Tips

Please take your time and read the blog rules

May 4, 2013

"Buff my tank" - Matilda II

Author: Vollketten (US server)

SS: here we have a little article made by Vollketten and submitted to me. Enjoy!

For those of you who read The Challenger’s threads on the EU server you may be aware that the correct name for the Matilda II should in fact be Matilda Senior. In game we all know it as the Matilda II and it has decent armour, decent gun but terrible speed.

Here are a few buffs we could have for it to make it the ultimate troll tank it could be and to correct some historical inaccuracies within the game model:

Speed: In August 1940 one Matilda was shipped to the USA for evaluation with a view to having it built over there. Although production never began in the USA Mr. L.E.Carr of the British Tank Mission designed a power pack featuring a pair of General Motor two-stroke diesels. An arrangement later adopted for some American medium tanks such as the M4A2 Sherman.
The Detroit Diesel Series 71 engine is a two stroke diesel engine and in the form of the inline 6-71 was adapted for use in the Canadian (and later by the British) built Valentine tanks under the nomenclature GMC 6004. As a twin unit though as used in some versions of the Sherman tank it was known as the 6046 Diesel. The 6-71 is a 7 litre unit which as an inline produced some 238 brake-horsepower (BHP). A twin unit would therefore deliver some 476 BHP. (355 Kilowatts).
The original engines being a twin AEC or Leyland Diesel unit putting out a paltry 174 BHP and 190 BHP gave a power to weight ratio of 6.55 hp/tonne. (6.57 hp/t in game). The new engines would give a blistering power to weight ration in the region of 15.5 hp/t. The top speed therefore could be increased by about 25% to a lighting fast 32 or 33 kmh albeit a very noisy 32 kmh. In real life the wear and tear involved would not have been fun but we don’t need to worry about this in the game.

Armour: Renowed for having very tough armour already the Matilda could get even more. Firstly for anyone living in a hole and was not already aware but the previous model of the Matilda Black Prince lacked an armoured collar around its larger turret. (Now corrected) Many of the surplus converted MBP hulls were shipped it appears to Britain’s commonwealth allies, most notably Australia where these hulls with added collars saw extensive action in the Far East against the Japanese. The collar already in game on the MBP would add a small 15mm thick spaced armour protective ring around the turret base and would look like this:


Secondly the Australians also had heavily armoured track guards to cover the front of the track as the Japanese AT gunners seemed very proficient (or just lucky) in hitting there and disabling their Matilda. Personally I think they look like giant knuckle dusters.

I don’t know whether these were made in the UK and shipped with the Matildas to Australia or if they were fabricated in Australia but either way they are quite substantial and although I can’t find the thickness of them anywhere yet or personally go and measure their thickness they would appear to be about 25mm thick.


Finally as you can see below in the front view of the MBP which uses the same hull there is a steep join between the curvy front glacis and the vertical plate in front of the driver.


But now look at the hull of a real Matilda tank:



Now if you noticed that the glacis slope on the model is wrong you win a prize. The real Matilda had a much more pronounced slope for the front casting which was a single piece rather than the very angled joint between the glacis and vertical section which we see in the in-game model this is due to manufacture. Although the design schematics indeed have a steep angle change it was cast in a single piece and therefore this was never acheived in real life.


Which brings me onto a final point on the armour. Although it was designed to be 78 mm thick due to the difficulties of casting such a thick piece of steel in that shape it was ALWAYS too thick when it came out and had to be ground down by hand on the inside (a very difficult and laborious process) to try and get to the desired thickness originally designed. In real life the front casting on the Matilda hull was generally 2 to 5% thicker than designed meaning it should be 1.56mm to 3.9mm thicker and therefore should be (in order to be realistic) 79.5 to 82mm thick at the front and commensurately thicker in other cast elements of the frontal armour as well.


Firepower: Mentioned previously on the FTR blog is this little Canadian beauty:


Known as the David gun, it is a six pounder shell casing necked down to fire the 2 pounder projectile. It may have been possible to mount this into the Matilda turret had the project come to fruition* and firing a shell at 1264 metres per second (1550 mps with a Littlejohn adaptor) this would be a substantial increase over the Mk.X-B  2 pounder gun. Brought into game this could deliver a significantly better armour penetration. This would be at the expense of a slightly smaller ammunition capacity inside the tank and a small reduction in the rate of fire.

(*Had this project gone further and production of the Matilda was undertaken in Canada of the USA there is no reason why this gun could not have been the weapon of choice)

Sources:

The Matilda Infantry Tank, David Fletcher
Secret Weapons of the Canadian Army, Roger V. Lucy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_Diesel_Series_71


16 comments:

  1. The Matilda II already has ridiculous penetration for a Tier 4 tank, to be fair. I think adding the Davis gun would be mostly gilding the lily.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 1264 metres per second (1550 mps with a Littlejohn adaptor) this would be a substantial increase over the Mk.X-B 2 pounder gun.

    Second highest pen at tier 4, and you still aren't satisfied, sorry, entire article is now moot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you. I think the tank could use some more speed but the gun is ok in my opinion. You can pen almost everyone with ease and bounce their shells like a boss thanks to your armor.

      Delete
    2. Please don't be stupid and read the disclaimer on the buff my tank series. They are meant to show the best possible options the tank could have and not as a suggestion for in-game changes, he could write a buff my tank series on a tank that is widely known to already be very strong ( KV-1s, IS-3 etc. )

      Delete
  3. The Matilda it's a strong tier 4 tank, buffing it will make it op.

    ReplyDelete
  4. TheLordFlasheartMay 4, 2013, 11:13:00 PM

    The Mk.X-B 2 pounder can easily pen T6 tanks (I killed a 3601 with it), so don't really need a gun buff. A speed increase would be nice

    ReplyDelete
  5. Lets get the basic model fixed and applied to all 3 versions before buffing an already top notch tier 4.

    That said, maybe with the new model hull, new engines, and new gun we could have a new Tier 5 matilda above the current Tier 4.

    ReplyDelete
  6. When will the su-122-54 get a article like this? It's pretty bugged in terms of camouflage factors especially comparing it to object 704.

    ReplyDelete
  7. If WG never bothered to fix the MBP like Vollketten had suggested ages ago, then I seriously doubt they will bother with this one as well. His suggestion had fallen on deaf ears. I don't think they even saw his thread on the MBP. Only fix is the armoured collar, but that's it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But we saw. Wait for 0.8.6.

      Delete
  8. http://wot-shot.com/images/Matilda_skin_1.jpg

    in-game Mk.X-B 2 pounder


    now google image of the littlejohn adapter

    ReplyDelete
  9. Matilda is the best T4 Medium Tank, AMX 40 and B1 has no Chance to penetrate this monster frontaly, and the Matilda has the best Penetration for his Tier (on a Tank with Turret)
    And now you want a Buff for him? Serously? *facepalm*
    Better Buff the AMX 40, B1, Valentine or Somua S-40, but not the Matilda

    ReplyDelete
  10. Some people don't seem to realise the purpose of the Buff My Tank series I think. Sorry to those of you who don't understand the point of the articles and thank you to those who read them and enjoy them.
    -Vollketten

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Series just named incorrectly. That's it.

      Delete
  11. The David Gun, ever since I read about it in your previous post I've been dreaming about mounting it on my Churchill III and going around knocking people more efficiently.

    But the Matilda itself doesn't need it. It need more mobility rather.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Giving the Matilda a better engine and a higher top speed so that it can go on 32 KM/h average, 82mm of frontal Armour and a wider slope that covers more of its hull and some extra side armor on its tracks and giving it a better gun that can do more damage and more penetration would make it too good for tier 5.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.