Help with French Armor on the Drawing boards

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

I'm trying to obtain information about what the French army had on the
drawing boards in 1940 that might have been deployed had they not been
overrun


what if WWII had started in say 1943

france had some sound vehicles and good development teams I'm wondering
what they were planing to deploy next


aircraft info also would be interesting

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

<booboosfather@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Hkn5e.2582$lP1.1086@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> I'm trying to obtain information about what the French army had on the
> drawing boards in 1940 that might have been deployed had they not been
> overrun

> what if WWII had started in say 1943

Bear in mind that much of the weapons development which took place during
WW2 was as a result of combat experience, pre-war development was rather
more leisurely. The most likely outcome of a war starting in 1943 is that
all the combatants would have had time to complete their replacement
programmes for the old junk they started the war with so e.g. the Germans
would have been able to equip their armoured units entirely with 'modern'
37mm armed Pz IIIs and 75L24 armed Pz IVs rather than the bulk of their tank
force being composed of Pz 1s & IIs. Similarly the French would have had
time to work up their DCRs into proper combat formations and replace the
mass of old Renault FT-17s in the infantry support battalions with H-39s
etc.

The only pre-war designed vehicle which was actually produced post 1939 I
can think of is the Tiger, and even the eventual version of that was very
different from its pre-war conception of a heavy breakthrough tank (Guderian
had something more along the lines of the Vickers Independant/T-35 type).

The scariest army of course would the Russians - whereas the SCW convinced
the Germans that battle tanks armed with 37mm guns and 30mm of armour was a
good idea rather than MG armed Pz 1s, the relative failure of the T26 led to
the production of the 'shell proof' T34 armed with a 76mm gun. By 1943 the
Russians would had time to complete the replacement of their fleet of
T26/BT7s with T34s & KV-1s.

> aircraft info also would be interesting

Similar considerations apply, the most modenr French aircraft were pretty
good, but they were only just being introduced when war broke out.

Martin

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

Boo Boo
The advanced plans for French armour were smuggled out of the country
to the United States. The Sherman and Grant are the results . Until
then the US had Professor Christi and for some strange reason we sent
him to Russia. Just think America could have been running BT and T34
type tanks before 1941. But did not get in the swing till France fell.
Rick

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

<pioneerpz@aol.com> wrote in message
{snip}

> The advanced plans for French armour were smuggled out of the country
> to the United States. The Sherman and Grant are the results . Until
> then the US had Professor Christi and for some strange reason we sent
> him to Russia. Just think America could have been running BT and T34
> type tanks before 1941. But did not get in the swing till France fell.
> Rick

I think pioneerpz is pulling your leg.

The Russians copied the Christie suspension which they used for the BT
series but dumped it for the T34, just as the T26 was based on one of the
numerous export models of the Vickers.

The Grant & Sherman were direct derivatives of the US Army Combat Car,
although I'd be interested to hear different.

Martin

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

"Martin Rapier" <m.rapier@shef.ac.uk> wrote in
news:d3det7$ir4$1@hermes.shef.ac.uk:

> The Grant & Sherman were direct derivatives of the US Army
> Combat Car, although I'd be interested to hear different.

According to Hunnicutt's superb "Sherman", the line of descent is
from the Light Tank M2, enlarged to produce the Medium Tank T5
(tests started Nov 1937), standardized in modified form as the
Medium Tank M2 (produced from Summer 1939), followed by the
Medium Tank M3 (standardized 11 Jul 1940) and ultimately the
Medium Tank M4 (production of M4A1 started Feb 1942). The later
T20, T22 and T23 mediums struck out in a different direction, and
did not see service, although the T23 turret was adopted for the
M4(76).

As per US Army pre-war nomenclature, these are all "tanks"
(infantry) rather than "combat cars" (cavalry).

Although the use of large armour castings and geared differential
steering give the American mediums a somewhat French flavour, I
can find no evidence of their being copied from French sources,
and in any case the dates given above make it clear that the
developmental foundations of the M3 and M4 mediums had been laid
long before the fall of France. The 75mm gun was admittedly
French in origin, but that had been adopted in the previous war.

There was probably more British influence on the design of the M4
than French; the design took account of recent British experience
of armoured combat, and the first M4 prototype was named
"Michael" in honour of Michael Dewar, the head of the British
Tank Mission.

All the best,

John.

 

[dm]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

> The Grant & Sherman were direct derivatives of the US Army Combat Car,
> although I'd be interested to hear different.


I'm pretty certain thats right, although isn't there a "French Connection"
to the 75mm gun?

DM

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

definately see the design influence of the French in the early US tanks,
especially the Lee/Grant, so maybe a Grant type tank for the french?
replacing the French Char 1Bis?



