Inside the Chieftains Hatch Matilda II Pt 1 - YouTube
Printable View
I always thought the Matilda looked like the most awkward heavy tank out there...and a little tiny gun.
Same here, what were they thinking with the mud shoots? Such a small tank to fit four men into also.
I honestly think they focused a little too much on trench warfare with the design, the Russians did a similar thing with the T-28 Tank,Quote:
Originally Posted by WarPig1976
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...05/t28_2-1.jpg
More of a rolling land battleship envisioned to trundle along with the Infantry and provide armour and loads of fire support. Look at ow long it is, imagine trying to pivot turn the thing, or attempting to not provide a full broadside target to an AT gun or another tank.
.......................However, the cannon was right for its light role;)
Perfectly, why bother to use HE rounds for infantry support, LOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gil Boyd
That makes for a very slow and expensive way to tote an MG around the battlefront.Quote:
One of the most serious weaknesses of the Matilda II was the lack of a high-explosive round for its main gun. A high-explosive shell was designed for the 2 pounder but for reasons never explained, it was not issued and the tank's best weapon against un-armoured targets was its machine gun.
Then of course, we have the Churchill Tank. The idea of a tank with a top speed of 15 mph seemed a very stupid idea even to a naïve 13 year old as I was when first I read about them. Link: A22 Churchill Tank - World War II VehiclesQuote:
Originally Posted by Sentryduty
As I recall though, weren't these planned when people were still thinking WW1 and not yet involved in WW2? The armor to be defeated was little more than boiler plate, thus 13 mm and .55 anti tank rifles... Germany also had the Mk1 tanks which were little more than MG carriers with full armor.
Indeed, however it's forgivable lessons, the idea of combined arms, (Infantry, Armour, and Artillery) operations were really in their infancy at the outbreak of WW2. Truly it is hard to imagine what the next war will be like, and many times doctrine is built off what the last war taught.
The same holds true today in many ways. Prior to my deployment to Afghanistan we trained as we always did, Cold War doctrine; Fire and movement, clearing zig-zag trenches, Fighting in Built Up Areas, tank hunting teams, and Mechanized Warfare, with a tiny sliver of time devoted to "new" ideas from observers in theater.
While all that training was mostly not applicable to the irregular operations of fighting a counter insurgency, we adapted our equipment, tactics, and SOP's on the fly. Mostly we made out all right. The biggest scar that could come away from that mission would be to re-gear our entire army to that style of fighting, which when met with a modern combined arms force would suffer poorly, and may even get chewed up and spit out by a 1960's vintage Russian Motor Rifle Division TO&E.
The Desert Raider small group mechanized patrols we conducted in 2006 would be smashed easily by an enemy with air support. Unless something has changed since my retirement, Canada has no MANPADS, or portable air defense systems, if my Platoon of 4 vehicles was discovered by an enemy attack helicopter it would have been a turkey shoot. Luckily the insurgent forces has no aircraft and the Coalition ruled the skies.
As always hindsight is 20/20 and for early Tank development, much of the direction of invention was geared to solving the trenches of France sort of problem. As things like tanks, attack aircraft, and long range artillery modernized from their WW1 birthright, the whole concept of static warfare became a very dangerous affair, and was quickly rendered obsolete outside of holding the seawalls of Normandy and similar places.
Mind you with A10's flying around gagging to engage anything that moves, no thickness of armour will stop those little beauties, very impressive little Warthogs