A former AMX30 commander of the Army of France has kindly accepted an interview for the blog. W. started his career in an AMX30 in the 80s, and is a witness of the later stages of the Cold War.
Hello W., many thanks for accepting an interview for alejandro-8.blogspot.com. Could you provide us an overview of your career in the French Army?
I began my duty in 1986 in 2eme Régiment de Cuirassiers in Reutlingen, Germany, as AMX30B2 tank commander. Transfered in 2eme Régiment de Dragons in Laon, France, as AMX30B as tank commander then platoon sergeant. Transfered in 503eme Regiment de Chars de Combat in Mourmelon for the end of experimentation of Leclerc MBT as Platoon sergeant.
Transfered in Abu Dhabi as Leclerc expert for UAE Land Forces. Coming back to 1er Regiment de Chasseurs in Verdun, France, as Platoon commander then regimental master gunner. Going back to Abu Dhabi as technical and tactical instructor for UAE Land Forces in UAE Armor School. Retired in 2015.
Deployments:
1993 and 1995 : former yougoslavia and Sarajevo as recon unit on VBL.
1999 - 2000 : kosovo on Leclerc as platoon sergeant.
2006 : Chad as platoon commander on ERC90 sagaie.
2009 - 2010 : south Lebanon as platoon commander and master gunner on Leclerc.
My 2 times in UAE are considered as deployments...
What was your impression of the AMX30 tank? What do you think were the strong and weak points?
It was my first tank in 2eme Regiment de Cuirassiers in Reutlingen when I was 20, just released from the French Armour School as a young tank commander. You just feel indestructible in it. This kind of feeling is common to all young tank commanders I bet. Then you realise that it is not true lol…
As it was an AMX30B2, the mobility was good with its semi-automatic gearbox. The preventive maintenance was easy to do and the tank was still “rustic” enough to be fixed by the crew with a string and a piece of chewing gum. The small size was also good, you are a small target in the enemy sight and it is easy to camouflage it.
The main weak points were the armour, the gun and at this time the night sights.
The armour was just too thin everywhere and you realise years later when you look at the AMX on the firing range that you served in thin metallic piece of metal….lol.
I arrived in Reutlingen in 1987 and, according to me, the 105mm Mle F1 gun was not powerful enough anymore to fight against the “new” soviet tanks with ERA (even without ERA) at a good range. Americans and Germans already used the 120mm, and even if the 105 was a good gun, the 120 was more than needful.
As a subordinate, I had a less equipped tank than the platoon sergeant and the platoon commander.
They had low light level cameras for the gunner sight and a light intensification for the CDR sight.
The 2 subordinate tanks had only the light intensification to use during the night, which means 700m maximum of observation range…Should I tell more??
AMX30 suffered quite a few reliability issues early on. Were they solved by the time you served?
As I served both AMX30B and AMX30B2, I assume you want to speak about AMX30B. As the B2 was almost the last development, this tank was reliable. For the AMX30B, and I am not really objective, this tank used a “WW2” technology…That means that the reliability of the tank reflected the involvement level of the crew in preventive maintenance. If you did not spend enough time (loooooong time…lol) to prepare your tank, you were sure to have problems as soon as you disembark from the truck or the train.
Of course some minor issues were corrected like the torsion bars to thin, the drive sprocket too fragile, all these small issues were corrected in the B2 version.
When training, at was the typical distance to the objective and speed of the tank when you fired the main gun? And the longest distance at which you ever fired?
It was depending of what kind of ammunition we had, real or exercise (blue). The 105 was a rifled gun. With this kind of gun you have a light deviation of the shell because of its rotation. This deviation was more important with the blue shells and we had to reduce the distance of firing.
The typical distance was around 1700m with a maximum of 2200m during the annual platoon control in Canjuers (the French tankers will remember that…)
How was the firing conducted at night? What was the effective range of the IR sight?
It was the mess!!!!! Or almost the mess (with my eyes of subordinate lol) until we have the thermal sights. Even with light intensifications, if we wanted to destroy tanks at mid or long range it was difficult.
So we trained like that: 1 tank with light intensification tried to find the targets while another tank lighted the range with his projector (the famous PH8) but no more than 10 s. If nothing was detected we changed the tank with the projector and so on until we detected something.
As soon as something was in the light the other tanks tried to destroy this target within the 10 seconds of light.
This was the way we shot at night. Of course, during the briefing the platoon commander could decide who light first, who fire first….We used the direct light of the projector because even the IR light could be detected with light intensification googles.
Everything change when thermal sights arrived on AMX30B2 (DIVT16 and DIVT18). For me it was a kind of magic that the crew was able to read a plate number at 2000m during the night. At that time there was no difference any more between day and night shooting.
The AMX30 was unique in the sense that it had a 20mm coaxial gun. Can you describe its characteristics and use? What type of ammunition was available? At what distances could you open fire?
The 20mm gun was a dream. Powerful, accurate, reliable it could replace the main gun in many different situations.
This gun was pretty big to fit in the turret but it worth it. It was designed as an anti-vehicle, anti-personal and anti-aircraft gun. The good thing with this gun is that we can choose what kind of shells we put in the belt. The typical belt was 3 armour-piercing shells and 2 explosive shells.
The average range was 1200-1300 meters in destruction mode and 1900-2000 in “suppression” mode.
This gun was a pretty hard to use and requested a high trained loader. I used it both with national service loader and professional loader. On the firing range, it was a good sigh of professionalism when your 20mm worked properly. It showed that as a tank commander, you well trained your crew and your loader in particular.
This gun was also good because of the number of ready-to-shot shells. The maximum length of the belt was almost 200 shells without reloading the gun. It was comfortable enough for the crew lol.
What were the typical distances you expected to fight in Germany? How did they compare to the ones in France?
The expected ranges were pretty short. According to the experts, in case of tank fights in Germany, the range could be between 800 to 1200m because of the woods and the density of small cities. We trained a lot to practice emergency fires and, of course to be as fast as possible because with this kind of short distances particularly, the speed is the key. The distance could have been a little more important in France, particularly in the eastern plains but not too much more, maybe around 2000-2500m.
What was the typical ammunition load (% APFSDS/HEAT)?
The load of ammunitions for the main gun depends always of the mission but typically, we used 2/3 of HEAT and 1/3 of APFSDS. On a total of 47 shells, 19 were ready to use in the turret, the others in the drum on the right of the driver.
What was the typical rate of fire and how did it vary as you used the different ammunition bins?
The rate of fire of fire was pretty good. It is not really difficult to load shells in the main gun, you just need big muscles…We were able to shot a shell every 6 seconds. The AMX30B or B2 had no stabilization, it was mandatory to be static to shot. The loader had no disturbance by the big moves of the tank during the loading time, which made his job a little be easier than if the tank was jumping on the field.
The problem of the loader is that he must be able to keep the same speed from the 1st shell to the last one, it is a real challenge for them.
Did you practice NBC situations?
We practiced more NBC training in AMX than in Leclerc. It is still a mystery to me…
Maybe because we changed the main potential enemy from “red ferocious over-powered soviet invaders” to “something we can’t defined but still enemy”. We knew that chemical use was part of the doctrine of the reds and we trained accordingly. With the end of the cold war the threat changed and maybe it was less necessary…
I guess same answer as in Leclerc
What was the maximum speed you reached in an AMX30? And going backwards?
Depends if it was with AMX30B or B2. Maximum speed was almost the same on both tanks but you reached it faster with the B2 because of its semi auto gearbox. We can easily reached 60Km/h on both of them but it was more secure with the B2 because the direction was managed by the gearbox as well, with the AMX30B the direction was given to the tank by a system of disks and brakes and it was tricky to use with high speed. I don’t remember the backward speed but it was not high…
The engine in early AMX30 variants was a multifuel Hispano-Suiza HS-110-2. Did you use this type? How easy was to switch from one fuel to the other? Was there any procedure (clean filters, purge fuel tanks)?
I only used the HS110, I never used the MACK E9. I never used anything else than diesel to fill the tanks so I can’t tell you more.
