Read reports from German troops who saw them come closer and closer to them. Some young and inexperienced German men had lived in villages before the war and had never even seen a tractor and only heard about cars. These men took trains to the front and marched for miles to get to their destination. Imagine coming across something you can't really place but which looks like a steel monster making a chilling metal-to-metal sound from its tracks and thick smoking coming out of it. Bear in mind troops only carried bolt-action rifles and had machine guns to deal with infantry charges - none of which had any effect on this thing. Since there was no practical wireless radio and most orders still had to be dispatched by runners or riders you couldn't just call in an artillery strike either - and the artillery was trained to strike *stationary targets* like trenches and bunkers. Here's another historical fact. Right after encountering tanks several requests came from the German field commanders that they definitely needed tanks of their own. Unfortunately for them these requests were ignored/refuted. Some of the main reasons were that Germany was short on steel and all what it had was earmarked for submarine production - which in hindsight was a wise decision, that Germany didn't produce any caterpillar type of tracked vehicle at all and hence had to design something from scratch which would take both time, resources and money Germany was getting short of in 1916 already (it financed the war by huge loans to itself) and that many of the older generals didn't believe tanks could ever replace traditional artillery. Most generals had a similar view of the airplane at the start of the war.
@@McLarenMercedes The A7V was considered a failure but did have some success breaking threw British lines and one even took a 37 mm cannon shot from French soldiers trying to stop it
@@McLarenMercedes Infantry guns could easily deal with this, reason why the smaller Renault FT was much more effective. Germany also swiftly introduced 13mm AT rifles that could pierce armour and fill the tank with deadly shrapnel. All things considered, the landship's effect on the morale of enemy troops was overestimated and didn't make up for downsides of having such a giant target crawling along the battlefield.
@@CanalTremocos "Infantry guns could easily deal with this" Except Germany didn't have too many of those and relied upon long-range bombard artillery which could fire at the enemy from positions which was beyond the range of regular artillery. As such the whole artillery doctrine was to fire lobbying high trajectories with the optimal range. Field artillery too was designed to launch high explosive shells at an approaching infantry. Again this was a rain of nasty shrapnel which hurt unprotected troops but had limited effect on tanks. No armor-piercing shells existed. You see there were yet no artillery pieces designed to deal with tanks specifically and some artillery pieces had to be modified to have this new use. Now, neither side actually had much artillery pieces in the trenches anyway, again those were stationed far behind the trenches. Also, without any portable radio there was no way for the infantry defenders to call in artillery bombardment attacks to a particular position fast. That became a reality in WWII but in WWI coordinating both attacks and defenses was difficult without radios. The artillery men were also trained to fire at stationary targets not moving ones. "reason why the smaller Renault FT was much more effective." It was "much more effective" by virtue of the battlefield dramatically changing once the allies had broken the German lines and the warfare followed a more moving tactic - a precursor to the warfare we saw in WWII. On open terrain a tank needed no great trench crossing capability and its greatest strength would be to deal with enemy infantry. Back in WWI the infantry didn't yet carry any portable anti-tank weapon like the rpgs invented in WWII. "Germany also swiftly introduced 13mm AT rifles that could pierce armour and fill the tank with deadly shrapnel" Swiftly you say?? They only started producing the Mauser 1918 anti-tank rifle May 1918. That was *way too late* in the war to make a difference. How many did they produce before the war ended pray tell? The Mauser anti-tank rifle also had a range at which it was going to penetrate to frontal armor of tanks. While it did penetrate the usual armor at ranges of 100-200 meters it goes without saying that kind of range is uncomfortably close since the tank is also firing at your position with cannons and machine guns. At ranges of 400-500 meters the anti-tank rifle generally didn't penetrate the armor. Anti-tank guns were also designed to immobilize the driver of the tank. If he was killed the tank would have no driver... but unfortunately this didn't mean the tank itself was permanently knocked out since a new driver could be found. The allies discovered this in WWII even more when they often repaired "knocked out" (read immobilized or killed crew) Sherman tanks, gave them a fresh paint job and sent them right back out into action. This was at a time Germany had developed deadly anti-tank guns specifically designed to knock out tanks properly. "All things considered, the landship's effect on the morale of enemy troops was overestimated and didn't make up for downsides of having such a giant target crawling along the battlefield." Perhaps not, but the Germans got increasingly worried and troubled by the fact the allies fielded more and more of these tanks while they themselves had extremely few of their own making and mostly relied on captured tanks. In large formations and on suitable terrain the tanks themselves made a huge success at Cambrai in 1917. Sadly that success was for naught because there was no infantry thrust at the same time which left the tanks alone to fend of the enemy attack. For tanks to attack without infantry support is always risky and this is btw one of the *main reasons* the German tank forces in France in WWII decided to halt outside Dunkirk. The tanks had outrun their own infantry and were no isolated. It's also lucky for the Germans competent French commanders were held back when they could have cut the German tanks off their own supply lines and infantry. The Germans themselves were aware of this vulnerability even before they invaded France. Several German generals spoke up against having an armored spearhead knowing it would be vulnerable in the flanks. What annoyed the Germans more than anything is that the allies seemed to have more and more of those tanks, and more planes and more and more artillery and machine guns. The shear numbers had a detrimental effect. While the tank wasn't instrumental in winning WWI it's also clear many German generals often accredited the allies victories to their numerous tanks. It's therefore hardly surprising the Germans learned from this lesson themselves having been on the receiving end of tank warfare and thus put much emphasis on developing their own effective tank force for "the next war".
The worlds first self propelled artillery ironically designed as a breakthrough tank but ended up being used as a modern SPG for direct and indirect fire destroying pillboxes, this tank was tremendously important in bringing a lot of firepower into places quickly and retreat just as quickly yes its not very fast but keep in mind that in WW1 being able to just drive a 75mm gun into places and fire while being impervious to rifle and machine gun bullets was massive advantage and before the Germans could move heavy guns into place the tanks could retreat. And also keep in mind this, that light field guns were not very common in WW1 until later in the war as such lightly bore guns were not very good at destroying fortifications etc, it was only after the tank made its appearance that the Germans started mass producing 37mm and 50mm field guns light enough to be rolled up anywhere and carried by two soldiers.
@@JL-dance Wasted??? You do realise that was a worthful act for the French government to restore such an important artifact that was essential to building the whole 19th century right? History is history and should never be forgotten, and if you think this valuable piece of great machinery deserves to be thrown away or left alone then your a complete fool.
@@JL-dance Shut up 120 000 is nothing in currency to the government. A country has billions of dollars stored up so that much money is barely anything. And besides, restoring historical creations like this is very much worth the money.
This particular tank had to be restored but being in a condition where it could be restored at all is still impressive considering how easily old tanks broke down.
I understand this tank had electric transmission. I couldn't hear much of an engine sound nor did I see exhaust. Did they rig this tank to run on batteries?
It was a gas/electric system. I readed that they installed a modern generator set to power the electric motors.For me it makes sense because its much more safe and reliable
The engine is a modern diesel driving a generator with drive motors for each track. The exhaust is that little cylinder thing on the roof with 4 uptakes from the engine exhaust ports. The original engine I think was petrol but geriatric petrol engines and high voltage electrics is a bad mixture - if you don't die of COx poisoning, you fry when a spark ignites fumes.
is that a guinine WW1 tank in running condition.. the bovinton museum have a couple that could theoretically run but dont at risk of breaking parts.. so is this tank really a ww1 running on original gear
It's genuine, but belongs to the museum in France. Some things have obviously been updated for safety reasons (most obvious thing when you look inside it is a modern fire suppression system).
@@duke0salt717 Technically the french tank museum at saumur is operated by the French army, and some of the vehicles on display are "combat ready", especially the more modern ones. I honestly don't think the 75 in this particular tank is in working condition though.
