Completely pointless that high. That’s the same BR as the Cromwell I. Which is better in nearly every way.
But much better armoured. I suspect that is where Gaijin would put it. Normal Matilda is 2.7. Maybe 3.3 then?
Its an interesting topic at least and what’s good is people are discussing this thing.
I cannot say for certain - yup this is the remote vehicle. as we have all the text and no images, nor can I say this is a 6pdr Matilda as there is a distinct lack of any supporting evidence in an area surprisingly well covered in the archives. what I’m not going to do is rely on online blogs and forums, only original documentation. as far too many mistakes have been repeated due to this.
In all cases a lack of photographs for this are a big issue. I have gone over the last 5 years every WO195 book and liaison report, and have seen no reference to it there. and if this was a 6pdr conversion along with TB/DTD minutes it would be there. if it is the remote version it will be under the RS or RAE materials but those are helluva lot of dull for a costly day trip (its almost all wiring diagrams, circuits, fuses etc forerunners to EMERS)
a third option put forwards on the last archive visit with authors was that it might have a tangential relationship to the A20 as there were several turrets proposed for that, including 6 pounder turrets while another vehicle was described as a A12 hull stretched and a model shown but no further action taken, I will follow this lead up as well, however A20 stuff is relatively scarce.
As i see it at the moment the pros and cons to each suggestion are:
Is it a gun tank?
There is no supporting evidence from the time to suggest it was, particularly from a time and period where almost every day to day change and project remains in written form. the design does not meet the fixed criteria for tanks at this period, assuming 1942 is correct. The Matilda had been taken out of service and parts stopped, this would have been very problematic on a vehicle that did not have exceptional reliability to begin, and finally the 6pdr was in very short supply at this time and unlikely to have been used on what-ifs.
Is it a remote vehicle?
There are to date no photos of the remote tank vehicles on land, with the exception of beetles which are remote bombs. Queen gull/duck naval vessels are known as was Queen bee drones, but the land photos are missing. There is a wealth of text which discuss Matilda BP but they lack and overall description focusing heavily on the mechanism itself. they do mention mobile bomb carriers, decoys and so forth but do not mention a 6pdr, they do list the size issue of the turret and so forth. Until photos of the BP are found it remains speculative.
Lastly, was it for A20 or another mock-up for examination?
This again is plausible, it might have been for an earlier project, that will need to be clarified in wording, i.e. a good description of turret that matches this and placed on X hull etc. secondly and as an outside though it might well be a mock-up of a turret intended Cromwell I/II/III and the hull used as a tractor in the plant, this was very common in WW2 and several firms had turretless tank tractors carrying stuff about. the fact its posed for a press style photo would also support this.
Anyway if I find more il add more. its on my list to keep an extra eye out as to where it might be
4 Likes
Good reading ,thanks. It would be interesting to see how they found the extra 3 inches for the turret ring certainly.
It is already overtiered. The 2.7 Valentine barely has good armor, and it’s slow. The 2pdr is much better than the 6pdr, just becuase it gets APHE. The 75mm version is even worse.
True.
It is a much bigger target, with flat plates. The Matilda is at lower BR, with a volumetric hell turret, the Cromwell turret would bounce basically no shots at 3.0, and above.
As well, as you said, the side and rear would be thinner, so flanking would be effective against it.
Since the turret ring is modified, it is likely some 20mm plates in true british fashion, so get ready to be killed by a .50 cal…
It would be barely playable at 3.0… At 3.7 it would be beyond useless.
At that BR the Matilda armor is pointless. The Cromwell turret also introduces a giant weakspot.
But again, none of this explains any of the many issues i have described with it, and much easier solutions for a remote tank.
The turret conversion would be pointless if the goal is more space, plus converting would take up much more needed materials, manpower, and workhours, all of which were in high demand.
1 Like
there is just too much missing on this vehicle for it to be a contender in any way. and a lot more investigation needs to be done, which means more trips to the archives. adding this is inherently risky as the odds it was a working gun tank are minimal.
As there is 0 mention of it in the primary sources for the 1940-45 stuff, which there would be as just about every odd and weird project is listed there. many of which i have covered and brought back either by having them added into games like WOT or in vids or magazine articles, but not this thing.
the other remaining issue is why? what would an out of production obsolete hull with a non proven turret amount too, it would be like the UK sticking the new challenger 3 turret on a chieftain hull in todays terms, pointless. the reality of tank design is not top trumps, or bigger gun is better lets do. so there really would be no point to adding this in 1942.
