This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

France Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Land vehicles / Technology / Weaponry / European / French This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military land vehicles task force Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force European military history task force French military history task force

This article is translated from the article at it wikipedia, and owes its existence to it wikipedia editors, any mistakes inaccurracies that have crept into this article during the process are mine. KTo288 ( talk) 02:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Nice article! But it needs more context ;o).-- MWAK ( talk) 07:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for doing so. KTo288 ( talk) 00:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Several technical drawings are available on the "Service historique de la Défense" official website (here : http://www.servicehistorique.sga.defense.gouv.fr/02fonds-collections/banquedocuments/materiel_armement/amx_blinde.php ). One can see that early design already had an armor thicker than the "maximum of 30mm" stated in the article, as the front armor was 90mm. On later drawings, the front armor is reduced to 80mm, probably to save weight. Could someone more comfortable with WP than me make the edit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.235.58.30 ( talk) 12:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC) reply

The website is very interesting. However, the oldest available drawing connected to the later AMX 50, picture 0.1033 dated 1 August 1945, is already of a much heavier vehicle than the original March 1945 specification of thirty tonnes. It is called the "AMX 45", apparently immediately changed into Char Moyen, probably indicating its weight class. It is true though that the sequence would seem to indicate that the "M 4" designation was only applied later that year. Do you know of any articles or books able to clarify this issue?-- MWAK ( talk) 14:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC) reply

No, i'm afraid i don't have other sources on that. I will post here if I can find some. The picture 0.1033 is indeed interesting; it seems to be a sketch resulting of preliminary discussions about the project of a medium tank, the M45 probably indicating the original estimated weight of 45 tons. On several drawings of the M4 ( 0.1319a & 0.1205g of 1947), the armor is 40mm side and rear, 80mm and 60mm front, or 90mm front on the 1945 0.1135 2/2 drawing. Further down, there is the picture 0.1748 which is about a light weight M4 ("char M4 allégé"), the weight being 51.5 tons. So it seems AMX never considered to build a 30 tons M4 medium tank.

Besides, there is the AMX Chasseur de chars, a 34 tons tank destroyer. Picture 0.1138, year 1946, armor : 30mm front, 20mm side and rear. My opinion is there is a confusion between the two projects : on the one hand, the AMX Chasseur de chars which was immediately rejected because of having paper armor (therefore, no prototype built), and which gave afterwards the Auto-canon de 120 (0.1389 Pl. 2, 1948).On the other hand, the Char M4 medium tank with a much higher weight (initially maybe 45 tons, later on over 50 tons). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.235.58.30 ( talk) 12:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Well, the Chars Français site seems to assume the initial concept envisaged a 30 tonne tank, see: http://www.chars-francais.net/new/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=41

The literal citation: Dans sa configuration initiale, le M 4 est directement inspiré du Tiger II dont il utilise une partie des composants. L'armement est un 90 mm Schneider monté dans une tourelle à blindage laminé. Pour limiter le poids à 30 t le blindage est réduit pour ne pas dire sacrifié : 30 mm maximum.

They also explain the later weight increase: La protection sera revue et améliorée dans les projets suivants avec pour conséquence des augmentations successives de tonnage. Le poids grimpe de 30 à plus de 50 t.

The drawings can be elegantly reconciled with this information by assuming that the initial specifications were not yet named "M4" and changed so quickly that the first actual diagrams are those of much heavier vehicles.-- MWAK ( talk) 18:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Currently the article says: "The French engineers had not been aware at first that the much admired German overlapping design had been motivated by a shortage of high quality rubber, necessitating large road wheels to lower tyre tension, which then were made overlapping to better distribute the load pressure."

This does not match what I have read so far about the German style of overlapping roadwheels ("Schachtellaufwerk"). While Germany did suffer from increasingly severe rubber shortages throughout the war, this was not such a major concern in the earlier years. Indeed, the Schachtellaufwerk was introduced before the war in German half-track vehicles.

Its use in tanks, starting with the Tiger, was motivated by better drive stability (more wheels resulting in more ground contact and hence a smoother ride) and better ground clearance due to larger wheels - the latter inspired by the large-wheeled Soviet T-34 (early Tiger prototypes used small overlapping wheels). The German overlapping-style tanks also used wider tracks to minimize ground pressure (due to early bad experiences with muddy Russian terrain), and hence used more wheel rows to cover the full track width (the Tiger had four rows). That means the Schachtellaufwerk maximized the amount of rubber required (many large wheels instead of few small). Elanguescence ( talk) 14:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply

This article needs to have more references. – Vami _IV✠ 18:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC) reply

A number of these are now added.-- MWAK ( talk) 06:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Sorry about all by bad edits latly but a changed text below the photo in section AMX 50 "120 mm" from AMX 50 to An AMX 50 in Musée des Blindés. IS that useful for once?

Little changes are valuable too!-- MWAK ( talk) 06:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC) reply

The transmission for the AMX M4 was developed for the French Army in 1945 by ZF Friedrichshafen. It was a modern 5 speed manual gearbox with a 2 radii double differential steering (Überlagerungslenkgetriebe) integrated. It was called M-4 by ZF and a forerunner of the later hydrodynamic Leopard 1 transmission ZF 4 HP 250 with planetary gearbox. It has nothing in common with the german transmission ZF AK 7-200 of the Panther-tank. The first version of the AMX 30 had a M-4 related transmission.

^[1]

Maicomania ( talk) 20:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC) reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• AMX-50 100.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC) reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• AMX-50 100.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC) reply