"France’s Monstrous Char B1 Tank Ate German Panzers..." Topic

…for Breakfast.

"At five o'clock in the morning on May 16, 1940 a company of the 8th Panzer Regiment lay in an ambush position along a rubble-strewn street of the French town of Stonne. The day before, the unfortunate village had changed hands several times as French troops attempted to stem the tide of German armor headed toward the English channel, threatening to trap Allied forces in Belgium.

Three squadrons of Stuka dive bombers ravaged Stonne, as well as both French and German artillery. That morning, the Panzer IIIEs and IVDs—then the best tanks in German service—deployed to stave off a French counterattack.

Suddenly, a squat green tank lumbered around a street block directly before of the German unit. This was Eure, a 31.5-ton Char B1 bis tank commanded by Capt. Pierre Billotte. His driver, Sergeant Durupt, triggered the 75-millimeter howitzer fixed in the front hull roared, smashing the Panzer III to the rear of the column. At the same time, Billotte swiveled the smaller 47-millimeter high velocity cannon in the turret and picked off the lead tank—a mere 30 meters away…"
Main page
warisboring.com/47857-2

Amicalement
Armand

For an idea of the skill of the crews, have a look at The Chieftan's Hatch on YouTube for a 2 part investigation of the beast.

I suppose that the KV-2 was a huge success too on that basis.

Great video.

Strange how when it is a French tank its actions given short shrift and when its a German shooting up Bren carriers at Villers-Bocage its seen as a great martial feat.

Its just a shame more German columns couldn't have been dealt with the same way in 1940.

Its just a shame more German columns couldn't have been dealt with the same way in 1940.

The French had the same problem in 1940 that the Germans did in 1944. Such individual feats didn't matter to the overall outcome. The Germans held the initiative and the French were out manoeuvred and cut off from supplies, constantly acting on information that was already several days out of date.

IMO the article did not give "short shirt" to the individual actions. It fairly accurately portrayed the situation and difficulties facing the French strategically in 1940.

Decent piece.

Some nice details not generally seen in articles of this type.

DR I wasn't referring to the article- which was a decent account. Just that a typical response to anything of this complimentary nature is only given superlatives if it's about the exploits of British, German or American troops usually. Wittman does this -he an ace, A Frenchman does similar (or better) and its sneered at.

Wittman was an ace long before he ran roughshod over an infantry company in Normandy.

Glad you enjoyed it my friend.

Amicalement
Armand

I'm constantly amazed at the shifts in pop history. Whittman's exploit at Villers-Bocage once lauded as a single tank smashing an entire UK battlegroup now reduced to shooting some Bren carriers/shooting up an infantry company. Both versions completely erroneous and more reflective of current viewpoints than reality.

The French defense of Stonne is well covered in several works. Billote's remarkable single tank actions is the subject of nearly an entire Ospery. Both actions reflect the effects of suprise, crew quality and having the right machine in the right place. Neither could reverse an unfavorable strategic situation, though the blunting of 7th Armors hook at Villers-Bocage probably had more operational impact.

TomT

The French & UK had a number of AFVs that were generally "superior" to most if not all the German MBTs/AFVs at that time. But the Germans understood modern mobile combined arms warfare. While the French, UK, etc., were still fighting the last war, it has been said.

Define "superior" in your context.

Well generally better armed and armored, in many cases. If you go down the list of French and UK [even Belgium but they had so few that they were not really significant, nor "high-tech" IMO]. Many of the Allied AFVs were "better" than what the Germans fielded.

As we know many of the German BTs were the Pz.I & IIs. Many of the Allied AFVs were better armed & armored than those.
E.g.: UK – A9, A10, A12, A13. French – R35, H39, Char B1, S35, etc. … And IIRC the French & UK had more AFVs overall than the Germans.

The Czech 35 & 38T use by the Germans were arguably equal to or superior to the Pz.III and maybe only the Pz.IV was considered "better".

Again I'm talking overall, one can go by each tank type, by each nation, by total number of each, etc. to get a more detailed appreciation. But I think my statement stands as basically accurate. Most of the Allied AFVs/BTs were superior to the Germans overall …

But the Germans were tactically and strategically "superior" to the Allies at that time. Resulting in the Reich occupying most of Western Europe for at least 2 years or so. Again … Many/most of the Allies were still fighting the last war.

And isn't it interesting that the reverse was true in Normandy and Bulge? Proves that the thickest armor and biggest gun doesn't always win. Many other factors from air support to logistics figure in. Many of those superior French tanks never got into battle or arrived late and piecemeal due to needing fuel. Cheers!

Lee494,
The biggest gun and thickest armor matters in games but do not reflect the strategic actions that shape and effect a battle.

What if a scenario had a pre-game strategic phase where you need to get your OOB or units you paid points for to the battle. If you lack air superiority your units undergo air attacks. If you are low on supplies some may not make it. Units that were known to be suspectable to breakdowns may be left behind. Traffic jams and air interdiction may slow down others from arriving on time. Poor intel could send a unit off in the wrong direction.

Rather than a dozen of those wonderful heavy tanks, you may only get 6-8 that arrive to fight.

Wolfhag

And isn't it interesting that the reverse was true in Normandy and Bulge? Proves that the thickest armor and biggest gun doesn't always win.

Exactly but that was after @ 2 years or so of German occupation, etc.

The Allies generally learned their lessons well. Just as many of the Allied AFVs/BTs of the French, UK, etc. were "better" than most of the German AFVs/BTs, in e.g. 1940. Again … the Germans understood mobile combined arms warfare. At that time many of the Allies didn't even have a learners permit.

And the learning curve was steep. But the Allies learned … And just as importantly the Allies had General Motors, General Electric, General Foods, etc. on their side.

If a weapon system, e.g. an MBT can't shoot, move or communicate, you have a multi-ton paperweight.

And as always … a weapon is only as good as the man[or woman] or crew behind it.

Many other factors from air support to logistics figure in

Been there, done that … Was a Bn Air Ops officer in the 101,'82-'83. And ran Log ops with a Mech Bn of the 2ID, '84-'85.

Proves that the thickest armor and biggest gun doesn't always win.

In fact I would assert that the thickest armor and biggest gun almost never win.

That is, unless you also have the winning ingredients combined WITH the thickest armor and biggest gun.

The thickest armor and biggest gun does provide an advantage on a given battlefield. But not beyond. And wars are not won on a given battlefield, they are won on a series of battlefields. And the side that does a better job of defining where those battles will be fought, and does a better job of amassing superior forces on those many battlefields, will be the winning side.

Char-Bs were almost invulnerable in 1940. So were Mathildas. KV-1s and -2s were absolute monsters in 1941. Tigers were unmatched in 1943. There was nothing to compare to Royal Tigers in 1944. And they all lost. Consistently. Among the whole set I can find only one case I might point to where they contributed to an operational success. One. Out of all those tanks, and all the operations they participated in.

Arras, or Raseiniai, or Ponyri, or Villers Bocage -- wow a heavy tank could do a lot of damage. But they seem to have always been on the losing side.

If a weapon system, e.g. an MBT can't shoot, move or communicate, you have a multi-ton paperweight.

Quite agree. But I would take it a step farther, and say if your tank (MBT or other) can't move or communicate, even if it can still shoot, it is almost as useless.

It seems to me that the most important feature of a tank is that it can give you an edge in mobility … when I speak of mobility here I speak of the ability to concentrate forces at the decisive point of a campaign. If your tanks do that better than your opponent's tanks (and if you are clever enough to USE that advantage), then you can achieve decisive victories.

It is not just speed. It is cross-country performance, un-refueled range, weight relative to local bridges, short- to mid-term reliability, communications, and probably several other factors I have not considered. If you have the advantage on these points, you can dictate where and when the fight takes place. Char-Bs were beasts, but they were not at Sedan when they were needed. They were not in front of the panzer divisions as they rushed to the channel. They were not ready to attack when the British rolled forward at Arras.

Heavy tanks could create opportunities by winning on the tactical battlefield. But there are several ways to win on a tactical battlefield. Medium tanks (in WW2) and MBTs (today), on the other hand, can do what no other weapon system can do. They can survive crossing terrain under enemy fire, and concentrate faster than the enemy can respond, bringing overwhelming firepower to bear at the place and time of choice. If you do this better than your enemy does this, and you have a clue where and when to do it, you can win.

This is so hard to see in our games, in part because no one wants to play that way. How much fun is it to fight a panzer division against a French infantry battalion with no attached AT assets? Or to push 56 Shermans as they roll across a gameboard defended by a company of landsers with two Paks?

That's what won operations and campaigns. That's what Pz 38ts and Pz IIIs and T-34s and Shermans did so well, that we can't see in most of our games.

At least that's how it seems to work to me.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

I'm constantly amazed at the shifts in pop history. Whittman's exploit at Villers-Bocage once lauded as a single tank smashing an entire UK battlegroup now reduced to shooting some Bren carriers/shooting up an infantry company. Both versions completely erroneous and more reflective of current viewpoints than reality.

I was under the impression that Wittman's solo attack mangled and severely delayed the attack of said UK battlegroup, but also that said UK battlegroup was primarily infantry with maybe a couple platoons of armor in support. Actual casualties were roughly an armored infantry company.

Around a dozen tanks, one of which was a firefly, and about 6 cromwells. 10 or so other armored vehicles mostly halftracks.

As there was a lot going on that day, exact numbers are probably never going to be certain, Some people want to push them as low as they can, others want to inflate them. 1 tank chopped up a lot of opponents, but in the end didnt really change anything.

Try 20 Cromwells, 4 Fireflies and 3 Stuarts.

Yep I have seen numbers that high. Not sure they can all be attributed to Wittman, but sure enough somebody killed them.

In total Wittman got over 250 allied tanks and guns, and no count of other vehicles. And in the end it didnt change anything.Germany needed hundreds of Wittmans to overcome it many shortages, and they did not exist.

Yes, they were a combination of Wittman's company and Mobius' company attacks.