Panzer IV vs. S-35 Somua - Comparison in 1940

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

If you like in-depth military history videos, consider supporting me on PayPal, Patreon or SubscribeStar or PayPal: paypal.me/mhvis --- patreon.com/mhv/ --- www.subscribestar.com/mhv

[@orjelmort2330]

Can you make a video about D.520 vs bf109?

[@jeffmoore9487]

If the Germans had attacked France with Samuas and the French defended with Panzer 4s, the outcome would likely have been identical. The French had decent weapons. The outstanding difference was leadership and cohesion at the strategic and tactical level. The Allies were divided with different national considerations and the French top military leadership was hopeless.

[@mankiller4405]

Now that is a hella good opinion

[@hangar1873]

Yes and... no. French Somua and B1 were better, but main tanks in french army were Hotchkiss or other old tanks with ineffective 37mm cannons. But over all, the lack of anti aircrafts weapons in allies armies was decisive.

[@corsehaigazia]

@@hangar1873 oui mais non tu oublie les lignes Maginot déjà avec si peu de char lourd si on avait bien défendu les point de percés potentiels au lieu de dire "ça passera pas pas besoin de défendre" aucun Allemand ne sera passé ss compté le fait que les Allemands n'avaient pas beaucoup plus de char lourd que nous

[@hangar1873]

@@corsehaigazia Il est vrai que la ligne maginot etait sur defendue, elle n'est d'ailleurs pas tombée, les combats on même duré apres l'armistice. Mais les Ardennes ont été a découvert surtout parce que les anglais voulaient a tout pris défendre la port d'Anvers au nord qu'ils considéraient comme un canon pointé sur leur île et les francais ont suivi de peur de contrarier leur seul allié de poids.

[@corsehaigazia]

@@hangar1873 De toute façon c'est toujours la faute des Anglais ils n'ont jamais su se battre et on toujours laissé les autres faire à leur place pour défendre leur île

[@exharkhun5605]

I respect the hell out of you, but you should have compared it to the Panzer III. The Somua is described as a cavalry tank and it has an anti tank role. The Panzer IV at that stage was a support weapon, and the 7.5 cm KwK 37 was more of a howitzer. I think that's where your accuracy dilemma comes from, it may have been good against static targets with HE rounds, but at 400 meter/second velocity you can almost walk alongside the shell to show it the way. Doctrinally the S35 and PzIII are more alike. I must say that almost everything else you mention is more or less the same between the Pz III and IV.

[@ur2c8]

Agreed. The first thing I thought.

[@exharkhun5605]

@@vemundr9263 Indeed it had, "but essentially it remained an HE wapon system with a lazy muzzle velocity of 1263 feet per second and a sharply curved trajectory". As MHV, The Chieftain and TIK are hammering on sources these days: (Panzerkampfwagen IV Medium Tank 1936-1945 by Bryan Perret, not the biggest name maybe, but the only book I had within reach) The above book also states that in firing trials conducted concurrently with the Sturmgeschutz, who were manned by artillery troops, the Panzertruppen were slower in getting the gun on target.

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

Yeah, good points. Yet, it is about the "best tank" not about "the best tank in the same category", I outlined why I chose the Pz IV over the Pz III. This stems also from the question "best French tank of 1940". Additionally, another aspect is that I already have a video on the Pz III against the T-34, although the 1941 version with 50mm. This meant I had to take a closer look at the Pz IV as well, which means a general deeper understanding of Panzers.

[@exharkhun5605]

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Understood. And in truth, you did state all of that at the start and all points you made except for the gun and specific numbers are equally valid for both of the Panzers. I enjoyed the video anyway of course, it's just that the direct comparison felt a little "off". Happy holidays.

[@twirlipofthemists3201]

IMHO Somua isn't directly comparable to any German tank. PzIII isn't a great comparison either. So PzIV is as good/bad as anything. (PzII might be closer.) (Maybe Matilda II would be good?)

[@WildBillCox13]

Infantry; a tankless job. I'll let myself out through the floor hatch.

[@canon-de-75]

William Cox Well done.

[@johnnyzippo7109]

Starting with Panzer III into Panzer IV with these two tanks, fitted with FM radios and proper mics and headphones , with inner-tank intercom ability , thus Germany created the evo of tank layout that is beginning of modern tank theory . Great video , much appreciated .

[@woff1959]

Very interesting. My father was the last commander of the two 35 S 739(f) SOMUA tanks in Royal Hungarian Army service. They were handed over from German stocks to the 101st Independent Tank Coy and used against Soviet Partisans.

[@waid1406]

Ooooooo cool

[@mihaiserafim]

Regarding the " accuracy problem" IMO it was the tank and crew rather than the gun. Stugs had better methods to find the range and had better trained crews for this porpoise.

[@Riceball01]

Do they have better trained crews for dolphins too or just porpoises?

[@mihaiserafim]

@@Riceball01 sorry for that. Purpose.

[@ur2c8]

I am sure they had a whale of a time.

[@joshuawood1436]

@@ur2c8 I feel this comment was trolling, you didn't tackle the issue. What did you hope to net saying this? It all seems a little bit fishy....

[@robertsoyka1822]

For fun activate subtitles. The voice recognition is just hilarious: Panzer Three => "pants are free", sometimes "Panther three" Panzer Fours => "pants of fools"

[@kieranh2005]

I didn't know the french strapped obese Japanese wrestlers to the front of their tanks as meat shields. No wonder the Japanese invaded their far eastern colonies, with crimes against humanity like that being committed...

[@gfg1651]

the Chairmans@@kieranh2005

[@brasso731]

Basically sounds like the worst item drops in a RPG :-P

[@Dakerthandark]

Char B 1 => "chubby one"

[@MarcosElMalo2]

Why is this the first time I’ve heard of Tang battles?

[@v4enthusiast541]

The Souma sounds very... Finnish

[@logoseven3365]

V4 Enthusiast When I clicked, I was thinking the same thing. Good submachine gun, poor tank.

[@logoseven3365]

JACEKWERRA I like those cookies, even worst tank though. and yes, I know, but my way is funnier.

[@user-jm2ds9ct2n]

Suomi means Finland in Finnish, just like Spain is Espana in Spanish.

[@logoseven3365]

Emperor Donald In ‘Merica it what you say after you rear end another car. “ Why don’t you sue-me?!”

[@v4enthusiast541]

LogoSeven Kek, took me awhile

[@RiderRohanG]

If anybody was confused why the penetration is so low its because it is used againtst a 30 degree angle i dont know why he does this if it was like a 5 degree angle you are looking at a 30-60% increase of penetration it depends on the gun though.

[@karlp8484]

One thing that could have made the Panzer IV somewhat more effective gun-wise is the effect a fairly heavy round has on armour, especially if it's cast. The armour of the S-35 may not have been penetrated but the shock would have had a HESH type effect. Nothing to see on the outside, but internally there could have been significant behind armour effect. I think at least some of the French tanks "stopped" because although they had been hit without apparent damage, there was heavy perturbance internally.

[@donerkebab97]

I think you speak of spalling

[@karlp8484]

@@donerkebab97 Yes indeed

[@marjoriesager9654]

Not to mention things being bent or twisted out of shape on the inside.@@donerkebab97

[@quentintin1]

@TheLoneWolf550 the B1 hulls were made of laminated steel, so they were more resistant to spalling than the S35, as for the hull separation, it wasrare, you really needed to hit it a lot as the bolts holding the tank together are quite big

[@velikiradojica]

From what I remember, Char B1 had hydraulic transmission which worked very well but the French pretended they had huge issues with it in order to dissuade other countries from using it.

[@leneanderthalien]

@walt7500 yes, but a improved version from the neader was ready for further B1 versions...germans copied and improve the neader for use on the jagdpanzer 4 who was use and very appreciated up to end the war...

[@silverpleb2128]

Actually, the B1 had real problem with its transmission.

[@larryfontenot9018]

Somua turret: The radio operator sat on the floor just behind the same one-man turret the Char B1-bis had. There wasn't space in it for another man to stand up and reload the cannon. The ammunition was stored horizontally in a rack on the side of the hull above the right side track; the rounds were placed so that their bases faced inward toward the turret. The radio man could reach them fairly easily from behind the commander. So he'd pull one out and pass it to the tank commander, who was standing up into the turret. That way the commander didn't have to squat down and pull rounds out of the rack himself. But that's all the assistance the TC got; he still had to acquire targets, load, aim and fire the cannon all by himself. It wasn't a matter of the commander having to load the gun sometimes. He had to load it every time. As for radio, from what I've read the S35s all had them. It was the B1-bis that only had one on the command tanks. But only 440 S35s were made, and only about 250 were involved in the fighting in 1940.

[@terraflow__bryanburdo4547]

The Char B and Somua had just arrived at the front in 1940, and the French had problems in operation and deployment, whereas the Wehrmacht were well-coordinated after Poland.

[@landotomunn9048]

And the French were using them as infantry support, and not as a spearhead force on his own, like panzers. Kinda limiting their effect because you had so few in one place compared to the panzer....

[@Paciat]

@@landotomunn9048 You probably header about Pierre Billotte tank ace. Ever wondered what the rest of Billottes tank platoon did when hes tank massacred the Germans? Cause tank platoon is the smallest tank unit. Both B1 and S35 were over complicated and difficult to maintain up to the point that the crews didnt knew how to fill all the gas tanks with fuel and they drove with only the main gas tank filled. Infantry tanks werent ineffective. Germans had more StugIII SPGs than any other tank, and they used them for infantry support, with great result.

[@leneanderthalien]

@@Paciat only two B1b was awailable those days close the country of Stonne: the B1b "Eure" (tank killer Pierre Bilotte's), and the next day the B1b "Riquewihr", (the "bucher of Stonne") who kill many german soldiers under he's tracks ...german tanks was hidden if the nazi see the B1b approaching...

[@23GreyFox]

@@leneanderthalien Sure and the rest of the frogeaters are running when germans are comming.

[@EulHollandais]

@@23GreyFox Not so quickly as the brits did to escape from Dunkirk. About 100 000 french soldiers died

[@stephanelegrand8181]

Nice Vid ! Thanks ! I agree with the poor commander point, but this as to be lightly reduced/corrected : the 47 mm/ 32 SA35 was a hight velocity (660 m/s) semi-automatic gun. Not impressive ... but nevertheless good at the time in penetration ! But my point is "semi-automatic". Would they have been two and not 1.5 in the turet .... Just to point it's reputation at the time : On 18 mai 1940, 12 Somua-S35 (De Segonzac squadron of 4e Régiment de Cuirassiers) in the battle of Jolimetz with the help of 1 cie of marocan infantry stood against half of the 5st panzer division. That's 120 tanks + infantry+artillery+aviation ! And as you pointed it : no artillery, no aviation for the frenchies ! At 10 to 1 french losses where 10 somua and german 26 tanks (most Pz iV). Not So bad ! So I don't agree with you "before war concept" comment : this tank was innovative in a lots of ways ! It was a modern tank with a flaw (the crew/commander) and probably a communication problem, but it was so good that it was used on eastern front (one was captured by the soviet) and used (maybe not as main battle tank) til the end of the war in the Battle of Royan 04/45 ! Then again as de Gaule pointed it there was a major flaw in french doctrine about armored warfare at that time (40-41)!

[@gings4ever]

talking about the cons of the B1 while it passes by a lumpy A7v coincidence~?

[@THX11458]

There are very few first hand German tankers accounts against French tanks in 1940. However, in Jentz's Panzer Tracts No.2 (Pzkpfw-II) he does describe a report from a Hauptmann Schneider-Kostalski who commanded 2 Kompanie 6 Panzer Regiment of the 3rd Panzer Division in a Pzkpfw-II. The following is his account of engagements against French Hotchkiss 35 light tanks and a Somua 35 in May 1940: "Upon returning to the company I learned that one enemy tank had already been captured and brought into our bivouac. I immediately went to look at it. It was an H35, the first modern French tank that I had seen. Although we were well informed about the armor plate thickness of the tank, when I actually saw this heavy armor, it gave me cause for serious reflection." [ Later in the day ] "While I was orienting myself on my map, my men suddenly shouted: "Enemy Tanks!!" In fact we could recognize about 50 enemy tanks maneuvering on our right flank as well as our front. Two Panzer-III from the 4.Kompanie began to fire at the hostile tanks from a distance of about 600 meters. A glance at the map showed that my Kompanie should be a little farther to the left. I could neither see nor hear anything of the other companies of the regiment. So I decided to continue the attack alone keeping left. Being the leading Panzer [of the company], I moved toward a village. Suddenly a French H35 tank appeared on my right front. The muzzle of its 37mm moved as if to take aim at my tank. I immediately fired a full magazine of 20mm projectiles from a range of about 90 meters then the 37mm barrel stopped moving and clouds of smoke emerged from the tank. I do not know whether any of my shots actually penetrated its armor or not, but this tank did not fire at any of my [company's] tanks after that." [After attempting to circumnavigate obstacles blocking the road in the village by driving down a sunken road] "I could not close [my hatch] because at each turn of the road I expected to run into enemy units and dared not take my eyes from the optics or my hands from the elevating mechanism. This precaution soon paid off. When taking a curve, I saw a French H35 tank approaching me from the opposite direction...I succeeded in forcing this tank to stop and immediately fired half a magazine of 20mm projectiles into it before its gunner was able to do anything at all. The striking force of my projectiles was so great that the driver's [visor] hatch sprung open. I immediately fired machine-gun bullets into the hatchway. Then we hurried past the motionless, burning enemy tank. Fifty yards away farther on, the same action was repeated with another hostile tank. I succeeded again in blowing open the hatch and putting the crew out of action. Then I met a third enemy tank standing in the road...In a flash I opened fire, but unfortunately this time the hatch did not burst open...I knew that if [the H35] opened fire he [would] probably destroy all of us because his weapon was superior to ours. Suddenly two hands were raised high in the air from the gunner's rear turret hatch. Driving up, I called to the two Frenchmen to dismount their tank. Then I dropped a grenade into the vehicle and put it out of action." [Somewhat later he encounters an S-35] "Suddenly on my left a French heavy tank of the Somua type came into view. The front and sides of this armored monster are invulnerable [to our 20mm]. So I decided to attack it from the rear. Utilizing some rising ground and our superior speed, I succeeded in sneaking up to him from the rear. I followed his trail at a distance of 25 meters. My driver halted...and I fired ten rounds into his back. A huge smoke cloud emerged from the tank but it moved calmly ahead...my driver [then] rushed to cover behind rising ground." [A few minutes later] 'Suddenly I felt a heavy jolt. Smoke and a burning smell filled up the interior of our Panzer. My driver shouted: "Direct Hit" We abandoned our faithful vehicle in a hurry. All three of us were uninjured, except for some bullet splash I had received on my hand...The radio operator and I [then] set up a captured French machine gun and [sprayed] the edge of the village where we suspected the enemy anti-tank gun to be concealed. In the meantime my driver put out the fire around the engine by squirting the fire extinguisher through the shell hole in the armored plate." [After scrounging equipment from their wrecked Panzer-II] "The din of battle increased steadily in our rear. we saw waves of German Panzers swarm around us...Then the regimental HQ light panzer platoon came speeding along. We climbed on the back of a Panzer, asking the platoon commander to drive to the edge of the village. There we interned to attack the anti-tank gun on foot. The Panzer platoon gave us fire protection and we found the hostile anti-tank gun and put the crew out of action...[in the meantime] my 1st lieutenant, while searching for us, had captured eight French tanks and their crews. The rest of the Kompanie thought we were killed. [Afterwards] we learned that we had defeated the elite mechanized division of the French army (3rd - Parisian - Mechanized Division) ."

