I've always had a soft spot for these funny-looking little gremlins, ever since I first laid eyes on one when I was about 6 years old. I'm glad to know more about them - particularly the truth behind the name. I love the optimistic little brass fire extinguisher strapped to the hull. I'm sorry, but if my tank is burning and I have to GET OUT to grab an extinguisher, I'm not climbing back in under any circumstances.
That is a pyrene fire extinguisher & it is there for people outside (the infantry) to put out fires in this 'infantry tank', because it works with the infantry in combined arms warfare.
Those fire extinguishers used a chemical called Carbon Tetrachloride which was actually pretty good at putting out fires. Unfortunatly, it was also horrifically toxic to your kidneys, liver, and nervous system, and when exposed to a hot enough fire would create phosgene gas as a by product which is chemical weapon. It is also terrible to dump it in to the atmosphere as it is ozone depleting and a green house gas.
The Tank Museum has some fantastic new presenters like Chris, but whenever David does a Tank Chat I settle in my chair like I am in front of an open fire with a glass of good Brandy. David & his garden chats got me through the Covid times, and I will always be grateful for that.
Hats off to Mr. Wiley!! I was always one to say "Pfff!--A Matilda I" But he not just gives a clear and concise account of the tank's development, but also of its brief, yet consequential, role in the history of WWII, and really, when you think about it, how that role helped save the BEF, and many French troops, (one of whom I worked with for many years) at Dunkirk, and thus the course of WWII. Great work, Mr. Wiley!
The Matilda 1 was fine until it had to take on a Panzer lll or Panzer lV, then you needed a Matilda ll which could take them both on and win. The Matilda ll did not much resemble the Matilda l, it was a totally different tank.
Hey Tank Nuts! We hope you enjoyed our latest video. What do you think of the Matilda I - not good enough, or the right tank for the time? Let us know below
It was what could be afforded at the time to start training the army as it was being rapidly increased in size with no corresponding increase in its budget (it was getting less than the Army said it needed to fully equip its existing forces) Sometimes you just have to go with what you could afford, it along with a variety of light tanks from Mk II to Mk VI and the aged Medium MK 1 and 2's still around helped train units to work with armour, train crews and maintenance people It was not ideal for combat - but other nations including the Germans, French. US, Russians, Italians, Poles were at the time also producing tanks (and tankettes) with just machine guns
The Matilda 1 is partly to do with the battle of France turning into a Nightmare for the British army and I fully agree with the report of 1947 . The tank was built to fight a battle in 1918 not 1940 it was supposed to take on fortified positions with men and rifles and machine gun's not with Anti tank gun's and 88mm field batteries, at the battle of Arras the British army lost 60 tanks out of 88 including Matida 2s it was the Matida 1s crews and there Valiant fight that got them through that battle not the tank and they had to with draw to stop from being encircled because they didn't have enough tanks and men , the Matilda 1 should have been with drawn and Matilda 2 pushed on in production.
It's a prime example of why the cheap tank policy is a fundamentally bad one. It had one role that it performed in a mediocre fashion. Each one of these took up industrial, training, fuel and transport capacity that could have been spent on Matilda II or A9 cruisers. It represents a massive step backwards even from the interwar tanks. The victory at Arras is a testament to the skills and courage of the BEF, not the quality of its material
I love these tank chats. 1935 Matilda 1 (mentioned) to 1945 ... the development is unimaginable. Looking back, we shouldn't be so harsh. It was the space race of its time. The tank museum really is first class.
I for one am disgusted that they didn’t continue the Matilda naming convention. All British tanks should be called Matilda. The current challenger should be called the Matilda 14.
I think to qualify as a Matilda, a tank has to be massively over armored, a bit under powered, and must proceed across the battlefield with dignity and presence. The Challenger is far too agile to be a Matilda. But I think the British should build a Matilda update version. . Add another couple hundred millimeters of armor to the front of the Challenger, I'm going to like 152 mm or a 203 mm main gun, and keep the same engine so that it moves very slowly.
Excellent, informative video. So pleased that David did this tremendous deep dive, no gimmicks, no funny lines, just sincere appreciation of the subject and masterly presentation. Thank you.
This is a little tank that I have always been fascinated by. Arras was so crucial and the Matildas filled the bill. Thank you for this important coverage. You guys are great. Just wish I could visit. (Australia is a long way and I am old). I will watch again from the start. Again thank you.
A one day division-sized engagement in a war that ended up as a crushing defeat of France and the UK had "enormous significance"? Am I missing something, or does it sound slightly exaggerated?
@@alex987alex987the Germans were so concerned about the British counterattack at arras they held back a panzer division destined to head for Dunkirk for fear of further British attacks. This small British attack directly contributed to the allies holding Dunkirk long enough for most allied personnel to be evacuated. Some German commanders believed they had been attacked by four British divisions when in reality it was two brigades.
The presence of anti-gas paint was not primarily to inform the crew that they needed to don gas masks. It was to inform them that that the vehicle (or aircraft) was contaminated with a persistent gas such as mustard. These anti-gas patches were sometimes surrounded by a red band, shewing the colour which the central green area would turn if it reacted to gas. The remainder of such a surround may be seen on the starboard tail-plane of the Vickers Wellington at Brooklands. Mustard gas could remain as a highly irritant and dangerous threat, especially on organic clothing, for a considerable period after a gas shell went off, so it was important that crew did not clamber into a vehicle that was contaminated without suitable clothing/gloves and decontamination.
I should have added, that my understanding is that mustard contamination is a bit like poison-ivy in the US, it doesn't have the immediate effect which it does if it hits you in gas form, where it attacks the eyes and lungs. Rather, you can touch it, or wear contaminated clothing, and it then causes blisters later. So these markings are really to prevent you not realising that a surface is contaminated, and are usually on flat(ish) surfaces such a wing, tail or front glacis of a tank provided the surface isn't too steep. This is all from memory, but I think it's largely correct. I have read a WW1 account whereby a solider sat on contaminated area of ground, and then hours later had a blistered bum! It's horrid muck, and every bit as dangerous now as when it went into the ground as an unexploded shell 90 years ago.
@@DavidStanleyWalker My uncle once said of me "you have a mind specially trained for the retention of everything of no possible consequence". He was a bit cross, at that instant, as I'd just taken a case of champagne off him in a heated bet over whether a tube station was served by a particular line! Duels have been fought for less!
One can see Carden’s thinking that was further expressed in the Valentine. To build the smallest reasonable hull so that, for a given weight, it can use thicker armour. To keep the suspension from intruding into the hull also minimising the volume of the hull. Carden was aware of the 6 Pounder gun when he laid out the Valentine and would doubtless have been later penning the successor in 1941 to carry the Vickers 75mm HV or 17 Pounder on similar lines. The track work was no more exposed to fire than peer tanks, just left more in the open because of minimum hull volume concept.
Have just re-watched Richard Holmes' War Walks episode on Arras, which featured the Matilda I. God bless that gent - I had the pleasure of meeting him.
Sering the Matilda alongside the Comet, really demonstrates how far British design philosophy changed before, during, and after WW2, and how they started to increase the dominance of British tanks on the battlefield.
Philosophy never changed really, the comet was a cruiser and followed on from the A9 Cruiser idea while the Churchill Mk VII was the follow on analogous to the Comet as an Infantry tank
You can see Comet as the last cruiser and Churchill as the last infantry tank. But in practice Churchills had to face german armour. Even Tigers and Panthers! And Comets (via Cromwell etc) needed a HE round for infantry suppression. So Centurion brings cruiser and infantry tank development threads together, into the jack of all trades MBT!
Another terrific review of a much overlooked tank, with great perspective on the development of tank strategy and use in pre WW2 years. Great video, and David Willey is as good as ever.
Re the closing comments; if they had built the Matilda 2 from day one the extra cost of the Matilda 2 would have meant they'd have far fewer of them. When the mixed Matilda 1s and 2s met the enemy at Arras a slightly larger number of Matilda 2s would have been on their own. The Matilda 1s absorbed the enemy fire while the Matilda 2s were free to shoot back and it worked. The really stupid thing to do to the Matilda 1 was to cripple the tank's speed with a governor, I'd always thought the engine of this tank was under powered until I heard this today.
The governor was there to ensure that the engine didn't get burned out. A slightly slower tank that still functions is better than one that is abandoned due to mechanical failure. Cross country, gunning the engine might mean 6 mph rather than 5 mph.
I'm not going to argue that overall the concept was not flawed, but WW2 turned out to be different from expectations which were a combination of trenches and bombers, at least worst case, or maybe lots of maneouvre warfare, hence the cruisers
All modern tank engines are ‘governed’ to improve reliability and prevent early ‘demise’ by over enthusiastic drivers. Reliability of armoured vehicles is more important than ‘speed’ in most cases.. the ‘gains’ with regards to the Matilda 1 would have been negligible and it makes complete sense to err on the side of reliability than speed.. 70hp isn’t going to get you anywhere quickly..
To restate what I said in an earlier video - 1 year later - I miss Fletcher (first time I saw him was in a HMS Hood documentary and it was "love" at first sight) but I am seriously glad that Willey has managed to be...maybe not the "moustache" but rather the "Beard" and in spirit (in my view atleast), carry the torch of history, knowledge and wit - Tank Chats is still going strong and will continue going strong. And to add to it - Willey, please dont stop...we need people like you, and I thank you for sharing your knowledge with us
Nice to see Mr Willey again. This concept of light armament never really went away, look at the Ferret Scout Car to modern times and many more in the War years. Only difference was it found wheels and lost its tracks. Nice talk on a very important Tank.
I remember reading about this tank in Lidell Hart's _History of the Second World War_ before visiting the Tank Museum, so I knew it had been very resilient and quite successful. I was actively looking for it in the museum because the book had made me curious. And when finally seeing it face to face, I was utterly taken aback. It was so unassuming and frankly looked like crap. This couldn't be it. I thought there had to be some sort of mistake. It looked so vulnerable with the narrow open tracks and everything, and you just don't notice that fat slab of armour in front of the driver if you don't know it's there. The vehicle looked like a tin can, ready to be crushed.
Considering that the Germans had mostly Panzer ones and twos in France at the time, this tank wasn't that bad. While the attack at Arras was not as successful as the British had hoped it did make the Germans hesitate; as a flanking attack was something they had considered. Rommel had dismissed this idea saying the French would be in disarray and unable to counter attack. Of course it had not occurred to him that the British might not have been in disarray! In any event the Germans did hesitate and reform which gave the troops at Dunkirk time to organize their withdrawal.
@@mookie2637 Battlefield series "Fall Of France" mentioned it as one of the causes. Other historians have also mentioned that some generals were against Rommel moving too fast. Historians have also said that Hitler wanting to give Britain a chance to negotiate was weak and that Hitler was more afraid that Rommel's dash to the coast was going to end badly. The flanking attack at Arras seemed to him to prove it. Goring assured Hitler his air force could destroy the allies by themselves.
A first class tank history lesson. Learning about its importance at Arras puts a different perspective on how fortunate we were to evacuate from Dunkirk. Thank you.
Very interesting chat, I do say. Learning a lot and that is to say something, Im 69 and have been engrossed in the history of WW2 since I was a young boy, and having a father and a grandfather who were veterans. I think the big kick that pushed me to pursue reading about the war came from my grandfather as well as getting a copy of The Longest Day by Cornelius Ryan. Describing what people saw while the invasion was taking place, especially the shocking horrors of wounds and finding bits of human parts while moving toward the Germans made a define impression on me. But back to the Matilda, it is quite the tank. If I remember right, it was the most heavily armored tank when the war started and could survive North Africa quite well. Of course, as bigger and more heavily armed German tanks appeared, that changed things with the Matilda's small gun. I understand that it did well in the Pacific war. The Matilda 1 shows design influence on not only later versions of the Matilda but also the Valentine.
My father was i the 4th RTR and drove a Matilda 1 at Arras and he appears on several of the photographs in the RTR History. He escaped after Arras via Cherbourg some time after Dunkirk and after his tank had been hit in a skirmish at Boos just outside Rouen . I did read that there were 179 Matilda Mk I's in Northern France and that none returned. I know that having made his way back to the 4th RTR at Fanborough he was told there were no tanks and sent to join new unit being formed at Lechlade, Gloucestershire called the GHQ Recconaissance Unit which eventually became know as "Phantom". I was interested in your mention of the problems with the track pins. There were 3 Matilda MK I's under the control of Captain Collon(sic) as they retreated across Northern France after the fall of France and one track pin was damaged so they were obliged to leap frog their way across, removing a track pin from the leading tank to be relayed back to the third tank. The reference to the name Matilda is interesting because Ive always been led to believe it was because of a remark by a senior officer that it moved like a duck and apparently Matilda was the name of a cartoon duck at the time. In 1992 I took my father to the hamlet of Acq near Mont St Elois where he was billeted and as we drove through he shouted Stop as we arrived at the farmyard where the tanks were assembled.
As someone who had to give academic presentations I can only repeat myself and state, that your work is very well made, informative and entertaining. Of course, you have the advantage of doing what you love, but nevertheless it is very skillful to address a topic in this way and make it seem to be chatty and lighthearted; even when it is about a contraption of war from a war-ridden period of time.
It's interesting to see that the idea of "Well, we'll build the Matilda-I then the II" wasn't an act of incompetence and/or underestimating the enemy, it was a stopgap measure while the II was in development. That explains a lot.
Thank you, TTM and Mr. Willey! The Matilda I is broadly unappreciated and even actively dismissed for its faults, but I reckon you have superbly contextualized the tank and explained the design decisions/compromises behind it. Designing a successful tank for 1940 in 1945 would have been far easier than for 1940 in 1935.
It doesn't matter how small, slow and lighty armoured a tank is. If you have one and your opponent does not that means that a Matilda still poses a serious armoured threat that is effectively a mobile pillbox and therefore highly dangerous.
I think that's a very realistic assessment. A light tank like this was never planned to defeat opposing heavy armor. But if a small unit is attempting to cross an open field and would be otherwise stopped by an enemy machine gun position, a tank like this could make the difference. The video also presented how it was designed to cross 6 foot wide trenches, so clearly it could have a role in accompanying advancing infantry and providing them that mobile pillbox.
The Matilda I performed well in France as the German 37mm AT guns could not penetrate the frontal armor. Rommel had to bring 88mm AA guns up on line to stop their advance.
I just wish Tamiya or Dragon would Produce a 1/35 kit of this Tank. I know it's not a Tiger, Panther or Sherman. But I would love to build a Model of a Couple of these..! Sadly, as far as I am Aware its never been Produced. Not even by Airfix..!😢 Great Tank Chat about a very Overlooked little Beastie or even Demon. Cheers Guys 😎
My old friends father was on the Australian assessment team that chose the tank for the Australian army. It was unfairly criticised. It was a good choice for Australia. Caplehorn was the officer. He went onto have a distinguished military career. Liased with the USA military in Australia for the government. And multiple Degrees, Nuclear and Forestry. The tank was a great success.
@@quan-uo5ws I would not say it was bad, it was better than many others produced by other nations at the time - which were MG armed as well US, Germany, Italy, Poland, Russia - all were producing MG armed tanks- the Matilda 1 was produced as a cheap way to start rebuilding and training the British Army which was supposed to increase 4 times its size - with less money than the Army said it needed to fully equip its present forces. It was not a great tank, it did what it was supposed to which was a limited role It was the main tank that panicked Rommel who despite only being attacked by a weak British Brigade with a small French force attacking along a different line - claimed he was being attacked by at least 5 British tank divisions (Britain had one at the time and it was no where near his forces). Rommels panic caused the Germans to issue a stop order, turn two more panzer divisions around to assist Rommel beating off the attack - not back for a limited design and purpose tank,
@@chaz8758 The Matilda I entered service in 1938, by which point almost no one produced machine gun tanks. Its bad armament isnt the only fault though, it had an incredibly cramped and non-efficient interior (The T-34 was a limousine compared to it) and it had an absolutely awful 13km/h top speed. Even the Panzer I which was only supposed to be a training tank was much better than it, and it entered service in 1934. It never did its intended role to "cheaply equip the british army" considering that they built only 140 of them and gave up on using them after the battle of France.
The accounts of Arras often mention tanks running over the AT guns. I can imagine a Matilda 1 doing so, as it's seemingly the most effective way to write off an anti tank gun. I can imagine a 2pdr solid shot or even a burst of 50cal AP rounds putting an AT gun out of commision, but 303? Probably not! If I recall correctly there was like 15 Matilda 2s involved in the action out of a total of 53 Matilda tanks. The prospect of trying to squeeze yourself behind the gun shield of your Pak36 whilst dozens of these little dustbin turreted things trundle towards your Anti tank screen, taking whatever punishment you throw at them whilst trying to hose your guns down with machinegun fire would be quite daunting. And then comes the realisation that they are not going to stop...
I’ve always struggled with how “hokey” the Matilda 1 looks versus the latter version which served in North Africa. It’s kind of like the before and after pictures in the bodybuilding advertisements you’d see in comic books.
Is there actually any link between the Matilda 1 (A11) and the Matilda 2 (A12) other than the name and that they were basically developed at roughly the same time? They seem to be otherwise completely separate designs.
@@ballagh No connection at all - apart from both being infantry tanks, In reality the A12 Matilda 2 was the tank required - but they needed more vehicles for training and equipping the rapidly expanding army so had to take wat they could - a case of some tank is better than no tank.
Thoroughly enjoyed your presentation, very informative and gave me a greater appreciation for the Matilda and the role it played in the early war . Somewhat seems it was misused to a fortunate outcome to a degree. Thank you. 👍
Thank you for this. It answers a lot of my questions. Hindsight is always great as is money to do what is considered right. Hence our Sentinel Aussie tank of WWII. Not bad- not great. Just desperate and deserving of some praise likewise.
BIGGEST thanks goes to Bob Grundy for the restoration of the Museum's running Matilda I, without him we may never have got to see a running example of this vehicle.
The manufacturer’s info being ground off of the data plate might seem like such a trivial detail, but knowing the context makes it such a cool feature of this tank! It’s little things like this that make the tank an awesome piece of living history rather than just a simple exhibit.
Visited Bovington in the late 80's. You had a wreck of one by the kids playgrounds but the turret was still there. Climbed in, how you get a man and the back end of a vickers machinegun in that turret is still beyond my comprehensions.
If only all teachers could be David Willey. He could discuss a sweet wrapper for an hour and make it interesting. Amazing the influence the unsung hero's have,be it armour or aircraft. My question, outside of a 1/100 scale 'wargamers' kit why hasn't someone made a model of this. A light Vickers was done by Airfix yonks ago and the 6 ton E has been very well covered by Eastern European brands. Be nice if we could get a 1/48 or 1/72 at least of this early helpful little fellow.
Great historical vid of a tank that is overshadowed buy its bigger brother the Matilda 2. I love how the eyes on each side of the turret is on the modern Challenger 2 tank and I hope they do it for Challenger 3 when it starts being put into service. Awsome this old tank nut learnt some things in this vid.
If Matilda II had been built with a larger turret ring (Certainly possible, due to the hull overhangs) that could have accommodated the 6-pounder gun, I dare say that the service life of that vehicle would have extended at least into the Italian Campaign.
And as I reflect during our Memorial Day weekend here in the U.S., I salute those brave tankers of the British Army who sacrificed to save an Army and ultimately a Nation! Hats off, gentlemen!
A very interesting documentary about a little-known tank. The Matilda II was in my eyes a "sexy" looking tank despite being under gunned but proved its worth in the early Desert Campaigns. And learning about this precursor tank is important to know about how tank development advanced at such a rapid pace between 1939-1945 and then beyond. I would also like to point out that even as tanks were improved, so too were the IFV's and many of the "hand me down" weapons of early model tanks ended up finding a usage in these IFV's which has continued until this day 2024. I am of the mindset that the days of the tank are gone with the advent of the FPV drones and plethora of ATGM's on the battlefield. Like the Battleships of past, I think the war in Ukraine has shown that the days of heavy big gun tanks are over and more of the IFV/APC hybrids are the only thing that are going to work from here on out. It was fun to watch for the past 112 years!
A cute little tank, this one. It may have had a short time to shine, but it managed to prove the concept. Now, plenty people will say that the "infantry tank" is a dead end of a vehicle design... But when you think about it... It is really? It is a vehicle that is meant to provide close in support to the infantrymen - dealing with obstacles they can't easily deal with themselves. And what do we have now? Infantry Fighting Vehicles. It is in the name. As opposed to the common battle taxi APC types, AFV is meant to STAY and fight alongside the infantry it carries. It is basically a convergent evolution of a transport vehicle that basically revived the idea of an infantry tank - not exactly an impenetrable mobile pillbox of old times but... the role is the same in a large sense.
British Colonel to Rommel. "Its very unsporting of you to use anti aircraft guns to stop our tanks." Rommel. " Its very unsporting of you to have a tank that needs an anti aircraft gun to stop it."
Biggest loss for the British Tank program was the higher ups sidelining Percy Hobart for almost the entire 30's. All because he thought differently aka btr
If any one individual is to blame for Britain's armoured failings it would be Hobart. E.g. he created the infantry tank concept to keep 'his' tanks away from the other arms. He had plenty of ideas but the weren't necessarily good ones.
This little tank indeed changed the fate of thousands of soldiers! I thought it was just the matilda II's prototype, instead its presence and deterrence allowed for the brits to safely evacuate France. Another little miracle that avoided an early orwellian scenario for humanity
I really enjoyed this lecture :D I have been to the Tank museum and marveled how tiny the Matilda 1 was. Fake history has it like the Polish Armed forces were crap during the start of WW2 (they were not). British tanks were crap (They were not). British Tanks were actually very good. Matilda II for its time was a fortress, Crusader was fast, Valentine was fast, Churchill was a fortress and was unstoppable over a lot of terrain. Cromwell was very fast and The Comet was the precursor to what would be the Centurion. I always argue this in war strategy is that the last thing a tank wants to come up against is another tank. Combined arms is always rock paper and scissors. The thing is though tanks like the Matilda II forced Hitler onto the heavy tank projects while the British and USA continued with the cruiser type tanks. So we had tanks and lots of tanks and lots of robust if somewhat weaker tanks. But we had tanks and lots of them. Tanks you could easily repair easily escape from. Tanks simply doing what tanks are supposed to do too. I think if Germany had focused on just sticking with the Panzer type IV projects and the Stug projects and nothing else tank/Afv wise WW2 would have been different. I consider Panzer IV and Stug to be the pinnacle of WW2 tank and anti tank/assault tank design. What came afterwards was over engineered or too late
I waited and waited and finally got a reference to _another_ video discussing what the tank actually did. Thanks for all the background, but there was almost no foreground.
35:30 - Maybe not the “Rightest”, but A right tank at the right place, and the right time. In the way it was used, it did what the Bob Semple was expected to do.
It's a Gun Carrier Mk. I, which entered service with the British Army in 1917. The vehicle was designed to carry heavy field artillery pieces or supplies across areas under enemy fire. The 6-inch howitzer could be fired while still mounted in the vehicle, effectively creating the world's first self-propelled gun. In the final phase of the war, the Gun Carriers served primarily as supply vehicles for the tank brigades.
When I was about 12 I read Tramp in Amor by Colin Forbes it was as I remember it a fine novel about a Matilda tank in WW2 part of the BEF in Northern France 1940.
I've always had a soft spot for these funny-looking little gremlins, ever since I first laid eyes on one when I was about 6 years old. I'm glad to know more about them - particularly the truth behind the name. I love the optimistic little brass fire extinguisher strapped to the hull. I'm sorry, but if my tank is burning and I have to GET OUT to grab an extinguisher, I'm not climbing back in under any circumstances.
That is a pyrene fire extinguisher & it is there for people outside (the infantry) to put out fires in this 'infantry tank', because it works with the infantry in combined arms warfare.
I think the extinguisher is for your crewmates, not the tank
We had them on Chieftain too!
A utilitarian fire extinguisher maybe but “optimistic” is still morbidly humorous.
Those fire extinguishers used a chemical called Carbon Tetrachloride which was actually pretty good at putting out fires. Unfortunatly, it was also horrifically toxic to your kidneys, liver, and nervous system, and when exposed to a hot enough fire would create phosgene gas as a by product which is chemical weapon.
It is also terrible to dump it in to the atmosphere as it is ozone depleting and a green house gas.
The Tank Museum has some fantastic new presenters like Chris, but whenever David does a Tank Chat I settle in my chair like I am in front of an open fire with a glass of good Brandy. David & his garden chats got me through the Covid times, and I will always be grateful for that.
Yes, I found David in his garden to be a wonderful distraction in those times too.
His doggo!🥰
I miss his doggo.😔
If only he could keep his arms under control, but seriously Chris is an excellent narrator 😅
Brilliant
@@cliveherbert9476 What about the intensely annoying use of the present tense?
Hats off to Mr. Wiley!! I was always one to say "Pfff!--A Matilda I" But he not just gives a clear and concise account of the tank's development, but also of its brief, yet consequential, role in the history of WWII, and really, when you think about it, how that role helped save the BEF, and many French troops, (one of whom I worked with for many years) at Dunkirk, and thus the course of WWII. Great work, Mr. Wiley!
The Matilda 1 was fine until it had to take on a Panzer lll or Panzer lV, then you needed a Matilda ll which could take them both on and win. The Matilda ll did not much resemble the Matilda l, it was a totally different tank.
Hey Tank Nuts! We hope you enjoyed our latest video. What do you think of the Matilda I - not good enough, or the right tank for the time? Let us know below
You fight with the tank you've got🤔
It was what could be afforded at the time to start training the army as it was being rapidly increased in size with no corresponding increase in its budget (it was getting less than the Army said it needed to fully equip its existing forces)
Sometimes you just have to go with what you could afford, it along with a variety of light tanks from Mk II to Mk VI and the aged Medium MK 1 and 2's still around helped train units to work with armour, train crews and maintenance people
It was not ideal for combat - but other nations including the Germans, French. US, Russians, Italians, Poles were at the time also producing tanks (and tankettes) with just machine guns
The Matilda 1 is partly to do with the battle of France turning into a Nightmare for the British army and I fully agree with the report of 1947 .
The tank was built to fight a battle in 1918 not 1940 it was supposed to take on fortified positions with men and rifles and machine gun's not with Anti tank gun's and 88mm field batteries, at the battle of Arras the British army lost 60 tanks out of 88 including Matida 2s it was the Matida 1s crews and there Valiant fight that got them through that battle not the tank and they had to with draw to stop from being encircled because they didn't have enough tanks and men , the Matilda 1 should have been with drawn and Matilda 2 pushed on in production.
Were the pictures of the Matilda 2's in battle at 23:10 on the Eastern front? It looked very much so with troops riding on the engine deck.
It's a prime example of why the cheap tank policy is a fundamentally bad one. It had one role that it performed in a mediocre fashion. Each one of these took up industrial, training, fuel and transport capacity that could have been spent on Matilda II or A9 cruisers. It represents a massive step backwards even from the interwar tanks.
The victory at Arras is a testament to the skills and courage of the BEF, not the quality of its material
I love these tank chats. 1935 Matilda 1 (mentioned) to 1945 ... the development is unimaginable. Looking back, we shouldn't be so harsh. It was the space race of its time. The tank museum really is first class.
Back in the hands of the master - thank you David for a superb presentation
He’s purty good eh!😂
Indeed, proper incisive commentary rather than recent nonsense.
Yeah if don't love Dave, you don't understand how history should be presented. Loved the lock down presentations with his dog. The man knows tanks.
I for one am disgusted that they didn’t continue the Matilda naming convention. All British tanks should be called Matilda. The current challenger should be called the Matilda 14.
Finally some gosh darn continuity.
I think to qualify as a Matilda, a tank has to be massively over armored, a bit under powered, and must proceed across the battlefield with dignity and presence. The Challenger is far too agile to be a Matilda. But I think the British should build a Matilda update version. . Add another couple hundred millimeters of armor to the front of the Challenger, I'm going to like 152 mm or a 203 mm main gun, and keep the same engine so that it moves very slowly.
And they should be waltzing.
@@hy78an but only to Strauss.
@@hy78an some tanks can turn on a dime, but a Waltzing Matilda can turn on three quarters
Excellent, informative video. So pleased that David did this tremendous deep dive, no gimmicks, no funny lines, just sincere appreciation of the subject and masterly presentation. Thank you.
This is a little tank that I have always been fascinated by. Arras was so crucial and the Matildas filled the bill.
Thank you for this important coverage. You guys are great.
Just wish I could visit. (Australia is a long way and I am old).
I will watch again from the start.
Again thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it!
It was designed to support infantry. It was never meant to be a tank destroyer.
Cairns amour museum will probably have a few matilda tanks.
A one day division-sized engagement in a war that ended up as a crushing defeat of France and the UK had "enormous significance"? Am I missing something, or does it sound slightly exaggerated?
@@alex987alex987the Germans were so concerned about the British counterattack at arras they held back a panzer division destined to head for Dunkirk for fear of further British attacks. This small British attack directly contributed to the allies holding Dunkirk long enough for most allied personnel to be evacuated. Some German commanders believed they had been attacked by four British divisions when in reality it was two brigades.
The presence of anti-gas paint was not primarily to inform the crew that they needed to don gas masks. It was to inform them that that the vehicle (or aircraft) was contaminated with a persistent gas such as mustard. These anti-gas patches were sometimes surrounded by a red band, shewing the colour which the central green area would turn if it reacted to gas. The remainder of such a surround may be seen on the starboard tail-plane of the Vickers Wellington at Brooklands. Mustard gas could remain as a highly irritant and dangerous threat, especially on organic clothing, for a considerable period after a gas shell went off, so it was important that crew did not clamber into a vehicle that was contaminated without suitable clothing/gloves and decontamination.
I should have added, that my understanding is that mustard contamination is a bit like poison-ivy in the US, it doesn't have the immediate effect which it does if it hits you in gas form, where it attacks the eyes and lungs. Rather, you can touch it, or wear contaminated clothing, and it then causes blisters later. So these markings are really to prevent you not realising that a surface is contaminated, and are usually on flat(ish) surfaces such a wing, tail or front glacis of a tank provided the surface isn't too steep. This is all from memory, but I think it's largely correct. I have read a WW1 account whereby a solider sat on contaminated area of ground, and then hours later had a blistered bum! It's horrid muck, and every bit as dangerous now as when it went into the ground as an unexploded shell 90 years ago.
50 years of WW2 interest, that's the first I know about Gas-Paint ! Thanks Chaps for the info 👍
@@DavidStanleyWalker My uncle once said of me "you have a mind specially trained for the retention of everything of no possible consequence". He was a bit cross, at that instant, as I'd just taken a case of champagne off him in a heated bet over whether a tube station was served by a particular line! Duels have been fought for less!
One can see Carden’s thinking that was further expressed in the Valentine. To build the smallest reasonable hull so that, for a given weight, it can use thicker armour. To keep the suspension from intruding into the hull also minimising the volume of the hull. Carden was aware of the 6 Pounder gun when he laid out the Valentine and would doubtless have been later penning the successor in 1941 to carry the Vickers 75mm HV or 17 Pounder on similar lines. The track work was no more exposed to fire than peer tanks, just left more in the open because of minimum hull volume concept.
Have just re-watched Richard Holmes' War Walks episode on Arras, which featured the Matilda I. God bless that gent - I had the pleasure of meeting him.
I absolutely love this mans Narrative skills.
Still chuffed I met this guy! As brilliant in person as in these videos
Sering the Matilda alongside the Comet, really demonstrates how far British design philosophy changed before, during, and after WW2, and how they started to increase the dominance of British tanks on the battlefield.
It shows what a war will do for development. The same can be seen in the airforce - the byplanes of 1930s to the jets of the late 1940s
Philosophy never changed really, the comet was a cruiser and followed on from the A9 Cruiser idea while the Churchill Mk VII was the follow on analogous to the Comet as an Infantry tank
Next to the Centurion (developed during WW2) would show it in even greater contrast.
You can see Comet as the last cruiser and Churchill as the last infantry tank. But in practice Churchills had to face german armour. Even Tigers and Panthers! And Comets (via Cromwell etc) needed a HE round for infantry suppression. So Centurion brings cruiser and infantry tank development threads together, into the jack of all trades MBT!
"... how they started to increase the dominance of British tanks on the battlefield."
LOL!
Another terrific review of a much overlooked tank, with great perspective on the development of tank strategy and use in pre WW2 years. Great video, and David Willey is as good as ever.
Re the closing comments; if they had built the Matilda 2 from day one the extra cost of the Matilda 2 would have meant they'd have far fewer of them. When the mixed Matilda 1s and 2s met the enemy at Arras a slightly larger number of Matilda 2s would have been on their own. The Matilda 1s absorbed the enemy fire while the Matilda 2s were free to shoot back and it worked.
The really stupid thing to do to the Matilda 1 was to cripple the tank's speed with a governor, I'd always thought the engine of this tank was under powered until I heard this today.
The governor was there to ensure that the engine didn't get burned out. A slightly slower tank that still functions is better than one that is abandoned due to mechanical failure. Cross country, gunning the engine might mean 6 mph rather than 5 mph.
I'm not going to argue that overall the concept was not flawed, but WW2 turned out to be different from expectations which were a combination of trenches and bombers, at least worst case, or maybe lots of maneouvre warfare, hence the cruisers
Fewer functional tanks are better than many useless ones, and Matilda I was, sadly, a largely useless tank.
Revs and torque are to some degree related but higher revs does not simply mean a stronger engine in practice.
All modern tank engines are ‘governed’ to improve reliability and prevent early ‘demise’ by over enthusiastic drivers. Reliability of armoured vehicles is more important than ‘speed’ in most cases.. the ‘gains’ with regards to the Matilda 1 would have been negligible and it makes complete sense to err on the side of reliability than speed.. 70hp isn’t going to get you anywhere quickly..
I don't recall before seeing the detailed breakdown of the external markings. That was fun.
Especially the "Chinese Eye".
Absolutely love this channel. One day I'll be able to go to The Tank Museum. Aberdeen just isn't the same thing. Cheers from Tennessee
The idea that a .50 cal Vickers water-cooled machine gun could fit in that tiny turret is utterly insane to me!
The original design was for a 0.303 " rifle calibre machine gun not 1/2 "
The noise inside the turret when it was fired must have been horrific.
@pcka12 From what ive heard, some Matilda tanks in Dunkirk were retrofitted with the larger caliber machine gun. Some of the sources cited that.
@@GorgeDawes Well, I think we can say THAT about ANY tank. 😉
@@pcka12 Though there were discussions regarding fitting an autocannon. Would've been rather cramped...
To restate what I said in an earlier video - 1 year later - I miss Fletcher (first time I saw him was in a HMS Hood documentary and it was "love" at first sight) but I am seriously glad that Willey has managed to be...maybe not the "moustache" but rather the "Beard" and in spirit (in my view atleast), carry the torch of history, knowledge and wit - Tank Chats is still going strong and will continue going strong. And to add to it - Willey, please dont stop...we need people like you, and I thank you for sharing your knowledge with us
Nice to see Mr Willey again. This concept of light armament never really went away, look at the Ferret Scout Car to modern times and many more in the War years. Only difference was it found wheels and lost its tracks. Nice talk on a very important Tank.
I remember reading about this tank in Lidell Hart's _History of the Second World War_ before visiting the Tank Museum, so I knew it had been very resilient and quite successful. I was actively looking for it in the museum because the book had made me curious. And when finally seeing it face to face, I was utterly taken aback. It was so unassuming and frankly looked like crap. This couldn't be it. I thought there had to be some sort of mistake. It looked so vulnerable with the narrow open tracks and everything, and you just don't notice that fat slab of armour in front of the driver if you don't know it's there. The vehicle looked like a tin can, ready to be crushed.
If you were a grunt armed with a rifle, that tin can was DEATH for you 😅
Considering that the Germans had mostly Panzer ones and twos in France at the time, this tank wasn't that bad. While the attack at Arras was not as successful as the British had hoped it did make the Germans hesitate; as a flanking attack was something they had considered. Rommel had dismissed this idea saying the French would be in disarray and unable to counter attack. Of course it had not occurred to him that the British might not have been in disarray! In any event the Germans did hesitate and reform which gave the troops at Dunkirk time to organize their withdrawal.
They didn’t hesitate Luftwaffe won the contract
british were largely in disarray certainly south of St Pol
Can you produce any evidence that the Arras attack was responsbile for the halt order please?
@@mookie2637 Battlefield series "Fall Of France" mentioned it as one of the causes. Other historians have also mentioned that some generals were against Rommel moving too fast. Historians have also said that Hitler wanting to give Britain a chance to negotiate was weak and that Hitler was more afraid that Rommel's dash to the coast was going to end badly. The flanking attack at Arras seemed to him to prove it. Goring assured Hitler his air force could destroy the allies by themselves.
@@bullettube9863 "Mentioned", "mentioned", and "seemed" are not evidence I'm afraid.
Thanks! Great history lesson.
Thank you!
A first class tank history lesson. Learning about its importance at Arras puts a different perspective on how fortunate we were to evacuate from Dunkirk. Thank you.
Excelent David. Always great to see one of Pandemic hero that helped trough covid. Hope Fin is well. Thank you all.
David is a great presenter. Not only does he give us the facts about the tanks, he paints a picture that always captivates the audience.
Very interesting chat, I do say. Learning a lot and that is to say something, Im 69 and have been engrossed in the history of WW2 since I was a young boy, and having a father and a grandfather who were veterans. I think the big kick that pushed me to pursue reading about the war came from my grandfather as well as getting a copy of The Longest Day by Cornelius Ryan. Describing what people saw while the invasion was taking place, especially the shocking horrors of wounds and finding bits of human parts while moving toward the Germans made a define impression on me.
But back to the Matilda, it is quite the tank. If I remember right, it was the most heavily armored tank when the war started and could survive North Africa quite well. Of course, as bigger and more heavily armed German tanks appeared, that changed things with the Matilda's small gun. I understand that it did well in the Pacific war. The Matilda 1 shows design influence on not only later versions of the Matilda but also the Valentine.
My father was i the 4th RTR and drove a Matilda 1 at Arras and he appears on several of the photographs in the RTR History. He escaped after Arras via Cherbourg some time after Dunkirk and after his tank had been hit in a skirmish at Boos just outside Rouen . I did read that there were 179 Matilda Mk I's in Northern France and that none returned. I know that having made his way back to the 4th RTR at Fanborough he was told there were no tanks and sent to join new unit being formed at Lechlade, Gloucestershire called the GHQ Recconaissance Unit which eventually became know as "Phantom". I was interested in your mention of the problems with the track pins. There were 3 Matilda MK I's under the control of Captain Collon(sic) as they retreated across Northern France after the fall of France and one track pin was damaged so they were obliged to leap frog their way across, removing a track pin from the leading tank to be relayed back to the third tank. The reference to the name Matilda is interesting because Ive always been led to believe it was because of a remark by a senior officer that it moved like a duck and apparently Matilda was the name of a cartoon duck at the time. In 1992 I took my father to the hamlet of Acq near Mont St Elois where he was billeted and as we drove through he shouted Stop as we arrived at the farmyard where the tanks were assembled.
As someone who had to give academic presentations I can only repeat myself and state, that your work is very well made, informative and entertaining. Of course, you have the advantage of doing what you love, but nevertheless it is very skillful to address a topic in this way and make it seem to be chatty and lighthearted; even when it is about a contraption of war from a war-ridden period of time.
The Matilda II is my favourite tank of WW2. 🇬🇧
Same here followed up by the Churchill
It's interesting to see that the idea of "Well, we'll build the Matilda-I then the II" wasn't an act of incompetence and/or underestimating the enemy, it was a stopgap measure while the II was in development. That explains a lot.
Small and underguned perhaps ! But I wouldn't want one chasing me through a Tesco's carpark on a Saturday.
😂😂😂
No tank is obsolete when it's firing at you.
Operation desert storm disagrees
Thank you, TTM and Mr. Willey! The Matilda I is broadly unappreciated and even actively dismissed for its faults, but I reckon you have superbly contextualized the tank and explained the design decisions/compromises behind it.
Designing a successful tank for 1940 in 1945 would have been far easier than for 1940 in 1935.
It doesn't matter how small, slow and lighty armoured a tank is. If you have one and your opponent does not that means that a Matilda still poses a serious armoured threat that is effectively a mobile pillbox and therefore highly dangerous.
Indeed, the Japs had rotten little tanks when they invaded Singapore but in the land of the blind etc.
The best usage of this tank was by the Australian troops in the pacific war to attack strong points.
I think that's a very realistic assessment. A light tank like this was never planned to defeat opposing heavy armor. But if a small unit is attempting to cross an open field and would be otherwise stopped by an enemy machine gun position, a tank like this could make the difference. The video also presented how it was designed to cross 6 foot wide trenches, so clearly it could have a role in accompanying advancing infantry and providing them that mobile pillbox.
Yeah, you can laugh at the cute little silly tank, but I wouldn't want one coming towards me with intent.
David is always fantastic!
The Matilda I performed well in France as the German 37mm AT guns could not penetrate the frontal armor.
Rommel had to bring 88mm AA guns up on line to stop their advance.
Just this morning I read that very thing in the autobiography - Panzer Commander by Colonel Hans Von Luck
Why is it called a anti tank gun if it can’t knock out an extremely tiny tank ?? Was there smaller tanks than this one ??
@@LemonHead-sq5ws The Matilda 1 had better armor than most tanks of its class.
I just wish Tamiya or Dragon would Produce a 1/35 kit of this Tank.
I know it's not a Tiger, Panther or Sherman. But I would love to build a Model of a Couple of these..!
Sadly, as far as I am Aware its never been Produced. Not even by Airfix..!😢
Great Tank Chat about a very Overlooked little Beastie or even Demon.
Cheers Guys 😎
Yes indeed - I'd buy a Matilda I kit.
Good to see Dave back doing chats
My old friends father was on the Australian assessment team that chose the tank for the Australian army.
It was unfairly criticised.
It was a good choice for Australia.
Caplehorn was the officer. He went onto have a distinguished military career. Liased with the USA military in Australia for the government.
And multiple Degrees, Nuclear and Forestry.
The tank was a great success.
I wouldnt say it was unfairly criticised, the Matilda I is a hilariously bad tank.
Could you be mixing up the Matilda Mk1 with the Mk2? This is a Mk1 which the Australians never used. They did use the Mk2 though
@@johngamba4823 Yes, my friend spoke about this in the mid-70s.
Mk2 was the tank.
@@quan-uo5ws I would not say it was bad, it was better than many others produced by other nations at the time - which were MG armed as well US, Germany, Italy, Poland, Russia - all were producing MG armed tanks- the Matilda 1 was produced as a cheap way to start rebuilding and training the British Army which was supposed to increase 4 times its size - with less money than the Army said it needed to fully equip its present forces.
It was not a great tank, it did what it was supposed to which was a limited role
It was the main tank that panicked Rommel who despite only being attacked by a weak British Brigade with a small French force attacking along a different line - claimed he was being attacked by at least 5 British tank divisions (Britain had one at the time and it was no where near his forces).
Rommels panic caused the Germans to issue a stop order, turn two more panzer divisions around to assist Rommel beating off the attack - not back for a limited design and purpose tank,
@@chaz8758 The Matilda I entered service in 1938, by which point almost no one produced machine gun tanks. Its bad armament isnt the only fault though, it had an incredibly cramped and non-efficient interior (The T-34 was a limousine compared to it) and it had an absolutely awful 13km/h top speed. Even the Panzer I which was only supposed to be a training tank was much better than it, and it entered service in 1934. It never did its intended role to "cheaply equip the british army" considering that they built only 140 of them and gave up on using them after the battle of France.
The phrase 'It isn't what you've got, it's what you do with it.' comes to mind.
The accounts of Arras often mention tanks running over the AT guns. I can imagine a Matilda 1 doing so, as it's seemingly the most effective way to write off an anti tank gun. I can imagine a 2pdr solid shot or even a burst of 50cal AP rounds putting an AT gun out of commision, but 303? Probably not! If I recall correctly there was like 15 Matilda 2s involved in the action out of a total of 53 Matilda tanks.
The prospect of trying to squeeze yourself behind the gun shield of your Pak36 whilst dozens of these little dustbin turreted things trundle towards your Anti tank screen, taking whatever punishment you throw at them whilst trying to hose your guns down with machinegun fire would be quite daunting. And then comes the realisation that they are not going to stop...
I’ve always struggled with how “hokey” the Matilda 1 looks versus the latter version which served in North Africa. It’s kind of like the before and after pictures in the bodybuilding advertisements you’d see in comic books.
Is there actually any link between the Matilda 1 (A11) and the Matilda 2 (A12) other than the name and that they were basically developed at roughly the same time? They seem to be otherwise completely separate designs.
@@ballagh No connection at all - apart from both being infantry tanks,
In reality the A12 Matilda 2 was the tank required - but they needed more vehicles for training and equipping the rapidly expanding army so had to take wat they could - a case of some tank is better than no tank.
Thoroughly enjoyed your presentation, very informative and gave me a greater appreciation for the Matilda and the role it played in the early war . Somewhat seems it was misused to a fortunate outcome to a degree. Thank you. 👍
Thank you for this. It answers a lot of my questions. Hindsight is always great as is money to do what is considered right. Hence our Sentinel Aussie tank of WWII. Not bad- not great. Just desperate and deserving of some praise likewise.
BIGGEST thanks goes to Bob Grundy for the restoration of the Museum's running Matilda I, without him we may never have got to see a running example of this vehicle.
Discovering new tanks I don't know about is great. Never realized how many tanks were serviced in WW2.
Love the infantry tanks. The Matilda 1 and Valentine 2 being my favorites!
The manufacturer’s info being ground off of the data plate might seem like such a trivial detail, but knowing the context makes it such a cool feature of this tank! It’s little things like this that make the tank an awesome piece of living history rather than just a simple exhibit.
Visited Bovington in the late 80's. You had a wreck of one by the kids playgrounds but the turret was still there. Climbed in, how you get a man and the back end of a vickers machinegun in that turret is still beyond my comprehensions.
If only all teachers could be David Willey. He could discuss a sweet wrapper for an hour and make it interesting. Amazing the influence the unsung hero's have,be it armour or aircraft. My question, outside of a 1/100 scale 'wargamers' kit why hasn't someone made a model of this. A light Vickers was done by Airfix yonks ago and the 6 ton E has been very well covered by Eastern European brands. Be nice if we could get a 1/48 or 1/72 at least of this early helpful little fellow.
There is the 1/100 Zvezda model - but also, apparently, a resin 1/35th Vargas Matilda 1?
David, dapper as always.
A solidly thorough explaination of Matilda history.
A lecture of the highest quality. Thank you
Really enjoying this new format with the walk around of the tank!
Köszönjük!
Thank you!
Absolutely. Last words very well said too
Great historical vid of a tank that is overshadowed buy its bigger brother the Matilda 2. I love how the eyes on each side of the turret is on the modern Challenger 2 tank and I hope they do it for Challenger 3 when it starts being put into service. Awsome this old tank nut learnt some things in this vid.
Thank you! That was a splendid account. I knew nothing of this tank so it was a total revelation to me.
If Matilda II had been built with a larger turret ring (Certainly possible, due to the hull overhangs) that could have accommodated the 6-pounder gun, I dare say that the service life of that vehicle would have extended at least into the Italian Campaign.
Enjoying David Willeys videos thanks.
the matildas have always been my favourites, loved them since I was a kid.
Many thanks to David Fletcher and David Willey. They open a new world ,in at my youngest age, I always love Tanks.
Brilliant video / lecture again. Thank you so much. dear Tank Museum for providing all these interesting informations.
Thank you for this very interesting historical lesson
These Tank Chats are great.
Matilda has always been my favorite ww11 tank, undergunned and slow but amazing workhorse
I love the title of this video!!😁😁 The Matilda 1 is also the May Tank of the Month in the Tank Museum's 2024 calendar, so an aptly timed presentation.
Thanks for the story about this little hero of 1940.
Matilda to Comet in 6 years is some fast development.
And as I reflect during our Memorial Day weekend here in the U.S., I salute those brave tankers of the British Army who sacrificed to save an Army and ultimately a Nation! Hats off, gentlemen!
These really are an excellent series of video's, congratulations to all involved in their making.
A very interesting documentary about a little-known tank. The Matilda II was in my eyes a "sexy" looking tank despite being under gunned but proved its worth in the early Desert Campaigns. And learning about this precursor tank is important to know about how tank development advanced at such a rapid pace between 1939-1945 and then beyond. I would also like to point out that even as tanks were improved, so too were the IFV's and many of the "hand me down" weapons of early model tanks ended up finding a usage in these IFV's which has continued until this day 2024.
I am of the mindset that the days of the tank are gone with the advent of the FPV drones and plethora of ATGM's on the battlefield. Like the Battleships of past, I think the war in Ukraine has shown that the days of heavy big gun tanks are over and more of the IFV/APC hybrids are the only thing that are going to work from here on out. It was fun to watch for the past 112 years!
thank you for telling such a great story
Thanks for the clear coverage.🧐
A cute little tank, this one. It may have had a short time to shine, but it managed to prove the concept.
Now, plenty people will say that the "infantry tank" is a dead end of a vehicle design... But when you think about it... It is really?
It is a vehicle that is meant to provide close in support to the infantrymen - dealing with obstacles they can't easily deal with themselves.
And what do we have now? Infantry Fighting Vehicles. It is in the name.
As opposed to the common battle taxi APC types, AFV is meant to STAY and fight alongside the infantry it carries. It is basically a convergent evolution of a transport vehicle that basically revived the idea of an infantry tank - not exactly an impenetrable mobile pillbox of old times but... the role is the same in a large sense.
British Colonel to Rommel. "Its very unsporting of you to use anti aircraft guns to stop our tanks."
Rommel. " Its very unsporting of you to have a tank that needs an anti aircraft gun to stop it."
TY. Small, cheap, but enormous in it's effect on British fortunes of war. Most certain a worthy tank for any museum, or modeler.
Best video in a long time. A11 was a stop gap, just good enough.
Biggest loss for the British Tank program was the higher ups sidelining Percy Hobart for almost the entire 30's. All because he thought differently aka btr
If any one individual is to blame for Britain's armoured failings it would be Hobart. E.g. he created the infantry tank concept to keep 'his' tanks away from the other arms. He had plenty of ideas but the weren't necessarily good ones.
This little tank indeed changed the fate of thousands of soldiers!
I thought it was just the matilda II's prototype, instead its presence and deterrence allowed for the brits to safely evacuate France.
Another little miracle that avoided an early orwellian scenario for humanity
I really enjoyed this lecture :D I have been to the Tank museum and marveled how tiny the Matilda 1 was. Fake history has it like the Polish Armed forces were crap during the start of WW2 (they were not). British tanks were crap (They were not). British Tanks were actually very good. Matilda II for its time was a fortress, Crusader was fast, Valentine was fast, Churchill was a fortress and was unstoppable over a lot of terrain. Cromwell was very fast and The Comet was the precursor to what would be the Centurion. I always argue this in war strategy is that the last thing a tank wants to come up against is another tank. Combined arms is always rock paper and scissors. The thing is though tanks like the Matilda II forced Hitler onto the heavy tank projects while the British and USA continued with the cruiser type tanks. So we had tanks and lots of tanks and lots of robust if somewhat weaker tanks. But we had tanks and lots of them. Tanks you could easily repair easily escape from. Tanks simply doing what tanks are supposed to do too. I think if Germany had focused on just sticking with the Panzer type IV projects and the Stug projects and nothing else tank/Afv wise WW2 would have been different. I consider Panzer IV and Stug to be the pinnacle of WW2 tank and anti tank/assault tank design. What came afterwards was over engineered or too late
Yay! Number 2 on my 'top 5' list
This was an awesome presentation on Matilda 1.
I waited and waited and finally got a reference to _another_ video discussing what the tank actually did. Thanks for all the background, but there was almost no foreground.
As informative and entertaining as ever. 👍
35:30 - Maybe not the “Rightest”, but A right tank at the right place, and the right time. In the way it was used, it did what the Bob Semple was expected to do.
I never knew the story of the Matilda I could have been so interesting.
The "light tank" concept really is the birth of the modern IFV, just decades before anyone figured out what that role _actually_ requires.
Octrad Puma
No.
What’s that tank at 1:50 ? I can’t say i’ve ever seen it before, and I thought i’d seen them all.
It's a Gun Carrier Mk. I, which entered service with the British Army in 1917. The vehicle was designed to carry heavy field artillery pieces or supplies across areas under enemy fire. The 6-inch howitzer could be fired while still mounted in the vehicle, effectively creating the world's first self-propelled gun. In the final phase of the war, the Gun Carriers served primarily as supply vehicles for the tank brigades.
Can David please bring his doggo to work?🥺 I miss his doggo. Matilda would have been perfect for the doggo to get up on.
Great tie and the suit omg ❤❤❤❤
Excellently dressed and a wonderful video!!
When I was about 12 I read Tramp in Amor by Colin Forbes it was as I remember it a fine novel about a Matilda tank in WW2 part of the BEF in Northern France 1940.
I have always loved this Heavy Tankette as i like to call it! Blessed Matilda 1!
Excellent video
Does it not resemble the rip saw?
Those PTO’s are handy for any vehicle bigger than a pick up truck. And every tractor,tank,or boat needs one for accessories…. 😊