Author Topic: Matilda II ideas and Inspirations  (Read 31801 times)

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Matilda II ideas and Inspirations
« Reply #25 on: November 28, 2015, 01:18:16 AM »
It might be possible to do an allied version of the Oswald with a 6 pdr, or more likely, a 75mm howitzer to provide HE support to the infantry and gun tanks.

Doesn't the Matilda II already have a turreted 3-inch howitzer option?

Yes,  The 2 Pounder mount could be swapped for a 3 inch Howitzer.  This was usually done in the British Army with the Squadron HQ vehicles.  In the Australian Army, entire troops were swapped.

Okay, fair comment. How about a 25 pdr then?

Nope.  The turret was too small to house the gun and it's recoil and the ring was too narrow to absorb the recoil.

The suggestion relates to a turretless assault gun version, a 3" howitzer was initially suggested but when it was pointed out that there was already a close support version with a turreted 3" the 25pdr was put forward instead.  No one was actually suggesting a 25pdr could be fitted to the turret of a Matilda II.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Matilda II ideas and Inspirations
« Reply #26 on: November 28, 2015, 01:20:19 AM »
On the other hand the 95mm was available in the Churchill V turret, which would fit.

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: Matilda II ideas and Inspirations
« Reply #27 on: November 28, 2015, 03:00:11 AM »
Limited room is why the IJA Type 1 75mm Ho-Ni I ended up with the gun mounted so high,
the later version improved protection but still had the high mount.



http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/jap/Type_1_Ho-Ni-I.php

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/jap/Type_3_Ho-Ni-III.php

BTW the Tamiya Pak 40 barrel fits perfectly on the 75mm Type 90 mount in their Ho-Ni I kit.  ;)

“Conspiracy theory’s got to be simple.
Sense doesn’t come into it. People are
more scared of how complicated shit
actually is than they ever are about
whatever’s supposed to be behind the
conspiracy.”
-The Peripheral, William Gibson 2014

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Matilda II ideas and Inspirations
« Reply #28 on: November 28, 2015, 03:24:29 AM »
the 'Infanterie-Panzerkampfwagen Mk II (e) mit 5 cm KwK L/42 ("Oswald")'.

That is probably closest to what I was thinking.  My thoughts with such a vehicle (and I again emphasise that practicality is able to be thrown aside here), centre on one of two basic scenarios:

  • The vehicle is an act of desperation whereby the Brits are desperate to upgun anything they have to counter the Germans.  This may result in existing Matildas being given bigger guns in open tops like that shown
  • The vehicle is the result of Matildas being left over after other more capable tanks were introduced.  In this case, the desire is to do something with a perfectly good hull.  One may even consider trying to fit a 17pdr in non turret form
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Matilda II ideas and Inspirations
« Reply #29 on: November 28, 2015, 03:30:58 AM »

the 'Infanterie-Panzerkampfwagen Mk II (e) mit 5 cm KwK L/42 ("Oswald")'.


BTW, speaking of the Oswald, clicking on the images below will take you to a model build of one:


All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Matilda II ideas and Inspirations
« Reply #30 on: November 28, 2015, 03:31:51 AM »
And just a nice picture... ;)

All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Matilda II ideas and Inspirations
« Reply #31 on: November 28, 2015, 03:32:44 AM »
On another track, what about a Air Defence Matilda?  Maybe even just give it a turret such as that shown here:

All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Matilda II ideas and Inspirations
« Reply #32 on: November 28, 2015, 11:08:23 AM »
On another track, what about a Air Defence Matilda?  Maybe even just give it a turret such as that shown here:



That's a turret I could imagine on a Churchill STUG

Offline Buzzbomb

  • Low Concentration Span, oft wanders betwixt projects
  • Accurate Scale representations of fictional stuff
    • Club and my stuff site
Re: Matilda II ideas and Inspirations
« Reply #33 on: November 29, 2015, 02:43:39 PM »
I like your cunning plan.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Matilda II ideas and Inspirations
« Reply #34 on: December 19, 2016, 11:51:18 AM »
Does anyone know of a more powerful engine that would fit in the Matilda?  I was a very small vehicle so I imagine there could be issues but surely something more powerful could have been fitted?

The other factor is the suspension, I know the Matilda was slow but could its suspension have handled higher speeds, i.e. 25mph?  Looking closer, fitting return rollers on top of the bogies could have helped and maybe rubber around the bogie wheels, could this have worked as well or better than replacing the bogies with HVSS?

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: Matilda II ideas and Inspirations
« Reply #35 on: December 19, 2016, 12:50:17 PM »
The 'engine' was two inline six diesels mounted side-by-side, not exactly a compact installation.


Two @ 87hp, 174hp total


Two @ 95hp, 190hp total

So supposing you could find a 200+ hp diesel engine that would fit, would it be available or would the supply
be tied up in powering something else? It was wartime and logistics ruled with an iron fist on the Allied side.

The Matilda II had "track carrying wheels" aka return rollers.


The Vickers suspension design was pretty much biased towards cross-country ride v. speed and I don't see how you
could speed it up without some major redesign.

By the time the HVSS suspension units were available en masse there would be no reason to fit them to a Matilda hull.
“Conspiracy theory’s got to be simple.
Sense doesn’t come into it. People are
more scared of how complicated shit
actually is than they ever are about
whatever’s supposed to be behind the
conspiracy.”
-The Peripheral, William Gibson 2014

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Matilda II ideas and Inspirations
« Reply #36 on: December 19, 2016, 02:23:49 PM »
Thanks for those scans, they are excellent and better than anything I have found.  I do wonder how it compares in size and weight to the GM 6046 diesel.  Another thought is whether the options developed for the Sentinel would fit, or maybe even the proposed DH aero engine concepts that were postulated a the time, should they be willing to drop diesel.

Interesting on the return rollers as that is what I assumed it had but had just watched The Chieftains Hatch Matilda video where he stated skids not rollers, just shows nobody is perfect.

The idea was based around a notional pre-war rearmament project to produce a modern infantry / medium, verses a cruiser tank in Australia, which likely would not see anything produced until after 1940/1.  They would need to set up production, make alterations and then would have had the chance to learn from the early years of the war.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2016, 02:36:05 PM by Volkodav »

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Matilda II ideas and Inspirations
« Reply #37 on: April 23, 2017, 12:33:04 AM »
Been playing the Commonwealth expansion in Hearts of Iron IV and they list the Matilda LP (Local Production) as a Light Tank.  Interesting, I suppose with its size, weight and armament it really was a light tank, only its protection setting it apart.  Now if we could just get more power and increase its speed it really could be a light tank.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Matilda II ideas and Inspirations
« Reply #38 on: July 30, 2017, 06:58:01 PM »
Was reading on another site and dumb me didn't save it but they provided the dimensions of the Matilda engines which actually turned out to have a larger volume than the meteor!  The site suggested that a version of the RR Kestrel could have been used to provide more power and it was also mentioned that the GM6048D was actually initially designed by a member of the British purchasing team sent to the US as a power plant for a proposed US built Matilda!  Wow, this site is the only place I have come across this information so have no details or sources but if correct it really opens a can of WIFFs.

Offline Old Wombat

  • "We'll see when I've finished whether I'm showing off or simply embarrassing myself."
  • "Define 'interesting'?"
Re: Matilda II ideas and Inspirations
« Reply #39 on: July 30, 2017, 09:19:47 PM »
Paul, I read (somewhere? :-\ ) recently that the Russians replaced the return rollers with return skids to simplify maintenance on their Matildas, although it's possible this was done by the manufacturers (Vulcan Foundry) to simplify & speed up the slow & skilled-labour-intensive manufacture.
"This is the Captain. We have a little problem with our engine sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and, ah, explode."

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: Matilda II ideas and Inspirations
« Reply #40 on: July 31, 2017, 12:20:06 AM »
Looking further into it, evidently early versions had rollers, later versions had skids.
“Conspiracy theory’s got to be simple.
Sense doesn’t come into it. People are
more scared of how complicated shit
actually is than they ever are about
whatever’s supposed to be behind the
conspiracy.”
-The Peripheral, William Gibson 2014

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Matilda II ideas and Inspirations
« Reply #42 on: July 31, 2017, 10:17:16 PM »
Seen some of them, they were great.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Matilda II ideas and Inspirations
« Reply #43 on: August 01, 2017, 02:56:47 AM »
Good pic of Matildas under construction at the Vulcan Foundry at Newton-le-Willows (about 30 miles from here, just north of Warrington).


From here: http://www.enuii.com/vulcan_foundry/ww2/photographs.htm

You can see both the bow shape without the stowage boxes and the small turret ring.


Looking at this image, I wonder if you could put two heavy guns in the hull fixed forward in a roughly similar set up to this:



Guns would be through where the stowage boxes are on either side of driver.  Remove turret of course and have a heavy tank destroyer result.
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Matilda II ideas and Inspirations
« Reply #44 on: August 07, 2017, 09:35:25 PM »
Getting excited imagining what a US Matilda would have looked like, how long it would have taken to design and get into production, and whether it would have been suitable for production instead of the M-2 or M-3 Medium.  We already have the GM6048D, could it have incorporated M-2 or M-3 suspension and tracks, we know a Churchill III/IV turret could have fit, with its 6pdr, therefore the rebored RO 75mm 6pdr tube and new breach should have fit?

The though that comes to mind is this cast hulled, vastly improved vehicle, designed for production in the US could have been produced in Australia instead of the Sentinel and in Canada instead of the Valentine or even the Ram.  With the more powerful engine and improved suspension it would have evolved into more of a heavy cruiser than an infantry tank, the use of these US developed systems would have made it possible to upgrade the vehicle with improved M-4 components instead of M-2/3 components.

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: Matilda II ideas and Inspirations
« Reply #45 on: August 08, 2017, 02:09:12 PM »
For the US Army to want their version of the 'tilly, you'd need the US Army to figure out how to use it first.  As the concept of the "I" tank never took root in the form the British had thought it out (and which the 'tilly became), you'd need to make it into the equivalent of the British Cruiser.   It would need improved suspension to allow a higher cross-country speed to be sustained as well as, of course a more powerful engine.   As the Churchill turret would not fit on a standard 'tilly hull, it would need to be wider to allow a larger ring to carry it.   The American 75mm gun would be adequate for most of the war.   If the standard Churchill could mount a 17 Pounder, then so should the American Churchill turret.   It'd end up looking rather like a lower, longer, wider 'tilly with a square moulded cast Churchill turret.

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: Matilda II ideas and Inspirations
« Reply #46 on: August 08, 2017, 02:44:10 PM »
To build on Brian's comments, in order to figure out what to do with a slow infantry tank,
the US Army would have to throw out all of their conceptions of offensive movement versus
static defense thar they had developed throughout the '20s and '30s, all of which was based on
their experience in WWI and a desire to prevent that deadlock from reoccurring. There was
no place for a slow infantry tank in any of their deliberations. The lesson that Britain took was
to protect the infantry in a set piece battle, the lesson the US took was to not engage in a set
piece battle. Ultimately, both were right and wrong. Sorry Paul, in the period you're looking at
a US Matilda is simply a non-starter, as there is no mechanical feature of the vehicle that would
appeal to the Army board, they would probably like the armour aspect, but they'd apply it to a
different vehicle.
“Conspiracy theory’s got to be simple.
Sense doesn’t come into it. People are
more scared of how complicated shit
actually is than they ever are about
whatever’s supposed to be behind the
conspiracy.”
-The Peripheral, William Gibson 2014

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Matilda II ideas and Inspirations
« Reply #47 on: August 08, 2017, 07:17:39 PM »
Guys you are missing the point, the US Matilda I am referring to is the Matilda the UK wanted the US (or anyone) to build for them, i.e. an easier to build improved version using available US components.  In the real world the US decided not to build foreign designs but to adapt US designs to foreign needs, but I have come across information that the UK requested the US build the Matilda and the British Purchasing Commission even developed the concept of the GM6048D, i.e. two bus engines arranged in the same way as the Matildas AEC and Leyland power plants, to power this improved Matilda.

