehicle can only successfully function against non near peer adversaries in mali?
@@Borya7622the Booker is better armored and has newer electronics. Booker is more like a modern Leo1
It's a good vehicle for Africa where battlefields are giant and being fast matters more than heavy armour. I think that's what it was developed for.
That and traditional reconnaissance roles in *Western* Europe, where there is generally better road net and less mud than southern Ukraine.
Suicide in Ukrainian . . . .
IDK, mate. I had seen rather recently a video and some interviews with Ukrainians using this vehicle and they really like it. Moving fast, can come and support position under attack, provide some indirect fire, very fast to redeploy, quite easy to hide ( easier than a tank). Older electronics and fire control, less performing then tracked vehicle in mud/ snow. They dont trash it at all ( as much as I can understand).
I wouldn't take their word for it. Ukrainians tend to bad mouth everything eastern and praise anything western even when it's objectively far worse.
They use it as an artillery vehicle mostly
Well, they aren't in a position where they can pick and choose. This is still a combat vehicle and will be able to do many combat oriented tasks it wasn't specifically intended for. Of course you won't complain about this vehicle since you'd be worse off if you didn't even have it to begin with.
Yeah cos its a fkn video, ukraine is known to say those kind of things for videos, they don’t want to appear ungrateful do they? That’d pss off the tax payers, and could end future aid. ACTUAL battle reports paint this thing as absolutely dog sht, whole crews have been liquidated by Russian shelling because it has no armour, the gun is also not stabilised which is another major complaint. The third complaint is that it genuinely has no place in this kind of attritional war, and theyd be right on this, hence why after the AMXs first deployment, they were never seen again except for in media. But hey they fooled you and 71 others at the tike of writing this, doesn’t surprise me, propaganda is for the weak and that sums up the whole Pro UA community
Alway's the same with AMX 10RC: the ones having understood how to use it, love it. The ones playing tank with it often regret postmortem.
Ukrainian Marines are using the AMX-10RC very effectively as light rapidly mobile artillery. It lower velocity 105mm gun is very well suited to the role
It seems these dudes will turn anything into mobile artillery if it doesn't work for its original purpose.
I do data research on the war in Ukraine for Andrew Perpetua. I would say the AMX-10RC has been quite successful with the Ukrainian Marines, not as intended, but rather as a mobile indirect fire platform. Only 6 have been visually confirmed damaged/destoryed - 3 destroyed, 2 abandoned. They’re useful for firing across the Dnipro River in the Kherson direction.
Oh I forgot to mention the singular captured AMX.
That's very interesting information, thanks for sharing!
There were many AMX-10 RCs destroyed which were mistaken as Leopard 2 Losses due to the added slat armor . Also if your armored vehicle with that thin armor is getting hit either by a 152mm or even a a 130mm or any Improvised Artillery shell + Mines IEDs , nothing will remain there & it is getting obliterated beyond recognition , just like the Soviet T-64s , T-72s , T-80s & more modern Russian T-90s & Ukrainian T-84s after getting a direct Carousel Ammo Rack hit
From 6 that out of service, how many AMX-10 in total Ukraine Army acquired?
@@Count_Gustav 38 if im not mistaken.
Historically, France has devoted particular attention to this type of weaponry since the Napoleonic Wars during which light cavalry played a crucial role in victories.
Plus their expected AO is north Africa where you have to cover vast distances with light bridges and unpaved roads.
My Oncle Drove an AMX 13 in Algeria, he was from "La Legion Etrangère" (had a white 'Képi') is name was {Maurice Dedeurwaerder}. RIP "Maurice" on se netoille les oneyes!.
Stronk Flemish surname
The French idea of using cavalry is interesting because not many other countries are doing the same. I like your view of this a lot. French people are awesome. They have different perspectives but in the end good ones.
Thank you for the video.
It's a real shame that this platform at the very least for the chassis was never further explored. The ability to turn the whole vehicle around like a tank is so valuable, not to mention the way the drive line is laid out enabling it to keep a low silhouette is phenomenal when compared to other wheeled platforms like Centauro, the LAV series, and many others. It is unfortunate however that the French didn't even use the same cannon as the AMX-30 or something compatible with the Royal Ordinance L7. But the British could be criticized for this with both Challenger 1 & 2. (Sorry Mat) A new version of the AMX-10RC could of made up for the deficiencies in terms of armour, firepower, and a fire control system with a stabilized main gun, an APS, and more current ceramic armour. Really the AMX-10RC is much like a wheeled light tank like the Stingray. Changes in hull design could of allowed for development of 'over the tire type tracks' as commonly seen on wheeled skid-steers enabling better traction and flotation in muddy conditions. Its kinda a crying shame its not being developed any further.
Love your analysis on this vehicle. It really isn't a bad vehicle, it's just that the kit that is has and is being used for is less than ideal circumstances for the militaries utilizing it. Also, it being a bit antiquated and not updated to modern standards such as a stabilized gun.
That being said, since you seem to like wheeled vehicles of the mobile gun variety. You should do on the Type 16 MCV that Japan has some time in the near future. I would love your in depth analysis on that platform.
Keep cranking these videos out brother, they are great!
What I like about this vehicle is that it has a skid-steer (or differential steer) layout, much like an ATV or an XTV, which makes it mechanically more robust and compact compared to wheel-turning steering. If only it had a uniform open space between its three wheels per side, (instead of separate wheel wells) so that add-on tracks could be mounted as needed. I assume this is probably not what armed forces need or even can use, but at least in principle, it is kind of cool. Converting outdated tracked tanks to all-wheel drive, wheeled (skid-steer) AFVs is (Ukrainians did it several years ago with some of their old tanks), albeit somewhat eccentric, is still interesting for an armchair, speculating civilian, such as me.
The AMX-10RC is an infantry support vehicle. It was never meant to go head to head with tanks. It does however work well when its used like the Tank Destroyers of WW2, ambush shoot and scoot. The Stryker MGS has been canceled. I was a Scout in the U.S. Army for 15 years and served in the 2nd Stryker Brigade that ever stood up.
I've always wondered about this Vehicle. It is totally different than what I thought.
Good vid, I'd love an analysis of the Jaguar vehicle recently incorporated into the french army, it's a real gem
Hello Matt , This Vehicle also has a lighter counterpart called the Panhard ERC-90 both Lynx with the French AML-90's turret & Sagaie with TS-90 Turret from the rare Renault VBC-90 ( The VBC-90 was derived from the Renault VAB Wheeled APC . The ERC-90 was much lighter & easier for Airborne Operations & lightning warfare tactics by French Foreign Legion in the Sahel Region of Northern Africa
I think it’s pretty cool probably much more useful than a striker mgs they did very well in Africa coming up against t55 even t62 and probably quite useful in the desert, especially with its speed and decent gun range
The AMX 10RC had it's time, now it's quite outdated, and the french doctrine has changed too. That's why he is being replaced by the EBMR Jaguar, but I am scepticle (I'm french) about it's ratio effectivness/cost, I find him too tall, too complex and high tech for a mass produced, support and reconnaissance vehicle, althrough the DGA (Direction général de l'Armemenent) did learn a lot with the 10RC. Going from a 105mm to rapidfire 40mm, better protection, integraded into the new connected combat system. He is now also supported by small and more agile vehicle (VBL, Ford Ranger, Griffon, VAB, etc) and for the anti-drone protection we are still experimenting on the VAB chassis (VAB ARLAD) with a FLIR radar and 12.7mm machine gun, 12 just got brought into opperation in 2024.
Conclusion, we replaced a cheap, small and overpowered for it's purpose vehicle, for an expensive, tall and overcomplex for massproduction vehicle.Escorted by more small and sole purpose vehicle.The future will tell us if the DGA is rights in it's decision. (sorry if I'm not clear, I'm still pregressing in english)
No Sir, you explained it perfectly. In my opinion the AMX 10RC is indirect fire support vehicle and reconnaisance vehicle, the 105mm gun is not suitable for destroying tank, but for fire support.
You were quite understandable, and I thank you for sharing that perspective!
I think the AMX-10RC performed its roles commendably when used appropriately. It is up to the commander in the field to generate plans which use his resources to greatest advantage and effect -- and so, results in the field will vary; all officers are not equally capable, and war is democratic -- the enemy also gets a vote.
Armor is never about protecting vehicles, it's about saving people's life.
It's like saying Diego Maradona is useless cause you saw him playing darts terribly. It's designed to patrol the Sahel & be able to engage what it bumps into there.
I've seen people talk about how this vehicle or that was made obsolete in modern warfare since 2022, even some going as far as to say that drones and ATGMs make tanks as a whole obsolete.
Not just in online think pieces but sometime military analysts, although some have been predicting the tank's death since; the Korean War (with portable AT mines and artillery), the Vietnam War (with Ambush tactics and the RPG-7), the Troubles (with the Barrett M82), Gulf War One (with the AWACS and Apache Gunship) and ever since the Javelin and Top Attack capabilities were developed.
While I have no military background, I have studied history and things always take place in context so its good to see the nuance provided here.
Ukrainians have been using it to provide fire support from behind screening infantry. AMX-10 should be seen as a complement to IFVs. It shoots and scoots basically, and in that particular role it is very good.
the steering system is the absoulute win from this vehicle
Wheeled tank destroyers / (medium?) recon vehicles are an all time favourite of mine. I hope we see more of these designs in the future. Sure, Tanks are really cool. But they are also a logistical nightmare, especially here in Europe where there's a river every few kilometres.
I would not be surprised that AMX 10RC is not performing well WHEN not used in it's intended role. It's very, very specialized for specific French needs. Kind of "if you use the screw driver for hammering nails, it will suck indeed"!
2:32 those retractable nets instead of cages are just awesome.
Sure, a hard-kill system against drones and ATGMs would be more impressive, but given the limited resources, the Ukrainians are doing a great job.
I see the bots waisted no time.
😂😂😂 all gone now
Wasted*
If I am allowed to write my opinion, the AMX is not a fail but this best armament is its radio not stabilized 105 mm gun that even not even same as UK made L7 (NATO standard, as You mention). Hitting one enemy scout vehicle is ok, but staying and attacking is a waste. It is not even good to hit fortified line, with drones ATGM and aviation. Scouting and reporting in contested land is its job. And I don't agree that You-Know-Who was forced but they choose.
As far as I understand France is one of the few countries that is still capable of producing the full range of military equipment. Which is quite admirable in a modern pussyfied Western Europe.
The French always did their own thing. They even left NATO in 1966. They favour the development and production of their own armaments.
@Matsimus, as you said, the 105mm medium pressure cannon is not a serious threat against MBT (unless I suppose you can get a shot into the rear and take out the engine or hit the tracks), and is likely overkill against most APC/IFV in direct fire situations. In indirect fire situations, I don't think that it would provide the same amount of impact as something like a 120mm mortar. Thus for a fire support vehicle, a mortar carrier with the breach loading NEMO would seem to be a better solution, packing a much larger explosive payload. Plus it would have the ability to fire GPS/SAL rounds for CEP of ~5m. Plus with the ability to fire horizontally for direct fire situations and firing a 120mm dual shaped charge mortar shell (should one ever be developed by anybody but the Russians), it could be an actual threat to MBTs.
For a recon vehicle having an amphibious capability to be able to independently cross rivers and small bodies of water would be far more important than packing a too little/too big cannon. Instead I would think that a 40mm chain gun would be a much more useful weapon for this type of vehicle. A 40mm would provide the punch to deal with reinforced bunkers as well as even well armored IFVs. Firing timed air burst rounds it would effective at targeting troops behind walls and buildings as well in open topped trenches.
This vehicle would never be a tank hunter. But as we saw when the two Bradleys firing miniscule in comparison 25mm stumbled across a T-90 at point blank range, a vehicle with a chain gun isn't helpless against MBTs. That is because modern MBTs have, IMHO, a major weakness in their dependence on relatively fragile and unarmored external sensors. Nominally intended for use in anti-aircraft/missile/mortar/artillery/drone use, the 40mm can fire proximity fused rounds. Such rounds should be highly effective in blinding an MBT. So even if a 40mm armed recon vehicle couldn't destroy an MBT, it might stand a decent chance of surviving if it had a surprise encounter by spraying the entire front with dense cloud of highspeed shrapnel from rounds exploding just before impact that destroys all of the optics, range finders, etc.
And of course it wouldn't be that hard to mount a ATGM launcher firing something like the fiber-optic guided Spike LR2 with a range of 10 km on such a vehicle that would actually allow it to destroy an MBT. In fact, if a fiber-optic tethered drone was added, then not only would its recon capability be greatly enhanced without detectable radio transmission, the tethered drone could provide the ability to spot MBT and other vehicles and hardened targets from beyond visual range (at least from ground level). This would allow the vehicle to fire Spike ATGMs from deep concealment without having to expose itself to the line-of-sight cannons on MBTs or line-of-sight targeting ATGMs like the Javelin.
That's rather exactly what I was thinking, too!
This vehicle did fine in African Bush wars. The French needed transportablity and once there, mobility.
France has used mortar guns in some other recon vehicles. I think that is more practical going forward. Especially if it is computer controlled like the Patria Nemo. With that, they would still have a direct fire defensive option but could also scoot and then shoot using indirect fire as another react to contact option. With drones taking up most of the short range recon duties, they can also observe targets for a mortar strike.With recon sensors and communications, this allows a mortar carrier to use harassing tactics to conduct a scouting mission in partner with a drone team and then a fighting withdrawal at the outer edge of line of sight of the enemy and beyond line of sight. A drone might not be able to spot everything and thus ground units will have to roll in at some point. That could be with an infantry fighting vehicle or a hybrid recon and mortar vehicle.
One of these, with the Swedish automatic mortar system (Mjolner?) might be exceptionally useful in a team.
Two mortar vehicles, one direct-fire gun vehicle, one drone-control/ELINT/EW vehicle for C³I, two AAA mixed-battery vehicles.
Also Matt please do try a video on the new Japanese Type-16 MCV , which is a 105mm Armed , 8 X 8 wheeled Infantry support Vehicle + Light Tank destroyer that has been designed by Mitsubishi to be utilised by JGSDFs' New Rapid deployment units in the South China Sea
Good summary on key things
Was waiting for a video of the AMX 10RC
This vehicle is designed to be used in Africa where the French intended it to be used against guys that rarely have anything bigger than an AK-47. And it did well in those conditions. But if the enemy has bigger guns and this thing is spotted... Good night!
So, I can only agree with pretty much everything you said here
You face a lot of Dshk and PKM in Africa
It's got hydraulics like a led sled. Pretty cool
Great info. Excellent as always👍
This thing looks like my dream car I woulda drawn up when I was 9 and I love it idc if it’s good or not
The AMX 10RC isn't a "tank killer". It's a "modern" heavy recon vehicle, but with 70s tech. Now these types of vehicles get ATGMs to defend themselves against other vehicles/tanks, at the time they gave it a canon to do the same job (it was one of the few recon vehicles able to defend itself against tanks 40 years ago).
So if someone uses them as frontline tanks or if you make them "hunt" modern MBTs it can't go well.
It's important to consider that the AMX10RC's "tech" got a pretty large upgrade in the 90s for the gulf war, with newer optics and fire control systems. The architecture is from the 70s tho (over wise we would call the Abrams 80s tech as well)
It is a "tank killer", but by French concept idea only in defense. French way of combat recon based on the Panhard as fast scouts for the attack and one more tank barrel in the linie if you have to defend (by firing out of well prepared positions with good camo).
What concerns the Ukraine, this whole war is an example for the failures which have spread wildly in NATO since 1990th, most equipment bought from the US in by far smaller amounts than intend by their construction and no capability of producing them by their own. 3/4 of the supply in a real war has to cross the atlantic. Why NATO-Standard ammo and easier logistic, if you can have Poland, Czechs, Bulgaria, ... which all still use soviet cal. ammo which can not be produced in spain, 35 years after cold war.
Thanks!
@@dbell1016 thank you so much!! That is really really appreciated! 😃👍
I remember when the AMX-10RC came out in the 1980's. I remember a lot of the same criticisms being voiced about the vehicle in a Central Front scenario. And even then it being stressed how it it was meant for a recon role like the heavy armored cars in German Panzer units were. Maybe it it had been equipped with a 20-35 milometer autocanon there would not have been so much miss use of the vehicle. Just as because the US tank destroyers after the halftrack one all had a big gun and a turret soldiers not aware of the differences between a TD and a M4 tried to use them as tanks.
Man, a video on the jaguar would be great i aspire to crew one next year.
@@TomAcker88 I’ll take a look man!! That’s cool you’ll get to use it! I’m jealous
@@_Matsimus_ hell yeah, thanks bro
Certainly a similar role to the M-10 Booker, which has all the modern advantages but does the job. Would still make a useful infantry fire support gun when used with caution. Also looks well adapted to desert conditions, less so mud, so might have been intended for Africa.
I think the Legion used them when they slaughtered Boko Harem(?).
It got potential. Mayhaps in the future...
Nice Vid!
posted 7 minutes ago vid is 17 min long
Loving the video release cadence!
it's perfectly suitable as moving target for the drones!
Interesting video mate
Nothing is meeting expectations from the drawing board. War is hard, and modern war is fast and changing by the minute. This is the new normal.
AMX does very well, was successful for its intended purpose and will be around for awhile.
I'm talking about the AMX; it fits well within French doctrine, as a specialized vehicle is not meant to be a jack-of-all-trades.
It's a failed tank killer, but a great mobile artillery platform.
They were never meant to engage tanks anyway. But the direct fire capability combined with great speed and operational range compared to a tank meant that it has a rather successful service history in Africa and other places France deploys to. In all metrics, it fulfilled its role for France.
It was never meant to be a tank killer.
Future vids? So France had a Panhard Sagaie light wheeled tank as well with a 90 mm gun ... ERC 90 F4 ...Also in my wonderfully old book from 2002 lol... The Vital Guide book of Modern Tanks and AFVs... There is also a Brazilian built wheeled Armoured car the Engesa EE-9 Cascavel with a 90mm main gun... Both cool looking recon vehicles
Wheeled lightly armored vehicles with 76-90mm low- to medium-pressure guns have proven widely useful in reconnaissance, scouting, and other direct infantry-support roles since the Second World War. If you are interested, you can dig in to the South African border war with Angola, and the French operations in the African sahel (I do believe I have misspelled that; the belt below the expanding Sahara Desert), as well as many, many, border skirmishes and counterinsurgencies in South America!
Max, you forgot, man to mention the worst, biggest problem of this platform !
"The main armament lacks a fully automatic stabilization system" !
i like it as its a bit different as its a 6x6 well others are 8x8 witch definitely makes it unique id like to see a video of Type 16 MCV one day but keep it up
I'm very familiar with the French Foreign Legion, and that they've relied on this vehicle since the 70's, but I've also heard mixed reviews from Ukraine...well, it's said it cannot fire on the move and hit, it is claimed, seem like it may be a devastating feature for a fast moving recon vehicle. Always thought it is a cool vehicle though, maybe not for those operating it so much.
So like every other single military ground vehicle, when used outside of it's intended doctrinal use for which it was made, it's going to be a "failure". Even if the failure is on the part of the people who aren't using it as intended.
😆😆😆
I’ll keep the Stryker.
Thanks Matt!
I remember reading news articles as soon as France announced sending AMX 10s to Ukraine. "FRENCH SUPER TANK", is what they were calling it. "tank designed to destroy Russian tanks" was repeated. I was waiting for people to start talking trash on them because they aren't tanks, and shouldn't be used as it. OF course a few weeks after deploying, people were saying exactly what I expected them to say...and worse, they would repost AMX 10 being destroyed and the anti-tank Soothsayers screaming "TANKS ARE OBSOLETE"
I honestly see this is a Cavalry vehicle, able to find and fix a maneuvering enemy element, allowing your armies heavy elements to destroy it. The only real failure I see is the lack of a NATO standard 105. Slap an Royal Ordnance L7 variant on there and this would be some hot shit, and VERY dangerous. For those that don't know, the RO L7 (aka known as the M68 in US service) is STILL a killer and has been kept very viable with modern upgrades to ammunition. I guarantee the reason it doesn't is because of French hard-headedness and desire to do things their own way. Oh well, a nice piece of kit.
BTW, Mat, you didn't cover how many reverse speeds this thing has or it's top reverse speed... I am sure it is quite high. 😁🤣😁🤣
There is a reason why the AMX-10RC doesent have a high pressure 105. It only weighs 15 tons and i dont think the design can handle a bigger gun.
The british L7( in ukrainian service with the Leopard 1) has more punch than the french low pressure gun. ammo is not compatible.The italian Centauro or the US Stryker with 105mm may be better,but ukraine has to take what is offered.
The least brainroted Average France Hater :
A high reverse gear speed is *very* useful for an armored vehicle (even an MBT), and *especially* for a recon vehicle.
One of the biggest flaws of Soviet/Russian MBTs is their pathetic reverse speed, meaning they *cannot* even hope to disengage from the enemy without showing their far more vulnerable rear at far too close a range to the enemy.
That's a cool looking one but the tires makes it kinda exposed? And imagine the recoil after each shot bouncing back on those tires, shifting your whole position for the crew trying to aim those long range shots xD
It is extremely cool looking and sometimes I wonder if that matters. I mean I realize it really shouldn’t, these are life and death matters and serious decisions by serious professionals. But the French have such a number of machines and weapons that look more cool than ours. So I can’t help wondering…
Russian still use BTR 82
Stick-and-move, stick-and-move. This isn't an armored combat vehicle for set-piece slugging matches.
Think of how the Ukrainians used the U.S. HIMARS -- not in the role American doctrine dictated, but creeping around to range on a worthy target -- and bring that range down from 40 kilometers to 5 km, and the area of effect to a bunker where an AT team is hiding, or a drone-control team has been triangulated to.
The reconnaissance-designed and improved AMX-10 is much less easily detected than a column of tanks, and moves across many terrain types faster than tracked vehicles while having much greater range without refueling. If combined with spotter drones to sneak it through -- and I can easily see rigging the engine with a generator flywheel, to recharge drones -- I could see this as very sneaky (for a large armored vehicle with a honking long cannon).
Not gonna lie. The 3 big wheels do make it look a bit goofy.
I wonder what you' say about the new M10 vehicle which replaces the US Striker MGS.
@@nickbrough8335 I did a video on it already lol
@@_Matsimus_ Missed that one then. YT really dislikes showing enew material from existing channels you watch or are subscribed to these days.
I dont have your professional experience, but it seems to me that the UK Army has completely lost its way @ armoured combat peer level, where we are allowing budget to overcome acquiring the right vehicles and equipment for the needed roles. Boxer makes sense as a second line troop carrier or in a counter insurgency/peace keeping role, but not as an IFV supporting Challengers. Mobile artillery is another massive capability issue. The US seem to be turning the corner, but we aren't. we're buying Ajax even though they cant fix the fundamental design problems they created by making it too heavy. etc.
Well it was designed as a tank-killer in a sense, mirroring the SADF in many ways (compare Ratel). It was meant to take out the T-55s and T-62s predominant on the African continent. It had different roles in different deployments and in Africa it was often on its own and had to fill the roles of tank, antitank platform, recon platform and assault gun all at once. As far as I am aware it has performed fantastically. Within the scope of a metropolitan deployment against peer adversaries, it was neither intended nor planned to be used as a tank killer of course. It was recon. I find it extremely interesting how first the USA and UK, then Germany all abandon recce by armoured cars due to the new threat environment and development of recce technology. But France did not, and still has not. The Jaguar is a perfect inheritor of AMX-10RC tradition. Wouldn’t it be exciting to hear a debate illustrating the two standpoints on this?
Apparently it doesn't have a stabilised gun, so can only fire accurately when stationary, NOT on the move.
In the video you can only see it fire stationary for this reason.
Stabilised gun is a must-have for such vehicle today. Not having it defeats the purpose of the gun on such vehicle, and a major disadvantage.
Also the armor is inadequate by even the APC standards.
It can be used as artillery, it has both good accuracy in straight and lob shots. But again this is not the intended use either. It is for maneuver tactics, when it is breached and you need to move fast. This is the item we have in number, and number or mass can mean a lot in a war. High quality samples do nothing.
Good morning, Matt.
+1 for the Algo
THis thing rules in Wargame: Red Dragon. One of my favorite units in there.
I quite like these sort of lightly armoured wheeled vehicles with a decent size gun. They kind of fascinate me. It'd be interesting to see what could be done with this sort of vehicle with modern tech. I wonder about a hybrid engine, so maybe each wheel could have it's own electric motor? And the ability to 'run silent.' Could be interesting in a recon vehicle.
This type of design is sadly outdated. These type of guns were made to be able to destroy tanks (of their time of course), now you use other tools for that.
What replaces them is recon vehicles with 30-40mm autocanons and ATGMs. 90% of the time it does the same job for cheaper.
Also autocanons vehicles will become even more popular now, because autocanons can often be used for self defense against drones.
@@MrMorvana Yep, I completely agree. It makes me a bit sad to see this kind of "gun carrier" go away, is all.
I Consider it to be kinda like a slightly up armoured M1128 where the 105mm can be effective in breaching buildings and dug in troops with HE rounds, the 105mm is pretty pathetic against armour like modern tanks, unless they can flank them which it will have to be very lucky since any 125mm is going through it even HE. Could be useful with BTR80's and BMP/BMD's etc, but then their 30mm auto cannons and slice through the armour of the AMX also.
Then checking the reports of the 105mm ammo apparently they are in terrible condition too with half of the stock pile being useless. Although as a fast recon in force with APC's like Stryker's and M113 with troops armed with Javelins for anti armour it will be good for supporting them if assaulting dug in positions. Although with all the drones flying about they can't hang about for to long.
Why is it that every time I see a wheeled vehicle, there are no side skirts of any kind?
I asked because I understand that the more pliable nature of the rubber tires would make them difficult but some sort of skirting coming down about maybe a quarter to a third of the way would go a long way to help protect the tires.
Or what about the solid tires? Or the ones with the holes that help to provide suspension in the absence of inflatability? You could cover those holes easily with panels of rubber that would not interfere with their operation and would help to keep debris out.
I've always looked at the gun as "just enough" to get you out of trouble and to break contact during a recon mission. Not meant to assault or support assault.
Optimized for a battle scenario that no longer exist.
Maybe good, maybe not, maybe this, maybe that... But its beautiful!!!! Spetialy early versions...
Absolutely deadly Tank with one of the longest combat uses of a Tank ever predominantly in upon North Africa. Mobility top of the line acceptable protection at close range devastating firepower. Also far easier to produce even mass produce were this still in production which this item is not😊😊
Difficult cycle of obsolescence and renaissance
The biggest problems of this platform, in Ukr, as stated by real peoples who used the weapon, (unlike keyboard warriors here, myself included) are these:
1 - crappy gun /optics : no stabilization for the gun, so the vehicle cannot aim and shoot moving - needs to come to a full stop before executing fire.
2 - awful mobility in mud - many got easily stuck in mud and were abandoned once the crew realize they cannot get away.
3 - crappy armor - many ukr crews complained they got several crew-members killed / wounded when 152mm shells landed near, and fragments pierced the paper "armor".
These failures were greatly amplified by unexperienced crews who, like Max here said, used the vehicle as a frontal assault weapon, instead as an "ambusher".
The Optic was very good, just no stab.. The mobility was good, all wheeled systeme have problem in 1m of mud .. and many caterpillar too.
The Armor .. yes and no, when you tell to Ukrainian the AMX isnt an MBT an they used them like an MBT.. Yeah, the AMX captured by russian was hit by a 152mm who falling at 2meters of the vehicule.. Its a war.. When i was send in africa, i saw an AMX resisting at a 24kg IED, 2 wheels off, he drive 20km for go to the base.. Another was attacked by an pickup with a 2x14.5mm shoot him nearly 100shells, no wounded. But the pickup was send in space..
I didnt think the amx 10rc had a stabilizer
it doesnt
For the algorithm and beyond.
Cheers! 🥃🇿🇦
It is a nice mobile gun at least. But are reconnaissance vehicles still useful with observation and attack drones everywhere?
so basically a crossing between a citroen DS and a tank ;)
Record of Loudness War. Audio, especially the music at the start can be toned down for a huge QoL improvement.
For many, a tank starts with a 105mm cannon. The reality is different, of course.
Love to hear what your workmates/military friends are saying about the orange baffoon down south.l know you can't tell us but I bet it's spicy 🔥
this recon car is great for what it does and that is everything but an assault gun. i just think that most people are drone crazy right now as if they are some kind of Vonderweapon.
It's a Hunter and Support vehicle, not a breakthrough vehicle. The fact Ukraine used it like a Breakthrough vehicle in one offensive is why it looked so poorly in Ukraine. It's a vehicle that is meant to stop the breakthrough tanks when they breakthrough and are vulnerable.
How are Canadian LAVs doing?
The M-10 Booker supports the infantry. Light armored unit with a 105mm gun.
Ukraine can use it in the same way with the help of the Bradley or Marder IFV's
I feel like it should have been replaced in the early 2000s. It was good when introduced, but it is old, and it shows. I mean no disrespect, it was a great light tank and recon vehicle when it was introduced in the 1970s.
The AMX-10RC is not a tank killer. It's reconnaissance vehicule with a bigger gun than other reconnaissance vehicules (most of those vehicules have autocanon and can resist only autocanons fire), so it can destroy say ennemi reconnaissance vehicules. That's literally it.
Of course having a big gun it is also being used as support vehicule and can engage in tank duel if the opportinuty occur, but it's not a tank killer indeed.
8:42 this have always been the case.. for this vehicle
Well, to use it as an assault vehicle, as the AFU does it and not to use it as an reconnaissance vehicle as it is intended can only go wrong for the platform
I wonder how hard it would be to put an L7 or other NATO standard 105mm gun on it? There was a protoype made with it.
Did it fire Obus-G?
The AMX-10RC is not a reconnaissance vehicle, it is a vehicle for supporting raids by motorized forces behind enemy lines, but it is not suitable in conditions when an RPG or an airborne drone can be used from every bush.
First sentence of the "Ministère des Armées" description "Engin de reconnaissance blindé,".
It IS a reconnaissance vehicle !
Supporting Raids isn't that a part of recon mission.
it is the same concept as the striker or the booker of US army, easy to send to battle field, easy to maintain.
And able to give the firepower of a 105 to any point, it is design in the scout'N shoot tactice.
It has a 105 that wad the caliber of the AMX30, not Nato compatible but design before the UK 105 L7 has been selected for Nato.
It is also 50 years old you have to compare to the time of Leopard 1 that was not really more armored.
😅😅😅An army that surrendered in less than two weeks...and was defeated by the Vietnamese revolutionary forces...nothing is relied upon or taken from it.
I would say - as certified keyboard warrior, that AMX-10 RC is kinda ... very niche vehicle.
Very useful in case of colonial/expeditionary wars. But really struggling in modern high intensity conflict, where it can't be easily used in it's dedicated role. It's really not a good reconnaissance vehicle. It's missing GSR and electronics for signals intelligence which would allow it to perform it's recon role while at stand-off distance. It's equipment currently puts it as pure fire support vehicle. And these tend to require heavier armor and possibly some active protection systems to be survivable.
If I'm allowed to scare people with a freak vehicle again, try looking at Kleszcz - newer Polish reconnaissance vehicle, which kinda follows opposite idea to AMX-10 RC... it's basically a computer on wheels with a mast housing GRS and wide view optics to serve as sort of "base" for recon team. It's only armed with 12,7mm RCWS and very basic armor (idea goood, execution ... kinda meh because it's too tall and only 4x4 suspension...).
Generally... I think they should give up on classification of AMX-10 RC as recon. They should keep it as fire support in VBCI armed battalions. In that role it can serve admirably. But recon... no, better not to try - unless opponent is at vastly lower technological level - where it can perform search & destroy tasks with significantly better strategic mobility than tanks.
To be fair the Ukraine conflict is only 1 war and a rather unusual war at that , people tend to get fixated on it because its got good youtube coverage and it fits a cold war clash that never really happened of a soviet invasion of a western leaning European nation
Everyone says the CV90 and Bradley r so great but they don't last longer than any other vehicle on the front.
yea but Bradleys and CV90's actually serve a purpose and can transport troops and supplies. This thing in made for recon which is now done multitudes better by drones.
@@thesayxx Your bradley and CV 90 are helpless against fortified positions, legacy MBT such as T62 and T55 that are widely used on the front unless they cabn fire at their flanks or fire a missile at them. The AMX 10 RC can take out these with ease with its 105 mm canon.