<pioneerpz@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1113194320.461873.241880@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Boo Boo
> The advanced plans for French armour were smuggled out of the country
> to the United States. The Sherman and Grant are the results . Until
> then the US had Professor Christi and for some strange reason we sent
> him to Russia. Just think America could have been running BT and T34
> type tanks before 1941. But did not get in the swing till France fell.
> Rick
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

got to say from look and lay out the M3 definately took something from
french design (probobly not a smuggled out french design, but there was
definately extensive exchange of ideas between US, Britian,and French on the
professional level

I see almost no influence between US and British designs at all, with
possible exception of the choice of small caliber AT gun (37mm) for light
tanks and insistence on space for communications gear but even that might
have been influenced by after action reports of French equipment






"John D Salt" <jdsalt_AT_gotadsl.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns9635BABA13DF6BaldHeadedJohn@216.196.109.145...
> "Martin Rapier" <m.rapier@shef.ac.uk> wrote in
> news:d3det7$ir4$1@hermes.shef.ac.uk:
>
>> The Grant & Sherman were direct derivatives of the US Army
>> Combat Car, although I'd be interested to hear different.
>
> According to Hunnicutt's superb "Sherman", the line of descent is
> from the Light Tank M2, enlarged to produce the Medium Tank T5
> (tests started Nov 1937), standardized in modified form as the
> Medium Tank M2 (produced from Summer 1939), followed by the
> Medium Tank M3 (standardized 11 Jul 1940) and ultimately the
> Medium Tank M4 (production of M4A1 started Feb 1942). The later
> T20, T22 and T23 mediums struck out in a different direction, and
> did not see service, although the T23 turret was adopted for the
> M4(76).
>
> As per US Army pre-war nomenclature, these are all "tanks"
> (infantry) rather than "combat cars" (cavalry).
>
> Although the use of large armour castings and geared differential
> steering give the American mediums a somewhat French flavour, I
> can find no evidence of their being copied from French sources,
> and in any case the dates given above make it clear that the
> developmental foundations of the M3 and M4 mediums had been laid
> long before the fall of France. The 75mm gun was admittedly
> French in origin, but that had been adopted in the previous war.
>
> There was probably more British influence on the design of the M4
> than French; the design took account of recent British experience
> of armoured combat, and the first M4 prototype was named
> "Michael" in honour of Michael Dewar, the head of the British
> Tank Mission.
>
> All the best,
>
> John.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 01:33:17 GMT, <booboosfather@earthlink.net> <booboosfather@earthlink.net> wrote:

> got to say from look and lay out the M3 definately took something from
> french design (probobly not a smuggled out french design, but there was
> definately extensive exchange of ideas between US, Britian,and French on the
> professional level

While such exchanges did take place there is no obvious link between
pre-war and early-war French designs and the US M3. There are very
obvious links with pre-war US light tank designs as John Salt has
clearly pointed out.

If you want to see a design with obvious French (and US) influences,
there's the Australian AC1 Sentinel which had a Hotchkiss-style
suspension similar to the early-war French light tanks. BTW, there's a
lot of patriotic nonsense surrounding this design. The fact that the
Australians managed to shoehorn a 17pdr into a single experimental
example before the British produced the Sherman Firefly is held up as
some sort of proof of superior Aussie ingenuity. Never mind that the
Brits already had the 17pdr-armed Challenger and Centurion designs
under development.

> I see almost no influence between US and British designs at all,

Every British cruiser design from the A13 to the Comet was based on the
designs of the American Walter Christie. As were the Russian BT5, BT7
and to a lesser extent the T34.

--
Frank Copeland
Home Page: <URL:http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fjc/>
Not the Scientology Home Page: <URL:http://xenu.apana.org.au/ntshp/>

Keep it in Usenet. E-mail replies and 'courtesy' copies are not welcome.
If you're selling, I ain't buying.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

In message <slrnd63hko.76p.fjc@wossname.apana.org.au>, Frank Copeland
<fjc@thingy.apana.org.au> writes
>
>> I see almost no influence between US and British designs at all,
>
>Every British cruiser design from the A13 to the Comet was based on the
>designs of the American Walter Christie. As were the Russian BT5, BT7
>and to a lesser extent the T34.
>
While this is accurate, the connection was with Christie (an American)
rather than with any official US Army development. Christie was very
much a lone wolf, a bit of a genius in his way (he was the first to
realise that the performance of a tank was limited by what the crew
inside could physically endure) and he solved the problem of moving a
tank at speed over rough ground without turning the crew into jam.
Unfortunately he was a terrible businessman, and once he had solved that
technical problem he basically lost interest - he couldn't be bothered
with the boring stuff like guns and armour. So the people who had
ordered his tanks (including the US and Polish armies, I believe)
cancelled their orders, though the Russians and British adopted his
designs and improved them in the models you mention above. I think
Christie died in poverty before the war started.
--
John Secker

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

<booboosfather@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:xXZ7e.6960$yq6.1062@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> got to say from look and lay out the M3 definately took something from
> french design (probobly not a smuggled out french design, but there was
> definately extensive exchange of ideas between US, Britian,and French on
> the professional level

?? If going by the look of the thing you might as well argue that the
Lee/Grant, Char B and Churchill I were based on the M11/39! Hull mounted
guns were a popular improvisation until the design skills to build larger
turret rings were developed.

> I see almost no influence between US and British designs at all,
> with possible exception of the choice of small caliber AT gun (37mm) for
> light tanks and insistence on space for communications gear but even that
> might have been influenced by after action reports of French equipment

Both the British and US fitted the most powerful AT weapons they had
available to their main battle tanks, 37mm in the case of the US, 40mm in
the case of the British. Light tanks were armed with machineguns, although
later in the war many of these vehicles were upgunned to 57mm or 75mm
weapons or retired to a recce role (in the case of the Stuart frequently
without the turret at all).

Martin

 

[Estarriol]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

"Martin Rapier" <m.rapier@shef.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d403b5$arq$1@hermes.shef.ac.uk...
> <booboosfather@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:xXZ7e.6960$yq6.1062@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> got to say from look and lay out the M3 definately took something from
>> french design (probobly not a smuggled out french design, but there was
>> definately extensive exchange of ideas between US, Britian,and French on
>> the professional level
>
> ?? If going by the look of the thing you might as well argue that the
> Lee/Grant, Char B and Churchill I were based on the M11/39! Hull mounted
> guns were a popular improvisation until the design skills to build larger
> turret rings were developed.
>
>> I see almost no influence between US and British designs at all, with
>> possible exception of the choice of small caliber AT gun (37mm) for
>> light tanks and insistence on space for communications gear but even that
>> might have been influenced by after action reports of French equipment
>
> Both the British and US fitted the most powerful AT weapons they had
> available to their main battle tanks, 37mm in the case of the US, 40mm in
> the case of the British. Light tanks were armed with machineguns, although
> later in the war many of these vehicles were upgunned to 57mm or 75mm
> weapons or retired to a recce role (in the case of the Stuart frequently
> without the turret at all).
>
Noot quite true, the main problem on british Tanks in the war was that they
had to fit the UK loading gauge on the railway, this was a serious
restriction that showed in turret rings mostly, as the tanks couldn't be
wide, there was a max turret size. The first British Tank designed purely
for road transport in the UK was the Centurion.

--
estarriol

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:00:38 +0100, John Secker <john@secker.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <slrnd63hko.76p.fjc@wossname.apana.org.au>, Frank Copeland
><fjc@thingy.apana.org.au> writes
>>
>>> I see almost no influence between US and British designs at all,
>>
>>Every British cruiser design from the A13 to the Comet was based on the
>>designs of the American Walter Christie. As were the Russian BT5, BT7
>>and to a lesser extent the T34.
>>
> While this is accurate, the connection was with Christie (an American)
> rather than with any official US Army development.

The pre-war history of US medium tank development cannot be seperated
from Christie. His was the only native alternative to the knockoffs of
British designs that followed from WWI. The designation M1 was given to
the final Christie design accepted by the US Army. The M2 of 1939
represented the definitive break with Christie (and the genesis of the
M3/M4 family that carried the Allies through the coming war) but
there's no question his designs influenced US Army development for a
good 20 years.

> Christie was very much a lone wolf, a bit of a genius in his way (he
> was the first to realise that the performance of a tank was limited
> by what the crew inside could physically endure) and he solved the
> problem of moving a tank at speed over rough ground without turning
> the crew into jam. Unfortunately he was a terrible businessman, and
> once he had solved that technical problem he basically lost interest
> - he couldn't be bothered with the boring stuff like guns and armour.

Pre-war US tank development was mostly experimental, there was simply
no money to actually produce combat-worthy tanks in significant
numbers. In that context ignoring guns and armour was perfectly
reasonable. Christie was focused on the mobility part of the
mobility/firepower/protection equation. The Russians demonstrated there
was no difficulty in grafting adequate armour and armament on top of
the Christie chassis.

> So the people who had ordered his tanks (including the US and Polish
> armies, I believe) cancelled their orders, though the Russians and
> British adopted his designs and improved them in the models you
> mention above. I think Christie died in poverty before the war
> started.

Christie was shafted by everyone he dealt with, but that didn't stop
him profoundly influencing tank development in three out of the top four
major combatants of WW2.

