Talk:Saint-Chamond (tank)

Style

while informative, this article needs a lot of typos corrected

Copyright violation

The article is largely cut-and-pasted from here. Could someone do a rewrite, so that good-faith editors' workj on it isn't wasted? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:53, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The article in question is actually from here in the first place. This article needs work though (probably written from the French originally) and some reading in books has given me extra insight into the process of the development of the St C.GraemeLeggett

Or possibly the Dutch if the entry in nl.wikipedia.org is anything to go by - Lots of info there - but I can't read it. GraemeLeggett

Oh, good grief, how did I miss the reference to Wikipedia at the end? That'll teach me to edit when I'm overtired. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:35, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Movement

I shall move the whole article to St Chamond (tank) as that fits better with the naming schemes. a) the full stop is not English usage, b) St Chamond is also the armaments company that built it. GraemeLeggett 16:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've written the Dutch article - and that is indeed the source of the English one - also written by me. :o) The Dutch article reflects the newest French insights, mainly the work of Jeudy. I'm afraid most of the information repeated in English books since the past ninety years is simply wrong or at least distorted. It's in fact an extreme condensation of French newspaper reports of the twenties when there was a big row between several French politicians and soldiers. So, though you have greatly improved my (indeed very poor) English, the factual content has, alas, deteriorated. I'll remove those parts now known to be incorrect.

MWAK--84.27.81.59 14:16, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Looks better now. GraemeLeggett

Thank you! I'll add some more info.

MWAK--84.27.81.59 08:27, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

St Chamond v. Schneider

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)

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)

Several Misapprehensions

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)

These are important points. Allow me to address them:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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)

Hello, MWAK. Thanks for response.

1.With respect, I cannot agree.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compagnie_des_forges_et_aci%C3%A9ries_de_la_marine_et_d%27Hom%C3%A9court

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Char_Saint_Chamond

2. This is rather tricky. I think it is rather sweeping to say that commercial rivalry resulted in the Saint-Chamond. It is more that it prevented FAMH from producing the Schneider. It was the approach from the Service Automobile that led to the construction of the new model, and that was the result of interdepartmental rivalry.

3. My concern is that this statement implies that the French were using tractors and using them on a regular basis, whereas the only known examples are Lt. Cailloux's privately owned Holts. I note your comment. The experiments, though, were conducted far from the Front.

4. Since the Saint-Chamond served until the end of the War, I don't really see the point of mentioning the Mk V* at this point in the article. To say that the Mk V* replaced the Saint-Chamond is not strictly correct.

5. In the matter of spaced armour, I give way. My apologies. I was inder the impression that additional armour was fixed directly to the glacis plate only.

6. I cannot agree about the Recovery Tank. Jeudy's photo shows what he describes as a Char Caisson. The absence of armament might suggest something but it does not prove it. Char Caisson was the term used for a Supply Tank. Recovery Tank was char de dépannage. There are no other visible modifications to this Saint-Chamond and I have not come across any mention of such a measure elsewhere. Although it's entirely possible that they were used to tow Schneiders, I don't think the evidence is concrete.

Regards.

Hengistmate (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Slowly we are reaching agreement :o). Some more considerations:

1. I'm not denying that FAMH was the formal name of the company. But it was really very common at the time to call the consortium "Saint-Chamond". E.g. see Jeudy page 19 where he refers to La Compagnie de Saint-Chamond. Obviously this was derived from geography — but it would no longer be correct to claim that of all the vehicles and guns having "Saint-Chamond" in their designation each independently and directly was named after the location: it had become a general name.
2. It's true that it prevented FAMH from producing the Schneider. But apparently by their own initiative in reaction they lengthened the chassis, which alone would have made it a very different vehicle. Also the subsequent changes were largely initiated by the company, i.e. Rimailho. That "interdepartmental rivalry" typically mentioned in the literature mainly seems a euphemism for "Breton because of his resentment of Estienne allows himself to be manipulated by Rimailho" :o).
3. It certainly has to be made clear they weren't replaced during the war.
4. Speaking of clarity: as regards the spaced armour, many aspects are very unclear to me. The side armour differs apparently between the prototype, the first production batch and the second production batch. It could be that to ensure the necessary rigidity — which must have been a very serious point of concern for a vehicle that long, with a too short track base and overloaded at the ends — even the prototype had a double layer, which then wouldn't be a reaction to the Spitzgeschoss mit Kern. Perhaps field modifications included a further add-on armour; the last batch might even have had a standard triple layer.
5. Well, what Jeudy calls a Char Caisson is simply a tank in the form of an unarmed hulk, whatever its function. Op page 20 he writes: Pour être complet, signalons que quatre Saint-Chamond caisson (version dépannage, non armé) ont participé à l'affaire de Berry-au-Bac. So these are hulks (caissons) but also recovery vehicles. Also these are the first Saint-Chamonds in action, a month before the armed vehicles engage for the first time. These first recovery vehicles — which of course likely functioned as supply vehicles as well — have to be differentiated from the phased out supply vehicles at the end of the war — which obviously also did recovery work when needed.--MWAK (talk) 12:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

How nice to be able to discuss this calmly and without the apparently automatic resistance that I have encountered in some other debates. Thank you.

1. I still think it is correct to name the manufacturer as FAMH. It's made clear (or soon will be, I hope) in the opening section that the vehicle was called the Saint-Chamond, but I would suggest that it's rather like saying you own a Vauxhall car, whilst the parent company is General Motors. I don't see that it does any harm to make that clear.

2. Hmmm. I need to re-read about that. Bear with me.

3. AFAIK Estienne never became aware of the Tunisian Holts, although some accounts say that he did. I think those accounts have confused the story. It would appear that it was seeing Holts in service with the British that gave Estienne his idea.

4. I need to have another good look at the Char Caisson thing. Still not clear (to me, anyway). I have it on what I believe to be good authority that the Saint-Chamonds that were present at Berry-au-Bac were armed and gave some supporting fire from the rear. Again, I need to have another look.

I shall return. :o) Thank you for your patience.

Hengistmate (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

IMO this passage clearly implies that it was intended that FAMH were to build the Schneider: "Originally the tank produced by Saint Chamond was meant to be identical to the Schneider CA. While Brillié began to design a second prototype (based on his earlier work on the Schneider CA-1), Schneider's main competitor, the arms manufacturer St Chamond (the Forges et Acieries de la Marine et Homecourt à Saint Chamond), was given a second order for 400 tanks. First they intended to build the same tank as Schneider. However, Brillié refused to share his patented invention for free and Saint Chamond refused to pay. So the latter company, not even having been given the blueprints of the new Schneider prototype, had to base its design on the original Tracteur A." I have never come across this claim before. AFAIK, were awarded the contract for the Saint-Chamond direct from Mourret. I know that Schneider refused to make their drawings available to Boirault for one of his improbable ideas, whereas FAMH agreed. What's the source for this supposed involvement of FAMH with the CA?

Regards,

Hengistmate (talk) 11:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

Indeed I have. I translated it a few months ago. Are you refering to page 27, Un scandale étouffé?

I took a little while to grasp the meaning of this passage, but I note that François writes in the conditional tense, implying that the statements are hypothetical rather than actual. "Wine would have been drunk," "a note would exist in Schneider's archives," etc. I believe that this is theorising, not reporting.

He also says that FAMH would have been delighted to receive the second order, not a second order; in other words, the one placed after the order with Schneider, not a second one placed with FAMH.

I don't think FV does say that the caisson versions "were constructed as a separate variant, thus without ever having been fitted with a cannon." What he is saying is that caisson conversions were carried out on Saint-Chamonds irrespective of type (flat-roofed, gable-roofed, and so on). That would mean that they must already have been in service.

Finally, the spaced armour on the Schneider is very obvious. It's not visible on the S-C. The photo to which you refer does show two plates with some space between them, but we must bear in mind that they have been hit by a shell, which would have rearranged them considerably. There is a photo in Tank Zone of Saint-Chamonds under construction with, according to the caption, spaced armour being fitted in the inside of the hull, but I must say that it's very hard to make it out for certain.

Over to you. :o)

Hengistmate (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Let us see:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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)

Hello again. Right: As regards the spaced armour, I am completely wrong and you are completely right. Apologies.

The caisson or SSR: Witold Lawrinowicz says, "Towards the end of the war 54 St. Chamond (sic) tanks were converted to supply carriers, or chars de ravitaillement. They had their cannon removed, with the apertures closed by armour plate. The unarmed vehicles were used by technical platoons to deliver supplies and to tow the lighter Schneider CA tanks in case of damage."

That is my understanding of what happened. As far as I am aware, all Saint-Chamonds began life as fighting tanks. I suspect the photo of the S-C with Schneiders is later than has been proposed.

The two orders for 400 tanks: Estienne certainly heard about the order for a second 400, and he assumed it was for more Schneiders. That was because Mourret had deliberately kept him in the dark about the development of the S-C. It had been developed from the same machines as the Schneider, but there was never any intention that FAMH should build Schneiders. The line, "Originally the tank produced by Saint Chamond was meant to be identical to the Schneider CA. . . . First they intended to build the same tank as Schneider." is either a bad translation (meaning they were based on the same prototype) or a complete misunderstanding. Either way, it is insupportable.

As regards FV's speculation about the patents, etc: I know its inclusion is permissible within Wikipedia's rules, but is it worth including in an article of this depth? It doesn't materially affect the outcome and it seems to be a lot of trouble to find a way of accommodating it. There's enough skullduggery in the story as it is. I haven't heard of this theory before. Are there any other sources apart from FV?

Regards,

Hengistmate (talk) 11:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

New Thoughts, April 13th, 2012.

OK. The following is based on all previous sources, a discussion with François Vauvillier, and a very careful translation of French accounts.

To say that "the tank produced by Saint-Chamond was meant to be identical to the Schneider CA" is definitely incorrect. The order placed with Schneider was for 400 of the Brillié/Estienne design. Mourret's response was to revisist the test vehicles and develop the longer (8-wheel) version into another design of which 400 were then ordered from FAMH. I think what this sentence is meant to imply, at best, is that both designs had a common origin. That's what every reliable source says. There is no suggestion that FAMH were asked to build anything like the Schneider.

"While Brillié began to design a second prototype (based on his earlier work on the Schneider CA-1), Schneider's main competitor, the arms manufacturer Forges et Aciéries de la Marine et d'Homécourt, based at Saint-Chamond, was given a second order for 400 tanks. First they intended to build the same tank as Schneider. However, Brillié refused to share his patented invention for free and Saint-Chamond refused to pay. So the latter company, not even having been given the blueprints of the new Schneider prototype, had to base its design on the original Tracteur A. Because of this the designs of the two companies began to diverge already, as the Tracteur A was longer." I should very much like to see the source of this claim. AFAIK Brillié had patented the front and rear attachments that were supposed to assist in trench-crossing. I don't know of any attempt to incorporate them in the Saint-Chamond. Photos of the 'A' Machine show large, overhanging projections at front and rear that appear to coincide with the eventual Saint-Chamond body. What was Brillié's second design? I'm sorry if I sound obstructive, but I haven't come across any reference to such a design. He and Estienne made some small alterations to the CA, but nothing major. The CA2, CA3, and CA4 were much later. The Schneider CD was a tractor based on the CA, and 500 were ordered in October 1916, the prototype ran in April 1917, and only 20 were delivered between August and the end of October. It didn't interfere with production of the CA.

The rivalry: The inter-departmental and political rivalry is agreed. The commercial rivalry is more subtle. Albert Thomas suggested taking advantage of the Schneider-FAMH rivalry to persuade FAMH to build the Saint-Chamond, believing that FAMH would not wish to be left out in the cold and perhaps even be engaged as subcontractors, which would have been a blow to their prestige. But other factors were involved; a desire for the public sector (l'état) to do at least as well as the private sector, and a genuine (and perfectly honorable) desire by all parties to contribute as much as possible to the war effort. François V states on at least 4 occasions that Schneider planned to approach FAMH as subcontractors for the CA - he actually says that Schneider were "counting on them" - but the order for the Saint-Chamond ruled it out.

On the subject of Supply Tanks, there is no evidence that any Saint-Chamonds were fitted out as such straight from the production line. No source that I can find says that. All machines were finished as fighting tanks; some were later refitted as tender/supply/recovery. And, according to FV, they were not all of the first (flat-roof) type.

I hope this makes sense. If you've got sources that contradict the above, I'd be delighted to have a look at them.

BTW, do you mind if I ask what nationality you are? If you're not a native English speaker I'll make sure not to use too many idioms that might be ambiguous in translation. No offence meant.

Looking forward to your thoughts.

Regards, Hengistmate (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I have read Detchessahar & Lemarchand online, and can't find anything there to support the idea of Schneider & FAMH being intended to build the same tank. If FAMH had been subcontracted, then yes, but that never happened. Hengistmate (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm Dutch. We Dutch are not supposed to have any trouble whatsoever with any English idiom ;o).

Now let us, to get a clearer understanding of the origins of the Saint-Chamond, consider the situation in January and February 1917. It had been decided to produce a large number of French tanks using Schneider as the main contractor. Mourret planned to enlarge this by involving FAMH. Generally there was at that time no conception that this would pertain to some very different type. Even on 1 April (Jeudy p. 18) Thomas could refer to the FAMH contract as if it simply were a "second order" of basically the same vehicle. The expectations of Schneider to use FAMH as a subcontractor were based on this assumption. FAMH wasn't supposed to build a second main type parallel to the Schneider CA, but at worst a variant of it. Of course this would have put FAMH in a subordinate, and likely financially disadvantageous, position. The prototype of the Army workshop was not meant to represent a development for the Schneider company alone but Brillié, in patenting his system and drawing blueprints for the benefit of his employer, was already legally shutting out any possible competitor in early February. Therefore the two development lines began to diverge, which in March was used by Rimailho and Mourret to incorporate their favoured ideas. Obviously, in this phase the Brillié system was no longer relevant for the Saint-Chamond. I have to admit though that I might have misunderstood the development of the Tracteur A. I assumed it already had a lengthened suspension compared to the Schneider CA production version, but reading Malmassari I get the impression it was merely longer than the Baby Holt and only the Tracteur B surpassed the Schneider in suspension length.

In any case the present text is by far too simplistic and a longer, more subtle, account is needed to do justice to a complex situation.

As regards the supply tanks, I can merely repeat my earlier argument: a literal reading of the 2009 text by Vauvilliers can only lead to the conclusion that he claims that such tanks were built as such. The new GBM 100 issue (BTW heartily recommended to all tank enthusiasts as it covers every single French Army AFV type built before 1941) accordingly states on page 19 about the Saint Chamond production: Production totale : 400 ex. incluant 48 non armés, again leaving no room for doubt. Obviously this does not exclude the possibility that at some time gun tanks were rebuilt. Greetings, --MWAK (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Just read the discussion on the Landships Forum. The data presented by Tim G seem to explain the cause of the confusion: apparently even in the earliest stage Saint Chamonds were both factory produced and field converted as Chars Caisson.--MWAK (talk) 12:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. Unfortunately, since it is part of his PhD, it's all "original research." I think we need to make this bit more non-committal. As regards the other matter, I'm still scrutinizing the various sources. Pls bear with me. TTYL. Hengistmate (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

If the dissertation has been submitted and deposed in some library, I believe it can count as a valid secondary source. Anyway, we can be guided by its content when selecting and ordering the sources.--MWAK (talk) 12:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, MWAK. I have gone over this very carefully. The patent that Brillié declined to share was for the rear tail skids, not for the whole vehicle. I've check Rimailho, Breton, Ramspacher, Jeudy, Malmassari, and Mourret. There was never an intention to give FAMH a separate order for the Schneider, only a provisional plan to ask them to build some of the original 400 as subcontractors. Hengistmate (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

My excuses for again responding so tardively. I think I have found a solution for most of the problems that have plagued us. I intend to vastly expand the articles of the Schneider CA, Saint-Chamond and Renault FT, carefully inserting and citing most of the relevant information that can be found in the literature. When this process is finished, and the articles in question have about tripled in size, the narration will have become far less simplistic and rhetorical and most of your, largely justified, objections will, I hope, have been met. It will take some time though :o).--MWAK (talk) 13:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, MWAK. Thanks for your continued interest. Your idea is, of course, ideal. I ought to have done more, but time is one of the problems. The other is that, as you might have noticed with the Renault FT and other tank articles, one can get into the most stupid, time-wasting, and unpleasant arguments with tedious people who seem to be dependent on Wikipedia as a reason for existing and won't entertain the notion that someone might know more about something than they do. It annoys and depresses me. Fortunately, you are not amongst their number. I'll help as often as I can. (I must insist, though, that FAMH were never expected to build Schneiders!) I look forward to developments. Regards, Hengistmate (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I have good hopes we will succeed :o).--MWAK (talk) 13:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Hooray!

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)

One step forward . . .

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)

How many are left??????

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)

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)

Sadly so... But still a great job by those students!--MWAK (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

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)

Thiepval and Péronne museums are in partnership, but are two separate sites about 15 miles apart. The replica is at Péronne. Hengistmate (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

"The Saint-Chamond tanks were scheduled to be entirely replaced by imported British heavy tanks."

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)

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)

"Second heavy tank"?

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)

Definition of tank

 "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)

@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)

Tracks

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)

Move discussion in progress

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)