Matilda, Infantry Tank A.11 | Less Than Lethal British Infantry Support Tank 🇬🇧

🇬🇧In September 1939, the United Kingdom and her Empire embarked on yet another war with Germany over the future of Europe. Despite a rearmament program started at the end of the 1930s, Britain had entered the war ill-prepared for the conflict to come. The Army was professional and mechanized and had new tanks, but it had too few of both men and machines. It also entered the war in some ways prepared for the last World War, expecting a more static type of warfare, but with a stern eye focussed on the need for heavy armor to protect the infantry. Two tanks, in particular, were the outcome of a reassessed tank program that decade - the A.11 Matilda and its bigger counterpart, the A.12 Matilda. These two tanks formed the bulwark of British armor in the campaign in France in 1940 and yet, despite success at Arras, only one went on to be a legend - the A.12. Its smaller and earlier sibling, the A.11, has since this time languished and even been lambasted as being somewhat hapless or helpless, underarmed, and underperforming. The A.11 Matilda was, however, an interesting and rather successful tank. Built so tough that German shells had trouble piercing its thick armor, the A.11 was a shock to the Germans when it was unleashed upon them at the Battle of Arras. Without its development, there would likely have been no A.12 Matilda in the form which went on to dominate the early battles of North Africa and later serve in the Pacific.
Join this channel to get access to exclusive perks:
/ @tanksencyclopediayt
If you liked this video, please consider donating on Patreon or Paypal!
Patreon: / tankartfund
Paypal: paypal.me/tankencyclopedia
Article: tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/gb...
Sources:
www.4and7royaltankregiment.com...
Battistelli, P.(2010). Erwin Rommel. Osprey Publishing, UK
Ellis, L. (1954). History of the Second World War: The War in France and Flanders 1939-1940. HMSO, UK
Fletcher, D. (1991). Mechanised Force. HMSO, UK
Fletcher, D. (2017). British Battle Tanks. Osprey Publishing, UK
Foss, C., & McKenzie, P. (1988). The Vickers Tanks. Haynes Publishing, UK
Forty, G., & Forty, A. (1988). Bovington Tanks. Halsgrove Publishing, UK
Brown, P. (2014). 1 ATB in France 1939-40. Military Modelling Vol.44 No.4. 2014
Brown, P. (2014). 1 ATB in France 1939-40. Military Modelling Vol.44 No.5. 2014
Smalley, E. (2015). The British Expeditionary Force 1939-1940. Palgrave Macmillan Press, UK
Solarz, J. (2008). Matilda 1939-1945. Tank Power vol. LXI. Warsaw, Poland
Obituary, Sir John Carden. Flight Magazine, 19th December 1935
Offensive Operations carried out South of Arras on 21 May 1940 - British Report. Gen. Martel papers. Imperial War Museum.
Tank Training Vol. II Part III Pamphlet No.2 .303-IN., Vickers Machine Guns Marks VI, IVA, IBV and I. (1936). HMSO, UK
Tank Training Vol. II Part III Pamphlet No.5 .5-IN., Vickers Machine Guns Mark V. (1937). HMSO, UK
War Office File 194/44 Matilda Infantry Tank, September 1936
War Office File 291-1439 British Tank Data
Williams, A. (2012). The .5” Vickers Guns and Ammunition. quarryhs.co.uk/Vickers.html
Zaloga, S. (1980). Blitzkrieg: Armour Camouflage and Markings, 1939-1940. Arms and Armour Press, UK
Reddit: / tankencyclopedia
TE Shop: www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/Goo...
Our website: www.tanks-encyclopedia.com
Gaming News Website: www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/games/
Facebook: / tanksencyclopedia
Twitter: / tanksenc
Discord: / discord
Email: [e-mail]
An article by Andrew Hills
A script by ChromeCTD
Narrated by WOOD
Edited by Feldmarschall

[@PatGilliland]

One thing missing from this excellent history is the economic element. The army knew the A11 wasn't a great tank but it was one they could afford in sufficient numbers to create an effective force.

[@gastonjaillet9512]

Yes I agree. It's the same in documentaries about french tanks in 1940: 2-man tanks, but tanks they could afford and crew. People tend to only focus on the individual performance of the tanks, forgetting the context around them

[@Xaiff]

That would be great addition to the documentary contents. Putting things into clearer context. Nice.

[@justusbladetooth]

@@gastonjaillet9512 Well, and the French Government was incredibly paranoid about the military staging a coup, so two man tanks had logically less people. So less conscripts to be 'tainted by the military thinking' as they saw it. If you look into it, a lot of the choices from France seem to be of the mind the military was more dangerous than Germany.

[@xt6wagon]

It was also to give them something to form up tank units and begin training while waiting for the better tanks that were being designed at the same time. Its not like they got the Matilda I in 1930 and decided it was all they needed till 1940 when they'd start looking for something new...

[@wbertie2604]

​​@@justusbladetooth that would make sense, except that everyone had to serve at least some time in the armed forces, and fewer crew in tanks didn't change that. However, simple tanks that were largely similar to the last version (Renault FT) in terms of general concept of employment meant that a reservist who had been trained ten years before with only short refresher courses could still handle the required mission. Basically, learn where the button for the lights are on the new model, but same gun, same tactics. The exception were the DLMs which had at least three-man D2s, but with a bias towards regular troops using them. It's also seen in having as much equipment as similar as possible, hence the new MAS-36 rifles being very simple and hard to go wrong with, but with the MAS-40 being designed to be as similar as possible such that someone trained on the -36 having few hoops to jump through to be effective with the -40.

[@mrjockt]

The Matilda I is an example of what you get when the Treasury sets exactly how much they are willing to pay for each tank and you end up buying to suit the budget rather than buying to fulfil the purpose.

[@Xaiff]

That is unfortunately how some government funding works & get evaluated upon. Really sad.

[@fe6767]

@@Xaiff not just government funding. Most us limit our spending to what money we actually have (or can afford to borrow). What would be the point of money if we all had a limitless supply of it?

[@jeffbybee5207]

@@fe6767 I would sure like to have infinite money and next year I'd get back to you with the point. Problem I see privet businesses trade their product to willing buyers and can spend what they make while government decides what to spend then forces some section of people to give them the money

[@fe6767]

@@jeffbybee5207 or the government is forced to spend money, perhaps on tanks for a war that might break out soon. It funds that spending from a mixture of taxation and borrowing. A careful government that wants to get re-elected might be careful about what they spend and who and how much they tax. Of course, if you are lucky enough to live in a democracy you get to elect that government and unelect it if you don't like what it does. You can also become a politician yourself. Even governments that aren't democratically elected have to live within the financial constraints of the economy of the country they govern.

[@T_PLAYER]

i named my dog after this thing. i have no regrets

[@friedyzostas9998]

Good.

[@braykoe2401]

I love these neat unique little interwar vehicles on the channel

[@charlesphillips4575]

I think most people serious underestimate the value of small tanks. Sure, they are less capable that larger ones, but they can get places larger ones cannot and they are cheaper to buy, operate and transport than larger ones. An updated version of the Matilda 1 would have been useful in the forest and urban fighting right up to the end of the war.

[@kurt5490]

A universal assumption I have about outdated AFV's is that they make great indirect fire/infantry support weapons carriers. Put a platform on the Matilda 1, remove the turret and mount an extended tube 3" mortar in the turret well, and add an additional crewman, a loader/radio operator. It would be cramped, with the ammo and 3rd man, but if there were 3 to a battery attached to the unit leading the assault, they could rain down hell on what the forward observer called in.

[@drrocketman7794]

Matilda 1 wound up on the scrap heap. By the time it was pressed into service it had been surpassed long since.

[@eze417]

It was used in combat only once, and successfully, at Arras in 1940.

[@drrocketman7794]

@@eze417 TIL! Thanks

[@maxkronader5225]

Many people heap scorn upon early war tanks like Matilda A11. These tanks were only ridiculous and inadequate compared to late war designs. What one needs to remember is that there was an almost unbelievable amount of advancement in tank design from 1935-1945. Comparing Matilda or any of her 1930s designed contemporaries to the well known WWII tanks like Panther or T-34/85 as if they were all contemporaries is a false comparison.

[@Colinpark]

I compare the A11 to the Pz III with the 37mm gun, the PZ III was such a better tank. the only good thing about the A11 is it's armour and it's radio

[@watcherzero5256]

Indeed their contemporaries were Panzers which were only equipped with machine guns as well but far less armoured.

[@maxkronader5225]

@@Colinpark That is a valid point, but they were designed to be two different types of vehicle and comparing them is like comparing apples and oranges. The Pzkpfw III is, arguably, the first modern tank design and is the grandfather of modern MBTs. The Matilda A11 was a type that has not been made since WWII, an infantry support tank. Comparing the two types is like comparing an anti submarine frigate to an anti aircraft destroyer. They're designed for different tasks and cannot reasonably be compared head-to-head.

[@Colinpark]

@@maxkronader5225 Your logic is correct, however the reality was the only 5 "infantry tanks" the Germans built went to Norway instead. As it was the Mk VI light was the direct competitor to the PZ I and II. You can argue that the Pz III and 35/38T's were matched against the A9, A13's. That leave the A11 matched against the PzIV and Stug who were both support tank/gun. The Short 75 even with HE I suspect would make short work of the A11. Basically it was an improved Renault tank from WWI

[@rubberwoody]

Hence why the chi ha is a good tank but everyone says it sucks

[@dovidell]

In some ways this story reminds me of that of the Manchester and Lancaster bombers - without the initial failures , there might not have been the better , more iconic " products " that followed

[@johnlansing2902]

Thank you for another peek into history .

[@DaveSCameron]

Thanks again for doing exactly what it says on the tin. 📚👍☘️

[@bbriankb1086]

Great information that's easily digested.. M1 tanker that enjoys history;)

[@Jim54_]

I wonder if you could have fitted a 20mm madsen in the turret, just to give it a bit more bite

[@guidor.4161]

One of my favorites. There is a 1:35 model kit from Accurate Armour in resin.

[@adrielcamilo2564]

In my opinion the Matilda I is just a mobile MG Bunker, albeit useful for morale and infantry support it would only draw fire of bigger opponents and fail to comply with a maneuver focused battlefield.

[@xt6wagon]

The British accepted maneuver warfare was a thing, but they also focused on the infantry being absolutely required for any operation. Given infantry can only walk so fast and anything supporting them would take heavy fire, the Matilda I and II made good sense to them. They either defend or break defenses, then let fast tanks use Calvary style tactics to exploit. Mechanized infantry as we know it today were a future problem in 39. Also Blitzkrieg was only really effective against unprepared targets when Germany could take the time to properly plan a coordinated attack with combined arms. We see they become pretty garbage trying this once they are no longer setting the pace and face prepared positions.

[@tvgerbil1984]

@@xt6wagon The Germans used assault guns firing fairly decent HE rounds to support their infantry without neutering the speeds of these vehicles to the walking pace of infantry. They were also able to upgrade these assault guns with better main guns and protection which made them indispensable to the German infantry divisons from 1940 to 1945. By comparison, the British infantry tank doctrine was far too restrictive.

[@majungasaurusaaaa]

Maneuver warfare was not something you could count on being able to pull off. Infantry support on the other hand was and remain to this day a constant need.

[@majungasaurusaaaa]

@@tvgerbil1984 You trade off the turret in that case. Also quite a bit of armor. Remember that the slow speed was considered a plus, preventing armor from outpacing and leaving the infantry behind.

[@adrielcamilo2564]

@@majungasaurusaaaa Totally agree, the thing is that in the period of the matilda, the armor thought was very restrictive, you either generalize the tanks to A or to B, not that no one ever obeyed this rule, but it affected a lot of the mentality of the period.

[@jlvfr]

Ahhhh... it's so _cute_ !

[@jonsouth1545]

while not a great gun if they had replaced the machine gun with the French 37mm SA18 (which would fit) the tank would have been more capable as the HE shell would have improved support capability and it could have had limited AP capability not much only 20-25mm depending on the shell but that would be enough to kill early PZ III and PZ IV as well as the more numerous PZ I and II in 1940 and it probably would have maintained effectiveness against the Italians and Japanese for much longer. 100 or so of them in Malaya in 42 may have been enough. Personally, I would have kept the A11 in production for longer especially as it was cheap and easy to make and sent it as a colonial tank to bolster UK forces even with just the Machine Gun a division or 2 of these in Malaya and Burma would have made a massive difference, They would also have been very useful in places like East Africa and as lend-lease to the Chinese. If they had been built in similar numbers to the A13 Covenanterwhich had 1700+ built instead of the 180 that were built in real time they would have made a big difference.

[@DarkestVampire92]

A heavily armored coffin easily taken out by a shot to the tracks by anything bigger than a bullet. Sure 60mm of armor is a lot in that time, but when a hand grenade can take out your tracks and immobilize your machine gun carrier it isnt worth anything. Little has to be said on the bad idea of an overworked commander doing four jobs at once, the underpowered drivetrain or the total lack of anti-armor capability. Puts some perspective on why the track on the Matilda II is so heavily armored by comparison.

[@ptonpc]

It was what the Army could afford at the time and worked within the thinking of the time. It's important to remember the Matilda 2 was already being made by the time it entered service. It wasn't designed to go after tanks. It was designed to work in a WW1 like battlefield. Advance until a set point then become essentially a machine gun post to support the infantry until heavier stuff was brought up.

[@rubberwoody]

With your logic the tiger 2 might as well have had no armor because it's tracks could be blown off

[@DarkestVampire92]

@@rubberwoody It often did. Thats still a common tactic to this day, because no matter how thick your composite armor is, if your tank cant move you just have to wait for death. You can actually see tanks getting tracked before being destroyed in some Ukraine war footage. On the topic though, at least Tigers have decent amounts of mobility if the driver is well trained and doesnt break the gearbox by over-torgueing it. So when Tiger is under fire it can retreat fairly quickly, Matilda with its blistering speed cannot.

[@rubberwoody]

@@DarkestVampire92 you make it sound like tracks can't be repaired

[@DarkestVampire92]

@@rubberwoody Not under fire they cant. The point is that you're momentarily immobilized and the enemy can fire at you without you going anywhere, so the next shot is likely a killshot. But tanks have been left behind because of damaged tracks plenty of times, it takes a while to replace the broken links and tension the track again, time you rarely have with enemies in the area. So better to run away and recover the tank with an engineering vehicle later if you can.

[@comentedonakeyboard]

At least it had a radio

[@letoubib21]

_But a TV would have been much better _*_. . ._*

[@comentedonakeyboard]

@@letoubib21 you could blast "Walzing Mathilda" out of the speakers (if it is on the radio)

[@letoubib21]

@@comentedonakeyboard *lol* _At least that. Better than singing _*_. . ._*

[@lukefranklin7391]

Video is cool.

[@WildBillCox13]

A WW2 version of the Whippet. Almost as fast, too. ;-)

[@Xaiff]

Just looking at the thumbnail, my first thought was this documentary channel has finally expanded into multi-language contents. :D

[@marseldagistani1989]

the tank looks like a Mini Valentine

[@imagination7265]

Iconic

[@metalmadsen]

Lot of amour to carry a single machinegun. The soviets had a tank with a similar role, the KV1. And it had a 76,2 mm canon, three machineguns and heavier amour. And it was faster.

[@ihatecabbage7270]

The KV1 is a completely different tank for a different kind of war.

[@DaveSCameron]

9:11 too small to see on iPad and doesn’t allow refocus?

[@axeavier]

I bet it'd be very loud and hurt people's ear drums

[@benquinneyiii7941]

Resistant

[@kommandantgalileo]

this feels more like a cruiser tank than a infantry support one.

[@lukemcgahern2357]

It would be a cruiser if it was not so slow.

[@warhawk4494]

Neat little tank. Should have been named the Valentine 1. Because the bow looks like a Valentine tank more then a Matilda 2.

[@TheArklyte]

Boy, do I have a surprise in store for you...

[@benquinneyiii7941]

Door knocker

[@thefreedomhouse1984]

Adding the governor probably cost men’s lives, that’s sad when politicians do that crap. Moving around the battlefield at 8 miles an hour, You’re just a waddling duck.

[@TanksEncyclopediaYT]

The alternative being not moving on the battlefield because you prematurely wore out your engine and transmission and they broke at the most inopportune moment

[@thefreedomhouse1984]

@@TanksEncyclopediaYT yeah I’m pretty sure they made the move just to save gas at least that’s what the video indicates

[@akula9713]

I’ve seen one of these running around the test track at Bovington. It’s not slow.

[@alessiodecarolis]

Another waste of resources, seems that British tanks' designers had a perverse pleasure in building crappier designs, they had a (limited) success only because some bureaucrats had refused to listen Guderian when he had requested heavier guns on Pz3s, citing standardization with the crappy 37mm, the latter having just revealed its limits.

[@TanksEncyclopediaYT]

Do you have a source for that statement about Guardian?

[@alessiodecarolis]

@@TanksEncyclopediaYT I had an old encyclopedia and there was this story how Guderian, backed by Hitler, wanted at least a 5.0 cm gun on the PZ3, but the army objected about standardization with the 3.7cm. The books were in italian: "Storia dei mezzi corazzati", I bought them in mid '70s.

[@xt6wagon]

I think if you look at what entered France, you'd see 100% of the German tanks were complete trash. The 37mm makes great sense if you assume you face tanks like your own and your own are only proof against MG fire. Superior numbers and air support did in the disorganized and unprepared French. 15mm of armor at best is silly. It only protects against the absolute worst of the French 37mm.