What do you think?
Rate this book
Osprey Duel #63
Panzer III vs Somua S 35: Belgium 1940
This fully illustrated study pits Germany's PzKpfw III tank against France's Somua S 35 in the vast armored battles that opened the campaign.
The armor clashes in May 1940 were the biggest the world had yet seen, as the German advances of that period came to epitomize Blitzkrieg. Nonetheless the Wehrmacht's Panzer III was well matched by the French Somua S35; the two representing very different design philosophies and yet ranking among the best designs in the world at the time.
The armor clashes in May 1940 were the biggest the world had yet seen, as the German advances of that period came to epitomize Blitzkrieg. Nonetheless the Wehrmacht's Panzer III was well matched by the French Somua S35; the two representing very different design philosophies and yet ranking among the best designs in the world at the time.
- GenresHistory
80 pages, Paperback
First published November 18, 2014
2 people are currently reading
21 people want to read
About the author
Steven J. Zaloga
381 books77 followersSteven Zaloga is an author and defense analyst known worldwide for his articles and publications on military technology. He has written over a hundred books on military technology and military history, including “Armored Thunderbolt: The US Army Sherman in World War II”, one of the most highly regarded histories of the Sherman Tank. His books have been translated into Japanese, German, Polish, Czech, Romanian, and Russian. He was a special correspondent for Jane’s Intelligence Review and is on the executive board of the Journal of Slavic Military Studies and the New York Military Affairs Symposium. From 1987 through 1992, he was the writer/producer for Video Ordnance Inc., preparing their TV series Firepower. He holds a BA in history from Union College and an MA in history from Columbia University.
Mr. Zaloga is also a noted scale armor modeler and is a host/moderator of the World War II Allied Discussion group at Missing-Lynx.com, a modelling website. He is a frequent contributor to the UK-based modeling magazine Military Modelling. He is a member of the Armor Modeling and Preservation Society.
Mr. Zaloga is also a noted scale armor modeler and is a host/moderator of the World War II Allied Discussion group at Missing-Lynx.com, a modelling website. He is a frequent contributor to the UK-based modeling magazine Military Modelling. He is a member of the Armor Modeling and Preservation Society.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
May 10, 2026
Timing is everything. This is the lesson of Steven Zaloga’s book, which offers a comparative analysis of the premier German and French medium tanks in 1940, through which he describes a broader story about rearmament and the choices both sides made in preparing for the Second World War. Though similar in many respects, the histories of both the Panzer III and the Somua S 35 reflect decisions made at a time of rapidly advancing technology that shaped the fighting that took place across Europe during the 1940s.
What makes the comparison all the more interesting is the very different starting points for the development of the tanks that Zaloga describes. During the First World War, the French had pioneered the use of tanks in combat and rapidly built up a force of them for use on the Western Front. The abrupt end of the war in 1918 left them with a fleet of Renault FT light tanks, which sustained France’s army for more than a decade. By contrast, the Germans, who did not pursue tank development seriously during the war, were prohibited from building tanks by the Versailles Treaty, a restriction to which they abided during the 1920s while still exploring the employment of mechanized forces in battle.
These explorations drove the development of tanks after the Nazis assumed power in 1933. This meant prioritizing maneuverability over protection, and the Panzer I’s and II’s that were initially produced reflected this. Sufficiently armored to stop machine gun bullets, both models were designed to serve as infantry support rather than to combat enemy tanks. By the mid-1930s, however, army leaders reconsidered this in light of the growing power of anti-tank guns and more heavily armored tanks by other countries, as well as their experiences in the Spanish Civil War. This led them to accelerate the development and production of the better-armed and -armored Panzerkampfwagen III, which represented the first of the next generation of tanks envisioned for the German forces.
Initially the Panzer III was to be equipped with a 3.7cm gun. The French were already developing a tank capable of withstanding this, however. This was the Somua S 35, the development of which began in 1934 in response to the Germans’ development of an anti-tank gun in that caliber. Design adjustments and the slow pace of production delayed delivery of this tank, however, which left the cavalry forces for which it was destined still reliant upon less-satisfactory Hotchkiss tanks when the war began. In comparing the two Zaloga judges the French tank superior in protection and firepower to its German counterpart and equivalent in mobility. Where the Panzer III had an advantage, though, was in the larger crew compliment, which allowed the tank commander to focus on directing the tank on the battlefield. By contrast, his French counterpart also had also to aim and fire both the 47mm gun and the coaxial machine gun, which slowed the tank’s operation on the battlefield.
These ergonomic issues detracted significantly from the Somua’s performance in combat. To demonstrate this, Zaloga concentrates on the four-day battle in and around the Belgian town of Gembloux in May 1940, where the Panzer III-equipped 4. Panzer Division fought the French 3e DLM (division légère mécanique, or light mechanized division). There the Germans’s superior training and coordination on the battlefield helped them to compensate for the better armor and firepower of the Somuas deployed. Though both sides suffered heavily in the fighting, Zaloga attributes the heavier losses experienced by the French to the fact that they left the battlefield to the Germans, and thus were unable to recover their damaged tanks.
In the end, though, what ended the battle of Gembloux was not the performance of either army, but Erich von Manstein’s “sickle cut” through the Ardennes, which forced the French to withdraw to avoid being cut off. Both sides could claim success: the French in delaying the German advance through Belgium, the Germans in luring French forces away from the main point of attack. The tanks themselves would soon prove obsolete, as even the up-gunned Panzer III’s would find themselves outmatched when pitted against the Soviet Union’s T-34s little more than a year later. Zaloga’s book thus serves as a useful snapshot of an arm in transition, reflecting both the pinnacle of tank design at the start of the war and the limitations that would be addressed by its more famous successors. His clear explanation of these factors make this concise and well-illustrated study informative reading for anyone interested in the battles of 1940 or in tank warfare more generally.
What makes the comparison all the more interesting is the very different starting points for the development of the tanks that Zaloga describes. During the First World War, the French had pioneered the use of tanks in combat and rapidly built up a force of them for use on the Western Front. The abrupt end of the war in 1918 left them with a fleet of Renault FT light tanks, which sustained France’s army for more than a decade. By contrast, the Germans, who did not pursue tank development seriously during the war, were prohibited from building tanks by the Versailles Treaty, a restriction to which they abided during the 1920s while still exploring the employment of mechanized forces in battle.
These explorations drove the development of tanks after the Nazis assumed power in 1933. This meant prioritizing maneuverability over protection, and the Panzer I’s and II’s that were initially produced reflected this. Sufficiently armored to stop machine gun bullets, both models were designed to serve as infantry support rather than to combat enemy tanks. By the mid-1930s, however, army leaders reconsidered this in light of the growing power of anti-tank guns and more heavily armored tanks by other countries, as well as their experiences in the Spanish Civil War. This led them to accelerate the development and production of the better-armed and -armored Panzerkampfwagen III, which represented the first of the next generation of tanks envisioned for the German forces.
Initially the Panzer III was to be equipped with a 3.7cm gun. The French were already developing a tank capable of withstanding this, however. This was the Somua S 35, the development of which began in 1934 in response to the Germans’ development of an anti-tank gun in that caliber. Design adjustments and the slow pace of production delayed delivery of this tank, however, which left the cavalry forces for which it was destined still reliant upon less-satisfactory Hotchkiss tanks when the war began. In comparing the two Zaloga judges the French tank superior in protection and firepower to its German counterpart and equivalent in mobility. Where the Panzer III had an advantage, though, was in the larger crew compliment, which allowed the tank commander to focus on directing the tank on the battlefield. By contrast, his French counterpart also had also to aim and fire both the 47mm gun and the coaxial machine gun, which slowed the tank’s operation on the battlefield.
These ergonomic issues detracted significantly from the Somua’s performance in combat. To demonstrate this, Zaloga concentrates on the four-day battle in and around the Belgian town of Gembloux in May 1940, where the Panzer III-equipped 4. Panzer Division fought the French 3e DLM (division légère mécanique, or light mechanized division). There the Germans’s superior training and coordination on the battlefield helped them to compensate for the better armor and firepower of the Somuas deployed. Though both sides suffered heavily in the fighting, Zaloga attributes the heavier losses experienced by the French to the fact that they left the battlefield to the Germans, and thus were unable to recover their damaged tanks.
In the end, though, what ended the battle of Gembloux was not the performance of either army, but Erich von Manstein’s “sickle cut” through the Ardennes, which forced the French to withdraw to avoid being cut off. Both sides could claim success: the French in delaying the German advance through Belgium, the Germans in luring French forces away from the main point of attack. The tanks themselves would soon prove obsolete, as even the up-gunned Panzer III’s would find themselves outmatched when pitted against the Soviet Union’s T-34s little more than a year later. Zaloga’s book thus serves as a useful snapshot of an arm in transition, reflecting both the pinnacle of tank design at the start of the war and the limitations that would be addressed by its more famous successors. His clear explanation of these factors make this concise and well-illustrated study informative reading for anyone interested in the battles of 1940 or in tank warfare more generally.
January 18, 2021
I had read a couple of Steven J. Zaloga's Osprey tank volumes before and to be honest they didn't do much for me, but I really enjoyed this one (I guess I'm the opposite to Jeff in this instance).
It is interesting, informative, well-written and engaging. There's lots I didn't know. If you think the French tank units were effortlessly brushed aside by their German counterparts, think again.
This volume has a factor which gives a Duel title much more value, in that the two combatants were fairly evenly matched. I will be more keen to read Steven's books now. Recommended.
It is interesting, informative, well-written and engaging. There's lots I didn't know. If you think the French tank units were effortlessly brushed aside by their German counterparts, think again.
This volume has a factor which gives a Duel title much more value, in that the two combatants were fairly evenly matched. I will be more keen to read Steven's books now. Recommended.
April 22, 2025
Excellent Duel Book
Great guide to neglected subject. France's failure in 1940 was not entirely one - sided. French armored forces were capable. The sword for use in combination with the shield of the Maginot line was very effective. It accomplished it's mission. The failure was dealing the German thrust the Ardenne. While I applaud the effort put in the subject, I feel it is only a piece to a larger puzzle.
Great guide to neglected subject. France's failure in 1940 was not entirely one - sided. French armored forces were capable. The sword for use in combination with the shield of the Maginot line was very effective. It accomplished it's mission. The failure was dealing the German thrust the Ardenne. While I applaud the effort put in the subject, I feel it is only a piece to a larger puzzle.
December 30, 2023
This book brilliantly illustrates the weakness of all French tanks of World War Two. Even though French tanks were more heavily armored and in many cases had more powerful guns they still were defeated in battle due to their design flaws (the commander also fired the main gun and the lack of tactical radios). Their employment in penny-packets rather than in armored divisions sealed their fate.
April 24, 2017
I enjoy the writing of Steven Zaloga and the Osprey Duel series, but for some reason this book didn't really engage me. It's reasonably informative, and I learned things about both tanks that I didn't know before. Nonetheless, I didn't think it was one of the better Duel series books.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews