French tanks to be built in the US

[Andy H]

Hi

In early 1940 negotiations were under way for French tanks (Somua, Hotchkiss and CharB's) to be built under license in the US for the French Army.
Obviously the events of May 10th 1940 stopped this process proceeding any further, but does anyone know any details of this porposal, such as the likely US manufacturers of said French tank types?

Regards

Andy H

[Richard Anderson]

Hi

In early 1940 negotiations were under way for French tanks (Somua, Hotchkiss and CharB's) to be built under license in the US for the French Army.
Obviously the events of May 10th 1940 stopped this process proceeding any further, but does anyone know any details of this porposal, such as the likely US manufacturers of said French tank types?

Regards

Andy H

Andy,

I have never found any evidence of this in any of the Ordnance source material and suspect it is something developed from internet logic...the Medium Tank "looks" like a CharB...so it was adapted from a CharB...so the French were in America trying to get their tanks built before the fall of France. The reality is that pre-September 1940, when the British Purchasing Mission was authorized to negotiate production of the Medium Tank M3 with the "Grant" turret, all purchases of Ordnance items were from surplus stocks rather than new build (unlike the aircraft industry).

Cheers!

[Andy H]

Hi Richard

My original question comes from reading said information in Niall Barrs Yanks & Limeys Pg 95, which he references in the notes too Anglo-French Co-Ordinating Committee, Allied Purchase of War Material in the USA, WO186/40 in the NA.

Regards and thanks for the response

Andy H

[Carl Schwamberger]

The French & Brits were purchasing US built aircraft in 1940. those were modifed for the purchasers use. ie: French instruments in the cockpit & other bits throughout the aircraft. Approx 600 had been shipped to France by the end of June 1940, & 1,200 more were on the production lines in the US to be delivered before the end of the year. Contracts for 3,000 more for 1941 for France were in place and more were under negotiation.

Since the French were also contracting for all sorts of subcomponents for vehicles & weapons & it would not be illogical to see tank parts made in the US. Complete tanks may or may not be a different matter. French tanks depended on large casting of high grade steel alloys. Its not clear if the US steel fabrication industry was ready to make those enmass in 1939 or 1941.

Here are a few of the mostly likely French prototypes to be put into production from late 1940

B1ter
A rework of the B1 - B1bis models. http://www.chars-francais.net/2015/inde ... iew&id=110

B1ter.png (70.04 KiB) Viewed 2123 times

AMX 40
One of several new light tanks being tested. Note the use of large thick steel castings. http://www.chars-francais.net/2015/inde ... iew&id=704

AMX 40.png (85.38 KiB) Viewed 2123 times

Sau40
This is not a assualt gun. The specs were for a well protected indirect fire artillery weapon. The turret on top was not for weapons but for azimuth and range finding optics for laying in the cannon for long range fires. Each Groupe' of twelve was to have two more with the cannon replaced by extra communications equipment and equipment for plotting indirect fire. A armored OP/CP in other words. An ARL version also was being tested.

http://www.chars-francais.net/2015/inde ... view&id=54

Sau40.png (89.12 KiB) Viewed 2123 times

G1
My fave. This was originally to replace the D series infantry support tanks. It broke with the two man crew tradition. It was also speced for a 75mm high powered gun. The low dome shaped turret anticipates the Soviet T54 by a decade. the overall armor scheme is not bad. The engines speced look underpowered, but perhaps some higher performance designs would have been installed once production started.

http://www.chars-francais.net/2015/inde ... iew&id=689

G1 Renault.png (90.18 KiB) Viewed 2123 times

[Ironmachine]

From British Tank Production and the War Economy, 1934-1945 (by Benjamin Coombs):

During the deteriorating situation in France during June 1940, a French mission to the United States discussed the possible assembly of 12,000 [sic] French B1-Bis tanks under a production group headed by Baldwin Locomotive. While there was a lack of capacity for moulded armour plate, an impressive 10 tanks per day could be achieved by the end of 1940, if the American authorities gave priority for the necessary machine tools. These discussions were taken seriously as it was proposed that a few specialists and a complete B1-Bis tank be shipped from France to the United States for examination. British interest in this project was expressed with the hope that production tanks would be delivered on an equal basis between Britain and France.38

38. TNA, BT 87/29, "Tank Programme in the United States of America", 15 June 1940.

[OpanaPointer]

Again, FRUS would be informational I believe.

[Hoist40]

Carl Schwamberger writes “””French tanks depended on large casting of high grade steel alloys. Its not clear if the US steel fabrication industry was ready to make those enmass in 1939 or 1941.””

Cast steel was widely used in the US at this time. The railroad industry used it widely. It was more structural steel then armor but they could make very large and complicated parts. The early Sherman’s cast armor from what I have read was a little weak but they worked out the bugs and improved it

Below is a picture of the frame/cylinders and other parts of a large US locomotive from the late 1930’s which was approximately 40-50 feet long and weighed around 40-50 tons. If they could make this they could also make a cast steel tank hull or turret


https://imageshack.com/f/2qframeaa3j

[OpanaPointer]

They had the skills, but did they have the production lines for that? (How many locomotive engines were they doing each year?)

[Hoist40]

They had the skills, but did they have the production lines for that? (How many locomotive engines were they doing each year?)