On the Churchill turret, its turret ring diameter was almost identical to that of the Matilda making its adoption much easier than the Cromwell/Cavalier turret that was adapted to the Matilda.  Besides, this is an improved version using available US components that could have been ordered and shipped to Canada, or Australia for example and fitted to the adapted cast hulls that could be produced in those nations.  With the GM power plant and VVSS suspension the Matilda would not have been a slow infantry tank, it would have been superior to the M-3 in performance while lower, better balanced and better armoured.

This suggestion had nothing to do with changing US doctrine but rather getting a useful tank for the British Commonwealth.  Besides, an improved Matilda as described (GM diesel, VVSS suspension) would actually have been closer to the US Army's requirements than the M-3 actually produced and using these components would still have lead to the Sherman.

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: Matilda II ideas and Inspirations
« Reply #48 on: August 09, 2017, 12:37:38 PM »
OK, that is clearer.   However, while you now don't want to change US Army military theory, you need to change Industrial attitudes, which IMO would be nearly as difficult.   US industry would want to use as much US componentry as possible because it would be quicker and easier than trying to manufacture anew British componentry.  The Merlin is a good example of that.  It might have looked like a Rolls Royce Merlin and it might have worked like a Rolls Merlin but under the skin, it used US fasteners and components.  They were arranged in the same way but they were sufficiently different to the original Merlin that a completely new series of marks were assigned to them to differentiate them for the mechanics working on them.

I wasnt aware that the Churchill's turret ring was "nearly" the same diameter as the Mathilda.   You learn something new everyday.  While it might have made it easier to mount the Churchill turret, I somehow think that US industry would look rather askew at the Churchill turret.   No doubt they'd like to mount their own design of turret.   As for the weapon carried, the British were enamoured for quite a long time of mounting dual weapons - the 2 Pdr and the 3 inch How.  One for AP the other for HE/Smoke.   I could see the US manufacturers scratching their heads at that and preferring the 75mm.    Even so, the ring would be too small to fight from.   They would want a larger one for crew comfort and fightability.

They would sneer at the 'tilly's suspension.   They'd rather use the US standard VVS suspension.   So, ultimately, you'd end up with as I've said, a lower, wider, faster Matilda with a more powerful engine, a bigger turret and a bigger gun.   It would take about 2 years to design and develop to manufacturing standard.    It would be a good tank but it would not look like a Matilda.

As for manufacturing downunder, we didn't really have the manpower to sustain aircraft, ship building and tank building.   Particularly by 1942 which is when I'd expect this to come on line.   It was one of the major reasons why the Sentinel was dropped.   We redeployed the manpower to ship building, which was used in the offensive against Japan.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Matilda II ideas and Inspirations
« Reply #49 on: August 09, 2017, 09:28:53 PM »
I mentioned Canada and Australia as Canada produced the Valentine, Ram and Grizzly while Australia produced the Sentinel so both proved capable of producing tanks.  One of the key issues with the Sentinel was the difficulty Australia had obtaining the necessary machine tools and components that could not be sourced locally.  Combining the cast and bolted hull of the matildas and the cast turret of the Churchill IV would have been a good fit with the capabilities of Australian industry, building in US automotive and suspension components would have accelerated the entire program.

On the armament side of things, yes the US had the 75mm in the M-3 and M-4 but remember there was also a 105mm howitzer armed Sherman as well as the 75mm howitzer armed M-8, not that different to the 3" complement to the 2pdr, the 95mm complement to the 6pdr and 75mm and the 165mm was originally designed to complement to the 17 and 20pdr in a similar way.

This is what if, it is working backwards from a concept of what I would like to build trying to explain how it came about.  Discovering that the British desired an improved US built Matilda and that the GM6048D was conceived as a US alternative for the AEC and Leyland power plants, also that the basic engine bay was large enough for a Meteor or obviously anything similar or smaller, means that this build I have wanted to do for ages is becoming more and more believable.  Its gone from "that is impossible" to "this very nearly happened" making consideration of what could have pushed it over the threshold a reasonable proposition.  THe question is what was more likely, the US government letting a US company build a modified British design, the US exporting components and or tooling to aid in the building of the vehicle elsewhere.