Dad was a gunner in the Matildas in North Africa and then after surviving there they were sent to New Guinea. In North Africa the only thing he feared was the mighty 88mm which he said turned Matildas into swiss cheese. He and his tank survived the war and to his suprise just before he passed away we discovered that his actual tank now resides at the Australian War Memorial. I will never forget the sparkle in his eyes as he saw it for the first time in nearly 50 years.
my grandad served in australian amoured corp using matildas in syria and north africa and then as foot soldiers in new guinea cause you cant drive a tank in the middle of the jungle as he said, he served in the 7th cavalry division mabye the new each other?
@@flack2998 im no sure sorry he never what his tank was called or what model he was in all he told me was that he was in matildas and hes sadly passed so i cant ask him im sorry
First fun tank i played in wot was the lend-lease matilda called matilda lV. Soviots put in a 76mm main gun and it out performed the shermans 75mm.Its been nerfed a little i think but still fun to play.I affectionatly refer to matildas as matty or matty's
The most surprising thing to me about the Matilda II is how tiny it actually is for such a heavily armored tank. It’s even more impressive that they could stuff a four man crew in the thing.
Small size actually helps to have tickier armor, the main problems with that are high ground pressures, the need for very powerful yet compact engines and as you pointed out, very cramped crew spaces.
Yeah lots of big 4wds are bigger than a Matilda. The increasing need for tanks to mount a massive gun seems to be the primary driving factor in how massive tanks have gotten.
The Australian army preferred it to the Lee/Grant for use in the South East Asian jungles. It's smaller size made it easier to navigate around trees. It's armor was immune to the anti weapons of the Japanese it faced. In the jungle speed didn't matter. Although noisy it couldn't be seen in the thick jungle canopy until it was almost upon the Japanese. About half converted to flame throwers it proved a great success.
Great post @binway. I just cant think how things would have turned out if all the Matilda's being replaced by M3 Grants/Lees in North Africa had been sent to the Far East. Would they have arrived in time to save Malaya and Singapore?
The 40mm 2 pounder was actually an anti tank gun and quite effective in 1940/41. The Matilda also came in a close support version armed with a 3.7 inch Low velocity gun firing HE and smoke rounds.
@@nukesomething5518 I think he was remarking that most other tanks were using a 37mm gun at the time for anti tank use. So assuming the first commentor is correct that the 2 pounder was a 40mm, that makes the Matilda seem just a bit more up gunned then the early Panzers and American tanks all which were mainly using a 37mm. I don't think the person commenting to the original commenter was talking about the 3.7 inch support version.
When I was 15, I worked with an old guy called Ted. Ted if I recall his story correctly was a gunner in a Matilda in the early part of the European theatre when the Australians were there before being sent to North Africa. Well as they were driving (well moving anyway) to somewhere, I can’t recall where, his driver complained that it was cold and to close the hatch. Well, the hatch was closed, when Ted looked up to the hatch cover, there were 2 holes in the turret opposite each other, about 88mm in diameter… Said something like DUCK me.. and he just plugged the holes with his socks.
@@sinisterisrandom8537 So, not exactly impervious to enemy fire before the sock modification and less so afterwards. Unpleasant odours notwithstanding.
"early part of the European theatre when the Australians were there before being sent to North Africa"... I don't think we (Australia) had ground troops in Europe, early war.
My Uncle had a Matilda, with a lot of armour and the Turret removed and converted into a Bulldozer. At the, about 5Km age of 12, I was given the task of driving it from a work site to home, about 5 Km. It was an amazing experience for a young lad.
We used the Matilda in New Guinea. Great Tank. The Japanese had no answer to them & in desperation tried to lure them over prepared stacked timber, then set fire to the timber. Didn't work.
A friend of mine here in Central New South Wales, Australia owns a Matilda Tank that he restored. While the armaments have been disabled according to Australian law, the tank is in fine running condition.
The Matilda II greatest moment of glory was the Battle of Arras that scared Hitler into halting the drive to Dunkirk. It may have saved the British Army.
The Matilda II also had a variant armed with a 3" howitzer, that could only fire HE. These tanks were designated A12 CS. Nine A12 CS tanks were sent to France with the BEF, in 1940. Australia was the biggest user of A12 CS tanks, in the Pacific theatre.
@@bremnersghost948 If they had any, it would have been their 47mm gun, but I am not sure how many of those they had, or if it would have a chance against Matilda armor. Their 37mm AT gun was probably about as powerful as that German one.
Being slow meant it could retain decent infantry support. Too often, faster tanks just charged at the enemy only to be knocked out by anti-tank guns. Supressing anti-tank was a regular problem until the 8th army had tanks with decent HE. When the Grant and Lee arrived they couldn't get enough of them
So, deliberately designing a tank to be slow just to make up for the lack of tactical education and discipline of the tank operators? That's some next level IQ.
@@sergeychmelev5270 Stupid and ignorant comment. The Matilda was an INFANTRY TANK, It wasn't meant to be fast much like the Churchill that succeded it. Learn some history!
@@smooth_sundaes5172 read your initial comment, where you were justifying Matilda’s slow speed by saying “too often, faster tanks just charged at the enemy only to be knocked out by anti-tank guns”. This is NOT why Matilda was made slow, but you made it sound like it was.
@@AWMJoeyjoejoe No it wouldn't have, not unless the tank commanders were completely unaware of their own combat role and also had no regard for their own safety given how important it is for tanks to have their own infantry support. I'm sick of this ridiculous notion that speed is a bad trait for an infantry support vehicle to have. If that were even remotely the case then we would see it reflected in far more vehicles, both in WW2 and from other wars.
The Soviets used the Matilda II, and made some modifications to it, such as a bigger cannon. However the Matilda II was more of a desert warfare type of tank, and didn’t preform all that great in the Russian terrain and winter months as well. The Red Army favored the Valentine Tank, because it could withstand the Russian terrain, more than the Matilda II could. They later favored the M3 Stuart light tank, the M4 Sherman medium Tank, and the M10 Tank Destroyer. The Soviets didn’t like the Lee Tank that much either. They referred to it as “The grave for 7 brothers.” However the Matilda II preform very well in other parts of occupied Europe and of course the North African Desert, along with the South Pacific too.
@Rob Kholar didn’t they was that before or after Stalin was shitting his pants when the Germans were outside Moscow and 60% of there tanks on the Moscow front were supplied by the British which let them move there factory’s east or was it after the British provided most of there tools and machinery and the USA the raw materials sailed there by the Royal Navy
@Rob Kholar lol yes because Anglo/Saxon countrys are really scared of Russia and China lol don’t make me laugh listen I’m a x infantryman and I would happily go toe to toe with some 2 year conscript from russias or some chines moron who gets promoted to SGT in less than 3 years and has never seen combat fuck me underestimate the Anglo countrys as much as u want but we are born warriors
@@MrTangolizard, If you don't know, the share of foreign weapons in the Red Army during World War II was only 4%. And during the Battle near Moscow, there were only a couple dozen foreign tanks in the troops. The rest simply did not have time by December 1941, when the counteroffensive began. And do not exaggerate the importance of foreign aid. The USSR independently carried out the evacuation of people and industry, which it had built before the war. The first lend-lease delivery to the USSR was in August 1941, when the enemy had already captured many industrial centers. France was able to hold out for only 40 days, and the USSR itself defeated the Germans near Moscow in December 1941 And if someone "shat in his pants", it was the British in 1940. They were afraid of the Germans so much that they did not dare to open a second front until 1944, when the Red Army had already defeated the Germans near Kursk, and the Soviet victory was only a matter of time. Although the British and Americans had every opportunity to land in Normandy in 1942. Now most of the military personnel in Russia are professional contractors. They are the ones who are fighting in Syria, protecting it from terrorists. And it was they who kicked the Americans out of their military bases in Syria, which are there illegally
Like all our industry, allowed to go to cheaper countries to produce inferior design & quality so as just to keep the bulging bank balances of the rich full.
That's why they ultimately swapped it out for the Valentine in Europe. It had more-or-less even combat performance with the Matilda and was much cheaper to make.
Rommel decided to use the 88 mm against them in France. He was almost cut off from his supply lines because of these, he decided to use the 88 mm AA gun against them and was able to maintain his supply line until he halted near dunkirk. He did the same in Africa and was part of the reason the Tiger had an 88 on it. Rommel was so admired by the tank, he would often try to get them captured/repaired in Africa for his own Afrika Korps use.
Yes, I remember seeing some photos of them in quickly applied German insignia in North Africa. One of the highest forms of praise for any combat system.
It's just how amazing it is to me all the vehicles and weapons produced during those times and how so many few remain. The quality of craftsmanship and labor that went into making them is kind of heartbreaking...
most stuff got turned into scrap even the one of kind like e100 hull was melted down by the brits though the yanks and Russians did not engage in that considering the panther 2 with g turret and maus still exist in thier museums
The thing you have to remember is that after 6 years of war most people and even the people that used these vehicles and planes were sick of them.They all wanted to move on. The stuff just wasn't wanted anymore. Most countries were bankrupt or broken. Saving old war weapons was not top of anyone's list 1946 to 1950. 80 years later we now look on these items with different eyes.
("Sgt. J.") Not ruth... "I'm borrowing her u-tube." I, agree. People all over sold what they could find for scrap, for food. Seeing here. On this. Many were knocked in to lakes, Rivers. Ponds... Lol. Just now being found. And, some cleaned up for display. The U.s. B-25 bomber had a ball on the front that could left. &, Right. I, have video that accidentally shows 1. Every other one has been scrapped by the air force. Only about 10 seconds of video. But, cool looking. Have a nice day. ✌️😀
There’s one at Townhead Park, Singleton,, NSW. 1st Australian Armoured Regt, 4 Troop A Squadron. New Guinea/Borneo Crew: Sgt Britten and Troopers Armstrong, Redman & Bell.
Loved the video, well done and very informative. The Matilda II is by far my favourite tanks from WWII. Thank you for giving it some of the spotlight. Have a 1/35 scale painted in desert dazzle camouflage on full display.
British tank development was far more chaotic and nonsensical than the impression one would get from the intro. Also, basically every British and German tank in the Africa theater lacked working HE ammunition.
Yes there were a few all around New Zealand parks for kids to play in. There were also other tanks from memory. I used to play in one when I was a kid. 🙂
The Flame thrower version know as the Crocodile was particularly effective in the liberation of Europe, but if you go to the Moscow memorial you will see a Matilda II displayed. Why, about 600 of them were deployed in the defence of Moscow in 1941. Were the Matilda’s of any use on the Eastern Front? All I know is Moscow didn’t fall.
Uncle Fred drove one in the desert. Family say he drove one before escaping from Dunkirk but as he brought his rifle back with him I think they got confused about that and he was more likely driving a support truck at that stage. He was later converted onto the Churchill tank which he drove in the Normandy landings and on into Germany.
I remember reading an enjoyable novel 40 years ago called “Tramp in armour“ about Matilda and it’s cruel trying to make it to Dunkerque. It was written by Colin Forbes in 1969.
To clarify, there was no Matilda II built with a single engine. They knew it would need both, but it was still underpowered. It's cross-country speed of 6 mph was fine for advancing with troops but was a problem when getting it into position or getting it out of trouble. Rather ironic to be going on about the thick armour and then to show an image of one with an f-off big hole in its glassis! When the Matildas got in behind the German advance at Arras they caused a great deal of damage and only had to withdraw due to lack of support, leaving them vulnerable to Rommel's inventive use of 88mm flak guns in the anit-tank role. Nice picture at 7:12. The Germans actually often adopted captured tanks into their own forces, including several of the similarly heavy armoured French Char B1s. This picture shows a Matilda in the process of changing hands a second time from Afrika Corps control back to the British. Go Tommies! To clarify again, the Soviet Matildas weren't captured ones. The Soviets were Allies from mid-1941 to mid-45 and the British gave them about a 1000. This actually wasn't a bad episode. The script may have been 99% wiki but it was largely correct and had pictures of the right tanks. Well done, don't let it be a one-off!
3:25 Wrong the 2pdr gun was made to engage enemy tanks and did well against the early war German armor.. It's "close support" was limited as no High Explosive ammunition was provided.
Nice video. That's the bigger cousin of the tank that was produced where I work in Montréal. I'm working in the old Angus Shops and that's where the Valentines were built. There are pictures everywhere on the walls inside. That's one tank you could cover on this channel as well. Cheers, From Montréal :)
Imperial War museum in Manchester, UK has a matilda II on display the last time I went there, as well as an US Marine Harrier and a T-54/55 out front painted in white.
Wrong the Matilda II was a separate design produce by the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, whilst the Matilda I was designed Sir John Carden of Vickers-Armstrong. There were no similarities between the 2 designs.
It was the Abrams of it's day. Heavy armor made it nearly indestructible when facing other tanks but it was so heavy that it lacked the speed to pursue other tanks and press it's advantage.
The tank was so sturdy that when run out of gas the British crews just drive it road shoreline and run,not attempting even destroying it, the damn thing was almost indestructible, in fact great numbers were captured by Germans and Italians in Africa this way and highly valued for them because it was a beast side by side the weak and tiny Italian Ansaldos. The Italians loved Mathildas and Nicknamed it "La Donna Inglese" (The British Lady) and also the lest poétic"il gran cazzo" (the BIG "Ahem"!)
I thought leaving them at the shoreline was due to a complete logistical failure on their first attempted amphibious tank landing? Like they wanted the tanks back, they weren't meant to be left there.
@@williamforbes6919 the problem was the lack of fuel on the North African Teather of war and the paradox that the tank was of so sturdy design that was very difficult to knock out it even by his own crews . under pressure and risk of being captured,few men risk themselves to put the effort and time to destroy mechanical components or try to use explosives to blown it away. besides the fact that germans had a big amount of spare parts from the BEF equipment captured in France. Despite his weak cannon Mathilda was highly appreciated by both Italians and Soviets. ¿What better tribute for his brits designers that even your enemies bias you for your work? Its the same case that Ak 47..pure Russian might and reliability.every Marine tries to have one at hand as a life insurance in case of battlefield muddy or sandy..
I am old. I am tired of people forgetting history or key points of it... The Matildas in the battle of France were invulnerable, a young German leader had to put a pistol to the head of a anti aircraft unit to persuade them to use their anti aircraft 88mm guns on the invulnerable Matilda tanks! This same leader did the same in North Africa, Rommel... If he had not used his pistol on his own troops... WW2 could have ended in France, 1940! Because of the Matilda tank. This is a key underrated moment in history.
