Free Republic
Browse · Search
VetsCoR
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The FReeper Foxhole's TreadHead Tuesday - Char de Bataille B1- Dec 14th, 2004
Tech Pubs ^ | Daren Beazley

Posted on 12/13/2004 11:41:50 PM PST by SAMWolf



Lord,

Keep our Troops forever in Your care

Give them victory over the enemy...

Grant them a safe and swift return...

Bless those who mourn the lost.
.

FReepers from the Foxhole join in prayer
for all those serving their country at this time.


.................................................................. .................... ...........................................

U.S. Military History, Current Events and Veterans Issues

Where Duty, Honor and Country
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.

To read previous Foxhole threads or
to add the Foxhole to your sidebar,
click on the books below.



Char de Bataille B1




Introduction


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.

Prototype


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.



TOPICS: VetsCoR
KEYWORDS: armor; charb1; france; freeperfoxhole; tanks; treadhead; veterans; wwii
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-133 next last
To: alfa6

LOL. It was a cute idea. She certainly has the Foxhole humor down!


41 posted on 12/14/2004 8:40:35 AM PST by snippy_about_it (Fall in --> The FReeper Foxhole. America's History. America's Soul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Professional Engineer

She's looking good! Thanks PE.


42 posted on 12/14/2004 8:41:12 AM PST by snippy_about_it (Fall in --> The FReeper Foxhole. America's History. America's Soul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SZonian

Thank you for the link to a very sad report.


43 posted on 12/14/2004 8:44:06 AM PST by snippy_about_it (Fall in --> The FReeper Foxhole. America's History. America's Soul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Comment #44 Removed by Moderator

To: SAMWolf

45 posted on 12/14/2004 9:26:01 AM PST by Grzegorz 246
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SAMWolf

Today's classic warship, USS Edwards (DD-619)

Gleaves class destroyer

Displacement. 1,630 t.
Lenght. 348'4"
Beam. 36'1"
Draft. 17'5"
Speed. 37 k.
Complement. 270
Armament. 4 6", 6 .50 cal mg, 10 21" tt., 6 dcp., 2 dct.

The USS Edwards (DD-619) was launched 19 July 1942 by Federal Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co., Kearny, N.J.; sponsored by Mrs. Edward Brayton, widow of Lieutenant Commander Edwards; and commissioned 18 September 1942, Lieutenant Commander W. L. Messmer in command.

After brief service escorting convoys along the east coast and in the Caribbean, Edwards sailed from New York 8 November 1942 to join the Pacific Fleet. She joined TF 18 at Noumea 4 January 1943, to cover a large troop convoy bound for Guadalcanal. On 29 January they were attacked by a swarm of Japanese torpedo bombers off Rennell Island. Although most were driven off by the heavy accurate fire of the ships, enough broke through to put two torpedoes into Chicago (CA-29). Edwards with four other destroyers was detached to screen the damaged cruiser. On the following day, as the group sailed for Espiritu Santo, attacks continued. The destroyers put up a stout defense, but Chicago was torpedoed again and sank. Edwards rescued 224 of the 1,049 survivors. One of the other screening destroyers, La Vallette (DD-448), was also torpedoed; Edwards saw her safely to port before rejoining her task group.

Edwards returned to Pearl Harbor 27 March 1943 for overhaul, then set sail 16 April for the Aleutians. She saw action bombarding Attu 26 April, and as antiscreen for Pennsylvania (BB-38) during the landings of 11 May. The following day she teamed with Farragut (DD-348) for a relentless 10-hour depth charge attack on a submarine which attempted to torpedo the battleship. I-35 was forced to the surface and badly damaged by Edwards' guns before diving, only to be sunk finally by Frazier (DD-607).

Edwards continued to ply stormy Aleutian waters on antisubmarine patrol. In June 1943 she joined the blockade patrol which bombarded Kiska Island 2 and 12 August, and covered the landings on the 13th. After overhaul, she returned to Espiritu Santo in October for training.

On 8 November 1943 Edwards sailed to screen carriers in air strikes on Rabaul on the 11th. A flight of Japanese planes attacked her task group at noon that day; Edwards and her companions drove off or splashed every plane before it could injure any American ship. She screened the support force at Tarawa from 19 November, then escorted transports to Pearl Harbor on route to the west coast for a brief overhaul. On 3 March 1944 she arrived at Majuro off which she patrolled as well as screening strikes on Mili Atoll in the Marshalls and in the Palaus by carriers of the mighty 6th Fleet. In April she guarded the flattops as they launched air attacks on New Guinea in coordination with the Hollandia landings. Edwards also figured in the attack on Truk of 29 and 30 April.

From 12 May to 18 August 1944 Edwards' destroyer division formed the Eastern Marshalls Patrol Group. They patrolled off the Japanese-held atolls of Mili, Jaluit, Maloelap, and Wotje to keep the enemy from receiving assistance or evacuating. On 22 May she joined Bancroft (DD-598) to put several enemy batteries on Wotje out of action. Again off Wotje 27 June she ignored shore fire to rescue downed aviators drifting toward shore.

After overhaul in Pearl Harbor in August the veteran Edwards reported arrival at San Pedro Bay, Leyte, 30 October for patrol. She joined the assault force for the landings at Ormoc 7 December. Here she splashed several of the hard hitting air attackers as well as aiding ships they had damaged. A resupply echelon to Ormoc met similar opposition but drove off the planes and got the convoy through. On 11 December, she took aboard casualties from Caldwell (DD-605), set on fire by a suicide plane.

The doughty battle-hardened Edwards remained in the Philippines, shepherding supply convoys through to Mindoro, Lingayen Gulf, Polloc Harbor, and Davao Gulf. On 9 May 1945 she arrived at Morotai to distinguish herself during the invasion of Borneo, returning to Subic Bay 12 July. She made one voyage to Iwo Jima, another to Okinawa to escort convoys, then sailed 16 September for the States. On 7 January 1946, Edwards arrived at Charleston, S.C., where she was placed out of commission in reserve 11 April 1946. USS Edwards spent the next twenty-five years in the Atlantic Reserve fleet. Stricken from the Naval Vessel Register in July 1971, she was sold for scrapping in May 1973.

Edwards received 14 battle stars for World War II service.

46 posted on 12/14/2004 9:50:55 AM PST by aomagrat (Where weapons are not allowed, it is best to carry weapons.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SAMWolf

I'm a Treadhead, she's a Treadhead, wouldn't you like to be a Treadhead too!


47 posted on 12/14/2004 10:05:36 AM PST by Professional Engineer (All wisdom is from the Lord, and with him it remains forever. ~ Ecclesiasticus 1.1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: soldierette

Cool!


48 posted on 12/14/2004 10:06:02 AM PST by Professional Engineer (All wisdom is from the Lord, and with him it remains forever. ~ Ecclesiasticus 1.1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Valin
1989 Lee Van Cleef actor (Good Bad & Ugly, Sabata), dies at 64


49 posted on 12/14/2004 10:14:50 AM PST by Professional Engineer (All wisdom is from the Lord, and with him it remains forever. ~ Ecclesiasticus 1.1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: bentfeather

Hi miss Feather


50 posted on 12/14/2004 10:18:28 AM PST by Professional Engineer (All wisdom is from the Lord, and with him it remains forever. ~ Ecclesiasticus 1.1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: snippy_about_it

Howdy ma'am


51 posted on 12/14/2004 10:19:40 AM PST by Professional Engineer (All wisdom is from the Lord, and with him it remains forever. ~ Ecclesiasticus 1.1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: SAMWolf
Hmm those look good.

New purchase...I traded my Bersa .380 for a Taurus ultra lite 38 revolver today..due to the arthritis in my hands I was having problems using the slide on the Bersa.

52 posted on 12/14/2004 11:12:06 AM PST by GailA (JESUS is the reason for the season)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: snippy_about_it; SAMWolf
CT reporting for duty.

The French learned exactly the opposite lessons about armor than the Germans, or the British for that matter, from WWI. Figgers.

53 posted on 12/14/2004 12:09:53 PM PST by colorado tanker (The People Have Spoken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: stand watie

Free Dixie!!


54 posted on 12/14/2004 12:39:16 PM PST by SAMWolf (I thought about being born again, but my mother refused.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Valin

Liked him in "Wake Island" too. :-)


55 posted on 12/14/2004 12:39:55 PM PST by SAMWolf (I thought about being born again, but my mother refused.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: stand watie

They designers argued about putting in the forward gear and finally decided there was a chance the could be attacked from the back and would need to get out of the way quickly without turning the tank around.


56 posted on 12/14/2004 12:42:37 PM PST by SAMWolf (I thought about being born again, but my mother refused.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: GeneralStaffOfficer
Thanks for the book lead. I've read a few books about the 1940 Campaign. This wasn't one of them.


57 posted on 12/14/2004 12:45:15 PM PST by SAMWolf (I thought about being born again, but my mother refused.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Grzegorz 246

Afternoon Grzegorz 246


58 posted on 12/14/2004 12:45:39 PM PST by SAMWolf (I thought about being born again, but my mother refused.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: aomagrat

Afternoon aomagrat.

Good to see the ships back.


59 posted on 12/14/2004 12:46:15 PM PST by SAMWolf (I thought about being born again, but my mother refused.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Professional Engineer

I liked Lee Van Cleef. He could play a good bad guy or a good good guy. :-)


60 posted on 12/14/2004 12:46:58 PM PST by SAMWolf (I thought about being born again, but my mother refused.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-133 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
VetsCoR
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson