Talk:AMC 35

Underarmored?

"The type can, however, be interpreted as an excellent example of the design constraints that forced France to adopt one man-turrets on its other tanks: the price for the AMC 35's roomy turret was an unreliable and, for the medium tank rôle, woefully underarmoured vehicle."

I feel this section is projecting a strange opinion. The Panzer 3 of the same era, a tank considered very capable as a medium, had 15mm of armor. The 35's 25mm of armor is nearly twice that, so it's hardly underarmored for its period.

Sorry if I'm doing this wrong, never used the discussion feature before. ~2026-30505-84 (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong :o). It's an understandable question. I might give some explanation. First of all, the sentence should be read in the context of the source which tried to downplay the usual narrative that French tanks were in an absolute sense very inferior because they had a one man-turret. The source claims that good armour was at least as relevant. The source again mainly refers to the situation in May 1940. The {largely Belgian) experience of that year shows that the AMC 35 was very vulnerable. The source tried to refute the notion that choosing the AMC 35 over the S 35 had been a viable alternative. Personally, I find it plausible that if the German medium tanks in May 1940 still had had a 15 mm armour standard, their combat losses would have been significantly higher.--MWAK (talk) 07:58, 22 May 2026 (UTC)