comment: >
  
  Well, that's a horribly misleading title.
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. >
  
  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. >
  
  From a tactical perspective, what's a few half million dollar tanks if you get to see how they fare against Russian mechs >
  
  These are old, obsolete models that France is replacing.  This just means that instead of parking them in a boneyard someplace, they're sending them to Ukraine. >
  
  I wouldn't call them obsolete, they have modern optics and reactive armour. France phases them out because they can't implement scorpion program in these vehicles. >
  
  I'm all for this.
  But what about tractors? I really want to know that they have enough tractors. >
  
  Plus the incoming Bradley's... RU in for a fun time if winter & drone drops were not enough >
  
  I'm pretty sure Ukrainian tractors were doing a good job of fighting Russian tanks >
  
  Screw this website with its constant pop-ups... So anoying 😫 >
  
  Russia still has tanks? >
  
  Shout out to France for being the only EU country that can hold its own when it comes to defense instead of just relying on the US >
  
  France does this specifically because they want the option for a truly independent foreign policy. This was rooted in a fear that the US wouldn't intervene to defend it in a land war in Europe if the Cold War went hot and was also the reason for France's nuclear weapons program. >
  
  France is just like that. After the Liberation, de Gaulle wanted a narrative of the French forces liberating themselves. National honor demanded that it remilitarize. Its independent streak, which I think is laudable, stems from this era of hurt pride. It is also fed by France's millenia old status as the first nation of Europe. >
  
  First in the world? Hundreds of tanks from Poland do not count? >
  
  All those upgraded PT-91s and T-72s Poland and Czechs sent were just a dream I guess?
  The topic is even funnier when you read the article and realize those are wheeled recon platforms, not even actual tanks... >
  
  The article title is definitely incorrect (should be "Western designed armoured vehicle capable..."), and for the definition I guess they didn't read Section 1, Clause 2.C of the Protocol On Existing Types Of Conventional Armaments And Equipment of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (page 25).
  I mean, I didn't either until a few minutes ago, but I'm not going around writing articles about "tanks" for a military technology website. >
  
  These are not tanks.  All tanks are armored vehicles, but not all armored vehicles are tanks. >
  
  These are Light Tanks actually. More then 75mm main gun, 360 turret, more then 16 tons. >
  
  Tanks can't be wheeled. >
  
  I think you’re assuming things in contraction to army doctrine.  People “know” all sorts of incorrect taxonomy.  Tanks must have turrets.  Tank destroyers can’t have turrets.  Etc.  
  Tracked vehicle is a category.  Tank is a category.  They overlap quite a bit, but it’s not a subset. >
  
  There was a definition created under the CFE treaty. Which doesn't make a lot of sense because the M24 and PT-76 are listed as "not tanks"
  But they have tracks, turrets, big main cannon, and armor.