France's reserve of FT-17s

[mursolini]

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.

Ok, 45 mm cannon of T-26 has a cannon that can penetrate FT-17 at any distance(over 36mm penetration at 1000m), while FT-17 cannon doesn`t penetrate 15mm of sloped armor further than 500m. T-26`s cannon is also much better with HE. T-26 is faster. Yes, it is much better.

In a similar way, I suggested you to compare T-34 and Pz3 of late versions. While 60mm cannon and 76mm cannon may appear similar, but a combination of better armor and arament meant that the chances of Pz3 both to resist typical AT weapons, and eachother`s shells are quite different. Pz3 doesn`t provide good defence against typical 45mm Soviet AT cannon. T-34 provides great defence against 37 mm at all angles, and agaist 50mm frontally.

I argue against the argument that since Germans had Pz1 in 1941, Ft-17 is somehow an ok tank that that point.

 

[Zaku]

Ok, 45 mm cannon of T-26 has a cannon that can penetrate FT-17 at any distance, while FT-17 cannon doesn`t penetrate 15mm of sloped armor further than 500m. T-26`s cannon is also much better with HE. T-26 is faster. Yes, it is much better.
.

Actually the SA 18 could penetrate 21mm in 400m, so it could definitely take out a t26 at that range.

But even that is not the point. The point is that both types are low tech, and bad in modern combat. Still they have their uses if you use them against similar vehicles, so the game should include the reserves different nations had in stockpile at game start. Both vehicles were used in large numbers in combat situatuions, and the FTs were used even in 1944 as training vehicles in german service. They were not useless.

I don't even know from where did the t34 pz3 comparison came. Nobody mentioned it except you.

 

[Klausewitz]

Actually the SA 18 could penetrate 21mm in 400m, so it could definitely take out a t26 at that range.

But even that is not the point. The point is that both types are low tech, and useless in modern combat. Still they have their uses if you use them against similar vehicles, so the game should include the reserves different nations had in stockpile at game start. Both vehicles were used in large numbers, even in combat situatuions, and the FTs were used even in 1944 as training vehicles in german service. They were not useless.

I don't even know from where did the t34 pz3 comparison came. Nobody mentioned it except you.

+1

 

[mursolini]

Actually the SA 18 could penetrate 21mm in 400m, so it could definitely take out a t26 at that range.

Further than 500 meters is more than 400. What is the problem?

But even that is not the point. The point is that both types are low tech, and useless in modern combat.
Still they have their uses if you use them against similar vehicles, so the game should have include the reserves.
I don't even know from where did the t34 pz3 comparison came. Nobody mentioned it except you.

I don`t quite understand what is so hard to get: What metters is not if something is low or high tech, but how much. I also object to your desire to label clearly better tank as "about the same", because you want to prove you point.

 

[keynes2.0]

Nobody is saying it's an okay tank, just that it's worth something.

The FT-17 belongs in the very first tank tech slot, along with the freakin' leichttraktor. If anything it's overqualified for that spot.

 

[Zaku]

Further than 500 meters is more than 400. What is the problem?

I don`t quite understand what is so hard to get: What metters is not if something is low or high tech, but how much. I also object to your desire to label clearly better tank as "about the same", because you want to prove you point.

You are completely missing the point of the topic and trying to compare two tanks instead. I only did it because you asked about stats in your first post.

 

[Klausewitz]

I don`t quite understand what is so hard to get: What metters is not if something is low or high tech, but how much. I also object to your desire to label clearly better tank as "about the same", because you want to prove you point.

It is like arguing whether a one-arm or one-legged man makes a better soldier or whether a blind or a deaf is a better scout.
It is not about what they could do to each other.
It is about what could be done to them by other services and how well they would be able to resist them.
And both of them are dead meat from 1936 onwards, not fit to stop an infantry division with even rudimentary AT-ability.

 

[mursolini]

Nobody is saying it's an okay tank, just that it's worth something.

The FT-17 belongs in the very first tank tech slot, along with the freakin' leichttraktor. If anything it's overqualified for that spot.

At some point, it is not worthy of maintenance. IMO, FT-17 is as close to that poin in 1939, as it can be.

It`s not overqualified for the spot, you can argue that leichttracktor is too weak, but difference between early 20s and late 20s tanks justifies a tech level difference. Also Germany just doesn`t have anything to put there, besides Pz1, but then their tech tree, is ugly from PI prespective, as Pz4 will come too early.

You are completely missing the point of the topic and trying to compare two tanks instead. I only did it because you asked about stats in your first post.

And it does in fact looses in comparison. You are the one who jumped in, to try to prove that it doesn`t.

It is like arguing whether a one-arm or one-legged man makes a better soldier or whether a blind or a deaf is a better scout.
It is not about what they could do to each other.
It is about what could be done to them by other services and how well they would be able to resist them.
And both of them are dead meat from 1936 onwards, not fit to stop an infantry division with even rudimentary AT-ability.

There was a clear difference is performance should a division armed with T-26 come in contact with enemy armor, one would expect it to do much better on flanking than a division armed with FT-17, due to T-26 actually being able to penetrate sides of tanks.

There is also mobility difference. T-26 showed itself pretty well in Spanish civil war.

 

[keynes2.0]

At some point, it is not worthy of maintenance. IMO, FT-17 is as close to that poin in 1939, as it can be.

The war might start in 1936 and the French can use the FT-17 as a training vehicle.

 

[Zaku]

At some point, it is not worthy of maintenance. IMO, FT-17 is as close to that poin in 1939, as it can be.

But its's still a fact that hundreds or even thousands were used duing the war.

Renault FT tanks were also fielded in limited numbers during World War II, in Poland, Finland, France, and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, although they were already obsolete. In 1940 the French Army still had eight battalions equipped with 63 FTs each and three independent companies with ten each, for a total organic strength of 534, all equipped with machine guns. These were put to use after most of the modern equipment was lost in earlier battles.

Many smaller units assembled after the start of World War II also used the Renault FT. This usage gave rise to the popular myth that the French had no modern equipment at all; in fact, they had more modern tanks than the Germans.[7] The French suffered from tactical and strategic weaknesses rather than from equipment deficiencies. When the best French units were cut off by the German drive to the English Channel, the complete French materiel reserve was sent to the front as an expediency measure; this included 575 FTs. Earlier, 115 sections of FTs had been formed for airbase defence. The Wehrmacht captured 1,704 FTs. They used about a hundred for airfield defence and about 650 for patrolling occupied Europe.

By your logic we shouldn't include older ships because they are old.

 

[Zaku]

The war might start in 1936 and the French can use the FT-17 as a training vehicle.

In '36 you can even use them in combat for good effect. What are they facing against? PZ1s or PZ2s at best. Also don't forget that you can improve the design with XP. You can maybe mount bigger gun, more armor, etc.

 

[mursolini]

The war might start in 1936 and the French can use the FT-17 as a training vehicle.

Does anyone object their inclusion?

But its's still a fact that hundreds or even thousands were used duing the war.
By your logic we shouldn't include older ships because they are old.

Quote my suggestion to not include FT-17 before discussing my logic.

In '36 you can even use them in combat for good effect. What are they facing against? PZ1s or PZ2s at best. Also don't forget that you can improve the design with XP. You can maybe mount bigger gun, more armor, etc.

They wouldn`t be used to "good effect", but would have some value. Considering you have to produce new tank variants, the Ft-17 is rightfully dead in terms on production or modernisation in 1936.

 

[Zaku]

Does anyone object their inclusion?

Quote my suggestion to not include FT-17 before discussing my logic.

Well your posts STRONGY suggested that your opinion is that FT17 is useless.

So you argued just for the sake of the arguement.

 

[mursolini]

Well your posts STRONGY suggested that your opinion is that FT17 is useless.

It is useless (depending on ingame stats obv). Doesn`t mean it shouldn`t be inluded, like SH armor is, for example. In previous HOI, unapgradable level 1 light tank brigades would be night-useless in any situation.

So you argued just for the sake of the arguement.

Actually, you seem the one, since you are the one drawing baseless assumptions, trying to fight against the points you percieve rather than actually made in thread.

I only objected to:
-claiming that FT-17 is so very usefull because it is a tank, and "some armies didn`t have anything to take out tanks"
-claiming that because Germany had Pz1s Ft-17 is not obsolete to the point of being useless of close to so.

 

[Zaku]

It is useless (depending on ingame stats obv). Doesn`t mean it shouldn`t be inluded, like SH armor is, for example.

Actually, you seem the one, since you are the one drawing baseless assumptions, trying to fight against the points you percieve rather than actually made in thread.

Keynes 2.0 mentioned that the FT17 was on par with the pz1 - which is 100% true - and you asked for a more modern comparison.
After that all it become is that the T26 is a superior tank then the FT17. (I never denied this, I said they were compareable)
That had nothing to do with the point of the topic, and was also not my intention to argue against. I always pointed at this in my posts.

 

[teamgene]

Hate to burst a few bubbles, but if the shot is placed in the right area, a 5.56 M855 round will penetrate the armor of a FT17.

Dun't know if HOI first generation tanks are a bad as the FT17 was. very slow, small slow gun and not at all reliable. Germans tended to use the turrets as part of the atlantic wall rather than keep it on the tank.

The speed of the panzer I ( pzr-I 25 mph, ft-17 5 mph) was much greater as was the range than the FT17. FT17 was of no real combat use as it had no real range of operation( 21 miles, range of pzr-I 90 miles)

So in no way were the two tanks on par.

 

[Zaku]

Hate to burst a few bubbles, but if the shot is placed in the right area, a 5.56 M855 round will penetrate the armor of a FT17.

What's the penetration on steel of that bullet? I thought it was around 4mm at 500m shot from an m16.

 

[teamgene]

What's the penetration on steel of that bullet? I thought it was around 4mm at 500m shot from an m16.

Its over 9 mm on the tungsten tip.

 

[Chat]

Hate to burst a few bubbles, but if the shot is placed in the right area, a 5.56 M855 round will penetrate the armor of a FT17.

Depending on what rifle you're using and what kind of steel the FT used (of which I have no idea). A long barrel rifle using the M855 won't have any problem punching through about a centimeter of your average steel, but a shorter barrel against proper armour steel fairs considerably worse. But even against the thicker parts of the armour with a longer rifle, the shot could probably still work fine as long as it distorts the metal enough to produce spalling. Edit: I'd also presume that the metal used in the FT is more like standard steels than modern steel armour plates.

Either way, the basic outcome is the same, a modern rifle can penetrate the FT. But as was mentioned earlier, it didn't take a huge amount of effort to modify the weapons of the era to be able to cause damage to the early tanks either, so the notion that without dedicated weaponry even outdated tanks like FT could run amok is unlikely.

 

[Ibn_Solmyr]

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

According to wiki, on '39 september 1st, there still were 2850 FT-17 in total :
"Au 1er septembre 1939, il en existait encore 2 850 dans l'armée française, et la Wehrmacht en récupéra 1 704 à l'armistice de 1940. L'armée d'occupation l'utilisa encore pour des opérations de répression, notamment pendant le soulèvement de Paris en août 1944."