The Best Tank Built for the Wrong War | FCM 36 Light Tank
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 พ.ย. 2022
- The FCM 36 was one of the light tanks used by the French Army in the battles of May and June 1940. Despite being relatively unknown, it was quite technically advanced compared to other French light tanks and proved its effectiveness during a victorious counter-attack at Voncq in early June 1940. However, the vehicle’s many qualities were overshadowed by the outdated doctrine behind its usage and construction, and its very limited presence on the frontlines.
Join this channel to get access to exclusive perks:
/ @tanksencyclopediayt
If you liked this video, please consider donating on Patreon or Paypal!
Patreon: / tankartfund
Paypal: www.paypal.com/paypalme/tanke...
Article: tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/fr...
Sources:
Trackstory N°7 le FCM 36, édition du Barbotin, Pascal d’Anjou
The encyclopedia of french tanks and armored vehicles 1914-1918, Histoire et Collection, François Vauvillier
Le concept blindé français des années 1930, de la doctrine à l’emploi, Colonel Gérard Saint Martin, thèse soutenue en 1994
L’arme blindée française, Tome 1, mai-juin 1940, les blindés français dans la tourmente, Economica, Colonel Gérard de Saint-Martin
Les chars français 1939-1940, Capitaine Jean Baptiste Pétrequin, conservateur du Musée des Blindés de Saumur
Renault FT, le char de la victoire, Capitaine Jean Baptiste Pétrequin, conservateur du Musée des Blindés de Saumur
Guerre Blindés et Matériel n°21 (2007) ; “Seigneur-suis“, mai-juin 1940, le 7ème BCL au combat
Guerre Blindés et Matériel n° 81 (février-mars 2008) ; FCM 36 : le 7ème BCC en campagne, Histoire et Collection
Guerre Blindés et Matériel n°105 (juillet-août-septembre 2013) : le 4ème BCC au combat
Guerre Blindés et Matériel n°106 (octobre-novembre-décembre 2013) : Le 4ème BCC au combat (II)
Guerre Blindés et Matériel n°111 (janvier-février-mars 2015) : Le 4ème BCC sur les routes de la retraite
Guerre Blindés et Matériel n°238 (octobre-novembre-décembre 2021) : 7ème BCC Le dernier combat
Primary Sources
Règlement des unités de chars de combat, tome 2, Combat ; 1939
Règlement des unités de chars de combat, tome 2, Combat ; juin 1934
Instruction provisoire sur l’emploi des chars de combat comme engins d’infanterie ; 1920
Instruction sur les armes et le tir dans les unités de chars légers ; 1935
Websites
Liste des chars FCM 36 : FCM 36 (chars-francais.net)
Reddit: / tankencyclopedia
TE Shop: www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/Goo...
Our website: www.tanks-encyclopedia.com
Gaming News Website: www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/games/
Facebook: / tanksencyclopedia
Twitter: / tanksenc
Discord: / discord
Email: tanks.encyclopedia@gmail.com
An article by Hadrien and Marisa Belhote
Script by Churchill7
Narrated by Alcazar
Edited by Aesop Khan
Sound edited by Alcazar - ยานยนต์และพาหนะ
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 69 | คู่เอก "กุหลาบดำ vs นาบิล"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/PNM6U8e_HMo/mqdefault.jpg)
I kinda love how FCM was chosen not necessarily because they had the best machine, but because the jury unanimously agreed the curved design looked futuristic and cool. They had the same standards for choosing tank designs as I did when I was 12
And thats why France got clapped in like a month
@@CMDRFandragon Honestly they got clapped because French leadership was a joke. For the period, French kit was actually quite good. Their tanks were very effective for what they were designed for, even if not giving them a radio was a bit of a blunder. They struggled against German tanks not because they were outgunned or outarmoured, but because they were outnumbered. The Germans would group their tank units together into divisions while the French (and literally everyone else at the time) were still using antiquated tank tactics that spread the tanks thin into small independent squads. Coupled with the overconfindence in the Ardennes being impossible to cross with tanks, to the point the french leadership ignored multiple reports that the germans were crossing the Ardennes and dismissed them as "just a few recon divisions". But when the French were able to do what they wanted, namely sit in place and defend like in Dunkirk, they did it very well. But you can't fight a mobile enemy while sitting on your ass, and French generals tried to do just that.
So as a 12 years kid you already know the importance of slopped armor, diesel engines and that welding was the future of tank manufacturing ? Yeah, sure...
@@joaogomes9405 The French army included three fully operational armored divisions, with a fourth forming up, in May 1940. It also had several more mechanized divisions. The idea that the French army was split up into small units is simply false. French tanks, like the tanks of the USA and USSR in 1941-45, were grouped *both* in small support units and in large armored divisions. The Germans would have done the same if they'd been able to afford it, but they couldn't, which is why they cooked up the Stug idea.
Also.....most French tanks had pretty poor firepower, as did most German tanks. Only a minority of tanks on either side had good general-purpose armament.
@@Balrog2005 No, as a 12 year old I picked what my favourite tanks were based on if they looked cool. I'm sorry I have to explain the joke to you, I thought my comment was pretty obvious.
You better not let ConeofArc hear you call the FCM an angular abomination!
Well that was his mascot as an anime tank girl
no it worse
14:38
Cone of arc is a weeb degenerate, his fans are also degenerates by association
Hahahahahahah how dare you hate on ConeofArc waifu. Hahaha
One main issue of the FCM, as far as I know was that it's manufacturer was basically a shipyard. Hence they had this experience in welding armor plate. However experienced welders were few and far between and even without the common strikes, they were needed for their main job, building warships. The FCM was really a side project compared to the more important job of building ships.
More important? The Marine Nationale still didn't have much of an influence in the 1940 campaig , did it?
the Churhill tanks were build by a shipyard their most common product had been the RMS Titanic enough said (:-))
Fun fact: the FCM 36 went pricier that anticipated because many workers on the assembly line used some of the quality materials to make cutlery sets on the side. Also it was appreciated for it’s long range, being diesel-powered.
@@michaelpielorz9283the A20 precursor to the Churchill (which was A22) was built by a shipyard, but Churchill itself was not.
Thanks for posting this video.
I was late for my wedding. 😤
Using tanks to support infantry as a concept isn’t wrong, having a tank is massively better than having no tank.
The problem is, if your have-tank can only deal with infantry, whilst the enemy tank can easily deal with your tank, then you’ll be back to having no tank as soon as an enemy one showed up. And after that how efficient a tank is at supporting the infantry isn’t that big of an issue anymore.
Exactly right!
Infantry tanks aren't build to deal only with infantry. Matilda, Valentine and Churchill(undermined by original design relying on Matilda turret and 2 pounder) need to have a word with you. Infantry tank is there to support infantry. The gun is there to deal with tanks, bunkers and machinegun nests. It has MGs of its own for dealing with enemy infantry.
@@TheArklyte You are partially right. The British concept of an infantry tank was a tank that existed to support Infantry - which is not remotely the same thing as fighting only enemy infantry.
Nevertheless, all the British infantry tank designs were crippled by their poor firepower. The 2 pounder and later 6 pounder were both excellent antitank guns in their day. But they had no HE capability, which is what an infantry support tank needs more than anything. HE is used to engage enemy towed AT guns, bunkers and other field fortifications. The British I tanks had only their AP solid-shot guns and their machineguns to engage these targets. And so, time and again, British armor units were defeated by towed AT guns because they had no means of engaging them unless they got within MG range.....and by the time you do that all your tanks have been knocked out.
@@TheArklyte British WW2 infantry tanks have a different meaning from french post-WW1 infantry tanks. Mostly because one supports infantry, while the other fights infantry.
@@executivedirector7467 What's worse the British did have a 94mm howitzer...that fired only smoke shells.
I love the new style used! The editing and illustrations are flawless! I feel it is somewhat inspired from Ahoy's (formerly XboxAhoy) style. Meant as a compliment ofc
I feel like all content creators could take inspiration from Ahoy’s amazing style:)
Well, good given the probably line of real footage. I find it funny that while describing a fight in the Ardennes they used snow footage from WOT when the battle happened in May/June.
th-cam.com/video/XJnTmcxNhPk/w-d-xo.html
"China is Preparing for WAR as Neocons Cross Xi's Red Line in Taiwan"
🤔
Love the humor 😂 while also staying on track and not overusing it.
