French Tanks

Can anyone tell me what the French army for tanks? How did there tanks go against the Germans?

 

The French had al kind of tanks, especially Renault ones. There were however three problems at least with the French tank strategy:
1) Most of the material was outdated and modern tanks that could have kept up with panzers were availbable in small quantities only. In fact they were somtimes captured intact because there was no way to stop the panzers with them. Some of them were well prtoected and had good canons, but they were too heavy and slow and lighter german panzers could move faster and take them out.
2) The French strategy was defensive. Instead of putting their tanks together and charge like the germans did, they scattered them around the country, making easy targets for Stukas and Panzers who outnumbered them
3)The French did not believe in a tank offensive and therefore invested in defense works like the Maginot line.
Captured tanks were recycled by the germans and the renault turrets were often used for canons in bunkers in the atlantic wall.

 

thanks alot! ^^

 

The French army had two distinct lines of development for tanks in the interwar period. The first was infantry support while the second role was cavalry reconnissance.
For infantry support the French went at first with essentially what were improved versions of their very successful FT 17 of WW 1. These vehicles included the Renault 35 and 39, Hotchkiss 35 and 36 and the somewhat larger FCM 36. All were two man vehicles with moderately heavy armor and were equipped with a stubby 37mm gun and a macinegun. Their main purpose was to assist the infantry not fight tanks. Very late H39 and R39 models did receive a longer 37mm gun once the French realized that their tanks needed a bit more firepower for the antitank role. This however, did little to make them suitable for tank on tank combat.
All of these vehicles were without radio. Their tactics were rigid and plodding. All of this fit well with their role of infantry support in a set piece battle reminensent of 1918.
The next generation infantry tanks were the heavier vehicles like the Char D1, D2 and, B1 bis. These had more armor and firepower. The first two were really just larger versions of the earlier Renault and Hotchkiss tanks with little more capacity for anything other than infantry support.
The Char B1 bis could best be described as a mobile version of an Ouverage. Sort of a miniature, mobile Maginot line! As an antitank vehicle it was nearly worthless. Its primary role was to literally be a mobile artillery bunker on the battlefield. The inclusion of a turret was more as a defensive measure much like a cloche in a Maginot line bunker.

On the cavalry side of things their tanks were developed for the narrowly defined role of scouting. The light versions like the AMR 33 were for long range reconnissance. Mostly armed with a machinegun they were for scouting and patrolling ahead of the main body of the army in the advance. The heavier Souma S35 was for battlefield reconnissance. Its primary role was to scout not fight. Fighting tanks was definitely a secondary consideration to the reconnissance role.

When you couple these designs to the French doctrine of Methodical Battle you get a collection of lethargic near blind tanks that were hardly capable of fighting a mobile battle of any sort. Their intended employment was in the context of a static battlefield where tanks operated at a leisurely pace in a very scripted battleplan. To sum them up, they were design failures across the board.

 

Hawkerace

Here is a web site for French armor from after 1918.

http://www.chars-francais.net/

And this section shows the tanks built, including prototypes from 1919 to 1940

http://www.chars-francais.net/de1930a1940.htm

If you wish to read details of the first large armored battle in history look for a copy of Jeff Gunsbergs artical in the Journal of Military History titled the battle of the Gembloux Gap. (If your library does not have this journal contact me I can send a copy).

There are number of other sources where you can find details about the French & German tanks. Comparing the thickness and slope of the armor on the various models is suprising.

Equally interesting are the charts you can find showing the armor piercing ability of the various tanks guns. One detail I noticed is that the French & Germans tested their guns in different ways. The German tests were decribes as made against a sloped armor plate while the French test were made against a vertical armor plate. In the first case the AP round is more likely to ricochette off so the pentration value of the gun will be lower.

Perhaps the most interesting thing is that the Germans and Italians used most of the French tanks they captured. The Germans even took over a French repair facility and salavaged many of the damaged tanks from the battlefield.

Some of the French tanks were converted to new use. For example a self propelled howitzer the Wehrmacht fielded in 1942 was built on the chasiss of the Lorraine armored ammunition carrier. Others had the cannon removed and replaced with a flame thrower.

