"For, as we all know, arguments on the internet are of critical importance." What an absolutely perfect straight-faced delivery. And I'll bet this comment generates arguments .
FACT 6: the Char B 1 Bis at Bovington is the rarest tank in the world. as it is the only French tank used by the Germans (Panzer-Abteilung 213) on British soil (Jersey, Channel Islands) still in existence.
After 51 hours of careful investigation, I care tell you with 99.95% certainty that the film projector is a prop and not actually projecting a film strip.
You missed out the tale of how thee Saint Chammond company managed to con the French armaments committee into choosing their 75mm. L.17 gun for use in the B1 over other tenders. They set up a range test with a 5cm. thick target plate, made of mild steel, at 500 metres and then fired a Rupture Modele 1910 APHE shell at it, penetrating it cleanly. The committee was impressed and so placed orders for the gun. The fraud was only discovered later, when it was too late to alter the design of the B1, but their was a court trial of those involved. German range tests,, at Kummersdorf, recorded that the 75mm. L.17 B1 hull gun could only penetrate up to 38mm. of RHA @ 0 degrees @ 100 metres with PzGr.(f) APHE.
Char B1: The most Warhammer 40k-looking tank, that existed for some 60 years before 40k as a setting. This thing would not look out of place crossing no man's land on Armageddon or Vraks.
I was SO excited to get this tank in WoT as I had played it in World War II Online/Battlefield Europe (or whatever else they renamed it to) and it was an absolute BEAST to face when the best Gereman tank in the game was a III J. That side vent was really the only vulnerable spot on it, and I killed several (I played axis mostly) as a sapper by placing a charge on it. WW2OL was good for showing the need for support between armor and infantry.
every armored vehicle of the French army had its name paint on itself - a famous battle, a country, a soldier/officer's name - and it continues nowadays
somewhat loud background musak I think its volume supposed to remain lower than the speaker, not competing his self and low flying aircraft (theres always one)
Thanks Nick! Loved the final "thing to know" about the B1. Just imagine if the French had equipped it with a decent 3 man turret with the 47mm, a good coax, adequate vision, workable radios and hatches - And they had developed a truly workable doctrine to use the tanks they had. Hmmmm. Yep, and if pigs could have flown, too, huh?
@@mathewritchie Only with the assistance of rocket engines 🚀 , trebuchets, explosives 💣💣💥, or some similar artificial means (or natural means like a tornado 🌪🌪 or hurricane 🌀) may they fly. 🐖🐖🤣🤣
With the greatest respect to you, Nicholas, I am worried that WG will be scratching around for their next hairbrained scheme and look at this video and say Hallelujah. A new branch in the French tech tree made up of less than blueprint tanks. All that aside, thank you for the as always informative and well researched video.
I'd still disagree. One on one against any Axis tank of 1940 ...with equally trained crews, the B1 would come out on top almost every time. It was designed to have a radio ... it's the fault of the French High Command that most French tanks did not have radios. Vision slots were common in those days, most tanks in 1940 were pretty blind when buttoned up. A lot had better optics added over the years following 1940. The mistakes of how they were used and the mismanagement of air power/cover ...which was a major contributor to France's defeat...also falls on bad planning by the French High Command. If the French had the Panzer II, III and IV's, with few radios and ineffective air cover instead...the results would have been the same. If it had been the Germans with the B1 ...they would have been used to great effect. The Chieftain seems determined to dislike the B1. But, most of the problems he stated, aren't caused by the design of the tank ...they are caused by it's misuse and lack of forsight by the French High Command. It did have it's flaws, the one man turret and no top hatch for example... But all the tanks of 1940 had their own issues.
Oh Man you were right. !! . I needed to know more about the B1. How did I ever live without this knowledge ??? We should start an email campaign to get the B1 Ter built in !/35 scale ! Somebodies got to do it. Good to see you are not just resting on your Laurels. I think Doc Mark Felton is so envious that he didn't think of it first.
As someone old enough to have used an 8mm projector, it's a little distracting to see the one on the desk (real or cgi?) turning backwards. They feed from the top to the bottom. Sorry for the OCD outburst.
DCr and not DCR doesn't mean Division Cuirassée de Réserve but Division Cuirassé. the r was added to make the distinction with the DC Division de Cavalerie. In some books you can read DCu.
Naughty naughty Zoot, lighting the beacon which just happens to be Grail shaped! Wait, you don't think the Char B1 was at the Carmaargue... it's in France I think. Run Away!
I'm curious about how the tank managed to run over a bunch of guys. I would have thought the tank would be slow enough for them to get out of the way, so presumably they were pinned down or boxed in or something?
According to Wikipedia, top speed off-road was roughly 20kkm (or about 12.5 miles) hour. That's a pretty intense run, about twice as fast as the average human jogs, according to Google, so, while not impossible to avoid, probably quite a bit faster than you were imagining it :) I'd guess that if you're loaded down with combat gear ()rifle, ammo, etcetera'), that's probably a full-on sprint.
It ran its tread through a ditch full of troops taking shelter from the tank firing at them. It’s the sort of thing that can only happen when troops have never faced tanks before.
Someday they will put in dual gun use, and we'll see a whole stash of designs. Wot development has always been a little slow compared to expectations. Myself. I'll be back in 3 years to check on the game.
@Stuka87 France does not have 2 medium lines, it has 2 light lines. It has 3 mediums in the tech tree, not even a single complete line. 1 of them starts the heavy line, the other 2 branch off the 1 light line at the end.
I can only imagine the brown trails leading out of town when those German soliders saw what they saw. "Hey Fritz, is that Fred's head going round and round on those tracks?"......lol
Many thanks for the video. There is a controversy regarding the DCr name. Many argue that it does not mean Division Cuirassée de Réserve but Division Cuirassée. The small r being here to not call the DCr division DC which was the name of the cavalry divisions in the French army.
No doubt after the battle, Lt. Domercq spent considerable time attempting to find the equivalent of tank track dental floss with which to remove said ghastly remains. Le Pu indeed.
Driver, tracks, troops. Drive and adjust. Yeah. IIRC there were a couple of Stuarts that did a follow on to that v the Chinese on a beach in Taiwan circa late 40s early 50s.
I have a rare book "B1 at fight" (500 produce only) and I know well this tank, also when B1 was in service germany was only building the Panzer 1 only.
@@Stuka87 except neither Pz.I nor Pz.II were tanks. They are counted as a tanks to not to show all historian, military historian and so called experts as complete nuts when they talk about fictional blitzkrieg and so on - and suddenly being asked, how is something like that possible when Germany had had nearly no tanks.
At the time, Germany was building a real tank doctrine and a real tank army using Panzer 1 _training_ tanks. Panzers 3 and 4 were fully envisioned by 1934.
I think the B1 is a case of a well made, hopelessly obsolete upon completion tank. I mean, for all of it's shortcomings, I don't think any of it has to do with build quality, or how it was to be put together. For it's time, it was reasonably well armored, and had a good enough bit of firepower. But that's kind of where all the good stops. After that, you are looking at a tank with very little realistic proposition to be upgraded later on due to the ludicrously small turret ring for the weight of the tank, a tank that requires a stupid amount of fuel compared to the combat effectiveness that it can bring to bear. A tank that is an absolute manpower hog, in a nation that is facing a population decline. A tank where the big 75mm, can only really be called effective against thin walled structures, or other lightly protected completely fixed emplacements. And while these compromises could be made due to it being a product of it's original development time, that being in the 1920s, by the 1930s, when it would finally be produced, there were already many real world examples of conflicts that could prove that this tank simply would not be effective in anything modern. Yet, the french stuck with it, because the french simply wanted what could be bought for a reasonable enough price. And, I think that is the major failing of the French in WW2. Their leadership just didn't study what was changing in other wars to the same extent as the british, or the germans. They stuck with a modified plan for what won in the first world war, that being large networks of static defenses, and slow moving, cheaply made tanks that had more of a focus on being able to fit pre-existing parts from their WW1 surplus, than if they could be made well for a modern engagement. Even their 'best' tank, the S35, really only had the structure in the hull for the gun that was in place. Which, yes, likely could have remained effective in the pacific war, but in Europe, most nations in Europe had to up-armor, and up-gun their tanks. And based on the pre-existing chassis in the french army, I simply don't think that could've been possible even if they didn't fall as quickly as they did. So, they would either be stuck with the 47mm gun, until getting lend lease crusaders, valentines, and shermans, or, they'd have to develop an entirely new platform, in a war even larger than the last, on their soil, against three major powers. And, there's nothing wrong with lend lease, many nations used it, but I believe that it is more of a statement on how unprepared the french leadership was for this new war, that their only real path to getting the proper equipment they needed, was to hold out long enough for the British, or Americans to pick up war production of better equipment for them.
The Char B1 was at the very least the equal of anything the Germans were fielding in 1940. There just weren't enough of them and they weren't properly utilized, but that's the fault of the French command.
Char-B sounds something likes it could be a wine or a hip-hop singer . Who knows… maybe we might be able to slip this into a casual dinner conversation.
I see people praise this tank, and despise this tank. I've seen people say it's one of the worst tanks of the war, or the best early war tank. The conclusion I came to after my own research and odd infatuation with this 40k looking tank, is that of all the tanks ever created, the Char B1 is one of them.
@@TheChieftainsHatch I’m pretty sure I am. I’m an idiot though, so what do I know? Lol. Honestly, I think I love this thing so much because it’s a polarizing oddity.
But all did copy the french with the smokeless powder in WW1, and seems that the Mauser Gewehr 43 was inspired from the MAS 1940 prototype+ the FG42 did use the MAS 39 bayonet...US did more or less copy the french 155mm long range artillery :the "long tom" was based on the WW1 155mm longue portée Filloux who was adopted from the US army after ww1, same thing with the Renault FT tank, and the WW2 Sherman was inspired from the Somua S35 tank...
The Char B1 was a superb, advanced tank... ...In 1930... ...In 1940, not so much. Still well armoured but in practically every other area, sorely lacking. Tiny turret Crazy refuelling system Abysmal crew ergonomics Radio, what radio?
The Char B served as inspiration for the Swedish S-tank because of its double differential steering being able to accurately point the gun. The Swedes added a hydropneumatic suspension to control elevation. In my View deletion of the 37mm turret and its replacement with a simple MG turret with better ergonmics while the 75mm gun was enlarged for the AT role would have been best outcome.
A fascinating tale of messed-up logistics. Still no answer to whether a properly organized unit of Char B1 in sufficient number could have stopped German armored nits coming through the Ardenne.
#4 seems very much like a Wargaming thing/"fact" to mention; there were paper projects of further development of this tank...! The fact is that besides the two sunk with the ship, none of these ever existed off paper, yes?
What my ears heard "the b2 was the best tank of WW2" .... wait a sec, hold up.. rewind.. enhance "the b2 was the best tank, from the 1920, to see combat during WW2". Ok.. I'll buy that. :) But this leaves me with a question for OP. Is there a better 1920's tank that DIDN'T see combat during ww2? Or, what 1920's tank would you consider better than the b2? I just stared the video and don't know if you point it out but many times the saying is true: "The French copy nobody, and nobody copies the French"
open question to all, if the French had gone for 2 x man turrets would that have increased combat effectiveness enough to impact the fighting on the ground? Can we say 1 man turrets (mostly) = fall of France?
This is too much of a simplification, but 2-man turrets would certainly improve the B1's performance. Ultimately though, issues with doctrine and command, including the lack of radio equipment for the tanks, meant that France would've fallen anyway. If all of those issues were addressed along with 2-man turrets, then things may have been different. But the 1-man turrets aren't significant enough to carry the blame for the fall of France on their own.
While I suspect it would help. The fall of France seems to me as more of a failure of French command structure than a failure of French combat troops (see the slow response to the breakthrough at Sedan)
@@jakemonkey7 remember, British and French recon aircraft spotted the German tanks driving through the Ardennes, but when they told command about it they said they must be mistaken because no one would be stupid enough to do that.
@@nikoclesceri2267 The French had wargamed the exact situation and some genius actually broke through the Ardennes. The region around Sedan was thus given a bit of care and quite fortified with field fortifications and MG bunkers. But they couldn't get all rear positions ready, so when the first line fell, there was no second defensive line to rally behind. Initially both French divisions put up quite the fight although only being "second tier". If it wasn't for a German combat engineer NCO to take matters in his own hands and clear some French bunkers, the German divisions would have had serious issues concerning their timetable and the French might have brought up reserves in time. Before "Operation Overlord", a German staff officer successfully "landed" in Normandy during a wargaming simulation and we all know how that story went.
The Char B was a design started in 1919 so it had that mentality and technology of 1919. The Panzer I and even Panzer II were either interim training tanks or the best they could manufacture. However the Germans had built several "concept tanks" in the 1930s (Grosstraktor, the Neubaufahrzeug and Rheinmetall’s Begleitwagenand) and tested them in exercises and came to the conclusion that multi turret tanks were no good and that 3 man turrets were. The Germans did their homework.
I'm sure I heard somewhere that the French devised a special fuel specially and solely for tanks. It was probably Wikipedia, or a wise man down the pub.
On paper it seems to check all the boxes. The reality of crew layout and tasking showed how bad it was. Armor thickness, speed, or gun penetration becoming outdated over a decade of development is understandable. Look how fast and far aircraft advances happened in the same period. But functionality? It's as if no one ever really tried it out beyond driving it around a factory test track. Only a four man crew, a morse code radio, one man turret, driver as gunner etc. all seem obviously ineffective. That's not just hindsight. An argument can be made that war was looming creating a crisis, but again over a decade of development. I'm sure they told themselves there were "reasons" for this or that, but they sure weren't good ones.
Considering the B1 maximum speed was 28km/h (17mph) on road, I find it suspicious that some German troops somehow let themselves surprise and run over, and that in broad daylight.
28km/h isn't crazy slow. Usain Bolt's top speed is around 40 km/h and he holds several world records; commonly considered the best sprinter in the world. Sure, you could probably avoid being run over by a B1 in ideal circumstances, but I think being just moderately unlucky might put you in a seriously bad spot as an infantry-man trying to run away from a b1 at close range.
1:35 "The idea was to take the best features of all prototypes and blend them together" - And THIS is the result? This is just so French.. or maybe just so army in general.
6 Years from design proposals to production prototype. Yikes. So it was a mid-20s design concept that wasn't operational until 13 years later. Obsolete much? Well, at least that is still faster than the development time for modern European weapons.
I never really understood how tanks were supposed to just run over infantry soldiers. You would think they could be dodged or avoided and not just stand there and get squashed. Seems more likely to me that dead and wounded men were run over. Maybe a few that were pinned down by machine gun fire and unable to move.
"For, as we all know, arguments on the internet are of critical importance."
What an absolutely perfect straight-faced delivery. And I'll bet this comment generates arguments .
I wholeheartedly disagree!!
FACT 6: the Char B 1 Bis at Bovington is the rarest tank in the world. as it is the only French tank used by the Germans (Panzer-Abteilung 213) on British soil (Jersey, Channel Islands) still in existence.
What about the only German ww1 tank in Australia
The WWI tank in AUS was not "used by the Germans... on British soil".
@@waynemayo1661 but it is the last one in existence out of the 20 or so built
Ah, Lindybeige's favorite tank!
@@jayklink851 hello Sergeant Schultz in disguise
After 51 hours of careful investigation, I care tell you with 99.95% certainty that the film projector is a prop and not actually projecting a film strip.
You missed out the tale of how thee Saint Chammond company managed to con the French armaments committee into choosing their 75mm. L.17 gun for use in the B1 over other tenders. They set up a range test with a 5cm. thick target plate, made of mild steel, at 500 metres and then fired a Rupture Modele 1910 APHE shell at it, penetrating it cleanly. The committee was impressed and so placed orders for the gun. The fraud was only discovered later, when it was too late to alter the design of the B1, but their was a court trial of those involved.
German range tests,, at Kummersdorf, recorded that the 75mm. L.17 B1 hull gun could only penetrate up to 38mm. of RHA @ 0 degrees @ 100 metres with PzGr.(f) APHE.
This is a comment of critical importance.
I hope that Ernest Cline’s message resonates with a clarity that will inspire a whole generation..
This is a response of critical importance too, and written in good spirit.
I love both this design and the Somua S35.
That’s one amazing film projector on the desk.
WoT spares no expense. lol
Char B1: The most Warhammer 40k-looking tank, that existed for some 60 years before 40k as a setting. This thing would not look out of place crossing no man's land on Armageddon or Vraks.
And that's why I love it
As someone with a Malcador collection this is where a lot of my fondness for it comes from.
@@KartarNighthawk Sir/ma'am, you are based for your taste in tanks, both fictional and real.
@@andreykuzmin4355 Thanks. My R&H cultists and militiamen just wouldn't look right without the Malcadors looming up behind them.
have a look at the old Bauhaus Grizzly from Mutant Chronicles / Warzone - it's possibly more 40k than anything in 40k
I was SO excited to get this tank in WoT as I had played it in World War II Online/Battlefield Europe (or whatever else they renamed it to) and it was an absolute BEAST to face when the best Gereman tank in the game was a III J. That side vent was really the only vulnerable spot on it, and I killed several (I played axis mostly) as a sapper by placing a charge on it. WW2OL was good for showing the need for support between armor and infantry.
WoT is fantasy FYI.
I just know the Char B1 had the cool individual tank names painted on each tank! That and it had doors and corridors inside the engine room!
every armored vehicle of the French army had its name paint on itself - a famous battle, a country, a soldier/officer's name - and it continues nowadays
"One should keep the Machine Spirit happy"
WH40k Tech-Priest, probably
Man this tank could potentially become a backrooms level
somewhat loud background musak
I think its volume supposed to remain lower than the speaker, not competing his self and low flying aircraft
(theres always one)
There was no chance of me arguing for this tank, but I loved the History. Thank YOu Chieftan.
'Crunchies'...
I just noticed the movie projector with the top reel rotating, but no film. Nice prop!
All I need to know about the Char B1 is that it was a magnificent landship!
Always an Outstanding video and presentation.
Thanks Nick! Loved the final "thing to know" about the B1. Just imagine if the French had equipped it with a decent 3 man turret with the 47mm, a good coax, adequate vision, workable radios and hatches - And they had developed a truly workable doctrine to use the tanks they had. Hmmmm. Yep, and if pigs could have flown, too, huh?
Are you sugesting that pigs can`t fly?
@@mathewritchie Only with the assistance of rocket engines 🚀 , trebuchets, explosives 💣💣💥, or some similar artificial means (or natural means like a tornado 🌪🌪 or hurricane 🌀) may they fly. 🐖🐖🤣🤣
@@libertycosworth8675 Nothing flies without an assist...even gliders.
@@hoodoo2001 Ok??🙄🤷♂ And tell me something else that wasn't obvious. The purpose of this comment was ________?
So what your saying is 'if they had built an entirely different tank that was better they'd have built a better tank'?
With the greatest respect to you, Nicholas, I am worried that WG will be scratching around for their next hairbrained scheme and look at this video and say Hallelujah.
A new branch in the French tech tree made up of less than blueprint tanks.
All that aside, thank you for the as always informative and well researched video.
Oh my gawd, Chieftain did you just quote Star Trekkin at 5:23?!?!?
Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
@TheChieftainsHatch Love it, good sir!!!
What would Warhammer 40K be without French tank designs?
So... the phrase " ...bloody French tanks!?!" is actually accurate.
I'd still disagree. One on one against any Axis tank of 1940 ...with equally trained crews, the B1 would come out on top almost every time. It was designed to have a radio ... it's the fault of the French High Command that most French tanks did not have radios. Vision slots were common in those days, most tanks in 1940 were pretty blind when buttoned up. A lot had better optics added over the years following 1940. The mistakes of how they were used and the mismanagement of air power/cover ...which was a major contributor to France's defeat...also falls on bad planning by the French High Command. If the French had the Panzer II, III and IV's, with few radios and ineffective air cover instead...the results would have been the same. If it had been the Germans with the B1 ...they would have been used to great effect. The Chieftain seems determined to dislike the B1. But, most of the problems he stated, aren't caused by the design of the tank ...they are caused by it's misuse and lack of forsight by the French High Command. It did have it's flaws, the one man turret and no top hatch for example... But all the tanks of 1940 had their own issues.
Oh Man you were right. !! . I needed to know more about the B1. How did I ever live without this knowledge ??? We should start an email campaign to get the B1 Ter built in !/35 scale ! Somebodies got to do it. Good to see you are not just resting on your Laurels. I think Doc Mark Felton is so envious that he didn't think of it first.
As someone old enough to have used an 8mm projector, it's a little distracting to see the one on the desk (real or cgi?) turning backwards. They feed from the top to the bottom. Sorry for the OCD outburst.
DCr and not DCR doesn't mean Division Cuirassée de Réserve but Division Cuirassé. the r was added to make the distinction with the DC Division de Cavalerie. In some books you can read DCu.
Thanks Nick.
SQUELCH.... Command and Conquer Red Alert used to have a good 'squelch' sound effect when squashing PITA GDI infantry!
Naughty naughty Zoot, lighting the beacon which just happens to be Grail shaped!
Wait, you don't think the Char B1 was at the Carmaargue... it's in France I think.
Run Away!
I'm curious about how the tank managed to run over a bunch of guys. I would have thought the tank would be slow enough for them to get out of the way, so presumably they were pinned down or boxed in or something?
According to Wikipedia, top speed off-road was roughly 20kkm (or about 12.5 miles) hour. That's a pretty intense run, about twice as fast as the average human jogs, according to Google, so, while not impossible to avoid, probably quite a bit faster than you were imagining it :)
I'd guess that if you're loaded down with combat gear ()rifle, ammo, etcetera'), that's probably a full-on sprint.
It ran its tread through a ditch full of troops taking shelter from the tank firing at them.
It’s the sort of thing that can only happen when troops have never faced tanks before.
Narrow street, wide tank, bunch of guys packed together, heavy tank, bunch of guys caked together
Fun fact, running over someone in a tank is an actual command tank commander can give to the driver in finnish tank companies
Great Video my Friend
Early tank design: Alright, do you want a tank or a battleship?
Military: YES!
When are we getting more french mediums? Or maybe french super heavies?
Someday they will put in dual gun use, and we'll see a whole stash of designs. Wot development has always been a little slow compared to expectations. Myself. I'll be back in 3 years to check on the game.
no super heavy cuz french never had the concept of Super-heavies, like except stupid prototype that look like a giant WW1 tank of course
We already have two French medium lines. Not sure there is enough for a 3rd line. France never made a super heavy, now did they have plans for any.
@Krogahn have you played wot recently? It's full of completely fictional designs.
@Stuka87 France does not have 2 medium lines, it has 2 light lines.
It has 3 mediums in the tech tree, not even a single complete line. 1 of them starts the heavy line, the other 2 branch off the 1 light line at the end.
I can only imagine the brown trails leading out of town when those German soliders saw what they saw. "Hey Fritz, is that Fred's head going round and round on those tracks?"......lol
My "interesting" fact: I stayed in the Alsatian village of Ricquewihr on my vacation last year. Very nice.
Many thanks for the video. There is a controversy regarding the DCr name. Many argue that it does not mean Division Cuirassée de Réserve but Division Cuirassée. The small r being here to not call the DCr division DC which was the name of the cavalry divisions in the French army.
Nice video .
Whoever did the music on this deserves the Sonne treatment.
No doubt after the battle, Lt. Domercq spent considerable time attempting to find the equivalent of tank track dental floss with which to remove said ghastly remains. Le Pu indeed.
@@Oppen1945
well what can we say, this guy is on track for a good comedy night.
Id love to see a vid on the churchill tanks. Or matildas
Driver, tracks, troops. Drive and adjust. Yeah. IIRC there were a couple of Stuarts that did a follow on to that v the Chinese on a beach in Taiwan circa late 40s early 50s.
Does the end of the Saddam Line count as an equivalent?
One of my faves!
I have a rare book "B1 at fight" (500 produce only) and I know well this tank, also when B1 was in service germany was only building the Panzer 1 only.
The Panzer II entered service in 1935, same year as the original Char B1.
@@Stuka87 Sure let's go to panzer 2 , it is the difference between France and germany, in 1935 few PZII and a bunch of PZI against B1 tanks.....
@@Stuka87 except neither Pz.I nor Pz.II were tanks. They are counted as a tanks to not to show all historian, military historian and so called experts as complete nuts when they talk about fictional blitzkrieg and so on - and suddenly being asked, how is something like that possible when Germany had had nearly no tanks.
At the time, Germany was building a real tank doctrine and a real tank army using Panzer 1 _training_ tanks.
Panzers 3 and 4 were fully envisioned by 1934.
@@Conserpov Sure France was still in a trench warfare mentality and with maginot line was organising it.
I love these
I still have to question the final design; did nobody spot the glaring weak point that was the air vent on the left flank?
He should have been called the 'Rouleau à pâtisserie des heures'.
The 'Rolling Pin of Stonne'
☮
I think the B1 is a case of a well made, hopelessly obsolete upon completion tank. I mean, for all of it's shortcomings, I don't think any of it has to do with build quality, or how it was to be put together. For it's time, it was reasonably well armored, and had a good enough bit of firepower. But that's kind of where all the good stops. After that, you are looking at a tank with very little realistic proposition to be upgraded later on due to the ludicrously small turret ring for the weight of the tank, a tank that requires a stupid amount of fuel compared to the combat effectiveness that it can bring to bear. A tank that is an absolute manpower hog, in a nation that is facing a population decline. A tank where the big 75mm, can only really be called effective against thin walled structures, or other lightly protected completely fixed emplacements. And while these compromises could be made due to it being a product of it's original development time, that being in the 1920s, by the 1930s, when it would finally be produced, there were already many real world examples of conflicts that could prove that this tank simply would not be effective in anything modern. Yet, the french stuck with it, because the french simply wanted what could be bought for a reasonable enough price. And, I think that is the major failing of the French in WW2. Their leadership just didn't study what was changing in other wars to the same extent as the british, or the germans. They stuck with a modified plan for what won in the first world war, that being large networks of static defenses, and slow moving, cheaply made tanks that had more of a focus on being able to fit pre-existing parts from their WW1 surplus, than if they could be made well for a modern engagement. Even their 'best' tank, the S35, really only had the structure in the hull for the gun that was in place. Which, yes, likely could have remained effective in the pacific war, but in Europe, most nations in Europe had to up-armor, and up-gun their tanks. And based on the pre-existing chassis in the french army, I simply don't think that could've been possible even if they didn't fall as quickly as they did. So, they would either be stuck with the 47mm gun, until getting lend lease crusaders, valentines, and shermans, or, they'd have to develop an entirely new platform, in a war even larger than the last, on their soil, against three major powers. And, there's nothing wrong with lend lease, many nations used it, but I believe that it is more of a statement on how unprepared the french leadership was for this new war, that their only real path to getting the proper equipment they needed, was to hold out long enough for the British, or Americans to pick up war production of better equipment for them.
Lieutenant Domercq: "DRIVE ME CLOSER! I WANT TO HIT THEM WITH MY SWORD!"
Appreciated the tank encyclopedia easter egg.
This is such a cool tank
They were in action in 1944 by the Germans around Arnhem meeting Airborne forces towed 6 Pounders.
The Char B1 was at the very least the equal of anything the Germans were fielding in 1940. There just weren't enough of them and they weren't properly utilized, but that's the fault of the French command.
Char-B sounds something likes it could be a wine or a hip-hop singer . Who knows… maybe we might be able to slip this into a casual dinner conversation.
I see people praise this tank, and despise this tank. I've seen people say it's one of the worst tanks of the war, or the best early war tank. The conclusion I came to after my own research and odd infatuation with this 40k looking tank, is that of all the tanks ever created, the Char B1 is one of them.
That seems like a very definitive conclusion. Are you sure you're going to stand by it?
@@TheChieftainsHatch I’m pretty sure I am. I’m an idiot though, so what do I know? Lol.
Honestly, I think I love this thing so much because it’s a polarizing oddity.
Great Green Screen
Ian of Forgotten Weapons: “the French copy no one, and no one copies the French.”
But all did copy the french with the smokeless powder in WW1, and seems that the Mauser Gewehr 43 was inspired from the MAS 1940 prototype+ the FG42 did use the MAS 39 bayonet...US did more or less copy the french 155mm long range artillery :the "long tom" was based on the WW1 155mm longue portée Filloux who was adopted from the US army after ww1, same thing with the Renault FT tank, and the WW2 Sherman was inspired from the Somua S35 tank...
@@leneanderthalieneveryone copied from the French in WW1. By WW2 they were very far behind everyone but they were to proud to copy what worked.
THKS
What is that cursed thing on the thumbnail with what looks like the late T-34/76 turret (or at least the gun mantlet looks vaguely Soviet)?
Richtig cooles Teil! Vll kann ich ihn nir sogar leisten, immerhin hab ich unter anderem 22500 anleihen angespart. Um welche Uhrzeit kommt der raus?
I wonder if the Char B had any influence with the tanks in WarHammer?
Cause it really does look like it came straight out of that game.
The Land Raider is basically a British Mark IV from WWI that’s been scaled up to the size of a small house.
Does the film projector on his desk ever run out of film?
There are like 7 possible tanks here that could be in tiers 4-7, and
I think they're already in WH40K
The Char B1 was a superb, advanced tank...
...In 1930...
...In 1940, not so much.
Still well armoured but in practically every other area, sorely lacking.
Tiny turret
Crazy refuelling system
Abysmal crew ergonomics
Radio, what radio?
Background music. Why?
Upvote for sure
Hmm, Treaty Cruisers.....some might say that the RN Hawkins Class set the standard for the Treaty Cruisers.
Who are you guys trying to fool with that weird thumbnail?
the ARL-44 was an amazing tank, it was truly fantastic!
for 1930.... it was just a little late.
Would the Char B 1 be more effective if the 75mm was mounted higher?
Yes but the turret was far too small.
@@MrWolfstar8 also the 75mm was a low velocity gun. Wouldve basically been a fat pz IV
The Char B served as inspiration for the Swedish S-tank because of its double differential steering being able to accurately point the gun. The Swedes added a hydropneumatic suspension to control elevation. In my View deletion of the 37mm turret and its replacement with a simple MG turret with better ergonmics while the 75mm gun was enlarged for the AT role would have been best outcome.
@@williamzk9083 pretty sure the Stug was the inspiration for the S tank.
@@williamzk9083the hull 75mm would have been absolute garbage for anything that moves. It is for a reason, meant for bunkers.
Peaceniks and beatniks always fail to understand that peace cost money in order to protect it.
As a kid, I wanted to be a Tanker...then I served 30 years in the USAF.
A fascinating tale of messed-up logistics. Still no answer to whether a properly organized unit of Char B1 in sufficient number could have stopped German armored nits coming through the Ardenne.
Nope
With hindsight how would you have used Allied Forces? A "what if" scenario. :)
The CharB was the best tank of ww2.
Good
I can just see Ian McCollum getting all worked up about another french item to swoon over 😉
#4 seems very much like a Wargaming thing/"fact" to mention; there were paper projects of further development of this tank...!
The fact is that besides the two sunk with the ship, none of these ever existed off paper, yes?
I assume WG also made a French "paper warship" from this fact.
What my ears heard "the b2 was the best tank of WW2" .... wait a sec, hold up.. rewind.. enhance "the b2 was the best tank, from the 1920, to see combat during WW2". Ok.. I'll buy that. :)
But this leaves me with a question for OP. Is there a better 1920's tank that DIDN'T see combat during ww2? Or, what 1920's tank would you consider better than the b2?
I just stared the video and don't know if you point it out but many times the saying is true:
"The French copy nobody, and nobody copies the French"
Dear WG can you buff the IS tier 7 tank for the aiming time please, there's no way IS to fight the higher tier tank for that aiming time
The Butcher of Stonne sounds metal AF.
A procurement process so slow it wouldn't be out of place in the 2000s
Could do without the distracting background music.
More Chieftain time :)
Nicholas, do Americans know what calvados is ?