No, sorry the Matilda could in no way, shape or form have ended the war in 1940. The British tank force was too small, they could win locally but there just was not the capability on the allied side to go on the offensive and defeat Germany. Even though Matildas were practically invulnerable to German tank guns and most antitank weapons, they were vulnerable to the 88mm gun, as Rommel already knew. Arras was not the first time 88s were used in the antitank role - it was done in Spain during their Civil War. Germany had far more 88s than Britain had Matildas. There were only 23 Matilda IIs and more of the useless (against tanks) Matilda Is at Arras, where incidentally they suffered heavy losses. A second battle would have seen the BEF run out of Matildas. Besides the 88s, Matildas could be taken out by German artillery, bombing and even by infantry action. More importantly, wear and tear resulted in many tank losses and unless you held the field after a battle, a tank that threw a track or stripped a gear box was just as much a loss as one destroyed by enemy fire. Just driving tanks around between actual battles resulted in losses. In North Africa most of the Matildas needed refitting after the initial frontier battles and a week's driving during the Compass offensive despite suffering few actual battle casualties. As the British were on the offensive, broken down tanks ended up behind the front line where they could be collected up and serviced. This was not the case in France, any broken down tank was left behind and lost.
The 2 pounder main gun was the equal of the German PAK 37 of the same era and later had the "Long John" squeeze bore extension fitted which increased velocity, being able to deal with the Panzer IV at close range. It was only because the turret could not mount the excellent 6 pounder that the tank was superseded
I believe the 2pdr high velocity Capped shells were capable of penetrating 3.5 inches at 400m (60°) With the little John adaptor. Penetration increased to 4.1 inches of penetration at 400m. Still holding 2 inches of penetration at 1400m The Panzer IV early had 2 inches of Front armour and 1.5inches of side armour. It wasn’t until 1941/42 it was boosted to 80mm on the front. 108mm of penetration at 400m in the vast open Plains of North Africa… is useless. 108mm of penetration in the tight hedgerows of Europe would have been deadly. Even to tiger tanks in 1944. Though the chance of meeting one side on was null and the Matilda’s lack of mobility to exploit said opportunity ultimately killing its career on the front line in Europe.
@@jugganaut33 Statistically 10% of tanks are taken out from from the front. It's one of the reasons you sometimes saw militaries not too concerned with the ability to penetrate frontally. The survival rate for a crew in an M4 was statistically the same as a Tiger crew. It's obviously harder no doubt, but when faced with the logistics of changing, often it was easier to just work around problems.
I also remember seeing what i recall was a lee/grant in the bush in WA. Was going to climb inside for a look but then it occurred to me that a snake might well have had the same idea.
@@daystatesniper01 th-cam.com/video/dkxrwzrLzsM/w-d-xo.html and if you google "murrayville tank hull" the first result has some good pics. there are other wrecks / hulls around but i cant remeber where i saw them on the net
@@ravenof1985 yeah been thru Murrayville Victoria. Mainly Matilda hulls that have been converted to farm bulldozers. There is also some M3 Grant hulls as well.
Very enjoyable film. I've long had a soft spot for the Matilda since my days of doing Airfix kits. I believe the Matilda was limited in size so it could be transported by rail.
To see a Matilda in working order traverse a field or fire it’s gun would be such an amazing sight because of the rarity of the instance in this day and age. Imagine being inside that tank while completing some trials or diagnostics.
Nice work. Concise and well-organized. The background music set exactly the right atmosphere. Where did you find it? I would like to sample more of it.
At 3:40 it says the Matilda used 7.92mm ammo...the same as used by the Germans so they could use captured ammo. What???? The Brits used .303's which is a completely different cartridge than the German Mauser...rimmed vs rimless despite sharing a nearly same bore diameter. Where did the 'use the same ammo' bit come from? Otherwise a good video.
Guess what - multiple types of ammunition is common. And the Japanese used 0.303 British in about half their machine guns (the other half used a rimless derivative of the round).
@@donaldtrump6491 OK....I stand corrected. The early Matilda's used Vickers guns in 303 but you are correct in that the later ones used the BESA in 8mm Mauser. That was the one gun that used different ammo...must have been a logistic nightmare to feed everything and might have been easier to just make the gun use the same .303's...but it is what it was. Sorry for any confusion I might have caused.
A Matilda II is also on display at the Saumur museum (musée des blindés) in France. It is painted with a three-ton camouflage : light blue, sand and green.
I watched the Russian film 'White Tiger' last year and was surprised that in it, the Russians were using Matilda's. I since found out that these tanks *were* given to Russia as part of the land lease program and that there were at least a couple of them in Berlin in the last weeks of the war. I was really surprised about this.
Highly angled nose, while not looking like it, there are storage boxes next to the tracks at the front making those v shaped lines on the front (seams) not just decorative.
The turret was too small. And, the hull was of "caste" construction. Strong, but not open for change. Perhaps, a different change would've been to remove the turret and install an "open top" AA or SP gun..
There's even a Matilda Mk 2 nicknamed " Dover" on display ( along with numerous examples of the Sherman tank ) at Yad La Shiryon - Israel's armoured corps memorial and tank museum at Latrun
2 Matilda tanks created havoc at Arras in 1940. Destroying every enemy tank, AT gun and armored vehicle they encountered. The 2 pdr gun easily destroying panzers. Both tanks were only stopped by numerous hits and fire. The Russians received thousands of them in late 1941 and 42. You had some footage of them in action here Romney had a personal bodyguard unit equipped with captured British vehicles, including Matildas covered in German crosses
From more detailed reading the story about the 2 pounder HE shell is a bit twisted. The round was not issued to British units for 2 reasons. Number one was the prevalent tank doctrine of the time. Number 2 was that the US made a superior HE shell, but the Soviets took more than 80% of the production for themselves. The Soviets had a war long love for the Valentine, having thousands of them - many with the 2 pounder gun
The British counter-attack at Arras in 1940 was with outdated Matilda 1 tanks, which only had machine guns, and a few of the brand new Matilda 2 tanks. The Germans fled in droves. In desperation the Germans turned a 88mm AA gun horizontal successfully against the Matilda 2 - their conventional anti-tank weapons and tanks could not penetrate the tank. The Germans made a solid shot for the 88mm AA gun to bust concrete bunkers in the Maginot line. The 88mm was not meant for anti-tank duties. The Matilda 2 would roll over German gun emplacements killing the gunners. Rommel thought he had been hit by a force three times the size, which made them stop and rethink. The Germans countered with their superior numbers pushing back the British who fell back consolidating towards Dunkirk.The British resolve and the new Matilda 2 made the Germans sit up and think about a street fight in Dunkirk against a consolidated force still with its weapons and the new Matilda 2 - the large 88mm would be useless in Dunkirk streets while the Matilda 2 would be in its element, with the Matlida 2 easily destroying the Panzer MkIII & MkIVs. *The Matilda 2 could knock out any German tank at the time, while no German tank could knock it out.* The Germans were expecting the Matilda 2 to be shipped over in numbers and for all they knew many were in Dunkirk. The Germans could not stop the tanks coming as the RAF controlled the skies with a CAP and the RN the waters of the Channel.
They rant about the sloped armour on the T-34, as if the Soviets had been the first to think of it. However, the Matilda has a sloping glacis plate and hull sides, three years before the T-34 came out.Its replacement, the Valentine, did as well.
Reminds me of the Matilda in the book Tramp in Armor by Colin Forbes. I read it many years ago and vague now of the stories details but one point was clear was the tanks resilience.
At 1:20 you can see where it got its name from. There was a cartoon comic character in Britain called Matilda the Duck and people thought the prototype looked like the Duck. This is the "danger" in the military, if a weapon gets a nickname early on, it often sticks and it has to become the official name of the weapon. For some reason, most British tank names start with "C". Comet, Cromwell, Churchill, Centurion, Chieftain, Conqueror, Cavalier etc.
Not that old canard (pun intended). The name comes from the project name given to the Matilda I by Vickers-Armstrong when the design specification was drawn up in 1935. The only duck that I can find named Matilda is Matilde McDuck a relative of Donald Duck who first appears in 1950. I've not been able to trace a British duck called Matilda.
@@neiloflongbeck5705thats because it was named after DAFFY not DONALD? , as the matilda was designed and in the same year as daffy ducks first appearance so there is truth to the story...
@@wor53lg50 the A11 or Matilda I was designed in 1935 and Daffy Duck, another American duck, first appeared two years later. The A12 or Matilda Senior or Matilda II just continued to use the same priject name given it by Vickers.
40mm (2pounder) having "limited penetration" but is "siuted it's role as an infantry support"? What kind of boolshit is that? 2punder was one of the best AT guns of early WW2, easily penetrating all German tanks of that period. On the other side, it have no HE shell at that time, and when they finally produce it (in a second half of the war) it was pityfully small. So for infantry support task it was basicly limited to machine gun. If you compare it with f.ex early StuG III, with short barrel low velocity 75mm howitzer, Matilda II was useless as infantry support tank.
The size of gun was determined by the turret ring. At that point in the war the turret ring size was determined by the loading gauge of the railway network used to transport the tank.
I used to think Matilda was a stupid name for a tank, like they named it after an old maid. But after I saw Matilda May in 'Lifeforce' I had new respect for the name and even the tank. Its a really really really well-built tank, it really was.
Almost but, technically, no. The Valentine entered service in 1940. It was undergoing trials at the time of the Dunkirk evacuation. The Matilda II is slightly earlier.
In what universe is Matilda a fearsome name?! It's the name of an old woman. And Valentine? That's literally the opposite of fearsome, it evokes feelings of love. Meanwhile the Tiger and Panther are both named after large, dangerous predators.
Unfortunately I was employed overseas when the Australian Government was selling off it's fully operational Centurion Mark 5s for around a paltry $25,000 a piece. I would have purchased one, along with the accompanying parking problems.
@@gone547 I remember one that used to be in the front yard of a house in Sydney's western suburbs on the old Hume Highway (i.e. before the motorway was built). I think it was around Liverpool or Campbelltown and everyone would always stare at it when driving past.
@@brucelamberton8819 there are still quite a few running examples around, last one I saw operating was at a Cooma motor show 10 or so years ago. I believe another was being used at one time in the rail museum at Dorrigo to move rolling stock around. I'm not sure if it's the same one you're referring to, but there was a Centurion in an earthmoving equipment yard on the old Hume Highway at the edge of Liverpool, many years back. Stopped and approached the owner who gave me and the GF permission to climb all over it. He received pallets of spares and equipment, including the gunsight, IR and episcopes along with the tank and I had great joy for the next three hours showing him what went where. Many purchasers made their money back, some a profit, by selling the 27 litre RR Meteor (basically a de-tuned Merlin) engines to American buyers for their power boats. The smart ones made sure they had parked the hulls in an appropriate location before neutering them. They make great mailboxes, gateguards and conversation pieces. Tanks for the memories.
The modifications carried out in Australian service included the mounting of a Hedgehog depth charge launcher in the front, for use on massed targets, while the Russians preferred to remove the main gun and replace it with a 3 inch weapon
![ค้าง (STILL) - GEMINI [ OFFICIAL MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ftxx3hk5vkU/mqdefault.jpg)
Dad was a gunner in the Matildas in North Africa and then after surviving there they were sent to New Guinea.
In North Africa the only thing he feared was the mighty 88mm which he said turned Matildas into swiss cheese.
He and his tank survived the war and to his suprise just before he passed away we discovered that his actual tank now resides at the Australian War Memorial.
I will never forget the sparkle in his eyes as he saw it for the first time in nearly 50 years.
Grateful for his service. Glad to see he got to see the tank.
my grandad served in australian amoured corp using matildas in syria and north africa and then as foot soldiers in new guinea cause you cant drive a tank in the middle of the jungle as he said, he served in the 7th cavalry division mabye the new each other?
I searched it up. There is a Matilda nicknamed “Bull terrier” I think. Was that the one your father used?
@@flack2998 im no sure sorry he never what his tank was called or what model he was in all he told me was that he was in matildas and hes sadly passed so i cant ask him im sorry
First fun tank i played in wot was the lend-lease matilda called matilda lV. Soviots put in a 76mm main gun and it out performed the shermans 75mm.Its been nerfed a little i think but still fun to play.I affectionatly refer to matildas as matty or matty's
The most surprising thing to me about the Matilda II is how tiny it actually is for such a heavily armored tank. It’s even more impressive that they could stuff a four man crew in the thing.
Small size actually helps to have tickier armor, the main problems with that are high ground pressures, the need for very powerful yet compact engines and as you pointed out, very cramped crew spaces.
Yeah lots of big 4wds are bigger than a Matilda. The increasing need for tanks to mount a massive gun seems to be the primary driving factor in how massive tanks have gotten.
thick....but slow
Effectively they'd to modify the turret to allow a third man in it, "pushing" forward the gun's mantlet, but it was always cramped
I had it in wot a month ago and i was surprised how good it is 😶👏
The Australian army preferred it to the Lee/Grant for use in the South East Asian jungles. It's smaller size made it easier to navigate around trees. It's armor was immune to the anti weapons of the Japanese it faced. In the jungle speed didn't matter. Although noisy it couldn't be seen in the thick jungle canopy until it was almost upon the Japanese. About half converted to flame throwers it proved a great success.
I imagine it cleared a good path for foot soldiers to follow through the bush.
We can go a waltzing Matilda through the bush. Hay. No worries👍🇦🇺
It was the perfect tank for fighting the Japanese.
On top of that, i can't imagine it would have been hard to get them as they were being phased out.
Do you have a source for that? Id actually like to read up on those.
Great post @binway. I just cant think how things would have turned out if all the Matilda's being replaced by M3 Grants/Lees in North Africa had been sent to the Far East. Would they have arrived in time to save Malaya and Singapore?
The 40mm 2 pounder was actually an anti tank gun and quite effective in 1940/41. The Matilda also came in a close support version armed with a 3.7 inch Low velocity gun firing HE and smoke rounds.
In a period where the 37mm was an anti tank gun, the 40mm sounds even better
@@nukesomething5518 I think he was remarking that most other tanks were using a 37mm gun at the time for anti tank use. So assuming the first commentor is correct that the 2 pounder was a 40mm, that makes the Matilda seem just a bit more up gunned then the early Panzers and American tanks all which were mainly using a 37mm.
I don't think the person commenting to the original commenter was talking about the 3.7 inch support version.
@@nukesomething5518 what?
@@ZacLowing Huge 3mm *. . .*
3 inch, not 3.7 inch.
When I was 15, I worked with an old guy called Ted. Ted if I recall his story correctly was a gunner in a Matilda in the early part of the European theatre when the Australians were there before being sent to North Africa. Well as they were driving (well moving anyway) to somewhere, I can’t recall where, his driver complained that it was cold and to close the hatch. Well, the hatch was closed, when Ted looked up to the hatch cover, there were 2 holes in the turret opposite each other, about 88mm in diameter… Said something like DUCK me.. and he just plugged the holes with his socks.
lol
@@sinisterisrandom8537 So, not exactly impervious to enemy fire before the sock modification and less so afterwards. Unpleasant odours notwithstanding.
Beautiful story.
@@gusgone4527 sock modification. XD
"early part of the European theatre when the Australians were there before being sent to North Africa"... I don't think we (Australia) had ground troops in Europe, early war.
My Uncle had a Matilda, with a lot of armour and the Turret removed and converted into a Bulldozer. At the, about 5Km age of 12, I was given the task of driving it from a work site to home, about 5 Km. It was an amazing experience for a young lad.
We used the Matilda in New Guinea. Great Tank.
The Japanese had no answer to them & in desperation tried to lure them over prepared stacked timber, then set fire to the timber. Didn't work.
A friend of mine here in Central New South Wales, Australia owns a Matilda Tank that he restored. While the armaments have been disabled according to Australian law, the tank is in fine running condition.
The Matilda II greatest moment of glory was the Battle of Arras that scared Hitler into halting the drive to Dunkirk. It may have saved the British Army.
Sir...this tank did not influence Hitler in deciding not to annihilate Dunkirk nor did it save the British Army...hahah good story though.
@@tasjan9190 Correct the Krauts were kept away from Dunkirk by my old man with his Bren Gun and 50 grenades now you know.
@@bertiewooster3326 It was neither the Matilda Tank nor your old man that halted the German advance on Dunkirk.
@@otten5666 I can assure it was I have proof.
A TH-cam-comment historian claims to have proof for his made-up revisionist History? How exciting.
The Matilda II also had a variant armed with a 3" howitzer, that could only fire HE. These tanks were designated A12 CS.
Nine A12 CS tanks were sent to France with the BEF, in 1940. Australia was the biggest user of A12 CS tanks, in the Pacific theatre.
Could fire smoke as well. Which by virtue of being White Phosphorus was also quite effective against entrenched infantry. If you were sadistic enough.
Did Japan have a Gun before '44 that could Penetrate a Matilda?
@@bremnersghost948 They had a real shortage of proper AT guns. Most tanks were lost to field guns or AT mines.
@@bremnersghost948 If they had any, it would have been their 47mm gun, but I am not sure how many of those they had, or if it would have a chance against Matilda armor. Their 37mm AT gun was probably about as powerful as that German one.
@@Mathiasosx1 they not only could fire smoke, they were actually issues with about 80% smoke rounds.
Being slow meant it could retain decent infantry support. Too often, faster tanks just charged at the enemy only to be knocked out by anti-tank guns. Supressing anti-tank was a regular problem until the 8th army had tanks with decent HE. When the Grant and Lee arrived they couldn't get enough of them
So, deliberately designing a tank to be slow just to make up for the lack of tactical education and discipline of the tank operators? That's some next level IQ.
@@sergeychmelev5270 Stupid and ignorant comment. The Matilda was an INFANTRY TANK, It wasn't meant to be fast much like the Churchill that succeded it. Learn some history!
@@smooth_sundaes5172 read your initial comment, where you were justifying Matilda’s slow speed by saying “too often, faster tanks just charged at the enemy only to be knocked out by anti-tank guns”. This is NOT why Matilda was made slow, but you made it sound like it was.
@@smooth_sundaes5172 Indeed, it, like the Valentine and Churchill that followed, were designed from the ground up to work in tandem with the Infantry.
The Matilda was a fast tank. I’ve seen Matilda’s drive, and they go pretty quick.
I am just down the road from the Australian tank museum and pass by a Matilda once a week...I shall offer a salute next time.
00:13 That's a Valentine. 01:46, 02:06 Also Valentines. 02:25 A Matilda under construction at last.
I always loved the look of the Matilda. It just looked right, kind of modern looking.
Shame it’s speed let it down.
@@gbjanuary True, but it was intended as an infantry support tank. A higher speed would have just meant leaving the infantry behind.
I know, it has a particular, fancy, British look to it lol!
@@AWMJoeyjoejoe No it wouldn't have, not unless the tank commanders were completely unaware of their own combat role and also had no regard for their own safety given how important it is for tanks to have their own infantry support.
I'm sick of this ridiculous notion that speed is a bad trait for an infantry support vehicle to have. If that were even remotely the case then we would see it reflected in far more vehicles, both in WW2 and from other wars.
@@lowesmanager8193 Not a bad trait, just an unnecessary one.
The Soviets used the Matilda II, and made some modifications to it, such as a bigger cannon. However the Matilda II was more of a desert warfare type of tank, and didn’t preform all that great in the Russian terrain and winter months as well. The Red Army favored the Valentine Tank, because it could withstand the Russian terrain, more than the Matilda II could. They later favored the M3 Stuart light tank, the M4 Sherman medium Tank, and the M10 Tank Destroyer. The Soviets didn’t like the Lee Tank that much either. They referred to it as “The grave for 7 brothers.” However the Matilda II preform very well in other parts of occupied Europe and of course the North African Desert, along with the South Pacific too.
@Rob Kholar agree
They make even bigger garbage on their own now
@Rob Kholar the only people who use Russian tanks are the russians
Former ussr/or ussr allies
Or countries to poor to buy any better tanks
@Rob Kholar didn’t they was that before or after Stalin was shitting his pants when the Germans were outside Moscow and 60% of there tanks on the Moscow front were supplied by the British which let them move there factory’s east or was it after the British provided most of there tools and machinery and the USA the raw materials sailed there by the Royal Navy
@Rob Kholar lol yes because Anglo/Saxon countrys are really scared of Russia and China lol don’t make me laugh listen I’m a x infantryman and I would happily go toe to toe with some 2 year conscript from russias or some chines moron who gets promoted to SGT in less than 3 years and has never seen combat fuck me underestimate the Anglo countrys as much as u want but we are born warriors
@@MrTangolizard, If you don't know, the share of foreign weapons in the Red Army during World War II was only 4%. And during the Battle near Moscow, there were only a couple dozen foreign tanks in the troops. The rest simply did not have time by December 1941, when the counteroffensive began.
And do not exaggerate the importance of foreign aid. The USSR independently carried out the evacuation of people and industry, which it had built before the war. The first lend-lease delivery to the USSR was in August 1941, when the enemy had already captured many industrial centers. France was able to hold out for only 40 days, and the USSR itself defeated the Germans near Moscow in December 1941
And if someone "shat in his pants", it was the British in 1940. They were afraid of the Germans so much that they did not dare to open a second front until 1944, when the Red Army had already defeated the Germans near Kursk, and the Soviet victory was only a matter of time. Although the British and Americans had every opportunity to land in Normandy in 1942.
Now most of the military personnel in Russia are professional contractors. They are the ones who are fighting in Syria, protecting it from terrorists. And it was they who kicked the Americans out of their military bases in Syria, which are there illegally
Solid, *cast* steel hull and turret. Both insanely hard and expensive to produce WITH QUALITY STEEL like the British produced...but oh so effective.
Emphasis on producED 😔
Like all our industry, allowed to go to cheaper countries to produce inferior design & quality so as just to keep the bulging bank balances of the rich full.
@@jameshogge what?
@@jr-ft3oz he's referring to past tense, so I assume he is sad British Steel is no longer made on such a great scale. Which is understandable
That's why they ultimately swapped it out for the Valentine in Europe. It had more-or-less even combat performance with the Matilda and was much cheaper to make.
In terms of looks, the Matilda II is my favorite tank of WW2.
Rommel decided to use the 88 mm against them in France. He was almost cut off from his supply lines because of these, he decided to use the 88 mm AA gun against them and was able to maintain his supply line until he halted near dunkirk. He did the same in Africa and was part of the reason the Tiger had an 88 on it. Rommel was so admired by the tank, he would often try to get them captured/repaired in Africa for his own Afrika Korps use.
The tank admired Rommel? 🤔
Yes, I remember seeing some photos of them in quickly applied German insignia in North Africa. One of the highest forms of praise for any combat system.
I think you what you meant to say was "Rommel so admired the tank, that..." or " Rommel admired the tank so much that..."
😁
Both sides used captured tanks
It's just how amazing it is to me all the vehicles and weapons produced during those times and how so many few remain. The quality of craftsmanship and labor that went into making them is kind of heartbreaking...
My guess.....and it is a guess......is that broken/damaged tanks were scooped
up to be repaired and/or used as steel for other tanks. Just a guess.
Same as ships after the war scraped for the steel
most stuff got turned into scrap even the one of kind like e100 hull was melted down by the brits though the yanks and Russians did not engage in that considering the panther 2 with g turret and maus still exist in thier museums
The thing you have to remember is that after 6 years of war most people and even the people that used these vehicles and planes were sick of them.They all wanted to move on. The stuff just wasn't wanted anymore. Most countries were bankrupt or broken. Saving old war weapons was not top of anyone's list 1946 to 1950. 80 years later we now look on these items with different eyes.
("Sgt. J.") Not ruth... "I'm borrowing her u-tube." I, agree. People all over sold what they could find for scrap, for food. Seeing here. On this. Many were knocked in to lakes, Rivers. Ponds... Lol. Just now being found. And, some cleaned up for display. The U.s. B-25 bomber had a ball on the front that could left. &, Right. I, have video that accidentally shows 1. Every other one has been scrapped by the air force. Only about 10 seconds of video. But, cool looking. Have a nice day. ✌️😀
People say infantry tanks are a dumb concept because they're slow but they aren't slow since they only need to travel at the speed of a person
There’s one at Townhead Park, Singleton,, NSW. 1st Australian Armoured Regt, 4 Troop A Squadron. New Guinea/Borneo Crew: Sgt Britten and Troopers Armstrong, Redman & Bell.
My great granddad was a mechanic in north Africa and he repaired tanks like this.
Loved the video, well done and very informative. The Matilda II is by far my favourite tanks from WWII. Thank you for giving it some of the spotlight. Have a 1/35 scale painted in desert dazzle camouflage on full display.
British tank development was far more chaotic and nonsensical than the impression one would get from the intro. Also, basically every British and German tank in the Africa theater lacked working HE ammunition.
There used to be one at the beach park in Gisborne, NZ. I couldn't get over how little room there was in the turret.
Yes there were a few all around New Zealand parks for kids to play in. There were also other tanks from memory.
I used to play in one when I was a kid. 🙂
The Flame thrower version know as the Crocodile was particularly effective in the liberation of Europe, but if you go to the Moscow memorial you will see a Matilda II displayed. Why, about 600 of them were deployed in the defence of Moscow in 1941. Were the Matilda’s of any use on the Eastern Front? All I know is Moscow didn’t fall.
The Churchill Crocodile flamethrower tank was based on the Churchill tank not the Matilda II which was call Matilda Frog of which 25 where built
USSR probably got them from the "Lend-Lease" program.
Uncle Fred drove one in the desert. Family say he drove one before escaping from Dunkirk but as he brought his rifle back with him I think they got confused about that and he was more likely driving a support truck at that stage. He was later converted onto the Churchill tank which he drove in the Normandy landings and on into Germany.
Much appreaciate the recent change on this channel to lower the intro music volume closer to that of the narration. Hasn't gone unnoticed :)
I remember reading an enjoyable novel 40 years ago called “Tramp in armour“ about Matilda and it’s cruel trying to make it to Dunkerque. It was written by Colin Forbes in 1969.
excellent book, one of my favs to read
Read book myself great reading
Read that a looong time ago - thanks for the memory!
Me too.
Me too
To clarify, there was no Matilda II built with a single engine. They knew it would need both, but it was still underpowered. It's cross-country speed of 6 mph was fine for advancing with troops but was a problem when getting it into position or getting it out of trouble.
Rather ironic to be going on about the thick armour and then to show an image of one with an f-off big hole in its glassis!
When the Matildas got in behind the German advance at Arras they caused a great deal of damage and only had to withdraw due to lack of support, leaving them vulnerable to Rommel's inventive use of 88mm flak guns in the anit-tank role.
Nice picture at 7:12. The Germans actually often adopted captured tanks into their own forces, including several of the similarly heavy armoured French Char B1s. This picture shows a Matilda in the process of changing hands a second time from Afrika Corps control back to the British. Go Tommies!
To clarify again, the Soviet Matildas weren't captured ones. The Soviets were Allies from mid-1941 to mid-45 and the British gave them about a 1000.
This actually wasn't a bad episode. The script may have been 99% wiki but it was largely correct and had pictures of the right tanks. Well done, don't let it be a one-off!
Another excellent episode. Thankyou for your awesome content.
I will never go back to tv documentary’s. I’m wishless happy.
3:25 Wrong the 2pdr gun was made to engage enemy tanks and did well against the early war German armor.. It's "close support" was limited as no High Explosive
ammunition was provided.
I worked at the Vulcan foundry when I left school, later names Ruston diesels, big site, lots of history, closed in the early 2000's
Nice video. That's the bigger cousin of the tank that was produced where I work in Montréal. I'm working in the old Angus Shops and that's where the Valentines were built. There are pictures everywhere on the walls inside. That's one tank you could cover on this channel as well.
Cheers, From Montréal :)
Speaking of Valentines, 0:15. That's a Val not a Tilly.
Imperial War museum in Manchester, UK has a matilda II on display the last time I went there, as well as an US Marine Harrier and a T-54/55 out front painted in white.
I loved this tank in Blitzkrieg game, it was very capable. Great channel 😉
The Matilda II was a massive upgrade to the Matilda I !
That is not exactly an accomplishment.
@@SueDoeNimh Just punting out the HUGE difference between the two.
The only thing in common is the name.
Wrong the Matilda II was a separate design produce by the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, whilst the Matilda I was designed Sir John Carden of Vickers-Armstrong. There were no similarities between the 2 designs.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 Exactly as I said then. A massive upgrade.
@@edwardfletcher7790 not an upgrade but an entirely new tank.
It was the Abrams of it's day. Heavy armor made it nearly indestructible when facing other tanks but it was so heavy that it lacked the speed to pursue other tanks and press it's advantage.
I just love all the Dark Channels, right up my Alley! Keep up the great work.
Then there was the matilda hedgehog, with 7 mortar tubes strapped to the back of it.
The tank was so sturdy that when run out of gas the British crews just drive it road shoreline and run,not attempting even destroying it, the damn thing was almost indestructible, in fact great numbers were captured by Germans and Italians in Africa this way and highly valued for them because it was a beast side by side the weak and tiny Italian Ansaldos.
The Italians loved Mathildas and Nicknamed it "La Donna Inglese" (The British Lady) and also the lest poétic"il gran cazzo" (the BIG "Ahem"!)
I thought leaving them at the shoreline was due to a complete logistical failure on their first attempted amphibious tank landing?
Like they wanted the tanks back, they weren't meant to be left there.
@@williamforbes6919 the problem was the lack of fuel on the North African Teather of war and the paradox that the tank was of so sturdy design that was very difficult to knock out it even by his own crews .
under pressure and risk of being captured,few men risk themselves to put the effort and time to destroy mechanical components or try to use explosives to blown it away.
besides the fact that germans had a big amount of spare parts from the BEF equipment captured in France.
Despite his weak cannon Mathilda was highly appreciated by both Italians and Soviets.
¿What better tribute for his brits designers that even your enemies bias you for your work?
Its the same case that Ak 47..pure Russian might and reliability.every Marine tries to have one at hand as a life insurance in case of battlefield muddy or sandy..
That's why you destroy them. Geez
I am old. I am tired of people forgetting history or key points of it... The Matildas in the battle of France were invulnerable, a young German leader had to put a pistol to the head of a anti aircraft unit to persuade them to use their anti aircraft 88mm guns on the invulnerable Matilda tanks! This same leader did the same in North Africa, Rommel... If he had not used his pistol on his own troops... WW2 could have ended in France, 1940! Because of the Matilda tank. This is a key underrated moment in history.
No, sorry the Matilda could in no way, shape or form have ended the war in 1940. The British tank force was too small, they could win locally but there just was not the capability on the allied side to go on the offensive and defeat Germany.
Even though Matildas were practically invulnerable to German tank guns and most antitank weapons, they were vulnerable to the 88mm gun, as Rommel already knew.
Arras was not the first time 88s were used in the antitank role - it was done in Spain during their Civil War.
Germany had far more 88s than Britain had Matildas. There were only 23 Matilda IIs and more of the useless (against tanks) Matilda Is at Arras, where incidentally they suffered heavy losses. A second battle would have seen the BEF run out of Matildas.
Besides the 88s, Matildas could be taken out by German artillery, bombing and even by infantry action. More importantly, wear and tear resulted in many tank losses and unless you held the field after a battle, a tank that threw a track or stripped a gear box was just as much a loss as one destroyed by enemy fire.
Just driving tanks around between actual battles resulted in losses. In North Africa most of the Matildas needed refitting after the initial frontier battles and a week's driving during the Compass offensive despite suffering few actual battle casualties. As the British were on the offensive, broken down tanks ended up behind the front line where they could be collected up and serviced. This was not the case in France, any broken down tank was left behind and lost.
'Tanks' for sharing your knowledge and expertise thank you and hello from Detroit Michigan USA Great video Brother 👍
The 2 pounder main gun was the equal of the German PAK 37 of the same era and later had the "Long John" squeeze bore extension fitted which increased velocity, being able to deal with the Panzer IV at close range. It was only because the turret could not mount the excellent 6 pounder that the tank was superseded
Sorry, but shouldn't that be the Little John Adaptor?
I believe the 2pdr high velocity Capped shells were capable of penetrating 3.5 inches at 400m (60°)
With the little John adaptor. Penetration increased to 4.1 inches of penetration at 400m. Still holding 2 inches of penetration at 1400m
The Panzer IV early had 2 inches of
Front armour and 1.5inches of side armour.
It wasn’t until 1941/42 it was boosted to 80mm on the front.
108mm of penetration at 400m in the vast open Plains of North Africa… is useless.
108mm of penetration in the tight hedgerows of Europe would have been deadly. Even to tiger tanks in 1944. Though the chance of meeting one side on was null and the Matilda’s lack of mobility to exploit said opportunity ultimately killing its career on the front line in Europe.
@@jugganaut33 Statistically 10% of tanks are taken out from from the front. It's one of the reasons you sometimes saw militaries not too concerned with the ability to penetrate frontally. The survival rate for a crew in an M4 was statistically the same as a Tiger crew. It's obviously harder no doubt, but when faced with the logistics of changing, often it was easier to just work around problems.
Enjoyed your video and I gave it a Thumbs Up as a support
there are a few matilda hulls scattered over farms in Australia, after they were retired, many were used for various agricultural/logging purposes
Wow ,would love to see photo's of these survivors
I also remember seeing what i recall was a lee/grant in the bush in WA. Was going to climb inside for a look but then it occurred to me that a snake might well have had the same idea.
@@daystatesniper01 th-cam.com/video/dkxrwzrLzsM/w-d-xo.html
and if you google "murrayville tank hull" the first result has some good pics.
there are other wrecks / hulls around but i cant remeber where i saw them on the net
@@andrewblake2254 i would have climbed in anyway, bang a rock on the side a few times to get them to scatter first :)
@@ravenof1985 yeah been thru Murrayville Victoria. Mainly Matilda hulls that have been converted to farm bulldozers. There is also some M3 Grant hulls as well.
Very enjoyable film. I've long had a soft spot for the Matilda since my days of doing Airfix kits. I believe the Matilda was limited in size so it could be transported by rail.
Love your videos. Keep them coming, Mr. Dark Buddy
Camp Borden in Ontario, Canada has a Matilda II, but it is not in running condition.
To see a Matilda in working order traverse a field or fire it’s gun would be such an amazing sight because of the rarity of the instance in this day and age. Imagine being inside that tank while completing some trials or diagnostics.
Nice work. Concise and well-organized.
The background music set exactly the right atmosphere. Where did you find it? I would like to sample more of it.
At 3:40 it says the Matilda used 7.92mm ammo...the same as used by the Germans so they could use captured ammo. What???? The Brits used .303's which is a completely different cartridge than the German Mauser...rimmed vs rimless despite sharing a nearly same bore diameter. Where did the 'use the same ammo' bit come from? Otherwise a good video.
The brits used 8mm mauser checzslovakian BESA mgs on tanks due to needing a rimless round and needing it yesterday due to the war
Guess what - multiple types of ammunition is common. And the Japanese used 0.303 British in about half their machine guns (the other half used a rimless derivative of the round).
@@donaldtrump6491 OK....I stand corrected. The early Matilda's used Vickers guns in 303 but you are correct in that the later ones used the BESA in 8mm Mauser. That was the one gun that used different ammo...must have been a logistic nightmare to feed everything and might have been easier to just make the gun use the same .303's...but it is what it was. Sorry for any confusion I might have caused.
@@recoilrob324 Adopted at beginning of the war take to long to redesign, only certain units needed the ammo so supply wasn't a big issue
Look at the quality of the picture at 4:38. Idk if it was remastered but it looks like a b & w picture we would take today. Awesome
6:02 The Photo of the Matilda II there is used for a 1:35 Tamiya Model Kit.
How do I know. I built it.
Awesome video!!
Matilda and kv were nasty surprises for the " superior race"
Love your content across all the Dark channels. I have learnt ALOT!
2:44 tests went so well! So minor changes just before production;
So we replaced it's heart, it's lungs, and it's legs. Ya know, small stuff.
Know the Matilda 2 well. Definitely an old favourite. Thanks for adding Australia in there.
First time I heard about Matilda II tank! I'm amaze.
A Matilda II is also on display at the Saumur museum (musée des blindés) in France. It is painted with a three-ton camouflage : light blue, sand and green.
I watched the Russian film 'White Tiger' last year and was surprised that in it, the Russians were using Matilda's. I since found out that these tanks *were* given to Russia as part of the land lease program and that there were at least a couple of them in Berlin in the last weeks of the war. I was really surprised about this.
Amazing tank! Also good shoutout to the Tank Museum :)
Highly angled nose, while not looking like it, there are storage boxes next to the tracks at the front making those v shaped lines on the front (seams) not just decorative.
Matilda is also a queen of the dessert....just a little trivia.
So, this is going to be only slightly related to the video at best. But the Matilda in WoT makes you feel like a god in the early game
Love your videos
how interesting. Those front "flaps" over the forward tracks (8:03). clever.
I always thought it was a shame they were unable to be up-armed with the 6-pounder,- that would have externded their service life
The turret was too small. And, the hull was of "caste" construction. Strong, but not open for change. Perhaps, a different change would've been to remove the turret and install an "open top" AA or SP gun..
There's even a Matilda Mk 2 nicknamed " Dover" on display ( along with numerous examples of the Sherman tank ) at Yad La Shiryon - Israel's armoured corps memorial and tank museum at Latrun
There's a big ranch here in Texas where you can go drive and shoot live rounds from various tanks in their private collection.
2 Matilda tanks created havoc at Arras in 1940. Destroying every enemy tank, AT gun and armored vehicle they encountered. The 2 pdr gun easily destroying panzers. Both tanks were only stopped by numerous hits and fire.
The Russians received thousands of them in late 1941 and 42.
You had some footage of them in action here
Romney had a personal bodyguard unit equipped with captured British vehicles, including Matildas covered in German crosses
Thanks for the tanks!
There is a Matilda II in Singleton NSW on the main road, as well as one at the singleton infantry museum.
My favorite version of the Matilda:
The Matilda Hedgehog
Really cool video!
From more detailed reading the story about the 2 pounder HE shell is a bit twisted. The round was not issued to British units for 2 reasons. Number one was the prevalent tank doctrine of the time. Number 2 was that the US made a superior HE shell, but the Soviets took more than 80% of the production for themselves. The Soviets had a war long love for the Valentine, having thousands of them - many with the 2 pounder gun
The British counter-attack at Arras in 1940 was with outdated Matilda 1 tanks, which only had machine guns, and a few of the brand new Matilda 2 tanks. The Germans fled in droves. In desperation the Germans turned a 88mm AA gun horizontal successfully against the Matilda 2 - their conventional anti-tank weapons and tanks could not penetrate the tank. The Germans made a solid shot for the 88mm AA gun to bust concrete bunkers in the Maginot line. The 88mm was not meant for anti-tank duties. The Matilda 2 would roll over German gun emplacements killing the gunners.
Rommel thought he had been hit by a force three times the size, which made them stop and rethink. The Germans countered with their superior numbers pushing back the British who fell back consolidating towards Dunkirk.The British resolve and the new Matilda 2 made the Germans sit up and think about a street fight in Dunkirk against a consolidated force still with its weapons and the new Matilda 2 - the large 88mm would be useless in Dunkirk streets while the Matilda 2 would be in its element, with the Matlida 2 easily destroying the Panzer MkIII & MkIVs. *The Matilda 2 could knock out any German tank at the time, while no German tank could knock it out.* The Germans were expecting the Matilda 2 to be shipped over in numbers and for all they knew many were in Dunkirk. The Germans could not stop the tanks coming as the RAF controlled the skies with a CAP and the RN the waters of the Channel.
They rant about the sloped armour on the T-34, as if the Soviets had been the first to think of it. However, the Matilda has a sloping glacis plate and hull sides, three years before the T-34 came out.Its replacement, the Valentine, did as well.
great channel
Reminds me of the Matilda in the book Tramp in Armor by Colin Forbes. I read it many years ago and vague now of the stories details but one point was clear was the tanks resilience.
There was another Matilda, who's driver's name was Leon ...
Is this spoken by AI?
0:09 - My back and tailbone really feel for the tank crew
matilda: the seal clubber in World of Tanks
Remember participating in 3 vs 3 battles with the three of us Matilda's shooting gold rounds like nobody's business. Tactics? Straight to the cap!
Do you have anything on the British ferret recon vehicle from WW II?
They're not as slow as you'd imagine. Some videos of restored Aussie Matildas screaming around the bush.
At 1:20 you can see where it got its name from. There was a cartoon comic character in Britain called Matilda the Duck and people thought the prototype looked like the Duck. This is the "danger" in the military, if a weapon gets a nickname early on, it often sticks and it has to become the official name of the weapon. For some reason, most British tank names start with "C". Comet, Cromwell, Churchill, Centurion, Chieftain, Conqueror, Cavalier etc.
Not that old canard (pun intended). The name comes from the project name given to the Matilda I by Vickers-Armstrong when the design specification was drawn up in 1935.
The only duck that I can find named Matilda is Matilde McDuck a relative of Donald Duck who first appears in 1950. I've not been able to trace a British duck called Matilda.
@@neiloflongbeck5705thats because it was named after DAFFY not DONALD? , as the matilda was designed and in the same year as daffy ducks first appearance so there is truth to the story...
@@wor53lg50 the A11 or Matilda I was designed in 1935 and Daffy Duck, another American duck, first appeared two years later. The A12 or Matilda Senior or Matilda II just continued to use the same priject name given it by Vickers.
40mm (2pounder) having "limited penetration" but is "siuted it's role as an infantry support"? What kind of boolshit is that? 2punder was one of the best AT guns of early WW2, easily penetrating all German tanks of that period. On the other side, it have no HE shell at that time, and when they finally produce it (in a second half of the war) it was pityfully small. So for infantry support task it was basicly limited to machine gun. If you compare it with f.ex early StuG III, with short barrel low velocity 75mm howitzer, Matilda II was useless as infantry support tank.
" Do you think we should put a big gun on it ? " .... British Generals: " There is nothing worse than a show off, old boy ! "
The size of gun was determined by the turret ring. At that point in the war the turret ring size was determined by the loading gauge of the railway network used to transport the tank.
I used to think Matilda was a stupid name for a tank, like they named it after an old maid. But after I saw Matilda May in 'Lifeforce' I had new respect for the name and even the tank. Its a really really really well-built tank, it really was.
i was wondering where you found the fotage of the matilda driving in sahara ?
No wonder the Germans were in a hurry to get the Tiger l with its' 88mm gun to North Africa.
Wasn't the Valentine also used through the entire war? It also one of the few tanks used on all fronts in the war
Almost but, technically, no. The Valentine entered service in 1940. It was undergoing trials at the time of the Dunkirk evacuation. The Matilda II is slightly earlier.
The British sure knew how to name their tanks! Matilda, Valentine. Fearsome names! The Germans only came up with silly names like Tiger and Panther. 🙂
In what universe is Matilda a fearsome name?! It's the name of an old woman. And Valentine? That's literally the opposite of fearsome, it evokes feelings of love.
Meanwhile the Tiger and Panther are both named after large, dangerous predators.
They saved all the cool names for their Fighter aircraft! Lol
Building a mild steel 1:1 replica would be a fun project. Who doest want their own tank
Unfortunately I was employed overseas when the Australian Government was selling off it's fully operational Centurion Mark 5s for around a paltry $25,000 a piece.
I would have purchased one, along with the accompanying parking problems.
Just make sure you don't use mild steel for the gun 😉
@@gone547 I remember one that used to be in the front yard of a house in Sydney's western suburbs on the old Hume Highway (i.e. before the motorway was built). I think it was around Liverpool or Campbelltown and everyone would always stare at it when driving past.
@@brucelamberton8819
there are still quite a few running examples around, last one I saw operating was at a Cooma motor show 10 or so years ago. I believe another was being used at one time in the rail museum at Dorrigo to move rolling stock around.
I'm not sure if it's the same one you're referring to, but there was a Centurion in an earthmoving equipment yard on the old Hume Highway at the edge of Liverpool, many years back. Stopped and approached the owner who gave me and the GF permission to climb all over it. He received pallets of spares and equipment, including the gunsight, IR and episcopes along with the tank and I had great joy for the next three hours showing him what went where.
Many purchasers made their money back, some a profit, by selling the 27 litre RR Meteor (basically a de-tuned Merlin) engines to American buyers for their power boats.
The smart ones made sure they had parked the hulls in an appropriate location before neutering them. They make great mailboxes, gateguards and conversation pieces.
Tanks for the memories.
Which voiceover software do you use?
The modifications carried out in Australian service included the mounting of a Hedgehog depth charge launcher in the front, for use on massed targets, while the Russians preferred to remove the main gun and replace it with a 3 inch weapon
In War Thunder, I was astonished to find I couldn't pen this tank with my Ha Go's 37mm :D
Gaming isn't reality.
@@snowflakemelter1172 tommyrot