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
5 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
You’ll see both types of engine decks on tanks with the sharp front end
1 Like
Why would you exclude the Surbaisse and Surblinde? Seems arbitrary. And no, contextually they are very similar. Like how the Panzer IV Ausf G and Ausf H are very similar. I never said they were identical.
Never claimed it wasn’t. Just that if I had a say, I would prefer a streamlined naming scheme.
Absolutely agree. I don’t like the “AMX-50” made up name. But I’m not going to argue against it since its use even includes experts.
And slight correction, the TOA 120 equipped vehicle was called char de 54 tonnes. Though as the thing never had an official name, it was still called char de 50 tonnes in some documents. Though as I wrote that I wouldn’t be surprised if it was also called char de 55t in some other document.
1 Like
it’s not made up, it’s used for short reference, less confusing as well. This is a reason people use AMX-50, SOMUA SM, FCM 50t instead of char de 50t AMX/SOMUA/FCM. Short and comprehensive, for same reason we refer to tanks like Panther as Pz.V, despite Pz.V-Pz.VIII identifiers being made up too
1 Like
indeed there is a photo with that, however, the front plates and armor are crucial difference
1 Like
The Surblinde and Surbaisse have their own names, which make it easy to distinguish them from other AMX 50, and they themselves are quite different. With the rest of the tanks of this series things are not so simple.
No problem, I understand your point. Just saying that the AMX M4/50 split is generally historical and makes naming a bit easier from a game perspective.
Plus, there may be a conflict between the names in the future. For example, if we name the current M4 as AMX 50 (TO90), then in the future this name will conflict with a tank with a late hull and the same turret. The same applies to versions with TO100.
Yes, it had many different names. The French themselves never decided on its name.
In any case, a document dated January 23, 1953, calls it Char de 55t
Spoiler
1 Like
That makes it made up?
Poor example, as the Panthers, Tigers and even Löwe were designated/called Pz.kpfw. V-VII. The Maus however was not called Pz.kpfw. VIII.
And I agree with you otherwise. As long as we all know which vehicle is being referred to, that’s great. But I get a distaste when an informal name is presented as formal. And here in WT where all vehicles otherwise use their formal names, I don’t like it.