Saturday, 15 May 2021

Interview with a former Chieftain gunner

1. Hello S., many thanks for accepting an interview for alejandro-8en.blogspot.com. Could you provide us an overview of your career in the British Army?

I joined British army at the tender age of 16 ½ in 1984 under the long established Junior Leaders System. This takes younger soldiers and trains them over an extended period (in my case 15 months) with a view to them being well prepared to become Non Commissioned Officers when they have served the required time at their Regiment.

In my case I had completed the recruiting process and been offered a place in The Blues and Royals which was then an MBT Regiment based in Detmold in Germany as part of the British Army of the Rhine. As an armoured crewman I trained initially at the Junior Leaders Regiment Royal Armoured Corps. Then based in Stanley Barracks Bovington situated directly opposite the well known Bovington Tank Museum.

The training  was comprehensive and I emerged out of the other end of it as a  Chieftain Gunner, having completed basic training in all aspects of soldiering coupled with  signalling and  a full 120mm gunnery course. This included all aspects of maintenance of the weapon, the coaxial GPMG (FN Mag/M240), Commanders MG, loading, and live firing which was conducted at the nearby Lulworth ranges.

I joined my Regiment in Germany where I served two years on Chieftain, before we converted to Challenger and moved to Sennelager a posting that I do not recommend. This was at the height of the Cold War and all our annual training cycles were geared towards meeting the threat of a large Soviet Warsaw Pact Armoured thrust into Europe.

As the 90s approached and the Warsaw Pact disintegrated we were rotated back to Windsor in England where we converted to the CVRT family of vehicles as a Formation Reconnaissance Regiment. I was to spend the next ten years on these vehicles over time crewing every type except the Swingfire missile equipped Striker and the Samaritan ambulance. I took these light effective vehicles all over the world including exercises in Canada, Egypt, and three operational tours of Bosnia as part of the UN and later NATO.

2. What do you think were the strong and weak points of the Chieftain tanks?

I have a very soft spot for Chieftain as my first mount but I am not blind to its faults. It will not be a shock to most when I say that it’s engine was a source of real trouble to us crews. Not only for its unreliability but to work on some aspects of it (the gearbox for example) required the removal of large parts of the exhaust system. We were very confident of the 120mm rifled guns ability to take on Soviet vehicles, and we believed that we were well armoured. We were comfortable on the vehicle its  ergonomics were excellent for the time, though we could have done with a heater for those German winters! What many people tend to overlook when they criticise Chieftain is the job it was designed to do. In the British sector our role was to fight a defensive battle to but time to initiate the reinforcement operations from the US and elsewhere.

We would fight while withdrawing onto out logistical supply chain in a series of delaying actions. The Germans plans were always if possible to launch a spoiling attack and then thrust into East Germany hence the Leopards 1 & 2, I think the Americans were planning a combination of both defending the Fulda Gap but also taking early offensive action hence the M1.

3. When training, at was the typical distance to the objective and speed of the tank when you fired? And the longest distance at which you ever fired?

We conducted yearly two week firing camps at the Bergen Hohne NATO range complex. These started with static single vehicle engagements working up to the whole troop advancing to contact down lanes engaging a range of targets presented. These were timed and marked for accuracy and standards had to be met for the Regiment to pass the training. The whole process was highly competitive and reputations were made and lost. Infantry targets were engaged around 800m generally though 1100m was the maximum. Armoured vehicle targets were engaged usually up to 2500m though again the weapon was capable of longer range hits this was considered unrealistic in a European scenario. The Chieftains stabiliser was not particularly advanced and it took a skilled gunner to hit targets on the move at all but the closest range.

In this phase of training 10-15mph and the driver would get a kick if he changed gear at the wrong time! I do not recall the longest range that I fired at but I suspect it would have been with HESH which we did train to use on what we called High Elipse shoots almost as artillery. I once watched a crew of Gunnery Instructors demonstrate a HESH shoot at 6000m on an old bunker.

4. How was the night firing conducted? Did you use flares for battlefield illumination? At what sort of ranges could you fire with the IR projector? How did the thermal sight improved night fighting?

Night firing was a problem at this time for Chieftain crews. The Mark 9s that we used had no real night fighting capability beyond an illuminated graticle! We were forbidden to use the searchlights either in IR or white light mode. Any night firing would have been done in conjunction with artillery or mortar illumination, but I do not recall practising this. It was a great relief when Challenger arrived with its thermal Gunnery sight.  

5. Early Chieftain variants used a ranging gun to measure distance to objective. Did you ever use it? If so, did you find it effective? Were you concerned about losing sight of tracers or confusing them with others during a battle?

