Author: Marisa Belhote

France (1933-1940)
Reconnaissance Vehicle (Light Tank/Tracked Armored Car) – 2 Converted, 1 Prototype, and 167 Production Vehicles Built

The AMR 35 was a tracked reconnaissance vehicle designed by Renault in the mid-1930s. Designed as a follow-up to issues the French Cavalry had with the AMR 33, it lengthened the vehicle and adopted a more standard configuration with a rear engine. Although it improved on its predecessor in some ways, the AMR 35 would prove particularly hard to get in proper working order once vehicles started rolling off the production line, the scale of delays and issues being a major cause between the whole class of AMR vehicles being basically discontinued.

The French Cavalry’s Search for a Vehicle

In the decade that followed the end of the Great War, the French Cavalry found itself in a dire position when it came to acquiring new vehicles. Sidelined by the Infantry and Artillery branches during trench warfare, the Cavalry branch did see the potential armored vehicles offered for exploitation and considered mechanized formations to be an interesting prospect to study. However, without the funds necessary to acquire vehicles for such experiments, it largely had to rely on WW1 relics and ad hoc vehicles for most tasks, including close reconnaissance. Throughout the 1920s, purchases of armored fighting vehicles were few and far between. The purchase of 16 Citroën-Kégresse P4T-based half-track armored cars in 1923 and 96 Schneider P16 half-track later in the decade, though delivered in 1930-1931, was the most significant purchase throughout the decade. These vehicles were far from fast, agile armored reconnaissance vehicles one would imagine a cavalry force operating.

The beginning of the 1930s finally saw additional funding that allowed the Cavalry to look into vehicles to fulfill more roles. Following the spread of the concept of tiny tracked armored vehicles into France and the adoption by the Infantry of the Renault UE armed tractor, the Cavalry would look into a vehicle of this size to provide a small, close-reconnaissance vehicle.

First, 50 Citroën P28 were adopted. These half-tracked vehicles, based on a rejected armored tractor prototype, were constructed of mild steel and only considered as training vehicles. Renault would soon offer a design derived from its own Renault UE, though it would differ very significantly from the tractor design. Given the internal designation code VM, work on this vehicle would begin as early as late 1931. After a remarkably fast assembly, five prototypes would be experimented with during large scale maneuvers in September 1932. The VM was not a perfect design, but it had some notable advantages. Its speed was, at the time, unrivaled in a fully tracked armored vehicle, particularly in France. The vehicle’s weight remained limited, at around 5 tonnes, and it was also fairly low-profile. The use of a fully tracked configuration gave it superior cross-country performances in comparison to half-track or wheeled vehicles.

After some aspects of the VM which had left to be desired at first, notably the suspension, were improved upon, the first order for what would now be designated the AMR 33 was placed on March 8th 1933. However, the French Army was majorly unhappy with the AMR 33’s engine configuration, and Renault could not easily fix it. The vehicle used an engine mounted to the right side, with the fighting compartment on the left side, instead of using a separate rear or even front engine compartment. As a result, the AMR 33 proved to be front-heavy. Beyond that, this somewhat unorthodox configuration was disliked by both crews and by fairly traditionalist officers within the Vincennes trials commission and procurement services.

Though criticism of the AMR 33’s engine placement appeared very soon in the design’s life, they would become particularly loud near the vehicle’s adoption in spring 1933. These reached the point where it appeared clear to Renault that designing a modified vehicle with a rear engine configuration was unavoidable if the company wanted to continue seeing its design adopted for the role of AMR, which other manufacturers, notably Citroën, could be interested in trying to fulfill. The new rear-engined design received the two-letter code of ZT, and work on designing it and modifying VM prototypes to prove the concept quickly started.

From VM To ZT

Though criticism of the configuration had been formulated before, requests for a rear-engined Renault AMR intensified in early 1933, as adoption of the VM neared and was finally carried out.

At an unclear date, in quite early 1933, Renault received a request to design a rear-engined AMR from the STMAC (Section Technique du Matériel Automobile – ENG: Technical Section of Automotive Material). STMAC’s request reportedly included some basic schematics of how such a vehicle could be arranged, with the ambitious prospect of keeping the same overall dimensions. Renault responded by analyzing these schematics, and found that keeping the same dimensions was unrealistic. This was a quite reasonable conclusion. Having the separate crew and engine compartments not side-by-side would naturally lengthen the vehicle, even if each would be shorter on its own. On April 21st 1933, Renault’s technical services responded to STMAC by offering to slightly lengthen the AMR design (by that point, the VM had been adopted as the AMR 33 the previous month), but Renault appeared quite skeptical of the prospect. Evidently, the manufacturer was not enthusiastic about a deep redesign of its AMR, and this manifested in the wording of its answer to the STMAC:

“En résumé, si vos services le jugent utile, nous sommes disposés à étudier un véhicule avec un moteur à l’arrière, sans toutefois nous rendre compte des avantages de ce véhicule sur celui existant”
“To sum up, if your services judge it useful, we are ready to study a rear-engined vehicle, though however we do not realize how this vehicle would have advantages over the existing one [the AMR 33]” .

Nonetheless, as keeping with the VM design would evidently risk jeopardizing further orders, Renault started working on a rear-engined AMR in the following months. Renault’s work was two-fold, working both on the drawing board, but also trying to produce a prototype as soon as possible. This would not be an entirely newly-built vehicle. Back in 1932, Renault had produced five VM prototypes, in an effort to allow experimentation on the AMR on more of a platoon level instead of a single vehicle. As the VM had been adopted and experimentations were, overall, finalized, these VM prototypes became available for new projects. This included trying various accessories and suspensions, converting two of them to production standard in 1935, and even converting some to a rear-engined configuration. This new design would be given the internal two-letter code “ZT”, and as such, a VM prototype would actually also become the first ZT prototype.

Work of the first VM-ZT conversion likely began in late 1933. Modifications were performed on prototype n°79 759, the second-to-last VM prototype in the registration order, though it ought to be noted all VM prototypes were identical when first made and produced in the same timeframe, and would only feature different configurations later, as different subsystems were tried on them. This conversion was reportedly quite ad hoc, as would be expected of a prototype modified to a largely different configuration.

Significantly modifying prototypes was quite common in 1930s France. Perhaps the most radical example was B1 n°101, the first prototype of the B1 tank, which would become an experimental ‘mule’, used initially for turret experiments, then as a weight testing vehicle for studies for what would become the B1 Bis, and eventually, deeply transformed into a sort of mock-up/proof-of-concept prototype for the B1 Ter.

The vehicle was lengthened, seemingly by the addition of a 20 cm-long section bolted on between the front and rear of the hull, around the level of the fourth road wheel. As requested, a transversely-mounted engine was fitted in a rear compartment. This was a new powerplant, the most powerful ever mounted on an AMR. It was an 8-cylinder Nerva Stella engine producing 28 CV (a French unit of measurement). It was likely still a design closely linked to the Reinestella 24 CV eight-cylinder engine of production AMR 33s, which, comparatively, produced 85 hp. The configuration of the rear glacis of the vehicle was switched around. A larger aeration grill was mounted to the left, and a smaller access door, a one-piece plate with a handle mounted on two hinges, on the right. The exhaust was mounted below the grille and door.

From the front, the vehicle was easy to differentiate from a standard VM due to the radiator grill being removed. At this point, the vehicle kept the coil spring suspension of the standard AMR 33, though a rubber block suspension had already been at prototype stage on VMs for about a year at this point. Though, when a prototype, the vehicle had mounted the ill-fated Renault turret, it received the standard Avis n°1 when serving as a ZT prototype. Oddly enough, at some point after it was experimented with, it would be refitted with its original turret, presumably to use its Avis n°1 turret on another vehicle. The vehicle was given a new provisional registration number of 5292W1.

This first deeply modified VM was completed by Renault and showcased in February 1934. A technical evaluation was first performed in Renault’s facilities, after which the vehicle was sent to the Vincennes trials commission in mid-February. The prototype would obviously be quite different from a newly-built rear-engined version of the AMR, and was mostly meant to act as a proof-of-concept to test out ergonomic aspects.

Soon after this prototype was presented, on February 27th, General Flavigny, the director of France’s Cavalry branch, addressed a letter to Renault higher-up François Lehideux. He expressed interest in the prototype, which he said would match with the Army’s goal to adopt a vehicle less tiring for its operators to crew in comparison to the AMR 33. Flavigny would go on to say a sort of official, privileged partnership between Renault and the French state would be beneficial, quoting the relationship between Vickers and the British government as a comparison. He later went on to mention technical characteristics which could prove interesting in the future. He notably expressed interest in a vehicle which would be less “blind”, and, curiously, in a cast steel version of the AMR in a few years from then, as the technology was being developed in France. The advantages he quoted for a cast vehicle were that it would be better sealed and require less maintenance in comparison to riveted or bolted construction. This hypothetical cast AMR would seemingly never go beyond this letter. It is interesting to note, however, that the elements inspired by the AMRs, notably in terms of suspension, would be mounted on a number of cast vehicles designed by Renault, namely the R35 light tank.

Second Prototype

Results from the trials of the first ZT prototype were particularly interesting. The vehicle was experimented on by officers of the 3rd GAM (Groupement d’Automitrailleuses – Armored Car Group). The main goals of the ZT, improving the vehicle’s ergonomics and placating the French Army by pushing the engine to the rear, appear to have been met. But the prototype also proved able to reach even higher speeds than before thanks to the more powerful 28CV engine. On February 21st, it peaked at 72 km/h, the fastest French tracked AFV by far and one of the fastest in the world as well. The vehicle would be equalled by the M1 Combat Car, a vehicle which would be slightly under 3 tonnes heavier than the ZT, at 9.1 tonnes, but feature a much more powerful 250 hp engine, while the AMR 35’s 28CV would likely have been somewhere in the 90-100 hp range.

However, while the maximum speed the vehicle reached was certainly impressive, officers who experimented with the vehicle doubted the 28CV 8-cylinder engine truly was a good idea. Though indeed very powerful, it would also require extensive maintenance as well as careful and skilled operation. At this point, the idea of giving the ZT a 4-cylinder bus engine was brought up by officers. It was thought that an engine of this type would still be powerful enough to provide the ZT with a great mobility, while proving much more sturdy and easier to operate and to maintain.

This feedback was immediately taken by Renault. In March, the company worked on converting a second Renault VM prototype, n°79 760 (last in the registration order) to a ZT. This prototype, redesignated 5282W1, was showcased in early April 1934, being experimented on by the trials commissions from April 3rd to 11th. Though the vehicle had been lengthened in the same way as the first prototype, a number of changes had been brought in. Most significantly, as had been requested, it featured a 4-cylinder engine. It was indeed based on a bus engine, the Renault 408, but had been somewhat craft-modified to offer better performance, and was thus redesignated as the Renault 432. It produced 22CV. In trials, this second prototype was able to reach 64 km/h. This was still a very desirable maximum speed for a tracked vehicle at the time. To compensate for the small loss of maximum speed, the prototype proved not only much easier to operate and sturdier, but also less fuel-hungry, giving it a more extensive range.

Some smaller changes were also incorporated into this second prototype. The first prototype featured a stowage sponson to the left, but not to the right. The second incorporated a second one to the right, in order to increase internal space. It also featured significant changes to the rear. The one-part door was replaced by a two-part one, each part featuring a handle and mounted on two hinges. The exhaust was also modified, from a single-housing exhaust below the grille and door, to an exhaust housed in two distinct parts, on top of the grille and door.

Overall, this second ZT prototype, despite still being a converted VM, proved promising for the French military, to the point where it managed to secure adoption and an order for 100 vehicles on May 15th 1934. It ought to be noted that this was by all means a quick adoption. No ZT prototype had yet been built from scratch, despite some components of the VM prototypes, the coil spring suspension, for example, being intended to be replaced by very different systems in the final ZT. As a caveat, the desired rubber block suspension was already at experimental stage on VM prototype n°79758. This fast adoption also largely hurt competition, notably Citroën, which had not yet had the time to present prototypes trying to outdo Renault at a fully tracked AMR. Citroën’s attempt, the P103, would only be presented in 1935, after the struggling company had filed for bankruptcy.

The First ‘New’ ZT Prototype

Though Renault had managed to get its ZT design adopted before manufacturing an entirely new prototype, the production of one was still viewed as necessary. It was required in order to experiment on many components which would be featured on production vehicles but could not be fitted on the conversions. The pre-prototypes notably used the old coil spring suspension, and elements such as the gearbox and differentials, or even details of the internal arrangement, were far from complete.

Therefore, Renault produced a mild steel prototype of the ZT, which was completed in September 1934. By that point, there had been some evolutions in the desired engine for the ZT. Renault had put out a new bus engine, the 441, to replace the older 408. Therefore, it was decided to modify that new engine to create the AMR 35’s engine. This modified 441 would be designated 447, and replaced the 432. However, the Renault 447 engine was still on the drawing board by September 1934. Production would only be launched in November with the first 447 engine completed in April 1935. Therefore, the newly-built ZT prototype received the same Renault 432 engine as the previous converted vehicles.

Interesting elements of this ZT prototype include the use of bolting, rather than riveting, for the front hull, which was not kept on production ZTs, a revised gearbox and differential, and a new suspension. This suspension was the rubber-block type which had been at prototype stage on the VM since 1933. Like the AMR 33, it had four road wheels, two independent ones at the front and rear and two in a bogie in the middle, but these were mounted on rubber blocks (one for each independent wheel and one for the bogie) which could compress in order to allow movement and reduce shock. In comparison to previous coil springs, this suspension was thought of as more robust, and, once refined, offering a more comfortable ride. It should be noted that the suspension was not entirely finalized on the ZT prototype. It notably kept the same sprocket as the VM, while a revised though broadly similar one would be used on the production vehicle. The prototype received the Avis n°1 turret mounted on the first conversion, which explains why this converted vehicle would revert to the old and rejected Renault turret when it was put to other uses.

Overall, this final ZT prototype was much closer to the final production vehicle, which allowed for tests to make sure there were no major issues to offer more certainty. This does not mean it would be identical, however. Unsurprisingly enough for a mild steel developpemental prototype, it would be noted to be almost entirely different in terms of precise parts in November 1937. The ZT prototype was first showcased in Satory in October 1934 and then later tested by the Vincennes trial commission and the Cavalry’s study center in 1935. It proved to be satisfactory and confirmed the adoption which was made from the experiences of the converted VM prototypes was a good one.

Fate of the Prototypes

The three ZT prototypes would have three different fates.

The first converted VM prototype, n°79759, was refitted with the older Renault turret in order to give its standard Avis n°1 turret to the all-new ZT. Markings show that the vehicle was pressed into the service with the Saumur Cavalry School for driver’s training. Photos show that in 1940, the vehicle, disarmed, was used in the desperate defense of the city of Orléans, on the Loire River. Exactly how the vehicle ended there is quite a mystery, as Orléans is located 180 km from Saumur and the personnel and equipment from the Cavalry school was used to defend the city itself, also located further down the Loire River.

The fate of the second VM conversion is, unfortunately, unknown.

The newly produced ZT prototype, was stored in Docks de Rueil (the facility which would become ARL) and engineers of the Puteau workshop (Atelier de Construction de Puteaux – APX) were allowed to use it as a basis for studies on mounting a 25 mm anti-tank gun on the ZT chassis, which would result in the ZT-2 and ZT-3 tank destroyers. The vehicle was returned to Renault in November 1937, but the vehicle was reportedly found to barely have been maintained by the crew of the French state workshops. ARL sent a plea to use the vehicle as a prototype for the ZT-3 (a tank destroyer mounting a 25 mm anti-tank gun in a casemate), but Renault refused under the argument that the vehicle differed significantly from production ZTs, making its use as a prototype for the ZT3 questionable. Renault proceeded to dismantle the vehicle for parts in February 1938.

The First Order

The first contract, signed on May 17th 1934, was for 100 vehicles, though only 92 would be of the ZT-1 standard type, the other 8 being ADF1 ZT-1-based command vehicles.

The French state once again pushed for an extremely ambitious delivery schedule that called for the first vehicles to be given to the Army in December 1934 and the last in March 1935. The vehicle was designated AMR Renault Modèle 1935 under the assumption that it would largely become operational in 1935. In reality, the delivery schedule encountered massive delays, as once again, the French state’s expectations far exceeded Renault’s capacities. The French state agreed to change the schedule for end of deliveries to August 1935, but that was once again overly ambitious. In early 1935, Renault was still finishing up the last five AMR 33s (two of which were rebuilt VM prototypes), and even though the AMR 35s would immediately follow them on the production line, they would still be far from being delivered to the French Army. Though the first would be complete in March 1935, due to the rushed adoption of the ZT design, a number of tests and trials would still have to be carried out, meaning it would be a long time before vehicles would become operational.

Turret development and production was largely managed separately from Renault’s production of the hulls, and by this point, it had already been decided that the ZT-1 would be divided into vehicles fitted with different fittings. Vehicles could be fitted either with the existing Avis n°1 turret or with a new Avis n°2, which followed a similar line of design but was larger in order to accommodate a Hotchkiss model 1930 13.2 mm machine gun.

Vehicles with either turret could be given an ER 29 radio. It was planned that out of 92 vehicles, only 12 would at this point mount the Avis n°1 turret, all fitted with radios, while the 80 others would all mount the better armed Avis n°2 turret. Of these, 31 would have radios, and 49 would not. In practice, the number of vehicles fitted with each turret matched the plans, but this was not the case for fittings for radio. This feature was dropped from all Avis n°2-equipped vehicles in February 1937. Vehicles with the smaller Avis n°1 turret would exist both with and without fittings for radio. It ought to be noted that the vehicles being given fittings for radios did not necessarily receive the radio post itself immediately. Though the vehicle would have elements such as an antenna cover and electrical fittings to eventually receive the system, it appears quite certain pretty much no AMR 35 was given a radio at first. The ER 29 radio, which was to be used, was to begin production in 1936, but in practice, serial production could only begin in earnest in 1939. Even by 1940, many vehicles, which one may imagine to have had radios due to their fittings, never did.

Delays, Hotchkiss, and Skeptical Officers: The Harduous Year of 1935

Before production AMR 35s were even delivered, the fate of the vehicle in the French Army appeared very uncertain during 1935. These were largely influenced by the leading figure of the French Cavalry at that time, General Flavigny, the director of the French Cavalry from 1931 to 1936.

In early 1935, the French Army formally decided to adopt the Hotchkiss H35 light infantry tank. However, the vehicle’s place in the French Army appeared uncertain despite this adoption. The Infantry appeared to have already settled for the R35. Army Chief of Staff, General Gamelin, then offered Flavigny to take the light tanks in. Flavigny was less than enthusiastic about the prospect. Writing on comparative trials between the Somua AC3 (which would become the S35) and the H35 he attended in 1935, he described the H35 as “slowly and barely following, shaken by every irregularity in the terrain”.

Flavigny, however, also wrote that he was in no way able to refuse such an offer. The H35 was in no way suited to be a proper cavalry tank. Designed for the Infantry, its maximum speed of 36 km/h was moderate. Much worse was its atrocious vision and terrible ergonomics and division of labor, making operations of the tank very sluggish, and overall, meaning the Hotchkiss would very much struggle to operate with any kind of autonomy. This was already less than good for an infantry tank, but could be said to be even worse for a cavalry force which could be expected to have to exploit breakthroughs. However, Flavigny was, in early 1935, very much confronted between a choice of no AFVs or Hotchkisses. There were, as mentioned previously, massive delays with the Renault ZT, in part due to complications with subcontractors. Schneider was the manufacturer of the armored hulls, while Batignolles-Châtillon would produce the new model of Avis turret, the Avis n°2.

These delays were a massive issue for the French Cavalry. It was at this point attempting a large reform to create a new type of division, the DLM (Division Légère Mécanique – Light Mechanized Division), and schedules of deliveries of equipment being met was an imperative to the proper formation of units. The issues caused by these delays came to their highest point in September 1935, for the Champagne manoeuvers, the same yearly exercises where the five VM prototypes had been used three years prior. There were no ZTs to be found, and cavalry detachments were found unable to operate properly due to a lack of vehicles, linked to the delays in deliveries. As a result, the issues came all the way up to the Minister of War, Jean Fabry. With renewed skepticism on cavalry mechanized units, any potential orders which could have been made were slashed, with orders to focus on ordering more equipment which could be delivered more quickly and reliably, such as firearms and artillery.

In late 1935, some progress was made. Renault received an informal request to deliver a further 30 vehicles after the current order for 100, though this would have to be confirmed at a later date. This contract would be formalized on April 20th 1936 as contract 60 179 D/P.. It included 30 vehicles, though only 15 were ZT-1 AMRs. These were all to be vehicles fitted with the Avis n°1 turret and radios. The other 15 were split between 5 ADF1 command vehicles and 5 of both the ZT-2 and ZT-3 tank destroyers. The delivery schedule would once again be overly ambitious, as the contract was to be completed by December 15th 1936.

Finally, a last contract was signed on October 9th 1936, adding 70 vehicles of the ZT family, of which 60 were ZT-1s. These were evenly split in 30 vehicles with and 30 without radio fittings, all to be fitted with the Avis n°1 turret. The 10 other vehicles were 5 of both the ZT-2 and ZT-3. Overall, an even 200 vehicles of the ZT family would be ordered by the French Ministry of War, though only 167 were ZT-1s armored cars. The others were split between 13 ADF1 command vehicles and 10 of both the ZT-2 and ZT-3 tank destroyers.

Of the 167 ZT-1s, 80 from the first order, had the Avis n°2 13.2 mm-armed turret, while 87 had the Avis n°1 7.5 mm-armed turret. In theory, 31 of the vehicles with the Avis n°2 were to be fitted with a radio, while 49 were not planned to have one. In practice, a decision was taken to abandon radios on Avis n°2 vehicles in February 1937, and it appears none ever received one. For the vehicles fitted with Avis n°1 turrets, 57 were to have radios, while 30 were not to have any. Though it is certain some vehicles would receive fittings for radios but never receive the post itself, it is more believable that the number of vehicles which were to be given fittings for radios was respected. If not, the number at least comprised a significant part of the fleet of Avis n°1-equipped vehicles.

The AMR 35 : Light Tank or Armored Car ?

The Renault ZT was adopted as an Automitrailleuse de Reconnaissance (AMR), or in English, Reconnaissance Armored Car. The term automitrailleuse deserves a little more attention to be understood in the context in which it was used in interwar France. In common French language, automitrailleuse is practically identical to the English word for armored car. However, in the interwar era, an automitrailleuse referred to any armed vehicle of the Cavalry, sometimes not even armored. Indeed, the French “automitrailleuse” comes from “automobile” and “mitrailleuse” (machine gun), with no part of the word implying the vehicle is armored.

In practice, the vast majority of automitrailleuse were armored vehicles, but a few unarmored cars armed with machine rifles used for patrol in the colonies were sometimes called automitrailleuse too. The term did not particularly come with an associated running gear when used in the context of the French military. Vehicles called automitrailleuse were wheeled, half-tracked, or even fully tracked, as long as they were operated by the Cavalry.

This may seem somewhat archaic from a modern point of view, especially as designations such as “cavalry tank” now exist, however, these were not necessarily widespread at that time. The idea that the tank (or “char” in French) was a weapon of the infantry, not of the cavalry, was not entirely French, and indeed there are other examples of fully tracked, turreted armored vehicles not been referred to as tanks when serving in the cavalry branch of other armies. Two notable examples are the American M1 “Combat Car” and the Japanese Type 92 “Heavy Armored Car”.

When it comes to technical characteristics, there is nothing that would make the AMR 35, especially when armed with a 13.2 mm machine gun, a world away from vehicles systematically called light tanks, such as the Vickers Light Tank or Panzer I, both fairly similar in size and capacities. As such, colloquially calling it a light tank is not necessarily wrong. It remained classified as an automitrailleuse, and for this reason this article has and will keep referring to it as an AMR or an armored car.

Technical Characteristics of the AMR 35

The AMR 35 had followed in its AMR 33 predecessor’s tracks in terms of broad characteristics and role. While developpement had started on the basis of AMR 33 prototypes, the evolution they would undertake in comparison to the original AMR 33 was radical. This was brought even further when a new prototype was manufactured, and continued when the production vehicles differed even from that prototype in significant ways. In other words, the AMR 35 was by all means a new design and is not to be understood as a variant of the AMR 33. There is very little in common between the two vehicles in terms of actual identical parts and elements.

Though the new prototype had experimented with bolting, the AMR 35 ended up being constructed using riveting. Dimensions are generally reported to be a height of 1.88 m, a width of 1.64 m (the armored hull itself being 1.42 m wide), and a length of 3.84 m. Weight was 6 tonnes empty, and 6.5 tonnes with crew and ammunition. It is important to note that these characteristics very likely describe vehicles fitted with the Avis n°1 turret, without radio. Vehicles with the Avis n°2 turret would likely be higher by a few centimeters and a couple hundred kilos heavier, while vehicles fitted with a radio would be a couple dozen kilos heavier. These changes would have been too small to have a significant impact on the mobility of the vehicles.

Hull & Hull Construction

The general hull construction of the AMR 35 took cues from the AMR 33, but also differed significantly in several ways due to significant changes in configuration.

The AMR 35 went away from the AMR 33’s side-mounted engine block, where the radiator would be to the front right of the hull, while the driver would be to the front left. However, it did keep an asymmetrical design. The driver still sat to the left, with a driver’s post extending from the rest of the crew compartment. The front formed an openable hatch so more vision could be at the driver’s disposal when outside of combat. When closed, it still featured an episcope to improve vision. Just below, on the angled glacis of the vehicle, there was a two-part door/hatch, with handles so it could be opened from the outside. The driver would typically enter or exit the vehicle by opening both of these hatches. The glacis in front of the driver’s post had been made to be as low as possible in order not to impede on his vision, being in this way very similar to the AMR 33.

The headlight would be mounted on the glacis. At first, the AMR 35s used a Restor armored headlight mounted at the center. In 1937-1938, these were replaced by Guichet headlights mounted to the left, just right and below the left fender. A rounded rearview mirror was often mounted on this left fender. The front glacis was also used as stowage space, with mounting points for tools such as shovels to be mounted transversally.

A towing cable could be mounted on the front left. The middle front plate featured the vehicle’s registration number in the center and the Renault manufacturer’s plate on the left. Just behind the middle front plate and below the front part of the glacis would be the transmission, still mounted to the front, with the armor plates protecting it being made easier to remove for maintenance.

To the driver’s right, even though the radiator was no longer to the front right of the vehicle, there was still a large ventilation grill, as on the AMR 33, despite this element having originally been removed on the ZT prototypes. This grill was in two parts, one on the angled glacis and one on the upper hull.

Overall, the front of the AMR 35 hull was fairly similar to the 33. This was generally also true for the sides, with ‘sponsons’ extending over the tracks to increase internal space on both sides of the vehicle. The turret of the AMR 35 was still off-centered to the left, placed behind the driver’s post.

The configuration of the AMR 33’s rear, with a large two-part openable hatch on the left and a radiator grill on the right, could obviously no longer be used with a transversely-mounted rear engine. The configuration of the hull also changed in comparison to the prototypes, where there was a radiator grill following the hull’s shape to the left and an access hatch to the right. Instead, the AMR 35’s rear hull featured a significant protrusion to the left. The roof of this protrusion actually housed another ventilation grill for the engine, while the rear plate had mounting points for a spare road wheel, which was a standard accessory for AMRs.

A crate fixed to the vehicle but not part of the armored body used for storage was placed to the right of the rear. There was also a two-part openable access hatch entirely hidden behind the removable storage box. The exhaust pipe was on top and front of this crate and protrusion, on the rear of the vehicle’s main armored body. There was a central towing hook and two mounting points if the vehicle itself had to be towed, one on each side, below this protrusion and crate.

Armor Protection

The AMR 35 kept the same armor scheme as the AMR 33. All vertical or near-vertical plates up to 30° (most of the front plates, the sides, and the rear) were 13 mm thick. Plates at an angle higher than 30°, but still potentially vulnerable to most enemy fire, parts of the front glacis for example, were 9 mm thick. The roof was 6 mm and the floor 5 mm. Grills were meant to be bulletproof, by making it so there would be not one but two plates in the way of any bullet trying to go through. Both turrets which would be mounted on the AMR 35 would follow the same armor scheme as the hull. As with the AMR 33, this armor scheme was light, but not at all abnormal for a light, reconnaissance vehicle. It ought to be noted that, to an extent, it could still be said to be comparatively less useful, as dedicated armor-piercing weapons were becoming more and more common during the 1930s, and as tracked light tanks with armor trying to protect against .50 caliber projectiles, for example, were also becoming more widespread.

Engine Block

In contrast to the AMR 33’s eight-cylinders, the AMR 35 used a 4-cylinders, 120×130 mm, 5,881 cm3 engine. This was the Renault 447, based on the Renault 441 city bus engine. It produced 82 hp at 2,200 rpm. The engine was fitted with an internal electric starting-up device, and alternatively could manually be started with a crank from the outside. It used a Zénith carburetor which was designed to allow a cold start. The front-mounted transmission had four forward and one reverse gear, with a “Cleveland” differential. This differential would prove to be an extremely difficult element to get in working order on the AMR 35. There was a two-part radiator, with a large ventilator placed to the rear of the engine block.

Overall, the AMR 35’s engine was actually slightly less powerful than the AMR 33, while the vehicle was heavier. This was a sacrifice that was agreed upon by Renault and the military in order to have a more reliable and easier to operate engine. Overall, a 4-cylinders, 82 hp engine would give the AMR 35 a power-to-weight ratio of about 12.6 hp/tonne. This was powerful enough to give the vehicle a maximum speed of 55 km/h on a good road and 40 km/h on a damaged road.

The AMR 35 had a 130 liter gasoline fuel tank, located to the rear right, in front of the access hatch located behind the removable crate.

Suspension and Tracks

The AMR 35 adopted, from the get go, the rubber suspension design which had been experimented on on VM prototypes.

The vehicle used four steel, rubber-rimmed road wheels: independent ones to the front and the rear and two in a central bogie. The wheels themselves had a heavier construction than those of the AMR 33, being full and not spoked hollow designs. This was likely a consequence of the AMR 33’s suspension elements being found to be too fragile. The central bogie, as well as each independent wheel, was linked to a rubber-block, an arrangement of five rubber cylinders for the center block and four for the front/rear ones, mounted on a central metallic bar. These rubber blocks would compress in order to absorb shocks. Overall, they made for a fairly smooth ride and were found to be much sturdier in comparison to the coil springs and oil shock absorbers of the AMR 33.

The AMR 35 featured four return rollers, a front mounted drive sprocket and a rear mounted idler wheel. The sprocket and idler had spoked designs, but unlike the AMR 33, were not completely hollow. There was metal between the spokes, though it was a lot thinner than the spokes. The tracks were still narrow, at 20 cm, and thin, with a large number of individual track links per side. The track had one central gripping point of the sprocket’s teeths.

This suspension design allowed the AMR 35 to ford 60 cm, cross a 1.70 m trench with straight vertical sides, or climb a 50% slope.

Turrets and Armament

Avis n°1 Turret & 7.5 mm MAC 31 Machine Gun

Of the 167 AMR 35s, 87 featured the Avis n°1 turret, as mounted on the AMR 33.

These turrets were manufactured by the state-owned workshop AVIS (Atelier de Construction de Vincennes – ENG: Vincennes Construction Workshop). Despite their name, they were not technically located within the municipality of Vincennes, just east of the city of Paris’s borders, but inside the Vincennes woods, technically within the territory of the municipality of Paris. In comparison, Renault facilities of Billancourt were located west of Paris, along the Seine and still within the urban area of the French capital. Though the design was carried out at Vincennes, production of the turrets took place in the Renault factory itself.

The small turret had the same riveted construction as the hull, and used a hexagonal design, with a front and rear plate, and three plates on the sides. The turret was higher at its rear. The turret in itself did not feature a seat. The vehicle, overall, was low enough that a seat located in the hull, even quite low in it, was high enough for the commander to be at eye level with vision devices. The vision devices included in the turret were, to the front, an episcope to the right, a vision slot to the left, and the machine gun sight. There was an additional vision port on each side, and to the rear.

The turret included a large semi-circle shaped hatch opening forward, allowing the commander to reach out from it. There was also an anti-aircraft mount for a MAC 31 7.5 mm machine gun present to the right-rear of the turret. Small handles were also present on the front sides to ease climbing into or out of the turret from the hatch.

In vehicles fitted with Avis n°1 turrets, armament was provided in the form of a MAC31 Type E machine gun, the shorter, tank version of the MAC 31 which had been designed for use in fortification. It used the new standard French cartridge, the 7.5×54 mm. The MAC31 Type E had a weight of 11.18 kg empty and 18.48 kg with a fully loaded 150-round drum magazine, fed to the right of the machine gun. The machine gun was gas-fed, and had a maximum cyclic rate of fire of 750 rounds per minute. It had a muzzle velocity of 775 m/s.

Within AMR 35s with Avis n°1 turret, a spare machine gun was carried. It was either to be used to replace the mounted one in case of malfunction or overheating, or to be mounted on an anti-aircraft mount present on the turret roof. As for ammunition, 15 150-round drums were stowed, for a total of 2,250 rounds of 7.5 mm ammunition.

Avis n°2 Turret & 13.2 mm Hotchkiss Machine Gun

A significant change of the AMR 35 in comparison to the AMR 33 was that a large part of the fleet would receive a new turret fitted with a more powerful machine gun. This would comprise 80 of the 167 AMR 35 ZT-1s.

These vehicles received the Avis n°2 turret. It had been designated by the same Vincennes workshop as the Avis n°1. The turrets were manufactured by railcar manufacturer Batignolles-Châtillon in Nantes, western France.

The Avis n°2 followed similar design principles as its predecessor. It also had a riveted construction and an overall hexagonal shape, but was noticeably taller, in order to accommodate its machine gun being fed by a magazine attached to the top, and not the side. The machine gun was offset to the right of the turret, with a sight just by its side, and further left an episcope with an openable armored cover. As with the Avis n°1, there was an openable vision port on each side and one on the rear of the turret.

The armament of the Avis n°2 was the 13.2 mm Hotchkiss model 1929 machine gun. As most, if not all .50 or near .50 heavy machine guns of the interwar, this model of Hotchkiss machine gun was developed as a response, and inspired by, the German 13.2×92 mm TuF cartridge. Initially, this German projectile was intended to be used mainly from a dual anti-air and anti-tank machine gun. Nevertheless, only the Tankgewehr anti-tank rifle would see action with this caliber. The ammunition and weapon were developed together in the second half of the 1920s, with the design finalized for adoption in 1929.

At first, the Hotchkiss machine gun used a 13.2×99 mm cartridge, and it was under this caliber that it was most widely exported. The Hotchkiss 13.2 mm machine gun will be most familiar to many as the standard Italian and Japanese 13.2 mm machine gun, produced under license in Italy as the Breda Model 31 and in Japan as the Type 93. In France, the barrels were found to wear out too quickly, with the blame pinned on the cartridge.

In 1935, a new cartridge was adopted, with French guns modified to fire it. This was a 13.2×96 mm, with the very small modifications centering on shortening the neck of the cartridge. Since the adoption of the shorter cartridge, the names of “13.2 Hotchkiss long” and “13.2 Hotchkiss short” have generally been used to differentiate them. When the AMR 35s armed with Hotchkiss 13.2 machine guns came out of their factories would all fire 13.2×96 mm Hotchkiss short.

This 13.2 mm cartridge was fired by a machine gun operating under the Hotchkiss gas operated mechanism, designed in the late 1800s and most notably used by the French Model 1914 8×50 mm Lebel machine gun. The new heavy machine gun remained an air-cooled design, with large cooling rings surrounding the barrel in order to increase the surface in contact with the air. The machine gun, however, differed from previous Hotchkiss designs in that it was fed from the top, instead of from the side. The ability to be fed from feed strips remained, as a 15-rounds feed strip was available for the machine gun, but the design was also compatible with a more modern feeding solution, a 30-round box magazine, which in practice was by far the most common way of feeding ammunition to the gun. The cyclic rate of fire of the 13.2 mm Hotchkiss was of 450 rounds per minute, with a muzzle velocity of 800 m/s.

The 30-round magazines were, however, fairly tall and curvy, and as a result, using them in enclosed armored vehicles would be impossible without designing an impracticable high turret. However, feed strips were a more fiddly solution, by no means desirable inside an AFV. In the end, the solution was to create a lower capacity, 20-round box magazine, which would stick out on top of the gun less, and therefore require less overhead space. As can be easily seen from the design of the Avis n°2, they obviously still required more than a side-fed machine gun like the 7.5 mm MAC 31. These 20 round box magazines are unfortunately extremely obscure, with no clearly identified view of them. In comparison to the curved 30-rounders, they likely were either straight or with a much less pronounced curve.

The 13.2×96 mm Hotchkiss had, as most .50 cal cartridges, non-negligible armor-piercing performances in the 1930s. With the standard model 1935 armor-piercing ammunition, it was found that the weapon could penetrate 20 mm of perpendicular armor at 500 m, and still 15 mm at 1,000 m. Against a plate angled at 20°, the machine gun would pierce 20 mm of armor at 200 m. At 30°, it was found the projectiles would penetrate 18 mm at 500 m and still 12 mm at 2,000 m. In addition to these piercing capabilities against steel, 13.2 mm caliber bullets would also obviously offer more penetration against various forms of cover, such as brick walls, armored shields, accumulated sandbags, etc., meaning they could also be used more effectively against infantry behind cover.

These capabilities made the weapon an interesting solution for armored vehicles which could not mount larger weapons, such as the 25 mm anti-tank gun. Even so, the 13.2 mm machine gun was more effective against infantry than the semi-automatic 25 mm gun, which did not have high-explosive shells. It should be noted, however, that the weapon was very rare in the French Army outside of armored fighting vehicles. The air force adopted the 13.2 mm Hotchkiss machine gun for airfield defense, and the navy used it as an anti-aircraft weapon too, but the Army opted to reject the heavy machine gun. The reason given was that it was feared projectiles fired against aircraft could end up falling into friendly lines and be dangerous in this fashion.

Therefore, 13.2 mm machine guns were very rare in the French Army. Outside of armored vehicles, around a hundred were found on the Maginot Line. A large number were deployed in casemates overlooking the Rhine, as it was thought their armor-piercing capacities would be useful in a hypothetical German attempt at an amphibious crossing with small boats or landing barges. Some would also be used for static air defense far behind the frontlines.

Within AMR 35s fitted with the Avis n°2 turret, 37 20-rounds box magazines would be carried, comprising 740 rounds. A further 480 13.2 mm rounds would be available, but these would be carried in cardboard boxes. The crew would have to refill magazines with them once they were out of full magazines, which is definitely not a task that could be reasonably performed in action. The assumption was most likely that the crew could refill their emptied magazines out of combat even if there was no immediately available supply of 13.2 mm ammunition, but the equal amount of space being used to store additional full box magazines would likely have been far more useful, even if it somewhat reduced the total number of 13.2 mm rounds stored inside the vehicle.

Unlike the vehicles fitted with the 7.5 mm machine gun, those using the 13.2 mm did not have a spare machine gun at their disposal, despite the contrary sometimes being stated. Accordingly, there was no mount for an anti-aircraft machine gun on the roof of the Avis n°2 turret.

Radios

Unlike the previous AMR 33, a portion of the AMR 35 fleet was intended to receive radios. Though, at first, it was planned that there would be radio-equipped vehicles with both turrets, in the end, only vehicles fitted with the Avis n°1 would receive the fittings for them.

Fifty-seven AMR 35 ZT-1s with Avis n°1 turrets were to receive radios, and were likely given the fittings for them. These evolved over the years, including a massive antenna at first, later replaced by a smaller housing, all on the right fender, just in front of the crew compartment. There were also some changes in the electrical wiring inside the vehicle in order to accommodate the radio posts.

These radio posts were to be the ER 29 (Emetteur Recepteur – ENG: transmitter receiver). Production was to begin in 1936, but only truly began in 1939. How many AMR 35 actually received their radios is not known, but many which were planned to have one never received it, making them no better than AMR 33s communication wise, and reducing their ways to communicate with hatches closed to flags.

When installed, the 50 kg ER 29 had a frequency of 14-23 m, and a range of 5 km. They were meant for communications between the vehicles of platoon leaders and the commander of their squadron. Unfortunately, French radios were not only rarely found, but also of poor quality. Their transmissions were easily stopped by obstacles such as trees. Nonetheless, even if poor, they were still a significant addition.

Towards the last months before the German invasion of France, there was also an ambitious plan to fit all AMR 35s, platoon/squadron commander vehicles or not, with a small (15 kg) short-range (2 km) ER 28 10-15 m radio. These would have been used for communications between vehicles of the same platoons, which would likely have been greatly appreciated, as French Army doctrine on the AMRs did include the possibility of vehicles of a same platoon separating beyond a range where voice communication or even flag communication is at all practical. Though this plan would have been a great upgrade to the AMR 35s, it was never carried out, and not a single AMR 35 received the ER 28 radio.

Camouflage

AMR 35s left their factories with one general pattern of camouflage, but with significant variations on how the colors were applied.

This was a three or four-tone camouflage. It was generally brush-painted in fairly large rounded shapes, which were separated by a blurry edge painted in black. The four colors used were olive green and Terre de Sienne (brown) for the darker colors, and ochre (in practice yellow) and vert d’eau”(watery green, imagined to be a lighter green color) for lighter colors. Black and white photos have generally left the lighter colors fairly distinct, but the olive green and Terre de Sienne’ can often be hard to differentiate.

Common Markings

A few different markings can sometimes be seen on AMR 35s.

One, of which the use varied significantly, was the tricolor cockade, or roundel. During most of the 1930s, it was not a standard to apply it on Cavalry vehicles, but in March 1938, its use was standardized. Vehicles completed after this date received one painted on the turret side and roof by Renault during production, while vehicles already in service had one painted by their crews. The standard size was a diameter of 40 cm.

There were some non-standard cockades sometimes used. Some tiny ones can be seen on vehicles of the 1st RDP. A few months before the outbreak of the war, many vehicles had their turret side cockades removed, although the roof ones were often retained. Sometimes, some received cockades on places such as the turret rear prior to the Campaign of France.

There could also be unit insignias, both at the divisional and regimental level. The only unit known to have made widespread use of these is the 1st RDP of the 2nd DLM. The unit adopted a lozenge-shaped blue insignia adorned with two red and white flags.

An army-wide symbol, to be applied to all automotive vehicles, was chosen in 1940. It was in a white square with 20 cm sides. For the Cavalry, it was further refined by the addition of a blue lozenge, 15 cm high and 10 cm wide. Within the 2nd DLM, a small Cross of Lorraine was added within this lozenge as a divisional insignia.

There was also a numbering system, though it only appears to have been in systematic use within the 1st RDP. Each squadron’s operational vehicles would be divided between tranches of 20. The 1st squadron would be vehicles 1 to 20, 2nd vehicles 20 to 40, and 3rd, if there was one, vehicles 40 to 60. Within the squadrons, a platoon’s five vehicles are assigned tranches of 1 to 5. For example, the 2nd squadron’s 3rd platoon would include vehicles 30 to 35.

The use of playing-card game symbols to denote a vehicle’s squadron and platoon was also common. The practice was widely generalized within the whole of the French Army at the time. This could be manifested with each squadron having an assigned color, and each platoon having an assigned symbol. For example, the 1st squadron would use red, the 2nd blue, and the 3rd green. The 1st platoon would use an ace of spades, the 2nd an ace of hearts, the 3rd an ace of diamonds, and the 4th an ace of clubs. This way, by combining the color and symbol, one could determine what platoon of what squadron a vehicle belonged to.

Doctrinal Use of the AMRs

The AMRs were intended to be issued to Cavalry units. Their main role was close reconnaissance. For longer-range, more independent operations, another class of automitrailleuse existed, the AMD (Automitrailleuse de Découverte – ENG: ‘Discovery’ Armored Car), which would typically have more extensive range and more powerful armament than an AMR, in order to more effectively operate on their own for longer periods of time.

On their own, the AMRs were meant to search within a selected, limited area for enemy contact. Their small size was viewed as a benefit in this, and it was specified that they had to use terrain to their advantage to the best of their abilities. Combat was to be engaged at close range only. The vehicles were to take contact with the enemy, but not stay in combat distance for long, as, with their thin armor, it was clear they would not last under armor-piercing or artillery fire. It was also specified that the vehicles would operate in close cooperation with other types of troops, either motorcycle-mounted reconnaissance troops, AMC (Automitrailleuse de Combat – ENG: Combat Armored Car) cavalry tanks, and/or traditional cavalry.

The AMRs were to operate in platoons of five. In operations, each platoon would be further divided into two small sections of two vehicles, with the fifth, independent vehicle, being the platoon leader. When operating on the AMR 35 type, the leader of each section was to use a 13.2 mm-armed vehicle. Platoons were to be followed by motorcyclists, which would typically be used to communicate with other parts of the unit.

The standard procedure was for a platoon of five vehicles to be tasked to investigate an area 1 to 1.5 km wide. Each section of the platoon was to operate at a distance sufficiently small that they would still be in visual contact with the other. Platoon leaders were not to stay behind, but to follow the first section, though under some circumstances, they could decide to stay to observe further back. The vehicle of the section leader was to lead, with the second vehicle slightly behind, so that if the first vehicle came under fire, the second could assist with its own armament.

Progression within an area to investigate was to be made in ‘hops’. Vehicles would go from one zone to observe the area from another, with the zones to stop at preferably offering decent cover. The next position would be observed with binoculars before being taken. In case of uncertainty in regards to a position, the second patrol could go to investigate closer while the first would remain in observation with binoculars.

When going from one cover to another, the AMRs were to progress, if possible, in non-linear ways, and if suspect positions were encountered on the way, they were cleared to fire at them in order either to reveal the position of enemy troops or find it clear of enemy presence. This would typically be done while stopping. It was noted that fire of the move was generally inaccurate and wasteful of ammunition, and it was to be used only in emergencies. The manual specified, for example, that shooting on the move would be used if an automatic weapon or anti-tank gun was suddenly revealed and the vehicle was under threat. The platoon leader was to organize and correct each ‘hop’, which as a rule, implied he had to follow vehicles rather swiftly, as they did not have radio to communicate with one another.

When encountering a village or wood, each patrol was to go around it on its outer border, observing if anything could be seen inside. Once that was done, one of the patrols would stay at the opposite side of the area to the one they came from and where the platoon leader would still be located. The other would go through the village or wood to the commander, and once they regrouped, progression would start again.

If the wood or urban area was particularly large, another procedure was in place. A patrol would stay with the platoon commander, while the other would quickly go to the opposite exit of the wood or urban area. It would then divide in two, with a vehicle staying to defend the opposite exit while the other would quickly drive through the area, reach the other patrol and platoon commander, and the group would then rejoin with the lone armored car on the other side of the area.

When one or a couple of vehicles fell under fire, they were to simultaneously fire back and find cover as quickly as possible, while other vehicles of the platoons were to flank in order to delimitate the area held by the enemy, and if the resistance was limited, try to push the enemy back from this flanking maneuver. If flanking was not a possibility, the vehicles were to cooperate progressively on a point at a time. If pushing the enemy back was not a possibility due to the resistance being too strong, the vehicles were to stop behind the nearest cover and retain binocular observation of the enemy, with one of the vehicles periodically going on a short patrol to confirm enemy positions were still occupied.

When operating alongside troops mounted on motorcycles, these were noted to be a very helpful asset in reconnaissance. They were said to, in practice, prove more reliable than the armored cars at providing vision when no enemy fire was encountered, notably when moving, as the AMR crews were said to have lacked vision when in movement. Once contact with the enemy was taken, they were to observe and note the firing points firing at the armored cars and retain observation even once the armored cars were no longer under fire.

It was generally hoped the armored cars would operate in conjunction with a motorcyclist platoon, forming a détachement mixte (ENG:mixed group). It would be led by the most senior officer between the AMR and the motorcyclist platoon. The motorcycles were generally to follow in the armored car’s stead, due to the latter’s greater protection against enemy fire. When under enemy fire, the motorcyclists were to engage in a more skirmish-like action, pushing the enemy flanks and making sure to keep contact with the enemy even if the armored cars no longer had line of sight. Against an enemy line, it was even, quite optimistically, said that the motorcyclists could attempt to infiltrate weaker points of the line, and be rescued by the AMRs if in trouble.

There were also different principles for when the AMRs were operating alongside AMCs, which, de facto, were cavalry tanks. The AMRs would take the lead of progress, with AMCs at a slight distance behind them to be able to observe the reactions triggered by the AMR’s presence and provide supporting fire. The AMRs would also be tasked with reaching the edge of cover to check for enemy presence, as well as to cover the flanks if they offered good firing positions for the enemy.

Once resistance was uncovered, the AMRs would put it under fire and stop advancing, letting the AMCs catch up and take the lead for the time needed to reduce the enemy point. If the resistance was sporadic, once an enemy point was reduced, advance would continue as normal. If the group encountered the main enemy line of resistance, the AMRs would switch to a secondary role, operating in the intervals between AMC groups to provide supporting fire as well as screening the flanks for enemy presence.

The AMRs were also given the role of cleaning up minor resistance points which may have escaped the AMCs. In such a role, a platoon would cover areas 1 to 1.2 km-wide. These cleanup groups were to follow closely behind the AMCs in order to profit from the chaos caused by their heavier firepower, making sure each point was cleared of enemy presence as the Cavalry unit progressed.

The AMRs were also used in another offensive role, in what was called the “occupation echelon”. This would be the part of the unit which would follow after the offensive echelon, itself consisting of the AMCs and AMRs previously mentioned. This occupation echelon would lack AMCs and instead include traditional cavalry and motorcyclists, with the AMRs being, typically, their heaviest elements. The AMRs were to screen forward of this group in order to spot remaining enemy elements. The role of the AMRs of the occupation echelon was to relieve those of the cleanup group of the attack echelon. It was generally hoped that by this stage, all significant enemy resistance would be gone.

One could generally see these offensive doctrines as a three to four-layered attack. A first offensive layer, the largest, including AMRs and AMCs, itself constituted of the AMRs first closely followed by the AMCs. Then, following up, the cleanup platoons operating AMRs, the head of the occupation echelon operating AMRs, itself then followed by cavalry and infantry elements. At the very rear, there was to be a reserve squadron as part of the occupation echelon, meant to be used during emergencies.

These were, overall, the operating principles in offensive actions. They can be said to be very enthusiastic about the capacities of a group of five lightly armored and armed vehicles.

There were also principles given for defensive use of the AMRs. It was clearly mentioned that the vehicles had to be used for delaying actions, and not in a static defense. They would then be placed at the edge of cover, such as a forest or village’s edge, and fire upon enemy forces they spotted at greater ranges. It is then said they would keep this contact all the way to close range, if possible counter attack, and if not, swiftly retreat to the next cover in a sort of defensive reversal of the ‘hopping’ method of advance. If enemy forces were noted to be on the smaller and less equipped side, it was suggested to hold fire until closer ranges, in order to create ambushes. During these defensive operations, the platoon leader was given responsibility to ensure the flanks were well guarded.

Variants: A Whole Cavalry Vehicles Family ?

The previous AMR 33 had a quite limited number of derivatives due to its unorthodox engine placement, which was disliked and found unsuited for many hypothetical variants. As the AMR 35 used a more classic engine configuration, it would come to have more variants being built on its hull.

Renault YS and YS 2

The first variant is the Renault YS, which can be considered to be somehow a variant of both the AMR 33 and AMR 35. The concept of this vehicle was first mentioned in December 1932. The idea was to create a command vehicle with a larger superstructure that could house more men and the equipment needed for them to assume command functions.

Two YS prototypes would eventually be manufactured, the first in 1933, on the Renault VM’s suspension. They had a larger, boxier armored superstructure which could house six men, and had no armament, though they featured a firing port/hatch where an FM 24/29 machine rifle could be placed.

After the two VM-based prototypes, it was decided to order ten production Renault YS in January 1934, with the order formalized by contract 218 D/P on April 10th 1934. By the time they were being manufactured, it was decided to produce them on the chassis of the AMR 35, as its suspension was preferred and this was the type of vehicle being manufactured by Renault at the time.

These 10 production vehicles would be fitted with a number of different radio configurations and would be distributed within army units, within not just the Cavalry, but also the Infantry and Artillery branches, for experimental use. They were still in service by 1940.

In autumn 1936, one of the two prototypes was experimentally converted into an artillery observation vehicle, which was called the “YS 2”.

ADF 1

The ADF 1 was, alongside the ZT-2 and ZT-3, part of the same contracts as the standard ZT-1 armored cars, with the total number of vehicles of the contracts being around 200 vehiclesThis variant was designed to serve as a command vehicle for AMR squadrons.

The requirements of the vehicle called for an enlarged crew compartment, with a casemate instead of a turret, to accommodate a three-man crew with a large ER 26 radio set. To increase the size of the crew compartment, Renault put the vehicle’s gearbox to the front instead of rear. The vehicle received an armored casemate, similar at first glance to a turret, but completely non-rotating. There was no permanent armament, but a firing port with a gun mask that could accommodate an FM 24/29 machine rifle. All vehicles except one ended up with two radios, an ER 26ter and an ER 29 (the only exception instead having two ER 29s). The ER 26 had a maximum range of 60 km, while the ER 29 was the same radio as already used by platoon commander vehicles.

Thirteen ADF 1s were ordered in total, and were manufactured in the second half of 1938. By 1940, six ADF 1s were in standard use within the RDP units that operated the AMR 35s. Six others were seemingly unemployed and within the reserves of Cavalry units, and a last one was at the Saumur Cavalry School.

ZT-2 and ZT-3

The AMR 35 ZT-2 and ZT-3 were the variants which followed and took different approaches to the same problem, adding additional firepower to AMR 35-equipped units.

The ZT-2 solved this issue in a very straightforward way, replacing the Avis turrets with an APX 5, a one-man turret armed with the 25 mm SA 35 vehicle-mounted anti-tank gun. It can be noted that the APX 5 also had a coaxial MAC31E, meaning the ZT-2 de facto had the combined firepower of an AMR 35 armed with an Avis n°1 and of a 25 mm anti-tank gun.

The ZT-3, instead of mounting a turret, applied more intense modifications to the hull, being a casemate vehicle instead of a turreted one. The gun was mounted to the right, and was actually the non-shortened version of the 25 mm anti-tank gun, the SA 34.

Ten of each type were ordered, and were the last military contract Renault ZT-derived vehicles to be completed, with the ZT-3 being completed in early 1939, and the ZT-2s seemingly only receiving their turrets after the breakout of the war itself. The two types were present in some small AMR-equipped reconnaissance groups and were used during the campaign of France.

ZT-4

There was one last major variant of the AMR 35, but it was not actually ordered by a branch of the Ministry of War. Instead, it was ordered by the Ministry of the Colonies. This was the ZT-4, which differed from other AMRs in that it was actually called a char, or tank, by its users.

The ZT-4 was modified to be more usable in tropical terrain. It was specifically meant for use in South-East Asia, most significantly, in French Indochina, but also potentially in French holdings in China. The easiest way to differentiate the ZT-4 from other types is a large air intake grill on the left side of the hull.

The first ZT-4s were ordered as early as 1936, but production would be massively delayed, as the vehicles were lower priority than Army vehicles, and the colonial administration kept experiencing delays of its own. The first order was for 21 vehicles, of which 18 were actually to be made turretless, while the three others would have Avis n°1. It was planned that the 18 turretless vehicles would actually be given turrets from Renault FT light tanks already in service in Indochina, 12 of which would have 37 mm SA 18 guns, and 6 8 mm Hotchkiss machine guns. All of these vehicles were planned to have radios, but Renault was not to fit these into the vehicles. Fitting them to the vehicles was also to be carried out by the users in the colonies.

A further order for 3 Avis n°1-equipped vehicles was signed in 1937, and another order for 31 vehicles fitted with Avis n°1 turret, with no mention of radio fittings, in 1938. In practice, the ZT-4s were actually being manufactured in spring 1940, and a number were pressed into service in early June 1940. Contrary to their initial destination, they were used in mainland France to counter the German invasion. As none had turrets at this point, they were to be used with machine rifles fired from the empty turret ring. After the armistice, some vehicles would be completed with Avis n°1 turrets under German supervision and pressed into German security service.

Trying to Get the AMR 35 Into Service: The Disaster Years

The adoption of the AMR 35 could be said to have been very premature, and the delivery schedules overly ambitious, to an almost absurd degree. Even once AMR 33 production was complete in early 1935, Renault would face constant issues with the AMR 35.

The first complete armored hull was completed by Schneider in March 1935. The vehicle was mostly completed by Renault in April-May, though a number of minor components were still missing, and the vehicle left the factory on May 20th 1935. The vehicle was sent to Satory for trials, and actually passed them satisfactorily.

On July 3rd, the 3rd production ZT hull, almost fully complete, was showcased to the French Cavalry’s technical services. From August 3rd to 7th, the vehicle, fitted with a turret, was evaluated at Satory. There were some minor issues, but at first, these remained mostly details. The vehicle was turning a little less well than prototypes, but otherwise appeared functional. This was until it was asked to climb a 40° slope with a number of moderately sized bumps. This would still have been very reasonable within the vehicle’s capacities, and another vehicle which was considered as a prototype AMR, the Gendron, successfully managed to climb it while being an all-wheeled vehicle. However, the AMR 35 attempted to climb twice and failed each time.

The French Army was dissatisfied by this performance, despite Renault’s objections that the vehicle managed to climb a 30°/50% slope at its facilities, and that this was what was specified. The French Army requested a change of gear ratios so the vehicle could climb the slope. Despite significant internal reservations, Renault was forced to undertake changes to the gear ratios.

These modifications to the gear ratios would prove disastrous for the AMR 35. The improvement at first seemed successful. The French Army refused 12 new vehicles which were fitted with the new gear ratios in September 1935. Renault would complete the first completed vehicle with the new gear ratios in October. By January 1936, 11 were complete, and by February 22nd, 30 ZT-1s with new gear ratios were complete and another 20 were on the assembly lines.

Finally, about a year and a half after the French Army’s expectations, the first AMR 35s were delivered to units in April 1936. These first units to receive them were mostly the 1st and 4st RDP, which were motorized infantry regiments which were part of the DLMs, though some would be delivered to various GAM armored cars groups, most of which would later be pressed into service within the same two RDPs.

At the point at which AMR 35s were delivered to units, a disastrous series of incidents started. Final drives of the AMR 35s kept breaking at an alarming rate, with the vehicles becoming practically inoperable and extremely unpopular with the crews. The problem was so significant that the French Army inspection service took the radical decision to cease AMR 35 assembly and have the vehicles be stored and stop operation while Renault found a solution. After Renault considered a number of solutions, the modification of a batch of 20 was accepted on October 13th 1936. Seventeen of these vehicles would be delivered to the 1st RDP on December 23rd and 24th 1936, while another one was taken through very extensive trials in Satory.

The situation seems to, at this point, have improved somewhat, and the French state cleared Renault to modify all 92 ZT-1 armored cars of the first contract with the new reinforced gear ratios, with already delivered vehicles returning to Renault’s factory and vehicles in production receiving the modifications before completion. The production inspection services asked for two vehicles, one with each turret, to be presented to them as prototypes, which was done on April 8th 1937, with the two vehicles being accepted.

Slowly, production and deliveries resumed. By August 1937, 70 of the 92 vehicles of the first contract were completed. The vehicles were returned to active use within the units using them. Nonetheless, major issues and breakdowns of differentials would resume, particularly from October 1937 onward. The administration of the Ministry of War sent a very outraged letter to Renault on November 16th 1937, reporting that the AMRs had been through 5 major modifications since the first deliveries, and that despite that, out of 43 fixed AMR 35s that had been delivered to the 1st and 4th RDP, six already had their differentials break. The next day, it was reported that 84 out of the 92 vehicles of the first contract were completed, with the 8 others on the production lines. Renault was finally starting to work on the vehicles of the second and third orders.

The last vehicles of the first contract were delivered on February 16th 1938. The situation seemed to have improved from 1936, but still by no means acceptable. In a new letter on March 14th 1938, the administration complained that many out of at this point 85 vehicles delivered had suffered major breakdowns of the differentials. Renault was asked to produce new differentials to refit vehicles that had suffered a major breakdown, as well as send specialist teams to the 1st and 4th RDP to help with the very troubled operations of the vehicles. By autumn, 18 vehicles had to be returned to Renault’s factories for major repairs.

Production of the vehicles from the second contract had started in August 1937. Renault modified the vehicles a little by strengthening the front hull and used a modified gearbox. The first five vehicles from this contract were delivered from May 23rd to 25th 1938. Ten others were delivered on June 2nd-3rd, and by July 27th, 56 were complete, with 34 having been received by units. The last recorded deliveries were made on November 21st 1938, and overall it appears that the last of the 167 AMR 35 ZT-1s were delivered in the last weeks of 1938.

Overall, the production and delivery process of the AMR 35s proved an unmitigated disaster for Renault. By November 1938, the company was reduced to pleading to be freed from the delay penalties, which could prove massive. The constant return of vehicles to the factory to be fixed up had made the production less than lucrative, in fact, almost ruinous. Not only was the vehicle less of a financial success than hoped, but it also had a major role in ruining the trust of the French military, and particularly the Cavalry branch, in Renault. This was made even worse by another Renault vehicle, the AMC 35/Renault AGC, also facing production and operational issues, perhaps even worse than the AMR. Though the AMR 35 would seem to reach a workable and somewhat reliable state by 1939, this would never truly be the case for the AMC.

The AMR 35s are Delivered to Units

The AMR 35s had been procured with the main goal of equipping a new type of division of the French Cavalry, the DLM (Division Légère Mécanique – Light Mechanized Division). Meant as a division combining motorized infantry, armored cars, and cavalry tanks, the first DLM was created in July of 1935, but the concept had been years in the making. By the time the first AMR 35s were delivered in 1936, this division was still the only one in existence, but there were plans to convert more cavalry divisions in the future.

There were, at first, plans for a large number of AMR 35s to be assigned to each DLM. The fighting core of each DLM was to be a strengthened brigade composed of two reconnaissance-combat regiment, each comprising two squadrons of AMRs and two squadrons of AMCs. As such, a French cavalry squadron had a strength of 20 vehicles. Furthermore, there would be a three battalion-strong regiment of dragons portés, a type of motorized infantry, and each of these battalions would have a squadron of AMRs. In other words, it was planned a DLM would feature 7 squadrons, or a whopping 140 AMRs.

However, these plans were ditched long before the first AMR 35 was delivered, in large part due to the massive delays in deliveries. When the Cavalry adopted the Hotchkiss H35, it was to replace the AMRs within the four squadrons that would have used them in the combat brigade. It was also decided to reduce the number of AMR squadrons within the dragons portés regiment to two, in other words meaning there would be just two squadrons, or 40 vehicles, of AMRs in a DLM.

As the first AMR 35s were delivered, they were typically delivered to the 1st RDP, part of the 1st DLM. In early 1937, the 2nd DLM was created, and new AMR 35s started being delivered to its regiment, the 4th RDP. The 3rd DLM would only be created after AMR 35 production ceased, but there were already plans for an armored car group to be reformed into the AMR squadrons of its future RDP. The last AMR 35s were thus delivered to the 1st GAM (Groupements d’Automitrailleuses – Armored Car Group), at this point part of the 1st Cavalry Division, which was to become the 3rd DLM.

The AMR 35s at the Outbreak of the War

Plans for the AMR 35 were somewhat shifted in 1939. The 1st and 2nd DLM were raised back from two to three squadrons of AMR 35s, or 60 vehicles per unit. Plans to transform the 1st Cavalry Division into the 3rd DLM were canceled, with the 3rd DLM instead being created from the ground up. It would not receive any AMR, instead only using S35s, Hotchkiss light tanks, and AMD 35s. A single squadron of AMR 35s was kept within the 1st Cavalry Division, part of the unit’s 5th RDP.

In other words, there were seven squadrons of 20 AMRs in service by 1940: three within the 1st RDP of the 2nd DLM, three within the 4th RDP of the 1st DLM, and one within the 5th RDP of the 1st Cavalry Division. Each squadron would have two vehicles in reserve, for 22 vehicles each in total. An additional five AMR 35s were used by the Saumur Cavalry School and eight were in general reserve.

AMR 35s within the 1st RDP

The 1st RDP was the first unit to receive the AMR 35, starting in 1936. In pre-war times, it was based in Pontoise, a north-west suburb of Paris.

The unit used a lozenge-shape insignia, with small bicolor flags (a red stripe on top and a white stripe on the bottom) on the top sides. The insignia could be further detailed with numbering depending on the squadron operating the AMR. Before the outbreak of the campaign of France, the unit would also adopt a set of bicolor lozenge-shape tactical markings. The 1st Squadron used a full blue lozenge, the 2nd Squadron a red top and blue bottom half, and the 3rd Squadron a green top and blue bottom half.

As it received its AMR 35s earlier than any other unit, the 1st RDP was by far the one which suffered with the major teething issues of the vehicle the most. This was further made worse by the fact the unit had not previously received AMR 33s to fall back on, with the AMR 35 being the only fully tracked AMRs available to it. It operated its AMRs in two mixed squadrons, which both included four platoons of five AMRs, and two platoons of 13 motorcycles with side-cars.

The unit extensively took part in exercises during the late 1930s, and was also often employed for parades. In 1939, it notably paraded in Versailles in June before taking part in the Bastille Day parade in Paris.

When the campaign of France broke out, the 2nd DLM operated alongside the 3rd DLM, being part of the French spearhead heading into Belgium to attempt to counter the expected German push there. The two DLMs formed the main French force during the Battle of Hannut from May 12th to May 14th and then in the battle of Gembloux on May 15th. These are generally considered the largest tank battles of the campaign of France and the Low Countries.

Unfortunately, the 66 AMR 35s of the 1st RDP were quite the minority within more than 500 French AFVs, with the heavier Somua S35s and Hotchkiss tanks both featuring better performances and leaving much more of an impression. Though the battles were not a disaster for the French, photographic evidence does show that a large amount of AMR 35s were lost on roads of eastern Belgium, and later, as French forces realized they were surrounded, in French roads closing towards the sea to the Dunkirk pocket. In one notable instance, on May 29th, four AMR 35s of the RDP’s 3rd Battalion were lost in the Belgian town of Furnes. All AMR 35s of the unit were left destroyed or abandoned in the pocket.

Vehicles of the 4th RDP

While still at battalion level, the 4th BDP started receiving AMR 35s in spring 1936. The unit already had AMR 33s at this point. It was reclassified into a regiment in October 1936, and completely replaced AMR 33s with AMR 35s in 1937. The unit was based in Verdun.

The unit lacked a clear insignia, though a simple blue losenze in a white square was often painted on the vehicle’s fenders for recognition.

As part of the move into the Low Countries, the 1st DLM was the tip of the French spear. It was meant to cross Belgium and head towards the southern Netherlands in order to link up with the Dutch Army, which it did remarkably quickly, already engaging with German troops near Maastricht on May 11th 1940. On that day, the 4th RDP already suffered from seemingly uncontested air strikes, which did not cause major losses.

It is reported that on May 12th, elements of the RDP, including a squadron of AMR 35s, were used to hold the village of Diessen in the afternoon, but had to retreat to protect a canal in the evening. Several AMR 35s were probably lost in the engagement, with at least one confirmed to have been destroyed in Diessen.

The RDP held the canal the next day and retreated further on the night from the 13th to the 14th. At this point, the Regiment entered back into Belgium, and actually faced difficulties, as the unit’s officers had to negotiate with Belgians troops that wanted to blow up bridges before the 3rd Battalion could cross them. No battalion ended up stranded, but losses were still reported.

On May 15th, the unit continued its retreat, entering back into France. However, just like the others, the 1st DLM still ended up stranded north of the German breakthrough to the sea. In the early afternoon of the 18th, positions of parts of the Battalion were forced to retreat under the advance of German tanks. A counter-attack had to be hastily canceled, and overall heavy losses of AMRs appear to have been taken on that day and the next.

It is reported that the AMRs managed to fend off light elements, including small numbers of light tanks or armored cars alongside trucks and infantry, in the morning of the 19th, but in the afternoon, German troops managed to infiltrate French positions, forcing another retreat. By the 20th, already suffering from the cut of supply lines, it is reported AMRs were starting to lack fuel and ammunition, and that some vehicles were particularly used and in a bad state. Heavy losses continued in the next days, as the RDP fought a fighting retreat, orienting itself towards the sea and Dunkirk in the hope of getting out of the pocket.

In the last few days of May, some of the last still operational AMRs were often abandoned and sabotaged to avoid capture, as men of the RDP started evacuating from Dunkirk and Zuydcoote on March 30th. Though many would get away, all their fleet of 66 AMR 35s would be left behind, either destroyed or abandoned.

The Lone Squadrons of the 5th RDP

By the start of the campaign, the 5th RDP had a somewhat odd organization. There were two mixed squadrons equipped with AMR 35s, but they were both at half-strength with only two platoons, meaning overall, the RDP had the same 22 vehicles as one of the three squadrons of the 1st or 4th RDP .

The 1st Cavalry Division was reorganized as the first DLC (Division Légère de Cavalerie – ENG: Light Cavalry Division) in March 1940, and it was as part of this unit that the 5th RDP fought.

The various DLCs were generally placed on the flank of the French maneuver into Belgium, covering the Ardennes from expected German advances. In other words, they found themselves straight in the path of the German breakthrough. The 1st DLC experienced this quickly, encountering German troops on its flank as early as May 11th, with the unit forced to take to the left bank of the Meuse River in an attempt to create a defensive line on the river.

The unit suffered heavy losses, in large part on May 13th, when an order that was supposed to be sent to the 1st DcR (Division Cuirassée – ENG: Armored Division) was in fact sent to the 1st DLC due to the two names being mistaken, and the unit was ordered to attack German lines. It appears the attack did not take place, but heavy losses would nonetheless be taken.

It is known two AMR 35s were knocked out by air strike on May 14th. By the next day, the first of the RDP’s two squadrons had already lost an entire platoon, half its strength, while other AMRs were being abandoned due to mechanical issues or lack of fuel. Even the surviving platoon lost an AMR knocked out by a German anti-tank weapon on the evening of May 15th.

The 1st Squadron lost the last of its 11 AMRs on May 17th. Meanwhile, the 2nd Squadron suffered a major breakdown in the supply system that left nine AMR 35s abandoned by the side of the road in Villers-le Gambon, southern Belgium, on May 15th. In less than ten days of fighting, the 5th RDP had lost its entire fleet of AMR 35s.

Late in the campaign, in June 1940, it appears the last few remaining reserve AMR 35 ZT-1s were pressed into service with the 4th Armored Cars Regiment, part of an ill-fated attempt at creating another DLM, the 7th, in desperate attempts to resist the German advance. No more than 10 AMRs total, including some AMR 33s, were part of this unit.

Evaluating the AMR 35

The AMR 35 can be somewhat of a hard vehicle to judge in comparison to some other armored fighting vehicles of the French Army.

It can not be argued that the vehicle did not have some major flaws, and poor performances during the Battle of France demonstrated them. The vehicle’s teething phase had been particularly long and horrendous, with the vehicles becoming unpopular and crews frustrated as AMR 35s were constantly returning to Renault factories to have parts, in particular their differentials, changed.

The AMR 35 ended up as a disaster for Renault. The vehicle was, in many ways, an improvement over the previous AMR 33. It offered a better chassis for modifications, had a sturdier suspension, a more reliable engine, the ability to mount a more powerful armament, and the fittings of radios intended from the start. However, the massive delays and issues experienced from 1935 to 1938 meant that orders of the type remained moderate. At the same time, it proved not at all lucrative, and heavily damaged the relationship between Renault and the French Cavalry.

By the point they were fighting in the campaign of France, the AMRs were distributed within motorized infantry regiments, and no matter how much the crews would be taught to perform reconnaissance action, it was to be expected that AMRs would end up used for infantry support as part of such an unit. They were woefully unsuited for that task, being lightly armed and armored, and the situation of the campaign was not kind to them, as AMR 35s were largely in parts of the front where German armor was the most common.

The AMR 35s also suffered from issues that plagued almost all French tanks, notably a one-man turret. However, it can still be argued that the vehicle was not comparable to some of the almost unsalvageable disasters the French industry put out in the 1930s, Renault’s R35 light infantry tank being a notable example.

Though significant flaws would always have remained, there were indeed some actual, planned improvements or features of the AMR 35 that could have made it better suited for mobile warfare. The use of radios is a notable one. Ultimately, due to the fittings of radios being canceled on many vehicles, and the production of radio posts being slow even for the others, only few AMR 35s were ever fitted with radios.The ER 29 and eventually ER 28 they were meant to be fitted with were rather small radios, by no means making a vehicle bearing them into a command machine unable of fighting. Had more attention been placed on these, a fleet of AMR 35s all equipped with both an ER 29 and an ER 28 would have started to have real qualities of reconnaissance.

The introduction of the 13.2 mm Hotchkiss was also significant. It would allow the AMR to fight off enemy armored reconnaissance elements armed with armored cars such as the Sd.Kfz.221, 222 or 231, or Panzer I light tanks.

The comparison with the Panzer I actually gives a good example of what the AMR 35 could have been, had more attention been put into it. The Panzer I is obviously not remembered by many as the greatest tank of its time. However, at the same time, it was able to function in a highly-mobile offensive warfare thanks to the use of radio and good mobility. The flaws the Panzer I had in common with the AMR 35, such a thin armor and one-man turret, did not prevent it from proving to be an asset. The AMR 35, however, never had that chance, due to the French Army’s neglect of radios, and in general, the Cavalry’s efforts to introduce mechanized warfare largely struggling against the traditionalism of headquarter higher-ups. As a result, the Cavalry’s light AMR 35s were little more than cannon fodder, and even the well armored and armed S35s could do little more than try to slow the German advance.

Under the Balkenkreuz

As with the vast majority of French armored fighting vehicles, German troops were able to capture a number of AMR 35s, and press them back into some form of service.

The German designation for the AMR 35 was Panzerspähwagen ZT 702 (f), indicating it as a reconnaissance vehicle of French origin. This designation did not only apply to the ZT-1, but all AMR 35s.

These vehicles were put back in service for security use, but it actually appears that, despite higher production numbers, the ZT-1 was not the most common type in German use and has rarely ever been photographed. During the Fall of France, the Germans had captured a number of ZT-4 vehicles during the production process, still on the assembly chain, and had many of them pressed into service, some completed with Avis n°1 turrets, while at least one would be turned into an 81 mm mortar carrier. Pictures of ZT-4 in German use appear much more common than ZT-1s.

Nonetheless, it is likely a few ZT-1s soldiered on alongside ZT-4s in German use. The vehicles were used for security in two different areas, the majority in mainland France, but a significant part in Czechia. It would be in Prague that the vehicles would get their largest share of action, as they were used by German security forces during the Prague Uprising from May 5th to 8th 1945, and were subsequently captured by the Czech Resistance and swiftly pressed into service for a few days. However, in this instance, the ZT-4 again appears to have been the more commonly used type.

Conclusion – The Failure of the Perfected AMR

The AMR 35’s story is somewhat tragic. The vehicle had been designed to perfect the issues of the AMR 33, and at a glance, it appears to have done so by adopting a robust suspension, a better armed turret, fittings for a radio, and a more rugged and reliable engine. When showcased, the schematics and theoretical capacities of such a vehicle in 1935, one could reasonably see it as in the higher-end of light cavalry tanks.

However, this was not to be, as massive production delays, in large part caused by overly ambitious expectations from the French state, were followed by teething issues the scale of which were seemingly not yet experienced in the French Army. By the time the AMR 35s were truly operational, the overall picture was way less rosy. It was 1938 and the vehicles mostly did not have radios, more than half were completed with the 7.5 mm machine gun instead of the 13.2 mm, and the crew had little trust in a machine that had spent the better part of two years breaking down and being sent back to its factory. Even by 1940, radios were still rare, and the vehicle had de facto been relegated to an ad-hoc infantry support role, while squadrons originally meant for reconnaissance went into battle with Hotchkiss H35 or H39 light tanks utterly unsuitable for this role. Production of more AMR 35s had been discontinued due to the massive difficulties and delays encountered.

Though a few French armored fighting vehicles, including the AMR 35’s unlikely replacement, the Hotchkiss light tank (in the form of the H39), were pressed in service of the reformed French Army in 1944-1945, the AMR 35 was not one of them. By the end of the liberation of France, there were very few, if any, AMR 35s left in running order.

Regrettably, it appears no AMR 35 has survived to this day. Not one vehicle exists in a museum collection, and not even a still visible wreck is known, neither in France nor in Czechia. The type disappeared without leaving a trace in such a fashion, which is an unfortunate turn of fate, as a good number of rarer French vehicles of the interwar have survived to this day, such as the FCM 36, AMR 33, AMC 35, and even the “M23” Citroën half-track armored car, one of 16 known to have been made having turned up in Kabul during the Coalition invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

AMR 35 / Renault ZT-1 Specifications
Dimensions (L x w x h)	3.84 x 1.64 x 1.88 m
Ground clearance	0.39 m
Weight	6,000 kg empty, 6,500 kg fully loaded
Engine	Renault 447 22CV 4-cylinders 120×130 mm 5,881 cm3 engine producing 82 hp at 2,200 rpm
Transmission	4 forward + 1 reverse, front
Suspension	Rubber blocks
Power-to-weight ratio	12.6 hp/tonne
Maximum speed	55 km/h
Speed on damaged road	40 km/h
Track width	20 cm
Trench crossing	1.70 m
Fording	60 cm
Maximum slope crossing	50%
Crew	2 (Driver, Commander/gunner)
Driver vision’s devices	Front episcopes
Commander’s vision devices	Front-right episcope, front-left, sides and rear vision slots
Armament	7.5 mm MAC31E machine gun with 2,250 rounds & 1 spare/anti-aircraft machine gun (Avis n°1 turret) OR 13.2 mm Model 1930 Hotchkiss machine gun with 1,220 rounds (37 20-rounds box magazines + 480 rounds in cardboard crates) (Avis n°2 turret)
Hull Armor	13 mm (vertical/slightly angled surfaces) 9 mm (significantly angled surfaces, notably frontal glacis) 6 mm (roof) 5 mm (floor)
Turret armor	13 mm (sides) 6 mm (roof)
Radio	None on most vehicles Few fitted with ER 29s Planned to fit the entire fleet with ER 28s, never carried out
Fuel tanks	130 liters
Range	200 km
Production numbers	3 prototypes, 167 production vehicles

Sources

Les automitrailleuses de Reconnaissance, Tome 1: l’AMR 33 Renault, François Vauvillier, Histoire & Collection editions

Les automitrailleuses de Reconnaissance, Tome 2: l’AMR 35 Renault, François Vauvillier, Histoire & Collection editions

Tous les blindés de l’Armée Française 1914-1940, François Vauvillier, Histoire & Collection editions

Les Véhicules Blindés Français 1900-1944, Pierre Touzin, EPA editions

Chars de France, Jean-Gabriel Jeudy, ETAI editions

Char-français:
http://www.chars-francais.net/2015/index.php/engins-blindes/automitrailleuses?task=view&id=69
JOURNAL DE MARCHE ET OPÉRATIONS DU 4e RÉGIMENT DE DRAGONS PORTÉS
http://www.chars-francais.net/2015/index.php/journaux-de-marche/liste-des-journaux?task=view&id=1411

The 13.2mm Hotchkiss machine gun on Wikimaginot: https://wikimaginot.eu/V70_glossaire_detail.php?id=1000158&su=Mitrailleuse_Hotchkiss_calibre_13,2_mm_mod%C3%A8le_1930_-_HOTCHKISS_13,2_/_1930

The 7.5mm MAC 31 Reibel machine gun on Wikimaginot: https://wikimaginot.eu/V70_glossaire_detail.php?id=100179

Mitrailleuses de 7,5mm modèle 1951, Guide Technique Sommaire, Ministère de la Défense Nationale (Ministry of National Defence), France, 1953

Forgotten Weapons, Swiss Reibel M31 Tank & Fortress Machine Gun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuTdnznWf8A

Armesfrançaises (MAC 31): http://armesfrancaises.free.fr/Mitr%20MAC%2031%20type%20C%20et%20E.html

http://france1940.free.fr/armee/radiosf.html

France (1931-1940)
Reconnaissance Vehicle (Light Tank/Tracked Armored Car) – 5 Prototypes and 118 Production Vehicles Built

The AMR 33 was a tracked reconnaissance vehicle designed by Renault in the early 1930s. Though it may seem unimpressive at first glance, it had a complex developmental history, and would be one of the faster armored fighting vehicles of its time. Though not extremely successful on its own, and eventually plagued with a number of issues, it would nonetheless launch a series of moderate successes achieved by Renault in the 1930s.

The French Cavalry after The Great War

World War One saw armored vehicles breakthrough into mainstream military use. Though there were some armored vehicles manufactured during the Belle Epoque (“Beautiful Time”, a name given in France to the pre-WW1 part of the 20th century) in France, these were all armored car that stayed as prototypes or small production runs, such as the Charron 1902, Hotchkiss 1908, and others.

As for the war itself, the Infantry branch got the lion’s share of armored fighting vehicles, with their tanks, particularly the FT, seeing mass-scale production and use. In comparison, the Cavalry was relegated to using wheeled vehicles. There were small production runs of various armored cars, such as the Archer, Renault ED or Jeffery de Fabry, and many prototypes, but these could never be decisive during the course of the war. Towards the end of the conflict, a more modern and standardized type, the White TBC, was settled upon, but while it had higher production than other French armored cars of the era with 230 built, this number still paled in comparison to more than 4,000 of Renault’s FT light infantry tank.

During the 1920s, the Cavalry branch of the French Army proved a lot more willing than the Infantry to innovate in terms of new concepts, and this also extended to armored vehicles. Perhaps the most significant example of this in terms of program would be the two AMC programs, the n°1 launched in April of 1923 and n°2 launched in August of 1924.

Both called for an AMC (Automitrailleuse de Combat – Combat Armored Car), but were largely different. The first program requested a 4 tonnes vehicle able to reach 55 km/h on road and with a gearbox allowing for inverted motion. The second program called for a 7.5 tonnes vehicle, with a crew of 3, and, at that point, a decent 20 mm of armor, high off-road capacity and maximum speed of just 30 km/h, with the configuration of the running gear left to the manufacturer’s discretion.

The second program de facto called for a cavalry tank. Leaving running gears to the manufacturer’s discretion and being willing to experiment with other options than just wheeled vehicles was also a significant aspect of the interwar French cavalry procurement. For example, in 1923, the French Cavalry would adopt the Citroën 10CV P4T armored car, often called just the “M23”. This was a half-track Kégresse armored car which, while it had its own turret, copied the FT’s configuration of being armed with either a 37 mm SA 18 or an 8 mm Hotchkiss model 1914 machine gun. Only 16 of these would end up being purchased however.

Reconnaissance was a major role which armored cars could potentially fulfill, but despite the Cavalry’s ambitions, the 1920s were also a period of particularly dry funding, especially for this branch which was viewed as having had much less of a role in France’s WW1 victory than the artillery or infantry. Reconnaissance groups of French cavalry units had to make do with, at best, civilians cars which had been summarily armored and given a machine gun, and at worst unarmored cars or half-tracks where the crew may have been expected to fire their weapon, often a CRSG 1915 Chauchat machine rifle, from their seats.

The First Purpose-Built Reconnaissance Vehicles

With the lack of cavalry funding preventing a large armored reconnaissance armored car program, there were not many dedicated reconnaissance vehicles manufactured in France in the 1920s. The more significant efforts invested into combat armored cars had resulted in a fair number of prototypes as early as around 1924, eventually resulting in a fairly large-scale adoption of the Schneider P16 half-track. The adoption of the future design was expected as early as 1925, though eventually the production of 4 pre-production vehicles would have to wait until 1928, with 96 production vehicles then being delivered in 1930-1931., With less obvious military interest, designing reconnaissance vehicles would be a much riskier affair for private manufacturers, with greater risk of financial loss.

Nonetheless, in the late 1920s, the Lyon-based manufacturer Berliet would start offering a whole range of wheeled armored vehicles to the French military. In 1928, it showcased two prototypes of the VUR, a four-wheeled light armored liaison vehicle, and the next year, in 1929, a new vehicle branched out of this offering, the VUDB. This was far from a classic, turreted armored car, being instead more of a simple open-topped four-wheeled car with an armored body, with a number of firing ports and two machine rifles for the crew of three to use. This light (4.9 tonnes fully loaded), at this point mobile (55 km/h on road) armored car was already a significant step forward in terms of armored reconnaissance in comparison to a summarily armored civilian car.

The French Cavalry classified the VUDB as a voiture de prise de contact (ENG: contact-taking car) and ordered 50 which were delivered in 1930. These vehicles’ service would overwhelmingly be in the colonies, but they set a significant precedent in being the first considerable effort towards creating a reconnaissance armored car in interwar France.

The 1930 Motorization Program

The year 1930 was key for the armored vehicle fleet of the French Army. Despite the Cavalry’s best efforts, adoptions of new vehicles had remained limited in the 1920s. Besides the half-track Schneider armored car and the VUDB at the tail’s end of the decade, many vehicles, such as the White TBC, still dated as far back as WW1, and roles where a purpose-built vehicle would be preferred had to be fulfilled ad-hoc.

It is a fair assessment to say that the Infantry was not that better off either, though it suffered from doctrinal conservatism in the high-command much more. In the Infantry’s case, the only large-scale adoption prior to 1930 had been the D1 in 1929, and that tank was still in the production process by 1930 (it would have to wait until 1936 to be truly operational in its final configuration). In both the cases of the D1 and P16, the new armored vehicles were neither numerous or polyvalent enough to replace all the fleet of WW1 vehicles. While the FT and White had been sufficient through much of the 1920s, they were truly becoming dated by the turn of the 1930s.

It is therefore not surprising that significant programs were initiated by both the Cavalry and Infantry in 1930. On July 4th, the French Army Minister signed an ambitious program, which comprised, for the Cavalry, transforming an entire cavalry division into what would become a Division Légère Mécanique (DLM, ENG: Light Mechanized Division), as well as motorize a brigade of each other cavalry division within five years.

Alongside this organizational change, requirements for new vehicle types were to be formulated and issued to manufacturers. Two sets of requirements for armored reconnaissance vehicles were issued. Both shared similar requirements of a 50 km/h maximum speed, 3,600 kg empty weight and 600 kg load capacity, but one was to be a 1.80 m tall turretless vehicle carrying six personnel (including the driver) with an openable roof. The other would be a 2 m tall three-men armored car armed with a turreted machine gun, with another machine gun stored as a backup and a firing port in the hull from which a crewmembers could fire a machine rifle.

These two distinct sets of requirements were merged together in January 1931. The resulting vehicle mostly took the characteristics of the turreted armored car, such as a three-man crew, but was to ditch having a complete turret, instead using a shielded machine gun on a rotatable mount. A new classification system had been introduced at this point in time, with different roles being indicated by a letter. The reconnaissance cavalry vehicle would be called Type L.

Two companies, Renault and Berliet, offered vehicles for the Type L. Likely due to the constant shift in requirements as well as overly ambitious expectations on how light the vehicle could be made to be, neither fulfilled the last set of requirements. Renault’s vehicle, the UR type L or URL, was a six-wheeled armored car with a fully rotatable, fully armored turret, weighing upward of 6 tonnes. Berliet’s VUC type L or VUCL was a similarly heavy vehicle weighing in the 5.3 tonnes range empty and up to 5.9 tonnes at maximum load, though it was a 4×4 armed with a shielded machine gun instead of a turreted one (as well as ports doubling as vision and firing ports on the front and sides of the vehicle, for the crew to fire a machine rifle from). Both the URL and VUCL appear to have been present at the 1931 army maneuvers, but do not appear to have made a lasting impression.

A Page from the Infantry’s Book: Interest in the Type N

The Type L program initiated by the Cavalry could not be said to have been a success. With shifting requirements and overly ambitious expectations, the two offerings from private companies did not end up fulfilling the requirements at all, nor did they look promising. As medium-sized wheeled options proved, at this point, disappointing, the French Cavalry would soon take interest in the results of a program initiated by the Infantry, the Type N.

The Type N program was initiated after the French Army’s trial commission at Vincennes got to experiment on two Carden-Loyds of British origins in June-July 1930. These vehicles immediately brought interest in the still infantry-focused French Army. The Carden-Loyd had originally been thought as a way to mechanize the infantry, but when the French Army tried the vehicles, it compared them to unarmored Citroën-Kégresse half-tracked tractors, with the Carden-Loyd allegedly performing admirably against them. It was quickly imagined that a small vehicle of this size could operate as an excellent tractor/supply vehicle, able to tow either an anti-tank gun or light artillery piece, or a trailer loaded with ammunition for infantry companies, or potentially, even both.

As early as October 1930, the French Infantry issued specifications for a véhicule blindé de ravitaillement de l’infanterie (ENG: Infantry Armored Supply Vehicle). This would soon be given the designation of Type N.

The requirements for the Type N requested a tiny vehicle not higher than 1.10 m, able to take a load of 950 kg, crewed by two men, and able to reach a maximum speed of 35 km/h on road, while having good off-road capacities. There was not a strict requirement of a running gear type, so in theory the vehicle could very well have been wheeled, tracked, or half-track. In practice, there were three major competitors for the Type N, none of which was fully wheeled. There was one half-track, the Citroën P28 chenillette, and two fully-tracked vehicles, the Latil N, a mere copy of the Carden-Loyd, and the Renault UE.

Though initiated by the Infantry, it is not, from the requirements, surprising that the Type N would soon garner interest from the Cavalry. Since the late 1920s, British engineers and salesmen had done much work abroad to sell the idea of very light tracked vehicles, which could be used for a variety of purposes, from reconnaissance to a light tank substitute or a tractor. When looking at the requirements of the Type N, the vehicle was far from being as slow as tracked vehicles of previous years often were, at 35 km/h, while its tiny size would surely prove useful for reconnaissance.

The Time of the P28

Prototypes of the Type N vehicles were showcased from the spring to summer 1931, with Renault being the first to present a prototype in April 1931, while Latil and Citroën would present theirs in July 1931. It appears that interest of the Cavalry into the vehicles of the Type N program blossomed starting in the summer, likely after the presentation of the Citroën vehicle.

The Infantry picked Renault’s fully tracked vehicle, the Renault UE, in October 1931. However, at around the same time, the Cavalry showed intense interest in the Citroën vehicle. The P28 chenillette proved 10 km/h faster than the Renault, reaching 39.5 km/h, and while the Cavalry was generally fairly open to vehicles with new types of running gear, it still had a lot more experience with half-tracks in comparison to fully tracked vehicles which traditionally were more of an infantry affair.

The Cavalry was very interested in the P28. The vehicle would require extensive modifications to be turned into a turreted armored car, though the same could be said of an UE. The Cavalry still viewed it as having a lot of potential as an automitrailleuse de contact (ENG: contact armored car) meant for close reconnaissance. In October 1931, months before any prototypes of an armed P28 were ever delivered, 50 vehicles were ordered. It would only be in July 1932 that a prototype of the final configuration would be ready.

This was, at this point, a major success for Citroën, which was one of Renault’s most important rivals within the French automotive industry, both on the civilian and military markets. Citroën managing to achieve such a success was not well viewed by the rival company. Around the same timeframe, likely very shortly before the adoption of the Citroën P28, Renault offered a first design for a tracked reconnaissance vehicle. It would receive the “VM” two-letter code (in the same sequence as the FT, UE, and countless other Renault vehicles).

The Early Design of the Renault VM

The first Renault VM design was created around the same timeframe as the Citroën P28, in autumn 1931. The design would retain the same very short length of 2.8 m as the UE, and perhaps the same or at least a similar width of 1.74 m. However, there were major structural changes to the vehicle. Renault gave this modified design the internal code “Renault VM”.

Instead of retaining the front crew compartment, centrally-placed engine, and rear-mounted stowage area of the original UE, the VM’s crew compartment would instead be placed towards the left and rear of the vehicle, with an engine to the front and right.

The largest difference in the vehicle design was the presence of a turreted armament. The early VM design featured a turret which was mounted on the left of the vehicle, behind the driver’s position, which was positioned in the same way as on an UE. The turret featured on the schematics of the vehicle was a fairly simplistic design. It would be armed with the new machine gun available for fortifications and armored vehicle designs, the 7.5 mm MAC 31. The turret would have housed a single crewmember, the gunner/commander. It appears that a small cupola would have been placed towards the rear of the turret, and would likely have had some sort of vision device, such as a panoramic periscope. From the design, the turret appears to have been very small overall, to the point it would have been quite cramped. It also appears that no reloads for the machine gun would be present in the turret, with all the magazines having to be stowed inside the hull instead.

The other major structural change of the early VM design in comparison to the UE was the engine, with the early VM being designed to have a more powerful engine. Its potential horsepower output is unknown, as Renault used an alternative means of power measurement for it, CV. It would have been a 15 CV engine. In comparison, the original UE’s Renault 75 was a 10 CV engine producing 30 hp, while the AMR 33’s 24 CV engine would produce 84 hp. Unlike the centrally-mounted position on the UE, the engine was shifted to the right on the early VM design. This would have been a fairly uncommon feature at the time. As lateral space was quite limited, the radiator and ventilator would have had to be shifted at 90° and be installed to the rear of the engine, in a fairly distinct manner which would have also been quite rare at the time. The radiator, in particular, would have been installed as far to the back as the turret would have been, and the gunner would have effectively been sandwiched between the radiator on his right and the hull’s wall to the left.

The suspension of the vehicle would have used the same components as the Renault UE, with three leaf springs bogies on which two small road wheels were mounted, a front sprocket and a rear idler. However, unlike on the UE, the sprocket and idler would have been placed higher. Though the return rollers are not seen on the schematics, they would very likely have been present. Armor protection at this point in time would also very likely have been the same as the UE, with 9 mm on vertical surfaces and 6 mm on all other plates.

Renault’s early VM design was submitted to the technical services of the French Cavalry at some point in autumn 1931. The vehicle was formally rejected by the French Cavalry on November 12th 1931.

A first review of the design by the French Cavalry was fairly negative. Several design choices of the vehicle were deemed subpar and proved unpopular, as some of the design features were quite unconventional for the time. Among these was the rear-turreted configuration. Another source of discontent was the engine’s offset mounting to the right. Furthemore, the engine was not thought to be powerful enough to allow for the vehicle to reach a high enough speed. This was further worsened by the use of a suspension almost identical to the UE, with six small road wheels mounted on leaf springs, which would generally favor cross-country mobility but make reaching higher maximum speeds harder. There were also issues with the proposed placement of the radiator all the way to the right, with the position of the commander cramped between the radiator and the left wall of the vehicle.

The Armed UE Interval

Somewhat paradoxically, just days after the early Renault VM design was rejected, interest was expressed into a much more basic armed Renault UE vehicle. On November 21st 1931, the STC (Service Technique de la Cavalerie – Cavalry Technical Service) required Renault to provide two Renault UEs for a presentation to a Dragons Portés (Eng: mechanized dragoons) unit. Crucially, the STC requested one of the two vehicles to be armed. This request was made for a presentation which was to take place only nine days later, and this timeframe was considered too short to reasonably modify a UE to feature an armament.

However, while Renault could not produce a conversion for this specific presentation, the request from the STC made it very clear to Renault that there would be official interest in an armed version of the UE from the French Cavalry. Work quickly began on realizing such a conversion. By late 1931, the 6 Renault UE prototypes were still undergoing trials for the French military, and the first production vehicles would only be delivered in 1932. As such, creating such a vehicle on such a short notice would be accomplished by modifying an existing prototype.

The modified vehicle would be the prototype registered as “n°77 982”. The modifications made to the vehicle were very simple. The roof of the co-driver’s compartment was raised by a small extent, using the same riveted construction as the rest of the vehicle. The dome-shaped cupola was retained. This raised compartment allowed for enough internal space for a machine gun to be added. This was, as on the VM design, a 7.5 mm MAC 31.

The modified prototype was presented to the French Cavalry at an unspecified date in early 1932. The 1st BDP (Bataillon de Dragons Portés) carried out operational testing. These trials generally underlined shortcomings of the vehicle when it came to fulfilling the light armored car role which was desired from the conversion. Besides the machine gun, the modified Renault UE had been kept almost completely untouched. The vehicle retained the Renault 75 four-cylinder gasoline engine mounted in the center of the vehicle, and producing a mere 30 hp. The original suspension was retained as well, meaning the vehicle was not particularly fast, nor did it have a particularly good autonomy at around 100 km.

The Birth of the AMR Concept

By the end of 1931, the French Cavalry and Renault stood in somewhat of an odd position. The French Cavalry had just rejected the VM reconnaissance vehicle design from Renault, but while it had ordered a very simple modified UE that would soon be delivered, there was realistically little potential in such a vehicle. With the P28 still not at the finalized prototype stage and unlikely to offer a good reconnaissance armored car, something had to be done if the Army was to acquire such a vehicle.

This would come on January 16th 1932. At this point in time, the French Cavalry put up detailed specifications of what would be required from a reconnaissance vehicle. It is at this moment that the Automitrailleuse de Reconnaissance (AMR; ENG: Reconnaissance Armored Car) designation was born.

The term automitrailleuse deserves a little more attention to be understood in the context in which it was used in interwar France. In common French language, ‘automitrailleuse’ is practically identical to the English ‘armored car’ term. However, in the Interwar era, an ‘automitrailleuse’ referred to any armed vehicle of the Cavalry, sometimes not even armored. Indeed, the French “automitrailleuse” comes from “automobile” and “mitrailleuse” (machine gun), with no part of the word implying the vehicle is armored. In practice, the vast majority of automitrailleuse were armored vehicles, but a few unarmored cars armed with automatic machine rifles used for patrol in the colonies were sometimes called automitrailleuse as well.

The term did not particularly come with an associated running gear when used in the context of the French military either. Vehicles called automitrailleuse could be wheeled, half-tracked, or even fully tracked, as long as they were operated by the Cavalry. This may seem somewhat archaic from a modern point of view, especially as designations such as “cavalry tank” now exist, however, these were not necessarily widespread at that time. The idea that the tank (or “char” in French) was a weapon of the Infantry, not of the Cavalry, was not entirely French, and indeed there are other examples of fully tracked, turreted armored vehicles not been referred to as tanks when serving in the cavalry branch of other armies. Two notable examples are the American M1 “Combat Car” and the Japanese Type 92 “Heavy Armored Car”.

The requirements of the AMR, as formulated in January 1932, indeed did not call for a specific running gear. The idea with the AMR was to create a small, contact-reconnaissance armored car, whereas another larger type (what would become the AMD) would assume longer-ranged missions. Because of this, the vehicle being able to fight independently or even having huge range was secondary in comparison to a good mobility and small size, allowing for an overall discrete vehicle.

The AMR was to be crewed by two men, a commander in a turret and a driver in the hull. The turret was to be armed with a MAC 31 machine gun, with a spare being stored inside the vehicle, and 2,250 rounds of ammunition (nine drums) being available inside the vehicle. A very light weight of 3 tonnes was required, with a load-taking capacity of 500 kg. Mobility-wise, the maximum speed requirement was reasonable at 35 km/h. The vehicle would have to be able to negotiate a 50% slope and remain stable on a 60% one. Height was to be limited to 1.80 m and width even further, to 1.60 m. Range was to be of 200 km.

The VM is Reborn

With these new requirements, life was breathed into the VM program again, with work resuming on the vehicle, still retaining the same two-letter code.

Some major design changes were soon applied to the VM. When Renault offered a presentation mock-up in March 1932, the design had changed very significantly. The most important change was likely to lengthen the vehicle by 80 cm and change the suspension. The new suspension design featured four road wheels, on two bogies, with each road wheel being put on leaf springs and having a fairly large range of independent movement. A new 24CV eight-cylinder engine was adopted instead of the previous 15CV of the early VM. With more space, the new design was also able to ditch the odd choice of putting the radiator and ventilator way to the rear of the engine, instead placing them on the side of it. This would significantly improve the commander’s position, as he was otherwise very close to these elements.

The vehicle adopted a new turret design, which was not a product of Renault, but Schneider. At this point, there was significant collaboration between the two firms, and a similar turret would also be placed on the Renault URL prototype that was still being worked on. The general layout of the vehicle was somewhat similar to the previous VM, but much more spacious, with the commander not being almost on top of the driver, who had a much more distinct compartment. The turret was pushed all the way to the rear of the hull.

This new design of the VM overall appeared a lot more mature than the previous plans, and was judged promising enough for not just one, but five prototypes to be ordered on April 20th 1932, for a sum of 856,250 Francs (roughly equivalent to €55 millions), with deliveries requested no later than September, so the five vehicles could take part in large maneuvers that would be undertaken around this time. One last major change was found between the revised design and the prototypes. The Schneider turret was ditched, with Renault instead using a riveted design of its own.

The VM Reaches the Prototype Stage

After receiving the order for prototypes in April, Renault quickly put itself into gear. Long delays had not been rare in the company’s manufacture in the past, and as not just one, but five prototypes had been ordered, it could have been feared this may have plagued the VM. However, the company ended up able to produce five prototypes before September, with the assembly seemingly being completed as early as July.

Manufacturing was probably eased by the Renault UE being in mass-production by 1932. Though the VM had evolved to be very different from the UE, Renault would still at this point have extensive experience and facilities able to manufacture small tracked armored vehicles of riveted construction. The five vehicles were given registrations from 79756 to 79760. They were protected by 6 and 9 mm armor plates and given a Renault 24CV “Reinastella” engine producing 85 hp.

The five prototypes were at first all identical. In a way, they formed more of a pre-production run than a true proof of concept or prototype. The reason behind five identical prototypes being ordered was likely to make their use in the 1932 maneuvers more relevant, with the opportunities brought by a platoon of vehicles being better showcased with five than one, while a single failure preventing any test was ruled out. This would also allow the vehicles to be later modified for experimental purposes.

There are a number of features of the five prototypes which differ from both the previous VM plans and the future mass-produced vehicles, and therefore deserve to be highlighted in more detail. The first is a Renault turret. Though the plans from early 1932 show the VM with a Schneider turret, for one reason or another (perhaps due to quick manufacture of a Schneider turret not being possible or due to a perceived superiority), the prototypes received a turret designed in-house by Renault. This was a fairly high hexagonal turret of riveted construction, quite similar in general appearance to the turret designed by Citroën for their P28. The turret appears to have featured vision devices on each of the two side plates, the rear plate, and to the front, to the left of the gun (which was the fairly new 7.5 mm MAC 31 machine gun). The turret was pushed all the way to the rear of the hull, offset to the left, as on previous plans. It is reported that the Renault turret was found quite unsatisfactory during testing. Not only was its fairly unorthodox rear placement not at all liked, but the internal arrangement was found to be lacking, and compared negatively to the turret of Renault’s competitor Citroën.

The other notable feature of the prototypes is their suspension. It was, by this point, fairly basic. The vehicles featured four wheels, mounted on two bogies of which the leaf spring acted as the suspension unit, rather than being the point on which finer springs which acted as the suspension were mounted. As a result of both, an overly large range of motion and the points of movements being concentrated in two areas, this suspension was reported to offer a very bumpy and uncomfortable ride. It is very easy to differentiate from future suspension types due to the lack of any vertical springs. The vehicle already featured three return rollers, with a front sprocket and rear idler wheels (which, outside of the sprocket featuring teeth, were very similar). Wheels had an open spoked design in order to reduce weight to a minimum.

A number of stowage points were also unique to these prototypes, most significantly rings on which a canvas cover could be attached on the left sponsons of the vehicles. These would later be moved, as the canvas cover, stowed to the side of the vehicle, would potentially be removed by any lateral obstacle.

The French Army’s First Look at the VMs: A Good Concept, To Be Refined

With five vehicles delivered, the Renault VMs were able to form an experimental platoon which actively took part in the September 1932 maneuvers. These maneuvers were on their own fairly historic, as their goal was to experiment on fairly large scale cavalry mechanized units (“groupements méchaniques” or, in English, “mechanized groups”).

Overall, some aspects of the VMs left a very positive impression. The vehicles did exceed the required weight, going over 4 tonnes, however, this was not particularly a surprise, as all major 1920s and 1930s projects ended up going over the requirement weight, largely due to overly ambitious requirements. However, the vehicles were mobile, reaching over 55 km/h on road, while their tracked configuration offered superior off-road performances in comparison to wheeled or half-tracked armored cars. This alone was enough to show the considerable qualities a tracked AMR may offer for close reconnaissance.

However, these general qualities of the vehicles and their class are to be balanced by a variety of issues which were found on the vehicles. As mentioned previously, the Renault designed turrets were found to be lacking. The suspension was even more of a problem, due to its overly large range of movement making for a very uncomfortable ride with sudden harsh movements of the wheels being a common occurrence. Despite their small sizes, the VMs were also found to be loud, which would be a major drawback for their role. In terms of range, they failed to achieve the 200 km requested of them and were instead closer to merely 100 km. The vehicles were found to be at times poorly balanced, and at last the rear-turreted configuration was very much disliked.

After these drawbacks were noted, the vehicles were returned to Renault in order for improvements to be designed immediately. The manufacturer quickly responded, and by November sent three of the vehicles back to the Vincennes commission for testing.

Towards the Production Standard

The prototypes which were returned to Vincennes were the three last ones in the registration order, 79758 to 79760. The main round of improvements which Renault had worked on focused on the suspension. In order for the commission to determine which potential type they found superior, each of the three vehicles was delivered with a different suspension.

The vehicle registered 79758 featured the same suspension type as all five prototypes had been fitted with at first. The vehicle registered 79759 featured a modified version of this same suspension.) Iit had the same general design but featured friction-operating dampeners fixed to the armored hull of the vehicle and to the road wheels in order to reduce sudden strong movements. Unfortunately, no photos of this vehicle in this configuration have emerged as of today

The last vehicle, registered as 79760, featured a new suspension type. Though it had four road wheels as well, this suspension moved away from two bogies of two wheels. Instead, the front and rear wheels were individually mounted, while the two central wheels were part of a bogie. Both the front and rear wheels were mounted on a horizontally-placed coil spring. The two wheels part of a bogie were placed on small leaf springs linked by the bogie’s body to a large central coil springs/hydraulic shock absorbers on the bottom of the hull side further smoothened the movement of the central road wheels. The number of return rollers was also increased to four.

It is known the vehicle registered as 79759 was tested from November 17th to December 13th 1932, while 79760 was tested from November 30th to December 14th. The conclusion of these new trials was clear. The vehicle fitted with the coil spring suspension turned out to offer a much more comfortable ride than the one with the large leaf springs, and overall turned out to be a much better technical solution. The trials commission published a report on December 22nd which concluded that the Renault VM, despite perhaps not fulfilling every single requirement put forward back in January 1932, was a satisfactory vehicle and would be ready for adoption. Earlier the same month, on December 9th, a small update had been made to the requirements, with the armor thickness required being raised from 9 to 13 mm.

Orders… and Continued Evolutions of the Prototypes

Following this positive evaluation from the trials commission, the first order for serial production of the Renault VM was placed on March 8th 1933. This formal adoption of the vehicle gave it the full designation of AMR Renault Modèle 1933, commonly known as AMR 33.

This first order was for 45 vehicles. The full order would be placed on June 22nd 1933, and would eventually be for 118 examples of the mass-produced vehicle. At first, an extremely ambitious delivery calendar was requested by the French military, with the first AMR 33 being requested to be delivered as early as July 1933. This would not be the case, in large part because, as the contracts were being signed, prototypes were still being experimented on, particularly in terms of suspension.

In April 1933, Renault returned two of its VM prototypes to the trial commission in Vincennes in order for them to be experimented on. The main changes were, again, that each of the two prototypes featured a modified suspension.

The first, the vehicle registered 79757, had received a modified version of the suspension which had been successfully tried on 79760 a few months prior. Though it kept the central bogie with two wheels, as well as one front and one rear independent wheels mounted on coil springs, it ditched all leaf springs left on the central bogie, with the bogie’s wheels instead being linked to the front and rear horizontally-mounted coil spring already used by the front and rear wheel. Oil-operated shock absorbers were also added and the body of the bogie received a number of changes. In order to respond to the unpopularity of the rear-mounted turret, the turret of this vehicle was also brought forward by 30 cm, and the vehicle had received a weight in order to simulate the effect of the up-armoring to 13 mm on performances. This updated suspension type was found to continue to improve on the vehicle’s driving and was formally adopted on June 6th 1933. Overall, this 79757 prototype would be the closest to the production standard.

However, on the same occasion, Renault also sent the vehicle registered 79758. The vehicle did receive the weight to simulate up-armoring, though the placement of its turret was not modified. The vehicle, however, received a new suspension. It shared the similar design of the other suspension type being experimented on, with a central bogie with two wheels, and an independent front and rear wheel. However, it ditched coil springs.

Instead, the wheels were mounted on rubber blocks fitted on sliding mounts. A large central rubber block was used for the central bogie, while both the rear and front wheel had their own rubber blocks, placed at the same location as the coil springs of the other suspension type. The advantage of this suspension was that rubber blocks were found to be more sturdy and resilient than coil springs. In theory, a suspension on rubber blocks would also have the potential to be very smooth. This was not yet the case, as this suspension was new for Renault and some teething issues were still to be fixed, with the suspension at this point being found to cause too sudden movements at times. Because of this, it was not adopted at the start of the production run of the AMR 33. However, after Renault was able to refine it, this suspension would be used on some of the very last AMR 33s, and most significantly, on all of the vehicle’s successor, the Renault ZT/AMR 35.

Even as the mass-produced vehicles were being manufactured, experimentations on the VM prototypes did not stop. The tracked AMR were a new class of vehicles after all, and the French Army would run a number of trials to see if some accessories could be added to the vehicles. With five prototypes in existence, these were now readily available to be experimented on.

It was eventually decided that two of the VM prototypes would be employed in work on the future generation of Renault AMR. These would be n°79759 and 79760, which would be extensively modified to function as Renault ZT prototypes in early 1934. The two first VM prototypes, n°79756 and 79757, would be modified to production standard and delivered to the 7th Chasseurs Regiment operating in Evreux in spring 1935, being the only AMR 33s operated by this unit until they disappeared from it in 1937.

Finally, prototype n°79758 was kept around for experimentation. In 1933, it received a new track tensioning device using a pulley, located on top of the rear right fender. This would be adopted for the mass produced vehicles. It was reported that in 1934, the vehicle received a “five wheels” suspension similar to that of the Renault ZB, a vehicle similar in overall design to an AMR but offered for export, which would imply a second bogie replacing one of the wheels. No photo of this conversion has emerged and pictures of the vehicle in 1935 show it with the same rubber block suspension it sported in 1933. In 1934, it is also reported it received a “suspended tensioning pulley”.

Experimental Accessories

One of the accessories which was tried on a VM prototype was one designed by the British-Hungarian engineer Nicholas Straussler, who would be responsible for, within others, the Duplex Drive amphibious kit for Sherman tanks, the Hungarian 39M Csaba armored car as well as V-3 and V-4 tank prototypes, and eventually even a post-WW2 main battle tank design.

Straussler’s accessory was a trench crossing device, consisting of two two-part extending mechanical “arms”, one which would be placed on the vehicle’s front and another to the rear. When a vehicle would go into a trench, the front “arm” would be used to set into the ground in front of the trench to be crossed, preventing the hull itself from diving front first into the trench. As the vehicle then advanced forward, the rear arm would plant itself into the rear of the trench being crossed and in turn prevent the rear from falling into the trench and getting the vehicle stuck.

Straussler offered the design to the French Army in 1933, and one of these systems was subsequently manufactured by Ateliers et Chantier de la Loire (ACL, ENG: Loire Workshops and Shipyards). Mounted on the prototype registered as 79758, it would be trialed in April 1935, March to May 1936, and March 1938. The system was reportedly able to allow an AMR 33 to cross a 2 m-wide trench with vertical sides. However, it is easy to see how the system may, in exchange, have been overly cumbersome, and it was not retained on any scale beyond these trials.

The AMR 33 into Production

Renault’s factories of Billancourt started working on the AMR 33 production run soon after the first orders were registered. However, the overly ambitious calendar the French Army hoped for, which would see the first AMR 33 delivered in July 1933, could obviously not be met.

The first order for the AMR 33, designated 754 D/P, included two batches. The first, of 45 vehicles, was formally ordered on March 8th 1933, and the second, of an additional 20, was placed on June 22nd 1933. Finally, the contract also included in its clause the modification of three prototypes to production standard, and later the manufacturing of three additional vehicles to replace the prototypes. In the end, the three replacement vehicles as well as two prototypes would be produced/modified to a slightly different standard from the rest of the AMR 33s, and would be the last vehicles produced, coming after the vehicles from the second contract.

The second contract, for 50 vehicles, was signed soon after, under the designation of 996 D/P. The original calendar requested by the military was that the first batch of the first contract would begin to be delivered by July 1st 1933 and the second batch of the first contract by March 1st 1934. By early August, Renault’s calendar was that the first batch would begin to be delivered by August 31st 1933 and the second batch still by the date required by the government.

In practice, however, the first fully complete production AMR 33 would only be delivered in June 1934. Production on such a scale on a short timeframe proved way too hard to achieve for Renault. Still, the vast majority of vehicles, 115, were able to be completed during 1934. Only the last five vehicles would be delivered in 1935, these being two of the VM prototypes having been modified and three new vehicles, all five of them receiving a different suspension.

Technical Characteristics of the AMR 33

The AMR 33 was, overall, a small tracked vehicle. It largely used riveted construction, with large conical rivets being used to hold the armored plates in place. The vehicle had a length of 3.50 m and a width of 1.60 m, while the height, including the turret, was 1.78 m. The ground clearance was 30 cm.

In terms of weight, the VM weighed around 4.5 tonnes when empty of fuel, crew and ammunition. Loaded with these, it would weigh around 5 tonnes. This would place it in the higher weight range of the small, turreted reconnaissance tanks of the 1930s, slightly heavier than vehicles such as the Japanese Type 92 or 94, Czechoslovak AH-IV, and Soviet T-37 or T-38, owing to ever-so-slightly higher dimensions and armor thickness. The most similar vehicles in terms of weight, size and protection would generally be the German Panzer I and British Vickers Light Tanks, though in comparison to these, the AMR 33 doctrinally remained more focused on a reconnaissance role.

Hull & Hull Construction

The hull of the AMR 33 had been forged by intensive evolution originating all the way back to the Renault UE, through a series of designs and later prototypes. In its final form, one would hardly recognize any feature of the small logistical tractor in the AMR 33, with the hull having largely evolved beyond being a mere derivative.

Likely the most unconventional aspect of the AMR 33 at the time was the organization of the hull, with the engine block placed to the right and the driver to the left, instead of a more standard and derivative configuration with an engine at the rear, as the French Army was already largely used to.

The vehicle used a front-mounted transmission. This was reflected in the hull front by a grill for aeration of the transmission’s differential which was found to the right and below the driver’s post. There was also an openable cover, largely for maintenance purposes. The vehicle’s batteries were also located towards the front and featured an openable cover for maintenance or removal.

The driver’s position only slightly projected out from the hull. The front formed an openable hatch, so that drivers could have a more ample field of vision when outside of combat. When closed, it still featured an episcope to improve vision. Considering the small size of the driver’s block sides, they seemingly could not mount vision ports. There was an entry hatch located just below the openable episcope cover, which was typically where the driver would enter and exit the vehicle. A rearview mirror was installed on the left mudguard. Otherwise, the hull in front of the driver’s post had been made to be as low as possible in order not to impede on his vision.

This frontal glacis was largely used as stowage space. A shovel and a pickaxe handle were installed translaterally on the fully flat part of the hull. To the left, in front of them and the driver’s post, was a towing cable. A spare road wheel was sometimes also present there, under the cable or with the cable wrapped around it. Just in front of this cable was the vehicle’s singular headlight, a Restor armored model. Sometimes, later in their service life, AMR 33s were given the new Guicherd armored headlight, recognizable by its cover extending far in front of the headlight itself. This new headlight was, among others, issued to the AMR 35, and would likely be refitted to AMR 33s that had broken headlights for the sake of logistical simplicity. Just below this light was the middle front plate, which featured, on the right, the Renault manufacturer’s plate, while the registration number would be painted on the middle.

Because of the engine’s placement to the right of the hull, there were significant differences in construction between each side. On the crew compartment side, to the left, there was a form of sponson which extended from behind the driver’s post all the way to the rear of the vehicle, in order to accommodate in large part the turret ring. The space on the other side would be taken by the exhaust. Two hatches were present on the right of the vehicle’s roof in order to access the engine.

The turret was mounted about as far forward as possible with this construction, 30 cm forward to how it was on the first VM prototypes. The rear of the hull was gently angled. To the left was a two-part hatch/door which would typically be the commander/gunner’s point of entry or exit from the vehicle, and offered the best emergency exit overall. On the engine side of the vehicle, the radiator was installed to the rear, and as such, the right of the vehicle rear glacis was taken by the grill of the radiator. The canvas cover for the vehicle would typically be stowed over the radiator grille.

In terms of crew position, drivers would be seated on what was in practice pretty much a cushion seat on the floor, bringing their eyes to the level of the episcope and their feet in contact with the pedals. Commanders had a seat that appears to have been somewhat adjustable and would have them at eye level with the episcope or machine gun sight within the turret. For drivers, outside of usual clutch, acceleration, and brake pedals, turning appears to have been achieved by two tillers.

Armor Protection

The armor protection of the hull followed a pretty simple scheme. All vertical or near-vertical plates up to 30° (most of the front plates, the sides, and the rear) were 13 mm thick. Plates at an angle higher than 30° but still potentially vulnerable to most enemy fire (parts of the front glacis) were 9 mm thick. The roof was 6 mm and the floor 5 mm. The turret followed the same armor scheme as the hull. This was a fairly thin armor scheme, about as light as one could find in 1930s French vehicles, but it was within the norms for light reconnaissance vehicles.

To an extent, having 13 mm of armor protection on the sides would even be slightly above average in comparison to other light tracked reconnaissance vehicles, which would more often than not have between 6 and 9 mm. The difference may not seem significant, and truthfully it was not against any kind of dedicated armor-piercing weapon, but it may sometimes have been the difference between being truly impervious to rifle-caliber fire or still being vulnerable to it at close ranges.

The armored hull consisted of a rigid body, with some removable plates (the roof as well as upper front and rear plates). There were six articulated openings in the hull, largely described before: the rear doors, openable covers for the batteries and differential grille, openable hatches for access to the engine, driver’s entry hatch, and driver’s episcopes hatch.

Engine Block

The AMR 33 used an eight-cylinder engine of Renault design, nicknamed the “Reinastella”. This was a 75×120 mm 4,241 cm3 engine that was also used in racing cars. At the standard cyclic rate of 2,800 rpm, it would produce 24CV, a French unit of measurement for power, or 85 hp. The engine was fitted with an internal electric starting-up device, and alternatively could manually be started with a crank from the outside. It used a Zénith carburetor which was designed to allow a cold start. The front-mounted transmission had four forward and one reverse gear, with a “Cleveland” differential.

The radiator was mounted to the rear. The fan used to eject hot air included ten blades, 580 mm in diameter.

Overall, the power-to-weight ratio of the vehicle was high for the time. At a full load of 5 tonnes, it reached 17 hp/tonne. This manifested very positively on the vehicle’s performance. On a good road, the vehicle could peak at 60 km/h, which was definitely on the higher end even for tracked vehicles. Even on a lower quality road, an average cruise speed of 45 km/h was typically to be maintained. The vehicle’s fuel tank contained 128 liters of gasoline, which would provide the AMR 33 with a range of 200 km on roads.

Suspension and Tracks

As described previously, the suspension of the AMR 33 went through considerable evolutions at the prototype stage.

The vehicle used a front drive sprocket, with the teeth on the sprocket’s center, and a rear idler. There were four road wheels, with the front and rear wheels being mounted independently, and the two central road wheels being mounted on a bogie. Four return rollers were present. The road wheels as well as the sprocket and idler had a very light construction, designed to optimize their weight as much as possible. They all used an open-spoked design with large holes. Furthermore, while the construction of the wheels themselves was made of steel, the road wheels received a rubber rim instead of a metallic one.

The suspension itself relied on a front and a rear coil spring, directly linked to the front and rear wheels by a suspension arm. The central bogie was also linked to these springs, though the central wheels would typically have somewhat less movement than the front and rear ones. Oil-operated shock absorbers were also present to make the ride smoother.

The vehicle used thin, 20 cm wide tracks with a central guide horn, largely based on the UE design. These were very small, thin and light, once again a requirement in order to maximize the speed of the vehicle.

In terms of crossing performances, the AMR 33 was able to cross a 1.70 m wide trench with vertical sides, ford 60 cm of water, or climb a 50% slope. It would retain lateral stability while moving on sloped terrain at a slope of up to 60%.

It ought to be noted that the last five production AMR 33 to be completed (three new vehicles and the rebuilt 79756 and 79757 prototypes), delivered in 1935, received a new suspension type. This was, in fact, the same rubber-block-based suspension as tested back in 1933, having been refined and now found superior to the coil-spring-based suspension. It had the same wheel placement, but differed by the use of three rubber blocks, including one nested between the two covers of the central bogie. The cover elements linking the rubber blocks to the wheels were also different. This new suspension type would be mounted on the AMR 33’s successor, the Renault ZT or AMR 35.

Its use on the AMR 33 would also be extended somewhat. Between 1938 to 1940, when vehicles were returned to maintenance facilities for large-scale repairs, a number received the new suspension type. These refits were moderate enough to only concern a minority of the fleet, however, and most AMR 33s still kept the original suspension going into the Battle of France.

Turret

The AMR 33 used an AVIS (Atelier de Construction de Vincennes – ENG: Vincennes Construction Workshop) n°1 turret. These turrets were designed by a state-owned workshop. Despite their name, they were not technically located within the municipality of Vincennes, just east of the city of Paris’s borders, but inside the Vincennes woods, technically within the territory of the municipality of Paris. Renault’s facilities of Billancourt were located west of Paris, along the Seine and still within the urban area of the French capital. Though the design was carried out at Vincennes, production of the turrets took place in the Renault factory itself.

The small turret had the same riveted construction as the hull, and used a hexagonal design, with a front and rear plate, and three plates on the sides. The turret was higher at its rear. The turret in itself did not feature a seat. The vehicle overall was low enough that a seat located in the hull, even quite low in it, was high enough for commanders to be at eye level with vision devices. The vision devices included in the turret were, to the front, an episcope to the right, a vision slot to the left, and the machine gun sight. There was an additional vision port on each side, and to the rear.

The turret included a large semi-circle shaped hatch opening forward, allowing the commander to reach out from it. There was also an anti-aircraft mount for a MAC 31 7.5 mm machine gun present to the right-rear of the turret. Small handles were also present on the front sides to ease climbing into or out of the turret from the hatch, though the preferred mode of entry into the vehicle remained the rear doors.

Armament

Armament was provided in the form of a MAC31 Type E machine gun, the shorter, tank version of the MAC 31 which had been designed for fortification use. It used the new standard French cartridge, the 7.5×54 mm. The MAC31 Type E had a weight of 11.18 kg empty and 18.48 kg with a fully loaded 150-round drum magazine, fed to the right of the machine gun. The machine gun was gas-fed, and had a maximum cyclic rate of fire of 750 rounds per minute. It had a muzzle velocity of 775 m/s. It ought to be noted that peacetime photos of AMR 33s often show the vehicles with no machine gun mounted inside the gun mount.

In the AMR 33, the 150-round drums were stowed on the left side of the hull. The position where they were stowed can actually be conveniently identified from the exterior of the vehicle. A line of rivets run along the upper hull sides at the same level as the mount for the drums. A total of 15 drum magazines were stored inside the vehicle, providing for a total of 2,250 rounds of 7.5 mm ammunition.

A feature of the AMR 33, shared by many armored vehicles of the French Cavalry, was the presence of a spare machine gun stowed inside the vehicle, at the rear of the hull. There were two purposes for this. The spare could either be used to replace the machine gun mounted in the turret in case of damage or a major malfunction, or be mounted on the AVIS n°1 turret’s anti-aircraft mount.

Photos of AMR 33s displaying the machine gun actually mounted in its anti-aircraft position are exceedingly rare, though there are a few more showing the mount without an attached machine gun. Several reasons are to be found behind this. The anti-aircraft machine gun was not mounted for parade or peacetime operations, when most photos of the AMR 33s were taken, and in fact, they were typically only mounted in case of evident enemy air threat. If an AMR 33 was abandoned, the spare machine gun, especially if mounted on the anti-aircraft mount, would be one of the first things to be taken if it was functional, either by the crew if the vehicle was not abandoned in a hurry or by enemy troops upon encountering the vehicle.

Camouflage Schemes

AMR 33s left their factory with two different camouflage schemes.

The first Renault camouflage scheme used three or four different colors. It was generally brush-painted in irregular rounded shapes. The four colors used were olive green and “Terre de Sienne” (brown) for the darker colors, and “ocre” (in practice yellow) and “vert d’eau” (watery green, imagined to be a lighter green color) for lighter colors. Black and white photos have generally left the lighter colors fairly distinct, but the olive green and “Terre de Sienne” can often be hard to differentiate. This camouflage scheme was almost universal on the AMR 33s. It varied significantly from vehicle to vehicle and was at times chaotic. On some vehicles, the lighter shades appeared dominant, while the dark ones were more pronounced on others.

The exception was a camouflage scheme that was particularly common on the vehicle’s successor, the AMR 35, but, on the AMR 33s, appears to have been limited to the five vehicles completed to a slightly different standard in 1935. This was once again a three or four-tone camouflage with the same base colors as the previous, however, the shapes were generally a lot less chaotic, larger, and more uniform, though still rounded in shape with irregularities. However, there was a blurry edge painted in black between spots of different colors.

Communications

At the point at which the AMR 33 was designed, radio was still not a standard feature really considered on most combat vehicles of the French Army. It was not a standard element present on AMR 33s. As a result, communications between vehicles would have to be assured by flags. Vehicles of leaders of platoons or squadrons would have a small special flag to distinguish them from the vehicles they led.

There was a distinct exception to this rule. French Army maintenance services in Reims converted a number of AMR 33s into “TSF” (Transmission Sans Fil – Wireless Transmission) radio vehicles as early as 1934. While the vehicle retained their armament, the conversion was more extensive than merely adding the radio. It appears the radio, of which the model is unknown, at least partly took the space of the ammunition stowage in the hull. As a result, some of this ammunition stowage was moved to the inside of the rear door, which required some modifications. Additional rivets had to be installed to hold the ammunition stowage points, and, as a result, the handles were moved slightly and were no longer at the same height.

Only very few AMR 33s were ever converted in such a fashion, and they were only likely present in the two units operating AMR 33s that were at some point based in Reims, the 4ème GAM and 18ème Dragons.

Doctrinal Use of the AMRs

The AMRs were intended to be issued to cavalry units. Their main role was close reconnaissance. For longer-range, more independent operations, another class of automitrailleuse existed, the AMD (Automitrailleuse de Découverte – ENG: literally “Discovery Armored Car”), which would typically feature higher range and armament in comparison to the AMR to be better suited to operate on their own for longer periods of time.

On their own, the AMRs were meant to search within a selected, limited area, for enemy contact. Their small size was viewed as a benefit in this, and it was specified that they had to use terrain to their advantage to the best of the crew’s abilities. Combat was to be engaged at close range only. The vehicles were to take contact with the enemy, but not stay in combat distance for long, as, with their thin armor, it was clear they would not last under armor-piercing or artillery fire. It was also specified that the vehicles would operate in close cooperation with other types of troops, either motorcycle-mounted reconnaissance, or AMC (Automitrailleuse de Combat – ENG: Combat Armored Car) cavalry tanks and/or cavalry.

The AMRs were to operate in platoons of five. In operations, each platoon would be further divided into two small sections of two vehicles, with the fifth, independent vehicle, being that of the platoon leader. When operating on the AMR 35 successor type, the leader of each section was to use a 13.2 mm-armed vehicle, but this was obviously not possible for units operating on the strictly 7.5 mm-armed AMR 33. Platoons were to be followed by motorcyclists, which would typically be used to communicate with other parts of the unit.

The standard procedure was for a platoon of five vehicles to be tasked to investigate an area 1 to 1.5 km wide. Each section of the platoon was to operate at a distance so they would still be in visual contact with the other. Platoon leaders were not to stay behind, but to follow with the first section, though under some circumstances, they could decide to stay in observation further back. The vehicle of a section leader was to lead, with the second vehicle slightly behind, so that if the first vehicle came under fire, the second could assist with its own armament.

Progression within an area to investigate was to be made in ‘hops’. Vehicles would go from one zone to observe the area from another, with the zones to stop at preferably offering decent cover. The next position would be observed with binoculars before being taken. In case of uncertainty in regards to a position, the second patrol could go to investigate closer while the first would remain in observation with binoculars.

When going from one cover to another, the AMRs were to progress if possible in non-linear ways, and if suspect positions were encountered on the way, they were cleared to fire at them in order either to reveal the position of enemy troops or find it clear of enemy presence. This would typically be done while stopping. It was noted that fire on the move was generally inaccurate and wasteful of ammunition, and it was to be used only in emergencies. The manual specified, for example, that shooting on the move would be used if an automatic weapon or anti-tank gun was suddenly revealed and the vehicle was under threat. The platoon leader was to organize and correct each ‘hop’, which as a rule implied he had to follow vehicles rather swiftly as they did not have radio to communicate with one another.

When encountering a village or wood, each patrol was to go around it on its outer border, observing if anything could be seen inside. Once that was done, one of the patrols would stay at the opposite side of the area to the one they came from and where the platoon leader would still be located. The other would go through the village or wood to the commander, and once they regrouped, progression would start again.

If the wood or urban area was particularly large, another procedure was in place. A patrol would stay with the platoon commander, while the other would quickly go to the opposite exit of the wood or urban area. It would then divide in two, with a vehicle staying to defend the opposite exit while the other would quickly run through the area, reach the other patrol and platoon commander, and the group would then rejoin with the lone armored car on the other side of the area.

When one or a couple of vehicles fell under fire, they were to simultaneously fire back and find cover as quickly as possible, while other vehicles of the platoons were to flank in order to delimitate the area held by the enemy, and if the resistance was limited, try to push the enemy back from this flanking maneuver. If flanking was not a possibility, the vehicles were to cooperate progressively on a point at a time. If pushing the enemy back was not a possibility due to the resistance being too strong, the vehicles were to stop behind the nearest cover and retain binocular observation of the enemy, with one of the vehicles periodically going on a short patrol to confirm enemy positions were still occupied.

When operating alongside troops mounted on motorcycles, they were noted to be a very helpful asset in reconnaissance. They were said to, in practice, prove more reliable than the armored cars at providing vision when no enemy fire was encountered, notably when moving, as the AMR crews were said to have lacked vision when in movement. Once contact with the enemy was taken, they were to observe and note the firing points firing at the armored cars and retain observation even once the armored cars were no longer under fire.

It was generally hoped the armored car would operate in conjunction with a motorcyclist platoon, forming a détachement mixte (ENG: mixed group). It would be led by the most senior officer between the AMR and the motorcyclist platoon. The motorcycles were generally to follow in the armored car’s stead, due to the latter’s greater protection against enemy fire. When under enemy fire, the motorcyclists were to engage in a more skirmish-like action, pushing the enemy flanks and making sure to keep contact with the enemy even if the armored cars no longer had line of sight. Against an enemy line, it was even, quite optimistically, said that the motorcyclists could attempt to infiltrate weaker points of the line, and be rescued by the AMRs if they fell into trouble.

There were also different principles for when the AMRs were operating alongside AMCs (which, de facto, were cavalry tanks). The AMRs would take the lead of progress, with AMCs at a slight distance behind them to be able to observe the reactions triggered by the AMR’s presence and provide supporting fire. The AMRs would also be tasked with reaching the edge of cover to check for enemy presence as well as to cover the flanks if they offered good firing positions for the enemy.

Once resistance was uncovered, the AMRs would put it under fire and stop advancing, letting the AMCs catch up and take the lead for the time needed to reduce the enemy point. If the resistance was sporadic, once an enemy point was reduced, advance would continue as normal. If the group encountered the main enemy line of resistance, the AMRs would switch to a secondary role, operating in the intervals between AMC groups to provide supporting fire as well as screening the flanks for enemy presence.

The AMRs were also given the role of cleaning up minor resistance points which may have escaped the AMCs. In such a role, a platoon would cover areas 1 to 1.2 km wide. These ‘cleanup’ groups were to follow closely behind the AMCs in order to profit from the chaos caused by their heavier firepower, making sure each point was cleared of enemy presence as the cavalry unit progressed.

There was one last offensive role of the AMRs, in what was called the ‘occupation echelon’. This would be the part of the unit which would follow after the ‘offensive echelon’, itself consisting of the AMCs and AMRs previously mentioned. This occupation echelon would lack AMCs and instead include traditional cavalry and motorcyclists, with the AMRs being, typically, their heaviest elements. The AMRs were to screen forward of this group in order to spot remaining enemy elements. The role of the AMRs of the occupation echelon was to relieve those of the cleanup group of the attack echelon. It was generally hoped that by this stage, all significant enemy resistance would be gone. One could generally see these offensive doctrines as a three to four-layered attack: a first offensive layer, the largest, including AMRs and AMCs, itself constituted of the AMRs first closely followed by the AMCs; followed by the ‘cleanup’ platoons operating AMRs, the head of the occupation echelon operating AMRs; itself followed by soft-skinned cavalry and infantry elements. At the rear, there was to be a reserve squadron as part of the occupation echelon, meant to be used during emergencies.

These were, overall, the operating principles in offensive actions. They can be said to be very enthusiastic about the capacities of a group of five lightly armored and armed vehicles.

There were also principles given for defensive use of the AMRs. It was clearly mentioned that the vehicles had to be used for delaying actions, and not in static defense. They would then be placed at the edge of cover, such as a forest or village’s edge, and fire upon enemy forces they spotted at greater ranges. It is then said they would keep this contact all the way to close range, and, if possible, counter attack, and if not possible, swiftly retreat to the next cover in a sort of defensive reversal of the ‘hopping’ method of advance. If enemy forces were noted to be on the smaller and less equipped side, it was suggested to hold fire until closer ranges in order to create ambushes. During these defensive operations, the platoon leader was given responsibility to ensure the flanks were well guarded.

Qualities and Issues of the AMR 33

Considering the number of prerogatives given to the AMR 33, it is important to truly understand the vehicle, to analyze how it fared, and the qualities and drawbacks that one would have to take into account to evaluate its potential.

It first has to be noted that the AMR 33, by the time it came out, did not lag behind designs fulfilling a similar role in the rest of the world, quite the contrary. By the time it reached prototype stage in 1932 or entered service in 1934, the standard of much of the world when it came to light tracked reconnaissance vehicles was still turretless vehicles very similar to or straight up copied from the Carden-Loyd Mark VI. The first turreted types, often smaller and with less powerful engines than the AMR 33, for example, the T-37A or Type 92, were contemporary to the AMR 33.

The AMR 33 could compare positively to many vehicles of its era. Its turreted design already put it in the higher bracket in terms of capacities, and its powerful 85 hp engine, at a time when the slightly lighter reconnaissance vehicles mostly had to contend with engines in a 40 hp range, was significant. Indeed, when looking at its 8-cylinders engine, at a time when many similar vehicles had 6 or 4-cylinders powertrains, the AMR 33 could seem almost like a race car. With its maximum speed of 60 km/h, it outperformed most Carden-Loyd-derived designs, which neared 40 km/h (though Vickers’ light tanks would also exceed 50 km/h).

Even armor-wise, while all the light reconnaissance vehicles of the time had light armor, the AMR 33 was still in the upper bracket and one at least safe from rifle-caliber fire under all or nearly all circumstances, if little more than that.

However, these qualities over vehicles fulfilling a similar role did not necessarily mean the AMR 33 was, outside of this context, a good vehicle. The race car comparison may be fitting in other ways than the powerful engine and high speed too. As mentioned previously, the vehicle’s suspension had been designed to be as light as possible. The wheels were largely covered by holes to reduce the material used, and this thin construction could also be seen in the tracks, which were also thin, narrow, and light. These features helped the AMR 33 be as light and as speedy as possible, but, consequently, they were not the sturdiest, and definitely not when going at high speeds for the time. The drivetrain of the AMR 33 was notoriously unreliable. The vehicles would often suffer from thrown tracks or damaged wheels. They required significantly higher maintenance than many other vehicles of the French Army.

Issues did not stop at the unreliability of the drivetrain, though other problems of the AMR 33 are perhaps less specific. The vehicle, as so many other French interwar designs, retained a small, two-man crew, with the commander in the turret taking up not only his role of spotting and leading the vehicle, rendered even more important by the vehicle’s reconnaissance role, but also that of gunner and loader of the vehicle. Even though this may have been less strenuous with a machine gun with 150 rounds magazines than on a vehicle armed with a cannon or a machine gun with lower capacity rigid clips, such as the Hotchkiss model 1914, it was still less than desirable.

This issue of overtasking was coupled with poor vision from the vehicle. Commanders did have an episcope towards the front, but otherwise, their vision was limited to very thin vision slots on the turret sides and rear, where they would be hard-pressed to see enough to draw any reliable conclusions on their surroundings. Opening the hatch could be an option, but the way it folded parallel to the turret roof granted no cover. Similarly, it appears there were no side driving slots for the driver, only the front episcope. Once again, this issue was not necessarily specific to the AMR 33 and was also shared by many reconnaissance vehicles of the era, but this did not mean it was not a considerable or even crippling issue.

Another major drawback of the AMR 33 in its reconnaissance role was the utter lack of means of communication with the outside world. Besides the few vehicles which were converted to fit radios, a non-standard conversion, the vast majority of AMR 33s, including platoon commander vehicles, did not have radios, or any other means of communications besides small flags. This issue was once again shared by many French 1930s armored vehicles. However, it can be said to be a lot worse on a reconnaissance vehicle, in comparison to, for example, a light infantry tank.

As explained previously, a platoon of AMRs could be expected to do maneuvers a lot more complex than a light infantry tank, potentially involving a lot of movement, moving from cover to cover, and flanking. Without radio to allow communication between the vehicles, the vehicles would have to follow pre-given orders or to stop at a point under cover to be given new orders by a commander, neither of which were ideal in comparison to having the commander communicate orders via radio.

The lack of a radio was equally a liability when it came to reporting the fighting of the vehicles on a reconnaissance mission to the rest of an unit. To do that, an AMR would either have to rely on a motorcyclist to manually travel to a point with a radio or the rest of the unit, or do that itself. It is indeed mentioned in the AMR’s prerogatives that the vehicles could act as ad-hoc liaison vehicles. However, when the vehicles were forced to act in this role to report their very findings, the situation could be said to have been worrying.

However, it is important to note that other similar vehicles of the time also lacked radios, including the T-37A, Type 92, Sd.Kfz.221, and British Vickers Light Tanks.

Last and perhaps least important, even if the armor protection of the AMR 33 was on the upper end of reconnaissance light tanks, it was still essentially only making the vehicle bulletproof, little more. While an AMR 33 was well protected from rifle-caliber ammunition, with a maximum of 13 mm of all-round armor, any kind of armor-piercing weaponry was potent against the AMR 33, as well as direct hits from light artillery pieces, even with High-Explosive shells, or near-enough hits from heavier artillery. A notable example of the AMR 33’s higher vulnerability was illustrated by German anti-tank rifles, the most common being the 7.92×94 mm Panzerbüchse 39 or the captured Polish 7.92×107 mm PzB 35 (p). These could commonly pierce its armor, but would typically struggle against most French tanks.

Derivatives and Variants

The AMR 33 had a fairly short list of variants and derivatives, as its place in time alongside other contemporary designs and size did not really align well with creating a whole family of derivatives.

Firstly, the AMR 33 came soon after, and was, in a way, still a derivative of the Renault UE. The UE was meant as a polyvalent tractor/supply vehicle, and as such, many non-combat roles for which a variant would sometimes be created from an armored vehicle were not based on the AMR 33 due to the very existence of the UE.

Secondly, the configuration of the AMR 33, with a side-mounted engine, was not appreciated by the French Army. While the vehicle was adopted nonetheless, the French Army would soon require Renault to work on an improved design with a rear-mounted engine as the more definitive AMR. It also made sense that auxiliary vehicles would mostly be created from a vehicle with this more standard configuration.

There were still a few vehicles based on the hull of the AMR 33.

Renault VE

The Renault VE was the first AMR 33 variant, a vehicle designed to follow the Type P requirements, which called for, basically, a mobile anti-tank gun. The Renault VE is best described less as a derivative of the VM, and more as a parallel development with the same automotive and suspension elements. Renault also began work on the VE as early as 1931, with construction of the prototype seemingly undertaken in 1932. It would only receive its armament in 1935, however, a variant of the 37 mm APX SA 34 anti-tank gun usually mounted on the Maginot Line. As such, it actually likely received the most powerful armament ever mounted on a vehicle of the AMR series. By 1935, new vehicles on the AMR 33 hull were out of consideration, and the VE was never adopted.

Renault YI

A less combat-suited derivative of the AMR 33 was the Renault YI. Around 1932-1933, Renault offered a series of unarmored tracked tractors, of which the 2 tonnes YI was the lightest. Meant to be used to tow the standard French 75 mm mle 1897 field gun, the YI used the drivetrain of the AMR 33, identical to production vehicles except for the drive sprocket, which was full without holes and with a more rounded shape. Only 2 YI would ever be ordered by the French Army and thus manufactured.

Renault YS and YS 2

Seemingly, the last Renault VM/AMR 33 derivative to be conceived would be the Renault YS. The concept of this vehicle was first mentioned in December 1932. The idea was to create a command vehicle with a larger superstructure that could house more crew members and the equipment needed for them to assume command functions.

Two YS prototypes would eventually be manufactured, the first in 1933, using the Renault VM’s suspension. They had a larger, boxier armored superstructure which could house six crew members, and had no armament, though they featured a firing port/hatch where an FM 24/29 machine rifle could be placed.

An order for 10 production Renault YS was made in January 1934, but these are best described as derivatives of the Renault ZT/AMR 35, as they would be built using this vehicle’s drivetrain rather than the VM/AMR 33’s one.

Nonetheless, the two VM-based prototypes saw continued use. In autumn 1936, one was even experimentally converted into an artillery observation vehicle, which was called the “YS 2”. Despite their small number, the YS, including the two VM-based prototypes, were still in service in some Cavalry units by 1940.

A Successor: the Renault ZT/AMR 35

As mentioned previously, the French Army did not appreciate the overall configuration of the AMR 33, with the engine pushed to the side. While this configuration that Renault used had helped minimize the size of the vehicle, the French Army desired a design that used a more standard configuration, with the engine at the rear of the vehicle. It is because of these reservations that orders for the AMR 33 would remain at a quite moderate 120 vehicles, quite far below the number of AMRs which would be needed to fully equip the French Cavalry branch that was in the process of expanding its mechanized forces in the 1930s.

As early as early 1933, there were drafts and plans for a version of the AMR 33 with the engine pushed back to the rear. Renault would start working on a prototype of the AMR 33’s successor in late 1933. In fact, the first prototype to be presented, in February 1934, was the deeply reworked 79759, the fourth VM prototype. The internal two-letter designation code of this new vehicle was ZT.

There are some interesting details to highlight about the ZT’s development. In the first prototype, the speed was raised all the way to a very impressive 72 km/h thanks to an 8-cylinders 28CV engine, though this would not be retained all the way to the production standard. Eventually, another Renault VM, 79760, would be converted into a ZT prototype in March 1934. These two first makeshift ZT prototypes made from old prototypes of the AMR 33 were somehow satisfying enough to achieve the first order for the ZT on May 15th 1934, before a new prototype, the first purpose-built ZT, would be ready by September.

With the ZT on the way, further development on the AMR 33 stopped, with its successor being standardized as the AMR 35. It was meant to become the true standard AMR, though eventually, due to the High command of the French Army being skeptical of this kind of lightly armored reconnaissance tank, production would be limited to 167 of the standard ZT-1 type. The AMR 35 would nonetheless prove to be a more popular platform for variants. Vehicles accepted into service on the AMR 35 hull include the ZT-2 and ZT-3 tank destroyers, the ZT-4 colonial light tank, and the ADF1 command vehicle.

Interestingly enough, one of the two VM prototypes converted into ZT showed up during the 1940 campaign. This was 79759. Despite having used the AVIS n°1 turret when operating as a ZT prototype in 1934, it was seen refitted with the older and worse Renault turret of its early days, being used during the desperate defense of the city of Orléans, on the Loire river, where it was abandoned. Photos show the vehicle’s turret disarmed, and markings indicate it was at that point used as a driver’s training vehicle in a training facility. It is, in fact, known it was issued to the Saumur Cavalry School, but with this facility being 180 km away from Orléans and its cadets having been heavily engaged in the defense of their own crossings on the Loire river, it remains unclear why the prototype ended up there.

Issuing the AMR 33 to Units

By the time they came out, the AMR 33s were to serve within one particular type of unit.

During the first half of the 1930s, the French Army had five DCs (Divisions de Cavalerie – ENG: Cavalry Divisions). The AMRs were to be delivered within the GAM (Groupements d’Automitrailleuses – ENG: Armored Car Group) within each cavalry division. A GAM was to be issued 15 AMR 33s, allowing for the formation of three platoons. Three platoons were considered to form a squadron. There were also nine cavalry regiments in mainland France, some of which were to be motorized or mechanized, including with some armored cars, and turned into reconnaissance groups.

However, in practice, deliveries of AMR 33s were not that uniform. It was decided before the first AMR 33 was even delivered that the 4th DC would be turned into an experimental unit of a new type, a DLM (Division Légère Mécanique – ENG: Light Mechanized Division). The objective was to create what was basically a light cavalry armored division with motorized infantry, and because of this particular status, the units of the 4th DC would get priority for deliveries when AMR 33 came out of production.

Out of the 65 AMR 33s of the first batch, 40 went to units of the 4th DC. The unit’s GAM (4th GAM) received the standard dotation of 15, but two other components of the 4th DC were issued with AMR 33s; the 18ème Régiment de Dragons (ENG: 18th Dragons Regiment), a cavalry regiment, received 15, and the 4ème Bataillon de Dragons Portés (ENG: 4th ‘Carried’ Dragons Battalion/BDP), a motorized infantry regiment, received the last 10. The 4th GAM and 18th Dragons both operated in Reims, which became somewhat of a center for the 4th DC/1st DLM and for the operation of AMR 33s ( the few TSF conversions were run there). The 4th BPD, in contrast, operated in Verdun.

The remaining AMR 33s were distributed between the GAMs of the other cavalry divisions, which were not envisioned to become DLMs. The 1st (Orléans), 2nd (Strasbourg), and 3rd (Paris) GAM (part of the similarly-numbered cavalry divisions) each received 5 AMR 33s with the first batch and another 10 in the second batch, each receiving their allocated lot of 15. The 5th (Melun) GAM got the short end of the stick, receiving only 2 AMR 33s within the first batch and another 8 in the second batch, and later the three newly completed AMR 33s of the later standard.

Finally, three regiments not part of a larger division received some AMR 33s. The 9th Dragons regiment in Epernay received 8 AMR 33s as part of the first batch, the 11th Chasseurs in Vesoul 12 vehicles of the second batch, and, finally, the 17th Chasseurs operating in Evreux received the 2 prototypes converted to the late production standard in 1935.

Within the GAMs

There are some unique aspects to the service of the AMR 33s within the GAMs.

The 4th GAM and 18th Dragons, both located in Reims and part of the 4th DC/1st DLM, were uniquely quite forward-thinking in the use of their vehicles. At that time, it had been decided that Cavalry units in Reims would operate as a somewhat experimental mechanical brigade, a way to test out the armored tactics on a larger scale than regimental, which was planned to be extended to more of the cavalry in the following years. This is why the Dragons Regiment, despite not being a GAM, received AMR 33s. Schneider P16 AMCs were also issued to units located in Reims. The use of the mechanical brigade was to test the AMC-AMR couple which was identified in French Army doctrine.

As for the 10 AMR 33s issued to the 4th BDP in Verdun, while the mechanical brigade of the 4th DC was located in Reims, the ‘discovery’ regiment was based in Verdun. This part of the unit mostly used AMDs, longer-range wheeled reconnaissance armored cars, but 10 AMR 33s were nonetheless issued there largely to experiment as well.

Besides the AMR 33s issued to sub-units of the 4th DC/1st DLM, the 1st GAM, operating in Orléans, had an interesting aspect in that its AMR 33s operated in tandem with AMCs (once again Schneider P16s) inside a mixed AMC-AMR squadron, though the number of AMRs issued (15) matched a full AMR-only squadron. The 1st GAM also had another squadron operating AMDs.

The 2nd GAM, based in Strasbourg, Alsace, was notable in that it was, alongside other units of the 2nd DC based in Strasbourg, the unit of the French Cavalry located the furthest to the east in mainland France, in a city located on the River Rhine that formed the border with Germany. Before being delivered AMR 33s, it already had two squadrons, an AMC and an AMD squadron. Once the 15 allocated AMR 33s were delivered, it formed a third squadron with these.

The 3rd GAM is likely the unit in which the AMR 33s were the most photographed. Part of the 3rd DC, it was also included within the garrison of Paris, and as such took part in parades on the Champs Elysées for Bastille and Armistice days By 1934, the unit actually had an odd three-squadron composition, with two squadrons of AMD and a single mixed squadron of AMR/AMCs, though the unit received a full complement of 15 AMR 33s. These were further divided. Eleven were part of the unit’s main garrison in Paris’ central military school, while 4 were branched out in Versailles.

The 5th GAM, operating in Melun, at first only received 10 AMR 33s, and had to operate them in a mixed squadron alongside AMCs. In 1935, it also received the last three newly-manufactured AMR 33s that featured the rubber block suspension. This unit was the one in which AMR 33s had the shortest service life, as this GAM was reorganized into the 8th Cuirassiers Regiment in October 1936, as the 5th DC was being, like the 4th DC, converted into a DLM, the 2nd DLM. At this moment, the AMR 33 were delivered back into storage.

The 6th and 7th GAM are the most elusive, created in Compiègne in 1935 and Saint-Omer in 1936 respectively. Despite seemingly not being associated with a cavalry division, they received a small number of AMR 33s taken from other units, likely in large part from the 5th GAM. Unlike other units, when exactly they stopped operating the type is unknown, though at the time when they were converted into GRDI reconnaissance groups in 1939, they did not feature any AMR 33.

Lastly, for the few non-GAM units not part of any division, the reason why they were issued AMR 33s is even more unclear than with the last two GAMs. The 17th Chasseurs, which operated only two AMR 33s, both converted prototypes, stands as the oddest of them all.

Markings of the GAMs

Each GAM had a symbol, which was typically inscribed on the side of the AMR 33s’ turrets.

The 1st GAM’s symbol evolved from the early to the late service of the vehicles within the unit. The early symbol was a front-facing knight with white feathers on his helmet on a red background, surrounded by a green border embellished by yellow squares. The second design had the same green border, but embellished with red squares instead, and given white wings with black borders. Inside the green border, the background was yellow instead of red, and while at the center, the image of a knight with white feathers on the helmet was retained, but he now faced to the side.

The 2nd GAM symbol was a Cross of Lorraine. In its simplest form, it was a yellow cross on a red background, inside a white roundel. In a later more complex form, the circle was diagonally divided between a red half to the bottom left and a green half to the top right, still sporting the same yellow Cross of Lorraine on top, with a storch superimposed in front of the cross. A third symbol also existed from 1936 onward. It had more of a coat of arms form, with a central red shield containing three yellow scorpios. On top, the common figure of a knight with white feathers to the sides and a sort of yellow/golden hat on top. The golden top hat formed, alongside the bottom, an anchor placed behind the shield.

The symbol of the 3rd GAM is in a way even more esoteric, showing a white cog, with a central red circle. Superimposed on top of these was a sort of yellow hippogriff and a blue shield containing a golden anchor.

The symbol of the 4th GAM was a red circle with a white border. In the middle was a knight painted in white. On a yellow legend at the bottom of the circle, “Jeanne d’Arc” (Joan of Arc) was written in black. Reims is the city where, famously, Joan of Arc got French King Charles VII crowned, explaining the reference.

There were also symbols more commonly associated with the whole 4th DC/1st DLM which appeared on vehicles of the 4th GAM, but also sometimes the 18th Dragons and 4th BPD. An early one (1934-1935), found only on vehicles of the 4th GAM, was a red rectangle with a white boar in the middle. Later, the pattern of a black boar on a diagonally divided white and blue background became a common pattern in the 4th DC. Lastly, the 18th Dragons also had its own unique symbol sometimes present, a red hippogriff inside a yellow circle with a blue border. On occasion, a simpler symbol of a white hippogriff with red borders, often superimposed on tactical markings, was also used.

Common Tactical Markings

Common French tactical markings based on card games were seldom found on AMR 33s in comparison to other vehicles, but could sometimes be seen nonetheless. This marking scheme relied on two methods of identification, the color and the shape. The color indicated which squadron a vehicle was part of. Blue was used for the 1st Squadron, Red for the 2nd, and White for the 3rd.

Within squadrons, a single shape would be used for each platoon. Typically, this was an ace of spades for the 1st platoon, an ace of hearts for the 2nd platoon, an ace of diamonds for the 3rd platoon, and some later unit compositions would allow for four platoons, in which case, the 4th platoon used an ace of clubs. Unfortunately, as these markings were not systematically used, and as the color can sometimes be hard to identify in black and white photos, this way of identifying which exact part of a unit a vehicle belonged to is not dependable, but it can sometimes be useful.

Another unit marking that appeared from 1938 onward was the French tricolor cockades. Upon the introduction of this new tactical marking, one was often painted on each side, with a third on the rear of the turret. By 1940, the presence of this very obvious marking had most of the time been reduced to just one on the rear of the turret. Sometimes, one was also painted on the roof in order to ease identification from the air.

Vehicles were sometimes, though again far from systematically, given a one or two digit number on the side or rear of the turret, indicating their number within a squadron.

Restructuring and Reforms of 1936-1937

A couple years into the service of the AMR 33s, the French Cavalry saw considerable organizational reforms which changed the structure of units operating the AMR 33.

Following the successes of experiments on units combining various types of armored cars, it was decided to change the structure of the armored car groups of most DCs. Previously, the standard complement had been one squadron of 15 AMR 33s, as well as one squadron of 15 AMDs and, typically, two squadrons of 15 AMCs.

In 1936, it was concluded that a different configuration should be adopted, notably following experimentation with the mechanical brigade in Reims. It was found that a more AMR-heavy organization was desirable, as the AMRs proved to be the vehicles that cooperated the most closely with the infantry in general, while the AMCs would generally end up being more specialized in an anti-armor role.

As part of this reform, each GAM was to be reformed into a RAM (Régiment d’Automitrailleuse – ENG: Armored Car Regiment). The name change only happened at the mobilization in September 1939, though the actual organizational change was carried out as part of the reforms taken in from 1936 to 1938. The RAM ditched one of the AMC squadrons, leaving it with a single squadron of 15 AMCs, and retained the squadron of 15 AMDs. However, it was increased to have two squadrons of AMRs, and each squadron was to be boosted from 15 to 23 AMRs. In other words, the standard complement of each DC would rise from 15 to 46 AMRs. This was somewhat compensated by the 5th DC following the 4th in transitioning to a DLM, and it was decided the AMR complement of the higher-priority DLMs would all be AMR 35s.

However, with three DCs, there was still a need for 138 AMRs, exceeding the production run of 118 AMR 33s. It was therefore decided that the 1st RAM, operating within the 1st DC, would be outfitted with AMR 35s, leaving the two other DCs, the 2nd and 3rd, operating with AMR 33s, and even leaving a respectable surplus, as AMR 33s were also phased out of non-divisional units operating them to be solely concentrated into the four squadrons of the 2nd and 3rd RAMs. AMR 33s of all other units were sent back to storage, with the 1st RAM abandoning its last AMR 33 in 1938, to be redistributed to the few units using them. The 2nd and 3rd RAM generally kept the traditions and imagery of the 2nd and 3rd GAMs that came before them, and the same symbols can often be spotted on their armored cars even after the reform.

At the outbreak of the war, each of the RAMs had their standard complement of 46 AMR 33s. A total of 18 vehicles were in various maintenance facilities or training schools. At least, quite mysteriously, 10 vehicles were reported as having been sent overseas. There has never been any evidence of an AMR 33 leaving the French mainland, and this is likely some sort of accounting mistake, with 10 AMR 33s perhaps instead undergoing significant general maintenance.

Outbreak of the War: The Mobilization Reforms

As France joined the Second World War after Germany launched an invasion of Poland, reforms were once again carried out within the French Cavalry. In September 1939, there were no major changes outside of the units formally being reclassified from GAMs to RAMs, with the actual changes to their organization having been carried out long ago.

However, larger plans were soon put in place. With the DLMs having proven to be a successful experiment, able to replace the DC as the frontline fighting force of the Cavalry, the DCs were now seen as secondary units, and it was decided to reform them into Divisions Légère (DLC – ENG: Light Divisions), a name received in February 1940 and which would be changed in March to Divisions Légère de Cavalerie (DLC – ENG: Light Cavalry Divisions). The reform itself was theorized in November 1939 and carried out in February 1940

These were smaller divisions, with slightly more of an emphasis on armored vehicles, though typically lighter ones in comparison to the DLMs, where Somua S35 and Hotchkiss H35/H39 tanks were the main armored fighting force, with AMR 35 and Panhard 178 as armored reconnaissance vehicles. In comparison, the smaller DLCs would have more of a focus on various armored cars with no vehicles typically considered as cavalry tanks. The core of each DLC would be a previous cavalry brigade, and as the previous DC each had two brigades, they were typically divided into two. In cases relevant to the AMR 33s, the 2nd DC was divided into the 2nd and 4th DLCs, while the 3rd DC was divided into the 3rd and 5th DLCs.

As part of the organization of the DLCs, the AMRs were removed from the RAMs, which now exclusively operated AMDs, AMCs, and motorcycles. AMRs were instead issued to the Dragons Portés, which became a two-battalion regiment instead of a single battalion inside a DLC. Each battalion of a Dragons Portés regiment was to be supported by two platoons of AMR 33s. In total, each of the four DLCs which was to be issued AMR 33 had a nominal complement of 26 vehicles. In practice, the AMR complement of a DLC was always or almost always sourced from a single squadron keeping the same personnel, meaning the same traditions and symbols were often retained despite the vehicles being assigned to a different unit.

With the total number of required vehicles of active divisions operating AMR 33s rising from 92 to 104 vehicles, the fleet was actually stretched thin to fulfill requirements. Only one unit, the 15th RDP of the 5th DLC, received the full complement of 26 vehicles. The 14th RDP of the 4th DLC appears to have had 23 vehicles, the 2nd RDP of the 3rd DLC had 20 and the 3rd RDP of the 2nd DLC had 22. A total of 19 vehicles were still issued to school or maintenance facilities and 10 were still in the mysterious overseas category, which was likely a classification error for vehicles undergoing some form of general maintenance.

Unfortunately for the AMR 33s, as armies sprung into action following the German attack of May 10th 1940, fate was not kind to the DLCs they were deployed in. The French Dyle-Breda Plan saw the most potent armored divisions of the French Army, the Cavalry’s DLMs and Infantry’s DcRs, rush into Belgium in order to relieve the country, and hopefully even the Dutch Army in the southernmost parts of the Netherlands. As the heavier units rushed into Belgium, the lighter, smaller DLCs were tasked with covering the flank of the French advance, This largely saw them deployed in or near the Ardennes, where the fist of more numerous and better equipped German Panzer-divisions would strike straight into them. In mere days, the vast majority of the AMR 33 fleet would be mauled to the point where this model would be exceedingly rare after the first week of combat.

Details on the operational service of the AMR 33s are unfortunately a lot more scarce than for other French vehicles, such as the B1 Bis or Somua S35, for a number of reasons. The less sensational AMRs have received significantly less attention from historiography in the past 80 years. Their affiliation to the smaller DLCs, which have largely failed to attract the same mythos and reputation as the larger DLM and DCR, also contributed to their unit’s history having received less attention than larger divisions. The marching journals of the RDP operating AMR 33s are also often more confusing and less clear. A clear reason can be found behind this element was the fact that, while meant largely for second-line duty, the DLCs ended up being a first line of defense they were never intended to be, and were mauled or almost disintegrated very quickly. Generally, it is considered that a week into the campaign of France, about ¾ of the AMR 33 fleet had been destroyed, damaged, or abandoned.

Disaster in Luxemburg: The 2nd RDP, of the 3rd DLC

The first unit operating AMR 33s in numerical order, the 2ème Régiment de Dragons Portés, was part of the 3rd DLC. As the other DLCs, it was included in the covering of the flanks of Dyle-Breda. Prior to the campaign breaking out, the division was located just south of the border with Luxembourg. Its given task was to head into the small country should it be invaded, and to set up checkpoints and hold defensible positions. It should be noted that, at the start of the campaign, this unit had the smallest complement of AMR 33s, with only 20 vehicles.

The 3rd DLC headed into Luxemburg as soon as hostilities broke out on May 10th 1940. It soon faced considerable German opposition. At first, this consisted of small airborne groups that had been deposited by Fieseler Fi 156 Storch liaison aircraft, but soon, two whole infantry divisions, the 17th of and 76th, joined in. Despite their lack of armored vehicles, these German formations generally offered much more firepower and ability to conduct set-piece head-to-head combat than the DLC and its meager supporting units, two GRDI reconnaissance groups and parts of a Spahi North African cavalry brigade.

On the second day of the campaign, the DLC had already retreated into France, having recorded its first AMR losses, which were lost trying to cover troops from GRDIs. The small division was further involved in combat against the German 17th Infantry Division in support of the French 58th Infantry Division in the town of Longwy, on an affluent of the River Meuse.

A few days later, the 3rd DLC, having likely lost a considerable portion of its AMR fleet by this point, was a supporting element of the first engagement of De Gaulle’s 4th DcR at Moncornet on May 17th, and was moved west towards the Somme and Amiens around May 23rd, taking part in an attack as part of the Battle of Abbeville on May 26th.

By June 5th, the likely largely depleted division was surprised by German offensive operations being resumed with Operation Fall Rot following the Dunkerque pocket being successfully reduced. The unit continued to fight a desperate fighting retreat, its elements fighting on the Seine on June 9th and 10th 1940, and then on the smaller Eure on the 11th. As French lines completely collapsed, the retreat of the division hastened. When the 2nd RDP stopped to reorganize on June 15th, only four AMR 33s were still present, with a single platoon of three AMRs surviving within the first battalion, and only a single AMR being left within the second battalion. On June 25th, when the armistice came into effect, the unit was all the way between Bordeaux and Perigueux, in southwestern France.

The First French AFV Lost in The Campaign of France: the 3rd RDP of the 2nd DLC

The 3rd RDP, part of the 2nd DLC, had a complement of 22 AMR 33s as it headed into the campaign of France.

The 2nd DLC, as the 3rd DLC, was part of the Dyle-Breda maneuver. It was tasked with heading into the easternmost part of Belgium, into the country’s Luxembourg province, within the Ardennes forest. This coincidentally was the first part of the Low Countries and France German troops started progressing in.

On the morning of May 10th 1940, as the 2nd DLC headed into Belgium, it was immediately engaged by German troops in a number of Belgian localities such as Arlon, Vance, Etalle, Landin, and Poncel. Divided elements of the division were confronted by the 10th Panzer Division and the Grossdeutschland Motorized Infantry Regiment. As early as 10 am, near the entry of Vance, AMR 83950, part of the 2nd Platoon of the 1st Battalion, had its two crew members killed by German armor-piercing fire. This appears to have been the first recorded armored fighting vehicle lost by the French Army during the campaign of France.

Already mauled on the first two days of combat, the unit retreated further on May 12th, leaving the town of Jamoigne, on the Belgian side of the French border, to the 36th German Infantry Division. The next day, even more German armored forces broke through the French lines and crossed the Meuse river at Sedan. The 2nd DLC was then engaged in the first phases of the Battle of Stonne in order to try and cut the German spearhead around the 16th of May. As French forces in the north ended up encircled, with the Panzer-divisions reaching the sea on May 20th, the 2nd DLC found itself moving towards the west, and was part of the disparate forces accumulated by the French and British during the Battle of Abbeville, taking parts in attempts to break through the German lines to relieve the Dunkerque pocket from May 25th to early June, without success.

As with the 3rd DLC, the 2nd was heavily hit by the new German offensive of Fall Rot, facing the 5th Panzer Division and the 2nd Motorized Infantry Division. These inflicted heavy losses on the French cavalry division and pushed it to retreat. On June 8th, it received orders to retreat towards the Seine, but was outsped by the 5th and 7th German Panzer Divisions, which took Rouen, the main crossing over the Seine in Normandy, and reached the coast at Fecamp respectively, trapping the 2nd DLC alongside a few other units, including the 5th DLC, two French infantry divisions (the 31st and 40th), and a British infantry division (The 51th Highlands). This ensemble, encircled on the 10th, surrendered on the 12th, after the general commanding the 2nd DLC had been killed in action the previous day.

The 15th RDP of the 5th DLC: a Chilling Figure

The history of the 5th and 4th DLCs is somewhat less documented than the 2nd and 3rd. It is nonetheless known that the 15th RDP, part of the 5th DLC, was actually the most well equipped of all, with the full complement of 26 AMR 33s.

The 5th DLC’s rearguard actions appear to have been concentrated on the French side of the Ardennes, rather than in Belgium or Luxembourg. The unit was notably engaged in heavy fighting on the River Semoy on May 12th, in the locality of Vendresse, where at least two vehicles were abandoned. Overall, and likely as the other DLCs, most of the AMR fleet was likely lost within the first days. Two vehicles were notably seen alongside destroyed trucks in a column that appears to have been entirely taken out.

As with several other DLCs, the 5th’s remains were engaged during the Battle of Abbeville. A single figure is known from this engagement. On May 29th, slightly over two weeks into the campaign, the unit only had one AMR 33 left out of 26, an extremely high attrition rate. After the Battle of Abbeville, there were plans to transform the mauled 5th DLC into a new DLM, which would have been the 8th DLM. However, as with the other DLCs, the division was surprised by Operation Fall Rot before any significant efforts could be undertaken to re-organize it. The remnants of the unit were encircled and destroyed in Normandy alongside the 2nd DLC.

The 4th DLC/7th DLM and its 14th BDP/4th RAM

The 4th DLC, as the 5th DLC, is generally less well documented in the early parts of the campaign, but actually appears to have been the DLC deployed the furthest to the north on the flanks of the Dyle-Breda maneuver, fighting at the south-east of the Belgian city of Namur. An example of how the tactics present in the AMR’s doctrine could turn out badly was demonstrated on May 12th 1940, when 2 of the unit’s 23 AMR 33s were lost. A squadron of AMR 33s had been left to defend the village of Crupet in the afternoon, as the horse cavalry retreated. Left to their own, the vehicles proved largely unable to resist. Two patrols of presumably two AMRs each were placed on the entry and exit of the village. Two vehicles of a patrol were then lost meters from each other, having been encircled by German troops, for which the higher number allowed for higher flexibility.

After its first defeats in Belgium, the unit presumably retreated into France and took part in operations near Abbeville. Its fate, in June of 1940, was quite interesting. On June 5th, the unit was officially turned into the 7th DLM, and adopted an ad-hoc organization. The DLM was to feature a Dragons Portés brigade with two reinforced battalions. It was hoped that each would be able to sustain a mixed squadron of AMRs and motorcycles. The 14th RDP was to operate as one of those squadrons, while another would have been the 31st RDP. However, shortages of AMRs meant the 14th RDP was instead equipped with old White-Laffly armored cars, pressed into service under the role of AMD.

The AMRs were instead pressed into service into a new regiment, the 4th RAM, once again taking the shape of an armored car regiment. This regiment was to focus on reconnaissance tasks, and it was hoped it could sustain four mixed squadrons, two with AMDs and motorcycles, and two with AMRs and motorcycles. In practice, the unit received AMRs from wherever some could be found, training schools, maintenance facilities, etc. The two mixed AMR squadrons were extremely reduced, with a three-vehicle platoon and an additional two-vehicle patrol each in theory. A slightly higher compliment of 14 AMRs total, 7 per squadron, was eventually gathered. This total included both AMR 35s and AMR 33s, the majority likely being of the older type taken from inventory and repair depots. As with the other units still in existence, the 7th DLM fought a bloody fighting retreat on the Seine and then further south. Though poorly documented, it is known that all of its AMRs had been knocked out by the end of the campaign.

The AMR 33’s Performances during the Battle of France

Overall, the AMR 33’s service during the campaign of France was particularly unfortunate. The few units which still operated the type basically found themselves right in the path of some of the most potently armed German units, which easily made short work of these vehicles.

The AMR themselves are not to be entirely exonerated of their poor service, of course. The design’s thin armor made it vulnerable to a variety of German weapons which were not always deadly to French tanks, such as anti-tank rifles or 20 mm autocannons found on Panzer II or in anti-aircraft use.

However, even with better vehicles, considering the small quantities found within the DLCs, far too small to operate as frontline divisions, it is unlikely the vehicles could have performed well even had they been the most advanced reconnaissance tank design of their era. They were in large part in the wrong place at the wrong time. Instead of being used as reconnaissance vehicles, they were also largely used as cavalry infantry support tanks fighting alongside motorized infantry, which was often not well coordinated with them. In this role, there were almost no positives for the AMR 33, its high mobility being negated while its light armament and armor were exacerbated.

German Use after the Campaign of France

Due to very high rates of abandoned vehicles in the losses suffered by the French Army, German troops were able to capture working examples of the vast majority of armored fighting vehicles types in service with the French Army.

The AMR 33 does not technically appear to have been an exception to this, however, German use of the type appears to have been extremely limited. There are several reasons behind this. First, considering both how the AMR 33s were located right on the frontline, in areas that saw intense combat, and were thinly armored, they were probably, proportionally, many fewer vehicles abandoned due to minor breakdowns and more vehicles which were lost after being penetrated in combat, which could make repair impossible or very complicated. In addition to this, the fleet of AMR 33s, even before this destruction, was small, and the type was long out of production. In comparison to more modern types, such as the S35, B1 Bis, or even H39, there was comparatively little the AMR 33 brought that was not present already in German equivalents, while repair and maintenance of the vehicle would be comparatively hard.

Because of this, photos of the AMR 33 in German service are extremely rare, almost unheard of in fact. The vehicle is nonetheless known to have been given a German designation, Panzerspähwagen VM 701 (f), indicating an armored reconnaissance vehicle of French origin. However, the vast majority of photos of AMRs in German service show AMR 35s, due to more favorable circumstances which lead to more of these falling into German hands.

Conclusion – The First Modern Renault AFV

The AMR 33’s German service is very poorly documented and likely largely insignificant, and there are no known reports or anecdotes of vehicles being recovered and used during the liberation of France. By and large, the story of the AMR 33 can be considered to have ended alongside the campaign of France, and overall fairly early during its course too.

To this day, a single AMR 33 has survived, and is unsurprisingly hosted by the Saumur Tank Museum, which has the largest collection of French AFVs in the world. The vehicle’s interior is sadly not in good condition, but from the exterior, it still looks just as the AMR 33 did back in the 1930s.

When looking back at the AMR 33 today, the vehicle can appear somewhat irrelevant and forgotten. After all, it was one of many vehicles which, in the whole world, came out in the wake of the Carden-Loyd, though the British vehicle was more of a distant ancestor rather than a close parent for the AMR 33. Indeed, when looking at armored fighting vehicles fielded by 1940, there is little that makes the AMR 33 remarkable, outside of perhaps its speed.

The vehicle nonetheless holds an important role in the history of French armored fighting vehicles. The AMR 33 was the first of a new generation of vehicles Renault produced during the 1930s. While it is easy to see how the AMR 33 pioneered the AMR 35, the vehicle’s influence did spread beyond. The AMC 34 and later 35 largely followed in its wake, though they were significantly larger. Even the R35 light infantry tank, which may seem almost the opposite of the AMR 33 with its cast construction, thick armor, infantry role, and slow speed, actually took inspiration from the AMR 33 in the sense that its suspension was based on similar principles. This is not necessarily to take as a point of pride for the AMR 33. The suspension was definitely not a strongpoint of the R35, if there ever was one, and none of the riveted cavalry vehicles offered by Renault in the 1930s would turn out to be huge successes, despite some interesting characteristics, with the AMR 35 being the closest to a good and well-appreciated vehicle. Nonetheless, the influence of the AMR 33 on the armored fighting vehicles created by the most famous French automotive company in the 1930s is undeniable, and the vehicle itself, despite its tragic service history, had a fascinating developmental history.

AMR 33 Specifications
Crew	2 (Driver, Commander/gunner)
Driver vision’s devices	Front episcopes
Commander’s vision devices	Front-right episcope, front-left, sides and rear vision slots
Armament	1 MAC31E machine-gun with 2,250 rounds & 1 spare/anti-aircraft machine-gun
Hull Armor	13 mm (vertical/slightly angled surfaces) 9 mm (significantly angled surfaces, notably frontal glacis) 6 mm (roof) 5 mm (floor)
Turret armor	13 mm (sides) 6 mm (roof)
Radio	None on most vehicles, few fitted with unknown TSF
Fuel tanks	128 liters
Range	200 km
Production numbers	5 prototypes, 118 production

 

Sources

Les automitrailleuses de Reconnaissance, Tome 1: l’AMR 33 Renault, François Vauvillier, Histoire & Collection editions

Les automitrailleuses de Reconnaissance, Tome 2: l’AMR 35 Renault, François Vauvillier, Histoire & Collection editions

Tous les blindés de l’Armée Française 1914-1940, François Vauvillier, Histoire & Collection editions

Les Véhicules Blindés Français 1900-1944, Pierre Touzin, EPA editions

Trackstory No 12 – Les Automitrailleuses Citroen Kegresse, Pascal Danjou, Editions du Barbotin

Chars de France, Jean-Gabriel Jeudy, ETAI editions

Mitrailleuses de 7,5mm modèle 1951, Guide Technique Sommaire, Ministère de la Défense Nationale (Ministry of National Defence), France, 1953

Char-français:
AMR 33
VE Type P
Berliet AFVs
P28
AMR 35

Forgotten Weapons, Swiss Reibel M31 Tank & Fortress Machine Gun

Armesfrançaises (MAC 31)

3945km.com:
2nd DLC
3rd DLC
4th DLC
5th DLC

France 1940 radios