It shoud run on the 1940 90-octane leaded aviation fuel.... maybe Saumur museum doesn't have an equivallent. This B1 doesn't have a complete exhaust system : the fishtail muffler is absent.
That's gasoline burning in the mufflers. Besides the obvious thoughts about the carburetor, I wonder if a 1930's engine has problems burning modern gasoline?
@@TAMEREDUDESERT Oh. Nevertheless, the fact that they have so many in running condition is quite impressive! I for one never would’ve expected to see a fully restored Char B1.
It shoud run on the 1940 90-octane leaded aviation fuel.... maybe Saumur museum doesn't have an equivallent. This B1 doesn't have a complete exhaust system : the fishtail muffler is absent.
That had a Char B1 at tank days. It slobbered and blew flames too. I don't think this is the same tank, but if it isn't they all seem to run rich as hell. What does it have for a carb, a funnel and a hose? On the battlefield those two foot flames might be a drawback. Oh sure they look bad ass but they kinda draw the opposing gunner's eye.
Un modèle de char avec des équipages courageux... Il fut copié par les américains avec le Lee puis le Sherman Même les russes avec le t34 _ 85.. S'inspirant de ce modèle La critique est facile avec une tourelle monoplace... Mais il fut universellement copie et améliorer... Au dépants... des allemands..et de leurs chars..eux aussi...avec de gros soucis... majeures
En réalité c'est le SOMUA S35 qui a été la base de la conception du Sherman et en effet, les chars allemands de 1940 étaient largement inférieurs au B1b et au Somua S35 en blindage et puissance de feu, mais ils avaient l'avantage du nombre , de la doctrine d'utilisation, de la communication efficace et d'une tourelle permettant d'alléger la charge de travail du chef de char et d'augmenter la cadence de tir...
Not really, the Germans feared them....only the 88 AA had much of a chance of taking one out. The French high command misused their tank force...spreading it out rather than concentrating them like the Panzers. That was the main reason for the Allied defeat in 1940. Remember, the Germans weren't just fighting the French...the British were also there, along with the Dutch and the Belgians...the Germans beat them all, for several reasons...mostly that of armored spearheads.
@@peng1965a Bla bla bla... French army has 7 armored division, two of them grouped in an armored corps since 1936-37. The 10th of may 1940, 40% of the french tanks (the "best" of them) are in divisions. The rest is useless in large units because small slow and infatry tanks. So: - The french high command wasn't stupid and REGROUPED the tanks. It's obvious, it's easy to see in 10 minutes that the statement "French dispersed their tanks" is wrong. - What was wrong in the french armored force was the tank themselves. Even regrouped in large units and with decent support, it's impossible to win any battle with such bad tanks. - In order of importance to determine a "good" tank: C3I - Mobility - Weapon - Armor. French tanks has in the order: Armor -Weapon - Mobility - C3I, the exact opposite. And for more the function "weapon" is bad served., the mobility and C3I are just bad. You are saying like too many people, again and again and again this old fake "truth" about this campaign. "French army was good, french tanks were good, but they lost because th stupids french generals made 1000 pool of 3 when the germans made 3 pool of 1000" It's a fairy tale made by the politicians in the 50' to put their responsabilities on the military staff. The high command is the perfect scapegoat because of Gamelin. Only him and a few of generals were bad, Vuilemnin was really senile because of alzheimer desease, in general the french high command is good. Flavigny was a tank specialist, Corap was a modern general who believed in massive tank units. De Gaulle published some books. The bad preparation of the french army is the responsability of the politicians, not the high command. Bad french generals like Gamelin were in charge only because of politicians desires. Almost all the french officers asked to Corap to replace Gamelin at the head of the army. Politicians never replaced Gamelin because he was a perfect courtier. The high command was in the business for 20 years, saw all the technological developments, all strategic inovations, saw the great trainings of foreign country (like in 1935 in Urss when the world decovered the paratroopers) all diplomatic evolutions etc. They asked for a new strategic way for 15 years. It's always the politicians that only said "the strategy is Maginot Line and small heavily armored tanks" and kept the dummy Gamelin in place. I defend the french high command but I think Gamelin should have commit suicide in august 1940, he didn't so prooves that he was a crap of man.
you are an idiot... this tank was very successfull during battle of France and captured and modified B1b's was use from the nazis up to end the war, inclusive in Russia...
@@leneanderthalien Don't say that people are idiot when you say not more clever things.. The B1 bis was a BAD tank, not succefully at all during battle of France and used by the nazis only as a second line tank because this tank was useless on the front line. It served as flamethrower to burn villages and civilians during anti-partisan operations... A good tank would have been used in a different way.
It's incredible that today, after all the historic research, all the publications, all the time passed since the events of 1940, some people still believe that it was a good tank. C'est incroyable qu'aujourd'hui, après toutes les recherches historiques, après toutes les publications, après tout le temps passé depuis les évènements, des personnes croient encore que c'était un bon char.
@@inerttech2570 Je parle de recherches historiques, donc je sous entends que j'ai lu des trucs. Et tu n'as rien d'autre a répondre que "Bataille de Stonne" ? Pourquoi les français n'ont rien d'autre a dire que "Stonne". Ces 6 lettres vous font frétiller ? Ce n'est pas une formule magique, dire "Bataille de Stonne" ne transforme pas par magie le mauvais B1 bis en bon char. Développe un peu qu'on ai de la matière plutot que lancer "Stonne", car chez moi c'est marrant mais "Stonne" ça me dit 33 épaves de chars français et 24 épaves de chars allemands. Hum... attends, laisse moi deviner, je vais essayer de trouver pourquoi tu m'as lancé "Stonne"... Ah oui, je te vois arriver gros comme une maison, allez, je parie le salaire de ce mois ci: le B1 bis Eure de Billotte qui a fait UN EXPLOIT ISOLE DANS LE TEMPS ET DANS L'ESPACE. Et je parie un autre salaire que ton premier argument serait le blindage, l'élément défensif et passif qui est l'élément le moins important sur un char. J'en connais aussi des noms de ville françaises: Abbeville, Montcornet, Crecy sur Serre. Mêmes une ville belge: Flavion... C'est-y pas drole ça ? Eh ben, ces villes me font penser qu'en règle générale, le B1 bis ne fait rien d'efficace pour gagner une bataille et encore moins gagner la guerre. Un char ça sert a quoi ? "Amener sur le champ de bataille une pièce d'artillerie sous blindage" Tu as dans l'ordre les 4 éléments qui font un bon char: C3i, Mobilité, (amener sur le champ de bataille), armement (une pièce d'artillerie) , blindage (sous blindage) Les chars français, B1 bis en particulier, ont exactement l'ordre inverse: un bon blindage, un canon moyen/bon, une mobilité minable et pas de C3i. Pour gagner une bataille le B1 bis c'est zero. On ne gagne pas des batailles en étant indestructible dans un rayon de quelques kilomètres carrés et en étant insatiable en carburant
The french measure success in terms of how many baguettes it can carry at once. Therefore, bar the TOG II and the Maus, this thing was one of the best of the time.
@@bleachigo783 Et encore PERSONNE n'a réussi a me donner des arguments, des sources ou des noms d'historiens, juste de l'attaque personnelle, comme toi. VOUS etes MALHONNETES, ya pas d'autre mot. Ma famille est française depuis le XVIe siècle, les chiffres de mon pseudo veulent dire que mon arrière grand père était artilleur au 101e RAL en 1917-18. Cité a l'ordre de l'armée pendant la 2e bataille de la Marne. Alors, tu as des arguments ou que de l'insulte ?
@@bleachigo783 Et oui je serais partout pour pourrir les vidéos des français malhonnetes qui falsifient l'histoire et qui dénaturent le sacrifie des soldats français jetés dans une bataille sans espoir.
Your Lamborghini Huracan does backfires and haz glowing egzaust pipes?! Honhonhon! Gaston! Bring ze B1!!!
😂😂
Look like an engine with very late ignition or running really rich.
Wonderful machine and excellent images.
The French like their fuel as rich as their food. ;)
l337pwnage Good point there sir! ;3 👌
It shoud run on the 1940 90-octane leaded aviation fuel.... maybe Saumur museum doesn't have an equivallent. This B1 doesn't have a complete exhaust system : the fishtail muffler is absent.
@@l337pwnage Come and try our food before talking ;)
Char B1 is so odd, that it still looks cool.
When I read the title, I thought that it had broke down whilst moving into the building
Nope
Just some hot baguettes
Wow finally I find a great channel that uploads constantly !! I'll be Dammed I didn't think there was a Surviving B1 That Ran... Wish the ARL-44 Did.
+82 Diesel thanks!
That's gasoline burning in the mufflers. Besides the obvious thoughts about the carburetor, I wonder if a 1930's engine has problems burning modern gasoline?
This is some serious backfiring!
Looks like something FROM warhammer dude!
I mean they did base off the designs of wh40k tanks off ww2 tanks
@@crusadertachanka5883El famoso Leman russ🤘
ARL 44 = Leman Russ
Bonjour du Canada At.3:01 you see clearly the radiator gril on the left side the
german shoot there with her anti-tank gun this it's disabled the tank
Very interesting information sir!
Could you run that by me again? My video quality is shit.
Fantastic and cool tank.
The exhaust manifold is hotter than hell
Most excellent video👍
ahhhh, the v12 engine of the b1, sooo good. Also, better backfire than an sportscar.
6 cylinders!
Wow, it really sounds like a 12 cylinder, anyway. Good video!
Is everything that the Saumur Museum has in running condition? If so, that’s amazing!
Not everything but they have more than 200 running vehicles out of the 800 they have
@@TAMEREDUDESERT Oh. Nevertheless, the fact that they have so many in running condition is quite impressive! I for one never would’ve expected to see a fully restored Char B1.
@@josiahricafrente585 indeed it's impressiv, they have I think 4 char b in total and one is a recovery and mine cleaning variant, very rare
It shoud run on the 1940 90-octane leaded aviation fuel.... maybe Saumur museum doesn't have an equivallent. This B1 doesn't have a complete exhaust system : the fishtail muffler is absent.
What skill from the driver! I’m sure they didn’t train to drive into exhibition halls?!
Fix le tank, before it goes in le museum!😊
le ha ha
That had a Char B1 at tank days. It slobbered and blew flames too. I don't think this is the same tank, but if it isn't they all seem to run rich as hell. What does it have for a carb, a funnel and a hose? On the battlefield those two foot flames might be a drawback. Oh sure they look bad ass but they kinda draw the opposing gunner's eye.
you hear it before you see it and at the time the fights were mostly done during the day
and y'all thought your shitty 2000hp supra has nice backfires
Un modèle de char avec des équipages courageux...
Il fut copié par les américains avec le Lee puis le Sherman
Même les russes avec le t34 _
85..
S'inspirant de ce modèle
La critique est facile avec une tourelle monoplace...
Mais il fut universellement copie et améliorer...
Au dépants... des allemands..et de leurs chars..eux aussi...avec de gros soucis... majeures
En réalité c'est le SOMUA S35 qui a été la base de la conception du Sherman et en effet, les chars allemands de 1940 étaient largement inférieurs au B1b et au Somua S35 en blindage et puissance de feu, mais ils avaient l'avantage du nombre , de la doctrine d'utilisation, de la communication efficace et d'une tourelle permettant d'alléger la charge de travail du chef de char et d'augmenter la cadence de tir...
Tune it!!!!!
flip i would not like to be taking cover behind that when being under fire from the germans
Fuel pressures very high on that with no auto choke haha timing could be out too that shouldn't be heating up n shooting flames like that
Man, those are not tank exhaust, these are frickin jet engine! 😂😂😂
Char b1 antilag
Neat.
Turbo booster!
B1 Flandres ?
No this one is called "Rhin" or Rhine in english
man it's like about to burn its engine
Timing is way out and the gas is turned up to high in the carburetor
It defiantly backfired on the French in the battle of France. Ha!
Dale Partoon we just cant get enough of this jokes...hahaha
It sure did.
Not really, the Germans feared them....only the 88 AA had much of a chance of taking one out. The French high command misused their tank force...spreading it out rather than concentrating them like the Panzers. That was the main reason for the Allied defeat in 1940. Remember, the Germans weren't just fighting the French...the British were also there, along with the Dutch and the Belgians...the Germans beat them all, for several reasons...mostly that of armored spearheads.
@@peng1965a Bla bla bla... French army has 7 armored division, two of them grouped in an armored corps since 1936-37. The 10th of may 1940, 40% of the french tanks (the "best" of them) are in divisions. The rest is useless in large units because small slow and infatry tanks. So:
- The french high command wasn't stupid and REGROUPED the tanks. It's obvious, it's easy to see in 10 minutes that the statement "French dispersed their tanks" is wrong.
- What was wrong in the french armored force was the tank themselves. Even regrouped in large units and with decent support, it's impossible to win any battle with such bad tanks.
- In order of importance to determine a "good" tank: C3I - Mobility - Weapon - Armor. French tanks has in the order: Armor -Weapon - Mobility - C3I, the exact opposite. And for more the function "weapon" is bad served., the mobility and C3I are just bad.
You are saying like too many people, again and again and again this old fake "truth" about this campaign. "French army was good, french tanks were good, but they lost because th stupids french generals made 1000 pool of 3 when the germans made 3 pool of 1000"
It's a fairy tale made by the politicians in the 50' to put their responsabilities on the military staff.
The high command is the perfect scapegoat because of Gamelin.
Only him and a few of generals were bad, Vuilemnin was really senile because of alzheimer desease, in general the french high command is good. Flavigny was a tank specialist, Corap was a modern general who believed in massive tank units. De Gaulle published some books.
The bad preparation of the french army is the responsability of the politicians, not the high command. Bad french generals like Gamelin were in charge only because of politicians desires. Almost all the french officers asked to Corap to replace Gamelin at the head of the army. Politicians never replaced Gamelin because he was a perfect courtier.
The high command was in the business for 20 years, saw all the technological developments, all strategic inovations, saw the great trainings of foreign country (like in 1935 in Urss when the world decovered the paratroopers) all diplomatic evolutions etc. They asked for a new strategic way for 15 years. It's always the politicians that only said "the strategy is Maginot Line and small heavily armored tanks" and kept the dummy Gamelin in place.
I defend the french high command but I think Gamelin should have commit suicide in august 1940, he didn't so prooves that he was a crap of man.
It had the same problem of the t34-76 : a commander-gunner.
she's running rich i think
Da miedo parece un Leman russ de warhammer💀
the man who tuned that engine needs to retire, timming is off by 4859 degrees !
Naeder steering mechanizm !
Better than 2JZ lol
ruclips.net/video/hCQfWjvGSY4/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/QENs0ebQyXk/видео.html
Охуительно!!!!
The French need to see the road when they're retreating .
icy2527 well if you have a b1 there is no reason to retreat from anything
@@Loup-mx7yt B1 bis spent more time on retreat than on attack.............
Not funny
Fun Fact: It has the fastest reverse gear of any WWII tank.
you are an idiot... this tank was very successfull during battle of France and captured and modified B1b's was use from the nazis up to end the war, inclusive in Russia...
wooooosh...
leneanderthalien "very successful"! Lol...
Actually it could only go 4 km/h in backward
@@leneanderthalien Don't say that people are idiot when you say not more clever things..
The B1 bis was a BAD tank, not succefully at all during battle of France and used by the nazis only as a second line tank because this tank was useless on the front line. It served as flamethrower to burn villages and civilians during anti-partisan operations... A good tank would have been used in a different way.
It's incredible that today, after all the historic research, all the publications, all the time passed since the events of 1940, some people still believe that it was a good tank.
C'est incroyable qu'aujourd'hui, après toutes les recherches historiques, après toutes les publications, après tout le temps passé depuis les évènements, des personnes croient encore que c'était un bon char.
@@inerttech2570 Je parle de recherches historiques, donc je sous entends que j'ai lu des trucs. Et tu n'as rien d'autre a répondre que "Bataille de Stonne" ? Pourquoi les français n'ont rien d'autre a dire que "Stonne". Ces 6 lettres vous font frétiller ?
Ce n'est pas une formule magique, dire "Bataille de Stonne" ne transforme pas par magie le mauvais B1 bis en bon char.
Développe un peu qu'on ai de la matière plutot que lancer "Stonne", car chez moi c'est marrant mais "Stonne" ça me dit 33 épaves de chars français et 24 épaves de chars allemands.
Hum... attends, laisse moi deviner, je vais essayer de trouver pourquoi tu m'as lancé "Stonne"... Ah oui, je te vois arriver gros comme une maison, allez, je parie le salaire de ce mois ci: le B1 bis Eure de Billotte qui a fait UN EXPLOIT ISOLE DANS LE TEMPS ET DANS L'ESPACE.
Et je parie un autre salaire que ton premier argument serait le blindage, l'élément défensif et passif qui est l'élément le moins important sur un char.
J'en connais aussi des noms de ville françaises: Abbeville, Montcornet, Crecy sur Serre. Mêmes une ville belge: Flavion... C'est-y pas drole ça ? Eh ben, ces villes me font penser qu'en règle générale, le B1 bis ne fait rien d'efficace pour gagner une bataille et encore moins gagner la guerre.
Un char ça sert a quoi ? "Amener sur le champ de bataille une pièce d'artillerie sous blindage"
Tu as dans l'ordre les 4 éléments qui font un bon char: C3i, Mobilité, (amener sur le champ de bataille), armement (une pièce d'artillerie) , blindage (sous blindage)
Les chars français, B1 bis en particulier, ont exactement l'ordre inverse: un bon blindage, un canon moyen/bon, une mobilité minable et pas de C3i.
Pour gagner une bataille le B1 bis c'est zero. On ne gagne pas des batailles en étant indestructible dans un rayon de quelques kilomètres carrés et en étant insatiable en carburant
The french measure success in terms of how many baguettes it can carry at once. Therefore, bar the TOG II and the Maus, this thing was one of the best of the time.
T'es partout pour dire de la merde c'est incroyable tu dois être belge à ce stade c'est pas possible
@@bleachigo783 Et encore PERSONNE n'a réussi a me donner des arguments, des sources ou des noms d'historiens, juste de l'attaque personnelle, comme toi. VOUS etes MALHONNETES, ya pas d'autre mot.
Ma famille est française depuis le XVIe siècle, les chiffres de mon pseudo veulent dire que mon arrière grand père était artilleur au 101e RAL en 1917-18. Cité a l'ordre de l'armée pendant la 2e bataille de la Marne.
Alors, tu as des arguments ou que de l'insulte ?
@@bleachigo783 Et oui je serais partout pour pourrir les vidéos des français malhonnetes qui falsifient l'histoire et qui dénaturent le sacrifie des soldats français jetés dans une bataille sans espoir.