Talk:Saint-Chamond (tank)

message: My understanding is that the St. Chamond was intended to be superior to the Schneider. The Schneider was based on a lengthened Holt caterpillar tractor. The designers of the St. Chamond certainly took the same protoype chassis but deliberately set out to improve upon the Schneider.
Hengistmate (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, at first the company had simply been given the order to produce another four hundred units of the same vehicle. That then the chassis had to be made longer than with the Schneider had its cause in industrial rivalry. The larger chassis again allowed for a bigger gun which of course was presented as an improvement — indeed as such the firepower was enormously increased. But that a much heavier vehicle was created beyond Army specifications was caused by the interests of the designer (a larger and more complex vehicle is more expensive and increases potential profits) and rivalry between the Army and the administration (people tried to increase their power and status by extending their influence on the project). That St Chamond actually bribed certain persons is, though not unlikely, apparently hard to prove :o).--MWAK (talk) 08:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  St Chamond v. Schneider 

message: The name of the tank was Saint-Chamond, named after the location of the manufacturer's installation. It was not St Chamond, St. Chamond, or Saint Chamond.
It was a result not of commercial rivalry but of Army inter-departmental rivalry.
It was not replaced by British heavy tanks. It served until the end of the War. The French acquired some British heavy tanks but did not use them in action.
It was produced not by "Saint Chamond" (sic) but by Forges et Aciéries de la Marine et d'Homécourt (FAMH). Saint-Chamond was the name of the model.
The reference to "caterpillar tractors that were already employed in France for towing heavy artillery" is not strictly accurate. The British used them in large numbers, but prior to the design of the Saint-Chamond the only use by the French was an isolated improvisation by an officer using tractors that were his own property. Caterpillar tractors to tow or carry artillery pieces were under construction or at the design stage. The Saint-Chamond did not use "tracks from the American-made Holt caterpillar tractors" but used a similar, French-designed version derived from the Holt system.
"The tank produced by Saint Chamond" was not "meant to be identical to the Schneider CA." It originated from the same experimental vehicle but was specifically designed to be what the French Army's Service Automobile considered superior.
The Saint-Chamond was not fitted with spaced armour, nor was it adapted as a recovery tank "to tow the lighter Schneider." Many Schneiders were fitted with spaced armour during the War, and some were modified as Recovery Tanks after the War. Some of both types were, however, modified as unarmed supply vehicles in the later stages of the War.
Hengistmate (talk) 12:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: These are important points. Allow me to address them:
#I agree that the name should be written in full with the correct punctuation. However, the tank was named after the company. And the common name of that company was Saint-Chamond, after the location of its main works, also because FAMH was only part of a larger consortium.
#As explained above, it all started with four hundred units to be produced by Saint-Chamond of the same type rival Schneider had to manufacture four hundred of. Commercial rivalry about patents then caused to designs to diverge. Only then did inter-departmental rivalry step in and different specifications were issued.
#Well, if the British used them (in France) and there was some experimentation, then it would be strictly accurate to state that they "were already employed in France for towing heavy artillery" — just a bit misleading ;o). That has to be elucidated of course. I agree track production took place in France and changes were made in the design, which also has to be mentioned.
#The Saint-Chamonds were phased out completely soon after the war, the British Mark V*s replacing them in the rôle of heavy tank until they too were phased out from 1926.
#I was under the impression that the use of spaced armour with the Saint-Chamond was indisputable. At least some vehicles seem to have been uparmoured. Jeudy's Chars de France states at page 20: Blindé seulement à 11 mm à l'avant et 8.5 mm sur les côtés, il faut renforcer sa protection par une seconde tôle de 8 mm à l'avant..., though this is qualified by indicating this was (at first ?) done by field work shops. That (at least with some vehicles) a double side layer was present is illustrated by the picture on page 75 showing a vehicle where a hit ripped off part of the outer plate, revealing the inner plate. That this is not an illusion caused by an extreme cracking and distortion of the outer plate can be seen by the fact that the inner plate is below the rebate of the vertical connection strip, attached by a row of secondary rivets, normally obscured by the outer plate.
#Jeudy states on page 22 that the first Saint-Chamonds were indeed used as recovery vehicles, illustrated by a picture dated on 14 July 1917. I'm not sure about what modifications this would entail exactly, but at least the main guns seem to have been removed.--MWAK (talk) 07:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

text: I'll await the results :o).
Having read several accounts again, I'm not at all certain that FAMH was subcontracted to build part of the Schneider order. I thought I didn't recall seeing that previously. Malmassari, Zaloga, and Lawrynowicz make no mention of it, nor does any other reliable source that I can find. Jeudy says that once the second design had been approved Albert Thomas took the opportunity to take advantage of the rivalry between Schneider and FAMH and give the order to the latter, on the grounds that Schneider was too busy to accept an order for a further 400 tanks. I think the confusion arises from the fact that both the CA and the Saint-Chamond started life as the same vehicle. I also find that many accounts name FAMH as the manufacturer of the Saint-Chamond.
There is also a reference to extra armour being fitted to the Saint-Chamond, but no mention of its being "spaced." It is also noted that it was applied to only a small number of examples.
Hengistmate (talk) 10:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Well, the article doesn't state that Saint-Chamond (or FAMH) was a subcontractor. A second order was approved (not a different design) and given to Saint-Chamond. I agree the "spaced armour" issue is unclear. This can be cleverly rephrased, by referring to the spaced armour of the Schneider and then indicating the Saint-Chamond was uparmoured also without claiming it was spaced or not.--MWAK (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

text: All these very valid points you raised made me reread François Vauvillier's article in Tankzone N°4: "Le Saint-Chamond — Le beau monstre raté de la section technique" which, as I should have remembered, and expected even after forgetting given the eminence of its author, answers most of our questions explicitly or implicitly. In it are mentioned the presumed connection with the Brillié patent (of course already mentioned by Jeudy) and the difficulties in assessing its veracity; the fact that 48 Chars Caisson were constructed as a separate variant, thus without ever having been fitted with a cannon; and pictures proving without a doubt that a spaced double side armour (of twice a 8.5 mm plate) was standard. Do you have access to a copy?--MWAK (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Let us see:
#Vauvillier addresses here the theories of others, mainly, if I'm not mistaken, of Jeudy. This poses no problem to Wikipedia. Ideally, all Wikipedia sentences are in the form of "Researcher X claims fact/possibility/opinion of other researcher Y" anyway, so in this case we can simply relate the respective theories.
#The situation was certainly complex. I think it's obvious that in February 1916 there was no clear intention to build two types of tank. The motive behind also involving Saint-Chamond was either enhancing production or dividing the spoils, so to say. Clearly many even in April 1916 assumed that the second order pertained to basically the same vehicle. On the other hand the day the order was formally made, 8 April, it explicitly indicated a different type.
#On page 34 Vauvillier states: Au total 48 chars-caissons, pris sur la commande des 400, sont réalisés indifférement sur le type à toit incliné ou à toit plat.... So they are taken from the order for a four hundred vehicles, meaning that the order is partially fulfilled by producing supply/recovery vehicles instead of guntanks. The réalisés sur le type is somewhat ambiguous but has to be understood literally: they were based on a certain general type — actual exemplars of which did not have to be first constructed with a cannon, of course.
#Some details give away the presence of spaced armour with the left vehicle. On its left side you can actually see the top of the inner plate, separated from the outer plate by the whitish spacers/connectors. On the right side the double layer is clearly visible in the door opening; compare it with the middle vehicle. But perhaps a more revealing picture is that on page 35 where Rimailho to lower the weight of the 120 mm version has removed the outer plate on the front side. This makes it plain how the construction was.--MWAK (talk) 12:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Several Misapprehensions

message: M. Demaison has made an edit that is correct! It also improves the article - barely perceptibly, but after several hundred attempts it's a cause for celebration. The transmission in the Saint-Chamond was the Crochat-Colardeau, with only one "l".
Henry Crochat owned the company; Emmanuel Louis Paul Colardeau was his employee. However, they filed a number of patents jointly. This might be the turning point. Hengistmate (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hooray! 

message: May 31, 2015. I'm afraid our rejoicing was premature. M. Demaison is back, now inserting gobbledegook into this article. I have reversed today's edits and restored the previous, less bad version. Hengistmate (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  One step forward . . . 

