Kit Bashing Down Under | Matilda Frog, Matilda Dozer and Matilda Hedgehog in Australian Service
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 มิ.ย. 2023
- In a recent video, we covered the history of the British-built Matilda II infantry tank in Australian service. Arriving in mid-1942, the 200 tanks imported straight from the British Empire made up the core of the Australian armored forces until the end of World War II, and were praised for their compact size and extraordinary durability in the face of enemy fire. But fighting in the Pacific theater was anything but conventional, and required both new tactics and new equipment to be rapidly developed and rushed to the front lines. Today, we’ll be discussing the three major variants of the Matilda II design that emerged from this environment; the Matilda Frog, the Matilda Hedgehog, and finally the Matilda Dozer.
Join this channel to get access to exclusive perks:
/ @tanksencyclopediayt
If you liked this video, please consider donating on Patreon or Paypal!
Patreon: / tankartfund
Paypal: www.paypal.com/paypalme/tanke...
Article: tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/au...
Sources:
Infantry Tank Mark IIA* Specifications, The Vulcan Foundary Ltd by designer Sir John Dodd August 1940
Infantry Tank Mark II manual, War Department
Osprey Publishing, New Vanguard #8, Matilda Infantry Tank 1938-45
Hopkins, Ronald Nicholas Lamond and Australian War Memorial
Australian armour : a history of the Royal Australian Armoured Corps, 1927-1972 D Fletcher
Matilda infantry tank 1939-1945 Bingham, James
Australian Sentinel and Matildas AWM54, 347/4/1, [Flame Projectors - Inventions:] Flame throwers, Submission of designs. Narratives of the development, design and production of flame thrower transportable No 2, Aust “Frog” and flame thrower Cordite operated, designed by Major A E Miller, 21 April 1945
Infantry Tank Mark II Specifications, by J.S. DODD The Vulcan Foundry Ltd, Locomotive Works, August 1940
Reddit: / tankencyclopedia
TE Shop: www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/Goo...
Our website: www.tanks-encyclopedia.com
Gaming News Website: www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/games/
Facebook: / tanksencyclopedia
Twitter: / tanksenc
Discord: / discord
Email: tanks.encyclopedia@gmail.com
An article by Thomas Anderson
Narrated by Jeran Korak
Edited by @BattlehammerWoT
Sound edited by Jeran Korak
A Matilda with a Hedgehog system makes me grin like a maniac. That is a cool tank.
There is a second running Mk3 Dozer tank at the Australian Armour and Artillery museum in Cairns that is the dozer hull seen running at the end of the video
The Dozer tank, WDN 46101 seen running at the end of the video is actually mine... Part of the BATRAC collection in Oberon NSW....there are 3 dozers left...one in Cairns WDN 10277, Pucca 18766 and ours 46101. Both the Cairns & Pucca ones have no engines.
studio.th-cam.com/channels/dQAz-fWrhxgja5P1EF8HLQ.html
I wrote about the Matilda Hedgehog in a video about the Hedgehog antisubmarine mortar of the first USS The Sullivans by the guys of the Buffalo and Erie County Naval and Military Park (the group that also takes care of the cruiser USS Little Rock and the sub USS Croaker in Buffalo, NY) and they couldn't believe someone mounted that antisub mortar on a tank.
As a former Dozer tank commander, I'm disappointed that the dozer variant wasn't more successful.
Aussie major general Rowell was my grandfather's frist cousin and I am a USMC tanker and my uncle is major general Ross E Rowell USMC retired and a MOH WINNER and one of the fathers of Air to ground support in WW 2 and both fought in WW 2
there is a third Matilda Dozer wreck in Murrayville Victoria but it could be a postwar farmers conversion
Most likely a farmer one. Also where is it so i can buy it lmao
Also these were wide neck matilda originally made to take the first 6pdr Cromwell turrets but just armed with basic turrets and discarded to Australia
16:26 Hedgehogs did not fire depth charges. They were simple mortar shells designed to explode on contact.
Part of the reason they were so effective... I read somewhere that 1 in 60 odd depth charge attacks resulted in a U Boat kill... for the (later) hedgehog it was 1 in 6. The 24 bombs were projected to land in a circle with a diameter less than the length of a U boat... so IF well aimed... (and being fired FORWARD the ship could maintain ASDIC contact throughout the attack) that isn't really surprising..it IS very impressive though!
frankly that hedgehog makes a hell of a lot more sense the the US Calliope as it didn't massively increase the target profile.
The conditions faced by Aussies in the New Guinea/Indonesian campaigns were regarded as the toughest of any theatre. Says a lot that the basic Matilda could be operated there successfully.
9:28 the 57mm six pounder was smaller, not larger than the 87mm 25 pounder - as the names suggest, it fired a shell weighing a third of the weight, too. It just had a higher muzzle velocity for its armour piercing round, which was why it was best for use against bunkers
16:26 here you can see a sticky bomb being used in its intended role - to attack a tank. They sometimes got stuck to the clothing of the attacker and were rarely used outside Britain.
Liked!
We Aussies do some interesting stuff... and usually do it well!
All Arms Assault in 1918 at Hamel would be the priority...We Aussie Diggers do good efforts.
Never mentioned that they were bus engines.. hence spares were readily available... also the tank could run on one engine and this allowed many to return to repair areas or just keep going where more advanced types would have been ko straight off
Those Leyland engines are the same engines one might find on a London double-decker bus of the time.
@kristoffermangila
Yup.. thus making availability trained service personnel somewhat easier.. I would think..
@@janwitts2688 indeed. The same focus on commercial off-the-shelf components can be found also in the Universal Carrier, which uses the Ford Flathead V8.
Can anyone confirm that the 3 inch howitzer fitted matilda had an enlarged turret? visual images indicate it fitted two persons and was much wider??and it had two hatches
Same turret.
No, all the early war British cruiser tanks and the Matilda 2 has "CS" (Close Support") versions armed this way, primarily to fire smoke shells (stupid as that sounds, yes they only had a few HE rounds). They all used the same turret with a different gun and were issued something like one per headquarters troop.
YOU VE GOTTA LOVE THE GENTLEMAN ON THE PRODUCTION LINE DRESSED IN A SUIT....😊😊😊
Imagine if you were to take all these versions and put them onto one chassis
If you look through archives hard enough, I can guarantee there is some obscure german Panzer III modification which fits this description.
Amazing video mate! Definitely going to make a point to head to Pukka for a look when it reopens!
10:45 5 yards only ?! that's miracle!
Fighting in a tank in the jungle ….. how much fun can you have with high heat and 100% humidity ?
One reason why crew have revolvers
Hello, can you review the new WoT's tank the Tiger-Maus 120T? Is it accurate to the project?
What about the dozer without a turret?
Probably a farm modification, most of the surplus tanks in Australia were sold off. Scrappers apparently waited outside the auctions to buy turrets. Most people modified the tanks for normal farm/construction work.
Aparently the depth charges developed survival instinct.
Maybe they got land sick. Lol
@@jasonscott8844 evidently so😂
1:12 Leyland is pronounced layland not leeland
Cutting a 'Swoth'?🙃 ......a 'shassaay'?☺
Had to google wtf is cordite
And the footage of Valentines being assembled is relevant to Australian Matilda variants...how?
Just careless.
Fine. Can we have a link to YOUR perfect videos?
Hi everyone (first)
Good for you... Say something beyond "Hi everyone"...
@@petethebastard no
Shut up guy