Information
Warning: This is a relatively older thread
This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.
Information
Warning: This is a relatively older thread
This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.
I always thought the Matilda looked like the most awkward heavy tank out there...and a little tiny gun.
Regards, Jim
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,
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.
- Darren
1 PL West Nova Scotia Regiment 2000-2003
1 BN Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry 2003-2013
.......................However, the cannon was right for its light role
'Tonight my men and I have been through hell and back again, but the look on your faces when we let you out of the hall - we'd do it all again tomorrow.' Major Chris Keeble's words to Goose Green villagers on 29th May 1982 - 2 PARA
Perfectly, why bother to use HE rounds for infantry support, LOL.
That makes for a very slow and expensive way to tote an MG around the battlefront.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.
- Darren
1 PL West Nova Scotia Regiment 2000-2003
1 BN Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry 2003-2013
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 Vehicles
Last edited by Paul S.; 05-05-2016 at 01:30 PM.
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.
Regards, Jim
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.
- Darren
1 PL West Nova Scotia Regiment 2000-2003
1 BN Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry 2003-2013
The odd thing is that "combined operations" were introduced by the British Army in WW1. The father of the "art" was Australian General Monash, who was aghast at the "meat-grinder tactics in use, especially with his relatively tiny contingent of Australians. The battle of Hamel was a good demonstration of the technique. Artillery, air, armour and infantry were organised to operate in UNISON, not in free-wheeling penny-packets.
British theorists Maj. Gen. Fuller and Capt. B. Liddel-Hart further refined the process that so impressed the beaten Germans, that if formed the core of their concept of "Blizkrieg" in later conflict.
Sadly, the very people who had developed "Blitzkrieg" were sidelined and thus the "Matilda" whose only real asset was reasonably thick, (for its time) armour; the dinky main gun and "walking-speed" mobility, not so much. Australia used a small fleet of Matildas quite successfully in the Pacific campaign. Japanese tanks were generally less bullet-proof than most allied light armour of the era. However, the Japanese, like their friends in Germany, quickly worked out that, whilst their "anti-tank" guns were ineffective against the Matilda, their bigger anti-aircraft guns, 75, 90 and 120mm would mess up the day of a Matilda crew, and even moreso , the poor, dumb bastards sent into an assault along defended airfields in the much faster, but much flimsier M-3 Stuart light tanks.
It was all a bit shaky at first, but by early 1918, "Combined Arms" was the done thing. The other innovation at the time was the "silent offensive" as introduced by the Australian contingent. This involved NO saturation bombardment prior to an assault, hence not much warning to the intended victims. It also involved a steady stream of "packets" of heavily-armed infantry quietly moving into any and every nook and cranny and as close to the objective as possible, including right inside if they could manage. Bypassing "islands" of Germans was the norm. This method was later demonstrated on an enormous scale, (just not as quietly), in the U.S. Marines "Island Hopping' campaign in the Pacific in WW2.