Landships II

According to most accounts, not very well at all. The St. Chamond mostly got stuck, as you can imagine. Estienne's theory was that the FT would not be able to cross reasonably intact trenches but would be able to go down one side and up the other if the trench had been eroded by shelling, which it sometimes could. As Tank-infantry cooperation improved, infantry were detailed to fill in trenches so the tank could cross, but it didn't always work.  Often, the infantry couldn't keep pace with the Tanks or were pinned down, and the crews frequently had to get out and do the digging themselves, as if they hadn't got enough on their plates.

There are excellent operational accounts in Treat 'Em Rough and The Fighting Tanks by Jones, Rarey,& Icks, describing how the Tanks tried to cope.

In the final stages of the War, when the fighting was in more open country, the French Tanks actually performed quite well.

there was a Char Fascine, (an FT) carrying a cradle for fascine bundles. I don't know if these were used in combat or if they were only tested in trials.

Kieffer

Rectalgia wrote:

---

It looks quite purposeful but I don't know if it saw service either. I read elsewhere that the fascine was deployed and released from inside the tank.

---

That's correct, releasing the bundles was done inside. Another experiment, after 1918 though, was a roller on an FT with Kegresse tracks.
In 1933 Nicolas Straussler came up with the 'dispositif saute-tranchees', two movable 'fingers' at the front and the rear of a Renault R33 tank. It worked well in passing a trench but was more a handicap than a help in further manouvring.
The tail on the back of the FT remained, till 1940 on Hotchkiss H35/39's too. The front roller again on a Citroen product, on the remarkable half tracked P28 and on the AC Schneider-Kegresse P16.
(And for complete digressing: a very amusing invention was the horizontally installed spare wheel on the nose of a Panhard sedan. The wheel could turn freely on an axle, and protruded just under the bonnet. A 'safety precaution' it was, tests were done bumping against a tree, the car deflecting...)

Kieffer

 

THe Renault FT Fascine was tested after the war

Thanks guys for the responses.

It does seem terribly lazy just to throw a question into the pool and watch the ripples and sometimes waves come back. But I have learnt a lot about our subject by seeing other members questions posted, so hopefully others will gain knowledge from this.

kieffer wrote:

---

James H wrote:

---

There was also an FT Bridgelayer prototype after the War.

---

...and a bull dozer...

---

I'd have thought a dozer would have been very useful after a bombardment.

 

Rectalgia wrote:

---

 

---

...I'll warrant that one would serve well as a clothes dryer too. Ok, it was obviously a civilian effort.

 

---

Clothes dryer? I'd rather say a propelling device to blow the toxic gasses from flatulent war elephants towards the enemy trenches.

 

"how did the French Tanks deal with trenches?"

I guess the answer would be not so well...


Cheers

Rectalgia wrote:

---

.. Now all our ungulates are herbivores but once there were hooved carnivores too..

...there still are hooved beaf-eaters...the pig! As the Germans say: ein gutes Schwein frisst alles. And so they do, eating rats and not having a problem when (human) cadavres appear on their menu card too.
Flatulentia in combination with weaponry...there's that story of a veterinarian, sonding (orally!!) a constipated cow and checking the proces with a lighter. Things went bad when the poor beast suddenly coughed and released the gassy content of her troubled tummy.

regards, Kieffer

Ironsides's photo calls to mind something I was thinking about the other day. There are a couple of pics of British Tanks similarly ditched.

Now, I have read several conflicting versions of how the British fascine plan was supposed to work; one that the lead Tank turns left before the first trench line, with the fascine still in situ, and rakes the trench while the 2nd Tank drops its fascine into the trench and crosses. Tank 2 then turns left and rakes the 2nd trench, while Tank 3 crosses the first trench, drops its fascine into the second trench, crosses, turns left, and rakes the third line. At this point, Tank 1 returns to Tank 2's fascine, and crosses, then crosses the second line on Tank 3's fascine, before dropping its own fascine into the third trench and crosses. This means that all Tanks proceed in a straight line immediately after dropping their fascine.

An alternative version is that Tank 1 drops its fascine into the trench 1, then turns left and rakes the trench, while Tank 2 crosses on the fascine, and repeats the process. I think there are other suggested combinations as to what happens thereafter.

Seeing the ditched Schneider leads me to think that a (British) Tank that drops its fascine and then attempts to turn left runs a considerable risk of ending up in a similar predicament. Tankers' accounts say that the point at which the fascine should be dropped could be determined by the nose of the tank starting to dip; that way, they knew that they were at the trench, and the angle helped the fascine to roll forward. It seems to me that the first routine was far safer, even if it entailed Tank 1 manoeuvring for a while with the extra weight of the fascine (and the larger target it presented).

Bonjour,

This Schneider M1 on trench was the n° 61196 from Group AS 1 during fights on Laffaux (5 May 1917)

The Tank commander was the Maréchal des Logis Rabaut. It was the third Schneider of first Battery (As de pique 3).

Coming back in the french lines the tank is breaking down just along the trench, and falling down the trench after a scree of this trench.

The Schneider was 500 m North-East of Moulin de Laffaux restaurant. On 5th May, 1917 it was just in the no man's land.

This Schneider stayed only one day in the German's hands. (for the photo !).

The following day, the front line was far East in Lallemant village and this Schenider was repaired and pick up by the SRR some days after.

Je suis désolé mais, au moins pendant la 1° Guerre mondiale, l'Armée Française n'a pas su faire cadeau de plusieurs unités de chars aptes au combat à l'Armée Allemande !

Nous nous sommes bien sur rattrapés en 1940 . . . . (It was your French lesson . . . )

Michel

PS - "Moulin de Laffaux" is only a place name (lieu-dit in french). The Mill was destroyed during eighteenth century. . . . . .

-- Edited by Tanker on Saturday 7th of August 2010 01:47:00 PM

Just found some info on Col Estienne's plan to get a St. Chamond across a trench. The Colonel calculated that by turning earth from the parapet and parados into a captured trench, five men could create the profile necessary to prevent the nose from grounding and the gun from digging in. The minimum amount of earth required was 4 cubic metres. This would create a shallow arc that the Tank could negotiate, but the length of the cord was 9 metres.

The procedure could only be carried out in a secured trench, which meant that the infantry had to take it before the digging could begin. This dictated French tactics, since the infantry had to prepare the way for the Tank, whereas the British Marks, with their greater crossing capacity, could precede the infantry. The Schneider, with its prow and rear spades, could manage to some extent on its own. However, to save wear and tear, friendly trenches were filled in for the Schneider to approach its starting point.

Bonjour,

The sketch on St Chamond crossing a trench is coming from box n° 16N2131 - SHD Vincennes. This sketch is also in Malmassari's study "Les chars de la Grande Guerre" page 23. (Hors série n°3 from "14-18 Le magazine de la Grand Guerre")

On the original sketch (in Vincennes), you can moved the tank on the sketch. It's for this reason that you found (on Malmassari study) a sketch with the tank and a sketch without tank.

The St Chamond was very long with its 75 mm in front the tank. It was the same method for the Schneider, even it was not necessary to do a so big profile.

The infantry unit, in french first line, prepared, with a 262° Infantry platoon, the crossing places on their own trench, just before the attack.

French infantry unit attacked the first german line alone. and this first german's line was also prepared by this 262° infantry platoon.

Thirty men from this regiment were used for each tank battery (One Coy for the Group)
The French tanks fought, in front of the french infantry only for the second and the third german's lines.

French and British tank's doctrine are very differents and it was very interesting to read reports from the "Comité Interalliés des Chars de Versailles" (SHD Vincennes box n° 4N11).
These reports was done in french and in english. These reports are probably, in english, in the British military archives.

In July 1918 is created in Recloses (near Bourron, South of Fontainebleau) an allied officers center ( Centre d'instruction Interalliés de l'Artillerie d'assaut) .

This center tried to built a commun doctrine for the allied and prepared officers to fight with tanks.

Michel

Bonjour,

A Renault FT on a Mark ! It's shocking.

You probably thought to the Renault FT, carried by French artillery tractor Renault FP 130 cv. This tractor was built on Holt system, with tracks looking for tank Schneider CA1.

The only combined actions between French tanks were done by units like Schneider Ca1 Groups (AS 14 or AS 17) who received 6 Renault FT, to replace 4 destroyed Schneider Ca1.
These Renault were used like Command tank for the Group's commander and for each Battery's commander.
The Group fought always with 3 Batteries of 3 Schneider Ca1 and 1 Renault FT.

If a tanks Groupement (3 or 4 tanks Groups) was given to an Infantry Division, this Groupement was generaly consumed in two days, an for the next days, an other Groupement was, some time, given to this Division (and not necessarily of the same tank model).

For example, in July 1918, the "Big Red One" faught in Missy-au-Bois sector with a St Chamond Groupement (18, 19, July 1918).

The French Divisions (north and south) of the First American Infantry Division used Schneider Ca 1, and some of them were destroyed on limits of the American sector.

After these 2 days with this St Chamond unit, the American Division received a Renault FT Bataillon for the 2 next days.

At the end of July 1918, it was possible to see the 3 models of destroyed French tanks around Chaudun, tanks who never fought in combined actions.

East of Missy, it was even destroyed Renault FT from June 1918.

Michel

elbavaro wrote:

---

Or do you mean this picture?

I always wondered why they did such things? Just for fun or was it for some serious reasons? Does anyone know?

btw: there must exist another picture, where the 6ton is already on the top of the Mark VIII.

-- Edited by elbavaro on Friday 13th of August 2010 10:41:19 AM

---

Thanks Elbaravo, I've not seen that loading photo.

It must have been the 6ton loaded on the the Mark VIII I have seen.

I reckon the photo is on this Forum.

It might have been useful to get the 6tons and Renaults over trenches that way.

 

-- Edited by LincolnTanker on Friday 13th of August 2010 10:49:57 AM

@LincolnTanker: This photo shows a 6ton and a Mark VIII

Or did I get you wrong?

elbavaro wrote:

---

@LincolnTanker: This photo shows a 6ton and a Mark VIII

Or did I get you wrong?

---

I reckon the photo I had previously seen was taken moments after the photo you posted.  I don't have a copy of the original, but if you look on PDA's Flickr   philthydirtyanimal you'll find it under the Mark VIII folder.

I reckon a low-profile Mk1 guncarrier with watertanks either end to shift the centre of gravity might have made a good mobile bridge. Isn't 20/20 vision looking back wonderful!!!

 

andiS wrote:

---

 

---

The chap with the walking stick doesn't look too happy about the Tank in his trench, [snip]

---

Sort of like coming down in the morning and finding somebody's put a mattress in your skip. You didn't want it, it's taking up room, and getting rid of it is now your problem!


LincolnTanker wrote:

At least they didn't have the Health and Safety people wanting a Risk Assesment for keeping it there or removing it.

 

 

-- Edited by LincolnTanker on Friday 13th of August 2010 08:09:37 PM

LincolnTanker wrote:

---

andiS wrote:

---

 

---

The chap with the walking stick doesn't look too happy about the Tank in his trench, [snip]

---

Sort of like coming down in the morning and finding somebody's put a mattress in your skip. You didn't want it, it's taking up room, and getting rid of it is now your problem!


LincolnTanker wrote:

At least they didn't have the Health and Safety people wanting a Risk Assesment for keeping it there or removing it.

---

Or a health and safety officer demanding you need a temporary, very well built platform just to gain access to it (e-mail on the way by the way!)