Matilda II

[Sentryduty]

Same here, what were they thinking with the mud shoots?

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.

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.

[Gil Boyd]

.......................However, the cannon was right for its light role

[Sentryduty]

.....................However, the cannon was right for its light role

Perfectly, why bother to use HE rounds for infantry support, LOL.

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.

That makes for a very slow and expensive way to tote an MG around the battlefront.

[Paul S.]

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,

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.

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