Tank Chats

Join David Willey in this week's Tank Chat as he details the history of the SOMUA S35, a French cavalry tank of the Second World War.
Consider becoming a Patreon Supporter today: / tankmuseum
00:00 | The French Cavalry
01:30 | Post First World War Vehicles
04:30 | Vehicle Development
#tankmuseum #tankchats #DavidWilley #Somua #secondworldwar

[@thetankmuseum]

Hello Tank Nuts! Let us know your thoughts on this week's video from David Willey.

[@Tactical_Gentleman]

1 word: AMAZING! Keep up the great work.

[@fatherglyn]

They are now part of my standard Friday viewings and have encouraged me to be a friend and patreon of the museum. Fascinating and I love these more in-depth explorations.

[@PanzerBuyer]

Loving the long video!

[@noobepro_7146]

Amazing as always. But it way better if you remove the sound when you play the war footage at the beginning of the video

[@lairdcummings9092]

Nice slice of information, especially the social context around the 'development hell' that plagued interwar French armor.

[@kevcom2001]

As a modern Schneider employee it's always fun seeing some of our old products. ....Not that we make tanks anymore.

[@bryankennedy7123]

I'm intrigued at how the first Schneider and this one have vaguely similar running gear.

[@russwoodward8251]

I laughed at that as Schneider is a big customer of ours.

[@Shelmerdine745]

You should probably start doing that again.

[@vaclavholek4497]

Just installed some Schneider electrical components on a job last week. I was telling my co-workers that Schneider made tanks, and they were shocked.

[@Sseltraeh89]

As someone who works for subcontractor manufacturing parts for Schneider: You guys should get back to it. Would be way cooler.

[@amarrhardin]

My 7 year old son got me into this channel and now I am addicted.

[@MotionMcAnixx]

That is so sweet!

[@nigeh5326]

Maybe buy him something from the museum online shop to say thanks, especially with Christmas approaching 😊

[@michaireneuszjakubowski5289]

You've got to have a very intelligent and curious 7 year old kid for him to be interested in such voluminous talks!

[@slartybartfarst55]

From your name, your son will also be able to help you plot out the Future of Humanity

[@melancholyflapper7027]

Cherish that intergenerational passion - and I think it says something about how good this channel is considering it can appeal to all ages, and /how/.

[@drdinod.diplodocus3397]

Loving the French tanks, would be great to see more, especially the AMX family.

[@SpecialJess2]

There is only so many ways you can say "here is this prototype only 5 where built it was/wasnt very good (insert sassy David Fletcher remark)" =( I like the French prototypes, but you don't get any satisfying history with tanks that have always sat around or became target practice

[@Paciat]

I dont. So many things done the wrong way. @ Jessie What French prototypes are you talking about? 500 S35, 7700 AMX13 and 3571 AMX30 were build.

[@Tankliker]

@@Paciat you basically named a single vehicle of WW2, and two of the cold war area. The first was mediocre at best, the other was a very successful light tank and the last was basically just a 10t lighter Leo. 1 with a weird HEAT projectile and arguably less successful.

[@Paciat]

@@Tankliker And your point is? Get out of your tank hatch and you will notice that the second part of my comment is a response to Jessie comment calling amx tanks as prototypes. But most French tanks were designed badly. S35 included.

[@Tankliker]

@@Paciat my point is, that you haven't named a single prototype. What about the AMX 50 series? ELC's? Sumoa? There are a lot of prototype and could have been models yet all you did was name three production models completely missing his question.

[@colbeausabre8842]

When I was at the Armor Officer Basic Course 1974-75, the Head of the Tactics Division expressed it this way "Cavalry is a mission, not a method of transportation"

[@vorrnth8734]

He was wrong. Cavalry comes from french cheval and that means horse.

[@808bigisland]

Don't trust the bottom 10% of high-school graduates. He will be invariably wrong.

[@shatzinorris1417]

@@vorrnth8734 Being rude literally comes from horse in French and they have never apologized for it

[@PanzerBuyer]

I like the camouflage on the French tanks.

[@pex_the_unalivedrunk6785]

I think the idea was to make them blend in with the horizon when viewed from a trench periscope. The vivid colors are quite appealing, I agree.

