Just read part of the Dunkirk book where Jean-Marie de Beaucorps, an 18 year old Somua S35 driver attacks the Panzers. Turret blown off, but he carries on, rams a couple of Panzers (I or IIs.) then blows his own tank up taking the Panzers out. That lad could fight! Just read this meself on lunch break. A brave soldier indeed. They could have used a few more like him at Sedan. I'm reading about General Flavigny and the Counterattack (or lack of) by 3rd Armored. Very un-coordinated indeed.
After coming across this thread again and skimming it I thought I'd raise a question that has entered my mind on occasion. There is a lot of condemnation of the French for employing their tanks in penny packets, which I will agree is not the best way to use tanks, but with the inferior communication systems they were using at all levels how realistic is it to believe they could have employed them differently? Directing masses of tanks into an efficient fighting force takes considerable coordination, which requires a good communication network. I'm not sure the French would have been capable of that waving flags and using runners, even if they were so inclined. Just a thought.
I searched around a bit and did not see this a link to the website posted in the forum - le site des Chars Français: Chars français - Accueil It has lots of great information. For example under tab for “Char B & B1 bis” period photos of the tanks, many of which are identified by name and unit. To me, that is a great research resource. Cheers, Marc
It is a classic site MLW, you'll see some links to it on this very thread, and others. It seems to have had an extensive overhaul fairly recently. Still bugging me that I can't find a decent, comprehensive, English language, 'overview' style book on French Armour & development. One of the leaders in the field for a given period but nearly always pretty much a footnote as far as my technical bookshelf's concerned (except for stuff in captured German service, no real shortage of that... typically ). Seem to be a good many French language Encyclopedias, just none that've been translated. The above site's the best reference I can generally lay my hands on when trying to understand specifics, at least the Google translate button's always handy.
Whilst researching Stuarts I found that site quite by chance last year and there are some great photos of the French crewed Stuarts . Like Adam says, not many English Language site dealing with French Armour. Regards Tom
Excellent stuff we have here, chaps! My compliments, Grumpy Old Moose. Too bad I noticed it sort of late. Yes,that's a lot of questions. The easy one first...the S35 was probably the best tank in Europe in 1940. However, it had the same problem as many French tanks, one-man turret, and crewmembers separated from each other. German tanks had two-man turrets, and the crewmembers were close to each other so they could give visual signals to each other. French tanks also lacked radios, and had short ranges...they needed constant refueling, and not from jerricans, but mobile fuel trucks. Guess what the first German target for their guns was. French tanks were badly led, handled, and had poor doctrine. Three French armored divisions were sent to face the German attack through the Ardennes. One was pretty much caught detraining in a rail yard and shot up there. The second was caught while refuelling. The third was scattered into penny packets and could not fight cohesively. The French tanks were mostly used as infantry support. I do not know what happened to surviving French tankers. Most were taken POW and spent the war as industrial labor in the Reich. Hope that helps. Wasn´t the Char 1B, taking into account firepower and armor, and disregarding lack of range, a better tank? Also, IMO, doctrine, above equipment or courage of the crews, proved the demise of French armor; facing the panzer-Stuka teams so deeply embedded into Blitzkrieg thinking, with scattered, isolated tanks, fighting as mobile pillboxes in support of the infantry, could only end in an all-out rout, just as it happened. Cheers chaps, it still amazes me that a Nation with such a fine Military background as the French had such a rotten Army in 1940. How differnt the Armies of 1914 and 1940 were. In a thread about operation Catapult, I said that the corrupt and inept French political leaders, further influencing an already outdated Army top brass, were the real reason behind the utterly poor show the French Armed Forces put up in those darks months of 1940.
Just read this meself on lunch break. A brave soldier indeed. They could have used a few more like him at Sedan. I'm reading about General Flavigny and the Counterattack (or lack of) by 3rd Armored. Very un-coordinated indeed. Bah! Once a Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey, always a Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey! :loldevil:
Bah! Once a Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey, always a Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey! Za, don't be stupid all the time, take a day off for once.
Tch, my smilie was not enough to convey the sarcastic spirit under which I posted. I ought to have added some "quote" marks as well at least. What I meant was to make fun of the prejudice we often meet about the French in general coming from a certain geographical entity which will remain nameless, as present in this very thread (#9 and #11 for a soft instance). Of course at the time of 1st Gulf War nobody from that quarter complained about the French, but... It was not my intention to denigrate the French army or people at all. Written expression does not carry voice modulations, facial expressions, body language. Special care has to be taken when writing to compensate for this. I'm sorry if my hastiness and lack of elegance made my feelings come across the way it did. My public apologies to the forum.
How effective was the gun on the R35? I have seen sources that say both very effective, while other say not very effective. Could it take out the pz III at 500 yds with a frontal shot?
How effective was the gun on the R35? I have seen sources that say both very effective, while other say not very effective. Could it take out the pz III at 500 yds with a frontal shot? Even though I have no hard info at this time, I really don´t think that pitifully little popgun, with such a short barrel and corresponding low muzzle-speed, could do much harm.
It would probably have been OK against the sort of "infantry support" tanks and armoured cars the R35 was expected to engage at worst. Unfortunately les salles Boches didn't play by the rules... Most of the decent French tanks that HADN'T dashed up to North Belgium and Breda - the Hotchkiss 39s and Somuas of Rene Prioux' 2 and 3 DLM - were lost or severely attrited in the fighting in front of the Gembloux Gap, so R35s ended up being thrown into tank-to-tank engagements they weren't designed for
There is some info here French Guns 37mm calibre the AP capability of the SA18 gun of the R35's is not good but the longer SA38 mounted on some of the improved H39 and R40 looks like it could defeat the 30mm vertical armour of an early Pz III at 400m. And would do better against the thinner skinned Pz IIC and Pz I that still made up the bulk of the German forces. But the two men crew .......
The Germans were still using S35s (with some modification) in 1944, which tells you something. The French tanks certainly were better armoured and armed than the German, but they were hampered by the poorly designed fighting compartment and turret. Whenever they met in generally equal numbers, the Germans came off worst.
The AMC-35 with the APX2 (two man) turrett had the chance to have been a great tank, but only a handful were produced, and those for the Belgian army??? The French could and did build some two man turretted tanks, but it seems as if this was a big oportunity wasted, delays in production and R&D, etc. What a waste! AMC 35 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I cannot understand why the French were so hide bound on the one man turrett thing? Was there a politician or general somewhere who was trying to proove some "pet theory" concerning the utility of one man turretts? Was Gibt?
I was watching a Deutsche Wochenschau video from 1943-03-17 which featured a bit with German Field Police units (Army) combined with SS units operating in an anti-partisan role. One of the sequences featured the use of what I believe looks like a French tank, possible a Souma. I took this screen shot of the bit. You can see how smalll the tank really is. I'm sure it would be usless against contemporary Russian armour however I bet it was pretty intimidating to the lightly armed partisans.
I was watching a Deutsche Wochenschau video from 1943-03-17 which featured a bit with German Field Police units (Army) combined with SS units operating in an anti-partisan role. One of the sequences featured the use of what I believe looks like a French tank, possible a Souma. I took this screen shot of the bit. You can see how smalll the tank really is. I'm sure it would be usless against contemporary Russian armour however I bet it was pretty intimidating to the lightly armed partisans. Looks like an R35 to me, according to the little popgun involved, and this kind of coffin sure was small.
Yeah, it does look like an R-35. I agree that I wouldnt want to face a T-34, or even a KV1 in one of them. Against partisans I imagine that it would be quite a powerful weapon. Or, as used to guard airfields or bridges against sappers and paras, it would be useful. Light tanks always seemed to find a place in the WWII battlefields right up to the end.
