A12 Matilda - Tank Design & Development
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 09. 2024
- A look at the British A12 Infantry tank. Designed in the late 1930s as a
result of changes in French and British doctrine and Built by several companies in the UK. The Matilda, arguably Britians best tank at the start of WW2 suffered a troubled development that prevented many being available when most needed.
Join us on Discord: / discord
Sources: Bovington Archives.
Kew Archives
National Archives
#Matilda #Tank #experiment #LMS #Design #Concept #WW2 #A12 #A11 #British #Prototype #A12E1 #A11e1 #Woolich #Vulcan #France #Matilda #Hobbart
8:50 most appropriate use of a C&B i've ever witnessed. Bravo Sir.
Yes, i like that one too!
As an apprentice I worked at The Vulcan Foundry, a locomotive works, the old timers there would tell of building the Matilda tanks during WW II.
John
And now it's a housing estate with an aldi
A neighbour was a Matilda commander, in North Africa. I asked him about the 2 Pounder HE shells and he had seen them in depots but they were only allowed to be issued to 2 Pounder AT gun units for use engaging infantry.
Just a note about the "large numbers" of German 88mm anti-tank guns. There were never more than 14 of them in North Africa, though their effective range - the fact that they could knock out British armour long before it got close enough to shoot back - meant that these guns survived very well.
Of course, everyone claimed to have been shot at by the 88's, but in fact it was almost always the far more numerous (and very effective) 75mm Pak 40 guns.
In the desert campaign usually for Germans 50cm antitank gun Pak38
@@raymondkisner9240 I think you mean 5cm PAK 38
This carried on to Normandy were every German tank was a Tiger. You are left feeling that there were more Tigers in Normandy then the Germans ever built.
Even the Italian 100mm howitzer could do bad things™ to a Matilda if it could land a hit.
And that despite predating the invention of the tank.
Unlikely. The 75mm Pak wasn't available until well into 1942 and I don't think they were even issued in Africa.
Great video again! "That Muppet" and his armband gave me a little chuckle.
Glad you enjoyed it
I was waiting ...waiting ...then split my drink laughing!!!! VG!
@@armouredarchives8867 Loved it! see above...
Got quite a decent chuckle from hitlers wardrobe choice..
I thought that Muppet was reserved for Clarkson only....
The Matilda performed admirably with the Australians in the PTO where it excelled in an infantry support role against stubborn Japanese resistance. The battles on Bougainville and Borneo in 1945 come to mind.
So what or where is a "PTO" ?
Pacific theatre of operations@@androidbox3571 the australians used the matilda in borneo as a bunker buster with a 76mm howitzer and a flame thrower version in pairs of 2. it was proof against any japanese gun except their 75mm anti tank gun,of which there were few. The australian Matilda was equipped with a larger turret to accomodate the 76mm,fitting two crew in the turret
There is one aspect of these tanks you do not touch on, and I think it was a very effective central policy of allied armour design. As I understand it the Matilda was powered by basically two bus engines. The fan boys of German armour design may well note this. Sure they were not fast, but they were fast enough for what they were required to do most of the time. Secondly the engine design was already proven to be reliable, as bus engines need to be, plenty of spares, and a whole bunch of people who knew how to maintain and repair these engines.
German armour was plagued by expensive tanks that were difficult to build, maintain and repair, and a constant shortage of spare parts. This led to a lot of tanks lost because they were simply abandoned due to mechanical failure and no parts or people to fix them.
The Matilda was an excellent tank, often overlooked in the publics perception by the Sherman and T34.
odd you shoudl say that, just workign on fmbt5 and we cover this topic on engines :)
As I sell automotive parts, I can confirm that using a common engine **really** helps with repair and maintenance. Even if it requires more labour to repair, common engines have cheaper, more available parts (economy of scale) and diagnosis of issues is far easier, as there is a greater amount and distribution of knowledge. There's more aftermarket mods for them, which are easier to design because everyone is familiar with it's weaknesses and strengths.
The whole industry works just works better for common engines. The rover V8 hasn't been mass produced in 15 years, but I bet you can find parts at any distributor and an expert mechanic for it in every village in the UK. Parts aren't common in the US, but far easier to find than any other UK made engine.
Sounds a lot like American/British opinion, not grounded in facts.
@@23GreyFox A meaningless statement. What facts are wrong?
@@kevinpitt2203 This whole part. "German armor was plagued by expensive tanks that were difficult to build, maintain and repair"
At 19:55 looks like a Australian Matilda that had the uparmored front fenders to stop Japanese AT gunners from shooting the track. Cant see if it has the uparmored commanders cupola, not sure if the heavy cupola was produced.
Hope to see a video on the ANZAC and Soviet Matilda's and their modifications.
Oh by the way, is A22 Churchill in your schedule? Tank Museum recently published some tank chats about it, but your materials have their own flavour we love.
chuchill is on the list. dont fret :P
Great video. I am not sure why, but the Matilda and Valentine are my two favourite tanks.
The depth of your research is really impressive and appreciated.
Always my favourite tank.. my grandfather RE (pre reme) recovered a number of these (and a lot of other mechano) during the desert war... he said that their repair vehicle was constantly singled out for air attack... leading him and his mates to hide under the vehicle being recovered...
I had never noticed Hitler's arm band having the "heat-seeking moisture missile" on it before. Good information for figure modelers, for sure.
its all about the little details :P
Another great video feller. I always look forward to these popping up in my youtube alerts! Keep up the good work.👍👍
Amazing how small the Matilda was. Love Hitlers "Prick" arm badge. Nice touch.
Great photo editing, as well as great informative dictation there. Thanks
Glad you enjoyed it
You could probably do a full video on the LittleJohn adaptor - as applied to the Matilda and others. I've read that apparently the squeeze bore shell was as effective as the 30mm GAU-8 projectiles when fired by the A10 Warthog.
will do
Interesting Video. The failure to issue an infantry support tank with a high explosive round and then designing a "close support tank" that was supposed to fire smoke rounds mainly, well from an arm chair general perspective, that sounds crazy. Just like looking at those tracks and then thinking "the suspension must be the problem"
indeed, and the same thoughts were in people minds then, people like brigadier blagden were shocked at the sheeer incompetence of some of these people given postions to influence tank design
Very informative. One of my favorite British tanks.
Glad you enjoyed it
Until I saw the tracks on the Matilda I would never have thought anyone could be stupid enough to put smooth metal against a slippery surface and expect it to work, and I could see that just by looking at photos.
But it works well on loco and and rolling stock wheels smooth metal on smooth metal!
Until it became cheap enough to stick rubber pads on tracks every single tank in the world had flat metal on slippery surfaces?
Together with most mysterious decisions made by British High Command, e.g. the difference between infantry and cruiser tanks.
@@wideyxyz2271 Trains are many orders of magnitude heavier than tanks, so friction is less of an issue. But even then, they take literal miles to speed up/slow down thanks to the "grip" they have.
@@kitten-inside I would be curious to know if they found any meaningfull difference between those 2 types of tracks in maximum speed of the tank on flat wet grass? Not that it would make any difference in the field.
*Thanks for informative video, liked & Shared!!*
Re: 2pdr HE rounds: In the scramble for resources and funding between the wars there appears to have been a disagreement between the Royal Armoured Corps and the Royal Artillery over who could shoot explosive rounds. The gunners felt they were the experts in blowy uppy stuff as part of the general advance while tankies were telling anyone who would listen that mechanisation should translate to a breakthrough army within the army, all under tracked armour and under their control.
Without an SPG / HE capability (arguably an APC, SPAAG and CVRE capability too) the Grand Tank Fleet was impotent. Infantry and artillery senior officers saw this problem for the RAC and saw it was good (for them). Many were predicting the tmotors
The tankies fought back with three options - go so fast the ATG can't hit you (cruisers), slap on more armour so the ATG can't hurt you (infantry tank) or spot and destroy the ATG before it could do more harm (HE round).
Counter battery fire had long been the preserve of the Royal Artillery, it had to form part of the larger fire plan at Brigade and Divisional level, a Gunners job, so they argued for the later mission. It was settled around the time of the 2pdr's introduction, the deciding vote seems to have been the infantry who were desperate to keep control of the dismounted towed ATG.
They didn't need a puny 2lb HE round for that business, they argued their 3inch mortar did it better, laying smoke and illumination as well. Sohowitzersquadron
likehuge duplication and wastage of effort that the USA and France suffered from in much the same way. Russia and Germany slightly less so as both armies were enjoying a clean slate start and a murderous disinclination to whinge by Generals.
I love the swazi replacement on Shitler's arm-band - respect is due 😂
lol, following youtubes rules XD
Thank you! As one of the most important British tanks of WWII, I'm glad to finally see how she was developed...and yes, I've always tried to figure how the I became the II. Parallel rather than series development definitely makes sense.
ALSO, didn't the Royal Artillery refuse to give the tank units HE because they claimed firing HE was strictly an artillery role?
I have heard this, but how much is annecdotal is unkown, it certainly does not crop up in any development minutes or issues, and other vehicles like the grants and shermans for the UK had HE rounds in Tunisia so i would er on the side of annecdotal :)
@@armouredarchives8867 Thanks. It's still sad the problem existed. How might battles have been influenced had British tankers had some HE to drop on German guns??
@@petesheppard1709 Thats a good question...although one wonders how effective a 40mm HE shell can be??? It only weighed 1.9 lb...so it cannot have held much explosive.
@@trooperdgb9722 True, not good for area bombardment, but on a point target, even a little bang could help
@@armouredarchives8867 it may have been anecdotal, but I also remember reading this, too. I must see if I can find my resources. I don't think it was that the Royal Artillery "refused", but more because of the tank doctrines of the time. I have a feeling that some of this is covered in Barrie Pitt's "Crucible of War" volumes..... Some homework for me to dig through again.
There was a year delay in the introduction of the 2 Pounder gun, when it was found that the 127,000 APHE rounds, that had been produced from 1934, when the gun was under development, was below the minimum performance standard set by the WD in 1937.
The WD required that the 2 Pounder gun should have a 70% probability of a penetration of a 25mm. FHRHA Vibrax plate set at 0 degrees at a range of 500 yards..... It had only recorded a 28% chance. even worst was the tendency for the fuse to part company from the shell in flight or on impact.
Vickers quickly came up with a AP shot, which delayed adoption of the 2 pounder into service for nearly a year.
I own an example of one of the useless 1934 pattern APHE shells, innert and complete with fuse.
great stuff ty. it was more beacuse its often touted no HE rounds were ever made sort of thing, that i thought it worth coverign albeit breiftly
@@armouredarchives8867 All the APHE shells were emptied of their Lydite explosive filler and used for UK live fire range training throughout the war.
My example is an unfired instructional round with a pristine drive band.
The Vickers 1938 pattern AP/T shot was rapidly superceded, in 1940, by the more potent Hadfield AP/T, which was heat treated. Hadfield wanted to keep their process a secret from other manufacturers, but the WD ordered them to share it to speed up the production of stocks. This treatment process was also shared with the US when they joined the Allies.
AP/T (Vickers) = up to 64mm. FHRHA @ 0 degrees @ 100 yards.
AP/T (Hadfield)= up to 77mm. FHRHA @ 0 degrees @ 100 yards.
APCBC/T (1942) = up to 84mm. FHRHA @ @ 0 degrees @ 100 yards.
@@CZ350tuner I find the difference between the 77,84mm surprising, I would not have expected a ballistic cap to have made such a difference over a distance of 100 yards.
APCBC
Armor piercing capped ballistic cap. It had both ballistic and ap caps.
Fascinating video, thanks for sharing
Some of those very early tanks look like the love child of a Dalek and bulldozer.
😂🤣😂
The German A7V was literally built on Caterpillar bulldozer parts. The company that became Caterpillar was called Holt and they had a factory in Austria…
Goodday well dun my regiment still runs a Matilda its The 1st 15th Royal Mew South Wales Lancers the Matilda served in Africa we also run a Cent it is also operational all the units are part of the Regiment Museum stay safe
Looking forward to the CDL vid!
Just came across your channel.Many thanks for the great content
Who knew that wet grass could trip up a tank?!
Try driving a normal car on wet grass - it's like ice!
A completely flat tank track would be like taking a tray to a snowy hill.
Any fule no that flat things on low friction surfaces is trouble. But the British army employed super-fules to stay under this low bar of knowledge.
Working through your back catalogue... thanks
Learning a ton as always! Thanks 🙂
Glad to hear it!
Love a video on the Matilda service in the Pacific.
Love that photo at 08:52 !
Some say Priscilla was queen of the desert, but we all know that she was really called Matilda ! … well according to my dad she was slow but faithful
Regarding the name "Matilda", I've always seen an Australian connection. "Waltzing Matilda" was a popular song in Australia, penned around 1895. "Lancelot de Mole" (1880-1950) AKA "Lance" - an Australian has been given credit by some, as the inventor of the modern tank. It would be difficult to believe that the creators of the "Matilda" were not aware of Lances efforts. The Australian War Manorial in Canberra has a good model of his work, which has a remarkable resemblance to the Matilda.
thanks ed - great vid! and yes - that armband! hahahahaha!
Glad you enjoyed it
Thanks for the interesting information - especially the report from Brigadier Blagden, would you be able to share where this report can be found? I've found 1940 reports about some of the technical difficulties with the A12 in France but this report seems far more comprehensive (it it's the 3 pages you posted in the vid). Top stuff. Nick
sure, the document you want at bovvy is Interview with Brigadier Blagden DDGFV R&D 1943
Very interesting ! Thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it!
20 minutes!!! awesome! thanks Ed!
Enjoy!
Great! Very enjoyable.
Great video part of me always wondered what would have happened if they had made a "Heavy Cruiser" Variant of the Matilda by replacing the Engine to something that could push out 350-400hp instead of the 190 as the twin engines of the Matilda do take a lot of physical space and the power pack is bigger than that of the Liberty engine used in the cruisers(although I would probably avoid the liberty like the plague but if you only pushed it at 300hp it probably wouldn't have had as many wear and tear issues as when they tried to push it to 400+ in real life) or the Bedford engine used in the Churchill maybe a earlier version with slightly with less power might allow such a vehicle to go at something closer to the 25mph on road and 15mph of the Crusaders. At that point they would have had a more usefull vehicle that could do both roles and may have sent the UK down the universal tank route that led to the MBT concept earlier than they did.
speed isn't dictated purely by engine power, but also suspension type and how loaded said suspensions are. i doubt 25mph would be achievable with it with a 300hp engine. despite being a similar mass to the panzer IV. there is a reason why the horstmann and christie suspensions were those chosen for cruiser tanks.
anyway bedfords are too large, maybe, i have seen conflicting sources on their size, but they weren't ready anyway. it wasn't even ready for the A20 initially, let alone matilda.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 While the Horstman and Christie suspension was better suited the suspension of the Matilda was essentially the same suspension used on the A7 that was designed for 25 and was able to hit 30 mph although it would have been a bit of a maintenance hog if pushed to fast. The A7 also had the twin engine concept used on the Matilda but with more powerful engines having 252 hp. By no means would a faster variant of the Matilda chassis have been without issues but it might have been good enough and pointed the UK down the universal path earlier
Very interesting and informative.
Glad you enjoyed it
My foster dad was a tanky in WWII. He was in 1st experimental armoured div later renamed 7th armoured.
He told me the Germans had nothing to even take out the British light tanks let alone the cruiser and infantry tanks.
He was in cruiser tanks and happily went around taking out German tanks. he also said the Italian tanks were better than the German tanks.
Best tank Germany had was the PZ38(t) a vickers export tank. That got rejected by Britain as not having enough armour. It wasnt till the Panther and tiger tanks came out that Germany had a half decent tank.
The PZ38(t) was downgraded for the sale to Germany in 1938. but the vickers A24 it was based on had thicker armour and that was sold to Poland as the PT7 and the soviets as the T24 and China as the type 24
. British specs for a light tank was 30mm armour the A24 only had 28mm. the PZ38(t) had 26mm.
Crusier tanks armour was 50mm and infantry tanks was 100mm.
The panzer I had 10mm. Panzer II 13mm and panzer III 20mm.
Its why after Dunkirk and the fall of France Germany used the captured British and French tanks instead of their own. Rommel used them in N,Africa and if he couldnt get enough of them he used Italian tanks.
Britians problem was relaibity due to having lots of diff models in service with diff componentes so it was a logistical nightmare getting the right parts and ammo to the right tank units.
Britian used the weight of the shell not the caliber. So 1 2pdr gun shell wouldnt work with a 2pdr gun from a diff maker.
Some tanks used AEC engines some used vickers some used Vauxhall and some used leyland depending on which company made the tanks.
They all had the same specs in armour and gun but each company used their own components . But just cause they all had a 2pdr gun didnt mean they were all the same caliber lol.
Plus when a tank broke down it was towed away and another given to the crew but it might not be the same make or model. My dad said his unit of 4 tanks had 4 diff makes and models and was a nightmare getting the right ammo for them. It was a case of ammo being dropped off and then look and see if it fitted ur gun lol. if not they had to wait for the next lot of ammo to arrive. The ammo might of only fitted in 1 tank model so the rest had to sit around waiting for more ammo.
As for the 88mm that was an anti air gun not anti tank. and 1st used to take out tanks in N,Africa in 41 after British tanks came across them intending to take them out but they lowerd the barrels and fired at the tanks and surprissed how good they were in the anti tank roll so started using them for that. It was the only weapon Germany had that could take out British and French tanks.
WWII should of ended in 1939 when France destroyed the German army in the west and Hitler surrendered but it got rejected by Britian and France. The French army advanced from t eMaginot line and was 5 miles into Germany when they got orders to stop their attack and fall back and never attack again.
Same in 1940. BEF wiped out the Gertman army and marched into Holland only to be given orders to fall back.
The French gave orders to the French army to pull back further and half the French army ordred to go to Africa. that left the BEF right flank open. that lead to Dunkirk. the BEF was undefeated but kept getting orders to retreat.
All part of the plan to make it look like Germany was winning to give the RAF time to flatten as many German cites as possible. Churchill and Chamberlain both said in 1936 the war with Germany must last at least 3 years.
So everytime Germany surrenderd it got rejected.
Rommel said why r the French running away so fast when they defeated everything i threw at them. Other Germans said the French r retreating faster than we can advance. Thats cause the French army was fully motorised and the Germans didnt have many trucks so had to rely on horses to tow their heavy weapons and horse and cart to bring up supplies.
Britain had an armoured div the only 1 in the world. That was a combined arms unit. light tanks for recce. cruiser tanks for break throughs and dragoons in fully armoured transports called rams. Rams were tanks with the turret taken off and room inside to carry troops so they could keep up with the tanks. 1 of Percy Hobarts creations setup in 1938.
Rommel coppied that for when he went to N,Africa after he got totaly destroyed by it in Belgium in 1940.
Britian tended to mix units so Infantry had tank support and tanks had dragoons supporting them. France however had diff rules Tanks were not allowed to engage infantry only other tanks and could not support infantry or be supported by infantry. Germany had the same rules as France.
the canal defence light was designed to defend the Suez canal from german aircraft minlaying, it did this by flashing its light across the canal causing rapid bright reflections ,stopping the bomb aimer from seeing well enough to hit his target and was used operationaly. Also used in 1945 rhine crossings .
It is not possible to become more British than this man.
Come over to Britainland, there's lots of us.
I come from the northern sector.
I have a flat cap, say 'appen and 'ow do and ta a lot and own a whippet.
I consume at least a gallon of strong tea a day and have a label saying 'do not cremate' due to the large quantity of coal dust in my lungs, which might explode when the oxygen level and a spark are present at the right %.
Therefore it's illegal for me to smoke a pipe.
Thank
Love the armband
Brilliant video I do appreciate that you B/W that museum's Matilda with that dreadful sky blue! I mean why do they not see caunter scheme vehicles Matilda wasn't a stand alone different vehicle with a van Gogh paint job haha!
Had to be done :)
Thanks for that, very interesting.
Bert, my favorite matilda tank.
Can't wait for the next story.
Apparently from what I gather the HE round was issued....... To the armoured car regiments, so you saw daimlers and the like running about through the war with HE rounds just in case they needed them.
Mind you, they couldn't use the HE round with a squeeze bore, so it was probably issued to other 40mm armed vehicles that might have better use for it. Armored cars were far more likely to come across lightly armed enemy units, trucks and artillery guns, so an HE round would cause far more damage to them than the Armor Piercing one.
@@WOTArtyNoobs Yeah, IIRC many of the squadrons would stop using their littlejohn adapters in France because it wasnt really necessary as they wouldnt sit and fight against actual tanks and the swap was better (IIRC they also would call on the "heavy troop" in the regiment for that kind of thing using AEC or halftracks with 75mm guns).
@@mitchverr9330 I've just come across some info which says that the LittleJohn adaptor was issued to armored cars but they elected not to fit it:
"The adaptor was chiefly used on British armoured cars, e.g. the Daimler, which had been designed and built earlier in the war and could not be readily fitted with a larger gun. As an adaptor to the existing gun it could be removed so that normal rounds could be fired. This offered increased anti-armour effect but with obvious drawbacks in combat conditions. When crews discovered the special 'squeeze bore' ammunition was more effective than the standard 2pdr AT round even when not 'squeezed', the usual practice was to store the adaptors rather than have them fitted."
So it appears that the Daimlers did have the squeeze-bore adaptor, but didn't fit it so that they could switch ammo quickly when the need arises, rather than jump out of their vehicles to unscrew the adaptor.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littlejohn_adaptor
Several years ago I came across a post on another discussion board, Navweaps I believe, talking about this. The post iirc was based on reports from the Western Desert and the issue with the arming of Matildas and other 2pdr armed tanks with HE was rather prosaic. Apparently the HE rounds required a different style of stowage racks from the AP rounds so that in order to carry HE all the ammo stowage racks had to be changed out. Changing out the racks supposedly took several hours plus stowing the HE rounds. So you could go into battle with only HE or only AP rounds and as Matilda II was used mainly against other tanks it was simpler to just stick with an AP load out. I have no idea if this is correct as this is the only place I have heard of it but it makes a bit of sense.
@@wesleyphillips7744 It sounds like bollocks - every other tank manages different types of ammo racks for their variety of rounds.
Chase up The Chieftain's 'review' of a Matilda2 for the turret interior.
Good looking tank in its time 👍
8:00 I love this picture. The stuck tank is interesting, with the Ben Hur name on the bow. The crew is also notable As in all armies the world over, one crew member is working to free the tank while the others stand about and watch. Wonder what he did to annoy the TC. LOL.
so basicaly one person carrying the whole team in tanks again :P
I agree with that through my experiences with armour
Late 1940:
A9 Cruiser (40mm)
TNHP 38 (37mm)
T28M38 (76mm)
Late 1941:
Matilda II
T34M40 (76mm)
Panzer IIIJ (50mm)
Late 1942:
M3 Grant (75)
T34M40 (76mm)
Panzer IV "Special" (75mm)
Late '43
M4A1 Sherman (75)
T34M43 (76mm) (this version has the full TC cupola)
Panzer IV "Special" (75mm)
Late '44
M4A3 Sherman (76)
T34M43/85 (85mm)
Pz VG Panther (very high velocity 75mm)
Imagine being a Panzer III (37mm or short 50mm) crew in Africa on the occasion of your first encounter with the Matilda 2. Lucky combat is an intricate affair with provisions made for just such an emergency.
"The Panzergranate is just bouncing off, sir!"
[The Panzer III's turret takes several glancing blows from enemy 2pdr weapons]
"Damnit! Why do I always get company when I'm busy! Someone answer that door, will you?"
"We're gonna need a bigger boat."
[What follows mixes memes, specifically the "Chinese Fire Drill and "Oh bugger, the tank's on fire."]
8:50 LMAO at the muppets armband!
Very good, thanks. I was surprised though that when listing the differences between marks towards the end, there was no mention of the change from wet-grass-slope-failing inverted treads to the more Churchill-like ones clearly visible @ 20:00. I'd have thought that would merit a mention... ?
ahh it was a sod, as some kept them all the way, lack of parts/interest, while others are mixed and some photos show the same model with 3 diff sets in the same images.
Great video very interesting
Glad you enjoyed it
Great video Thanks for producing it...!
I too, love the Armband Adjustment.
I am tempted to wonder,
How many German Officers thought that would have been Appropriate..!??
Cheers all from the Land Downunder..!! 😎
Many thanks 👍🏻
You're welcome 😊
English tanks did not carry high explosive shells because high explosive shells were the perogative of the artillery, a separate branch and they wanted control of tanks with HE.
mostly, the gun bunnies liked HE you could lob for sure, they saw that as their role, and so things liek the A10 end up in some odd roles, but regular HE was designed and made for tanks, 40mm, 57mm 75mm etc. - the early 2pdr APHE was in most cases useless anyway. the 57mm wasnt much better and only used a little in Italy, tho there are conflicting reports of some in Africa. 75mm was issued however. - but yes there was conflict with RA for sure.
My Fav tank...
@8.59 what an armband Hitler was wearing!!! :)
Ikr
Lets not mention the material wear problems going on with German tanks as they approached to Dunkerk. Or Herman injecting his 5 cents inot the problem either... I wonder if my book on RASC has anything on it. To say the section on France is chaotic is a understatement.
yeah goota keep it in a length we can work with mate :) tho a sep video exploring stuf in depth is always possible
Just FYI Horwich is pronounced to rhyme with porridge, otherwise great video, and subscribed for more!
Thanks for the info! every day a school day, cheers :)
Hornsby developed several tracked vehicles shown to army, even German, 1908. German language movies showing the qualities and abilities. Petrol and steam modles, of several size and style. With no interest the reghts went to Americans, Holt, now catapiller. A steam miniature is seen in England.
Can I suggest an episode on the Besa machine gun? I cannot locate this as a topic covered anywhere on youtube.
17:28 That appears to be a captured 88. Have you any idea how long it took to dig in a Flak 36? One big issue must have been that much of the shale (nominal desert) just couldn't be dug into.
Not very long. A couple of antitank mines are pretty effective.
I learned many things on a tank I thought I was quite familiar with
I wonder if you intend a video on the Valentine development in like fashion ?
Indeed i will be covering Valentine, but more when covid lifts to do a special reveal not previousley recorded about her.
Range 80 kilometres (50 mi) With Internal + 157 kilometres (98 mi)with auxiliary tank
Matilda Infantry Tank 1938-45 by David Fletcher, Peter Sarson page 28
So a fill up once a month.
I have read somewhere that 37mm HE rounds were used by Anzac crews with a rubber band to make them compatible with the Matilda II main armament. Is this correct or another fail of the Internet? Keep on with these excellent videos 👍🏻
i would need to find a source tbh
The HE round used by Australia was the 2 pounder cartridge mated to the 40mm Pom Pom HE shell with the igniter portion of the tracer-igniter made inert, or a plug in its place. I don't know what NZ may have been doing. It might be a corrupted retelling of something else, Australia did use the 37mm canister projectile, once again with a 2 pounder cartridge, to make a 2 pdr case shot. I don't think you'd want a rubber band on it to make up the calibre difference, as spinning it will cause the pellets to disperse too quickly, and even out of a 37mm there's no drive band on it to begin with so propellant gasses leaking past it presumably aren't a problem.
"They didn't have a high explosive round"
That is a myth. 11.000 rounds were made but never issued.
So no, it's not a myth. No field crew had a high explosive round. And that IS a disadvantage.
not really it was useless more or less, they were used up in gunnery trials, but the mkian thing is a lot of books/vids say it was 'never made' it was. just not commonly issued, tho it seems from shipping orders a fair amoutn were sent to NA then vanish, whther they just didnt like it or, they say boxed i dont know
@@armouredarchives8867 High explosive is FAR from useless against infantry, even in something as small as 40mm, and since infantry/light vehicles/unarmored emplacements is 90% of what a tank will encounter at any given time...
@@Peterowsky those assessing it felt it was useless and that only a direct hit had any chance of being effective while hampering the overall capacity of the vehicle, it may well be the very small charge inside prevented it from being usefull. next archive runs il see if i can find more text/images and so on of trials with it.
0:25 Mighty Matilda. Mighty Matilda. Come inside to the Mighty Matilda.
Brilliant work as ever Ed. Only 1 thing, can't make trains. Maybe rail rolling stock or locomotives would be better. Train describes the assembled item.
noted. ty :)
Damn poms flooded australia with Dorman diesel grenades. over 25c and they overheat and throw a leg. Not many left most have become anchors
It just seems to me that the turret ring could have been enhanced and modified to accept the 6pndr, making it more effective (at the time) against German armor and infantry!
**sips tea**
Used a few of these old girls for target practice with laws 66 and Carl Gustav's 84 .
Interesting, what ranges? - sounds cool
@@armouredarchives8867 Salisbury- thetford- osnobrook- and lulworth castlemartin ranges.long time ago late 60s early 70s.
AHH, yes a few at lulworth were around inc an A11
Thank God for America
This reminds me. Could you at some point cover the camouflage of British armour? I remember seeing Matilda painted in three colour camo with one colour being light blue, in a museum no less. I have Dick Taylor's book on Vally and it features color profile with what looks more like blueish green. So there is still some conflicting information floating around.
this stems from a mistake made by IWM that used blue not pale grey and then others copied it
It was called the Caunter pattern. Plenty about it online, including the (understandable) mistake by the Imperial War Museum. Personally, I blame the Airfix kit for propagating IWM’s colour error.
@@sirrathersplendid4825 was it the Airfix kit, or the Tamiya one? I thought it was the latter, but happy to be proven wrong :)
@@sean640307 - Probably both. But the Airfix kit almost certainly sold better and is the one hundreds of thousands of school kids have fond memories of.
what about the matilda black prince, mounting the cromwell turret? Isn't it considered as a variant of the matilda?
heya, there is some issues over that, matilda black prince was a name given to the tele controlled tanks originaly with the first beign Edward a light Mk VI. which was carried out long before A27's design work. there is plenty of surving tests on the tele-tanks but no images have yet been found. The one commonly called Black prince, down to WOT is a much later propject with no text attached to the image (currently at bovvy) but is taken at Vulcan foundry.
“Toddle pip”! Good heavens.
Gotta love the Matilda2, so very very British. The 2pdr gun might have started out ok but was soon shown to be to weak and with no HE issued it really let the tank down in many ways. A 6pdr might have been a better option?
6pdr tested, not practicle in any way, the 2pdr was fine for most of north africa, and then faded out, tho bare in mind the germans are still playign with the wekaer 37 and 47mm guns for the same time
@@armouredarchives8867 As the Matilda II was an 'I' or infantry support tank, it does seem odd that more were not fitted with the 3 inch howitzer of the CS version.
@@armouredarchives8867 But they had a few 88s that were real killers and arty etc, the Matilda being so slow and only having solid shot or the MG to use against AT guns, their crews, arty n infantry it must have made getting in close enough or getting out again a very long, dangerous n nerve racking ride. On the other hand having all that armor would be great when the enemy lacked something to deal with it as was sometimes the case but Rommel was skilled at organizing the battles so it was the AT guns that did much of the heavy lifting. I thought the 6pdr would hav given the Brit's a better HE round. It just seems mad to arm tank with only AP or smoke. The Allies also took a very long time to learn the lessons of combined arms and even then seemed quite capable of forgetting them all again in the next campaign. I'd love to hear you discuss that, how good n capable the different nationalities were at learning and implementing effective tactics as the war progressed and what the problems were. I'm really enjoying the vid's you've produced, very informative, detailed n interesting. I love the old photo's n diagrams and how u tell it so thanks very much for doing them. I also watched n enjoyed you doing the quick walk around the new US armor museum they are setting up with SofiLein and the curator. Sorry to go on n on n cheers for everything.
First... Sorry, couldn't help it. Greats video as all ways.
that step on matilda at the front where driver is ,the leopard one has same type of step shape on its front .
VG vid! I like your work and efforts... However, can we use General Sir Hugh Elles and General Sir Percy Hobart, please?? They deserve it.
So UK has only 26 battle worth tanks in the battle of France, not surprise why the german pass through.....
Glad I didn't have to go head to head with one in an early Pz3 or 4.
oh for sure!
Why so?they wouldn't touch the armour on the Matilda 2 ,surely?
@@stevenbreach2561 he said he wouldn’t want to be in a Pz3 or 4 fighting against a Matilda.
A larger turret ring and a single 300 + horsepower engine would have made this an effective tank till at least 1944. IMHO.
I like the new version swastika on Hitler's armband. It does make a statement
Therapist: early Matilda cant hurt you
Early matilda: 1:56
i love the out of scale drawing, with an 8ft trench about 1/4 of the length :P
@@armouredarchives8867 That was honestly the most unsettling part to me
The idea that a tank can fire accurately on the move without the aid of a stabilized gun, is a myth. Even at slow speed, stabilization in both planes is required. Where reported, these sort of things were trick shots, doubtlessly well rehearsed on the ranges for the benefit of assorted higher ranks, newsmen , and cameras.
Apart from that, great presentation ! Why don't you write a book ?
Depends on range and target doesn't it?
@@0MoTheG Well, if you are at absolute point blank and you are aiming at something huge , so your driving up the quayside and pointing your gun at a battleship moored up alongside , .. Yeah , you're probably going to hit it, agreed . However, the operative word here is ''accurately'' . I think that presupposes that we are talking about hitting stuff you want to hit at a reasonable battlefield ranges and with a reasonable degree of probability , and assuming the gunner knows what he is doing with the equipment available.
Hitting a dug in anti tank gun at 500 meters , while moving at 15 mph ,.. as an example. That would be ''firing accurately on the move'' ,.. I'd have thought .
Centurion , for example, was known to be equipped to operate in this way. I really don't think that Matilda was, a decade earlier.
Do you know how many of the 26 Matilda IIs with the BEF in France had tail sleds?
sadly not no, i would need to cross of the names with images and its not reliable - sry :(
Even roughly?
Really looking forward to the Russian and Australian matildas.
I am very curious about the work Mobiquity. I can't find any definition for in online
the differnce in mobility on and off a road
I never understood why British tanks' hulls were so tight, placing a bigger gun in the turret was pratically impossible, as in the Matilda, or without renouncing to a crewman (Crusader/Valentine) plus there were a lot of mechanical issues.
for that you need to blame horse and carts
4.30 MG on port side
A lot has not changed in MOD procurement
Will there be one covering the crusader?
indeed, inc some new versions not seen before