Question about tank production

[modelbouw nederland]

Good day everyone,

Today I was reading a book about the B1 and the variations of this tank for my model making project that I want to do.
And I noticed that a lot of the French tanks that were made before and during World War II were missing a lot of component when they were delivered.
Why did the French have to much difficulty with producing all the components for their tanks?
And why did they more often than not deliver incomplete tanks?
I mean, to me French World War II tanks don't seem that complicated at all, compared to the German tanks that I usually build.
And why did several authorities such as the factory paint on the camouflage schemes instead of the troops in the field?

Would be great if you would be able to give an answer to my questions, because I really want to find out more about this and more particular subjects that I want to model.
Thank you in advance.

[AllenM]

I refer you to this page. It appears that French tank production was much interfered with and delayed, partly due to modifications made after field tests revealed problems. The author of the following is not a native English speaker so a few of his words are not quite right.

https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/fran ... B1_bis.php

[Carl Schwamberger]

A more fundamental thread was the realative inefficiency of civilian goods production for weapons. The French were no different than anyone else, in that they had to conduct a massive reorganization of industry to produce arms to meet their goals for 1941-42. This led to lapses in production 1939-40. The US had similar problems, barely able in 1940 to build a single regiment of tanks, despite the largest heavy industrial plant globally.

[modelbouw nederland]

If I'm understanding it right, you are saying that it was all due to organizational problems.
And that they were in the middle of a reorganization of their productions plants and capacity.
Why were they so inefficient in production of goods?
And why did the French first produce a tank to test it afterwards to discover other issues.
Then making changes and that the production process needs changes to delay production of armor even more.
Why didn't they just test it before hand and afterwards take it into production?
By the way, I did already read that article what you are mentioning to.
Thank you so far for helping me with this answers and hope you can help me even more with this by answering the other questions that I have asked in this reply.

[Carl Schwamberger]

If I'm understanding it right, you are saying that it was all due to organizational problems.
And that they were in the middle of a reorganization of their productions plants and capacity.
Why were they so inefficient in production of goods?

In part the French, and US arms industry were organized for a small volume of production. The large quantities of arms remaining from the Great War & fiscal conservatism meant relatively small orders were placed. This paid for only a small manufacturing plant for these items. In the US there were proposals circa 1919-1924 for the government to subsidized a large reserve factory capacity for arms. A physical plant that could be activated in a few months to build up to date weapons. This was never taken seriously by the legislature. The manufacturing suitable for building commercial automobiles, or rail cars was not directly of use for production of tanks. A conversion of the facility's necessary.

In the US there was a reluctance 1939-1941 for industry to accept US government contracts for arms production. For political reasons & the fiscal conservatism of many Congressmen the contracts did not pay funds in advance for the manufactors to retool existing production, or add new capacity. Many businesses were reluctant or unable to invest in production capacity which might not pay off due to canceled contracts or other problems. Another problem 1939-1941 in the US was the vendors of raw materials were free to sell to the highest bidder. The same existed for the manufactures of sub components, machine tools, ect... US Arms contracts often in those years failed to deliver on time as the steel, alloys, chemicals, or labor were sold to a higher bidder. After the DoW in December of 1941 laws were passed allowing the US government to set priorities and dictate allocation of resources. This made critical items available to specific high priority production.

And why did the French first produce a tank to test it afterwards to discover other issues.
Then making changes and that the production process needs changes to delay production of armor even more.
Why didn't they just test it before hand and afterwards take it into production?

In general 'testing to perfection' results in a development time so long the item is obsolete before it is ready for production. For tanks the changes in capability were so rapid 1935-1945 that obsolescence occurred in 12-24 months for most models. Examples that remained is service for extended times, like the Pzkw IV, or the M4 Sherman were heavily and frequently modified. The US M4 medium tank had over 30,000 production modifications made on it during the four years of production.