British Matilda II tanks knocked out at Halfaya Pass examined by Rommel and Bastico in 1941

[hw97karbine]

View: https://rumble.com/v6rszqj

Operation Battleaxe was a British Army offensive in June 1941 aimed at raising the Siege of Tobruk and recapturing eastern Cyrenaica from German and Italian forces. It was the first time during WWII that a significant German force fought on the defensive. The British lost over half of their tanks on the first day and only one of three attacks succeeded.

The British achieved mixed results on the second day, being pushed back on their western flank and repulsing a big German counter-attack in the center. On the third day, the British narrowly avoided disaster by withdrawing just ahead of a German encircling movement. The failure of Battleaxe led to the replacement of British General Sir Archibald Wavell, Commander-in-Chief Middle East, by Claude Auchinleck; Wavell took Auchinleck's position as Commander-in-Chief, India.

Italian commander-in-chief in North Africa Ettore Bastico is seen with General Erwin Rommel examining the aftermath of the engagement, these vehicles likely belonging to the 4th Royal Tank Regiment that was badly mauled by the 88mm guns of 1./Flak-Regt.33. The latter unit claimed no less than nine 4th RTR Matilda IIs knocked out on June 15th.

The Matilda II was heavily armored by contemporary standards when introduced but was no match for the 88mm Flak gun when deployed in the anti-tank role. The latter could penetrate the former's armor from any angle at ranges beyond 2000 meters. The two Axis commanders focus on Matilda II T.6814 that has taken a solid 88mm hit to the top edge of the hull. The armor at this point was around 70mm thick while when firing APCBC shells the Flak 18/36/37 could penetrate just over 80mm of armor at a range of two kilometers.

Detail of the impact in question:

 

[Gnomey]

Good one!

 

[Admiral Beez]

Imagine the Matilda in Malaya against peashooting IJA tanks.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Imagine the Matilda in Malaya against peashooting IJA tanks.

Before or after bogging down?

 

[EwenS]

Before or after bogging down?

You mean like the problems the Australians DIDN'T have operating the Matilda in the jungles of New Guinea, Bougainville and Borneo between 1943 & 1945?

Matilda II in Australian Service - Tank Encyclopedia

The Matilda Infantry Tank saw service with the Australians during the fighting in the Pacific, being largely appreciated in the difficult jungle combat.

tanks-encyclopedia.com

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

You mean like the problems the Australians DIDN'T have operating the Matilda in the jungles of New Guinea, Bougainville and Borneo between 1943 & 1945?

Matilda II in Australian Service - Tank Encyclopedia

The Matilda Infantry Tank saw service with the Australians during the fighting in the Pacific, being largely appreciated in the difficult jungle combat.

tanks-encyclopedia.com

Calm down, dude. It's called a "joke" and I'm wont to crack one or two on occasion.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Calm down, dude. It's called a "joke" and I'm wont to crack one or two on occasion.

All in good fun. In Malaya the thin skinned IJA tanks seem to have raced down the open roads installed by the British and locals. Imagine if these Aussies, shown manning their 2pdr and killing IJA tanks down the road had a squadron of Maltidas beside them.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

All in good fun. In Malaya the thin skinned IJA tanks seem to have raced down the open roads installed by the British and locals. Imagine if these Aussies, shown manning their 2pdr and killing IJA tanks down the road had a squadron of Maltidas beside them.

View attachment 829597

I have no doubt Matildas could take on any Japanese tank, to good effect, assuming competent leadership. Wouldn't want to have to move down the road much, so you'd better deliver the knuckle in right there. Mats weren't fast.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I have no doubt Matildas could take on any Japanese tank, to good effect, assuming competent leadership. Wouldn't want to have to move down the road much, so you'd better deliver the knuckle in right there. Mats weren't fast.

It's not that slow. Here's some footage of a Matilda on the run. Though to be fair, in the first two, we seem to be going downhill.


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_cElLzHYr3s&pp=ygUMbWF0aWxkYSB0YW5r


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNpBHjEgbxE


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK548F9Bpn8

It's the lack of HE that's the bigger issue. I don't believe there's any British tank at this stage smaller than a Churchill that had a HE shell.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's not that slow. Here's some footage of a Matilda on the run. Though to be fair, in the first two, we seem to be going downhill.


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_cElLzHYr3s&pp=ygUMbWF0aWxkYSB0YW5r


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNpBHjEgbxE


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK548F9Bpn8

It's the lack of HE that's the bigger issue. I don't believe there's any British tank at this stage smaller than a Churchill that had a HE shell.

Off-road, 8 or 9 mph, on pavement, 15-16 mph.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Off-road, 8 or 9 mph, on pavement, 15-16 mph.

IDK how original or heavy the above example is, but this Matilda is moving sufficiently fast through the woods to be useful in Malaya, provided away from the dense jungle. If I were an IJA soldier I'd be concerned if a group of these came up the hill to my front.


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SxyjkwBPIVU&pp=ygUMTWF0aWxkYSB0YW5r

Descriptions of the Matilda sometimes give an impression that it's a ponderous slow coach, akin to an updated Great War lozenge tank. But no, the Matilda was fast enough to support mobile warfare in Malaya.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

IDK how original or heavy the above example is, but this Matilda is moving sufficiently fast through the woods to be useful in Malaya, provided away from the dense jungle. If I were an IJA soldier I'd be concerned if a group of these came up the hill to my front.


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SxyjkwBPIVU&pp=ygUMTWF0aWxkYSB0YW5r

Descriptions of the Matilda sometimes give an impression that it's a ponderous slow coach, akin to an updated Great War lozenge tank. But no, the Matilda was fast enough to support mobile warfare in Malaya.

My numbers were regarding that Mattie II. I'm not sure how much dense jungle there is in Malaya. Of course tanks coming over a rise would be worrisome, but think about putting and keeping them there, and what that entails. Fast enough to comb through forest or jungle? I'm not so sure.

The Japanese had a better conception of mobility in this terrain than did the British, there's no doubt about that. They often didn't use trails or tracks at all, and infiltrated through the wildlands. Additionally, and very importantly, the lack of an HE shell for the 2-pdrs hamper their usefulness against infantry attacks. I bet a canister round would have been useful, but did the Brits have one for the 2-pdr at this stage? I've never read of it.

 

[Admiral Beez]

the lack of an HE shell for the 2-pdrs hamper their usefulness against infantry attacks. I bet a canister round would have been useful, but did the Brits have one for the 2-pdr at this stage? I've never read of it.

A 2-pdr canister would have been interesting to see. The similarly sized 37mm M3's cannister fired 122 3/8-inch steel balls to an effective range of 250 yards, with an estimated 25 rounds per minute (that's likely on a carriage, not confined to a tank). WWII Weapons: M3 37mm Antitank Gun

But a Matilda would still be good in Malaya, as its armour and 2-pdr will easily defeat any approaching Type 95 or Type 97 tanks, while the coaxial, turret-mounted 7.92 mm Besa machine gun will clear the field of infantry.

 

[Shortround6]

Early war BESA guns had a lever on the side to change from 450-550rpm to 750-850rpm. They were feed by 225 round belts.
They were a formidable tank machine gun. Very heavy barrel allowed for a high volume of fire.
For comparison the standard Japanese tank machine gun was fed by a 20 round box.

While a cannister round might have been useful, a HE round would have been better (at least it worked at longer ranges if needed).
Tanks were going to carry only a few cannister rounds at time.
2pdr armed tanks did use their AP ammo for bunker busting. AP is near useless against troops in the open and not good against normal weapons pits. But they are helpful against log reinforced dug-outs/bunkers. Some of them were resistant to small HE rounds unless the HE round went through the firing slit. It took a number of shots but the 2pdr AP could enlarge the weapon slot and/or collapse the roof (partial?).
Scale of issue of rounds is important.

The American canister only worked on troops in concealment, not cover.
For comparison a British 18pdr shrapnel shell held 327 balls (it should, it was much larger) but they used balls that were 41 balls to the pound, just about .5in and they were a lead/antimony alloy of a 7:1 ratio.
Shrapnel shells would work on light cover in addition to concealment. The worlds armies before 1914 had worked out the size balls needed to penetrate certain thickness of light steel that were used as gun shields. Some armies favored slightly larger balls for better penetration, some favored slightly smaller balls for more balls per round.
Steel balls are going to light for their size so they loose velocity quicker.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The American canister only worked on troops in concealment, not cover.
For comparison a British 18pdr shrapnel shell held 327 balls (it should, it was much larger) but they used balls that were 41 balls to the pound, just about .5in and they were a lead/antimony alloy of a 7:1 ratio.
Shrapnel shells would work on light cover in addition to concealment. The worlds armies before 1914 had worked out the size balls needed to penetrate certain thickness of light steel that were used as gun shields. Some armies favored slightly larger balls for better penetration, some favored slightly smaller balls for more balls per round.
Steel balls are going to light for their size so they loose velocity quicker.

I also wonder what it did to the rifling and barrel life. I assume, unlike today's tanks below (note kangaroos at 0:50), at the time the technology did not ensure the canister contents remained inside the casing until they left the barrel.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJFEXdraEg0