Tanks of World War II - Episode 7: Renault R 35 and Hotchkiss H 35
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 พ.ย. 2018
- Episode 7 of The Tanks of World War II video series. This video looks at the French Renault R-35 and the Hotchkiss H-35 tanks, two of the primary tanks of the French army in 1940..
To read more about the Char D1, D2 and the FCM 36, check out our recommended books list here tankandafvnews.com/recommende...
Support this series on Patreon at / tankandafvnews
For more on the R-35, check out the Chieftain's Hatch episode at • Inside the Chieftain's...
![[안방1열 직캠4K] 베이비몬스터 치키타 'FOREVER' (BABYMONSTER CHIQUITA FanCam) @SBS Inkigayo 2404707](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Tn3bGHiBWkg/mqdefault.jpg)
Just a note on the gun. You made it sound like the newer model was more powerful BECAUSE the barrel was longer, when it is really the opposite. What makes it more powerful is the increase in velocity (times the mass, all other things remaining the same like material, shape, composite, speed drop off with range, etc.). To increase the velocity, you use more powder (or different burn time, etc.), which means you need to make the breech block bigger (or use stronger materials) to contain the blast. Since the projectile is faster, you probably need to stretch out (or increase bite?) the rifling (in order to maintain spin and accuracy), which leads to the longer barrel. There are so many factors that need to be balanced just so to get max punch out of a tank gun. Barrel length is really just a result of those changes.
you are incorrect although you make a good point it is not always the case, the longer barrel also can allow higher speeds from the same amount of powder (up to a certain point) as the longer barrel reduces the dissipation of the explosive force making it exert force on the shell for longer thus accelerating it to a higher speed. In the case of the 37mm this is what happened as the Sa37/18 and Sa37/38 used the exact same one-piece ammunition this is often preferable as it reduces logistics issues. This can not be done with all guns as after a while you don't get any changes in dissipation rate.
Great analysis. Very interesting, reminds me of Osprey type book coverage -- just enough to get a solid understanding, but not too bogged down in detail.
Nice. I'm doing a project right now that involves both Hotchkiss and Renault WW II tanks. Thanks for the video. : )
These matched up with Germany's Panzerkampfwagen I and III Ausf. E tanks.
If you're doing a project on French tanks and how they were used, I wouldn't want to base it on this video, if it were me.
Cool. Thanks for another video. I was just looking up the AMC 35 but man there's alot of tanks its going to take a while to do the entire war. I didn't realize you were doing all of them. I'll watch em all good luck. Keep tanking.
Well, not every single tank. I was planning to skip the AMC 35. There are so many different types of tanks in the 1940 campaign that I had a leave a few out. But yes, it's going to be a long series if I make through the whole war. Some vehicles, such at the Sherman or the T-34 will probably get multiple episodes, covering different parts of the war.
Great video. Thank you for all your research and effort putting it together.
There was also one counterattack with some R35 (italian) against the american landing in Sicilia. Not completely unsuccessfull
Oh. My god tank is on fire...you'll get joke
These one man turrets meant the commander was doing so much that they rarely could ever put out a decent rate of fire and had spotting issues.
Thank you for your work.
While the concept of classifying tanks as either infantry or cavalry/ cruiser types was replaced by the main battle tank concept post WW2, do you think the rise of the Infantry Fighting Vehicle shows the continued need for an 'infantry tank'?
Wonderfull videos!
Can I hope to North Africa as the next serie?
Thanks for the excellent video. The design and deployment of R35 tanks are the condemnation of the pre-war political instability of the 3rd Republic and the mediocrity of the French General Staff. Pathetic tanks specified by pathetic and clueless generals, enabled by self-serving politicians, a great number of whom were downright complicit in the defeat of France.
Nice video, i have a 1939 Hotchkiss car...
I just came because of your face on the thumbnail.
The 'beeswarm' theory was new to me. It certainly helps explain why the French went for crappy little two-man vehicles with inefficient one-man turrets.
It doesn't because it isn't true.
eXpecially....
Oh dear. There are so many fallacies in this video. France didn't lose because of their tanks, that's ridiculous. French doctrine isn't as you claim it to be and the idea of a beeswarm, as you put it, it's not how it was intended to be.
It's been four years since I made this video, but I do not remember arguing that France lost in 1940 "because of their tanks". I do recall pointing out flaws in French tank design as well as flaws in their armor doctrine and the organization of their armored units that made them less effective than their German opponents. This most certainly was a factor in French defeat, although certainly not the only factor. As to the bee swarm, It is noted in many sources that Estienne came up with the idea of massing light tanks in large numbers (i.e. a swarm) to overwhelm the enemy defenses rather than rely on a small number of more expensive heavy tanks, hence the development of the Renault FT.
@thetanksofworldwarii-tanka4368 you allude to it in this very video. Also, the massed tanks was to support infantry. If you have a doctrine that says infantry is supposed to be everywhere, then tanks need to be everywhere too. In addition, Estienne advocated for fewer, heavier tanks, not more, lighter tanks. The exact opposite of what you seem to think. The source is his paper on 'the importance of tank tonnage' dated 15 November 1933. So much for your swarm.