Cast steel was also used for more then just locomotives, but also the frames of passenger and freight cars. They would not be able to produce huge numbers but they should be able to produce in the hundreds or maybe thousand a year.

Even the Sherman had to be shifted to auto plants and use more welded parts then mostly cast early models to make more numbers

[Hoist40]

On the other hand I don’t think the US was that interested in making other countries tank designs. It would require a lot of design work to convert to US measurements and production capabilities.

Also the French 1 or 1 ½ man turrets were a major downside of the designs. It forced the commander to be both commander and gunner which really hurt situational awareness

[Richard Anderson]

From British Tank Production and the War Economy, 1934-1945 (by Benjamin Coombs):

During the deteriorating situation in France during June 1940, a French mission to the United States discussed the possible assembly of 12,000 [sic] French B1-Bis tanks under a production group headed by Baldwin Locomotive. While there was a lack of capacity for moulded armour plate, an impressive 10 tanks per day could be achieved by the end of 1940, if the American authorities gave priority for the necessary machine tools. These discussions were taken seriously as it was proposed that a few specialists and a complete B1-Bis tank be shipped from France to the United States for examination. British interest in this project was expressed with the hope that production tanks would be delivered on an equal basis between Britain and France.38

38. TNA, BT 87/29, "Tank Programme in the United States of America", 15 June 1940.

Interesting. I have Coombs but don't recall that passage for some reason.

Given the date, then the discussion was likely right about the time of the creation of the Armored Force, when responsibility for "research and advisory functions pertaining to development and procurement of all special transportation, armament and equipment used primarily by Armored Units" was taken from the former Combat Arms Chiefs and transferred to the Chief of the Armored Force and the Armored Force Board. The concept for the Medium Tank M3 developed by the Chief of Infantry, Major General Lynch, went to the Armored Force Board for development and production as the interim medium tank until industry was capable of producing the objective medium tank, the M4.

Obviously, these conversations were in conjunction with those of the British Purchasing Mission, which established the contracts for the Grant tank. On 30 June the National Munitions Program was enacted. Among other authorizations, it approved the manufacture of 1,741 M2A1 Medium Tanks, the project to be completed by 31 December 1941. Initial contracts were issued to American Locomotive Company (ALCO) and Baldwin Locomotive Company. In June a member of the National Defense Advisory Commission, William S. Knudsen, a past president of General Motors, argued that the automobile manufacturers also had the capability of producing tanks (in Germany Daimler-Benz was already proving this was true). He called Kaufman T. Keller, president of the Chrysler Corporation on 17 June and asked if Chrysler could build tanks. Keller, coincidentally, already had discussed the idea with Chrysler’s board of directors and they had concluded Chrysler should accept any defense work they could, so the answer was yes. The contract was signed on 15 August; the intention was Chrysler build 1,000 M2A1 Medium Tanks and American and Baldwin the remaining 741. However, it quickly became obvious even that would not be enough. Although Chrysler was willing and the company had 30 years of automotive manufacturing experience, much of its technology could not be directly applied to building tanks and construction of the new plant would take time. Since American Car & Foundry was already producing the Light Tank M3, the decision was made to enlist more railroad manufacturers to meet the expected demand for tanks. The obvious candidates were other firms engaged in manufacturing locomotives and rail cars for the railroad industry, so Lima Locomotive, Pacific Car and Foundry, Pressed Steel Car Company, and Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing Company were soon invited into the contract pool. On 28 August contracts for all except 126 of the M2A1 previously ordered were cancelled and orders for the Medium Tank M3 were substituted, 1,000 for the Chrysler Tank Arsenal, which was still under construction, 685 for American Locomotive, and 534 for Baldwin Locomotive. In October additional orders were placed – but not by the U.S. Government. Instead, the British Purchasing Mission ordered 95 from Baldwin, 501 from Pressed Steel Car Company and 500 from Pullman Car Company on a “cash and carry” basis (the Lend-Lease Act was not in place until March 1941).

From the American side at least there appears to never have been any serious consideration of the French proposal...and a few days after it was moot anyway.

[Richard Anderson]

They had the skills, but did they have the production lines for that? (How many locomotive engines were they doing each year?)

There was considerable controversy early on regarding casting armor in the complex shapes required for tanks. The first proof of concept was the cast hull for the Medium Tank M3 produced by General Steel Corporation and shipped to Aberdeen for "destructive testing" on 19 September 1940. Based on the testing, on 19 June 1941 the Ordnance Committee "authorized the use of cast upper hulls for medium tanks" as an alternate method of construction.

Turret casting was also a problem, but part of the delay on the Medium Tank M4 was development of machine tools for machining the turret race.

[OpanaPointer]

Interesting, that last. Seems like ship builders could have given them a clue, the turret races for destroyers would seem to have been a greater challenge.

[Hoist40]

Interesting, that last. Seems like ship builders could have given them a clue, the turret races for destroyers would seem to have been a greater challenge.

It probably had to do with what machine tools they had and how many they could modify or buy to do that specific job.

Steam locomotive manufactures and operators had large lathes capable of making and repairing large locomotive driving wheels some up to 100 inches in diameter but I don’t know if they could be modified to do turret work

[Richard Anderson]

Interesting, that last. Seems like ship builders could have given them a clue, the turret races for destroyers would seem to have been a greater challenge.

I'm not sure how well adaptable navy shipyards were for building tanks...and they were kinda busy building warships at the time.