Talk:Matilda II

message: "The slow speed and heavy armor made them comparable to the Red Army's Kliment Voroshilov heavy tanks, but the Matilda had nowhere near the firepower and armour of the KV"
Did it or did it not have comprable armor to the KV?
:: Thank you for pointing out an edit-by-committee. The Matilda's max armor of 78mm is comperable to the KV-1 Model 1941 which had 90mm of armor. Most medium tanks of this era had 30-50mm armor. The 1941 version of the T-34 had 52mm max armor and that was considered very thick for the era. DMorpheus 04:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

message: I'm suprised to see theres no reference to the battle of Arras during the invasion of France 1940. This is where the Matilda got its reputation for being "The Battle Queen" and also gavea good suprise to the Germans.--Ashmole 20:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually the title was "Queen of the Desert" and it was gotten in North Africa. There were very, very few Matilda IIs at Arras. DMorpheus 22:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was still there, however, and much propagada mileage was made of the fact.  Also, the Arras counterattck may have been partially responsible for Hitler's decision not to allow the Panzers into Dunkirk...  I agree that the Battle of Arras should be mentioned, albeit breifly. Getztashida 10:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  I have added the number of Matilda IIs in the 7 RTR (23 total) and 0 in the 4 RTR. So a total of about 100 British 'I' tanks were deployed in France in 1940, and of these 23 were Matilda IIs. It would be a bit of a stretch to credit those 23 tanks with the stop at Dunkirk. ;) Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

text:  "In the counter-attack at Arras of 21 May 1940, 18[9] British Matilda IIs (and Matilda Is) were able to briefly disrupt German progress, but, being unsupported, they sustained heavy losses (30 tanks lost) after breaking through to the rear area of 7th Panzer Division."
    -Note that 18 tanks used managed to lose 30 tanks, according to this sentence.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F05:F00C:D000:11D5:6FD7:1650:D766 (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Arras

message: :Matilda Mk II → ? — DMorpheus (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything but Matilda tank. "Tank" is only added if there no other optioin, like churchill tank. We couldn't just call it churchill becuase of winson churchill.--92.251.158.9 (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Matilda tank should be a disambiguation page that links to Infantry Tank MK I (as the page is also incorrectly labled i.e. Matilda Mk I) and Infantry Tank MK II. I think in this situation, both tanks having the same nickname, we can only resort to the actual desigination, which to be fair is not really ideal.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good point, "Matilda Mk I" is incorrect also and should also be changed. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

text:  Yes, the move was made to a new name for which there was no consensus. Better than what we had but....odd. DMorpheus (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested Move 

message: That's correct, there's no doubt that some Mk IIs 'became' Mk IIIs and later by having new engines fitted. Probably done at the time an engine change was needed anyway. There's a photo of one such in Fletcher's Osprey book. DMorpheus (talk) 13:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variants / conversions 

message: The article gives a figure of 94-95 bhp for the engine power. Is this (a) 94 bhp for the left engine, 95bhp for the right engine (b) the total engine power, over time, of both engines (c) the individual power, over time, of each engine? What is the vehicle's total engine power? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 11:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fletcher says either 2x87 bhp for AEC enginges, or 2x95 bhp for Leyland engines. Don't have access to Jentz, so I'm tagging for source re-verification. --Kubanczyk (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 87 hp for each engine. Values are generally approximate given that engines deliver different power at different rpm. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engine power 

message: I have put a dubious - discuss tag up. I know Israel had a handful of Cromwells and various home made armoured truck types, and that the Arab invasion forces had various light French types (H35,R35) and that the British equipped and officered Arab Legion had various modern armoured cars, but I have never heard of the Matilda in the arab inventory. Its plausable (Egyptian left stocks etc) but a citation would be good. Who operated them? Numbers? Any records of engagements? Irondome (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: * I have removed this reference. No citations produced to support. Irondome (talk) 04:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  1948 Arab Israeli war 

message: I was reading the 1942 HMSO publication "British Tanks - What they look like, how they work, what they can do" - Issued for the Ministry of Supply by the Ministry of Information, and the name of the tank is clearly listed as the "Waltzing Matilda", not just once, but throughout the book.
The use of this name is also found in contemporary newspaper reports, for example:
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/48409803
While it may not have been the official name, it certainly appears to have been in regular use as a name at the time, and should probably be listed in the alternative names. I'll add it now. Just wanted to explain why. --86.180.125.111 (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see a cite that shows the name was in regular use and not just briefly. White in his post-war book looking back over tanks from 1916 to 1945 doesn't mention it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waltzing Matilda 

message: Radio controlled..? Wiki page on Black Prince tank itself does not have any mention of radio control, nor use as mobile target. Can this be verified or corrected?
Ref.:   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.255.179.210 (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That article is about the development of the Churchill tank design and has no relation to work on the Matilda. A case of re-using (unwittingly) project names? GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black Prince variant 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Matilda II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051031100317/http://mailer.fsu.edu:80/~akirk/tanks/GreatBritain/GB-Matilda2-6pdr.jpg to http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/GreatBritain/GB-Matilda2-6pdr.jpg
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Matilda II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090519023920/http://www.army.gov.au/ahu/docs/Matilda_Tanks_at_Retimo.pdf to http://www.army.gov.au/ahu/docs/Matilda_Tanks_at_Retimo.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Some captured Matilda IIs were used by the Legione Croata Autotrasportabile near Kharkov in summer 1942.
Maybe not relevant enough to be mentionned in the article so I put it there.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crotian Matilda 

message: There's some inconsistency in the way the British tank names of the era are recorded in Wikipedia articles. For page titles and the body of the article common nickname is used, unless there isn't one as with the Cruiser Mk I to IV, and with the exception that in describing the development the code is used, e.g. A19. That all makes sense. 
But there's quite a bit of variation in how the official name is recorded. Quite a few, potentially most, articles use the full name in the first sentence in the format: "Tank, Cruiser, Mk VII, Cavalier (A24)". This seems that it might be the way the British named them in official documents, but it's not my area and I don't know - it's also possible that they only used the codes during development, after which the mark and nickname were used. 
It seems strange that Wikipedia articles vary considerably on how the names are written: the "Tank, [type], Mk #, [nickname], A#" format seems most common but there are exceptions. The Crusader page has it as "Tank, Cruiser, Mk VI or A15 Crusader", while the Comet has "Comet tank or Tank, Cruiser, Comet I (A34)". This makes it unclear whether the Comet did not receive a mark designation or if it's just not been included in that article. The Black Prince is recorded as "Tank, Infantry, Black Prince (A43)" and again it's not clear if there was mark designation. The "Tank, Infantry, Mk III, Valentine" has no code, although this is explained in the article as being because the Valentine was a private venture. This page is one of the most unusual because it has "Infantry Tank Mark II, best known as the Matilda" with the code mentioned later. Aside from the inconsistency, I'm not sure that it's correct to write the name that way. Most sources use the format "Tank, Infantry, Mk II", the different word order and punctuation doesn't seem to be the official name at all. 
This could do with being reviewed.
210.84.26.82 (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  British tank name conventions