Others were used as is. The panzer divsion sent to Norway in anticipation of a Allied attack there was equipped with salavaged French tanks. The 21st Pz Div was reformed in France in 1944 after being destroyed, and was equipped with French tanks including the B1. the 21st fought in Normandy with these remnants.

The Italians used French tanks in Tunisia and Scilly.

And last the French fought with those tanks again in 1942. When Pattons II Corps landed in Morroco in November 1942 a company of his light Stuart tanks fought a French counter attack of light tanks. Later that month the French commander of the Tunis Division made a stand along the Medjeb River. Ten carefully hoarded AMD infantry tanks made a last show firing at the German paras & Italians assualting across the river.

 

Just saw a document on French tanks in 1940 battles

No wonder the Char B-1 could not do its best:

Four crew members had very complicated duties, even when expertly trained duty roster didn't allow for tactical efficiency in combat. Tank driver was also gunner for 75mm gun controlling elevation with hand lever, while at the same time controlling machine-gun in the hull. Special loader set the trigger on the 75mm rounds and passed 45mm rounds into the turret which was electrically powered in which overworked commander/gunner tried to command the tank and formation and work the 47mm gun quickly.

http://www.vojska.net/eng/world-war-2/armor/char-b1/

 

An interesting point with the Char B1 is that it was not widely used after France fell by the Germans unlike many other ex-French AFV were.

 

'Abteilung 213' For example, stationed on Jersey, equipped with Char B1's and having the distinction of being a German armoured unit that never fired a shot in anger. Not exactly frontline.
They certainly weren't shy of using the other vehicles/chassis though were they.

Some French tanks in action:
Then:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Pd75Gdc_ic&mode=related&search=

& restored:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt6ouU8sVXU

and a list of Surviving French Tanks from the Shadock. (4.3Mb pdf.)

Has anyone got or read a particularly good 'technical' book on French armour? It's definitely a bit of a gap on my bookshelves and I've a longstanding hunt on for one that's not in French.

Cheers,
Adam.

 

From an earlier thread on this board I posted:

And, completely untrue. This sort of tripe is repeated frequently and is based solely on a measure of the Char B1 bis' armor, firepower, and mobility taken in the most coarse way with no consideration of the human side of the equation.
As I see it, the Char B1 could best be described as a self propelled field fortification; an artillery bunker with a motor. The 75mm in the hull was fixed in train (no travese). Using it against anything other than a stationary target or as an artillery piece was difficult or impossible. As an antitank weapon it was useless.
Note, like its cousins in the Maginot line it was a very heavy piece for its size. It also had a pneumatic blow out to remove fumes from the tank like guns in the Maginot line did.
The driver of the tank was the gunner for this weapon having a bionocular sight for this purpose (in addition to a single view port for driving the tank). Obviously, driving and operating the gun were largely mutually exclusive functions.
A dedicated loader for the 75 was provided. This crew member had one function, select, fuze, and load the 75 in action. He had no other weapon (like a machinegun) to operate. He was provided no vision devices or other means to assist the tank in locating targets etc when not engaged in loading.
Up in the turret there was a single gunner also. Describing this crewman as the commander is something of a misnomer. He was far more a observer for the 75mm and when necessary could defend the tank using the 47mm and machinegun in the turret. Since he was the loader, gunner and, observer he had far too much to do to be efficent at any one of those tasks.
Last, there was a dedicated radio operator who like the loader had a single task to perform.
In design, the Char B1 also had an additional weakness. Its hull was bolted, yes, bolted together. Not riveted, bolted. This is a poor choice. The bolts represent a real hazard if hit; far more so than rivets. The bolts could easily be sheared off and ricochet around the inside of the vehicle. Also, they could work loose imparing the sturcturial stability of the vehicle. The side mounted radiator was also a big weak point as was the side mounted entry door.
If anything, the only really cutting edge technology in the Char B1 was the steering system using a regenerative hydraulic system to allow very fine turning movements of the vehicle (necessary to aim the 75mm).
French doctrine saw the Char B1 being used in support of infantry in literally the way described earlier....as a mobile bunker firing away with its 75mm and machineguns on enemy strongpoints. If an enemy tank were to appear the 47 could handle the problem. Mobility need only be sufficent to keep up with the walking infantry and cross a shell torn battlefield.
On the whole, it was an archaic throwback to WW 1, not the forward looking tank say the Pz III was.

 

Also behind the front lines the army used former MK (4? I don't remember) WWI tanks. When the French realised it was suicide using these fragile and slow vehicles agains the Panzers, they were often used as barricades. I remember reading that General de Gaulle served in a modern tank unit and had some successes against the Germans. Unfortunately there were only a few modern units.

 

There were not many left to use. Of the slightly over three hundred built less than half were in operating condition in June 1940. The web site 'chars fancais' I linked above has a page showing the results of research on the fate of these tanks in 1940. Post 1940 the Wehrmacht established a depot unit for salvaging & disposing of the the French tanks. Some of the men for this unit went with the machines to join the cadre to rebuild the 21st Pz Divsion after Stalingrad. A few of the B1 were used as test vehicals. a slightly larger number converted to flamethrower tanks, and the remainder eventually went to the tank battalion in Normandy, or were stripped for repair parts.

The B1 series were designed from the start as a assualt weapon. Specificlly for destroying entrenched & fortified defenses. The revolving turret with its secondary gun seems to confuse many people into thinking this was some sort of battle tank. The specifications for it and French armor doctrine make it role fairly clear. On this subject the advice given above 'to ignore the televsion version of history' is never better. I'd recomend Doughty's 'The Seeds of Disaster' as good stating point for understanding the role of the B1 and French armored doctrine.

The DCR type divsions the B1 was eventually included in were intended as large scale assualt units, for blasting away specific sectors of the enemys defense, not as manuver units as the French DLM or the German, Soviet, or US armored divsions. Their organization and training made them inadaquate for the mobile battles that develped in May 1940.

As assualt weapons the B1 is better compared to the German StgIII and the SU types of the Soviet army, or perhaps something like the Churchill or Jumbo tanks.

 

The best French tanks (especially the Somua S35) were better than the ones Germany had in 1940 in respect of armour and gunpower, but the one-man turrets and lack of radios crippled them tactically: there was no way that one man could effectively do the job of loading, aiming and firing the gun, plus looking out for targets and commanding the tank.

A couple of recent pics of a surviving Char B1 which I took at Eurosatory last year. What struck me was how small it is, considering it was supposed to be a giant by 1940 standards: it is simply dwarfed by modern AFVs.





The French 47mm gun was quite powerful for 1940 - much more so than the rather weak German 37mm (as indeed was the British 2 pdr). A couple of photos of 1940 AFV gun ammunition (from the Ammunition Photo Gallery on my website):


7.92x57 (MG 34/42, Besa), 12.7x81 (0.5" Vickers), 13.9x99B (.55" Boys), 15x104 (Besa), 20x99R (ShVAK), 20x138B (KwK 30/38), 25x194R (French Hotchkiss), 37x94R (French Mle 1916/1918)


37x94R (French 37mm Mle 1916/1918), 37x149R (French 37mm Mle 1938), 37x249R (German 3,7cm), 37x257R (Polish wz 36 - 37mm Bofors), 37x268R (Czech 37mm vz 34/38), 40x304R (British 2pdr), 47x195R (Italian 47mm Mod 37 - Austrian Bohler), 45 x 310R (Russian Mod 37), 47x193R French 47mm Mle 1935

 

Tony these pictures are just beauties. I have always been amazed by the size of the lower gun of this char. You will notice it went up and down but could not turn . Thank you for sharing.

 

In Hornes history of the 1940 campaign 'to Lose a Battle' there is a translation of a French tank officers description of fighting the 5th & 7th Pz Divsions near Phillipeville on 15 May. At one point the French Lieutenant decribes counting 75 enemy tanks in sight of his three tank platoon, and says "..I begain to feel pressured.."

While the French armored forces failed at the operational level one frequently finds from decriptions of the participants that the German armor could not cope with the French tanks at the tactical level. A German tank regiment commander of the 4th Pz Div describes spending some three hours of the morning of 12 May trying to clear some French tanks out of the villiage of Crehen. It was a single squadron of twentyone H39 light tanks vs the German 100+ MkI, MkII, & MkIII of the Pz regiment. Just before midday the French had permission to withdraw, and simply drove through the German companys that had surrounded the villiage. The surviving French commander described his tanks as having a "beard" of AP shots stuck on thier armor.

 

I have read that the Somoa was a better tank for the French and one that the Germans used after the fall of France.



Weight 19.5 t
Length 5.38 m
Width 2.12 m
Height 2.62 m
Crew 3 (driver, radio operator/purveyor, commander/gunner)
Armor 47 mm
Primary armament 47 mm SA 35 gun
Secondary armament 7.5 mm Mitrailleuse mle 1931 optionally coaxial
Engine SOMUA V-8 petrol
190 hp (140 kW)
Power/weight hp/tonne
Suspension leaf spring bogies
Speed 40.7 km/h (off-road: 32.2 km/h)

The hull and turret were castings with a maximum thickness of 47 mm and 40 mm respectively— the former of three sections. The turret was a variant of the APX 1 as used on the Char B1: the APX 1-CE (chemin élargi) with a larger (1130 mm as against 1022 mm) turret ring, allowing the radio operator to assist the commander in loading the gun. Still, as with the B1, the commander was expected to direct the tank while aiming, loading and firing the 47 mm SA 35 main gun — although at least the radio duty could be left to another crewmember. Radios were planned to be part of the standard equipment of S35s. In practice the platoon commander had a ER (émetteur-récepteur)29 set for communications at a higher level, but a shortage of the short range ER28 sets for communication within the platoon meant that the other four tanks were never fitted with any form of radio, although in some units all tanks had antennae: the programme to fit the sets themselves was postponed until the summer of 1940 and thus overtaken by events.

The suspension was designed by Eugène Brillié, the same man who had developed the first French tank, the Schneider CA1. He had worked with the Czech Škoda company and based his design on that of the LT35: eight road wheels paired on four bogies with leaf springs and an equally large tension wheel.

The engine was in the rear of the hull side by side with two self-sealing fuel tanks, of 100 and 410 litres respectively, separated from the fighting compartment by a firewall bulkhead. The (officially) 200 hp engine, designed by Javier-Sabin, drew fuel from the smaller tank, which was itself automatically replenished from the larger one. Inexperienced crews sometimes made the mistake of only filling the smaller tank.

 

Speed like that, you could surely pull a blitzkrieg O.O

 

A rather tragic quote from Lt. Louis Bounaix, section commander in the 2eme Compagnie of the 37eme BCC describing his unit's advance through a Belgian town in 1940:

A quick look on the web reveals Bounaix's actual combat outcome on the always excellent Chars Francais website:

The rest of the article on this tank's fate is in French but can be read with dodgy internet translation Here:


Cheers,
Adam.

 

View attachment 165

It's called the ARL 44.

During the occupation, while some French war industries continued to work for the Axis, some engineers kept working on better new French tanks. This was the only post-Vichy one I know of? and participated in war-end parades in Paris. I think one piece molded armour, very thick, sloped. Large 3 man turret and extremely long 90mm gun with characteristic wheel guards still. Better than Tiger maybe?
Not overly speedy or long-ranged, but more practical than British TOG.

Oui oui?

Ca c'est tres bon, tres belle, tres forte.
ou la la
tra la la BOOM zyae!

Just imagine, vs Germans or for Germans or vs Russians if Patton got his way and maybe this got into mass production?

Sorry pic is so small, you really want to click on it and see fuller view I think.

 

le Tiger? xP

 

That ARL 44 is quite the beasty though ain't it?

Cripes I wonder what the velocity of the 90mm shells coming out that unbelievably long cannon would compare with?

If Patton got his way(an article I saw at Miller Systems), and there was war between the Soviets and Allies after Germany's surrender, and if the French had time to remobilise their armaments industry, I wonder how this French tank would have contributed to the Allied effort agianst the Russian monsters paraded to Allied shock in Germany after the war?

Yup, looks like the French tank engineers there were learning the lessons of the war in that baby. When milsys first had it up I thought it was a fake, but it appears the French really did come up with it during the occupation.

So much for laughing at surrendered French tanks used as pillboxes and garrison pieces. That thing is serious.