First, Lou, those are some Great Pics you put up for us, Thanks.
The Renault FT-17 had faulty fan belts frequent breakdowns engines overheating, or even catching fire(!) at inconvenient moments. -luoshangzhi
Lou, This poses the question; When it is ever "convenient" for a gas engine to catch fire? I have always felt the term "Combustion Engine", was a waring in and of itself.
they were quite robust and provided invaluable help to the French in overcoming the German defenses.
It seems the FT-17 would have made a really good stationary defence' piece. And of course the "rare flat" ground in the open "no-mans land" between battle lines.
The Char Schneider had fuel tanks initially located inside the fighting compartment. bullet impacts would puncture these tanks spray fuel over the engine with catastrophic results.
My heart goes out to those trapped in such a situation. I believe the US Sherman had a similar problem due to the location of the gun breach. IF the tank caught fire, one of the crewmen had to actually "crawl under
the breach", then up onto the gun, in order to get to the top hatch. As a rule, by the time he had done this, he would, sadly, emerge engulfed in flames.
The Char St. Chamond was supposed to be a major improvement over the Schneider, a much heavier armament, but that was where improvement ended. the end result was underpowered for the sheer size made worse due to overhang on both ends of the tank's body, the St. Chamond easily stuck the moment it encountered shell holes or trenches.
The 1st time I ever saw the Chamond, I could not help but think.. "my God that thing looks like a whale on a roller skate." How could they "not" see the problem with having 'more tank than tread" is beyond me.