Improving French 1940 tanks materially

Why is it so?
Its pretty terribly expensive to build such a vehicle utilizing 1930s industrial capacity. There weren't mass produced any tanks in the world produced during that period with a 75mm gun in a revolving turret during that period, with just a few exceptions. The Panzer IV, the most sane design, introduced in 1936, only had 211 vehicles some 3 years later in 1939, and the T-28 produced throughout the entirety of the 1930s, had only 503 tanks... and this for the USSR, which produced literally thousands of every single major tank type they had during the period. There was the T-35 too, but production of that was so small to render it almost a novelty item. I'm not aware of any specific cost estimates for these vehicles during the 1930s, but it seems like production was exceedingly difficult. 1930s suspension, transmission, automotive elements, are all hard to match the size and needed reliability, and so the vehicle becomes quite expensive. The French could build it, but then one just is running into the same problem as the B1 historically : too expensive and not enough tanks. One of the big problems with French armored divisions was that they were formed late, because the army wanted to try to have enough B1s making them up, and so they didn't have enough time to train, establish doctrine for large units, organize themselves, and gain experience. Even beyond production numbers, having B1 tanks in production early enough to form armor divisions earlier would be a huge boost for the French armored units capacity in 1940, since they could have corrected a lot of flaws in something other than the fire of combat.

In addition, for the French, they placed a lot of attention to having very long tanks, for trench-crossing capacity. A long tank for this purpose, and a turret ring wide enough to fit a 75mm gun... it naturally is a large tank. And a large tank is a heavy tank, and a heavy tank is an expensive tank.

That being said, a 75mm armed French infantry tank as an equivalent to a B1 would have the advantage that at least it does away with the Nader transmission, which despite probably being the most technologically sophisticated and precise transmission system in the world from the time period, was really a terrible mistake for the B1. Instead of just giving the tank's gun some extra traverse degrees, instead they went for a transmission precise enough to make incredibly accurate maneuvers to place a tank cannon with essentially no traverse (it was like 1-2 degrees) on target. Pourquoi faire simple quand on peut faire compliqué? Eliminating it, as I had proposed in my version as well, can only help in making it more affordable.

Why not go for a whole hog - a 'low profile' B1 hull (minus the cannon) + 75mm in the turret, for a 30 ton tank? Turret for at least 2 men, radio operator sits next to the driver.
A lighter tank, at 20 tons and with 47mm cannon for cavalry, version with hull mounted 75mm both for infantry and cavalry. Again the crew of 4 at least.
It makes a lot of sense to have a 20 ton tank, but the problem is that the French infantry wanted a light tank for supporting them, which they could manufacture in huge numbers and churn out onto the battlefield in swarms like the Renault FT 17. A 20 ton tank can't do that: even the proposal I suggested, with a 3-man tank armed with a short 47mm gun, might be too expensive. Having the French accept fewer numbers of 20-ton tanks for that role would require a change in French doctrine, and I was trying to keep my proposals, even if they're politically impossible (given French company dynamics), within the line of French 1930s tank doctrine.

Figuring out some way to link the 20 ton tank and the infantry support light tank would enable the tank numbers to be reduced to 3 though, instead of 3.5 like in my proposal. I suppose that if I wanted to be heretical I could not produce the Somua S35 in mine and just have the lighter cavalry tank, but it feels treasonous to not have the Somua S35 in 1940 France...
 
Last edited:

FBKampfer

Banned
Production wise, it probably would be a fantastic idea to ditch the compound curves the French seemingly felt compelled to stick on everything.

Foundries start cranking out flat sheets of armor plates and you can get production a lot higher than casting each individual hull.
 
IIRC, the Lee/Grant began with rivetted armour. On test, the UK team discovered that shell-hits that did not penetrate would still pepper the crew with ricocheting rivets. So, welding was used...
 
Production wise, it probably would be a fantastic idea to ditch the compound curves the French seemingly felt compelled to stick on everything.

Foundries start cranking out flat sheets of armor plates and you can get production a lot higher than casting each individual hull.
The problem at the time was that French designers didn't feel comfortable with the quality of contemporary industrial welds. On the other hand, they were fully aware that riveting (even more so bolting) plates together increases weight (due to all the fasteners, be they rivets or nuts/bolts) without increasing actual armour thickness. The APX2-B turret on the AMC 35 featured welds, rivets and bolts, a rather unfortunate compormise.

However, large cast sections are risky, since any casting defect is extremely difficult to correct in the finished product. If a rolled plate is defective, it can be easily cut off and replaced.
 
