Matilda II ideas and Inspirations

[Old Wombat]

The more I read this the more I'm looking at my Tamiya Matilda II with a Scratch'n'Bash mindset.

I'm thinking an Australian built tank in my RAM's universe, in which Australia has a larger population & is more industrialised post-WW1. Basically a heavy-cruiser type to operate in Australia in Australian conditions (from desert, to arid tropics, to high country, to tropical jungle & rain-forest) using a beefed-up Horstmann type suspension system (pretty much a HVSS) but based on the Matilda II hull & turret (more by accident than design in this universe), only larger & with a better engine (I'm still working on that, but probably diesel & probably American).

To get some extra range for open plains operations I'm thinking the initial armament will be an indigenous design based on the QF 3-inch 20 cwt.

Entering service somewhere between 1938 & 1940.


*******************************************************************************************************************

This is annoying, as I only have one Matilda II in the stash & will need to buy another to fulfil this idea & build a stock-standard(ish) version.

[apophenia]

Not quite what's being talked about but here's a rough reworking of an upgunned Matilda with US running gear ... based on models by Panzerserra -- a Matilda II (6 pdr) and a Skink (with Grizzly tracks).

[Volkodav]

 

[Volkodav]

I just bought the New Vanguard Churchill book on Kindle and low and behold the A20 was designed with as 54" diameter turret ring to take the Matilda II turret. The A22 (Churchill), that was developed from it, retained the same turret ring diameter, due to the track sponson design making it impossible to have a larger diameter.  Interestingly many of the original Churchill turrets were manufacture in the US.

Extrapolating this, a minimum change local production matilda II in Australia, Canada or even the US could be easily turned into something superior to the M-3 Grant in the same sort of time frame, using US engines and suspension and even US manufactured Churchill turrets.  Later versions replacing the 2pdr with a 6 pdr and then a 75mm.

[Volkodav]

Question, could M-3 / M-4 suspension be retro fitted to the Matilda II?

Thinking about my post on the M-3/M-4 topic and upgrading the Australian M-3 fleet for service into the 50s and the info on ANZAC Steel ref the post war use of the M-3. Those retained post war were all GM 6046 diesel powered and had been fitted with M-4 suspension.

The GM 6046 was designed for a proposed US built Matilda so should have fitted in the UK built Matilda, the Matildas suspension was bogie type, fixed to the hull sides, like that of the M-3/M-4 and the Matilda had the same turret ring diameter as the Churchill.

I have extrapolated all of this previously for an Australian production "Matilda Medium Tank" but am now thinking in terms of a remanufacturing program, perhaps post war but maybe even starting during the war, to produce a higher performance, more reliable and overall more capable Matilda from existing stocks, using existing parts pools.

Rebuilt Matilda post war Matilda-
GM 6046 engine (plus new transmission?)
M-4 suspension
Churchill turret (MkVII with 75mm and Mk VIII with 95mm)

Sounds crazy but then again Australia had tank production facilities and look what Brazil did to the M-3 Stuart.

[jcf]

Looking at photos of Matildas being constructed and under restoration and it looks
like your trying to use M4 suspension units is a non-starter.

[apophenia]

There's also the question of hull length. Googling suggests that the A12 Matilda hull was 15 feet 11 inches long while the M4 Sherman was 20 feet 4 inches (or 20' 7"?).

[Volkodav]

There's also the question of hull length. Googling suggests that the A12 Matilda hull was 15 feet 11 inches long while the M4 Sherman was 20 feet 4 inches (or 20' 7"?).

Two bogies instead of three on each side maybe.

I have a couple of Matilda kits just need some M-3/4 bits to dry fit and see if it works.

[jcf]

Are you going to remove the skirts?
Because it appears they're actually part of the structure, not just bolted on, and it looks like the
suspension is attached to the skirts.

The M3/M4 suspension units are self contained and it's very doubtful they'd fit between
the hull and the skirts. Height looks like it would also be an issue.

The Matilda II tracks are 14" wide, M3 and VVSS M4 16", 16.56" and 20.1" (T48 track) wide, HVSS M4 23" wide.

[Rickshaw]

The skirts also contribute significantly to the armour protect on the sides of the vehicle...

[Volkodav]

I thought the skirts were structural but are actually bolted on and can be spaced out further over new suspension bogies.

As I understand it the issue with the Matilda was it was a time consuming design to build due to the amount of grinding the hull castings required pre assembly. While the Matilda had excellent armour protection the fact is the Valentine was cheaper, easier and quicker to build, the Churchill was better armoured and both were eventually better armed, cruisers were more mobile and pretty much everything American was more reliable, more mobile and better armed, there was really no need to further develop the Matilda.

The Matilda was successful in the Western Desert but its low speed and small gun were an issue by mid war, this however was not a problem against Japan where its small size and excellent protection made it more suitable than the available Grant, Lee and Stuart in theatre.

There are three ways I can see an improved Matilda coming into being:
- US production for the UK,
- local Australian production kicked off prewar in the way the Beaufort and Tribal class destroyer programs were,
- late or post war upgrade of existing tanks in Australia.

[jcf]

"Bolted on"?
Umm, I see a shitload of big ol' rivets in that close up pic with
the only bolts appearing to be related to the suspension.

[tankmodeler]

"Bolted on"?
Umm, I see a shitload of big ol' rivets in that close up pic with the only bolts appearing to be related to the suspension.

Rivets can be drilled out and then replaced with a spacer and replacing the side armour if a wider gap in the side armour is desired for new suspension units.

But that's not the way to do it, I don't think, because maintenance of the M4 bogie units would be essentially impossible under the skirts. Better, perhaps, to strip off the skirts, weld on new armour to replace the value of the skirts, then bolt the M4 bogies onto the outside of the new armour.

But, in the long run Volkodav is right, the Matilda was a dead end. Too tightly integrated with the small turret ring to take much upgunning. You'd need to increase the turret ring and then lengthen the vehicle to accommodate the driver, who sits right in front of the turret ring in the Matilda. Definitely not worth it. If the new upgunned turret is heavier (and it would have to be), the speed would drop to be even slower probably requiring a new engine and rear hull extension.

Paul

[Volkodav]

"Bolted on"?
Umm, I see a shitload of big ol' rivets in that close up pic with the only bolts appearing to be related to the suspension.

Rivets can be drilled out and then replaced with a spacer and replacing the side armour if a wider gap in the side armour is desired for new suspension units.

But that's not the way to do it, I don't think, because maintenance of the M4 bogie units would be essentially impossible under the skirts. Better, perhaps, to strip off the skirts, weld on new armour to replace the value of the skirts, then bolt the M4 bogies onto the outside of the new armour.

But, in the long run Volkodav is right, the Matilda was a dead end. Too tightly integrated with the small turret ring to take much upgunning. You'd need to increase the turret ring and then lengthen the vehicle to accommodate the driver, who sits right in front of the turret ring in the Matilda. Definitely not worth it. If the new upgunned turret is heavier (and it would have to be), the speed would drop to be even slower probably requiring a new engine and rear hull extension.

Paul

That's where the GM6046 comes in 

[Old Wombat]

I have a Matilda & a cheap-ish Centurion which I'm going to bash into a "super"-Matilda (one day) using the Cent's (modified) Horstmann suspension but, yes, it will be bigger, with a bigger turret ring & bigger gun ... &, maybe, the GM 6046 diesel.

[tankmodeler]

That's where the GM6046 comes in 

They are a LOT bigger than the twin Bedfords in a regular Matilda II plus the tranny & differential are also in the rear. You're gonna have to really bump out the arse end to get all that in there.

[Volkodav]

Actually rereading the entire topic I found photos of the AEC power pack the JCF provided « Reply #35 on: December 19, 2016, 12:50:17 PM »

Just having a quick look now and I found these

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adEy5j4XiJk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKgcpK5WYiA

If anything the AEC look wider than the 6046, I will have to go into Puka next time I'm in Vic and see if they have any info.

Rereading this topic from the start it has been going around in circles for about seven years, I may need to do some deep diving into technical info on engine bay sizes, box size of the engines discussed, suspension attachment info etc.

[tankmodeler]

Actually rereading the entire topic I found photos of the AEC power pack the JCF provided « Reply #35 on: December 19, 2016, 12:50:17 PM »

Just having a quick look now and I found these

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adEy5j4XiJk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKgcpK5WYiA

If anything the AEC look wider than the 6046, I will have to go into Puka next time I'm in Vic and see if they have any info.

Rereading this topic from the start it has been going around in circles for about seven years, I may need to do some deep diving into technical info on engine bay sizes, box size of the engines discussed, suspension attachment info etc.

It may be wider depending on how the shafts fed into the transmission, but I'm pretty sure its a lot shorter in height and length than the GM. Which is good because while you can make an engine bay higher and longer, it's essentially impossible to make an existing tank wider for a wider engine.

[GTX_Admin]

Some interesting reading:  https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/Australia/aus_matilda

[Volkodav]

Found some more interesting sites but not the engine dimensions I am looking for.

http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2018/05/short-term-queen-of-desert.html

http://www.members.iinet.net.au/~dgrev/dhmg/mahon1.html

[Rickshaw]

Found some more interesting sites but not the engine dimensions I am looking for.

As in the engine compartment or the engines themselves?

If it is the former, just measure a model and do the maths.  If it is the latter do the same and half the measures for width.

[Volkodav]

Found some more interesting sites but not the engine dimensions I am looking for.

As in the engine compartment or the engines themselves?

If it is the former, just measure a model and do the maths.  If it is the latter do the same and half the measures for width.

I'm looking for block length for the base AEC and Leyland engines, though ideally I would like some dimensioned engineering drawing for the power packs as also for the 6046.  I have now found multiple references to the AEC / Leyland power packs being the start point for the GM 6046 but no confirmation that they were the same size.  May have a chat to some RAEME contacts and see if any of them can access data at the Armour Museum.

Looking at the suspension set up there are two full bogies in the middle and a half bogie at the read of each side, there is also a separately sprung wheel between the idler and first bogie, this appears to give enough space for three HVSS units on each side.  The other possibility that comes to mind is using M-2/3 light tank suspension bogies, three per side, though it may not be up to the 25ton weight of the Matilda, even with the extra bogie.

An interesting comment on one of the links I provided was that fitting the 6pdr in the original turret was never attempted, though it may actually have been possible considering the Soviets fitted a 76mm.

The other thing, which is not something I had previously considered, is that apart from its armour advantage, the matilda was also much more reliable than its cruiser tank contemporaries, its only real down side was its low speed.

[jcf]

6-71TA Automotive drawings, not exactly the 6-71 used to make the 6046 but it should help:
https://www.powerlinecomponents.com/literature/detroit_diesel/ddc_drawings/10678B00ID.pdf

This page on Detroit Diesel in WWII has some interesting stuff:
http://usautoindustryworldwartwo.com/General%20Motors/detroit-diesel.htm

[Volkodav]

Thanks 

[GTX_Admin]

Is there a good book available on the Matilda II tank?