Tanks of France.

[Panzerknacker]

A topic for the all the armored vehicles used since 1918.

http://www.peachmountain.com/Narayan/images/2005_Saumur/Char_B1_bis_003.jpg

[Panzerknacker]

Char D'Assault St. Chamond

The tanks saw their first action on September 15, 1916, when the British Commander-in-Chief in France,Marshal Haig, ordered the first two tank companies to be employed against the German forces during the Battle of the Somme.

Albeit the modest results of this action, due to lack of trained crews, mechanical damages and inexperience in tank field employement , the new weapon had, however, a highly remarkable psychological impact.
At the same time the French were developing their own tanks

(a little anecdote : the French attributed to J.L.Breton, a French engineer, the invention of the new armored weapon; a special French-British committee was later appointed to decide about tank's actual paternity.).

Forgetting these chauvinistic disputes, nobody can deny that French tanks' "Father" was Col. Estienne. In spite of the military authorities' indifference and skepticism about the new weapon, he obtained Gen. Joffre's (French Army Commander-in-Chief) support and developed two types of tanks, both following the "assault gun" concept.

http://i41.tinypic.com/2qitn5d.jpg

Figuring in as the forerunner to the modern day self-propelled gun, the St. Chamond was of a French design and saw combat through most of World War 1. The system was plodding and heavy, never really able to traverse typical battlefield terrain, but nevertheless could field a powerful main gun in the form of the 1897 75mm model.

Requiring a crew of nine personnel to man and operate the machine, the St. Chamond was the brainchild design of one Colonel Rimailho. Classified as a "tank" these systems were actually more designed in the form of what we would term an "assault gun", or a predecessor to the modern day self-propelled versions so common after World War Two. The 75mm served as the primary armament to the St. Chamond and an additional 4 x Hotchkiss 8mm (.315 inch) machine guns were used as secondary defensive weapons.

http://i40.tinypic.com/w7gccm.jpg

The St. Chamond was designed and engineered long and low, another detriment to the already crippled design as the system would have a hard go at it when managing anything more than level terrain - often becoming stuck where today's battle tanks could easily tread. Additionally, the short tread length coupled with the long hull design made the system difficult to handle. The heavy electric transmission that operated with the gasoline engine added considerable weight. As such, the system, though enjoying some usefulness throughout the war, was eventually relegated to supplementary roles by war's end - though it would serve throughout the war's entirety. By then, more effective battlefield systems were being fielded by all sides, making the St. Chamond design a vintage attempt. Most would end up as supply carriers as a result of these glaring deficiencies.

http://i39.tinypic.com/jjb8yq.jpg

[tankgeezer]

The problems with the St. Chamond were like those of many early tanks, as they were based on mounting an armored "box" on top of the new commercial catarpillar tractors (such as the "Holt")which had come to market. though a good concept, the small tracks, and high center of gravity made these vehicles top heavy, and cumbersome as the superstructures frequently hung well over the ends of the tracks. The weight of the superstructures, and fittings often burdened the tractors to the point of causing frequent mechanical failures. These problems were somewhat rectified with the advent of the better thought out rhomboidal tanks having the tracks return along the upper part of the hull, lowering the center of gravity, (but not the meantime between failures)

[kamehouse]

I have a few pictures of french tanks from my trip to Bovington.I'll post them when I'll be back home.
As promised:
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee44/kamehouse-uk/Bovington%20WW1/BovingtonWW1Tanks022.jpg
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee44/kamehouse-uk/Bovington%20WW1/BovingtonWW1Tanks023.jpg
Renault FT17 from Bovington
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee44/kamehouse-uk/Bovington%20Tank%20museum/BovingtonWW2Allies003.jpg
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee44/kamehouse-uk/Bovington%20Tank%20museum/BovingtonWW2Allies002.jpg

[Carl Schwamberger]

Heres a site with a fairly complete roster of French tanks. Incl;uding some never built.

http://www.chars-francais.net/new/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1202&Itemid=99

[Panzerknacker]

The problems with the St. Chamond were like those of many early tanks, as they were based on mounting an armored "box" on top of the new commercial catarpillar tractors (such as the "Holt")which had come to market. though a good concept, the small tracks, and high center of gravity made these vehicles top heavy, and cumbersome as the superstructures frequently hung well over the ends of the tracks. The weight of the superstructures, and fittings often burdened the tractors to the point of causing frequent mechanical failures. These problems were somewhat rectified with the advent of the better thought out rhomboidal tanks having the tracks return along the upper part of the hull, lowering the center of gravity, (but not the meantime between failures)


Completely agreed, but you got to start with something :mrgreen: and the St chamond was better armed than the british mark I to IV. I guess it also had a "nose heavy" problem due the gun.

http://www.chars-francais.net/new/images/stories/galery/1916_st-chamond/saint-chamond-1%20proto%2003.jpg

I have a few pictures of french tanks from my trip to Bovington.I'll post them when I'll be back home.
As promised:


Nice pictures the Somua is an atractive vehicle.

Heres a site with a fairly complete roster of French tanks. Incl;uding some never built.

http://www.chars-francais.net/new/in...1202&Itemid=99

Thank you.

[Nickdfresh]

The tank I was referring too in another thread was called the ARL44:

The design of this tank started clandestinely when France was still under German occupation. After the Normandy landings, the French restarted their war industry. Production was carried out by both FAMH and Renault under the parentage of the ARL. Christened 'Char de Transition ARL-44', the ARL 44 was based largely on the pre-war Char B1 bis. The first unit became ready only after the war had ended in 1946. The new French heavy tank came equipped with a 90mm cannon housed in a Schneider turret powered by a Simca traversing gear. The ARL 44 used the same tracks as the Char B1 bis, but were protected by skirting plates. Only 60 units were ever produced. This tank made its one and only public appearance at the National Day Parade on 14 July 1951.
http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/france/Fra-ARL44-1.jpg
Specifications Weight 45 tons
Crew 5
Length 35.5'
Width 11.6'
Height 10.5'
Engine Maybach, gasoline
Performance 23.1 mph
Armament 90mm, 2 x MG
http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/france/Fra-ARL44.jpg

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/france/France-Heavy.html
http://www.peachmountain.com/Narayan/images/2005_Saumur/ARL-44_08.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARL_44

[Panzerknacker]

Interesting tank, at first glance it looks like a bad mixture of Panther frontal armor, French B1 tracks and a Pershing gun turret.

[Nickdfresh]

Here's another, better pic from a static display...

[Panzerknacker]

Nice, nice, some specifications of this AFV. It say "Maybach gasoline" , it is probably a Panther engine, other ingredient to this frankestein. sadly no armor data.

http://i44.tinypic.com/2qj99pv.jpg

[Panzerknacker]

Char 2C, the monster.

http://i40.tinypic.com/afcwg3.jpg

The development of this massive tank began in 1917 with the foresight of the famous "1919 plan", an allied program aimed to finally break the german lines in that year using a large scale attack spearheaded by heavy tanks and armored aeroplanes. It was the heaviest tank ever made until the upcoming of the Tiger II in late 1943 .


http://i44.tinypic.com/1smyd0.jpg

http://i41.tinypic.com/n39ixd.jpg

http://i42.tinypic.com/2rxtj85.jpg

http://i43.tinypic.com/xfnna1.jpg

[Panzerknacker]

Aditional information about the 2C.

http://i41.tinypic.com/5yr9ua.jpg

[Panzerknacker]

The NC medium.

This armored vehicle was designed in mid 1920s as infantry support medium tank,it introduced the intrincated coil spring suspension, used later by all Renault tanks. Some went to China and Japan.

http://i43.tinypic.com/2v8hgk8.jpg

http://i44.tinypic.com/rtkls4.jpg

[Schuultz]

Well, but all these tanks didn't help them in 1940...

You could say that the French army was the army best equipped to fight another WW1 - but not for the new kind of war.

They pretty much worked on improving their tank and war machinery in exactly the wrong ways...

[forager]

This used to be at APG.
It is in France now.
My buddy is in Tennessee.

[Panzerknacker]

:lol: Nice pic Forager.


Well, but all these tanks didn't help them in 1940...

You could say that the French army was the army best equipped to fight another WW1 - but not for the new kind of war.



Well the had the factories,they had the steel and they had the guns, but they dont really know how blend all that in a workable, all around tank.

[tankgeezer]

The German govt post treaty had sent many professional people to other countries working for subsidiaries of German Companies. While there, they were to secretly design, and refine drawings of the types of aircraft and weapons that may be needed in the future, as Hitler was already preparing for the re-militarization of Germany.All of these efforts contributed to the re-arming of Germany by eliminating the long period of development of these weapons, and equipments. That being done mostly on paper during the hide out years. When the "New" Germany was ready to begin arming, the plans, and drawings were in hand, ready to produce the goods decided upon. Germany's intended victims had not given much thought to the idea of Germany not playing by the rules, and so were not ready for these new machines, and tactics. By their trickery, they were ahead of the game, and everyone else had to play catch-up. Japan used those basic designs of aircraft to produce their planes, only adjusting the designs to fit their particulars.

[Panzerknacker]

The "flexibility of thinking" also helped the germans, they not designed several tanks for a single use, but several tanks wich could be developed and improved.
I can assure you that making a SOMUA was by far more complicated an expensive to manufacture a panzer III. however this late and somewhat simple tank proved to be a winner in the 1939-41 period, and the SOMUA a simple technical curiosity.

[Schuultz]

A Trend the French seem to continue with their movies to this day. I mean, seriously, have any of you seen one of these French 'High Class' movies recently?
I'm sure they were expensive to produce and they were very elaborate, but to put it mildly: They're bullshit.

[Panzerknacker]

Cant tell, the last French Picture I saw was in 1996 :mrgreen: capitan Conan, a good one.

The Char B1:

This tank was France s main battle tank at the time of may 1940. It clearly exemplify the virtues and vices of all french armor in ww2, an excellent, innovative design with several technical values, delicatedly manufactured, powerful weapons and heavy armor, however the bad crew layout and duties made it a nightmare of command and control in the battlefield.

http://i44.tinypic.com/2j68geq.jpg

http://i44.tinypic.com/2zgdgy8.jpg

http://i40.tinypic.com/r7u4ug.jpg

http://i42.tinypic.com/20a31pl.jpg

http://i42.tinypic.com/29e6blx.jpg

[Nickdfresh]

:lol: Nice pic Forager.



Well the had the factories,they had the steel and they had the guns, but they dont really know how blend all that in a workable, all around tank.


Their doctrine was the biggest problem here...

[Panzerknacker]

True, the bad tactic eventually crippled the French Army in 1940, however that is independent of the tank characteristics. The russian with bad tactics but a lot better designed tanks ( t-34, KV-1) did manage to halt several days the german advance and even won small defensive battles in June/July 1941, thing that the french did not.

[Uyraell]

:lol: Nice pic Forager.



Well the had the factories,they had the steel and they had the guns, but they dont really know how blend all that in a workable, all around tank.

One huge problem was the use of the commander as gunner and loader. That didn't really change `til the Somua S35 and they were never properly employed, as Nickdfresh alludes to in his doctrine comment.

As with the aircraft industry in inter-war France, much was badly handicapped in production terms by workforce discontent in the relevant factories, some of which had been brewed and controlled from Moscow, just as in Britain the ore and coal mines suffered the same fates.

For the timeframe, French aircraft and tanks were reasonably advanced, though more so in the case of tanks.

However, various scandals of the time, involving both factory/company officers, money, and politicians, were as great a hindrance to French doctrinal evolution as lack of manufacturing ability for the relevant machinery.

The ARL 44 Glacis was 80mm at 47 deg. guessing sides and such would have been 30mm. But note: some sources state the ARL44 was manufactured at half the specified armour thicknesses and was even then barely able to move for more than about 10 miles.

I don't know how to "read" or "view" that, but thinking that the vehicles appeared in public once only, I'm inclined to think the second source may well be right, even though it's usually regarded as somewhat biased against the French.

Regards, Uyraell.

[Uyraell]

Conçu dans la clandestinité sous l'occupation allemande, le char ARL devait réarmer les forces françaises de l'après-guerre. L'état des ressources industrielles après la Libération ne permit la réalisation de ce projet. Seule une petite série de cet engin put être produite au début des années 50.

