| Tango01 | 27 Sep 2016 12:29 p.m. PST |
Cool!
Read here
link Amicalement
Armand |
| willlucv | 28 Sep 2016 2:08 a.m. PST |
That is all kinds of cool. I didn't realise how teeny they were though. |
| Andy ONeill | 28 Sep 2016 6:19 a.m. PST |
Cool. 3 man turret – pretty crowded in there. |
| uglyfatbloke | 28 Sep 2016 6:47 a.m. PST |
..and pretty damned hot in the desert or Burma. |
| Tango01 | 28 Sep 2016 11:12 a.m. PST |
Glad you like it my friends!. (smile) Amicalement
Armand |
| goragrad | 28 Sep 2016 6:37 p.m. PST |
Good to see one of the Queens being restored. |
| frostydog | 28 Sep 2016 8:32 p.m. PST |
Not Burma, certainly Borneo, Bougainville and the Huon Peninsular in New Guinea. Only British tank to see service throughout the whole war. |
| Tango01 | 28 Sep 2016 10:45 p.m. PST |
Glad you like it too my friend. Amicalment
Armand |
| 4th Cuirassier | 29 Sep 2016 2:26 a.m. PST |
In of the other vids about this restoration it's mentioned that they have identified a fitter's modification the sprocket wheel. The outer rim of it, that has the teeth that engage with the tracks, was originally a one-piece disc but they found theirs had been cut after manufacture into two 180-degree halves. The advantages, I guess, are that if teeth broke on only one side you only used half your spare sprocket to replace the damaged side, and thus you kept its other half in reserve as a further spare. Also, when you did the repair, you could rotate the sprocket into a position, unscrew and lift away one half, then replace it; to do the other half you would turn the wheel 180 degrees and replace the other half (if necessary). If that wheel were all in one piece, you'd have to take the tracks off first to get the sprocket wheel off. I thought it was interesting because you can follow exactly the thinking of someone who did this in the field 75 years ago. |
| Andy ONeill | 29 Sep 2016 8:31 a.m. PST |
I agree, interesting.
It's a "You what….?" thing until you appreciate the practical advantages. |
| Nikator | 29 Sep 2016 10:11 a.m. PST |
I've often wondered what effect it might have had if the Matilda II had been given a turret large enough to accommodate a useful antitank gun; say, a 6lber or better yet a 75mm. It would have been a much more useful vehicle. |
| frostydog | 30 Sep 2016 2:36 a.m. PST |
Sadly the width of the hull wouldn't allow a larger gun. Australians preferred it in the Pacific because of its heavy armour and slow speed. |
| Ben Avery | 30 Sep 2016 9:44 a.m. PST |
Nikator – the 2pdr was a useful anti-tank gun, especially when you compare it to the armament of a lot of the German tanks it encountered. What might have helped in the desert was the ability to fire decent HE. As frosty points out, upgunning for later in the war wasn't an option, but by then you have the Churchill anyway. |
 Mserafin  | 02 Oct 2016 7:48 a.m. PST |
if the Matilda II had been given a turret large enough to accommodate a useful antitank gun; say, a 6lber or better yet a 75mm There was a version with a 3" howitzer, but they mostly used it for throwing smoke. I always wondered why they didn't develop a hollow-charge round for it. Probably it was out of service before hollow charge became a big thing. |
first saw these figures, he was dreading painting them...
