France's reserve of FT-17s

[LordOfWar16]

Compare the specs of the FT-17 to the Panzer I, Panzer(38)t and T-26 and get back to me.

Germany didn't have a better tank then the FT-17 until the Panzer II series A entered production in December 1937, two years into the game timeframe. If the Panzer I was good enough for combat duty, the FT-17 was.

yea, in the end it all comes down to doctrine and advanced tactics. The pzI and pzII might have been outdated relatively quickly but still performed very good due to excelent tactics.

The part where the ft-17 lacks is the offensive tho, 8kp/h offroad and 20kp/h on road with an maximum range of 40km pretty much limit it to defensive usage. You certainly wont invade other countries with it but give the enemies infantry a hard time.

 

[Magnus Imperator Rex]

Just send them all to Republican Spain for the SCW if you are a democrat at heart.

 

[adam_grif]

A crummy tank is better than no tank on average, since these things will still do serious damage to regular infantry that lacks embedded AT weapons. I definitely wouldn't want to hang onto them for long though.

 

[MagnusStultus]

yea, in the end it all comes down to doctrine and advanced tactics. The pzI and pzII might have been outdated relatively quickly but still performed very good due to excelent tactics.

The part where the ft-17 lacks is the offensive tho, 8kp/h offroad and 20kp/h on road with an maximum range of 40km pretty much limit it to defensive usage. You certainly wont invade other countries with it but give the enemies infantry a hard time.

Does that explain the failure of German tanks operating in Belgium against French Tanks? It isn't inconceivable in an alternate timeline for Hitler to tell Manstein to get lost and stick with the original plan.

A crummy tank is better than no tank on average, since these things will still do serious damage to regular infantry that lacks embedded AT weapons. I definitely wouldn't want to hang onto them for long though.

Unless like Italian and Japanese tanks they had to face an enemy with modern armor; in which case it is inferior to your own AT weapons or just surrendering if you don't have any and lack artillery to target enemy tanks with.

 

[aruon]

too bad there were no other really tiny tanks like these in large numbers (Length 5.00 m (16 ft 5 in) Width 1.74 m (5 ft 9 in) Height 2.14 m (7 ft 0 in)), or an "armored infantry" division would be worth adding in.

just imagine, while the shermans and panzers are exploding left and right, you have these hilariously archaic little death machines weaving between them all, driving around trenches and gunning down hapless enemies.

 

[safe-keeper]

too bad there were no other really tiny tanks like these in large numbers (Length 5.00 m (16 ft 5 in) Width 1.74 m (5 ft 9 in) Height 2.14 m (7 ft 0 in)), or an "armored infantry" division would be worth adding in.

just imagine, while the shermans and panzers are exploding left and right, you have these hilariously archaic little death machines weaving between them all, driving around trenches and gunning down hapless enemies.

Basically me when I'm in a Stuart in War Thunder .

A crummy tank is better than no tank on average, since these things will still do serious damage to regular infantry that lacks embedded AT weapons. I definitely wouldn't want to hang onto them for long though.

Exactly, which is why Germany held onto obsolete tanks, even invading the USSR in '41 with Panzer IIs and whatnot, far as I've understood.

Again, if the Germans have the Leichttraktor and Grosstraktor, that to me says these early levels of tanks are basically "very obsolete" designs. Possibly better than nothing, but probably best avoided, or issued to training divisions. The FT-17 would fit nicely in this role, I feel.

 

[Searry]

They would almost certainly be useless in any combat so why bother with the reserve?

 

[Le_Carabinier]

They would almost certainly be useless in any combat so why bother with the reserve?

Training.
Sending them to Republican Spain.
Historical accuracy.

I'm pretty sure having one batallion of them added to some infantr divisions can buff them a little in open terrain.

 

[FrozenWall]

Training.

Actually this is a really good point. You can order already formed divisions to do training drills, causing the little army figure to do pushups. But more importantly it raises unit experience at the cost or equipments attrition.

So you build armoured divisions with these old stockpile tanks, and then the training attrition will spend old tanks instead of the newer models you are producing. Once the unit is trained you re-equip it with modern tanks. So there is an economical boon to it.

In addition the stockpile of old tanks allow you to give divisions a stopgap replenishment if industry can't keep up with demand.

Lastly it allows you to raise emergency tank divisions, since the tanks already exist it costs you no IC and is immediately available.

 

[mursolini]

If they are in, I'll just lend lease them all to the Republicans fighting in Spain. [snark]Then the nationalists are sure to win[/snark]

If you want to bankrupt a small country - gift it a cruiser

And even new 2015 assault rifle can`t penetrate it`s armor. And during WW2 many nations still had lack of AT weaponry, so giving these tanks to infantry divisions will make them much stronger in battle. Assault against machine gun position might cause huge casualties to infantry, but if you have armor, even obsolete The Great War remnants, you might not suffer a single loss.

Assault against MGs would cause "huge casualties" in WW1. By the end of it most armies learned to kill it with mortars or grenades, and not charge it.
If you send armor against any entrenched infantry without infantry cover, armor will be destroyed.

You also seem to be confused about AT weapons. Any artillery piece is a decent AT weapon. Most European armies had artillery, at least 20-30 75mm guns in every division. Any HE or anti-bunker shell from such gun will destroy lightly armoured vehicle.

Compare the specs of the FT-17 to the Panzer I, Panzer(38)t and T-26 and get back to me.

Germany didn't have a better tank then the FT-17 until the Panzer II series A entered production in December 1937, two years into the game timeframe. If the Panzer I was good enough for combat duty, the FT-17 was.

Germany was hopelessly behind on armor till at least Pz3 E entered combat. Panzer1 didn`t show itself well, nor were there front-line divisions equipped exclusively with them. Why not compare FT-17 to something more modern, like FCM-36, R-36, BT-2, T-26?

 

[RVallant]

Well the Pz1 was supposed to be a training tank, so I don't see why France can't have these things around for use in training as well.

It would tie in with the national focus in the DD today - the aggressive warfare one.

 

[qer]

Although it would be completely useless in armor formations, it is still usefull for infantry support and training so it fits a gameplay aspect and I support it. What I'm most interested in is if they are going to add the 12 Char 2c that France havr at 1936. It would be epic

 

[ray4ever]

I guess they would open up a few interesting gameplay choices for the player if he is playing france. Might be interesting to find a way to put them to good use even though they might not be exceptional good in tank vs. tank combat

 

[Agilent]

Wooo

 

[Zaku]

Germany was hopelessly behind on armor till at least Pz3 E entered combat. Panzer1 didn`t show itself well, nor were there front-line divisions equipped exclusively with them. Why not compare FT-17 to something more modern, like FCM-36, R-36, BT-2, T-26?

Ft17: armor: 8-22mm gun: 37mm L/21 cannon, which was used on the FCM-36 and the R-35 you mentioned. engine: 5hp/t
T-26: armor: 6-15mm(later models had 20mm on turret) gun: 45mm 20K mod, engine: -around 9hp/t

Quite compareable I think. The soviets had several thousands t26s in '41 and the game should include them, just as it should include the ft17 reserves the french had in '36.
They have combat value if the enemy has a same level of technology avaliable.

EDIT: around 600 PZ 1s were in combat service in 1940 during the Battle of France. The French also deployed 500 Ft-17s.

 

[keynes2.0]

And it should be noted that French tanks in general tended towards small engines for their weight compared to contemporaries so the FT-17 having a small engine compared to a 1930s tank really just reflects french doctrine.

 

[mursolini]

Ft17: armor: 8-22mm gun: 37mm L/21 cannon, which was used on the FCM-36 and the R-35 you mentioned. engine: 5hp/t
T-26: armor: 6-15mm(later models had 20mm on turret) gun: 45mm 20K mod, engine: -around 9hp/t
Quite compareable I think.

In that case, you would probably claim that Pz3(G-H-L series) and T-34 are quite comparable.
T-26 is ~6 years more modern(being a Vikers 6 tonne copy), and it shows in better stats.
FT-17 is no competition to FCM-36 or R-36.
BT-2 is comparable in armament and armor, but has far better speed, not to mention it`s more modern derivatives like BT-5, already in production in 1936.

The soviets had several thousands t26s in '41 and the game should include them, just as it should include the ft17 reserves the french had in '36.

It should include them ofcource, but people shouln`t expect any kind of acceptable performance, considering the propliferation and effectivness of 37+ mm AT guns in 1940-1941.

They have combat value if the enemy has a same level of technology avaliable.
EDIT: around 600 PZ 1s were in combat service in 1940 during the Battle of France. The French also deployed 500 Ft-17s.

Yes, but at that time, their combat value was closer to a half-truck than a tank. Yes you don`t throw away 500 halftrucks. No, they are not notable addition to your armor force.

 

[Klausewitz]

And even new 2015 assault rifle can`t penetrate it`s armor. And during WW2 many nations still had lack of AT weaponry, so giving these tanks to infantry divisions will make them much stronger in battle. Assault against machine gun position might cause huge casualties to infantry, but if you have armor, even obsolete The Great War remnants, you might not suffer a single loss.

2015 assault rifles do not count, especially since the last years have seen a reduction of the calibre from 7.62 to 5.56 mm.
Germany fielded this little treasure in 1916 and this one in 1915.
Both had chances of working against anything up to half an inch of armor.
And the FT-17 had quite a few places where those could hurt.
Add in rifle grenades and gebündelte ladungen and the FT-17 is woefully unprotected.
And then there are the roughly 10.000 PzB 39 in service by 1940. And those things eat the FT-17 for breakfast.

 

[Chat]

And even new 2015 assault rifle can`t penetrate it`s armor. And during WW2 many nations still had lack of AT weaponry, so giving these tanks to infantry divisions will make them much stronger in battle. Assault against machine gun position might cause huge casualties to infantry, but if you have armor, even obsolete The Great War remnants, you might not suffer a single loss.

Well, assault rifles are designed for those squishy organics things, and the bullets used are typically for that reason as well. An AK-47 could penetrate it using a harder ammo type though. And shooting at the thinner parts of the armour. And being uncomfortably close.

It's not like the infantry had nothing they could do against tanks though, you only need to take a look at the German response to the introduction of tanks in WWI. Artillery, grenades, mortars (even picking up the mortar and basically pointing it at the tank), as well as 'reverse bullets' and different, more dedicated ammo used in the usual rifles prior to the introduction of dedicated anti-tank weapons. While they all had various drawbacks, they still worked. Since pretty much any army should be capable of removing a bullet from the cartridge, adding more propellant and putting the bullet back in backwards, any army would be able to cause damage to a tank similar to the FT-17.

The tanks are still going to help against those nations that lack proper AT weaponry, but it's unlikely that they wouldn't take any losses at all. Unless said nation is fighting with bows and arrows.

 

[Zaku]

In that case, you would probably claim that Pz3(G-H-L series) and T-34 are quite comparable.

It should include them ofcource, but people shouln`t expect any kind of acceptable performance, considering the propliferation and effectivness of 37+ mm AT guns in 1940-1941.

Yes, but at that time, their combat value was closer to a half-truck than a tank.

I don't see why you are argueing. Nobody said that an 1936 tech light tank should be equal to a '39 or a '41 medium. Still, they have their uses even on battlefield, just like they had their uses IRL.

If you think that a t26 and a FT-17 did not have the same combat potential then prove it. Since none of us has actual combat data on them we can only look at the numbers. Both had similar values. t26 was a bit more modern, but still both can be a basic tech tank gameplaywise.

Even then that's not the point. The point is that the French had these tanks in reserve, they used them in combat, and the player should be able to do so.