why are reserve french tanks so bad ?

[Yaeke]

buff them

[ulzgoroth]

It's not true that the Germans (or anyone else) were unaware of sloped armor - you can see a sloped glacis on even the Panzer I! Obviously they failed to fully appreciate the significance of avoiding the use of unsloped surfaces, though.

Curst の投稿を引用：

@T1nt3nf1sch Some of the tanks they had to use were pretty bad at dealing with other tanks*. Namely the ones that were pretty much fitted with tiny field artillery guns from an era before tanks. Which is what we have for reserve in WT, which in turn is what this thread is about.

*Yes, Germany had tanks even worse than that (for that role), but they aren't in game (probably for that very reason).

To expand on that, solid majority of the tank force attacking France was either Panzer Is (with rifle-caliber machine guns useless against tanks) or Panzer IIs (with a 20mm cannon that's got serious penetration problems if not supplied with special HVAP ammo). Both also have terribly thin armor.

[HeroicHeathen]

Curst の投稿を引用：

@T1nt3nf1sch Some of the tanks they had to use were pretty bad at dealing with other tanks*. Namely the ones that were pretty much fitted with tiny field artillery guns from an era before tanks. Which is what we have for reserve in WT, which in turn is what this thread is about.

*Yes, Germany had tanks even worse than that (for that role), but they aren't in game (probably for that very reason).

The tanks shown in reserve are not bad though, not in game and not in real life back then.

[HeroicHeathen]

Scheneighnay の投稿を引用：

T1nt3nf1sch の投稿を引用：

Why are you replying if you agree anyway?

And the Panzer 38 was not a German tank either, it is a Czech tank. Just that Germany used it as they annexed everything anyway. That being said, does not change the fact of French tanks being superior. By superior I mean superior in either several aspects or all aspects.

I have never heard that the Panzer 38 was more reliable than early war French tanks to be honest and it does not matter as only reliability does not win you a war.

Radio communication is definitely a massive advantage but does not say much about the actual tank as it is only an equipment part you fix in to the tank with a few screws really.

And what exactly do you mean by " crew layout " being more efficient?

French tanks were superior to German tanks because they were for one harder to crack, had very decent cannons and even sloped armour to some extend which the Germans did not even know at this time.

There are several witnesses that said whenever they faced French tanks they were only able to defeat them by artillery support but not by tank support as they ended up having bigger losses than they should.

Crew layout as in French tanks with their 1-man turrets so the commander had to load, fire, look for tanks, use signal flags, and talk to the crew all at the same time. German tanks had a gunner, loader, commander, and radio operator.

Reliability definitely isn't to be underrated either. If your best tank can't reach the fight you don't have that best tank.

You overexaggarate reliability a little. I am not aware of any major technical issues with early French tanks as most of them were using tractor engines and were machines of simplicity.

The one man turret did not cause any major issues and even were of an advantage whenever the turret was penetrated as crew was rather separated from a spot that was always exposed to the enemy.

French tanks were superior, it is fact, it is statistics. No need to elaborate this any further.

GL

[Scheneighnay]

T1nt3nf1sch の投稿を引用：

Scheneighnay の投稿を引用：

Crew layout as in French tanks with their 1-man turrets so the commander had to load, fire, look for tanks, use signal flags, and talk to the crew all at the same time. German tanks had a gunner, loader, commander, and radio operator.

Reliability definitely isn't to be underrated either. If your best tank can't reach the fight you don't have that best tank.

You overexaggarate reliability a little. I am not aware of any major technical issues with early French tanks as most of them were using tractor engines and were machines of simplicity.

The one man turret did not cause any major issues and even were of an advantage whenever the turret was penetrated as crew was rather separated from a spot that was always exposed to the enemy.

French tanks were superior, it is fact, it is statistics. No need to elaborate this any further.

GL

Real life isn't War Thunder, if the turret gets penetrated the crew is bailing whether 1 guy died or 3.

Most early tanks had technical issues so those of French tanks wouldn't be outliers, though I can tell you just by the transmission being in the rear that the drive sprockets wore out faster, as the British had big issues for the same reason.
The outliers were Panzer 38s (also for a fun mention, the Ha-Go and Chi-Nu) for not having technical issues in that era.

[HeroicHeathen]

Scheneighnay の投稿を引用：

T1nt3nf1sch の投稿を引用：

You overexaggarate reliability a little. I am not aware of any major technical issues with early French tanks as most of them were using tractor engines and were machines of simplicity.

The one man turret did not cause any major issues and even were of an advantage whenever the turret was penetrated as crew was rather separated from a spot that was always exposed to the enemy.

French tanks were superior, it is fact, it is statistics. No need to elaborate this any further.

GL

Real life isn't War Thunder, if the turret gets penetrated the crew is bailing whether 1 guy died or 3.

Most early tanks had technical issues so those of French tanks wouldn't be outliers, though I can tell you just by the transmission being in the rear that the drive sprockets wore out faster, as the British had big issues for the same reason.
The outliers were Panzer 38s (also for a fun mention, the Ha-Go and Chi-Nu) for not having technical issues in that era.

With early tank warfare the crew did not bail due the projectile not having an explosive load. This was more an issue later on. Explosive loads usually were HE and exploded outside of the hull. Something like HEAT did not really exist at this stage of war.

I get that War Thunder is not real life, this was also not the point of the whole discussion.

Give me any valid sources that show me early French tanks being less reliable than German tanks. This is something you just threw in to the room.

Panzer 38 were decent tanks but did nothing in actual tank warfare in France, the French tanks were defeated simply by outnumbering them and using AT cannons as well as artillery.

German tanks had absolutely no role during the invasion of France.

You keep talking about technical issues with the French tanks but completely ignore that fact that French tanks are known to having been superior to German tanks in the early era and superior in almost every relevant aspect, then you come up with reliability and drive sprockets, did you search this in some kind of site and copied that out? I mean, stop already.

Almost every discussion with you end up in you trying to have the last word and not being capable of comprehending historical facts.

You completely slide off in to an other direction again trying to somehow make yourself look like your replies made any sense. Well they did not.

I have never even said French tanks had no technical issues but they were definitely less reliable than German tanks back then and if some models were, then not to an extend that would even matter or decide the outcome of any know tank battle in France.
You are nitpicking here and it makes you look like a toddler not getting his way.
No offense.

And to not waste any more of my precious time on an other endless argument with you picking out some irrelevant technical details online, I will post a few links you can read through if you are really interested in this topic rather than just trying to make a scene out of an other discussion.

This was discussed before already btw:

https://steamcommunity.com/app/236390/discussions/0/135509823661513306/

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/france-had-tank-could-have-crushed-hitlers-best-was-wasted-19410

https://www.historynet.com/france-defied-hitlers-panzers.htm

Speaking about engineering and effectivity, French tanks were far superior.

Enough said. I am out.

[The Wiggly Armed Man]

The French tanks were not superior to the German tanks at the time unless you only look at the hard stats. In the soft stats, i.e. communication, crew ergonomics, mobility, and in some cases sights they were far from even adequate. Granted, the negative performance of the French tanks during the French Campaign was exaggerated due to the absolute horrible high command they had but that doesn't change that: most French tanks didn't have a radio, they all did have tough armour but their mobility suffered because of it, and their one-man turrets were a huge disadvantage.

Their inability to cope with the tactical moves of the German tanks and forces, with the exception of the B1 series for those that even made it to the frontlines and other heavily armoured tanks, along with the commander/gunner/loader being overworked unlike the German tanks of the time which at least had separate commander/gunner and loaders with the exception of the Pz.Kpfw. I, made them subpar in comparison.

However, I don't think they were exactly inferior either. If they weren't held back by the high command they would've performed better, and in a one-on-one engagement the French tanks would've won against the usual Pz.Kpfw. I and II, though the III might be more of a match for it considering the far better ergonomics. So:

Hard stats (armour, gun, etc): France > Germany
Soft stats (communication, crew ergonomics, etc): France < Germany

As for the OP, there isn't really anyway to buff them aside from implementing their historical penetrations again and keeping the penetration calculator only for rounds that are hotly debated or largely unknown.

[Scheneighnay]

T1nt3nf1sch の投稿を引用：

Scheneighnay の投稿を引用：

Real life isn't War Thunder, if the turret gets penetrated the crew is bailing whether 1 guy died or 3.

Most early tanks had technical issues so those of French tanks wouldn't be outliers, though I can tell you just by the transmission being in the rear that the drive sprockets wore out faster, as the British had big issues for the same reason.
The outliers were Panzer 38s (also for a fun mention, the Ha-Go and Chi-Nu) for not having technical issues in that era.

With early tank warfare the crew did not bail due the projectile not having an explosive load. This was more an issue later on. Explosive loads usually were HE and exploded outside of the hull. Something like HEAT did not really exist at this stage of war.

I get that War Thunder is not real life, this was also not the point of the whole discussion.

Give me any valid sources that show me early French tanks being less reliable than German tanks. This is something you just threw in to the room.

Panzer 38 were decent tanks but did nothing in actual tank warfare in France, the French tanks were defeated simply by outnumbering them and using AT cannons as well as artillery.

German tanks had absolutely no role during the invasion of France.

You keep talking about technical issues with the French tanks but completely ignore that fact that French tanks are known to having been superior to German tanks in the early era and superior in almost every relevant aspect, then you come up with reliability and drive sprockets, did you search this in some kind of site and copied that out? I mean, stop already.

Almost every discussion with you end up in you trying to have the last word and not being capable of comprehending historical facts.

You completely slide off in to an other direction again trying to somehow make yourself look like your replies made any sense. Well they did not.

I have never even said French tanks had no technical issues but they were definitely less reliable than German tanks back then and if some models were, then not to an extend that would even matter or decide the outcome of any know tank battle in France.
You are nitpicking here and it makes you look like a toddler not getting his way.
No offense.

And to not waste any more of my precious time on an other endless argument with you picking out some irrelevant technical details online, I will post a few links you can read through if you are really interested in this topic rather than just trying to make a scene out of an other discussion.

This was discussed before already btw:

https://steamcommunity.com/app/236390/discussions/0/135509823661513306/

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/france-had-tank-could-have-crushed-hitlers-best-was-wasted-19410

https://www.historynet.com/france-defied-hitlers-panzers.htm

Speaking about engineering and effectivity, French tanks were far superior.

Enough said. I am out.

The ♥♥♥♥ are you talking about with HE filler?
No matter what the tank gets penetrated with, the crew is bailing.
German artillery wasn't really a factor in the battle of France either- it wasn't mechanized yet so German mechanized divisions completely outpaced their artillery.

also lmao at "every weakness French tanks had didn't matter" when they clearly failed at maneuver warfare because of it.

[Katokevin]

T1nt3nf1sch の投稿を引用：

With early tank warfare the crew did not bail due the projectile not having an explosive load. This was more an issue later on. Explosive loads usually were HE and exploded outside of the hull. Something like HEAT did not really exist at this stage of war.

I get that War Thunder is not real life, this was also not the point of the whole discussion.

Give me any valid sources that show me early French tanks being less reliable than German tanks. This is something you just threw in to the room.

Panzer 38 were decent tanks but did nothing in actual tank warfare in France, the French tanks were defeated simply by outnumbering them and using AT cannons as well as artillery.

German tanks had absolutely no role during the invasion of France

HE fillers were not designed to kill crewman. Fillers were used to increase the chances of setting fires to ammunition and fuel that may now be leaking after said penetration. The Soviet use of A-IX-2 is a great example of this. While a weaker explosive filler compared to other options, it was HIGHLY favoured in APHE style shells due to the use of 23% aluminum powder. The aluminum powder would only begin to burn shortly after the detonation of the round, allowing it to spread to things like around ammunition or really anything and begin to burn at very high temperatures.

Once a round penetrates a vehicles, crews have little intent of staying inside. Regardless of the round, somebody is probably dead and/or injured, and the loss of a single crewman is a MASSIVE loss to the combat effectiveness of the tank, along with the factor of the unknown to the crew, damage. After penetration, crews will not be calm, they will be unaware what is fine and what is broken, and as standard for the time, they knew the enemy could get through and more rounds were on their way. Bailing out was often the best bet at that point.

In terms of HEAT, it was around, specifically with the Germans. Difference is, it was a terrible round, specifically early on. It was the most unreliable round if on offer, often bouncing off due to the fuze either not going off, breaking, or simply not working. I don't believe many crews even loaded or fired them due to such unreliability.

How can you say that German tanks had no role during the invasion? Are you going to tell me the 2445 tanks they used sat around doing nothing? Did the roughly 800 lost just drive over mines behind lines? Panzer divisions were key defence for motorised and infantry divisions in the way of fire support. What were the 1st, 2nd, and 10th panzer divisions doing there at the battle Sedan? Maybe a read up on the help that the German Panzer divisions provided in the Meuse region too.

Although I cut it off, French tanks were dated, and badly. 2 man crews for many, poor conditions for drivers, said commander being heavily overloaded in work duties (such as commanding the actual tanks, potentially others, being forced into a semi crouch/stand stance to operate the main gun, load it, traverse it by physically moving it, etc). We can argue that the B1 was on the better end, but still suffered in many of the same ways. Lets not even bring up the ER53 and the poor soul that had to work it inside that confined space. French armor gave up a lot for the better protection (and when you look into the design doctrine, it is understandable), but it simply was not enough.

[ulzgoroth]

Scheneighnay の投稿を引用：

also lmao at "every weakness French tanks had didn't matter" when they clearly failed at maneuver warfare because of it.

Where was the part where you demonstrated that putative French failure at maneuver warfare (which as I understand it wasn't any part of their battle plan in the first place) is a result of technical deficiencies of their tanks?

There were a multitude of factors in the Battle of France. I think anything to do with tank performance is borderline negligible among them.

[Scheneighnay]

ulzgoroth の投稿を引用：

Scheneighnay の投稿を引用：

also lmao at "every weakness French tanks had didn't matter" when they clearly failed at maneuver warfare because of it.

Where was the part where you demonstrated that putative French failure at maneuver warfare (which as I understand it wasn't any part of their battle plan in the first place) is a result of technical deficiencies of their tanks?

There were a multitude of factors in the Battle of France. I think anything to do with tank performance is borderline negligible among them.

I didn't, but the "irrelevant" flaws are pretty ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ major in the type of warfare that defined WWII.
French tanks could barely communicate and couldn't be where they were needed, while German tanks could.

[Illusionyary]

The penetration calculator did absolutely no favours to French and Japanese low tier tanks, at-least Japanese tanks got HEAT rounds but France was left out to dry. I do find it odd how the US 37mm has something like 70mm pen while the Japanese one barely manages 36mm.

[Scheneighnay]

Illusionyary の投稿を引用：

The penetration calculator did absolutely no favours to French and Japanese low tier tanks, at-least Japanese tanks got HEAT rounds but France was left out to dry. I do find it odd how the US 37mm has something like 70mm pen while the Japanese one barely manages 36mm.

The American 37 used to be even more ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ on its second iteration, you could side-pen a Tiger with it.

Got into a long-range fight against an LVT with my Chi Ha Kai and I couldn't pen it, but it easily penned me.

[The Wiggly Armed Man]

Scheneighnay の投稿を引用：

Illusionyary の投稿を引用：

The penetration calculator did absolutely no favours to French and Japanese low tier tanks, at-least Japanese tanks got HEAT rounds but France was left out to dry. I do find it odd how the US 37mm has something like 70mm pen while the Japanese one barely manages 36mm.

The American 37 used to be even more ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ on its second iteration, you could side-pen a Tiger with it.

Got into a long-range fight against an LVT with my Chi Ha Kai and I couldn't pen it, but it easily penned me.

I think the LVT part is just on you mate, that armour is 6 mm thick and the Type 1 APHE has 77 mm of pen at point blank and 44 mm at 2 kilometers.

[The Wiggly Armed Man]

Illusionyary の投稿を引用：

The penetration calculator did absolutely no favours to French and Japanese low tier tanks, at-least Japanese tanks got HEAT rounds but France was left out to dry. I do find it odd how the US 37mm has something like 70mm pen while the Japanese one barely manages 36mm.

The M74 shot is 0.17 kilograms heavier, goes 217 m/s faster, and has no filler. That being said, historically the round had around 40~ of penetration and it could also use the Type 1 APHE which gave it 46 mm of penetration, but would only give 36 mm of penetration in War Thunder.

[StarPhantom]

The main reason why they're naff is mainly because, well, they were for the most part.

Now not to the extent that every one loves to think (They had admirable armour protection for the time, were notoriously reliable in many regards & had sufficient firepower for infantry support) but their key downsides were what can be seen in game, VERY slow and quite heavy for their class (French battle tactics and their generals were still stuck in a WW1 mindset where trench warfare would be a mainstay of every modern war, and they were right to a "certain degree", sadly just not for what they would come up against), armoured firepower was mainly dedicated for support roles, such as armoured breakthrough's which would help lead the way for infantry, meaning that they lacked ample AT firepower on any armoured chassis at the time with the exception of the B1, another issue is that to save on training and open up the potential for a larger armoured basis they cut crew size down to 2 for the most prevalent armoured units (Mainly the R.35 / H.35), although this sounds like a good idea, it resulted in 1 person having to act as the Loader, Gunner and Commander, as well as Co-Axil support, add on that the cramped conditions of many of their tanks and they were uncomfortable to drive, operate and work in, certainly the polar opposite of what Germany was opting for at the time, high speed, lesser armoured yet larger vehicles with ample AT + AP armaments, as they were larger they could house more crew members in a much more comfortable setting, where they could individually focus on their task at hand, making their tasks all the more easier, small yet important technological improvements such as larger fields of view for the commander and driver, the addition of cupola mounted armaments, in-built radio systems for communication with nearby vehicles and also larger ammunition options were key to why Germany did so well in armoured ground warfare early on in WW2 and why French WW2 vehicles are not looked upon fondly with the exception of the Char B1 (There are numerous accounts from both many Axis commanders and soldiers who took part in the invasion of France who said they were truly worried when they came upon one in battle)

Note i'm no huge fan of German tanks, they were certainly nowhere near as flawless as it's implied, and French armour improved considerably post-war, but in terms of basic principles their tanks are quite accurate in game as they were in real life, 10 years too late to a type of warfare that never occurred between 1939-1941 for the most part.