Agreed. To often a video details a piece of kit and you've no idea where to look. The Tank Museums uploads are a cut above the rest.

the highlighted bits are very helpful indeed

He's improved immensely. He's really worked on cutting out all the 'ahhs' 👍

@@ray.shoesmith Agreed! Clearly got the knowledge of his subject, but lacked experience in front of camera. He's really improved fast, great addition to the channel 👏

Yes, absolutely. It's good that they have different presenters. They make a good mix of flavours. Tank Museum videos don't get old. 👍👍

he should learn how to pronounce "un" (one) though ; THE MOST atrocious pronounciation of this word I have ever heard.

@@mad_death_0 as long as this isn't a French lesson, and since his expertise in tanks is far superior to mine, I think I'm not in the position to complain about the pronunciation of a single word.

I like him as much as mr fletcher just as captivating and interesting

Looks lame.

you know that char is the french word for tank? it is the B1bis the name

Absolute badass tank.

@@laurentius1986I disagree, it looks pretty good for when it was made. It was a damn good tank in the hands of skilled TC. Captain Pierre Billotte took out an entire panzer company (13 panzers knocked out) all by himself in a Char B. For its time (pre WWII) it kicked!

And the Tank Tactics. If the Char 1bis would have been accompanied by S-35 on their Attack they wouldn't be overwhelmed. But France didn't buy the lighter Tank in the numbers needed. Only 430 were produced. If the Government ordered more in 1938 and 1939 they could have had around 600-700 of those. And give 50 each as protection for the 3 heavy units, the S-35 was as capable as the Char Bis1 in Tank-Battle. But the biggest Probem was indeed the Universal Turret, which had to be a one Man-Turret to fit on every tank. And the Char bis1 and Somua had the luxury version, were the loader could help the Commander. There were only two competing Turret Designs and Production for all French Tanks. Both could have had a 2 man turret.

The one man turret is a reflection of the other serious problem facing France, since the end of WWI-- a serious shortage of manpower caused by the heavy casualties, both industrial accidents and combat losses. In other discussions of French tanks, it is often mentioned that a limiting factor was the pool of skilled tankers. A proper three man turret would have eliminated half of the potential tank force. There is no argument that the three man turret was more effective than the one man turret, but was a tank with a three man turret more effective than two tanks with one man turrets?

Half of the german panzer force who invaded France in may 1940 were single one-man turret just like the french tanks. But French tank designs leading up to WWII had to deal with a manpower shortage in the French Army. So many Frenchmen died in WWI, the French Army had to plan knowing they didn't have the same number of troops possible in other armies of the time. Hence why, the french made more tanks with 1 man turrets.

The downfall of all French tanks is none of them were fitted with radios and thus had no strategic or tactical situational awareness beyond what the commander could see himself. The French didn’t trust radio’s and used runners and motorcycle courier for coordination. The problem was high command actually finding their tanks once the shooting started. The GERMANS fitted the radios to the captured tanks.

@@elouenmyas580 Only the Panzerkampfwagen I had One-Man Turrets. And they were literaly driving Pillboxes with a MG. Both the S-35 and the Panzerkampfwagen II had a 3 Man-Crew: Driver, Commander + Loader/Radioman. In the German Tank the Loader/Radioman was in the Turret, in the French Tank he squatted below the turret and was only an assist Loader. A two-man turret with a better cupola with a Hatch would improved the S-35 greatly. The Cupola on the one man turret was so small, because there was no space for a bigger one. France was in transition to a 3 Man Crew from 1935 onwards, and hat some 1 1/2 man turrets (Hotchkiss-H39, AMC35, S-35, Char B1 bis). Would they embrassed it more, and made the step to a real 2 man turret, their Tanks would be much more efficient. If they had used the APX2-B turret of the AMC35 instead of the APX4 in the more modern tanks. Together with better Tactics, combining Heavy with Light Tanks, the run to Dunkirk may have been stopped. It may not have prohibited the fall of France, but certainly it wouldn't have been a 6 Week affaire more likely 3-5 Month.

I find that French WW2 tanks are woefully underappreciated and undervalued. Too many people seem to think that because France was defeated so quickly that must mean their equipment was bad.

@@Valkanna.Nublet yea. But truth is, france was often on the top when it comes to innovation and new technology, not only in a military sense.

I agree.

That's hilarious, what is more hilarious is if, in seven months, no one from the museum has asked your friend and yourself to bring that jack to see if it fits . . . !

@@davidgoodnow269 you do know where Jersey is and what it would take to travel to the museum ... right?

@@jeanlongsden1696 I've heard of an Isle of Jersey and also a City, but I don't know the location of the museum. I also don't know where you are, but if you think your friend might have a jack for a German-captured and refitted Char B1 bis, then I have to think you are probably somewhere in the U.K. or perhaps France, and therefore no worse than a train and a ferry away from the museum, such a heavy artifact as a tank jack being a bit awkward to haul over oceans (perhaps in an oceanic surface-freight CONNEX rented to move household goods, though)? I saw an e-mail address in the Tank Museum Chat on the Panzer III, if your friend perhaps wants to trade the jack for a lifetime all-access pass (including entering all tanks that aren't welded shut) to the museum? Maybe learn some tank restoration with the maintenance team, there has to be the occasional employer around the world for someone who has museum-quality experience with that!

Tanks usually look small in photos, don't they? I remember the first time I saw an Abrams in person, it looked huge! Then I quickly became used to them, like a car or a Great Dane, and no big deal. Then, I watched as one popped a wheely and tore a road in to a rooster tail as it tried to dodge RPGs and ATGMs, as I ran towards it to try to suppress launch positions. It seemed large and powerful again.

I like them as i am an avid tabletop wargamer and they look likeWarhammer 40K imperial guard tanks

they kinda feel like ''Last march of the ents'' in LOTR, old heavy slow warbeasts thats not fit for the age fights their final war

@@robinburt5735 Other way around really, WH40K tanks are based off of these monsters =)

@@lavrentivs9891 Oh i know :)

The Char B in particular, it has a looming presence, like french industry is coming to crush you

ARL 44 is a nice coulda would shoulda if they were ready for WW2; but they were utterly anachronistic cr@p within the 3 years of Berlin falling; let alone when they were made some time after.

@@anasevi9456 Yes if the ARL 44 was ready for WW2 it may have been better remembered. It was outdated badly when released.

I think it was less that they liked it, and more that it's what they had when they began development.

@@anasevi9456 The French new from the beguinning the ARL 44 would be outdated. The idea was not to take the time to make a good machine, but to produce anything to restart the industry after WW2. As the first tanks would have had flaws it was not a bad idea to have workers and engineers gain experience on a project that would be unlikly to ever fight. In 1945 they must have thought there won't be a war near french frontiers in the following years.

@@anasevi9456 What? None of what you said is true. The ARL 44 was NOT a pre-war design. It was the results of studies done during the german occupation and its manufacturing was realised to kickstart the french tank industries after the war. The main goal was less about designing a great tank than it was about running the factories again instead of relying on foreign exports.

Steel Panthers World At War, I lost many hours to that game back in the day. I think it was fussy about running in XP, but by 7 it wouldn't run at all. I think my best remembered match is one I used cavalry and light tanks, to cut behind the enemy lines. Swept up their HQ and artillery while a heavier assault force rolled up the enemy front line from their flank, and my artillery kept the rest of the line pinned. If I ever won a big lottery win, and decided to become a dollaraire again by creating a video game company, a modern SP:WAW would be one of the projects.

Right! Show me another early 30s tank that's still effective in 39.

The Museum of the American GI channel has a walkaround video with such a tank.

Yup ukposts.info/have/v-deo/iZGCfW-Inpuil4E.html

The system was driven by a bicycle chain a crew member had to put back in place very often. Imagine doing that during combat, when you need to move around.

Caster oil is also a laxative. WW1 pilots had some problems because of it.

@@chefchaudard3580 There were no doubt better ways of driving a hydraulic pump.

@@williamzk9083 not really... even today, chains have not be replaced by belts or rods. The design, however, was certainly faulty.

@@chefchaudard3580 Modern timing belts or chains seem to need replacement at 130,000km

I thought that was mainly an issue with the S35?

Pretty sure that this was for the S35 and not the B1

@@parodyclip36 It's possible i'm wrong, it was longtime ago.

I was thinking the same thing, apparently also mistakenly.

There wasnt that many panzer 4s in the invasion of France - mostly 1/2/3s

Yeah I know, I just messed up a little bit. Lemme edit it

I have often wondered that, as well! Together with the (Churchill?), it seems all three were sketching a single model. I think the British tank may have been the best for war, as its ability to cross difficult terrain seems by far the best; as long as it was only expected to serve as an infantry support. The M3 Grant with its "Cadillac" crew compartment, prodigious store of ammunition, and especially in potential its stabilized assault/anti-tank gun, has pronounced advantages. On the down side, it lacked the British tank's superior frontal armor, ability to absorb damage and keep going, and vastly superior ability to maneuver across ditches and up vertical faces and mountain paths! The Char B1? Who knows? The short 75 could have been longer, but seems to have been more of a howitzer to assault fixed positions. The turreted 47 would have been vastly superior to the Grant's short 37, in the reversal of roles. The British tank's two-man turret with an anti-tank gun seems decidedly superior to both, and then it soon swapped the hull-mounted gun for a twin-mount of the very powerful Breda 8 mm machine guns that also seem to be stabilized in both elevation and traverse, which would have been a big help when crossing rough ground in the face of AT guns!