AMX30 used manual and semiautomatic transmissions. Did you have the opportunity to use both? How did they compare?
The AMX30 family (at least the French) used 2 types of gearbox:
Early AMX30B: Full manual gearbox
Improved AMX30B: Pneumatically assisted manual gearbox
AMX30B2: Semi auto gearbox
The gearboxes of the AMX30B were similar. The 1st generation requested a high skilled driver because it was difficult to use it in a proper way. The driver had to manage the idle and the RPM to shift the gears. If it was not the good RPM, it was not possible to engage the gear. If he was not managing the idle, he could have burnt the clutch…It was funny sometimes to observe a lot of black smoke from a tank with a bad driver.
The Pneumatic assisted one was a little bit easier to use. The pneumatic system helped the driver to engage the gear in any conditions by “pushing” the gearbox selector with a high pressure hose (I don’t know if I am clear enough Lol). It was safer especially on open roads. But the driver still have to pay attention to the idle and RPM.
These 2 gearboxes required a lot of preventive maintenance to work properly.
The semi-automatic one was a dream to use for every driver. It was done by SESM (RENK France in another word) and was almost fully electronically managed. The driver had just to watch the idle and select the right gear to shift in. With this gear box like with the thermal sights, the AMX30B2 crews jumped in the future.
In 1991 the French Army sent a division to fight against Iraq. Do you remember if the AMX30 received some kind of upgrades/modifications?
All the AMX30B2 sent to the 1st gulf war had the same configuration:
Chassis: Hydrostatic cooling system in replacement of the Sulzer system.
Side track protections.
Turret: Thermal sights (red)
New smoke grenade launchers (efficient against thermal sights) (green).
New Infra-Red jammer against wired guided AT missiles (blue).
How did you find the ergonomics? Did the 20mm gun in the turret affect the ergonomics?
The design started in early 60s and I don’t think that ergonomics was a big concern for the engineers but I can’t say that ergonomics were bad.
The space inside the turret was good enough to be comfortable (for a tank….lol) and the driver workstation was….like a driver workstation. The less “comfortable” was the loader as his seat looked more like a small round cushion than like a real seat.
The 20mm gun did not really affect ergonomics. As I said, we had plenty of free space to fill and when they replaced the 12.7MG by the 20mm gun, it was of course a huge improvement but did not impact the way of life in the turret.
In the 1980s GIAT designed the AMX40 to replace the AMX30. Did you have the opportunity to see it? If so, what was your opinion? Do you think it would have been a good replacement for AMX30?
Sure it would have been a good replacement for the AMX30 family but the improvement of the shells in the same time made its armour almost obsolete when the first protos were released.
I think that’s the reason why nor France nor anyone else bought it. France chose to wait for the next generation tank and many of the research for the AMX40 were used in the Leclerc program.
How confident did you feel when facing T-64/72/80? What were the recommended tactics against Soviet tanks?
We felt UNDESTRUCTIBLE!!! How do you think we must feel when NATO had 13000 tanks and the reds had 43000? If you don’t feel confident in you, your tank and your tactics you had to work for the national company of electricity lol.
But you are right, we were confident because we were sure that our technologies were better.
And we trained and trained again to be ready. More than hull down position, I think that the mobility of our brigades could have made the difference between the 2 forces.
At this time the reds had a centralized chain of command and the officers, even if I am sure that they were as good as ours, were not pushed to think by themselves and to have any kind of initiative.
The move of their divisions was frozen in the same model and was easily predictable. So, I think that I was more confident in our tactical capabilities and technologies to offset the number of their tanks.
But we were not naïve. It would have been extremely difficult for NATO forces to stop them.
In the 70/80s Soviet tanks received AT missiles to use against targets at long distances. What is your opinion on these missiles?
Refer to my previous answer regarding Germany and France, for their advance to the western part of Europe, I think these missiles were a little bit useless, especially for an offensive move. In my opinion, this kind of missiles, except the “fire and forget”, are not efficient enough for an attack: flying time too long, must be guided until the end of the flight…..
In the late 70s and 80s Israel deployed its Merkava tank, with a rather different configuration (front engine). What is your opinion on it?
The Merkava is an amazing tank. The design of this tank came from 3 principles:
- The experience from the 6-days war.
- The necessity to protect the crews mainly constituted by reservists.
- The necessity to build it locally.
The Israel engineers were realistic enough to design a tank without any new technology but only with technologies they mastered at the time of the design. The result is a tank fully designed for their needs, fully adapted to its missions.
The AMX30 was exported in good numbers to quite a few countries (UAE, Spain, Greece, Qatar, Saudi Arabia…). Do you know if the feedback from these countries was used to improve the type?
I have no information about that.
The 90s was an era when Armies transition from using to conscripts to full professional members. How did this change your unit and capabilities?
Until 1995 I worked only with conscripts even if some units were already professional in the French army. It was different but also a good time to spend with these young non-volunteer guys who had to spend 12 or 10 months in the army. These guys came from all over the different layers of the society and it was a part of the job to mix them into a homogenous batch. In the same time we had to transform them in soldiers, from basic individual instruction to crew members. It was a good challenge and most of the time we spent a great time with them, as I expect they spent a good time with us.
The main problem was that they reached the end of their time just on the time they were good and we almost never enjoy them as “specialists”.
Everything changed with the professional. They were here as volunteers, most of them (not all of them) chose to serve as tankers, we had more time to instruct them.
We spent more time for each step of the instruction because we knew that after 12 months these guys would have stayed in the army (only a few resigned after a few weeks).
So, the 1st 18 months of instruction was a kind of investment. The result was that we built solid, motivated and well instructed units. Yes the total amount of professional units was less than before but we were more efficient in all different sides of our job. And we can be deployed everywhere without complaints of the politicians (we had this kind of complaints for the deployments in former Yugoslavia: a few units were mixed 50% pros 50% conscripts). In the Leclerc I kept the same crew more than 5 years. Imagine the kind of automatisms we developed together. It was almost useless to speak on the intercom, we knew what we had to do, at the time we had to do it…This kind of thing was almost impossible with the conscripts.
We spoke about the 20mm gun. With a conscript loader, the tank commander had to keep an eye on him/it all the time. With a professional, the 20mm was his pillow, he knew it by heart…lol.
This transition was a good time to live. We had different kind of fulfilment with the conscripts that we can’t have with the professionals, the opposite is also true but I still remember all the time spent together in the tank with my conscripts…Maybe because I was as young as them…
Many say that the transition to full professional Army was necessary because of the increasing complexity of weapons. How long do you think it took to train an AMX30 crew and how does it compare to a Leclerc?
You have a part of the answer in the previous question.
I do not agree that, at least for the tanks, it is more complex now than before. The digitalization helps the crew a lot by taking in charge a few things that we had to do by ourselves.
With the conscripts, we were held by the length of their duty time so, we had to work by priorities.
With the professionals, we had all the time we need for the instructions on all a soldier must know.
I had a conscript gunner who was aeronautical engineer. Do you think it was difficult for him to master any part of the tanker job? But I lost him after 1 year. We “selected”, I don’t like this word, the conscripts according to their educational and school level and their future job in the army, and most of the time it worked great.
We did the same, at least at the beginning, with the professionals but the school level is, at 90%, less than the conscripts we had….but we have more time…..and more motivation from the professionals.
In the late 90s the French Army transition from armoured divisions to brigades. Do you think it was a good move? How did it affect training/capability?
I don’t know if it is really linked to this transition or if it is the result of the 1st gulf war but this is the time we really began to train as Teams. I mean 1 tank coy + 1 INF platoon + 1 ENG platoon + 1 ART squad + 1 TACP (not all the time).
Before, we trained in our own and, just a few times, we worked together as we were supposed to do. Around the 90s, we really started to train all together, to develop some common knowledge and culture, and for the “elders”, to discover what was the capabilities and advantages to work together.
I think also this transition brought more flexibility to the high command because it was also the time when the French army was more and more deployed and not only on its “traditional” deployments (Africa, Lebanon) but also in Cambodia, former Yugoslavia…
