We shall see, as of now there is a hole in the info, as we dont seem to know exactly what the Remote control matilda looked like, if Ed can manifest some pics then this mystery can finally be uncovered :)
1 Like
It is a riveted turret, with relatively thick armor, plus the internal skeleton. The internal space isn’t much more than in the original turret.
If it is less armored, there could be more internal space, true. But i doubt it. The brits were already in a trouble for the absolute lack of standardization, so a less armored turret would need another assembly line, and i doubt they would have done it, especially for a likely small batch of dummy.
A less armored turret also does not makes a lot of sense, if it is meant to draw fire, since it owuld get destroyed more easily.
Which is also an intersting point. The driver would likely sit in the original driver’s position, so the turret does not change much. But the 3 crew would not be present in the turret, as well as many other equipment could be removed. Ammo (gun and MG), personal weapons, lights, cans, etc, giving additional space.
The 3 removed crew members in the turret would also grant an additional ~250 liter of space.
Since the gun would be a dummy, the breech would be also absent.
The whole thing just makes zero sense in a logistical point.
Okay, we are talking about the brits, so logic does not really apply, but still, this is just too much xd.
Also a few other notes. If the equipment is taking up so much space, why not elliminate the driver?
If it is controllable remotely, why couldn’t it be controlled when not in the battlefield?
More battery drain?
It likely already has a generator inside. If not, an additional pack could be installed outside of the vehicle that gets taken off before the battle.
There could be also a connector on the turret roof/back, and use a direct cable connection while outside of combat, so no need to activate the remote controll devices.
Also, why could they not just round up 2 miles of cables, put it on the back of the tank, and have a much more reliable connection to the tank, than early wireless.
Or, since the tanks would likely be taken out anyway, why not just put a brick on the accelerator, and let it YOLO towards the enemy?
Back to the driver. They could also extend the controlls, so the driver could controll the tank with extended levers sitting on the hull roof, while his position inside the tank would be used for storage.
Why not transport the vehicle on transport vehicles, so the driver position could be elliminated too.
Take the tanks to the battlefield, get them off the transport vehicle with remote control, and drive them at the enemy.
Germany could make the Ruhrstahl X-4 with wireless guidance with a few km range, in a small missile.
I don’t think this tanks would need such an enormous radio device, with likely not more than 1-2 km actual distance at which it would be controlled.
This whole thing just stinks, a LOT. It sounds so damn overcomplicated, that even the germans would not think about such thing, despite their love for overcomplicated stuff.
The co-axial MG missing is odd for sure, but the turret could be just a mockup for a possible trial as an actual, amnned tank with Cromwell turret.
Wikipedia says this:
So what i think is a post war name confusion.
My assumption is, that there was (evident by the documents) a Matilda BP planned as radio controlled, and also, another project, aiming at upgunning MAtildas with Cormwell turrets, and then, at some time, the 2 were miexd up.
EDIT:
I have searched, and nothing mentions the BP getting Cromwell turret.
Here is also a bigger description about the Cromwell turret version:
From Reddit:
Link:
https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldofTanks/comments/b386em/fake_tanks_in_world_of_tanks/
Just throw it into the fantasy game that Gaijin is now. Who cares any more? War Thunder dont .
1 Like
I mean i have provided sufficient evidence, that it was an actual tank, and that there is a confusion with the names.
2 Likes
That is War Thunder all over though. I mean why are we even having this debate considering the protypes and fantasy garbage we have filling line ups? This is a game where the 1980 concept 3 faces the Panzer IV ffs
Maybe, because they have the same capabilities?!
I hope you don’t want to argue, that a 76mm solidshot firing tank with 6s reload on a chassis that whobbles like crazy, has a bigger turn radius than the battleship Yamato, not thermals, rangefinder, stabilizer should fight T-72s, Abramses, etc.
A knight in amour vs a WW1 Tommy with a bayonet have the same capabilities, its still shite seeing them in them same game but if the game already is that poor then and we have all given up then who cares about the Matilda being in the game? That is my point. Lets have the Panther 2 back in War Thunder fantasy land as well.
But again, you can not make a game fully realistic, and be playable at the same time.
1 Like
I would like to think game makers are trying to. We all need to get out of this habit of accepting garbage.
But it is not possible.
What are you refering to?
1 Like
Where did you get that one from? What do you think game makers have been doing since the 70s ? Trying to make games realistic.
How would you make these balanced?
1, Panzer Is, IIs, IIIs (with the short 50mm), and short 75mm Panzer IVs against T-34s, and KV-1s?
2, Ha-Go, Chi-Ha, and a few Chi-He against hords of Shermans and even Pershings?
3, H39 against T-54s?
1 Like
How do you make two separate BRs balanced? What is balanced when 1 BR faces 2 BR ? Nothing yet the game does that and its accepted. I just played a full up tier at 2.7 BR for UK ,I still came second with 5 ,The guy in the full up tier on the other side got 14 so there is no balance, I still came second and relatively happy.
No balance and Im not looking for it at that level because its all tanks that faced each other in reality and it was enjoyable, so tough for me there.
I ODL when it gets silly and childish. If the game makes can’t be bothered, then I can be bothered. I will suspend disbelief only so much.
My point is that this game claims realism when it feels like it and abandons realism when it feels like it and I am not prepared to go with that. I see it for exactly what it is and I call it out. If we are doing fantasy then lest do it, get the new fake Matilda in.
If you watch a movie that is meant to be set in the 60s and they are wearing 80s fashion and driving 80s cars is that movie you are going to have respect for it?
This is the source for Matilda BP that wikipedia is referencing.
This is the source for the Matilda A24/A27 that wikipedia is referencing.
The biggest issue? Well, it’s from Bovington who get quite a lot of things wrong. Which over the last 10 years many people have been disproving with their research into the archives.
4 Likes
Can you prove that the one they wrote about these Matildas is wrong?
You can have good matches in full uptiers. Just play a bit more passively and patiently.
Many tanks, especially TDs, lights, and most mediums do not care about uptiers. Even the large portion of heavies, if you can use them in support role.
True.
But is it fake? Because there is no evidence to say it is fake.
Regardless, i acutally do not want this in game. Not as a tech tree one for sure.
Why?
Becuase in game it would be a straight downgrade from the TT Matilda.
Cromwell turret - no armor.
6pdr gun - will be horribly uptiered, especially becuase it is british. I would not expect any lower than 3.7, where everyone would just piss through even it’s hull.
It also has no APHE, so crap damage too, while the 2pdr APHE does a very good job a 2.7.
A realistic BR would be 2.7 for it, but not above by any means.
I didn’t say it shouldn’t be added, I just said it could be best to hold off and see if more information comes to light. Just to make sure it’s not actually the Matilda BP. I did say that if it does end up being an experiment for a gun tank, then I’d be fine with it. As it meets the new suggestion standards Gaijin have.
I doubt it’d be 2.7, that’s the same BR as the regular Matilda now. You’d probably be looking at 3.0, same BR as the Valentine IX with the 6-Pdr. Having it any higher would be pointless. The Cromwell turret isn’t that bad, the sides and rear are definitely worse. However, you’d be getting similar frontal armour 76.2mm compared to 75mm, as well as a 88.9mm mantlet.
2 Likes
What I’m saying is there is no balance in a full up tier ,you are unbalanced yet people will accept this and then demand a map be equal or the game be equal in other ways .A fixation with equal in game that features full up/down tiers for many.
Again I say are we doing equal or not doing equal in this game? Did anybody say in the ads that War Thunder promised to be equal? That is my point ,its about expectation really.
I am saying with respect that it doesn’t matter anymore in modern War Thunder, may have done a few years ago when the game had a veneer of realism.
Nobody ever drove around Normandy 44 in a tank covered with Anime pillows to my knowledge. game is fake so what difference does it make?
Again, I ask are we doing real or not in this game ?
I have said until I am bored (and everyone else no doubt) that this game has no sense of what it wants to be and who it aimed at. Its a free for all of any tank at any time for any nation.
It makes no difference now if this tank comes into play, if it’s fun then put it in. I speak as someone who has mostly had the realism driven out of him by you guys on here and the silliness the game. I have to just endure the increasing fantasy element now.
1 Like
Maybe around 3.7? Might play like a slower Turan possibly.