Their doctrine was the biggest problem here…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The French actually won the first first round of tank vs. tank combat in Belgium actually…
The French actually won the first first round of tank vs. tank combat in Belgium actually…
Interesting, Can you provide some data about it ?
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.
Unfortunately, just Wiki. 
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
Re: Post #20
Hi PK,
Do you know of any pictures or schematics of the Char B2 briefly mentioned in the article?
Unfortunately, just Wiki.
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.
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…
Here’s another Wiki article specifically on the Battle of Hannut. Take it with a grain of salt or whatever…
Excellent book on the Char B:
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.
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.
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…
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.