Talk:Char B1

gun tube
I noticed the 75mm gun tube has two very small flat areas about 10cm back from the muzzle, one on each side (i.e. at 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock). Does anyone know the purpose of these flat spots? All I can think of is that it may be a means to secure a canvas muzzle cover? DMorpheus 18:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Good question! The answer is a bit complicated. IIRC, the prototypes and the first B1 production tanks didn't have this feature. Then, to ease tube removal, preventing that clamps would shift when pressure was exerted on them, notches were cut in the sides of the gun. This wasn't a problem as the gun tube had deliberately been made very thick to enable it to withstand AP-impacts (which again was the reason handling of the tube proved to be problematic at first). On that occasion the original very long leather covers were replaced by shortened ones with a leather strap that could just fit into the notches. However, crews apparently simply didn't use them this way: on many pictures it can be seen that the cover edge doesn't quite extend as far back; the circular wear of the paint is also always a bit in front of the notches. We may presume the crews soon learned that attaching the cover too tightly made it very bothersome to remove afterwards.--MWAK 06:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much - this is such an interesting tank. Now I have another question or two I hope you can answer ;).


 * 1. There are no handles on any of the crew hatches. How were they opened? By any chance is the nub-like object above the tank commander's hatch a pushbutton hatch release mechanism?  How was the driver's hatch opened?


 * 2. I have also noticed a few variations in the turrets (all B-1bis by the way). Were they all made at the same foundry?


 * 3. Some of the surviving B-1s have clamps for stowage on the fenders, on the sloped portion roughly on each side of the turret. Do you know what was supposed to be stowed there? Additional tools? Spare track?


 * 4. Were the fenders armored or are they mild sheet steel? They look thick enough that they might be armor.


 * Thanks DMorpheus 18:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it certainly is a fascinating vehicle, which I always feel I don't nearly know enough about. Luckily for me http://www.chars-francais.net/archives/renault_b1-bis.htm answers most of your questions, even giving a list of variable features ;o):


 * 1) The usual entrance was by means of the side door. However the turret hatch could be opened from the outside. The hatch didn't hinge outwards but inwards when you pushed at the top, the lower end sliding out so the commander could sit on the flat outside of the armour, something he was no doubt deeply grateful about ;o). This picture shows the end result of this process for the APX1CE: http://www.chars-francais.net/images/archives/somua_s35/s35-saumur28.jpg . The mechanism is shown from the inside here: http://www.chars-francais.net/images/archives/b1_bis/b1bis_saumur24.jpg The nub you refer to, seen here: http://www.chars-francais.net/images/archives/b1_bis/b1bis_saumur45.jpg, was not present on all variaties of the APX4. It was an attachment point for the reserve machine gun to be mounted on, so it could be used as an AA-weapon. The commander had to lay flat on his shoulders to operate it in high elevation, of course hugely impractical. The turret hatches themselves also came in two varieties: with or without indentation at the top. The driver's hatch too could be opened from the outside as the back edge could easily be gripped because the entire assemblage protuded, see: http://www.chars-francais.net/images/archives/b1_bis/b1bis_saumur38.jpg.
 * 2) AFAIK several subcontractors were used by the Atelier de Puteaux. You can discern the particular manufacturer as often the company name was marked on the casting; but apparently some companies saw no use for this — and of course a foundry could use its own subcontractors.
 * 3) The Chars-français site has a little picture of it, showing that chandelles de levage were attached, or jacks, a great many of which were needed for the Char B1.
 * 4) The fenders came in several types; none of these were seen as part of the armour package. However the steel used would no doubt be rather hard, to prevent the fenders from quickly disintegrating by small arms fire. But I don't have any exact data to contribute.

I hope this makes things a bit more clear. You certainly are a good observer!--MWAK 07:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Designed around 75mm howitzer???
It says "The main weapon of the tank was its 75 mm howitzer, and the entire design of the vehicle was directed to making this gun as effective as possible.".

In view of the fact that the howitzer could only be traversed for ONE degree to either direction, and the whole vehicle had to be turned to traverse the gun, which seems rather ineffective, I suggest the abiove statement be somewhat rephrased.--Cancun771 (talk) 11:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it has escaped you that the tank was fitted with a unique Naeder system, allowing swift and precise traverse. Anyhow, that was what the design of the tank was directed at — whether it succeeded is a different question :o).--MWAK (talk) 12:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This allowed for two cannons without multi-turreting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TankSpecialistE419 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ultimately, yes, but that was not the original intention, which was to have but a single cannon, low in the hull to be more easily capable of firing into low vision slits of bunkers.--MWAK (talk) 05:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

German usage: undue weight?
I'm a bit slow to pick up on this - but why are we listing every German unit that used the B-1 when it was, after all, a French vehicle? We don't list every French unit. This seems like undue weight to me. Frankly it doesn't make sense to me to list the units that employed particular bits of equipment unless it was quite rare. DMorpheus (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, completeness is an encyclopedic virtue :o). Also it reflects the literature, which, for deplorable reasons ;o), seems to be much more interested in the German use of French matériel than in the use the French themselves made of it. "Undue weight" should only be invoked with theories and suchlike, when the emphasis given to a certain conceptual approach of a subject might distort the overall image. But a list is simply a list.


 * Of course, there is now a certain imbalance: German units are listed, the French are incomplete. The best way to solve this is not by removing information but by adding it: I'll give the names of the five autonomous French companies (but not in a vertical list: it underscores their importance to be treated in the main text).


 * As regards your final point: indeed it would be absurd to list every unit employing very common equipment, like some machine-gun. But the Char B1 was hardly that abundant — the Germans used just a few hundred vehicles and these partly modified in different ways, creating subtypes that are worthy of interest on their own.--MWAK (talk) 07:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Free French Forces
There appears to be no information on this article regarding the tank's service with the Free French 13th Dragoon Regiment, 2nd Company under Captain Edmond Voillaume. The operational history section simply ends with the tank being used by the Germans. Wolcott (talk) 07:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The article is far from complete — for which I am myself to blame: three years ago I started to expand it and then never finished the job...I intend to make good for it some time but obviously you don't have to wait for this. I have some information regarding the French use in 1944/45 and am ready to add it — but if you happen to be well informed on the subject, please put your knowledge to good use here!--MWAK (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I am not well informed on the subject, other than the fact that the tank did continue to see action with the Free French and as late as 1945. Which is why I decided to drop by here first, because I would've added only a few lines if there wasn't anyone. Since you have the knowledge, then by all means. Wolcott (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course, I am tempted to add some info myself. Wolcott (talk) 13:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems that we have about the same data, which I basically can't improve on :o).--MWAK (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The operational history section looks much better now, and on a side note it makes me feel better knowing the French was actually the last combatant to operate the tank. All that's left now is to update the introduction section and service history via infobox. Wolcott (talk) 05:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a slight problem, in that the present infobox is supposed to refer strictly to the Char B1 as such, not the Char B1 bis. Either the information has to be expanded and split per type giving the many deviating measures and values, or we have to use two infoboxes. Or even three, should be add the Char B1 ter...--MWAK (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I would go for expanding the infobox as I'm not currently aware of any other tank articles which have more than one. Take the T-34 article for example, the infobox appears to cover both the T-34/76 and T-34/85 variants (particularly its main armament), with the latter seperated by using brackets. I'm not sure if the Char B1 ter is necessary as only two were built and probably never fielded, so I'll leave it for someone else to decide. Wolcott (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

BEARN II
The question has arisen whether the BEARN II was destroyed by the Germans or scuttled by its own crew. The picture can be interpreted as supporting both possibilities. Luckily, we don't have to speculate: the exact fate of most individual Char B 1 tanks is known. The BEARN II was blown up by the French, see: http://www.chars-francais.net/new/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=148

--MWAK (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The evidence for crew destruction is compelling, and I gracefully withdraw my "theory" :) Irondome (talk) 07:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Direct Contradiction
At the end of the first paragraph it is stated the Char B1 was:

"a vehicle that was both technologically complex and expensive, and already obsolescent when real mass-production of a derived version, the Char B1 "bis", started in the late thirties"

Yet the first sentence of the next paragraph says something, at least in my opinion, completely contradictory, that it was:

"Among the most powerfully armed and armoured tanks of its day"

I suggest that the latter was the case as Richard Overy states:

"Among the French tanks were over 300 of the formidable Char B I bis, the best heavy tank in Europe"

John Terraine also provides a short statement on the Char B1 bis:

"Renault also provided two battalions (66 machines) of the heavy B-1's the "Char-B"; in 1940 General Guderian, the famous German tank commander, called this "the best tank in the field"." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manifest Truth (talk

Manifest Truth (talk) 09:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, there is no contradiction. The Char B1 bis was obsolescent and it was one of the most powerfully armed and armoured tanks of its day. The point being that there are other qualities in a tank than armour thickness and firepower. The type was considered outdated as regarded the automotive parts, the general lay-out, complexity and unit cost.--MWAK (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, no contradiction. Despite good protection and excellent firepower, it had a 1920s suspension, rivetted construction, one-man turret (albeit that turret housed what was considered the secondary armament), two-gun arrangement, very poor radio...we could go on. Already in 1940, e.g. the T-34 was in production with a modern diesel, welded construction, dual-purpose gun, etc. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * So it was at once "the best tank in the field" and obselete? Surely it can't be both. Manifest Truth (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It could definitely be expressed better. But it is nevertheless roughly correct to say that the B-1 was technologically obsolescent while still being the most powerful tank "in the field" in May-June 1940. Tank quality isn't as simple as armor and firepower. To take a different example, the German Pzkw-III was probably one of the more advanced designs purely from a technical point of view (torsion-bar suspension, modern engine, all-welded construction, three-man turret, good radio....) yet had much thinner armor and a puny gun. Among the evidence that it was nevertheless a really good basic design is that it could be developed into versions with far better protection and firepower. That's not true of the B-1, which almost certainly would not have had important derivatives even had France not collapsed in 1940. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Char B1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101207000445/http://www.chars-francais.net/new/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=266 to http://www.chars-francais.net/new/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=266
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090616064658/http://www.chars-francais.net:80/new/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6&Itemid=38 to http://www.chars-francais.net/new/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6&Itemid=38

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

file changed
The file at the top of the page has been changed. should we change it back?

Top: current photo

Bottom: previous photo




 * I don't see a request for technical help here. Regarding the photo, my advice is to be bold. Brad  v  17:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Medium or heavy tank
Is this a medium or heavy tank? First line says medium, as does the infobox, but the category says "Heavy tanks of France". What gives? Portunes (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


 * It's both. Within the prewar French classification of tanks, the Char B1 was a medium tank. From a more global point of view and in the context of the technological development up to 1940, it could certainly count as a heavy tank. The Germans certainly claimed they were fighting heavy tanks :o).--MWAK (talk) 13:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Was there a hull mounted machine gun?
It has come to my attention that there is a dispute over the notion that the Char B1 had or did not have a secondary machine gun mounted in the hull. So to settle this, is there any sources that support there being a secondary machine gun mounted in the hull? Thank you. Dictonary1 (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * There are many. A quick reference might be the excellent Chars français site, see: http://www.chars-francais.net/2015/index.php/engins-blindes/chars?task=view&id=23 where it states under "Armement": Armement secondaire : 1 mitrailleuse de 7,5 mm en casemate, 1 mitrailleuse de 7,5mm en tourelle, thus one machine gun in the hull and one in the turret. It is understandable that people assume there is but one machinegun because the hull gun barrel was completely hidden below the armour, fixed in an unmovable position, and was thus hardly visible from the outside. In fact there was a third one also as a reserve gun was carried, that optionally could be used as an AA-weapon. So, it's complex :o).--MWAK (talk) 09:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I have also been finding resources and I may have found where the machine gun was exactly. Used AFV vehicles as a source. Dictonary1 (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for solving the issue! I'll add some additional references.--MWAK (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Formatting issue under Operational Service - French History
There's a formatting issue in the French History section that seems to format the (good, useful) pictures of the tank immediately below the header (formatting wise rather than placement wise),so you can't delete this unsightly white space between the header and body text without deleting the pictures. This is beyond my expertise to fix, does anyone know how?Tentonne (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't see it from here. What sort of device are you looking with, and are you looking at en.wikipedia, or at the mobile site en.m.wikipedia ? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I tried it the way it was first on the mobile site and didn't get anything out of the ordinary in terms of space between header and pictures or header and text. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Seclin wreck
What does "the last surviving" even mean?? The article says there are 11 B1s remaining, and most of them are obviously in much better condition. Was this particular hull the last B1 to be decommissioned, or what? --BjKa (talk) 13:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * You forget that there were two main production types: the B1 and the B1 bis. The Seclin vehicle is the last surviving B1.--MWAK (talk) 08:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

"Winterthur transmission"
In the text; could this be referring to the Winterthur universal drive or similar product by same manufacturer? GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I presume so.--MWAK (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

"mechanics"
So what I gather from this article is that the B1 had not one but three "mechanics" permanently assigned as members of the crew, no explanation of how they fit these six men into the tank or what they spent their time doing when not repairing the tank or "helping the crew in battle".

The B1bis had no mechanics, I guess they decided they weren't required after all.

The B1ter had one mechanic, which they had to "find space for" in spite of the fact that they fit three of them in originally.

I guess that extra armor really ate into the interior space? Idumea47b (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * This is a misunderstanding. As the text states, a permanent support team of three mechanics was attached to each tank. They were not part of the "crew". Their task was to provide the constant maintenance the vehicle demanded. One of them could join the crew in battle.--MWAK (talk) 06:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)