@@ray.shoesmith Agreed! Clearly got the knowledge of his subject, but lacked experience in front of camera. He's really improved fast, great addition to the channel 👏
@@mad_death_0 as long as this isn't a French lesson, and since his expertise in tanks is far superior to mine, I think I'm not in the position to complain about the pronunciation of a single word.
Really growing to like Chris's videos. Hard to beat the OG David Fletcher but Chris is growing really comfortable in front of the camera and clearly knows his stuff.
The downfall of all WW2 French tanks were the one man turrets. Can you imagine if you are in command of other tanks also? Trying to command your tank, find and fire at targets and then having to use tiny communication flags to give orders to your other tanks as well?
And the Tank Tactics. If the Char 1bis would have been accompanied by S-35 on their Attack they wouldn't be overwhelmed. But France didn't buy the lighter Tank in the numbers needed. Only 430 were produced. If the Government ordered more in 1938 and 1939 they could have had around 600-700 of those. And give 50 each as protection for the 3 heavy units, the S-35 was as capable as the Char Bis1 in Tank-Battle. But the biggest Probem was indeed the Universal Turret, which had to be a one Man-Turret to fit on every tank. And the Char bis1 and Somua had the luxury version, were the loader could help the Commander. There were only two competing Turret Designs and Production for all French Tanks. Both could have had a 2 man turret.
The one man turret is a reflection of the other serious problem facing France, since the end of WWI-- a serious shortage of manpower caused by the heavy casualties, both industrial accidents and combat losses. In other discussions of French tanks, it is often mentioned that a limiting factor was the pool of skilled tankers. A proper three man turret would have eliminated half of the potential tank force. There is no argument that the three man turret was more effective than the one man turret, but was a tank with a three man turret more effective than two tanks with one man turrets?
Half of the german panzer force who invaded France in may 1940 were single one-man turret just like the french tanks. But French tank designs leading up to WWII had to deal with a manpower shortage in the French Army. So many Frenchmen died in WWI, the French Army had to plan knowing they didn't have the same number of troops possible in other armies of the time. Hence why, the french made more tanks with 1 man turrets.
The downfall of all French tanks is none of them were fitted with radios and thus had no strategic or tactical situational awareness beyond what the commander could see himself. The French didn’t trust radio’s and used runners and motorcycle courier for coordination. The problem was high command actually finding their tanks once the shooting started. The GERMANS fitted the radios to the captured tanks.
@@elouenmyas580 Only the Panzerkampfwagen I had One-Man Turrets. And they were literaly driving Pillboxes with a MG. Both the S-35 and the Panzerkampfwagen II had a 3 Man-Crew: Driver, Commander + Loader/Radioman. In the German Tank the Loader/Radioman was in the Turret, in the French Tank he squatted below the turret and was only an assist Loader. A two-man turret with a better cupola with a Hatch would improved the S-35 greatly. The Cupola on the one man turret was so small, because there was no space for a bigger one. France was in transition to a 3 Man Crew from 1935 onwards, and hat some 1 1/2 man turrets (Hotchkiss-H39, AMC35, S-35, Char B1 bis). Would they embrassed it more, and made the step to a real 2 man turret, their Tanks would be much more efficient. If they had used the APX2-B turret of the AMC35 instead of the APX4 in the more modern tanks. Together with better Tactics, combining Heavy with Light Tanks, the run to Dunkirk may have been stopped. It may not have prohibited the fall of France, but certainly it wouldn't have been a 6 Week affaire more likely 3-5 Month.
Fun fact: They were working on an upgraded model, the B1 Ter, when WW2 hit. It removed the experimental quality hydraulic transmission based aiming, and instead had a more reliable normal transmission and the hull gun could now be traversed left and right. It was also up-armored on the sides and covered the radiator weakspot. Despite having a very small turret cannon, it's very much worthy of being called a WW2 Heavy Tank. (Early model churchhills also had a hull gun and a small, 40mm turret cannon, and "ww1 style" tracks that go around the entire tank. The same as the B1! So the B1 wasn't as "behind the times" as you might think in the era it was designed/operated. If it was ~1937, it would have been extremely competitive. And the Churchill didn't come out till later, in 1941. Though it did feature a more modern 1940 radio capable of voice communication whereas the older B1 had, IIRC, only Morse code. I believe Morse Code goes further in range than voice, but its of course, much slower to communicate.) You can google b1 ter (war thunder's wiki has a great model with pictures). I think the tank is beautiful it a sort of charming ugly way.
@@laurentius1986I disagree, it looks pretty good for when it was made. It was a damn good tank in the hands of skilled TC. Captain Pierre Billotte took out an entire panzer company (13 panzers knocked out) all by himself in a Char B. For its time (pre WWII) it kicked!
These are much improved videos. Finally giving some context to why the Germans did not take the French lightly, and why the eventual French capitulation was so significant.
The French liked this tank so much they made the ARL 44 from it. I love the reloaded series. Can Chris look at the Jagdtiger more in depth. Also the Elefant.
ARL 44 is a nice coulda would shoulda if they were ready for WW2; but they were utterly anachronistic cr@p within the 3 years of Berlin falling; let alone when they were made some time after.
@@anasevi9456 The French new from the beguinning the ARL 44 would be outdated. The idea was not to take the time to make a good machine, but to produce anything to restart the industry after WW2. As the first tanks would have had flaws it was not a bad idea to have workers and engineers gain experience on a project that would be unlikly to ever fight. In 1945 they must have thought there won't be a war near french frontiers in the following years.
@@anasevi9456 What? None of what you said is true. The ARL 44 was NOT a pre-war design. It was the results of studies done during the german occupation and its manufacturing was realised to kickstart the french tank industries after the war. The main goal was less about designing a great tank than it was about running the factories again instead of relying on foreign exports.
France had the biggest Tank fleet in the world when they declared war against Germany in 1939 and marched into Germany in 1939. They would never dreamed about being defeat by the disarmed German army.
These Tank Chat Reloaded videos are great. The originals by "The David" were excellent, and Mr. Fletcher's style was very enjoyable his -"There it is" were a hoot. Mr. Copson's style is different, but, I think even more informative. Like Mr. Fletcher, he knows his stuff.
I usually focus on US machines (ships, aircraft and tanks) and have always been generally curious about the Char B1. Very informative and great pace! Have been following this museum for a while, keep up the great work!!
Excellent video! Thanks for the history! From the photos it looks like some were fitted out with a flamethrower instead of a 75mm gun. I just read that the Germans did that mod to some that they captured.
An excellent and very informative Tank Chat once again. I love the new perspective that Chris gives to these vehicles and enjoyed meeting you a couple of weeks ago. (I was the very tall Scottish guy!) Can't make Tank Fest but am very much hoping to get back to the museum as soon as I can.
Excellent video Chris/Tank Museum. Chris. You're relaxing into the part with much better presentation than your earlier ones. I like the 'red indentity' additions showing the parts being talked about too. Well done !!!!! Look forward to your next one.
Very nice video. Bovinton's B1 bis looks very clean inside. The ergonomics sound horrible for half the crew. Can't imagine the crew being at high effectiveness after 100 mile road march. The lack of a (edit: voice capable) radio results in an engagement like at Stonne: individual B1 bis dominating small numbers of German tanks bur lacking tactical coordination unable to achieve a decisive result.
The way these older Great war and Inter war year tanks look is special, they seem more terrifying and monstrous in their appearance compared to later vehicles. Love Tank chats reloaded 👍
technically it is the rarest tank in the museum, as it is the only surviving tank used by the Germans in WWII on British soil (Jersey). my friends father Frederic Zimmer (RIP) was a mechanic with 213 here in Jersey and would have worked on this vehicle. my friend Alan actually has a jack for the Char, it might be the one that is missing from this tank?
That's hilarious, what is more hilarious is if, in seven months, no one from the museum has asked your friend and yourself to bring that jack to see if it fits . . . !
@@jeanlongsden1696 I've heard of an Isle of Jersey and also a City, but I don't know the location of the museum. I also don't know where you are, but if you think your friend might have a jack for a German-captured and refitted Char B1 bis, then I have to think you are probably somewhere in the U.K. or perhaps France, and therefore no worse than a train and a ferry away from the museum, such a heavy artifact as a tank jack being a bit awkward to haul over oceans (perhaps in an oceanic surface-freight CONNEX rented to move household goods, though)? I saw an e-mail address in the Tank Museum Chat on the Panzer III, if your friend perhaps wants to trade the jack for a lifetime all-access pass (including entering all tanks that aren't welded shut) to the museum? Maybe learn some tank restoration with the maintenance team, there has to be the occasional employer around the world for someone who has museum-quality experience with that!
2:33 I used to play a computer game called Steel Panthers. The makers of the game always claimed they tried to make it as realistic as a game can be. If playing the Germans vs. the French in 1940, those Char B1's were almost impossible to take out...even from the sides.
Steel Panthers World At War, I lost many hours to that game back in the day. I think it was fussy about running in XP, but by 7 it wouldn't run at all. I think my best remembered match is one I used cavalry and light tanks, to cut behind the enemy lines. Swept up their HQ and artillery while a heavier assault force rolled up the enemy front line from their flank, and my artillery kept the rest of the line pinned. If I ever won a big lottery win, and decided to become a dollaraire again by creating a video game company, a modern SP:WAW would be one of the projects.
It's nice to see a breakdown of the mechanical and human aspects of this tank. Many tanks were designed with a warfare mindset that didn't really work out. Other tanks had the same issues, but were adaptable enough (like the German Panzer III and IV's) that they could be modified or upgraded to continue fighting. I remember seeing a wrecked Char B1 in France as a kid in a museum (early 60's). The hatches were painted over and we couldn't look inside, so it's nice when you can see what the crews actually had to deal with in combat.
I looooove french tanks and the Char B1 is my favorite of all french tanks. Seeing one from the inside for the first time in this video made me so happy! Thanks for showing this
I find that French WW2 tanks are woefully underappreciated and undervalued. Too many people seem to think that because France was defeated so quickly that must mean their equipment was bad.
Excellent Tank Chat . I do think the Tank should be returned to original condition with German modifications removed and painted in French colours . Or if left as is it should be painted accordingly as a German Tank serving in the Chanel islands
A fascinating tank - I always enjoy seeing it when I visit the museum. It’s surprisingly imposing, I say surprisingly as it’s small turret I think gives a false sense of size in images. Great vid.
Tanks usually look small in photos, don't they? I remember the first time I saw an Abrams in person, it looked huge! Then I quickly became used to them, like a car or a Great Dane, and no big deal. Then, I watched as one popped a wheely and tore a road in to a rooster tail as it tried to dodge RPGs and ATGMs, as I ran towards it to try to suppress launch positions. It seemed large and powerful again.
Very good video, very informative with a clear knowledge of the subject and well recorded. Higlighting mechanical parts in red was a great idea to help pick out details as they were discussed. The Char B1 is one of my own favourites from the blitzkreig era and had the French made a few design changes in the testing phase it would have made a formidable opponent for the German tank crews in 1940, the main two were clearly covered here being the one man turret design and the lack of radios. I do wonder how much the layout of the Char B influenced the US Lee/Grant M3 design?
I have often wondered that, as well! Together with the (Churchill?), it seems all three were sketching a single model. I think the British tank may have been the best for war, as its ability to cross difficult terrain seems by far the best; as long as it was only expected to serve as an infantry support. The M3 Grant with its "Cadillac" crew compartment, prodigious store of ammunition, and especially in potential its stabilized assault/anti-tank gun, has pronounced advantages. On the down side, it lacked the British tank's superior frontal armor, ability to absorb damage and keep going, and vastly superior ability to maneuver across ditches and up vertical faces and mountain paths! The Char B1? Who knows? The short 75 could have been longer, but seems to have been more of a howitzer to assault fixed positions. The turreted 47 would have been vastly superior to the Grant's short 37, in the reversal of roles. The British tank's two-man turret with an anti-tank gun seems decidedly superior to both, and then it soon swapped the hull-mounted gun for a twin-mount of the very powerful Breda 8 mm machine guns that also seem to be stabilized in both elevation and traverse, which would have been a big help when crossing rough ground in the face of AT guns!
Fascinating, you can only imagine the number of bruises the crew must have had traversing rough ground getting battered off the sides in such cramped conditions.
It is interesting to think about "What if?"...... What if the French Army had embraced Radio Communication BEFORE the German Invasion?? It relied almost totally on either land line phones or motor couriers. It took Hours and even Days before information was received from Front Line Units...and then of course Hours or Days for a Response. INSANITY!!
Every time a(ny) french tank is portrait, Laserpig comes to my mind...😂 I don't know, but this thing is the equivalent of a full-fledged nerd that's pitied by everybody, like, "but he has quite cool glasses..." A real pain in the a...in every shape and form. The poor french tankers. Just imagine. If I had been one rather fighting the germans, I would have grabbed me the guy who designed it, put him in chains, and let HIM do the towing of the fuel tank. AND the refuelling-probably with open watering cans-under fire - 40 times...man I could go on forever 🤣
The Char B used a sophisticated double differential steering that used a hydraulic motor to steer the tank with such precision the7.5cm gun could be aimed. This actually inspired the Swedish S-tank which went a step further to adjust the suspension to gain elevation as well. Unfortunately this otherwise excellent transmission gained a bad reputation (as pointed out) when medicinal instead of hydraulic grade castor oil was used. Castor oil smells quite sweet and pleasant apparently so the tank might have smelled nice.
The system was driven by a bicycle chain a crew member had to put back in place very often. Imagine doing that during combat, when you need to move around.
Another very informative and well-presented Tank Chats Reloaded presentation. These Tank Museum videos are probably my favorite videos on TH-cam. (My French is atrocious, but Mr. Copson may have described Gen. Estienne as "Father of the Cats." --Just would like to have a little chuckle here!)
It's rather interesting that the B1 was superior to the Panzers one on one but was overwhelmed by numbers and support and by the end of the war the tables turned. The Germans made their equipment too complicated and of superior quality but were overcome in the same way by numbers and support and even the issue of lack of fuel came into play.
The french had designed and constructed in serious numbers amazing tanks. Unfortunately they didn't succeed to understand the potentials of the weapon and instead of creating big autonomous tank formations like armoured brigades they attached them in small numbers to the infantry units. If they were able to foresee this mistake the franco-german confrontation would most probably have a totally different outcome and WW2 might even not have started......
i've read that fuel issues were also due to the lack of crew training with fuel tanks management, as far as i understood, they were using only the auxilliary ones, hence drastically shortening the range.
Char B1 is a beast really. If de Gaulle got liberty to use his mechanised force & got more armoured force in his disposal. History might change its course
Chris, I really like your style. You are entertaining to listen to, your French and German are clear and excellent, and you tell an interesting story. Please do more!
A video packed with information and details about the tank along with pictures and video of it. I like this style of revisiting a tank you had already covered.
That was very interesting and with a precise commentary that highlights the main points regarding the tank's design and use, looking at the Char B1 one does have to wonder why the French went for such an over specialised design when their Intelliegence services would have told them what the Pkz II, III and IV were like and also more to the point the comventional nature of their designs. They effectively built a tank that was full of Gallic flair but which contained total impracticalities like the tank not having a viable radio for radio net comms with other units and also the fixed co axial machine gun in the hull.
great tank, terrible 1 man turret. Poor commander had to do 3 roles (command and spot, gunner, loader) and had no top hatch to spot using binoculars, being forced to use the hatch at the back of the turret and contorting himself in a weird position to see outside 8:20 - Wasn't "grant" the british version of the M3 while "lee" refers to the US version?
The door made a rather comfortable seat, and even that lost basketball player of a tanker called Chieftain didn't have a problem moving in and out. That said, adding a gunner/loader to the turret would been a stellar improvement.
Ah, the cursed APX turret. French were enamoured by this thing, because it was cheap, and well armoured for the size - but relying on it messed some otherwise promising designs.
The one-man turret is only a problem if that position is occupied by the tank commander, rather than a dedicated lookout cum gunner. Think about it; if he is not in battle, then he can glass fields with the entire turret as cover -- do not stick your head out looking for snipers, you might find one -- but when engaging in battle then the enemy should have his full attention! He can certainly call to alert his (mechanical noise and impact and blast-deafened, there appears to be no intercom) crewmates, "Tank left! AT in the bush 320! God-aweful big gun (88) ahead one kilometer!" In French service, no radio so no radioman. If they had had a radioman, one with good FM voice communication to 10-20 km, then he could command-in-fact by coordinating his gunner's intercom calls to the tank force; give the lookout a longer lead than usual, and he could keep watch and speak directly with AA batteries, AT batteries, mortar batteries, howitzers, field guns, air controllers . . . . You see my point? Who, where, bearing and distance, what, how many. The radio operator could monitor two or three radio channels; A.M. Morse, A.M. (distant control by voice), F.M. (local voice network), while the driver and the loader monitor the intercom. The radioman would become a navigator, as aboard aircraft of the time. That really does call for a bit of a desk, at least a clipboard of the kind shipping departments used to use. Lacking radio, the "radioman" is a second loader, dedicated to serving one gun; or more likely, the Char B1 ran with a three-man crew in French service, not four, given the shortage of manpower; or, it's a Renaux: serviceable. The man is a mechanic! Give him a sling-seat, too, and a crawler and tools. A 300 horsepower V-12 sounds very nice for the time, I am fairly sure if it had been diesel (or a diesel that can run well on kerosene or avgas as well, equally) that would have given enviable service to most tanks at that time; very desirable by the British for some time to come. Seeing what one of these can do, if the transmission is actually very good, would be reason to get a Char working. The low-velocity 75 seems very comparable in purpose and effect to the 75 of the Panzer IV, so . . . how did those compare?
One-man turret. No radio. No commander's cupola. Horrible tanks. Pierre Billotte was lucky that the Germans had not adapted yet to his new tank that was unfamiliar to them. BUT imagine if they had gone full Stridsvagn 103 with the Char B. Replace the turret with a cupola and a radio. Give the 75mm gun a much longer barrel that is completely inside the tank. Mount the 75 a little higher in the hull. Add a dozer blade on the front. Then you would have a Stridsvagn 103.
Of course one man turrets were not a good idea, and commanders had their hands full. But i think that french turrets vision devices and cupolas are not well understood, maybe because few are complete, some prejudice and no direct experience and training in its use. The commander's cupola had 3 different vision options: a binnocular sight on the rotating cupola (4x 9,9º), an Episcope (68º horizontal view 24º vertical) and a reserve direct vision slit (114º horizontal view). On the turret sides there were 2 other episcopes (68º horiz-24º vert) and the telescopic sight for the gun and machine gun (4x, 11,8º). When the tanks were properly serviced and fueled they gave a good account of themselves.
On June 12, 1940, the French tank Char B-1 No. 387 "BENI-SNASSEN" was supposed to defend the bridge over the river Marne in the village of Pogny. It was a suicide mission, the tankers were supposed to defend the bridge to the last breath and not to retreat, not to let the Germans cross the Marne. They did well at first as he destroyed four German tanks, forcing the rest of the attackers to retreat. But then they became the target of German artillery. The strike killed crew member André Cancelo. The subsequent explosion killed two more crew members, so in the end only the seriously injured radio operator Pierre Antelme survived the battle, but he lost his leg. But he survived the war.
Spent countless hours in this tank in Post Scriptum... the 1940s German Armor including the STUG III couldn't pen it at all..... I don't know how the French messed up in ww2.
I realise that 'ie' and 'ei' are difficult to read and pronounce for anglo-amarican speakers, but the factory is Schn EI der. not Schn IE der. 'Schneider' in other word pronounced something like "Schnaider". Same mistake is often made about the Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler, also often pronounced as 'L IE bstandarte'. Just saying 😉 Nice video again!
The American M-3 Grant/Lee also used the French 75 mm in a sponson mount but had a 3 man turret for the 37mm anti-tank gun that could also fire cannister and HE making it preferable to the British 2 pounder as well. It also had a separate position for a 7th radio man where Char B often used signal flags. Americans loved to stick as many guns on everything as they could with an emphasis on size and crew comfort. If France had more Texans designing their tanks, 1940 might have ended differently.
@17:59 the one on the right is quite different. Is it this perhaps? "Flammwagen auf Panzerkampfwagen B-2(f): Sixty flame thrower tanks converted from Char B-2(f)s. The 47mm turret gun was retained but the 75mm hull gun was replaced by the flamethrower unit in a ball fitting. Most were used in the Eastern Front and were effective at their role due to their strong frontal armor."