CARACTERISTIQUES TECHNIQUES
Constructeur A.R.L. Atelier de Construction de Rueil
Production : 60
Période de production : 1947 - 1950
Type : char lourd
Équipage : 5 hommes
Longueur (m) : 10,52
Largeur (m) : 3,40
Hauteur (m) : 3,20
Poids en ordre de Combat (kg) : 50 000
Blindage : 120 mm maxi
Équipement radio : SCR 508 ou SCR 528
ARMEMENT
Armement principal : 1 canon de 90mm SA mod 45 V° 1000m/s
Munitions : 50 obus
Rotation (degrés) : 360°
Armement secondaire : 2 mitrailleuses de 7,5mm mod 31
Munitions : 5000
MOBILITE
Moteur : Maybach HL 230
Type & Cylindrée : 12 cyl 23.5 l
Puissance (max.) : 575 cv à 2 500 t/m
Carburant : Essence
Autonomie (km) : 350
Vitesse sur route : 37.25 km/h
Largeur chenille : 0.60
Garde au sol (m) : 0.45
Pente (%) : 60
Obstacle Vertical (m) : 1.00
Passage à gué (m) : 1.30
Franchissement (m) : 2.50

Stats I found on the ARL44.
Blinde' = Armour.

From:

http://www.chars-francais.net/new/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=678&Itemid=41

Regards, Uyraell.

[Panzerknacker]

One huge problem was the use of the commander as gunner and loader. That didn't really change `til the Somua S35 and they were never properly employed, as Nickdfresh alludes to in his doctrine comment

Not only that, in the Char B1 bis the driver not only drive but also elevated and aimed the hull 75mm howitzer....crazy, so not only the tank commander had to aim,load and fire but als o the poor driver had to aim and fire.

A picture of the interior, note the compressed air hose above the howitzer breech, used to expell gases after the shot.

http://i32.tinypic.com/30mlb49.jpg

[Uyraell]

Not only that, in the Char B1 bis the driver not only drive but also elevated and aimed the hull 75mm howitzer....crazy, so not only the tank commander had to aim,load and fire but als o the poor driver had to aim and fire.

A picture of the interior, note the compressed air hose above the howitzer breech, used to expell gases after the shot.

http://i32.tinypic.com/30mlb49.jpg

Horrifying thing on the inside, though never seen internal pics of one before, very pleased to see these. In similar case though is the Churchill 1: 3-inch/75mm Hull howitzer with small 37mm ATg/Pak in turret. The Brits got wise to the failings of the vehicle, which later went on to serve well.

Then again, French Tank doctrine was not exactly imaginative, more "reactive than active" which is where the Brits later improved matters.

The French tanks themselves, while slightly undergunned, were certainly reasonably well armoured.

Regards, Uyraell.

[Nickdfresh]

True, the bad tactic eventually crippled the French Army in 1940, however that is independent of the tank characteristics. The russian with bad tactics but a lot better designed tanks ( t-34, KV-1) did manage to halt several days the german advance and even won small defensive battles in June/July 1941, thing that the french did not.

The French actually won the first first round of tank vs. tank combat in Belgium actually...

[Panzerknacker]

The French actually won the first first round of tank vs. tank combat in Belgium actually...

Interesting, Can you provide some data about it ?

[Panzerknacker]

Close-up to the turret, the 47mm gun had a muzzle velocity of 630 mps, enough to deal with every german panzer of the period.

Note the periscopic binocular gunsight. and the coaxial Chatereault 7.5 mm emplacemet, the MG could be used freely in its mounting, it had no remote firing but a normal handgrip.

http://i28.tinypic.com/20kwwgl.jpg

[Nickdfresh]

Interesting, Can you provide some data about it ?

Unfortunately, just Wiki. :D

But I have to say that it is one of the better War-related Wiki pages I've seen with a lot of detail and intricacies of the battle usually not found there...

...When Erich Hoepner's XVI Panzer Corps, consisting of 3rd and 4th Panzer Divisions was launched over the over the newly-captured bridges in the direction of the Gembloux Gap, this seemed to confirm the expectations of the French Supreme Command that the German Schwerpunkt would be at that point. The two French Light Mechanized divisions, the 2nd DLM and 3rd DLM were ordered forward to meet the German armour and cover the entrenchment of the First Army. The resulting Battle of Hannut, which took place on 12 May and 13 May was the largest tank battle until that date, with about 1,500 AFVs participating. The French claimed to have disabled about 160 German tanks[31] for 91 Hotchkiss H35 and 30 Somua S35 tanks destroyed or captured.[32] However, as the Germans controlled the battlefield area afterwards, they recovered and eventually repaired or rebuilt many of the Panzers:[33] German irreparable losses amounted to 49 tanks (20 3PD and 29 4PD).[34] The German armour sustained substantial breakdown rates making it impossible to ascertain the exact number of tanks disabled by French action. On the second day the Germans managed to breach the screen of French tanks, which were successfully withdrawn on 14 May after having gained enough time for the First Army to dig in. Hoepner tried to break the French line on 15 May against orders, the only time in the campaign when German armour frontally attacked a strongly held fortified position. The attempt was repelled by the 1st Moroccan Infantry Division, costing 4th Panzer Division another 42 tanks, 26 of which were irreparable.[35][36]. This defensive success for the French was however already made irrelevant by the events further south.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France#Central_Belgium

[navyson]

Re: Post #20

Hi PK,
Do you know of any pictures or schematics of the Char B2 briefly mentioned in the article?

[Panzerknacker]

Unfortunately, just Wiki. :D

But I have to say that it is one of the better War-related Wiki pages I've seen with a lot of detail and intricacies of the battle usually not found there...



Thanks, well, that is a victory, irrelevant but a victory aniway.



Hi PK,
Do you know of any pictures or schematics of the Char B2 briefly mentioned in the article?


Unfortunately not, there is no photos since there was no prototipe, I guess I might find a drawing, but still no luck in my search of that.

The Char B1 ter

This tanks included sloped sloped and welded 75 mm armour, a weight of 36.6 metric tons and an engine of 350 hp (260 kW) was meant to replace the B1 bis to accelerate mass production from the summer of 1940. Cost was reduced by omitting the complex Neader transmission and giving the hull gun a traverse of ten degrees instead. Only two prototypes could be finished before the defeat of France.

http://i41.tinypic.com/m7gw1c.jpg

[Carl Schwamberger]

Unfortunately, just Wiki. :D

But I have to say that it is one of the better War-related Wiki pages I've seen with a lot of detail and intricacies of the battle usually not found there...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France#Central_Belgium

There are a couple good articals in the Journal of Military History by Jeffery Gunsberg. The first appears in the April 1992 issue. I also have a artical from the May 1955 issue of L'Armee La Nation a analysis of the armored battle as a classic cavalry action. One point the Wiki item does not make clear is that of the two French tank divsions only one did the bulk of the fighting on the 12th & 13th May. They spreead across a considerable frontage and the German 19th Corps concentrated against just one DLM.

. Hoepner tried to break the French line on 15 May against orders, the only time in the campaign when German armour frontally attacked a strongly held fortified position.

This is a error in the Wiki artical. The French position was not fortified. The Belgians had some material for road blocks stored in the area, but nothing else. The terrain was open fields with small scattered villiages and small orchards. The most prominent feature was a railroad berm that ran from north to south. The French 1st Army advance guards had arrived just four days earlier, and the main body two & three days before. They had time to dig light entrenchments, set out some mines and barbed wire, and organize the fire plan for the artillery and machine guns. No rugged hills, no forrests, no mud, no rivers or streams of significance.

[Nickdfresh]

There are a couple good articals in the Journal of Military History by Jeffery Gunsberg. The first appears in the April 1992 issue. I also have a artical from the May 1955 issue of L'Armee La Nation a analysis of the armored battle as a classic cavalry action. One point the Wiki item does not make clear is that of the two French tank divsions only one did the bulk of the fighting on the 12th & 13th May. They spreead across a considerable frontage and the German 19th Corps concentrated against just one DLM.



This is a error in the Wiki artical. The French position was not fortified. The Belgians had some material for road blocks stored in the area, but nothing else. The terrain was open fields with small scattered villiages and small orchards. The most prominent feature was a railroad berm that ran from north to south. The French 1st Army advance guards had arrived just four days earlier, and the main body two & three days before. They had time to dig light entrenchments, set out some mines and barbed wire, and organize the fire plan for the artillery and machine guns. No rugged hills, no forrests, no mud, no rivers or streams of significance.

Thanks for your clarifications. The above regarding the lack of fortifications in the Belgian sector would be in line with what I've always read or heard: that the French abandoned their fortified positions to lurch into Belgium, largely for political rather than purely military reasons, in order to defend the Low Countries (and fellow Francophone nation) against German aggression. One thing the Wiki article on the Battle for France does make clear is that the French command was well aware that driving into Belgium did not make as much sense militarily as it might appear superficially to the civilian population of the Allied nations and their sympathizers, but it would have looked like cowardice to abandon Belgium yet again to German occupation without a fight. Of course they were only becoming gradually aware of "Sickle Cut" but it would take days, even weeks, to fully realize the gravity of their precarious situation...

[Nickdfresh]

Here's another Wiki article specifically on the Battle of Hannut. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hannut) Take it with a grain of salt or whatever...

[Homerr]

Excellent book on the Char B:

http://livres.histoireetcollections.com/en/publication-1306-chars-b-au-combat-hommes-et-materiels-du-15e-bcc.html

[Panzerknacker]

Thanks for the link Homerr.

Updated info on Char B1 ter:

Aparently the B1 ter as a design to improve the difficulty manning in the B1 bis, but still a more cheaper option to the B2 wich was to be armed with a fully revolving 75 mm plus 2mgs armed turret.

The B2 should had a better characteritics and to cure some of the vices of the french design, however it was seen as an expensive vehicle, the option to improve the existent B1 bis was choosed instead.

B1 ter development began in 1936, the Chief inspector of the french armored forces, General Velpry, insisted in a improved armor for this tank. That was materialized in a well sloped 75mm frontal plate ( wich included a combined riveted-welded construction) and a side 60mm rolled plate with a "V" shape, protecting the vital parts of the tank.

Renault provided a engine 15 % more powerful to cope with the increased weight.

http://i43.tinypic.com/ej6g0o.jpg


Finally, at last, in this design the driver was liberated from the task to fire the hull howitzer, however it still had a important part aiming it because the azimuth was extremely limited. The B1 ter transmision was a simple differential , a more easy and less complex tha the earlier Naeder double differential. In all and despite to have the devilish single place turret the Ter was a more simple, valuable and workable design than its predesessors.

150 were ordered in 1938, unfortunately for France, economical cutbacks caused than only 3 prototypes were available in may 1940, those used for testing in the Saint Nazaire garrison.

Characteristics:

Manufacturer: Atelier de Construction de Rueil (ARL) , Forges et Chantiers de la Mediterraine (FCM)

Crew: 4, chief/loader/gunner, loader/hull gunner, driver, radio operator.

Hull lenght: 6.35m

Hull gun azimuth: 6º left and right

Width: 2,73 m

Height: 2,83 m

track width : 500 mm

Suspension: coil springs

Weigh in battle order: 36600 kg.

Engine: Renault 6 cilinders gasoline water cooled, 350 hp.

Speed road: 30 km/h

Armor: between 30 to 75mm.

Armament: SA 35 de 47mm in turret ( muzzle velocity 662 mps) with 60 rounds, 75mm howitzer ( muzzle velocity 220mps) with 80 rounds, Chatereault 7,5 mm machinegun with 600 shots.

http://i39.tinypic.com/149z0go.jpg

[Schuultz]

That one actually looks really cool. Except it's probably the first tank I've ever seen where the strongest gun is not in the turret but front-mounted... probably not very handy?

[Nickdfresh]

That one actually looks really cool. Except it's probably the first tank I've ever seen where the strongest gun is not in the turret but front-mounted... probably not very handy?

In its day, the 47mm was one of the most effective anti-tank guns out there. The Char was built in the role of infantry tank meaning is was designed to move slowly and eliminate battlefield fortifications and tanks to clear the way for infantry. The 75mm was really designed to attack enemy infantry and fortifications, so in essence, it wasn't really that good against most medium and heavy tanks...

Incidentally, it should be noted that the Germans later used the captured Char B1s as flammenpanzers by replacing the 75mm gun with a nice, flamethrower. How extensive it was and how many there were, I do not know..

[Uyraell]

In its day, the 47mm was one of the most effective anti-tank guns out there. The Char was built in the role of infantry tank meaning is was designed to move slowly and eliminate battlefield fortifications and tanks to clear the way for infantry. The 75mm was really designed to attack enemy infantry and fortifications, so in essence, it wasn't really that good against most medium and heavy tanks...

Incidentally, it should be noted that the Germans later used the captured Char B1s as flammenpanzers by replacing the 75mm gun with a nice, flamethrower. How extensive it was and how many there were, I do not know..
Most sources seem to state about 40, but getting exact figures is a maddeningly elusive activity....
Certainly some of the Flammpanzer conversions end up included as Fahrschule vehicles, while the chassis converted to feldhaubitz seem to have been classified more accurately.

Regards, Uyraell.

[Panzerknacker]

Incidentally, it should be noted that the Germans later used the captured Char B1s as flammenpanzers by replacing the 75mm gun with a nice, flamethrower. How extensive it was and how many there were, I do not know..


There were 24 B1 tank converted in Flampanzers.

The germans used almost any kind of french tracked and half tracked vehicle for conversion in specializated armor as self propelled howitzers, tankhunters, observation, personel carrier. Even some types the of lorries were armored and given to units stationed behind the atlantic wall, the name of this variants exceed the 100, almost deserve a topic for its own.

A little know fact is the french also toyed with the B1 flamethrowing tank, at list one prototipe was made in 1939.

http://i39.tinypic.com/dyrwbn.jpg

http://i39.tinypic.com/15otu0i.jpg

[Carl Schwamberger]

Thanks for the link Homerr.

Updated info on Char B1 ter:

Aparently the B1 ter as a design to improve the difficulty manning in the B1 bis, but still a more cheaper option to the B2 wich was to be armed with a fully revolving 75 mm plus 2mgs armed turret.



Go to this link

http://www.chars-francais.net/new/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=672&Itemid=78

Scroll down to 1937 and there is a small photograph of the partially built prototype of the G1. Projected for production in late 1941-42 this had a four many crew, high powered 75mm gun (by 1940 standards), and a low dome shaped turret similar to the Soviet T54 of a decade hence.

[Nickdfresh]

The German garrison on the formerly British English Channel Islands also had a few improved/modified Char B1s according to Wiki. But these were not Flammenpanzers, but tanks with applique armor...

[Panzerknacker]

Go to this link
http://www.chars-francais.net/new/in...=672&Itemid=78 (http://www.chars-francais.net/new/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=672&Itemid=78)

Scroll down to 1937 and there is a small photograph of the partially built prototype of the G1. Projected for production in late 1941-42 this had a four many crew, high powered 75mm gun (by 1940 standards), and a low dome shaped turret similar to the Soviet T54 of a decade hence.

Interesting thanks, a tank commander and a gunner inside the turret, that is an improvement, I guess the end came to fast for France, no time to get a fully manned tank in service.:rolleyes:

[Panzerknacker]

Specifications Renault R-35.

This was a light/medium tank for infantry support. Armor equivalent to the panzer III in this design.The main low velocity old ( extracted from WW1 FT17s) 37mm gun fired and effective high explosive and case shot.


http://i40.tinypic.com/23vxcew.jpg

http://i42.tinypic.com/2jv3c.jpg

http://i42.tinypic.com/5n43mb.jpg

http://i44.tinypic.com/2zfpyrk.jpg

[Panzerknacker]

The tank killers. Source "Juin 1940 le impossible soursat", Trackstory.

http://i31.tinypic.com/34e3guo.jpg

http://i31.tinypic.com/11bq4jo.jpg

http://i28.tinypic.com/2rcxuu1.jpg

http://i30.tinypic.com/2ekn48z.jpg