this tank was still better then the Panzer 35(t) Whitch was 60% of the german armor. Panzer 2 and 3 was no match for the Char Tanks neither, even there most powerful tank the pazer 5 could barley penetrate the armor. The french just sucked at fighting. Out dated generals with out dated tactics, and outdated training.
i have a picture of my great grandfather on top of a captured french renault tank i guess they weren't good for countering and crushing the opposition as how this video makes it sound like
Nope: in 1939-40, the French tanks was much better, probably at this time, the best of the world, in manouvrability and gun efficiency with he's 75mm fast fire gun ...
The better german tank with 88mm gun like Tiger cames only later in 1942...
@oiseautempete The French Tanks were good in many respects but also had some serious shortcomings. None of them had three man turrents. They all used single man turrets meaning the commander was also the loader and gunner for the turrent weapon. Also many lacked radios. The Panzer III and IV by contrast had three man turrets and radios which, even though their guns may have been inferior made them more efficient in combat.
Yes it's right, but the 47 and 75mm guns was half automatic (automatic loading) so a loader was not needed.(on the actual Leclerc, the gun is full automatic)
On the 1939-40 tanks, this reduce a bit the efficiency, but was a choice to built smaller and lighter tank: better mobility, difficulter to shot, and...less expansive and wit a smaller engine=less gas consumption (very important in war)...Actualy France built ever light small and mobile tanks but with a powerfull automatic gun
in fact the french tanks were better then the german tanks but that makes theír defeat only more humiliating they just had no idea how to use a tank the right way
so its was just like duck shooting for the german troops
@Kikuta1Kotaro Not exactly. Whenever the Germans encountered the more heavily armored Heavy tanks or radio-equipped units during their drive to the sea, they would often be outfought by French tanks and suffered many losses. Unfortunately for the French, air-support and the infamous 88mm flak proved that they could be defeated in a war of movement.
@romanlegions the french lost almost all of their over 3000 tanks the germans lost around 800 and the famous 8,8 cm was first used as an AT weapon on the eastern front(after tested in the spanish civil war) after the the PaK 36 proved to be inefficent against the russian tanks the better training and the installation of radio equipment in the tanks made the germans far superior compared to the entete
@Kikuta1Kotaro Well you kinda put up a paradox there when you said "first used as an AT weapon on the eastern front" and then followed by "after tested in the Spanish Civil War". Anyway, when you meant by Eastern Front, do you mean Poland rather then Russia, because they did use it in France as well before they launched Barbarossa.
@romanlegions of course they were used in france and poland but not as an AT gun but as an AA gun. during barbarossa they finally found out that the 88 was an exellent AT weapon and developed special versions of the 88 specialized against tanks and armored vehicels
@Kikuta1Kotaro Actually, the Germans did use the 88mm against tanks in France. They also used a 105mm artillery piece. These were the only guns in the German inventory that could reliable destroy French heavies like the Char B1 bis.
the main gun was totally obsolete ,capable of only detroying panzer 1 tank and the gun barrel was to short to make a impact on panzer 2 ,3,4 , I guess the crews was never told that and acted sitting ducks thinking they had a chance
these tanks were the best but not fitted with radios... very bad thing to tactical movement! Like french army in 40 they were superior but misemployed by commandement... Army is the sword of politic! It's politic and his leadership who makes win a war... France lost because a bad politic of war and leadership not because their soldiers were cowards! Present day! US army is whitout a doubt the best of the world but the wrong politic in Irak make that it's impossible to find an issue to the war!
Errm Fridomfry French armour deoctrine was all about using the tanks for support roles, thats why their tanks were dispersed throughout their forces rather than concentrated into armour divisions. Especially infantry support, armoured divisions were a totally new idea by the time of the invasion, i think the French only actually had 3 of them.
You are half right, precisely: The French War Board had planned in 1938 to have 4 armoured divisions by late 1940. These units were designed "to be used as rams to break through enemy lines", not as infantry support (infantry corps had their own, slower tank brigades).
When the Germans invaded the West, two of these armoured divisions were used by uncompetent army leaders as static bunkers. Yet the other two (including De Gaulle's division) attacked en masse.
The French formed 4 reserve armoured divisions between January and May 1940, centred on the B-1bis and the H-35. Beginning in 1935 work start on creating 4 or 5 light mechanized divisions with recon tanks, light tanks and medium tanks. Plus about 35-40 independent tank battalions most with the R-35 and numerous independent tank companies.
One thing is obvious from this movie: These tanks were too fast to be designed only as infantry support. They were made to form the armoured divisions planned after 1936 by the French War Office. Their short guns were to be replaced by a longer barrel, for anti-tank combat.
That's true, but only partly. The doctrine evolved (too slowly) between 1935 and 1940. In 1940, two French tank divisions were used, not as infantry support, but as autonomous armoured units, to break through the enemy. They only lacked air support.
Remember also that, in Normandy in 1944, the Allies used tanks much as infantry support, as required by the terrain. Then came Patton's breakthrough at Avranches.
See I don't think the French had that bad of an Army in 1940, their equipment might not have been something one would see in a battlefield today. But in 1940 it wasn't that bad.
More than anything they were let down by their leaders
Oh yes I totally agree. Equipment was good, artillery excellent, tanks were generaly better than the german ones, only the French Air Force was at a real disadvantage. French soldiers demonstrated their courage and skills and achieved many local successes. The real problems were indeed tactics and strategy, and leadership.
My point was just to say that the book of De Gaulle was as good as Guderian's, and that it is a shame it was not recognized by the french generals in time.
@MaitreMithrandir roosvelt doesnt help de gaulle ,( to much charactere and independant people when usa want put a puppet in france ) america doesnt want help france really , but annexe it ..
@MaitreMithrandir Actually the Devotine 510 and 520 were quite good, maybe even better than german planes. St-Exupéry said that the best fighter in the world would probably be a Devotine 520 with a BF-109's engine.
aaaaaaaaand....you wrote this 2 years ago, and you probably don't care anymore. sigh.
@Dreachon Much more reliable than German Panthers. KV-1 gearbox was the only unreliable thing in these tanks. It coud withstand a direct hit from a 150mm shell. No tank could destroy it. Just by looking at KV and Char-B anyone can say witch was better.
I have to put a question mark with resisting even a 150mm shells, but it is possible, KV tanks were destroyed by 88mm flak guns, the hull has only 75mm of armour.
Besides KV were destroyed during 41 and 42 by german tanks although it wasn't easy and required a lot of thinking and a large portion of luck as in the case of Herman Bix.
@Dreachon KV "only 75mm" armor is 15mm more than than Char B1 had. Dosnt that (and a better gun) make KV better?
As for the 150mm gun, a SIG-33 mobile howitzer fireing directly at a KV couldnt destroy it. A high velocity 88mm shell could. Thats why the 88 is so fameous...
I fully agree with you that the KV-1 is a much better design than the char B simple because it's main weapon is in a turret.
Ah a sig 33, I was thinking about the bigger 15cm heavy howitzer but your right the sig 33 certainly before mid 1942 before they got an improved anti-tank round would have been useless againt it, except maybe for taking down the tracks of damaging it's vision blocks but other then that your right your hosed when that KV rubles toward you.
u tell me,we had it all wrong by then,my grandpas,who one a private,the other an officer told me of the total surprise they were in;so freakin sure they were the best,rude lesson learned.
the "private"grandpa told me that on may 10,all his officers had vanished,he was left alone with about 20 other troops to guard a 5 km section of the border(in the supposedly uncrossable ardennes forest)he was infantry,and they woke up to see 7 tanks bout 100m away,there was a fight though,and he lost an arm
Yes!! I'd love to see some Char B1's! (There's also a Wochenschau of Germans using Somua's in a tank battle against the Soviets early on. Seen it?) Great work once again SkoblinI.
Where's their government issued white flags?
MrHihohum1 3 weeks ago
this tank was still better then the Panzer 35(t) Whitch was 60% of the german armor. Panzer 2 and 3 was no match for the Char Tanks neither, even there most powerful tank the pazer 5 could barley penetrate the armor. The french just sucked at fighting. Out dated generals with out dated tactics, and outdated training.
88pie88 1 month ago
Hahaha!
TheChaotician 2 months ago
oh were they so wrong.
only some french vehicles were that effective, such as the Char B1 and Somua S35, which were better than nearly every vehicle at the time.
those poor infantry tanks in the video are slow, light armored, lightly armed vehicles ment to slowly advance with infantry, not face other tanks.
ChaosTicket 2 months ago
@ChaosTicket The R35, and H38 where relatively well armored at the time.
ModelbuildingTANKS 2 months ago
"Allies are ready for every nazi move...ready to counter and crush all opposition"
ORLY?
redreaper2020 5 months ago 2
Ahhh the wonders of hindsight.
romanlegions 7 months ago
i have a picture of my great grandfather on top of a captured french renault tank i guess they weren't good for countering and crushing the opposition as how this video makes it sound like
zim0wnz 7 months ago
Mmmmm, the allies were ready for any move. XD
Ultimatepanzer 10 months ago
with no guns? That would suck, and also be very french like.
cybermarsactual 11 months ago
I say.
HLecterPHD 1 year ago
the looks like a peace of shitxD
german tanks are the best
Gruzefix11 1 year ago
@Gruzefix11
Nope: in 1939-40, the French tanks was much better, probably at this time, the best of the world, in manouvrability and gun efficiency with he's 75mm fast fire gun ...
The better german tank with 88mm gun like Tiger cames only later in 1942...
oiseautempete 1 year ago
@oiseautempete The French Tanks were good in many respects but also had some serious shortcomings. None of them had three man turrents. They all used single man turrets meaning the commander was also the loader and gunner for the turrent weapon. Also many lacked radios. The Panzer III and IV by contrast had three man turrets and radios which, even though their guns may have been inferior made them more efficient in combat.
64birdman 8 months ago
@64birdman
Yes it's right, but the 47 and 75mm guns was half automatic (automatic loading) so a loader was not needed.(on the actual Leclerc, the gun is full automatic)
On the 1939-40 tanks, this reduce a bit the efficiency, but was a choice to built smaller and lighter tank: better mobility, difficulter to shot, and...less expansive and wit a smaller engine=less gas consumption (very important in war)...Actualy France built ever light small and mobile tanks but with a powerfull automatic gun
oiseautempete 8 months ago
"Ready for every nazi move", my ass. :-S
We got bashed out, that's what happened. Duh.
Briselance 1 year ago 2
all come with a white flag as standard
tipex12 1 year ago
@tipex12
Just joking or being serious ? :-/ :-)
Briselance 1 year ago
in fact the french tanks were better then the german tanks but that makes theír defeat only more humiliating they just had no idea how to use a tank the right way
so its was just like duck shooting for the german troops
Kikuta1Kotaro 1 year ago
@Kikuta1Kotaro Not exactly. Whenever the Germans encountered the more heavily armored Heavy tanks or radio-equipped units during their drive to the sea, they would often be outfought by French tanks and suffered many losses. Unfortunately for the French, air-support and the infamous 88mm flak proved that they could be defeated in a war of movement.
romanlegions 7 months ago
@romanlegions the french lost almost all of their over 3000 tanks the germans lost around 800 and the famous 8,8 cm was first used as an AT weapon on the eastern front(after tested in the spanish civil war) after the the PaK 36 proved to be inefficent against the russian tanks the better training and the installation of radio equipment in the tanks made the germans far superior compared to the entete
Kikuta1Kotaro 7 months ago
@Kikuta1Kotaro Well you kinda put up a paradox there when you said "first used as an AT weapon on the eastern front" and then followed by "after tested in the Spanish Civil War". Anyway, when you meant by Eastern Front, do you mean Poland rather then Russia, because they did use it in France as well before they launched Barbarossa.
romanlegions 7 months ago
@romanlegions of course they were used in france and poland but not as an AT gun but as an AA gun. during barbarossa they finally found out that the 88 was an exellent AT weapon and developed special versions of the 88 specialized against tanks and armored vehicels
Kikuta1Kotaro 6 months ago
@Kikuta1Kotaro Actually, the Germans did use the 88mm against tanks in France. They also used a 105mm artillery piece. These were the only guns in the German inventory that could reliable destroy French heavies like the Char B1 bis.
colddrake80 3 months ago
@Kikuta1Kotaro completely wrong ...
Djarzel 5 months ago
@Djarzel dude read some stuff before even dare to open your mouth to let your rotten brains thoughts out
Kikuta1Kotaro 4 months ago
the main gun was totally obsolete ,capable of only detroying panzer 1 tank and the gun barrel was to short to make a impact on panzer 2 ,3,4 , I guess the crews was never told that and acted sitting ducks thinking they had a chance
Buzzlybonk 1 year ago
rubush tanks
duif463 1 year ago
to kvůli Francouzum a Britum vypukla 2 sv , kdibi nezradili ČSR tak bi 2 sv byt nemusela ! kdi by nezradili neumrelo by tolik lidi !!! Czech
fidoraCZ10 1 year ago
very optimistic british commentary=)
19WDeutschW87 1 year ago
these tanks were the best but not fitted with radios... very bad thing to tactical movement! Like french army in 40 they were superior but misemployed by commandement... Army is the sword of politic! It's politic and his leadership who makes win a war... France lost because a bad politic of war and leadership not because their soldiers were cowards! Present day! US army is whitout a doubt the best of the world but the wrong politic in Irak make that it's impossible to find an issue to the war!
faerials 2 years ago
Errm Fridomfry French armour deoctrine was all about using the tanks for support roles, thats why their tanks were dispersed throughout their forces rather than concentrated into armour divisions. Especially infantry support, armoured divisions were a totally new idea by the time of the invasion, i think the French only actually had 3 of them.
thewalkereffect 2 years ago
You are half right, precisely: The French War Board had planned in 1938 to have 4 armoured divisions by late 1940. These units were designed "to be used as rams to break through enemy lines", not as infantry support (infantry corps had their own, slower tank brigades).
When the Germans invaded the West, two of these armoured divisions were used by uncompetent army leaders as static bunkers. Yet the other two (including De Gaulle's division) attacked en masse.
Fridomfry 2 years ago 2
@thewalkereffect
The French formed 4 reserve armoured divisions between January and May 1940, centred on the B-1bis and the H-35. Beginning in 1935 work start on creating 4 or 5 light mechanized divisions with recon tanks, light tanks and medium tanks. Plus about 35-40 independent tank battalions most with the R-35 and numerous independent tank companies.
MBguy2008 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
french tanks have got 4 rear gears and one front in case of attack from the back lol
DamianRproductions 2 years ago
One thing is obvious from this movie: These tanks were too fast to be designed only as infantry support. They were made to form the armoured divisions planned after 1936 by the French War Office. Their short guns were to be replaced by a longer barrel, for anti-tank combat.
Fridomfry 3 years ago
French Army used its tanks as infantry support. WW1 glorious officers didn't understand technical and strategy rules changed.
One german officer understood this, Guderian...
Few french were aware of this new military era. One of them... De Gaulle...
artyparis 2 years ago 20
That's true, but only partly. The doctrine evolved (too slowly) between 1935 and 1940. In 1940, two French tank divisions were used, not as infantry support, but as autonomous armoured units, to break through the enemy. They only lacked air support.
Remember also that, in Normandy in 1944, the Allies used tanks much as infantry support, as required by the terrain. Then came Patton's breakthrough at Avranches.
Fridomfry 2 years ago
artyparis
Had only the Gererals read his book Achtung - Panzer!
I am convinced they would have used their tanks better
CandelarioGaIvan 2 years ago
Well if they had read the book of de Gaulle "Vers l'armée de métier", it would have good enough!
Weird to think that the first tank battle ever fought was won by the French... in 1940 (Battle of Hannut).
MaitreMithrandir 2 years ago 3
MaitreMithrandir
See I don't think the French had that bad of an Army in 1940, their equipment might not have been something one would see in a battlefield today. But in 1940 it wasn't that bad.
More than anything they were let down by their leaders
CandelarioGaIvan 2 years ago
Oh yes I totally agree. Equipment was good, artillery excellent, tanks were generaly better than the german ones, only the French Air Force was at a real disadvantage. French soldiers demonstrated their courage and skills and achieved many local successes. The real problems were indeed tactics and strategy, and leadership.
My point was just to say that the book of De Gaulle was as good as Guderian's, and that it is a shame it was not recognized by the french generals in time.
MaitreMithrandir 2 years ago 8
@MaitreMithrandir
The excuse ive heard was that there were 80 million germans against 40 million french XD
DrHavoc1 6 months ago
@MaitreMithrandir roosvelt doesnt help de gaulle ,( to much charactere and independant people when usa want put a puppet in france ) america doesnt want help france really , but annexe it ..
Djarzel 5 months ago
@MaitreMithrandir Actually the Devotine 510 and 520 were quite good, maybe even better than german planes. St-Exupéry said that the best fighter in the world would probably be a Devotine 520 with a BF-109's engine.
aaaaaaaaand....you wrote this 2 years ago, and you probably don't care anymore. sigh.
lefr33man 1 month ago
The best french tank in ww2 was the Somua S-40
Nice video!
LeChar1989 3 years ago 2
It was probably the best tank in the world in 1940.
McLarenMercedes 2 years ago
@McLarenMercedes
No, Soviet KV-1 was the best tank of 1940.
Far better than anything else.
Paciat 1 year ago
@Paciat
It had good armour and a powerfull gun but it was also unreliable.
Dreachon 1 year ago
@Dreachon Much more reliable than German Panthers. KV-1 gearbox was the only unreliable thing in these tanks. It coud withstand a direct hit from a 150mm shell. No tank could destroy it. Just by looking at KV and Char-B anyone can say witch was better.
Paciat 1 year ago
@Paciat
I have to put a question mark with resisting even a 150mm shells, but it is possible, KV tanks were destroyed by 88mm flak guns, the hull has only 75mm of armour.
Besides KV were destroyed during 41 and 42 by german tanks although it wasn't easy and required a lot of thinking and a large portion of luck as in the case of Herman Bix.
Dreachon 1 year ago
@Dreachon KV "only 75mm" armor is 15mm more than than Char B1 had. Dosnt that (and a better gun) make KV better?
As for the 150mm gun, a SIG-33 mobile howitzer fireing directly at a KV couldnt destroy it. A high velocity 88mm shell could. Thats why the 88 is so fameous...
Paciat 1 year ago
@Paciat
I fully agree with you that the KV-1 is a much better design than the char B simple because it's main weapon is in a turret.
Ah a sig 33, I was thinking about the bigger 15cm heavy howitzer but your right the sig 33 certainly before mid 1942 before they got an improved anti-tank round would have been useless againt it, except maybe for taking down the tracks of damaging it's vision blocks but other then that your right your hosed when that KV rubles toward you.
Dreachon 1 year ago
@Dreachon
@Paciat
If you guys are interested in the KV-1, you can check out my KV-1 identification thread on Armchair General Forums
skoblinI 1 year ago
Viewer: 2,161 +++++ good to see some french tanks moving;-)
tacticalbattledroid 3 years ago
Thanks for this video — too short, but that's propaganda newsreels.
Too bad these tanks were often misused and poorly protected against aircrafts.
Fridomfry 3 years ago
This is hilarious.
Waiting to counter the enemy's moves. yes, Blitzkrieg is about sitting behind the lines, waiting for the enemy to move...
scundoo 3 years ago 3
u tell me,we had it all wrong by then,my grandpas,who one a private,the other an officer told me of the total surprise they were in;so freakin sure they were the best,rude lesson learned.
the "private"grandpa told me that on may 10,all his officers had vanished,he was left alone with about 20 other troops to guard a 5 km section of the border(in the supposedly uncrossable ardennes forest)he was infantry,and they woke up to see 7 tanks bout 100m away,there was a fight though,and he lost an arm
eldudu74 2 years ago 3
H-38 tanks. Have any footage of Somua S-35s?
Kaigun06 3 years ago
I have that video of char Bs on the Eastern Front...near Pskov, I believe. You will see it in time.
skoblinI 3 years ago
Pskov--that's right!
olivenstein 3 years ago
@skoblinI you are a great source of docymentary videos my friend, greetings from Athens-Greece :)
meniosgomenios 1 year ago
Yes!! I'd love to see some Char B1's! (There's also a Wochenschau of Germans using Somua's in a tank battle against the Soviets early on. Seen it?) Great work once again SkoblinI.
olivenstein 3 years ago