Leopard 1 VS AMX-30

They are both equally abhorrent tin cans, any sensible person would chose T-64. But If I really have to pick, I guess AMX-30 because the French were not anglo's cucks.

Attached: Screenshot_2018-10-24 AMX-30 - Wikipedia.png (1678x389, 36K)

>any sensible person would chose T-64.
wasnt that thing only produced in small numbers, and was so slow on meeting demand that they needed a downgraded version, the T-72, to speed things up?

The AMX-30's gun stabilizer was apparently poor, and it didn't have one at all until the B model. That alone makes it inferior. The autocannon was a meme, although they get credit for trying something new.

Yes.

The Konigstiger is interesting to non-LARPers because it's basically like someone tried to build an M60 in the 1940s.

This was the only decent tank the Canadians had in Wargame: Red Dragon. I don't know anything else about it.

>wasnt that thing only produced in small numbers
Only the original T-64 with 115 mm smoothbore gun, and only "small" by Soviet standards, mainly because T-64A with 125 mm smoothbore was already on its way.
>and was so slow on meeting demand that they needed a downgraded version
T-72 is a rather upgraded version that fixes on a lot of childhood problems of the platform as a whole, is much less complicated to produce and maintain and has much more upgrade potential.

Attached: Screenshot_2018-10-24 Google Translate.png (258x86, 2K)

The T-64 is in a completely different league from either one of the tanks in the OP.

It was expensive/difficult to produce, yes, although as you can see it also had pretty amazing performance.

That was mostly the reason the USSR decided to build a field a cheaper design (which ended up being the T-72) to allies/export and to the bulk of their own forces. The T-64 was a great tank, but if you want to field 10,000 tanks not every one of them necessarily needs to be cutting edge. The Soviets also maintained separate design bureaus; there was some sharing involved but they were parallel organizations. The separate development of the T-72 allowed the other bureau to focus on improving the T-64 (which later became the T-80) without compromising the ability to design and build in quantity T-72s at the same time.

>The T-64 is in a completely different league from either one of the tanks in the OP.
Uh, they're from very much the same time period. Excluding T-64, I'd definitely pick Chieftain and after that T-62 because the only other tank that makes sense, the M60, didn't receive gun stabilisation until the next decade.

The T-64 was a mess, and by the time most of the problems were worked out it should've been replaced.

>wasnt that thing only produced in small numbers
There were more T-64 built than Leo 1, AMX-30 and Chieftain combined, my dude.

Attached: t-64 composite armour.jpg (700x261, 78K)

then why did the russians keep complaining they never had enough of them and never find enough to equip their army

and outright stated in their wiki page that it was never produced in enough numbers?

Leopard 1 is a good medium tank, it is fast and very accurate gun. I find the grinding to tier 10 taxing

The T-64's problems weren't "worked out" until like the 1990s. Yes, it's much more complicated than junk like the AMX-30, but that's what happens when you push the envelope to build a great piece of equipment instead of literally giving up and building a glorified assault gun. The Leopard 2AX is much more complex and expensive to operate compared to the Leopard 1. Which one would you want to be in?

Because the Russians were a superpower instead of a has-been colonial empire (France, Britain) or a literal vassal state (West Germany).

>The T-64 was a mess
Revolutionary designs tend to be that. It even failed state trials in 1962-1963, but by 1965 most faults were fixed. T-64A in turn was in development since 1963 and in production since 1967. In 1976 a further upgraded 1976 was introduced. I don't see what you complain about, it's not like they pushed non-fixed non-upgraded early 60s Object 432 into service and called it a day.

Attached: t-64a (1).jpg (1200x933, 1.09M)

>The T-64's problems weren't "worked out" until like the 1990s
That's, well how do I put it, ahem ...debatable.

Attached: t-64bv (1).jpg (1408x952, 118K)

I don't really know what he was talking about, I'm sure he's just trolling. Yeah, the -BV is pretty much the "completed" T-64. And it's still a quite respectable tank even in 2018.

Obviously the most serious teething problems were fixed before mass production or at least with the -A model. I was mostly thinking about optics, which were pretty inferior until the T-80. I mean shit, you can argue that the fucking T-84 Oplot "fixed" the problems with the T-64's ammo storage.

>I don't see what you complain about,

It costs significantly more than the T-72, has a less reliable engine, and the ammunition carousel stores make it extremely likely that a penetration will result in a cook off.

For anybody wondering about the T-64's ammo storage, here's a comparison of the two different Russian autoloader designs. Notice that the T-64/T-80 design gives stored ammo a substantially higher profile than the T-72 design, it makes flank hits in particular much more likely to trigger a cookoff.

Attached: autoloaders.gif (500x280, 1.6M)

Also notice the delay on the T-64 loader once the shell is in position, this was done simply to synchronize the animation. In reality the loader rams home the shell immediately and so operates substantially faster than the T-72/90 loader.

Which is why T-72 because a thing, didn't it. T-64 platform has pretty much reached its upgrade limits with the B model in 1976. T-72 is overall a much better tank, but it is also about decade newer one that very much relied on T-64 to pave the way.
Nice gif. They're also named differently, but I keep forgetting which one is called "automat" and which is "mechanism".

Attached: t-64 turret and autoloader.jpg (1024x773, 161K)

>T-64 to pave the way.

But despite the fact it "paved the way" it was in production for roughly twenty years for no real reason other than politics.

>any sensible person would chose T-64
>the tank that splintered soviet tank production into three competitive and generally uncooperative camps, resulting in a complete clusterfuck of tank classifications and logistics

>it makes flank hits in particular much more likely to trigger a cookoff.
I have no proof, but I feel that, realistically, any penetrating hit on either tank to the same general area under the turret is pretty likely to pop the turret.

Soviet tank design and production was already "splintered". If anything, the ad hoc compartmentalization allowed the USSR to develop and field a revolutionary design without having to worry about diverting resources away from proven designs. Later, it allowed them to build the T-72 without seriously compromising efforts to improve the T-64.

Well, the true risk is obviously penetration into the turret. But a penetrating hit to the rear has to make it all the way through the engine compartment to reach the ammo storage, and a penetrating hit to the hull front has to make it all the way through the hull/driver/fuel to get there.

In the T-72 (and in general) the road wheels actually provide a significant amount of protection, since they're essentially free applique to the hull side armor. But the T-64's ammo storage is actually taller than the road wheels. Plus, the arc trajectory of projectiles generally makes higher hits more likely. The T-72's ammo is crouching while the T-64's is standing up, if you will.

>develop and field a revolutionary design without having to worry about diverting resources away from proven designs
Breaking up your factories and logistical organization to keep up with three very different tank designs definitely falls under "diverting resources away from proven designs". That being said, the T-64 was anything but a proven design, which would have been a non-issue were it not for the fact that their previous generation of MBT was already a stopgap measure, and this one really needed to work.

Also, they did improve both fire rate and maximum ammunition length with the autoloader upgrade on the new T-72 and T-90 variants.
>it was in production for roughly twenty years for no real reason other than politics
Uh, no? T-64B was introduced several years before T-72A. And after T-64B the development proceded with T-80 line. There was no real reason to produce T-64 after about 1978-1981 and the actual production slowed down by about 1/3rd in 1982-85 to a complete stop in 1987. If you really want to grasp at straws, you can say that it was in production for no particular reason other than politics for about the last decade of its production cycle, but it's not like someone argues that this critique of Soviet politics forcing MIC to develop and produce three MBTs at the same time is somehow illegitimate. On the contrary, it's very true. But it's not the fault of the tank itself, and especially by all fucking means not in the 60s and 70s.
Not the fault of the hardware.

Attached: t-64bv & t-72b.jpg (1600x1067, 147K)

The T-64 was never exported so any sensible person or not couldnt choose it.

>Breaking up your factories and logistical organization to keep up with three very different tank designs definitely falls under "diverting resources away from proven designs"
user, it's quite literally the opposite. Three different factories pushed for their interests and Soviet government pretty much subsidised the MBT projects from all three among other things specifically to avoid the decline or having to divert resources for reorganisation of either one of them.
>T-64 was anything but a proven design
It was by late 60s.
>the fact that their previous generation of MBT was already a stopgap measure
In which particular way were T-54/55/62 ever a stopgap measure?

The question was "which one is a better tank?". Choosing which one is better does not involve or require importing the one you chose. Neither AMX-30, nor Leo 1 or Chieftain were ever exported in my country, but I doesn't prevent me from picking the latter over the former two. Besides, I'm pretty sure nowadays Ukraine is more than willing to sell T-64, T-84, their souls, their secret documents, their anal virginities, their sisters, their mothers and their wives to anyone who is willing to give them at least a little bit of money.

Attached: t-64bm1m.jpg (1200x800, 194K)

kek, true. But no point in bringing up the T-64 if the option was Leo 1 or Amx 30 only.

lol, no arguments there.

Going back to the original question: I think the Leopard 1 had decisively superior stabilization and engine power/power-to-weight. Armament is comparable unless you think having a coaxial autocannon is good (no) and I don't know shit about optics. Protection on both is garbage ofc.

Oh yeah, Leopard 1 probably had better commo/maintenance/ammo compatibility with NATO given French butthurt but I couldn't give details. I'd go with the L1.

Well, I did pick AMX-30, but also posted a picture comparing them to contemporary tank designs like M60A1, Chieftain, T-62 and T-64 to illustrate my argument that picking between these particular two is like choosing between two handicapped on non-Paralympic Games.

Attached: t-64bv turret and autoloader.jpg (769x1024, 105K)

It is honestly hilarious that France and Germany both put a "main battle tank" into mass production where they basically just gave up trying to stay with the latest tech.

Well, I don't think France was ever too concerned with keeping up since they had nukes, their own heads on their shoulders and were in relatively good relations with Russia. And the failed development of MBT-70 did affect the timeline in the US and Germany.

If the T-64 is a quantum leap ahead of the T-72 with far better armor, how come nobody ever uses it or its upgrade? It sounds like it was a competitive vehicle with what the west put out until the M1A2, which was a really long time considering when it first came out.

The T-64 wasn't a quantum leap ahead of the T-72 (how could it be, it's an earlier design). It was a quantum leap ahead of everything else when it first rolled out and is quite plausibly the most revolutionary tank design ever.

The later/more recent T-72 models ended up being better than the T-64/T-80 line, through a combination of cost and improvements to the T-72 line -- which substantially included features originally developed for the T-64 line, especially in optics and armor. In the 1960s (which is what the thread is about), the T-72 didn't exist and even when it did, it didn't really come into its own until the -B model in the mid-80s at which point the T-64 had already been in service for a generation.

As far as "no one using it", the Russians never exported it, partly for security reasons and partly because they wanted to keep them all for their own units. The marquis user ended up being the Ukrainians, since the main production facility was located on what ended up being their territory after the USSR collapsed. It's still their premier tank and they've continued development (e.g. Oplot) even though Russia itself has abandoned the design.

>If the T-64 is a quantum leap ahead of the T-72 with far better armor
Jesus Christ, the fuck are you even talking about, no one in this thread ever implied anything like this. As I said, T-64 paved the way for T-72 and later T-64 variants were roughly on par with earlier T-72 variants, but later T-72 vastly excelled due to having much higher upgrade potential.

Attached: t-72b3m (6).jpg (1280x853, 323K)

If this thread had been posted eight hours earlier there would have been ten of these retards shitting it up. As it is, this is the best tank thread I've seen in months.

>they've continued development (e.g. Oplot) even though Russia itself has abandoned the design
Oplot is a direct descendant of T-80 tho, got nothing to do with T-64. T-80 - T-80A - T-80U - T-80UD - T-84 - T-84U - T-84 Oplot - T-84 Oplot-M. It's kinda like what T-90 is for T-72. They pretty much proceded with the production line of T-80 variant with diesel engine Soviet Union adopted specifically for Kharkov to have something to produce because they didn't have facilities to build GTD-1250 engine.

Attached: t-84u & cutie.jpg (1499x1000, 615K)

Both shit tin cans. Here's a proper German post war tank.

Attached: a832be3439fb6672a10b97d0453f4a17.gif (1024x1024, 231K)

>the autistic E-50 poster has arrived

Are you going to fill this thread too with bait about how the US forced Germany to have weak tanks so that germany didnt kill all americans in germany?

Amx40 had it
As for the two tanks AMX30 was equal to the Leopard1 but outclassed by the A1+ versions

Are you implying that fucking up logistics and economy of Judeo-Bolshevists is a bad thing?

The E50 was the product of war. It's design perfected over the years. It's construction. gearbox, drivetrain, suspension vastly simplified. The clean, sharp and elegant layout represents the German soul. It's big, wide, simple tracks perfectly suited for the muddy and wet Eastern soil. Ready for mass production, the perfect tank design. As the years would have passed by new developments in armor and optics would easily be incorporated. The Leopard is a light scout tank compared to the E50, a true MBT.

The Leopard 1 was the superior tanque. It was the first in service MBT to really have that "fire-accurately-on-the-move" capability, and it received more upgrades. The L7A3 was a better weapon as well. If you want proof look at the countries that bought the AMX-30: Mostly poverty shitters or international pariahs whom only the French would sell to.

AMX, hon hon hon.

>To be fair the french weren't nearly as prolific with exporting their arms, but still.
they exported more amx-30 than germany exported leopards 1
everyone and their mothers operated mirages and exocets

Both are light tanks, with less armor than a panther

Amx 32 had it, if you count development prototypes.

>Frogs didn't get a tank with a stabilizer till the Leclerc
>During the production run, many improvements were implemented. These included gun stabilization from 1971
Excuse me, what? Mind you that is one year before Americans began to install stabilizers on M60.

The T-90 is basically an incremental upgrade to the T-72B (albeit a pretty big one, maybe similar to the M1A1 -> M1A2). I thought that was true of the T-64 -> T-80 but apparently that's not quite true.

It does seem that the Kharkov plant (the Ukrainian factory) was originally dedicated to the T-64, and that the T-80UD was partly designed because Kharkov couldn't produce the T-80's turbine. So the T-80 is a bigger break from the T-64 (though it still incorporated many many features from the T-64 including the turret wholesale), but the T-80UD (which the T-84 is based on) is an intentionally T-64ized version of the T-80.

Ultimately whether the T-84 is an "improved version" of the T-64 is just a semantic argument, I think.

The AMX-30 had some great features such as a 20 mm autocannon with +40° elevation, a commander cupola providing a very good visibility with a remote-operated 7.62 machinegun and a shuttle gearbox allowing the AMX-30 to reach 65 km/h forward as well as reverse.

The AMX-30 mobility was slightly worse than the Leopard 1 : shorter suspension vertical travel, manual gearbox with a tricky Gravina clutch.

Despite its inability to use APDS, the CN-105 F1 gun of the AMX-30 was better than the L7A3 due to its longer length, not forgetting the powerful and accurate "Obus G" OCC 105 F1 shaped-charge round.

The French developped an efficient stabilization system for the AMX-30 but only for an export variant, the AMX-30C2.

Attached: 1200px-French_AMX-30_Desert_Storm.jpg (1200x807, 468K)

>The T-90 is basically an incremental upgrade to the T-72B (albeit a pretty big one, maybe similar to the M1A1 -> M1A2)
Closer to M1A1 to M1A1HA, but yes, it pretty much is. The thing tho is that T-90 one most likely thinks of nowadays is not Object 188 and a couple hundred 1990s T-90, but T-90A from 2004 and its derivatives - a tank with the welded turret of the Object 187 beast. And having as much as a new turret, I believe, can very much justify calling it a new tank. Either way, T-90 of course absolutely is a T-72 derivative.
>I thought that was true of the T-64 -> T-80
Well you see, this is the Ship of Theseus type of thing. First there was T-64T prototype to test the turbine engine. Then they realised the rollers and chassis in general simply do not endure the increased power output, so they changed them as well. And in the end all that was left of T-64 in T-80 was its autoloader.
>T-80UD was partly designed because Kharkov couldn't produce the T-80's turbine
It's not that they couldn't produce it per se, it is just that it was easier to just stick diesel engine into T-80 than to create whole new and alien to the region and workers production facilities. This is the same thing that caused USSR to fund R&D and production of three MBTs: in was the belief, wrong or not doesn't matter, that if people pay taxes the state is obliged to provide them with job. And how could they reorganise or god forbid close a factory that can produce hundreds of tanks a year? Even Lavochkin design bureau after the total and utter failure of La-250 still existed, though unrelated to aircraft industry.

And speaking of rollers you can see how fucking good of a job the guys from Saint-Petersburg did designing the T-80 ones if it was a choice to go with T-14. And Object 640 for that matter, but that one is teally just a stretched to 7 rollers Super-T-80U. Object 640 to T-80 is really what was M1A2 to M1A1.

Attached: object 640 (2).jpg (1241x735, 60K)