Already considered as a well protected tank even in European theater (though it was undergunned). But in the Pacific theater? It was even more than just a formidable tank for any Japanese tanks encountered.
Yeah Japan really screwed themselves over in the tank department, deciding to give them whatever materials were left over combined with the "if it's good enough to take out infantry in Manchuria" attitude wasn't great in hindsight lmao. Turns out you can't just wail on a medium tank with a gunto no matter how determined that person happens to be 😂
I mean I guess Japanese tanks were more manuverable but that's about it, some of the designs that never got produced were pretty cool or would be had they existed lol
@@rogershaftly6976 Yes. Despite the Khalkin-Gol defeat, Japan never learned. Especially after their light tanks & tankettes attack against the much-weakened Vichy French forces in Indochina and the unprepared British garrisons in Malaya & Singapore. Japan did believe they were superior & undefeatable in Asia Pacific thus they never update their arms until its too late, "the same weapon they used in Manchuria (Sino-Japanese War) they were still using in Okinawa 9 years later" I quote this from _History Channel: Japanese Small Arms of WW2_
Both the hull and turret were cast as a single piece. That, and the quality of British steel (that never wavered due to better supply) made this tank quite formable in any theater for most of the war.
The Australian designed and manufactured AC2 was more formidable… The AC4 would have been as capable as any tank on the planet in 1943. Getting free tanks from Britain and the United States killed the program.
just to clarify you said "the Queens" holdings in Australia and it should have been "the Kings" holdings. George the VI was monarch. Fantastic video otherwise. thank you for covering this
@@kirkstinson7316 A Landing Craft (Tank) is a significantly smaller vessel than a LST. LCT are about 35 metres [ ±116 feet]; LST are 100 metres [ ± 330 feet].
The Britishand commonwealth tended to refer to their armoured vehicles and ships as females, hence the Churchill and British Matilda being known as the queen of the desert
New Zealand only had about 16 Maltidas with the 3 inch howitzers that where transferred to Australia. However NZ had swapped out the Howitzers for 2 pounders, and installed the removed howitzers in the NZ valentine fleet (Which did not otherwise have a 3 inch howitzer variant). I believe Australia then converted these Matilda’s to flamethrower vehicles.
Somewhere less than 50 Matilda II's were offloaded to the Australian civilian market after the war and were used as clear-felling vehicles and bulldozers for scrub and light woodland clearing, esp in QLD and the Wimmera-Mallee regions in Victoria. Several of these have been restored to driving condition by Batrac International.
I had read several times that Matildas served in the Pacific Theater, but didn't give it much thought. this video has definitely changed that perception! Her little-noticed service with Australia seems to dwarf much better covered actions in Europe and Africa and should be the true measure of her contribution.
Damned tough little tank! Another early war British tank forced into obsolescence in Europe due to the inability to be up gunned. But Matildas,Valinetines, and M-3 Grants gave good service in the India Burma China theater. The Japanese had no tanks that could really cope with them
Tests involving British and American tanks were carried out in New Guinea which resulted in selection of the Matilda II so it wasn't a random selection. The 2 pounder was used against Japanese bunkers, quite effectively too against the logs used.
Bet a dollar that scraper device for the drive sprocket came from a farm boy. It sounds a LOT like an agricultural implement for disk blade or cultivator wheel cleaning.
@bwilliams463: You’re probably right about mechanical modifications being then made to the Matilda II by an agricultural worker of some description! After all, the original prototype of the very first invented tank (“The Little Willie - Mk I”) itself was initially conceived, developed & constructed in 1915, by the William Foster & Company Agricultural Machinery & Equipment engineers & manufacturers of Lincoln, Lincolnshire, England, UK! 🇬🇧
There is one in the bush on a property above Nundle NSW ONtop ofthe great deviding range with no torrent I found while pig shooting in 1984 I guess was used for pulling logs after the war
Soviets: duuuude, noooo, those Matildas cannot even cope with a bit of snow, how can we even think about driving through mud? Ausies: man, just add one fckin wedge per side. Done.
Small question. Covenanter Bridging Tank? My understanding was the Covenanter was only used in the British Isles, due to its reliability issues and general unsuitability for front line usage.
Great video. Matildas were really excellent in Australian hands. Churchills may have been better, but the British kept most of these for themselves (c301 sent / c253 received by the Red Army).
Churchills aren't as good in the jungle. The video is around of the tests done after the war when we were evaluating various tanks. The Churchills sank so deeply into the soft ground they dragged their bellies all the way.
Please do a series videos comparing the different main guns of the same caliber through the end of WW2. 37mm, 40 thru 60mm, 75 and 76mm, everything larger. Thanks. Your videos are very informative.
Yes.... I always think the Matilda II had the same layout as most modern tanks: rear drive socket, three man turret, no hull machine gun and driver seated in the center behind heavy cast armor. 🤔
Awsome vid now Australia did make there only and one tank earlier the Sentenial tank which some 65 where made but after recieving American lend lease tanks the M3 Sturart and M3 Grant and Lee where used just for training. Now Australia loved the M3 Sturart but the M3 Grant, Lee was not liked and just like the Sentenial was used for training and replaced by as talked about in this video the awsome older Matilda 2 tank which I've learned more about in this vid. Later we had a competition between the Sherman and Churchil tank to replase it in service for use in New Guinea. The Churchill tank one out due to its better climbing abilities would have been better agianst the Japanese. We never used them in the Korean war don't know why except that the UK and USA had plenty of tanks there for support already. We would go on to get the Centurion tank which we used to great affect in Vietnam later getting the Leopard 1 tank we called the Leopard AS4 nearly going to the 1999 East Timorese crisis but not sent and the Abrams M1A1 in 2007 soon to get some more upgraded M1A2V3 tanks. Overall today Australia is upgrading a lot of its armor assets with Boxer APCs ect and probably Redback IFVs my favourite pick for the land 400.
The Sentinel AC4 was the most heavily armed tank design in existence in 1942 - it was the first tank to mount the later Sherman Firefly’s 17 pounder gun (which was designed by the same engineer). The Sherman and Lee had better drive trains however and were MUCH cheaper when the British dropped 1500 in Australia in 1943 after the Lee’s were withdrawn from use in the Middle East.
Sentinal would have worked. The water cooled Vickers would have been a blessing for sustained fire. The 25 lb gun upgrade would have been a great bunker buster.
@@robertmansfield7656 Sorry late reply the Sentinal was good but not so when it came to crew ergonmics(See Chieftian open hatch vid from Bovington). Also it was more expensive to produce in Australia than lend lease tanks from the US, UK.
When I was a child. I remember seeing a Matilda flamethrower tank. At the Big M museum, Dubbo, New South Wales. The museum closed years ago. Does anyone know what happened to it.
Well done and interesting thank you. I would question whether the 2-pounder armed Matilda was an "ideal" Infantry Tank, although the 90mm was more suitable to the role. The 40mm calibre was too light to deliver a meaningful HE round, and to the best of my understanding, the British never developed a dedicated HE round, and only had a solid shot AP round, a critical shortcoming in the North African campaign, particularly after the Germans arrived. The Soviets also found it a critical shortcoming with their lend-lease Matildas and Valentines. There were also no canister rounds, like the Americans developed for their 37mm. I think I did see mention of the Australians developing, or at least trying to develop, an HE round for the 2-pounder, but am not sure if that saw the light of day, and if so, when it may have been introduced. Perhaps this ammunition question would make an interesting video - certainly it would be interesting to have clarified.
Yes, he would have. My father served as a sapper in Bougainville in WW2. He told me that he saw a Matilda sunk in 2 metres of mud in Bougainville. It was the sappers job to drag the Matilda out of mud. My father ended the war in August 1945 in Madang, pronounced Ma Dang not Ma Dung.
Okay hold on a moment- Can we talk about that Helicopter tank at 0:46? That feels more Soviet to me than Aussie. It just screams vodka fueled bender in design, rather than marmite and copious beers and hallucinations due to a bite by one of the bajillion venomous and otherwise toxic creatures that inhabit Hell Lite. The rest are undoubtably Aussie, especially that tracked armored car with a water drum turret.
“The Queen’s holdings in Australia.” For one thing in 1942 the Empire had a king, George the sixth and for another Australia was a sovereign country under the Empire and the queen didn’t have holdings in Australia. If you’re talking about Crown land that was owned by the Commonwealth and held in trust for the nation. This is what happens when Americans present history . They don’t have a clue.
Question, so obviously tanks were not 100% ideal with many conditions they would face. For that reason some Japanese islands deemed fortresses only had half a dozen light tanks on hand. Did the Japanese just not have very many type 95 and type 98s or was this back to the less than ideal conditions for tanks. If they didn’t have many. Another question of mine is roughly how many did they have by the end of 1942 or at any other point
Think you mean the Type 97 not Type 98, and they actually did have them in reasonably high numbers, 2,300 Type 95's and around 3000 Type 97's of all variants were made by the end of the war; they were doled out piecemeal in small numbers to the various widespread territories and garrisons however, and most of the more powerful upgunned Type 97 variants that were developed toward the end of the war were held back to defend the home islands from the expected invasion and so saw no action; the only version of Japanese tank that the Matilda II's were actually likely to encounter that stood much chance of defeating one, was the Type 97 "ShinHōtō Chi-Ha", the model of Type 97 with a high-velocity 47mm; these would've still needed to hit the Matilda in the right place to penetrate it however, whereas the Matilda's 2-Pounder could easily kill a Type 97 with any well-aimed direct hit
To be fair to the Japanese planners, they never planned tank on tank fights. When you consider their expected enemies the main thing needed were infantry tanks, a gun big enough to help the infantry and enough armour to stop a heavy MG round. They were generally outclassed by a vehicle designed to kill other tanks.
Rommel found that the best way to destroy a Matilda was by using his 88mm anti-aircraft guns IN EUROPE, 1940, long before it's thick armour 'prooved itself conclusively in the Pacific'. In fact the Matilda scared the Germans! And it was NOT obsolete by the Pacific war period, in fact it was the only British tank to be used right throughout the war! The 40mm gun itself was obsolete, not the tank.
It was deemed obsolete because it's small size prevented it from mounting a larger cannon. Low speed being a secondary concern. I often wonder why the Brits didn't develop an upscaled vehicle based off it. Or perhaps that's what the Churchill was?
One tanker described it as seriously scary watching 40mm rounds drop short of the target when going up against panzer 111 tanks in North Africa. Armour was good. They were reliable enough compared to other brit tanks.
The real Matilda 's drawback was the impossibility of upgunning it, its turret's ring was too tight, otherwise with a more powerful gun its performances would've been improved.
@@maxomat4319 REALLY? How did they were able to make it? I remember reading that the builders had to push forward the gun's mantlet to allow a third crewman, turret's ring was tight also for a 2pdr!
A wonderful little machine. Although showing its age in the European theatre by the middle of the war, the Matilda II repeated its early-war successes in the Pacific. Against any entrenched opponent with light anti-tank guns, the Matilda excelled. Nothing short of heavy artillery or late-war man-portable shaped charge weapons could seriously damage the Matilda, much less destroy it. Even compared to late-war tanks, the early-war Matilda was considered well-armoured, well laid out, and reliable. The critical flaws of the Matilda were a mediocre main gun and poor speed. However, when supporting infantry in a jungle environment, and fighting against enemies who lacked serious armoured support, neither of these shortcomings were of consequence. Any tank fighting in a rainforest was required to move slowly anyway, and the two-pounder gun was more than adequate for duelling with light Japanese vehicles and smashing concrete pillboxes. Such a plucky and dependable little machine.
If this would have been a german tank then allied historians would say: "Even a mere 3,7cm AT gun could disable it." "They were poorly adapted to the actual battlefield and desperately needed heavy modifications in the field." "They suffered heavy losses of over 50% only during marches because of their poor drivetrains." "Their actual K/D ration on other tanks were bad." "They never fulfilled their actual role as medium tanks but only as mere support vehicles, making them a waste of resources."
Queen's holdings? HM Queen Elizabeth II did not become the Sovereign until after the War. Her father was King George VI, who was the monarch during the war.
This lady would be virtually indestructible as long as infantry didnt let a enemy soldier get to its back and climb on it,guess they could get lucky and try to destroy its tracks but the crew voudlnt be harmed
The later campaigns the Australians were involved in are often portrayed as sideshows but no more so than the "sideshows" the Allies were involved in 1945 such as Italy, Burma and Mindanao. Even MacArthur's campaign in the Philippines is seen as such by US Navy and Marines fans these days. Bougainville and New Guinea were Australian protectorates under League of Nation mandates so PM John Curtin thought there was a legal obligation to fully liberate them. Apart from the oil reserves, the Japanese in Borneo put up a much stronger resistance than expected because they assumed it would be used as a stepping stone back to Singapore which had actually been proposed by the British High Command in 1944 but resisted by Churchill who preferred a "Bay of Bengal solution". From Borneo the Allies could also be deployed to liberate Java or Indochina, opening up supply lines to China through Vietnam.
Some tanks, t34 and m4 proved that in many conditions quantity makes up for shortcomings in terms of firepower or reliability, i certainly can't think of many more suitable tanks for the Pacific theater than this ol'girl, everything that made them unpopular in north Africa didn't matter here.
My grandpa drove the II in the 2/4th armoured regiment. I have his beret and medals framed on my wall. Very proud of him.
As well you should be.
Already considered as a well protected tank even in European theater (though it was undergunned). But in the Pacific theater? It was even more than just a formidable tank for any Japanese tanks encountered.
Yeah Japan really screwed themselves over in the tank department, deciding to give them whatever materials were left over combined with the "if it's good enough to take out infantry in Manchuria" attitude wasn't great in hindsight lmao. Turns out you can't just wail on a medium tank with a gunto no matter how determined that person happens to be 😂
I mean I guess Japanese tanks were more manuverable but that's about it, some of the designs that never got produced were pretty cool or would be had they existed lol
@@rogershaftly6976 Yes. Despite the Khalkin-Gol defeat, Japan never learned. Especially after their light tanks & tankettes attack against the much-weakened Vichy French forces in Indochina and the unprepared British garrisons in Malaya & Singapore. Japan did believe they were superior & undefeatable in Asia Pacific thus they never update their arms until its too late, "the same weapon they used in Manchuria (Sino-Japanese War) they were still using in Okinawa 9 years later" I quote this from _History Channel: Japanese Small Arms of WW2_
Thanks mate great video the best I've seen yet on the Matilda in the Pacific campaign 👍
@@Cyan_Nightingale They had "The Victory Disease"
Thanks a lot for the shout out!
Any time!
Both the hull and turret were cast as a single piece. That, and the quality of British steel (that never wavered due to better supply) made this tank quite formable in any theater for most of the war.
The Australian designed and manufactured AC2 was more formidable… The AC4 would have been as capable as any tank on the planet in 1943.
Getting free tanks from Britain and the United States killed the program.
One of my favourite tanks. The gun depression must have been very nice in the jungles.
And the small size to swerve around trees and obstacles
not to the people it was depressed at
@@nowthenzenF for those
Nice to see us Aussies getting recognition we deserve.
but you didn't do anything
@@starchild5793 mid bait, L take, 2/10
There was also a few converted to mount Naval hedgehog anti submarine launchers on the rear decks firing 24 x 65 lb mortar bombs.
just to clarify you said "the Queens" holdings in Australia and it should have been "the Kings" holdings. George the VI was monarch. Fantastic video otherwise. thank you for covering this
Also messed up on the landing craft. It L.S.T, landing SHIP tank. Not L.C.T
@@kirkstinson7316 A Landing Craft (Tank) is a significantly smaller vessel than a LST. LCT are about 35 metres [ ±116 feet]; LST are 100 metres [ ± 330 feet].
The Britishand commonwealth tended to refer to their armoured vehicles and ships as females, hence the Churchill and British Matilda being known as the queen of the desert
According to the Australian constitution, the monarch does not have any holdings.
@@BasilPuntonWhy then do we refer to Crown Land for all land owned by the Commonwealth of Australia or the various State Governments??
New Zealand only had about 16 Maltidas with the 3 inch howitzers that where transferred to Australia. However NZ had swapped out the Howitzers for 2 pounders, and installed the removed howitzers in the NZ valentine fleet (Which did not otherwise have a 3 inch howitzer variant). I believe Australia then converted these Matilda’s to flamethrower vehicles.
Pov: you’re a Japanese AT gunner and the 15th round bounces off the goofy looking Aussie tank waltzing towards you
The Matilda would’ve been waltzing towards them 😂
@@lynby6231fair enough lol
Somewhere less than 50 Matilda II's were offloaded to the Australian civilian market after the war and were used as clear-felling vehicles and bulldozers for scrub and light woodland clearing, esp in QLD and the Wimmera-Mallee regions in Victoria. Several of these have been restored to driving condition by Batrac International.
It's true, you can find them on YT. Some were left as bulldozers.
I had read several times that Matildas served in the Pacific Theater, but didn't give it much thought. this video has definitely changed that perception!
Her little-noticed service with Australia seems to dwarf much better covered actions in Europe and Africa and should be the true measure of her contribution.
In the end, the Matilda II did what she was designed to do.
Damned tough little tank! Another early war British tank forced into obsolescence in Europe due to the inability to be up gunned. But Matildas,Valinetines, and M-3 Grants gave good service in the India Burma China theater. The Japanese had no tanks that could really cope with them
Tests involving British and American tanks were carried out in New Guinea which resulted in selection of the Matilda II so it wasn't a random selection. The 2 pounder was used against Japanese bunkers, quite effectively too against the logs used.
oh god that cursed heli tank at the start.
Bet a dollar that scraper device for the drive sprocket came from a farm boy. It sounds a LOT like an agricultural implement for disk blade or cultivator wheel cleaning.
I'd say that was a very easy bet to win! 😅
@bwilliams463: You’re probably right about mechanical modifications being then made to the Matilda II by an agricultural worker of some description! After all, the original prototype of the very first invented tank (“The Little Willie - Mk I”) itself was initially conceived, developed & constructed in 1915, by the William Foster & Company Agricultural Machinery & Equipment engineers & manufacturers of Lincoln, Lincolnshire, England, UK! 🇬🇧
There's Matilda hulks sitting in a field by the Mallee Highway at Murrayville in western Victoria.
I will always be happy to hear about our Aussie tanks!
There is one in the bush on a property above Nundle NSW ONtop ofthe great deviding range with no torrent I found while pig shooting in 1984 I guess was used for pulling logs after the war
Excellent video sir. Good job. I have a massive soft spot for matilda 2.
The Australians were some bad dudes with great attitudes. None better to have fighting by your side.
Thank you for the clip of the most formidable tank ever built, the brainchild of Bob Semple, the undefeated Bob Semple tank.
Soviets: duuuude, noooo, those Matildas cannot even cope with a bit of snow, how can we even think about driving through mud?
Ausies: man, just add one fckin wedge per side. Done.
Small question.
Covenanter Bridging Tank?
My understanding was the Covenanter was only used in the British Isles, due to its reliability issues and general unsuitability for front line usage.
The tanks yes. But there were auxiliary versions that saw service.
armourersbench.com/2021/06/20/the-covenanter-bridgelayer/
Great video. Matildas were really excellent in Australian hands. Churchills may have been better, but the British kept most of these for themselves (c301 sent / c253 received by the Red Army).
Churchills aren't as good in the jungle. The video is around of the tests done after the war when we were evaluating various tanks. The Churchills sank so deeply into the soft ground they dragged their bellies all the way.
mmmmh, churchills were heavier and bigger than mathildas, I dont think they would have done much better
Not really they helped the 7th armoured div destroy Rommel and lead to the big win in north Africa..
The Churchill was bigger and heavier so harder to bring forward to the battle in the conditions faced by the Australians.
@@johnfisk811 Best cross country and hill climber tank of ww2.
There's 1 40kms up the road. Use to play on it when we were kids.
I remember climbing over a Matilda 2 tank in a park at Singleton. I don't know if it is still there.
Still there. Drive past it every morning
I have the original landing diagrams for Oboe 2 and it shows Matilda's as well as frogs and bridgelayers
❤❤❤❤❤ A wonderful tank when properly used!!!!!
I read somewhere that the Germans was so shocked by the armour on matida one and twos at Arras this was one off the reasons for the tiger 1
The Germans only stopped the Matilda’s at Arras by turning 88mm flak guns on them as a last resort. Until then the Matilda’s were unstoppable
1 is running at lancer barracks in Sydney
Please do a series videos comparing the different main guns of the same caliber through the end of WW2. 37mm, 40 thru 60mm, 75 and 76mm, everything larger. Thanks. Your videos are very informative.
My favorite were the German squeezebore antitank guns. Same principle as the little John adaptor used on the 2pdr in fact
I always thought the Matilda II looked very advanced for the time it was designed
Yes.... I always think the Matilda II had the same layout as most modern tanks: rear drive socket, three man turret, no hull machine gun and driver seated in the center behind heavy cast armor. 🤔
Awsome vid now Australia did make there only and one tank earlier the Sentenial tank which some 65 where made but after recieving American lend lease tanks the M3 Sturart and M3 Grant and Lee where used just for training. Now Australia loved the M3 Sturart but the M3 Grant, Lee was not liked and just like the Sentenial was used for training and replaced by as talked about in this video the awsome older Matilda 2 tank which I've learned more about in this vid. Later we had a competition between the Sherman and Churchil tank to replase it in service for use in New Guinea. The Churchill tank one out due to its better climbing abilities would have been better agianst the Japanese. We never used them in the Korean war don't know why except that the UK and USA had plenty of tanks there for support already. We would go on to get the Centurion tank which we used to great affect in Vietnam later getting the Leopard 1 tank we called the Leopard AS4 nearly going to the 1999 East Timorese crisis but not sent and the Abrams M1A1 in 2007 soon to get some more upgraded M1A2V3 tanks. Overall today Australia is upgrading a lot of its armor assets with Boxer APCs ect and probably Redback IFVs my favourite pick for the land 400.
The Sentinel AC4 was the most heavily armed tank design in existence in 1942 - it was the first tank to mount the later Sherman Firefly’s 17 pounder gun (which was designed by the same engineer).
The Sherman and Lee had better drive trains however and were MUCH cheaper when the British dropped 1500 in Australia in 1943 after the Lee’s were withdrawn from use in the Middle East.
Sentinal would have worked. The water cooled Vickers would have been a blessing for sustained fire. The 25 lb gun upgrade would have been a great bunker buster.
@@robertmansfield7656 Sorry late reply the Sentinal was good but not so when it came to crew ergonmics(See Chieftian open hatch vid from Bovington). Also it was more expensive to produce in Australia than lend lease tanks from the US, UK.
The colour footage is from Matt McMahon. His channel of the same name, is well worth a look for restored Matildas in action!
When I was a child. I remember seeing a Matilda flamethrower tank. At the Big M museum, Dubbo, New South Wales. The museum closed years ago. Does anyone know what happened to it.
Wait, can we get more info on those prototypes? I’ve seen a similar picture to that helicopter tank, something about a ‘grasshopper’ tank.
Well done and interesting thank you. I would question whether the 2-pounder armed Matilda was an "ideal" Infantry Tank, although the 90mm was more suitable to the role. The 40mm calibre was too light to deliver a meaningful HE round, and to the best of my understanding, the British never developed a dedicated HE round, and only had a solid shot AP round, a critical shortcoming in the North African campaign, particularly after the Germans arrived. The Soviets also found it a critical shortcoming with their lend-lease Matildas and Valentines. There were also no canister rounds, like the Americans developed for their 37mm. I think I did see mention of the Australians developing, or at least trying to develop, an HE round for the 2-pounder, but am not sure if that saw the light of day, and if so, when it may have been introduced. Perhaps this ammunition question would make an interesting video - certainly it would be interesting to have clarified.
There was a 2pdr HE shell the Australians found to be quite effective against troops enclosed in bunkers.
My great grandfather fought at Bougainville. I wonder if he ever saw one of these tanks.
Yes, he would have. My father served as a sapper in Bougainville in WW2. He told me that he saw a Matilda sunk in 2 metres of mud in Bougainville. It was the sappers job to drag the Matilda out of mud. My father ended the war in August 1945 in Madang, pronounced Ma Dang not Ma Dung.
It's BORNEEOO, Not BORNAYO.
Interesting video. 🙂
Okay hold on a moment- Can we talk about that Helicopter tank at 0:46? That feels more Soviet to me than Aussie. It just screams vodka fueled bender in design, rather than marmite and copious beers and hallucinations due to a bite by one of the bajillion venomous and otherwise toxic creatures that inhabit Hell Lite.
The rest are undoubtably Aussie, especially that tracked armored car with a water drum turret.
tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2-australia-grasshopper-light-tank/
“The Queen’s holdings in Australia.” For one thing in 1942 the Empire had a king, George the sixth and for another Australia was a sovereign country under the Empire and the queen didn’t have holdings in Australia. If you’re talking about Crown land that was owned by the Commonwealth and held in trust for the nation.
This is what happens when Americans present history . They don’t have a clue.
Brilliant video 📹 and thank you for sharing.
Also, a big 'Hello' 👋 from Stoke-on-Trent in Staffordshire, England. 🏴
A he'll level place in peace time but being in a tank that's showing how tough men can be .
Question, so obviously tanks were not 100% ideal with many conditions they would face.
For that reason some Japanese islands deemed fortresses only had half a dozen light tanks on hand. Did the Japanese just not have very many type 95 and type 98s or was this back to the less than ideal conditions for tanks.
If they didn’t have many. Another question of mine is roughly how many did they have by the end of 1942 or at any other point
Think you mean the Type 97 not Type 98, and they actually did have them in reasonably high numbers, 2,300 Type 95's and around 3000 Type 97's of all variants were made by the end of the war; they were doled out piecemeal in small numbers to the various widespread territories and garrisons however, and most of the more powerful upgunned Type 97 variants that were developed toward the end of the war were held back to defend the home islands from the expected invasion and so saw no action; the only version of Japanese tank that the Matilda II's were actually likely to encounter that stood much chance of defeating one, was the Type 97 "ShinHōtō Chi-Ha", the model of Type 97 with a high-velocity 47mm; these would've still needed to hit the Matilda in the right place to penetrate it however, whereas the Matilda's 2-Pounder could easily kill a Type 97 with any well-aimed direct hit
To be fair to the Japanese planners, they never planned tank on tank fights. When you consider their expected enemies the main thing needed were infantry tanks, a gun big enough to help the infantry and enough armour to stop a heavy MG round. They were generally outclassed by a vehicle designed to kill other tanks.
@@1IbramGaunt Japenese army in China at end of war,when rolled by Russia 1,000,000 Men and 1,100 tanks.
The Matilda II tanks did the job well. Tough little buggers
Excellent video well done.
perfect tank for the jungle, well done to Aussies
You got to get them there a mission in itself ,bet there is one or two out there still, wonder if the flamethrower Matilda was out there
i never head of a Matilda with a 6 pounder before, I always read that the turret ring was too small for it, did they use the two man Valentine turret?
Mafilda II was excellent for fighting anti-tank guns that were smaller than the gun the tank itself had lol
Waltzing Matilda
Rommel found that the best way to destroy a Matilda was by using his 88mm anti-aircraft guns IN EUROPE, 1940, long before it's thick armour 'prooved itself conclusively in the Pacific'.
In fact the Matilda scared the Germans!
And it was NOT obsolete by the Pacific war period, in fact it was the only British tank to be used right throughout the war!
The 40mm gun itself was obsolete, not the tank.
It was deemed obsolete because it's small size prevented it from mounting a larger cannon. Low speed being a secondary concern.
I often wonder why the Brits didn't develop an upscaled vehicle based off it. Or perhaps that's what the Churchill was?
One tanker described it as seriously scary watching 40mm rounds drop short of the target when going up against panzer 111 tanks in North Africa. Armour was good. They were reliable enough compared to other brit tanks.
12:30 I thought it'll run over the pick up truck!
The real Matilda 's drawback was the impossibility of upgunning it, its turret's ring was too tight, otherwise with a more powerful gun its performances would've been improved.
The Soviets actually put 76mm guns as found on T 34s into their Matildas. The gun depression was atrocius though.
@@maxomat4319 REALLY? How did they were able to make it? I remember reading that the builders had to push forward the gun's mantlet to allow a third crewman, turret's ring was tight also for a 2pdr!
The only thing missing in the Matilda II was a 17 pounda
got a suspicion that might be a bit of a 'snug fit'
Japs didnt have anything that required a 17pdr. HE was the king of jungle warfare.
1/15 RNSWL have in its museum, one of the Matildas that went ashore at Balikpapan in Jun 1945
A wonderful little machine. Although showing its age in the European theatre by the middle of the war, the Matilda II repeated its early-war successes in the Pacific.
Against any entrenched opponent with light anti-tank guns, the Matilda excelled. Nothing short of heavy artillery or late-war man-portable shaped charge weapons could seriously damage the Matilda, much less destroy it. Even compared to late-war tanks, the early-war Matilda was considered well-armoured, well laid out, and reliable.
The critical flaws of the Matilda were a mediocre main gun and poor speed. However, when supporting infantry in a jungle environment, and fighting against enemies who lacked serious armoured support, neither of these shortcomings were of consequence. Any tank fighting in a rainforest was required to move slowly anyway, and the two-pounder gun was more than adequate for duelling with light Japanese vehicles and smashing concrete pillboxes.
Such a plucky and dependable little machine.
Appreciated video on a tank in Australian service.
0:42 that truly is something...
were the matildas fitted with the 3 inch fitted with a larger turret
For the record. It was the Kings ex colony. As of 1901 a Commonwealth in its own right. The Queen did not take the throne till the 1950s
LCM stands for Landing Craft Mechanized not Landing Craft Medium.
Wow. Great video, thanks.
If the Matilda 2 had a six pounder at least that would have made it even better.
If this would have been a german tank then allied historians would say: "Even a mere 3,7cm AT gun could disable it." "They were poorly adapted to the actual battlefield and desperately needed heavy modifications in the field." "They suffered heavy losses of over 50% only during marches because of their poor drivetrains." "Their actual K/D ration on other tanks were bad." "They never fulfilled their actual role as medium tanks but only as mere support vehicles, making them a waste of resources."
About 29 seconds in, the Queens holdings in Australia???? George VI was monarch during WW2
The waltzing Matilda used properly down-under.
Queen's holdings? HM Queen Elizabeth II did not become the Sovereign until after the War. Her father was King George VI, who was the monarch during the war.
I enjoyed this video very much, but I really do think you missed a trick with the title. Should've called it Waltzing Matildas. =]
"The queen's holdings"? In 1942?
1:42 The Matilda II arrives.
This lady would be virtually indestructible as long as infantry didnt let a enemy soldier get to its back and climb on it,guess they could get lucky and try to destroy its tracks but the crew voudlnt be harmed
Not withstanding your interesting pronunciation of Borneo, great video.
By this @bomfog1 means it's "born-ee-o"
Thanks for this fascinating video.
There is a 75mm equipped Matilda at Lancer Barracks in Parramatta.
The later campaigns the Australians were involved in are often portrayed as sideshows but no more so than the "sideshows" the Allies were involved in 1945 such as Italy, Burma and Mindanao. Even MacArthur's campaign in the Philippines is seen as such by US Navy and Marines fans these days.
Bougainville and New Guinea were Australian protectorates under League of Nation mandates so PM John Curtin thought there was a legal obligation to fully liberate them.
Apart from the oil reserves, the Japanese in Borneo put up a much stronger resistance than expected because they assumed it would be used as a stepping stone back to Singapore which had actually been proposed by the British High Command in 1944 but resisted by Churchill who preferred a "Bay of Bengal solution". From Borneo the Allies could also be deployed to liberate Java or Indochina, opening up supply lines to China through Vietnam.
Some tanks, t34 and m4 proved that in many conditions quantity makes up for shortcomings in terms of firepower or reliability, i certainly can't think of many more suitable tanks for the Pacific theater than this ol'girl, everything that made them unpopular in north Africa didn't matter here.
Some interesting pronunciations there, which i see folk have pointed out, but great video. Thanks !
Loved the video!
Back then (as now) it was the "King's" holdings)...😋
Thanks!
Born-E-oh Borneo
0:35 hehe - in 1942 the reigning monarch was a KING , not a QUEEN.
Great video, thank you.
Thanks for the interesting video. 👍
They are much faster than I thought they were. At :12.30:
it was a King. No queen till 1953
Excellent vid mate, I look forward to seeing more content. Consider me subscribed.
So as far as flamethrower tanks go. British got a Crocodile - nice and fierce. And we got a smiley little frog…. Ripped off as usual. 😊
0:38 the helicopter tank in the right bottom corner...
excellent!
It was 1942. The "Queens' holdings in Australia"? Seriously? Did somebody inform King George VI or was he having tea?
so they invented slat- armour ?
15 mph seems a bit optimistic, maybe on paved road on a good day.
yes, top speed is on roads as all top speeds for tanks are listed. Cross country top speed was 9mph
“The queen’s holdings in Australia”?
WRONG !!!!!!!!
I think you mean King George VI, Elizabeth wasn’t crowned queen until 1952.
Long E in Borneo, bubba
As an Aussie it is pronounced "Cans"
I don't think you understand what "ironclad" refers to.