Char B1 vs M3 Lee?
open question to all, if the French had gone for 2 x man turrets would that have increased combat effectiveness enough to impact the fighting on the ground? Can we say 1 man turrets (mostly) = fall of France?
This is too much of a simplification, but 2-man turrets would certainly improve the B1's performance. Ultimately though, issues with doctrine and command, including the lack of radio equipment for the tanks, meant that France would've fallen anyway.
If all of those issues were addressed along with 2-man turrets, then things may have been different. But the 1-man turrets aren't significant enough to carry the blame for the fall of France on their own.
While I suspect it would help. The fall of France seems to me as more of a failure of French command structure than a failure of French combat troops (see the slow response to the breakthrough at Sedan)
@@jakemonkey7 remember, British and French recon aircraft spotted the German tanks driving through the Ardennes, but when they told command about it they said they must be mistaken because no one would be stupid enough to do that.
@@nikoclesceri2267 The French had wargamed the exact situation and some genius actually broke through the Ardennes. The region around Sedan was thus given a bit of care and quite fortified with field fortifications and MG bunkers. But they couldn't get all rear positions ready, so when the first line fell, there was no second defensive line to rally behind. Initially both French divisions put up quite the fight although only being "second tier". If it wasn't for a German combat engineer NCO to take matters in his own hands and clear some French bunkers, the German divisions would have had serious issues concerning their timetable and the French might have brought up reserves in time.
Before "Operation Overlord", a German staff officer successfully "landed" in Normandy during a wargaming simulation and we all know how that story went.
The Char B was a design started in 1919 so it had that mentality and technology of 1919. The Panzer I and even Panzer II were either interim training tanks or the best they could manufacture. However the Germans had built several "concept tanks" in the 1930s (Grosstraktor, the Neubaufahrzeug and Rheinmetall’s Begleitwagenand) and tested them in exercises and came to the conclusion that multi turret tanks were no good and that 3 man turrets were. The Germans did their homework.
The receipt quote at 4:50 is unfortunate
I'm sure I heard somewhere that the French devised a special fuel specially and solely for tanks. It was probably Wikipedia, or a wise man down the pub.
If so, that’s funny. German tanks filled up in French gas stations all the way to Dunkirk.
Is it really a 1920s tank though? This all sounds a lot like production and even much of the design work happened in the 1930s.
On paper it seems to check all the boxes. The reality of crew layout and tasking showed how bad it was. Armor thickness, speed, or gun penetration becoming outdated over a decade of development is understandable. Look how fast and far aircraft advances happened in the same period. But functionality? It's as if no one ever really tried it out beyond driving it around a factory test track. Only a four man crew, a morse code radio, one man turret, driver as gunner etc. all seem obviously ineffective. That's not just hindsight. An argument can be made that war was looming creating a crisis, but again over a decade of development. I'm sure they told themselves there were "reasons" for this or that, but they sure weren't good ones.
I'm out of calvados but I have some pommeau de normandie on hand.
OK, you're sending me to google. Is that just Calvados under a regional name?
sorry, music is too loud
theres no sleep when someones wrong on the interwebs.
Could do without the music blasting out.
Intro❤ Muhuhehe
The B1 should have been left Bhind, B4 the war started!
Considering the B1 maximum speed was 28km/h (17mph) on road, I find it suspicious that some German troops somehow let themselves surprise and run over, and that in broad daylight.
28km/h isn't crazy slow. Usain Bolt's top speed is around 40 km/h and he holds several world records; commonly considered the best sprinter in the world.
Sure, you could probably avoid being run over by a B1 in ideal circumstances, but I think being just moderately unlucky might put you in a seriously bad spot as an infantry-man trying to run away from a b1 at close range.
They were taking shelter in a ditch instead of running.
They were probably asleep after some days without rest. And who would believe a sentry telling you that there is a working French tank attacking ?
1:35 "The idea was to take the best features of all prototypes and blend them together" - And THIS is the result? This is just so French.. or maybe just so army in general.
6 Years from design proposals to production prototype. Yikes. So it was a mid-20s design concept that wasn't operational until 13 years later. Obsolete much? Well, at least that is still faster than the development time for modern European weapons.
Ehh. I found the “NEED” excessive. I mean. Ok. Remind me of all this next time I run into one.
A tank that spent linger in active service with germany than france.
I never really understood how tanks were supposed to just run over infantry soldiers. You would think they could be dodged or avoided and not just stand there and get squashed. Seems more likely to me that dead and wounded men were run over. Maybe a few that were pinned down by machine gun fire and unable to move.
Dodging into dugouts is also fatal in an over run situation.
Didn't the B1 inspired the design of the M3 Lee/Grant?
It was a common design idea for tanks at the time in the infantry support role. In practice it turned out to be an awful idea.
No, it was a non battle tested concept