@road6849 French tank guns were initially short-barrels, like in 1918, in line with infantry support missions. From 1938 the French were creating autonomous armoured divisions, designed to "ram" deep into enemy lines (just what De Gaulle did with his division in May'40). Thus they were replacing short guns with longer ones, mainly to shoot at German tanks. B1bis tanks' guns were designed to pierce all German tank armours (which they did). They were just helpless against Stukas…
Char-B1bis+Matilda2+S35+Char-d2 in use with Soviet deep-operation theory may blocked Germans break-attacks; general Gamelin and lord Gorth both was simple out of modern-time theory , created by marshall Tukhachewskyi and general Guderian; general de Gaule knew of this, but he was not chief of generlstaff
The French Tank were clearly the best armored vehicle in the early 1940. They have design the spirit of the other modern tank for decades... unfortunately their number was only an half of the German capacities... And if Guderian have read and use the technicals described by general Degaulle in 1930, Only the Germans have use the tank as a offensive weapon, and in special division...
It is often claimed this formed a weak spot in the armour, based on a single incident on 16 May near Stonne where two German 37 mm PAK guns claimed to have knocked out three Char B1's by firing at the intakes at close range. Theoretically the air intake, which was a 6-inch (150 mm) thick assemblage through which horizontal slits first angled upward and then downward between 28 mm thick armour plates, should not be more vulnerable than the normal 55 mm side plates.
true that the french tanks were bether 1 vs 1 compared to the germans but the german use of superior tactics and air support overcame the french army. as well this big french tanks needed alot of fuel...more fuel than the french army could give them wich ment that many french tanks especially the B1-Bis collapsed because of lack of fuel. the german tanks didn't need alot of fuel and were very mobile and was capable of destroying french tnaks aswell.
Not to forget the perfect communication and coordination between German Land and Air Forces, which revolved on the radio, provided virtually to all of German AFV, artillery batteries, etc. and the men trained to use it properly, the leaders trained to take that new dimension in account, etc., etc.
Besides, the refuelling of German AFV was much easier : it was made with the well-known Jerrycans, while the French used mostly, if not only, tanker trucks, very vulnerables.
The big problem was that (due to cost and government policy) most of the projected CharB and Somau tank regiments were never built and a large number of Renault R35 light tanks were used to make up the numbers.
The Renault was awful. It's WW1-era 37mm main gun was too low velocity to penetrate German tanks and it's relatively heavy armour meant it was too slow and had too short range to operate effectively as a reconnaissance vehicle.
It's interesting that the complaints against the French tanks seem to always place them out of time-sequence. The Char B may seem antiquated, but look at the Grant which did reasonably well 2 years later. What's the difference? The Somua was the 'Sherman' of its era, and every bit as good as the Pzkw III. I don't even fault the French tactics. Blitzkrieg comes down to us as genius, but really it was just surprise. Surprise won in 1940.
Well one thing to remind is that both those french tanks had a one man turret, that means the commander has to command the tank, load aim and fire the main gun, load aim and fire the co-ax machinegun which is just to much work for one person.
@Dreachon Quite. I must admit my bias, as I have always loved the Char B. I like its "Jules Verne" appearance, and given an honest appraisal against the its rival tanks in 1940, it comes off looking pretty good. If one thinks of it as an assault gun, it actually looks first-class.
Look you can't bring in the thickness of armor its a moot point when you take into account the Metallurgy of the time. Not all countries produces the same a quality of steel for their armor. Thickness doesn't amount to much when five inches of armor is equal to an inch of your enemies armor
French tanks were slightly better armed and armoured than anything the Germans had at the time, but they were built around infantry support rather than fighting other tanks. The lower quality of the recruits and few radios didn't help either.
And note that absolutely all of the German tanks (maybe except the lightest ones, such as the Panzer I) had a radio and a 3-men turret, contrary to the French AFV, who had a turret for just 1 or 2 men and no radio, except for the squad leaders' tanks. (the B1 bis tank being the exception : all had a radio)
Can't remember when nor where, but I've read that, given the less numerous French population compared with Germany, most of French political and military top brass decided a 3 men turret was useless, since they would (might) have had difficulties to find the 3rd man to be put in every tank's turret.
