Jump to content


Inside the Chieftain's Hatch: Matilda II


  • Please log in to reply
78 replies to this topic

gunnyhighway1 #61 Posted Feb 05 2014 - 16:37

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 39353 battles
  • 126
  • [SHWPK] SHWPK
  • Member since:
    01-06-2011

The Chieftain should do some PT regularly, climbing into the TC hatch put him out of breath.

A heart attack is as serious as an 88 mm shell!

 

Physical conditioning is inclusive of ensuring the perennation of those interesting video reports!


Edited by gunnyhighway1, Feb 06 2014 - 17:13.


doonglerules #62 Posted Feb 05 2014 - 16:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 5631 battles
  • 3,499
  • Member since:
    11-17-2011

illegal narcotics abuse?

What?



the_moidart #63 Posted Feb 07 2014 - 03:39

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 30587 battles
  • 2,155
  • Member since:
    10-22-2010

As a Matilda user in-game, I'm gratified to see how nifty the weapon system was.

 

Was the 2pdr Mk X-B ever seriously considered, or is it a WG invention? 121mm penetration seems rather high for a 40mm. Not that I'm complaining..



Dominatus #64 Posted Feb 07 2014 - 03:45

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 10311 battles
  • 13,790
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    12-21-2010
I don't believe it was ever considered for the Matilda, but it did exist and was used on the Tetrarch. And yes, it was insane because it basically turned a 40mm shell into a 30mm one.

favrepeoria #65 Posted Feb 07 2014 - 08:27

    Captain

  • Players
  • 36618 battles
  • 1,718
  • [RATM] RATM
  • Member since:
    06-08-2011
The barrel wear characteristics...and the number of things that could go wrong because of it...gives my engineering side the willys

Meplat #66 Posted Feb 07 2014 - 18:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 6776 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View Postfavrepeoria, on Feb 07 2014 - 00:27, said:

The barrel wear characteristics...and the number of things that could go wrong because of it...gives my engineering side the willys


"littlejohn" was a muzzle device. It took the brunt of the "squish" in lieu of the actual barrel.

Some additional erosion of the leade may have occurred because of the hotter propellant charge, but not to the extent you'd have seen with other Gerlich principle bores.

 

Worst case scenario may have been the launching of the adaptor downrange, or splitting it.



Snrub_MC #67 Posted Feb 10 2014 - 23:44

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 20160 battles
  • 735
  • [AP3X] AP3X
  • Member since:
    02-12-2012

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.

 

-No range/elevation markers in the sight

 

When I heard this I was wondering, can you not just use the coaxial machinegun, as a sighting rifle? or were the flight characteristics too dissimilar?  It would certainly be easier to aim, fire a short burst (with tracers ideally), adjust, then fire the main gun.



Bonesaw1o1 #68 Posted Feb 11 2014 - 02:35

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 13841 battles
  • 30
  • Member since:
    06-27-2011

View Postthe_moidart, on Feb 07 2014 - 13:39, said:

As a Matilda user in-game, I'm gratified to see how nifty the weapon system was.

 

Was the 2pdr Mk X-B ever seriously considered, or is it a WG invention? 121mm penetration seems rather high for a 40mm. Not that I'm complaining..


The mk X-B was a real gun and it was fitted to plenty of British tanks and armoured cars. The Mk X-B is essentially a modified MK X (MK X is a late war version of the 2 pounder with a forged barrel) , hence the B nomenclature, wherein the gun is fitted with a device known as a Littlejohn adaptor, which turns it into a squeeze bore weapon (like the 75mm konisch in the german tech tree).

granted with the Littlejohn adaptor fitted the 2 pounder needed to use specialised jacketed tungsten rounds to be fully effective, hence why it only has access to AP and APCR in game, 121mm of pen seems high (all the records I have seen settle on 88-90 mm of penetration) but that might just be a balance thing

for quick reading
http://en.wikipedia....ce_QF_2-pounder
http://en.wikipedia....tlejohn_adaptor



Xlucine #69 Posted Feb 11 2014 - 02:49

    Major

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

It's monday...



Meplat #70 Posted Feb 11 2014 - 19:15

    Major

  • Players
  • 6776 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View PostSnrub_MC, on Feb 10 2014 - 15:44, said:

 

-No range/elevation markers in the sight

 

When I heard this I was wondering, can you not just use the coaxial machinegun, as a sighting rifle? or were the flight characteristics too dissimilar?  It would certainly be easier to aim, fire a short burst (with tracers ideally), adjust, then fire the main gun.


The Brits did that later with the Chieftain, using the .50" as the spotter for the main gun.



Toxn #71 Posted Feb 11 2014 - 20:01

    Captain

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

View PostMeplat, on Feb 11 2014 - 19:15, said:

The Brits did that later with the Chieftain, using the .50" as the spotter for the main gun.

Ballistic matching = magic



the_moidart #72 Posted Feb 11 2014 - 23:11

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 30587 battles
  • 2,155
  • Member since:
    10-22-2010
You mentioned its hard to stand on the tank, and we all saw how hard it was to open various coverings. Could this be part of why it was popular against the Japanese? More resistant to being swarmed?

Aureolus #73 Posted Feb 12 2014 - 00:11

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 36190 battles
  • 19
  • [BBICT] BBICT
  • Member since:
    09-04-2012

sir, you've implied that there is a significant difference between "newer" tank design and those you have demonstrated to date. How about showing us some more current tanks and how things have improved (worsened) over time?

Bonesaw1o1 #74 Posted Feb 12 2014 - 00:12

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 13841 battles
  • 30
  • Member since:
    06-27-2011

View Postthe_moidart, on Feb 12 2014 - 09:11, said:

You mentioned its hard to stand on the tank, and we all saw how hard it was to open various coverings. Could this be part of why it was popular against the Japanese? More resistant to being swarmed?


Resistance to being 'swarmed' wasn't really a deciding factor in the popularity of the Matilda in the Pacific. This is because at the time the Matilda was introduced the Japanese didn't really do the 'swarm' infantry assaults that they became infamous for later-on, mainly because tanks weren't common in the early stages of the pacific theatre and their 37mm Anti-tank guns were generally sufficient to take out most armour they encountered. The tank assaults generally start to appear when things like the M4 Sherman, which had enough armour to resist most Japanese Anti-tank guns, start appearing in enough numbers that the only real way they can be destroyed is for Japanese infantry to assault them with grenades and improvised Anti-tank charges 

The reason why the Matilda was popular in the pacific has more to do with what other tanks were available. At Buna the 2/6th Australian Armoured regiment was issued with a small amount of M3 light tanks, but they proved ineffective as their speed was virtually useless in the jungle conditions (their track gauge and suspension also meant they tended to get bogged and jammed up in the swamps) and their armour was not sufficient to resist Japanese anti-tank guns. The Matilda had enough armour to be virtually immune to most common Japanese anti-tank weapons while its 40mm could penetrate every Japanese vehicle it encountered (mainly things like type 95 Ha-GO and type 97 Chi-Ha) and its bulkiness and running gear proved better suited to jungle fighting as it could barge through most undergrowth and tended to get bogged less, these were the main reasons for its popularity.
This all has to do with the fact that the Supply of tanks from America and Britain to Australia was extremely poor, Britain being in desperate need for tanks could only spare very few tanks, although as the Matilda become obsolete in the European theatre more became available to Australian forces (some Australian Matildas are notable for a raised armour collar around the turret, that is because these hulls were originally built for the cancelled 'Matilda Black Prince' upgrade' and then shipped to the pacific to fill requirements).
Many of the M3 mediums and M3 lights that were delivered had either been deemed unsatisfactory for US army use or had been left over from the end of production runs and as such were often defective or incompletely assembled, the result being that many of them required months of maintenance upon delivery to make them battle worthy, and many were earmarked as unsuitable for use or only suitable for emergency usage.

Essentially out of the tanks available to the Australian Armoured units the Matilda was the only one proven to be both effective and dependable in the jungle environment.

 



Xlucine #75 Posted Feb 12 2014 - 00:57

    Major

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

View PostAureolus, on Feb 11 2014 - 23:11, said:


sir, you've implied that there is a significant difference between "newer" tank design and those you have demonstrated to date. How about showing us some more current tanks and how things have improved (worsened) over time?

 

A hatch on M1 would be interesting as hell, but not as entertaining as the smaller vehicles currently being covered.



Cragger #76 Posted Feb 20 2014 - 22:53

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 13847 battles
  • 1,113
  • Member since:
    07-07-2010

View Postthe_moidart, on Jan 28 2014 - 18:37, said:

I'm not sure that's true. I think its still pretty hard to penetrate the front hull head on, whereas I've gotten myself killed many times while angling.

 

Anyway, nice to see the MVTF again. I'll be lucky enough to see this tank and all the others in a few days from now! :D

 

It is, if you check the collision models the front hull of the Matildas are modeled as a horizontally flat glacias as if the stowage boxes are armored hull. I'm not at all surprised that this error was made because despite myself having a fondness and many books on the Matilda II I never knew that was stowage area either. The reason you get penned more angling in the Matilda II in game is the flanks of the upper stepped front are angled less then the part in front of the driver. 



Vollketten #77 Posted Feb 22 2014 - 04:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 35164 battles
  • 8,672
  • [----] ----
  • Member since:
    12-26-2011

Nice view of those covers

This is France in 1940:

(also nicely shows that the front vertical part is much smaller than modelled by WoT)


Edited by Vollketten, Feb 22 2014 - 04:39.


Anlushac11 #78 Posted Mar 14 2014 - 13:56

    Major

  • Players
  • 44610 battles
  • 2,424
  • Member since:
    05-25-2013
I have read that in frustration for lack of HE rounds some UK tankers with 2lbr's pulled some of the AP projectiles out of the casings, filled casing with gravel, and covered end with axle grease to keep gravel from falling out. Made a ad hoc "shotgun" round.

Edited by Anlushac11, Mar 14 2014 - 13:57.


FangTheCat #79 Posted Apr 08 2014 - 15:17

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 4843 battles
  • 456
  • Member since:
    09-10-2012

I have read somewhere that the lack of HE was mainly due to the configuration of the internal stowage - you could either have AP or HE but not a mixture of both.

 

And in theory the lack of HE would be covered by Artillery support (of which the Brits had loads)

 

I must admit that does seem really shortsighted though.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users