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.Why is it so?
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.
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.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.
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: