Why the Soviets disliked the Matilda II

[@HellbirdIV]

I will just never get over the irony of seeing a Matilda II - one of the _famously_ slowest tanks of the war - with the name 'Greyhound' but knowing the British maybe that irony was entirely intentional.

[@tomhenry897]

Think corgi be better

[@pcka12]

Matilda 2 was explicitly intending to travel at the pace of the Infantry (travelling faster than WW1 lozenge tanks), to criticise it's speed is like criticising the Fairey Swordfish which holds the record as the torpedo bomber which sank the greatest tonnage of shipping.

[@EricDaMAJ]

@@pcka12 That's true. But damn, you'd think the designers might've considered that maybe having it move at faster than a fat man's jog might come in handy. It's achingly slow even compared to many older designs, let alone contemporary and later designs.

[@ernestcline2868]

​@@EricDaMAJAny tank or battleship is a set of compromises concerning speed, firepower, armo(u)r, and endurance. Matilda II prioritized armor and compared to its contemporaries, it had very heavy armor.

[@FeherMate]

@@pcka12 This is only half true. The Swordfish might have been obsolete in many ways, but it performed very well in practice in an obviously important role. The Matilda might have fulfilled the role it was designed for reasonably well, but as the concept of the infantry tank was obsolete its actual performance was much less stellar. And even in that role, the lack of HE ammunition meant that the tank was actually pretty bad at giving fire support to the infantry, being limited to a machine gun. And this is a problem that should have been abundantly clear to the designers as well.

[@fatrobin72]

Matilda 2 was a great early war tank... its biggest issue was that early war was not the entire war.

[@zlatanclovecic1944]

To me, the fact that 1/3 of Matildas survived 4 years of Russian style of warfare and were still worth of being used in 1st line is clear proof that the tank was extremely durable and good design.

[@mastersniper4201]

The cause if that might be that they were too slow to get to the action maybe?​@@zlatanclovecic1944

[@IntrospectorGeneral]

There is also a 'horses for courses' problem when equipment is not being used in the type of battle for which it was designed. The Matilda came back into its own with Australian forces in the Pacific campaign which was essentially a close range infantry battle against an enemy with few heavy anti-tank weapons using swarm tactics to disable tanks. Tank squadrons equipped with Matildas with QF 3 inch howitzers were just the thing for cleaning up log bunkers and strong points. The size and weight of the Matilda made it transportable by relatively small coastal landing craft used in the coast- hopping campaign.

[@cgi2002]

Essentially yes. The matilda 2 was designed for a type of warfare that simply didn't exist in Europe by the time it saw deployment, in ww1 it would have decimated but this wasn't ww1 anymore. Japan however had never adapted to the same type of warfare Europe saw, with them still using predominantly light tanks and no heavy anti-tank weapons. Thus a slow moving nigh untouchable heavy gun was ideal for that type of warfare. The matilda would have still benefitted from a HE round for anti-infantry and fire support roles, but that's nearly universally true of all tanks.

[@SD78]

The Matilda's underpowered engine, thin tracks and poor mobility made a liability in the jungle. It only performed moderately well because the Japanese had no anti-tank guns (or tanks) that could reliably penetrate the armour.

[@kenneth9874]

So it's an armored vehicle that's only effective if the other side has no armor or anti armor weapons?

[@SwordGuardian]

It was effective in island campaigns where it didn't have to move. It made an okay-ish bunker. Of course, that's going up against an enemy that never deployed armored vehicles of any real strength. In the pacific theater, even the measly Sherman performed like a Tiger against Japanese tankettes. If you want to talk about a tank successfully dominating its campaign, then the best tanj in history is the Bob Semple tank. In the New Zealand campaign, it struck fear into the hearts of everyone who saw it. Granted, it was never seen by the enemy, but we can assume the same fear that gripped the Kiwis would've gripped the Japanese if they did!!

[@williamzk9083]

@@cgi2002 The Matilda performed extremely well up until the end of 1942 due time its thick armour and the good AT performance of the 40mm gun. Due to its narrow turret ring it could not be upgraded and was replaced by the Churchill tank in 1943

[@jerrymiller9039]

They should have flipped it right side up and then tried it.

[@Adiscretefirm]

Exactly! They turned the box upside down before they unpacked it

[@puzzled012]

it is useless however you flip it.

[@aaronleverton4221]

@@puzzled012 Japanese in New Guinea say "no".

[@tigerland4328]

​​@@puzzled012Italians in north Africa say "no"

[@jon9021]

Top comment mate!

The Matilda having a lower Power to weight ratio then the Jagdtiger is a fact I think I will remember and mention from time to time :) And also, thanks for the thing.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Yeah, I was also quite suprised about that, yet, I haven't looked at early war tanks that much.

[@zlatanclovecic1944]

Matilda was tank designed to accompany infantry, not to hunt race cars.

[@mensch1066]

7:20 I'm imagining the T-34 bursting through obstacles while yelling "OH YEAH!!!!!!"

[@ethanmckinney203]

And leaving a perfectly T-34-shaped hole in the wall.

[@adamwells9352]

They did have all that sweet red goop inside. Metaphor is scarily apt.

[@dwarow2508]

@@adamwells9352 Not really

[@williamzk9083]

Honestly, the T-34 was a piece of junk in the first months of operation Barbarossa. The commander optics were so bad that the Germans found they could fire on the T-34 without being detected. The T34 had a worse breakdown rate than the panther in the first year of Service. There was no commanders Coppola so the command attended to get killed. The abysmal optics didn’t help. Nor did the dysfunctional and ineffective radios. The Matildas 40 mm cannon could penetrate any German tank. Soviet and Russian ears Bitchin and moaning about the inferiority of Western equipment but the reality is this is just pride and communism and propaganda speaking.

[@TheEpicNoob]

⁠​⁠​⁠@@williamzk9083Not sure that the T-35 was used in barbarossa, but it makes sense it wasnt good as it was an interwar design that had many turrets, meaning most those turrets couldn’t turn very far and the commander had a very busy job to do. Also, this means it is a bigger tank with less armour since it needs to carry the weight of separate turrets, so it could easily be incapacitated.

[@MrTonemaster]

"And generally, you don't want to fight on the eastern front". Yeah, understatement..

[@NotSanakan]

We like to do things in old bloody way there.

[@FinalHourMetal]

Technically it's the western front for the Russians!! 😅😅😅

[@corvanphoenix]

You'd much rather be a German pilot on the Eastern Front at any time in the war, let alone the latter stage.

[@TeddyBear-ii4yc]

Must've been sh1t to be a Ruskie soldier stuck on the Eastern Front! 😊

[@Magnus_Fraus]

​@@TeddyBear-ii4ycthey are the reason noone wanted to be on that front

[@pickled_bacon]

I hate to be that guy, but if it's flipped over I don't think anyone would like it

[@chrisspencer6502]

These things happen when you drive it like a rental

[@bull614]

​@chrisspencer6502 Well, I mean, they kinda were 😂😂😂

[@P-Mouse]

Australians...

[@jmialtacct]

Even worse is hearing Soviet accounts from 1942, when whole companies of Matildas were driven into (what looked like) tiny creeks in the steppe ... and were hopelessly stuck in the swamp (I'm referring to Igor Sdvizhkov's lectures on the first stage of Fall Blau). Just imagine a call from Moscow: "Did you receive three hundred Matildas?" ... "yes... comrade Stalin..."

[@ScienceDiscoverer]

@@jmialtacct To gulag with you

[@UncleJoeLITE]

1:00. Noting our Matilda is called "Greyhound", I can still smell the sarcasm 80yrs later. 🎉

[@JosipRadnik1]

this was a british attempt on "maskerovka" 😉

[@Caesar_Himself]

Reminds me of the WW1 British tank that survived a 60 horrorshow trapped in no mans land that the crew named 'Frey Bentos'... (Frey Bentos is a maker of canned meat pies).

[@Electricfox]

IIRC the Matildas engines were originally designed for buses, in particular the AEC Regent, the forerunner to the famous big red bus 'Routemaster' so stereotypical of Britain. It also meant that rather than having a manual gearbox, it had a sort of half way house between manual and automatic in the form of a 'preselector' gearbox. So it must have been nice for the Soviets to have a tank where you didn't need a hammer to change gear.

[@AprezaRenaldy]

Soviet learning From Liberty used by bt series is flammable and overheats because it is an aircraft engine And the engine used in the T26 is less powerful because it is a car engine. So the v2 is the first engine designed specifically for tanks.

[@leonpeters-malone3054]

Generally you don' want to fight on the Eastern Front. I think that might just be understating thing. The understatement is so understating it that I feel the dictionary in my book case wants to fly straight at my head and give me some more appropriate words.

[@dac5782]

To sort of add to this, post-war Soviet military doctrine was centered around what they learned in World War II, in that they never wanted to fight World War II ever again.

[@stephenlitten1789]

It's so understated, he's just been made a Kiwi

[@leonpeters-malone3054]

@@dac5782 When even the Soviets say 'this is bad, let's not do it again' you know it was truly terrible.

[@publichearing8536]

​@@leonpeters-malone3054"the development of modern warfare is not necessarily to humanity's advantage" - -Emperor Hiro- - everyone

[@andrewklang809]

Soviets: "I hate these Matildas!" Italians and Japanese: "So do we!"

[@DylanHaugen]

Considering the tanks Italy and Japan had at the time almost anything would have been a nightmare for them.

[@HappyGM-R]

@@DylanHaugen That is if Matilda doesn’t sink into them wet soil of the pacific or flip over while crossing Italian hills and mountains.

[@RedcoatT]

They fought the Matilda in North Africa, it was one of the main reasons they lost an army in Operation Compass, the Matilda just punched right through the Italian defensive boxes

[@Weberkooks]

@@HappyGM-Rit was by far most effective in those theaters and this is an incredibly inane point considering it applies to literally every tank that has ever existed

[@publichearing8536]

​@@Weberkooksthough many other tanks were useful in campaigns away from wet sand and Italian mountains after 1940. Matilda is cool.

[@justkilroy]

"Misha, how the hell you did managed to flip our tank, we just went for 10 minutes and you already done it"

[@nehukybis]

I remember Matilda II from Steel Panzers as well. When I was playing the Germans I just smashed them with 88's. When I was playing the British the lack of HE shells was annoying, since most of the time you were fighting soft targets.

[@somebloke3869]

I had one howitzer equiped tank in each platoon. But as it always happens, the howitzer tank was in the worst firing position every time a soft target of opportunity appeared.

[@rileyernst9086]

I knew they only had 48 operational after Bagration. But to see that afterwards they had some 218 in service is actually kinda heartening.

[@prof_kaos9341]

There were Matildas available at the Battle of Berlin. I'd have thought they'd still be in Ukraine struggling to catch up, must have hitch-hiked. The Germans used 2 Brit WW1 tanks there too, war trophies from Barbarossa, having been Red Army war trophies, supplied to the White Russians for the Russian civil war of 1920-21.

[@bjornnilsson1827]

​@@prof_kaos9341 While I know the Russians have dug fairly deep into there reserves of mothballed tanks and vehicles to fight in Ukraine. I don't think they've gone so far as to revive any leftover lend lease tanks such as the Mathilda 2.... Wouldn't put it past them though. And they'd definitely struggle on the modern battlefield. 😅😮

[@parodyclip36]

​@@bjornnilsson1827 I think he meant that due to the slowness if the tank it couldn't catch up to the front, thus reaching only Ukraine while everybody else was already in Berlin. I don't think it has anything to do with the actual Ukraine war

[@prof_kaos9341]

@@bjornnilsson1827 yes i meant in the 1940s with the top speed of the Matilda ~20kmph less than half the T-34's. Although given the speed of Putin's current advance the Matildas sedate speed would be perfect, just fit a garden shed, add a fake barrel & abracadabra T-14 Armata's combat debut

[@Fred-px5xu]

You Sir are a wealth of technical information concerning the Matilda Tank. I thoroughly enjoyed your video lecture. Await your next video lecture on the Jag Tiget.

[@brennus57]

Thanks Bernhardt. I've been aware of the Matilda since '72. I'm still learning new things. I particularly like seeing it from this perspective.

[@bwilliams463]

Seeing Matilda 2s in Soviet war footage is about as rare as spotting an M3 Lee with a red star. Hard to remember now that the little 2-pdr was actually a useful and effective artillery piece.

[@andrewklang809]

Soviets liked the identically-armed Valentine. Not for tank-killing or speed, but because the thing worked, could carry troops into battle, and help in infantry assaults. Of course, if it had had an HE shell, it would have been much better.

[@prof_kaos9341]

Often the machine gun was the most used tank weapon.

[@Senbei01]

I'll see your "Matilda II" and raise you a "Tetrarch in Soviet service". The only picture I've seen of them has them covered in tank-rider infantry, advancing over open terrain, through an artillery barrage. An "If you ever thought YOUR job was bad...." moment.

[@bwilliams463]

​I'm gonna have to look for that photo; the Soviets scrubbed so many images of Lend-Lease equipment after WW2 that you rarely see any Jeeps in their surviving film records. I have often thought that soldiers who signed up for tanks and wound up assigned to light tanks must have felt cheated.

[@williamzk9083]

The two pounder was basically a license produced boffors 40 mm gun. It had a high explosive round for it, but the British just didn’t produce it or issue it. That would be an area of investigation the suspect would lead to faulty British tactics and strategy

[@tisFrancesfault]

Matilda II was one of those tanks that imo suffer from relative conflicts of interpretation. First, doctrinal, The Matilda II was made for British infantry manoeuvre doctrine, where it was seen as better to allow the infantry to well, manoeuvre. The MG is more often than not sufficient. To expand on that point, a lot of folk don't realise/forget Brits used rifle Grenades and had 2inch mortars at sectional level. That offers a lot of (HE) firepower. - This was not the case for the Soviets, so it was more a tangible issue. I think they suffer from being compared too much to later/new tanks. All that said, and the criticism The Soviets were wanting any and all shipments to persists, At least till the Valentine would subsume supply.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

most countries used rifle grenades. including the soviets. and while there was a single 2inch mortar at platoon level for the british, the soviets had the 50mm at platoon level (more powerful) (until 1944, long after the matilda was pulled from mainline service, where they had the 50mm at company level and only 2 per company) and in the early part of the war a 37mm mortar (similar power to the 2inch) at squad level (untill 1942) so really the HE firepower the british had the soviets had more of (due heavier mortars at platoon level, and intially mortars at squad level).

[@looinrims]

This comment is what I would call making excuses more so than explanations Rifle grenades were nothing new, and every army had intended to support the infantry’s movement with the tanks, no he ammo is: hilarious in all honesty, especially since that’s a majority of all targets you’d be dealing with even in a world war 1 redux

[@Synchronizado]

The soviets had a 50mm mortar squad in the infantry rifle platoon in 1941, a 82mm Mortar Company with 6 pieces inside a rifle battallion. So no, the soviets did have mortar support at platoon level.

[@tisFrancesfault]

@@matthiuskoenig3378 So, iirc you're talking about a Soviet mortar platoon, of a (soviet) Rifle company, correct? which was 2 50mm mortars (which fired a lighter shell than the 2 inch). A British Rifle Company would have 4 2 inch mortars. As each Rifle platoon (as well as HQ) had a 2 inch Mortar. So if we're comparing company level, The British did have more "boom", as they say, but equally, crap-tonnes of smoke.

[@tisFrancesfault]

@@matthiuskoenig3378 But yes I will concede Rifle grenades were ubiquitous across the board with most armies.

[@jussi8111]

i will never understand the reason for not having HE

[@alienfish8521]

On an infantry tank as well.

[@towgod7985]

@jussi8111 The 2pdr/ 40mm round was too small to put an EFFECTIVE..... H.E. charge. A Bofors 40mm gun was meant for aircraft with comparatively NO armour.

[@HairTrigger223]

Institutional infighting. The QF 2-pounder had HE shells available, and could have been issued to tanks armed with it, but the Artillery branch said that was their job, and refused to let anyone else us it. Same with the 6 and 17-pounders, and weirdly the 76mm howitzer, which initially was only given smoke rounds. All the HE went tot the towed versions that were used by Artillery, not Tanks or Cavalry. look into the shitshow of early North Africa, a lot of the problems came from each branch refusing to work with each other, plus the doctrine of 'tanks can fight on their own' against mixed German formations. Also, as Bernhard pointed out, German tank guns had HE supplied to them

[@prof_kaos9341]

I agree, the Brits chose not to make an HE round as it would have the same weight of explosives as a hand grenade. The ANZACS put 40mm Bofors HE projectiles on the brass, later in the war an 2pdr HE round was made for arm. cars with 2pdrs. The use of 2pdrs when obsolete was due to needing to quickly replace all the kit lost at Dunkirk. Note, there were ~6 dif sized 2pdr, ammo, most 40mm but dif sized brass/breaches

[@aleksazunjic9672]

There were HE rounds for 2pdr guns, issued mostly to armored cars armed with this gun from late 1942. Did they make it to USSR I do not know. I remember reading about Soviet attempts to create HE round for 2pdr, but they were probably not successful. In any case, from 1943 such guns were rare in the East, so the need for it was low.

[@bigsarge2085]

Fascinating! Thank you.

[@RachelMckinit]

A German guy doing a video about a British tank in Soviet service. I dig it.

[@podemosurss8316]

*Austrian.

[@ScreamingSturmovik]

if funny how people said that HE in such a small gun was basically pointless only for everyone to like "where is the HE?"

[@andrewklang809]

Even the HE in a 20mm gun could be useful. Whoever made that decision has the deaths of a lot of Tommies on his hands.

[@prof_kaos9341]

There were explosive & incendiary ammo made for the .303 MGs in planes, used to shoot down the first Zeppelin in WW1. Snipers used explosive rounds in std caliber rifles as seen in the wounding of Finnish sniper legend Simo Häyhä

[@gwtpictgwtpict4214]

@@prof_kaos9341 "Explosive" rifle calibre rounds of the time contained no explosives. Rather you had a channel drilled in the front of the round into which was introduced some mercury, then you sealed the tip of the round. Fire round, physics puts the mercury at the back of the drilled channel. Round impacts something and decelerates, physics says the mercury flies forward and if you got your design right it smashes through the seal at the front of the round, splaying the front of the round out as it does so. Basically a dum dum round with added lethality. Nasty.

[@podemosurss8316]

Well, the Soviets did have HE rounds for the 19k and the 20k, and they were only slightly bigger.

[@pex_the_unalivedrunk6785]

7.1hp/ton...and at only 26 tons! uhg... as an infantry support tank, the Maltida II seems at first suspect, because it's lack of an HE round, but...doesn't it have a coax MG? maybe it just needed more dakka, or some external rocket tubes like a calliope. Also, the infantry was supposed to take on other infantry, the Maltida II tank was meant to take out heavier targets that the infantry would have trouble with, like pz II, III, IV, and maybe pill boxes. too bad the Brit 2pdr/40mm didn't have HE rounds like a Bofors...and that hp/weight ratio was dismal, even for it's time. Early WW2 British tanks in general seemed to have some serious balance issues(blame it on brit doctrine). later, the Firefly(based on an American chassis), and Comet(the epitome of the cruiser tank) finally did things right...sort of. the Comet was rather short-lived with it's antiquated hull front and turret design, the Cent finally got it all figured out, but by then the war was over. i mean, not to knock on British tank designs, but lets be honest, the Americans, Russians, and Germans all did it better...from 1939-1945.

[@prof_kaos9341]

The big issue for the Brits was, fearing imminent invasion, needing to quickly replace the kit lost at Dunkirk, ~900 ATGs, plus ~1k arty, AAA, trucks. I read the nazis still had Dunkirk Bren carriers in '45

[@GaryK-gk]

Yes, but you've answered yourself - you know it's down to the tank doctrine the British had. You don't design things that your doctrine says you don't need. You are missing the fact that the British idea was that when HE was needed the artillery would be there for them and a 25 pdr shell was going to do the job far better than a 2 pdr HE shell. It all looked ok on paper and in a pre-war situation with little in the way of actual tank battle experience, you needed a crystal ball to know how it was all going to unfold. Some seemed to have a better idea than others, of course, but no army got it completely right all the time. The British learnt the hard way in the desert faced with AT gun screens which the tanks couldn't deal with and the artillery were too slow to respond to, though it can be argued that a small calibre HE round wasn't going to make a huge difference to the outcome. The situation only really resolved itself once 75mm became the standard calibre of tank cannons.

[@j.undefined1666]

Comets hull design was deliberate to increase internal volume for crew, ammunition and supplies.

[@ThatSlowTypingGuy]

6:37 Pikachu has some things to say about road icing looks like.

[@podemosurss8316]

Great video (as usual), I would like to point also that the Matilda doesn't really fit into the Soviet doctrine as it was designed for a role which didn't actually exist there by this point (infantry support). By late 1941 (when the first Matilda shipment arrived in the USSR), the Soviets divided their armoured units into three categories: breakthrough tanks (heavy tanks with a lot of firepower whose role is to break the enemy lines or -in a defensive battle - to prevent the lines from getting broken when acting as an armoured reserve), fast/cavalry tanks (medium tanks with a more balanced design but heavy emphasis on mobility, think the T-34/76) which made the mayority of the armoured units, and scout tanks (small light tanks designed for scouting ahead of the larger Soviet armoured formations, the T-50 was originally designed for this role). So, the problem with the Matilda gets pretty obvious: the armour is on the level of a breakthrough tank, but it lacks the firepower of other breakthrough tanks like the KV-1 (which was the main one used by the Soviets at this point), while the lack of speed and maneuvrability means that the Matilda is unsuited for any other role. So, at the end of the day, the Soviets disliked the Matilda because they were getting a tank which could only be used (within their doctrine) as a breakthrough tank, but that wasn't as good in that role as their own tanks were.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

False. Firstly in 1941 soviet doctrine did have infantry support that us what light tanks were for. Tankettes and armoured cars were for recon. There was a reorganisation done that resulted in light tank roles being split between medium tanks and heavy tankettes (redesignated light tanks), resulting in light tanks being infantry support and reconnaissance. But that was later. T-50 was never intended for recon. It was initially intended as infantry support. It briefly competed with t-34 for the reorganisation for medium tanks (as light tank and fast tanks were becoming increasingly similar), and ultimately lost and was considered to powerful for the new version of the light tank role (which went to t-60) and so was canceled.

[@wazza33racer]

When the Soviets got the Grant, they called it "coffin for seven brothers".

[@georgeoconnor7861]

comparing Matilda 2 with panther and IS-2 is not fair

[@AprezaRenaldy]

So t34- 76The weighs the same as the Matilda but 20 tons/horsepower

[@GerMorden]

To be honest, it would've been interesting to see the alternate reality with Soviets actually going with their project of rearming it with ZiS-5 and better engine, being capable of holding it's relevance for quite longer. But I guess they figured they shouldn't bother when they can just make more T-34 in the same time. Even funnier fact - in 1944, CACB's constructors Chasovnik and Kazarin suggested possible turret swap with T-34/85, with one test prototype being built.

[@alexspielberg4090]

Fantastic analysis !

[@mladenmatosevic4591]

I guess fight between two Matilda II would look like fight of two medieval knights in plate armor on foot, slugging each other by maces. It would not be fast and one blow would not incapacitate opponent.

[@HellbirdIV]

Worse, it'd be two knights in full armour with _swords,_ unable to penetrate the armour except for very select weak spots and otherwise just ineffectively whacking each other.

[@baraka629]

​@@HellbirdIVtwo knights in full plate hitting eachother with wooden spoons

[@dragonace119]

@@baraka629 Exactly, at least with a sword they could just do a murderstoke or grapple and at least attempt to stab through a gap. Two matilda's fighting would just be who can track the other first and hope they can get behind the other without getting tracked in turn.

[@Lonkka665]

As an infantry tank it was deemed that the engine power was sufficiently good; they didn't consider it needed to go much faster than infantry it was designed to support. So it was a design choice. In UK thinking, if you want speed you build a lighter armored cruiser tank for that purpose.

[@russwoodward8251]

Very interesting. Thank you.

[@MrKurtank]

If the quality here is a legal requirement then I demand it for all of my KZbin historicity viewing. (small hope)

[@UncleJoeLITE]

Prepare for a lifetime of dissatisfaction & disappointment my friend, this is still yt... 🎉

[@StarWarsExpert_]

6:43 I love that there's a Pickahu there haha

[@Texasplit]

Anyone else have trouble wrapping their mind around the thumbnail? idk why but I had to analyze it for a minute 🤣

[@Ghostmaxi1337]

For those interested, the 3,7 cm Pak had 2 He rounds. The Sprgr.18 umg. (Modified, they recived only 1 driving band) of 0,625kg and 29g of Pent filler, with a velocity of 780 m/s. It was noted that duo to the big tracer unit, the relatively small He filler was a disadvantage. As such later the Sprgr.40 was made, which only used a small tracer and instead had 48g Pent filler and a slightly lower weight.

[@kimjanek646]

The Sprg. 18 is the same as fired by the 3,7cm FlaK, right?

[@prof_kaos9341]

The Brits chose not to make HE ammo, having about the same weight of explosives in a hand grenade. I could never figure how the smaller 37mm had HE ammo but the 40mm 2pdr was thought too small. Later HE ammo was made for 2pdr arm. cars. Some fitted Bofors 40mm HE projectiles to the brass

[@Ghostmaxi1337]

@@kimjanek646 yes.

[@pablolowenstein1371]

Those long winter nights must fly by for you...

[@Ghostmaxi1337]

@@pablolowenstein1371 i love the Winter, but i dont know what you mean?

[@mltsr]

Beggars can’t be choosers I guess

[@kenneth9874]

That could be said about Britain as well

[@mltsr]

@@kenneth9874 In this case we were supplying the beggars with equipment we badly needed ourselves

[@kenneth9874]

@@mltsr the US supplied them as well and got maybe 10% of the value

[@mltsr]

@@kenneth9874 Cool, have a cookie

[@kenneth9874]

@@mltsr sure, I'll save you a crumb....

[@theressomelovelyfilthdownh4329]

How many of these were converted to other jobs. But with its poor power/mobility, what could you use it for? You could rip out the gun/ammo, and stick on some steel pipe, and find room for a decent radio. Forward observers could use them, maybe. But they lack the ability to relocate with any kind of speed. Its power is so grim you can't really use it for carrying out jobs, further back from the front line. Even if you ditched the turret all together, and just went for an MG with a mantlet. Sometimes it's a case of well these are the tanks we have, best of luck.

[@maxpayne2574]

The Russian's "hated" all the equipment they got from UK and the US but they used it.

[@adgurardasheliya9313]

Well, if we talk about "hate", this is not true, the Soviet tankers liked the M4 Sherman, you don't even need to talk about trucks, especially Studebaker, because they received the highest marks from the Soviets. You can also say about the planes, in particular about the P-39 Airacobra, which, unlike the Allied Air Force, was very popular, despite some disadvantages. What is it about when 3 of the 5 best aces of the USSR flew the P-39)

[@gunther2555]

If you suddenly thought the Soviets were very demanding and critical, you didn't. However, it should be understood that in many ways they were just as critical of their own tanks. They understood the flaws of their own tanks of the time pretty damn good and tried to solve them as best they could, or offset them with the advantages of the vehicle. The crews undoubtedly found positive aspects in the Lend-Lease tanks. For example, much more comfortable seats, pretty good observation devices, way more inner space, although they certainly had something to criticize. For example, they didn't like the gasoline engines on americans tanks because they believed these are more flammable, and the M3 Lee earned the sad nickname "mass grave on tracks" due to thin armor. And the total number was not too happy - 1000 tanks a year is not an impressive number by the standards of the eastern front, especially if they are technologically behind the enemy. The Soviets objectively valued raw materials, trucks and airplanes much more in lend-lease. Tanks were hardly even among the top five vital Lend-Lease items.

[@desubtilizer]

The Matilda ii was designed in 1937 yet it was the only British tank to serve throughout the entire conflict of WWii

[@kansascityshuffle8526]

Was always curious if leased armour were shipped with radios?

[@TringmotionCoUk]

They did have an HE shell, but the British version was poor. The USA did make a much better one, I found an export chart showing 100% delivery to the soviet union

[@V3RTIGO222]

Surprised pikachu for ice-traction is really great XD

[@dragancrnogorac3851]

Imagine difference being stuck for half an hour at one point or just drive through 10 seconds 😂😂😂

[@master_ace]

I looked at the pics of it at the start of the video, remembered the T34 and how wide those tracks are and immideatly thought to myself "I bet that thing is gonna have traction problems with its puny narrow tracks on wet mud and snow" and wouldn't you know it Also the 21 mins, 16 mins, 14 mins, 10.... seconds Caught me by surprise 😂😂😂

[@yeetadog]

wasn't a HE round available for the 2 pounder but just not issued to tanks (or maybe the USSR)? source is lazerpig so take it with a mountain of salt but still

[@tisFrancesfault]

Yor are correct in that there was an HE round developed. but iirc, did see very limited role-out, but considered rather crap. So they didnt bother.

[@johnculver2519]

@@tisFrancesfault with that size of shell the HE filling makes an infantry mortar look like a nuclear weapon. A bit more armour penetration can be seen as making more sense.

[@GaryK-gk]

No, there was no HE round "produced but not issued". It is a myth, possibly arising from a single line in a book by Hogg which appears to be a mistake or possibly because the original shells were APHE and sometimes called HE to distinguish them from the solid AP shot round. The APHE was shown to have lower penetration than required due to the small amount of explosive filler and so discontinued, which was in hindsight possibly a mistake, but it was not a HE shell.

[@СлаваПшеничный-д3й]

Soviet produced their own and did that earlier than British, as I know. British made HE in 1942, and yes it's not so strong, but it doesn't mean it's no need

[@GaryK-gk]

@@СлаваПшеничный-д3й Yes I think that they should have produced a HE shell from the beginning, but it was British tank doctrine that held sway, and eventually found to be flawed. There was a test done in the desert (it can be found on the internet) which showed even the APHE would have been a useful complement to the solid shot, despite having less penetration.

[@billballbuster7186]

The 2 Pounder did get more powerful ammunition and in 1944 squeeze-bore ammo could penetrate 85mm of armour. In 1940 BEF Matilda's had the suspension raised, which made the tracks very bad over wet grass. New Spudded tracks were fitted in 1941 which greatly improved traction. The Matilda served until 1945 in the Australian army were it mastered jungle warfare fighting in the South West Pacific "Island Hopping" campaigns. It was judged far superior to lighter tanks like M3 Stuart, M3 Lee and M4 Sherman.

[@patrickwentz8413]

I wonder how possible it would have been to swap out the 37 mm gun for the Soviet 45 mm gun, which had high explosive rounds?

[@СергейЗайков-э1щ]

They changed the 40mm cannon to 76mm. On the Valentine tank, they changed 40mm to 45mm

[@podemosurss8316]

You mean the high-velocity? Well, it would have been possible, but the high-velocity 45mm was being used for recon tanks, and the Matilda sucked on that role.

[@xuibd]

There were tons of obsolete T-26 and BT tanks in non-service condition, so why not reuse those guns for Matilda to create slower yet more armoured T-70 with two-manned turret. Soviets even repurposed captured Pz. 3 hulls creating the Su-76i and there were almost 1k Matildas received. But, perhaps, they saw more potential in refitting Valentines instead

[@ComfortsSpecter]

You can only wonder why It’s not like It’s a Matilda or anything

[@Xenophaige_reads]

Love the (probably ironic) name of greyhound on that tank.

[@jaymorris3468]

A high-explosive shell was designed for the 2-pounder but was rarely issued, as the shell explosive charge was so small. So I'm told.

[@jukkasarilo7573]

With tanks most often the big question was not the armour or guns. It was the transmissions. It does not help, if you have say 800 first class tanks and start driving them on their tracks. Transmissions are broken, without any enemy fire.

[@redbuttons573]

Could you do a video on the Valentine? I find very few vids on a very good tank.

[@AprezaRenaldy]

0:54 The Soviets had been using 45mm since 1932.And the 57mm and 76.2mm anti-tank guns had been in production since 1940. 40mm is a bad gun

[@AprezaRenaldy]

0:54 The Soviets had been using 45mm since 1932.And the 57mm and 76.2mm anti-tank guns had been in production since 1940. 40mm is a bad gun

[@philipkomoroski210]

I always wondered about the consistency in mentioning being “invited by” the institution as being a matter of Austrian law. I have learned my quota of new things for the day!

[@paulhampton4334]

Built at the Vulcan locomotive factory a couple of miles from me.

[@rileyernst9086]

Well you can shoot at AT guns. You just gotta be really really accurate!

[@binaway]

The Australian army found it affective fighting the Japanese in the jungles of South East Asia. It's small size meant it could maneuver amongst the trees. It's slow speed didn't matter in the jungles and the Japanese forces it faced had no affective anti-tank gun capable of penetrating it's armor. Although it's engine was loud while hidden amongst the trees and undergrowth the Japanese defenders knew a tank was close while not being able to see it. Half of these Matilda's had a flame thrower tube installed through the gun barrel which scared the Japanese defenders.

[@pRahvi0]

"...yet the Soviets had some problems with it. Then [again], ... they fought with it on the Eastern front. And generally, you don't want to fight on the Eastern front."

[@pRahvi0]

As someone from a former Eastern front country, I wholeheartedly agree.

[@hampusbengtsson4580]

We have the same taste sir, my favourite British WW2 tank also! Great Video 👍

[@outofturn331]

He's a professional, we don't know his tastes

[@hampusbengtsson4580]

@@outofturn331 Did you even watch the video?

[@waskozoids]

the Churchill tank was even slower...

[@Ardox_the_fatebreaker]

The only question i wanna ask is how the hell did they manage to flip a matilda!?

[@PobortzaPl]

Only 2 things are impossible in any army: - digging usable trench in the middle of a river stream - putting on one's head a helmet that was turned inside out

[@michaelguerin56]

I understand that there was a high explosive round BUT no stocks thereof were sent overseas. It may have had a poorly performing shell and it is possible that: with the 6 pounder being developed, it was not considered worthwhile to develop a new 37mm HE round.

[@gwtpictgwtpict4214]

the 2pdr that armed the Matilda II was 40mm, not 37mm.

[@michaelguerin56]

@@gwtpictgwtpict4214 Thank you. I had a feeling that I had messed up BUT had other priorities, immediately after making that post.

[@GaryK-gk]

It was APHE, not HE, and was the original shell but found to have insufficient penetration so was dropped in favour of a solid AP round.

[@michaelguerin56]

@@GaryK-gk Cheers.

[@outofturn331]

0:20 I fight on the Eastern front all the time

[@Serai-l7z]

I want to see this Matilda Waltzing

[@Charlie-fk4ly]

I'm curious, given the mobility issues of the Matilda, Valentine, and Churchill, why didn't the British just upgrade their engines to make them more mobile? I have a gut feeling it has something to do with the suspension being designed for slow speeds given those tanks were meant to be for infantry support. However, I also feels there's more to the story than just that.

[@gwtpictgwtpict4214]

Yeah, coz you just whistle up a better engine when you want one. Easy.

[@RedcoatT]

Late war British tanks like the Cromwell and Comet had the Meteor engine, which was powerful and reliable.

[@keithmcwilliams7424]

I have seen one up close at a war memorial in a small town in nsw .australia

[@davidbrennan660]

Caunter camouflage always looks sweet.

[@ollep9142]

I've got two remarks regarding the armament: 1. The proper way to describe this tank's armament is: The primary weapon is a turret mounted medium machine gun, very effective against all sorts of soft targets up to several hundred meters away. Since that MG isn't good against those rare armored targets the tank was also equipped with a secondary weapon in the form of a coaxial 2-pdr ATG. 2. In this Soviet context it seems a bit off to compare the 2-pdr to the German 37mm gun. A better comparison is the Soviet 45mm gun. That was a copy of the German 37mm, but with a larger caliber because Soviet tests had shown the 37mm HE to be inadequate. Their 45mm HE had more explosives in it. (The Soviet 45mm AP was only equal to the German 37mm AP though.) If re-arming the Matilda tanks to get a HE capability the 45mm gun should be a better choice.

[@DawidKov]

By then the Soviets weren't happy with the 45mm either. There's a reason they had the 76mm in both T-34 and KV tanks. Sure, replacing the foreign 40mm would still be better, but it'd just be a marginal improvement - the Soviets wanted a more combat capable vehicle that'd be easier to supply, so 76mm was the better option all around. And even 76mm became inadequate by the end of the war, which is why the late T-34 had the 85mm gun.

[@СлаваПшеничный-д3й]

​@@DawidKovdisagree with last, as infantry support it was useful. Many soldiers were glad to see Su-76

[@DawidKov]

@@СлаваПшеничный-д3й Oh sure, as infantry support I wouldn't argue against it. But even there, the SU vehicles were getting upgraded too, with SU-85 and SU-100 being deployed based on the T-34-85. Because even for infantry support, those were better calibers when encountering enemy fortifications and the like.

[@alexandershorse9021]

Maybe the Matilda gave the Germans a few surprises in 41/42 because they probably thought it was a thinly armoured obsolete Soviet tank, of the BT series. The Soviets kept using it for the whole war so it couldn’t have been completely useless. It would be interesting to know which Soviet units had the Matilda II.

[@СергейЗайков-э1щ]

Kv 1939... T34 1939... Soviet armor was surprise, matilda - no.

[@carpecanem611]

"If you can read this, turn me over." Clearly, the sticker was only in English.

[@wfp9378]

Even today nobody wants to fight on the Eastern Front

[@wehrabooslayer419]

What about the soviet 20-K gun. I have always thought that it was the superior pre-war tank gun.

[@inkycat7167]

The 2 pounder did have HE… Just that they’re next to useless

[@Dregomz02]

They should use it as improvised bridge

[@michaelhearne3289]

Odd I’ve always heard the Soviets liked the tank. Reliable, good armour and best of all free.

[@richardrichards5982]

I think that is just modern British propaganda. The Soviets used them, but when compared to the T34, they were pretty inferior.

[@madtechnocrat9234]

propaganda is something that a state does. I doubt UK government is spending money to prove to everyone that soviets liked matilda tank. It is a gossip or myth or nowbody says that anyway.

[@ClovisPoint]

and a shit 2 pounder

[@GaryK-gk]

This tank was not designed for Russian winters or Russian tank doctrine. Of course they had likes and dislikes, had problems they needed to sort, but it was put to a use it was never designed for and ultimately did remarkably well, serving through to the end of the war. The Soviets disliked the idea that they were helped by the West post-war, but I think to interpret any reports detailing issues they had as the Soviets disliking the Matilda is feeding into the Cold War Soviet narrative. How many contemporary reports actually say "we don't like this tank", "this tank is terrible", and are there any reports that say the opposite? I have recently read about Matildas in Soviet service on a website, remarkably similar to the narration here, except that the website seemed a little more balanced in its conclusion.

[@williamzk9083]

I wouldn’t take anything Russian historians say about this weapon seriously. The Soviet Union maintained a propaganda department to promote the myth of the T34. Recently it came out that the TV series Chernobyl which was based upon the book Chernobyl was in fact written by the Russian government to ensure individuals were blamed rather than the Soviet government. Everything in the soviet union was based on lies. There’s not a lot of western equipment that they liked. The Matilda 2 pound gun had the same penetration as the Soviet 76.2 mm gun on the T34 and about the same not better in this Matilda. Generally in the fullness of time the truth about history often comes out. Not in Russia the way it is now. they like to forget the allied fight in North Africa the invasion of Sicily the invasion of northern Italy or they combine bomber offensive or the war in the north Atlantic

[@DawidKov]

Read the same reports on Soviet's own tanks, and you'll see that they were simply being objective - they listed all flaws that could be found. The IS tanks for example were, if anything, even more disparaged by the Soviet reports. So it was not a matter of "Cold War propaganda", it was a matter of objective analysis.

[@DawidKov]

@@williamzk9083 The book that HBO's Chernobyl was based on was written by Svetlana Alexiyevich, a woman known for writing books full of misinformation - primarily of the sort that is very much disliked by the Russian and Belarussian governments. It was in no way "written by the Russian government" when it was inherently anti-Soviet and anti-Russian. She is a "dissident", as it would be called today. As to the gun, the penetration itself isn't all of it. The after-penetration effect is an important factor. And with no explosive filler at all, there is basically no after-penetration effect. Even with explosive filler, a 40mm projectile would fail to match the effect of a heavier, larger 76mm projectile.

[@Constanza235]

@@williamzk9083 Absolute nonsense. There was no "propaganda department to promote the T-34" (this is active schizo beliefs), it was just an iconic tank, like the Spitfire is iconic to the Brits. The TV series was written by americans based on the writtings of a dissident that actively go against recorded and verified history. It's a novel. The Soviets liked the Sherman and even the Lee, so the fact that they disliked the Matilda is telling. Additionally, any vehicle report from the Soviets is direct and to the point, without much room for praise (tanks don't have feelings, they won't get offended). The cold war ended 30 years ago, you can leave your cold war bunker.

[@ZOMBIEo07]

​​​@@williamzk9083If you actually could read russian, you will find out that there is no propaganda in the documents at all. There are simply facts, good and bad about everything you can imagine. The only one who spreads propaganda is yourself. Btw. the allies, ESPECIALLY the brits gave soviets equipment that was almost always not used by themselfes because it was deemed inferior against the german counter parts or was straight up labeled as a failed project. Thats why USSR often used it as a back line support, converted it to other uses or as scrap metal.

[@eyeswideopen7450]

Interesting they used this small and well balanced tank and later came up with the churchill that looks way more WW1

[@reckless20]

Wait, why matilda 2 has aphe ammo in war thunder but not irl? And what about apds rounds? I though matilda had them

[@quineloe]

Was war eigentlich die Funktioni dieser fünf großen Löcher auf jeder Seite?

[@BillMartin-h2g]

The ironic part is the Matilda was so effective in it's first encounter with the Germans, it forced Rommel to improvise the use of 88mm flak to anti-tank, and changed the course of tank development.

[@zlatanclovecic1944]

Battle of Arras, France, 1940, where Matildas attack to the flank of narrow German line scared the German officers and contributed greatly to the Hitler's "halt-befel" on advance towards Dunkerque.

[@zlatanclovecic1944]

In 1940 the QF-2pndr was still very efficient anti-tank weapon against all tanks that Germans could deploy. Even in 1941 and still not bad in 1942, considering the amount of light & obsolete medium tanks the Wehrmacht was using on Eastern Front. Russians tended to criticise many western weapons, although their own were not better. But it was safer for health of the Soviet engineers to say that "the Russian is better".

[@modernxenophon1582]

Wouldn't the obstacle course test in 7:04 be inherently biased in favor of domestic tanks (the T-34 in the Soviet case)? I imagine that the if the driver is familiar with the vehicle, the way it handles, and its capabilities and limitations, he would simple be more confident to extract the maximum performance from the vehicle. The test driver can floor the gas pedal of a T-34 and punch through the obstacle course in 10 seconds because he probably has lots of experience driving T-34s and KNOWS they are capable of doing it. With tanks from allied countries, the Soviet test drivers would probably receive some instruction, but would not be as confident in a Matilda or a Valentine as a British crew. With captured enemy tanks the test drivers would be least confident, so the test result would probably be farthest from reflecting the actual maximum capability of a Panzer III. This is just guesswork, but I still think we should consider potential biases in such a test, rather than take its results at face value.

[@paintnamer6403]

The US had a good selection of rounds for their 37mm.

[@ElectricSmurf]

One thing good about the Matilda is that it wasn’t the Covenanter lol

[@amsfountain8792]

I am quite surprised they used this tank still in 1945. I guess an old tank is better than no tank.

[@johnelliott7850]

Yes, a great early war tank, and the "Queen Of The Desert".

[@richardrichards5982]

I read that the Soviet tank crews liked the Matilda 2 for its armour and reliability, calling it the 'English Workman, slow but reliable'.

[@firenado1674]

it’s not fast enough to leave the infantry behind so it can’t die without infantry support like every other soviet tank in ww2

[@jackjack-sm2jg]

Gaijin: Russian bias doesn't exist Russian bias: 7:21

[@fearedjames]

Russian bias needs a bit of context with WWII. The problem with it is that consistently, War-thunder severely under-displays the speed of medium and light tanks. Pretty much the only tanks they get the historical speed of is the insanely slow ones. Meanwhile the T34 is faster than most tanks and is reflected being faster. The problem with the T34, is that to actually get the test speed that makes it the fastest medium tank in WWII, you need an incredible run up, and you need to switch nearly impossibly heavy gears with the precision of a professional sports car driver with absolutely nothing to guide such precision. When this is factored in, the T34 is actually one of the slowest medium tanks in WWII, solely for the fact that it can only really be driven at 2nd gear realistically, and even if you have a means to go to 3rd gear and above, you wouldn't want to since you'll damage the gears by doing so. Quite literally, in practical use, Japanese tanks should be dramatically faster than every single variant of the T34 except like, borderline post war tanks. Yes, even the Chi-Ha that's slower than most the heavy tanks in the game should be 2-3x faster than a T34. Finally, the T34 has extremely weak side armour. This means that for a realistic experience, the T34 should be an easily flanked, extremely slow tank, that is extremely difficult to take out from the front.

[@СлаваПшеничный-д3й]

​@@fearedjamesproblem with gear box was fixed in spring of 1942, so no it wasn't slowest one. If u ask why it problem was, i d say cuz they put BT gearbox in it. I'm think they did it in reason that t34 variant weren't last. Maybe they want something like t44 but when war started they worked with that they have

[@aleksei5172]

190hp - that's less than a modern Mini Cooper S

[@marceldavis5600]

Lohnt sich das Panzermuseum in Munster oder das militär historische der BW in Leipzig mehr?

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Wofür? Also Panzer gibts in Munster mehr... äh warte Leipzig? Meinst du das MHM in Dresden?

[@marceldavis5600]

​@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Eh ja, das in Dresden meinte ich. Da soll es ja mehr geben als nur Panzer, aber lohnt sich dahin auch ein Besuch? Die in Panzermuseum in Munster haben ja aus mehrere Nationen Fahrzeuge und vielen Zeitabschnitten. Deswegen die Frage was sich halt mehr lohnen würde deiner Meinung nach.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Hängt sehr von deinem Interesse etc. ab, Munster hat halt fast "nur" Panzer. MHM Dresden hat einige Panzer draußen, aber wenig drinnen. Ebenso Flugzeuge und eventuell Helikopter, ich glaub der Mi-24 Hind ist weg, weil die Overkill Ausstellung vorbei ist. Im MHM gibts dann noch Panzerfaust, Fliegerfaust, Uniformen, etc. ist aber auch komplett anders aufgezogen, also viele Vitrinen etc. auch diverse andere Fahrzeuge. Also Breite ist in MHM eindeutig mehr, Tiefe was Panzer betrifft wird nichts an Munster vorbeiführen. Munster ist auch "persönlicher", MHM eher professionell distanziert, auch wegen der Größe.

[@marceldavis5600]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Besten Dank. Ich denke dann gehe ich demnächst nach Munster.

[@brennanleadbetter9708]

Do a video on why they liked the Sherman.

[@ExploreTheUKWithMe]

I'm surprised by this not sure how true this is

[@shkarserwan2570]

they actually had a matilda II in the battle of Berlin that fought in the capturing of the Reichstag Building.

[@richardrichards5982]

Reference please!

[@AssassinIsAfk]

Valentine was superior, had a better gun, had better amour, the valentine was the best british tank, especially the 75 varient

[@kstreet7438]

What exactly is this Austrian law?

[@MrSpirit99]

You have to mark any kind of sponsoring.

[@kstreet7438]

@MrSpirit99 oh okay. Not as cool as I thought it was gonna be lolllll. But still a good law

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

or better anything that could be considered sponsoring, of course, if you work in "regular" media nobody cares.

[@tomhenry897]

Europe has stricter truth in advertising laws

[@johanmetreus1268]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized heard of the Turkish plastic surgery scandal in Sweden? Turned out a bunch of makeup and fashion influencers got paid to advertise certain clinics in Turkey under strict NDAs, with personal operations as part of the package. Whole thing was exposed when one of the clinics botched the procedures on two of the more known ones, forcing them to Swedish hospitals with severe infections, unsuitable implants that had to be removed and various other issues. Yes, it is kind of ridiculous for a military history channel to have to disclose they are invited by a museeum, but it is easier to distinguish between "youtuber" and "regular media" than between "guy talking about tanks in an academic way", "guy talking about tanks from experience" and "guy reading wikipedia about tanks to peddle some tank game".

[@carrickrichards2457]

Too slow for the eastern front. Very undergunned, especially after 1941. The Soviets formed several tank corps purely from lend lease tanks (Matilda, Valentine, Crusaders but a majority of Shermans >4000). The soviets liked the Shermans (of which 50% 76mm) but Staln ensured it was not shown in propaganda.