An early use of turbo-electric drive. The engine ran a generator that in turn ran two electric engines, the better to steer it with. Unlike British tanks, it had a suspension, which was of great relief to the crew. It was a bust as a tank, but used as self-propelled direct fire artillery in the manner of an SU-122 in the next war, it had some success, fielding the largest gun of any World War 1 AFV.
The only running example? Since there seems to be another but idk if it runs in the french museum the chieftan made a unofficial run through of the museum, i sadly forgot the name...
No they did not, the Austro-Hungarians invented the modern tank with turret and separate compartments however the French were the first to produce and utilise such designs. It is widely thought that the French did in fact read the very document on the Burstyn tank as it was published openly in 1911 because the KuK generals like the British were very conservative and thought tanks were overrated. Austro-Hungaria were very capable of making tanks in the thousands if they so had initiated this in 1912 would have given them tremendous military advantage in WW1 even going as far as to maybe win the war specially considering how advanced the Burstyn was for its time and simple to make.
@@SMGJohn the first tank 😶(self propelled canon to be precise) was designed by the French : the levasseur project in 1903. It was refused by the army authorities like the one from Burstyn but 12 years before. Technically the french were the first to show some interest to this new technology, as they did for the military use of planes by the way...
@@Arno_L Yes there many examples of prototypes but my comment was simply referring to the first true modern tank design which involves a turret that rotates, fighting compartment and all the other features. There even evidence of the American civil war utilising very primitive steam propelled armoured fighting vehicles to some degree of success.
I have to admit that my knowledge concerning French Heavy Tanks of World War One is sorely lacking. About all I know is that they both (there were two kinds) had a massive front overhang that made things sometimes difficult for the crew, and they were only used by the French (the Americans used French Light tanks and British heavy tanks); I don't even know how big the crew was. Does anyone have any good books on the technical details of French Heavy Tanks of World War One?
David Briggs yes ! I can think of one book in english ( of course there is many in french but..), it's ' French Tanks of World War I' , by Steven Zaloga. There is some mistakes in it, but at least it gives an idea !
for the two French heavy tanks of WWI Schneider CA1: 7 (driver-commander, 3x gunners, 3x loaders) Saint Chamond: 9 (driver, commander, 2x gunners, 4x machine gunners, mechanician) as for the overhang at the front, it was supposed to push the barbed wire down so it would go under the tracks and not jam them, also it was to help the tank crossing large trenches, but in reality, the tanks would often get stuck, especially the Saint-Chamond which was much longer and heavier than the Schneider, apparently, the French army was getting some Mk IV tanks to replace the Saint Chamond because it had too many problems (Schneider and Saint Chamond started on a common project (tracteur A), but the two companies were rivals and submitted each their design
wait why did they restore the st chamond when there is only one left and they wont be bothered to restore a british ww1 tank when there is more than one of them
Briseur De Lance it’s a tractor with oddly placed metal plates on it, nothing more. Just like the first car was a wagon with a steam engine on it, there is nothing beautiful or historical about this thing.
get a few gallons of 3 in 1 dry lube on them squeekie tracks :P and clearly this is not the stealth tank i was looking for. 10 kilometers away "Do you hear that fritz? why yes hanz it sounds to me to be a target"
I can't imagine how intimidating this vehicle could have been 100 years ago.
Read reports from German troops who saw them come closer and closer to them. Some young and inexperienced German men had lived in villages before the war and had never even seen a tractor and only heard about cars. These men took trains to the front and marched for miles to get to their destination. Imagine coming across something you can't really place but which looks like a steel monster making a chilling metal-to-metal sound from its tracks and thick smoking coming out of it. Bear in mind troops only carried bolt-action rifles and had machine guns to deal with infantry charges - none of which had any effect on this thing. Since there was no practical wireless radio and most orders still had to be dispatched by runners or riders you couldn't just call in an artillery strike either - and the artillery was trained to strike *stationary targets* like trenches and bunkers.
Here's another historical fact. Right after encountering tanks several requests came from the German field commanders that they definitely needed tanks of their own. Unfortunately for them these requests were ignored/refuted. Some of the main reasons were that Germany was short on steel and all what it had was earmarked for submarine production - which in hindsight was a wise decision, that Germany didn't produce any caterpillar type of tracked vehicle at all and hence had to design something from scratch which would take both time, resources and money Germany was getting short of in 1916 already (it financed the war by huge loans to itself) and that many of the older generals didn't believe tanks could ever replace traditional artillery. Most generals had a similar view of the airplane at the start of the war.
@@McLarenMercedes The Germans did build Tanks at the end of the war, I believe 400 were ordered but only 20 made it to the front line for combat
@@McLarenMercedes The A7V was considered a failure but did have some success breaking threw British lines and one even took a 37 mm cannon shot from French soldiers trying to stop it
@@McLarenMercedes Infantry guns could easily deal with this, reason why the smaller Renault FT was much more effective. Germany also swiftly introduced 13mm AT rifles that could pierce armour and fill the tank with deadly shrapnel. All things considered, the landship's effect on the morale of enemy troops was overestimated and didn't make up for downsides of having such a giant target crawling along the battlefield.
@@CanalTremocos "Infantry guns could easily deal with this" Except Germany didn't have too many of those and relied upon long-range bombard artillery which could fire at the enemy from positions which was beyond the range of regular artillery. As such the whole artillery doctrine was to fire lobbying high trajectories with the optimal range. Field artillery too was designed to launch high explosive shells at an approaching infantry. Again this was a rain of nasty shrapnel which hurt unprotected troops but had limited effect on tanks. No armor-piercing shells existed.
You see there were yet no artillery pieces designed to deal with tanks specifically and some artillery pieces had to be modified to have this new use. Now, neither side actually had much artillery pieces in the trenches anyway, again those were stationed far behind the trenches. Also, without any portable radio there was no way for the infantry defenders to call in artillery bombardment attacks to a particular position fast. That became a reality in WWII but in WWI coordinating both attacks and defenses was difficult without radios.
The artillery men were also trained to fire at stationary targets not moving ones.
"reason why the smaller Renault FT was much more effective." It was "much more effective" by virtue of the battlefield dramatically changing once the allies had broken the German lines and the warfare followed a more moving tactic - a precursor to the warfare we saw in WWII. On open terrain a tank needed no great trench crossing capability and its greatest strength would be to deal with enemy infantry. Back in WWI the infantry didn't yet carry any portable anti-tank weapon like the rpgs invented in WWII.
"Germany also swiftly introduced 13mm AT rifles that could pierce armour and fill the tank with deadly shrapnel" Swiftly you say?? They only started producing the Mauser 1918 anti-tank rifle May 1918. That was *way too late* in the war to make a difference. How many did they produce before the war ended pray tell? The Mauser anti-tank rifle also had a range at which it was going to penetrate to frontal armor of tanks. While it did penetrate the usual armor at ranges of 100-200 meters it goes without saying that kind of range is uncomfortably close since the tank is also firing at your position with cannons and machine guns. At ranges of 400-500 meters the anti-tank rifle generally didn't penetrate the armor.
Anti-tank guns were also designed to immobilize the driver of the tank. If he was killed the tank would have no driver... but unfortunately this didn't mean the tank itself was permanently knocked out since a new driver could be found. The allies discovered this in WWII even more when they often repaired "knocked out" (read immobilized or killed crew) Sherman tanks, gave them a fresh paint job and sent them right back out into action. This was at a time Germany had developed deadly anti-tank guns specifically designed to knock out tanks properly.
"All things considered, the landship's effect on the morale of enemy troops was overestimated and didn't make up for downsides of having such a giant target crawling along the battlefield." Perhaps not, but the Germans got increasingly worried and troubled by the fact the allies fielded more and more of these tanks while they themselves had extremely few of their own making and mostly relied on captured tanks. In large formations and on suitable terrain the tanks themselves made a huge success at Cambrai in 1917. Sadly that success was for naught because there was no infantry thrust at the same time which left the tanks alone to fend of the enemy attack. For tanks to attack without infantry support is always risky and this is btw one of the *main reasons* the German tank forces in France in WWII decided to halt outside Dunkirk. The tanks had outrun their own infantry and were no isolated. It's also lucky for the Germans competent French commanders were held back when they could have cut the German tanks off their own supply lines and infantry. The Germans themselves were aware of this vulnerability even before they invaded France. Several German generals spoke up against having an armored spearhead knowing it would be vulnerable in the flanks.
What annoyed the Germans more than anything is that the allies seemed to have more and more of those tanks, and more planes and more and more artillery and machine guns. The shear numbers had a detrimental effect.
While the tank wasn't instrumental in winning WWI it's also clear many German generals often accredited the allies victories to their numerous tanks. It's therefore hardly surprising the Germans learned from this lesson themselves having been on the receiving end of tank warfare and thus put much emphasis on developing their own effective tank force for "the next war".
Great to see a St. Chamond still running. One hundred year - old technology.
This was rusting away outside at Aberdeen MD until a few years ago. Great to see it running again.
Interesting! I may have seen it in my youth, as I was at Aberdeen (from PA) 38 years ago.
St Chamond was a interesting one
I was at the Proving Ground in the 1990s and this particular tank wasn't there then. I wonder when it was removed?
@@solinvictus39 It was donated back to France in 1987.
It was great to see this old beast running (albeit slowly and noisily!), the guys who brought it over were really nice chaps too.
They sure were! Had a closer look at it and inside it on the Sunday. Not convinced that the fire safety system is original :)
Its amazing to me how much louder the driveline and tracks are compared to the engine. All I'm hearing in this video is gears and tracks.
I love the WW1 tanks! They all have this Jules Verne mystique about them.
What a complete, utter KLUDGE of a tank!
May it last for a thousand years!
The worlds first self propelled artillery ironically designed as a breakthrough tank but ended up being used as a modern SPG for direct and indirect fire destroying pillboxes, this tank was tremendously important in bringing a lot of firepower into places quickly and retreat just as quickly yes its not very fast but keep in mind that in WW1 being able to just drive a 75mm gun into places and fire while being impervious to rifle and machine gun bullets was massive advantage and before the Germans could move heavy guns into place the tanks could retreat.
And also keep in mind this, that light field guns were not very common in WW1 until later in the war as such lightly bore guns were not very good at destroying fortifications etc, it was only after the tank made its appearance that the Germans started mass producing 37mm and 50mm field guns light enough to be rolled up anywhere and carried by two soldiers.
This tank still rowling after one century years.
His name in french means "flower of love"...
Oh Patriote you mean after the french government wasted €120,000 to restore it?
@@JL-dance Still 50x cheaper than a modern tank.
@@JL-dance Wasted??? You do realise that was a worthful act for the French government to restore such an important artifact that was essential to building the whole 19th century right? History is history and should never be forgotten, and if you think this valuable piece of great machinery deserves to be thrown away or left alone then your a complete fool.
@@JL-dance Shut up 120 000 is nothing in currency to the government. A country has billions of dollars stored up so that much money is barely anything. And besides, restoring historical creations like this is very much worth the money.
@@Tinkletwisterthe3rd you need to look up how governmental budgets work and what taxes are
More then a hundred years old and still in working condition I’m impressed
This particular tank had to be restored but being in a condition where it could be restored at all is still impressive considering how easily old tanks broke down.
Now i just want to see a Char 2C replica
Nice to see history restored, and operating, too. They sure had some interesting camouflage patterns.
I understand this tank had electric transmission. I couldn't hear much of an engine sound nor did I see exhaust. Did they rig this tank to run on batteries?
It was a gas/electric system. I readed that they installed a modern generator set to power the electric motors.For me it makes sense because its much more safe and reliable
The engine is a modern diesel driving a generator with drive motors for each track. The exhaust is that little cylinder thing on the roof with 4 uptakes from the engine exhaust ports. The original engine I think was petrol but geriatric petrol engines and high voltage electrics is a bad mixture - if you don't die of COx poisoning, you fry when a spark ignites fumes.
is that a guinine WW1 tank in running condition.. the bovinton museum have a couple that could theoretically run but dont at risk of breaking parts.. so is this tank really a ww1 running on original gear
It's genuine, but belongs to the museum in France. Some things have obviously been updated for safety reasons (most obvious thing when you look inside it is a modern fire suppression system).
very cool!
@@MrJibble So this fucker can fire?
@@duke0salt717 Technically the french tank museum at saumur is operated by the French army, and some of the vehicles on display are "combat ready", especially the more modern ones. I honestly don't think the 75 in this particular tank is in working condition though.
@@thibaudduhamel2581 it has a modern recoil system so you never know
they finally painted it correctly!!!. Now if they could only repaint the Schneider... and the Jagdpanzer IV L70A...
An early use of turbo-electric drive. The engine ran a generator that in turn ran two electric engines, the better to steer it with. Unlike British tanks, it had a suspension, which was of great relief to the crew. It was a bust as a tank, but used as self-propelled direct fire artillery in the manner of an SU-122 in the next war, it had some success, fielding the largest gun of any World War 1 AFV.
poor vehicle sound lie it is in pain
The only running example? Since there seems to be another but idk if it runs in the french museum the chieftan made a unofficial run through of the museum, i sadly forgot the name...
This is the one from the French museum...
No different colors the one im speaking off is just yelow-ish and grey... Or they have 2...
Here is the link: ua-cam.com/video/GoGjAWo-HIM/v-deo.html
@@stijnVDA1994 there is literally only 1 surviving example in the whole world, so my suspicions tell me it's the same vehicle :p
@@MrJibble i think running version, i haven't that one run, or it is a replica...
The French invented the modern tank
No they did not, the Austro-Hungarians invented the modern tank with turret and separate compartments however the French were the first to produce and utilise such designs.
It is widely thought that the French did in fact read the very document on the Burstyn tank as it was published openly in 1911 because the KuK generals like the British were very conservative and thought tanks were overrated.
Austro-Hungaria were very capable of making tanks in the thousands if they so had initiated this in 1912 would have given them tremendous military advantage in WW1 even going as far as to maybe win the war specially considering how advanced the Burstyn was for its time and simple to make.
@@SMGJohn the first tank 😶(self propelled canon to be precise) was designed by the French : the levasseur project in 1903. It was refused by the army authorities like the one from Burstyn but 12 years before. Technically the french were the first to show some interest to this new technology, as they did for the military use of planes by the way...
@@Arno_L
Yes there many examples of prototypes but my comment was simply referring to the first true modern tank design which involves a turret that rotates, fighting compartment and all the other features.
There even evidence of the American civil war utilising very primitive steam propelled armoured fighting vehicles to some degree of success.
What does the star on the back of the tank represent?
Soren G cool, thanks for the info dude.
It also means there's a new sheriff in town.
It is rather unique and it kinda looks like the French took the term land-ship literally
These old tanks could be used in military parades to show the public the history of the first tanks ever used
It was shown in the 2016 Bastille day parade in Paris
how many gasoline did they use?
Saint-Chamond look like amphibious landing craft. But need some track modificatio
Listening on earphones making me tinnitus
That was beautiful. ❤️
I thought the last remaining Saint Chamond was in France? Unless this is a replica
It was moved from France to Britain. And yes I think this is an original
Or why else would the French soldiers be there?
Thanks!
french tank designers were something else
bruh just look at the char 2c
日本も昔の戦車を動かして欲しいなぁ！フランスの百科全書は凄いです😆
I have to admit that my knowledge concerning French Heavy Tanks of World War One is sorely lacking. About all I know is that they both (there were two kinds) had a massive front overhang that made things sometimes difficult for the crew, and they were only used by the French (the Americans used French Light tanks and British heavy tanks); I don't even know how big the crew was. Does anyone have any good books on the technical details of French Heavy Tanks of World War One?
David Briggs yes ! I can think of one book in english ( of course there is many in french but..), it's ' French Tanks of World War I' , by Steven Zaloga. There is some mistakes in it, but at least it gives an idea !
Gaston, thanks for responding. I'm going to have to look up that book, and maybe purchase a copy.
for the two French heavy tanks of WWI
Schneider CA1: 7 (driver-commander, 3x gunners, 3x loaders)
Saint Chamond: 9 (driver, commander, 2x gunners, 4x machine gunners, mechanician)
as for the overhang at the front, it was supposed to push the barbed wire down so it would go under the tracks and not jam them, also it was to help the tank crossing large trenches, but in reality, the tanks would often get stuck, especially the Saint-Chamond which was much longer and heavier than the Schneider, apparently, the French army was getting some Mk IV tanks to replace the Saint Chamond because it had too many problems (Schneider and Saint Chamond started on a common project (tracteur A), but the two companies were rivals and submitted each their design
Beast in bf1
Thing slow as Christmas
Bravo
Battlefield 1 st chamond ? Different voice
That tank looks like a tank destroyer to me
Well, it's not.
I know but the fact that has a big gun in front of the tank and no turret it reminds me of the WW2 tank destroyers like the stuka III G
Fair :)
to be fair, at the time of WWI, the French called the tanks "artillerie spéciale" or special artillery
Max Yea I remember
Petrol-electric sounds odd
Why is the star of David painted on back? Was the crew jewish?
lol
it's the makers symbol, St Chamond over crossed barrel and anchor
thats one Down ASS Fuck truck lol
I would have loved to see that when I was down there,
It was only there for the weekend afaik. Good job I took a video of it :)
Indeed it was matey,,,
What a speed demon
SUPER !
very quiet
J'imagine pas à quelle point les allemands devaient être horrifiés quand ils voyaient cette merveille leur foncer lentement mais surement dessus
ua-cam.com/video/JNC83oXZ5KM/v-deo.html Le titre en français est " A l'ouest rien de nouveau"
My friend built similar from Legos
wait why did they restore the st chamond when there is only one left and they wont be bothered to restore a british ww1 tank when there is more than one of them
haris bari because nobody cares about this metal monstrosity
yo boi jonx
And that's a shame.
Briseur De Lance it’s a tractor with oddly placed metal plates on it, nothing more. Just like the first car was a wagon with a steam engine on it, there is nothing beautiful or historical about this thing.
They restored it because it's so rare
Precisely because there is only one left...this is an irreplaceable relic from a terrible episode in history
Tank jadul
It looks as if it may have actually worked...
Damm I bet a single round would of knock out the Gunner and the driver out of commission
Aaron Lara seeing how it had only 11mm of frontal armor, i wouldn’t doubt it.
TANKS - MONSTERS ! IT'S CLASSC! :)
get a few gallons of 3 in 1 dry lube on them squeekie tracks :P and clearly this is not the stealth tank i was looking for. 10 kilometers away "Do you hear that fritz? why yes hanz it sounds to me to be a target"
Well, it’s more likely something like: “fritz what is that loud noice?”
Fritz: “Oh shit! Run!”
We just lost objective butter
Quiet engine when idling.
😍😍😍😍😍😍
BF one
UA-camr One no real life
Someone oil those tracks!!!
diver it w bf1 funny
Electrical power tank
WD40
Like si estas aquí por battlefield 1 :v
A shamefull copy of a Bob Semple tank
jew star on the back..... nocomment....
Peter Kohlrusz you morron thats not jew its a snow star...fucking stupid antisemit
Agreed,Peter,crawl back under your stone,cretin
@Justin H It's the saint Chamond company badge
Just missing 2 white flags on the back of the tank XD
you asshole: that times was the germans who lift white flags...
Your lack of History is hopeless
@@Solveig.Tissot so is your face
Shit replic
Nicolas Radici it's not a replica
Nicolas,,, shit comment, wrong !