Landships II

James H · Legend

Schneider CA 2 & 3

Tanker · Field Marshal

Bonjour james,

The only CA 2 prototpye tested in Champlieu, was refused by General Estienne for two reasons�(and not stop by some other Nivelle's orders) for two reason :
�� - The motor was the same than on CA 1 and with a turret and a 47 mm gun this tank was not enough powerfull.
�� - Without "nose", the tank was unable to well cross the trenches. The tracks was the same than on CA1.

This model was only studied like command's tank for Groups and Batteries.
At that time it was decided to used Renault FT like Command's tank for Schneider and Saint Chamond units.

The story of this only protype is unknown. The CA 2 was probably send to Marly le Roi for training, and perhaps rebuilt as training tank.

About CA 2, on French Forum 14-14

http://pages14-18.mesdiscussions.net/pages1418/Pages-d-Histoire-Artillerie/Artillerie-Speciale/char-commandement-schneider-sujet_377_1.htm

Schneider unable to�found a powerfull motor, the�CA 3 was stopped also by General Estienne for this reason.
For instance, no photo on this tank, (even of a protype) . . .�

At that time FCM programm was�on, and General Estienne�hoped to�receive quickly this new tank. . . And then begun the french's Mark V* story . . . .

Bonne fin d'apr�s midi - Michel

TG · Private

There was a furious row about the CAR3 [this is how it is referred to in the original documentation] between Loucheur and Estienne & P�tain. Loucheur considered that the heavy CAR3 tanks should take priority over the light tanks, despite continual pressure from P�tain and Estienne to prioritise the latter. Loucheur told P�tain in late October that the extra Renaults ordered by the latter in September 1917 could not be delivered, promising only that it was probable that one thousand Renaults would be available by 31 March 1918, deliveries thereafter being projected at 400 to 500 per month.[1] P�tain responded that Estienne and the Comit� had advised him that the proposed Schneider CAR3 heavy tank would not be available by August 1918 and thus manufacturing should be concentrated on the Renaults.[2] Loucheur expressed surprise at the contents of P�tains letter and complained about the considerable amount of time and money that already had been spent on the development of the CAR3.[3] Why, he asked, had not Estienne and P�tain decided to cancel the CAR3 previously, conveniently ignoring the fact that Estienne had written to him the month before saying that the CAR3 project should be suspended.[4] Loucheur also cast doubts on the light tank, saying that it would not be available until the middle of the next year anyway. He ended by telling P�tain that he would refuse to carry on down this route, leading as it would to disorder.[5] P�tain responded by saying that the Comit�, which had many representatives from the Ministry within it, had advised that the CAR3 should be halted and that the light tank would be more appropriate to the [current] necessities of the battle.[6] P�tain finished by pointing out to Loucheur that he had asked P�tain on 26 October to make a decision as to whether to continue with the CAR3![7]�

[1] Ministre de lArmement, Service Automobile, artillerie dassaut, no. 46631 1/SA, Le ministre de lArmement et des Fabrications de Guerre � M. le g�n�ral commandant les arm�es du Nord et du Nord-est (�tat-major g�n�ral et 1 Bureau), 28 October 1917, AFGG V/2, annexes 1284.

[2] GAN, 1 Bureau, no. 36825, le g�n�ral commandant en chef � M. le ministre de lArmament (Cabinet), � Paris, 29 October 1917, AFGG V/2, annexes 1291. Also see Estiennes letter to Loucheur; GQG, Artillerie dAssaut, no. 6.460, Le G�n�ral Commandant lAS � M. le G�n�ral Commandant en Chef les arm�es du Nord at du Nord Est Etat-Major g�n�ral (1 & 2 Bureaux), 29 October 1917. SHD 16 N 2120.

[3]Ministre de lArmement, Cabinet du Ministre, no. 6792 2/M, Le ministre de lArmement et des Fabrications de Guerre � M. le g�n�ral commandant en chef, 2 November 1917, SHD 16 N 2120.

[4]Estiennes primary objection was to the low-powered engine (only 76 HP for a tank larger than the St Chamond) that was proposed for the tank. GAN, Artillerie dassaut, no. 5880, Le G�n�ral Commandant lAS � Monsieur le Ministre de lArmement et des Fabrications de Guerre (Service Automobile, Paris), 20 September 1917, SHD 16 N 2120.

[5]Ministre de lArmement, Cabinet du Ministre, no. 6792 2/M, Le ministre de lArmement et des Fabrications de Guerre � M. le g�n�ral commandant en chef, 2 November 1917.

[6]GQG, 1 Bureau, no. 5962, Le G�n�ral Commandant en Chef � Monsieur le Ministre de lArmement et des Fabrications de Guerre (Cabinet), Paris, 6 November 1917, SHD 16 N 2120.

[7]Ibid. Dutil pointedly refers to the CAR3 as the tank that the interior wanted to construct, long after the combatants stopped wanting it, Dutil, Les Chars, p. 86. Although the CAR3 project never amounted to more than one prototype, Estienne and P�tain continued to press the Ministry for a heavy tank.��

