Talk:Char B1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Designed around 75mm howitzer???

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:B1bis saumur16.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Of course, I am tempted to add some info myself. Wolcott (talk) 13:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Free French Forces 

message: 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)
thread_title: BEARN II

message: 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" Overy, Richard (2009). The Road to War. Vintage Books
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"."  Terraine, John (2010). The Right of the Line. South Yorkshire: Pen & Sword Military. p. 66. .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manifest Truth (talk
Manifest Truth (talk) 09:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
thread_title: Direct Contradiction

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The file at the top of the page has been changed. should we change it back?
Top: current photo
Bottom: previous photo
200px
:I don't see a request for technical help here. Regarding the photo, my advice is to be bold. Bradv 17:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: file changed

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Medium or heavy tank 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for solving the issue! I'll add some additional references.--MWAK (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was there a hull mounted machine gun? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Formatting issue under Operational Service - French History 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Seclin wreck 

message: 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)
replies: text: I presume so.--MWAK (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Winterthur transmission" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "mechanics"