I kinda love how FCM was chosen not necessarily because they had the best machine, but because the jury unanimously agreed the curved design looked futuristic and cool. They had the same standards for choosing tank designs as I did when I was 12

@CMDRFandragon

Жыл бұрын

And thats why France got clapped in like a month

@joaogomes9405

Жыл бұрын

@@CMDRFandragon Honestly they got clapped because French leadership was a joke. For the period, French kit was actually quite good. Their tanks were very effective for what they were designed for, even if not giving them a radio was a bit of a blunder. They struggled against German tanks not because they were outgunned or outarmoured, but because they were outnumbered. The Germans would group their tank units together into divisions while the French (and literally everyone else at the time) were still using antiquated tank tactics that spread the tanks thin into small independent squads. Coupled with the overconfindence in the Ardennes being impossible to cross with tanks, to the point the french leadership ignored multiple reports that the germans were crossing the Ardennes and dismissed them as "just a few recon divisions". But when the French were able to do what they wanted, namely sit in place and defend like in Dunkirk, they did it very well. But you can't fight a mobile enemy while sitting on your ass, and French generals tried to do just that.

@Balrog2005

Жыл бұрын

So as a 12 years kid you already know the importance of slopped armor, diesel engines and that welding was the future of tank manufacturing ? Yeah, sure...

@executivedirector7467

Жыл бұрын

@@joaogomes9405 The French army included three fully operational armored divisions, with a fourth forming up, in May 1940. It also had several more mechanized divisions. The idea that the French army was split up into small units is simply false. French tanks, like the tanks of the USA and USSR in 1941-45, were grouped *both* in small support units and in large armored divisions. The Germans would have done the same if they'd been able to afford it, but they couldn't, which is why they cooked up the Stug idea. Also.....most French tanks had pretty poor firepower, as did most German tanks. Only a minority of tanks on either side had good general-purpose armament.

@joaogomes9405

Жыл бұрын

@@Balrog2005 No, as a 12 year old I picked what my favourite tanks were based on if they looked cool. I'm sorry I have to explain the joke to you, I thought my comment was pretty obvious.

You better not let ConeofArc hear you call the FCM an angular abomination!

@jamesedwardladislazerrudo1378

Жыл бұрын

Well that was his mascot as an anime tank girl

@kaneburms8664

Жыл бұрын

no it worse

@petrolak

Жыл бұрын

14:38

@comrade_commissar3794

Жыл бұрын

Cone of arc is a weeb degenerate, his fans are also degenerates by association

@warhawk4494

Жыл бұрын

Hahahahahahah how dare you hate on ConeofArc waifu. Hahaha

One main issue of the FCM, as far as I know was that it's manufacturer was basically a shipyard. Hence they had this experience in welding armor plate. However experienced welders were few and far between and even without the common strikes, they were needed for their main job, building warships. The FCM was really a side project compared to the more important job of building ships.

@Briselance

Жыл бұрын

More important? The Marine Nationale still didn't have much of an influence in the 1940 campaig , did it?

@michaelpielorz9283

Жыл бұрын

the Churhill tanks were build by a shipyard their most common product had been the RMS Titanic enough said (:-))

@bersekovitch

Жыл бұрын

Fun fact: the FCM 36 went pricier that anticipated because many workers on the assembly line used some of the quality materials to make cutlery sets on the side. Also it was appreciated for it’s long range, being diesel-powered.

@wbertie2604

3 ай бұрын

​@@michaelpielorz9283the A20 precursor to the Churchill (which was A22) was built by a shipyard, but Churchill itself was not.

I love the new style used! The editing and illustrations are flawless! I feel it is somewhat inspired from Ahoy's (formerly XboxAhoy) style. Meant as a compliment ofc

@Sagaleon14

Жыл бұрын

I feel like all content creators could take inspiration from Ahoy’s amazing style:)

@nepete7

Жыл бұрын

Well, good given the probably line of real footage. I find it funny that while describing a fight in the Ardennes they used snow footage from WOT when the battle happened in May/June.

@cosmoray9750

9 ай бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/in6its-cqLHOgM4.html "China is Preparing for WAR as Neocons Cross Xi's Red Line in Taiwan" 🤔

Love the humor 😂 while also staying on track and not overusing it.

Using tanks to support infantry as a concept isn’t wrong, having a tank is massively better than having no tank. The problem is, if your have-tank can only deal with infantry, whilst the enemy tank can easily deal with your tank, then you’ll be back to having no tank as soon as an enemy one showed up. And after that how efficient a tank is at supporting the infantry isn’t that big of an issue anymore.

@executivedirector7467

Жыл бұрын

Exactly right!

@TheArklyte

Жыл бұрын

Infantry tanks aren't build to deal only with infantry. Matilda, Valentine and Churchill(undermined by original design relying on Matilda turret and 2 pounder) need to have a word with you. Infantry tank is there to support infantry. The gun is there to deal with tanks, bunkers and machinegun nests. It has MGs of its own for dealing with enemy infantry.

@executivedirector7467

Жыл бұрын

@@TheArklyte You are partially right. The British concept of an infantry tank was a tank that existed to support Infantry - which is not remotely the same thing as fighting only enemy infantry. Nevertheless, all the British infantry tank designs were crippled by their poor firepower. The 2 pounder and later 6 pounder were both excellent antitank guns in their day. But they had no HE capability, which is what an infantry support tank needs more than anything. HE is used to engage enemy towed AT guns, bunkers and other field fortifications. The British I tanks had only their AP solid-shot guns and their machineguns to engage these targets. And so, time and again, British armor units were defeated by towed AT guns because they had no means of engaging them unless they got within MG range.....and by the time you do that all your tanks have been knocked out.

@joaogomes9405

Жыл бұрын

@@TheArklyte British WW2 infantry tanks have a different meaning from french post-WW1 infantry tanks. Mostly because one supports infantry, while the other fights infantry.

@crapshot321

Жыл бұрын

@@executivedirector7467 What's worse the British did have a 94mm howitzer...that fired only smoke shells.

Thanks for posting this video. I was late for my wedding. 😤

This new editing style is amazing! I used to have the old videos playing like a podcast in the backround, but now it's geniunely entertaining to watch as is. Keep up the great work

This channel's quality of content is a far cry from when it started a couple of years ago. Good narration and sound quality!

@whoelsebutmeofcoursei

Жыл бұрын

You’re right

Just wanted to say that i absolutely love your videos (And your encyclopedia articles too!). Especially the articles because its short simple and colourful to the point where my tiny ape brain can understand them.

I wouldn't say abomination. It has a certain charm to it.

@me67galaxylife

7 күн бұрын

noooo ! its bad because meme, ooga booga

I recall the French didn't want radio inside their tanks was because...they are afraid that the enemy might be listening in. 🤣

@executivedirector7467

Жыл бұрын

To add to Obsidian Jane's correct comment, back in the 1920s and 30s, tank radios usually required a crewman dedicated to operating them. That drove costs waaaay up - the tanks needed to be larger, the radios needed to be supplied, the crewmen needed to be trained and provided, etc. It really adds up. If your doctrine calls for careful planning and relatively methodical battle plans (as the French did) then radios in every tank or small unit are not that important. France dealt with the chaos of combat by trying to master and control it through very tightly controlled tactical planning and conduct of operations. The Germans dealt with the chaos by embracing it and using it to their advantage. Such freer tactics required really good communications, and I don't think it's an accident of history that Guderian was a Signals officer.

Crazy to see vasile lugas old channel cited here in this video. It’s crazy when you start to understand how much footage there is and how a lot of it is not public domain and it costs a lot to get World War Two footage or any footage nowadays that has proprietary information and protection and obviously that is good for source creators for instance that documentary cited ‘battlefields’ is now on Magellan and history hit behind paywalls but can still be seen on KZread on his channel and he uploaded them back in the wild west days of KZread

@biggiouschinnus7489

Жыл бұрын

Agreed- that man did a huge service to the military history community.

ConeOfArc: *angry noises*

THE CONE

20mm flak guns: Hague Convention? More like Hague Suggestion.

Video editing has gotten really cool

Another french WW2 tank I have a love for❤️.... also one of the few you can't seem to find plastic models of😔

@executivedirector7467

Жыл бұрын

ICM makes a kit of it.

@deweylipschitz1516

Жыл бұрын

Have 2 of them . Looks pretty good.

@morteforte7033

Жыл бұрын

One thing I forgot to specify was in 1/72.. though when looking, I did seem to find some....lol things have changed in the last 5 years it seems.

Excellent video on a rare vehicle.

I like the new editing style. Feels a lot like XboxAhoy

Where is ConeofArc ? It's an "insult" to him🤣

Great work Sir thank you

My favorite French tank by far! Totally love how it looks.

Between the praise, critiques and further developments FCM36, R35(new suspension and SA38 gun) and H35(H39 with extra armor, new engine and SA38 gun) receive, it seems like AMX38 was to be ideal as it was a combination of the three. However it remains to be seen if it was combination of their pros or cons...

This production value tho

Woah is Thomas Sowell Alcazar?

Some of the hulls were recycled by the Wermacht in PzJaegers, with a 7,5 cm. Pak, but weren't very popular, too tight. It's incredible how the specifics of these tanks were so low tech, no radio, an one-man turret, and a too light gun, at least they could've provided a third man, to light commander's work, and without radio how they could've send instructions to the crews? The absurdity was that the French army had pioneered radio comms since the early yrs of XX century.

@TanksEncyclopediaYT

Жыл бұрын

Also variants with the 10.5 cm leFH gun

Thanks!

You have the soothing voice of a starship captain.

With one exception*, the light French tanks of 1940 really were FT17 Redux... * looking at you AMC 35, why you so much trouble to get right? You could have been a contender!

(French Infantry officer) … “so… the way you want to communicate with me… is to fire a 37mm shell at me…?”

And through it all she offers me protection A lot of love and affection Whether I'm right or wrong And down the waterfall Wherever it may take me I know that life won't break me When I come to call, she won't forsake me I'm loving angles instead...

Dude said “tourret”

Reckon it would of been amazing using that in the Napoleonic wars

I​ love​ FCM​ 36​

Coneofarc will be pleased!

on wt should use more ww2 themed maps

Fcm 36 is my favorite tank for France thou it's not best it's neat

The French only have 2 settings. They either build absolutely fantastic or absolutely ridiculous.

something i have always been curious. tho britain and france fought together during the battle of france. we never hear the opinion on their allies tanks. like french opinions on the british tanks and the british on the french tanks. did they never really fight alongside eachother during the short conflict and the small little moments in north africa and middle east?

@teodor9975

Жыл бұрын

@@obsidianjane4413 bit of a shame...

@tedparkinson2033

11 ай бұрын

If there are anecdotes, often Historians disregard them with fairly good reason. They tend to be coloured by bias and so rarely reach the general culture stage of military history circles. Understandable but a shame.

Wasn't the limited production of 100 pieces rather because of the very high cost of the tank rather than to FCM production?

French lights..."AHA, we have you now!" StuG III: "Not so fast, cheese eater."

@executivedirector7467

Жыл бұрын

There were maybe a dozen Stugs available in June 1940

@teopazdrijan1008

Жыл бұрын

@@executivedirector7467 Didn't know they even had Stugs back then haha

I've often wondered why the waffenamt didn't refit captured light tanks as infantry support weapons carriers. Remove the turret and use the turret ring/basket to mount an 8cm mortar or 7.5cm leichtes infanteriegeschütz. After the invasion of Poland it was obvious the panzer 1,2 class of vehicles was obsolete. Retrofitting them would have kept them in service. Another lesson learned from Poland was that the infantry were vulnerable and needed more crew served weapons to keep replacement rates low. Having a battery of mobile mortars/infantry guns at the regimental level or lower would definitely be a deciding factor on the battle field. Mobility and a high ammo capacity. What's not to love?

@TanksEncyclopediaYT

Жыл бұрын

Except they did. The Panzer II was the basis for both the 10.5 cm leFH (the Wespe), the 15 cm sIG (the unpronounceable name) and the 7.5 cm Pak (the Marder IIs)

@kurt5490

Жыл бұрын

@@TanksEncyclopediaYT Agree/ disagree. Yes those are hulls adapted for other armament. My point specifically was for crew served weapons normally carried by infantry. These weapons are given fire missions at a lower organizational level than howitzer artillery, so they are quicker to respond to changes in battlefield circumstances. Thank you for a great channel. I'm a 3 year subscriber.

@TanksEncyclopediaYT

Жыл бұрын

Well, there was no reason to mount the 8cm mortar on tank hulls, it worked very well on half-tracks without needing to sacrifice a tank chassis for it. As for the leIG, that was the job of the StuG III in the infantry divisions, and later the 7.5 cm armed half-tracks.

@kurt5490

Жыл бұрын

@@obsidianjane4413 Yeah, but there were only 250 stugs for the entire eastern front. Because of lack of close infantry support the entire 400,000 man reserve was killed before Moscow was even approached.

Забавно что от этого танка ведут происхождение т34 и пантера.

LE CONE

Ik this doesn't matter but what made you guys choose world of tanks too use for your videos instead of warthunder

@TanksEncyclopediaYT

Жыл бұрын

Your attention is lacking, dear bag of bones. We used both :)

Very odd looking tank. Wasnt it the first all welded french tank too since FCM built ships too?

You should have elaborated on the title of the video that states that this was a tank for the wrong war. The French doctrine really was not that bad. They intended to stop a german attack in it's tracks and then totally wear them out. This plan could have worked if they would have stopped the germans from sneaking throught the ardennes and attacking them from the rear. They even knew what the germans were up to (reconnaissance flights showed a 200 kilometer long line of armoured vehicles working it's way throught the ardennes), but they brushed it aside as a distraction. No doctrine can withstand such stupidity.

Lol "terret" 😂.

Best of the Worst and no Mike Stoklasa, am I sobering up???

Trust the french to build the powerplants but don't trust them for anything else ahah

No wonder bo aliens come to us asoon as we see somthing doing any war we bast the absolute hell out of it

At least France won the beauty contest (and who cares about the war anyway)

but that miserable gun ! WHY would they stay with these worthless stubby guns ? France why ? interesting that even in 1940 the Stug-III was knocking out tanks and dealing with problems nobody else could deal with. Its rather unlucky for the FCM 36's to have encountered 2 Stug's because there were only 50 in the whole campaign if I recall correctly

@TanksEncyclopediaYT

Жыл бұрын

Cost and availability.

@Oddball_E8

Жыл бұрын

Mostly because they had thousands upon thousands of them available.

@ernstschmidt4725

Жыл бұрын

also it suffered the sadly not uncommon thinking of the time of : well it's an infantry support tank, not an anti-tank tank. it doesn't need to be able to fend off other tanks, it just needs to mow down infrantry and blow up pillboxes.

@KartarNighthawk

9 ай бұрын

France was trying to rearm after years of slashing military spending. Since the short 37mm had been the main gun on the FT-17 it was available en masse for use in the rearmament program and was fitted because it was cheap and expedient. As seen on the H-39 etc there were plans to produce upgunned variants of all the light tanks, but those were interrupted by the outbreak of war.

It's called a suit not an ACE, no A's present. Yes, this annoys me.