Jump to content


Inside the Chieftain's Hatch: Matilda II


  • Please log in to reply
78 replies to this topic

WeaponsCrate #41 Posted Feb 04 2014 - 07:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 92 battles
  • 13,207
  • Member since:
    03-02-2011

View Postkayjay, on Jan 22 2014 - 14:25, said:

Awesome,  there is one at the tank farm here but its being restored. 

 

Of interest -

the 2 pdr gun did not have an HE round.  Have to wonder about the thought process if its an infantry support tank maybe be able to shoot HE?

This is the A12, there was also an A11 Matilda I infantry tank that served in France.

 

The diamond insignia on the turret is part of the British tactical marking system. 

HQ was a diamond - this one has HQ also p[painted on, the  '4' is the troop number. 
A Squadron was a triangle, B SQN  by a square, C by a circle

 

The color of the symbol indicates the seniority of that regiment  in the brigade.  Blue in this case is the third most senior regt. 

"There is HE ammunition for the 2 pounder, and there is HE ammunition for the 6 pounder. But the 2 pounder is not exactly a weapon that will set the world on fire...it might take your toe off if you're incredibly unlucky." - David Fletcher, Operation Think Tank 2012.

 

Also Chieftain, is that a Renault FT I see in the background? It would be nice to see the inside of the world's first modern tank.



Xlucine #42 Posted Feb 04 2014 - 15:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 7663 battles
  • 7,603
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-03-2011

View PostWeaponsCrate, on Feb 04 2014 - 06:30, said:

"There is HE ammunition for the 2 pounder, and there is HE ammunition for the 6 pounder. But the 2 pounder is not exactly a weapon that will set the world on fire...it might take your toe off if you're incredibly unlucky." - David Fletcher, Operation Think Tank 2012.

 

Also Chieftain, is that a Renault FT I see in the background? It would be nice to see the inside of the world's first modern tank.

 

It existed, but was like hens teeth.



Whisky_Cardinal_Wes #43 Posted Feb 04 2014 - 19:22

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 13964 battles
  • 282
  • [SWISS] SWISS
  • Member since:
    06-07-2011
I wonder how many gunners had their shoulder dislocated from the gun bouncing up and down while going over rough terrain?

Toxn #44 Posted Feb 04 2014 - 20:24

    Captain

  • Players
  • 6131 battles
  • 1,718
  • Member since:
    10-25-2011

Facts so far:

1) No HE for the standard variant (40mm)

2) Only smoke for the howitzer variant (76mm)

3) Shoulder elevation

4) Gunner's sight without any sort of range markings (let alone a stadiametric rangefinder)

 

1 + 2 = someone had it in for either tankers or the infantry they were supposed to be supporting. I really can't decide which.

 

3 + 4 = can shoot on the move, but can only hit things within point blank range. No fine adjustment of elevation means that shooting beyond that is entirely dependent on the steadiness of the gunner's shoulder. God knows what happens when the vehicle rocks and sways due to recoil.

 

Summing up: now I know that the British were insane when it came to tank development. Hopelessly, utterly, scat-flingingly insane.



Xlucine #45 Posted Feb 04 2014 - 20:32

    Major

  • Players
  • 7663 battles
  • 7,603
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-03-2011
You make fine adjustment in elevation by changing the sight picture, you don't need a perfectly calibrated shoulder

ChumCreature #46 Posted Feb 04 2014 - 21:10

    Major

  • Players
  • 17776 battles
  • 4,557
  • [HPPO] HPPO
  • Member since:
    12-13-2012

You should sell these videos to the military channel or something. They're all just about long enough for a 30 minute episode. I guess 45 with commercials...

 

 

EDIT: Imagine those poor little kids who see the matilda's gun pointing at them while the chieftain plays with it.


Edited by ChumCreature, Feb 04 2014 - 21:12.


Telscher #47 Posted Feb 04 2014 - 21:12

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 50335 battles
  • 88
  • Member since:
    03-11-2013
chieftain, I know you're a tall guy. (You don't have to tell how tall, if you don't want to.) But, how tall was the average tanker? While I'm asking, how heavy was he? I'm guessing that smaller guys were tankers? And, thanks again for the cool video.  

Toxn #48 Posted Feb 04 2014 - 21:13

    Captain

  • Players
  • 6131 battles
  • 1,718
  • Member since:
    10-25-2011

View PostXlucine, on Feb 04 2014 - 20:32, said:

You make fine adjustment in elevation by changing the sight picture, you don't need a perfectly calibrated shoulder

I don't quite understand what you mean by this, but to me it sounds a lot like 'keep the sight centred on target as you would a rifle'.

which is fine, except for the bit where you need a steady hand/shoulder to do so.

 

Plus, you know, the whole complete-lack-of-range-markings thing. Makes shooting beyond a certain range literally guesswork.



ChumCreature #49 Posted Feb 04 2014 - 21:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 17776 battles
  • 4,557
  • [HPPO] HPPO
  • Member since:
    12-13-2012

View PostTelscher, on Feb 04 2014 - 15:12, said:

chieftain, I know you're a tall guy. (You don't have to tell how tall, if you don't want to.) But, how tall was the average tanker? While I'm asking, how heavy was he? I'm guessing that smaller guys were tankers? And, thanks again for the cool video.  

I only know that now a days the average person would be about 250 lbs. and 5'0"



Xlucine #50 Posted Feb 04 2014 - 21:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 7663 battles
  • 7,603
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-03-2011

View PostToxn, on Feb 04 2014 - 20:13, said:

I don't quite understand what you mean by this, but to me it sounds a lot like 'keep the sight centred on target as you would a rifle'.

which is fine, except for the bit where you need a steady hand/shoulder to do so.

 

Plus, you know, the whole complete-lack-of-range-markings thing. Makes shooting beyond a certain range literally guesswork.

 

I'm talking about adjusting fire at long range - you fire a round, see where it goes, and adjust fire accordingly.



Toxn #51 Posted Feb 04 2014 - 21:48

    Captain

  • Players
  • 6131 battles
  • 1,718
  • Member since:
    10-25-2011

View PostXlucine, on Feb 04 2014 - 21:25, said:

I'm talking about adjusting fire at long range - you fire a round, see where it goes, and adjust fire accordingly.

Which requires you to hold the centre of the sight on a single point, fire, adjust an unknown increment upwards/downwards to compensate, hold on that point and so on. Unless the gun has a very smooth locking mechanism (ie: locking down cannot shift the point of aim at all, ditto unlocking) then your accuracy is going to be totally reliant on the steadiness of the gunner's shoulders and his ability to judge things by eye.

 

 



Drakenred #52 Posted Feb 04 2014 - 22:03

    Captain

  • Players
  • 15243 battles
  • 1,781
  • Member since:
    08-14-2011

In all fairness to the developers, they realy did not see the tank as anything more than a mobile pillbox, and thoes realy did not need (and in fact given British Industry could not realy supply) a presision gearing mechanism for gun elivation in quantity for tanks at that time. and lets be blunt how many 40mm grenade launcher mounts nodways have anything like a percision controled mount.

 

however that still did not explain the blockheaded aproach to the issueing of ordiance.

 

I know theres some reasons behind it, (politics, and compared to a 6 pounder or 75mm a 40mm shell just does not contain that impresive of a charge,at 40mm they needed soemthing closer to an AP shot to even hope to out pillboxes and hardend targets)

 



Xlucine #53 Posted Feb 04 2014 - 22:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 7663 battles
  • 7,603
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-03-2011

View PostToxn, on Feb 04 2014 - 20:48, said:

Which requires you to hold the centre of the sight on a single point, fire, adjust an unknown increment upwards/downwards to compensate, hold on that point and so on. Unless the gun has a very smooth locking mechanism (ie: locking down cannot shift the point of aim at all, ditto unlocking) then your accuracy is going to be totally reliant on the steadiness of the gunner's shoulders and his ability to judge things by eye.

 

 

 

Hold the sight on target, remember where it was pointing in relation to the target. Fire, watch for the fall of shot (using the tracer in the round) and adjust where you're pointing it relative to the target to suit. No need to lock the gun, since you remember where the crosshairs were relative to the target



The_Chieftain #54 Posted Feb 04 2014 - 22:49

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 17669 battles
  • 10,004
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

Basically, it's Kentucky windage, like you would on a rifle.

FrozenKemp #55 Posted Feb 04 2014 - 23:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 60942 battles
  • 11,872
  • [ALLY] ALLY
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

18 degree maximum gun depression???? 

 

If only the in-game tank had that. :D 



LazyNinja #56 Posted Feb 05 2014 - 00:26

    Private

  • Players
  • 2961 battles
  • 1
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

If anyone is interested, here is a video showing Bovington's working Matilda rolling around:

 

http://youtu.be/HhrmYhsMmbA

 

Doesn't seem that slow. :tongue:



xt6wagon #57 Posted Feb 05 2014 - 01:55

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 5441 battles
  • 831
  • [RBP] RBP
  • Member since:
    02-08-2013

Can't wait for historical battles with the matilda in France and Africa. Now give me historical armor and gun depression.  I assume the down travel limiter for the gunner was smacking the barrel into the hull?  Was it possible for a Matilda to shoot itself like the T1/M6?

 



ED79Hamanasu #58 Posted Feb 05 2014 - 08:37

    Private

  • Players
  • 26212 battles
  • 2
  • [TIGR] TIGR
  • Member since:
    05-04-2013

I like this tank very mach.

I always use this tank  once at least when  I play W.o.T.

This video tells me many details about Matilda Ⅱ .

I could learn about many things which I do not know.

Thanks.



MrLuckyStrike #59 Posted Feb 05 2014 - 08:50

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 12681 battles
  • 155
  • Member since:
    01-06-2012
Matilda II is an absolute classic.

bluddnut #60 Posted Feb 05 2014 - 15:29

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 17834 battles
  • 58
  • [-MEC-] -MEC-
  • Member since:
    10-24-2011

Australia was actually one of the most prolific users of the mighty Matilda, right up until 1945, largely because they were so effective in the Pacific theatre. I am also pretty sure that our boys were issued with HE for this campaign (but I have no reference for this as yet). From the Australian War memorial website:

 

"... In the Pacific, though, where the Japanese lacked powerful anti-tank weapons and the rate of advance was governed by infantry pace, the Matilda proved to be very reliable. Only the heaviest Japanese artillery or mines could seriously damage a Matilda and it remained in service for the rest of the war. Matildas began arriving in Australia from the United Kingdom during March and April 1942, and continued to be delivered until the second half of 1943. In all, 409 Matildas were delivered to Australia... Following the lack-lustre performance of the 2/6th Armoured Regiment at Buna with Stuart light tanks, it was considered that a heavier tank, with thicker armour able to penetrate through jungle, was needed. Consequently, regiments from the 4th Armoured Brigade were equipped with Matildas...Some Matildas were modified into specialist vehicles. The Matilda Dozer was developed in 1944 and had a dozer blade mounted on its front. It could clear tracks under fire, level steep gradients, or construct river crossings. Several Matilda Dozers were used in operations on Borneo in 1945, as were Matilda Frog Flamethrowers. “Frogs” were Matilda tanks armed with flamethrowers, instead of a main gun, and had a crew of three people. The tank could propel a liquid-fuel flame range of 80 to 100 metres."

 

There was even a Matilda Hedgehog!!!

 

Great video of Matilda's in action as well...http://www.awm.gov.a...lection/F07232/

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users