Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
WHY ARE FRENCH TANKS & AFV USUALLY RUBBISH?
-
03-07-2010 12:47pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
Manic Moran wrote: »Hang on a second...
The French invented the first modern tank in the FT17. They had the best tanks in the world at the beginning of WWII in the Somua S35. They post-war tanks were pretty fair, and Leclerc is by no means poor either. The light armour postwar was also pretty widely exported, so buyers thought there was something to it.
Where are you getting this 'French tanks are poor' business?
NTM
Hmmmmm……I’m still holding to my line French do not have good track record in general on Tanks and AFVs…..
(a tad extreme but useful for debating purposes you understand….:))
Let us look at the S35 that Manic suggests was worthy of respect…..
Well yes it was IN THEORY it was very good by 1940 standards.
But there were flaws.
1. The usual one of a turret/gun loading concept that was unrealistic in combat. Most French tanks had one-man turrets-the Commander was supposed to direct, locate, load and fire. Too much workload/lower response rate of fire.
The S35 had a slightly bigger turret which in theory allowed the radio man to help load the 47mm gun. The Wikipedia entry has this nice nugget somebody cared to enter: “Still, as with the B1 (Heavy Char), the commander was expected to direct the tank while aiming, loading and firing the 47 mm SA 35 main gun — although at least the radio duty could be left to another crew member.”
2. The S-35 had too much height-too high a profile = dead tank. German tanks had lower height. It was 2.62meters in height…whereas a Panzer III 2.5 meters, and the much Lighter but same ear Czech Skoda LT Vz35 was 2.2m
3. There was a problem with the way turret ring was connected to the hull and a further problem with the way the upper and lower hull joined. I think the forward lower hull had cast metal (good), the upper and rear section was not b(bad), and they connected the two parts by a bolt line-which is combat was often exactly close to the centre of gravity of a german 37mm AP hit…which then often unhinged the entire top-back half. In any event the turrets often suffered from a venting explosive effect and the entire turret was sometimes blown off even if the turret was not hit…you see photos of some Chars minus a turret the same way….their turret was similar….
The Wikipedia entry for the S35 then goes on to relate:
“today the S35 is sometimes described as the best medium tank of the thirties.[1] The French Cavalry would have heartily disagreed. They judged their main tank to be imperfect in many respects. Remarkably not included among the perceived imperfections was the one-man turret, though it is today typically mentioned as its single most important drawback. A commander was supposed to acquire such a degree of hability that his workload didn't negate the lack of need to coordinate the actions of three men in a larger turret crew or the advantage of a quicker reaction because of a superior rotation speed.
The Cavalry however did acknowledge three flaws, respectively on the tactical, the operational and the strategic level. The main tactical flaw was the hatchless cupola, forcing the commander to fight buttoned-up. This had been caused by the need to adopt the APX-1 turret, purely for budgetary reasons. The B1 bis's APX4 turret faced similar criticism from the Infantry.
The operational flaw was its poor mechanical reliability. The suspension units were too weak and too complicated, demanding enormous maintenance efforts, especially since the cast armour modules did not allow an easy access to the suspension and engine. This had been caused by the fact there was no central institution regulating French tank development. The Army branches issued very vague specifications, leaving it to private enterprise to come up with precise proposals. French machinery was often outdated and the designs reflected the limited existing production facilities. To introduce a Christie suspension — the obvious solution — was impossible without a thorough industrial modernisation and raising of quality standards.
The strategic flaw was the high unit price of the tank and the limited number of large cast sections that could be produced. This implied that the absolute number of S35s produced would be low.”
In fairness and in your favour it does also say:
“The S 35s gave a good account of themselves, proving to be indeed superior to the German tanks in direct combat, but they were rather hesitantly deployed”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somua_S35
But also http://www.wwiivehicles.com/france/tanks-cavalry/s-35.asp
BUT there’s more to say!!!!!!
Do a quick comparison with the Panzer III (D or F models to be fair, later marks were different beasts with more gun and up to 50mm armour)….and the French S35 ‘wonder tank’.
French S35 has (I think-not 100%!) no bow mounted machine gun: German Panzer III has (and its much better than the 7.5mm French thingy)…..MGs were vital….in combat…..
French S35 tank had inferior leaf spring suspension; German Panzer IIID I think had and certainly Fs….torsion bar
French S35 HAD BETTER armour (20-55mm sloped and cast-but see above under FLAW 3); Panzer IIID was between 5-30mm…it was mostly all welded….arguably as cost effective a step up from rivets…..but I seem to remember some sources say the quality of the German hardened steel was a bit better…but I’ll concede less protection.
