|
Posted on 12/13/2004 11:41:50 PM PST by SAMWolf
|
|
 are acknowledged, affirmed and commemorated.
|
| Our Mission: The FReeper Foxhole is dedicated to Veterans of our Nation's military forces and to others who are affected in their relationships with Veterans. In the FReeper Foxhole, Veterans or their family members should feel free to address their specific circumstances or whatever issues concern them in an atmosphere of peace, understanding, brotherhood and support. The FReeper Foxhole hopes to share with it's readers an open forum where we can learn about and discuss military history, military news and other topics of concern or interest to our readers be they Veteran's, Current Duty or anyone interested in what we have to offer. If the Foxhole makes someone appreciate, even a little, what others have sacrificed for us, then it has accomplished one of it's missions. We hope the Foxhole in some small way helps us to remember and honor those who came before us.
|
 As The First World War drew to a close and the Treaty of Versailles was signed, apart from a few British built Mk V tanks, the only other tanks in French service that were serviceable were small Renault FT-17 vehicles which were available in large quantities. The end to hostilities stopped all French tank production dead in its tracks even though a new type of heavy tank, the Char 2C, was designed and manufactured to provide the necessary ‘break-through’ during an offensive planned for the Spring of 1919. General J E Estienne, often considered to be the ‘father’ of the French tank force (Artillerie d’Assault), continued to promote the tank as a potentially decisive battlefield winning weapon if used in large enough quantities. Unfortunately, although he was put in charge of armoured fighting vehicle technical development at the Section Technique des Chars de Combat, French military hierarchy considered tanks as support for infantry formations only. Undaunted, in July 1920, an instruction was issued calling for the development of a wide variety of tanks. The instruction, obviously influenced by General J E Estienne, was extremely imaginative, wide and far-reaching. It described everything from light machine-gun armed reconnaissance vehicles to heavy ‘break-through’ type tanks along with assault type mobile artillery machines armed with long range howitzers and certain ‘special’ vehicles used for trench and obstacle crossing, wireless relay, supply and some that even mounted search-lights. It was the first attempt in history to create a completely mechanised assault force.  Char B1 prototype (Note the two turret mounted machine guns) Unfortunately General Estienne’s ideas fell foul of basic French military tactical ideology and it appears he did not have the political clout or military rank to see his ideas through to fruition. As a result, in January 1921, a commission set up under the direction of a General Buat, then Chief of Staff at Army Headquarters, issued revised instructions to the army. The commission firmly established the tank as an infantry weapon and decided that only two types of tank were to be developed. A heavy or ‘break-through’ tank (char de rupture), and a light, versatile ‘battle’ tank (char de battaille). These vehicles were to be developed by and for the infantry and the tactics for their employment fell upon the lessons learned during the First World War. A char de battaille was to be designed and developed as a replacement for the Renault FT-17 series of tanks. This was to eventually mature to become known as the outstanding Char B1 series of vehicles. The initial requirement for the Char B1, as drawn up in 1921, called for a 13-ton vehicle with a maximum armour plate thickness of 25mm to be armed with a hull mounted 7.5cm gun for infantry support and two machine-guns situated in a rotating turret. Four companies were invited to build prototypes although it was under the condition that they allow the army to mix and match parts from the various vehicles that were submitted to eventually produce the best possible vehicle. The companies involved were Forges et Aciéries de la Marine et d'Homécourt (FAMH) , Forges et Chantiers de la Méditerraneée (FCM), Delaunay-Belleville and Schneider-Renault. A total of five prototypes were submitted for evaluation of which four were presented at the arsenal Atelier de Construction de Rueil (ARL) in May 1924. Schneider-Renault submitted two prototypes, the SRA and SRB.  An early Char B1 (Note the APX1 turret with short 4.7cm SA 34 cannon) The Delaunay-Belleville vehicle was virtually disregarded out of hand by the French Army during the evaluation phase. It was essentially a larger version of the Renault FT-17 and having been designed in 1920 did not meet the requirements or expectations of the army in any way shape or form. The other four prototypes were presented for evaluation during May of 1924 and thoroughly put through their paces during the following summer. The Schneider-Renault SRB was chosen as the basis for the new tank along with its steering mechanism, engine and gearbox. The suspension and running gear were taken from the FAMH designed vehicle and the tracks from the FCM prototype. In March 1925 Renault was chosen as prime contractor with Schneider, FAMH, FCM and Delaunay-Belleville providing work and components as sub-contractors. The final assembly of the vehicle was to take place at the Renault plant in Paris. The construction contract for three prototypes was finally placed with Renault on 17th January 1926. However, during 1926, the Direction de l'Infanterie, the French Army's directorate for infantry, re-assessed the role of the tank within the French armed forces. They summerised three main classes of vehicle: - Light tank – was defined as being of less than 13 tons, available in large numbers and to be simple to operate so that reservists could be quickly and easily trained in its use. It was to have a crew of two or three and it would be used in the close support of infantry formations to defeat enemy automatic weapons. It was to be armed with twin co-axial machine-guns or a 47mm gun and to be armoured against weapons carried by enemy infantry. Battle tank – was defined as being from 19 to 22 tons in weight. It was to have a crew of three or four, equipped with wireless and was to be used in concert with light tanks responsible for engaging heavier resistance as well as other enemy tanks. It was to be armed with a high-velocity gun or 7.5cm gun and to also have several machine-guns. It was to be armoured against infantry weapons of below field gun strength. Heavy tank – of up to 70 tons, for use during ‘break-through’ type engagements and also where its greater armament was required to support the infantry and the lighter tanks. The Char 2C was already in service but few in number. A total of ten were only ever produced and none were to see action during May of 1940.  Thus le char de battaille was seen as a supplement to light tanks such as the Renault R-35. The new role envisaged for this vehicle was to accompany infantry attacks, tackle enemy tanks if need be and break into enemy rearward positions. Consequently, the Direction de l'Infanterie decided that it was therefore only required in limited numbers. The real reason for this was mainly due to the fact that after the First World War there was little or no money available for new weapons development. Reparations were not forthcoming from the vanquished German invader. Politicians were apathetic to the needs of the armed forces as a whole. This attitude found support within government circles amongst those who argued, quite logically, that if the German invader was prohibited by the Treaty of Versailles from developing offensive weapons (e.g. tanks and aircraft), then why on earth should the French armed forces develop them? The French State had no wish to invade Germany. Why spend vast sums of capital expenditure on an offensive weapon that would never be needed? All of this occurred at the time when the world was still in the grip of the worst recession in living memory, the Great Depression. The French government, at the time, was already committed to pouring millions of Francs into a great ‘white elephant’ called the Maginot Line. Thus budgets for the development and production of all types of new weapons systems for the armed forces as a whole, including aircraft, ships and tanks therefore suffered greatly. Thus the requirements goal posts for the le char de battaille, although essentially the same, did move somewhat. It was now to be impervious to all infantry weapons. It was to have an average speed of approximately 15 km/h and to be armed with two machineguns in a rotating turret, two fixed machine guns in the hull and a hull mounted 7.5cm gun.  This unwarranted intervention by the Direction de l'Infanterie halted the manufacture of the three prototypes ordered in 1926 while the whole requirement specification was re-evaluated. Even though the order was re-instated during March of 1927, it was not until January 1929, nearly two years later, that the first prototypes appeared. Trials did not start until April of 1930, over a year after the first prototype rolled off the production line! Thus at least three years of critical design, development and potential manufacturing time were essentially lost mainly due to politics, budget factors and the fact that the French Army did not know what it actually needed, wanted, or even required! In 1933 the Direction de l'Infanterie further defined vehicle categories after evaluating the combined exercises carried out during 1932 and 1933 to study the use of tanks in the infantry battle. Their main effect was to set new standards in armour protection and to give a new name to the ‘battle’ tank, now classifying it as ‘medium’. However, they did not change the basic roles of the three classes. Light tank – was to be armoured against light anti-tank weapons. Medium tank – to be armoured against heavy anti-tank weapons. The Char B and Renault D were later re-classified as medium tanks, although the Char B was ostensibly known as a ‘heavy’ or char de battaille. Heavy tank - basically the Char 2C. No change. Further development and production of infantry tanks up to 1940 followed the three basic classifications above.
|
Good evening Victoria.
LOL. Good evening w over w.
LOL. This is hysterical.
Was at the hospital this morning at 6am. The spouse had to have surgery (3rd one this year). Things went a whole lot better than expected and everyone got to go home early.
ROFLMAO
Believe it or not I have one of those. For a time Dennis was into black powder guns. This is one of the ones he just had to have. Takes a 50 caliber shot.
Msdrby's dad was into gunsmithing as a hobby and a side business. This pistol was the last firearm he ever made.
I had thought about getting an inexpensive 12 or 20 guage shotgun for home defense but ran into the same problem the weight.
The arthritis in my hands really puts a damper on what I can do. I've woken lately with my right hand completely numb. It usually is just stiff, sore, and swollen knuckles.
It surprised me that I could no longer draw the slide back on my .380.
Join the Air Force - Fly the Plane Your Father Flew. ;-)
:-) I like that one too.
Prayers offered for the Spouse and the family.
A big bullet too.
Uzi's are good for home defence. ;-)
I seem to call reading that the Char B was considered a MUCH better tank than anything the Germans had at the time.
I guess this shows it's not so much what you have as how you use it.
It was the better tank, so was the Renault R35 and the Somua S-35. They weren't used properly and the Commander was over-burdened acting as gunner/loader.
Stricken from the Naval Vessel Register in July 1971, she was sold for scrapping in May 1973.
That's the part I hate.
BTTT!!!!!!
Thanks for the picture. I had had heard of the story, but did not realize that a photo existed.
Private Martin is trying to rally the retreating forces and form a rear guard. Nothing wrong with that. On the Contrary.
Dirty, tired, very cold, very smelly, and very serious. Probably would be considered "not educated" by the chairborne commandos, but such as they are not worthy to wash out Private Martin's socks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
