Talk:Somua S-35

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): French military history task force

"The operational flaw was its poor mechanical reliability" - just curious, do we have a serious source on this? The post-Tunisia campaign report by Capitaine Gibrius stated "the SOMUA tank can still be considered amongst the best from a mechanical point of view, it has the same speed, endurance, reliability and simplicity as the best American tanks. But its inferiority lies in its insufficient armament, etc." (cited in Pascal Danjou's booklet).

Also I do not think the commander could "swivel the turret around by the weight of his body". Maybe this was possible on lighter vehicles but the APX1CE weights around 2200 kg.

PpPachy 13:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, these are very good points. When I wrote this section, I did it on the spur of the moment — seeing that someone had merely added a section title from an apparent desire to learn more about the subject — and purely from memory, which is, certainly at my age, an unreliable source of knowledge. To address the points specifically:

1. The problems the Cavalry experienced were of course mainly those with the 50 vehicles of the first batch, as testified by the CEMAV. Most of those were remedied to some extent. Still some structural suspension and drive problems remained as can seen by the analysis that led to the changes planned for the S 40. This I combined with the opinion of Colonel Baillou, who of course wished for something much more on the lines of a Christie tank. I certainly didn't want to suggest that the S 35 was more unreliable than most tanks of its day: obviously it was superior in this respect and certainly to the alternative, the AMC 35, and to its companion, the H 35. Comparison to the latter vehicle may well account for the favourable opinion many in the field had of the SOMUA. In action, despite the use of rail transport whenever possible, the main cause of loss seems to have been that for any armoured unit withdrawing: breakdown. And weren't the remaining S 35s in North Africa sent to the scrap-heap for lack of spare parts shortly after Captain Gibrius filed his report? ;o)
2. Yes, the weight of the turret crossed my mind too. However knowing that the APX-R certainly was optionally moved this way, I assumed that even the APX1CE could be moved in a similar fashion. Just a matter of applying 50% more force, so to say, made easier by the extra room in the fighting compartment. But I must admit I was unable to find any reference to leather straps as used in the smaller turret. This is simply because it wasn't possible to unlock the turret as a good friend of mine pointed out to me this afternoon. Still, the smaller turret allowed for a high rotation speed in the improved versions: 18° per second as compared to about 14° for the larger German turrets.

In general this entire article is far from perfect. I intended to first study the documentation properly, then write a long article for the Dutch Wikipedia and then condense this for the English one. In reality I hastily wrote the English one first and only now get into the details :o)--MWAK 17:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polish offer

In 1938/1939 Poland wanted to buy 100 S-35 tanks (see R-35 for details). Does anybody know why was this request denied? Mieciu K 09:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't find references but it should remembered that total deliverance up to September 1939 was only 270 and that the French had the greatest possible difficulty in 1940 to find enough casting capacity to increase production. So the obvious answer seems to be: the French hadn't even got enough S 35s to satisfy their own requirements, so they had nothing to spare for the Polish army :o).--MWAK 10:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That's the first and most obvious answer. I was wondering if the French had a policy of not selling their latest military equipment abroad, or maybe Poland wasn't trusted enough. After all closer miltary ties and security guaratees were given to Poland just prior to the outbreak of the war. Mieciu K 10:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That's also a very reasonable answer the S-35 was a French tank produced in France so probably exporting it would be considered only after the needs of the French armed forces have been met. Mieciu K 10:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the S 35 wasn't all that advanced so there was little danger that any military secrets would become known to the enemy :o). However it's true that there was some suspicion towards Poland. It had concluded a treaty with Germany in 1934, had taken part in the partition of Czechoslovakia and was thought in the Spring of 1939 to be susceptible to the German offer of cooperation, however transparent that might seem with hindsight.--MWAK 12:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)