What are historical reasons for french tanks being so bad?

[WladcaSłabizny]

Really... tier 1 and 2 have hulls of cardboard and shoot peas. Why did such imperial and powerful country as the GLORIOUS France allowed for such negliegence?

I know that there was interesting story about how how USSR got that genious USA tank engineer to their side just by appreciating him... but now it's time for history of France.

[Obamenau]

A few

- France prepared for a WW1 style of war, so they didnt see mobility and speed as an important aspect for a tank

-France suffered from a manpower shortage, resulting in them favoring small tank crews and the notorious 1-man turret.

- They still had a tons of leftover SA18 37mm guns, and decided to just reuse them out of budgetary reason.

- They had some for the time good tank like the Somua S35 and B1 Bis, but didnt really develop them further untill it was too late.

[AttackerCat]

Aside from the above info (which is pretty spot on), there are a few other reasons:

-WWI era cannons were not made for armor penetration (as there was really no armor to pen, they were mainly support pieces). Therefore those same WWI era cannons on tanks did not have much capability to combat other tanks. They were there for infantry support.

-France invested heavily into the Magnoit Line as a means of defense, figuring that any attack from the east would stop at the line and another trench warfare style of war would come about. That is what the line was designed for.
As a result tanks weren’t really seen as a critical weapon of war as they would essentially be useless in the scenarios the French planned for.

-There is also the armor. French tanks are actually some of the most heavily armored for the early tiers, while the guns were lacking France knew that regardless of the weapons that could be fitted to tanks that they would need to withstand enemy fire.
As a result we end up with slow, clunky tanks that can’t hit back very hard.

[Kozi]

Originally posted by Mindstream:

A few

- France prepared for a WW1 style of war, so they didnt see mobility and speed as an important aspect for a tank

-France suffered from a manpower shortage, resulting in them favoring small tank crews and the notorious 1-man turret.

- They still had a tons of leftover SA18 37mm guns, and decided to just reuse them out of budgetary reason.

- They had some for the time good tank like the Somua S35 and B1 Bis, but didnt really develop them further untill it was too late.

Absolutely wrong with the manpower part, France had one of the largest armies during WW2, the problem was that they were really bad trained, not ready and they didn’t have enough supplies.

[halolo39]

they expect the german to come from the maginot line, which they suit their tank in a hulled down position. guns are capable for their time but armour tech grew too quickly for them to catch-up, not to mention the whole bypass the maginot blitz which took Fra and BeNeLux by surprise.

[Vilab]

in game, French tanks also face much more recent tank / tanks with time travelling ammo

IRL, they faced mostly pz-II with basic AP round ( no HVAP )

the S-35 ( a 1936 tank design ) was better armored and armed than anything in the German inventory in 1939

[Data-7]

Yesterday i bought my new Panther II and at first battle i faced a JS-7 do you really expect something historical from this game?

[kamikazi21358]

Originally posted by Kozarsson:

Originally posted by Mindstream:

A few

- France prepared for a WW1 style of war, so they didnt see mobility and speed as an important aspect for a tank

-France suffered from a manpower shortage, resulting in them favoring small tank crews and the notorious 1-man turret.

- They still had a tons of leftover SA18 37mm guns, and decided to just reuse them out of budgetary reason.

- They had some for the time good tank like the Somua S35 and B1 Bis, but didnt really develop them further untill it was too late.

Absolutely wrong with the manpower part, France had one of the largest armies during WW2, the problem was that they were really bad trained, not ready and they didn’t have enough supplies.

Tbf Germany’s was larger but that’s not the point:

There is one advantage though of having less-crewed tanks, regardless of army sized. The Soviets used 4 crewed tanks the majority of the time during WW2, then 3 crewed MBTs later in the ‘60s+ because of autoloaders, and they had one of the if not the largest army on on the planet.

Let’s say they have 1000 tanks, and they have 3 crew each, that is 3000 tank crewmen needed for them.

Then they make a version that requires 2 crewmen. Now you only need 2000 tankers for these 1000 tanks - now those 1000 spare tankers can now be used to crew an additional 500 tanks. Or if those tanks don’t exist, now you have 1000 left over from the 1000 2 crewed tanks, now you have 1000 people to add to the infantry that support those tanks. Numerically speaking, it is very beneficial, and just looking at the Eastern front, having good tanks is important but those good tanks don’t matter if you don’t have the numbers to back them up - throw 1000 Tigers and Panthers at the USSR and all they then prove is 6000 T-34s is strategically more beneficial.
So if these 2 types of tanks go up against each other, what will win: the 1000 3 crewed tanks, of the 1500 2 crewed tanks?

[The Wiggly Armed Man]

Originally posted by kamikazi21358:

Originally posted by Kozarsson:

Absolutely wrong with the manpower part, France had one of the largest armies during WW2, the problem was that they were really bad trained, not ready and they didn’t have enough supplies.

Tbf Germany’s was larger but that’s not the point:

There is one advantage though of having less-crewed tanks, regardless of army sized. The Soviets used 4 crewed tanks the majority of the time during WW2, then 3 crewed MBTs later in the ‘60s+ because of autoloaders, and they had one of the if not the largest army on on the planet.

Let’s say they have 1000 tanks, and they have 3 crew each, that is 3000 tank crewmen needed for them.

Then they make a version that requires 2 crewmen. Now you only need 2000 tankers for these 1000 tanks - now those 1000 spare tankers can now be used to crew an additional 500 tanks. Or if those tanks don’t exist, now you have 1000 left over from the 1000 2 crewed tanks, now you have 1000 people to add to the infantry that support those tanks. Numerically speaking, it is very beneficial, and just looking at the Eastern front, having good tanks is important but those good tanks don’t matter if you don’t have the numbers to back them up - throw 1000 Tigers and Panthers at the USSR and all they then prove is 6000 T-34s is strategically more beneficial.
So if these 2 types of tanks go up against each other, what will win: the 1000 3 crewed tanks, of the 1500 2 crewed tanks?

1000 3-crew tanks. Having Only one crewman in the turret was and is a liability and only two is still too small. The three-man turret became the norm for a reason.

[kamikazi21358]

Originally posted by The Wiggly Armed Man | F.P.C.:

Originally posted by kamikazi21358:

Tbf Germany’s was larger but that’s not the point:

There is one advantage though of having less-crewed tanks, regardless of army sized. The Soviets used 4 crewed tanks the majority of the time during WW2, then 3 crewed MBTs later in the ‘60s+ because of autoloaders, and they had one of the if not the largest army on on the planet.

Let’s say they have 1000 tanks, and they have 3 crew each, that is 3000 tank crewmen needed for them.

Then they make a version that requires 2 crewmen. Now you only need 2000 tankers for these 1000 tanks - now those 1000 spare tankers can now be used to crew an additional 500 tanks. Or if those tanks don’t exist, now you have 1000 left over from the 1000 2 crewed tanks, now you have 1000 people to add to the infantry that support those tanks. Numerically speaking, it is very beneficial, and just looking at the Eastern front, having good tanks is important but those good tanks don’t matter if you don’t have the numbers to back them up - throw 1000 Tigers and Panthers at the USSR and all they then prove is 6000 T-34s is strategically more beneficial.
So if these 2 types of tanks go up against each other, what will win: the 1000 3 crewed tanks, of the 1500 2 crewed tanks?

1000 3-crew tanks. Having Only one crewman in the turret was and is a liability and only two is still too small. The three-man turret became the norm for a reason.

Yeah ok fair point.
Let’s take the arguement a bit further where we’re not talking about aweful 1 crew per turret tanks:
What would you rather have?
750 T-34 (1942)s with 3000 crewmen with 4 in each tank, or 600 Panzer IV F2s with 3000 in 5 per tank?
Or 750 M60s with 3000 crew members with 4 crew in each tank, or 1000 T-64 (1963)s with 3000 with 3 crew per tank, ‘cause you now have an autoloader?

[The Wiggly Armed Man]

Originally posted by kamikazi21358:

Originally posted by The Wiggly Armed Man | F.P.C.:

1000 3-crew tanks. Having Only one crewman in the turret was and is a liability and only two is still too small. The three-man turret became the norm for a reason.

Yeah ok fair point.
Let’s take the arguement a bit further where we’re not talking about aweful 1 crew per turret tanks:
What would you rather have?
750 T-34 (1942)s with 3000 crewmen with 4 in each tank, or 600 Panzer IV F2s with 3000 in 5 per tank?
Or 750 M60s with 3000 crew members with 4 crew in each tank, or 1000 T-64 (1963)s with 3000 with 3 crew per tank, ‘cause you now have an autoloader?

I can't say for the latter but for the, former the Pz. IV F2s would win. The T-34 was a horrible tank.

[kamikazi21358]

Originally posted by The Wiggly Armed Man | F.P.C.:

I can't say for the latter but for the, former the Pz. IV F2s would win. The T-34 was a horrible tank.

The T-34 wasn’t a horrible tank. The F2 and T-34 (1942) were about equals, that’s why I used them as a example. The 76.2mm gun wasn’t the best AT weapon but I used the F2 because it can penetrate the 50mm front, as well the L/43 of the F2 can penetrate the front of the 34. The 34 is more mobile; I would say the 3 advantages really of the F2 were it’s gun was better (but it’s dismissible because both tanks can penetrate each other just fine, because the F2’s armor was way weaker), the F2 usually actually had a radio, and it was more reliable (which for the era, the T-34’s reliability wasn’t bad though). If I said the Pz IV G or the Pz IV H, that otherwise though would be a completely different story, or the same goes for the T-34-85.

[Mocha]

Originally posted by kamikazi21358:

Originally posted by The Wiggly Armed Man | F.P.C.:

I can't say for the latter but for the, former the Pz. IV F2s would win. The T-34 was a horrible tank.

The T-34 wasn’t a horrible tank. The F2 and T-34 (1942) were about equals, that’s why I used them as a example. The 76.2mm gun wasn’t the best AT weapon but I used the F2 because it can penetrate the 50mm front, as well the L/43 of the F2 can penetrate the front of the 34. The 34 is more mobile; I would say the 3 advantages really of the F2 were it’s gun was better (but it’s dismissible because both tanks can penetrate each other just fine, because the F2’s armor was way weaker), the F2 usually actually had a radio, and it was more reliable (which for the era, the T-34’s reliability wasn’t bad though). If I said the Pz IV G or the Pz IV H, that otherwise though would be a completely different story, or the same goes for the T-34-85.

Didn't Russian tanks face the same problems German tanks had (the ability to spontaneously combust, mechanical breakdowns, etc) though? It just isn't talked about since the Russians had a capacity to make replacements and easily replace parts. Among other things that make Russian tanks bad, anyway.

[The Wiggly Armed Man]

Eh, the T-34 discussion is off-topic so I won't continue it.

A one-man turret and two-man turrets don't really have any advantages over a three-man turret besides a smaller profile. Consequently, because the French tanks had one-man turrets, the commander was often overloaded with directing the driver, gunning, and loading. As others have also stated mobility wasn't important under the defensive French doctrine that they took towards the German offensive with them favoring heavily armoured, poorly gunned, and basically stationary bunkers to aid in protecting the French-Belgian border.

If the Germans didn't bypass the French-Belgian border and broke through the Maginot Line which trapped everyone at Dunkirk then we might have seen it turn out differently as the French heavies such as the Char were basically invincible to German weaponry and were used by the Germans after the war. but the french national flag is white so lol

[kamikazi21358]

Originally posted by Mocha Kawa:

Originally posted by kamikazi21358:

The T-34 wasn’t a horrible tank. The F2 and T-34 (1942) were about equals, that’s why I used them as a example. The 76.2mm gun wasn’t the best AT weapon but I used the F2 because it can penetrate the 50mm front, as well the L/43 of the F2 can penetrate the front of the 34. The 34 is more mobile; I would say the 3 advantages really of the F2 were it’s gun was better (but it’s dismissible because both tanks can penetrate each other just fine, because the F2’s armor was way weaker), the F2 usually actually had a radio, and it was more reliable (which for the era, the T-34’s reliability wasn’t bad though). If I said the Pz IV G or the Pz IV H, that otherwise though would be a completely different story, or the same goes for the T-34-85.

Didn't Russian tanks face the same problems German tanks had (the ability to spontaneously combust, mechanical breakdowns, etc) though? It just isn't talked about since the Russians had a capacity to make replacements and easily replace parts. Among other things that make Russian tanks bad, anyway.

I don’t think so, it was German tanks that had their transmissions break more often than they get shot at in their heavier tanks, meanwhile tanks like the Ferdinand would catch fire when trying to scale even a slight slope. T-34s were infinitely more reliable than anything German that was over 35 tonnes.

[Blamite Delight]

Originally posted by Vilab:

in game, French tanks also face much more recent tank / tanks with time travelling ammo

IRL, they faced mostly pz-II with basic AP round ( no HVAP )

the S-35 ( a 1936 tank design ) was better armored and armed than anything in the German inventory in 1939

even though the german tanks couldn't do much, the germans were better coordinated with their tank attacks and also could call in close air support from stuka dive bombers.