Talk:Renault FT

Le Petit Chat edits, Feb 2019.

Bonjour.

Some points for your consideration.

"Afghanistan (4 tanks captured in 2003, probably shipped from a White Russian or Chinese warlord)"

These vehicles weren't captured. They were, shall we say, encountered in 2003. Two were derelict in a military junkyard and were shipped to the USA. French and US special forces came across a third, again in a derelict condition, when they took over a former Afghan army base in the border town of Spin Boldak. That was taken to France and restored to running condition at the Musée des Blindés at Saumur, where it can still be seen. The fourth was on display in the Afghan Defence Ministry compound in Kabul. In 2012 it was presented as a gift by the government of Afghanistan to the government of Poland. The purpose behind this was that Poland wanted to commemorate the part played by the FT in the Polish–Soviet War of 1919-21, but none had survived in Poland. At least two of these FTs are believed by the reasonably well-informed to have been sold by France to Poland and then captured by the Soviets in the Polish war. The clue is that the two vehicles sent to Fort Knox have modifications that are known to have been carried out by the Poles. By 1923 the Soviets were building their own tanks and had no need of the Renaults. They therefore presented them to Afghanistan in exchange for the latter's official recognition. I don't know where M. Tracol has got his information from, but no White Russian or Chinese warlords were involved. Hengistmate (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

"Captured" was a typo I made, sorry. About the Russian or Chinese origin, I don't know M. Tracol's sources and he just made suppositions in his article.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

To claim that these machines took part in combat in the 1980s is as incredible as the suggestion that British Mark V tanks took an active part in the Battle of Berlin in 1945. If you count "being hidden behind" as "combat," then perhaps. Hengistmate (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok. I added "allegedly". Some picture there by the way: [1].--Le Petit Chat (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I am very suspicious about the citation for FTs having taken part in the Arab-Israeli War. It looks to me as if Dowling's reference has come from Wikipedia. There were about 10 FTs in Lebanon and Syria in 1948, left over from Vichy days, but there is no known record of their having been in action. Hengistmate (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with your suspicions. I added a {{better source needed}} tag.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

"Philippines (1 ex-American tank, used 1936-1940)". Are you sure? An M1917 seems likelier. I cannot find a photograph on the site you have linked to. That would help to indentify it. Hengistmate (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't know, I just trusted the source. --Le Petit Chat (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

First action of the FT - Le Petit Chat

The figure of 200 is wrong. Zaloga gets things wrong (for instance, the AEF didn't receive 514 FTs from France). In this case he's merely a little unclear.

Beware of sourced content, especially if the source doesn't support what you're saying. Remember that until quite recently Wikipedia could produce large amounts of sourced content to prove that Captain George Patton won the Battle of Cambrai with his American tanks. With a little effort and much abuse, it was possible to demonstrate that this sourced content was wrong. When sources are wrong, it does put Wikipedia in rather an awkward position.

In this instance, Zaloga is a little ambiguous. 501 RAS did comprise about 200 Renaults, but they were "committed to action", which doesn't mean they were all sent into action.

Jones, Rarey, & Icks, 1933, The Fighting Tanks Since 1916, p64: "Since every available means was required to halt the German advance, the three battalions of Renault tanks of the 501st Tank Regiment then ready were sent to General Mangin to support his counter-attack with six infantry divisions on May 31. The long move by the tanks necessary to reach their positions in the Forêt de Retz was made hurriedly by truck, tractor, and under their own power.* Only one company, the 305th, had reached its detrucking point at Saint Pierre-Aigle on the night of May 30th and it still had to go to Calvaire that night. A part of the 304th and 305th Companies arrived on May 31st, at 11 a.m. The attack was ordered for 12 noon. . . . in order to join the infantry, these 30 tanks had an approach march of about 1600 yards . . .the six platoons of five tanks each were divided into two groups, one to support the attack on Chazelle, and the other to aid in the capture of Ploisy."

• ("by truck, tractor, and under their own power" - that addresses another 'Citation needed' btw.)

No further actions involving Renaults took place until June 2nd, The first time 200 or more Renaults went into action was at Soissons in July.

Les Chars de la Grande Guerre, Lt-Col Paul Malmassari, 2009, p 98: "31 mai 1918; Premier engagement des chars Renault; 30 chars Renault, attaque improvisée."

The French Army's Tank Force and Armoured Warfare in the Great War, Tim Gale, 2013, p 138: "Only five tanks had been permanently lost out of the 31 that had gone into action."

Les chars français au combat by Jurkiewicz, p 65 says the same thing at great length.

Chars de France, J-G Jeudy, 1997, p 38: "Le premier engagement du FT a lieu le 31 mai 1918. Trente chars dont vingt et un seulement peuvent être mis en ligne sont jetés dans la bataille pour tenter d'arrêter l'ennemi qui débouche de Berzy-le-Sec, près de Soissons."

This figure of 30 is pretty well-known, and it's taken up quite a bit of time to refute your claim of 200. Please cross-check with other references rather than relying on a single source. Hengistmate (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your sources, I made a mistake by relying only on Zaloga (I did not have access to any of your references). --Le Petit Chat (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

"I don't think we need to specify that the US production was 'failed' or 'attempted'".

I think we do. It failed. The first thing to bear in mind is that American production of the FT was nil. Gale (2013) p 116 says, "the US light-tank programme was a disaster". Easy, simple, and clear. After all, Dale Wilson devotes an entire chapter to the failure.

What this subsection describes is the attempt by the USA to manufacture the FT, in a modified form, that failed. That surprising failure is decidedly notable, and the subsection's title alerts the reader to the fact that that's what it's about. Hengistmate (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Xavier Tracol source, Batailles et Blindés No. 48.

To help things along, here's M. Tracol's account translated from French, April/May 2012:

In 2003, American G.I.s in Afghanistan discovered four Renault FTs, two of them in fairly good condition. Their origin remains a matter for debate: some say that they were captured in 1919 by local fighters during the Third Afghan War, against the British, who had received 24 FTs from the French in 1918, but it seems unlikely that they sent these tanks to India after WWI. Two other explanations seem more likely: these Renaults could have travelled via the Baltic States, Ukraine, or Russia, which were then in full civil war and where the White Army had been supplied with FTs by the British and French allies. The second possibility is that Chinese warlords had sold their own tanks to tribal chiefs or to the Afghan National Army in the 1920s. In fact next to nothing is known about the actual number involved or of their operational use, but the surviving examples tend to prove that they served for a long time after being fixed: one of them stood as a war trophy in front of a local chieftain's house and was rearmed with a long 6-pounder gun. After being restored, these machines were offered to France and the USA "for services rendered."

I think its deficiencies are obvious. Hengistmate (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2019 (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)