Cavalrymen willy-nilly. History of the H 35 and H 39 tanks

116
Cavalrymen willy-nilly. History of the H 35 and H 39 tanks
Column H 35 in the Ardennes, May 1940


We don't know well history French armored vehicles. Or rather, the main “characters” are well known to us - these are Tanks and armored cars Hotchkiss, Saumua, Panhard and so on. But what kind of machines are these, why were they created and under what conditions? How were the French going to fight against them? All these questions have long been shrouded in myths.



In this article we will look at the history of the H 35 and H 39 tanks from Hotchkiss. By themselves, they are hardly interesting - ordinary cheap cars, perhaps with good armor. It is much more interesting for us to dispel the myths about these tanks. The canonical story of H 35 and H 39 is so grossly at odds with the facts that you can’t help but wonder: how could they even come up with it? In addition, Hotchkiss tanks left an important mark. It was the Hotchkiss company that first proposed making cast tanks, and at the same time stirred up the French tank program. This is what we will talk about today.


Timely offer


By the beginning of World War II, French tank forces were second only to Soviet tank forces. But we must take into account that the French built most of the modern tanks in 1936-1940, preparing for the battle with Nazi Germany. And in the early 30s, the basis of the French tank fleet was three and a half thousand hopelessly outdated Renault FTs. What could replace them? Renault launched production of the D1 light tank, but the army quickly became disillusioned with it.

Renault designers tried to make the design as cheap as possible, so the D1 suffered from poor quality and constant breakdowns. In addition, in 1932 it was the only modern tank in France, too valuable for banal infantry support. At first, the D1s served as battle tanks (char de bataille), since the “real” B1 battle tank went into production only in 1934. So it turned out that there was nothing to replace the antique Renault FT with.


Char D1 on maneuvers in Champagne, 1935. At first they were equipped with turrets from Renault FT

Seeing the difficult situation, the Hotchkiss company took the initiative and in 1933 itself proposed a new tank concept to the military. It was a small two-seater vehicle weighing 6 tons, very simple and cheap. For the first time, the tank hull was assembled from large cast parts with bolts. The layout was atypical for the French, with the engine in the rear and transmission in the front. To reduce the cost, they even abandoned the turret, placing two machine guns in the hull, so the tank was very reminiscent of the “fattened” British Carden-Loyd wedge. It must be said that the Hotchkiss company was led by the Englishman Henry Mann Ainsworth, who moved from the British branch.

The military supported the proposal, because they finally saw a truly massive replacement for the Renault FT. On June 30, 1933, Hotchkiss received a contract to build three prototypes, and a competition was announced on August 2. In many ways, he repeated Ainsworth's proposal: a simple and reliable tank weighing 6 tons with 30 mm armor and armament with two machine guns or a 37 mm cannon in the turret.

Competition with Renault


In total, 14 companies took part in the competition for the light tank. In addition to Hotchkiss, we are interested in two of them - Renault and APX (short for Atelier de construction de Puteaux - engineering plant in Puteaux). Renault was the fastest to cope; its prototype Renault ZM was ready for testing in December 1934. It was a tank weighing 7,5 tons, with an 82 hp engine. With. and a turret with two machine guns. He did not cause delight among the military. The engineers squeezed the armor volume to the limit, so the fighting compartment turned out to be very cramped, and the ammunition load and fuel supply were insufficient. But even so it turned out to be impossible to fit into 6 tons.


First prototype of Renault ZM. The usual R 35 is still very far away

Hotchkiss built the first prototype in January 1935. It weighed 8,5 tons and was powered by a less powerful 78 hp engine. With. and in addition did not have a tower. In general, compared to its competitor, the heavier and less armed Hotchkiss tank looked pale. This is not surprising. Renault took advantage of the developments on its AMR 33 cavalry tanks. The engine, transmission and suspension on rubber washers were tested on AMR 33 prototypes. In terms of the general layout and design of the chassis, the Renault ZM was very similar to the future AMR 35. But Hotchkiss had no experience in tank building in general, so the engineers had to create the project from scratch. Needless to say, their first pancake turned out to be lumpy.




The first two Hotchkiss prototypes did not have turrets. They looked... very peculiar

However, no matter how the Hotchkiss and Renault tanks turned out, they could not get into mass production. The fact is that in 1934 the French army adopted the Hotchkiss 25 mm anti-tank gun. The gun turned out to be very light and compact, but at the same time easily penetrated 30 mm armor. The French understood that similar guns would appear en masse in other armies, so they decided to strengthen the armor of the new tanks to 40 mm. At the same time, the weapons were revised - now a 37-mm cannon in the turret became mandatory.

In order not to waste time, the companies built the first tanks according to the old instructions, reworking the projects on the fly, taking into account the tests. And here is the time to remember the APX tank. Apparently, it was the world's first tank with a two-stroke diesel engine. No photographs of it have survived, although it is known that a prototype was built by October 1935. The tank itself was not needed by the military, but its turret was considered successful. It was installed on converted Hotchkiss and Renault tanks.

In general, the familiar H 35 and R 35 did not appear immediately. After all the changes, they “grew fat” to 10-11 tons, and the improved H 39 even grew to 12 tons - twice the original requirements.

Fresh legend, but hard to believe


Usually the situation with the competition for a light infantry tank is described as follows. The Hotchkiss and Renault offerings were very similar in features and prices. The Hotchkiss tank was faster (by almost a third) and therefore looked better, but the infantry rushed to choose the Renault tank. Or maybe they helped her “hurry up”? In any case, the Hotchkiss company withdrew from the infantry competition and successfully added its faster tank to the cavalry competition. This is roughly how the canonical history of the H 35 and R 35 developed.

It's amazing that such a stupid version of events could arise and be maintained for decades. Let's start with mobility. The Hotchkiss tank's faster speed claim is purely based on a numbers game. The H 35 was equipped with a five-speed gearbox, which provided an estimated top speed of 28 km/h. The R 35 only had a four-speed gearbox and an estimated top speed of 20 km/h. It would seem that the superiority in speed is obvious. But it's not that simple.


The third Hotchkiss prototype received an early APX turret. The appearance is recognizable, although in detail it differs in many respects from production cars

The estimated maximum speed is calculated based on the diameter of the drive wheels, maximum engine speed and minimum transmission ratio. In other words, this is not a recorded test result, but just a number on paper. It reflects the maximum speed that the transmission provides. In practice, the maximum speed depends not only on the gearbox, but also on the engine. If there is not enough power, the tank will not be able to reach the designed speed.

The higher design speed was an advantage only on paper. The H 35 weighed a ton more, and its engine was weaker - 78 hp. With. versus 82 hp With. from Renault. Both tanks are comparable in weight and engine power, which is why their actual average speeds are similar. In addition, the H 35 was less protected and simply did not meet the requirements. The thickness of the armor of its hull did not exceed 34 mm versus an honest 40 mm for the R 35. Increased protection would lead to an increase in mass, and here everything rested on a weaker engine. It turns out that the supposedly similar and more mobile H 35 turned out to be neither similar nor more mobile.

Forcedly necessary


If we put aside the mythical superiority of the H 35, then the choice of the French infantry becomes quite reasonable. The military understood perfectly well that the R 35 was a rather mediocre tank. It did not cope well with off-road conditions, because its chassis was designed to weigh 6-7 tons. However, the French army urgently needed a mass-produced cheap tank; there was simply no time for serious modifications. Unlike the bastard D1, at least the R 35 didn't fall apart at every corner. Its competitor, Hotchkiss, did not meet the requirements and turned out to be even more mediocre.

During testing, the H 35s proved to be very crude machines. The military complained of frequent breakdowns, weak brakes and a poor differential steering mechanism that made the tanks difficult to handle off-road. The chassis as a whole turned out to be good, but the rubber tires on the rollers wore out quickly. Finally, the engine was too underpowered. Under other circumstances, the Hotchkiss company would have limited itself to building a few experimental vehicles, but its tank still went into mass production.


AC 3 prototype from SOMUA in the summer of 1935. It will go into production under the designation S 35. Comparing this powerful tank with the H 35 was a misunderstanding

Defense Minister Jean Fabry attended the display of the H 35 and S 35 prototypes. By coincidence, the Hotchkiss tank proved to be more agile, so the minister, not versed in technology, concluded that the more expensive S 35 had no special advantages. Cavalry General Jean Flavigny recalled:

“To overcome this mistaken impression, I requested and with difficulty received permission to have two tanks tested at a large training ground [at Mourmelone]. Saumua walked at a fast pace, quickly covering the space and raising a column of dust, moving no less smoothly than a sports car on a cinder track. Hotchkiss walked more slowly, with difficulty, swaying violently on every bump.

Based on the results of the comparison, at the meeting it was decided to order Saumya, but what to do with Hotchkiss, whom the minister and his retinue liked so much? <...> General Gamelin decided to transfer Hotchkiss to the cavalry, even if he did not meet our requirements at all. <...> I could not refuse this “gift”, it was not very pleasant, however, I had a shortage of armored vehicles. At the same time, I gave a special opinion that upon completion of the formation of the mechanized divisions, they should be completely transferred to Saumua. Unfortunately, the low production rate did not allow us to obtain homogeneous units at Saumua.”

These memories well reflect the difficult situation of those years. The S 35 met the latest requirements and was technically advanced, but the SOMUA plant could not quickly produce enough of these expensive cars. And with mass-produced cheap tanks, things were going very poorly for the cavalrymen - the “cardboard” AMR 33 from Renault constantly broke down and quickly became outdated. In such conditions, the Hotchkiss tank with some kind of armor looked quite useless. It is usually said that the H 35 was more suitable for cavalry, but it is better to say that it was less unsuitable in this role. Cavalrymen, more often than infantry, relied on a network of good roads, so its shortcomings were not so noticeable.


Serial N 35 with an early APX turret. It is issued by so-called diascopes - observation devices with two viewing glasses. Later they will be replaced with regular viewing slots

On November 6, 1935, Hotchkiss received the first contract for 200 H 35s for the cavalry. It was followed by a second contract for another 100 vehicles. The cavalrymen received the new tank very coolly; by their standards, it was too slow and unreliable. After fulfilling the cavalry contracts, Hotchkiss received a third order for 100 H 35s, this time for infantry. This decision was also forced. The Renault and FCM factories could not supply the required number of infantry tanks, so Hotchkiss' production capacity was needed like air. Inspector General of Infantry Julien Dufieux fought off the H 35 with all his might, but after the cavalrymen he had to come to terms.

So, behind the fabulous stories about the wise choice of cavalrymen and the infantry coming to their senses, there is a banal fact hidden. Minister Jean Fabry and Commander-in-Chief Maurice Gamelin literally forced the infantry and cavalry to accept a crude tank that they never wanted.

Some errors


Hotchkiss realized that the H 35 was a mediocre tank and needed to be redesigned. First of all, this concerned the power plant. And here the engineers came in handy with their work on Hotchkiss racing cars, which won the Monte Carlo Rally more than once. In 1937, a 35 hp racing engine was tested on the H 117. With. The tank became noticeably more mobile, but the transmission could not withstand the higher torque. Major design changes were required.


The rich interior of H 39 from the museum in Saumur. The cast body consisted of several large parts and could be disassembled like a construction set

In 1938, Hotchkiss introduced a new model, the H 35. The main difference was a 120-horsepower engine based on a racing engine. To install it, the aft part was noticeably enlarged, at the same time increasing the fuel supply from 180 to 207 liters. The armor thickness was brought to the required 40 mm, and the transmission was also improved. As a result, the weight of the tank increased to 12 tons, so the engineers abandoned rubber bands and widened the tracks by 2 cm. Tests showed that the new tank turned out much better than the old one. The maximum speed has increased to 36,5 km/h, while driving has become much easier. True, the new engine turned out to be quite voracious. According to German data, the SOMUA S 35 consumed 225 liters per 100 km on roads, and the much lighter Hotchkiss was not much less - 190 liters. Therefore, despite the increase in the fuel tank, the range was reduced from 150 to 120 km.

The new model was adopted on February 18, 1939 as the Char léger modèle 1935 H modifié 1939. Its name is usually abbreviated to H 39, but sometimes you can find the designation H 38. Confusion arose due to the fact that, before adoption, Hotchkiss called the new model Char léger modèle 1938 série D. Like its predecessor, the H 39 was supplied to both infantry and cavalry, with the infantry now being the main customer.


Delivery of batch H 39 in the spring of 1940. The tanks are equipped with tails and SA 38 cannons

In 1940, a program to modernize light tanks began. Like the R 35, the H 35 and H 39 were initially equipped with very weak, antediluvian SA 18 37 mm cannons. Some of these guns were simply removed from used Renault FTs in order to save money. At the end of 1939, the French mastered the production of a new SA 38 cannon of the same caliber, but much more powerful. In total, they managed to fire 800 guns, so there weren’t enough for all the tanks. In addition, many H 39s received a tail to overcome trenches; a spare wheel and a spare parts box were attached to it. And command vehicles were even equipped with radio stations. Overall, these were the most balanced and combat-ready light tanks in France.

From the worst to the best


The reader might get the impression that the Hotchkiss tank venture was a failure from the very beginning. They say that engineers with no experience proposed a useless tank, and Fabry and Gamelin imposed it on dissatisfied military personnel. This is wrong. To clear up some misconceptions, we've deliberately taken a very critical look at history. Now let’s give the characters in our story their due.

General Maurice Gamelin was one of the most intelligent and respected military men of his time. From 1933, he led the reorganization of the French army, preparing it for war. Despite his advanced age, Gamelin was an ardent supporter of mechanization. It was not at all easy to carry it out. France was significantly inferior to Germany in terms of population and industrial potential. Due to the economic crisis, there was a severe shortage of money, in addition, the leftist government of Leon Blum pursued dubious policies. In such conditions, compromises had to be made.


H 39 in German service. The tank has a characteristic tail with a box and a spare roller. The Germans cut off the tower's dome and added a double-leaf hatch. The French didn't like the dome idea either.

The H 35 was poorly suited to the role of a cavalry tank. But although Fabri was mistaken, his decision ultimately turned out to be correct. To equip three mechanized light divisions (division légère mécanique, abbreviated as DLM), similar to the German tank divisions, 600 S 35s were required. However, before the end of the war, the SOMUA plant managed to assemble 427 tanks. What could replace them? Renault was disrupting delivery plans, plunging into financial disaster. Its cavalry tanks AMR 35 and AMC 35 turned out to be very unsuccessful and constantly broke down. In just two years, the Hotchkiss company assembled almost 300 tanks for the new cavalry divisions. Compared to the AMR 35, even the H 35 was the standard of reliability.

The infantry also had problems. Renault factories could not assemble enough R 35s in a reasonable time. The promising FCM 36 was produced in a small series of only 100 tanks. The FCM company charged too high a price, and its capacity was spent on the Char B1 program. Once again, Hotchkiss helped fill the armor shortage. As a result, its tanks became the second most numerous after the R 35. And although the early H 35s were unsuccessful, the H 39s turned out to be much better than their competitors. It is significant that of all the captured French tanks, the Germans preferred the H 39 and S 35. Not bad at all for a company that had not worked on tanks at all before the H 35.

Sources:
* Steven J. Zaloga. French Tanks of World War II (1). Infantry and Battle Tanks
* Yuri Pasholok. Rejected by the infantry, attracted by the cavalry (https://warspot.ru/11331-otvergnutye-pehotoy-priglyanuvshiesya-kavalerii)
*GBM Magazine
* Panzer Tracts No. 19-1. Beute-Panzerkampfwagen
116 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +9
    10 October 2023 04: 48
    Thanks for the article, informative information hi
    1. +11
      10 October 2023 10: 21
      I agree, it was interesting! Thanks to the author for his work!
  2. +4
    10 October 2023 04: 52
    Good morning!
    And here is the time to remember the APX tank. Apparently, it was the world's first tank with a two-stroke diesel engine. No photographs of it have survived, although it is known that a prototype was built by October 1935.

    The primacy in equipping tanks with diesel engines is being challenged by Japan with the Type89 Otsu and Poland with the 7TP. Both models were released in 1933. So, parity is definitely not with the French.

    Japanese

    Pole.
    1. +5
      10 October 2023 07: 55
      So that parity definitely not for the French.
      We made a slight mistake: priority, not parity. hi
    2. +3
      10 October 2023 08: 36
      Double diesel, in my opinion this is the key word
    3. +13
      10 October 2023 09: 39
      Read carefully - the world's first tank with two-stroke diesel. The Japanese and Polish diesel engines were four-stroke. I have already discussed tales about Japanese two-stroke tanks: https://vk.com/wall-47459176_76796
    4. +3
      10 October 2023 15: 03
      Hello, hello! hi
      The Americans pounded these Japanese boxes just like the French Germans.



      1. 0
        10 October 2023 17: 58
        Good evening!!! hi
        Japanese "boxes" were much inferior to American "boxes".
        And the anti-tank artillery also “didn’t have enough stars from the sky.”
        But the Teutons burned many “boxes” of the French and British with their guns. And ours too...
        1. 0
          10 October 2023 20: 00
          Good evening to you too, Alexey! smile
          Someone wrote (I don’t remember who) that “Japanese tanks did not evoke any other feelings of regret.” belay
          1. 0
            10 October 2023 20: 35
            Yes Yes Yes! Glad to see you, Uncle Kostya!!! drinks
            The tank industry was not in favor with the military and the imperial court. And the theaters of combat of the Japanese armies were difficult to navigate for armored vehicles.
            But its complete absence or the low characteristics of existing tanks greatly influenced the successes of Japanese soldiers.
            All the forces and scarce resources were spent by the aviation of the Ground Forces and the Japanese Navy (ships, naval aviation, their own armored vehicles)!
            Also, the Japanese did not see the need for large tank formations.
            And a feeling of regret can be caused by any enemy tanks destroyed before approaching the trenches of their infantry.
            However, to the Soviet paratroopers during the assault on Shumshu Island, the meeting with the tanks of the Japanese 11th Tank Regiment did not seem similar to the “Around Laughter” program!!!
            As of August 1945, the regiment had 64 tanks (25 light Type 95 “Ha-go”, 19 medium Type 97 “Chi-ha” and 20 medium Type 97 “Shinhoto Chi-ha”). The regiment's equipment was relatively new.

            https://warspot.ru/3707-desantniki-protiv-tankov-boy-na-ostrove-shumshu
            1. 0
              10 October 2023 20: 55
              And I'm glad to communicate! drinks
              It was a bit boring without communicating with old friends.

              Regarding the landing on Shumshu: Well, as far as I remember, our landing did not have armored vehicles. So, it’s not surprising that Japanese fossil tanks caused us a lot of trouble. Alas.
              1. +1
                10 October 2023 23: 49
                How would the tanks be delivered to Shumshu?
                Alas, it was very difficult with landing craft!
                1. 0
                  13 October 2023 03: 13
                  But ours found anti-tank rifles useful, which had been out of use on the western fronts for 3 years.
              2. +2
                11 October 2023 10: 49
                Quote: Sea Cat
                Regarding the landing on Shumshu: Well, as far as I remember, our landing did not have armored vehicles.

                By the time the Japanese attack was repelled, the landing party had only anti-tank guns and grenades. Of all the artillery, only four “magpies” were landed with the first wave, but they approached the battlefield after it was over.

                If, when planning the landing, the hydrography of the landing site had been studied and taken into account, then even with the existing landing forces, the attack of the 11th IJA tank regiment would have been repelled without any problems: the first landing echelon according to the plan included 3 artillery divisions, including an anti-tank one, plus it was possible to call in fire ship support.
                But because of the stones, the unloading of the artillery was delayed, and it did not make it to the battlefield in time. And communication with the ships was provided by one surviving radio - the rest were either drowned or damaged during landing at depth (again due to rocks).
            2. +2
              11 October 2023 10: 40
              Quote: hohol95
              The tank industry was not in favor with the military and the imperial court. And the theaters of combat of the Japanese armies were difficult to navigate for armored vehicles.

              The main theater of operations for the IJA - China - was just accessible to tanks. But in those parts, even a Japanese tank was a tank.
              So the Japanese stewed in their own juice, except that Khalkhin Gol made them think. But even after this, the development and production of the Japanese BTT was rather slow (finance + industrial capacity). And everything would have been fine, even the Stuarts were not a problem... but in 1943, the Shermans arrived at the theater maintenance. smile
              "Sherman" in Europe: "If only not the Tiger, if only not the Panther, if only not the tank destroyer, if only not the anti-tank gun, where to hide..."
              Sherman at the maintenance: "Mwa-ha-ha, pathetic little people - I'll show you what a real tank is!"

              Quote: hohol95
              However, to the Soviet paratroopers during the assault on Shumshu Island, the meeting with the tanks of the Japanese 11th Tank Regiment did not seem similar to the “Around Laughter” program!!!

              Because when planning DESO, it was necessary to at least attend to studying the hydrography of the landing zone. And do not start landing at a depth of two meters - because it is impossible to get closer due to suddenly (!) discovered stones. And out of all the artillery, to land only four “forty-fives” on the first day, and then it’s too late.
              The landing on Shumshu is generally an ideal example of “how not to carry out DESO.” First, the Japanese were kindly awakened by artillery barrage, launched by one battery two hours before the landing. Then the landing craft began disembarking landing personnel at depths of about 2 m (swimming to the shore, in full combat mode) - it was impossible to get closer because of the rocks. During such a landing, all radio stations were damaged except one - the landing party practically lost contact with headquarters and ships. Of all the artillery, 4 “magpies” were landed with the first wave, but they did not have time to repel the Japanese tank attack. The landing force moved deeper into the island, ignoring the Japanese anti-landing batteries attacking the ships from the flanks - which as a result sank about 7 ships and boats. The Japanese even managed to inflict BShU on the landing ships.
              The tanks that rolled out for landing had to be stopped by anti-tank gun fire. Planning flaws were covered with personal courage: technical lieutenant Vodynin and sergeant Ryndin lay down under tanks with bunches of grenades, sergeant major Vilkov and Red Navy man Ilyichev covered the embrasures of the bunker with their bodies.
              And this is August 18 1945 year.
      2. +2
        10 October 2023 18: 47
        Good evening Uncle Kostya, I’m sincerely glad to see you on the site!
        The Japanese tank building industry, in addition to its primacy in production engines, deserves attention on one more point. This is the creation of a universal suspension design for all types of tanks. However, the serial diesel engine was also not simple. Its power was regulated by changing the number of cylinders.
        Sincerely yours, Vlad!
        1. +1
          10 October 2023 19: 52
          Thank you, Vlad! smile I also enjoy communicating with friends. drinks
          1. 0
            10 October 2023 20: 24
            Quote: Sea Cat
            Thank you, Vlad! smile I also enjoy communicating with friends. drinks

            How is it going?
            1. +1
              10 October 2023 20: 50
              So-so. I exist periodically. But as long as I live, I hope.
              1. +2
                10 October 2023 21: 32
                Quote: Sea Cat
                So-so. I exist periodically. But as long as I live, I hope.

                Let's hold on, without you, the “bearded nephew” was completely unharnessed, not to meow, not to sharpen his claws!!! laughing
    5. +5
      11 October 2023 00: 46
      Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
      Both models were released in 1933

      development started
      You have a Type89 I-Go in the photo, but this is not certain. My father’s “VLD” seems different
      Mitsubishi Jukogyo A6120VD
      Model Type 89 Otsu production 1934-1942, only 189 pieces

      7TP(VAU 33) was originally powered by Armstrong-Siddeley petrol. Then the Saurer BLD=PZIn diesel engine was boosted. 235 (Saurer VBLDb) only in 1935.
      Vickers Mk.E, probably twin-turreted, modified in March 1936 to 7TP standard (no. 1359, so-called V/7TP)
      diesel differs from gasoline in the location of the muffler (but this is not certain): in the photo there is a gasoline

      But still right:
      Japanese - the world's first diesel
      Polish - first in Europe
      Quote from: geraet4501
      Read carefully - the world's first tank with a two-stroke diesel engine

      this is just a prototype

      The FCM 36 was the first production French tank with a diesel engine.
      Seul parmi les chars français, le FCM était équipé d'un moteur Diesel, produit par Berliet. Un premier modèle de type ACRO construit sous licence était sujet à de nombreuses pannes qui compromettaient la réputation des camions Berliet

      Berliet ACRO 95 hp (from the truck and everyone vilified it)
      then
      Berliet Ricardo - 105 hp (from a truck, almost no longer worn. It gave 16 hours of power)
      le capitaine Belbeoc'h
      il ya une necessité absolue à étudier, pour chaque modèle de char, un moteur qui soit un moteur de char et non pas un moteur pour poids lourd, fut-il même doté de quelques améliorations
      1. +1
        11 October 2023 20: 35
        Sincere thanks for your detailed comment!
  3. +2
    10 October 2023 05: 49
    Gamelin was an ardent supporter of mechanization

    This is not entirely correct. The main military doctrine of France in the interwar period was the superiority of defense over attack, and Gamelin was an ardent supporter of this doctrine...
    1. +7
      10 October 2023 10: 03
      You might think that mechanization is only useful in attack and is not needed in defense. On the contrary, tank formations are excellent for plugging holes in the defense and covering its deployment. Actually, the 1940 campaign began with the French moving into Belgium and covering the deployment of defense with an advance guard of two tank divisions.
      1. +5
        10 October 2023 10: 56
        Quote from: geraet4501
        Actually, the 1940 campaign began with the French moving into Belgium and covering the deployment of defense with an advance guard of two tank divisions.

        And then the French tried to stop the German breakthrough, also with tank divisions. As a result, we received the same picture of the combat use of armored vehicles that we saw in June 1941 - the stratification of tank formations on the march, the pulling apart of formations almost battalion by battalion, the introduction into battle of formations that had not completed their formation.
        1. +5
          10 October 2023 11: 49
          And then the French tried to stop the German breakthrough, also with tank divisions.

          This is also in words, but in reality they did not have any unified tank divisions. Four DCr were formed in 1940, so their training and composition are sad. In the fourth DCr there was generally a wild mess of Char B1s, Char D2s falling apart on the move, cavalry SOMUA S 35 and H 39. It was these divisions that were burned a la 1941.

          The cavalry DLMs were much better both in composition and training, at least two out of three. They just stopped the German vanguard at Annu so that the army had time to dig in. The problem is that the French did not guess the main direction of the German attack and spent DLM in the wrong place. But, alas, they didn’t have any extra DLM.
          1. +1
            10 October 2023 12: 39
            Who is to blame for the French military that from 1931 to 1940 in the cavalry they created only THREE DLM and FIVE light cavalry divisions Division Legere de Cavalerie (DLC) and THREE tank divisions to support the Division Cuirasse (DCR) infantry?
            Each of the DLC had 44 tanks and armored vehicles.
            The 4th DLC was never fully formed.
            The 6th DLC was in Tunisia.
            There were a lot of separate tank companies, battalions, regiments and brigades.
            But they no longer created large tank formations!
            And during the war, even those were divided into companies and battalions.
            1. 0
              11 October 2023 11: 17
              I started with seven tank divisions: three DLM and four DCr.

              Who is to blame for the French military that from 1931 to 1940 they created only THREE DLMs in the cavalry

              They would have drawn, say, six divisions instead of three. Then in 1940 the Germans and the French would have had formal parity - 10 tank divisions each. But where can we get tanks for these divisions?
              1. 0
                12 October 2023 19: 58
                They could draw anything.
                But they preferred to create separate tank companies and battalions instead of brigades and divisions.
                In 1940, on the border with the TR, the French maintained 12 separate tank companies and 49 tank battalions.
      2. -2
        10 October 2023 11: 27
        Quote from: geraet4501
        Actually, the 1940 campaign began with the French moving into Belgium

        As soon as they moved forward, they immediately moved beyond the Maginot Line wink
        1. +3
          10 October 2023 11: 50
          First, find this very line on the map, maybe it won’t be so funny.
  4. +2
    10 October 2023 06: 39

    What was it like to work in such cramped conditions? In addition, in the turret there is a commander, gunner and loader all rolled into one. Okay, ours went to the T 60 and T70, this was a forced measure, but in France at that time it wasn’t “on fire” like ours, but nevertheless they took such a controversial decision. Yes, and the body is bolted.
    1. +3
      10 October 2023 07: 50
      Quote: Alexey 1970
      Yes, and the body is bolted

      Bolts, casting or welding, what's the difference? With bolts it is even easier to install/dismantle/repair equipment
      1. +7
        10 October 2023 08: 30
        When hit by a shell, big. The Americans quickly realized this.
    2. +5
      10 October 2023 09: 54
      but in France at that time it wasn’t “burning” like ours

      It was burning. If you look at the chronology of how the Germans and French armed themselves with tanks at the beginning of the war, the French did not have any particular advantage. We walked close.
      1. 0
        10 October 2023 10: 40
        Close, close...
        The French, “resting on their laurels” and “falling” into political and economic crises, lagged behind the Germans in almost all areas of land and air weapons.
        And tanks were only part of the problem.
  5. +7
    10 October 2023 07: 02
    These tanks were good because they allowed the use of existing bridges, without reinforcement, and pontoon parks, that is, their operational maneuverability was high...
  6. +3
    10 October 2023 07: 54
    All these questions have long been shrouded in myths...
    It is much more interesting for us to dispel the myths about these tanks.
    Myths?! Despite all the undoubtedly high quality of the material presented, the author himself came up with myths and dispelled them himself. In order for a phenomenon or object to become overgrown with myths, it must: a) play some important role in history; b) occupy the minds and be important to a LARGE number of people with little awareness.
    The topic considered by the author is very niche and does not meet both criteria: a) despite the rather large fleet, these tanks influenced the course of world history a little less than nothing; b) known and interesting on an ongoing basis to a narrow number of interested people (and quite informed people). Therefore, there is no basis for outright myths.
    The layout was atypical for the French, with the engine in the rear and transmission in the front.
    Stated by the author directly in the next paragraph under the photo with Char D1, which has a rear-mounted MTO. The transmission is also in the rear, not the front. But! At that time, there is no need to talk about any typicality or traditions of structural layout at all. Since tanks, as a phenomenon in military engineering, existed for just over 20 years and there was still a free search for the best solutions. Both individual components and the optimal design as a whole.
    1. +6
      10 October 2023 09: 51
      the author himself came up with myths and dispelled them himself


      What myths did I come up with? That Hotchkiss was faster than Renault? Or that the cavalrymen willingly accepted him? First, read popular Russian-language articles on this topic, or at least take a look at Wikipedia.

      At that time, there is no need to talk about any typicality or traditions of structural layout at all.


      As it happens. By the time work began on the H 35, the French already had a whole list of projects for tanks with a rear-mounted transmission. This was the typical solution for them. Before writing about the “free search for the best solutions,” it would be nice to discover this very search.

      The French introduced front-mounted transmissions on Renault and Hotchkiss tanks. Renault grew the AMR 33 from a British wedge concept, and the Briton Ainsworth worked at Hotchkiss. By comparison, the competing tanks APX, FCM and Batignolles-Châtillon, as well as the AMX 38, had the transmission in the rear.
  7. +2
    10 October 2023 08: 37
    Quote: Major Kosukhin
    Two-stroke diesel, in my opinion this is the key word
  8. +6
    10 October 2023 08: 42
    It was the Hotchkiss company that first proposed making cast tanks, and at the same time stirred up the French tank program.
    And if you look deeper, it was France that became the founder of the layout of modern tanks and a rotating turret.
    1. 0
      10 October 2023 20: 38
      And she was the first to use wood in the design of the tank!
      Regards, Vlad!
  9. +6
    10 October 2023 09: 56
    A very good article, a plus for the author, I wish there were more of these hi
  10. 0
    10 October 2023 12: 12
    Thanks to the author. The only thing missing is an assessment of the circus that was going on in France. Once again, I must say thank you to the perspicacious Soviet military and the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks for the deep understanding shown in determining the directions for the development of armored forces.
  11. -2
    10 October 2023 12: 15
    Quote: Dutchman Michel
    Quote: Alexey 1970
    Yes, and the body is bolted

    Bolts, casting or welding, what's the difference? With bolts it is even easier to install/dismantle/repair equipment

    Cast steel is inferior to rolled steel in terms of armor resistance by about 30-50%. Cast parts cannot be cemented.
    1. 0
      10 October 2023 12: 19
      Quote: Foma Kinyaev
      Cast parts cannot be cemented

      Yah? Justify Yes
      1. -3
        10 October 2023 15: 49
        The only advantage is the ability to produce complex structures, including structures of different thicknesses, during one technological operation. The cementation process is quite complex, especially in relation to cast workpieces that have internal stress nodes.
        1. +2
          10 October 2023 16: 08
          Quote: Foma Kinyaev
          in relation to cast workpieces having internal stress nodes

          Haven’t you heard the word “vacation” (this is not yours, these are details - vacation)?

          Quote: Foma Kinyaev
          The carburization process is quite complex, especially in relation to cast workpieces that have internal stress nodes

          This is feverish nonsense, my friend.
    2. -5
      10 October 2023 12: 54
      Cast parts must not be cemented.

      Khoma, your desire to write comments is inversely proportional to your knowledge. Try reading before you write, then you won’t look like a fool.
      1. -3
        10 October 2023 15: 38
        There is absolutely no need for you to look like a fool, and it’s clear to everyone who you really are...
    3. +2
      10 October 2023 13: 42
      Cementation is the saturation of the surface layer of metal with carbon in order to increase its hardness, while the inner layer remains viscous. This is what I remembered from my second year. This whole thing takes place in a special oven at a temperature, if memory serves, of about 900 degrees. So why not? I studied a long time ago, in fact, back in the USSR, there may be an error with the temperature, but not much, I think.
      1. -5
        10 October 2023 15: 37
        Only the flat parts of the part are cemented.
        1. +3
          10 October 2023 16: 09
          Quote: Foma Kinyaev
          Only flat parts are cemented

          So, everything is clear to the court, free Yes
    4. +2
      10 October 2023 14: 20
      Quote: Foma Kinyaev
      Cast steel is inferior to rolled steel in terms of armor resistance

      Regarding the armored vehicles discussed in the article, it is not at all critical what steel the tank’s structure is made of. Any hit will be critical
      1. +2
        10 October 2023 15: 41
        The French military wanted the armor of their light tanks to withstand hits from the 25mm armor-piercing shells of the SA 34 cannon.
        But the 40mm cast frontal armor of the R-35 “withstood” only 22 out of 9 shots!
        13 shells penetrated the armor.
        So, the French steelworkers let down their own military. Or tank designers did not explain to the military that 40mm cast armor is not identical to 40mm rolled armor.
        1. -4
          10 October 2023 15: 57
          It’s not about the steelmakers, but about the price; a body assembled from cast parts is an order of magnitude cheaper than one welded or assembled from rolled armor plates. The level of development of metallurgy in France was at a high level.
          1. +2
            10 October 2023 18: 14
            Precisely in steelmakers!
            They were unable to make large armor castings with good quality of all parts of the casting. And the sides of the R-35’s hull were made of rolled homogeneous armor.
            https://dzen.ru/a/X4RzTKFEw1onpALx
            To begin with, specialists from the NII-48 branch called both the cast and rolled armor of the French tank of lower quality than the 8S steel that was used for Soviet tanks. During shelling from a Soviet 45-mm anti-tank gun, the rolled sides produced chips up to 3 calibers in size. This is about the real quality of the French homogeneous armor. And the cast parts, which French historians often write about as being of high quality, did not perform very well. There was great heterogeneity in armor resistance, which was associated with different thicknesses and hardness. In such a situation, it is quite difficult to talk about high-quality casting. Yes, the parts fit together well, and the surface looked better, but this does not at all guarantee high durability of the armor, as can be seen from the study results. And the bolted connections did not perform particularly well. When a 45-mm anti-tank gun hit the side, the bolts connecting the starboard side to the turret were torn off. The final chord was shelling from a 76-mm cannon, at a distance of 50 meters, with the second shot, the turret was torn off its shoulder strap. This was more for show, because the armor of the Renault R 35 was not supposed to protect against such guns.
            1. -2
              10 October 2023 20: 23
              It’s not clear what relation to the durability of the armor have come loose bolts or a turret torn off the shoulder strap?
              1. +3
                10 October 2023 21: 01
                Quote: Foma Kinyaev
                It’s not clear what relation to the durability of the armor have come loose bolts or a turret torn off the shoulder strap?

                Well known fact. When the armor of French tanks with cast armor on bolts was hit, the latter were cut off and when hit again, the tank opened up like a shell.
                1. +1
                  11 October 2023 11: 09
                  Who knows what is common knowledge? In 1940, half of the German tank fleet was Pz.Kpfw.I and Pz.Kpfw.II. Against them, 40 mm of cast armor was adequate protection. With SOMUA, the maximum and reduced thicknesses were slightly greater; not every 37-mm projectile could penetrate it.

                  When cast tanks were penetrated by small-caliber shells, holes remained. Of course, if a large caliber arrives, and even with the detonation of the ammunition, then the hull will fall apart. But the same applied to German tanks. In one case, a cast part was torn off and the bolts were sheared off. In another, the sheets cracked and broke. Let me remind you that the Germans also had composite hulls and were not completely welded.
                  1. 0
                    12 October 2023 20: 00
                    Let me remind you that the Germans also had composite hulls and were not completely welded.

                    Explain this phrase of yours!
                    1. 0
                      14 October 2023 15: 07
                      All mass-produced German tanks before the advent of the Tigers and Panthers had composite hulls. They were not entirely welded and were assembled like a construction set. Similarly, French cast tanks were assembled from large parts like a construction kit.

                      For example, on the SOMUA S 35 you can remove the turret, turret box and the upper part of the engine compartment. There will be a bathtub with "offal". In the same way, you can disassemble any serial German tank of that time.
                      1. 0
                        15 October 2023 15: 10
                        According to your words, it turns out that the turret box of German tanks was attached to the lower “bathtub” of the hull not by welding, but, say, by bolts.
                        And that’s why it was easy to separate it from the lower “bath”?
                      2. 0
                        15 October 2023 19: 10
                        Assembly of Pz.Kpfw.III, lower hull
                        https://sun9-70.userapi.com/impg/yQ0kLSvpDV5reXvd8WZbb23ufIPvBo04Lq0NOg/3m_FeTd18Dc.jpg?size=1024x657&quality=95&sign=29e25280be2cb8bbde92799fe3b7be15&type=album

                        Removing the turret box
                        https://sun9-55.userapi.com/impg/Z6bX_kaSWn8vHodpnn2GR4DfytLTVYBI5_QCzA/0cQ0UDyLZvc.jpg?size=1508x983&quality=96&sign=7f3b3f1ed28f4aed1fd0ac2b1867ba8e&type=album

                        Roof dismantling MO
                        https://sun9-52.userapi.com/impg/y__4JHa7U3vpWdb5MxNMcPVJyVuCUe1PmJxIjg/oJ_hHmsaYH0.jpg?size=2076x1442&quality=96&sign=29e1f0695807d3c9fe57e9cdc7a7414f&type=album

                        For comparison, the lower part of the SOMUA S 35
                        https://sun9-2.userapi.com/impf/aHP4h7MiBFklmbaPVqT6SXZP532mxZ2Onk6wMQ/UuWUV49H9QY.jpg?size=1130x963&quality=96&sign=2fac294802581337c75c43622aa0d34c&type=album

                        Dismantling the roof of MO Hotchkiss
                        https://avatars.dzeninfra.ru/get-zen_doc/1671180/pub_624c72b7a5e5cd6aa733daaf_62781e67f680416ea3d3faad/scale_2400
              2. +3
                10 October 2023 23: 32
                The same attitude as the bolts on which the Czech tanks used in the Wehrmacht were assembled!
                Not only was the Czech armor fragile, but also the destroyed bolts affected the crew and internal equipment.
                And the French tanks “fell apart” into their component parts.
                1. -2
                  11 October 2023 00: 48
                  Czech tanks were riveted and assembled from rolled armor...
                  1. +1
                    11 October 2023 07: 45
                    Made from rolled steel, but of very mediocre quality. And the rivets, like the bolts, fell apart and cut the tank crew with their internal fragments.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  12. -2
    10 October 2023 16: 16
    Quote: Repellent
    This is feverish nonsense, my friend.

    A powerful argument... it’s reeking of rotten mincemeat...
  13. +5
    10 October 2023 19: 35
    Small slipper: Fabry was minister of armaments (ministre des armements), not minister of war (ministre de la guerre). These were different positions.

    And he was characterized by a fierce defense of the interests of industrialists, sometimes to the detriment of the cause.
    So, after the start of the war, he, together with Raoul Daughtry, came into sharp conflict with Gamelin, demanding to continue the offensive against Panhard AMD-35 armored vehicles, while Gamelin considered them obsolete and demanded an urgent start to production of the AM40 (which later, almost 10 years, will become EBR)
    1. -1
      10 October 2023 20: 28
      A sensible comment. The problem was precisely the decentralization of developments, when each company, through its lobbyists, pushed what was beneficial to it. By the way, the French leadership understood the essence of the problem well. Therefore, the socialists began nationalization, in particular in the aviation industry. But it was too late.
      1. +1
        11 October 2023 11: 31
        The problem was precisely the decentralization of development, when each company, through its lobbyists, pushed what was beneficial to it.

        Decentralization of development is not a problem, but a solution to the problem within reasonable limits. On the eve of the war, the Germans had a very centralized procedure for creating tanks. After the failure of Kniepkamp's new line of tanks, the Germans began to introduce decentralization in order to hedge against competition.

        And why do you equate decentralization with lobbying? You might think that lobbying is impossible in a centralized system. On the contrary, it is in such a system that lobbying flourishes and smells, as it did with the same Germans.

        Therefore, the socialists began nationalization, in particular in the aviation industry.

        What great socialists.

        According to one estimate, in 1938, 102 workers were involved in the assembly of airframes and aircraft engines in Germany, and 000 in England. For comparison, in France there were only 138. In Germany, workers worked up to 000 hours a week, in England 47 hours + 000 overtime per week. And in France, shortly before the World War, socialists introduced a 60-hour work week, despite the fact that there was an acute shortage of workers. In addition, nationalization created additional confusion and did not achieve the intended goals. The artificially established increase in wages was eaten up by inflation.

        Radial French communists generally took pacifist positions. By the end of the 30s, they were so tired that the communists were banned after the fascists.

        It takes very little stretching and imagination to call the activities of these people sabotage of defense. They really cared about ordinary French workers; one might think that they had a wonderful life under the German occupation.
        1. -1
          11 October 2023 11: 58
          Quote from: geraet4501
          Decentralization of development is not a problem, but a solution to the problem within reasonable limits. On the eve of the war, the Germans had a very centralized procedure for creating tanks. After the failure of Kniepkamp's new line of tanks, the Germans began to introduce decentralization in order to hedge against competition

          This is not about centralization of developments, but about centralized management of industry. Kniemkamp’s suspension was not adopted due to the lack of alternative solutions. The socialists could not change the situation that had developed before them; there was not enough time. But the socialists in the USSR did.
          1. 0
            11 October 2023 14: 58
            This is not about centralization of developments, but about centralized management of industry.

            Which means centralization of development. You are playing with words.

            The Kniemkamp suspension was not adopted due to the lack of alternative solutions.

            Kniepkamp did not create any pendants. You can read about the failure of his line on my warspot: https://warspot.ru/15562-avtostradnye-tanki-po-nemetski

            The socialists could not change the situation that had developed before them - there was not enough time

            The socialists in France were just beginning to change the situation for the worse. You are transferring responsibility for the mess they have multiplied to the previous governments.
    2. +2
      10 October 2023 20: 42
      Did Gamelin think about the time required to put a new machine into production?
      More complex than AMD-35.
      At the same time, the Panhard coped with its tasks as a reconnaissance armored car. And his gun could fight the light armored vehicles of the Teutons.
    3. 0
      11 October 2023 11: 35
      Small slipper: Fabry was minister of armaments (ministre des armements), not minister of war (ministre de la guerre). These were different positions.

      I overlooked this point, I thought these were just different formulations within the framework of essentially one position.

      So, after the start of the war, he, together with Raoul Daughtry, got into a tough fight with Gamelin, demanding to continue the drive against Panhard AMD-35 armored vehicles

      Sounds reasonable. Compared to the two-seat Sd.Kfz.221 with a machine gun and without radio communication, the AMD 35 looked very good even in 1940.
    4. 0
      14 October 2023 11: 46
      Yes, he missed the mark somewhat: Fabri for some time combined both posts, that of Minister of War and that of the Ministry of Defense Industry.
  14. +4
    10 October 2023 21: 26
    Quote: Foma Kinyaev
    A sensible comment. The problem was precisely the decentralization of developments, when each company, through its lobbyists, pushed what was beneficial to it. By the way, the French leadership understood the essence of the problem well. Therefore, the socialists began nationalization, in particular in the aviation industry. But it was too late.


    In aviation, even more pornography has emerged, with 6 state corporations with intersecting programs, 4 engine companies (without taking into account the Klerzhe sharashka and motorists) and at the same time monopoly suppliers of “small” components, such as propellers (Rathier), landing gear shock absorbers (Messier), carburetors and sights (Bronzavia).
  15. +2
    10 October 2023 21: 50
    Quote: hohol95
    Did Gamelin think about the time required to put a new machine into production?
    More complex than AMD-35.
    At the same time, the Panhard coped with its tasks as a reconnaissance armored car. And his gun could fight the light armored vehicles of the Teutons.


    And he had everything according to plan.
    German industry was to begin to show the first signs of strangulation by the spring of 1941, and the collapse of the front was attributed to the 1942 campaign.

    As I joked at one time - after the First World War, captured German General Staff members bit the French, these are harmonious and beautiful plans, suggesting that the enemy will fight as he should.
    With the same Ardennes - the headquarters games in the early 1930s gave the same 5 days as in reality for the conditional Germans to overcome them - provided there were no massive air strikes on convoys crawling along mountain highways, which simply paralyzed everyone.
    Therefore, Gamelin decided that only a suicide would get there, and when the Germans did get there, there were no means of airstrikes at hand, and the General Staff only confusedly asked the cavalrymen and air reconnaissance officers, “Are you sure that they are there? No, are you absolutely sure?”

    The only thing is that the Germans decided that it had worked once, it would work again, and they ended up with hell with supplies in the Ardennes-44.
    1. +1
      10 October 2023 23: 39
      In 4 years, “everything has changed a little”!
      The Teutons had less equipment and people, while the British and Americans had more! Especially aviation.
      1. 0
        11 October 2023 11: 01
        Quote: hohol95
        The Teutons had less equipment and people, while the British and Americans had more! Especially aviation.

        EMNIP, aviation at the beginning of the “second Ardennes” was confined to the ground by meteorological conditions.
        As for the forces, yes - the Germans in 1944, even in theory, did not have enough forces to capture the southern “corner pillar” of the breakthrough zone - Bastogne. And they, imbued with deep optimism, decided: to bypass and block Bastogne, to devote all their strength to achieving the main goal of the operation before the Allies launched counterattacks from the north and south. It is unknown who bit their staff officers, but the Germans thus independently climbed into their favorite trap, which they repeatedly set up by the Red Army in 1941-1943: slow down the strike group, hold the corner pillars - and slam the boiler, cutting off its neck from the flanks. Moreover, Bastogne was not only a “corner pillar”, but also a traffic jam on the southern front of the German breakthrough.
        The Germans in the Ardennes were saved from the cauldron only by the fact that the Allies did not hold the northern “corner pillar”.
        1. 0
          11 October 2023 12: 12
          Allied aviation stood on the ground at the beginning of the Teutonic offensive, but when the weather conditions changed, it “spread its wings” and rushed into battle.
  16. -2
    10 October 2023 22: 35
    Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
    When the armor of French tanks with cast armor on bolts was hit, the latter were cut off and when hit again, the tank opened up like a shell

    This is clear, but it has nothing to do with the quality of the armor. The bourgeoisie simply decided to save money. That’s all. But that doesn’t mean that they couldn’t roll the armor, they totally could, but it’s expensive.
    1. +1
      10 October 2023 23: 36
      Riding is long and expensive. Then fasten or plant on bolts or cook.
      So the French came up with the idea of ​​casting large parts and connecting them with bolts.
      But their castings were very complex and they did not achieve the required durability parameters for all parts of these castings.
      They were too clever.
      1. 0
        11 October 2023 00: 52
        In fairness, it is necessary to note the fact that the casting of tank hulls was actively carried out in the USA and the USSR precisely because of manufacturability, especially taking into account differentiated armor.
        1. -1
          11 October 2023 07: 48
          We were studying. But in the USSR, the cast parts of the hulls were connected by welding, and not by bolts, like the French and Americans.
          And the shape of the cast turrets or hull parts of Soviet tanks was much simpler than the French ones.
        2. +1
          11 October 2023 11: 20
          Quote: Foma Kinyaev
          In fairness, it is necessary to note the fact that the casting of tank hulls was actively carried out in the USA and the USSR precisely because of manufacturability

          Cast armor in the USSR was used for tanks not only because of manufacturability, but also because of the loss of the two most powerful pre-war factories for the production of rolled armor. As a result, after the evacuation and the establishment of production in a new location, the defective situation was somehow corrected only for rolled armor with a thickness of no more than 45 mm.
          60 mm and 75 mm sheets were produced with a high percentage of defects and were in short supply. Because of this, the same “mold” had to be reworked for 45 mm armor, and the new TT had to be designed with maximum use of casting.
          Another problem with rolled armor was its welding. And if there were no special problems with 45 mm sheets, then on sheets 75 mm or more cracking of welds appeared every now and then during testing.
          1. -2
            11 October 2023 22: 53
            Nonsense. Why did everyone start producing cast towers after the war?
            1. 0
              12 October 2023 20: 02
              We learned how to make high-quality large-sized armor castings!
              That's the whole secret.
      2. 0
        11 October 2023 11: 03
        Riding is long and expensive. Then fasten or plant on bolts or cook.
        So the French came up with the idea of ​​casting large parts and connecting them with bolts.

        The French had a shortage of welders, so to speed up and reduce the cost of work, they came up with the idea of ​​assembling housings from large cast parts with bolts. The alternative is a bunch of small sheets with rivets. Renault did not have enough welders, so the welded Char D2 was abandoned in favor of a goujon assembly. Hotchkiss and Saumua ordered castings from contractors. FCM had welders, FCM 36 turned out welded.

        they did not achieve the required durability parameters for all parts of these castings.

        The casting quality was really bad, and real anti-ballistic armor by the standards of those years starts from 50-60 mm without tilt. This is the frontal armor of the StuG III and Char B1 bis.

        On the other hand, a good half of German tanks in 1940 were Pz.Kpfw.I and II, for which even 40 mm of cast armor was already a serious obstacle. So the compromise was quite adequate. Other countries with tank protection had even worse hospital averages.
        1. 0
          11 October 2023 12: 25
          On the other hand, a good half of German tanks in 1940 were Pz.Kpfw.I and II, for which even 40 mm of cast armor was already a serious obstacle. So the compromise was quite adequate. Other countries with tank protection had even worse hospital averages.

          On the other hand, the main anti-tank guns in the Wehrmacht were 37-47mm!
          Penetrating the “anti-ballistic” armor of French light tanks from a distance of 300m.
          In my opinion, the French tank commanders had a sad time with “compromises” in tank designs!
          With relatively “anti-ballistic” armor, the tanks had useless weapons and problems with mobility and reliability. Single turrets of medium and heavy tanks generally look like products of “enemies of the people”!
          Although I once heard that Khrushchev stated at a meeting with the military about the need to protect the Soviet people.
          And he stated that if necessary, the designers will make two or single tanks for the Soviet Army! Perhaps this is a fable!
          1. +1
            11 October 2023 14: 54
            In my opinion, the French tank commanders had a sad time with “compromises” in tank designs!

            Whether it's the Germans. Their tanks with armor no thicker than 30 mm were penetrated by the 25 mm Hotchkiss gun, 37 mm SA38 tank gun and 47 mm SA35 gun. This is not to mention the SA37, which penetrated 70 mm of armor at 800 meters. Even the AMD 35 reconnaissance aircraft could turn any German tank into a sieve with its 25 mm cannon. Let me remind you that in the basic version the Sd.Kfz.221 had one rifle-caliber machine gun.

            With relatively “anti-ballistic” armor, the tanks had useless weapons

            What exactly is useless - the 47 mm SOMYA cannon? 75mm main caliber B1? Or SA38 against the background of a German 20 mm autocannon?
            1. -1
              11 October 2023 19: 24
              37mm SA-18. The main and useless weapon of French tanks of the pre-war period.
              There were much fewer tanks with the SA-38 gun.
              The 47mm SA-35 is a good gun.
              But do you, dear Author, like the single-seat turrets of French tanks?
              The tank commander is "a Swede and a reaper and a player on the pipe..."
              Hence the incomplete use of the capabilities of this weapon.
              Both on the S-35 and on the B-1/B-1bis.
              And the 75mm SA-32 was of less use than similar guns on the Churchill tanks (the British later removed howitzers from the front hull plate) and, naturally, the 75mm cannon of the American M-3 Medium tank.
              And the Teutonic tanks had advantages over the French ones due to better maneuverability and mobility. And the Pz.38(t) were even better than their opponents from France in the light tank class!
              Although the Germans used them as ersatz medium tanks.
              1. +1
                12 October 2023 11: 38
                37mm SA-18. The main and useless weapon of French tanks of the pre-war period.

                No more useless than Pz.Kpfw.I machine guns.

                And the 75mm SA-32 was less useful than similar guns in the Churchill tanks

                Another unfounded statement. Churchill did not have high-explosive fragmentation shells for the two-pounder, and there were no armor-piercing shells for the howitzer. In addition, it did not have a normal howitzer guidance system. The Char B1 had armor-piercing and high-explosive shells for both guns and a very accurate hull guidance system.

                But do you, dear Author, like the single-seat turrets of French tanks?

                Of course not. This is one of the main miscalculations of the French before the war. On the same SOMYUA it was necessary to install a two-man turret from an AMC 35 with reinforced armor. And so we saved on matches.
                1. 0
                  12 October 2023 13: 38
                  No more useless than Pz.Kpfw.I machine guns.

                  Did the French army lack tanks equipped with machine guns?
                  AMR 33 – 1 × 7,5 mm "Reibel" m1931.
                  They say that 123 pieces were made.
                  AMR 35 - 87 tank with 7,5mm machine gun; 80 tanks with a 13,2mm machine gun; 10 tanks with 25mm SA 35 in the turret; 10 self-propelled guns with 25mm SA 35 in the hull.
                  There were 1560 Renault FTs.
                  536 Renault FT was in service with the troops
                  I don't think all FTs were armed with the SA 18 cannon!
                  Not dense, but not empty either.
                  The Char B1 could attack fortified defense lines. Maybe he'd be good at it.
                  But these tanks had to fight a war of maneuver, and it was on them that the Teutons tested the “anti-tank properties” of their 88mm anti-aircraft guns.
                  I seriously doubt the possibility of firing a 75mm gun at moving targets.
                  The French military commanders had a “brilliant idea” to unify tank turrets.
                  https://warspot.ru/15942-koloss-na-glinyanyh-nogah
                  The trouble was that, for a number of reasons, the French military unified tanks of different types according to turrets. One gets the full impression that Estienne and his comrades did not want to see what was happening in the rest of the world.


                  But the main reasons for the defeat were in the “heads” of French politicians, military men and ordinary citizens!
                  1. 0
                    14 October 2023 15: 03
                    Did the French army lack tanks equipped with machine guns?

                    The AMR 33 and AMR 35 machine guns were produced in very small quantities. The French quickly realized that their weapons were outdated, so some of the vehicles were armed with heavy machine guns and 25 mm cannons. By comparison, the Germans produced Pz.Kpfw.I machine guns in large quantities and had no plans to rearm them. Moreover, they created the Pz.Kpfw.I Ausf.C and Ausf.F with machine gun caliber weapons.

                    I seriously doubt the possibility of firing a 75mm gun at moving targets.

                    What exactly allows you to say that? The initial speed of the 75 mm armor-piercing projectile of the Char B1 is 470 m/s. The "butt" Pz.Kpfw.IV has only 385 m/s. The Char B1's hull guidance mechanism is similar to that of the Strv 103.

                    In the famous battle, Pierre Billot's Char B1 knocked out the leading German tank with a 75-mm cannon, and knocked out the trailing one with a 47-mm cannon. And then he massacred the others.

                    The French military commanders had a “brilliant idea” to unify tank turrets.

                    You might think that in Germany, the USSR and the USA the turrets were not unified and were not moved from tank to tank. The Germans especially loved to do this.

                    But the main reasons for the defeat were in the “heads” of French politicians, military men and ordinary citizens!

                    Here you are repeating the mistake of Hitler, who also believed that French citizens did not want to fight. But the mood quickly changed.
                    1. 0
                      15 October 2023 15: 16
                      You might think that in Germany, the USSR and the USA the turrets were not unified and were not moved from tank to tank. The Germans especially loved to do this.

                      Can you give an example?
                      Both in the USSR and in the Third Reich!
                      Or do you think that the T-26 and BT-5/7 turrets are identical?
                      Or do you mean T-28/T-35 tanks?
                      1. 0
                        15 October 2023 18: 46
                        I deal mainly with Germans, so I can give a whole list of them right from memory:
                        1. 2 cm Haengelafette - an open turret with a 20 mm cannon and a machine gun. It was installed on wheeled armored vehicles Sd.Kfz.222 and Sd.Kfz.234, half-track Sd.Kfz.250, as well as tanks Sd.Kfz.140/1.
                        2. The turret of the early Pz.Kpfw.II went to a completely new Ausf.D chassis.
                        3. Plans for installing the Pz.Kpfw.IV turret on the Pz.Kpfw.III ZW.38 chassis. Canceled due to production delays.
                        4. Single turret for VK 20 tanks at a late design stage (Einheitsturm with Kwk 44).
                        5. The Rheinmetall Panther turret, by the way, was also considered as a single unit (OKH-Einheitsturm). The Daimer-Benz turret for its Panther was an amateur effort, it was later criticized due to an incompatible shoulder strap. The MAN company also tried to make its own tower, but it was sent to hell.
                        6. Tiger (P) and Tiger H1 turrets are unified in design and were interchangeable with the exception of different drives.
                        7. The Tiger II turret had the same shoulder strap as the Tiger H1 turret (1850 mm), although Porsche originally wanted a 2 meter shoulder strap. It was reduced in size to unify the chassis, because there were plans to install the earlier turret on the Tiger H1 chassis. After the war, the French made their own analogue of this tower, but with a shoulder strap of 2 meters.
                        8. The E 50 and E 75 were planned to have a single unified turret.
                        9. Tiger-Maus was created for the same turret as Maus. The Maus and E-100 have the same shoulder straps.

                        That's it, I'm tired of listing it, I'm not a walking encyclopedia. This is not a complete list for the Germans, but there are also allies. If you want to adequately compare tanks from different countries, study different schools of tank building.
                      2. 0
                        16 October 2023 14: 37
                        Here you are, Dear Author, and the blizzards have caught up...
                        Lovely read!
                        5 points.
                        If the Germans used a single turret for armored vehicles and the turrets of the “twos” were almost identical with different chassis, then your pearls about plans, production disruptions and an excursion into “sweet dreams” in the E series are simply bas-like!
                        Applause!
                        Were the turrets of tanks 3 and 4 the same?
                        Ali no?
                        In the USSR, in addition to different types of small amphibious tanks and armored vehicles, the same turrets were installed on light, medium and heavy tanks?
                      3. 0
                        16 October 2023 17: 20
                        Your pearls about plans, production disruptions and an excursion into “sweet dreams” in the E series are simply incredible!
                        Applause!

                        Do you have anything to say about the case? Or will we limit ourselves to applause turning into standing ovations?

                        Were the turrets of tanks 3 and 4 the same?

                        https://warspot.ru/15645-pantservaffe-mezhdu-troykoy-i-chetvyorkoy
        2. +1
          12 October 2023 13: 51
          The French had a shortage of welders, so to speed up and reduce the cost of work, they came up with the idea of ​​assembling housings from large cast parts with bolts.

          Did they also assemble warships using bolts and rivets?
          Its own battleships, cruisers, destroyers...
          Just like the British.
          There are welders to build the Navy, but not to make tanks!
          Before September 1939, almost all countries had “problems” with the armor protection of their tanks.
          Which were revealed by the Spanish Civil War. Before the war in Spain, the main weapon of anti-tank guns was considered to be a large-caliber machine gun, but 37 and 45mm guns proved the pre-war theories wrong.
          After the defeat of Poland, the Teutons began to hastily strengthen the armor of their tanks by shielding or increasing the thickness of the armor of newly produced tanks.
          They were prompted to do this by the results of the “meeting” with Polish 37mm guns.
          1. 0
            14 October 2023 14: 49
            There are welders to build the Navy, but not to make tanks!

            What are you trying to say? Should the ship's welders drop everything and run to weld the tanks?

            Renault didn’t build ships and didn’t have any extra welders. FCM dealt with ships and produced welded FCM 36. Another issue is that its main tank building capacity was occupied by the Char B1, which was not welded. This tank was produced by several companies at once, so its design did not take into account the capabilities of FCM.

            After the defeat of Poland, the Teutons began to hastily strengthen the armor of their tanks by shielding or increasing the thickness of the armor of newly produced tanks.

            We thought about it after Poland, but in practice we booked it after France. For example, the program for re-equipping and re-armoring the Pz.Kpfw.III began in August 1940.
  17. 0
    10 October 2023 22: 39
    Quote: deddem
    In aviation, even more pornography has emerged, with 6 state corporations with intersecting programs, 4 engine companies (without taking into account the Klerzhe sharashka and motorists) and at the same time monopoly suppliers of “small” components, such as propellers (Rathier), landing gear shock absorbers (Messier), carburetors and sights (Bronzavia).

    Yes, they didn’t have time, which is what I wrote about. Nationalization began when the former private companies had already completed the development process, and the leadership of the Ministry of Aviation had no choice but to increase the production of what they had. A striking difference from the USSR, where decisions were made centrally, with artificial restrictions on production aircraft line. In the end, there were two types of fighters left, for example, as in Germany and Britain.
  18. 0
    11 October 2023 07: 51
    Quote: Foma Kinyaev
    Quote: deddem
    In aviation, even more pornography has emerged, with 6 state corporations with intersecting programs, 4 engine companies (without taking into account the Klerzhe sharashka and motorists) and at the same time monopoly suppliers of “small” components, such as propellers (Rathier), landing gear shock absorbers (Messier), carburetors and sights (Bronzavia).

    Yes, they didn’t have time, which is what I wrote about. Nationalization began when the former private companies had already completed the development process, and the leadership of the Ministry of Aviation had no choice but to increase the production of what they had. A striking difference from the USSR, where decisions were made centrally, with artificial restrictions on production aircraft line. In the end, there were two types of fighters left, for example, as in Germany and Britain.


    We didn’t come to this right away either, before the war it was still a mess, People’s Commissar of the Aviation Industry Kaganovich Jr. didn’t just shoot himself.
    1. +2
      11 October 2023 11: 34
      Quote: deddem
      before the war it was still a mess

      Before the war, the chaos was a little different: our delegation from Germany brought information about the completely unrealistic rate of aircraft production in the Reich. Well, the management set the task "catch up and overtake!".
      On the one hand, there was chaos and defects, with a massive arrival of unqualified personnel, teams of 18 people with three hammers and 50% defects as a great achievement (M. Yu. Mukhin (a historian, not a propagandist) described this period repeatedly and with rich details smile ).
      On the other hand, with this decision the USSR actually mobilized the aviation industry and its related industries a year before the war. And if there was such a mess in the peaceful year of 1940, then what would have happened when the same thing had to be carried out by the military in the summer of 1941? wink
      Although we also had a monopolization of individual components and assemblies:
      In addition, the fact that a number of important units were produced at unique enterprises that were monopolists in their field was of great concern. For example, the new type of batteries were produced in the USSR at a single plant - “Red Triangle” in Leningrad. If this enterprise failed, all Soviet aviation would be left without batteries.
      © M. Mukhin. Soviet aviation industry during the Great Patriotic War.
  19. 0
    11 October 2023 12: 03
    Quote: deddem
    We didn’t come to this right away either, before the war it was still a mess, People’s Commissar of the Aviation Industry Kaganovich Jr. didn’t just shoot himself.

    The Soviet leadership quickly dealt with random people in the aircraft industry - Kaganovich, Silvansky, Taubin - and quite harshly. The question is how did the creators of the French tank-building program of the 30s respond?
  20. -1
    11 October 2023 12: 07
    Quote from: geraet4501
    The French had a shortage of welders, so to speed up and reduce the cost of work they came up with the idea of ​​assembling housings from large cast parts with bolts

    what does a shortage of welders mean? Were there none at all in France? How many welders were needed there, given the snail’s pace of production? It was simpler and cheaper. I ordered castings in Creusot-Loire and units from contractors, assembled them and delivered them to VS-profit. There is no need to develop welding technologies, there is no need to purchase and install equipment, there is no need for welders.
    1. 0
      11 October 2023 14: 44
      What does a shortage of welders mean?

      Scarcity means lack, lack. Initially, Renault wanted to assemble welded Char D2s. However, it did not have a sufficient number of qualified welders. It was necessary to hire workers and change the technology for assembling cases. This option was more expensive, so the welded body was abandoned in favor of a countersunk screw design. Hotchkiss did not have an established production of tanks at all; they assembled cars and firearms.

      How many welders were needed there, given the snail’s pace of production?

      Why did you decide that the pace of production was snail's pace? In 1938, the Germans assembled 806 Pz.Kpfw.II, III and IV tanks, and in 1939, 603 tanks, failing the plan for the new Pz.Kpfw.III model. For comparison, the French, not counting the cavalry AMR, AMC and SOMUA, assembled 422 tanks in 1938 and 1040 tanks in 1939. The French have the advantage.
      1. 0
        11 October 2023 20: 30
        They forgot to count the "Czechs".
        Pz.35(t), Pz.38(t).
        1. 0
          12 October 2023 11: 39
          The Czechs do not participate in the comparison of French and German industries. German industry was already obviously stronger than French.
          1. 0
            12 October 2023 13: 42
            What is the reason for the refusal to register the “Czechs”?
            There is no Czechoslovakia.
            There is the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia within the Third Reich. Tanks are heading to the Wehrmacht.
            But you don’t want to take them into account.
            It was as if they never existed in nature.
            1. 0
              14 October 2023 14: 38
              Re-read my two previous comments to understand what question I am answering.
  21. 0
    11 October 2023 19: 05
    Quote from: geraet4501
    For comparison, the French, not counting the cavalry AMR, AMC and SOMUA, assembled 422 tanks in 1938 and 1040 tanks in 1939. The French have the advantage.

    That your thesis about the guilt of the socialists in the situation in French tank building does not compare with your statistics - look at how many tanks the socialists produced - more than the Wehrmacht. By the way, largely due to the widespread use of casting.
    1. 0
      12 October 2023 11: 43
      What is your thesis about the guilt of the socialists in the situation in French tank building?

      You just came up with this “thesis” yourself.

      The Popular Front failed, its power began to crack within a year. These temporary workers were more trouble than they were worth. What the socialists got was a new crisis in 1937, an outflow of capital and a decline in industry. Tanks in France were not produced by socialists, but by quite capitalist firms.
  22. -2
    12 October 2023 22: 23
    Quote: hohol95
    We learned how to make high-quality large-sized armor castings!
    That's the whole secret.

    yes, they learned it, it’s nonsense...
  23. 0
    12 October 2023 22: 28
    Quote from: geraet4501
    What the socialists got was a new crisis in 1937, an outflow of capital and a decline in industry. Tanks in France were not produced by socialists, but by quite capitalist firms.

    Something reminiscent of Gaidar recipes from the 90s. What is a decline in industry? They themselves wrote about the growth in tank production, and there was also an increase in aircraft production, both quantitative and qualitative.
    1. 0
      14 October 2023 14: 36
      What is a decline in industry? They themselves wrote about the increase in tank production

      Has it ever occurred to you that an increase in tank production could occur against the backdrop of a decline in industry? In 1937, the level of industrial production fell to 70% by 1929, and a year later the Popular Front finally collapsed.