This new editing style is amazing! I used to have the old videos playing like a podcast in the backround, but now it's geniunely entertaining to watch as is. Keep up the great work
ConeOfArc: *angry noises*
I recall the French didn't want radio inside their tanks was because...they are afraid that the enemy might be listening in. 🤣
To add to Obsidian Jane's correct comment, back in the 1920s and 30s, tank radios usually required a crewman dedicated to operating them. That drove costs waaaay up - the tanks needed to be larger, the radios needed to be supplied, the crewmen needed to be trained and provided, etc. It really adds up. If your doctrine calls for careful planning and relatively methodical battle plans (as the French did) then radios in every tank or small unit are not that important. France dealt with the chaos of combat by trying to master and control it through very tightly controlled tactical planning and conduct of operations.
The Germans dealt with the chaos by embracing it and using it to their advantage. Such freer tactics required really good communications, and I don't think it's an accident of history that Guderian was a Signals officer.
I wouldn't say abomination. It has a certain charm to it.
noooo ! its bad because meme, ooga booga
Crazy to see vasile lugas old channel cited here in this video. It’s crazy when you start to understand how much footage there is and how a lot of it is not public domain and it costs a lot to get World War Two footage or any footage nowadays that has proprietary information and protection and obviously that is good for source creators for instance that documentary cited ‘battlefields’ is now on Magellan and history hit behind paywalls but can still be seen on TH-cam on his channel and he uploaded them back in the wild west days of TH-cam
Agreed- that man did a huge service to the military history community.
I like the new editing style. Feels a lot like XboxAhoy
20mm flak guns: Hague Convention? More like Hague Suggestion.
This channel's quality of content is a far cry from when it started a couple of years ago. Good narration and sound quality!
You’re right
Just wanted to say that i absolutely love your videos (And your encyclopedia articles too!). Especially the articles because its short simple and colourful to the point where my tiny ape brain can understand them.
Where is ConeofArc ? It's an "insult" to him🤣
Another french WW2 tank I have a love for❤️.... also one of the few you can't seem to find plastic models of😔
ICM makes a kit of it.
Have 2 of them . Looks pretty good.
One thing I forgot to specify was in 1/72.. though when looking, I did seem to find some....lol things have changed in the last 5 years it seems.
Between the praise, critiques and further developments FCM36, R35(new suspension and SA38 gun) and H35(H39 with extra armor, new engine and SA38 gun) receive, it seems like AMX38 was to be ideal as it was a combination of the three. However it remains to be seen if it was combination of their pros or cons...
Video editing has gotten really cool
Some of the hulls were recycled by the Wermacht in PzJaegers, with a 7,5 cm. Pak, but weren't very popular, too tight. It's incredible how the specifics of these tanks were so low tech, no radio, an one-man turret, and a too light gun, at least they could've provided a third man, to light commander's work, and without radio how they could've send instructions to the crews? The absurdity was that the French army had pioneered radio comms since the early yrs of XX century.
Also variants with the 10.5 cm leFH gun
THE CONE
Excellent video on a rare vehicle.
This production value tho
With one exception*, the light French tanks of 1940 really were FT17 Redux...
* looking at you AMC 35, why you so much trouble to get right? You could have been a contender!
You have the soothing voice of a starship captain.
(French Infantry officer) … “so… the way you want to communicate with me… is to fire a 37mm shell at me…?”
Great work Sir thank you
Woah
is Thomas Sowell Alcazar?
My favorite French tank by far! Totally love how it looks.
Thanks!
And through it all she offers me protection
A lot of love and affection
Whether I'm right or wrong
And down the waterfall
Wherever it may take me
I know that life won't break me
When I come to call, she won't forsake me
I'm loving angles instead...
Dude said “tourret”
Coneofarc will be pleased!
The French only have 2 settings. They either build absolutely fantastic or absolutely ridiculous.
I love FCM 36
Fcm 36 is my favorite tank for France thou it's not best it's neat
Reckon it would of been amazing using that in the Napoleonic wars
I've often wondered why the waffenamt didn't refit captured light tanks as infantry support weapons carriers. Remove the turret and use the turret ring/basket to mount an 8cm mortar or 7.5cm leichtes infanteriegeschütz.
