This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The fact that the Somua S-35 did only have a single man turret hasen´t received a sufficient emphasis so far. This is about situational avareness. For comparison think about Panzer III, which had a three man turret, hence the same task divition which is used today in M1 Abrahams. The commander in the cupola is the lookout, tells the driver which way to turn, wether to drive faster or slower. He finds the enemy targets, tells the gunner which way to rotate the turret. The gunner and the loader together ensure a reasonable rate of fire. The commander makes sure nobody can surprice the tank. In the case of the Somua, however let´s imagine the commander has sighted an enemy. He tells the driver to stop, because once he stops looking from the top he looses his ability to look all around and risks loosing track of his would be targets. He loads the gun. He then looks through the gunsight, rotates the turret till the enemy enters the gunsight. Now, while he is only looking through the gunsight he has a tunnel vision and tunnel avareness. As he has a good gun and a good armour for the time his chances of destroying a Panzer III are good once he has found it in his gunsight. However, once he has shot once, it takes him longer to shoot again than the Germans, if there are more of them. The worst part is though that each time he loads, he isn´t even looking through his gunsight so he is blind at those times. With the surprice lost a competent German will seek to move into his blindspot. If the terrain has some consealment options, theyr chances subsequently will be pretty good to stalk the Somua and destroy it from behind. So a lone Somua will be at a very severe tactical disadvantage due to the single man turret problem. In a group of tanks vs. group of tanks fight, the main disadvantage will have been less rate of fire. As long as they would have staied together, each would have been able to guard the other, they would have been able to make good use of theyr guns and armour. But once it became a one on one melee, with a lot of confusion thrown in the advantage would have gone to the Germans with theyr superior situational avareness. 194.144.20.188 ( talk) 02:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Now, the French highcommand is certain to have been wrong that a single man turret was of litle issue. Now, while the single man turret flaw is usually mentioned, I think people aren´t giving it a sufficient weight as a flaw. It´s in my opinion really pretty darn bad from the perspective of actual battlefield usefulness. The reason for the lack of empirical data, is how few the tank battles in 1940 were. The surprice the Germans gave the allies in 1940, and the success of theyr advance such, that most of the allied tanks were simply lost when logisticks broke down and units were unable to refuel. One therefore must infer the effect of such a flaw from the kind of battles that occured later in the war. However, the pace of tank actions during WWII tended to be really rapit, both in the desert war and in USSR. So, tactical avareness was undoubtedly very important. In Russia, close action melee wasn´t infrequent when the Germans encounterd mass charges cavalry style like. If the war in France had progressed according to the Schlieffen plan, it would have lead to massive tank actions of the kind which happened in Russia and in the desert. So I think there is some relevance in making such a comparison. I repeat, I think that the significanse of the single turret problem has been underestimated by those who have been writing books about WWII tanks. "Not needing to coordinate the actions of the turret crew, gains him time" - that I think absurd. A commander doesn´t need to order his turret crew in every litle detail. A well trained crew knows what to do, once the commander has told them where the target is. They will clearly be much faster, than the commander of the French tank who is also doing those jobs as well as commanding. So the Somua had the same armour thickness on the whole hull. That´s very unusual. In other nations tanks tended to pryoritize the armour thickness, with thick at front, thinner on the sides, thinner than that on the back and even thinner than that underneath. So a Mathilda II could be destroyd by a shot in the rear end. So, the Germans then simply drove around the Somuas, trusting that the French commander´s tunnel vision and lack of battle avareness would allow them to do that unscathed, leaving the Somuas behind. The Panzer III being faster could have managed that. Mind you, they would not have been able to pull that kind of manoeuvre off if the French tank had had a three man turret, you surelly realize that? In my opinion the Somua S-35 was conceptually outdated.
Let´s for fun make a comparison between medium tanks that were available in 1940. I´ll grant in each category the score ten for the best category achievment. Lowest category score gets 1.
Matilda II Armour. 10 (Maximum 78mm/minimum 14mm) Mobility. 1 Power/weigh. 1. (174hp./26.926kg) Range. 256km. 5 Firepower 1. 2 man turret. 5. Score: 23
Panzer III. Armour. 5. (Maximum 30mm/minimum 14,5mm) Mobility 8. Power/weight. 7. (320hp/19.400kg) Range. 165 km. 1. Firepower 1. 3 man turret. 10. Score: 32
Bt 7. Armour 1. (Maximum 22mm/minimum 10mm) Mobility. 10 Power/weight. 10 (500hp/13.900kg) Range 430km. 10. Firepower 10. 2 man turret. 5. Score: 46
Somua S-35 Armour 8. (56 mm turret/41 mm hull) Mobility. 5. Power/weight. 5. (190hp/20.048kg) Range 257km. 5. Firepower. 10. 1 man turret. 1. Score: 34
Now, this is only my comparison. The data is taken from David Miller´s, Tanks of the world from world war I to the present day. But it indicates my personal preference for the Bt series tanks which as you note had greater number of star qualities. They had comparable firepower to the Somua, but much superior range, mobility, speed and a 2 man turret. Theyr flaw was the thin armour, but that was later rectified with addon armour. To rectify the major flaw of the Somua would have been a tougher issue, necessiating a completelly new turret. So in my opinion the Bt series is not only the most prolific tanks of the 30s but also the best. 194.144.20.188 ( talk) 23:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Now, decided to refresh my memory about that particular battle, and indeed the Somua appears to have been utlized with considerable skill by the French commander there. The French army in that area was in a defencive position. The Somuas apparently on the eve of the battle dug down, with the turret alone showing. The Somuas appear to have been able to open up on the German tanks at a range beyond the effective range of the 37mm gun of the Panzer III. The Somuas were also used when the French forces counterattacked. What the battle shows is how bad was the earlyer decision of the German highcommand to put the Panzer III into production with the 37mm gun instead of the 50mm it was designed for. With that gun the result of the Panzer III vs. Somua actions would have been quite different, as with 3 man turrets the Germans would have been firing about 3 rounds for every 1 fired by the Somuas. Now, the Somua is a really strange tank. It´s really weird to produce it with uniform armour thickness. The turret appears also to have had a uniform armour thickness, even thicker than the hull. Clearly a larger turret of uniform thickness would have been to heavy. However, a turret with only thick armour at the front would not have been to heavy. You see, the Somuas that were weterans of that battle frequently had suffered numerous hits up to 20 that didn´t penetrate. That does tell me that with a proper gun they would have been smoking wrecks at the end of the battle. The way I understand it, indeed they were saved by theyr armour and the lover rate of fire dues to the single man turret operation didn´t prove to do much harm that time. But the emphasize that the share number of hits that had nicked theyr armour appears to me to indicate that outcome would have been quite different if theyr opponent had been equipped with a proper weapon. Now, about the BTs once the German invation began, if operated with comparable skill, they ought at least have been a match for the Panzer III as both types of tank could put a hole into each other´s armour at theyr maximum engagement ranges. To put that into the other perspective the BT would also have been able to put a hole into the armour of the Somua at its maximum engagement range. So, basigly the armour strength is only of consequence if it is strong enough to keep the shots out. The armour of the Somua was able to do so due to the PanzerIII having been undergunned in France. Mind you the armour of the Somua wasn´t especially thick, the Panzer III really simply was undergunned, the armour of the Mathilda II was thicker upfront. It was only relativelly strong in comparison to what it was encountering. However, about the Soviet armies they were largelly undone by the insane orders they received from STAVKA on Stalin´s insistence, i.e. they were not allowed to retreat so they could regroup. So instead they got surrounded and all theyr equipment destroyd. In later actions, the armour of the BTs was strengthened with addon armour. One can only hypothyze about it what would have happened if instead they would have retreated and counterattacked. The Panzer III is clearly faster than the Somua, after all it´s got a superior power to weight ratio. That at the very least would have resulted in a superior cross country speed, and according to my sources it also had a greater road speed. It was the French highcommand that made curious choyses like ordering tanks with single man turrets, thus significantly reducing theyr effectiveness. 194.144.20.188 ( talk) 00:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, uniform armour would have very rapidly become unmanagably heavy. Basigly the precense of the 50mm would have made the Somua imediatelly obsolete.
Had not heard there were no armour pierching rounds available for the 45mm gun on the BT-7 in 1941. Appears a strange oversight, especially in light of the previous action with the Japanese. I naturally assumed the precense of armour pierching rounds. What source does say this? A problem with the standard armour of the BT was that it could also be penetrated by the gun of the Panzer II, which had a high rate of fire. In addition, the 37mm anti tank guns would also not have had any problem. So unskilled use would have lead to gruesome losses. But, I´d expect it to have been a match for Panzer III in a straight tank to tank action. Hmm, if they had designed the armour of the Somua in like fashion as had become the norm ellsewhere, i.e. strongest at front, weaker on the sides, weaker still at the rear, and weakest underneath and done similar for the turret; they could have made the armour considerably stronger up front were it really counted and afforded the weight as well of a larger turret without increasing the overall weight of the tank. I expect the price for such a veicle would have been about same, as about the same amount of material would have been used, but would have resulted in a much superior veicle. And they chose to compromize these other tank models in the very same fashion. I guess it looked very clever on paper. 194.144.20.188 ( talk) 22:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand though that up to half of the Panzer III used in 1941 were early models equiped only with 37mm gun. Though those were apparently upgunned with some alacrity once the German highcommand discovered to its dismay how effective the then brandnew Soviet tanks were, making the 37mm simply hopless, and the shorter barrel version of the 50mm marginal at best. 194.144.20.188 ( talk) 19:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
We were talking about medium tanks. The reason why most tanks during the 30s had a single man turret was because most tanks that equipped the peace time armies of that periot were really small, mostly machinegun armed. The British had a significant numbers of theyr Mk.VI made, to name an example. They sufficed to police the empire but they were recognized as being obsolete at the begginning of the WWII. An influential design, the Wickers 6 ton had two machine gun turrets. However, cannon armed tanks were not generally built with a single man turret. The WWI era French heavy tank was never used in anger. Yet, the French chose to produce far greater numbers of theyr single turreted cannon equipped tanks. Now, in order for the weight to stay within reasonable bounds, the armour design has to be reasonable. An uniform armour thickness is simply stupit idea. It means that both of the two increased armour thickness and increased veicle size will result in a very, very rapit weight gain of the said veicle. Nobody ellse did use uniform armour thickness for a very, very good reason. The French would not have had this trouble if they had had a sensible design to begin with. 194.144.20.188 ( talk) 22:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
All tanks had some armour everywhere, thus granting all around protection at the very least against small arms fire, maschine guns and shell splinters, but generally only the frontal armour was made strong enough to have any hope to cope with cannon shells. On the contrary 30mm was the strength of the frontal part of the hull armour of the Panzer III E. The minimum armour thickness was less than that, or as litle as 10mm at minimum [1]. 194.144.20.188 ( talk) 00:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
"The operational flaw was its poor mechanical reliability" - just curious, do we have a serious source on this? The post-Tunisia campaign report by Capitaine Gibrius stated "the SOMUA tank can still be considered amongst the best from a mechanical point of view, it has the same speed, endurance, reliability and simplicity as the best American tanks. But its inferiority lies in its insufficient armament, etc." (cited in Pascal Danjou's booklet).
Also I do not think the commander could "swivel the turret around by the weight of his body". Maybe this was possible on lighter vehicles but the APX1CE weights around 2200 kg.
PpPachy 13:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
In 1938/1939 Poland wanted to buy 100 S-35 tanks (see R-35 for details). Does anybody know why was this request denied? Mieciu K 09:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
"Like the British and the Soviets, the French believed in a strict division of labour between cavalry tanks and infantry tanks; by law, tanks (chars) were limited to the Infantry and the Cavalry had to name its tanks automitrailleuses."
And this doesn't apply to the US? Isn't this why the US had the M1 "Combat Car", because cavalry was not allowed to use tanks? Not sure is was law but it was definitely policy. Id this initially as saying that it was law in all of these nations. Everyone used this policy, only the French made it law, maybe the US. Even the Germans were careful to have both the PzIII and PzIV which were basically assault and battle tanks, although they massed them instead of splitting them up by unit. Idumea47b ( talk) 06:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The fact that the Somua S-35 did only have a single man turret hasen´t received a sufficient emphasis so far. This is about situational avareness. For comparison think about Panzer III, which had a three man turret, hence the same task divition which is used today in M1 Abrahams. The commander in the cupola is the lookout, tells the driver which way to turn, wether to drive faster or slower. He finds the enemy targets, tells the gunner which way to rotate the turret. The gunner and the loader together ensure a reasonable rate of fire. The commander makes sure nobody can surprice the tank. In the case of the Somua, however let´s imagine the commander has sighted an enemy. He tells the driver to stop, because once he stops looking from the top he looses his ability to look all around and risks loosing track of his would be targets. He loads the gun. He then looks through the gunsight, rotates the turret till the enemy enters the gunsight. Now, while he is only looking through the gunsight he has a tunnel vision and tunnel avareness. As he has a good gun and a good armour for the time his chances of destroying a Panzer III are good once he has found it in his gunsight. However, once he has shot once, it takes him longer to shoot again than the Germans, if there are more of them. The worst part is though that each time he loads, he isn´t even looking through his gunsight so he is blind at those times. With the surprice lost a competent German will seek to move into his blindspot. If the terrain has some consealment options, theyr chances subsequently will be pretty good to stalk the Somua and destroy it from behind. So a lone Somua will be at a very severe tactical disadvantage due to the single man turret problem. In a group of tanks vs. group of tanks fight, the main disadvantage will have been less rate of fire. As long as they would have staied together, each would have been able to guard the other, they would have been able to make good use of theyr guns and armour. But once it became a one on one melee, with a lot of confusion thrown in the advantage would have gone to the Germans with theyr superior situational avareness. 194.144.20.188 ( talk) 02:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Now, the French highcommand is certain to have been wrong that a single man turret was of litle issue. Now, while the single man turret flaw is usually mentioned, I think people aren´t giving it a sufficient weight as a flaw. It´s in my opinion really pretty darn bad from the perspective of actual battlefield usefulness. The reason for the lack of empirical data, is how few the tank battles in 1940 were. The surprice the Germans gave the allies in 1940, and the success of theyr advance such, that most of the allied tanks were simply lost when logisticks broke down and units were unable to refuel. One therefore must infer the effect of such a flaw from the kind of battles that occured later in the war. However, the pace of tank actions during WWII tended to be really rapit, both in the desert war and in USSR. So, tactical avareness was undoubtedly very important. In Russia, close action melee wasn´t infrequent when the Germans encounterd mass charges cavalry style like. If the war in France had progressed according to the Schlieffen plan, it would have lead to massive tank actions of the kind which happened in Russia and in the desert. So I think there is some relevance in making such a comparison. I repeat, I think that the significanse of the single turret problem has been underestimated by those who have been writing books about WWII tanks. "Not needing to coordinate the actions of the turret crew, gains him time" - that I think absurd. A commander doesn´t need to order his turret crew in every litle detail. A well trained crew knows what to do, once the commander has told them where the target is. They will clearly be much faster, than the commander of the French tank who is also doing those jobs as well as commanding. So the Somua had the same armour thickness on the whole hull. That´s very unusual. In other nations tanks tended to pryoritize the armour thickness, with thick at front, thinner on the sides, thinner than that on the back and even thinner than that underneath. So a Mathilda II could be destroyd by a shot in the rear end. So, the Germans then simply drove around the Somuas, trusting that the French commander´s tunnel vision and lack of battle avareness would allow them to do that unscathed, leaving the Somuas behind. The Panzer III being faster could have managed that. Mind you, they would not have been able to pull that kind of manoeuvre off if the French tank had had a three man turret, you surelly realize that? In my opinion the Somua S-35 was conceptually outdated.
Let´s for fun make a comparison between medium tanks that were available in 1940. I´ll grant in each category the score ten for the best category achievment. Lowest category score gets 1.
Matilda II Armour. 10 (Maximum 78mm/minimum 14mm) Mobility. 1 Power/weigh. 1. (174hp./26.926kg) Range. 256km. 5 Firepower 1. 2 man turret. 5. Score: 23
Panzer III. Armour. 5. (Maximum 30mm/minimum 14,5mm) Mobility 8. Power/weight. 7. (320hp/19.400kg) Range. 165 km. 1. Firepower 1. 3 man turret. 10. Score: 32
Bt 7. Armour 1. (Maximum 22mm/minimum 10mm) Mobility. 10 Power/weight. 10 (500hp/13.900kg) Range 430km. 10. Firepower 10. 2 man turret. 5. Score: 46
Somua S-35 Armour 8. (56 mm turret/41 mm hull) Mobility. 5. Power/weight. 5. (190hp/20.048kg) Range 257km. 5. Firepower. 10. 1 man turret. 1. Score: 34
Now, this is only my comparison. The data is taken from David Miller´s, Tanks of the world from world war I to the present day. But it indicates my personal preference for the Bt series tanks which as you note had greater number of star qualities. They had comparable firepower to the Somua, but much superior range, mobility, speed and a 2 man turret. Theyr flaw was the thin armour, but that was later rectified with addon armour. To rectify the major flaw of the Somua would have been a tougher issue, necessiating a completelly new turret. So in my opinion the Bt series is not only the most prolific tanks of the 30s but also the best. 194.144.20.188 ( talk) 23:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Now, decided to refresh my memory about that particular battle, and indeed the Somua appears to have been utlized with considerable skill by the French commander there. The French army in that area was in a defencive position. The Somuas apparently on the eve of the battle dug down, with the turret alone showing. The Somuas appear to have been able to open up on the German tanks at a range beyond the effective range of the 37mm gun of the Panzer III. The Somuas were also used when the French forces counterattacked. What the battle shows is how bad was the earlyer decision of the German highcommand to put the Panzer III into production with the 37mm gun instead of the 50mm it was designed for. With that gun the result of the Panzer III vs. Somua actions would have been quite different, as with 3 man turrets the Germans would have been firing about 3 rounds for every 1 fired by the Somuas. Now, the Somua is a really strange tank. It´s really weird to produce it with uniform armour thickness. The turret appears also to have had a uniform armour thickness, even thicker than the hull. Clearly a larger turret of uniform thickness would have been to heavy. However, a turret with only thick armour at the front would not have been to heavy. You see, the Somuas that were weterans of that battle frequently had suffered numerous hits up to 20 that didn´t penetrate. That does tell me that with a proper gun they would have been smoking wrecks at the end of the battle. The way I understand it, indeed they were saved by theyr armour and the lover rate of fire dues to the single man turret operation didn´t prove to do much harm that time. But the emphasize that the share number of hits that had nicked theyr armour appears to me to indicate that outcome would have been quite different if theyr opponent had been equipped with a proper weapon. Now, about the BTs once the German invation began, if operated with comparable skill, they ought at least have been a match for the Panzer III as both types of tank could put a hole into each other´s armour at theyr maximum engagement ranges. To put that into the other perspective the BT would also have been able to put a hole into the armour of the Somua at its maximum engagement range. So, basigly the armour strength is only of consequence if it is strong enough to keep the shots out. The armour of the Somua was able to do so due to the PanzerIII having been undergunned in France. Mind you the armour of the Somua wasn´t especially thick, the Panzer III really simply was undergunned, the armour of the Mathilda II was thicker upfront. It was only relativelly strong in comparison to what it was encountering. However, about the Soviet armies they were largelly undone by the insane orders they received from STAVKA on Stalin´s insistence, i.e. they were not allowed to retreat so they could regroup. So instead they got surrounded and all theyr equipment destroyd. In later actions, the armour of the BTs was strengthened with addon armour. One can only hypothyze about it what would have happened if instead they would have retreated and counterattacked. The Panzer III is clearly faster than the Somua, after all it´s got a superior power to weight ratio. That at the very least would have resulted in a superior cross country speed, and according to my sources it also had a greater road speed. It was the French highcommand that made curious choyses like ordering tanks with single man turrets, thus significantly reducing theyr effectiveness. 194.144.20.188 ( talk) 00:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, uniform armour would have very rapidly become unmanagably heavy. Basigly the precense of the 50mm would have made the Somua imediatelly obsolete.