The ranging guns had long gone when I arrived at the Regiment and the apertures welded over. A few of the senior NCOs had used them but I seldom heard any comment beyond how heavy they were to carry from the armoury to the tank park.

6. Chieftain kept a rifled gun while other models introduced smoothbore guns. Do you think it was a good idea?

At the time we believed (what we were told!) That our rifled gun was the most accurate hard hitting weapon in the world. The internet did not exist and most data on other systems was not freely available. Remember at this time the M1 only had the L7 105mm gun as did most of NATO apart from Leopard 2 coming into service we did not have much to compare it to. We were confident that APFSDS would do the job and DU even more so.

7. Chieftain tanks use a human autoloader and 2 piece ammunition. What was the maximum rate of fire you achieved? How did it change as you used the different ammunition bins?

A slight correction to your question our ammunition was technically three piece consisting of the Round, the propellant bag charge, and the Vent Tube (imagine a .50 case without the bullet). The latter was fired into the bag charge to initiate firing and fed into the breech block from a ten round magazine. We believed (again as we were told) that it was a safer system with WW2 being pointed to as the basis for this. We were well drilled, the loaders usually being more experienced crew members (new recruits starting as drivers or gunners). A good crew could crank out a round every four seconds, this would obviously slow as ready rounds were used up but firing over the frontal arc gave good access these. Not for nothing did the loaders get a sweat on during firing.

8. British Army made extensive use of HESH ammunition. Can you comment on its characteristics and performance?

Not for nothing does the rest of the world view the British love affair with HESH with amusement. Whilst I was on Chieftain in the late 80s it was still regarded as a useful round against light armour and transport targets. We were aware that it’s thin casing did not fragment as effectively as true HE rounds. Today far more modern and effective general purpose rounds have rendered it mostly obsolete. It is however still an effective round in built up areas. A friend who served with distinction as a Scimitar troop commander in Afghanistan lamented to me that he greatly missed his old Scorpion which he believed would have been far more effective against hard packed compound walls than high velocity 30mm rounds.

9. What was the typical ammunition configuration load (% APDS/HESH/Smoke)?

I’m struggling to remember the exact number of rounds that we carried as the stowage was altered during my time with the change from APDS as the main anti armour round to APFSDS but we carried 36 Fin rounds and around 30 HESH/Smoke. Though we would only carry two smoke if any. The mix could be altered on a mission basis as you could fit two HESH propellant charge’s in a standard stowage bin but only one Fin charge. These bins were surrounded by water jackets in Chieftain but these were changed to Armoured bins in Challenger.

10. In terms of maintenance, was there any component or system that was more delicate? Were there any issues with the supply chain?

I really do not recall any system that gave us particular trouble besides the engine. The gun control equipment was robust, as were the radios and other systems. The hatches leaked water like sieves, how it would ever have been regarded as CBRN proof is beyond me! As for spare parts as with anything to do with the British Army there is never any money. If we damaged anything through negligence then we would be expected to pay the whole cost for cheaper items or a percentage for expensive stuff. This made us careful. The stores for replacement parts was overseen by a fearsome old Captain. You had better have a good story ready to get anything out of him.

11. What was the maximum distance you covered in a day during deployments or exercises? Did the tank cope well or needed extra maintenance?

We deployed any real distance by rail or tank transporters. On the larger Reforger type exercises in Germany we might cover 20km a day, less when tactical training on Soltau. I do recall once carrying out a Regimental Road march of 60km. It was carnage, my vehicle broke down 4km from home. I waited hours for a recovery vehicle. Such moves were very hard on the running gear and we would lose track pads and rubber off our road wheels. Every time we halted all drivers would be out checking hubs, track pins and tightening road wheel bolts.

12. The Leyland L60 engine was an issue in early Chieftain models. Were the problems solved in the variants you used?


The later engines were better. I was lucky to have a recently Base overhauled vehicle in my last Troop (these were completely stripped to a bare hull and rebuilt with all new systems and modifications ), it never let us down. The more frequently the vehicles were used the more reliable they became. Parking them up for weeks at a time caused many problems such as seal failures.

13. One of the theoretical advantages of the Leyland L60 was that it was multifuel. Did you ever use this feature in training or manoeuvres? Is there any procedure that needs to be followed if different fuels are used (clean filters, purge components)?

No the multifuel option was never used at all. In fact considering that the multifuel capability was a NATO stipulation we were the only idiots that tried to use it!

14. Chieftain used a Horstmann suspension, while other tanks of its era used torsion bars. What is your opinion on its advantages and disadvantages?

The Horstman suspension worked well, although I remember it was very noisy compared to Challengers hydrogas. My Squadron had an American Major Commanding on an exchange and he believed Chieftain to be superior cross country to the M60. I never had to replace one myself but the spring packs within the Horstman units did  break occasionally and could be a real pain to replace as they were under pressure. If the retaining bolts were damaged then they would need to be cut with oxyacetylene torches. It payed not to be near the spring when it came free.

15. What was the maximum speed you managed to get in a Chieftain? And in reverse?

I was not a driver. I did move them around the tank park and occasionally drove them on exercises for short periods. I think 25mph was about tops though it would get to that speed quickly. In reverse I do not know. I do remember that on our local driver training area the West German Leo crews liked to cruise past us backwards when we were going forwards as fast as we could……

16. Did you practise NBC situations? What was the approach? How did it affect the crew performance (especially loader)?

NBC was a very important part of our training it was considered a major threat from the Warsaw Pact. Everything that we did we did in NBC kit. When we deployed on exercise our suits went on, when we drove back into the camp at the end we took them off. We dug trenches in it, we deployed chemical warning sentries with Nerve agent detecting devices, we put detector papers on our vehicle hatches which were activated by training agents and we had to react as if it was a real attack. We had days where we had to work the whole day on the vehicle park in respirators to practice maintenance in them. We were tested every year on our suit and mask drills with CS gas. Lastly we fired serials at Gunnery camp wearing the kit. I actually found it easier to fire using the secondary battle telescope sight wearing a respirator because I could get the lens closer than with the binocular IFCS sight.

17. Some Chieftain tanks were deployed in Berlin. Did you consider urban scenarios in your training?

We did not have the specialised urban training facilities in Germany at the time like we used later in England on Salisbury Plain (ironically when this was built it was modelled on a German town in layout and building style). We trained in built up areas in the larger field training exercises but never in cities. Tactics and camouflage was practised and hessian camouflage painted to resemble bricks was carried by our command vehicles. We did deploy our D Squadron to Berlin to allow the 14/20th Hussars Squadron a period to carry out training on the Gunnery ranges at Hohne. They took their own Chieftains in standard camouflage. But did use the time to practice city fighting.

18. Did you have the opportunity to train with other countries (NATO for example)? What was your impression about their training and equipment? Any tank (or other weapon) you liked or disliked?

We all had our own areas of responsibility so whilst we trained alongside our NATO allies we did not integrate regularly to any great extent. I was lucky to have an American Exchange officer Commanding my Squadron. He was far from the easy going Yank I was expecting! He was highly professional, very demanding, and held very high standards. I was very impressed. I felt he had an edge on some of our own  more “Cavalry type” officers. He arranged an exchange program so I went on a couple of exercises (including a border deployment) with  Bravo Troop 1/11 ACR in Fulda. The also sent a couple of M1s and M3 Bradley’s to cross train at-our Gunnery camp. I found them to be far more modern vehicles than Chieftain, the fire control system was very advanced with its integrated thermal sight and they could fire far more accurately on the move than us. They still had the L7 105mm gun at this point. Their Gunnery training simulators were also far more advanced than our analog ones. In the mid 90s I did do a Squadron Exchange with a Spanish Cavalry Regiment 14 Alamansa (Forgive me if  my spelling or unit designation is incorrect) in Leon. We were very impressed with the VEC and it’s Weapon system, less impressed with the M47, but we had a great time even though it rained most of the time. We were well looked after and were looking forward to hosting your Countrymen in return at Windsor however your government cancelled the visit on the grounds of cost sadly.

19. Chieftain was operated by other countries (Oman, Kuwait, Iran). Did you get any feedback from their use or reports from combat experiences?

I do not remember getting any real time feedback on Chieftains performance in the Iran/Iraq war. This did not filter down to us until many years later. The lessons were obviously taken on board because the fitting of the  Stillbrew armour package were as a direct result of a British military team being given access to captured and damaged vehicles by (ironically) Saddam Hussain.

20. Did you receive intelligence on potential threats (T-72, AT missiles)? If so, how accurate was it once you got access to the weapon?

We were given statistical facts and figures (ranges etc) on Warsaw Pact equipment and we were taught recognition at all levels. A friend of mine actually crewed a T-72 trial vehicle which the British government had “acquired” he was very impressed by it indeed. It’s simplicity and rugged design. We were always confident that we were the match for T64/72 series vehicles especially with Challenger but T-80 was an unknown quantity to us then.

21. What is your opinion on turbines and autoloaders? These devices were introduced in the 1970s by other tanks (T-80 and Abrams).

We were fed the age old lines about Soviet era autoloaders, that they had a tendency to try and feed the gunners arm  into the breech, and also that follow up shots were difficult because the gun had to elevate of target to reload. I was very sceptical of them for many years. After all and extra crewman helped with maintenance, guard, and in British crews cooked the food. As time has gone on I see how efficient they have become and I feel as calibers increase they will become essential. I was actually part of a vehicle trial program to study the feasibility of two man crews in a modified Warrior vehicle (google the VERDI 2 program).

Gas turbines I am less sold on. Crewing an Abrams the unit literally had a fuel tanker following it and the M1 were filled up whenever they stopped. That kind of logistic support is quite difficult for anyone without an  American style infrastructure. I would be interested to see how the Egyptians coped in any conflict.

22. Vickers developed more advanced variants of Chieftain that were never bought by the British Army (Khalid). Did you have a chance to familiarise yourself with them?

No. I only ever saw these in photos and museums. We used to dream about having the Khalids powerpack.

23. Do you think Chieftain could have been developed more or it was better to move into the Challenger series?

If you had ever been inside a Chieftain you would have seen the issue with any future development. Any updates were literally shoehorned into every space. The gunner actually sat on top of the fire control computer (they were huge in those days). I never crewed the Stillbrew Chieftain with the TOGs thermal sights but I can imagine that they were just bolted onto the existing systems.

Chieftain had reached the end of its development. Without a new engine and radical redesign it would have been pointless. This was an expensive waste with Challenger waiting in the wings as a stopgap until Challenger 2 came into service which was the true planned Chieftain replacement.






Other interviews:

- AMX30 commander of the Army of France
- NCO of the Army of Serbia 
- Former crew member of Challenger 2
- Former Leclerc commander
- T-72 driver in Czech Army  
- US Army M60 tank crewmman
- Interview with D., former US Army tanker with experience in the M60 and M1 Abrams
- Interview with Stefan Kotsch, former NVA/Bundeswehr tanker  

More interviews can be found in the Spanish version of the blog (link), including veterans of Leo 2, AMX30, M48/60 and REME.

I am always looking for more veterans, active members or people related with the defence industry to accept interviews. If you enjoyed reading the material and would be happy to accept an anonimous interview you can get in contact with me. My e-mail can be found in this link at the heading. Otherwise leave a message in the comment sections.

Tuesday, 11 May 2021

Syrian Army contingent during the Gulf War

As part of the 1991 coalition against Iraq, Syria sent 9th Armored Division together with a regiment of special forces. Below are some photos. Tanks are T-62s without any modifications. On the IR sight it is possible to see the image of Hafiz al Assad, father of Bashar and Syrian leader during almost 30 years.





Syrian support was more political than practical. It was part of the Arab Joint Forces Command North reserve and saw little action. There was also the risk of friendly fire, one USMC officer suggested to paint the turrets orange, but it was turned down.

According to an Egyptian officer who was in a nearby camp, the only time they fired their guns was to celebrate that Scud missiles were hitting Israel.

References:

- https://vk.com/id391321244?w=wall391321244_541%2Fall
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Tlass
- http://www.hollilla.com/reader.php?action=thread&thread=2982830&offset=300
- https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Forces_Command-North#cite_note-1
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Tuesday, 27 April 2021

Interview with a former AMX30 commander of the Army of France

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 naĂ¯ve. 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…

Monday, 12 April 2021

MiG-29 at Yuri Gagarin memorial

A MiG-29 is being prepared for a memorial of Yuri Gagarin. It will be located in Vladimir region, near of where he crashed and died. The Fulcrum is an early 9.12 type, this variant is no longer used by front line units.
.






 
References:

- https://tass.ru/v-strane/10559995
- https://zebra-tv.ru/

Friday, 19 March 2021

Deployment of Austrian troops in the frontier with Yugoslavia, 1991

These photos show Austrian troops being deployed in the frontier with Yugoslavia in 1991. The civil war in this country had just started and the government decided to reinforce the frontier.

Equipment that can be seen includes StG 58 assault rifle, MG 74 machine gun, Carl Gustav recoilless rifle and SK-105 KĂ¼rassier. The M60 tank is a A3Ă– belonging to Armoured Battalion 14.








Tuesday, 16 March 2021

Interview with a NCO of the Army of Serbia

A NCO from the Army of Serbia has kindly accepted an interview for my blog. N has served in different position and used several artillery guns.

Hello N., thank you for accepting the interview. Could you give us a bit of an introduction?

I am career member of the Serbian land forces, in service since 2005.
Started career as an artillery crewman, where I worked on 130mm M-46, 122mm D-30, 152mm Nora-A and for a brief period on 122mm 2s1, specialised on D-30 and M-46, spent most time with M-46, which I commanded for 4 years.

Spent some time in technical service of artillery brigade, as commander of transport detachment, currently, than got transfer to duty in the command of 130mm field gun battalion, of our brigade, on position of battery quartermaster

What would you consider are the strong and weak points of the artillery systems that you have used (M-46, 2S1, D-30, Nora-A?)


M-46 is excellent field gun performance wise, main issue with it is that it's not very user friendly, and easy to work with, but once it is mastered, with good crew, it does miracles.

D-30 does not have any real weakness; it is probably the best towed howitzer of its class and period.

NORA-A is Yugoslav improved version of 152mm D-20, with increased range and better ballistic performance. Overall weakness of it is lack of proper weight balance, due to longer and heavier barrel.

Artillery guns like D-30 or M-46 were produced in Soviet times. Are there any issues with maintenance/spares?

D-30 was also produced here, locally as D-30J, so there are a lot of spares, and maintenance facility for them is up and running for decades.

M-46 was not built here, but honestly, there isn't much to go wrong with it, and refurbishment of crucial systems of it, is done by our central overhaul facility, up to this days.

What is the typical distance to target and rate of fire when you train?

3.5km in direct fire, 18km in indirect fire mod. Longest shot I ever fired flied almost 28km, out of max 38km M-46 can achieve with assisted projectile.

In the 1990s a series of wars took place in former Yugoslavia. Do you know of any lessons applied in training?

Of course, all conflicts and lessons from them, are well studied here, especially about effective usage of artillery, when your side have no air superiority.

What about more recent conflicts like Donbass or Syria? What was you impressions on the use of artillery in them?

Out of what I saw, artillery in Donbass proved to be highly effective and lethal. Observing crew videos, you get impression that they are not ''random peasants'', but actually well trained crewmen. Syria in other hand, is a bit of a different story. I saw lot of unimaginable things there.

In recent times artillery has introduced UAVs for target selection/reconnaissance. Have you tried this concept in Serbia? Is there any plan if not?

It's currently in final test phase.

Countries like Ukraine and Russia have reactivated 2S7 Pion 203 mm guns. A few years ago this calibre seemed obsolete when compared to advanced 152/1555 mm ammunition. Now it seems that they do have a function. What is your opinion?

Looks like that good old artillery joke, what says ''nothing is too old as long as it fires and you have ammo for it'', shows to be true.

Did you practice firing in direct mode?

Yes, and it's aways explained as ''last resort'', because, if you are put in situation, to fire directly at enemy armor and troops, it means that few branches in front of you had an epic fail.

M-46 (Wikipedia).

D-30 (ifelix.net).

 Nora (Wikipedia).


Have you trained with personnel from other countries? Did you use any of their equipment (artillery)? What were your impressions (training and equipment)?

Personnel, yes. My personal opinion is that Algerian Army is quite professional, according to how they performed and behave.

Angolan personnel was OK.

My lowest opinion is reserved for UAE, they acted like spoilt brats, and depended on gadgets, more than on personal skills.

Some countries in Eastern Europe operate wheeled self propelled guns (152mm SpGH DANA). Serbia on the other hand relies on tracked ones. What is you view on how they compare?


Quite contrary, we have both wheeled NORA M-15 and tracked 2s1 in service thou M-15's are new systems, and still not used as much as tracked 2s1's.

Personally, I prefer tracked chassis, due to better off road abilities.

At some point Serbia will look at replacing systems like M-46, D-30, 152mm Nora and 2S1. Do you think towed artillery is still valid? Which system do you think could be a good candidate?

Towed artillery is valid, and potent, if you face enemy without complete air superiority, if he does, your effectiveness is reduced.

Future, in eyes of our MoD are vehicle mounted artillery systems, like NORA M15, and SORA, on similar way, towed Plamen was turned into truck mounted Plamen-S, back in the 1994.

Thursday, 11 March 2021

Polish Leopard 2 in maneouvers

The Facebook site of 1st Tank Brigade "Warszawska" has published these excellent photos of Leopard 2 in field exercises. It is possible to see the A5 and POL variant. The latter is a local upgrade designed with the help of  Rheinmetall Landsytem for the A4s. Armour has been upgraded with an AMAP module ((Advanced Modular Armor Protection) and the thermal cameras have been replaced for a PCO KLW-1 model for gunner and commander. The hydraulic system has been replaced by an electric one, and DM-11/63 ammunition has been integrated.









References:

- https://www.facebook.com/1BPanc