Brave men put in a vehicle designed for a war that did not turn out the way the designers thought it would. They defended their country with what they were given such as our B-P Defiant 'Turret' aircraft. Very good and interesting presentation as noted by others... However, I take issue with the Maginot Line graphic as these fortifications did not reach anywhere near the coast opposite Belgium. Also see 17.14 min/sec.... isn't this a German conversion to a Flammpanzer ?..(see the converted aperture on the 75mm) Several B1s were recaptured and used by the Resistance and were also used by the French Army during the siege of La Rochelle in 1945, isn't this one of those?
May I say, I really appreciated that Chris said "B1 bis" in French? I understand *why* so many people (myself included) will revert to their native language when encountering numerals and single letters, but it's still so disconcerting when someone very carefully learns how to say "panzerkampfwagen" or "mitrailleuse" or "carro veloce" and then drops into English for the numbers.
I'd forgotten they had 1 man not 2 man turrets. I was expecting a comment about how 2 men had to do the job of 3. Maybe the 2 man was the T34. Been a while, forgetting this stuff. Also it is one thing to read about how bad a 1/2 man turret is but it is another to SEE it. Wow. I'm not claustrophobic but when he popped up into that 1 man turret my eyes just went wide with shock. Bare metal walls mostly. Hardly any instruments. And 1 man was supposed to deal with that. Still, it is an impressive tank thanks to its size. It was not even dwarfed by the Panther (
That 3" gun barrel is so thick though...any rounds coming in that hit it would probably not hurt the driver or entire tank(although disable the gun, ofc). In order for a 1 man turret to work efficiently, you'd have to have an AI assistant like JARVIS from Iron Man. In fact....this may be the future of 1 or 2 man tankettes.
To be fair with the French, the British Churchill I infantry tank and the American M3 were like improved versions of Char B1. The Char B1 was already a decade old design when the British and Americans built their versions.
Man, that was a Claustrophobic turret. Further, the German tanks had FM radio to communicate with their fellow tankers and so, they knew when and where to drive and to fire their guns. The French tankers had to stick their heads out of their turrets in turn to get their heads blown off. Further the Germans had better Generals like Rommel,and Guderian to lead their forces, the French did not. The French used their tanks to support their Infantry. The Germans used their tanks to lead the breakouts and their Infantry followed. As mentioned in this Video, the German 88 was the best anti-tank artillery of WW2 and it blunted any superiority of the French tanks. Besides, the Germans had complete Air Superiority and their Stukas were flying Artillery against Allied tank, Infantry and Artillery, decisive factors in winning the Battle of France. You can not talk about the Superiority of a tank while neglecting these other factors as this is what “Blitzkrieg” is all about.
Excellent review of the Char B1, which had some very impressive features, but a flawed design layout. The French politics pre-WW2 made them ill prepared for the German offensive.
I promise I don't mean this to come off as just being horrible for the sake of it (I'm the kind of person who tries to say things that others find too uncomfortable to say), but this habit of randomly injecting bits of other languages when it's not directly relevant and serves no practical purpose doesn't make you come off as educated, it makes you come off as pretentious. It's fair to give your best shot at the native pronunciation of a specific tank, place, or piece of equipment (though even that can be a pretentious performance), but randomly dropping French or German phrases into your sentences is eye-rollingly English; particularly upper class English. Del boy would approve though ;) Other than that small point - good stuff!
I really liked how mechanical pieces were highlighted when Chris discussed them. More of this please.
Agreed. To often a video details a piece of kit and you've no idea where to look.
The Tank Museums uploads are a cut above the rest.
the highlighted bits are very helpful indeed
I really enjoy Chris's presentation style. Relaxed but with obvious expertise.
He's improved immensely. He's really worked on cutting out all the 'ahhs' 👍
@@ray.shoesmith Agreed! Clearly got the knowledge of his subject, but lacked experience in front of camera. He's really improved fast, great addition to the channel 👏
Yes, absolutely. It's good that they have different presenters. They make a good mix of flavours. Tank Museum videos don't get old. 👍👍
he should learn how to pronounce "un" (one) though ; THE MOST atrocious pronounciation of this word I have ever heard.
@@mad_death_0 as long as this isn't a French lesson, and since his expertise in tanks is far superior to mine, I think I'm not in the position to complain about the pronunciation of a single word.
Really growing to like Chris's videos. Hard to beat the OG David Fletcher but Chris is growing really comfortable in front of the camera and clearly knows his stuff.
I like him as much as mr fletcher just as captivating and interesting
The downfall of all WW2 French tanks were the one man turrets. Can you imagine if you are in command of other tanks also? Trying to command your tank, find and fire at targets and then having to use tiny communication flags to give orders to your other tanks as well?
And the Tank Tactics. If the Char 1bis would have been accompanied by S-35 on their Attack they wouldn't be overwhelmed. But France didn't buy the lighter Tank in the numbers needed. Only 430 were produced. If the Government ordered more in 1938 and 1939 they could have had around 600-700 of those. And give 50 each as protection for the 3 heavy units, the S-35 was as capable as the Char Bis1 in Tank-Battle. But the biggest Probem was indeed the Universal Turret, which had to be a one Man-Turret to fit on every tank. And the Char bis1 and Somua had the luxury version, were the loader could help the Commander. There were only two competing Turret Designs and Production for all French Tanks. Both could have had a 2 man turret.
The one man turret is a reflection of the other serious problem facing France, since the end of WWI-- a serious shortage of manpower caused by the heavy casualties, both industrial accidents and combat losses. In other discussions of French tanks, it is often mentioned that a limiting factor was the pool of skilled tankers. A proper three man turret would have eliminated half of the potential tank force. There is no argument that the three man turret was more effective than the one man turret, but was a tank with a three man turret more effective than two tanks with one man turrets?
Half of the german panzer force who invaded France in may 1940 were single one-man turret just like the french tanks. But French tank designs leading up to WWII had to deal with a manpower shortage in the French Army. So many Frenchmen died in WWI, the French Army had to plan knowing they didn't have the same number of troops possible in other armies of the time. Hence why, the french made more tanks with 1 man turrets.
The downfall of all French tanks is none of them were fitted with radios and thus had no strategic or tactical situational awareness beyond what the commander could see himself.
The French didn’t trust radio’s and used runners and motorcycle courier for coordination. The problem was high command actually finding their tanks once the shooting started.
The GERMANS fitted the radios to the captured tanks.
@@elouenmyas580 Only the Panzerkampfwagen I had One-Man Turrets. And they were literaly driving Pillboxes with a MG.
Both the S-35 and the Panzerkampfwagen II had a 3 Man-Crew: Driver, Commander + Loader/Radioman.
In the German Tank the Loader/Radioman was in the Turret, in the French Tank he squatted below the turret and was only an assist Loader. A two-man turret with a better cupola with a Hatch would improved the S-35 greatly. The Cupola on the one man turret was so small, because there was no space for a bigger one.
France was in transition to a 3 Man Crew from 1935 onwards, and hat some 1 1/2 man turrets (Hotchkiss-H39, AMC35, S-35, Char B1 bis). Would they embrassed it more, and made the step to a real 2 man turret, their Tanks would be much more efficient. If they had used the APX2-B turret of the AMC35 instead of the APX4 in the more modern tanks. Together with better Tactics, combining Heavy with Light Tanks, the run to Dunkirk may have been stopped. It may not have prohibited the fall of France, but certainly it wouldn't have been a 6 Week affaire more likely 3-5 Month.
Fun fact: They were working on an upgraded model, the B1 Ter, when WW2 hit. It removed the experimental quality hydraulic transmission based aiming, and instead had a more reliable normal transmission and the hull gun could now be traversed left and right.
It was also up-armored on the sides and covered the radiator weakspot. Despite having a very small turret cannon, it's very much worthy of being called a WW2 Heavy Tank. (Early model churchhills also had a hull gun and a small, 40mm turret cannon, and "ww1 style" tracks that go around the entire tank. The same as the B1! So the B1 wasn't as "behind the times" as you might think in the era it was designed/operated. If it was ~1937, it would have been extremely competitive. And the Churchill didn't come out till later, in 1941. Though it did feature a more modern 1940 radio capable of voice communication whereas the older B1 had, IIRC, only Morse code. I believe Morse Code goes further in range than voice, but its of course, much slower to communicate.)
You can google b1 ter (war thunder's wiki has a great model with pictures). I think the tank is beautiful it a sort of charming ugly way.
Good tank or bad tank… the Char just looks fantastic
Looks lame.
you know that char is the french word for tank? it is the B1bis the name
Absolute badass tank.
@@laurentius1986I disagree, it looks pretty good for when it was made. It was a damn good tank in the hands of skilled TC. Captain Pierre Billotte took out an entire panzer company (13 panzers knocked out) all by himself in a Char B. For its time (pre WWII) it kicked!
@@StoptheHateJustDebatestukas: 💀
Hello Tank Nuts! Let us know your thoughts in the comments.
Chris is a great presenter, excellent diction, good speed and pace and clear competence. Thank you.
I agree.
These are much improved videos. Finally giving some context to why the Germans did not take the French lightly, and why the eventual French capitulation was so significant.
The French liked this tank so much they made the ARL 44 from it. I love the reloaded series. Can Chris look at the Jagdtiger more in depth. Also the Elefant.
ARL 44 is a nice coulda would shoulda if they were ready for WW2; but they were utterly anachronistic cr@p within the 3 years of Berlin falling; let alone when they were made some time after.
@@anasevi9456 Yes if the ARL 44 was ready for WW2 it may have been better remembered. It was outdated badly when released.
I think it was less that they liked it, and more that it's what they had when they began development.
@@anasevi9456 The French new from the beguinning the ARL 44 would be outdated. The idea was not to take the time to make a good machine, but to produce anything to restart the industry after WW2. As the first tanks would have had flaws it was not a bad idea to have workers and engineers gain experience on a project that would be unlikly to ever fight. In 1945 they must have thought there won't be a war near french frontiers in the following years.
@@anasevi9456 What? None of what you said is true.
The ARL 44 was NOT a pre-war design. It was the results of studies done during the german occupation and its manufacturing was realised to kickstart the french tank industries after the war.
The main goal was less about designing a great tank than it was about running the factories again instead of relying on foreign exports.
One of my favorite tanks too....saw one running at Saumur one time.
One of the best presentations I've ever seen on the Char B1 Bis. I've never seen the interior properly like this. Excellent work, Chris!
France had the biggest Tank fleet in the world when they declared war against Germany in 1939 and marched into Germany in 1939. They would never dreamed about being defeat by the disarmed German army.
These Tank Chat Reloaded videos are great. The originals by "The David" were excellent, and Mr. Fletcher's style was very enjoyable his -"There it is" were a hoot. Mr. Copson's style is different, but, I think even more informative. Like Mr. Fletcher, he knows his stuff.
I usually focus on US machines (ships, aircraft and tanks) and have always been generally curious about the Char B1. Very informative and great pace! Have been following this museum for a while, keep up the great work!!
Excellent video! Thanks for the history! From the photos it looks like some were fitted out with a flamethrower instead of a 75mm gun. I just read that the Germans did that mod to some that they captured.
Highlighting items with red is a brilliant idea!
Another excellent presentation - i particularly like the use of colour to highlight areas being discussed - a handy innovation.
An excellent and very informative Tank Chat once again. I love the new perspective that Chris gives to these vehicles and enjoyed meeting you a couple of weeks ago. (I was the very tall Scottish guy!)
Can't make Tank Fest but am very much hoping to get back to the museum as soon as I can.
Excellent video Chris/Tank Museum. Chris. You're relaxing into the part with much better presentation than your earlier ones. I like the 'red indentity' additions showing the parts being talked about too.
Well done !!!!! Look forward to your next one.
Very nice video. Bovinton's B1 bis looks very clean inside.
The ergonomics sound horrible for half the crew. Can't imagine the crew being at high effectiveness after 100 mile road march.
The lack of a (edit: voice capable) radio results in an engagement like at Stonne: individual B1 bis dominating small numbers of German tanks bur lacking tactical coordination unable to achieve a decisive result.
The way these older Great war and Inter war year tanks look is special, they seem more terrifying and monstrous in their appearance compared to later vehicles. Love Tank chats reloaded 👍
I like them as i am an avid tabletop wargamer and they look likeWarhammer 40K imperial guard tanks
they kinda feel like ''Last march of the ents'' in LOTR, old heavy slow warbeasts thats not fit for the age fights their final war
@@robinburt5735 Other way around really, WH40K tanks are based off of these monsters =)
@@lavrentivs9891 Oh i know :)
The Char B in particular, it has a looming presence, like french industry is coming to crush you
Excellent video Chris. The Char always fascinated me, it looked like a tank out of it's time, yet was surprisingly effective in battle.
Right! Show me another early 30s tank that's still effective in 39.
It's nice to have for once actual history and context given to french tanks, instead of the classic french bashing
technically it is the rarest tank in the museum, as it is the only surviving tank used by the Germans in WWII on British soil (Jersey). my friends father Frederic Zimmer (RIP) was a mechanic with 213 here in Jersey and would have worked on this vehicle. my friend Alan actually has a jack for the Char, it might be the one that is missing from this tank?
That's hilarious, what is more hilarious is if, in seven months, no one from the museum has asked your friend and yourself to bring that jack to see if it fits . . . !
@@davidgoodnow269 you do know where Jersey is and what it would take to travel to the museum ... right?
