First of all the AMX-30 is not a heavily armoured tank. It follows the Leopard I tradition of less armour better mobility.

Agreed! But the “B2” version is equipped with Reactive-armor. Though, the article doesn’t says if there were RA or not…

Second when it says neutralising what exactly does it mean?

Good question, indeed. And, again, the article doesn’t say it. I think that, had the tank been more than simply damaged (read “destroyed”), the article had said it. I think we can safely assume that there wher significant damages, but no destruction. After all the 3kg warhead arrives at a mach 2,5, that is at ground level, about 3000 kmh or 833 metres per second. It FAST! And remember, it’s only an anti-aicraft fragmentation warhead with few real effects on armor, but what affect would do a 3 kg HEAT warhead ? More than that, does the kinetic speed of the missile have significant effect on the shaped charge effects ? Do both kinetic energies (the missile’s and warhead’s) add together as far as perforation is concerned ?

What’s interesting with this test is that a Mistral can be used against tanks. Again, I don’t know about the circumstances, and what has been done one a testing field can not necessarily be redone on a battlefield . But if, and I say “if”, a BIG “if”, a Mistral can succesfully target a MBT, could’nt the anti-aircraft warhead be exchanged for an anti-armor one ? if so, it would make an interesting addition te the Mistral’s anti aicraft capabilities by extending its range of actions from strict surface-to-air function to both surface-to-air an surface-to-surface adding much flexibility to the troops actions…

As a sidenote, I suspect this test took part in the perspective of replacing the French army’s MILAN missiles. Since the Trigat missile program is dead, France will have to purchase non-french equipment (mainly US or israeli) OR design its own. The first option is politicallly problematic, the last one needs time and money, whom France has currently none.
________
Herbal Vaporizer