French S35 has better gun-47mm versus 37mm German gun……the German gun was past it by 1940……and some AP shot bounced ……but as often it didn’t matter…..as in some head to head fights it would do enough damage to knock out the S35…but not destroy it…… and anyhow that was remedied later on….with guns as big 75mm fitted to Panzer IIIs…and in any event the German turret is superior because it is-I think- a 3 man turret so their gun is actually easier and quicker to fire first….in a meeting engagement…
French S35 has inferior power-to weight ratio than Panzer IIID…190hp engine versus a 300hp engine for weights of 19.5t to 22.3t suggesting (roughly) power to weight ratios of 9.74hp per tonne for the S35 and 13.5hp per tonne for the Panzer IIID-F. That matters....:)
Max Road speed and off road speed probably roughly the same….40kph in theory…closer to 25Kph in practice and around 10-15kph over average terrain…..
French S35 bit better range-230km versus the 175km for the Panzer III, although in operational use German’s ‘jerry-can’ fuel as you go’ philosophy meant that it wasn’t an issue and in fact it was French units who more often ran out of fuel……
Conclusion: a superficial comparison suggests S35 is clearly better than others of the day…in fact a closer look suggests advantages were…as they often are…more marginal and finely honed…..
In the end it was Doctrine, tactics and morale that was more decisive….
Quick Comments on Other French Junk……
French H-35 Tank …rubbishy low velocity SA18 37mm gun, 2man crew unable to do much…..
Reanult R35, ditto, although reasonable 40mm armour protection, low powered engined-82hp
Char B…bit of a beast, often broked down, overly complex, slow…28Kph top speed….high 2.79m
Famous FT17….yes Famous in its day…long past it by 1939…...French have a habit of being slow to give up what was historically a very innovative design…the 75mm field gun is an example…by 1939 its use was limited and yet they still ‘believed in it”….they also clung to 7.5mm rifles much later than other NATO states in the 1950s and 1960s…….other NATO Armies were getting the FN FAL or the HK G3……French were still playing with MAS rifles…..in the 1970s….and leap frogged in the 1980s with FAMAS……but I digress……
VERDICT: S35 was a GOOD Tank but not a GREAT Tank to borrow the expression of an infamous Irish soccer expert.
VERY FINALLY
Actually if you want to pick a ‘best’ Tank…or one at least one showing the way forward…evolutionary fitness in a sense …then consider the Russian BT-7…from 1935…it had Christie suspension…better than French…all welded and shapped hull…a 45mm gun…two machine guns (one bow mounted)…only serious problem was light armour …10-22mm…. ……Later marks also toyed with diesel engines….and even the petrol one gave 86kph speed and 250km range, height was 2.42m…and weight only 14t….it formed the starting point for early designs that became…the T-34…..and that was a great tank
I think my OTT/outrageous claim, that on average French Tanks and AFVs suck, still more or less stands.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
I’m especially glad we’ve left the S35 behind and can now focus on the rest of the French ‘junkyard”.
Bearing in mind that there was no 'perfect' tank in 1940. The French tank was a bit slow and had a one-man turret. The BT-7 had too little armour. PzIV which was barely in service was excellent other than too small a gun. Matilda was very slow with little anti-infantry capability. That the French were operationally outmaneuvered didn't detract too much from the fact that when the S35 was in a battle, it did fairly well on a per-tank basis.Regarding the point that the AMX13 sold well…I actually mentioned that this is NOT immediate proof of effectiveness of a design being SUCCESSFUL.
It is not, but it is a fair indicator.The SUN newspapers sells very well in England and even Ireland…it is commercially successful …but that does NOT mean it’s a good newspaper, accurate, reliable or even entertaining. Coca Cola sells very well….as a beverage…..even though water is a better thing to drink and its rots your teeth…..commercially successful….not necessarily the best thing to drink…..
You make the mistake of presuming that the Sun sets out to be a good newspaper and not an entertaining tabloid, and that Coca Cola sets out to be a healthy drink and not something tasty and refreshing. AMX-13s would only be purchased for one of two things: To fight, or to look cool in military parades, and enough countries, I think, bought it with the purpose of fighting in mind. If it couldn't fight, it wouldn't have been purchased, especially when the French had a number of other offerings available.Were they used by Indian Army at any stage?
Not that I am aware of.The one outfit who did subject them to serious combat….the Israelis…got rid of them as soon as they could…….and that is saying something in a way because conversely the IDF spent serious time and money keeping centurions, and M48s and M60 upgraded, rebuilt, re-engined. They never bothered with the AMX13……..and they nicked its guns……
You might want to recheck your history there. The M50 was built in parallel to the purchase of the AMX-13, in the 1950s. AMXs saw service in Suez and through to the Six Day War. At the end of the Six Day War, the 75mms on the M50s had started being replaced by 105mms on the M51, and the AMX-13s started to go out of service.
The Sherman with the full AMX-13 turret on it actually was a French sale to Egypt, a few were captured by the Israelis.
It WAS a light Tank.
It HAD a MORE than a fair punch.
Enough to get into serious fighting….when the IDF found it wanting….especially as regards protection…..and I think there may have been issues as well with speed of turret traverse and laying of gun on target…but I’ll be honest and I’ll say I don’t really know that…vague memories of reading it somewhere viz IDF experiences…..
[/I]
The simple lack of armour itself isn't a killer for a vehicle designed to fight as a primary role, as long as it's used correctly. Tank destroyers come particularly to mind. If the IDF used it as a light MBT, then yes, it would be found wanting. If they used it more as a cavalry vehicle or TD, then it would perform better. That may simply have been a issue of doctrine.But isn't this argument is a bit like saying…’The AMX13 is not really any more crap than other crap tank gun designs where you have to get outside to reload after a few shots”. Not a very strong argument IMHO.
Every design is a compromise, you have to lose something somewhere. If it's the fact that you have to pull back from the battle to reload, then so be it.Remember the AMX13 had only 12 rds to fire before you have to get out and reload…
As a recon or cavalry vehicle, you can do quite a bit of damage with 12 rounds. Of course, in practise, read about 9 or 10 as doubtless a few will be inappropriate for whatever you're shooting at. When a 5-tank platoon fires fifty rounds at something, there's a fair bit of damage done.It has a mere 18rds…before you have to reload……Note, seeing as much chatter today is about the role of the Tank in FIBUA/MOUT……in those scenarios the crew may actually be firing rather a lot of HE and HEDP type rds……and would thus expend 18 rds fairly quickly in a sustained urban fight…
It may interest you to know that an M1A1 can't expend 18 rounds fairly quickly, as there are only 17 rounds in the ready rack. Leopard 2 has fifteen. Israel's Merkava IV has all of ten rounds ready to go. Re-stocking the M1's ready rack is a time-consuming (and cumbersome) process which generally requires that the tank be withdrawn from the front line as the crew are generally too busy manhandling rounds to be looking for people to shoot/avoid. Having to get out to reload the autoloader simply wasn't an issue in the 50s and 60s, and to a large extent, it still isn't today. Only NBC environments would cause this to be a problem.Is that wrong? I'm not 100% I'll admit.
No you are correct. The advantage to not having to worry about a turret.If accurate, it marks a big difference in performance compared with Stryker mobile gun and AMX13….……and comparison isn’t valid at all…..its a 30+tonne tank destroyer from the 1960s not a light tank……from the 1950s….
S-Tank was a tank, not a tank destroyer.(BTW surprised you don’t mention the more obvious weakness of the S Tank was that the driver had to stop the vehicle and then fire it!....
Name a tank from the 1960s that didn't need to stop in order to hit what it was shooting at.In any event Simplicity is probably better and that is why Brits, Americans and Germans have mostly kept with human/assisted loader… am I right?
Partially, and partially just institutional inertia.Don’t know enough about Japanese Type 90…but a bustle autoloader for a 120mm smoothbore must have a pretty limited capacity…presumably the thinking was to reduce the turret cross section…..as much as possible……
Seems to vary by tank. Type-90 supposedly has 16 rounds, Leclerc and T-72-120 have 22. Both numbers compare favourably compared to four-man tanks. The bustle is chosen mainly because it's more flexible than a turret-floor position which dramatically reduces possible round size. Arguably safer as well.The last sentence kind of contradicts the first in terms of the overall practice of using 12.7mm HMGs alongside a main armament, which is what I was driving at, although I’ll grant you these are not literally co-axial mounted
It's still not an overall practice. Other than France, Israel and the US, and, of course, the Russian tanks, you'll note not too many countries will mount anything like a precision .50 cal. Japan mounts one, but on a pintle. Leopards, Challengers, Arietes, they all have 7.62mm only.Which is more than you can say for the French Army….a 36t tank…trying to slew the turret to take out a helicopter…the 20mm cannon can elevate +40 and depress -8…but to do serious AA, you need elevations higher than this no?……
At 40 degrees, a helicopter 2km away would probably have to be well over 1km up in the air in order to be above max elevation.I’ll fess up and say I don’t know what German Panzer Recce units look like today in terms of TOE…but in 1990 they had around 36 Leopard 2…to do heavy….and around 36 Luchs to do light and a few Fuchs to sniff for NBC….that was a Panzer Recce Batt…
They've gone light. The Leopards went away in the mid 1990s, and now the main recce vehicle is the Fennek. Luchs are still in service, but getting long in the teeth.I’m old fashioned. If you have to fight for info... better do so in a Leopard 1 or 2 than an AMX10…….that was sort of my point.
As I said, two schools of thought.the Stryker Mobile Gun System…(and IMHO that Bullsh*t name reveals much….what is a mobile gun system anyhow….is it a tank…..NO!!!!!!...so let us confuse people by calling it a Mobile Gun System when in fact it is just an armored car/APC with too much gun for its role…when you in fact need a proper tank or a lighter proper tank?…,,,,but that’s a (cheap) aside….)
The alternative to the MGS was the M8 Buford, the AGS. Armored Gun System. Not a tank. (Though it would have looked a hell of a lot like a light tank). The name was specifically chosen to try to reinforce the fact that it should be used as an infantry support gun, not a tank.
NTM0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Hmmmmm...but your initial claim was the the S35 was if not the best, among the best. I've pointed out that assumption is simply misplaced. There were serious flaws, etc.
There was flaws with pretty much every tank that was out there. If an S35 was somewhere, it gave a good account of itself.Nice try but I'm not buying it (including the Sun!)....my example is about quality...as you concede both the Sun and Coca Cola are not quality items.....
Sun and Coke are great quality items. Sun provides great entertainment, and Coke provides great taste. You're trying to take the square peg of AMX-13 and stick it into a round hole. It isn't an MBT, stop grading it as such.Yes...I recounted the story the wrong way....but the substance of my argument remains much the same; the IDF were happy with the 75mm French gun....they were much less happy with the performance of the AMX13 and 75mm gun combo...and they phased the latter out after 67......
They phased out the 75mm gun on the Sherman after 1967 as well. The 105mm M51 was already in production.French had a history of deciding that more armour wasn't worth it because of growth in lethality of infantry Bazooka's, RCLs and especially tank guns.....so they decided to protect up to a certain level...probably did some kind of operations research study........that seems to be where much of the design weight of the AMX30 came about later.....BUT that has implications for what you can do with vehicles later on....and while its probably impossible to keep slabbing on enough metal to stop Russian 115mm and 125mm guns...and in the 1980s I remember talk of an impending Russian 140mm gun....when the smaller MICV automatic cannons in 23mm, 20mm-25mm and 30mm began appearing in the late 1970s and 1980s...those great hulking brutes the BA Chieftans...didn't look so dumb.......even if they were underpowered and slothful....
Leopard 1 and M60 were similarly unable to withstand the 125mm shells of T-72s. You can make the argument that the extra four or ten tons on Leopard 1 were basically just wasted metal and further restricted the places the tank could go.
The tank did receive some upgrades, however. This is the ultimate version of it.
Looks kindof odd, but compared to the predecessor variants, it's an entirely new generation.Some compromises are better than others. IMHO Tanks were you can reload within the hull are BETTER compromise than those where you have to get physically outside.....there is no getting away from that being a fundamental design flaw.
Only if it's an issue. I'm not convinced that it is.Well this goes to the heart of the point on doctrine below. If your doing recce in general you will not want to be doing much if any shooting to advertise your presence...although that varies. Of course if you need to do recce by fire/force...and there is a need for that sometimes...then a light tank, whether by Platoon or single, may well be simply inadequate....for that job and get creamed......which is why German's and others often ended up detaching battle tanks for recce formations....I submit that logic is sound and refutes the utility of gear like the AMX13...not light enough to be really light, stealthy and agile.......not heavy enough to cut it....
If you want to focus on it as being a recon vehicle. But what if it truly is a cavalry vehicle? For something such as a raid, the tank does provide some options which ordinary scout vehicles and MBTs of the time couldn't perform.I've obviously no knowledge of detailed timings for reloading to ready racks.....but the point is these 'proper' tanks CAN reload within the hull under cover. AMX13 and Styker MGS cannot. Its not just NBC you'd be worried about either...mass artillery fires/shell splinters could rain on the parade of any crew casually reloading a Stryker MGS......in the open....
If you're under an artillery barrage, the last thing you're going to be doing is restocking your ready rack. You'll be going somewhere else. To reload a ready rack, M1 and Leopard have to pull back out of the fight into a secure position. If they're going to do that, it doesn't cost much more to clamber outside either. (Plus they have to get rid of all the dunnage anyway!)Moot point. In most books its listed with MBTs and Swedes called it a tank. History of the project makes it clear much of its inspiration was from German and Russian WWII tank destroyers...with a few twists in emphasis.....operationally it was used more defensively like a tank destroyer no?
No, it's a tank. During the Spring 1957 design review, it was decided that three form factors would be investigated to fill the role, two of which had turrets. The Swedish decided that the role could be fulfilled best by the turretless design due to the weight and size savings, the decision to go with the turretless tank being made in very late 1958.I say its a 1960s Tank destroyer...Swedes borrowed much of their post-war military technology ideas from NAZI Germany...like everyone else...... and were coy and clever enough to disguise this....
It's only a tank destroyer if its role was to destroy tanks. Strv-103 was a multi-purpose vehicle and a main battle tank. It is worth noting that S-Tank replaced 20pr Centurions in armour battalions.The Centurion V had I believe a basic gyroscopic anti-shake system...that could at a push allow iffy shots on the move....depending on target....the point was I believe these fire control systems were progressing and developing for conventional turreted tanks.....the S Tank by design could not have stabilisation...am I right? A big difference.
Basic gyrostabilisers first appeared in WWII. Shermans and Stuarts had them. However, even by the time you get to the M60 tank, you still needed to shoot from the short halt unless you were on a very flat piece of ground and not going too fast. Interestingly, the S-Tank actually acquired off-axis targets faster than Centurion and Leopard in tests as the hull could slew faster than a conventional tank's turret.And do you seriously think an AMX30 crew would have much chance of hitting a Russian Hind flying at between 150-200mph, probably lower than 1,000m ...think tree top height maybe..... and closing fast from 2km away, peering through their observation visors...and no guidance system whatsoever? Come on Manic?.....
Why not? We're supposed to be able to do it in our Bradleys, and even tanks are supposed to be able to engage helicopters with sabot rounds. Hitting a closing target isn't actually all that hard, it's crossing targets that cause the problem.No....it was another dumb and distinctvely French idea? If you want tanks to kill choppers or aircraft then you either stick MANPADS on their roof OR accompanying MICVs...or they fire MANPADS out the barrel, or you have bespoke assets like ZSU with 23mm quads/Gepards,.....etc!
Though that is the ideal (and there were several AA variants of the AMX-30), there's nothing wrong with giving other vehicles such a capability. American tanks have it with the MPAT round in anti-air mode, the Russians use their gun-launched missiles, CV-90 uses the 40mm...of course.from an Irish perspective talk of Bradley's being too light....... just seems ...Martian......:)
As a recon vehicle, it's too big to be stealthy. Which means it's got to be able to punch its way through. Advantages are that you can get more depth from your recon, and you can both deal with the counter-recon screen and destroy enemy recon. Downside is that if you're going to be big and unstealthy, you might as well be really big and unstealthy, and bring a tank or two along with you.Hmmmmmm...as I thought....then bullsh*t no? I mean tanks....proper heavy mean ones do superb infantry support.....
They do. They do lots of stuff, that's why they're categorised as main battle tanks and not infantry support vehicles. They're also crazy expensive, suffer from very limited strategic, and moderately limited operational mobility, so there's a niche for infantry support guns if you've the money to spare once you've bought your tanks.
NTM0 -
-
Well Manic.......:)
Much of the debate is now a series of small technical side-shows between us…and we’ve travelled some way from the main event in the OP…my somewhat OTT claim that French Tanks are ‘rubbish’.
Actually, it should be clear by now I don’t literally believe that precisely all (or even most) French AFV really are rubbish as such (my word in the OP).
To get a discussion going I find it useful to push the argument.
My point is that many French cold war designs reflect compromises in AFV design which I think are often deeply dubious, chief of these is a preference for wheels and going light on armour.
More generally I want to chew the fat about French armour which I’ve always been a bit puzzled and intrigued by. In some ways we’re all becoming French now as regards AFV design and procurement…
(I mean ‘we’ in the sense of most western armies-IDF excepted perhaps)…given the focus on 8x8 and 6x6 wheels….and what with the fetish for air-mobility as a vital design variable (when it shouldn’t be)…and so those wider points are what I hoping to raise a bit…..
but its kinda fun as it is….
Manic Moran wrote: »There was flaws with pretty much every tank that was out there. If an S35 was somewhere, it gave a good account of itself.
Well you did claim the S35 was arguably the best tank of 1940. I've provided more than enough info to suggest that is not accurate...it appears by the way in many history books....but I think its an unexamined 'truth' of 1940...along with much of the Blitzkreig myth....
The Germans had small numbers of Panzer IV Marks A-D in service in 1940 and they could take down the S35…although yes…. that was a rare event apparently….but mainly because of numbers….
What can be conceded was that the S35 was the best tank the French had in 1940…and one could agree that it was maybe as good, and sometimes much better than the opposition…. this is more less what Bruce Gudmundsson (1999) On Armour, says (see p.61) …he accepts it was good for the day but was let down by poor human engineering….and other flaws…..
BTW the S35’s armour was not exceptional-although better than German Panzer IIIs and IVs…but British Matilda II tanks had 78mm of cast armour at the front which even better than the S35………..
YES..the armour of the S35 was enough to ward off German Pak 36 37mm AP shots and certainly 20mm shots…if they hit the turret ..which was cast metal at 55mm…..but the hull was 36mm…much much closer to a Panzer III’s weak 30mm (source, Crawford, S. (2000) Tanks of World War II, p.9)…..hull hits were therefore more dangerous… it is apparently true that many kept working with multiple hits to the turret during combat…but the other weaker French Tanks were often taken down by the Panzer IIs and especially IIIs.
Moreover, in practice the power to weight ratio was lowish, and the armour was flawed by poor manufacturing/design standards which in some cases allowed a 37mm hit to cause major damage, and the maximum potential could never be got out of the gun because of the too small turret/over burdened commander. The S35 and its gun were really good at range…800m….and the German’s learned tactically to go after them with a combination of Panzer IVs….and more often to try and flank and close to 100m…not always possible…..
Thus the gun was the real best feature of the S35…but this tended to require a more static almost tank destroyer role….in a more fluid and close-in engagement that major benefit to the S35 was negated a bit….and their outcomes more mixed….
Moreover, consider for a moment was packing a 47mm gun in 1940 that exceptional?….
The Russian’s had a perfectly fine 45mm gun which they had issued since the late 1930s as well. While not as good as the French 47mm….it was roughly in the same league…but quickly became outclassed as indeed any French 47mm would have been as well within 18 months had France survived to fight another 18 months…… so in fact an interesting question is could the S35 have been upgunned easily?
The answer is no, because of the poxy small turret/ring. By way of contrast Germans deliberately designed an ability for the Panzer III’s 3 man turret to grow to carry a 50mm and the Panzer IV managed a 75mm fairly okay. This was better design plain and simple.
British had moved to 40mm guns…….as well… and German Panzer IVs were upgunned….
So the S35 was not exceptional in design terms….above average yes….and by a good margin I’ll freely concede…..but best in class in 1940? No.
Sun and Coke are great quality items. Sun provides great entertainment, and Coke provides great taste. You're trying to take the square peg of AMX-13 and stick it into a round hole. It isn't an MBT, stop grading it as such.
No...I compared it with a PT76 and found it wanting!:D I repeatedly said if its a light tank then it should be light and focused on light tank roles......it.should be good for recce ...BUT it isn't especially...no amphib/NBC....the Panther gun gaves it the fatal ability to mix it. Its armour didn't. The IDF found that out. That was my point. If you need to do heavy recce...use a tank.....
Ask a good dentist, an expert, what they think of Colas:). A recent study in the US found: "The cola soft drink significantly decreased enamel hardness". See: Panich, M. & S. Poolthong (2009) The Effect of Casein Phosphopeptide–amorphous Calcium Phosphate and a Cola Soft Drink on In Vitro Enamel Hardness, Journal of American Dental Association, Vol 140., No 4, 455-460.
Ask a really good British or Irish journalist (there are some) what they think of the SUN...even as entertainment...although they are called newspapers....ask them if they think the SUN provides quality news coverage....:rolleyes:
Ask most military experts which AFV they would rather go to war in....I don't think the AMx13 would make the top five list?
Its okay to choose low quality newspapers and colas if that is what you want....but choosing low quality military technology has slightly more serious implications when the s**t hits the fan.....
They phased out the 75mm gun on the Sherman after 1967 as well. The 105mm M51 was already in production.
Yes, I know. Doesn't change my argument.
Leopard 1 and M60 were similarly unable to withstand the 125mm shells of T-72s. You can make the argument that the extra four or ten tons on Leopard 1 were basically just wasted metal and further restricted the places the tank could go.
But could they handle T62 115mm? I bet the AMX30 definitely could not.
The tank did receive some upgrades, however. This is the ultimate version of it.
Looks kindof odd, but compared to the predecessor variants, it's an entirely new generation.
Yawn…..a design study …so called Tank Furtive…..not issued operationally AFAIK…..this was a "lab-rat".....just something worked up by the boffins to see what it would look like to cloak a tank…..Typical French ruse hoping to flog it to Rich Arab princes....or what not......
(Re Swedish S Tank)
No, it's a tank. During the Spring 1957 design review, it was decided that three form factors would be investigated to fill the role, two of which had turrets. The Swedish decided that the role could be fulfilled best by the turretless design due to the weight and size savings, the decision to go with the turretless tank being made in very late 1958.
Your assuming a strict and rigid distinction which in both procurement, doctrine and practice is rarely evident. Moreover, my main point was that Sven Berge, the chief designer drew much of his inspiration from tank destroyers....see the following:
"The Stridsvagn 103 (Strv 103), or S-Tank, was a Swedish tank (although some consider it to be a tank destroyer)….
Because the Strv 103 orientates the entire tank to depress and elevate the barrel, in a hull down position it has a very low apparent height and subsequent visual profile to the enemy. It can also lower the hull 13 centimeters. However such static use of a tank is at odds with the very concept of a tank, i.e. a mobile, protected gun platform able to bring heavy firepower to bear upon the enemy as you attack. Hence the S Tank is really a defensive vehicle.
This is not the first time such a system had been used: it was common during the World War II-era tank destroyers and assault guns for instance, but in the tank role the inability to quickly change aim that a turret provided always proved to be a serious problem. However, some tank destroyers like the Jagdpanther were both relatively cheap to make and very effective in defensive positions. Berge's design tried to solve the aiming problem through the use of a fully automated transmission and suspension system, which would turn and tilt the tank under gunner control."
http://airlandseaweapons.devhub.com/blog/category/afv/page-3/
"According to www.pansarmuseet.se the father of the Stridsvagn S; Sven Berge got his inspiration from the StuG. I don`t find that hard to believe actually:
See: According http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?t=10153
Basic gyrostabilisers first appeared in WWII. Shermans and Stuarts had them. However, even by the time you get to the M60 tank, you still needed to shoot from the short halt unless you were on a very flat piece of ground and not going too fast. Interestingly, the S-Tank actually acquired off-axis targets faster than Centurion and Leopard in tests as the hull could slew faster than a conventional tank's turret.
But am I right in saying WW2 stabilization was only in the vertical axis....keeping the gun from riding up....did not keep it steady on the horizontal axis.....that took longer to figure....or am I wrong?
Why not? We're supposed to be able to do it in our Bradleys, and even tanks are supposed to be able to engage helicopters with sabot rounds. Hitting a closing target isn't actually all that hard, it's crossing targets that cause the problem.
Though that is the ideal (and there were several AA variants of the AMX-30), there's nothing wrong with giving other vehicles such a capability. American tanks have it with the MPAT round in anti-air mode, the Russians use their gun-launched missiles, CV-90 uses the 40mm...
CV90 is Not a Tank and as you know 40mm gun and ammo is not your regular light cannon….its a beast that is partly optimized for AA.
Tellingly, its Swedish NOT French.
The issue I raised was the viability for tanks using a main cannon or a co-axial cannon to shoot down helicopters or light aircraft.
How many helicopters have been shot down by Tanks using their main or co-axial armament?
Would I be right in suggesting that it could be a handful, if even?
Yes I have heard the speculation/rumours that the Syrians lost 2 Gazelles or some other choppers to IDF tank fire in 1982. Do you know of other cases?
Maybe TRADOC or whoever (?) have tested it and have data…must be some results of MARPAT’s effectiveness from the late 1980s and early 1990s when the rd was being tested…am I right?
If so, I’d be interested to change my mind.
But I’m deeply skeptical veering towards saying it’s a bulls*t concept.
Maybe with improvements in fire control its just about doable under ideal conditions when your enemy helicopters are simply hovering…or immediately near you……but sounds very fanciful TBH
Pintle mounted HMGs is another matter entirely…but most sources regard them as ineffective as well.
Because enemy air is such a serious threat you need proper integrated layered AD assets with you.
Co-axial 20mm cannon a la francais will simply not do IMHO.
No beef with most of your other comments.
Roll on round 6 I guess?:)
Cheers. Avgas.0 -
-
-
My point is that many French cold war designs reflect compromises in AFV design which I think are often deeply dubious, chief of these is a preference for wheels and going light on armour.
Considering that some 2/3 of the Soviet Forces in Germany were wheeled, I don't think they're in poor company. You do also have the issue of the various former French colonies, where wheeled vehicles may indeed be superior.but I think its an unexamined 'truth' of 1940...along with much of the Blitzkreig myth....
I'm curious, what do you refer to as the Blitzkrieg Myth?The Germans had small numbers of Panzer IV Marks A-D in service in 1940 and they could take down the S35…although yes…. that was a rare event apparently….but mainly because of numbers….
Also because the MkIV only had an L/24 cannon, which was perfectly well suited for the infantry support role, but was somewhat lacking as an anti-armour weapon.BTW the S35’s armour was not exceptional-although better than German Panzer IIIs and IVs…but British Matilda II tanks had 78mm of cast armour at the front which even better than the S35………..
As I said, you can find flaws with any tank of the era. Matilda II was proof against anything short of an 88, but was painfully slow, and had a main gun which was only useful against armoured targets.but the hull was 36mm…much much closer to a Panzer III’s weak 30mm
Panzer III's armour was also less sloped. Slope doesn't just have an effect on ricochets, it also has a dramatic effect on thickness. The front hull of an M1 Abrams is about 50mm thick, but has a horizontal linear thickness of over a foot.hull hits were therefore more dangerous… it is apparently true that many kept working with multiple hits to the turret during combat…but the other weaker French Tanks were often taken down by the Panzer IIs and especially IIIs.
But then, two thirds of hits on a tank tend to be on a turret, even though it's a smaller target. This is mainly due to exposure.No...I compared it with a PT76 and found it wanting!
Not in a direct comparison. If you want to put AMX-13 and PT-76 against each other, one of them is absolutely huge, wafer thin armour, with a shorter-ranged gun, the other is much harder to hit and hits harder. You set a standard for PT-76 and then claimed that the fact that PT-76 met this particular standard, for which it was certainly well suited, it was a better tank. PT-76 was not a cavalry vehicle, AMX-13 was. Few tanks of the time were particularly suited to the role.BUT it isn't especially...no amphib/NBC....the Panther gun gaves it the fatal ability to mix it. Its armour didn't. The IDF found that out. That was my point. If you need to do heavy recce...use a tank.....
You'll note how many countries have, even today, removed amphibious capability from the requirement for their recon vehicles. It just isn't all that important, though it's a nice selling point. But a light tank isn't just a recon vehicle, it's a cavalry vehicle with additional roles. A cavalry unit should be capable of fighting on a more independent basis than the average line unit, and AMX-13 for starters would be about twice as fuel efficient as an MBT-equipped unit.They phased out the 75mm gun on the Sherman after 1967 as well. The 105mm M51 was already in production.
Yes, I know. Doesn't change my argument.
Erm. Your argument was that the Israelis phased the AMX-13 out after the 1967 war due to inadequacy. This is true, but the Israelis also phased out the 75mm Sherman due to inadequacy. The gun would appear to be a major cause of the withdrawl, not the chassis.But could they handle T62 115mm? I bet the AMX30 definitely could not.
Apparently not. Wherever the extra five tons comes from on Leopard over AMX-30, it wasn't in mm of armour. 80mm for the AMX on the turret front, 60mm for the Leopard. Seems both were generally penetrable by 115mm.a design study …so called Tank Furtive…..not issued operationally AFAIK…..this was a "lab-rat".....just something worked up by the boffins to see what it would look like to cloak a tank…..Typical French ruse hoping to flog it to Rich Arab princes....or what not......
It was actually a demonstrator for French use. The company has used the technology to start working a Leclerc variant. The thermal and radar stealth theory is sound, the Belarussan 2T-Stalker is in service using it. Outside of Belarus and Israel, France is the only country I am aware of that has put such on a tank. This is evidence that they have a certain technological capability which is underrated.Your assuming a strict and rigid distinction which in both procurement, doctrine and practice is rarely evident. Moreover, my main point was that Sven Berge, the chief designer drew much of his inspiration from tank destroyers....see the following:
Though this is true, you can't argue that the M-10 wasn't a tank destroyer because it was sometimes used as a tank, or that StuG wasn't an assault gun because it was sometimes used as a tank or tank destroyer. The vehicle was designed to be a tank, and primarily used as such."The Stridsvagn 103 (Strv 103), or S-Tank, was a Swedish tank (although some consider it to be a tank destroyer)….
Because the Strv 103 orientates the entire tank to depress and elevate the barrel, in a hull down position it has a very low apparent height and subsequent visual profile to the enemy. It can also lower the hull 13 centimeters. However such static use of a tank is at odds with the very concept of a tank,
This is flawed logic. You can see tanks such as Type-74 or K2 which can perform the same trick, they are certainly tanks. Many Soviet tanks came with bow scrapers to build fighting positions, and they were designed primarily as offensive tanks.i.e. a mobile, protected gun platform able to bring heavy firepower to bear upon the enemy as you attack. Hence the S Tank is really a defensive vehicle.
Yet later on in the same article (Which, by the way, seems to come from the S-Tank's Wiki Page), it quotes a British report as saying that they were unable to prove any disadvantage in the inability to fire on the move. The tank was capable of acquiring and engaging even off-axis targets very quickly."According to www.pansarmuseet.se the father of the Stridsvagn S; Sven Berge got his inspiration from the StuG. I don`t find that hard to believe actually:
He may have also heard of this one, which was based off a Comet.
This was an attempt by the British to try to figure out an airmobile tank, in the 1950s: Though weight and dimensions were factors with both Berge and the RAC's thinking for different purposes, the same design philosophy was proposed for the same result.How many helicopters have been shot down by Tanks using their main or co-axial armament?
How many times have helicopters taken on tanks? Outside of the Iraq wars, which doesn't prove much as the Iraqi tanks proved incapable of dealing with the things they were designed to deal with, let alone secondary roles.Maybe TRADOC or whoever (?) have tested it and have data…must be some results of MARPAT’s effectiveness from the late 1980s and early 1990s when the rd was being tested…am I right?
Would have been PM Abrams, and MPAT, not MARPAT. The theory is sound.Co-axial 20mm cannon a la francais will simply not do IMHO.
Not as an exclusive measure, no. That's why American tank columns in WWII would be accompanied with specific anti-air vehicles like M16. But it didn't stop the pintle .50cals from performing a reasonable air defence role.
NTM0 -
Advertisement