--
Frank Copeland
Home Page: <URL:http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fjc/>
Not the Scientology Home Page: <URL:http://xenu.apana.org.au/ntshp/>

Keep it in Usenet. E-mail replies and 'courtesy' copies are not welcome.
If you're selling, I ain't buying.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

In message <slrnd6f2m2.luc.fjc@wossname.apana.org.au>, Frank Copeland
<fjc@thingy.apana.org.au> writes
>On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:00:38 +0100, John Secker
><john@secker.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <slrnd63hko.76p.fjc@wossname.apana.org.au>, Frank Copeland
>><fjc@thingy.apana.org.au> writes
>>>
>>>> I see almost no influence between US and British designs at all,
>>>
>>>Every British cruiser design from the A13 to the Comet was based on the
>>>designs of the American Walter Christie. As were the Russian BT5, BT7
>>>and to a lesser extent the T34.
>>>
>> While this is accurate, the connection was with Christie (an American)
>> rather than with any official US Army development.
>
>The pre-war history of US medium tank development cannot be seperated
>from Christie. His was the only native alternative to the knockoffs of
>British designs that followed from WWI. The designation M1 was given to
>the final Christie design accepted by the US Army. The M2 of 1939
>represented the definitive break with Christie (and the genesis of the
>M3/M4 family that carried the Allies through the coming war) but
>there's no question his designs influenced US Army development for a
>good 20 years.
>
>> Christie was very much a lone wolf, a bit of a genius in his way (he
>> was the first to realise that the performance of a tank was limited
>> by what the crew inside could physically endure) and he solved the
>> problem of moving a tank at speed over rough ground without turning
>> the crew into jam. Unfortunately he was a terrible businessman, and
>> once he had solved that technical problem he basically lost interest
>> - he couldn't be bothered with the boring stuff like guns and armour.
>
>Pre-war US tank development was mostly experimental, there was simply
>no money to actually produce combat-worthy tanks in significant
>numbers. In that context ignoring guns and armour was perfectly
>reasonable. Christie was focused on the mobility part of the
>mobility/firepower/protection equation. The Russians demonstrated there
>was no difficulty in grafting adequate armour and armament on top of
>the Christie chassis.
>
>> So the people who had ordered his tanks (including the US and Polish
>> armies, I believe) cancelled their orders, though the Russians and
>> British adopted his designs and improved them in the models you
>> mention above. I think Christie died in poverty before the war
>> started.
>
>Christie was shafted by everyone he dealt with, but that didn't stop
>him profoundly influencing tank development in three out of the top four
>major combatants of WW2.
>
I quite agree - my point was simply that it was not "American" design
that influenced British and Russian tanks, it was, specifically,
Christie.
--
John Secker

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

I would have to tend to agree that early Italian tank designs did have a
signifigant influence on tank design in the pre war years, thier's were the
only real combat tested armored vehicles of the interwar years.

in Etheopia
"estarriol" <estarriol@blueyonder.jeansNtshirt.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d407rq$qtp$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "Martin Rapier" <m.rapier@shef.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:d403b5$arq$1@hermes.shef.ac.uk...
>> <booboosfather@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:xXZ7e.6960$yq6.1062@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>> got to say from look and lay out the M3 definately took something from
>>> french design (probobly not a smuggled out french design, but there was
>>> definately extensive exchange of ideas between US, Britian,and French on
>>> the professional level
>>
>> ?? If going by the look of the thing you might as well argue that the
>> Lee/Grant, Char B and Churchill I were based on the M11/39! Hull mounted
>> guns were a popular improvisation until the design skills to build larger
>> turret rings were developed.
>>
>>> I see almost no influence between US and British designs at all, with
>>> possible exception of the choice of small caliber AT gun (37mm) for
>>> light tanks and insistence on space for communications gear but even
>>> that might have been influenced by after action reports of French
>>> equipment
>>
>> Both the British and US fitted the most powerful AT weapons they had
>> available to their main battle tanks, 37mm in the case of the US, 40mm in
>> the case of the British. Light tanks were armed with machineguns,
>> although later in the war many of these vehicles were upgunned to 57mm or
>> 75mm weapons or retired to a recce role (in the case of the Stuart
>> frequently without the turret at all).
>>
> Noot quite true, the main problem on british Tanks in the war was that
> they had to fit the UK loading gauge on the railway, this was a serious
> restriction that showed in turret rings mostly, as the tanks couldn't be
> wide, there was a max turret size. The first British Tank designed purely
> for road transport in the UK was the Centurion.
>
> --
> estarriol
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

<booboosfather@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:8e2be.12855$An2.12243@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>I would have to tend to agree that early Italian tank designs did have a
>signifigant influence on tank design in the pre war years, thier's were the
>only real combat tested armored vehicles of the interwar years.
> in Etheopia

Umm, there was a rather big war in Spain at roughly the same time. Ethiopia
was somewhat one-sided in terms of tank battles etc.

Martin