armor protection against british 2 lber and french 47 mm

[M.Rausch]

Hi David!

Aren't the numbers given by Jentz the following ?

The numbers you listed from Jentz are as he wrote in his book, the losses which were reported by the units, but these numbers were obviously not correct. A few pages later in his book the real losses (non-repairable tanks) are listed and you can see there, that the number of real tank losses exceeded the prelimarily reported Pz-III losses for May. It was common that the loss reports were corrected later since the first reports were often wrong in the heat of the battles.

Thanks for the listed sources, I'll try to grab as much of them as possible.

Only 34 B1 were produced from December 1935 to July 1937, and 369 B1bis from July 1937 to June 1940, a total of 403 B tanks.

So it is probable that the designation Char B2 meant the Char 1 bis?

But you can dismiss that often things were used and the fact s increased by the PK.

I can dismiss it in this case, since only the AAR of an infantry regiment exists and no other sources trying to make a propaganda stunt. Always think about that there are people reading our postings not interested in a serious discussion but only to grab some piece of "information" they like to hear and try to exploit on other forums for their personal agenda.

Arriving in Mortiers the engine stops, there is no fuel anymore, the tank is immobilized.

That's what the crew perceived. They had no chance to inspect their tank after their capture and so we have to trust the abilities of the commanding German officer to identify a penetration. I find it remarkable that this commanding German officer gave detailed advices how to deal with Char 1 bis based on this encounter.

I consider only 1 sure case ... anyway even with 2 cases do you just dismiss the dozen cases of Renault B1bis resisting to dozens of shells ?

I only dismiss any try to build up the myth that the Char 1 bis was invulnerable against 3.7 cm Pzgr. rounds. It was obviously not, but "only" the toughest French tank during the BoF.

It is also pure speculation to think that this happened many times.

I don't claim this and I don't have to speculate since it doesn't matter. One occurance is sufficient to dismiss the idea of invulnerability. You know that's why in the Panzerkorps project the Char 1 bis is a beast regarding the 3.7 cm Pzgr, but why it is also not immune against it. Because this way the French and German AAR's are best represented.

Where the AARs show that the 3.7cm Pzgr. are defeated a close range with a better penetration capacity I hardly see this AT rifle penetrating the 55mm RHA side armor of the B1bis.

Yes, the calculations for this ammo are unrealistic in my opinion. I mentioned it only to make clear that Germany used tungsten core ammo from the first day of WW2.

This is not only the claim of 1 tank commander or 1 crew but it is the war diary of the 41e BCC. I am sure not only German KTB are worth being taken into account but also the French ones.

It is a question of wrong methodology. As long as the reported kills are not confirmed with loss reports of the enemy or capturing of the wrecks, such a report is only a claim. It doesn't matter which side did the reporting. Kill reports by German units are also only claims till they are confirmed in the described way.

Jentz is wrong about the armor of the R35. 32mm is for the REAR plate.

And this would explain why the calculations look wrong for the R-35. But I don't know any German sources telling the French armor thicknesses so nobody knows where Jentz has his numbers from.

The author says that there are B and R35 tanks. He says their shots are inefficient against the tanks.

If you are familiar with the German language and the finer semantics usual at the time the report was written, you understand that the author pointed to the armor of the Char 1 bis. I am quite sure this got lost in a translation.
We both know sufficient combat reports where R-35 and Hotchkiss tanks were destroyed with the 3.7 cm Kw.K. without any kind of closing in. The report I mentioned is only one example. There are no German reports telling that the armor of R-35 and Hotchkiss tanks had been a problem for the 3.7 cm Kw.K. Only tanks like the D2, S-35 and Char 1 bis are mentioned.

If you have the original complete report from Kühne from the archives I would be glad if you could send it to me, I can read German without problem.

I only know of its existance, but had never ordered a copy. It was sufficient for me at that time, that I could confirm the existance of a source used in a book, since all books have mistakes, when you countercheck with original sources. I can try to gather it on a next visit in the archive, but since you can order only 10 non-service manual document boxes on a single BAMA visit, I hesitate a little to spend one ordering slot for this.

