Was the Char B the "Tiger Tank" of France?

[AdA]

No.
The original requirement for the Tiger tank might have started out as B1bis analogue ( heavily armoured breakthrough tank) but operational needs during its development phase meant it was adapted to be a very effective anti tank weapon, something the B1bis never was developed to be. The Tiger was a earlier example of the heavy tanks developed in the West after WW2, like the Conqueror and the M103, whose main mission was to dominate the battlefield by their combination of excellent protection and heavy firepower.

 

[McPherson]

You want to shoot the Hero of Verdun before WWII, before he has actually done anything to warrant it? Pack him off to an asylum as senile maybe, keep him as far from any official position certainly, but shooting him in the 1930's isn't justifiable.

Marshal Petain's Ambassadorship to Spain: Conspiratorial ...

Shoot him.

 

[Johnrankins]

No.
The original requirement for the Tiger tank might have started out as B1bis analogue ( heavily armoured breakthrough tank) but operational needs during its development phase meant it was adapted to be a very effective anti tank weapon, something the B1bis never was developed to be. The Tiger was a earlier example of the heavy tanks developed in the West after WW2, like the Conqueror and the M103, whose main mission was to dominate the battlefield by their combination of excellent protection and heavy firepower.

If you consider a very unreliable, very expensive, fuel hogging tank an effective anti-tank weapon then yes otherwise no. In OTL the Tiger didn't have to be defeated as it defeated itself.

 

[Aghasverov]

If I'm not mistaken, the Tiger tended to be sort of the land equivalent of the naval "fleet-in-being"... dangerous to get close to, but more easily avoided

 

[groundhogday666]

Pretty much.

Although its biggest fault, unlike the Tiger, was that it was handled by a General Staff composed of cretins.

ROTFL

A lot of crétins would be insulted to be compared to Gamelin or Huntziger. Diffamation !

Don't be too harsh with the B1bis. It did a decent job at Stonne. Of course, peculiar circumstances greatly helped. Also a French commander that was not too dumb or bad, for once.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sedan_(1940)#Battle_of_Stonne

Basically, Stonne didn't needed radios, fast movement, or a good range: it was a mostly static battle. So in a sense, in the role of a semi-mobile pillbox, the B1bis worked relatively well. Lots of German tanks ended as shards of metal.
Alas, Stonne was an exception rather than the rule...

 

[Johnrankins]

If I'm not mistaken, the Tiger tended to be sort of the land equivalent of the naval "fleet-in-being"... dangerous to get close to, but more easily avoided

If your "fleet in being" consisted of Battleship Yamato clones with the added bonus of having to weigh anchor a lot because the engine kept breaking down.

 

[Derwit]

Both tanks where expensive and had issues so in that respect they where similar. Perhaps the biggest similarity was that both the eh Tiger and the Char B where designed with a very narrow purpose.

The Char B was designed as a break through tank. It had good enough armour to shrug off the usual anti-tank guns of the late 1930's. It carried a good HE chucked for dealing with machine gun nests, bunkers and anti tank guns and had a decent anti tank capacity for dealing with any counter attacks. This all fits in well with the French doctorine of the day the controlled battle where supported by lots of artillery the Char Bis would advance and support the foot slogging infantry in limited objective offensives. The problem was that the Germans had other ideas in 1940. Superior German tactics exposed all of the Char B's weaknesses and the campaign was over before the French had a chance to use the tank as designed en mass.

The Tiger was initially designed to give the German army a similar break through tank to the Char B or Matilda 2. However it was the Eastern Front that really focused the development of the Tiger. On the open Russian steppes tanks could engage at much longer ranges so a really big gun was considered essential and lots of heavy armour allowed the Tighe to engage at ranges that the enemy could not. Used as intended the big cat was devestating allowing tank aces to achieve huge tallies of enemy tank kills. However in the west where ranges of engagement where smaller the Tigher was much less effective. Especially against the "Big war" practiced by the Allies where massed air and artillery power was the undoing of panzer forces.

Much debate happens about the question would the germans have been better forgoing the big cats and concentrating of the Panzer 4. However as the forces arrayed against the Germans develop the experience and tactics to fight the Germans on more equal terms the superior German tactics of the early war period would not enable them to persevere. However bigger and more deadly tanks than the opposition allowed them to continue inflicting heavy losses on their enemies for longer IMHO prolonging the war. Had the French line held at Sedan then perhaps the same could have been said about the Char Bn 1940/41. Although I like to think that the Char B would help turn the tide.

 

[AdA]

If you consider a very unreliable, very expensive, fuel hogging tank an effective anti-tank weapon then yes otherwise no. In OTL the Tiger didn't have to be defeated as it defeated itself.

How is that different from the Conqueror and the M-103?
The concept was made obsolete by the evolution of the MBT, but it can be argued that the current crop of very heavy MBT are more akin to the Tiger than to the Panther.

 

[Bougnas]

What one comes away from this exercise, is wanting the French to have turned the Char B1 into a Stug and plowed their resources into a two tank (Char D'Assaut) mix of Char B1s (Bis/Ter version?) in the proto form and in the Somua S35 as the main "cruiser", it to be fitted with a 2 man turret option modification from the start. The 2 man infantry lines, except the Hotchkiss H35, can be kept for the doctrinal reasons they were intended (infantry support) but the Cavalry, mechanized and armoured divisions formations needed the two best French tanks available.

As always, fix the radio issue, retire Gamelin and his clique and shoot Petain and his clique.

There is often a misconception about the role of the B1. As a Char de Bataille, it is not actually meant to go with the infantry, but rather is a maneuver element/breakthrough tank that must be 1500-2000m in front of the infantry. Therefore, once the threat of German tanks became clear in the early 30s, the B1 got its 47mm gun turret, but it obviously couldn't take a large one. Being able to defend itself against tanks was very important considering that it would have been far from any infantry support (thus AT guns). Nowhere near a StuG, and it's not until the ARL V 39 that France considered an assault gun, and even then it was a very sophisticated artillery system.

It seems that the Infantry branch did not put enough emphasis on a gun tank to defend the B1 from tanks, doctrinally. There were the Char Ds but those had little success because of several flaws, and they were seen more as an option in case the B1 was banned in disarmament treaties. It seems that the 1935-36 Char de Bataille de 20t (sort of a Somua S35 equivalent following infantry requirements, with 60mm of armor in revised 1936 requirements) was this, although it might have been a more independent anti-tank tank. However this program was hijacked to make a lighter, more modern B1 resulting in the infamous G1 program.

For the S35, it seems that the choice of the one-man turret was because:
-there simply wasn't anything else expect the APX 1 at the time, and the Cavalry wanted the tank quickly and wasn't that interested in a two-man turret, or bean-counters wanted to keep the cost low

- weight control: the first requirements for the tank were 13 tons with 30mm of armour, and this was eventually raised to 17 tons when the new 40mm armour requirement was made. The actual tank ended up weighing closer to 19 tons. A two-man turret with this much armor at 17 tons was unlikely, even the Pz III with 30mm of armour was about 20 tons. It's worth remembering that weight was important in the 30s.

So IMO a two-man turret only makes sense if there's the money and a strong drive for heavier vehicles. In a 1933 program, that's doubtful.

France made its choice: the armour was paramount. That didn't turn out to be so good.

Doctrinal sidenote: The infantry light tanks were Char d'Accompagnement de l'Infanterie, that is, the actual tanks meant to be with the infantry while the B1s were smashing bunkers 2000m ahead.

 

[Johnrankins]

How is that different from the Conqueror and the M-103?
The concept was made obsolete by the evolution of the MBT, but it can be argued that the current crop of very heavy MBT are more akin to the Tiger than to the Panther.

Both were made 5+ years later with better technology, nor were they particularly good tanks.

 

[McPherson]

There is often a misconception about the role of the B1. As a Char de Bataille, it is not actually meant to go with the infantry, but rather is a maneuver element/breakthrough tank that must be 1500-2000m in front of the infantry. Therefore, once the threat of German tanks became clear in the early 30s, the B1 got its 47mm gun turret, but it obviously couldn't take a large one. Being able to defend itself against tanks was very important considering that it would have been far from any infantry support (thus AT guns). Nowhere near a StuG, and it's not until the ARL V 39 that France considered an assault gun, and even then it was a very sophisticated artillery system.

It seems that the Infantry branch did not put enough emphasis on a gun tank to defend the B1 from tanks, doctrinally. There were the Char Ds but those had little success because of several flaws, and they were seen more as an option in case the B1 was banned in disarmament treaties. It seems that the 1935-36 Char de Bataille de 20t (sort of a Somua S35 equivalent following infantry requirements, with 60mm of armor in revised 1936 requirements) was this, although it might have been a more independent anti-tank tank. However this program was hijacked to make a lighter, more modern B1 resulting in the infamous G1 program.

For the S35, it seems that the choice of the one-man turret was because:
-there simply wasn't anything else expect the APX 1 at the time, and the Cavalry wanted the tank quickly and wasn't that interested in a two-man turret, or bean-counters wanted to keep the cost low

- weight control: the first requirements for the tank were 13 tons with 30mm of armour, and this was eventually raised to 17 tons when the new 40mm armour requirement was made. The actual tank ended up weighing closer to 19 tons. A two-man turret with this much armor at 17 tons was unlikely, even the Pz III with 30mm of armour was about 20 tons. It's worth remembering that weight was important in the 30s.

So IMO a two-man turret only makes sense if there's the money and a strong drive for heavier vehicles. In a 1933 program, that's doubtful.

France made its choice: the armour was paramount. That didn't turn out to be so good.

Doctrinal sidenote: The infantry light tanks were Char d'Accompagnement de l'Infanterie, that is, the actual tanks meant to be with the infantry while the B1s were smashing bunkers 2000m ahead.

The French would have to change doctrine. I just have too much 20/20 lessons learned hindsight, here, in that I regard sending tanks forward alone without infantry bodyguards as just INSANE.

 

[Karelian]

The Italians got it right. Adjust the driver position to be less exposed and install StuG-style optics for the commander, and you're all set.

 

[Bougnas]

The French would have to change doctrine. I just have too much 20/20 lessons learned hindsight, here, in that I regard sending tanks forward alone without infantry bodyguards as just INSANE.

It's fair to say that everyone had to make compromises or uninformed decisions at a time when money on tank development or delays were tight, and actual combat experience rare.
The Germans highly prioritized perfect mobility (sometimes excessively with fancy transmissions failing horribly) at the expense of armor and lagged behind in raw gun power, but arguably had a better maneuver doctrine and most importantly had actual combat experience to refine it. Reports from Panzer units in Poland weren't exactly superb, but those months were crucial to win in France.
The Brits didn't really know what the hell their tanks were supposed to do, but they chose to prioritize gunnery (a logical priority for a then small professional army).
The Americans had the technology, but doctrine was lacking until late 30's (1940?) reforms, and the lack of attention to proper guns until about 1936 is rather astonishing.

 

[marathag]

-there simply wasn't anything else expect the APX 1 at the time, and the Cavalry wanted the tank quickly and wasn't that interested in a two-man turret, or bean-counters wanted to keep the cost low

French were a little different, in that contracts for the Hull and Turret were separate, companies would compete for both as individual items

 

[Driftless]

Maybe an indirect question that played a role in tank design for the era: what were common weight capacities for highway bridges in Northern Europe? I realize that's going to be a sliding scale, but you aren't likely to build a tank that can't cross 98% of the bridges

 

[Bougnas]

French were a little different, in that contracts for the Hull and Turret were separate, companies would compete for both as individual items

Yep, APX got most contracts because it was state-owned, but after the 36-37 reorganisations the primary competition was between ARL and FCM: ARL 2C/unnamed FCM turret for B1s, ARL 3/FCM à 3 hommes for heavy tanks and G1s. Sometimes you had the odd man out like Delaunay-Belleville designing a FCM 36-like cast turret for their light tank contender, AMX doing everything on its own, Renault with the Balland turret for the G1R (which was still a potential competitor as problems with the mount were being fixed), Lorraine with the lowered FCM/ARL turret (which technical services didn't like because it would reduce gun depression, and moreso over the raised engine deck).

 

[Korlan]

The main problem with the B1 was it was basically a late WW1 tank that was still in service in 1940 because the developpement was delayed for a very long time due to lack of money.

The B1 was not a bad tank ... in 1920, when the basic concept and specifications were drawn up.

The French were still using the same specs 20 years later (if it ain't broke, don't fix it)
Unfortunately for them, the Germans decided to not play with the same rulebook.


In addition (but it is for another discussion), the french leadership were neither stupid nor incompetent (on average, as there are idiots promoted beyond their capabilities everywhere), but they had 3 problems :
- lack of money
- lack of people
- extremely exposed vital areas (northern France, right next to the German border)

They did what they could with what they had and failed, because the Germans tried something anyone reasonnable would have considered insane, and were lucky it worked as well as they did.

 

[McPherson]

They did what they could with what they had and failed, because the Germans tried something anyone reasonable would have considered insane, and were lucky it worked as well as they did.

Agreed for the first 24 hours, but after a day of development, the battle trends should have been clear. Huntziger and crew did not do due diligence. MOO.

 

[AdA]

Both were made 5+ years later with better technology, nor were they particularly good tanks.

Its a case of comparable concepts.
M-103+M48, Conqueror+Centurion and for that matter T-10+T-55 were all cases of a mix of a smaller number of heavy tanks with a primarily anti tank mission in a force with a larger number of medium (later called MBT in their more evolved versions) that was essentially an adoption of the Tiger+Panther concept.
In other words, the three main opponents of the Tiger in WW2 adopted it's concept.
Imitation is said to be the sincerest form of flattery.
The Tigers certainly left an impression on their opponents.

 

[Johnrankins]

Its a case of comparable concepts.
M-103+M48, Conqueror+Centurion and for that matter T-10+T-55 were all cases of a mix of a smaller number of heavy tanks with a primarily anti tank mission in a force with a larger number of medium (later called MBT in their more evolved versions) that was essentially an adoption of the Tiger+Panther concept.
In other words, the three main opponents of the Tiger in WW2 adopted it's concept.
Imitation is said to be the sincerest form of flattery.
The Tigers certainly left an impression on their opponents.

Like jets and rockets it was an idea that eventually would lead to better weapons but the technology wasn't quite there yet. Once the technology was better developed it was a good idea but the tech available during WW2 simply wasn't good enough to make weapons that were reliable and cheap enough to be worth it.