Your Nation's Tank in 1940

[Costa Fiero]

And the S-35 was so good that the Germans had a unit equipped with them fighting on the Eastern Front.

No, the unit stayed in France (policing duties).

The S-35 outclassed tanks the Germans could feild at that time. Only the might 88mm AT/AA gun could get through the armour plating.

The only deficit was it had a one man turret, which severely limited the S-35's offensive capabilities.

[Greater Rhodes]

\
Fiat M13/40

[Abanhfleft]

M4 Sherman


IS-3

[Costa Fiero]

No, the unit stayed in France (policing duties).

The S-35 outclassed tanks the Germans could feild at that time. Only the might 88mm AT/AA gun could get through the armour plating.

The only deficit was it had a one man turret, which severely limited the S-35's offensive capabilities.

That and the Char bis b1 was superior, it at least had a radio

All German tanks had radios. Some French tanks did have radios, but the whole "one man turret" and French tank doctrine meant that French armoured forces could not withstand the onslaught of the Germans. The Char B1 Bis was no exception. It had better armour and better armament (75mm main cannon) than most German tanks, as the Pazner IV was only armed with a low velocity 75mm gun which could not fire HEAT rounds.

[Greater United Russia]

The T-26 and the T-34.

[Sieran]

French tanks weren't too bad but their doctrine dated back to WW1. The French, like the British, saw tanks primarily as supports for the infantry and distributed them in small groups where they really weren't effective. The Germans opted to groups tanks together en masse and use them to spearhead an attack and have the infantry play catch-up in their wake.

[Costa Fiero]

French tanks weren't too bad but their doctrine dated back to WW1. The French, like the British, saw tanks primarily as supports for the infantry and distributed them in small groups where they really weren't effective. The Germans opted to groups tanks together en masse and use them to spearhead an attack and have the infantry play catch-up in their wake.

Except the French massed their tanks in an attack on the siegfried line in Operation Saar where the French 2nd Army group consisting of 31 divisions lead by General André-Gaston Prételat, it just ended up with as a complete buttfuck of French tank forces met fixed defences and minefields of the Siegfriend line manned by the German 1st Army lead by General Erwin von Witzleben and ended up withdrawing instead of accomplishing the intended French breakthrough with an armoured spearhead. The 155mm howitzers of the french being incapable of penetrating German bunkers and superior french armour being destroyed by the first massive use of anti-tank mines in war such that the French started using pigs to clear out minefields.

Likewise the Germans did not meet success with massed armoured assaults and were mired in Belgian until Manstein's flanking manuever through the Ardennes that smashed through the weak defences and caused widespread panic in Allied ranks.

The idea that the allies frittered away their tanks in "penny packets" is a myth to excuse the failure of the allied generals to face the wholly inferior German army, by claiming the Germans had magical doctrinal powers. The Germans had only two hundred Panzer IVs, the only good tank they have, in comparison to the thousands of tankettes that were actually glorified machinegun carriers.

The Saar offensive itself could very well have been successful with more infantry-armour co-ordination and heavier artillery as the german units facing them were poorly equipped, having no tanks, machineguns of WWI vintage, and possessing only 37mm anti-tank weaponry.

Forgetting the rather large numbers of 38t's and Panzer III's at the Germans disposal which could penetrate some French and British tanks armour. Only the Panzer I and II tanks lacked any real offensive capabilities. French tanks only had tbe benefits of superior firepower,armour and numbers and even then, they were still out classed tactically. Do you realise how much multi-tasking the commander had to do? He had to load and fire the main gun on some tanks, give orders to the rest of the crew as well as other tanks and maintain radio contact with other vehicles. That is simply way too much for one man to do. The only real massed allied armoured counter aattack came at Arras and that showed the Allied superiority in tank design. If they had done what they did at Arras during the rest of the campaign, they would have stopped the Germans. But they didn't and as a result, the Germans won.

In fact, the vast majority of British and French tanks they could field at the time had the same or slightly higher calibre main gun as German tanks. The main anti-tank gun of the French Army was the little 25mm Hotchkiss AT gun. It couldn't dispose of anything larger than a Panzer II.

[Augarundus]

D1913 (Durst, 1913) mini-tank. A small one-or-two man vehicle with a low range artillery piece. Not designed to be accurate; designed to act as (semi) mobile cannons to be positioned around a battle, then fired aimlessly in the... vague direction of enemy positions.

[Dostanuot Loj]

Except the French massed their tanks in an attack on the siegfried line in Operation Saar where the French 2nd Army group consisting of 31 divisions lead by General André-Gaston Prételat, it just ended up with as a complete buttfuck of French tank forces met fixed defences and minefields of the Siegfriend line manned by the German 1st Army lead by General Erwin von Witzleben and ended up withdrawing instead of accomplishing the intended French breakthrough with an armoured spearhead. The 155mm howitzers of the french being incapable of penetrating German bunkers and superior french armour being destroyed by the first massive use of anti-tank mines in war such that the French started using pigs to clear out minefields.

Likewise the Germans did not meet success with massed armoured assaults and were mired in Belgian until Manstein's flanking manuever through the Ardennes that smashed through the weak defences and caused widespread panic in Allied ranks.

The idea that the allies frittered away their tanks in "penny packets" is a myth to excuse the failure of the allied generals to face the wholly inferior German army, by claiming the Germans had magical doctrinal powers. The Germans had only two hundred Panzer IVs, the only good tank they have, in comparison to the thousands of tankettes that were actually glorified machinegun carriers.

The Saar offensive itself could very well have been successful with more infantry-armour co-ordination and heavier artillery as the german units facing them were poorly equipped, having no tanks, machineguns of WWI vintage, and possessing only 37mm anti-tank weaponry.

Forgetting the rather large numbers of 38t's and Panzer III's at the Germans disposal which could penetrate some French and British tanks armour. Only the Panzer I and II tanks lacked any real offensive capabilities. French tanks only had tbe benefits of superior firepower,armour and numbers and even then, they were still out classed tactically. Do you realise how much multi-tasking the commander had to do? He had to load and fire the main gun on some tanks, give orders to the rest of the crew as well as other tanks and maintain radio contact with other vehicles. That is simply way too much for one man to do. The only real massed allied armoured counter aattack came at Arras and that showed the Allied superiority in tank design. If they had done what they did at Arras during the rest of the campaign, they would have stopped the Germans. But they didn't and as a result, the Germans won.

In fact, the vast majority of British and French tanks they could field at the time had the same or slightly higher calibre main gun as German tanks. The main anti-tank gun of the French Army was the little 25mm Hotchkiss AT gun. It couldn't dispose of anything larger than a Panzer II.

First off, French Doctrine (I guess I'm the only respondent here to have actually read said doctrine, not just checked wiki?) focused on fortified, infantry-backed and artillery supported lines as a forward defence, with large, highly mobile mechanized forces behind the lines to quickly counter any penetrations. This is pretty much the same armoured defensive strategy which has been theorized and used from 1919 until today (And was the USArmy's doctrine in Europe in the Cold War, and still their and SK's doctrine in Korea). So no, French doctrine did not suck.

Second, my favorite part, the 38ts did not cause as much of an impact as you seem to make out. And at the time of the French campaign, the PzKpfW III had a 37mm gun. Offensive capability in German doctrine was not on the tank, it was on the aircraft. Which is where German sucesses lie. The myth that French doctrine sucked and the Germans was better is a myth to cover the fact that the Allies did not employ air power to the extent they should have. The tank, in German use, was an infantry support weapon to allow the infantry/artillery group to advance as needed. Mechanization of the infantry (Guderian's big thing) was huge, but they did not employ the tank as a primary offensive weapon, and did not want to. Dive bombers were better.

As per your final comment. The 25mm Hotchkiss AT could, at less then 500m (Engagement ranges in France in 1940 were ~200-300m by the way) penetrate the PzKpfw III Ausf. F's thickest frontal armour.The H (Of which almost none saw service in France) could withstand it. But the bulk were E and F, which were penetrated. Likewise, the PzKpfW IV D, the most advanced version used in France, could also be penetrated at the same ranges. So actually, no tank in the German inventory in the French campaign could defeat the 25mm Hotchkiss at engagement ranges that were actually being encountered. And there is well documented proof (Especially in the Bundesarchiv) that a lot of German tanks were so penetrated. So I don't know what you're on about.

[Costa Fiero]

I might be incorrect, but wasn't the original French plan in the event of war with Germany prior to Belgian neutrality, to cross through Belgium with mechanised forces, using the Maginot to tie up German forces for a encirclement of the Rhineland. I was under the impression that French offensive doctrine demanded that French Heavy tanks, supported by infantry and artillery, were to breakthrough German fortifications followed by cavalry tanks and mechanised infantry exploiting the gaps.

That was the plan, should the Germans try to use the Schlifflein Plan which they had done in 1914. The French weakness was in the Ardennes which the French thought was impenetrable to tank forces. The Germans, whose tanks could fit in the gaps and along the narrow roads. Thus, German planners used Holland and Belguim and a distraction to the Ardennes Offensive to great effect.

French tank doctrine utilized the tank as an infantry support weapon, hence the low velocity guns found in the Renault R40, Hotchkiss H35 and H39 tanks, the Char B1 Bis and machine gun armaments on almost all of the AMC Model tanks. The Somua S-35 was a cavalry tank which, as you said, was primairily used to exploit gaps in the enemy frontline, and indeed it was a good tank. Not very many German anti-tank weapons could penetrate the armour and it's 40mm gun could take out any German tank. It was also quite fast. As I have said before, then downside to the S-35 was the one-man turret and also the fact that the way it was constructed. The S-35's hull was bolted in halves by a ring or rivets which ringed the tank about halfway up the hull. The Germans soon found out that a well placed large AT round from an 88 could open the S-35 up like a sardine tin.

Another small disadvantage was that French tanks ran on aviation fuel and as such, had to have a support train of fuel trucks to keep them running. German tanks either ran on normal petrol or diesel and so, they could pull up to a French petrol station, replenish their tanks and continue advancing.

[Israslovakahzerbajan]

They also weren't proper tanks they were tankettes designed specifically for island warfare; hence why they got absolutely boned by a proper [if not crappy] tank.

Wolfkrone p. much ceased to exist after 1665, ****ing Pruessens.

wut

jap tanks were designed to fight in china's rugged and mountainous ground, not china

Thus, they were easily crushed by even Soviet standards...and by the time of the Manchuria campaign, the Soviets had the 85mm gun.

[Gavinkuo]

This would be the best my nation could deploy: A motor gun carriage armed with a 3-inch gun.

[Dostanuot Loj]

That was the plan, should the Germans try to use the Schlifflein Plan which they had done in 1914. The French weakness was in the Ardennes which the French thought was impenetrable to tank forces. The Germans, whose tanks could fit in the gaps and along the narrow roads. Thus, German planners used Holland and Belguim and a distraction to the Ardennes Offensive to great effect.

French plans to attack Germany through Belgium involved the precondition that Germany attempted to retake the A-L region and hold it. The French knew very well tanks could be moved through the Ardennes (And it is published numerous times in French infantry and cavalry journals of the 1930s). As per your width comment, the only French tanks wider then the PzKpfW II (The mainstay of the German tank force at the time) were the Char B1 and Char 2C. Everything else was narrower, and perfectly capable of maneuvering in the Ardennes. And were designed with such an application in mind.

French tank doctrine utilized the tank as an infantry support weapon, hence the low velocity guns found in the Renault R40, Hotchkiss H35 and H39 tanks, the Char B1 Bis and machine gun armaments on almost all of the AMC Model tanks.

You have no idea how French doctrine worked, do you?

The tank was seen as an exploitative measure by the French. It would attack and decimate enemy command posts, supply depots, and artillery. Those tanks had low velocity guns to enable them to fire shells with higher HE content, providing better blast effect on soft equipment like trucks. The only tanks with guns intended to support the infantry were the Char B1 (And 2C) with the 75mm, and the little Hotchkisses and R-35, which were literal replacements for the FT-17. They were the only French infantry support tanks.

The AMR was a recce tank, intended to scout. It had a machine gun because it had to defend itself, but anything more heavily armed then infantry it was not intended to do anything but run away from. The AMC was intended to do this same job, but in force, hence the gun capable of engaging enemy armour.

The Somua S-35 was a cavalry tank which, as you said, was primairily used to exploit gaps in the enemy frontline, and indeed it was a good tank.

The S-35 held the same role as the AMC (And in fact was classed as such). Which meant its role was to scout out and attack soft targets of need, and either take them out, or pass them up to higher levels.

Not very many German anti-tank weapons could penetrate the armour and it's 40mm gun could take out any German tank.

It's 47mm gun could take out any German tank, but so could the 25mm Hotchkiss. And the Pak 36 was capable of penetrating the S-35's front armour at 300m, which is greater then the average engagement range in the French campaign.

It was also quite fast.

It was no faster then any German tank used in the campaign save the PzKpfW I.

As I have said before, then downside to the S-35 was the one-man turret and also the fact that the way it was constructed. The S-35's hull was bolted in halves by a ring or rivets which ringed the tank about halfway up the hull. The Germans soon found out that a well placed large AT round from an 88 could open the S-35 up like a sardine tin.

The Germans knew (From lots of experience prior to 1940) that rivets were a weak spot. This was not new news to them. Nor was it much of an intended target. The preferred target of German gunners was the tracks, which were excessively complicated and prone to severe damage. The Germans would then harass the stationary tank until friendly howitzers could do the can opening, as a 10.5cm HE shell will do the same to any tank of the same generation.

Another small disadvantage was that French tanks ran on aviation fuel and as such, had to have a support train of fuel trucks to keep them running. German tanks either ran on normal petrol or diesel and so, they could pull up to a French petrol station, replenish their tanks and continue advancing.

Where the hell are you pulling this BS from? The S-35 ran on the exact same civil-grade leaded petrol that every German tank did. Not a single tank in the German force was diesel, not a single one. The only people running diesel powered tanks at this point were the Japanese and the Soviets.

Seriously, where are you pulling these hilariously incorrect stories from?

[Linkisheer]

The Valentine

[The Southron Nation]

The Stuart Light Tank:



The Johnny Reb Heavy Tank:



The Stonewall APC (used for well over 3 decades):



Finally, the contemporary Davis medium all around assault tank:

[Lowell Leber]

HT-12

Primary Armament: 3 inch L10/35 Rifled Gun.

[The Grand World Order]

The Bravia TM19 Anjo (angel) Medium tank

(Image)

Pretty sure the MBT-70 didn't come out until... some time in the '60s.


The GWO didn't exist in 1940.

[Wolfkrone]

The Bravia TM19 Anjo (angel) Medium tank

(Image)

Pretty sure the MBT-70 didn't come out until... some time in the '60s.


The GWO didn't exist in 1940.

If it had something tells me you would be rocking Panzers.

[ThisIsNotACountry]

Da Vinci Tank

[Lemonius]

1940 (Earth Year) was 6240 (Lemonian Calendar), at this time Lemonius did not have a dedicated battle tank. However, the latest recorded use of battle tanks prior to the de-armament phase of the Empire was in 3877 (Earth year 1577BC). The Matriarch Loyalist Armies (MLA) used the ANJi-L battle unit, pictured here:

[Portugal 2874]

Pretty sure the MBT-70 didn't come out until... some time in the '60s.


The GWO didn't exist in 1940.

If it had something tells me you would be rocking Panzers.

Did i said that tank WAS the MBT-70? I most surely did not!

[Sheariliik]

[Ea90]

-Deleted-

[Gandoor]

Our medium tank was the T-34 and our light tank was the Panzer I.

[Gandoor]

Our medium tank was the T-34 and our light tank was the Panzer I.