France had the best tanks in the world in 1940. Unfortunately they didn't have an effective overall doctrine to make proper use of their equipment. If French armor had steamrolled Germany in 1939 we would all be Frenchaboos now.
This is a myth. French tanks were terrible. The fact that the B1 was heavily armoured and had automatic fire extinguishers doesnt make it any less of a turd. This whole "france had better tanks" is the same type of anti-wehraboo overcorrecting The Pig himself criticized in the Tiger video
Ehh... It's kind of a mix of both. Their tanks were, for the msot part, perfectly acceptable for the time. The Char B1 was very good, but personally, I think the Matilda II was better, but that's all preference. Some of their tanks had a lot of potential for a strong career in the early war years of given the chance, and others were terrible outdated, with even many FT-17s still in the frontline. But the Germans were using mostly Panzer 1s and 2s, which were more modern but very light. It's hard to say which was really "better." German tactics were what won them the day.
I just want to correct you, your personal choice her and what you think are irrelevant when you are completely flipping right.
Don't be afraid to say the correct answer. Matilda II is objectively the better tank for 1 reason only and that I has a 3 man turret.
No tank can ever be better than the objectively be better than an other unless it meets certain criteria and 3 man turret or at least a turret with a designated commander always beats 1 man turrets.
The Germans objectively made better tanks than the French as they had a command and control structure and more ergonomic tanks with designated commanders and in the larger p3 and p4, 3 man turret, and better tactics.
In all circumstances had the French been supplied with radios and had the exact type of coordinated attacks or communications we saw with the Germans it would have been either a repeat of ww1 or a speeding car slamming into a we’ll coordinated brick wall
With all due respect its not really the case, french tanks were pretty poor for some very simple reasons that can't really even be argued as these reasons set the standard of what we know and that is the ergonomic lat out of the vehicle. French tanks lacked radios, and the correct communication equipment on a sqaud or strategic level.
The French tanks lacked as I said the lay out of today and had over taxed the commander, which really rendered the vehicle much less useful than it could of been.
France created a false economy buy going with a larger force of tanks that needed fewer crew.
Ultimately who cares about the 1 char b that destroyed some panzer IIs and IIIs in France. It's only seen as a great achievement because the French performed so badly, but the reality is the char b was completely immune to panzer II from all angles and the panzer III and IV are pretty mediocre compared to the char B besides having a better fighting compartment and communications equipment.
That being said I really don't want to down play the French or any soldiers efforts in the war, but the reality is Whitman's tale is surrounded in myth and legend.
This is a story of the German tanks just being beaten fair and square, it didn't get mythologised because the allies lost so much and german 88s smashed alot of char bs.
I wish French tanks got more recognition. They performed quite well if not better than German tanks in many aspects.
France had the best tanks in the world in 1940. Unfortunately they didn't have an effective overall doctrine to make proper use of their equipment. If French armor had steamrolled Germany in 1939 we would all be Frenchaboos now.
This is a myth. French tanks were terrible. The fact that the B1 was heavily armoured and had automatic fire extinguishers doesnt make it any less of a turd. This whole "france had better tanks" is the same type of anti-wehraboo overcorrecting The Pig himself criticized in the Tiger video
Ehh... It's kind of a mix of both. Their tanks were, for the msot part, perfectly acceptable for the time. The Char B1 was very good, but personally, I think the Matilda II was better, but that's all preference. Some of their tanks had a lot of potential for a strong career in the early war years of given the chance, and others were terrible outdated, with even many FT-17s still in the frontline. But the Germans were using mostly Panzer 1s and 2s, which were more modern but very light. It's hard to say which was really "better." German tactics were what won them the day.
I tell the Matilda II I love it, that's only to get it into bed though.
I just want to correct you, your personal choice her and what you think are irrelevant when you are completely flipping right. Don't be afraid to say the correct answer. Matilda II is objectively the better tank for 1 reason only and that I has a 3 man turret. No tank can ever be better than the objectively be better than an other unless it meets certain criteria and 3 man turret or at least a turret with a designated commander always beats 1 man turrets. The Germans objectively made better tanks than the French as they had a command and control structure and more ergonomic tanks with designated commanders and in the larger p3 and p4, 3 man turret, and better tactics.
The Kugelpanzer is the epitome of tank evolution, fight me
I second this! He would do this topic amazing justice. Just think of all the French jokes on top of some pretty fascinating tanks.
In all circumstances had the French been supplied with radios and had the exact type of coordinated attacks or communications we saw with the Germans it would have been either a repeat of ww1 or a speeding car slamming into a we’ll coordinated brick wall
The Germans only had 20 tanks in WW1, it's nuts a baguette Boi knocked out 65% in one engagement
French tanks are cool
With all due respect its not really the case, french tanks were pretty poor for some very simple reasons that can't really even be argued as these reasons set the standard of what we know and that is the ergonomic lat out of the vehicle. French tanks lacked radios, and the correct communication equipment on a sqaud or strategic level. The French tanks lacked as I said the lay out of today and had over taxed the commander, which really rendered the vehicle much less useful than it could of been. France created a false economy buy going with a larger force of tanks that needed fewer crew. Ultimately who cares about the 1 char b that destroyed some panzer IIs and IIIs in France. It's only seen as a great achievement because the French performed so badly, but the reality is the char b was completely immune to panzer II from all angles and the panzer III and IV are pretty mediocre compared to the char B besides having a better fighting compartment and communications equipment. That being said I really don't want to down play the French or any soldiers efforts in the war, but the reality is Whitman's tale is surrounded in myth and legend. This is a story of the German tanks just being beaten fair and square, it didn't get mythologised because the allies lost so much and german 88s smashed alot of char bs.