2 Likes
There are many vehicles added to the game that have not a lot of information on them.
Raketenautomat, WZ-122, etc.
The game will get to the situation at some point, where the options for a new tank will look like this:
1, another T-54/55 with a different radio (makes no in game difference)
2, another Sherman with 2 storage boxes removed
3, some one of prototype with not much info on it.
I don’t know about you, but i’d pick option 3.
Upgunning. Using up the hulls, afterall they were produced, so why not just use them up?
No parts? No issue, we just take a few apart as spare parts, until all of them is either destoryed, or can’t be repaired.
Similar of what the germans did with all of their TDs on obselate platforms.
Not really. See the M60-2000. It would improve the capabilities of an old machine, that can end up being capable, but cheaper than replacing the entier vehicle.
Just like all the issues i mentioned to the suppoesed radio controlled MAtilda with Cromwell turret. You seemingly ignored all of those.
1 Like
It might be better armoured, but not spectacularly better. That’s why I say 3.0, maybe 3.3 tops.
2 Likes
I doubt that will ever happen .It is well armoured (so long as you are against it not in it) and with the added fire power they wont make in below 3.3 no way.
I have no issues with the Valentine’s. Are you playing AB? Not RB? 2.3 Valentine is great. I’ve got around a 54% winrate and over 400 battles with it. That winrate use to be far higher too, until they moved the Crusader Mk. II up.
2.7 Valentine XI is great too. I’ve got a 59% winrate and over 200 battles with it. The post-pen damage is way better than the 6-Pdr, and the armour still does well if angled. The only Valentine I don’t enjoy is the IX with the 6-Pdr. I still do alright in in, 53% winrate and over 200 battles, but this is when the armour really starts to drop off. You also really notice the lack of an MG. I’ve also reported the fact that it has the wrong 6-Pdr, should be the Mk. V version which will make it perform slightly better.
I’ve got no issues with the Cromwell turret, due to its boxy shape you can angle it. I’ve bounced heaps of rounds that should have other wised penetrated. That’s why I suggest 3.0, which is lower than the Cromwell.
your not understanding how tank production or development took part and it feels you are approaching this from ‘I play games aspect’.
If this was an attempt to re-arm Matildas with a new turret fitting a 6 pounder gun on a turret designed for the upcoming Cromwell series lets cover what would be needed. other than people like DRAC to be on board etc, which there is no reference too.
The Matilda line was stopped at Vulcan/LMS/Ruston’s etc. They are not going to then re-open a line! Every time a line was closed or started it would take months of work, you don’t just switch from one tank to another, you have to phase in 1/2 and phase out 1/2 - retrain, retool, re-jig etc. plates and pieces are needed at foundries (particularly with cast hulls), transport back and forth arranged, drawings redone etc. at best 6 months which was the record, 8 months to a year was average for a line change.
add to this a new turret ring adaptor needs to be fitted to make this work, which is not as simple as you might think and requires a very fancy turn plate and lathe system to produce. Every time a major line shirt was implemented it needed the highest orders to do so, often over long debates at the TB/DTD and between DRAC/DGFV/MOS etc and yet we are to assume none of these were told?
Then there was the case that the A12 was decom. So they are not going to start producing new hulls and parts and parts which are a critical aspect in tank production! and also the bane of British tank work as its something we still haven’t got right (bar chieftain) since day 1 - it prevented covenanter going into action, it caused mayhem with crusader, and Cromwell didn’t even enter service for an additional 2 years due to this. On average a tank is shipped with 4 x the amount of base parts it requires to be effective! and yet you suggest they would put a tank already 5 years into its service life by cannibalising the others (replacing worn parts with worn parts) on a hull that is obsolete and send it back out, carrying a gun desperately needed on new vehicles, not to mention the convoy to the NA area was a logistical burden for what went and what did not. Vehicle’s that worked and spares were a priority not a worn out hull with no spares.
a few posts back I stated that it can be narrowed down to one of three candidates, either the BP vehicle, a tug, or a possible turret from the A20, after talking more with Phil knight and going over A20 I can rule the last out as that turret with a 6pdr was made in 1940. so that leaves a tug, which was quite common with a turret for Cromwell stuck on top and brought out for photos (which is why its a mock-up~) or the BP one.
Exactly so. I would say 3.0 but it is more survivable than the Valentine IX.