As said a French humourist: : "In 1939, everybody already knew that General Gamelin was an ass, except the military. That's what one calls a military secret."
@proulxmontpellier It's funny, yet this is just a humourist's phrase. In fact many French officers considered Gamelin was a clever bureaucrat, but not a leader for action (see De Gaulle's Memoirs, for instance). The real culprits were the politicians, who had chosen Gamelin because he was "politically reliable", instead of favouring efficiency. Weygand was a much better commander in chief, but he arrived too late.
The seem to me that the french guns were smaller?Speed was another difference?
road6849 3 months ago
@road6849 French tank guns were initially short-barrels, like in 1918, in line with infantry support missions. From 1938 the French were creating autonomous armoured divisions, designed to "ram" deep into enemy lines (just what De Gaulle did with his division in May'40). Thus they were replacing short guns with longer ones, mainly to shoot at German tanks. B1bis tanks' guns were designed to pierce all German tank armours (which they did). They were just helpless against Stukas…
Hippophilee 2 weeks ago
Char-B1bis+Matilda2+S35+Char-d2 in use with Soviet deep-operation theory may blocked Germans break-attacks; general Gamelin and lord Gorth both was simple out of modern-time theory , created by marshall Tukhachewskyi and general Guderian; general de Gaule knew of this, but he was not chief of generlstaff
mirkojorgovic 5 months ago
The S 35 was very well built. I like it. looks dumb but good for its time.
ThePooppantsman 8 months ago
The French Tank were clearly the best armored vehicle in the early 1940. They have design the spirit of the other modern tank for decades... unfortunately their number was only an half of the German capacities... And if Guderian have read and use the technicals described by general Degaulle in 1930, Only the Germans have use the tank as a offensive weapon, and in special division...
Erikges 1 year ago
@patrikasLTL
Sorry, mate. I have overreacted. I'm just no good at detecting sarcasm. Sorry for the offense, man.
Briselance 1 year ago
06:11 : A well-placed shell in the ventilation grid ? Wasn't it as much armored than the rest of the tank ?
Briselance 1 year ago
@Briselance
It is often claimed this formed a weak spot in the armour, based on a single incident on 16 May near Stonne where two German 37 mm PAK guns claimed to have knocked out three Char B1's by firing at the intakes at close range. Theoretically the air intake, which was a 6-inch (150 mm) thick assemblage through which horizontal slits first angled upward and then downward between 28 mm thick armour plates, should not be more vulnerable than the normal 55 mm side plates.
Briselance 1 year ago
Comment removed
Briselance 1 year ago
true that the french tanks were bether 1 vs 1 compared to the germans but the german use of superior tactics and air support overcame the french army. as well this big french tanks needed alot of fuel...more fuel than the french army could give them wich ment that many french tanks especially the B1-Bis collapsed because of lack of fuel. the german tanks didn't need alot of fuel and were very mobile and was capable of destroying french tnaks aswell.
totalwarfreak1 1 year ago
@totalwarfreak1
Not to forget the perfect communication and coordination between German Land and Air Forces, which revolved on the radio, provided virtually to all of German AFV, artillery batteries, etc. and the men trained to use it properly, the leaders trained to take that new dimension in account, etc., etc.
Besides, the refuelling of German AFV was much easier : it was made with the well-known Jerrycans, while the French used mostly, if not only, tanker trucks, very vulnerables.
Briselance 1 year ago
The big problem was that (due to cost and government policy) most of the projected CharB and Somau tank regiments were never built and a large number of Renault R35 light tanks were used to make up the numbers.
The Renault was awful. It's WW1-era 37mm main gun was too low velocity to penetrate German tanks and it's relatively heavy armour meant it was too slow and had too short range to operate effectively as a reconnaissance vehicle.
SD78 1 year ago
It's interesting that the complaints against the French tanks seem to always place them out of time-sequence. The Char B may seem antiquated, but look at the Grant which did reasonably well 2 years later. What's the difference? The Somua was the 'Sherman' of its era, and every bit as good as the Pzkw III. I don't even fault the French tactics. Blitzkrieg comes down to us as genius, but really it was just surprise. Surprise won in 1940.
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad
Well one thing to remind is that both those french tanks had a one man turret, that means the commander has to command the tank, load aim and fire the main gun, load aim and fire the co-ax machinegun which is just to much work for one person.