[@Spartaner251]

something something Girls und Panzer das Finale

[@firepower7017]

Spartaner251 Not that bogus

[@x3-LSTR-512]

@@firepower7017 i still dont know why people gate keep animation styles its not objectively worse

[@od1452]

Cmd and control is the key. It is interesting that some early T 34 commanders solved this problem (to a degree) by choosing to be the driver as it was the safest spot ( from crew survival point ) and he could chose the safest use of terrain. Incredibly they would leave the drivers hatch slightly open to increase visibility.

[@cannonfodderdk2300]

One should also remember that when the commander and the gunner is the same person, then the rate of fire WILL drop. The commander's job is to spot the targets and relay that information on to the gunner, who then can aim and fire. The commander have the overall view while the gunner have the scoped view. If the commander has the dual role, then he loses the overall view, since he shall both spot, aim and fire.

[@quentintin1]

good video, just some small points: french tanks (at least some of them) had vision blocks behind the vision slits, it is just that very few of those blocks survived the war and the years that followed, it can be seen if the port was made for a vision block if it has hooks at the top and bottom of the port to attach it. also the cupola was equipped with a binocular for observation (can't find if it had magnification). speaking of the cupola, they didn't install their own on the S35 (turret too small) they simply removed the top and installed a simple hatch so the commander could put his head through it for the radio, i just want to mention that the S35 had two models of radio (if they received them), an ER28 (2km range, AM, 30-20Mhz) for internal transmissions and the command tanks received an ER29 (5km, AM, 20-12Mhz), i have no info on the tree problem, i only know that it was a problem in the ER54 for light tanks which was based on the man transportable ER40 and which had a range of only 800m (on flat ground).

[@joshmeads]

I love these tank vs tank videos. Where's this video been the last 5 years? 🤔😂

[@WordBearer86]

"The Germans were initially complaining about this issue with the pants." Well Lederhosen is rather ridiculous leg wear.

[@melodrama9098]

*Lederhosen du Horst

[@WordBearer86]

@@melodrama9098 Your pants suck.

[@marsnz1002]

Lederhosen, much like Oktoberfest and Nazism, is Bavarian not universally German.

[@WordBearer86]

@@marsnz1002 Still ridiculous pantsu.

[@kameradin8964]

But hanz told me he liked it

[@markkringle9144]

Additionally, the short 75 was later mounted in the half track (stumpf) for infantry support.

[@External2737]

Excluding against other tanks, the short 75mm was a better battlefield gun. More ammo, longer barrel life, less weight (better Panzer reliability), and good high explosive capabilities. Rommel noted in his diaries how much of an impression it made on French troops.

[@markkringle9144]

@External2737 Lol! Physicaly or psychologicaly?

[@External2737]

@@markkringle9144 Both. The high rate of fire, combined with a lack of radios, made it difficult for the French to counter advances.

[@alluvallaton5414]

Perkele

[@yathusanthulasi]

perkele is best

[@alluvallaton5414]

Totta

[@endlesnights3817]

An easy way to solve this would have been to have a battle in Warthunder.

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

please report to the commander of the penal company...

[@milkboy2228]

He's too afraid to 1v1 the best warthunder tanker in the world in Bo. The American genius would outwit any panzer in any tank.

[@gearz2570]

@@milkboy2228 yup

[@gearz2570]

@@milkboy2228 didnt he destroy a tiger with a locust?

[@pzg_kami6472]

I play War Thunder for about less than 2 months (cause I play on Xbox one and WT just released for about 2 months on Xbox) and played both tanks. I think Pz IV is better (at least when it comes to killing S35) because of post-penetration damage. And when I use HEAT then don't even need to bother too much with aiming for weakspots

[@peterfmodel]

I did not realise the 7.5 cm L/24 had an AP round, at least in most micro-armour rules give this a almost almost non-existent at capability. However i checked and it did have the PzGr. 39/43 Armour-piercing round available. However even if it had a AP round, or in this case is an APCBC round, its velocity was 385 m/s. This is very low and as a round drops by about 5 metres for each 1 second of flight, i suspect its range was very low, or at least its accurate fire range. As for HEAT, the Gr.38 Hl was in very low supply in June 1940. But in summary, 2 man crew turret was a poor design. It basically ensured you would never get the first shot and any subsequent shots would be greatly affected. ON the other hand the Panzer IV was brilliant at cutting through infantry and as most tank engaged infantry and tank v tank encounters were infrequent, it was a great tank in that role.

[@Wallyworld30]

In Antony Beevor's book World War 2 he said Rommel was out of Armor Piercing rounds when he ran up on some french tanks. He ordered his men to fire Flare guns at the tanks and thinking these were some kind of anti Armor weapon the French fled the battlefield. Beevor did say in his book it might not be true but was worth mentioning. So funny story but it might be BS.

[@Wallyworld30]

@ I pulled them from Antony Beevor's book. He acknowledges they might be not true but he also said the story was spread so much it was worth mentioning. Why you so mad?? French?

[@Wallyworld30]

@ Are you suggesting I made this up? I'm not from Florida so what the fuck are you on about? Have you read Antony Beevor's WW2? It's mentioned in the battle soon after Rommel does a river crossing into france.

[@EstellammaSS]

Beevor’s books are questionable at best

[@Wallyworld30]

@@EstellammaSS I know TIK had some issues with Beevors book on Market Garden. He called Beevor a liar before re-editting to video to say he disagrees with Beevors conclusions on Market Garden for libel reasons. I really enjoyed Beevors WW2, Stalingrad, and his Battle of Berlin books. That's all I've read but I'd definitely would read more of his stuff. He keeps it informative and entertaining. I definitely recommend all 3 of those. The story about the flares he says in the book might be bullshit so you gotta give him a pass on that.

[@K_Kara]

@ So entitled, lol. Shut up please.

[@andrewphuck9795]

You are the best channel this website. Thank you so much for all the work you put into your content!

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

Glad you enjoy it!

[@philippecalamel6959]

Why showing a B1bis when he is talking about the S35?

[@kryts27]

The Wehrmacht was not in a position to fight a long protracted war in 1939 or 1940. In fact, the German army was still in the middle of restructuring and training when Hitler started the war in Poland. This is partly found in the position papers of General Ludwig Beck, who analysed that the Wehrmacht was not fully rearmed and trained all its divisions with full logistics support until 1943. Because of the string of quick victories in 1939 & 1940, and the poor analysis of the Russian army (partly due to their bungling in invading Finland in 1940) the Wehrmacht was also not prepared for a long protracted war there either.

[@Zorro9129]

If I had to pick a tank for myself, I would choose the S-35 every time. If I had to pick the tanks for a battalion, I would pick the Pz.IV if the battalion commander was highly competent. If the battalion commander could not make full use of the radios, I would pick the S-35.

[@NokotanFanCentral]

“If the battalion commander could not make full use of the radio, I would pick the S-35” you do know that almost every S-25 had no radios right? Even if the German commander doesn’t use it well it’s gonna be better then a 1 way radio or a flag signal

[@Paul-ie1xp]

The British 432 has the same issue with the Fuel Tank, crew will often fill just one fuel tank.

[@auditedpatriot6376]

Asking whether the S35 or Panzer IV is better is like asking whether a spoon is better than a fork, depends on what's for dinner. Both the French and Germans conceived an expectation that one class of tank would support Infantry with a low velocity howitzer to engage infantry, pill boxes, and anti-tank artillery with HE to be followed with a fast tank to exploit the breach or perform reconnaissance. The Char B with its 75 was more comparable to the early Panzer IV in their function and equipment, whereas the S35 "Cavalry Tank" is more the French Panzer III. Guderian in Panzer Leader noted how useless German 37mm guns were against French armour, and Rommel had the same problem against Matilda II tanks at Arras. But the Germans never planned search and destroy campaign looking for French tanks to duel with. Like McArthur in the Pacific, Guderian wanted to "Hit them where they ain't." The French mobile forces obligingly drove into the big Belgian bag and the perhaps under armed panzers drove right around them.

[@broncosgjn]

So then we should not do it? Okay delete video. Happy now?

[@auditedpatriot6376]

@@broncosgjn Apples are different than oranges. Compare them if it makes you happy.

[@broncosgjn]

@@auditedpatriot6376 Yes but what about tanks?

[@auditedpatriot6376]

@@broncosgjn I think my point was clear as stated. Tanks are tools. Is a Stuart better than a Grant? Are you doing fast Recon or stopping a bonzai charge? Clearly if the pzkw III was the best medium tank in the world for its time, we would be having this conversation auf Deutsch.

[@broncosgjn]

@@auditedpatriot6376 At no time did I suggest the Panzer 111 was the best medium tank in the world. How did this argument get to that? Secondly having the best tank will not win you the war. Having a 10 to 1 advantage in tanks that are good enough wins you the war. The war was won because the Allies had an overwhelming advantage in manpower and manufacturing and natural resources such as oil and minerals and transport infrastructure mainly courtesy of the US and control of the seas via US and British Navies and air force. Now back to the original point. You are taking this to a ridiculous level. Both were medium tanks and could be and he did compare them. Live with it. While this is definitely not like comparing a Stuart with Grant there is nothing stopping a person from comparing a Stuart with a Grant and posting a video on it. And by the way the Russian and French Italian and British and Japanese armies were mainly fast light tanks in the early 1940's and they often came up against medium tanks in combat so in fact why would you not compare them if you felt like it? Maybe you could start your own channel and do it by your rules and see if anyone wants to watch?

[@CZ350tuner]

The question posed should have been, "What was the least worst French tank in 1940??". The Pz.IV short 75mm. KwK.37 ammo in 1940 was: APHE K Gr.Rot Pz (up to 48mm. @ 0 @ 100 metres). APCBC-HE PzGr.39 (up to 57mm. @ 0 @ 100 metres). HEAT HL/A (84mm. @ 0 Degrees @ all ranges). HEAT HL/B (91mm. @ 0 Degrees @ all ranges). HEAT HL/C (120mm. @ 0 Degrees @ all ranges). Most common anti-armour ammo carried was APHE K Gr.Rot Pz. due to pre-war stockpiling. HEAT ammo A/B/C rating determines maximum range as the A is the lightest and the C being the heaviest. The majority of a Pz.IV's ammo stowage was HE. HEAT rounds carried would have been intended for pillboxes and bunkers, which was the primary use for these rounds as HEAT also blasts through concrete like a hot knife through butter.

[@PMMagro]

How many Panzer IV-D was available in May 1940 compared to Soumas?

[@gusty9053]

I think around 100 vehicles at the invasion of France, maybe less. I don't remember a figure for the Somuas. But overall the french had more tanks by some margin.

[@nattygsbord]

20-40 panzer IV

[@nattygsbord]

The German panzer IV were so few that they were irrelevant in 1940. Panzer III vs S35 would have been a better comparison. But once again, panzerIII was also quite rare eventhough its numbers where much higher than just a little more than 20 vehicles. I would say that the french overall had the better tanks since most the panzers the germans had were really non-tanks like panzerI, Panzer II, Panzer 35 and panzer38t. France had more tanks and they had tanks with better armour (S-35 had angeled armour and was immune to all German tank guns) and the french guns had the highest penetration values for its day. So if anything, did the Germans not win because they had better tanks and not because the French had wasted too much resources on building the Maginot line so that they did not have any resources to build tanks - as clowns like Liddell Hart claims. Panzer III had not yet been upgraded to an impressive machine as it would become later in the war. So in 1940 it was still a mediocre tank and even inferior to british and french tanks. It might have a radio and more comfy turret. But so what? What would that help if your gun cannot penetrate the armour of the enemy tanks? Its engine was underpowered which made the tank sluggish. Its gun was too weak. And its armour was unangled and thin on the early variants. And worst of all for Germany was that this was the best tank they had in 1940 and even this pile of junk couldn't be produced in numbers compareable to those of allied tanks. The tiny tank production in 1940 barely was enough to cover the losses Germany had made in Poland the year before. And Germany did not start the war with much tanks either. They had to press foreign czech tanks into service because tank numbers were insuffiecent even after all panzer1 and panzer2 tanks had been included.

[@stupidburp]

@@nattygsbord The production limits on S35 were mostly budgetary and this could have been solved with deficit spending to react to the imminent threat of invasion. Secondarily the limit on production was from the old style of shop based manufacturing instead of more efficient production lines. There was insufficient casting facilities capacity to feasibly produce more than about a thousand S35 before the start of the war even with full investment. An extra 700 S35 would certainly have helped a great deal but would not be enough on their own. The Maginot Line was a reasonable and effective strategy in response to being vastly outnumbered - it just needed to be extended with less expensive earthworks fortifications to cover the gaps along the borders. More extensive fall back and city defense fortifications might also have helped. There was plenty of steel available in France for production of defensive guns and reinforcements along the Maginot line in addition to as many small arms and tanks as they could build. Production was in isolated workshops with limited movement between them and greater investment in one area did not detract from other areas of potential production except for budgetary reasons. With greater early investments in both fortifications and equipment France could have potentially stopped the initial German invasion and held out for some time.

[@nattygsbord]

@@stupidburp According to john mosier "blitzkrieg myth" did France build their maginotline fortifications in the early 1930s. And around 1936 all construction had been done and the wall had been paid for. And France did now turn their efforts on building tanks instead. And they had more tanks than the Germans. And better tanks as well. They even had so many tanks that they did not just only have as many panzer divisions as the Germans. They also had so many tanks that they could give some tanks over to the infantry to support them. And French military planners had also predicted that the Germans would take the road they took into France before the war. So the french military should have been more than able to stop the German assault on their own with the resources they had. So the problem according to Mosier was rather that the French were unlucky to have a bad political leadership in France that paniced when the Germans launched Fall Gelb on 10th of May. The French president paniced and thought that the sky was falling down, and called London to speak with the British prime minister for advice. And the unexperienced new government under Churchill was in their first day in office and had not yet get a chance to get a grip over the situation in the war. So Churchill listened to the paniced French president and decided to retreat his British army from eastern Belgium. And by doing so he did leave the flank open for the Belgian army - which then had no other choice than to retreat as well. So the Germans could advance unopposed for days while the allied line was breaking up, and the British army walked closer and closer to the coast and had to leave Europe with the evacuation in Dunkirk. And France was left open with her flank exposed and without any allies. And the superior German coordination of the Luftwaffe and ground units had given the allied air force a heavy blow. So the war in the west as about lost. All because the allies decided to leave a good defensive position and stop following their pre war plans. France did actully win the first tank battles fought against German tanks. But political leadership fucked up all the whole situation so the war was lost anyways.

[@abdulrahmandarwish2962]

Great comparison! Thanks for the video!

[@zeusz3237]

As far i know the S35 Somua was designed for cavarly actions, and to help the cavarly, since the french armies cavarly used it.

[@johnnyzippo7109]

Char B1 was archaic in layout and planform , however , the Char B1 BiS hydrostatic transmission was state of the art .

[@eatafox]

The french had a Very solid tank, but the Germans were about one generation ahead and due to french political turmoil, and the maginot doctrine their strategy was inflexible.

[@prophetsspaceengineering2913]

Our military historian (during training in the Bundeswehr) once pointed out that the French had severe issues with refueling their tanks in the field. He stated that they were mostly relying on large vulnerable tankers with hoses instead of a canister based approach like the Germans used. According to him, the long refueling times and inflexibility of the process made them an easy target. As a result, artillery and planes were a huge threat and could easily disable large numbers of tanks without actually destroying the vehicle. He argued that this severely reduced the willingness of the french command to commit tanks in attacks or to redeploy them into more favorable positions. I haven't seen his source material for those claims, but considering his background as a professional it seems reasonably likely. He too also talked about the rampant communication issues and the fact that the officers were sorta trapped in a very rigid hierarchy. He also mentioned that the french doctrine demanded the deployment of tanks primarily as infantry support and in small numbers. They were supposed to be used as tactical reserves, spread out in little groups across a large area of the frontline.

[@mitchberg8229]

Good piece, but re the rate of fire - I think you underestimate the importance of a dedicated loader, and the excessive workload of the guy in the one-man turret.

[@murphy7801]

I mean was the huge factor that France suffered huge casualties in ww1 and we're not looking for war they wanted peace. Till war was unavoidable so they rushed training and doctrine. I can't really be mad anyone not looking to repeat ww1.

[@sebc8938]

About the one man turret, it must be said that the french militaries were totally aware of its issues. But the main issue was to produce tanks in quantity before the war broke. Thus, the use of existing one man model already existing and in production was prefered over waiting for better models that were at the design stage. Moreover, the turrets were not designed and made by the tank manufacturer but in separate factories with common design. And the one man turret was at first designed for the sucessors of the Renault FT that were light tanks with only two man crew.

[@od1452]

Good video. Thanks. It would be interesting to see what the German crews who operated Somuas thought of the tanks and did they change crew responsibilities .?

[@qjimq]

I'm a TIK fan and stumbled across you. Very nice video's, thanks!

[@thomaszhang3101]

Please compare VK 3002 (MAN) and VK 3002 (DB)!

[@od1452]

Ultimately Tanks were not made to fight other tanks .They were made to fight hard points and infantrymen , Anti Tank guns and crews .. at least in the beginning.The U.S. never really worried about it until late 44.

[@Sarfanger]

Well no. They were made for infantry support. That did include to fight against enemy tanks. You dont wait Tank destroyers or Anti-tank guns to do the job. Also when you look tanks like Tiger,Pz IV late,Comet,firefly,Tiger II,M4 76....List goes on. All these tanks have guns that are mainly made to kill tanks. If they are not made for that they would probably have 105 or 94mm Howitzers Also US did care because they had projects all the way from 1942 to mount 57mm and 76mm for different tanks. Both that were chosen because of better armor penetration. Thing was that there really wasnt need for better anti-tank gun before 1943-44 especially when M3 75mm good enough against most German tanks at the time

[@damiendevault2552]

In fact, the operative comparison exists: it is the battle of Hannut (the first tank battle of the history), including what the best of Panzer and the best of french tanks: 600 german tanks vs 400 french tanks (French+Belgium tankists). In this frontal battle, the skills (i.e. the experience and the impact of way of use of each doctrine and practical solution) in the operative proportions led to tactical results. And the conclusion is: 1/4 of each destroyed, French tactical victory (even Stuka's domination) but German strategical victory because French and Belgians did not supported the effort... Somua S35 and Renault R35 vs all the German mix (german and captured polish and tchekian tanks).

[@enema6222]

Great vídeo! The Panzerkamfwagen IV is my favorite. What’s the diference beetwen the french and german military industry and what impact that had the war(1939/1940)?

[@leneanderthalien]

The PZKW IV had a better look, but in 1939-40 was pretty unnefficient because a bad armor and a low velocity 75mm gun (not armor pearcing)...later versions was heawy upgraded with better armor and a much better 75mm

[@jameslawrie3807]

The proposed SOMUA S-40 would have been the weapon of parity against the Panzer IV but the Germans understandably did not wait around for it to appear.

[@warsillustrations4227]

the french tanks didn't have visual slit without glass. The Chieftain, when he was in the Somua, say that because the optics were removed. French tanks had "chretien" optics (just likes binoculars - mounted on the firts series of the Char D2 and R-35) and, for the APX turret of the Somua and B1 Bis, the PPLR X 160 optics. The lack of visibity should be because of the observation little turret that was not really pratical for the commander.

[@murphy7801]

Well that's definitely an issue in the s35 I'm not sure about the char b1 or the char b2c

[@stevenelliott8144]

Blitzkrieg Legend is one of my all-time favorite books, glad to see it cited here.

[@LewisRenovation]

Always enjoy your content. Thanks@

[@marcppparis]

bewegungskrieg would have been very difficult without good communication and with an overloaded commander. The German tactics and operational plans defeated the French much more then “better” technology. One on one, allied tanks or planes were generally not inferior to the German one. The whole point is that in war it’s very rarely a one on one duel. We saw the same in the sky initially with the Schwarm and the Rotte vs the Vic

[@Bochi42]

The Somua radioman usually didn't have a radio to operate so I'm going to assume he loaded the gun most of the time. Thus leading to a faster rate of fire. Target acquisition would have been much better on the IV of course. But the chances of the short 75mm penetrating the Somua was pretty low while the S-35 47mm could definitely punch through the Pz IV C & D's. I think if the situation were reversed and the Heer had had S-35's and French Panzer IV's then the comparison might play out differently. The Somua was a dead end while the PzIV was only at the beginning of it's life span but the Somua was a good tank for 1939 and 40 so deserves some more credit than it gets due to the French command having put them in unwinnable fights due to their incompetence. (And I'm not even sure Gen. Huntziger didn't outright want the GErmans to win given his politics and rise in rank under the Vichy government.

[@Schmidty1]

Why isn't this on your main channel? This is visualized! Also, it would get way more views that way.

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

it's only partially visualized and originally was not intended to be so elaborate, yet, I had a bit more time and wanted to try stuff out. Also, it could actually get more views here, the way the YT algorithm works, yet, that is always a diceroll.

[@Schmidty1]

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized fair enough.

[@BaldwinVonDresden]

Is there any basis for a Panzer II vs one of the British cruisers vid? Maybe as an addendum to this battle of France theme or in the North Africa campaign? Or maybe Brit vs Italian?

[@N_Wheeler]

To answer Nick regards his piqued interest (not 'peaked') for BEFvsOKH tanks, Matilda II, but there were only a few of those.

[@chocokingchocolate1273]

BRING JUSTICE TO WAR THUNDER SOMUAS

[@leonardotavaresdardenne9955]

I love when my french tanks are missing 12mm of armor

[@chocokingchocolate1273]

@@leonardotavaresdardenne9955 and take longer to reload than pzIVs...

[@Fiddleshtick]

It's not all that shitty. I actually enjoyed playing the S.35 most of the time. And then the B1 is probably the most enjoyable out of all early french tanks, cause you can absolutely annihilate the enemy team.

[@mrick1974]

The amx m4 gives it justice ✊🏼

[@silverpleb2128]

@@Fiddleshtick The b1 in war thunder can face shermans, panzer IV F2 and T34 due to a shitty battle rating. Gayjin made a shitty french line with many bugs and innacuracy things, and then totally destroyed the french line due to somes germans players complaining about somes french tanks. Always germans and soviets cry babies.

[@eugenvonsurschnitzler9588]

As Germany did equipp some (second line?) units of their own with the S-35 and put them into action (Normandy 1944) I would be interested how they evaluated the combat effectiveness of this type. I do know that a decent amount of their chassis has been used to convert to SPGs and others have been modified as You mentioned. Have there been different tactical approaches in using these tanks for German service?

[@silverpleb2128]

The germans massively converted many french tanks and french chassis for their own business, many of germans vehiculs and tanks were using french technology

[@ahceneaissani846]

Hello

[@murphy7801]

Yes the char b1 and the s35 where used, and modified. I mean they were good tanks why waste them.

[@od1452]

I do think the Pzkw 3 would be a better comparison... but its still interesting and fair. Interestingly, Some German crews preferred the Pzkw 3 to the Pzkw 4.

[@RonI-qz2tz]

Great video. Love your channels.

[@nanorider426]

Thank you for the video. A very interesting subject.

[@goosnavslakovic4908]

I like the panzer IV because it was a very modifiable and well rounded tank. The French tanks were essentially just bricks that sat there and provide suppressing fire

[@silverpleb2128]

"he French tanks were essentially just bricks that sat there and provide suppressing fire"* No.

[@hushpuppy1735]

Is it only me that loves the French WW1 and WW2 uniform? (Even tho the bright blue made you easily seen).

[@murphy7801]

No they where bricks used to bash German tanks into the ground. 1 char b1 vs 13 panzers. Char b1 won all panzers destoryed.

[@lmyrski8385]

So I was wondering if you could do something contrasting crew training and instruction/practice between German and Western Allied tanks? Nobody seems to get to HOW the crews were trained to fight as a team in a given tank, and it may be the appraisals we are hearing are from people who are alien to these practices due to their own training? Hearing the Chieftain (and you in one video) hark on the limited gunner field of vision in German tanks in comparison to the Sherman with its Unity scope reminded me of a conversation I had in Germany years ago (1998) with a former Panzer IV crewman on the DB. He said, in general, upon being alerted to a target by the commander a German tank would immediately change course to point directly in the direction of the target to gain the protection of the main armor, and sometimes the earth, both making the tank a smaller target, then halt so the gunner could engage. He said at that point the gunner barely had to move the turret to hit the target, often doing it by hand, and really just needed to figure the range. He said a fast moving tank was tough to hit and his tank could turn quite fast but they had anxious times when it slid. He said they only engaged houses and infantry with the gun firing over the side rarely. He indicated that while he fought in the East he had conversations with friends who served in Western Europe and they conveyed their impressions over the years. He mentioned they his friends were under the impression that the Western Allies would rely more on turret traverse often leaving their more vulnerable sides exposed and presenting a bigger target. He said in Russia he thought the Russians also immediately tried to change the direction of the tank first. (He also mentioned that they felt the quality of Russian communication and teamwork was often poor and drivers were not skilled in using dips in the earth for protection). Was he right? Is perhaps the difference above maybe the reason the Germans do not seem to have been overly worried about electric turret traverse speed and wider angle view for the gunner?

[@philippecalamel6959]

The problem is that behind the narrator is a drawing of a MkIV with its short 75mm .

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

yeah, the Panzer IV with the long-barreled was not introduced before 1942.

[@Liamv4696]

Not really relevant but I thought I'd mention it. Not having a dig at your English or anything.. but the way you said it got me thinking.. For numbers after the decimal place, read them individually. Eg. "one point six two". Not "one point sixty two". Numbers to the left of the decimal place, read as normal. Eg. "Sixty two point six two". Not "sixty two point sixty two" :)

[@frankwhite3406]

A most enjoyable video very informative and interesting!

[@WildBillCox13]

My understanding is that the S35 was top-heavy and prone to topple when traveling across slopes. Stand in front of one and see what you think.

[@leneanderthalien]

nope CG was low because gun and turet was much lighter than a Panzer 4 one...

[@SARGE11963]

Wasn't the joint seam in front of the S-35 also a weak point in it's armor?

[@alexanderchenf1]

The French struck me as being technologically advanced but strategically ridiculous. The idea to have a 1 man turret is to save man-power. That’s just stupid to save manpower off of the tank crews. Recruit less infantry and train them better.

[@MakeMeThinkAgain]

Not to mention that the Panzer IV could be used against tanks and also against infantry and artillery elements. The turrets were the main problem with the French tanks. I've wondered why no one adapted the Bofors 40mm gun for use in tanks, but even this would have required a 2 man turret.

[@Cragified]

By accuracy he is probably meaning the fact the shell has a long flight time and thus more affected by wind as well as it has quite a lot of drop which has to be compensated for instead of just aiming at the target. For artillery crews this is bread and butter of their trade. For tankers who trained first on Pz IIs and such probably impacted them quite a bit at long range.

[@JaM-R2TR4]

i really doubt 200m/s more speed made that huge difference... especially when majority of combat in early war was happening under 500m distance..

[@TheHangarHobbit]

Let us not forget the French didn't build one man turrets with those weak guns because they LIKED the idea of one man turrets or weak guns, it was because they were broke thanks to the Great Depression and they had lost so many of their men in WWI that if they would have built 5 man tanks in the same numbers? They wouldn't have had enough men to crew them and still keep a functional economy. So they figured they could reuse the WWI guns and FT17 turrets they had on hand and better to have SOME 1 man tanks than only a handful of 3 man. We can see now it was a bad call but given their situation I honestly do not know if building only a handful of more capable tanks would have mattered, after all it didn't help the Czechs with their 35/38s which were arguably better than most of the German tanks at the time.

[@JaM-R2TR4]

not really. They did it, because they were afraid that next war will be as brutal as Great War, and they will have a problem to get enough crew for their tanks... so they rather had 3-man tanks than 5-man tanks... thats why they had 1man turrets...

[@Yoyle-jq9ul]

Now which tank took longer to make in the thumbnail

[@seanbruce8294]

Can you please do a comparison video for the M4A3E8 Sherman and the T-34/85?

[@danmorgan3685]

The Somua did have a two man turret. It was just a really, really shitty one where the radio operator/loader had to the duck the gun's recoil. It did keep them on their toes.

[@shebschaf7608]

bassicly, he is basicly talking about basicly 2 WW military stuff in a kind, i basicly like ;)

[@dgerdi]

I played about 2000 hours of „Panzer General II“ in my life. First - watch out for the CHAR and bring the best Panzer III E you have plus a few Stuka‘s if weather conditions are good. Those are primary targets for the Germans in 1940. And the Panzer IV D? Well very very poor against Tanks but a devastating foe for enemy infantry and Artillery.

[@HerrPolden]

I find myself wondering how French tanks had looked in 1940 if they had field tested their 30s designs in Spain like the Germans and Soviets did. Helps not having to guess ALL the design requirements, after all.

[@ComissarZhukov]

Oooh my friend. You are touching a very interesting topic here, how it might have gone if the French Republic decided to support the Spanish Republic in the civil war. I suppose that with french technical support and armaments coming from just across the frontier, the Soviet Union would have never attempted to intervene in the war, and the naval blocade of the Republic would be almost pointless. PReventing the comunist party of spain to gain so much influence and power, it might have allowed the republican government to regain control of the war effort much earlier. Perhaps we might have ended with the R-35 being the most iconical tank of the war, instead of the T-26 (Wich despite its defects might have been more effective than the T-26 in that particular war). And if the Republic ended winning the war, perhaps they would have returned the favor to France in WWII. How many divisions the Spanish Republic might have been able to send to France in time to face the german invasion? Would those troops with combat experience, and the exoerience gained by the french comand in the civil war, have managed to make a difference? I would love to see some alternate history written about the subject. Very interesting indeed. (A new Hearts of Iron campaign with France is growing in me right now... xD).

[@stephanelegrand8181]

@@ComissarZhukov very nice what if indeed !

[@EdAtoZ]

The Panzer 4 L/24 gun, ammo was this a common ammo with the small 75mm field gun or common with the PaK-40 ?

[@atfyoutubedivision955]

Nope.

[@moniqueleal9464]

Did those 6.8 kilograms of the Panzer IV gun round weight include the cartridge (patrone)?

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

seems to be only the projectile;

[@moniqueleal9464]

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Thanks

[@livincincy4498]

If you get bored… Compare the S-35 to a Mk 3 Then the Mk 4 against the Charbis. One construct of the French hard to understand was man power. A three or two man tank meant more total tanks. In this example a German (5) tank platoon would be (25) men. The S-35 platoon would only be (15) men. I realize that platoon is not correct vernacular. It s just to illustrate the problem. The French Army was just condemned to defeat by politicians. The Socialist movement was part of France. Germany had plenty of socialist allies during occupation.

[@tonglianheng]

The two tanks were designed for two different doctrines. So the term "best" can be misleading as criteria differ in different doctrines. Of course because the German doctrine were successful they largely became what we use today as criteria for "good". However, I would say that there was a degree of luck in Germany's success in early war period. Their blitzreig tactics were marktably much less successful in later war (c.f. Arden offensive which is a German attempt of repeating battle of France) with much better equipments. The French defense oriented doctrine had its merits and were quite carefully thought-out reflecting France's national realities of the time. It was just been very badly executed in places, while the culture of results > subordination in the German military happened to work to their favour --- however, it also worked against the Germans in other theatres. There were quite a few points during the German push where if the French could have counter attacked quicker, or if one or two of the officers had been more competent, or if the allies just coordinated better, if just one of those things happened, then the war could have very much taken on a completely different path. Guderian and Rommel could have suffered major losses and be cut off and trapped behind enemy line and be court-martialed for gross disobedience. As one can see later that even a relatively lightly armed infantry (airborne) division severely delayed or halt a German armoured offensive in the same area. Again in the battle of Kursk Germans failed to punch through Soviet defensive lines manned mostly by infantry and anti tank guns. German tanks had significantly less relative advantages both against French tanks and infantry at the beginning of the war. It is very much in the realm of possibility that same things could happen in battle of France and Belgium, but by luck for Guderian, it did not.

[@christopherg5386]

Poor analysis. The higher velocity 3.7 cm or 5cm main guns on the Panzer III were better suited and designed for anti tank roles. With armor piercing ammunition velocity is more important than size in anti tank uses. Panzer IV was being used in a primarily infantry support role.

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

?

[@Sarfanger]

Well yes and no. 5cm gun was even more rare then Stugs and PzIVs during 1940. If i remember right number were under 100. Most PzIII still used old 3.7cm KwK 36 that had worse penetration when shooting armor in 30° angle. So this is much better comparsion because its best tank German tank of 1940 vs Best of France. Also infantry support does include Anti-tank duty. Youre not going to say were made for infantry support we dont fight tanks when we have PzIIIs.

[@old_guard2431]

From the configuration of the tracks, it looks like the Panzer IV would be better on obstacles. It seems like the better-evolved German tactics in the early war makes the operational comparison a bit dicey.

[@kitilyakitty2466]

Eh, calling it a main battle tank is understandable. A tank that can engage any target on the battlefield, being able to stay in battle during attrition grinds and being able to be where it needs to be on the battlefield. That seems like a good basic way of calling a tank a main battle tank. In other words, able to fulfil any role called upon for a tank and doing it reliably. Pz IV G was probably the best at this for it's point in WW2. All because it's a designation in modern tanks is because it is how it is used, it's the concept that is more important when considering what qualities a tank has.

[@Sapoman2211]

If the germans had to rely on artillery and swarming to destroy the Somua, and could not do so with their tanks, then it seems to me that the Somua was the superior tank. It would fall on the doctrine being the problem.

[@Bird_Dog00]

The somua had issues on the tactical side: The commander sufferd from task overload and the turret was an ergonomical disaster zone (the french either didn't have or didn't want to pay for glass vision blocks, so they went for terrible vision slits, that left the crew virtually blind). The tank also had a shorter radius of action compared to the Panzer III even when the crew did know about the second fuel tank and how to fill it up...

[@Sapoman2211]

@@Bird_Dog00 and did those seem to matter greatly when single tanks were destroying entire german columns? Properly employed, the "mobile bunker" style of tank is quite formidable. Could the s35 have been improved? Absolutely. But that isn't the question at hand.

[@Bird_Dog00]

@@Sapoman2211 Single S35s destroxing entire german colums? Plural? How often did that happen? and under what circumstances? I have heard tales of single tanks or small units knocking out "entire colums" of enemy tanks from many sides of the war. They always seem to happen under Goldylocks-conditions whith an enemy cought off guard and are usually neither important for the campaign nor indicative of the tanks' overall performance.

[@Sapoman2211]

@@Bird_Dog00 If you're interested, I can pull up a number of pretty awesome accounts of french tanks marauding around this weekend. I'll be a bit too busy today though - let me know. Here is one, though it's a b1, not a s35. www.historynet.com/france-defied-hitlers-panzers.htm The tank is surprised, and attacked from the side. After being hit a few times, the commander realizes it's not accidental friendly fire, and starts shooting. He wins. Later, he comes upon a panzer 4, and wins. Then he comes upon a large number of panzer 2s, takes so many hits that it sounds like he is in a hailstorm, and wins when the enemy tanks flee.

