Additional picture:
9 Likes
we are missing 4 variants for AMX 50, we could get ELC Even 30 and 90, ELC Lorraine iirc also had oscillating launcher
9 Likes
This looks great! +1 for more French vehicles
4 Likes
The AMX 50 “Surblinde” (TO 120) should share the same 5s reload rate and capacity (17), as both the TO 120 and TOA 120 turrets shared the same autoloader. As can be seen by your documents.
The name itself should also be AMX-50 (TOA 120) to match the current in game naming scheme.
5 Likes
then we gotta see AMX M4 be renamed to AMX M4 (TO90) as there was TO100 version too
I’d rename it to AMX 50 (TO 90) if I had a say.
M4 and 50 are not the same
2 Likes
but in fact, AMX 50 TO90 did exist… until like 1987, when it was scrapped to fund Saumur museum… F
6 Likes
Yes. They very much are… And it shouldn’t be a surprise…
The two are the same just as the Ferdinand and Elefant are the same, or the IS-122 and IS-2 are the same. The M4 name was used between 1945-1950, but it faded out of use in documents over simply referring to the tank as the 50 tonne medium tank (by AMX).
1 Like
they arent. Meanwhile mentioned ones are either different designations or just mg mount, AMX M4 and AMX 50 are different hulls.
You can distinguish the M4 and AMX-50 hulls from eachother by:
- Looking at the rear roof
- Looking at the part between UFP/LFP.
If the vehicle has two fans sticking out the top of it’s rear, coupled by a flat part in-between the UFP and LFP, then it’s an AMX M4. If the vehicle has fans that do not stick out, with the UFP/LFP now connected, then it’s an AMX-50.
2 Likes
There were at least five different hulls produced under the “AMX 50” name*. The “AMX M4” is literally pictured in that document.
And it’s why documents regarding the “M4” are kept in folders named AMX 50 in the Chatellerault archives
What part do you not understand?
*Technically no hull was produced under the AMX 50 name, as it is a shortened from “Char Moyen 50 tonnes de AMX”
1 Like
nobody refers to it like that. Short is AMX 50
1 Like
Rare tank scrapped to fund a museum that displays tanks…lol. Couldn’t they have scrapped some AMX-30s or something?
Deflecting or what? I never claimed that everyone today refers to it as such. But to clarify that you will never find a document calling it “AMX 50”.
Also. Here is Saumur saying the M4 and AMX 50 are the same in a facebook post.
not that I can access facebook from where I live…
at least it’s the most realistic story. The remains were found at someone’s ownership called Jacques Passenaud. Apparently he was salvage yard owner. Before, there were rumours that AMX 50 was stoled by criminals, but I dont think it was that cinematographic
I think in the game splitting this tank into M4 and AMX 50 actually makes sense. They differ visually and in armor thickness, and this approach allows for a better differentiation between late and early models of this tank.
As for the proposed tank, in the game it should definitely be called AMX 50 (TOA120). However, I think it’s fine to just call it the AMX 50-120 in conversation just for simplicity.
2 Likes
Surblinde should also have better horizontal and vertical drives and a rotating commander’s cupola.
The difference is definitely not major. And vehicle naming shouldn’t be dependant on how easy or hard it is to identify said vehicle. Not to mention it would be at the same level as being able to identify the eight different Panzer III’s, seven Panzer IV’s, seven M4 Shermans, seven T-34’s etc. etc.
1 Like
They have significantly different frontal parts (thickness and assembly method), as well as different radiator caps. This is quite a significant difference, especially considering that other versions of the AMX 50 (excluding Surbaisse and Surblinde) differed only in turrets.
Both names for this tank are historically correct. The AMX 50 was called the M4 at least until the end of 1951.
If you want absolute historical accuracy, then this tank should be renamed Char de 50t AMX and Char de 55t AMX for the versions with 100 mm and 120 mm turrets, respectively. The name AMX-50 is also somewhat incorrect.
2 Likes