message: There seems to be the common belief there is only 1 Saint-Chamond tank left in existence. It is at the Muse De Blinds. *However*....there is one at the Historial De la Grande Guerre - Musee de Thiepval. Which according to my calculations :-)... means there are two left!
It's definitely there, some friends of mine are in France visiting and just had their photograph taken with it today. 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:St._Chamond_-_Historial_de_la_Grand_Guerre,_Peronne_(1).jpg Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The exhibit at Péronne is a replica made of expanded polystyrene. Here's a video of it being constructed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OiaicjtIVg Hengistmate (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

text: Sadly so... But still a great job by those students!--MWAK (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn! Ok thanks for the info, I know my tanks pretty well, but that's a pretty good job. Though once you look at it closely you can see it is a replica. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many are left?????? 

message: That's not strictly the case. The French were conducting their own heavy tank programme (the FCM A, 1A, 1B, & 2C). They were going to take part in the Mk VIII programme with GB & the USA, but withdrew. The Schneiders and Saint-Chamonds did valuable service but suffered heavy losses in the closing stages of the War. The 90 Mark V* machines supplied to France by GB were a stop-gap to be used in what remained of the War, pending the design and construction of improved French machines. A slight change of wording required. Hengistmate (talk) 09:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the "scheduled" is ambiguous: after the war they were in fact replaced by Mark V*s.--MWAK (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Saint-Chamond tanks were scheduled to be entirely replaced by imported British heavy tanks." 

message: There is some debate about this definition. According to some, the Schneider CA was the first "heavy" tank, which would make the Saint-Chamond the second. But other sources, particularly American ones, describe the Schneider as "medium." Perhaps best to write one's way around this potential disagreement. Hengistmate (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Second heavy tank"? 

message: "Although not a tank by a strict definition of a heavily armoured turreted vehicle, it is generally accepted and described as such in accounts of early tank development."
I certainly hope so, because otherwise we would not be able to call the vehicle that gave birth to the name tank a "tank". The British tanks didn't have turrets or "heavy" armor, yet they were and are considered the first tanks, and are the genesis of the name. I would rather say that although they do not fit the modern definition of a tank, they are clearly part of the design evolution and in the same category as other early tanks.
64.222.160.104 (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: @64.222.160.104 "Although not a tank by a strict definition ..." This just begs the need for a strict definition, and/or ways that this vehicle did not meet that definition. Whbjr (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of tank 

message: It says "the greatest weakness...was the the American Holt tractor tracks". Could one not just as easily say the hull was the problemm since it was obviously too long for the tracks, instead of assuming the tracks were too short for the hull?
I also argue that the gun mounting method wasn't the "only option" for the designers. It was the only option that didn't involve designing an entirely new mount for it. But it could have been done. The article seems to suggest that the adoption of this gun forced the designers to mount it in the hull instead of a revolving turret, but is there actually any evidence that they would have used a revolving turret if the gun was smaller? Tanks were new, they hadn't hit upon revolving turrets as a standard technique of mounting arms yet. The only one who had tried it so far is Renault. It seems to me that it has more to do with them not thinking of it, rather than being forced to use an inferior method because they chose the wrong gun.
It also seems like it takes it entirely too much for granted that the designer forced them to adopt a larger and more expensive vehicle just to "increase his profits". What is the source for this? Is this the explanation the man himself gave after the war? Even if you found a source where someone claims this was his motivation, I don't see how one can take a claim like that for a fact without at least including the other side of the story. Maybe someone just didn't like Rimhailo and was trying to smear him. Maybe he genuinely thought this was a better design. How could the person who made that claim know that was his motivation? They could assume it, yes, but know it? I don't see how. The comments here seem to treat it as a fact, with the only open question being "who did he bribe".
There also seems to be an assumption that he forced them to use his own gun design because it meant more profits for him. Do we know this? Perhaps they needed all the standard 75mm guns for the artillery, and refused to give up any for some new-fangled assault vehicle. Maybe he went out and found an alternative source for 75mm guns because he couldn't get any other. Maybe that is why Schneider adopted the "Fortress" gun, because it was the only one he could get. that doesn't seem to me to be any more of a logical leap than to assume he was just corrupt and trying to get maximum profits.
64.222.85.235 (talk) 12:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tracks 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Medium Mark A Whippet which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 21:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress