Figured out the reason behind the lack of Challys in use

User avatar
Froggy
Master Sergeant
Posts: 158
Joined: Mon 13 Feb 2012 11:42
Location: Orléans (45)
Contact:

Re: Figured out the reason behind the lack of Challys in use

Postby Froggy » Wed 11 Apr 2012 10:33

chester267 wrote:
Kovlovsky wrote:
The AMX-40 was a private venture and was an export product. The French Army wasn't interested in it at all. The AMX-32 was directly proposed to the French Army contrary to the AMX-40, but it was rejected for cost reason. It's quite different to me. The AMX-40 is very beautiful though and it seems to be a good design.


That is true, but the French Government rejected the AMX-32 because they would rather wait for the AMX-56, now known as the Leclerc. In the case of World War 3 though, the Government would probably decide not to wait and order both designs, as their armor was severly lacking in the 1980's.


The French army did not selected AMX32 as an AMX30B successor because of the cost and the fact it was not an upgrade of the already built AMX30B, but a new tank. They chose instead to select some part of it and create AMX30B2.
The AMX 40 was proposed to the French army, at least to have a first buyer, and at last to prepare the arrived of the next tank ~8 years later.
The french gov rejected the AMX40 because they were waiting for the EPC (engin principal de combat) which was latter named Leclerc (It has never been named AMX56, it's a wikipedia error...), and did not want to have an other tank model (there was already AMX30B and AMX30B2). But the Army tested many times the AMX40.
Plus vite, Plus fort, Plus loin
507 RCC, Le forum francophone de Steel Beasts

Kovlovsky
Captain
Posts: 1547
Joined: Sat 25 Feb 2012 07:18
Location: Québec
Contact:

Re: Figured out the reason behind the lack of Challys in use

Postby Kovlovsky » Wed 11 Apr 2012 11:35

Ok thanks for the information about the AMX-40. Do you think it would be realistic to think that it would have been rushed into service if a full scale war started?
Image
Courtesy of Graphic

User avatar
TheWord
Sergeant Major of the Army
Posts: 386
Joined: Mon 27 Feb 2012 00:57
Contact:

Re: Figured out the reason behind the lack of Challys in use

Postby TheWord » Wed 11 Apr 2012 12:26

Side armour is king, means that even when the challenger routs the enemy still has to put in a substantial effort to kill it. Even if the challenger itself didn't break even, all my other units normally kill so many of his units in his attempt to kill the challenger that it turns out to be a great investment.
Image

VonKarlos
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 103
Joined: Sat 18 Feb 2012 23:25
Contact:

Re: Figured out the reason behind the lack of Challys in use

Postby VonKarlos » Wed 11 Apr 2012 18:07

Kovlovsky wrote:A way to repair this problem would be to add the Challenger as the last upgrade to the Chieftain. Sure it's not the same design at all, but at least it will not eat another spot in your deck. The same could be done to the AMX-32 by adding it to the AMX-30 line.


Actually this makes perfect sense. The Challenger was essentially a rebadged Shir Iran II which had been developed for the Iranian Army, incorporating new hydrogas suspension, Chobham armour and many other improvements. The Shir Iran I was itself a heavily upgraded Chieftain.

User avatar
Froggy
Master Sergeant
Posts: 158
Joined: Mon 13 Feb 2012 11:42
Location: Orléans (45)
Contact:

Re: Figured out the reason behind the lack of Challys in use

Postby Froggy » Wed 11 Apr 2012 18:18

Kovlovsky wrote:Ok thanks for the information about the AMX-40. Do you think it would be realistic to think that it would have been rushed into service if a full scale war started?

By 1985, only 2 combat capable prototypes were built (P2 and P3, P1 was a direct evolution of AMX32 turret with a new but underpowered chassis).
In 1986, it was projected to build 17 preseries AMX40, but only 2 were finally built due to cost. They differ from prototype by the fact that both gunner and TC were able to fire accuratly on the move (and not only the TC as on AMX32 and AMX40 prototypes). The ROF was also higher.
They were ready by the end of 1986, but been never sold.

A conflit in 1985 might have seen the programm to speed up. But they would be just a few availlable (may be four or five).
Plus vite, Plus fort, Plus loin
507 RCC, Le forum francophone de Steel Beasts

chester267
Sergeant
Posts: 50
Joined: Sat 7 Apr 2012 15:47
Contact:

Re: Figured out the reason behind the lack of Challys in use

Postby chester267 » Wed 11 Apr 2012 21:40

bentguru wrote:The french gov rejected the AMX40 because they were waiting for the EPC (engin principal de combat) which was latter named Leclerc (It has never been named AMX56, it's a wikipedia error...)


It was called the AMX-56. This was it's model number, like M1A2, which is commonly known as the Abrams. The AMX-56 was it's name during development. All of these sites refer to the Leclerc as the AMX-56.
http://www.tanknutdave.com/component/content/article/87
http://www.military-heat.com/62/amx56-l ... ttle-tank/
http://www.weaponsystems.net/weapon.php ... +-+Leclerc

User avatar
Froggy
Master Sergeant
Posts: 158
Joined: Mon 13 Feb 2012 11:42
Location: Orléans (45)
Contact:

Re: Figured out the reason behind the lack of Challys in use

Postby Froggy » Thu 12 Apr 2012 08:54

They are all wrong!
If you want real source, take :
Le systeme Leclerc, Stephane Ferrard-Gérard Turbet, ed Bosquet (1992)
Char Leclerc, de la guerre froide au conflits de demain, Marc Chassillan, ed ETAI (2005).

During the conception and definition phases (1978-1985), it was the EPC (engin principal de combat) and should have weight less than 50 tonnes (project P48)(=>so why calling it 56?) .
In january 1986 the EPC was named LECLERC. (there was still no prototype built).
The first prototype was named: AMX LECLERC CH1 (later ARES).
The weight of the first serie (S1) was 54 tonnes (=>so why calling it 56?)
Only the second serie(S2) is 56 tonnes (I personnaly received the first 9 tanks in the factory in october 1998).
The third serie (SXXI) is 57 tonnes.
Plus vite, Plus fort, Plus loin
507 RCC, Le forum francophone de Steel Beasts

AGTMADCAT
Corporal
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu 16 Feb 2012 23:10
Contact:

Re: Figured out the reason behind the lack of Challys in use

Postby AGTMADCAT » Thu 12 Apr 2012 18:45

Thinking about it some, putting the Challenger at the top of the Chieftan tree, and the AMX-32 at the top of the AMX-30 tree would both be very reasonable, since in both cases the "light" and "heavy" tanks have similar statlines and similar gameplay uses.

Chieftans are, for their cost, heavily armoured, have 120mm guns, and dreadfully slow. A Challenger is also heavily armoured, has a 120mm gun, and is very slow. Sure, Challengers are *better*, but they're also 2-3x the price, and they should be used in a similar way. (When facing appropriately scaled opponents, of course.) Plus, from what I've read, the Challenger was originally designed as an improved Chieftan, rather than a blank-page design.

AMX-30s and AMX-32s also share all of their important common features - relatively lightly armoured, co-axial autocannon, good speed. Again, they're used in much the same way, with the AMX-32 just being a straight-line improvement over an AMX-30B2.

Contrast this to, for example, Pattons vs. Abrams - They're different flavours of tank, to be used in different ways, and so combining those trees wouldn't make any sense at all. The design philosophies were also very different.

Just my thoughts, I'd love to recover the extra tank slots used by the AMX-32 and the Challenger in my UK/France deck. :D

-AGT

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest