"Matilda with Soviet ZiS-5 76mm tank gun" Topic

Ran across this that I hadn't known before. UK Matilda rearmed with the Soviet ZiS-5 76mm tank gun. Robert
link
link

Okay, assuming this is real, then one has to wonder why the Brits couldn't put a bigger gun on the Matilda 2--but since (IIRC) the problem was the size of the turret ring, I have doubts about the authenticity of the photo.

Anyway, stat-wise, it would be a really slow T-34…right?

Rob

Would probably have better armor than a T-34.

I think they certainly could have upgraded with a bigger gun; the Valentine went from a 2pdr to a 75mm. But the question is: why waste the resources? There were better tanks coming into service (like the Churchill, which eventually ended up with a 75mm cannon).

Damon.

There wasn't a bigger gun available by the time the 6pr was ready the Matilda had been replaced by the Valentine

The Matilda CS (close support) version had a 75mm howitzer. In British service it was mainly issued with smoke. I've seen an OB for a Soviet tank brigade in May 1942 that featured Matildas with 76mm something used as heavy tanks (during this period Soviet tank brigades had two battalions of tanks, each with one company of heavies, one of mediums and 1-2 of light tanks). I has assumed these were Matilda CS, but now that picture makes me wonder.

Although I tend to think this picture is of a one-off experiment, not a common modification.

I like it …

Speaking as a Flames of War player with British forces, I have always thought that the Matilda was horribly under-gunned. so, I welcome this post.
It's like giving Arnold Schwarzenegger a high squeaky voice.

If I remember correctly, the Valentine initially had the 2 lbr, was later upgunned to the 6 lbr, and was later used with the 75mm US and 76.2mm USSR guns.

Therefore, according to the transitive property of tanks, the Soveit ZiS-5 should fit…

Also, IIRC, the Israeli's will upgun any M48 to a 120mm gun variant. They certainly did conversions of the M60 to the 120mm for the Turkish Army.

Matilda II with 6-pdr experimental

And Wiki (I know,I know LOL),
"Matilda With 76mm Zis gun

Lend Lease Matilda supplied to the USSR, where an attempt to up-gun it with the T-34's 76.2mm F-34 gun was made. The design was most likely considered impractical due to the small size of the Matilda's turret.[40]"

From The Battlefield.RU site,
"Because of weak armament, in December 1941 Soviet engineers tried to rearm Matilda with more powerfull weapon. One of the best Soviet tank gun was used: 76 mm ZiS-5 Tank Gun. However small turret of the Matilda hampered this. Project was cancelled."
link

It seems to me that the turret would have been horribly unbalanced and the ammo supply would have been reduced.

I wonder why the Soviets didn't just ask the Brits for more CS tanks and a lot of howitzer HE for them. The AT performance of the 3" howitzer would be nil, but the 2lbr wasn't anything to write home about either.

I further wonder why the British didn't design a hollow-charge round for the 3" and then make that the standard weapon for I tanks. IIRC the Churchill I was an attempt to fit an I tank with both the 2lbr and 3", so the utility of the howitzer was at least recognized.

The 3" CS howitzer was low velocity and very shortranged. For the original purpose of firing tactical smoke this was ok but for firing HEAT expecting direct hits you can forget it. The 95mm CS howitzer was a lot better but by the time it was in use 75mm guns were everywhere so the whole CS idea was moot.

You people are writing "2 lbr" and "6 lbr" just to annoy me, aren't you?

All the best,

John.

On a separate note: Was that picture taken on a playground? It looks like a swing-set in the background.

2 lbr. = 40mm and 6 lbr. = 57mm … IIRC …

Looks like an interesting experiment – notably that it seemed to done in a snow-covered playground – but I have to imagine that the small turret size of the Matilda II would make fitting (and firing!) a 76mm a nightmare

Its not the metric thing that upsets Mr Salt its using the oh so incorrect lbr rather than pdr or pr

HEAT was only something that johnny foreigner used, ray in the war anyway. Later on there wasn't much point using it for tank guns there 6pdr and 17pdr guns.

I notice that in the different quotes they use 76mm and 76.2mm. Would the Valentine turret also be too small to handle the 76.2mm gun? Robert

Martin Rapier wrote:

HEAT was only something that johnny foreigner used,

Whaddaya mean? The no. 68 grenade was the first HEAT warhead to enter general service in any army.

Leadgend is quite right to doubt the effectiveness of a putative 3-in CS HEAT round on grounds of P(hit). IIRC HEAT from the later 95mm tank howitzer was reckoned to be about a third as effective as 6-pdr APCBC at 1000 yards in grounds of hit probability.

I wish I could remember the document reference, but at one point it seems enthusiasm for HEAT was quite high, and Solly Zuckermann suggested that each infantry battalion should have its anti-tank platoon equipped with large-calibre HEAT-firing weapons mounted on carrier chassis and protected by heavy armour. The idea was binned largely because the low m.v. such a weapon would have to have had would have produced an unacceptably low P(hit).

All the best,

John.

It'd be fun to make a model of that. Most of a Matilda with the 76mm from a T34, right?

Hrm… too bad that I need mostly T34/76s for my Russians!

So, assuming the photo in the OP is a one-off experiment, what kind of ammo do you think Soviet "76mm armed" Matildas would have used? Assuming they were CS Matildas, do you think the Soviets made their own HE for them? I can't imagine they would issue them for use as heavy tanks if the only ammo they had was smoke.

The 'CS tanks were only issued with smoke' idea is a myth from the days of A9 & A10 CS tanks, which were equipped with the 3.7-inch CS howitzer rather than the 3-inch. The pre-war idea was that the majority ammunition type would be smoke – HE rounds were available, but the standard load was TWO rounds (and many didn't even get that)! Production was also geared to these pre-war concepts, so HE rounds were almost non-existent for the weapon.

When the 3-inch CS howitzer came along (as fitted to Matilda CS, Tetrarch CS, Valentine CS, Churchill I/ICS/IICS and Staghound II) the majority ammunition type was to be HE and production was geared accordingly. CS tanks equipped with the 3-inch CS howitzer (such as the Matilda CS) did not therefore suffer from a lack of HE (localised supply problems notwithstanding). The New Zealanders in particular were very keen on the 3-inch CS howitzer and fitted 1 in 3 of their Valentines and Staghounds with 3-inch howitzers – I doubt that would have been the case if they couldn't get HE rounds for them.