Your favorite AFVs: what the designers got wrong?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Matilda Scorpion flail tank



Close-up view of the revolving drum and chains at work on a Matilda Scorpion flail tank
 
I have just been going through earlier posts on this thread and found a couple of guys liked the Comet. I had thought that at some point the Comet was being issued to British units in December 1944. So I checked and found that they were being delivered to the 11th Armoured Division - who were training on them and called back to Shermans to due the Battle of the Bulge emergency.
It would have been interesing if they had been able to re-train and use the Comet during this offensive?
 
I think the later Centurion rebuild hinted at earlier in this thread, by the Isrealis might be to do with the Namhon or similar-ish named; a HIFV/Medium-APC, A turretless Centurion chassis, with rear crew access and frontal engine and transmission... one of the toughest APC/Heavy Infantry Fighting Vehicle.
While I don't agree with their ultra-right politcs ethics, their understanding and creating armour know how is inspired and commendable even if its used sometimes wrongly.
 
The APC conversion of the Centurion is Nakpadon, it does not feature the front engine and transmision. The heavy APC in the layout you're mentioning is the Namer, a Merkava based vehicle. For an "engine front, infantry back" APC version of Centurion, we need to cross a border, Jordanian Temsah APC is the vehicle you might want. Me likes.
 
The Infantry tank A12, Matilda II,had to small a turret ring making upgunning inpractical. A real shame as the only thing that could effectivley penetrate it in the early yeafrs was the 88. Also hampered by the lack of HE for the 2pdr.

And that was something that with hindsight should have been sorted. 40mm HE existed for the Bofors so why couldn't they create one for the 2pdr which was a 40mm gun.
 

HE ammo was available after all the 40mm Pom pom had HE shells but it doesnt seem to have been issued because the explosive effect was about the same as a hand grenade. Still anything should have been better than nothing.
 
Ascent said:
The Infantry tank A12, Matilda II,had to small a turret ring making upgunning inpractical.
Click to expand...
Forgive me for my pedantry but the A12 was eventually fitted with a Cavalier 6 pounder turret but, by that time, the production resource costs of the A12 made it a far better choice to simply build Cavaliers/Cromwells.
 
A recovery team works on a Valentine tank of 30th Armoured Brigade, 11th Armoured Division, which broke down in a stream during exercises near Kirkby Lonsdale in Lancashire.
 
A US Army tank crew take a break somewhere in Tunisia.


Man, that huge side hatch had to be a real weak point. I wonder what the smallest caliber gun would be able to blow that thing off. I bet an 88 would take it off and leave a nice clean, round hole right through it.
 
Last edited:
yulzari said:
Forgive me for my pedantry but the A12 was eventually fitted with a Cavalier 6 pounder turret but, by that time, the production resource costs of the A12 made it a far better choice to simply build Cavaliers/Cromwells.
Click to expand...

I'll make a comment about supposed high cost of Matilda.
UK have had produced many tanks during the ww2, that never were battlefield-worthy, hence Matilda should look like dirt cheap compared with the effort to design, test produce those.

And, indeed, it was fitted with 6pdr, 3 men turret, unfortunately just as a prototype.

added: the table showing the volumes of certain parts of the tank. Shows why there are good reasons for Valentine kinda struck the wall when upgrades are concerned. (open the picture in separate tab, for hi-res)

 
Last edited:
Tomo may have left out the "r" "struck the wall".

But the chart quite clearly shows the problem, there is just no place to put "stuff" without redesigning and enlarging the vehicle which does away with a large part of starting with it to begin with.
 
Ooops, indeed the 'r' got lost. I'll edit the post

As for the 'parts', better term should be the 'compartment', ie. 'engine' compartment (not 'engine' part).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

What is a Quonset Hut?
Replies
14
Views
795
HP52
H
Favorite "obscure" theater or World War II to research?
Replies
9
Views
1K
EwenS
E
W
What effect would a cross channel tunnel have on WW2?
Replies
17
Views
873
Airframes
S
M2 Brownings on tanks, AFVs, trucks, jeeps, sidecars or bicycles.
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
Snautzer01
O
British Balloon Bombs in the Balkans, Summer 1943?
Replies
4
Views
377
Old MacDonald
O
Menu
Log in
Register