|
Posted on 10/25/2004 10:38:21 PM PDT by SAMWolf
|
|
 are acknowledged, affirmed and commemorated.
|
| Our Mission: The FReeper Foxhole is dedicated to Veterans of our Nation's military forces and to others who are affected in their relationships with Veterans. In the FReeper Foxhole, Veterans or their family members should feel free to address their specific circumstances or whatever issues concern them in an atmosphere of peace, understanding, brotherhood and support. The FReeper Foxhole hopes to share with it's readers an open forum where we can learn about and discuss military history, military news and other topics of concern or interest to our readers be they Veteran's, Current Duty or anyone interested in what we have to offer. If the Foxhole makes someone appreciate, even a little, what others have sacrificed for us, then it has accomplished one of it's missions. We hope the Foxhole in some small way helps us to remember and honor those who came before us.
|
 Matilda I: In April 1934 the British General Staff discussed a proposal put forth by General Sir Hugh Elles of the Royal Tank Corps that covered the specs for an "Infantry" tank, well protected, with MG as armament and go as fast as infantry on foot. Sir John Carden led the design team. Prototypes were given to the army for trials in September 1936. Production order for 60 was placed in April 1937.  Matilda I, Mk I(A11) Matilda II: While the Matilda I was still in pre-production phases, it was decided an infantry tank would need to be able to withstand anti-tank fire from enemy guns and tanks. A tank that could carry more than just a MG was decided upon. The Matilda I couldn't have a larger turret installed so a new design was started in November 1936. The Design Department at Woolwich Arsenal was given the task. The Vulcan Foundry made wooden prototypes in April 1937. It was another year before a mock-steel prototype was produced.  Matilda, Mk II(A12) An order for 65 was placed in December 1937 and was shortly increased into 165. During trials improvements were made to the gearbox, suspension, and air cleaners. Initially produced by the Vulcan Foundry in Warrington, Lancashire. In June 1938 contracts for production were placed with Fowler, Ruston and Hornsby, and later LMS, Harland and Wolff and North British Locomotive Co. Matilda I: Costs were kept down by using a commercial Ford engine and transmission. The crew was limited to 2 because of severe cost restrictions, and thus there wasn't enough in the budget for 2 in the cast turret.  Matilda I The steering, brake and clutches were adapted from the Vickers light tanks. Named after a cartoon duck. Matilda I, Mk II: First production type with AEC engines.  Matilda I Mk2 Matilda II: The driver sat in the middle behind the nose armor plate. There was a cupola for the commander but it didn't have good visibility. The Frazer Nash Company developed the hydraulic power for the turret. First British tank to have diesel engines. It was difficult to mass produce due to the size and shape of the armor castings. The side skirts were one piece and cause production to slow down. The mud chutes were reduced from 6 to 5 to help speed up production. The Matilda couldn't be up-gunned as the turret ring was too small. Matilda II, Mk IIA: Besa MG replacing Vickers. Matilda III, Mk IIA:Used Leyland engines. Matilda III CS: 3" howitzer. Matilda IV, Mk IIA: Like Mk III but with improved Leyland engines. Matilda V: Improved gear box and gear shift. Matilda II CDL and Matilda V CDL: Canal Defense Light. Replaced turrets with searchlight. Used at Rhine crossing in 1945.  This drawing, from an official (and highly secret) report and despite the fact that the artist got the proportions all wrong, is virtually all the visual evidence that there is of the Matilda CDL. Baron I, II, III, IIIA: Mine clearing. Developed in Britain.  Matilda Baron Matilda Scorpion I: Mine clearing, developed in Middle East.  Matilda Scorpion Matilda Scorpion II: Used on October 23, 1942, at El Alamein to clear Afrika Korps minefields. Matilda with AMRA Mk Ia: Fowler rollers mine clearing device. Used in small numbers in Western Desert.  Matilda with AMRA Mk Ia Matilda with Carrot: 600lb HE demolition charge. Used for blowing gaps in obstacles.  Matilda Carrot Matilda Frog: Australian flame thrower version. 25 vehicles in late 1944. Used in New Guinea.  Matilda Frog Matilda Murray: Improved flame thrower. Produced in 1945. Matilda Dozer: Australian developed box shaped blade dozer.  Matilda Dozer in New Guinea Matilda with Inglis Bridge: Light bridge on a track pushed ahead of Matilda. Used only in training.  Matilda with Inglis Bridge Matilda with Trench Crossing Device: Device pushed ahead on tracked bogies for spanning gaps for infantry and light vehicles to cross.  Matilda with Trench Crossing Device Matilda I: Went with 4th and 7th Royal Tank Regiment, and 1st Army Tank Brigade to France in 1940 and took part in battle of Arras. After Dunkirk remaining vehicles used for training. The first models were delivered in 1938 to the 1st Army Tank Brigade.  Matilda II: At the outbreak of the war in September 1939 only 2 were in service. Used by the 4th and 7th Royal Tank Regiments in France 1940 at Battle of Arras.  Used in Africa and the Mediterranean. Fought the Italians at Sidi Barrani, Tobruck, Bardia, Keren (Eritrea). Its last battle was at Alamein in July 1942. Was used by the 42nd and 44th Royal Tank Regiments in Egypt and Cyrenaica. Half squadron of the 7th Royal Tank Regiment was lost on Crete.  By an odd quirk of fate the only CDL tank to survive is a Matilda which is displayed in the Tank Museum. While fighting in Libya in 1940 and 1941 it was nearly invulnerable to antitank fire. Became known as the Queen of the Battlefield. However, once the Germans brought 88 mm Flak guns this dominance was over. Only British tank to server throughout entire war.
|
Kerry getting elected would be like us joining the EU and letting france dictate what we should do.
The Donalson - Henry campaign is a strategic gem. The repair of the Chattanooga situation was masterly. My own opinion, of course.
Grant himself was very proud of Chattanooga, as well as scandalized by Rosecrans. (From his memoirs.)
Diameter of the projectile doesn't have all that much to do with armor penetration. It is more a matter of force per unit area integrated over the time of penetration, I think.
Extremely good links, non-technical, on the subject:
http://www.battlefield.ru/guns/defin_2.html#normaliz
http://www.battlefield.ru/library/bookshelf/weapons/weapons10.html
There is a wealth of good material at the above sites. Something more modern:
http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-1-04/reactive-armor.htm
http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/EQP/kontakt5.html
You add a lot to the Foxhole. You bring the true spirit and no lies. Duty, Honor, Country.
The second sentence of the first paragraph is totally wrong.
More like, the penetrator has to apply enough force to the armor that the armor flows away from the penetrator like a finger pushes into room temperature butter, or like the finger being pushed through a graham cracker. The second is called "brittle fracture".
Thanks for the clarification.
Looks like I've got some reading to do this evening. Thanks Iris7. You're one of the many reasons I love it here. :-)
I actually knew that . . . before I didn't know it. ;^)
Seriously, thanks for your efforts and expertise. I checked out some of hyperlinks . . . very informative.
LOL!
Thanks for fixing the pic. Thought I'd checked the code pretty carefully but musat have missed the obvious.
Thanks Iris7.
Some of the stuff I've read about armor and shell penetration is way above my understanding, nice to see it put in plainer terms.
It took me three tries to get it to work. It wasn't all that obvious. ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
