Republic of Cuba (1958-1960)
Medium Tank – 15 Purchased
By the end of the 1950’s, the United Kingdom had a lot of old, worn out, obsolete, or surplus tanks, many dating back to World War 2. The new A41 Centurion tank had already entered service and was significantly better than anything before it, so many of these tanks were simply redundant. In the post-war austerity period, Great Britain was still rebuilding its economy after WW2 and it needed foreign cash to help pay off its debts. One solution was to sell off some of these stocks of tanks and one of the nations receiving these arms was to become one of the most notorious: Cuba.
The Comet
Essentially, the officially named ‘Tank, Cruiser, A.34, Comet‘, was an upgrade to the Cromwell cruiser tank. It was designed in 1943 and entered service in 1945, towards the end of the Second World War. It set a trend in tank design that would be followed by the world’s next generation of tanks, the Main Battle Tank or ‘MBT’, as it had a balanced blend of armor, mobility and firepower.
It was powered by the Rolls Royce Meteor Mk.III 600hp V12 petrol engine. This engine was derived from the Merlin engine which was used on the famous Spitfire fighter plane and gave the tank a top speed of 32 mph (51 km/h). The Comet weighed 33.53 tonnes (32.7 long tons). This weight was supported on a Christie type suspension with five road-wheels. The drive sprocket was at the back while the idler was at the front. The track return was supported by four rollers.
The main armament consisted of the Vickers 77mm (3.03 in) High-Velocity Gun, which was derived from the famous 17-Pounder anti-tank gun. Firing APCBC (Armor-Piercing Capped Ballistic-Cap), the gun could penetrate up to 147 mm (5.7in) of armor. Secondary armament consisted of coaxial and bow-mounted 7.92mm BESA machine guns. The tank had up to 102mm (4in) of armor.
The Comet had a crew of five, consisting of commander, gunner, loader, hull machine-gunner, and driver. The tank served with the British Army until 1958 when it was replaced by the Centurion. The Comet stayed in service with a number of other countries, however, including The Republic of Ireland, Burma, and Finland.
The Need
The Government of Fulgencio Batista ran the Caribbean island of Cuba from March 1952 until January 1959. It was a dictatorship which was supported and supplied by the USA. A diplomatic row resulted in the suspension of arms sales in March 1958. The reasons for this row are down to Batista having broken an agreement which prohibited the use of US-supplied weapons for internal problems. Additionally, there had been American pressure to hold free elections, however, Batista was against this as it would result in him losing his tight grip on power. As a result, a new arms supplier had to be found and a few nations were approached, including Italy, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, and the United Kingdom.
The Deal
The Batista Government approached the British Government of Prime Minister Harold Macmillan. Desperate for money, the British agreed in May 1958 to the sale of 15 A.34 Comet tanks from their stocks in addition to 17 Hawker Sea Fury fighter aircraft. This was only supposed to be beginning of a much larger trade deal which was supposed to include substantial sales of non-military equipment too, such as 620 Leyland buses and the deal to construct port facilities at Mariel, for which the UK would receive a very rewarding and much needed US$10 million.
The Controversy
Fidel Castro, then a Revolutionary-in-hiding in Cuba as part of the ‘26th of July Movement’, was clearly unimpressed at what he saw as the British supporting a dictator and urged a boycott of British products in Cuba. He was still busy waging a guerrilla war against the Batista regime and in 1959 would eventually overthrow it.
This was the least of the political problems for the Conservative Macmillan Government. The Labour MP Hugh Delargy directly asked Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, on the 19th November 1958 about this deal and that he was, in effect, now supporting a repressive regime. Under serious political pressure from the opposition, the Government agreed to a suspension of further arms sales to Cuba, starting on the 15th December 1958 which would give the original order enough time to arrive in Cuba. Unfortunately, and to the embarrassment for the government, the ship arrived 2 days late on Havana, having been delayed on route. The 15 Comet tanks and 12 Sea Furies arrived in the troubled island on the 17th December. The Revolution in Cuba was nearly over too by this time, and the Batista Government was overthrown on the 1st January 1959. This meant that the British government had not only not managed to sell arms to Batista, but allowed these arms to fall into the hands of a Revolutionary regime right on America’s doorstep.
Washington was clearly not impressed by this turn of events and, alongside the UK, it was agreed that all future sales to Cuba would be suspended from March 1959, although both the UK and USA still supplied material to Havana, including the 5 remaining Sea Furies from the UK and 5 helicopters from the USA, which arrived in May and June 1959 respectively. At least 8 of the 15 Comets supplied in 1958 can be seen in this image taken at Havana Airport during the last days of the Batista regime – Photo: Unknown
It is unknown if any markings or a specific paint scheme covered the Cuban Comets although at least one is seen in photographs in Havana to still sport the original Allied white recognition star. As such, this illustration, by Tank Encyclopedia’s own David Bocquelet, shows a Comet in a fairly standard Olive Drab colour, as used on many WW2 British Tanks.
In Cuban Service
As it was, the 15 Comets delivered on the 17th December 1958 remained in service for a very short time. Despite rumors that some were used in the Battle of Santa Clara at the end of December 1958, there is no information to substantiate this, and it seems very unlikely given the short time these tanks were available to Batista’s troops for training on them.
Even though Castro might have disliked the British for supplying arms to Batista, he was not upset enough not to request US$490,000 worth of credit from the Ministry of Supply for further armaments in January 1959. Sometime between March and August 1960, Cuba requested additional stocks of 77mm ammunition for their Comets as well as spare parts, though these, as of December 1960, were still not provided (nor a decision made on supplying them) by the Foreign Office. The request for further stocks, spares, and ammunition, suggests that the Comets may have been destined for a longer life with the armed forces of Cuba. With arms suspended from the UK and USA though, the new Cuban regime looked to the Soviet Union instead and with stocks of tanks from them available, getting more British tanks or spares was simply unnecessary. With that, the Comets appear to have simply been scrapped. Comet tanks driving through Havana. Source: Life Magazine. Comet tank with original white Allied recognition star heading through a crowd in Havana, Cuba. Source: Life Magazine.
In April 1960, with Castro now looking to his Communist allies in the Soviet Union for support, he requested military aid from them and, in October that year was supplied with T-34/85 tanks made in the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia. These new Soviet tanks replaced the existing Comets, meaning that they were in service for just under two years.
Survivors
At least two Comet relics survive in Cuba. One at an as-yet-unidentified location which seems to be a dug-in defensive position with a damaged muzzle brake, which serves as a popular place for children to climb. Comet tank with damage muzzle brake in what appears to be a prepared defensive position. Photo: gettyimages.com
The other, painted pink, is in the jungle, bearing a sign misidentifying it as a Sherman tank. Allegedly, this vehicle had been kept for a time as a gate guardian monument at Castillo San Salvador de la Punta until 1986, when it was moved to a botanical garden called El Progreso in Havana’s Bahia neighborhood, across from the Havana Bay Tunnel. Surviving A.34 Comet bearing serial number 3642 is a survivor of the 15 supplied to Batista in 1958. Now painted pink by local farmers but otherwise in surprisingly good condition. Photo: jimmyjamjames on imgur
Comet specifications
Dimensions
L x W x H
6.55 m x 3.04 m x 2.67 m
(21ft 6in x 10ft 1in x 8ft 6in)
Republic of Finland (1933-1941)
Light Tank – 33 Purchased and Modified
Despite being produced by a British company, and one with a solid reputation at that, the Vickers 6-Ton tank was not adopted by the British armed forces. However, it did see a lot of service with nations like Poland, China and Bolivia, among many others.
Tank Trials
At the turn of the 1930s, Finland’s armored corps consisted of 34 aging Renault FTs and 1 Saint-Chamond Modele 1921. It was decided, after discussions within the Ministry of Defence, that the current armored inventory was obsolete and new equipment was needed to keep up with the changing face of armored warfare. So, in response to this, the Finnish MoD, Puolustusministeriö, ordered three different tanks from the United Kingdom on the 6th of June 1933: a Vickers-Carden-Loyd Mk.VI* (V.A.E. 115), a Vickers-Carden-Loyd Model 1933 (V.A.E. 503) and a Vickers-Armstrongs 6-Ton Tank Alternative B (V.A.E. 546), at a cost of £8,410 (about £557,622 in 2017). Vickers also sent a Vickers-Carden-Loyd Light Amphibious Tank Model 1931 as well for free but this performed so poorly in trials that the Finns returned it after only 17 days. The other three tanks arrived in Finland in October and trials started immediately. The Vickers-Armstrongs 6-Ton Tank Alternative B (V.A.E. 546) undergoing trials in 1933. Source: Suomalaiset Panssarivaunut
The Vickers-Carden-Loyd Mk.VI* showed poor performance on the cross country course and snow testing showed that it would be useless outside of roads. The Finns classed it as unsuitable for combat but retained it, with the loving nickname “satiainen” (crab louse), as a training vehicle. The Vickers-Carden-Loyd Model 1933 performed well during the cross country obstacle tests and was praised for easy steering, good speed and technical reliability, but it failed to meet the grade due to it lacking sufficient armament (no tank gun), only a single machine-gun, and poor mobility in snow tests. The Vickers-Armstrongs 6-Ton Tank Alternative B was accepted by the Finnish Armed Forces as its new standard tank due to it showing excellent cross-country performance, good deep snow mobility and its adequate armament options. Its technical simplicity and ease of design meant it could be kept in use in rough field conditions.
The order
The Ministry of Defence placed an order for 32 Vickers-Armstrongs 6-Ton Tank Alternative B on the 20th of July 1936. The idea was to form the tanks into a battalion with 2 companies of 15 tanks and a HQ element of 2 tanks. After negotiations, the order would come in three deliveries, 11 tanks on 20th July 1937, 10 tanks on 1st of April 1938, and the final 11 tanks on 1st of January 1939. To help save money, the tanks were ordered without optics, radios or even armament. This brought the price of each tank to only £4,500 each (about £298,371 in 2018). However, due to issues at Vickers Armstrong, the first batch of tanks didn’t arrive until July 1938 and, by the start of the Winter War (30th November 1939), only 26 tanks had been delivered.
What did arrive though was not a standard Vickers Mark E. When Belgium was looking for a new tank, Vickers Armstrong wanted to place a Rolls-Royce Phantom II water-cooled engine in it, due to faults discovered in Poland’s order that had led to overheating issues. However, the engine was much bigger than the original Armstrong Siddeley Puma engine and so the hull was made a little bit longer and the engine was mounted on the left side, offsetting the turret to the right.
Once deliveries reached Finland, they were transported to Valtion Tykkitehdas (VTT/ State Artillery Factory) where they would be equipped with guns, optics, tools and even seats. Due to the worsening situation in Europe, delays in deliveries, problems with VTT’s production and issues with sourcing parts from elsewhere, the equipping of the 6-Ton tanks was slow and, by the end of 1939, only 10 tanks were ready.
Armament
As mentioned earlier, to help save money, the tanks were ordered completely devoid of armament. Vickers Armstrong had offered to equip them with the same 47mm low-velocity gun that had come with the evaluation tank. This gun had been tested during the trials, and while it had good capabilities against soft targets (similar to the performance of the 37mm Puteaux SA-18 already in use on the Renault FT), it lacked penetration against armored and bunker targets and thus was deemed unsuitable for Finnish use. Instead, they opted for a licensed produced version of the 37mm Bofors anti-tank gun, adapted into a tank gun role. This gun was perfect for Finnish use, having an effective high explosive shell, as well as a good armor piercing one capable of defeating the vast majority of tanks in service during the late 30s and early 40s. German Zeiss TZF sights had been ordered, but due to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, these were canceled by Germany itself. This forced the Finns to produce their own optics, a straight-through telescopic sight type with a simple crosshair reticle, that was housed in a cylindrical cowl to the left of the gun. Tank crews complained of a limited field of vision and lack of range markings, which made finding and engaging targets time consuming and was a factor in the poor performance of the Vickers tank in Finnish service. This was all mounted into a Bofors designed mantlet that was similar to that used on the Polish 7TP (however, unlike the Polish 7TP, the turret was the one supplied by Vickers and also built by Bofors).
The original co-axial gun offered was an air-cooled Vickers medium machine gun but this was rejected on the grounds of it being a non-standard calibre (.303 British). It was also thought that adding a co-axial machine-gun would put too much complexity on getting the tanks ready and while it was considered to add the M/09-31 Maxim machine-gun (a domestically produced, improved air-cooled version) it never was produced. This led to the need for a self-defense weapon. The chosen weapon was strangely a submachine gun. It was a specially modified version of the Suomi M/31. The VTT modified the hull by incorporating a firing port which could take the SMG, which had a slim but fixed barrel jacket and a pistol grip but no butt. It had a simple optical sight, took the standard 70-round drum magazine, and performed very well as a self-defense weapon. This also increased the crew complement to four.
It is also noteworthy that some Vickers were deployed alongside the Renault FTs during the 1939 summer war games and that these had been ‘loaned’ the 37-mm Puteaux SA-18 (37 Psv.K/18 in Finnish service) from non-participating Renault FTs. This had been to allow the crews to become familiar with their tank, as well as use up stocks of blank ammunition. It is due to this that some writers believe that the Finnish 6-ton were armed with the 37mm SA-18 at the outbreak of the Winter War, but this was not the case. These training tanks also were armed with the M/09-31 Maxim machine-gun on the right side of the Puteaux in a semi-coaxial housing. A close up of the Vickers during the 1939 Summer War Games. You can clearly see the borrowed 37 mm Puteaux SA-18, as well as the specially adapted Maxim gun. Source: SA Kuva
92 hp Armstrong-Siddeley Puma 4-cylinder gasoline engine
Speed (road/off-road)
35/10 km/h
Range (road/off road)
165/91 km
Armament
37 mm Psv.K/36 (L/45) tank gun (50 rounds)
9 mm Suomi M/31 hull submachine gun (1,444 rounds)
Armor
Hull front and sides 17.5 mm (upper part) / 10 mm (lower part)
Hull sides 17.5 mm (upper side of combat compartment) / 10 mm (lower part)
Hull top and floor 5 mm
Hull rear 10 mm
Turret front and sides 13.6 mm
Track width
28 cm
Track link length
12.5 cm
Ground Clearance
37.5 cm
Ground Pressure
0.48 kg/square cm
Gradient
39 degrees
Trench Crossing
1.9 meters
Fording
0.9 meters
Illustration of the Finnish modified Vickers 6-ton by Tank Encyclopedia’s own David Bocquelet
Service
The Armored Battalion was mobilized just before the outbreak of hostilities (8th October 1939) and thus found itself ready with trained men but lacking in terms of equipment. None of the Vickers were ready to go to war.
The battalion was broken into 5 companies, 1st and 2nd equipped with Renault FTs and held in reserve until the 6th of February 1940, when they were then ordered to dig in and form parts of the defensive line around Näykkijärvi and Taipale. 3rd and 4th Companies were to be equipped with Vickers but were still waiting. The 5th company did not have tanks and was used as a replacement pool for the other companies.
The first armed Vickers arrived from the VTT in mid-December and were assigned to the 4th Company and limited training in combat and formation tactics were started. It reached a peak strength of 16 on the 23rd of February 1940 when it received orders to move to the front.
The situation in late February 1940 for the Finns was a dire one. Despite achieving stunning results in the opening month of the war, forcing the Soviets to call off their offensives and dig in, the vast numerical superiority in both men and machines was taking its toll upon the Finns. This, coupled with a restructuring of the Soviet forces and plans, eventually saw the Finnish frontline on the Karelian Isthmus break in mid-February and a falling back to hastily prepared secondary positions.
In the Naykkijärvi area, the Soviet 84th Rifle Division had penetrated further than their flanks and were now becoming a threatening bulge in the Finnish line. Lieutenant General Harald Öhquist, Commander of II Corps, wanted to secure his position and thus ordered a counter-attack. The 4th Tank Company was attached to the 3rd Jaeger battalion and these were supported by the 14th and 67th Infantry Regiments. The plan called for a preliminary bombardment by two artillery battalions, followed by a quick strike by the Tank Company and the Jaeger battalion to the shores of Naykkijärvi then to wheel left and push the Soviet forces back out of the village of Honkaniemi and thus straighten the front line.
However, things went awry from the beginning. Out of the original 16 tanks, only 7 got the starting point. Then one tank got stuck on a tree stump and was thus incapable of taking part in the attack. The artillery barrage fell short and caused numerous casualties to the Jaegers, thus postponing the hour of the attack. When the attack went ahead, the coordination between the tanks and the infantry was non-existent and soon the tanks found themselves alone. The Finns soon were up against a Soviet force in waiting and after only 3 hours the attack was called off. In the aftermath, it was revealed that 5 tanks were knocked out, 1 badly damaged but returned to the jumping off point, with casualties of 1 killed, 3 wounded, and 5 missing. The company was ordered to reform at Rautlampi to become mobile anti-tank guns. The main reasons for the failure in Honkaniemi was a combination of inexperienced, albeit passionate, crews, poor command and control, and loss of surprise; as well as vast numerical superiority on the side of the Soviets. Soviet soldiers inspecting one of the knocked out 4th company Vickers in Honkaniemi. Notice the national insignia stripes, which were two white surrounding blue. Source: Suomalaiset Panssarivaunut
For the rest of the war, the tanks performed anti-tank reserve duties on the Karelian Isthmus, losing another 3 tanks but claiming 4 Soviet tanks.
After the War
Once the war ended on the morning of the 13th March 1940, the remaining Finnish Vickers were pulled back to the new Soviet-Finnish border where they waited. The last handful of Vickers also arrived from Britain (about 6) and a review was held by the Finnish Command Staff on the performance and future role of Finnish tanks. It was concluded that while the 37mm was an effective weapon, it was questionable if it would remain as such in any future conflict. Other conclusions include that the optical sights were of poor quality and affected performance, and more training was required in force coordination and field maintenance. The mandatory installation of radios in all tanks was also seen as a priority. A Soviet close up of a Finnish Vickers during its evaluation at Kublinka in 1940, soon after the end of the Winter War. Source: aviarmor.net
A decision was made that the remaining 26 Vickers Tanks in Finnish service would see conversion into the T-26E. This came about after the numbers of repaired captured T-26s surpassed the numbers of Vickers, as well as the huge surplus of T-26 45mm tank guns from those tanks not able to be reconditioned. By 17th June 1941, all Vickers tanks were now of the T-26E modification.
Today one Vickers has been restored to its original 1939/40 condition, Ps.161-7, and is part of the Armoured Vehicle Museum (Finnish Panssarimuseo) collection. The only example of a Finnish modified 6 ton tank. Converted back from a T-26E conversion post war. Source: Juha Oksanen
Notes on the differences between the Finnish Vickers and the T-26
To many, the T-26 and the Vickers 6 ton look the same, especially in the upgraded Vickers, the T-26E. One way to tell them apart is the left of the driver that is a rectangle hatch where the submachine gun is positioned. Another way to tell is the engine deck is shorter and more angular on the Vickers. A third way is that the Vickers mounted the turret on the right side, while the T-26 was offset to the left. A T-26E, notice the submachine gun port, which is unique to both the Finnish Vickers, and sets it apart from the captured Soviet T-26s. Source: SA Kuva
Links, Resources & Further Reading
Muikku, Esa, Suomalaiset Panssarivaunut 1918-1997 (Apali Oy, 2003)
Haapanen, Atso, Suomen Panssariase 1918-1944 (Myllylahti Oy, 2016) Vickers 6 Ton on Jaegerplatoon
A special thanks to Jari Saurio from the Panssarimuseo who helped answer questions and clear up some information.
Introduced in 1928, the Carden-Loyd Mark VI tankette was one of the most influential designs of its time, serving as an inspiration for the French Renault UE, the Polish TK3, the Japanese Type 94, the Italian CV series, the Soviet T-27 and the Czech Tančík vz.33. More famously, the British Universal Carrier was a direct evolution of this vehicle.
Its ridiculously cheap price and the Vickers company’s global reach meant that the Carden-Loyd became a success story on the international market, serving in many armies worldwide and becoming the most extensively used tank in the world for a few years in the late 20’s and early 30’s. This period, marked by the 1929 Stock Exchange Crash, meant that smaller nations with limited military budgets were able to purchase tanks to equip their armed forces. One of these clients was the landlocked South American country of Bolivia. One of the Bolivian Carden-Loyds somewhere in the Chaco 1932-33. Photo: SOURCE
Buying the Vickers
Bolivia’s reasons for wanting to purchase war materiel were the growing tensions with its neighbor Paraguay over the disputed Chaco region, territory claimed by both countries. In 1928, there had been border skirmishes, known as the Vanguardia Incident, but, with both sides recognizing neither was ready for a full-scale war, a peace settlement through the League of Nations was reached. Nevertheless, both nations remained bellicose and built up their forces in the region resulting in the outbreak of war in July 1932.
Acting upon the advice of Hans Kundt – a German who was Minister of Defense and Commander in Chief of the Bolivian forces and had who previously been a Lieutenant General in the German Army during WWI – a deal was sought with the British arms company Vickers to buy modern military equipment, aircraft and tanks. Originally, the contract valued at GB£3 million and was to include 12 tanks plus aircraft, though the financial crisis caused by the 1929 Stock Exchange Crash meant that a new, more austere deal had to be struck. In the end, this agreement, concluded in October 1932, was worth somewhere between GB£1.25 million and GB£1.87 million and included 196 artillery pieces, 36,000 rifles, 6,000 carbines, 750 machine-guns, 2.5 million rounds of ammunition, 10,000-20,000 shells, 12 warplanes and 5 tanks – 3 Mk. E’s and the 2 Vickers-Carden-Loyd.
However, not all that was agreed to was sent and what was sent was of dubious quality. To make matters worse, Argentina and Chile, who supported Paraguay, blocked the shipments in their ports for some time.
On arrival, all tanks were then grouped together in the ‘Destacamento de Blindados’ under the command of a German mercenary, Major Adrim R. von Kries.
The Controversy Surrounding Dates
Scholarship on tank warfare of the Chaco War is limited and what has been written is prone to errors. Usually, no distinction is made between the tanks used and they are just referred to as ‘tanks’. Further complications arise as dates given are often contradictory.
The most widely accepted date for the Bolivia-Vickers contract is October 1932, however, several authors have claimed that the Carden-Loyds were first used at the Battle of Boquerón, in September 1932.
Unfortunately, no photographic evidence exists to clear up this discrepancy. An explanation is as follows:
[Disclaimer: This is a speculative theory developed by the author.]:
What is known is that Bolivia and Vickers had been negotiating an arms sale since 1928, so it is possible that the October 1932 deal was only the final one and that in the previous years, other deals had been struck, including the purchase of the two Carden-Loyds. Since then, it may be the case that for the sake of simplicity, authors have amalgamated all the sales from Vickers to Bolivia in that final one. Other explanations are possible, including the alternative that they were indeed never sent until October 1932 and only first deployed at Nanawa in July 1933.
Whatever is the case, this article will continue based on the assumption that Bolivia had two Carden-Loyds ready to deploy in combat in the Chaco in September 1932, thus making them the first armed tracked vehicle to be deployed in the field of battle in South America.
Design
The Bolivian Carden-Loyds were of the Mark VIb variant. The main export version had been the Mark VI with head covers, but the Bolivian VIb differed in that it had a slightly peaked transverse roof hinged fore and aft for overhead protection. It also differed in that it had two upper track rollers and had a Meadows 40HP engine with the conventional four speeds transmission.
Apart from that, it had the same features as most Mk.VI’s, including the dismountable machine-gun, two-man crew and armored front.
The Bolivian Carden-Loyd, Illustrated by Tank Enyclopedia’s own David Bocquelet
Combat History
As stated previously, the Carden-Loyds allegedly made their combat debut for Bolivia at the Battle of Boquerón in September 1932, which was also the first battle of the Chaco War. One was used between the 24th and 25th in support of infantry units in the fight to defend the fort of Boquerón, which had been captured the previous week from Paraguayan forces. One of the tankettes was commanded by the American mercenary John Kenneth Lockhart, who was wounded in the battle. The vehicle’s poor frontal armor was unable to stop Paraguayan rifle and machine-gun fire, a problem aggravated by the fact that the high temperatures meant that some of the fighting was done with the hatches open, making it very dangerous for the two-man crew. The battle resulted in a major triumph for the Paraguayans and the Bolivians were forced to retreat.
The two Loyds would be used again in the next battle of the war, the Battle of Kilometer 7. One, commanded by the Bolivian Lieutenant José Quiroga, was used in early December to support the infantry in a counterattack to maintain the line.
Later in that battle, Bolivian forces had used a truce to retreat to the Kilometer 12 of the Saavedra-Alihuatá road. On the 27th, a major counterattack was planned by General Hans Kundt to exploit a Paraguayan defensive weakness, despite Air Force intelligence reports advising otherwise. One of the tankettes, commanded by the then recovered Lockhart, was used alongside the 3rd Infantry Regiment ‘Pérez’. The frontal assault on Paraguayan forces would be a disaster resulting in hundreds of Bolivian casualties. The Loyd’s role in the assault was minimal and due to the high temperatures inside the tank, it was forced to retreat. Its commander, Lockhart, not wanting to give up the fight, left the tank and continued to fight on foot, but, by the end of the day, he was another name on the Bolivian casualty list. A side view of a Bolivian Carden-Loyd with its crewmembers. SOURCE:
The tanks would not be used again until the Second Battle of Nanawa in July 1933. Here they were used alongside the Vickers Mk.E’s. The Bolivian offensive was divided into three groups: north, center and south. The North group, under the Austrian Captain Walter Kohn, consisted of two Mk.E’s, whilst group South was led by Major Wilhelm ‘Wim’ Brandt and consisted of the other Type B plus the two Carden-Loyds.
The battle would be another disaster for the Bolivians, who lost 2,000 men. On the tank front, a Mk.E was lost and the two Loyds went out of action early in the battle; one was destroyed and the other got stuck in a trench.
Following the battle, the immobilized Carden-Loyd was recovered and redeployed during the later stages of fighting around Gondra in mid-August.
Following this, there is no recorded use of the vehicle and it was presumably destroyed there, or soon after that at Campo Grande.
Conclusion
The value of the Carden-Loyds during the Chaco War was minimal and should have been a forewarning of the serious failings of this type of tank as exemplified in the Spanish Civil War and early stages of World War II.
Often used as mobile machine-gun platforms, they suffered from poor armor, no proper tank doctrine and being used as individual infantry support vehicles, rather than a larger tank unit. Moreover, the heat in the region, rising to as high as 50ºC, made fighting difficult for several reasons. Tanks had to fight with open hatches creating vulnerable spots; the metallic body of the tank absorbed the heat and made it impossible to touch and machine-guns became jammed as cartridges expanded due to the heat. Neither was the low-lying, densely vegetated geography of the area conducive to tank warfare in general and especially the Loyds, which were unable to play to their strengths using their mobility to roam the battlefield exploiting weak points.
Carden-Loyd Mk.VI specifications
Dimensions
2.46 x 1.75 x 1.22 m (8.07 x 5.74 x 4 ft)
Total weight, battle ready
1.5 tons
Crew
2 (driver, machine-gunner)
Propulsion
Ford T 4-cyl petrol, 40 bhp
Speed (road)
25 mph (40 km/h)
Range
89 mi (144 km)
Armament
0.303 in (7.62 mm) Vickers machine-gun
Armor
6 to 9 mm (0.24-0.35 in)
Total Purchased
2
Links, Resources & Further Reading
A de Quesada and P. Jowett, Men-at-Arms #474 The Chaco War 1932-35 South America’s greatest modern conflict (Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2011)
Coronel Gustavo Adolfo Tamaño, Historial Olvidadas: Tanques en la Guerra del Chaco
Matthew Hughes, “Logistics and Chaco War: Bolivia versus Paraguay, 1932-35” The Journal of Military History vol. 69 No. 2 (April 2005), pp. 411-437
Michael Mcnerney, “Military innovations during war: Paradox or paradigm?” Defense & Security Analysis 21:2 (2005), pp. 201-212
Ricardo Sigal Fogliani, Blindados Argentinos, de Uruguay y Paraguay (Buenos Aires: Ayer y Hoy ediciones, 1997)
Robert J. Icks, Number 16. Carden Loyd Mk.VI (Profile Publications, 1967) miniaturasmilitaresalfonscanovas.blogspot.co.uk quellasarmasdeguerra.wordpress.com
Even though the Vickers 6-Ton (Mark E) was never adopted by the British armed forces, it was a very successful export, equipping the armies of China, Siam, Poland (where it influenced the design of the 7TP) and the USSR (influencing the T-26) among many others.
There were two main versions of the Mk.E: the Type A, which had two smaller turrets, each with a Vickers Mk.IVb class C/T 7.65 mm machine gun; and the Type B, with a single two-man-turret fitting a QFSA Mk.II L/23 47 mm gun.
Its modern design, for that time, made it the preferred alternative to the WWI-era Renault FT, its main competitor in the export market, which, by this point, was showing its age. The Mk.E was faster, more durable and more versatile than the French tank.
This article will deal with another customer of this tank, Bolivia, which became the third nation on the continent of South America to acquire armored fighting vehicles after Brazil (12 Renault FT’s bought in 1921) and Argentina (6 Vickers Crossley Armoured Cars).
Modern schematics of the Bolivian Mk.E Type B – source: Janusz Ledwoch (2009), p.16
Buying the Vickers
Bolivia’s reasons for wanting to purchase war materiel were the growing tensions with its neighbor Paraguay over the disputed Chaco region, territory claimed by both countries. In 1928, there were border skirmishes, known as the Vanguardia Incident, but, with both sides recognizing neither was ready for a full-scale war, a peace settlement through the League of Nations was reached. Nevertheless, both nations remained bellicose and built up their forces in the region resulting in the outbreak of war in July 1932.
Acting upon the advice of Hans Kundt a deal was sought with the British arms company Vickers to buy modern military equipment, aircraft and tanks. Kundt was a German who was Minister of Defense and Commander in Chief of the Bolivian forces having previously been a Lieutenant General in the German Army during WWI. Originally, the contract was going to be worth GB £3 million and included 12 tanks plus aircraft. However, the financial crisis caused by the 1929 Stock Exchange Crash meant that a new, more austere deal had to be struck. In the end, this agreement, concluded in October 1932, was worth somewhere between GB £1.25 million and GB £1.87 million and included 196 artillery pieces, 36,000 rifles, 6,000 carbines, 750 machine-guns, 2.5 million rounds of ammunition, 10,000-20,000 shells, 12 warplanes, and 5 tanks – 3 Mk.E’s and 2 Vickers-Carden-Loyd Mk.VIs.
However, not all that was agreed to was sent and what was sent was of dubious quality. To make matters worse, Argentina and Chile, who supported Paraguay, blocked the shipments for some time and once they reached Bolivia, poor internal transport routes to the Chaco meant that the tanks did not arrive at the frontline until the 20th December 1932.
The E tanks were of both A and B versions. The A version vehicle had the serial number ‘VAE 532’ and the two B versions were ‘VAE 446’ and ‘VAE 447’. They were also slightly different to the normal Mk.E tanks. ‘VAE 532’ was up-armored to 17 mm from the original 13 mm and all three vehicles included a can for drinking water, two fire-extinguishers, wire cutters, a chainsaw, and two spades as non-standard additional equipment. On arrival, they only had dark green camouflage, but sand colored bands were later added. All tanks were then grouped together in the ‘Destacamento de Blindados’ under the command of the German mercenary, Major Adrim R. von Kries.
A photo of one of the Type B’s taken shortly before the 2nd Battle of Nanawa. In the background, some of its crewmembers can be made out – source: Algunas armas de guerraPhoto of the Type A ‘VAE 532’ in December 1933. The camouflage tones can be appreciated – source: A de Quesada and P. Jowett (2011), p. 35
The Chaco War
First Blood
Their first action in the war took place in the 2nd Battle of Nanawa, in early July 1933. The accounts of this battle are patchy and there is some confusion regarding which tank was where at which point. Before the battle, they were divided up to support the two main advances in the north and the south. The North group, under the Austrian Captain Walter Kohn, consisted of, presumably, the one Type A and one Type B, most likely ‘VAE 447’, whilst group South was led by Major Wilhelm ‘Wim’ Brandt and consisted of the other Type B plus the two Carden-Loyds. They were all under orders to act independently of each other supporting the infantry’s advance.
Initially, the Mk.E tanks were very effective, being immune to Paraguayan infantry fire, and they advanced destroying machine gun nests and wooden emplacements along the way. To a point, they were too successful, when one tank, presumably ‘VAE 446’, under the command of the NCO Juan Saavedra Acha, broke the enemy line, but was forced to retreat for fear of being surrounded and was then captured due to lack of infantry support.
The other flank was far less successful. The tanks advanced without any artillery support and got pinned down. Disaster struck when the Type B (‘VAE 447’) was knocked out on either 4th or 5th July. There are several theories as to what happened: 1. the tank was destroyed after grenades were thrown in through its open hatches (open due to the overwhelming and suffocating heat); 2. a 81 mm mortar round penetrated the top of the tank; 3. the tank broke down and was then destroyed by Paraguayan artillery; or 4. it was hit by a 75 mm artillery round leaving it immobilized and that it was later destroyed by Bolivian troops to prevent it from being captured. What is clear is that Captain Kohn, its commander, and the gunner were killed, while the driver was left wounded, and that the turret was in good enough condition to be then taken by the Paraguayans, who were victorious in what would be one of the largest battles of the war.
The remains of ‘VAE 447’ – source: Janusz Ledwoch (2009), p. 33
The Type A on this flank was also damaged when enemy fire jammed one of the machine guns.
From this very first engagement, a few conclusions were drawn that would remain persistent throughout the rest of the war. The Vickers Mk.E engine and suspension proved to be good enough to fight in these harsh conditions and had enough armor to defend itself against Paraguayan small arms fire, whilst the armament, especially on the Type B, ripped through the Paraguayan fortifications. However, lack of availability meant they were not used in large enough numbers, and their tactical use as independent entities in support of infantry proved to be inefficient. Moreover, the heat, rising to as high as 50ºC made fighting difficult and affected the tanks in two ways: 1. it meant they had to fight with open hatches creating vulnerable spots; and 2. the heat affected the gun’s closing mechanism, which slowed down loading making it an arduous task.
From Gondra to the Second Battle of Alihuatá
The following month, the two remaining Mk.E’s were repaired and transported for deployment in the Battle of Gondra. This clash took place between March and December 1933, but the tanks, along with the only remaining Vickers-Carden-Loyd Mk.VI, only fought between the 23rd and 26th of August. Here, they were deployed in conjunction against fortified Paraguayan infantry positions, where the 47 mm of the Type B proved to be particularly effective in destroying wooden fortifications.
The Type A (‘VAE 532’) undergoing maintenance somewhere in the Chaco region at some point between August and November 1933 – source: Algunas armas de guerra
Following the battle, they were assigned to the reserve of the 1st Army Corp and moved to the fort of Saavedra. In the subsequent months, they were employed individually as infantry support.
Even though their engagements were few, the Paraguayans were sufficiently concerned to create dedicated tank hunting groups and to set tank traps across the Chaco region. Lack of adequate anti-tank weaponry led these hunt squads to adopt unconventional methods. The tank hunting unit attached to the 7th Cavalry Regiment ‘San Martín’ would become renowned.
Beaten by Horses
The two remaining tanks were deployed together again in the Second Battle of Alihuatá in December 1933. In the last days of the battle (December 10th-11th), the two tanks were captured by the Paraguayan 7th Cavalry Regiment ‘San Martín’ at the 21st-22nd kilometer of the Zenteno-Saavedra road. Alerted by the rumble of the motors, the cavalrymen resolved to cut down trees to lay across the road in front and behind the tanks. With the road blocked and no way to escape, the tanks, commanded by the Germans Ernst Bertel and Fritz Stottuht, decided to defend themselves from the Paraguayan forces with machine-gun fire. After two hours of combat, with one of the commanders wounded, and with temperature inside reaching 50ºC, combined with fatigue and the lack of infantry support, the tanks had no option other than surrender.
Cavalrymen of the 7th Cavalry Regiment ‘San Martín’ celebrating the capture of ‘VAE 446’ – source: Aquellas armas de guerraThe two Vickers Mk.E’s (the Type A at the front and the Type B ‘VAE 446’ behind) being towed by a Paraguayan heavy tractor. It appears that the tanks caused lots of curiosity among Paraguayan forces – source: 2.bp
Life in Paraguay
After being captured intact at Alihuatá, the tanks were taken back to the Paraguayan capital of Asunción to be exhibited as war trophies. Even though they were never put into service, they were the first and only tanks Paraguay had until the arrival of American M3 and M3A1 Stuart tanks more than a decade later.
Colorised photo of the two Mk.E’s shortly after their capture and being transported to Paraguay – source: Aquellas armas de guerraThe two captured Mk’s alongside Paraguayan officers. Location unknown – source: Minairons
Sometime during or after the war, the Type A (‘VAE 532’) was moved atop a pedestal in the grounds of the Military School in Asunción where it would remain until the 1990s. The Paraguayans named this tank ‘Ina’. The turret of the ‘VAE 447’, which was captured after the 2nd Battle of Nanawa, was exhibited in the Paraguayan Armed Forces Museum.
The capture Mk.E Type A ‘Ina’ atop its pedestal in Asunción, Paraguay – source: Zona MilitarFrontal view of ‘Ina’. It is clear that at some point during its capture it was repainted – source: Aquellas armas de guerra
Tanks to the Second Spanish Republic?
For several years, in many books dedicated to the Spanish Civil War, there were claims that one of the captured Vickers, the ‘VAE 446’, was sent to Republican Spain as part of a weapons sale of excess and captured material in January 1937. There was a law in place (Decreto-Ley 8.406 signed on January 15th 1937) which authorized the sale of excess and non-necessary war materiel. Article 1 Point C refers to ‘VAE 446’ and puts the sale price at US $1040.
Records prove that Spain did indeed buy rifles and machine guns from Paraguay. However, there is no photographic evidence to prove the tank was part of a larger purchase and it cannot be confirmed. The story is that the Swiss arms trafficker Thorvald Elrich secured the tank for the Republic which arrived in Spain in September 1937. It is possible, that for the sake of cohesiveness, the turret was removed and replaced by that of a T-26 (a tank based on the Mk.E to start with).
To add to the confusion, some scholarship of the Spanish Civil War at times refers to the Soviet T-26 tanks as Vickers tanks. No trace of the tank can be found and if it was never sent to Spain, it is possible that it was scrapped. There are also claims that Portugal sent their two Vickers Mk.E’s, one Type A and one Type B, to fight on the Nationalist side, though these seems highly unlikely. The truth may never be known.
Final fate
In 1994, as a goodwill gesture, ‘Ina’ and the turret of ‘VAE 447’ were given back to Bolivia. Today they can both be found on display at the Colegio Militar del Ejercito in La Paz, with the turret being put on top of the rear of the Type A. A plaque on the tank’s front gives a brief history of it, with special emphasis on the 1994 gesture.
Two photos of the sole surviving Bolivian Mk.E ‘VAE 532’, also known as ‘Ina’ and the turret of ‘VAE 447’ in the military school in La Paz, Bolivia – source: Aquellas armas de guerraBoivian Vickers 6 ton Type ABolivian Vickers 6 ton Type B. Both illustrations by David Bocquelet
Sources
Antonio Luis Sapienza & José Luis Martínez Peláez, The Chaco War 1932-1935 Fighting in the Green Hell (Warwick: Hellion & Company Limited, 2020)
A de Quesada and P. Jowett, Men-at-Arms #474 The Chaco War 1932-35 South America’s greatest modern conflict (Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2011)
Coronel Gustavo Adolfo Tamaño, Historial Olvidadas: Tanques en la Guerra del Chaco
Janusz Ledwoch, Tank Power vol.LXXXV Vickers 6-ton Mark E/F vol.II (Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Militaria, 2009)
Matthew Hughes, “Logistics and Chaco War: Bolivia versus Paraguay, 1932-35” The Journal of Military History vol. 69 No. 2 (April 2005), pp. 411-437
Michael Mcnerney, “Military innovations during war: Paradox or paradigm?” Defense & Security Analysis 21:2 (2005), pp. 201-212
Republic of Ireland (1958)
Medium Tank – 8 Purchased
The tanks that the Republic of Ireland Defence Forces Cavalry Corps had previously operated could not be more different to the Comet. The Landsverk L-60, 2 of which were operated from 1934, were small and lightly armed. The tanks to follow these, four Mk.VI Churchills, were slow thick-skinned leviathans.
In 1958, the Cavalry Corp (Irish: An Cór Marcra) began to receive a small number of A.34 Comets which, like the preceding Churchills, were purchased from the British War Office. The Comet was the polar opposite of both vehicles, and was the most technically advanced tank then in service with the Irish cavalry.
Cavalry Officer trainees are taught about the Come by an instructing Lieutenant, early 1960s. Photo: The Curragh
The Comet
Essentially, the officially named “Tank, Cruiser, A.34, Comet”, was an upgrade to the Cromwell cruiser tank. It was designed in 1943 and entered service in 1945, towards the end of the Second World War. It set a trend in tank design that would be followed by the world’s next generation of tanks, the Main Battle Tank or ‘MBT’, as it had a balanced blend of armor, mobility and firepower.
It was powered by the Rolls Royce Meteor Mk.III 600hp V12 petrol engine. This engine was derived from the Merlin engine which was used on the famous Spitfire fighter plane and gave the tank a top speed of 32 mph (51 km/h). The Comet weighed 33.53 tonnes (32.7 long tons). This weight was supported on a Christie type suspension with five road-wheels. The drive sprocket was at the back while the idler was at the front. The track return was supported by four rollers.
The main armament consisted of the Vickers 77mm (3.03 in) High-Velocity Gun, which was derived from the famous 17-Pounder anti-tank gun. Firing APCBC (Armor-Piercing Capped Ballistic-Cap), the specific type of anti-armor round given to the Irish Army, the gun could penetrate up to 147 mm (5.7in) of armor. Secondary armament consisted of coaxial and bow-mounted 7.92mm BESA machine guns. The tank had up to 102mm (4in) of armor.
There were two versions of the Comet, designated as ‘Types;’ Type A and Type B. Both of these versions were sold to the Irish. The major difference between the two was the exhaust arrangement. The Type A had a ‘Normandy cowling’ over the exhaust ports. The Type B did away with this, replacing it with standard nozzles. The Type B also saw the addition of smoke-dischargers to the turret cheeks.
The Comet had a crew of five, consisting of Commander, Gunner, Loader, Bow-Machine Gunner, and Driver. The tank served with the British Army until 1958 when it was replaced by the famous Centurion Main Battle Tank. The Comet stayed in service with a number of other countries however, including Cuba, Burma and Finland.
Comet of the Curragh Command, note the symbol on the side of the turret. Photo: Curragh Camp Museum
Purchase
It is often queried as to why the Irish government did not acquire tanks from the United States, who had plentiful stocks of surplus tanks such as the famous M4 Sherman medium tank and the M24 Chaffee light tank. The fact is the Irish thought the Comet superior to both vehicles. The Comet had better speed and cross-country performance than the M4, and better armament than the M24. As to the question of why the Defence Force didn’t purchase America’s new light tank, the M41 Walker-Bulldog, it was simply a matter of cost.
The Irish Defence Department had a budget of just 80,000 Irish Pounds/IE£ It was planned to purchase just four Comets for this amount in 1954/55. In 1958, the cost of the vehicles had fallen to IE£22,000 each, so four were purchased in September 1958. Ireland received these first four Comets in December of 1958. The tanks arrived at North Wall in Dublin, and with the help of accompanying handbooks, were driven to the Curragh. It was planned that further eight tanks would be purchased to bring the 1st Cavalry Squadron’s tank force up to full strength which, including the four Churchills, would have been a grand total of 16 tanks. This was scaled back to just another four tanks for the same amount of IE£22,000. These four were delivered in early 1960, two late-January, two early-March. This brought the strength of the 1st Cavalry Squadron to a combined strength of 8 Comets and 4 Churchills (12 tanks).
All eight Comets of the Cavalry Corps. Photo: The Curragh
Service
As previously stated, the Comets served with the 1st Cavalry Squadron who were based at Curragh Camp in Kildare. For their initial years in service, the Comets remained in the standard British green paint. At some point in their history, the tanks were repainted in a light grey, similar to the L-60s.
The tanks were used extensively in training operations at the Curragh and at the Glen of Imaal (Irish: Gleann Uí Mháil), in the Wicklow Mountains. 5,948 acres of the Glen has been used as an artillery and gunnery range since 1900. The vehicles also took part in a number of public and military parades.
The Comet is taken down a steep slope while in training on the Glen of Imaal. Note the last road wheel is not touching the ground. Photo: MMP Publishing
Compared to other vehicles, the Comets had a relatively short service life with the Cavalry Corps. This is despite being a very popular vehicle with the Irish armed forces. Its short service is largely due to a lack of foresight by the military in not purchasing enough spare parts to accompany the tanks. To add to this, the caliber and cartridge type of the Comets gun was unique, meaning resupplying was not an easy task. Supplies of ammunition grew even lower when it was discovered that HE (High-Explosive) rounds provided to the military had faulty fuses.
In the 1970s, the Comets were on the ropes. By 1970, just 55 APCBC shells remained in stocks. There were plans to turn the vehicles into turretless personal carriers, along the lines of the ‘Kangaroo’ vehicles used by the Allies in WW2. However, It became increasingly hard to maintain the tanks which were breaking down, overheating or throwing their tracks on an almost daily basis.
The final Comet shoot took place in 1973. The force was retired when ammunition and spare parts had completely run out. They were replaced in service by the more up to date FV101 Scorpion CVR(T), 16 of which were purchased, once more, from the United Kingdom.
The “Headless Coachman”
On the 11th of August 1962, one of the Comets suffered a catastrophic fire which destroyed the turret. With no spares to repair it, it was considered for scrap but, as the rest of the vehicle remained in a serviceable condition, it was decided to make use of it. The tank became known as “The Headless Coachman” and was used for a while to ferry tar barrel targets too and from the range area in the Glen of Imaal.
However, a Captain by the name of Roger McCorley soon came up with a better use of the vehicle. McCorley had recently finished a course on the operation of the Swedish Bofors PV 1101 90mm Recoilless Rifle, a small number of which were in service with the Irish Military. The rifle could fire a High-Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT) shell, capable of penetrating up to 380mm (15in) of armor, to a distance of 900 meters (985 yards). This weapon was on a wheeled base and was usually towed. A plan was hatched to mount this weapon onto the turret ring of the damaged Comet, turning into a something of an improvised tank-destroyer.
The idea was passed to the Director of Cavalry, Colonel J. Stapleton, who formally approved the concept for trials. With this, the Cavalry Corps engineers fashioned an attachment point on the turret ring to mount the Recoilless Rifle upon. Plates were welded over the apertures leading to the driver and bow gunner compartment to avoid back-blast from the gun entering their position.
The “Headless Coachman”, mounting the 90mm Recoilless Rifle, at Curragh Camp. Photo: MMP Publishing
It was taken for testing at the Glen of Imaal on the 27th of January 1969. Tests were successful, with the gun performing well and providing accurate fire from all angles of traverse. The tests led to the approval of further development. Plans were made to incorporate ammunition racks in the walls of the turret basket, and a shield around the gun to protect the exposed crew. There were also plans to introduce another 90mm rifle, or use another Comet to mount an 81mm or 120mm mortar. Unfortunately, funds could not be provided to continue with any of these projects. The gun was returned to the Infantry and “The Headless Coachman” was turned into a target on the gunnery range at the Glen.
Survivors
Of the eight Comets used by the Cavalry Corps, six survive as two were destroyed after accidents (One of these became the ‘Headless Coachman’). Four of the tanks remain in Ireland. These can be found at the Curragh. Two are used as gate guardians, one is on display alongside a surviving Churchill Mk.VI. The fourth Comet still runs and is kept under cover, it is sometimes run in parades.
The remaining two found their way back to England. One of which one is at The Muckleburgh Military Collection in Norfolk. The museum received it in 1987 in exchange for a Peerless lorry. B 2012, the Comet had been restored into a working condition. The second Comet was first acquired by the long-closed Budge Collection, and was later sold to the Jacque Littlefield Collection in California. It is now presumably with the Collings Collection in Massachusetts.
Curragh Camp’s surviving and running Comet. It was recently repainting in this Olive Green, after sitting in peeling grey paint for many years. Photo: The Curragh Museum
An article by Mark Nash with research assistance from Aaron Smith
A Standard A.34 Comet, specifically a ‘Type B’, in the standard British Olive Drab paint it arrived in. Illustrated by David Bocquelet. A.34 Comet of the Curragh Command, circa 1960s. By this time, all comets had been painted this light grey colour. Illustrated by David Bocquelet.
The Symbol on the side of the turret of the above illustration represents Curragh Command. It depicts gold oak leaves and acorns on a red background. There are two theories to its origin. 1: The oak leaf and acorns reflect the name of the county the camp is situated; Cill Daire, ‘The church of the oak’, anglicised as Kildare. 2: It depicts the oak leaf and acorn represents the oak trees that abound the perimeter edge of the Curragh military camp. The improvised ‘Headless Coachman’ with 90mm Recoilless Rifle. Illustrated by David Bocquelet.
Specifications
Dimensions
L x W x H
6.55 m x 3.04 m x 2.67 m
(21ft 6in x 10ft 1in x 8ft 6in)
Republic of Ireland (1949)
Infantry Tank – 4 Purchased
The Republic of Ireland Defence Forces didn’t have much experience with Tanks. In 1929, they acquired a single Vickers Mark D, a derivative of the Vickers Medium Mk.II. In 1935 this was joined by a delivery of 2 Swedish Landsverk L-60 Light Tanks. The Irish continued to acquire various types of armored vehicles in the following years.
By the end of the Second World War, the British Churchill Infantry Tank had made a name for itself as being tough and reliable in hostile environments. Wanting to bolster their arsenal, the Republic of Ireland Defence Forces, specifically the Cavalry Corps (Irish: An Cór Marcra), set their sights on adopting some of the UK’s surplus tanks.
In 1948, following a brief period during which several Cavalry Corps officers trained in England, the Defence Forces of Ireland (IDF. Irish: Fórsaí Cosanta, officially: Óglaigh na hÉireann) rented three Churchill Mk.VIs from the British War Office. A fourth tank was delivered in 1949. The tanks were bought out-right in 1954.
Churchill ‘1B’ of the 1st Cavalry Squadron. Photo: An Cosantoir
The Mk.VI Churchill
Officially designated as ‘Tank, Infantry, Mk.IV, A.22’, the Churchill entered service with the British Armoured forces in 1941. It was named, contrary to popular belief, after an ancestor of then serving Prime Minister, the famous Winston Churchill. Not the man himself. It was the last ‘Infantry Tank’ to serve in the British Military.
The specific model procured by Ireland was the Mk.VI Churchill, which was produced from December 1943. It had armor of up to 102mm thick over the frontal arc. The turret was a cast type and mounted the tank’s main armament of an Ordnance Quick-Firing 75mm Gun Mk.5. This gun could fire Armor-Piercing (AP) and High-Explosive (HE) rounds. Though the HE round was rather effective, the AP was dismal. It could only penetrate 68mm (2.6in) of RHA (Rolled Homogeneous Armor) at 500 yards (460 m).
Secondary armament consisted of a coaxial and a bow mounted 7.92mm BESA machine gun. The tank was crewed by 5 men. These were the Commander, Gunner, Loader, Driver and Bow Machine Gunner/Wireless Operator.
A speed-demon the Churchill was not. A lumbering beast at approximately 40-tons, its top speed was only 15 mph (24 km/h). It was powered by a Bedford 12-cylinder engine producing 350 hp. The tank was supported on a complicated suspension with 11 small wheels per side, each one attached to an independent coil spring. The drive wheel was at the rear with a sprocketed idler at the front. Though it was slow and heavy, the Churchill made a name for itself as being one of the best cross-country tanks ever built and could climb higher gradients or cross harder obstacles than most other tanks then in service.
The Rental Agreement
Originally, the plan was to rent four Churchill tanks for £5,000 for a period of five years, starting the 25th of January 1949. Conditions were drawn up and agreed on between the Irish Government and British War Office. The Irish Government would have to meet all transport and freight costs, indemnifying the War Office for any loss or damage. There was also an agreement that the tanks would be returned to the UK immediately if requested.
As the tanks remained the property of the British War Office, strict conditions were put in place that would keep the Churchills painted with the standard British Olive Drab paint, and retain the War Department numbers painted on the hulls. 1,000 rounds of Armor Piercing (AP), 2,000 rounds of High-Explosive and 500 rounds of Smoke Shells were also ordered separately for the 75mm gun.
All four Churchill tanks on the way to the Glen of Imaal for one of their first shoots, November 1950. Photo: Aaron Smith
Service
The Churchill was considered the perfect tank for Ireland, as Defence Force heads considered their country unsuitable for tank warfare and always saw the tank as an infantry support weapon. A role the Churchill was born to fulfill. No two of the tanks were identical and had been extensively refitted and repaired. At least one had seen action with the British army and was drastically repaired after being knocked out.
The tanks were what is commonly known as REME (Royal Electrical Mechanical Engineers) “Salads”. The rebuilding process saw vehicles from all units and different manufactures stripped to component parts and reassembled using refurbished parts off the shelf. Once a vehicle has been through a re-manufacturing process it will end up with very few original parts put back in. Finding matching numbers in such vehicles is incredibly rare. When rebuilt the vehicles are brought up to or as close to as possible the current standard. This will include up-armoring and up gunning. For instance, It is common to find a 1944 tank with a 1943 engine and a 1945 gearbox.
The tanks served with the 1st Armoured Cavalry Squadron based at Curragh Camp, Kildare. The four tanks were alphabetically organized as follows: ‘1A’, 1B’, ‘1C’ and ‘1D’. It is reasonable to suggest that the ‘1’ is representative of the 1st Armoured Cavalry Squadron. To begin with, these markings were found as large stencils on the sides of the turret. Later, these markings were changed. The 1A, B, C or D marks were moved to the left of the gun on the turret cheek. They also gained nicknames, presumably given by the crews, as is traditional. ‘1A’ was called ‘Fionn’ and ‘1D’ was originally called ‘Vampire’, but this was later changed to ‘Ḋiarmuid’. The other two were given names, but unfortunately, they are not recorded, and the visual evidence we do have is not clear enough to identify the names. The name of ‘1C’ appears to be something along the lines of ‘Cothad’. ‘Ḋiarmuid’ and ‘Fionn’ were characters from Irish Mythology. So it is likely that ‘1C’ and 1B’ followed suit. To this end, the closest name to ‘Cothad’ is a character called ‘Cathbad’. The only known name of ‘1B’ is ‘Bit Special’, what its mythological name was (if it had one) remains a mystery, however.
Though the tanks were never used in combat, they took part in training for the entirety of their service. Twice a year, the Churchills drove under their own power to the remote Glen of Imaal (Irish: Gleann Uí Mháil) in the Wicklow Mountains. 5,948 acres of the Glen had been used by the Irish Military as an artillery and gunnery range since 1900. Here, the Churchills took part in gunnery, infantry cooperation, and cross-country trails.
Churchill 1B ‘Bit Special’ scales an obstacle with 1D following. Scaling steep inclines was one of the best qualities of the Tank. Photo: An Cosantoir
The Problem with Mud and Councils
Ireland was inexperienced with heavy armored vehicles such as the Churchill, and as such were ill-equipped with recovery and transport vehicles. The need was amplified by an incident that occurred in training at the Glen of Imaal. One of the tanks broke down and became stuck in heavy mud. The military, at this point, had no way to rescue the tank or tow it back for repairs. The military elected to abandon the tank and leave it where it stood to expect for the gun which they were able to take back to base. For the following years, instead of towing the tank too-and-fro, they simply took the gun to the tank every time it was required for gunnery training. In 1967, this process was given up. In the following years it was buried where it stood to prevent public access to it.
Aside from such incidents, there were also issues raised by Civilian organizations. Complaints soon arose from the Kildare and Wicklow County Councils, who were displeased at the amount of damage the all-metal tracks of the Churchill were causing to public roads.
Such issues led to the Cavalry Corps purchasing a World War Two, ex-British Army M19 Tank Transporter. This was the combination of the 12-ton 6×4 M20 Diamond T Model 980 truck and a companion M9 12-wheel trailer. American in origin, this transporter was considered one of the best ever built, some are even privately used today. They only bought a single vehicle, however, meaning that only one tank could be transported at a time.
Churchill Tank ‘1D’ scales an incline. Another of the tanks is visible in the background, designation unknown. Photo: An Cosantoir
Purchase
In 1954, the British asked the Irish Government whether they would be renewing the lease on the Churchills. The Irish Authorities, instead of offering to renew the lease, offered the War Office the sum of £1,000 for each tank to purchase them outright. It is not clear whether this amount was the final one agreed, but nonetheless, the Churchills became 100% Irish Defence Force Property.
Churchill ‘1C’ of the Cavalry Corps and three of its crew members. In the left-rear of the photo you can see what appears to be Churchill ‘1D’. Churchill ‘1C’ was commanded by Trooper James ‘Mul’ Mulcahy (straddling the gun barrel). He recalled that “…it was a handful to drive and had a 5 man crew. [It] was tight inside…”.’Mul’ enlisted in 1948 and served in the Irish Military for 42 years, retiring in 1991. This photo was provided by James’ son, Nicky. Photo: Nicky Mulcahy Personal Collection.
The Rolls-Royce Merlin
Even before the fourth Churchill arrived in 1949, the Transport Corps, who were responsible for maintaining the tanks, had reported that spare parts for the tank’s engines and other vital components were quickly running out. In an effort to keep the tanks going, a new development was considered.
On the 14th of February 1955, Captain Collier of the Cavalry Workshops came up with a plan to replace the Churchill’s old 350hp Bedford engine with the powerful 600hp Rolls-Royce Merlin engine which had been used in many British aircraft. A derivative of the Merlin, the Meteor, had been had been used on other models of British tanks such as the Cromwell and Comet.
The plan grabbed the attention of Captain Collier’s superiors who agreed to the proposal and suggested that the proposal be tested on one of the four Churchills. The Merlin engine was to be procured from the Air-Corps and was previously installed on one of their Vickers Supermarine VS.506 Seafire LF III fighters which were being withdrawn from service. As such, there was a plentiful surplus of spare parts.
Progress on the project was slow and continued into 1956. Tests were carried out with the engine installed. These tests were an apparent success but, for reasons unrecorded, the program stopped. None of the other Churchills would see the addition of the engine.
Fate
Due to the stoppage of the Merlin trials, spare parts for the Churchills inevitably ran out. By 1967, only one Churchill remained in a serviceable condition. In 1959, the Irish tank arsenal was refreshed with the arrival of four Comet Tanks, again purchased from the UK. A further four arrived in 1960. In 1969, all Churchills were retired. Research suggests that two of the Churchills were scrapped. One in 1963, the other in 1967.
The two tanks that were not scrapped still survive today. The tank that was buried in the Glen of Imaal in 1967 was excavated and recovered in 2002/3. The tank was cleaned and presented to the UK’s North Irish Horse Regiment, based in Northern Ireland, as a goodwill gesture. It is on display at Dunmore Park in Belfast. The tank was recently repainted and received the name ‘Castlerobin III’.
In 2006, the other surviving Churchill, having been repainted a solid green, became an exhibit (along with a Comet) at the Curragh Camp Museum. It has been refitted with new fenders over the tracks that are not accurate to the original vehicle. These were fabricated locally.
Though it does not pertain to the Irish Mk.VIs, there is another restored Churchill on the Emerald Isle. In the North, a Churchill Mk.VII has been placed as a monument on the Carrickfergus seafront. It has also been named ‘Carrickfergus’. It stands as a monument to the town’s military and industrial links. The famous shipbuilders, Harland & Wolff, even built the A20 prototype in their factory in the town.
One of the Surviving Churchills as it sits today as an exhibit of the Curragh Camp Museum. Note the false, locally produced fenders. Photo: Defence Forces Irland (DFI)
Churchill Tank ‘1D’, 1st Armoured Cavalry Squadron. This tank started out with the nickname ‘Vampire’, but later received the name ‘Ḋiarmuid’ from its crew, named after a charecter in Irish Mythology. Illustrated by Tank Encyclopedia’s own David Bocquelet, with corrections from Leander Jobse.
Specifications
Dimensions
24ft 5in x 10ft 8in x 8ft 2in (7.44 x 3.25 x 2.49 m)
Archive film of the Cavalry Corps displaying their tank arsenal.
Links, Resources & Further Reading
www.curragh.info the.shadock.free.fr www.geocities.ws www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk
An Cosantóir, The Irish Defence Journal
Irish Army Vehicles: Transport and Armour since 1922 by Karl Martin
Tiger Lily Publications, Irish Army Orders of Battle 1923-2004, Adrian J. English
Mushroom Model Publications, AFVs in Irish Service Since 1922, Ralph A. Riccio
Schiffer Publishing, Mr. Churchill’s Tank: The British Infantry Tank Mark IV, David Fletcher
Commonwealth of Australia (1942-1945)
Infantry Tank – 400 Delivered
Her Majesty Heads East
By 1940, the Matilda II Infantry Tank had made a name for itself in the western deserts of North Africa, aptly earning the moniker of ‘Queen of the Desert’. However, by 1941, the Matilda II had fallen behind the increasing pace of desert warfare in terms of mobility and firepower. The Matilda II was gradually being replaced by the cheaper and equally as effective Valentine infantry tank. The career of the Matilda II would not end here however.
In early 1942, the situation in the Pacific had grown dire. The Japanese empire had overrun much of the British territory in the region and, by February, the Japanese advance had extended far enough south that Japanese airpower could launch aerial attacks directly against the Australian mainland.
Australia, for its part, had recognized the need for tanks in the second Australian Imperial Force and had planned on raising a full armored division by the end of 1941 with plans for an additional two armored divisions to follow. The problem was the availability of such vehicles. The locally designed Australian Cruiser tanks had only just been produced in prototype form and, with the Japanese now in control of some of Australia’s closest neighbours, the need for tanks was urgent.
Matilda II tank of 9 troop ,B Squadron, 2/4 Armoured Regiment, moving along a track in the Hatai junction sector. Bouganville. 17 May 1945 -Source: Australian War Memorial
By mid-1942, just over 200 Matilda II tanks had arrived in Australia, although roughly half of these had to be cannibalized for parts to maintain the remainder of the fleet. Realizing the increased importance of close support in jungle fighting, additional tanks fitted with 3’’ (76.2 mm) howitzers were obtained from New Zealand stocks in exchange for a corresponding amount of 2 pounder gun tanks. The 3’’ howitzer tanks were employed as troop leader’s vehicles and usually took point during advances, supported by one or two 2 pounder gun tanks.
Close to 400 Matilda II tanks would ultimately enter Australian custody. They would continue in Australian service until the end of the war, making the Matilda II the only British tank to see continual service from 1939 until 1945
Markings and details
The Royal Australian Armoured Corps typically followed British practice in the marking and detailing of their vehicles. However, some local variation did inevitably arise and many of the trends instigated in the Second World War (such as the naming of vehicles) continue to be used by the Royal Australian Armoured Corps (RAAC) to this day.
Formation sign
Following British practice, all Australian vehicles displayed an 8×8 inch insignia denoting the formation that they were part of. In the case of the Australian Matilda II tanks, all operational units were from the same formation, the 4th Armoured Brigade Group. The insignia of 4th Armoured Brigade Group was a white palm tree over a crocodile and a boomerang on a black background. All tanks displayed two formation signs, one located frontally next to the unit sign and the driver’s viewport, with the second located between the external fuel tank brackets on the rear of the tank.
Arm-of-Service sign
The Arm-of-Service sign identified a vehicle based on its regimental type within the greater formation (in the case of Matilda II tanks, Armour). Two different types of Arm-of-Service signs could be seen on Australian Matilda IIs. The first type, implemented in 1943, followed the British vehicle marking system. This consisted of a white number 51 on a red square and was painted on tanks of the 1st Army Tank battalion (later 1st Armoured Regiment) in New Guinea.
The second type was locally developed and implemented after 1943. It consisted of a white fraction sign of the regimental number over a numerical designation of the unit type. For example, the 2-4 Armoured Regiment was displayed as 2-4/52 (52 designating armored regiment), while the 2/1 Armoured Brigade reconnaissance squadron was displayed as 2-1/214 (214 designating reconnaissance squadron).
Arm-of-Service signs were painted on the front and back of the vehicle, next to the formation sign, except for the Frog flame tanks, on which the rear sign was displayed on a vertical plate attached to the right-hand rear track guard. Official policy was that the fractional type Arm-of-service sign was to be painted on a green square, however, it appears that in some instances it was painted directly onto the base paint of the vehicle.
Squadron insignia
In common with British practice, Australian armored vehicles were marked with a colored insignia comprising of a number inside a geometric shape which indicated the vehicle’s regiment, squadron and troop. The color designated the regiment; 1st Armoured Regiment (red), 2/4 Armoured Regiment (yellow), 2/9 Armoured Regiment (blue), 2/1 Armoured Brigade Reconnaissance Squadron (white).
The shape designated the squadron; A squadron (triangle, point up), B squadron (square), C squadron (circle), Regimental HQ (diamond), armored brigade reconnaissance squadron (triangle, point down). The number inside the shape designated the squadron which the tank was part of. For instance, a tank displaying a red square with the number 9 would be from 9 troop, B squadron, 1st Armoured Regiment. These insignias were displayed around the turret at three points, on both turret cheeks and the rear of the turret.
Restored Matilda II tank showing Australian markings for 10 troop B squadron 2/4 Armoured Regiment. 1.squadron insignia (troop number) 2. squadron insignia (Squadron shape and Regiment color) 3. Formation sign for 4th Armoured Brigade Group 4. Arm of service sign. 5. Bridging weight sign. Source Gizmodo
War Department numbers and embarkation markings
The War Department numbers were the registration numbers of the tank, beginning with a capital T, although this was not displayed on the vehicle. The War Department number was painted in 3-inch-tall white lettering above the center mud chutes of the tank’s side plate. It should be noted that in some unit specific cases, there was some variation in the placement of the numbers, either on the angled section of the upper side plate or on the front and rear of the vehicle.
The embarkation numbers consisted of a 5-digit code accompanied by a 3-color bar, with the colors corresponding to the last 2 digits of the code. The embarkation codes were derived from British practice to allow for easy and orderly loading of equipment onto shipping and thus ensuring that regimental vehicles were grouped together for delivery to the front.
Fording and bridging markings
The fording markings are one of the most distinctive visual markers of an Australian Matilda II and were intended to provide crews with a visual aid for the water depth at which the tank could safely and effectively cross. They consisted of two red lines approximately 1-inch-high on each side of the tank, the lower marker painted just below the top of the mud chutes and the higher marker a few inches above it.
Each line was labeled with white lettering reading ‘Flaps open’ for the lower marker and ‘Flaps closed’ for the higher marker. In some cases, the words ‘fording height’ were also present near or interrupting the higher line. The bridging marker indicated the weight limit of the bridges which the Matilda II could safely cross. It consisted of a yellow circle containing a black number 25, indicating the Matilda II’s bridging weight of 25 tonnes. The bridging marker was painted on the front of the tank, either to the right of the driver’s viewport or on the front of the right-side tool box. Fording markings on a restored Australian Matilda II tank. Source: The Australian Armour and Artillery Museum
Names and miscellaneous markings
Matilda II tanks in Australian service were frequently, but not universally, painted with identifying ‘names’ on the angled side plate of the hull. Vehicles were named per the letter initial of their squadron. For instance, tanks of C squadron would have names such as ‘Courageous’ while tanks from A squadron would have names like ‘Asp’ or ‘Apache’. The name for each vehicle was typically selected by its crew, and the Australian soldiers (colloquially named diggers) often expressed themselves through humor or other creative choices.
The Matilda Frog tanks appear to be the exception to the rule of tank names starting with the squadron letter. For instance, a Matilda II Frog Flame tank operating with the 2/9 Armoured Regiment was named ‘Devil’ by its crew, despite there being no D squadron, while another was named ‘Charcoal’. Some crews also went to additional levels of detailing their tanks, such as tank T29923 ‘ACE’ which was also painted with a small Ace of Spades playing card to the left of its name. Crews also sometimes scrawled personalized slogans onto their tanks, such as one vehicle bearing the inscription ‘Cop this’ above the coaxial machinegun. However, these markings appear to be less frequent. Trooper R.Fox pointing to the markings on the turret of his Matilda II tank. Huon Peninsula, New Guinea. 26 February 1944 -Source: Australian War Memorial
In response to local conditions prevalent in Australia and the Pacific, several modifications were implemented to Matilda II tanks in Australian service. These modifications were often applied at a regimental level, in response to the conditions each regiment was facing and, while useful for identifying Australian Matilda IIs, they were not ubiquitous.
Wireless and tank phones
The Second Australian Imperial Force first deployed tanks to the Pacific during the battle of Buna-Gona in December of 1942. Prior to Buna, Allied commanders had erroneously believed that tank and battery strength artillery support was not viable in a jungle environment, instead attempting to fill the lack of substantive fire support with air support and man-portable light artillery, such as mortars. The 19 available M3 Stuart light tanks were hastily rushed to the front and were not suitable in terms of design or equipment for jungle fighting.
Despite its valuable contributions to breaking through Japanese positions, one of the greatest flaws of the M3 Light at Buna was the incompatibility of the tank radios with the infantry wireless sets and lack of external infantry telephones. This meant that the infantry was unable to easily coordinate with the tanks and forced soldiers to brave Japanese machinegun fire and tree-top snipers to ride on the rear deck of the tank and direct the commander through the pistol ports.
Considering this, Australian Matilda II tanks underwent modifications to the radio position within the turret to allow for a locally produced modified MK 19 wireless set to be fitted. Additionally, tanks were fitted with a headset and microphone receiver on the rear deck of the vehicle, which allowed infantry to communicate with the tank crew, although this was later replaced by a more standard infantry phone. US produced ‘Walkie Talkie’ radio sets were also used by officers to direct fire from Matilda II tanks against Japanese positions, with many tank commanders frequently dismounting to fulfill forward observation duties for the troop. Corporal R Stoddart and Seargent J R Edwards of 3 Troop, 2/9 Armoured Regiment testing the infantry phone of a Matilda II tank. White beach area, Morotai. 22 May 1945- Source: Australian War Memorial Corporal E.G.Molyneaux netting a wireless set no 536 ‘Walkie Talkie’ to a Matilda II tank of 8 troop, B squadron, 2/9 Armoured Regiment. A soldier can be seen in the background testing the infantry telephone. White beach area, Morotai. 21 May 1945 – Source: Australian War Memorial
Track idler guards and turret ring guard
In operations in New Guinea in 1943, it had been demonstrated to both sides that the Japanese lacked an AT gun sufficient to penetrate the main armor of the Matilda II. Having realized this, the Japanese began to focus on disabling the Matilda IIs by targeting the few vulnerable points on the tank, namely the track idlers and the turret ring. Targeted shots from Japanese 37 mm (1.46 in) AT guns were sufficient to smash the track idler and its surrounding plate as well as jam the turret mechanism, leaving the tank vulnerable to infantry attack with magnetic bombs or by lighting a fire under the tank.
To protect against fire from Japanese AT guns directed against the track idlers, armored guards were provided. The idler guards were cast from Australian Bullet Proof Plate 4 (ABP4) armored steel, the same steel developed for the AC I Sentinel tank, to a thickness of 1 7/8 inches (47mm). The guards were attached via a hinged mounting welded to the track guard, allowing the guards to be raised out of the way for track tensioning and other maintenance. A bump stop was also fitted on the side of the tank to prevent the guard from fouling the track while moving cross country.
In order to protect the turret ring of the tanks, a collar of rectangular armored plate was fabricated and welded to the hull of the tank starting at the driver’s hatch and encompassing the side circumference of the turret but open at the rear. This armored collar was visually similar to that featured on the experimental A27 turreted Matilda II, and some sources claim that hulls fitted with the collar were delivered to Australia from stock intended to mount the A27 turret. Conversely, photographic evidence shows turret collars being welded on locally. 2/9 Armoured Regiment personnel fitting a turret ring guard onto a Matilda II of 15 troop, C squadron, during a post-exercise vehicle overhaul prior to deployment. The track idler guard has been lifted and is visible on the left-hand side while a trooper can be seen adjusting the bump stop with a shifting spanner. Wondela Queensland, Australia, 27 December 1944 – Source: Australian War Memorial A Matilda II of 12 troop, C squadron, 2/9 Armoured Regiment fitted with track idler guards on exercises prior to deployment. Malanda area, Queensland, Australia. 11 December 1944 – Source: Australian War Memorial
Grenade protection and improvised armoring
In the closing stages of the war, Australian armored units were faced by an increasingly tenacious and desperate Japanese foe who, bereft of suitable conventional anti-tank weapons, began to use increasingly creative (and in some cases, borderline suicidal) means to defeat Australian tanks. Previous experience had revealed the risk of Japanese infantry attacks utilizing Type 99 magnetic mines and grenades thrown onto the back of the tank.
While these weapons were not sufficient to penetrate the main armor of the tank, they could damage the thinner engine louvers and the automotive components behind them, potentially leaving the tank immobilized and vulnerable to further close attack. To protect against the bomb threat, Australian armored regiments in Borneo began to improvise anti-grenade screens to protect the rear of their tanks in 1945. The anti-grenade screens were constructed from different materials depending on the regiment in question and typically conform to two types.
The first consist of repurposed pierced steel landing planks (also known as sand channels) formed into a conjoined plate and placed above the engine louvers, supported by a frame of steel tubing. Additional plates were also placed around the engine area and wire mesh was used to fill gaps around the perimeter of the main plate. This type of protection was implemented on vehicles belonging to the 2/9 Armoured Regiment.
The second type consists of a wire mesh mounted above the engine louvers. In some cases, this was supported by a frame of steel tubing. In other cases, additional mesh was bent or welded around the sides to form angled supports. This type was used on tanks of 1 Armoured Regiment and 2/4 Armoured Regiment.
Spare tank tracks were also liberally affixed to the hull to act as extra armor. It is debatable as to just how effective this track armor was, however, by 1945, the practice was common throughout the active regiments of the 4th Armoured Brigade Group. Typically, the spare links were attached to the tank around the driver’s compartment on the angled side plates and, in some cases, on the glacis plate. The track links were welded onto the hull in strips, usually with the horns facing outwards, although in some cases the tracks on the glacis plate appear to be attached to some form of crossbar between the track guards, presumably so as not to interfere with the driver’s viewport and the tool boxes. Personnel fitting perforated steel anti-grenade plates to a Matilda II of 2 troop, A squadron, 2/9 Armoured Regiment. Morotai 21 May 1945 – Source: Australian War Memorial A pair of Matilda IIs from C squadron, 2/9 Armoured Regiment engaging a Japanese position. Both have been fitted with spare track links for extra armor. The tank in the foreground is armed with a 3’’ (76.2 mm) howitzer while the tank behind is armed with a 2 pounder. 11th June 1945 Tarakan, Borneo – Source: Australian War Memorial Troops welding spare track links onto Matilda II tanks of 1 troop, A squadron, 1 Armoured Regiment. 21 May 1945, Morotai – Source: Australian War Memorial Matilda II ‘Beau ideal IV’ of B squadron, 2/4 Armoured Regiment fording the Puriata river. The rear engine deck has been fitted with a mesh cover to protect the engine louvers from grenades. Bougainville, 30 March 1945 – Source: Australian War Memorial
Mud scraper
On Bougainville island, in Borneo, Australian Matilda IIs faced a new challenge in the form of the coral mud which was frequent in the area of operations. The coral mud was thick and, due to its concrete-like composition of sand and coral shards, it tended to solidly pack any recess it could fill, most commonly on the inner surface of the tank’s drive sprockets. As the mud built up it increased the effective diameter of the sprocket and put additional tension on the track, which would, over time, either cause the track to break or warp the front idler axles.
To fix this problem, personnel of B squadron, 2/4 Armoured Regiment, developed a simple mud scraper for field installation. The scraper consisted of a piece of metal shaped like a bent capital Y and affixed forward of the drive sprocket behind the suspension skirting. Under operation the wedge part of the scraper sat between the rims of the sprocket close to the inner face and would deflect off mud as it built up around the inner circumference of the sprocket. The scraper appears to have been a simple and ingenious solution to the mud problem, although it is unclear how widespread the installation was across vehicles in the unit. Coral mud built up in the sprocket of a Matilda II tank of B squadron, 2/4 Armoured Regiment. Bougainville, 21 February 1945 – Source: Australian War Memorial The mud scraper undergoing tests (right) fitted to a Matilda II tank. As you can see, the sprocket on the left-hand side remains clogged with densely packed mud while the right-side sprocket has been cleared of mud by the scraper. Bougainville, 21 February 1945 – Source: Australian War Memorial The mud scraper detached from the tank. The 3 flat surfaces on the left are the mounting brackets which are welded to the tank, the angled and vertical piece sit between the sprocket and remove the mud, Bouganville, 21 February 1945 – Source: Australian War Memorial
Improved cupola
Combat conditions in New Guinea revealed a need for improved vision on the Matilda II tank. The standard Matilda II turret cupola was typical of early war British designs, featuring only one rotatable periscope for vision when the tank was ‘buttoned up’ with the hatch closed. In jungle combat, tanks made for prominent targets and attracted heavy fire from concealed machineguns, which, while unable to damage the tank, frequently necessitated that the crew to operate the vehicle buttoned up.
In early 1944, a prototype for an ‘All around vision’ cupola was produced and subjected to preliminary (non-combat) tests in New Guinea. Weighing approximately 900 lbs (408 kg), the new cupola was cast by the Charles Ruwolts firm of Melbourne using ABP4 armored steel. The cupola was taller than the late model Matilda II cupola general found on Australian tanks and the sides were substantially thicker to offer increased protection. The cupola featured 8 vision slots around the circumference, backed by armored glass and was mounted on a ball bearing race allowing for it to be freely rotated by the tank commander. The two-part hatch from the standard cupola was retained and fitted to the new style cupola. A locking pin was also provided to prevent unwanted rotation of the cupola. The prototype cupola mounted on the test turret prior to firing trials. The standard Matilda II hatch, Commander’s vision blocks and Commander’s traverse hand rail can all be seen. Gusika, New Guinea, 15th March 1944-Source: Australian War Memorial
Illustration of the Australian Matilda II by David Bocquelet Matilda Mk.V of the Australian 2/9th Armoured Regiment, at the battle of Tarakan, Borneo, May 1945. Matilda II CS, Australian 1st Tank Battalion, battle of Huon (New Guinea), January 1944.
The tests revealed that the cupola was satisfactory in providing convenient all round vision for the commander and that the bearing race was satisfactory, with rotation of the cupola on even ground being easy and controllable. However, significant defects were also encountered in the cross-country trials. On rough ground, it was found that it was impossible to control the cupola rotation in any sort of usable manner. As the reporting officer put it ‘the commander receives a severe buffeting, and requires all his strength to “hold on” to avoid personal injury.’ Furthermore, it was found that the locking pin was mounted too high in the cupola to engage with the standard locking mechanism, requiring field modification for the tests. The locking pin also failed several times on the cross-country course due to the springs being insufficient to withstand the jolting of off-road movement.
Subsequently, the cupola was fitted to the turret of a damaged tank from C squadron (named Calamity Jane) and test firing of various small arms and AT weapons was conducted at a range of 70 yards (64m). The cupola proved to be resistant to 9 mm (0.35 in) and rifle caliber small arms as well as high explosive shells from a 3’’ (76.2 mm) howitzer. While largely proof against .55 in (14 mm) Boys anti-tank rifles, it was shown that they could penetrate the viewing slots and glass. The cupola failed under fire from a 2 pounder gun, resulting in several clean penetrations of the turret which the cupola was supposed to be proof against.
Subsequently, a metallurgical analysis was requested to explain the armor failure and it was proposed that another prototype be cast by the Sydney firm Bradford & Kendall. However, it is not known if this was proceeded with. The cupola was ultimately not adopted. The prototype cupola mounted on the test turret post firing trials. Three Armor Piercing 2 pounder shells have cleanly penetrated the turret side and embedded 1/4-1/2″ on the interior . Gusika, New Guinea, 15th March 1944-Source: Australian War Memorial Matilda II Tank T29923 ‘ACE’ of A squadron 1st tank battalion test firing 3’’ howitzer shells against the prototype cupola, which can be seen to the left of the image. Note the differences between the prototype cupola and the standard low profile cupola fitted on ACE. Gusika, New Guinea, 15th March 1944-Source: Australian War Memorial
Smoke generator
In 1944, a smoke generator unit was tested for use on the Matilda II tank in order to allow tanks to lay a smokescreen for advancing infantry. The smoke generator was a pre-existing design intended to be fitted to a variety of tank types, however modification was required to fit the system to the Matilda II, such that it could not be installed on other tanks. The unit consisted of two fuel atomisers fitted into the fuel tanks connected to a compressed air system located in the driver’s compartment with the smoke being expelled through the exhaust system. Testing revealed that, under optimal conditions, the generator could produce a continuous smoke screen approximately 15 feet (4.57m) high and 160 yards (146.3m) long with a maximum generation time of 2 minutes and 18 seconds. The generator kit was ultimately not adopted due to smoke laying requiring the tank to advance at speed (5th gear was considered optimal) which was not possible in jungle conditions. Matilda II tank laying a smoke screen during testing of the Smoke Generation unit. Australia 1944 -Source: National Australian Archives MT801/1 – TI1069
Operations
New Guinea
Huon peninsula
Australian Matilda IIs first saw action in 1943 when a squadron (C squadron) of tanks from the 1st Tank Battalion made landfall on the 20th of October at Langemak bay on the Huon peninsula. The landing of the tanks was kept a tight operational secret. Extra security was deployed to prevent Japanese reconnaissance observing the build up of man and equipment. This kept the presence of the tanks a tactical surprise. The tank squadron was a central feature in the Australian advance towards Sattleberg in November of 1943.
Nine tanks were moved to Jivevaneng and attached to support the advance of the 26th Infantry Battalion. To maintain surprise, an artillery barrage was used to cover the noise of the tank advance. The initial attack began on the 17th of November. However, the sheer hills (dubbed ‘razorback ridges’) and thick jungle hindered the advance, requiring substantial engineering support to move the tanks up. Subsequently, it was decided that the advance would proceed under infiltration tactics, with small company sized forces of men advancing on narrow fronts ahead of 1-2 supporting Matilda II tanks with an attached engineering contingent. Australian Matilda II tanks debarking from a Landing Craft Medium (LCM), Finschhafen area, New guinea, September 1943 – Source: Australian War Memorial
Despite close cooperation between tanks, engineers and infantry, the advance was still slow, with only 450 yards (411m) gained on the first day. Despite the slow progress, the presence of the Matilda II tanks was a distinct advantage; utilizing machine-gun fire and High Explosive shells, the tanks could strip away jungle foliage to spoil Japanese ambushes and keep infantry casualties to a minimum. The Japanese, for their part, quickly learned that their 37 mm (1.46 in) offered no substantial threat to the tanks and began to formulate ad hoc anti-tank defenses or retreat to defensive positions on the higher ridges that they assumed the tanks could not reach.
An incident from the 2nd of December 1943 illustrates the sheer durability of the Matilda II tank. Having advanced in support of infantry pinned down by Japanese fire, a Matilda II was engaged at close range (50 yards/45 m) by a Japanese 37 mm AT gun and suffered a broken track. A group of twenty Japanese soldiers advanced on the tank and began to hurl grenades and anti-tank mines from a ditch close to the vehicle. The tank could not move nor depress its weapons sufficiently to return fire on the Japanese infantry but continued to fire with the main gun and coaxial MG to deter enemy advances. Shortly afterwards, a Japanese 75 mm (2.95 in) howitzer opened fire on the stricken tank, damaging the frontal track idlers and suspension. When all ammunition was expended the crew locked the main access hatches and crawled back to the nearby allied infantry via the escape hatch under the tank. Having sustained a total of fifty direct hits from enemy fire, the tank was still able to drive away after field repairs on the following day and was back in action by December 4th.
The advance beyond Sattleburg continued at an increased pace as Japanese resistance wilted under the weight of the advancing Matilda II tanks. The Japanese holdout at Fortification Point was subdued after a difficult creek crossing by A squadron of 1 Armoured Regiment with the advance to the final objective of Sio beginning on the 21st of December 1943. By the 2nd of January 1944, the Australian advance across the Huon peninsula had reached the halfway point, just 46 days after the first tanks had entered action. The Huon campaign effectively concluded for the Australian armor by the 9th of January 1944, with 1 Armoured Regiment returning to the mainland in May-June of 1944.
In the wake of the Huon campaign, Lieutenant-General Sir Leslie Morshead tendered a report emphasizing the value of the Matilda II tank in jungle operations. The slow rate of advance under jungle conditions was considered ideal for the low gearing of the Matilda II tank and the heavy armor and effective armament allowed the tanks to easily accomplish the role the infantry tank was designed for, supporting infantry and engaging enemy strong points.
Combat experience had shown that the 3’’ (76.2 mm) howitzer was an ideal weapon for jungle fighting, its moderate caliber allowing for a large quantity of ammunition to be carried while still being sufficient to destroy hostile strongpoints. The Matilda II was also praised for its compact size, being transportable on the Landing Craft Medium (LCM), as opposed to the Churchill, which would have required the use of the much larger, and more scarce, Landing Craft Tank (LCT).
Wewak and Bougainville
in preparation for further operations, the 2/4 Armoured Regiment sailed to Madang from Brisbane on the 25th of August 1944. Anticipating operations in widely separated areas, the regiment had broken down into squadron groups, each with their own signals personnel, field workshop and field park detachment. By November of 1944, C squadron was moved up from Madang to support the 6th Division in clearing out remaining Japanese forces at Wewak.
Having had no combat experience in New Guinea and no previous cooperation with tanks, the first order of business was to conduct field training for cooperative action between C squadron and infantry of the 6th Division. Much like the Huon campaign, conditions in Wewak were not ideal for tank operations and, given the scattered nature of the Japanese forces that had retreated in the wake of the Australian advance at Huon and the Americans at Aitape, the advance of the Matilda IIs was constantly delayed.
Hence, despite being deployed in November of 1944, C squadron did not see combat until the 6th of January 1945 at Matapau. For two weeks, starting on the 16th of February, C squadron supported the 2/1 Battalion across multiple creek crossings and difficult terrain in clearing the ridges south of Dogreto bay. After this, the tank advance was found to be untenable due to lack of bridging supplies and the squadron was withdrawn to Dogreto bay to wait for landing craft before later re-joining the infantry at Dagua airfield.
Given their lack of experience operating alongside tanks, the infantry units of 6th Division apparently did not see the value of the available tank support. C squadron found itself with little to do until the final assault on Wewak on the 3rd of May, during which the tanks took a leading role in subduing enemy strongpoints and became highly popular amongst the infantry. Unfortunately, this boost in confidence came too late, as by mid-May 1945 C Squadron’s role in the war was over and it subsequently returned to the mainland for discharge. A Matilda II of B squadron, 2/4 Armoured Regiment traversing fallen logs while advancing along a jungle track. 18 April 1945 Bougainville – Source: Australian War Memorial
Meanwhile, B squadron, 2/4 Armoured Regiment, had sailed from Madang to Torokina, Bougainville, on the 16th of December 1944. In parallel to C squadron’s experience, B squadron had to spend several months undertaking in-theater training with the infantry of 3rd Australian Division. After moving their base of operations to Toko, B squadron finally saw action on the 30th of March 1945, when two troops were requested forward to counter attack in support of two companies from the 25th Division, which had been encircled and were under heavy Japanese fire.
With much difficulty, including multiple tanks bogging down in the muddy conditions and the loss of one tank in a creek crossing, the tanks arrived at the allied position north of Slater’s Knoll on the 31st of March. After assessing the disposition of allied forces, they began a counter attack which repulsed the Japanese force before operations were ceased at nightfall. Subsequently, between 5-6 of April, the Japanese resumed attacks against Slater’s Knoll but were again repulsed by the Matilda II tanks.
After the attacking Japanese entrenched themselves outside of the Australian position, one troop of tanks supported by infantry advanced to clear them out. The advance of the tanks upon the infantry positions was not something the Japanese had prepared for and the subsequent retreat collapsed into a rout in the space of roughly ten minutes, resulting in the almost complete destruction of the Japanese force.
From the 13th of April, the Australian forces advanced southeast towards Buin with the main Japanese force expected to be encountered between the Hongorai and Hari rivers. As the Australians advanced, it became clear that the Japanese lacked Anti-Tank (AT) guns sufficient to damage the Australian Matilda IIs, and so instead resorted to improvised measures such as firing artillery over open sights, utilizing aircraft bombs as high yield mines and burying anti-tank mines in wooden boxes to fool magnetic detectors.
These new anti-tank methods also included the use of a 15 cm (5.9 inch) artillery field gun firing high explosive fragmentation (HE) shells at the Australian tanks. These howitzers could substantially damage a Matilda II tank and the other weapons were effective as well. This forced a reversal in the previously established method of tanks leading the advance. Instead, infantry and mine detection teams began to lead, with tanks following to attack once enemy positions were located and mines cleared. B squadron continued operations in the Bougainville area until the news of Japanese surrender on the 11th of August 1945.
Borneo
Tarakan and Balikpapan
In February of 1945, Australian forces had been preparing for a joint assault to retake the Philippines alongside American forces. However, in mid-February, it was decided that Australian forces could instead be better used to retake strategically important oil fields and rescue allied prisoners of war held in horrific conditions on the Island of Borneo. The various battles of Borneo campaign were given the designation of ‘Oboe’. Australian Matilda Tanks would see combat at Balikpapan on the mainland of Borneo (Oboe two) and on the nearby Islands of Labuan (Oboe Six) and Tarakan (Oboe One) .
Tarakan
Australian tank crews faced their fiercest challenge of the Second World War on the island of Tarakan, where the Matilda II was forced to contend with not only the harsh conditions of the Pacific but also against an established network of bunkers and defences. The attack began on the 1st of May 1945 and would last for 6 weeks with C squadron, 2/9 Armoured Regiment and elements of the 2/1 Australian Armoured Brigade reconnaissance (recce) Squadron. This Matilda II tank of 14 troop, C squadron, 2/9 Armoured Regiment was hurled 18 feet (5.5 m) into the air when it hit a Japanese improvised AT mine. As a testament to the toughness of the Matilda II the crew only suffered minor injuries. 8th May 1945, Tarakan, Borneo – Source: Australian War Memorial
Much like on Bougainville, Japanese defences to the tank problem proved innovative, utilising buried explosive caches as improvised mines. In some cases, even if the tank did survive, they left 30 foot (9m) craters in the valuable swamp roads. In another instance, the Japanese filled a canal surrounding the airfield with oil from the nearby refinery and set it ablaze to deter the Australian advance, and 75 mm (2.95 in) howitzer shells were slid down wires from high ground to try and disable Australian Matilda IIs during fighting in the north of Tarakan town.
Despite dogged Japanese resistance, the Rippon airfield had been secured by the Australians by May 5th 1945. Subsequent action along Snags track and towards Point 105 proved difficult terrain for the tank advance, with the assault on the Japanese position at ‘The Margy’ at point 105 requiring a combined infantry-tank attack as well as point blank fire from field artillery and even a quick firing QF 3.7-inch (94 mm) anti-aircraft (AA) Gun! By May 8th 1945, the oil fields and airfield had been fully secured and repair and rehabilitation works were underway.
Balikpapan
Much like the corresponding operations in Tarakan, the invasion of Balikpapan was intended to capture vital assets in the form of the local airfield and oil refinery. Action at Balikpapan would commence on the 1st of July 1945, led by the Australian 7th Division and a supporting force of the Australian 1 Armoured Regiment and attached squadrons of specialist equipment from 2/1 Australian Armoured Brigade reconnaissance (recce) Squadron.
Again, the Australian infantry commanders failed to apply the hard learned lessons that had come from the New Guinea campaign. Cooperation between the infantry and armor was sporadic during the initial offensive, as the 7th Division had no previous experience fighting in jungles with armored support. However, this was somewhat offset by the 1 Armoured Division’s previous jungle experience at New Guinea, as well as preparatory training in cooperation with the Matilda Frog flame tanks that were to be deployed by 2/1 Recce Squadron.
The tactical formula that had been developed involved a formation of one troop of 3 gun tanks and one troop of 3 flame tanks for a total of 6 tanks. The formation would advance in line ahead in the order of two gun tanks, followed by two flame tanks, with a gun tank behind and finally a flame tank bringing up the rear. When a target was engaged, the lead gun tanks would break off to provide crossfire from the flanks while the two flame tanks closed the range. The flame tank and gun tank in the rear provided further covering fire and security in the event of an enemy ambush. Thus, the formation could mutually support its members with both gunfire and flame attack from any direction with any of the required tanks on hand to exploit any success or cover for withdrawal as needed. Having realized the previous need for bridging on New Guinea, the 2/1 recce squadron were also equipped with a Covenanter bridge laying vehicle. A Matilda II tank of 5 troop, 1 Armoured Regiment, pushing over a coconut palm during operation Oboe 2. Balikpapan, Borneo. 1st July 1945 – Source: Australian War Memorial
The Balikpapan landings took place near the heavily defended region of Balikpapan town, on the rationale that the initial bombardment would eliminate large amounts of hostile resistance while allowing for the fastest progress towards the main objectives. Soon after 9 am, the first tanks had made it ashore on Balikpapan in the 6th wave of landing craft, consisting of one troop from A squadron and two troops from B squadron, although there was some difficulty with tanks bogging down in the earlier stages of the beach exits. Balikpapan would prove to be the largest single deployment of Australian armor in the entire Second World War. By the end of the day, a total of 33 Armoured Fighting Vehicels (including 2 D8 tractor dozers) had landed on Balikpapan, including the specialist troops of Frog flame tanks, Dozer tanks and the Covenanter Bridgelayer.
Despite the initiative shown in equipping tanks with dozer kits to allow for immediate engineering and recovery work without the need for the D8 tractor dozers, the Matilda Dozer tanks unfortunately proved unsatisfactory during the first hours of the attack on Balikpapan and permission was given to detach the dozer blades for operation as regular gun tanks. The cooperative work between the gun tanks and Frogs proved highly effective, with success by B squadron and a supporting Frog (albeit delayed by terrain) in breaking through the built-up area of the Vassey Highway and in clearing Signal Hill in a methodical house to house sweep.
Subsequent actions along Signal hill, Tank plateau, and through Balikpapan port and town showed the effectiveness of the tank and flame combination at breaking enemy strongpoints and clearing the numerous interlinked tunnels.
On the 5th of July, two amphibious operations were conducted at Penadjam and Manggar Airfield with the support of tanks from A and B squadrons. The Penadjam operation was something of an embarrassment for B squadron, as the landing site had not been previously surveyed. This resulted in the first two tanks to hit the beach sinking up to their turret rings in the soft mud. The subsequent tanks, now forewarned, selected a better location some distance away and continued operations. The drowned tanks were later winched out and recovered. The three knocked out Matilda II tanks of A Squadron 1 Armoured Regiment, testament to the danger of the Japanese 120mm guns. Manggar, Balikpapan, Borneo, 5 July 1945 – Source: Australian War Memorial A Japanese Type 10 120mm dual purpose gun, captured by Australian troops at the position known as ‘the Metal’. Similar guns were positioned around the Manggar Airfield. Balikpapan, Borneo, 9 July 1945 – Source: Australian War Memorial
A squadron’s attack on Manggar airfield would prove to be one of the few instances where Australian Matilda II tanks faced any sort of viable threat from Japanese anti-tank defenses. Two troops were initially landed about 10 miles (16 km) east of the airfield, supported by the Covenanter Bridgelayer. However, upon advance, it was found that the only bridge in the region had been destroyed and the span was too great for the bridge layer to cross. Subsequently, two troops still aboard landing craft were to be put into action, with one to see immediate deployment and the other staying afloat in reserve. The first troop deployed just beyond the river mouth under cover of a smoke screen and what was assumed to be a covered position.
The tanks immediately met with heavy Japanese mortar fire before being engaged at a range of 1200 yards (1.1 km) by Japanese 120 mm (4.72 in) dual purpose guns sited at the airfield. These heavy guns were more than capable of damaging the Matilda IIs and all three tanks of the squadron suffered hits, with two being destroyed and the other severely damaged. With the bridge destroyed and the presence of the 120 mm guns, the wounded crews were evacuated by sea and the remaining tanks of A squadron withdrawn from action at Manggar, marking one of the few occasions where the Japanese successfully repelled an attack by Australian Matilda IIs. Captain D.B Hill and Corporal I.R Corr inspecting Japanese artillery damage on Matilda II tank ‘Beaufighter’ of B squadron, 2/4 Armoured Regiment. 16 May 1945 – Source: Australian War Memorial Troops loading high explosive 2 pounder shells into a Matilda II of 2 troop, B squadron, 1 Armoured Regiment – Source: Australian War Memorial
Obsolescence, disposal and surviving vehicles
Matilda II tanks remain common in AFV collections globally. As Australia was the last major operator of Matilda II tanks, a large majority of surviving Matilda II tanks are either located in Australia or sourced from Australia. At the end of the war in 1945, the Matilda II was declared obsolete by the Australian army and officially replaced in Australian armored units post-war by the Churchill.
Matilda II tanks deployed to the Pacific were not required to be returned to Australia and many were either abandoned in situ or dumped at sea. By 1946, it was determined that there were insufficient parts to maintain the remaining Matilda IIs and that the remainder of the fleet would only be operable for the remaining 6 months, leading to the tanks being retired from service. A small number of Matilda IIs were retained by the School of Armour at Puckapunyal post-war for training use. Tanks remaining in Australia were disposed of by the Commonwealth disposals commission.
Like the stockpiles of M3 medium tanks and the local produced AC I tanks, Matilda II tanks were sold off to civilians for conversion into agricultural tractors. Many of these tractor conversions were used across Australia and subsequently abandoned when they broke down beyond easy repair or were replaced by cheaper civilian vehicles. As such, many Matilda II hulls and components can be found in varying states on rural Australian farms and scrapyards. In recent years, these rural stocks have provided a boom in both whole hulls and components for private collectors.
One such tank was recovered in Moss Vale, New South Wales, in 1997. It was determined by the NSW Lancers Memorial Museum that this tank was number T29923, a 3’’ gun tank named ‘ACE’ of A squadron, 1st Armoured Regiment (now the New South Wales Lancers). ACE was the first Matilda II tank to land on Balikpapan during operation OBOE 2 in 1945, and can be distinguished in historical photos by its distinct Ace of spades playing card mascot. After two years of volunteer work, ACE was reunited with the original 3’’ gun turret and restored to full running condition in 2015, and is now held in the collection of the New South Wales Lancers memorial museum
The Royal Australian Armoured Corps museum at Puckapunyal, Victoria, has the largest single collection of Australian Matilda II tanks. The Puckapunyal museum has a total of six tanks in the collection, including two 2 pounder tanks and one 3-inch gun tank, as well as 3 examples of special equipment tanks
The Australian Armour and Artillery Museum at Cairns also has two Australian Matilda II tanks in their collection. The AAAM tanks are a 2 pounder gun tank fitted with the track idler guards and turret collar and a recently arrived number 3 type Dozer tank. Neither tank is functional. Matilda II tank T29923 ‘ACE’ of A squadron 1st tank battalion replenishing 3’’ howitzer ammunition. Kiliga, New Guinea. 16 March 1944 – Source: Australian War Memorial Matilda II tank T29923 ‘ACE’ of A squadron 1st tank battalion, post restoration on display at the NSW Lancers Memorial Museum, Parramatta New South Wales 2017 – Source: NSW Lancer Memorial Museum
Matilda II specifications
Dimensions
18 ft 9.4 in x 8 ft 3 in x 8 ft 7 in (5.72 x 2.51 x 2.61 m)
Total weight, loaded
25.5 tons (25.6 tonnes)
Crew
4 (driver, gunner, loader, commander)
Propulsion
2x Leyland E148 & E149 straight 6-cylinder water cooled diesel 95 hp engine
Infantry Tank Mark II Specifications, by J.S. DODD The Vulcan Foundry Ltd, Locomotive Works, August 1940
Sources
Infantry Tank Mark IIA* Specifications, The Vulcan Foundary Ltd by designer Sir John Dodd August 1940
Infantry Tank Mark II manual, War Department
Osprey Publishing, New Vanguard #8, Matilda Infantry Tank 1938-45
Hopkins, Ronald Nicholas Lamond and Australian War Memorial Australian armour : a history of the Royal Australian Armoured Corps, 1927-1972.
Fletcher, David and Sarson, Peter Matilda infantry tank 1939-1945.
Bingham, James Australian Sentinel and Matildas.
The National Archives of Australia
Infantry Tank Mark II Specifications, by J.S. DODD The Vulcan Foundry Ltd, Locomotive Works, August 1940
Soviet Union (1941)
Infantry Tank – 1,084 Shipped, 918 Received
As a result of Germany’s Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the Soviet Union, the Soviets lost large numbers of their tank forces. From June to December 1941, sources suggest the losses range from 5000 to as many as 15,000 tanks, up to half of the USSR’s approximate 30,000 tanks in service at the time.
In an attempt to fill the large gaps left by these losses, Great Britain, along with the United States, started a Lend-Lease relationship with the Soviet Union. This would allow the stricken Soviet military to bolster its forces while its tank production recovered. Along with the Churchill III, Tetrarch, Valentine and Universal Carrier, the famous ‘Queen of the Desert’ Matilda II soon found itself in the USSR, provided by Britain.
Between 1941 and 1943, some 1084 Matildas were shipped to the Soviet Union. Only 918 were received by the Red Army, however, as the others likely never made it to the end of the Arctic Convoys as a result of German Attacks. The Soviets received one-third of the entire 2987 vehicle production run of the Matilda. A Matilda II Mk.III fresh of the production line is prepared for shipment to the USSR with a number of Slogans painted on by the factory workers, September 26, 1941. Photo: warspot.ru
Soviet Scrutiny
The Matildas that arrived in the Soviet Union were mostly Mk.IIIs and IVs, with Leyland diesel engines. Diesel being the preferred fuel of the Soviets. They arrived painted in the standard G3 Khaki color, with various instructional markings, including red stripes running the length of the tank to signify its maximum fording depth. British representatives were sent with the first batch of tanks in 1941 to teach Soviet crews how to operate the vehicles. This took place at the Kazan and Gorkiy (Modern day Nizhni-Novgorod) Tank Schools. The British reported how adverse the Soviet crews were to using some methods and favored their own system of flags to communicate rather than the wireless set. They also preferred using the manual turret traverse to the powered traverse.
The Matilda, or the “British Mk.2” as it came to be called, received mixed reviews from the Soviets. Its armor, comparable to that of their own KV-1 Heavy Tanks, was much appreciated. One Soviet Matilda crew member claimed his tank received 87 non-penetrating hits. Its general reliability was also highly regarded. At the time, the Matilda and the Valentine were considered to be light tanks and actually fell in between the Soviet definition of Light and Medium tanks. They had less firepower than the Soviet’s medium and heavy Tanks, but more armor than their light tanks. The Matilda certainly didn’t have the speed of a light tank, which Soviet crews were not too happy with.
A major problem with tank, the Soviet crews found, was how ill-suited it was too harsh winter conditions. The tank was designed to operate down to 0 Degrees C, but temperatures in Russian could drop as low as -50 Degrees C. Indeed, even during shipping across the Arctic route, the coolant in the tanks radiators would freeze. Following complaints by the recipients, later tanks were shipped with an antifreeze solution in the radiators. The cold weather also affected the mobility of the tank. Snow and mud would frequently clog the drivetrain and suspension, making it hard to shift when built up behind the armored side skirts. It was found that just 30 cm (12 in) of snow was enough to stop the tank. Matildas shipped to the USSR were equipped with the T.D.5910 “Spud” tracks. Its narrow tracks with smooth, rounded metal treads were also an issue when crossing icy terrain, as they provided little to no grip. Crews devised a simple solution by welding sections of steel to each link for better grip in the snow.
The Matilda’s 2 Pounder (40 mm) gun was also a problem. The Soviets saw it as no improvement over their own 45 mm 20-K tank gun (found on the BT tanks for instance) and were disappointed that it wasn’t equipped with a HE (High-Explosive) round. One attempt to provide a solution was the re-casing of the 40 mm Bofors anti-aircraft rounds but was not successful.
There was a more extensive proposal, however. The Soviet’s turned to one of their best weapons engineers, Vasily Grabin, who came up with a design to introduce a 76 mm anti-tank gun into the Matilda’s turret. This gun was the F-96, a specially designed variant of the ZiS-5. Not only would this have increased the vehicles anti-armor capability, but also granted it an effective High-Explosive round. This project did not go far, however, with just one prototype built.
The HE problem would prove to rectify itself, however, with later deliveries of the tank bringing the Close-Support Matilda armed with an Ordnance QF 3 inch (76 mm) Howitzer. This gun fired both an effective HE round and smoke shells. A total of 156 of this version were sent, but only around 120 were received. They were not very common, with only a few units being equipped with them. The 5th Mechanized Corps of the 68th Army were one such unit for example. The 5th Mechanised was the only Soviet armored corps to be entirely equipped with British tanks. Matilda CS tanks of the 5th Mechanized Corps, 68th Army. Photo: Osprey Publishing
The Desert Queen in a Winter War
The Soviet Army had formed six tank battalions by late November 1941 out of 20 Matildas and 97 Valentines, or the “British Mk.3” as they called it. These battalions were deployed on the Western Front for the defense of Moscow. The 146th Tank Brigade (146-ya tankovaya brigada) of the 16th Army fought here. This brigade consisted of two tank battalions with a total of 40 Valentines and two Matildas. The first unit to be equipped with the Matilda was the 136th Separate Tank Battalion (136-y otdelniy tankoviy batal’on).
The tanks played an extremely important frontline role in the defense of Moscow as the Soviet’s own tank supply was running thin due to the heavy losses in the summer of 1941. Put in perspective, there were between 607 and 670 tanks at the Soviet’s disposal for the defense of the city and only 205 of these were indigenous T-34 Medium Tanks and KV-1 Heavy Tanks. The rest were a mix of light tanks and Lend\Lease vehicles.
By the end of 1941, some 182 British tanks had been committed to combat operations, of which around 80 would be lost in action. By this time, there were only 46 Lend/Lease tanks still operational on the Western Front, this consisted of 38 Valentines and only eight Matildas. Many Matildas were pulled back from frontline service due to the Matilda’s shortcomings in harsh winter weather. A Matilda freshly covered in the White-Wash winter camo. You can see just how roughly it is applied, with drips running down the head lamps and even the tracks. Photo: Osprey Publishing
The 1942, Operation: Blau was the next major combat operation that Soviet Matildas would see action in. This operation was a direct response to the drive towards Stalingrad and the Caucasus oil fields. The 10th Tank Corps, formed in Moscow’s military district in April had six tank battalions at its disposal, two of these battalions were made up solely of Matildas, with a total of 60. The 11th Tank Corps formed in May also had four of its six battalions equipped with Matildas. This corps was joined to the 5th Tank Army and took part in the July battles on the Don River. They began the campaign with 181 tanks, 88 of which were Matildas. After 10 days of hard fighting, the Corp lost 51 Matildas, had 22 under repair, and just 37 still in operational condition.
As mentioned above, the 5th Mechanised were the only Corps to be fully equipped with British Tanks. The 5th was formed in September and November 1942 in the Moscow Military District. The Corps was equipped exclusively with Valentine and Matilda (Including the Close Support variant) tanks. It first saw combat in that December 1942 in Stalingrad, but was almost completely wiped out by Manstein’s February 1943 counter-offensive. The Corp was rebuilt, however with a force largely comprised of Valentines.
By 1943, most Matildas had been withdrawn from frontline service on the Western Front. Thanks to the restart of the USSR’s own tank production, they were churning tanks by the battalion load. Some remaining Matildas did see action late in the war against the Japanese on the Manchurian front. Two unfortunate Soviet Matilda II Mk.IIIs that have somehow flipped onto their turrets. Date and location unknown. Photo: warspot.ru
Russian Matilda of the 38th Armored Brigade, southwest front, May 1942. A Matilda with provisional washable white paint used for winter cammo, Leningrad sector, winter 1942/43. Illustration of a Matilda II Close Support, based on the tank in the photo in the left column, of the 5th Mechanized Corps, 68th Army. The lend-lease Matilda Mk.II the Soviets re-armed with the ZiS-5 gun. All illustrations are by Tank Encyclopedia’s own David Bocquelet.
A Soviet Hero
It is believed that a well-known Soviet hero, Andrei Fokin, was part of a Matilda crew in a tank named Tank chetyrem geroyev (Tank of Four Heroes) of the 182nd Separate Tank Battalion, 202nd Tank Brigade. Fokin was later awarded the “Hero of Soviet Union” decoration for his actions in a KV-1 with the 6th Tank Brigade, where he took out 16 German Tanks in may 1942. Crew of the “Tank chetyrem geroye” with their vehicle, the man on the extreme right is Andrei Fokin.
Summary
The lend/lease military aid program, and the Matilda’s role in it, was hardly decisive to the Soviet Union’s subsequent victories on the Eastern or Western front. The political fog of the Cold War often marred the truth about the vehicles received.
It was said that the Matilda was inferior to the T-34, and in truth it probably was. But it should not be forgotten that the British sent the best tanks they had at the time to the USSR. The Matilda was certainly a much better tank than the troublesome T-60 and T-70 light tanks. 14 Percent of Britain’s entire tank production went to the Soviets.
As stated in this article the Matilda, and the other lend/lease vehicles for that matter, fought hard where it was needed. If nothing else this bought time for the USSR to restock its own tank force in the huge numbers that helped them to win their campaigns later in the War. Regardless of post-war politics, the tanks were an important aid to the Soviets.
Beutepanzer and Czechoslovakia
One Soviet Matilda was captured and used by SS units in their military training area at Benešov near Prague. After the War, the tank was acquired by the new Czechoslovak army. It is believed it was scrapped. Other tanks were found in the Benešov training area along with it such as an M4 Sherman, M3 Lee, Churchill, Valentine and even a Crusader. They were also scrapped.
Surviving Tanks
Despite the publicly apparent loathing of the Matilda by the USSR after the Second World War, a large number of the tanks still survive in Russia to this day. They can be found in museums such as the Kubinka Tank Museum, and the Central Museum of the Great Patriotic War. Matilda II Mk.III CS Close Support Tank in the Central Museum of the Great Patriotic War 1941 – 1945, Park Pobedy, Moscow. The turret is a reproduction, only the hull is original. Photo: www.Tank-Hunter.com, Craig Moore Matilda II Mk.IV CS Close Support Tank in the Kubinka Tank Museum Russia. Photo: www.Tank-Hunter.com, Craig Moore
An article by Mark Nash
Matilda II specifications
Dimensions
18 ft 9.4 in x 8 ft 3 in x 8 ft 7 in (5.72 x 2.51 x 2.61 m)
Total weight, loaded
25.5 tons (25.6 tonnes)
Crew
4 (driver, gunner, loader, commander)
Propulsion
2x Leyland E148 & E149 straight 6-cylinder water cooled diesel 95 hp engine
Infantry Tank Mark II Specifications, by J.S. DODD The Vulcan Foundry Ltd, Locomotive Works, August 1940
Sources
Infantry Tank Mark IIA* Specifications, The Vulcan Foundary Ltd by designer Sir John Dodd August 1940
Infantry Tank Mark II manual, War Department
Osprey Publishing, New Vanguard #8, Matilda Infantry Tank 1938-45
Osprey Publishing, New Vanguard #247: Soviet Lend-Lease Tanks of World War II
Davis-Poynter Publishing, Comrades in Arms: British Aid to Russia 1941-45, Joan Beaumont. Soviet Matildas on www.tank-hunter.com The upgraded Matilda in an article by Yuri Pasholok. (Russian)
Report from British Pathe on tanks being sent to the Soviet Union.
nfantry Tank Mark II Specifications, by J.S. DODD The Vulcan Foundry Ltd, Locomotive Works, August 1940
Commonwealth of Australia (1943-1945)
Flamethrower Infantry Tank – 25 Built
A Need for Firepower
In early 1943, a General Staff specification was issued for a tank mounted flame projector for use by Australian units in the Pacific. Plans were submitted for a cordite based flamethrower designed by Major A.E Miller, the commanding officer of the Australian 2/9 Armoured Regiment Workshop, but no action was taken to develop the design. A separate Matilda II mounted design utilizing compressed air propellant was produced by the Munitions Supply Laboratory under the designation of ‘Flamethrower, Transportable Aust No. 1 Mk I’. The flamethrower was tested but with an unsatisfactory range of 14-19 yards (13-17 m). In November 1943, a panel including Major Miller was formed to investigate potential new designs for a tank based flame projector. On January 7, 1944, a new requirement was issued for a flamethrower mounted in the turret of a Matilda II infantry tank, with the design to be completed by February 7, 1944. The working design was a cordite based flame projector refined from Major Miller’s original design, however, it required fabrication of components which would extend completion past the deadline.
Major Miller proposed an alternative design based on a hydro-pneumatic cylinder which could be fabricated from available components and was approved, with a budget of 250 pounds. The new system utilized an electrically powered hydro-pneumatic piston to generate pressure for the flame projector and a prototype designated ‘Frog’ was completed on February 21, 1944. The prototype Frog was tested on April 2, and a refined system was approved for production of 25 units. Major Miller was transferred to the Master General of Ordnance (MGO) branch to oversee design and production. The first tank was delivered by July 22, 1944, and successfully demonstrated to the Commander of the Australian Military Forces, General Thomas Blamey, at Monegeetta Proving Grounds on July 26. The production flame tank was officially adopted under the name of ‘Flamethrower, Transportable Frog (Aust) No. 2 Mk I’, but is more commonly known as the ‘Matilda Frog.’
Diagram of the major components of the ‘Frog’ flame system. Source: The Australian War Memorial
Design and Specifics
The flame projector on the Frog replaced the Matilda’s standard 2-Pounder (40 mm/1.57 in) main gun. The flame projector was encased in a mild steel tube designed to resemble the 3-inch close support howitzer, but fitted with a counter weight near the end of the barrel for balance. The hydraulic traverse of the regular gun tank was retained and a new hand cranked chain-sprocket mechanism was affixed to the turret roof to control elevation. The coaxial BESA machine gun was also retained although the bulk of the flame projector made loading and servicing the weapon in combat extremely difficult. The most novel feature of the flame projector was the electrically powered hydro-pneumatic cylinder which generated pressure for the weapon instead of the more conventional cordite or compressed gas.
The hydro-pneumatic cylinder was comprised of a floating piston contained within two nested steel cylinders. During operation, fuel was electrically pumped into the inner cylinder, pushing the piston down and triggering a limit switch. Simultaneously, the air in the outer cylinder was pressurized by the depression of the piston, charging the weapon to fire. At full retraction, the inner cylinder contained 10 gallons of fuel. Firing the weapon released a pintle valve, allowing the pressurized air in the outer cylinder to expand and force the piston upwards, thus discharging the stored fuel through the projector barrel. A foot trigger controlled the release of fuel from the pressure cylinder while a thumb switch on the traverse controller was responsible for triggering the electrical igniter located at the end of the barrel. Releasing the foot trigger or expenditure of the stored fuel activated the fuel pumps and re-primed the system.
Much of the commander and loader positions were replaced by the flame projector’s 80-gallon ‘Geletrol’ fuel tank and the hydro-pneumatic compressor system with the commander’s seat moved and affixed to the pressure cylinder. Geletrol was a locally produced thickened flame fuel produced by adding Aluminum Oleate to petrol, diesel or a petrol-diesel mixture (referred to as ‘Dieseline’). The decreased space in the turret meant that the Matilda Frog carried a crew of only three (driver, gunner and commander). Testing was conducted between August-November of 1944, however, tests were interrupted by the failure of the hoses connecting the hydro-pneumatic cylinder to the flame gun. Metal pipes articulated by ball joints were designed to replace the rubber hoses. Development proved difficult and this upgrade was not satisfactorily implemented until 1945 when Frog tanks were refitted in the Pacific Theater, although it is not known how many tanks were refitted before the conclusion of the war. Photo of the turret interior of a Matilda Frog, taken from the commander’s cupola facing forward. The fuel tank can be seen towards the front of the turret next to the gunner’s position, with the compressor piston behind it. The system of ball jointed pipes (painted white) normally connects the barrel of the flame projector to the fuel tank and compressor, however, in this instance, the projector barrel has been removed. Source: Batrac A Matilda ‘Frog’ Flame tank of 1 Armoured Regiment attacking a Japanese bunker during operation OBOE 2. The anti-grenade mesh is visible on the rear deck. Balikpapan, Borneo. July 3, 1945. Source: Australian War Memorial
Matilda II Murray FT. Both illustrations are by Tank Encyclopedia’s own David Bocquelet Initial Blueprint of the Hydro-pneumatic system installed in a Matilda II tank (February 1944). Note that the connection from the Pneumatic cylinder to the flame projector is at the bottom of the cylinder as opposed to the production vehicles where it is on the top of the cylinder. Source: The Australian War Memorial
Unlike the Churchill Crocodile, the flame equipment and fuel storage were entirely stored on board the tank with no need for an external trailer. In addition, there were up to seven additional auxiliary fuel tanks linked into the flame projector’s fuel system, a 100-gallon tank affixed to the rear deck in place of the regular external fuel tank, up to four 32 gallon tanks stowed under the side armor, and two 30 gallon tanks fitted within the stowage boxes on the front of the tank. Naturally, tank crews were less than enthused to have flammable liquid stored in a position exposed to enemy fire and the frontal storage tanks were rarely used in combat. Closeup photo of a 30-gallon tank mounted in the front stowage boxes, RAAC museum Pucakpunyal, Victoria. Source: BATRAC
The effective range of the Frog was typically 80-90 yards (73-82 m), although it was claimed that 140 yards (128 m) was possible under ideal conditions. The maximum rate of fire was 20 gallons per minute in either two 10 gallon shots or eight 2 ½ gallon shots. With the main gun replaced by the flame projector, a 90 yard range may seem somewhat limiting, however in jungle combat of the Pacific, the typical engagement range was 15-30 yards (13-27 m) which made the Frog more than effective against Japanese positions. Matilda Frog tank in action. Balikpapan, Borneo, 1945. Source: Australian War Memorial
The Frog was issued to No. 5, 6, 7 and 8 troops of the 2/1 Australian Armoured Brigade reconnaissance (recce) Squadron and operated successfully in Borneo at Tarakan and Balikpapan (Operation Oboe 1 & 2) and at Labuan/Brunei (Operation Oboe 6). Although the Frog performed satisfactorily, the use of a compressed air system to propel the flame meant that a waiting 30 seconds was required between bursts (10 gallon shots) while the system built up sufficient pressure. This, along with the substantial bulk of the system, was considered workable although less than desirable.
In 1944, seeking to improve upon the weaknesses of the Frog, a modified system was developed utilizing cordite charges as a propellant for the flame projector. The system was a continuation of Major Miller’s earlier cordite based designs which used components from the ‘Breeze’ percussion starter on the diesel engine of the M3 light tank. This system generated pressure by using the expanding gases from a cordite charge to impinge on a piston in the flame projector’s fuel chamber. The use of cordite resolved the delay between firing shots and also extended the range of the weapon beyond 100 yards (90 m). The more size efficient nature of the cordite system also allowed for the turret fuel tank to be increased to 130 gallons. The cordite system was designated ‘Murray FT’ and, although completed, did not enter service before the conclusion of the war.
In total, 25 Matilda Frog tanks were built. The Murray FT was constructed as a prototype in 1944 and tested throughout 1944-45 with the intention of replacing the Frog, although, with the conclusion of the war, production was never completed.
specifications
Dimensions
18 ft 9.4 in x 8 ft 3 in x 8 ft 7 in (5.72 x 2.51 x 2.61 m)
Total weight, loaded
25.5 tons (25.6 tonnes)
Crew
4 (driver, gunner, loader, commander)
Propulsion
2x Leyland E148 & E149 straight 6-cylinder water cooled diesel 95 hp engine
Max. Road Speed
15 mph (24.1 km/h)
Operational Road Range
50 miles (807 km)
Armament
Compressed air powered flame thrower, up to 368 Gallons of ‘Geletrol’ Fuel
Besa 7.92 mm machine-gun, 2925 rounds
Armor
15 mm to 78 mm (0.59-3.14 in)
Total production
25
Data source
Infantry Tank Mark II Specifications, by J.S. DODD The Vulcan Foundry Ltd, Locomotive Works, August 1940
Sources
Infantry Tank Mark IIA* Specifications, The Vulcan Foundary Ltd by designer Sir John Dodd August 1940
Infantry Tank Mark II manual, War Department
Osprey Publishing, New Vanguard #8, Matilda Infantry Tank 1938-45
Hopkins, Ronald Nicholas Lamond and Australian War Memorial
Australian armour : a history of the Royal Australian Armoured Corps, 1927-1972 D Fletcher
Matilda infantry tank 1939-1945 Bingham, James
Australian Sentinel and Matildas AWM54, 347/4/1, [Flame Projectors – Inventions:] Flame throwers, Submission of designs. Narratives of the development, design and production of flame thrower transportable No 2, Aust “Frog” and flame thrower Cordite operated, designed by Major A E Miller, 21 April 1945
Infantry Tank Mark II Specifications, by J.S. DODD The Vulcan Foundry Ltd, Locomotive Works, August 1940
Commonwealth of Australia (1945)
Infantry Tank – 18 Built
Clearing the way
Although the Matilda II could negotiate a wide variety of jungle undergrowth, even toppling trees when the need arose, conditions in the Pacific were not ideal for tanks and some areas were still considered impassable to them. The Japanese took advantage of the rough terrain across several engagements with Australian tanks by establishing ambushes or mining the only viable routes for tanks to take or, alternatively, retreating to positions where it was simply impossible for the tanks to attack.
To cope with the terrain, a close association between the tank forces and Australian engineer units had been established since the Huon campaign of 1943. The engineering squads made wide use of commercial bulldozers to fill shell holes, clear Japanese roadblocks and level heavier sections of jungle to create new routes for the Matilda II tanks to outflank Japanese positions. Additionally, the bulldozers were used as recovery vehicles to extract bogged Matilda II tanks, although the bulldozers didn’t always have it their own way and, in some cases, the tanks had to return the favor and unbog the dozers!
Armored bulldozer undergoing tests at Bougainville, May 26, 1945 – Source: Australian War Memorial 092587
As effective as the bulldozers were, they still had substantial limitations. While a lack of speed was not a problem in the sluggish jungle battles of the Pacific theater, the commercial bulldozers were not designed for military needs and left the operators exposed to enemy fire while lacking any defensive armament of their own. In 1945, tests were conducted on bulldozers equipped with locally produced armored cabs, but these proved unsatisfactory. Subsequently, a bulldozer blade mounting for the Matilda II tank was developed. It allowed engineering work to be conducted in situations where the vehicles were under fire. This gave greater tactical mobility to the tank units. Tank number 6940 (‘Minstrel’) Matilda Dozer Number 1 Mark I displaying its capabilities at Morotai, 9 June 1945 – Source: Australian War Memorial 109011
The first type, officially named the Dozer Matilda (Aust) No.1 mark I, was developed in early 1945 and tested on Morotai Island in June of 1945. The No. 1 dozer kit consisted of a Caterpillar D7 dozer blade with single push arms, mounted on pivots attached to the tank below the second mudchute. The height of the blade was controlled by a cable winch attached to the frontal glacis and powered by a re-purposed Jeep engine.
Illustration of the Matilda Dozer by David Bocquelet
The No. 2 mark I and No. 3 mark I kits instead used hydraulic power to control the height of the blade. Power for the hydraulics were provided by a re-purposed Jeep engine in the No. 2 kit and drew power directly from the main drive shaft via a sprocket and chain linkage in the No. 3 kit. Additionally the No. 3 kit used a locally manufactured Britstand blade, fitted to the tank at the same point as the D7 blade on the No. 1 kit. The No.2 kit was superseded by the superior arrangement of the hydraulic power source in the No.3 kit. This resulted in the cancellation of the order for the No.2 type pilot model in June of 1945. As such, no examples of the Number 2 Mark I type were manufactured.
In order to control the height of the blade the No. 3 kit had two large metal cams attached to the push arms, above the blade mounting pivots. These cams were triangular shaped pivoting structures that changed the pushing motion of the hydraulics into a lifting motion on the dozer blade arms. The cams were actuated by a pair of hydraulic rams mounted on the front track guards protected by armored covers. The hydraulics were driven by a pump mounted inside the tank and linked to the rams by pressure lines running through the driver’s vision port. This arrangement meant that the diver’s viewport could not be closed, however, the presence of the dozer blade would have offered adequate protection in action. Unlike the No. 1, the No. 3 could raise the blade substantially higher which allowed the driver greater visibility and allowed for better obstacle crossing. However, at full elevation, the blade blocked the use of the turret armaments. Matilda Dozer Number 3 Mark I traversing obstacles on trials. The Britstand logo can be partially seen on the cover of the hydraulic ram – Source: Australian War Memorial 133689
Matilda Dozers, a mixture of No.1 and No.3 kits, were deployed by Nos. 3 and 4 troop of the 2/1 Australian Armoured Brigade reconnaissance (recce) Squadron at Borneo during the Oboe series of operations in 1945. In action, the Dozer kits were found to be less than effective with the additional weight frontloading the suspension and hindering steering. The No. 1 equipped tanks were also found to be unable to elevate the blade sufficiently, which caused issues where the blade was unable to be elevated clear of low obstacles due to sinkage of the suspension on soft ground. Subsequently, the Dozer blades were removed and the tanks continued as gun tanks until the conclusion of the war. The Number 3 Mark 1 Dozer tank on display at the Australian Armour and Artillery Museum, Cairns. Source: Jason Belgrave The Number 3 Mark 1 Dozer tank on display at the RAAC museum, Puckapunyal, Victoria. Note that this tank is missing the armoured covers on the hydraulic rams and some of the hydraulic lines have been disconnected. Source: Bukvoed
Matilda II specifications
Dimensions
18 ft 9.4 in x 8 ft 3 in x 8 ft 7 in (5.72 x 2.51 x 2.61 m)
Total weight, loaded
25.5 tons (25.6 tonnes)
Crew
4 (driver, gunner, loader, commander)
Propulsion
2x Leyland E148 & E149 straight 6-cylinder water cooled diesel 95 hp engine
Infantry Tank Mark II Specifications, by J.S. DODD The Vulcan Foundry Ltd, Locomotive Works, August 1940
Sources
Infantry Tank Mark IIA* Specifications, The Vulcan Foundary Ltd by designer Sir John Dodd August 1940
Infantry Tank Mark II manual, War Department
Osprey Publishing, New Vanguard #8, Matilda Infantry Tank 1938-45
nfantry Tank Mark II Specifications, by J.S. DODD The Vulcan Foundry Ltd, Locomotive Works, August 1940
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
Republic of Cuba (1958-1960)