[@Bird_Dog00]

@@Sapoman2211 Mentioning a small engagement that saw a S-35 facing mainly obsolecent Panzer IIs certainly won't convince me of the S-35s general superiority. The Somua was superior in armour protection and penetration power of its gun. It had its strengths. No question. When facing a Panzer III head on at normal combat ranges - provided, it could see the Panzer in the first place - it held an advantage. However, I am highly reluctant to use the outcome of a slugging match as the primary criteria by which to judge a tank's capabilities. If you had me choose between a Panzer III F or a Somua S-35 to ride into battle with, I think, I'd take the Panzer III.

[@GeneralGayJay]

But was there ever a battle between the Panzer and the Somua?

[@samstewart4807]

An excellent video. In 1940 the Russians were exporting oil/ gas to Germany. Do you know the % of motorized forces in the French Campaign? Was this higher then "normal"/ later actions because the Germans had unlimited fuel supplies? Were the French in any limited by their fuel supplies?

[@quentintin1]

i do not have a % of the mechanization of the french army in 1940, but as far as i can tell, having read units journals and such, that they did not suffer much from a lack of resources, the large number of tanks abandoned due to fuel problems were because the tanks were improperly filled and there was no time trying to recover the tank or the logistic company was too far and unable to help, when france signed the armistice, they still had fuel in their depots for the vehicles, here are the numbers at the mobilisation in september 1939 army vehicles motorbikes: 8.890 cars: 6.656 trucks: 27.146 special: 28.875 total: 71.667 requisition motorbikes: 57.973 cars: 57.209 trucks: 158.561 special: 13.324 total: 287.067 combat vehicles armored cars: 903 spgs: 0 light tanks: 4.585 medium tanks: 456 heavy tanks: 157 total: 6.601 a lot of these vehicles are of older models, and for the army a not inconsequential number comes straight from the great war (for example, the light tanks include 2000 renault FTs) to which add the wartime production (between September 1939 and June 1940) vehicles motorbikes: 15.644 cars: 4.393 trucks: 18.895 special: 7.239 total: 46.171 combat vehicles armored cars: 397 spgs: 70 light tanks: 1007 medium tanks: 270 heavy tanks: 240 total: 1.984 that represent a grand total of 413.490 vehicles having served in the french army of 1940, 8.585 of which were combat vehicles sauce: Francois Vauvillier, L'automobile sous L'uniforme 1939-1940.

[@samstewart4807]

@@quentintin1 Hi Thanks for your info. I hope you had a good Christmas. I was referring to the German army in this campaign.

[@quentintin1]

@@samstewart4807 i do not have much on the heer, but I've read in many places that the French army was much more motorized than the German army of 1940. basically, even reserve divisions were motorized while the bulk of the german army was still using horse drawn carriages

[@nicolasbertrand3932]

I remember reading somewhere that the german army had more tanks involved in the battle of France than during the first stange of the invaision of USSR. Of course not the same quality.

[@quentintin1]

@@nicolasbertrand3932 looking up the numbers, it looks like it was the inverse case Germany invaded Poland (sept 1939) with 2690 tanks, went into France (may 1940) with 2445 and launched Barbarossa (june 1941) with 3328 tanks

[@Wallyworld30]

It seems like if the French put a proper 3 man turret and proper radio on there tank they would have a real winner. I love the cast steel armor as it reminds me of the Shermans. Crazy that they used Morse code radios in WW2. I suppose that's still much better then Soviets not having any radio.

[@Matt.71]

the idea behind the 1 man turret is just to gain 1 man, make the tanks less heavy and use less metal the somua 40 and b1ter if they were produced would have been equipped with 2 man turrets and most of the french tanks weren't at all equipped with radios because our radios were old heavy and unreliable like everything in french weapons developments of WW2 our modern Equipment research was finished in end 39 - beginning 40, had the germans waited a bit more time they could have got their hands on SAU40 - S40 - B1ter - B40 tanks, Dewoitine 520-530 MS410 - MB520C-1 - MB162 planes, MAS40 rifles and others while probably still winning (also the Sherman was based on the somua 35)

[@quentintin1]

the morse code radios were in use in the infantry medium and heavy tanks, all cavalry radios were transmitting voice or were able to do both (with often better range for morse communication) the somua didn't have a two man turret just because the tank already reached the maximum weight for the program, the S40 was ignoring the limitation which permitted to enlarge the tank and put a 2 men turret, other tanks had one man turret either because their main role wasn't combat (AMR 33/35) or for a combination of factors (for example, the the 1935 light tanks, the army basically wanted an upgraded FT like matt said, if either the german had waited or france held a bit longer, better tanks would have seen the battlefield, one of the would have been the G1 tank, a medium tank with a 75mm gun in a 3 man fully rotating turret

[@mixal31]

7,5cm L24 could be considered as inaccurate because of slow muzzle velocity. Very bad for moving targets

[@inwedavid6919]

You can also talk to UK that reffuse to be organise with French unit and their quick withdrawn that let France fall as they flee quickly to dunkirk. tey refuse to deploy good planes over France and tey let hole in the line of front. The S35 has been conceive a recon cavalery unit, more for exploration than tank combat. Also Th PZ4 was a heavy (not so) support tank. there were quite few pz4 active.

[@markkringle9144]

Somua would be a better match for the MK 3 which would make a better comparison since the Wehrmacht had relatively small number of MK 4 in 1940.

[@davidtong2776]

The French were trying to fight WW2 on the Cheap, Many of their tanks were carrying guns which were taken right off of WW1 tanks. While the Germans always had the Marks 3 and 4 , and their five man crews as their goals, the French were building two man tanks in part to save money and keep crew requirements low.

[@silverpleb2128]

Actually, the french werent trying to fight "on the cheap" The french army except its navy, was not ready for a major war, the day before the war declaration of france, the politicians voted a 75billions francs fund for equiping and modernize its army, but as I said, the politicians made everything for the declaration of war. The french army lack concerned the Anti-aircraft guns, better light tanks and more modern tanks in general to replace the majority of old and obsolete tanks, a new communication system based on radios, and more modern planes ( there were only 500 planes available durign the offensive, many planes were not operational even if they were counted as it. ) Only their light tanks were carrying old guns. The french population was half the german population, the french economy was weakened after 5/6 years of social problems, world crisis. The german industry was stronger than the french one, and the french industry lacked of modern tools ( majority dated from the ww1 ) Concerning the effort of modernize and equip the french army, it only started in 1937-38 and started in a big proportion only in late 1938-39 while the germans were already re-equiping their army since 1934-35. Im not gonna talk about the french plan, nor the mobilization of UK which was too late and clearly not enough in term of age proportion. Im also not gonna talk about the geo-political situation of france, and also the french mistakes caused by the politicians and the head-quarter during the 30's and during the war. Many reports from the army said that the army would be ready only in 1941.

[@kirkstinson7316]

Why the Mk4? The Mk3 was the "tank". And there were a hell of a lot of T35 and T38 in German use during the french campaign

[@timscarberry2778]

Do you have a video on how Germany used captured vehicles?

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

Loot Force One Why all the Beutewaffen Beutewaffen Q & A

[@jamessills5802]

Most of the tanks in Panzer units were equipped with 38t or Panzer 3s, therefore using the Panzer 4 for this comparison has little validity.

[@JaM-R2TR4]

every tank company had 4 Panzer IV tanks in its first platoon.

[@paublusamericanus292]

for me the killer of french tanks was 1. lack of talking radios 2. Battle stations in a line 3. Not even knowing how to fuel your vehicles to use effectively.