comment: >
  
  This seems like a clunky way of saying the first country to send tanks that are not old russian stock. A Russian tank is capable of fighting a Russian tank.
context: What about all the other russian tanks that were provided? seems they can fight other russian tanks just fine? >
  
  Key words being "fighting Russian tanks".  
  NATO and Soviet designs weren't made with the intent of fighting vehicles similar to themselves.  NATO nations designed their vehicles with the intent of fighting Soviet designs, and the Soviets designed theirs to fight NATO's.  
  While other nations have already supplied vehicles to Ukraine, they were ones that were either unchanged Soviet designs or were upgraded variants.  
  The AMX-10RC is a wholly NATO design, as it was from France, who was a nation who never had Soviet designs in their arsenal that needed to be upgraded or replaced.  
  Similarly, while Soviet vehicles can easily fight ones of their own design, the war in Ukraine emphasized some critical design flaws, including some that Ukraine almost certainly wants to get away from.  Most notably being the ammo stowage for the autoloader on the T-72/T-90 and T-64/T-80 designs.  Where NATO nations store ammo in a separate compartment with failsafes such as a blast door and blowout panels to protect the crew in the fighting compartment should the primary stowage is hit and the the ammunition detonates, the Soviet designs instead placed the ammuntion in a carousel encasing the turret basket, meaning the tank's commander and gunner are surrounded by the ammunition.  As a result, the crew are screwed in the event the ammunition detonates, and the vehicle will be a total loss, as you can see from wrecks in Ukraine, ones where the turrets are sent flying from the force caused by ammunition detonation.  
  In addition, Soviet designs are apparently very maintenance heavy, and actual Russian produced vehicles have been revealed to have severe quality issues.  The maintenance part in particular has come back to haunt Russian forces, as a lack of maintenance for decades resulted in much of their armored forces breaking down, both prior to combat and being abandoned once in or near it.  NATO designs, in contrast, don't have the quality issue and have been kept maintained even if the vehicles were sitting in warehouses.  And as an added bonus, having NATO hardware can help easing into NATO standardization when Ukraine begins to attempt to join NATO, thanks to the Russian invasion. >
  
  
  The AMX-10RC is a wholly NATO design, as it was from France, who was a nation who never had Soviet designs in their arsenal that needed to be upgraded or replaced. 
  
  Fun fact, the main gun on the AMX10RC is not NATO compliant. >
  
  To be fair though, "not NATO complaint" was kinda France's thing for a little while.  
  glares at the continued use of 7.5mm French and the MAS-49/56 rifles until the adoption of the FAMAS. >
  
  "France copies nobody, and nobody copies the French". >
  
  Kind of funny because people absolutely copy the French. They pioneered the turreted design of the tank, which was widely copied and licensed, and they invented smokeless gunpowder. >
  
  What is zis "tank" you speak of, monsieur? Un vehicule militaire armuree is a "Char". >
  
  I’m not going to pretend to have the faintest grasp of the French language, but I do like it. >
  
  I thought Poland already gave some tanks to Ukraine? >
  
  So far all the tanks sent have been Soviet model( t72 ,t64...). This is the first western tank sent 
  Yes, Poland sent tanks to Ukraine >
  
  Morocco recently supplied tanks as well. >
  
  the Netherlands and  the US  bought them from morocco and send them to Ukraine. those two countries did the same with tanks from czechia. >
  
  Morocco supplied them, so my point still stands. Not sure what your point is? >
  
  The point is that morroco didn't supply anything to Ukraine, they sold their tanks to the us and the Netherlands. Those countries are supplying Ukraine with tanks and armoured vehicles >
  
  Fuck are you dumb! The article headlines “Morocco has become the first African state to provide military assistance to Ukraine, according to French, Czech, and Ukrainian reports.” - Furthermore, America and the Netherlands didn’t pay cash you idiot, it’s concessions for an exchange in future weapons. Next time read the article before you post something stupid! >
  
  There were other reports that the total amount of the tanks was worth over 90 million Euro, and were in talks on the reparations for them. These billion dollar aid packages going out to Ukraine isn’t cash you do realize that right? That’s just the dollar value of the weapons and supplies they are sending. This article doesn’t get specific on that but it’s most likely an exchange for future weapons. If it’s cash even better, those are old models in Morocco’s stock and the cash would be better used. Anyhow your own source’s headline is “Morocco choose sides, supplies T-72B tanks to Ukraine” - So I really don’t get what you’re getting at! You been denying that Morocco supplied the tanks but then post a source for your argument that literally says that! 🤣🤣 >
  
  I wouldn’t call anyone an idiot if I had your reading comprehension level mate. The other guy got it right and you are actually too stupid to realise it roflmao.