Were do you see a serious distorsion

The original German report tells about the S-35 and D2 and only about these two tanks at this part of the text. This information has been replaced by all these tanks . By this change the author implies that the deflection of shells was not reported only for the heavier tanks S-35 and D2, but it would be also valid for the other French tanks as the R-35 or H-35/39. It is even more obvious in the next sentence, where he added the phrase the lighter French tanks , which is simply not existing in the German report. Sorry, but it is a direct falsification to take a text exclusively mentioning the S-35 and D2 and paint the picture, also the R-35 and H-35/39 were meant. It is like taking an Allied report about the Tiger and replace every occurance of the word Tiger by "all German tanks" to paint an exaggerated picture.

The French 47mm shell is capped (and I have the 52 pages of the French manual for this gun)...

I have sectional drawings of it in the German ammo service manual and while the round has a cap, it is unclear to me if it is a ballistic or armor penetrating cap. If it is an armor penetrating cap it is of bad design, since it has the shape of a ballistic cap and not the shape needed to decrease the chance of deflections.

...and the reports from Hannut show clearly that the Somua engaged enemy tanks up to 800m and put them on fire

I talk about this passage since it is another example of falsification. The German report tells 600 m and does not mention anything about penetrations on 1000 m. The 600 m were changed to 800 m and text, which does not exist in the German report, added.

Btw. the German manual for the 4.7 cm SA35 mentions 20 grooves to the right at 7° with a depth of 0.4 mm each. As far as I know rifled barrels were the standard for all nations at that time. In fact the only non-rifled gun I know was a German railway gun, because a special rocket-projectile was fired for long distance shots.

Somehow, we should try to make shorter postings...

Regards, Michael

[Tony Williams]

The only French 37mm I know of which were not rifled were the few WW1 aircraft cannon designed to fire canister - basically like a giant shotgun. They could not fire ordinary shells, as these need the rifling to stabilised them and keep them flying point-first.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[David Lehmann]

Hi Michael,

I will make it shorter, I have to leave for several days.

Only 34 B1 were produced from December 1935 to July 1937, and 369 B1bis from July 1937 to June 1940, a total of 403 B tanks.

So it is probable that the designation Char B2 meant the Char 1 bis?

Yes more than probably and when the Germans used them they call them B2(f). The B1 tanks was rather rare and unly marginally used in 1940, the others were exhausted, in schools etc. But they still can be found on the battlefield.

Arriving in Mortiers the engine stops, there is no fuel anymore, the tank is immobilized.

That's what the crew perceived. They had no chance to inspect their tank after their capture and so we have to trust the abilities of the commanding German officer to identify a penetration.

They report from other shells hitting them and wounding the guys. The crew evacuated the tank from the rear and was kept POW beside the tank ... they could have had the occasion to look at it too. When you say "That's what the crew perceived" it is also just an assumption.
Why do not trust the French crew saying the tank was out of gas and trust the German officer ? The story I have written above gives many details.
Also KH Frieser which refeers to a specific German document indicate that NONE of the shells penetrated, he doesn't write about any penetration.

Concerning the B1bis "Bourrasque" at Mortiers, when you look at the photos of the rear plate there no clear evidence of penetration. There is one bigger googe that is not a 3.7cm shell but rather a 7.5cm and which could eventually be a penetration shot. Most of the impacts are clearly just deep gouges and even in this bigger hit you can see some lighter elements. I can't really see a clear 3.7cm penetration on the rear plate of the B1bis "Bourrasque".


If the AAR about the B1bis being neutralized by a 3.7cm shot in the air intake shutter is well documented, would you have the name or the number of the precise tank ? There may be photos of the wreck that we could look at.


Also I never said that the B1bis was invicinble. You nonetheless have to be very very lucky ot fire a dozen shots on the same area to achieve a penetration or spalling that will hurt eventually the crew members. The Pzgr.40 can easily penetrate the tank if close enough (velocity drops more rapidly since it is a lightweight shell). That's not the same as speaking from invulnerability.

The German report in Hannut, quoted by Jeffery Gunsburg (who gives the precise references) still tells that beyong 200m the German shell lacked sufficient power. And in Hannut there were only Somua S35 and Hotchkiss tanks.

The range of 800m clearly mentioned is not a falsification, it is a range that can be found in French reports, when Somua S35 tanks, embossed and in hull down position ambushed the German tanks.

Concerning the quotes of Kühne I made it rather clear that the misunderstanding came more from me and several translations in 3 languages than any falsification. If a try to more rigorously trranslate what he says in French as I did we got the same meaning than the sentence you gave.

If you have the original complete report from Kühne from the archives I would be glad if you could send it to me, I can read German without problem.

I only know of its existance, but had never ordered a copy. It was sufficient for me at that time, that I could confirm the existance of a source used in a book, since all books have mistakes, when you countercheck with original sources. I can try to gather it on a next visit in the archive, but since you can order only 10 non-service manual document boxes on a single BAMA visit, I hesitate a little to spend one ordering slot for this.

Would nonetheless be interesting to have once the original document.


Regards,

David

[mdc]

I thought it might be interesting to take a closer look at the back of this tank.



Doesnt look like any penetrated to me

[M.Rausch]

Hi David,

I waited some days before answering, so perhaps you are already back.

They report from other shells hitting them and wounding the guys. The crew evacuated the tank from the rear and was kept POW beside the tank ... they could have had the occasion to look at it too.

We should simply stick to the hard data we know.

We know the crew reported their tank was immobilized due to lack of fuel.
If a fuel line was damaged and caused the lack of fuel is unknown and only speculation. But to me it is strange that a tank is driven in a battle in a way, that the crew caused its loss because they didn't return although the fuel gauge told them they are running out of fuel. This speaks not for the quality of the crew or the commander. Any good commander had disengaged from a battle and returned to base for refueling and getting new ammunition. Especially when there was obvious no problem with the mobility of their tank.

We know also that the German commanding officer reported a penetration into the engine compartment from the rear. This is a hard fact and we have not any hint that the crew could inspect their captured tank, since it is not reported by them. All of the few hard data we have is telling, that the German troops were the last checking the condition of the captured tank.

When you say "That's what the crew perceived" it is also just an assumption.

This is not an assumption, because the report of the French crew is what they perceived. Nobody else added to their report. Were they even able to notice any penetration in the rear hull? The crew compartment of the Char 1 bis was separated from the engine compartment by a firewall. When their tank was hit from several directions in a brief time, how should they have been able to notice the penetration in the rear with the firewall blocking any possibility for a visual check?

When did the crew report their experiences? If I understood correctly, the crew was captured. So were their reports written after the BoF had already ended? If this is true, was the report of the German officer not much more basing on experiences still being fresh? That's another detail missing to me.

Why do not trust the French crew saying the tank was out of gas and trust the German officer?

Why not trusting both? The French crew reported their personal experiences during a brief time of very intense battle and they seem to have done it several weeks after the battle happened, since they were captured. The German officer wrote his report immediately after the battle was over and the tank had been inspected. Both sides can be true, but there is no reason to believe that the French crew gave a better picture of what happened (cause of running out of fuel missing, no chance to notice a penetration due to firewall and multiple other hits on the tank all in a short time).

Also KH Frieser which refeers to a specific German document indicate that NONE of the shells penetrated, he doesn't write about any penetration.

I would also assume that this other report desbribes the same battle, but it also is not from the tank company reporting the penetration, neither does it include any hint, that the tank was inspected after the crew was captured.

If the AAR about the B1bis being neutralized by a 3.7cm shot in the air intake shutter is well documented, would you have the name or the number of the precise tank ? There may be photos of the wreck that we could look at.

The full actual signature the document has in the BAMA Freiburg was posted two times on the forum of an Online game, but it was described as textual report without any photos. It catched immediately my interest, since I never heard before of such a report and because a full archive signature was given (very uncommon). I was absolutely sure that I saved the signature in a textfile on my computer, but I have searched for it now for more than a week and have still not found it. I will bite in my working desk, if I have really lost this reference, since it was so unique

The range of 800m clearly mentioned is not a falsification, it is a range that can be found in French reports, when Somua S35 tanks, embossed and in hull down position ambushed the German tanks.

Sorry, but it is of course a falsification. The French reports and what they state do not matter in any way here. We talk only about the content of a German report, which was changed out of unknown reasons. This is a falsification and it has nothing to do what can be found in French reports.
The French reports are needed to get a picture as detailed as possible from all sides involved. It is not necessary to replace the number in a German report by numbers found in French reports. This opens ugly questions like, what else has this author changed and why did he this?

Regards, Michael

[Downtown]

Monsieur Lehmann,

Do you have MV and dispersion data for the 37mm SA38 gun as mounted in the H-39/R-40, both HE and AP rounds, merci beaucoup.

(Sorry if my French isn't very good.)

[Pachy]

Michael,

Regarding 47 mm ammo, the boulet de rupture mle 1935 is described in French as "coiffé sans fausse ogive" which clearly indicates the presence of a penetrating cap but no ballistic cap.

David,

If the AAR about the B1bis being neutralized by a 3.7cm shot in the air intake shutter is well documented, would you have the name or the number of the precise tank ? There may be photos of the wreck that we could look at.

isn't this in Frieser's book? Three B1 bis of 49e BCC are lost on the morning of May 15th during the counterattack at Stonne (held by the Großdeutschland infantry regiment). The tanks were n°416 "Hautvilliers", n°368 "Gaillac" and n°354 "Chinon". Interestingly, the report quoted by Frieser state that German gunners shot at what looked like a weak point on the right side of the B1s... The ventilation grille, of course, is actually on the left side! But looking at the map in Frieser's book, this could be an error in the report.

Also, according to Antoine Misner's website, "Hautvilliers" was destroyed by a PzIV, not an AT gun (dunno what his source is?)

I'm not sure this is the engagement you were referring to, since it's not said whether the German unit was using 3.7 cm guns or not. Whatever, the reference in Frieser's book is "Pz. Jäg. Kp./IRGD, 15.05.1940, BA-MA, RH 37/6332".

Downtown,

You may have these figures already, from Benoît (GdG)'s research at the SHAT:

Obus explosif Mle 1938 (HE, 670 g, 600 m/s), series of 10 shots:
200 m: 21 x 20.5 cm
400 m: 23.5 x 27 cm
600 m: 32 x 28 cm

Boulet de rupture Mle 1938 (APC, 700 g, 700 m/s), series of 3 shots:
200 m: 6 x 10 cm
400 m: 11 x 17 cm
600 m: 17 x 24 cm

Source: "Expérimentation des six matériels de 37 S.A. Mle 1938 de première fabrication", Direction Générale de l'Infanterie. I suppose GdG has the archive box reference somewhere.

Cheers

Gaël/Pachy

[Downtown]

Non Pachy,

I did not have that reference, I had only asked about the 47mm cannon from you guys before, if you had made that reference available I had not seen it.

Merci beau coup for the Reference, If I ever win the lottery I'll fly to France and we will all eat well!

[David Lehmann]

Hi Michael,

But to me it is strange that a tank is driven in a battle in a way, that the crew caused its loss because they didn't return although the fuel gauge told them they are running out of fuel.

If you have time just look a bit in one of the previous posts where I described the initial context and the fate of the tank before it arrived at Mortiers.

We know also that the German commanding officer reported a penetration into the engine compartment from the rear.

The photo of the rear plate of the tank shows no penetration, if you play with the photo in photoshop for example, the single completely dark point and hole is on the upper right hand corner where a bolt was blown away.

Also KH Frieser which refeers to a specific German document indicate that NONE of the shells penetrated, he doesn't write about any penetration.

I would also assume that this other report desbribes the same battle, but it also is not from the tank company reporting the penetration, neither does it include any hint, that the tank was inspected after the crew was captured.

KH Frieser gives a very precise reference to check to support what he wrote.

The range of 800m clearly mentioned is not a falsification, it is a range that can be found in French reports, when Somua S35 tanks, embossed and in hull down position ambushed the German tanks.

Sorry, but it is of course a falsification. The French reports and what they state do not matter in any way here. We talk only about the content of a German report, which was changed out of unknown reasons. This is a falsification and it has nothing to do what can be found in French reports.
The French reports are needed to get a picture as detailed as possible from all sides involved. It is not necessary to replace the number in a German report by numbers found in French reports. This opens ugly questions like, what else has this author changed and why did he this?

I think there is a misunderstanding here, I don't speak at all about what you called before a "falsification" when quoting the book of Lormier.
I am refeering to French tankers reports during the battle of Hannut. They engaged the Germans at 800m according to them.
How can you write such things :

The French reports and what they state do not matter in any way here

?

Regards,

David

[David Lehmann]

Hello,

Also, according to Antoine Misner's website, "Hautvilliers" was destroyed by a PzIV, not an AT gun (dunno what his source is?)

I'm not sure this is the engagement you were referring to, since it's not said whether the German unit was using 3.7 cm guns or not. Whatever, the reference in Frieser's book is "Pz. Jäg. Kp./IRGD, 15.05.1940, BA-MA, RH 37/6332".

On Antoine Misner's website, the piece of information seems to have been provided by Roger Avignon, a veteran who fought in the Mont-Dieu area (Stonne, Le Chesne, Tannay etc.). He is still alive and makes detailed researches about the B tanks. He would like to publish a book and I hope he manage to do it before leaving us but he is very perfectionnist and I am afraid it will no happen.

I don't know the specific sources for the "Hautvilliers" but he tells us about German gunner called Karl Koch.

Regards,

David

[M.Rausch]

Hi David, I hope you returned fine from your travel

The photo of the rear plate of the tank shows no penetration, if you play with the photo in photoshop for example, the single completely dark point and hole is on the upper right hand corner where a bolt was blown away.

It is neither a proof for nor against a penetration. You seem to imply that the German commanding officer gave misinformation. How do you explain that he explicitely reported a penetration and advised other tank officers how to achieve a penetration on a Char 1 bis, based on his fresh combat experience and inspection of a disabled Char 1 bis?

All hard data we have is, that he was the last and even only making a detailed inspection of the disabled tank. The rest is assumption and speculation. And there is still the missing point, when did the crew give their report? Weeks later, after the BoF was finished and captured French soldiers released, since they had been captured?

KH Frieser gives a very precise reference to check to support what he wrote.

But till anyone gathers the original document nobody knows, who wrote this report. There is no indication that the author was aware of an inspection. Untill the document is gathered and more details revealed, it doesn't really help. The usual problem when working with books instead of primary sources.

I am refeering to French tankers reports during the battle of Hannut. They engaged the Germans at 800m according to them.

Then you made a completely wrong citation and reference.

Allow me to repeat parts of one of your postings from page 2.

You posted

Again when I read the quotes of general Kühne in a book of Dominique Lormier (you know it even if I don't have the reference # in the German archives since you already quoted once the single sentence from him about the accuracy of the French and British AT guns).

"The single...
The French 47mm SA35 tank gun proved to be remarkable. This gun penetrates all the German tanks independently from the impact angle up to 800m and sometimes more. Several Somua S35 and Renault B1bis destroyed German tanks at a range of 1000m !
...to hit them."

You posted that the report of Oberst Küne was published in exactly this way in the book of Mr. Lormier. Now you say, you refer to the French reports.

If you had posted the real and original report of Oberst Kühn and told additional to that, what the French reports told, I would have no problem. But you citated Oberst Kühn, replaced his original distance data with that from French reports and added a sentence based on French reports, which he never wrote, without any hint.
If I hadn't asked since I know the German version, every poster would have had the impression "look, even a German officer tells the same penetration distances as can be found in French reports". But he did not, and this is the point.
This tells nothing about the validity of French reports, but the French reports do simply not matter in any way regarding the citation of the report of this German officer.

Regards, Michael

[mdc]

Notice the bolt hole top right, the center remains dark

[David Lehmann]

Michael,

Yes I am back after 1 week in Saumur, Puy-notre-Dame, Doué-la-Fontaine, Amboise, Chenonceau and many nice things to see

Lormier indeed wrote 800m when talking about Kühne and that may be wrong. I would not call this author being the best reference but it is from this book that I had the translation of a whole part of Kühne's reports.
There are many other interesting things in this report, not only this 600m or 800m issue or whatever is in the original report. Except this range issue I thought I explained rather well that the misunderstanding came more from several successful translations. That's why I said I still would like to see the original report in German.

But on the next posts I wrote about French tankers who clearly said they engaged the German tanks at 800m (Somua S35 tanks at Hannut) and you said that this was a falsification .... which it is not at all.

These are 2 different things we are talking about.

Concerning the Bourrasque if the photo of rear plate of the tank, KH Frieser and the French crew said there was no penetration that nonetheless rises a lot of question on my side.

Regards,

David

[M.Rausch]

Hi David,

We should perhaps meet sometime in the future personally

But on the next posts I wrote about French tankers who clearly said they engaged the German tanks at 800m (Somua S35 tanks at Hannut) and you said that this was a falsification .... which it is not at all.

Then there is simply a misunderstanding caused by the used language. When I spoke about falsification I meant only the changed German report. I didn't question the validity of the French reports, I repeated two times that their validity has simply nothing to do with the citation of Oberst Küne, which seems to have been changed by the book author you told.

[cbo]

Sorry, but this is meanwhile definitely a wrong view.
In June 1940 71,700 3.7 cm Pzgr. 40 for the 3.7 cm Kw.K were produced. This was more than the normal 3.7 cm Pzgr. production of that month and even more than all 3.7 cm Pzgr. fired by tank guns during the whole BoF.
The OKW ammo consumption reports tells that during the whole BoF about 63,000 3.7 cm Pzgr. and 7,440 3.7 cm Pzgr. 40 were fired by tank guns. So during the whole BoF the ratio of anti-tank rounds fired by Pz-III was 1:9 between the Pzgr. 40 and normal Pzgr. Regarding that the round arrived at the frontline in June 1940, the ratio was in the 2nd half of the BoF an 1:4 or even better. So the 3.7 cm Pzgr. 40 was after the production started in June 1940 for sure no rare round.

<SNIP>

As shown above the 3.7 cm Pzgr. 40 was available in sufficient and not small numbers in the 2nd phase of the BoF. The 3.7 cm Pak received not any 3.7 cm Pzgr. 40 during the BoF.

A more detailed research on this matter is given in one of my articles, which can be found here: http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeis ... ?id=40&L=1. The original production charts for the whole German APCR production except the 1940 figures for the 3.7 cm Pzgr. 40/37 (t) are meanwhile collected by me and will be added whenever I have the time to work on my website.

First of all thanks to you and David for a very interesting exchange.

I've got a couple of questions regarding the 3,7cm PzGr. 40 though.

AFAIK, there was no difference between the PzGr 40 for the PaK and the KwK and the production data on your homepage suggests the same. So I think it would be wrong to assume that 71,700 produced were for the KwK exclusively. As I read it, the document actually says they were for KwK as well as PaK?

Secondly, there is actually evidence for the deliveries of PzGr 40 for the 3,7cm PaK in Strauss: "Geschicte der 2. (Wiener) Panzerdivision", 1977. With regards to the anti-tank battalion, on p. 216 it is mentioned that they got stuck in Chalons-sur-Marne, trying to cross a river and canal. It is noted that the rounds of their 3,7cm guns bounced off the armour of the French tanks and the problem was only solved when PzGr 40 was flown in and utilized to defeat the enemy tanks, allowing the German forces to get across the water obstacles. The narrative on p. 54 suggests that this action took place on June 12-13 1940, but unfortunately it does not give much detail.

As for the Char B cooling intake being penetrated by the 3,7cm PaK at Stonne, I thought that was a well established fact after Frieser published his book? There is even a monument in Stonne commemorating the event (as such, not the penetration of the intake ) The commander of the PaK Zug which did the shooting - Oberfeldwebel Hindelang - even recieved a Knights Cross for his deed. Friesers source for the event is Pz.Jäg.Kp/IRGD, 15. mai 1940, BA-MA, RH 37/6332.
Incidentally, it is not possible from Friesers quotes to see whether Hindelangs guns knocked out all three Char Bs, it only says that they spotted the air intake, fired at it and set one tank on fire after which the fire was directed at this particular spot - assuming against the other tanks. It ends by saying three tanks were destroyed, but not really how, except for the first one.

Claus B