@@jeanlongsden1696 I've heard of an Isle of Jersey and also a City, but I don't know the location of the museum. I also don't know where you are, but if you think your friend might have a jack for a German-captured and refitted Char B1 bis, then I have to think you are probably somewhere in the U.K. or perhaps France, and therefore no worse than a train and a ferry away from the museum, such a heavy artifact as a tank jack being a bit awkward to haul over oceans (perhaps in an oceanic surface-freight CONNEX rented to move household goods, though)? I saw an e-mail address in the Tank Museum Chat on the Panzer III, if your friend perhaps wants to trade the jack for a lifetime all-access pass (including entering all tanks that aren't welded shut) to the museum? Maybe learn some tank restoration with the maintenance team, there has to be the occasional employer around the world for someone who has museum-quality experience with that!
2:33 I used to play a computer game called Steel Panthers. The makers of the game always claimed they tried to make it as realistic as a game can be. If playing the Germans vs. the French in 1940, those Char B1's were almost impossible to take out...even from the sides.
Steel Panthers World At War, I lost many hours to that game back in the day. I think it was fussy about running in XP, but by 7 it wouldn't run at all.
I think my best remembered match is one I used cavalry and light tanks, to cut behind the enemy lines. Swept up their HQ and artillery while a heavier assault force rolled up the enemy front line from their flank, and my artillery kept the rest of the line pinned.
If I ever won a big lottery win, and decided to become a dollaraire again by creating a video game company, a modern SP:WAW would be one of the projects.
Loved the video.
Would also love to see the Renault FT get a similar treatment! I feel that tank deserves a lot more attention than it's getting.
The Museum of the American GI channel has a walkaround video with such a tank.
Yup th-cam.com/video/QaQI9Qgeq6M/w-d-xo.html
That was a very thorough and enjoyable review of this famous French tank.
Thank you so much.
A lovely French tank, and a panzer III's nightmare.
Yeah I know, I just messed up a little bit. Lemme edit it
It's nice to see a breakdown of the mechanical and human aspects of this tank. Many tanks were designed with a warfare mindset that didn't really work out. Other tanks had the same issues, but were adaptable enough (like the German Panzer III and IV's) that they could be modified or upgraded to continue fighting. I remember seeing a wrecked Char B1 in France as a kid in a museum (early 60's). The hatches were painted over and we couldn't look inside, so it's nice when you can see what the crews actually had to deal with in combat.
Politics of the time destroyed the French fighting mans ability to engage the invaders. The French soldier has aways been a true warrior.
I looooove french tanks and the Char B1 is my favorite of all french tanks.
Seeing one from the inside for the first time in this video made me so happy! Thanks for showing this
I find that French WW2 tanks are woefully underappreciated and undervalued. Too many people seem to think that because France was defeated so quickly that must mean their equipment was bad.
@@Valkanna.Nublet yea. But truth is, france was often on the top when it comes to innovation and new technology, not only in a military sense.
Excellent Tank Chat . I do think the Tank should be returned to original condition with German modifications removed and painted in French colours . Or if left as is it should be painted accordingly as a German Tank serving in the Chanel islands
A fascinating tank - I always enjoy seeing it when I visit the museum. It’s surprisingly imposing, I say surprisingly as it’s small turret I think gives a false sense of size in images. Great vid.
Tanks usually look small in photos, don't they? I remember the first time I saw an Abrams in person, it looked huge! Then I quickly became used to them, like a car or a Great Dane, and no big deal. Then, I watched as one popped a wheely and tore a road in to a rooster tail as it tried to dodge RPGs and ATGMs, as I ran towards it to try to suppress launch positions. It seemed large and powerful again.
Very good video, very informative with a clear knowledge of the subject and well recorded. Higlighting mechanical parts in red was a great idea to help pick out details as they were discussed.
The Char B1 is one of my own favourites from the blitzkreig era and had the French made a few design changes in the testing phase it would have made a formidable opponent for the German tank crews in 1940, the main two were clearly covered here being the one man turret design and the lack of radios.
I do wonder how much the layout of the Char B influenced the US Lee/Grant M3 design?
I have often wondered that, as well! Together with the (Churchill?), it seems all three were sketching a single model. I think the British tank may have been the best for war, as its ability to cross difficult terrain seems by far the best; as long as it was only expected to serve as an infantry support.
The M3 Grant with its "Cadillac" crew compartment, prodigious store of ammunition, and especially in potential its stabilized assault/anti-tank gun, has pronounced advantages. On the down side, it lacked the British tank's superior frontal armor, ability to absorb damage and keep going, and vastly superior ability to maneuver across ditches and up vertical faces and mountain paths!
The Char B1? Who knows? The short 75 could have been longer, but seems to have been more of a howitzer to assault fixed positions. The turreted 47 would have been vastly superior to the Grant's short 37, in the reversal of roles. The British tank's two-man turret with an anti-tank gun seems decidedly superior to both, and then it soon swapped the hull-mounted gun for a twin-mount of the very powerful Breda 8 mm machine guns that also seem to be stabilized in both elevation and traverse, which would have been a big help when crossing rough ground in the face of AT guns!
I would watch documentaries with this guy all day.
Superb video. Seeing inside the vehicles is an excellent idea. Chris Copson is doing a great job. Clear, knowledgeable and concise.
Fascinating, you can only imagine the number of bruises the crew must have had traversing rough ground getting battered off the sides in such cramped conditions.
It is interesting to think about "What if?"...... What if the French Army had embraced Radio Communication BEFORE the German Invasion?? It relied almost totally on either land line phones or motor couriers. It took Hours and even Days before information was received from Front Line Units...and then of course Hours or Days for a Response. INSANITY!!
Gaijin!!?? Wake up & fix Warthunder & give AI infantry as ground targets for ground vehicles to engage 😂❤❤
Every time a(ny) french tank is portrait, Laserpig comes to my mind...😂
I don't know, but this thing is the equivalent of a full-fledged nerd that's pitied by everybody, like, "but he has quite cool glasses..."
A real pain in the a...in every shape and form. The poor french tankers. Just imagine.
If I had been one rather fighting the germans, I would have grabbed me the guy who designed it, put him in chains, and let HIM do the towing of the fuel tank. AND the refuelling-probably with open watering cans-under fire - 40 times...man I could go on forever 🤣
I really like Chris's presentations, his matter of fact style and attention to obscure detail. Great stuff!
Very good. I appreciate the detail and Chris' precision delivering the research. Thank you Tank Museum.
The Char B used a sophisticated double differential steering that used a hydraulic motor to steer the tank with such precision the7.5cm gun could be aimed. This actually inspired the Swedish S-tank which went a step further to adjust the suspension to gain elevation as well. Unfortunately this otherwise excellent transmission gained a bad reputation (as pointed out) when medicinal instead of hydraulic grade castor oil was used. Castor oil smells quite sweet and pleasant apparently so the tank might have smelled nice.
The system was driven by a bicycle chain a crew member had to put back in place very often.