After the invasion of Poland it was obvious the panzer 1,2 class of vehicles was obsolete. Retrofitting them would have kept them in service.
Another lesson learned from Poland was that the infantry were vulnerable and needed more crew served weapons to keep replacement rates low. Having a battery of mobile mortars/infantry guns at the regimental level or lower would definitely be a deciding factor on the battle field.
Mobility and a high ammo capacity. What's not to love?
Except they did. The Panzer II was the basis for both the 10.5 cm leFH (the Wespe), the 15 cm sIG (the unpronounceable name) and the 7.5 cm Pak (the Marder IIs)
@@TanksEncyclopediaYT Agree/ disagree. Yes those are hulls adapted for other armament. My point specifically was for crew served weapons normally carried by infantry. These weapons are given fire missions at a lower organizational level than howitzer artillery, so they are quicker to respond to changes in battlefield circumstances.
Thank you for a great channel. I'm a 3 year subscriber.
Well, there was no reason to mount the 8cm mortar on tank hulls, it worked very well on half-tracks without needing to sacrifice a tank chassis for it.
As for the leIG, that was the job of the StuG III in the infantry divisions, and later the 7.5 cm armed half-tracks.
@@obsidianjane4413 Yeah, but there were only 250 stugs for the entire eastern front. Because of lack of close infantry support the entire 400,000 man reserve was killed before Moscow was even approached.
on wt should use more ww2 themed maps
something i have always been curious. tho britain and france fought together during the battle of france. we never hear the opinion on their allies tanks.
like french opinions on the british tanks and the british on the french tanks. did they never really fight alongside eachother during the short conflict and the small little moments in north africa and middle east?
@@obsidianjane4413 bit of a shame...
If there are anecdotes, often Historians disregard them with fairly good reason. They tend to be coloured by bias and so rarely reach the general culture stage of military history circles. Understandable but a shame.
Wasn't the limited production of 100 pieces rather because of the very high cost of the tank rather than to FCM production?
Забавно что от этого танка ведут происхождение т34 и пантера.
French lights..."AHA, we have you now!"
StuG III: "Not so fast, cheese eater."
There were maybe a dozen Stugs available in June 1940
@@executivedirector7467 Didn't know they even had Stugs back then haha
Ik this doesn't matter but what made you guys choose world of tanks too use for your videos instead of warthunder
Your attention is lacking, dear bag of bones. We used both :)
You should have elaborated on the title of the video that states that this was a tank for the wrong war. The French doctrine really was not that bad. They intended to stop a german attack in it's tracks and then totally wear them out. This plan could have worked if they would have stopped the germans from sneaking throught the ardennes and attacking them from the rear. They even knew what the germans were up to (reconnaissance flights showed a 200 kilometer long line of armoured vehicles working it's way throught the ardennes), but they brushed it aside as a distraction. No doctrine can withstand such stupidity.
Very odd looking tank. Wasnt it the first all welded french tank too since FCM built ships too?
LE CONE
Lol "terret" 😂.
Best of the Worst and no Mike Stoklasa, am I sobering up???
No wonder bo aliens come to us asoon as we see somthing doing any war we bast the absolute hell out of it
At least France won the beauty contest (and who cares about the war anyway)
Trust the french to build the powerplants but don't trust them for anything else ahah
but that miserable gun ! WHY would they stay with these worthless stubby guns ? France why ?
interesting that even in 1940 the Stug-III was knocking out tanks and dealing with problems nobody else could deal with. Its rather unlucky for the FCM 36's to have encountered 2 Stug's because there were only 50 in the whole campaign if I recall correctly
Cost and availability.
Mostly because they had thousands upon thousands of them available.
also it suffered the sadly not uncommon thinking of the time of : well it's an infantry support tank, not an anti-tank tank. it doesn't need to be able to fend off other tanks, it just needs to mow down infrantry and blow up pillboxes.
France was trying to rearm after years of slashing military spending. Since the short 37mm had been the main gun on the FT-17 it was available en masse for use in the rearmament program and was fitted because it was cheap and expedient. As seen on the H-39 etc there were plans to produce upgunned variants of all the light tanks, but those were interrupted by the outbreak of war.
It's called a suit not an ACE, no A's present. Yes, this annoys me.