Last edited:
DOn't forget the FCM 36. Heavily armoured, but useless due to terrible gun and pitiful speed.

Slow Speed and poor firepower, or even lack of radios or overworked TCs still wasn't what doomed the French tankers, it was the Nazis being inside of the commanders decision loop far above the platoon level, and lack of concentration of what forces they had.

If you would have switched gear between the two armies, the Nazis would have still won.
 
Production wise, it probably would be a fantastic idea to ditch the compound curves the French seemingly felt compelled to stick on everything.

Foundries start cranking out flat sheets of armor plates and you can get production a lot higher than casting each individual hull.

It's more expensive and takes longer to do multiple flat sheets and weld, than to do castings.
The advantage in welding is designs can be changed faster, and don't have the initial production bottlenecks of casting
 

FBKampfer

Banned
It's more expensive and takes longer to do multiple flat sheets and weld, than to do castings.
The advantage in welding is designs can be changed faster, and don't have the initial production bottlenecks of casting

Yeah but the French had TONS of armored vehicles in production, each of them needing their own castings.

Its easier to subcontract to smaller shops with welded armor.

Not really a "change part way through" item, but more of a "stay away from cast parts from the start" POD.

Each vehicle might be a bit more expensive, but cumulatively, I suspect the reduced costs for updates would have resulted in much different French tanks by 1940.
 
Yeah but the French had TONS of armored vehicles in production, each of them needing their own castings.

Its easier to subcontract to smaller shops with welded armor.

Not really a "change part way through" item, but more of a "stay away from cast parts from the start" POD.

The US had around a dozen companies casting parts for the M4 series, some very small
It doesn't matter if you cast or weld, if you have too many types where nothing interchanges

M4CompFront.jpg

Now these were 1944 M4 Composites, they had two different length hulls depending on what powerplant was installed, and factories that couldn't do a large enough pour for an entire upper, could still do the front third, as it was faster and cheaper than welding the whole thing
And if troops in the field really wanted to, could bolt original 1942 gear on this new tank, like the three piece transmission. bogies and narrow gun mantlet
ss+2014-11-26+at+04.16.37.jpg


Plan ahead.
 
Slow Speed and poor firepower, or even lack of radios or overworked TCs still wasn't what doomed the French tankers, it was the Nazis being inside of the commanders decision loop far above the platoon level, and lack of concentration of what forces they had.

If you would have switched gear between the two armies, the Nazis would have still won.
Yeah if one really wanted to make the Battle of France different one needs a different doctrine on the French side, that uses and deploys their tanks differently. No matter how good French tanks are, they're fundamentally plagued by issues that are far more important than the actual tank design themselves. I'm not Wiking, I don't think that changing around the equipment is the most important thing and that will win the war for the French, but I think that it is fun to see what the "ideal" French force might have been, just as we see the constant threads dealing with what the "ideal" British/German forces might look like.

I also think that given how close the Battle of France was, that even some marginal changes might have outsized impacts. The 4e DCR having been formed earlier and being able to train together and iron out its material problems could be enough to severely slow the German breakout from Sedan. Having the DCRs in general formed earlier with more available B1 tanks would give the French valuable experience and training with them which might result in much more suitable infantry tank divisions come 1940. These changes are much more important than the actual tanks the DCRs are using.
 
French problem one was the doctrine.
Two was logistics to allow redirection of armour. i.e. to support a long distance move to respond to a developing battle i.e. giving you choices.
Three was communications generally.
Now these are matters that affect the ability to bring French armour to bear whatever that armour might be.

In mechanics they did have a good AT 47mm and a useful 75mmHE gun. They had casting industries that could cast armour. They had usable engines and transmissions. They used a standard turret with economies of scale and with adequate protection.

But, they had too few radios at all levels. In tanks miserably few.
The said turret needed a multi tasking octopus to load, fire, command, operate the radio (if there was one), command the troop/squadron/regiment depending upon the commander's level. Oh yes, and look out of the 'windows' from time to time.

It is an application of hindsight but they only needed one type. A medium tank with a 3 man turret, radios and a good 47mm HE round to go with the AP. Mix and match mechanics and hulls as you wish to get there and get there early enough to kit out the universal armoured regiments. The S35 hull is the obvious starting point but other hulls etc. have their merits. An ultimate might be an S35 with a long barrel 75mm gun in said turret but the 47mm could do the job in 1940.

Even so changing the doctrines and communications and logistical support would have had a bigger impact than improving the tanks themselves.
 
Top