[@pujo6532]

Some Somua tanks were painted with a very particular camouflage, the bottom of the body was painted brown to simulate the color of the ground, the middle of the tank was painted in different shades of green to simulate the colors of the vegetation while the top of the turret was painted blue-gray to confuse it with the color of the sky. It was a camouflage in 5-6 colors it was very original

[@woff1959]

Great talk, thanks! My Dad was the last commander of the two Hungarian SOMUAs from late 1943 to September 1944.

[@PossiblyIgor]

Thats interesting!

[@woff1959]

@@PossiblyIgor Thanks!

[@PossiblyIgor]

@@woff1959 It's quite interesting in general, the role of minor nations in WWII, like the Ukrainian partisan roles or the Australian role.

[@woff1959]

@@PossiblyIgor And they get overlooked a lot, which is a pity.

[@PossiblyIgor]

@@woff1959 Yeah, I am currently reading Churchill's WWII memoirs in which he barely mentions it.

[@DONALDSON51]

Love these more in depth tank chats..I enjoyed the short 5 minute videos but prefer these more in depth talks..Think all the tanks deserve chats like this :)

[@TheBob3759]

Agreed.

[@tonyz7216]

My grandfather's division (2nd DLM /1st Army) was equiped with the S35. Alongside the 3rd DLM they distinguished themselves at the Battle of Hannut in May 1940, one of the largest tank battle in WWII, where they repelled the assault of the 3th and 4th Pzdv. They suffered heavy losses during the battle however and all surviving S35s of the division had to be scuttled at Dunkirk like the rest of the division's equipment. The men only spent 3 days in Britain (at Weymouth in the case of my grandfather's regiment) before being sent back to the front line in France but with less equipment as the rate of attrition had been too high compared to the industrial output. The locations where the S35s were manufactured were about to fall to the Germans and in the absence of any foreign equipment as a substitution, this was the begining of the end. This tank was not flawless but it was definitely a good one by 1940 standard.

[@MrMarinus18]

But it's also important to remember that the tanks was not the main reasons the German Panzer divisions worked so well. What made them so effective is something the Germans had already perfected which were their sturmtroopen from WW1. These were adapted into panzergrenideer batalions and later divisions which worked exceptionally well with the tanks. The tanks securing the open fields and the panzergranideers securing the more difficult terrain with the air force defending them. The British didn't really have storm troop batalions and without them tanks were easily halted by obstacles and small fortifications. The effectiveness of stormtroops had already been proven in 1918 with the massive spring offensive. The tanks just added the final component to that success which was the firepower to directly punch through heavy army formations. The German army was very effective cause it was able to take the strengths of both France and Britain. It had a large well trained professional army of about 800k just like Britain did but it also had a massive and well motivated conscript army of around 5 million like France did. Germany also had about twice the industrial power of Britain and nearly twice the population of France so it could keep pace with them on both fields at the same time. During the interwar period while the German army was only 100k they kept up their standards very strictly and their small size meant that by 1932 they were arguably the best trained army in the entire world. Then you also had the very successful expansion to that 800k which instead of being done by just throwing new units in divisions was done very carefully to take away experienced soldiers to help train the new ones but not break up the effectiveness of the old divisions. That combined with lots of training of those new professional divisions over the course of 5 years put them nearly on par with the British. The conscripts were quite a bit above their French counterparts as they had been training for 5 years already and had already seen combat in Poland as well as in Denmark and Norway. You also had the fact that while there was a division between the professionals and the conscripts in the German military they were still part of the same army in contrast to the British professionals and French conscripts which meant they could coordinate much better. Though while the British professionals didn't do so well in France they proved their worth a year later in the tank dominated wastes of North-Africa by defeating an Italian army 8 times their size.

[@russcole5261]

o

[@tonyz7216]

​@@MrMarinus18comment worth reading thank you. I will study how Panzergrenadiers compared with French Dragons Portés in equipment and tactics.

[@c.j.zographos3713]

Interesting to see a French specimen. The French vehicles don't seem to get that much coverage, despite the country's solid examples, especially in more recent years.

[@genericpersonx333]

French sort of do that to themselves by a culture of keeping military technology relatively inaccessible to the public even long after it is technically no longer secret. Either the government still keeps the stuff close to the chest or they do very little to help others use the information when asked for it. Another big headache is French developers often have a unique method of communicating with each, ways of writing and talking that makes sense to each other, but less sense to outsiders. Be it how they create statistics, make drawings, or what have you,. it takes practice and patience to comprehend a lot of French technical information. This further limits detailing French technology. Thankfully, more French and Anglophone historians are taking the time to actually pry the knowledge out of the French systems, so we are getting more data than we used to, but it is a process. All the more reason to throw support at institutions like Bovington and to buy the books that historians like Zaloga writes, so these people can afford to take the time necessary to overcome indifferent governments who see little to no value in aiding historians research.

[@emberfist8347]

Agreed. I love seeing the Somua her beautiful tank and I feel underrated like most French designs.

[@majormoolah5056]

Leclerc is beautiful in its power... though I have to say the French have been very original and successful with their wheeled vehicles

[@MushroomPickles]

@@genericpersonx333 they seem to have no problem selling everything to the Chinese to copy.

[@TheBob3759]

The LeClerc tank for one.

[@mpersad]

A really comprehensive analysis of the machine and French tactics. Another terrific Tank Chat with David Willey.

[@msgfrmdaactionman3000]

They give it a fancy camouflaged paint job, then paint a bright bullseye on it!

[@stewartellinson8846]

I think this is the best of all the tank chats so far; clear, detailed and historically insightful. It gets away from the top trumps style obession with numbers and focuses on the S35 in its proper historical context with a wonderfully delivered narrative that explains clearly the situation facing France and how and why decisions were made, scotching as it does some long standing myths. Mr Willey's work just gets better and better. Excellent.

[@WeWillAlwaysHaveVALIS]

I've always had a soft spot for this vehicle, it's quite underrated for the period it was produced and fell prey to the poor doctrine of the French armed forces that seemed to plague them during the invasion.

[@colbeausabre8842]

If only it had a two man turret with voice radios (a three man turret probably wasn't possible given the size of the hull and better engine access

[@delta2372]

French vehicles of WW2 are pretty underrated (outside of their light tanks though if they weren't all using FT turrets and shells they would be remembered better) shame only thing people see when they look at WW2 France is "haha cowards haha"

[@Stripedbottom]

Same here. Always struck me as a good tank that found itself in the right place at the right time, but in the wrong hands. Compare it to the majority of medium tanks of the period, and it verily shines. Has a lot of the same qualities as the T-34 at an early stage actually - good all round sloped armour, good multipurpose gun that can defeat anything the enemy has at comfortable range (unfortunately, serviceability doesn't seem to have been one of those qualities) and the same general 'way of the future' air about it. Also, I'm not totally convinced about how big a drawback the one-man turret really was. Seems that most of the criticism of it comes from KZbin comment sections and literature published decades after the war (and the comments stem from that, of course). Germany was the second biggest user, so I'd like to see what they honestly thought of it _at the time_, especially considering many of their own tanks had one-man turrets also. Somewhat of a drawback for sure, but was it really a battle/war-losing drawback, if the same tanks were otherwise used as part of a mutually supporting combined force, with sensible strategy and tactics, in a well organized fashion and to their best possible ability?

[@christiandauz3742]

France wish it had these tanks back during the Franco-Prussian War

[@WeWillAlwaysHaveVALIS]

@@christiandauz3742 I think anyone would desire them priorto the actual invention of the tank lmao

[@BV-fr8bf]

Thank you for the comprehensive review of this solid French tank and the challenges of rapid rearmament, global economics, politics, radios AND training had on battle field deployment.

[@kippamip]

The duck of doom! Love the S35 at the museum and the camo scheme. Great tank chat as always.

[@DiggingForFacts]

Thanks for providing a more in-depth look into the S35. One minor correction though with regards to the cavalry: they adopted the Hotchkiss H35 and later H39. Since the R35 were all going to the infantry after Renault having won the competition for the new light infantry tank and the Hotchkiss competitor was more or less its equal, they picked the Hotchkiss because that was what they could get in relatively short order. They weren't fans of the H35/H39 because of its speed so they tended to split units so that the various units wouldn't be bound to each other's speed when operating. A number of the unit diaries report on the H35/H39 having technical issues during troop movements and while retreating from northern Belgium.

[@danam0228]

This guy's knowledge of tanks is encyclopedic

[@ostlandr]

He should really try to find a job where he can do this full time. 😉

[@msgfrmdaactionman3000]

That's his job, to know tanks.

[@mudcrab3420]

Finn has coached him well.

[@FlyinBrian777]

You're providing excellent information and taking great care of these vehicles, what a magnificent job you guys are doing at The Tank Museum.

[@jonsouth1545]

I've always had a bit of a thing for the S35 I just love it

[@michaelnaven213]

Always a pleasure to listen to David’s discussions.

[@trashtasticus7714]

A 40 minute video on French tanks and doctrine? Sign me right up ☺️

[@mattw785]

Amazing you got this ALL memorized.. no notes. Preparation is awesome

[@mattw785]

@Paul Fellows He is.. really knows his stuff. Just great to watch

[@tectorama]

It never ceases to amaze me as to the knowledge you have on the various tanks.

[@Tuauld]

I would really like to see more of these longer videos. This was super interesting! For me a huge step-up from the usual short summaries. This is probably the best video that I have seen on this channel.

[@RichardGoth]

Great video, loved all the detail. A lot of sources say they were hard to maintain but I loved getting all the technical explanations and the dive into french doctrine!

[@pmwalt22]

A wonderful, in-depth discussion on the development and employment of the Somua! Well done David Willey and the rest of the crew who developed his narrative which was highly enlightening.,

[@Luddite-vd2ts]

A fascinating in depth historical review. Really informative. That you've even covered social and political circumstances adds valuable insight. Thank you once again for sharing your knowledge in this way.

[@perils1400]

Very informative, loving the series. Great work.

[@Caarajack]

SOMUA S35 has a cute blob design with Frenchy curves.

[@Otokichi786]

Sorta like "Jabba the Hutt"?;)

[@watcherzero5256]

Its amazing how much the Sherman took from this tank.

[@SzwarcuKX5]

David Willey is so nice to listen to... respect.

[@wadejustanamerican1201]

Another great episode. The amount of time and research that is put in to each one of your videos is fantastic. I thank you very much.

[@1971stretch]

Love these long in-depth chats. More please.

[@steenlu]

Dear Mr Willy You¨ve got so much style! Thank you Sincerely Steen

[@Bocqart]

Thanks for the tank chat, really appreciated and in depth

[@thomashogan9196]

Can't help noticing how much the Somua looks like a Sherman.

[@friedyzostas9998]

Straight from the front, maybe. But internally, not even close.

[@theonlymadmac4771]

To respect the time flow, the Sherman looks like the Somua😊

[@martinhogg5337]

Thought it was just me that thought it was a mini Sherman!

[@binaway]

There is a good reason. I've read the US had ignored tanks after WW1. When it was decided to rebuild a US tank force in the late 1930's they looked at what other counties were doing, the easiest way to catch up and they liked this tank and took some of the idea's in development of the M2 which led to the M3 and M4. The Americans had the time to iron out the problems making the M4 very reliable.

[@thomashogan9196]

@@binaway At least one Free French unit affixed the "Somua" plate on the Shermans they were issued, although the Sherman's 3 man turret and 75mm gun must have been a step up.

[@johnray7311]

Excellent presentation. 1st I have seen on the S-35 and very well researched and analyzed.

[@atticlight9048]

An outstanding presentation by a master of his subject.

[@kingerikthegreatest.ofall.7860]

Love hearing stories about French tanks. Not many left.

[@josephc6588]

Wonderful channel for old and newer tank information, and it’s well presented. A very good intelligent speaker who communicates very well.

[@russeldavis1787]

A brilliant presentation

[@kilcar]

The most scholarly examination I've every seen . Great piece.

[@BladeTheWatcher]

Nice summary, including technology, doctrine, and historical details.

[@objectivelyacat3873]

A very good looking tank. It does look a little cramped in the interior, but it makes good use of its armor.

[@joaolucaslages7792]

It IS very cramped. The Chieftain trying to get into it via the hatch was hilarious

[@rob9263]

Wonderful video. Always great to see French armour getting attention 👍

[@davidgoodnow269]

Thank you for expanding and deepening my grasp of history!

[@FranticMatty]

Love they tank chats :)

[@sallyjones3377]

Excellent DW as usual, Looking good💙

[@christopping5876]

Another fascinating and captivating extremely well-done video.

[@richardmann145]

On these things history turns. Great informative post. Thank you

[@richarddyson4380]

What a brilliant analysis and explanation. Thank you for explaining what, was to me, impact the political and industrial decision making had on the use and impact of this tank. I knew it was good, but not that good. I cannot imagine how different the story would have been if the army were professional and industry allowed to work effectively coming out of the Great Depression…. A great topic for discussion over an ale or two. Thank you for these marvelous presentations.

[@russwoodward8251]

I like these chats of a bit longer. Thanks again!

[@ironseabeelost1140]

Thanks for your chat of the French S35.

[@warpaintjj]

Cracking stuff - Thank you, more please!

[@johnray7311]

Great exposé. Very informative and thorough. First I have heard about using the radio operator as loader-I have always wondered about this, especially as it was a pretty big turret.

[@theenigmaticgamer]

Thanks for an excellent presentation. I really enjoy these more detailed Tank Chats and David’s wealth of knowledge and style of delivery is quite superb.

[@panzerknackerpaul2061]

For me, one of the most beautiful tanks in the early war period.

[@moekitsune]

Despite the one man turret and lack of radio I have a strange love for this tank. The hull reminds me of a Sherman crossed with a T-34, with a stupid amount of armor for its time. It was genuinely a match for the Panzers it faced. Probably would have been more well loved if it had a better turret and radio, and if the french had a better doctrine.

[@BHuang92]

It is said that the M4 Sherman cast hull was inspired by the Somua S35.

[@Jay-zk7uw]

I too have an inexplicable fondness for this tank.

[@richarddumont5389]

As always a wise documented balanced account - thank you Sir and the Tank Museum.

[@TheWtfnonamez]

Brilliant video. Gripped for the whole 40 minutes

[@QALibrary]

Very interesting and informative video - thank you

[@michaeldunne338]

Just a fantastic segment - thank you for the thorough review of this tank. Funny enough, the WW2TV channel just had a segment on the German view of Dunkirk, which made me think of the Somua S-35 tank and the battles of Hannut / Gembloux. Now maybe this is worth another segment, like the Battle of Arras that you did, but would be interested in hearing about the French employment of tanks at Hannut and Gembloux. My impression was that the French as a whole, acquitted themselves decently well at the tactical level, in holding off certain German advances, but were completely undermined by the strategic victory of the Germans breaking through the Ardennes? Anyways, really great perspective. Much appreciated. But would like to see a clip on the Tank Museum's take on Hannut and the Gembloux Gap. Supposedly still up there in terms of size of battle with the number of tanks involved.

[@tekis0]

This gentleman is good speaker, as he sums up the important information at the end.

[@ptonpc]

A very good long look at the S35 Thanks.

[@dogmadogma5398]

Amazing history!

[@garyneilson1833]

I''ve always wondered how effective this French camouflage system would be ? Maybe that could be another video to compare the effectiveness of US/British olive drab to French to German 3 tone and German grey when trying to hide vehicles in woods etc.

[@andrewcombe8907]

Bear in mind areas of France are quite dry including on the Mediterranean coast and the border with Spain. A mix of browns with a dash of green would be apposite. The current French Camouflage Centre Europe is a lighter version of the US woodland camo for this very reason.

[@simongee8928]

Camouflage is very regionally specific, so in order to be practical regarding logistics and the having to repaint AFVs every time they moved to a different region, a general pattern would have to be adopted, thus the development of the German three colour style which was often down to individual crew choice.

[@pex_the_unalivedrunk6785]

@@simongee8928 true....also I always figured, although I could be wrong, that the camo scheme used on the S35 had something to do with how the French expected the tank to be viewed by the enemy (in the type of war the French were familiar with)....from low to the ground as from a trench or trench periscope, with the intention of making it blend in with the horizon and layers of low hills, walls, and vineyards. Not sure if it really worked, but it sure looked aesthetically pleasing to the eye. Those bold contrasting colors and outlines almost give it a French impressionist art feel.

[@emberfist8347]

From the video it looks like This S-35 was meant for the Mediterranean

[@penzorphallos3199]

Reminds me of the Soviet yellow-green tank camouflage

[@johnlovett8341]

Brilliant video.

[@basichistory]

Great video, well done.

[@stevebohlin7245]

🙌Tanks! Never knew SKODA was a subsidiary of Schneider. Always assumed Skoda was an Austro-Hungarian/Czech enterprise.

[@akessel92train]

I think it was. Though by the time of the 1920s and 1930s I think that became the case due to the post-WWI economic environment

[@J3AD]

very well done, and nicely done showing the other side of French operations and effects of politics caused issues in production and complicated delivery and the 1 years conscription added to issues. and how the French were doing what most countries did with the armor packaging.

[@foxhoundms9051]

🤔 I always liked the S35...looks cool, like a Metal Slug tank 😁

[@kiwifruit27]

Fascinating, thanks

[@Zorglub1966]

Thank you for sharing this very (but too short) interesting lecture. AMD => Automitrailleuse de Découverte AMR => Automitrailleuse de Reconnaissance AMC => Automitrailleuse de Combat

[@Jay-zk7uw]

Been waiting so long for this one and I'm not really sure why.

[@pecazidle]

Díky!

[@piton6232]

BRAVO. A great history lessen

[@johnnyzippo7109]

This SOMUA tank definitely has “the ViBE” of a very good tank that for its time was cutting edge tech.

[@douro20]

SOMUA also made railcars and trolleybuses. Adolphe Kegresse is also the one who in 1935 developed the world's first dual-clutch transmission, the AutoServe, at Citroen. It was supposed to go into the Traction Avant but Kegresse ran out of money before he cold test it in an actual vehicle.

[@lzappa9109]

11/10! Eccellente. Grazie Mille

[@RiteKnight]

A grand overview of this tank once more. HOWEVER just bear in mind for future videos, when you're adding period footage with a commentator reporting as part of that footage, keep the audio lower for those clips because at times you struggle to hear David's voice who continues speaking whilst the clip is playing. You could always post links afterwards to the various footage clips so that people can go back and hear those news reporters but for this tank chat video is important that David's voice is clear throughout.

[@vapormissile]

S35 is one of my favorites in World of Tanks. Nice video, subscribed.

[@BFVK]

Oh really ? This tank is so cheated in WoT...

[@themaster408]

Came for the tank, stayed for the French politics and tactics. Very interesting to need to say "look, politics at the time were weird, they didn't want a professional army, so the training was low" as part of an explanation. One of the reasons I love these videos, you get so much nuance.

[@SlinkyTWF]

Good chat. Merci.

[@trojohn7032]

The Tank looks like you can purchase it at a confectionery. It looks delicious 😋

[@confuseatronica]

omg that photo at 2:47 with so many FTs with their little hats going every which way. The cutest gaggle of tanks.

[@najssiness]

yes! what a nice friday surprise

[@jasonz7788]

Awesome thanks 👍

[@FinsburyPhil]

In some ways you could see it as a 'mini Sherman'. Certainly a better machine than the M2

[@michaeltelson9798]

There is a photo of a S35 in the 21st Panzer Division while rebuilding in Normandy after coming out of North Africa in a book I have. They changed the commander’s cupola to the German pattern

[@mudcrab3420]

There is a photo of two 'German versions' on a parade. Hard to say if they could do it in combat but the photo has one in the commander's hatch and one sitting on the rear hatch/seat. So... speculation... The Germans forced the second crewman into the turret to be full time loader?? Stab II/Pz/Reg 22 (the second bn of the Pz regiment) was mixed with PzIV and Somuas at roughly 1:2 ratio in favour of the Somuas. PzAbt 206 and Panzer-Ersatz Abteilung 100 over in the US part of the Normandy campaign also had some Somuas in service.

[@MaximumResultsCopy]

Excellent video as always and providing a fuller picture of this tank than is usually provided. Interesting the impact of design and other factors such as the limited numbers of radios provided and how the small turret was a limiting factor. Seemed quite a common design "flaw" from that era...the early T-34s, for example, arguably didn't deliver their full potential because of the small turret and lack of radios. Concerning the German use of armour and concentration, IMO the situation is a little more nuanced. The Germans realised the need for armoured support for infantry...however, they simply didn't have enough tanks. So, they decided the best use was to concentrate their limited tank resources. The original idea behind the Stugs...cheaper to produce than tanks...was to provide the support for the infantry that there were not enough tanks to do so.

[@Alakazzam09]

I wish my model LT VZ 35 had that cool muzzle break. Might have to print one or make one with thermal mold plastic.

[@LeJohnnyBoy]

Behind the Somua story, the reasons of France' failure are very interresting

[@emberfist8347]

Agreed one particularly interesting bit was that their plan to stop Germany was on the right track. The ideas was they would be waiting in the Low Countries for Germany to come marching in and ambush them as that is what they did in World War I and their first plan for taking France in World War II as there was German plane that landed in Allied Territory which had a copy of these plans. There were two significant snags that I don’t think we can blame France for. 1. Belgium didn’t want to be part of the alliance so they couldn’t have their troops ready to defend them when Germany invaded. 2. They never considered Germany marching through the Ardennes as that region was long considered impassible for any invading army.

[@McLarenMercedes]

@@emberfist8347 "the Ardennes as that region was long considered impassible for any invading army." The Ardennes had stopped Caesar's previously undefeated legions and was always a seriously difficult place either to pass or to invade. Here's another fact. Most of the German high command wanted to go with the original Halder plan (basically a modified Schlieffen Plan) - which btw the allies based their whole strategy on - and found von Manstein's "Sickle Cut" through the Ardennes to be "much too risky". Fact is von Manstein's suggestion was basically not even really considered by the generals so he actually slipped his plan to Hitler *personally* . This was lucky for him because Hitler found the original Halder plan "much too traditional". When he read Von Manstein's plan he immediately liked it and said something akin to:"This man is really thinking outside the box. It's bold and daring." That being said this plan was *still* opposed by most of the top generals who believed that it relied too much on everything going right for the German invaders... Hitler insisted on von Manstein's plan to be implemented. Yes, that's the same man everybody seems to believe "always made terrible decisions which lost Germany the war". Here's the thing which the Germans couldn't have known and which might have totally derailed the invasion through the Ardennes. 1. The French could/should have paid more attention to the radio traffic in the area which would have given them a heading/warning an invasion might happen here. If so it would have been relatively easy for them to deploy engineers to cut down trees and create makeshift natural obstacles to slow down the invading force or even stop it dead in its track. Instead intelligence reports were clumsily ignored. As were early reports from French recon aircraft that German tanks were moving in the Ardennes. The fact is that the invasion didn't go perfectly smooth for the Germans either. At first they got hold up by a serious traffic jam. Lucky for them they solved it fast enough. And lucky for them the French didn't seize this opportunity with attack aircraft. 2. The French should have kept the explosives rigged to the important bridges at the Sedan. What was that again? Kept?? Yes, the French were well aware that these bridges would be important arteries to any invading force so they rigged them with explosives. But unfortunately during peace the local French civilians were feeling very nervous using bridges rigged with explosives so they protested. The local authorities fearing the fairly common worker strikes and road blockades indulged with the wishes of the locals and had those explosives removed. So when the allies *were* aware that the Germans had launched a huge force through the Ardennes they desperately tried to bomb the bridges with attack aircraft... The British used the abysmal Fairey Battle (an outdated design even before the war) and poorly armed Bristol Blenheim bombers trying to knock out these bridges and were shot down both by anti-aircraft batteries and fighters. All of this was too little too late. But had the French just told the locals "We're at war with Nazi Germany and these important bridges *will* be rigged to stop any invading force from going any further." history would have looked very different indeed. Lucky for the Germans the French completely missed both opportunity 1 and 2. Just slowing the invasion by 2-3 days would probably have bought the French enough time to form cohesive defense lines, redeploy better equipped troops were they were sorely needed and sort out the chaos on their roads (probably no refugees clogging up the roads). In our history there simply was no time to do any of this. Btw, a third of all German vehicles needed repairs after the short and successful French campaign. German logistical issues *were* noticed by alert commanders in France already (and would become a serious issue when the Soviet Union was invaded a year later). One can only imagine what effect a longer French campaign would have on the German army of 1940. Modern day historians have called the German army of 1939-1940 as a "sharp but brittle instrument".

[@thethirdman225]

The French failure went a long way beyond how they used their tanks and their focus on the Maginot Line. He doesn’t cover much of that here because it’s a huge topic.

[@emberfist8347]

@@thethirdman225 Well the Maginot Line was never an issue. They were trying to redirect the Germans away from their border and into Beglium but they were waiting in the low countries not the Ardennes.

[@emberfist8347]

@@McLarenMercedes It is not unfortunate that local French civilians didn’t allow people to their bridges rigged to blow. That is a disaster waiting to happen either through someone setting them off by accident or a terrorist on purpose. As for radio traffic, French Doctrine didn’t put its trust in radio at all believing in the issue of the enemy planting false transmissions. You also forgot as I mentioned a German officer was captured with the plans for advancing through the Low Countries.

[@igorpokorny4178]

Great video! I didn't know that Czech Skoda was a subsidiary of Schneider.

[@michel.montreal]

My favorite tank from the late 30s, thank you.

[@julmar9153]

Very good video, love from france

[@GuusvanVelthoven]

If I would draw a Sherman from memory it would likely look like this tank. 🤔

[@jjsmallpiece9234]

Another fantastic detailed video by David. All good stuff for us military history students. My understanding was that one of the main reasons for the poor French performance in 1940 (and touched on in this video) was the overall social and political situation in France. An unpopular government and a general national malaise and anti war attitude leading to poor national morale. This is quite well described in the 1970's World at War series - episode 3 The Battle of France.

[@thethirdman225]

Read Julian Jackson’s book, “The Fall of France”.

[@jjsmallpiece9234]

@@thethirdman225 Or the book Blitzkrieg by Len Deighton Another good book is To Lose a Battle by Alastair Horne.

[@thethirdman225]

@@jjsmallpiece9234 I’ve read Deighton. That one is okay but it’s much more from the British perspective. Jackson is almost entirely from the French perspective. Deighton talks mainly about the British actions in the north, while Jackson talks about the whole front and about the parlours state of French politics at the time.

[@jjsmallpiece9234]

@@thethirdman225 Ok. Agree Deighton is more of a mass market historian. Will take a read of the other book

[@thethirdman225]

@@jjsmallpiece9234 They all have their place.

[@DJ-of-the-Hudson]

Thanks!

[@Tounushi]

1:06 "In other words it wasn't just about the horse, but what the cavalry was there to do."

[@AnthonyEvelyn]

You can see how the Somua influenced US tank design with the M3 and M4 medium tanks.

[@oddballsok]

i dont see it...

[@gastonjaillet9512]

Yes, and that's no coincidence, when France was invaded in 1940, some French engineers went to the US were they helped work on the M3, especially the suspension

[@wbertie2604]

​​@@gastonjaillet9512M3 design was already underway by the time any French engineers arrived. I don't obviously see any influence from the S-35. M4 initial specification began only a month after the M3. There was certainly general influence in terms of overall design from European experience

[@HK-lfr1997]

​@@wbertie2604before the war, french had bought 2 giga factory in the us. Both were used to build the M3 and M4 The base of those tank are inspired by the somua however they changed the turret which was considered, even by french, too weak

[@wbertie2604]

@@HK-lfr1997 the M3 and M4 are modifications of the M2 medium which has as its inspiration the running gear of the M1 and M2 light tanks which predate the S-35 in development. The M4 has a multi crew turret. It's hugely different from the S-35.