Dreachon 1 year ago
@Dreachon Quite. I must admit my bias, as I have always loved the Char B. I like its "Jules Verne" appearance, and given an honest appraisal against the its rival tanks in 1940, it comes off looking pretty good. If one thinks of it as an assault gun, it actually looks first-class.
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad
Well if you go purely on it's technical abilities it is a very powerfull tank, well armoured and well armed.
The only main problem with was that it was poorly designed in terms of crew effeciency.
Dreachon 1 year ago
I wish they would had talk about the French "char 2C" wich is about the biggest tank ever built,with a crew of 12,and 30 feet long!
DasBootU9643 2 years ago
Look you can't bring in the thickness of armor its a moot point when you take into account the Metallurgy of the time. Not all countries produces the same a quality of steel for their armor. Thickness doesn't amount to much when five inches of armor is equal to an inch of your enemies armor
nuzuk 2 years ago
ERGONOMICS iS AWKWARD- affects fightabilty.
mikerama1 2 years ago
French tanks were slightly better armed and armoured than anything the Germans had at the time, but they were built around infantry support rather than fighting other tanks. The lower quality of the recruits and few radios didn't help either.
TedShatner10 2 years ago 10
Yes. The Germans were far ahead of the French with radio communication
2bn442RCT 2 years ago
Exactly!!! germans had this technical advantage who make the difference in Attack coordination on battlefield!
faerials 2 years ago
@2bn442RCT
And note that absolutely all of the German tanks (maybe except the lightest ones, such as the Panzer I) had a radio and a 3-men turret, contrary to the French AFV, who had a turret for just 1 or 2 men and no radio, except for the squad leaders' tanks. (the B1 bis tank being the exception : all had a radio)
Briselance 1 year ago
@2bn442RCT
Can't remember when nor where, but I've read that, given the less numerous French population compared with Germany, most of French political and military top brass decided a 3 men turret was useless, since they would (might) have had difficulties to find the 3rd man to be put in every tank's turret.
Briselance 1 year ago
@TedShatner10 and the germans always had air support by stukas
Buemmo 1 year ago
@TedShatner10 well, they had radios mounted in their tanks, but they only could receive signals and not send themselves
PitbullNL 1 year ago
@TedShatner10
As said a French humourist: : "In 1939, everybody already knew that General Gamelin was an ass, except the military. That's what one calls a military secret."
proulxmontpellier 1 year ago 6
@proulxmontpellier It's funny, yet this is just a humourist's phrase. In fact many French officers considered Gamelin was a clever bureaucrat, but not a leader for action (see De Gaulle's Memoirs, for instance). The real culprits were the politicians, who had chosen Gamelin because he was "politically reliable", instead of favouring efficiency. Weygand was a much better commander in chief, but he arrived too late.
Hippophilee 2 weeks ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
French tanks.....lol
Hahalo3 2 years ago
they were actually better than the german ones in 1940
what won the war for the germans were their superior tactics
AlexDeLarge90 2 years ago 13
This comment has received too many negative votes show
French tanks......LOL
Hahalo3 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hahalo3
Swedish tanks ... oh wait. It doesn't even exist.
Briselance 1 year ago
Comment removed
daathus 7 months ago
French tanks at the begining of ww2 were the best in the world.
22623501 2 years ago
Yes.
HoustonGD 2 years ago
Well, except for some of the Soviet ones.
Too bad French doctrine at the time limited the usefulness of their rather excellent tanks.
Pzgraf 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The French Tanks Sucked Worse tanks ever
irishlax30 2 years ago
the germans didn't think so and used them when they invaded the Soviet Union in 1941
AlexDeLarge90 2 years ago
@irishlax30
What can an Irish know in terms of tanks ? duh ...
Briselance 1 year ago
Tigers would have mess these tanks up these's are the worst tanks of the war
irishlax30 2 years ago
except the TIger arrived in late 1942, and didn't arrive in any larger number until 1943
back in 1940 there were no Tigers
AlexDeLarge90 2 years ago 4
I got one of those A19 cruisers and it sank!! Looks like I was conned there!
alanheath 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
24-F-NY-single - MSG me on MSN. ID is in my profile. J
2lazy2type 3 years ago