Renault R 35/Renault R 40 info and pictures

Which was the amour penetration capacity of the Puteaux SA 18 gun which equiped the R 35 tank? Was it actually an antitank weapon? If not, which was its initial destination? Why did the Frenchmen have chosen it for some relative modern tank designs (Renault R 35, Hotchkiss H 39)? From the British equivalents (British infantry tanks), Mathilda II for example had an effective antitank gun, the “two pounder”. Were the R 35 tanks equipped with radios (and what about those in use with the Romanian army)?
Which were the differences between Renault R 35 and Renault R 40 tanks? As I know R 40 had a more modern gun (a long Puteaux model 37 or 38 antitank gun) and a radio. Did it also have a different (more powerful) engine? Were the R 40 exported, and if yes to which countries?
Does anybody know if the R 35 from the Polish 305th battalion which sought refuge in Romania had seen some action in the Polish army, against the Germans?
And last but not least, does anybody know some internet resources on R 35 and R 40? On R 40 I practically found nothing… The pictures are also welcomed

This post has been edited by Agarici on April 08, 2005 10:11 am

David Lehmann wrote on AHF:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=67995

There is a good deal of information on the Renault tanks out there in the www, but it be searched for in French. Here is a good place to look for infon on French tanks and specifically on the R 40 - you can find also some pictures there:

http://www.chars-francais.net/archives/renault_r40.htm
You can find more than 20 photos of the R 40 in the link above.
I can recommend also a visit to the site at http://www.chars-francais.net
Well worth the time, imo.
By the way, the R 40 was never exported. According to what can be read in the site, the off-road mobility of the R 40 was very much improved over that of the R 35 due to the suspension system, plus the new tracks clearly inspired by those of the Char B1bis.
There is a very good book on French tanks and all sorts of military vehicles. Even if it deals only with the period that stems from 1939 up to the fall of France in 1940, it is still a formidable reference: "L'Automobile sous l'Uniforme, 1939-1940" by François Vauvillier and Jean-Michel Touraine, Massin Editeur, Paris, 1992. ISBN: 2-7072-0197-9.
The book provides full details about virtually ALL the vehicles in service during the period covered, including also data about some interesting prototypes (such as the AMX 38, a derivative of the R 40 whose prototype was ready in 1941 and the revolutionary Panhard 201 armoured car, which influenced several French and foreign post-war designs) and projects that never progressed beyond the project or the mock-up stage, like the monstruous FCM F1, a 150 ton mammouth armed with a main 90mm gun and a secondary armament composed by a 47mm SA 35 anti-tank gun and four 7,5mm mgs...

Ruy

OK, thanks…

On the forum indicated by Dragos in his post is an interesting discussion about who might have won in a one to one tank fight between R 35 and Panzer II. I suggest to extend the debate; actually I wonder how many chances would have had an R 35 against its possible opponents from 1940-1941:
- German Panzers II, III and IV for the French (and Romanian) R 35
- Russians T 26 and BT 7 for Romanian R 35
- Hungarian tanks (by the way I do not know what types were available for the Hungarian army in 1940-41, and how many of them, but I think they had one or two mechanized brigades) for Romanian R 35
As for the few Bulgarian tanks available until they joined the Axis (two or three companies I think), I understood that they were deployed at the Turkish frontier.

And also important, what were the tactics employed by the Romanian tankers BEFORE October-November 1940 (before the troops got their experienced German instructors), if any? I think the armored troops tactic is a very important aspect to be considered in such a discussion. Any info about the tactics employed by the Russian, Hungarian (Bulgarian) tank troops by that time?

Off topic now: I recognize it took me some time to notice the military ranks associated with each user. Now because I’m a poor untrained soldier (“soldat prost” in Rom.) maybe our higher ranking officers could give us all some illuminating answers . And perhaps when Denes gets his fieldmarshall stick we’ll be throwing a party …?

This post has been edited by Agarici on April 08, 2005 04:34 pm

Thank you very much, Mr. Aballe.

Mr R.Abale do you have photos from inside of Rumanian tanks in WWII?