Imagine doing that during combat, when you need to move around.
Caster oil is also a laxative. WW1 pilots had some problems because of it.
@@chefchaudard3580 There were no doubt better ways of driving a hydraulic pump.
@@williamzk9083 not really... even today, chains have not be replaced by belts or rods.
The design, however, was certainly faulty.
@@chefchaudard3580 Modern timing belts or chains seem to need replacement at 130,000km
Over rated tank = big profit
The western do not belive in the tank
Excellent video Chris, a comprehensive and understandable analysis of a tank that I wanted to know about, loved your presentation
Why watch TV when you've got amazing content like this on TH-cam? Super interesting, great video, thankyou!
Another very informative and well-presented Tank Chats Reloaded presentation. These Tank Museum videos are probably my favorite videos on TH-cam. (My French is atrocious, but Mr. Copson may have described Gen. Estienne as "Father of the Cats." --Just would like to have a little chuckle here!)
It's rather interesting that the B1 was superior to the Panzers one on one but was overwhelmed by numbers and support and by the end of the war the tables turned. The Germans made their equipment too complicated and of superior quality but were overcome in the same way by numbers and support and even the issue of lack of fuel came into play.
I really like Chris's presentation and these redone tank chats.
The french had designed and constructed in serious numbers amazing tanks. Unfortunately they didn't succeed to understand the potentials of the weapon and instead of creating big autonomous tank formations like armoured brigades they attached them in small numbers to the infantry units. If they were able to foresee this mistake the franco-german confrontation would most probably have a totally different outcome and WW2 might even not have started......
i've read that fuel issues were also due to the lack of crew training with fuel tanks management, as far as i understood, they were using only the auxilliary ones, hence drastically shortening the range.
I thought that was mainly an issue with the S35?
Pretty sure that this was for the S35 and not the B1
@@parodyclip36 It's possible i'm wrong, it was longtime ago.
I was thinking the same thing, apparently also mistakenly.
One man turret and no radio… what could possibly go wrong?
Char B1 is a beast really.
If de Gaulle got liberty to use his mechanised force & got more armoured force in his disposal.
History might change its course
Chris, I really like your style. You are entertaining to listen to, your French and German are clear and excellent, and you tell an interesting story. Please do more!
I look forward to this more than pretty much any modern tank walkthrough. Incredible. Finally I get to see what this monster looks like inside.
You mentioned there was a radio operator, what was he doing when under French command?
A video packed with information and details about the tank along with pictures and video of it. I like this style of revisiting a tank you had already covered.
17:08 It was nice to see the inside of the Char B1, hopefully we'll see the inside of the A13 Mk II soon on the left.
excellent-1930s designs have a great sci fi look to them
That was very interesting and with a precise commentary that highlights the main points regarding the tank's design and use, looking at the Char B1 one does have to wonder why the French went for such an over specialised design when their Intelliegence services would have told them what the Pkz II, III and IV were like and also more to the point the comventional nature of their designs.
They effectively built a tank that was full of Gallic flair but which contained total impracticalities like the tank not having a viable radio for radio net comms with other units and also the fixed co axial machine gun in the hull.
Great video for a great tank, always love seeing early war tanks
What a beautiful machine
French tanks are op nowadays🇫🇷🇫🇷🇫🇷
liked the way objects were highlighted and the narrator was the best.
Honestly fixing this isnt the hardest tank to fix. Just slap a better and bigger turret on.
Look at the ARL 44.
@@johnlant1730 nice, wasn't aware. Thanks
Also TBF the radio was bad, needed upgrading as well
The historical footage included with the modern walk around made this a wonderful presentation.
Cracking tank video. I really like the way Chris has researched and presented this💯
Another amazing video from The Tank Museum! Thanks so much for this one.
The highlighting in colour of various equipment and systems is really terrific and really aids in understanding the vehicle. Another top video.
So awesome to see the guts of those tanks! The Reloaded series is great!
The best tank ever = Tiger🏆🎖️🥇
great tank, terrible 1 man turret. Poor commander had to do 3 roles (command and spot, gunner, loader) and had no top hatch to spot using binoculars, being forced to use the hatch at the back of the turret and contorting himself in a weird position to see outside
8:20 - Wasn't "grant" the british version of the M3 while "lee" refers to the US version?
The cupola had flip-down binoculars as one of the three vision devices.
The door made a rather comfortable seat, and even that lost basketball player of a tanker called Chieftain didn't have a problem moving in and out. That said, adding a gunner/loader to the turret would been a stellar improvement.
A look inside the T-26 light would be awesome
Weren't there issues with castor-oil in WW1-airplanes? I remember having heard some messy stories about that in an episode of QI...
I'd love to see a video on the bigger Char 2C almost double the weight of this
Ah, the cursed APX turret.
French were enamoured by this thing, because it was cheap, and well armoured for the size - but relying on it messed some otherwise promising designs.
The one-man turret is only a problem if that position is occupied by the tank commander, rather than a dedicated lookout cum gunner. Think about it; if he is not in battle, then he can glass fields with the entire turret as cover -- do not stick your head out looking for snipers, you might find one -- but when engaging in battle then the enemy should have his full attention! He can certainly call to alert his (mechanical noise and impact and blast-deafened, there appears to be no intercom) crewmates, "Tank left! AT in the bush 320! God-aweful big gun (88) ahead one kilometer!"
In French service, no radio so no radioman. If they had had a radioman, one with good FM voice communication to 10-20 km, then he could command-in-fact by coordinating his gunner's intercom calls to the tank force; give the lookout a longer lead than usual, and he could keep watch and speak directly with AA batteries, AT batteries, mortar batteries, howitzers, field guns, air controllers . . . . You see my point? Who, where, bearing and distance, what, how many. The radio operator could monitor two or three radio channels; A.M. Morse, A.M. (distant control by voice), F.M. (local voice network), while the driver and the loader monitor the intercom. The radioman would become a navigator, as aboard aircraft of the time. That really does call for a bit of a desk, at least a clipboard of the kind shipping departments used to use.
Lacking radio, the "radioman" is a second loader, dedicated to serving one gun; or more likely, the Char B1 ran with a three-man crew in French service, not four, given the shortage of manpower; or, it's a Renaux: serviceable. The man is a mechanic! Give him a sling-seat, too, and a crawler and tools.
A 300 horsepower V-12 sounds very nice for the time, I am fairly sure if it had been diesel (or a diesel that can run well on kerosene or avgas as well, equally) that would have given enviable service to most tanks at that time; very desirable by the British for some time to come. Seeing what one of these can do, if the transmission is actually very good, would be reason to get a Char working.
The low-velocity 75 seems very comparable in purpose and effect to the 75 of the Panzer IV, so . . . how did those compare?
One-man turret. No radio. No commander's cupola. Horrible tanks. Pierre Billotte was lucky that the Germans had not adapted yet to his new tank that was unfamiliar to them. BUT imagine if they had gone full Stridsvagn 103 with the Char B. Replace the turret with a cupola and a radio. Give the 75mm gun a much longer barrel that is completely inside the tank. Mount the 75 a little higher in the hull. Add a dozer blade on the front. Then you would have a Stridsvagn 103.
B1も好き。模型も作った。
私は陸海空共に変わった形が好き。まあ個人的な趣味だ。
またまたB1内部が初めて見れた。
どうも有難う。
Of course one man turrets were not a good idea, and commanders had their hands full. But i think that french turrets vision devices and cupolas are not well understood, maybe because few are complete, some prejudice and no direct experience and training in its use. The commander's cupola had 3 different vision options: a binnocular sight on the rotating cupola (4x 9,9º), an Episcope (68º horizontal view 24º vertical) and a reserve direct vision slit (114º horizontal view). On the turret sides there were 2 other episcopes (68º horiz-24º vert) and the telescopic sight for the gun and machine gun (4x, 11,8º). When the tanks were properly serviced and fueled they gave a good account of themselves.
On June 12, 1940, the French tank Char B-1 No. 387 "BENI-SNASSEN" was supposed to defend the bridge over the river Marne in the village of Pogny. It was a suicide mission, the tankers were supposed to defend the bridge to the last breath and not to retreat, not to let the Germans cross the Marne. They did well at first as he destroyed four German tanks, forcing the rest of the attackers to retreat. But then they became the target of German artillery. The strike killed crew member André Cancelo. The subsequent explosion killed two more crew members, so in the end only the seriously injured radio operator Pierre Antelme survived the battle, but he lost his leg. But he survived the war.
Spent countless hours in this tank in Post Scriptum... the 1940s German Armor including the STUG III couldn't pen it at all..... I don't know how the French messed up in ww2.
I realise that 'ie' and 'ei' are difficult to read and pronounce for anglo-amarican speakers, but the factory is Schn EI der. not Schn IE der. 'Schneider' in other word pronounced something like "Schnaider". Same mistake is often made about the Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler, also often pronounced as 'L IE bstandarte'. Just saying 😉
Nice video again!
The American M-3 Grant/Lee also used the French 75 mm in a sponson mount but had a 3 man turret for the 37mm anti-tank gun that could also fire cannister and HE making it preferable to the British 2 pounder as well. It also had a separate position for a 7th radio man where Char B often used signal flags. Americans loved to stick as many guns on everything as they could with an emphasis on size and crew comfort. If France had more Texans designing their tanks, 1940 might have ended differently.
@17:59 the one on the right is quite different. Is it this perhaps?
"Flammwagen auf Panzerkampfwagen B-2(f): Sixty flame thrower tanks converted from Char B-2(f)s. The 47mm turret gun was retained but the 75mm hull gun was replaced by the flamethrower unit in a ball fitting. Most were used in the Eastern Front and were effective at their role due to their strong frontal armor."
A lot of respect for french soldiers in 1940 May , June .... 90,000 of them were died and 250,000 injuried vs 50,000 /150,000 germans ...
If only it was a 3 man turret Tank, it would be a formidable adversary for the Germans.
Brave men put in a vehicle designed for a war that did not turn out the way the designers thought it would. They defended their country with what they were given such as our B-P Defiant 'Turret' aircraft.
Very good and interesting presentation as noted by others...
However, I take issue with the Maginot Line graphic as these fortifications did not reach anywhere near the coast opposite Belgium. Also see 17.14 min/sec.... isn't this a German conversion to a Flammpanzer ?..(see the converted aperture on the 75mm) Several B1s were recaptured and used by the Resistance and were also used by the French Army during the siege of La Rochelle in 1945, isn't this one of those?
May I say, I really appreciated that Chris said "B1 bis" in French? I understand *why* so many people (myself included) will revert to their native language when encountering numerals and single letters, but it's still so disconcerting when someone very carefully learns how to say "panzerkampfwagen" or "mitrailleuse" or "carro veloce" and then drops into English for the numbers.
Love Chris and David's Willeys videos 😊 hope David Fletcher is enjoying a well-deserved retirement .... best wishes to all
I'd forgotten they had 1 man not 2 man turrets. I was expecting a comment about how 2 men had to do the job of 3. Maybe the 2 man was the T34. Been a while, forgetting this stuff. Also it is one thing to read about how bad a 1/2 man turret is but it is another to SEE it. Wow. I'm not claustrophobic but when he popped up into that 1 man turret my eyes just went wide with shock. Bare metal walls mostly. Hardly any instruments. And 1 man was supposed to deal with that. Still, it is an impressive tank thanks to its size. It was not even dwarfed by the Panther (
That 3" gun barrel is so thick though...any rounds coming in that hit it would probably not hurt the driver or entire tank(although disable the gun, ofc). In order for a 1 man turret to work efficiently, you'd have to have an AI assistant like JARVIS from Iron Man. In fact....this may be the future of 1 or 2 man tankettes.
Does the Miseum have a 1940French char Lorraine APC? If so, could you do a Tank chat on it? --Bob Bailey in Maine, USA
Pffff...A despicable underpowered tin can. No wonder that the French tankers were overthrown with similar equipment , dating from WW1 !!
To be fair with the French, the British Churchill I infantry tank and the American M3 were like improved versions of Char B1. The Char B1 was already a decade old design when the British and Americans built their versions.
It is called "SchnEIder" not "SchnIEder". Speak it as you would speak an "I", as in "I" would go..blabla".
Man, that was a Claustrophobic turret.
Further, the German
tanks had FM radio to communicate with their fellow tankers and so, they knew when and where to drive and to fire their guns. The French tankers had to stick their heads out of their turrets in turn to get their heads blown off.
Further the Germans had better Generals like Rommel,and Guderian to lead their forces, the French did not.
The French used their tanks to support their Infantry. The Germans used their tanks to lead the breakouts and their Infantry followed.
As mentioned in this Video, the German 88 was the best anti-tank artillery of WW2 and it blunted any superiority of the French tanks.
Besides, the Germans had complete Air Superiority and their Stukas were flying Artillery against Allied tank, Infantry and Artillery, decisive factors in winning the Battle of France.
You can not talk about the Superiority of a tank while neglecting these other factors as this is what “Blitzkrieg” is all about.
Excellent review of the Char B1, which had some very impressive features, but a flawed design layout. The French politics pre-WW2 made them ill prepared for the German offensive.
I promise I don't mean this to come off as just being horrible for the sake of it (I'm the kind of person who tries to say things that others find too uncomfortable to say), but this habit of randomly injecting bits of other languages when it's not directly relevant and serves no practical purpose doesn't make you come off as educated, it makes you come off as pretentious. It's fair to give your best shot at the native pronunciation of a specific tank, place, or piece of equipment (though even that can be a pretentious performance), but randomly dropping French or German phrases into your sentences is eye-rollingly English; particularly upper class English. Del boy would approve though ;)
Other than that small point - good stuff!