The Tank Museum has some fantastic new presenters like Chris, but whenever David does a Tank Chat I settle in my chair like I am in front of an open fire with a glass of good Brandy. David & his garden chats got me through the Covid times, and I will always be grateful for that.

@wbertie2604

22 күн бұрын

Yes, I found David in his garden to be a wonderful distraction in those times too.

@sadwingsraging3044

22 күн бұрын

His doggo!🥰 I miss his doggo.😔

@cliveherbert9476

22 күн бұрын

If only he could keep his arms under control, but seriously Chris is an excellent narrator 😅

@ianmarsden6276

22 күн бұрын

Brilliant

@williamwilliam5066

20 күн бұрын

@@cliveherbert9476 What about the intensely annoying use of the present tense?

I've always had a soft spot for these funny-looking little gremlins, ever since I first laid eyes on one when I was about 6 years old. I'm glad to know more about them - particularly the truth behind the name. I love the optimistic little brass fire extinguisher strapped to the hull. I'm sorry, but if my tank is burning and I have to GET OUT to grab an extinguisher, I'm not climbing back in under any circumstances.

@pcka12

24 күн бұрын

That is a pyrene fire extinguisher & it is there for people outside (the infantry) to put out fires in this 'infantry tank', because it works with the infantry in combined arms warfare.

@IVIaskerade

24 күн бұрын

I think the extinguisher is for your crewmates, not the tank

@mikewingert5521

24 күн бұрын

We had them on Chieftain too!

@mchrome3366

23 күн бұрын

A utilitarian fire extinguisher maybe but “optimistic” is still morbidly humorous.

@Seafish84

23 күн бұрын

Those fire extinguishers used a chemical called Carbon Tetrachloride which was actually pretty good at putting out fires. Unfortunatly, it was also horrifically toxic to your kidneys, liver, and nervous system, and when exposed to a hot enough fire would create phosgene gas as a by product which is chemical weapon. It is also terrible to dump it in to the atmosphere as it is ozone depleting and a green house gas.

Hats off to Mr. Wiley!! I was always one to say "Pfff!--A Matilda I" But he not just gives a clear and concise account of the tank's development, but also of its brief, yet consequential, role in the history of WWII, and really, when you think about it, how that role helped save the BEF, and many French troops, (one of whom I worked with for many years) at Dunkirk, and thus the course of WWII. Great work, Mr. Wiley!

@bernardedwards8461

Күн бұрын

The Matilda 1 was fine until it had to take on a Panzer lll or Panzer lV, then you needed a Matilda ll which could take them both on and win. The Matilda ll did not much resemble the Matilda l, it was a totally different tank.

The presence of anti-gas paint was not primarily to inform the crew that they needed to don gas masks. It was to inform them that that the vehicle (or aircraft) was contaminated with a persistent gas such as mustard. These anti-gas patches were sometimes surrounded by a red band, shewing the colour which the central green area would turn if it reacted to gas. The remainder of such a surround may be seen on the starboard tail-plane of the Vickers Wellington at Brooklands. Mustard gas could remain as a highly irritant and dangerous threat, especially on organic clothing, for a considerable period after a gas shell went off, so it was important that crew did not clamber into a vehicle that was contaminated without suitable clothing/gloves and decontamination.

@Fidd88-mc4sz

22 күн бұрын

I should have added, that my understanding is that mustard contamination is a bit like poison-ivy in the US, it doesn't have the immediate effect which it does if it hits you in gas form, where it attacks the eyes and lungs. Rather, you can touch it, or wear contaminated clothing, and it then causes blisters later. So these markings are really to prevent you not realising that a surface is contaminated, and are usually on flat(ish) surfaces such a wing, tail or front glacis of a tank provided the surface isn't too steep. This is all from memory, but I think it's largely correct. I have read a WW1 account whereby a solider sat on contaminated area of ground, and then hours later had a blistered bum! It's horrid muck, and every bit as dangerous now as when it went into the ground as an unexploded shell 90 years ago.

I love these tank chats. 1935 Matilda 1 (mentioned) to 1945 ... the development is unimaginable. Looking back, we shouldn't be so harsh. It was the space race of its time. The tank museum really is first class.

So nice to finally see someone recognise the matilda 1 (and 2s) and the 1940 BEF (which my grandfather was part of in France) and the battle of arras getting its proper recognition.

@mastathrash5609

23 күн бұрын

I agree, it has a charm to it. I can't say I would ever want to be in that turret just do too its size. Some seriously brave lads.

@colmhain

23 күн бұрын

Cheers to your Grandfather. Mine, his brother, and another great uncle fought in the ETO. My Grandpa and his brother survived. My mother's uncle died at St. Lo, Aug. '44.

@jamesmaclennan4525

23 күн бұрын

My Grandfather was actually at Arras, his Battery was part of the Antitank Screen. After Dunkirk he was sent into the Thames Forts as an AA gunner and then transferred to 48 Light AA Rgt attached to 11th Armoured Division ending the War as one of the guards over the SS Guards at Belsen.

Back in the hands of the master - thank you David for a superb presentation

@DaveSCameron

23 күн бұрын

He’s purty good eh!😂

@edwardhoward-williams1692

23 күн бұрын

Indeed, proper incisive commentary rather than recent nonsense.

@Boric78

23 күн бұрын

Yeah if don't love Dave, you don't understand how history should be presented. Loved the lock down presentations with his dog. The man knows tanks.

It doesn't matter how small, slow and lighty armoured a tank is. If you have one and your opponent does not that means that a Matilda still poses a serious armoured threat that is effectively a mobile pillbox and therefore highly dangerous.

I for one am disgusted that they didn’t continue the Matilda naming convention. All British tanks should be called Matilda. The current challenger should be called the Matilda 14.

@whatdothlife4660

22 күн бұрын

Finally some gosh darn continuity.

@crapphone7744

22 күн бұрын

I think to qualify as a Matilda, a tank has to be massively over armored, a bit under powered, and must proceed across the battlefield with dignity and presence. The Challenger is far too agile to be a Matilda. But I think the British should build a Matilda update version. . Add another couple hundred millimeters of armor to the front of the Challenger, I'm going to like 152 mm or a 203 mm main gun, and keep the same engine so that it moves very slowly.

@hy78an

22 күн бұрын

And they should be waltzing.

@crapphone7744

21 күн бұрын

@@hy78an but only to Strauss.

@Ralphieboy

21 күн бұрын

@@hy78an some tanks can turn on a dime, but a Waltzing Matilda can turn on three quarters

Hey Tank Nuts! We hope you enjoyed our latest video. What do you think of the Matilda I - not good enough, or the right tank for the time? Let us know below

@garywheeley5108

24 күн бұрын

You fight with the tank you've got🤔

@chaz8758

23 күн бұрын

It was what could be afforded at the time to start training the army as it was being rapidly increased in size with no corresponding increase in its budget (it was getting less than the Army said it needed to fully equip its existing forces) Sometimes you just have to go with what you could afford, it along with a variety of light tanks from Mk II to Mk VI and the aged Medium MK 1 and 2's still around helped train units to work with armour, train crews and maintenance people It was not ideal for combat - but other nations including the Germans, French. US, Russians, Italians, Poles were at the time also producing tanks (and tankettes) with just machine guns

@owenmorse3136

23 күн бұрын

The Matilda 1 is partly to do with the battle of France turning into a Nightmare for the British army and I fully agree with the report of 1947 . The tank was built to fight a battle in 1918 not 1940 it was supposed to take on fortified positions with men and rifles and machine gun's not with Anti tank gun's and 88mm field batteries, at the battle of Arras the British army lost 60 tanks out of 88 including Matida 2s it was the Matida 1s crews and there Valiant fight that got them through that battle not the tank and they had to with draw to stop from being encircled because they didn't have enough tanks and men , the Matilda 1 should have been with drawn and Matilda 2 pushed on in production.

@marcuswardle3180

22 күн бұрын

Were the pictures of the Matilda 2's in battle at 23:10 on the Eastern front? It looked very much so with troops riding on the engine deck.

@alexhunt7810

22 күн бұрын

It's a prime example of why the cheap tank policy is a fundamentally bad one. It had one role that it performed in a mediocre fashion. Each one of these took up industrial, training, fuel and transport capacity that could have been spent on Matilda II or A9 cruisers. It represents a massive step backwards even from the interwar tanks. The victory at Arras is a testament to the skills and courage of the BEF, not the quality of its material

I absolutely love this mans Narrative skills.

The idea that a .50 cal Vickers water-cooled machine gun could fit in that tiny turret is utterly insane to me!

@pcka12

24 күн бұрын

The original design was for a 0.303 " rifle calibre machine gun not 1/2 "

@GorgeDawes

24 күн бұрын

The noise inside the turret when it was fired must have been horrific.

@BHuang92

24 күн бұрын

​@pcka12 From what ive heard, some Matilda tanks in Dunkirk were retrofitted with the larger caliber machine gun. Some of the sources cited that.

@FriedAudio

24 күн бұрын

@@GorgeDawes Well, I think we can say THAT about ANY tank. 😉

@user-hl7nt1og7k

24 күн бұрын

@@pcka12 Though there were discussions regarding fitting an autocannon. Would've been rather cramped...

To restate what I said in an earlier video - 1 year later - I miss Fletcher (first time I saw him was in a HMS Hood documentary and it was "love" at first sight) but I am seriously glad that Willey has managed to be...maybe not the "moustache" but rather the "Beard" and in spirit (in my view atleast), carry the torch of history, knowledge and wit - Tank Chats is still going strong and will continue going strong. And to add to it - Willey, please dont stop...we need people like you, and I thank you for sharing your knowledge with us

One can see Carden’s thinking that was further expressed in the Valentine. To build the smallest reasonable hull so that, for a given weight, it can use thicker armour. To keep the suspension from intruding into the hull also minimising the volume of the hull. Carden was aware of the 6 Pounder gun when he laid out the Valentine and would doubtless have been later penning the successor in 1941 to carry the Vickers 75mm HV or 17 Pounder on similar lines. The track work was no more exposed to fire than peer tanks, just left more in the open because of minimum hull volume concept.

Re the closing comments; if they had built the Matilda 2 from day one the extra cost of the Matilda 2 would have meant they'd have far fewer of them. When the mixed Matilda 1s and 2s met the enemy at Arras a slightly larger number of Matilda 2s would have been on their own. The Matilda 1s absorbed the enemy fire while the Matilda 2s were free to shoot back and it worked. The really stupid thing to do to the Matilda 1 was to cripple the tank's speed with a governor, I'd always thought the engine of this tank was under powered until I heard this today.

@wbertie2604

23 күн бұрын

The governor was there to ensure that the engine didn't get burned out. A slightly slower tank that still functions is better than one that is abandoned due to mechanical failure. Cross country, gunning the engine might mean 6 mph rather than 5 mph.

@wbertie2604

23 күн бұрын

I'm not going to argue that overall the concept was not flawed, but WW2 turned out to be different from expectations which were a combination of trenches and bombers, at least worst case, or maybe lots of maneouvre warfare, hence the cruisers

@alexhunt7810

22 күн бұрын

Fewer functional tanks are better than many useless ones, and Matilda I was, sadly, a largely useless tank.

@foseninfo8954

21 күн бұрын

Revs and torque are to some degree related but higher revs does not simply mean a stronger engine in practice.

@malcolmyoung7866

20 күн бұрын

All modern tank engines are ‘governed’ to improve reliability and prevent early ‘demise’ by over enthusiastic drivers. Reliability of armoured vehicles is more important than ‘speed’ in most cases.. the ‘gains’ with regards to the Matilda 1 would have been negligible and it makes complete sense to err on the side of reliability than speed.. 70hp isn’t going to get you anywhere quickly..

Have just re-watched Richard Holmes' War Walks episode on Arras, which featured the Matilda I. God bless that gent - I had the pleasure of meeting him.

Excellent, informative video. So pleased that David did this tremendous deep dive, no gimmicks, no funny lines, just sincere appreciation of the subject and masterly presentation. Thank you.

It's interesting to see that the idea of "Well, we'll build the Matilda-I then the II" wasn't an act of incompetence and/or underestimating the enemy, it was a stopgap measure while the II was in development. That explains a lot.

Sering the Matilda alongside the Comet, really demonstrates how far British design philosophy changed before, during, and after WW2, and how they started to increase the dominance of British tanks on the battlefield.

@MaxTSanches

23 күн бұрын

It shows what a war will do for development. The same can be seen in the airforce - the byplanes of 1930s to the jets of the late 1940s

@chaz8758

23 күн бұрын

Philosophy never changed really, the comet was a cruiser and followed on from the A9 Cruiser idea while the Churchill Mk VII was the follow on analogous to the Comet as an Infantry tank

@Twirlyhead

23 күн бұрын

Next to the Centurion (developed during WW2) would show it in even greater contrast.

@johnnapier8192

23 күн бұрын

You can see Comet as the last cruiser and Churchill as the last infantry tank. But in practice Churchills had to face german armour. Even Tigers and Panthers! And Comets (via Cromwell etc) needed a HE round for infantry suppression. So Centurion brings cruiser and infantry tank development threads together, into the jack of all trades MBT!

@gandydancer9710

22 күн бұрын

"... how they started to increase the dominance of British tanks on the battlefield." LOL!

Considering that the Germans had mostly Panzer ones and twos in France at the time, this tank wasn't that bad. While the attack at Arras was not as successful as the British had hoped it did make the Germans hesitate; as a flanking attack was something they had considered. Rommel had dismissed this idea saying the French would be in disarray and unable to counter attack. Of course it had not occurred to him that the British might not have been in disarray! In any event the Germans did hesitate and reform which gave the troops at Dunkirk time to organize their withdrawal.

@off6848

23 күн бұрын

They didn’t hesitate Luftwaffe won the contract

@patrickHayes-bq1ry

22 күн бұрын

british were largely in disarray certainly south of St Pol

@mookie2637

21 күн бұрын

Can you produce any evidence that the Arras attack was responsbile for the halt order please?

@bullettube9863

20 күн бұрын

@@mookie2637 Battlefield series "Fall Of France" mentioned it as one of the causes. Other historians have also mentioned that some generals were against Rommel moving too fast. Historians have also said that Hitler wanting to give Britain a chance to negotiate was weak and that Hitler was more afraid that Rommel's dash to the coast was going to end badly. The flanking attack at Arras seemed to him to prove it. Goring assured Hitler his air force could destroy the allies by themselves.

@mookie2637

20 күн бұрын

@@bullettube9863 "Mentioned", "mentioned", and "seemed" are not evidence I'm afraid.

The Matilda I performed well in France as the German 37mm AT guns could not penetrate the frontal armor. Rommel had to bring 88mm AA guns up on line to stop their advance.

@HAL-vu8ef

22 күн бұрын

Just this morning I read that very thing in the autobiography - Panzer Commander by Colonel Hans Von Luck

Still chuffed I met this guy! As brilliant in person as in these videos

Small and underguned perhaps ! But I wouldn't want one chasing me through a Tesco's carpark on a Saturday. 😂😂😂

I don't recall before seeing the detailed breakdown of the external markings. That was fun.

@simonkevnorris

22 күн бұрын

Especially the "Chinese Eye".

This is a little tank that I have always been fascinated by. Arras was so crucial and the Matildas filled the bill. Thank you for this important coverage. You guys are great. Just wish I could visit. (Australia is a long way and I am old). I will watch again from the start. Again thank you.

@thetankmuseum

24 күн бұрын

Glad you enjoyed it!

@sixgunsymphony7408

23 күн бұрын

It was designed to support infantry. It was never meant to be a tank destroyer.

@matthewcharles5867

22 күн бұрын

Cairns amour museum will probably have a few matilda tanks.

@alex987alex987

7 күн бұрын

A one day division-sized engagement in a war that ended up as a crushing defeat of France and the UK had "enormous significance"? Am I missing something, or does it sound slightly exaggerated?

My old friends father was on the Australian assessment team that chose the tank for the Australian army. It was unfairly criticised. It was a good choice for Australia. Caplehorn was the officer. He went onto have a distinguished military career. Liased with the USA military in Australia for the government. And multiple Degrees, Nuclear and Forestry. The tank was a great success.

@quan-uo5ws

24 күн бұрын

I wouldnt say it was unfairly criticised, the Matilda I is a hilariously bad tank.

@johngamba4823

24 күн бұрын

Could you be mixing up the Matilda Mk1 with the Mk2? This is a Mk1 which the Australians never used. They did use the Mk2 though

@stephenbrickwood1602

24 күн бұрын

@@johngamba4823 Yes, my friend spoke about this in the mid-70s. Mk2 was the tank.

@chaz8758

23 күн бұрын

@@quan-uo5ws I would not say it was bad, it was better than many others produced by other nations at the time - which were MG armed as well US, Germany, Italy, Poland, Russia - all were producing MG armed tanks- the Matilda 1 was produced as a cheap way to start rebuilding and training the British Army which was supposed to increase 4 times its size - with less money than the Army said it needed to fully equip its present forces. It was not a great tank, it did what it was supposed to which was a limited role It was the main tank that panicked Rommel who despite only being attacked by a weak British Brigade with a small French force attacking along a different line - claimed he was being attacked by at least 5 British tank divisions (Britain had one at the time and it was no where near his forces). Rommels panic caused the Germans to issue a stop order, turn two more panzer divisions around to assist Rommel beating off the attack - not back for a limited design and purpose tank,

@quan-uo5ws

23 күн бұрын

@@chaz8758 The Matilda I entered service in 1938, by which point almost no one produced machine gun tanks. Its bad armament isnt the only fault though, it had an incredibly cramped and non-efficient interior (The T-34 was a limousine compared to it) and it had an absolutely awful 13km/h top speed. Even the Panzer I which was only supposed to be a training tank was much better than it, and it entered service in 1934. It never did its intended role to "cheaply equip the british army" considering that they built only 140 of them and gave up on using them after the battle of France.

The Matilda II is my favourite tank of WW2. 🇬🇧

@rosshughes7977

24 күн бұрын

Same here followed up by the Churchill

BIGGEST thanks goes to Bob Grundy for the restoration of the Museum's running Matilda I, without him we may never have got to see a running example of this vehicle.

Another terrific review of a much overlooked tank, with great perspective on the development of tank strategy and use in pre WW2 years. Great video, and David Willey is as good as ever.

As someone who had to give academic presentations I can only repeat myself and state, that your work is very well made, informative and entertaining. Of course, you have the advantage of doing what you love, but nevertheless it is very skillful to address a topic in this way and make it seem to be chatty and lighthearted; even when it is about a contraption of war from a war-ridden period of time.

I remember reading about this tank in Lidell Hart's _History of the Second World War_ before visiting the Tank Museum, so I knew it had been very resilient and quite successful. I was actively looking for it in the museum because the book had made me curious. And when finally seeing it face to face, I was utterly taken aback. It was so unassuming and frankly looked like crap. This couldn't be it. I thought there had to be some sort of mistake. It looked so vulnerable with the narrow open tracks and everything, and you just don't notice that fat slab of armour in front of the driver if you don't know it's there. The vehicle looked like a tin can, ready to be crushed.

@vladcraioveanu233

24 күн бұрын

If you were a grunt armed with a rifle, that tin can was DEATH for you 😅

Am I the only person who looked at that and thought........ Darlek !

Brilliant video / lecture again. Thank you so much. dear Tank Museum for providing all these interesting informations.

Absolutely love this channel. One day I'll be able to go to The Tank Museum. Aberdeen just isn't the same thing. Cheers from Tennessee

A lecture of the highest quality. Thank you

I’ve always struggled with how “hokey” the Matilda 1 looks versus the latter version which served in North Africa. It’s kind of like the before and after pictures in the bodybuilding advertisements you’d see in comic books.

@ballagh

23 күн бұрын

Is there actually any link between the Matilda 1 (A11) and the Matilda 2 (A12) other than the name and that they were basically developed at roughly the same time? They seem to be otherwise completely separate designs.

@chaz8758

23 күн бұрын

@@ballagh No connection at all - apart from both being infantry tanks, In reality the A12 Matilda 2 was the tank required - but they needed more vehicles for training and equipping the rapidly expanding army so had to take wat they could - a case of some tank is better than no tank.

Thank you! That was a splendid account. I knew nothing of this tank so it was a total revelation to me.

Really enjoying this new format with the walk around of the tank!

Thank you, TTM and Mr. Willey! The Matilda I is broadly unappreciated and even actively dismissed for its faults, but I reckon you have superbly contextualized the tank and explained the design decisions/compromises behind it. Designing a successful tank for 1940 in 1945 would have been far easier than for 1940 in 1935.

A solidly thorough explaination of Matilda history.

Enjoying David Willeys videos thanks.

Biggest loss for the British Tank program was the higher ups sidelining Percy Hobart for almost the entire 30's. All because he thought differently aka btr

@andrewflindall9048

8 күн бұрын

If any one individual is to blame for Britain's armoured failings it would be Hobart. E.g. he created the infantry tank concept to keep 'his' tanks away from the other arms. He had plenty of ideas but the weren't necessarily good ones.

Good to see Dave back doing chats

Thoroughly enjoyed your presentation, very informative and gave me a greater appreciation for the Matilda and the role it played in the early war . Somewhat seems it was misused to a fortunate outcome to a degree. Thank you. 👍

David is always fantastic!

These really are an excellent series of video's, congratulations to all involved in their making.

Discovering new tanks I don't know about is great. Never realized how many tanks were serviced in WW2.

David, dapper as always.

Matilda to Comet in 6 years is some fast development.

Visited Bovington in the late 80's. You had a wreck of one by the kids playgrounds but the turret was still there. Climbed in, how you get a man and the back end of a vickers machinegun in that turret is still beyond my comprehensions.

Thank you for this. It answers a lot of my questions. Hindsight is always great as is money to do what is considered right. Hence our Sentinel Aussie tank of WWII. Not bad- not great. Just desperate and deserving of some praise likewise.

Thanks for the story about this little hero of 1940.

Thank you for this very interesting historical lesson

Thank you for this.

Very interesting chat, I do say. Learning a lot and that is to say something, Im 69 and have been engrossed in the history of WW2 since I was a young boy, and having a father and a grandfather who were veterans. I think the big kick that pushed me to pursue reading about the war came from my grandfather as well as getting a copy of The Longest Day by Cornelius Ryan. Describing what people saw while the invasion was taking place, especially the shocking horrors of wounds and finding bits of human parts while moving toward the Germans made a define impression on me. But back to the Matilda, it is quite the tank. If I remember right, it was the most heavily armored tank when the war started and could survive North Africa quite well. Of course, as bigger and more heavily armed German tanks appeared, that changed things with the Matilda's small gun. I understand that it did well in the Pacific war. The Matilda 1 shows design influence on not only later versions of the Matilda but also the Valentine.

The "light tank" concept really is the birth of the modern IFV, just decades before anyone figured out what that role _actually_ requires.

@off6848

23 күн бұрын

Octrad Puma

@reccecs4

23 күн бұрын

No.

If anyone is wondering, 16,000 British Pounds equals 1.59 million British Pounds today or almost 2.1 million USD. Not cheap I'm going to say in 1931. Though today's Tanks exceed it in cost.

@Chris-mf1rm

19 күн бұрын

Bringing figures up to date is always tricky. Just using inflation, which I suspect where the £1.6m comes from, doesn't do it because wages* have advanced by much more than inflation in the last 90 years. Then there's the fact tanks have much more technology in them than today. * That is largely why Russia's tiny GDP today is able to produce so much more than an equivalent amount of money in Western countries.

Love the infantry tanks. The Matilda 1 and Valentine 2 being my favorites!

These Tank Chats are great.

The accounts of Arras often mention tanks running over the AT guns. I can imagine a Matilda 1 doing so, as it's seemingly the most effective way to write off an anti tank gun. I can imagine a 2pdr solid shot or even a burst of 50cal AP rounds putting an AT gun out of commision, but 303? Probably not! If I recall correctly there was like 15 Matilda 2s involved in the action out of a total of 53 Matilda tanks. The prospect of trying to squeeze yourself behind the gun shield of your Pak36 whilst dozens of these little dustbin turreted things trundle towards your Anti tank screen, taking whatever punishment you throw at them whilst trying to hose your guns down with machinegun fire would be quite daunting. And then comes the realisation that they are not going to stop...

Nice to see Mr Willey again. This concept of light armament never really went away, look at the Ferret Scout Car to modern times and many more in the War years. Only difference was it found wheels and lost its tracks. Nice talk on a very important Tank.

Whoop, whoop, David Willey❤

Excellent video

This was an awesome presentation on Matilda 1.

As informative and entertaining as ever. 👍

that mine plow seems such a British thing. "damn, the water pipes keep freezing. let's put them on the outside of the building so we can change them more quickly"

@Chris-mf1rm

19 күн бұрын

I've never seen water pipes on the outside of any building, other than those coming out from inside to feed your garden hose.

🏆🎖️💪🤗 Thank you for sharing this

The manufacturer’s info being ground off of the data plate might seem like such a trivial detail, but knowing the context makes it such a cool feature of this tank! It’s little things like this that make the tank an awesome piece of living history rather than just a simple exhibit.

Many thanks to David Fletcher and David Willey. They open a new world ,in at my youngest age, I always love Tanks.

I love the title of this video!!😁😁 The Matilda 1 is also the May Tank of the Month in the Tank Museum's 2024 calendar, so an aptly timed presentation.

If only all teachers could be David Willey. He could discuss a sweet wrapper for an hour and make it interesting. Amazing the influence the unsung hero's have,be it armour or aircraft. My question, outside of a 1/100 scale 'wargamers' kit why hasn't someone made a model of this. A light Vickers was done by Airfix yonks ago and the 6 ton E has been very well covered by Eastern European brands. Be nice if we could get a 1/48 or 1/72 at least of this early helpful little fellow.

@wessexdruid7598

23 күн бұрын

There is the 1/100 Zvezda model - but also, apparently, a resin 1/35th Vargas Matilda 1?

Yay! Number 2 on my 'top 5' list

If Matilda II had been built with a larger turret ring (Certainly possible, due to the hull overhangs) that could have accommodated the 6-pounder gun, I dare say that the service life of that vehicle would have extended at least into the Italian Campaign.

I waited and waited and finally got a reference to _another_ video discussing what the tank actually did. Thanks for all the background, but there was almost no foreground.

Thanks! Great history lesson.

@thetankmuseum

20 күн бұрын

Thank you!

And as I reflect during our Memorial Day weekend here in the U.S., I salute those brave tankers of the British Army who sacrificed to save an Army and ultimately a Nation! Hats off, gentlemen!

Great historical vid of a tank that is overshadowed buy its bigger brother the Matilda 2. I love how the eyes on each side of the turret is on the modern Challenger 2 tank and I hope they do it for Challenger 3 when it starts being put into service. Awsome this old tank nut learnt some things in this vid.

Can David please bring his doggo to work?🥺 I miss his doggo. Matilda would have been perfect for the doggo to get up on.

Best video in a long time. A11 was a stop gap, just good enough.

the matildas have always been my favourites, loved them since I was a kid.

"The tank that stopped Blitzkrieg" The Matilda I was not able to stop the Blitzkrieg anymore than the Panzer I was able to carry it out.

Thank you.

Awesome thanks

David is a great presenter. Not only does he give us the facts about the tanks, he paints a picture that always captivates the audience.

This has all the quirks, weirdness and penny-pinching I expect (and like) about British tanks. Brilliant!

Quite a fascinating littel vehicle. I like how the splash gurds on the front plate are functionally the same as the ones on breastplates of medeival knights a few hundred years earlier :)

Love the suede jacket and knitted tie 😃

Excellently dressed and a wonderful video!!

35:30 - Maybe not the “Rightest”, but A right tank at the right place, and the right time. In the way it was used, it did what the Bob Semple was expected to do.

I always wanted to know more about the Matilda. I heard that it could out climb any tank in WW2

Dang! That's a sharp jacket David is sporting!

When I was about 12 I read Tramp in Amor by Colin Forbes it was as I remember it a fine novel about a Matilda tank in WW2 part of the BEF in Northern France 1940.

TY. Small, cheap, but enormous in it's effect on British fortunes of war. Most certain a worthy tank for any museum, or modeler.

I never knew the story of the Matilda I could have been so interesting.

Everybody on the battlefield has a rifle. Having protection from rifle fire is essential. Beyond that you can start making choices and trade-offs. This is hugely better protected than JACKAL

@patrickHayes-bq1ry

22 күн бұрын

what is the point of a Jackal a vehicle in which a well aimed stone is potentially fatal to crew and nothing to even keep the rain off , definitely a throw back to the 1930s

@TheWirksworthGunroom

20 күн бұрын

@@patrickHayes-bq1ry It's hard to know. It is the size and weight of a CVR(T) but without the mobility, firepower or any useful protection from small arms fire. If we find ourselves needing to brass up Luftwaffe airfields in the Western Desert during the next war I am sure it will be ideal.

I have always loved this Heavy Tankette as i like to call it! Blessed Matilda 1!

Well, Challenger 3 doesn't look like a cheap option, but it is a big point of contention whether the Brits will build enough of them.

And now we have Infantry Fighting Vehicles. Essentially a modern Matilda that can also hold infantry (and a bigger gun).

My favourite tank!

23:35 "When you look at the tank from the cu . . . FRunt ( phew, that was close, I wonder if anyone noticed ) the actual casting i slightly offset" 🤣😂🙃