Had not heard there were no armour pierching rounds available for the 45mm gun on the BT-7 in 1941. Appears a strange oversight, especially in light of the previous action with the Japanese. I naturally assumed the precense of armour pierching rounds. What source does say this? A problem with the standard armour of the BT was that it could also be penetrated by the gun of the Panzer II, which had a high rate of fire. In addition, the 37mm anti tank guns would also not have had any problem. So unskilled use would have lead to gruesome losses. But, I´d expect it to have been a match for Panzer III in a straight tank to tank action. Hmm, if they had designed the armour of the Somua in like fashion as had become the norm ellsewhere, i.e. strongest at front, weaker on the sides, weaker still at the rear, and weakest underneath and done similar for the turret; they could have made the armour considerably stronger up front were it really counted and afforded the weight as well of a larger turret without increasing the overall weight of the tank. I expect the price for such a veicle would have been about same, as about the same amount of material would have been used, but would have resulted in a much superior veicle. And they chose to compromize these other tank models in the very same fashion. I guess it looked very clever on paper. 194.144.20.188 ( talk) 22:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand though that up to half of the Panzer III used in 1941 were early models equiped only with 37mm gun. Though those were apparently upgunned with some alacrity once the German highcommand discovered to its dismay how effective the then brandnew Soviet tanks were, making the 37mm simply hopless, and the shorter barrel version of the 50mm marginal at best. 194.144.20.188 ( talk) 19:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
We were talking about medium tanks. The reason why most tanks during the 30s had a single man turret was because most tanks that equipped the peace time armies of that periot were really small, mostly machinegun armed. The British had a significant numbers of theyr Mk.VI made, to name an example. They sufficed to police the empire but they were recognized as being obsolete at the begginning of the WWII. An influential design, the Wickers 6 ton had two machine gun turrets. However, cannon armed tanks were not generally built with a single man turret. The WWI era French heavy tank was never used in anger. Yet, the French chose to produce far greater numbers of theyr single turreted cannon equipped tanks. Now, in order for the weight to stay within reasonable bounds, the armour design has to be reasonable. An uniform armour thickness is simply stupit idea. It means that both of the two increased armour thickness and increased veicle size will result in a very, very rapit weight gain of the said veicle. Nobody ellse did use uniform armour thickness for a very, very good reason. The French would not have had this trouble if they had had a sensible design to begin with. 194.144.20.188 ( talk) 22:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
All tanks had some armour everywhere, thus granting all around protection at the very least against small arms fire, maschine guns and shell splinters, but generally only the frontal armour was made strong enough to have any hope to cope with cannon shells. On the contrary 30mm was the strength of the frontal part of the hull armour of the Panzer III E. The minimum armour thickness was less than that, or as litle as 10mm at minimum [1]. 194.144.20.188 ( talk) 00:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
"The operational flaw was its poor mechanical reliability" - just curious, do we have a serious source on this? The post-Tunisia campaign report by Capitaine Gibrius stated "the SOMUA tank can still be considered amongst the best from a mechanical point of view, it has the same speed, endurance, reliability and simplicity as the best American tanks. But its inferiority lies in its insufficient armament, etc." (cited in Pascal Danjou's booklet).
Also I do not think the commander could "swivel the turret around by the weight of his body". Maybe this was possible on lighter vehicles but the APX1CE weights around 2200 kg.
PpPachy 13:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
In 1938/1939 Poland wanted to buy 100 S-35 tanks (see R-35 for details). Does anybody know why was this request denied? Mieciu K 09:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
"Like the British and the Soviets, the French believed in a strict division of labour between cavalry tanks and infantry tanks; by law, tanks (chars) were limited to the Infantry and the Cavalry had to name its tanks automitrailleuses."
And this doesn't apply to the US? Isn't this why the US had the M1 "Combat Car", because cavalry was not allowed to use tanks? Not sure is was law but it was definitely policy. Id this initially as saying that it was law in all of these nations. Everyone used this policy, only the French made it law, maybe the US. Even the Germans were careful to have both the PzIII and PzIV which were basically assault and battle tanks, although they massed them instead of splitting them up by unit. Idumea47b ( talk) 06:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)