Thanks
J.Jaque

You are welcome, Agarici. In a tank-to-tank fight, I don't think that 1st generation German tanks like the Panzer I Ausf. A or B (there were still plenty of them available and in front line use by the time of the invasion of Low Countries, Belgium and France) or even the Panzer II could stand a fight against the R 35. However, the Pz. II had some pretty good chances of winning: in first place, the training of the German crews was much better than the drill of their French counterparts. Secondly, the Panzer II had a 20mm fast-firing gun which could disable the French tank in some areas. Last but not the least, speed is an important factor: the Ausf A/B/C versions had a max. speed of 40km/h, the double of the French tank (which could only attain 20km/h in good terrain - I suppose this means a full paved road...). However, after the Polish campaign, where the Pz.II was actually used in combat, things changed. When the Whermacht attacked at the West in 1940, the vehicle had been already re-designated as a reconnaissance tank. During the Campaign in the West in 1940 and early stage of the Invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, Panzerkampfwagen II That is why most of the Panzer II's used in the spring of 1940 and afterwards in the Balkans and in the early stages of operation Barbarossa, in 1941, were employed mostly as reconnaissance vehicles. Of course, sometimes they were used as combat tanks, whenever the circumstances dictated so.
As for the Panzer III and IV, I don't think the R 35 stood too many changes against them. One of the major drawbacks of French tank design until 1940 was the cramped turret design, where the tank commander was supposed to double as gunner, charger, etc... the ergonomics weren't surely the best around. As for the Germans, the commander could concentrate himself on his mission, leaving the rest for the gunner for there was space enough for both in a Panzer III or IV turret... This superior arrangement paved the way for superior combat tactics, not to mention a much better communication between the crew members.

Will return later with data on the T-26 and BT-7 (the later, besides from being the best of the BT's, was way too fast for the slow R 35 and had a better gun, though...).
The Hungarians had a tank roughly similar to the Panzer II, perhaps even better since it was based on a very modern Swedish design, the Landswerk 60. The Hungarian designation of the first version produced locally was 38M Toldi I (the armament was composed of a 20mm cannon and a 8mm mg - a Gebauer, I think; must check this). It was a light tank endowed with an excellent off-road performance, superb optics, but the version made in Hungary was plagued by mechanical malfunctions. Well, more on this topic later...
I will search also for something on Bulgarian armour (I have a Czech book with details on the subject).
Yours,

Ruy

This post has been edited by Ruy Aballe on April 08, 2005 07:07 pm

But what about the R 35 versus a Pz III? As I know, by the Summer-Autumn of 1940 (when they could have been used in a potential invasion to Romania) they were armed with a 37 mm cannon, this being substituted with the 50 mm one only after the end of the French campaign. Could this 37 mm penetrate the R 35’s amour?

And what about the radio equipment? Did the Romanian R 35's have radios?

This post has been edited by Agarici on April 11, 2005 02:57 pm

My father was a sgt. and chief radio in the R-35 unit ( Reg.2care de lupta) in WWII so it should have radios but i don't know what type.

Dan.

Wow... Did you ever talk to him about the tank, about how effective it was in combat? In what period did he served in the 2nd Tanks Regiment? If he was a sergeant he must have been the tank commander...

Please share with us the info you have about this tank and its battle records in the Romanian army...

He was not a tank commander, he was radio chief sergent. He was not so happy to tell me warstories. He was wounded at Bent Don ( Cotul Donului ) near Stalingrad and interned in hospital and after recover was again with Reg. 2 tank unit on western front and again wounded in Tatra mountains. I remember that he mentioned about wolfes in trenches near Don devorating wounded and freezing soldiers ( because of that later had many nightmares and my mother tryng hard to wake him). The war was not like we think today in computer games.

Dan.

Dan, at Stalingrad it was only the 1st Tank Regiment, so your father must have been in the 1st Tank Regiment too.

It is possible that some if not all the R-35 tanks of the 2nd Tank Regiment did noy have radio equipment (maybe improvised).

The cast turet of the R-35 was still hard to defeat by the early Panzer III gun, but the the Panzer III would have the upper hand in initiative and mobility.

He was not a tank commander, he was radio chief sergent. He was not so happy to tell me warstories. He was wounded at Bent Don ( Cotul Donului ) near Stalingrad and interned in hospital and after recover was again with Reg. 2 tank unit on western front and again wounded in Tatra mountains. I remember that he mentioned about wolfes in trenches near Don devorating wounded and freezing soldiers ( because of that later had many nightmares and my mother tryng hard to wake him). The war was not like we think today in computer games.

Dan.

OK, maybe “wow” was not the most inspired choice for an interjection… But it was not a sign of childish thrill for the war in the sense that “wow, he had THE CHANCE of being there but a sign of surprise and respect for your father. As I know, the tank troops were considered elite in the Romanian army.

And I am convinced that a war, any kind of war is no fun, no fun at all. May the only forms of enthusiasm for a war be that of historical research and discussions…