Matrix Games Forums

I don't get it. Seems like the only units that take them are the Australian tank regiments and by 9/42, they have all upgraded to the Lee/Grant which is also specific to the Australian unts and plentiful. I must have 300 matildas in my pools and nobody to give them too. And I see that there are more to come in future convoys.

Crimney! Send me some spitfires instead.....[:@]

They were used right up until the end of the war by the Aussie tank regiments.

I dont think the Lee/Grant was as capable in tropical conditions so the Matilda was preferred.

i.e. In March 1944 the 2/9th replaced its Grant tanks with the British-built Matilda tanks.

http://www.awm.gov.au/units/unit_13775s ... ld_war.asp

I havent played much past late '42 , do all the Matildas get replaced with Grant's or do they chop them in / out of the TOE as they did historically?

Not that it probably makes much difference as far as game usage & effect goes I guess.

ORIGINAL: davbaker

They were used right up until the end of the war by the Aussie tank regiments.

I dont think the Lee/Grant was as capable in tropical conditions so the Matilda was preferred.

i.e. In March 1944 the 2/9th replaced its Grant tanks with the British-built Matilda tanks.

http://www.awm.gov.au/units/unit_13775s ... ld_war.asp

I havent played much past late '42 , do all the Matildas get replaced with Grant's or do they chop them in / out of the TOE as they did historically?

Not that it probably makes much difference as far as game usage & effect goes I guess.

Well, it is hard to say historically which would be the better tank. The Lee/grant at least had a gun that could fire HE ammo. I suspect that the real reason for the use of the matilda over the lee/grant is that the lee/grant had a very large crew (seven?). Also jungle warfare did not require a fast tank as the matilda was very slow. I know that some matildas were equipped with flamethrowers. Anyone know about grants? Perhaps manpower shortages dictated the matilda over the grant more than anything else as a seven man tank crew was really a waste of valuable manpower.

In game terms the lee/grant is better and there seem to be enough that there is not reason not to upgrade all Australian units to the lee/grant. Vs Japanese tanks though, any of the allies mediums must have looked like king tigers.

Now I am confused. From what I am reading at the Australian War memorial the lee/grants were replaced by matidas and no lee/grants saw action but were used for training. That may explain all of the matildas in my pool. But in the game, the Australian units take matilidas early in the war and then upgrade to lee/grants. Do they switch back to matildas. I had the tank replacement bug in my game. Perhaps that was a factor.

Does the Editor / WITPTracker shed any light on the Device upgrade path?
I'm at work ATM so cannot look.
Maybe units that historically didnt leave Australia i.e. (R) Training units get the Lee/Grant and unit deployed get Matilda?

In the Pacific, a very small number were used by the U.S. Army in the Makin Atoll in 1943. None were supplied to the U.S. Marine Corps. Australian forces received several hundred, but none saw combat.

http://anonymous-generaltopics.blogspot ... -tank.html

A lot of Matilda II''s were MAtilda II CS support version with 3" howitzer, IIRC. Yep - 90 II CS's in Australian colours, plus 400 MAtilda II gun tanks.

Still, Andy's Aus OOB's are wrong for this, the Australian armor in most units should be Matilda's for the majority of the war, not Lee's.

Andy isnt wrong, but it shows the inability for the player to "downgrade" a LCU device. Because you can lift any sized Device you dont have the historical restrictions impose on the Armies from time to time.

The M3 Grant was received by the Australian Army in very large numbers, somewhere over 700. It was allocated to the Armoured Regiments and the Matilda II allocated to the Army Tank Battalions.

The first Australian Armour to see action in the Pacific were the 2/6th Armoured Rgt M3 Stuarts at Buna in late 42.

Though very helpful, it was realised they were too light for jungle use so a replacement was sought. The M3 Grant was too big/heavy for the landing craft being used so the Matilda II was chosen and allocated to the units sent into New Guinea & Borneo. being an Infantry Tank, they were slow enough to escort the infantry and heavily armoured enough to beat japanese 47mm AT guns (except at very close range). Its a pity the Grant couldnt be used, it was very effective in "similar" terrain in Burma/India.

3 M3 Grants did see service in Borneo equipped as Tank Dozers as well as the only Covenanter (fits between the Crusader & Cromwell) to see action in WW2, as a Tank Bridge.

There were also some Matilda "Hedgehog" versions used by the Aussies as well I believe. These had Mortars mounted on the turret. Pretty sure they saw combat in New Guinea.

As Andy will tell you, what you see in game is a compromise (long and hard thought about..) for the very reasons described above.

To utilise Australian armour effectively, you will need to set the units to 'Do not Upgrade' or the Matildas will quickly be replaced by Lee/Grants and you won't be able to downgrade.

ORIGINAL: moonraker

There were also some Matilda "Hedgehog" versions used by the Aussies as well I believe. These had Mortars mounted on the turret. Pretty sure they saw combat in New Guinea.

Matilda Frog
Used the Matilda IV or V to mount a flamethrower which using diesel or thickened fuel projected by compressed air to about 80-100m. The first arrived in service in Oct 44. 2/1st Australian Armoured Reconnaissance Squadron was given the vehicle in late Dec 44 and in 1945 supported landings at Tarakan, Labuan & Balikpapan.
Matilda Dozer
Also allocated to 2/1st Australian Armoured Reconnaissance Squadron was given the vehicle in late Dec 44 and in 1945 supported landings at Tarakan, Labuan & Balikpapan.
Matilda Hedgehog
Fired naval "Hedgehog" ASW weapons, the original version used 6 and the production model 7 of these 30kg warhead weapons. Only 6 units were made and allocated to 2/4th Australian Armoured Rgt on Bouganville but did not see active service.
Grant Dozer,
As mentioned 3 units made it to Balikpapan being the only Australian M3 Mediums to see active service.
Covenanter Bridgelayer.
Actually 2 were sent to Borneo, one was used at Labuan and the other landed at Balikpapan but threw track on the beach, and as normal with the Australian Army at this point, no spares were available. It took 6 weeks to fly in replacements and it finally bridges a crater!!!!!!

Detail from DUST, SAND & JUNGLE (A history of Australian Armour) by Paul Handel who spent about 10 years at the Tank Museum at Puckapunyal and with the Army History Unit. I got my copy at the RAAC Tank Museum at Puckapunyal, a great visit for anyone in Victoria.

How do you get the tank regiments to upgrade? Just leave at rest and replacements 'Y' in a nice big place like Brisbane or Syndey with lots of supplies for a few weeks and watch their establishment?

In my PBEM, the Japanese are apparently landing in Australia so it is likely that my tanks will meet their tanks on the battlefield shortly. In AE (as in WitP) do the IJA gum-wrappers with spit-wad throwers still hold their own against tanks with armor and real guns?

The Matilda was an effective weapon against the Japanese. It was well armoured and very difficult to destroy. IIRC the Aussies also supplied HE rounds to their 2 pdr armed Matildas in the Pacific (apart from those with LittleJohn adapters). In any case – as noted above – many of their Matildas were Close Support (CS) types with 3” howitzers. The Aussies also used a few Matilda Dozers.

There are some photos of surviving Australian Matildas (including CS types and a Matilda dozer) in this pdf document:

http://the.shadock.free.fr/Surviving_Matildas.pdf

Incidentally, the 2/9th Australian Armoured Group in Australia and Borneo was known as the ‘Waltzing Matildas.’ [:D]

http://www.armytankmuseum.com.au/i-intro.htm

http://www.mheaust.com.au/Aust/Research ... livery.htm

IN WWII my father experienced considerable use of the Matilda tank (mainly in North Africa), where it arrived in considerable numbers in '42 to replace the totally inadequate Crusader). I seem to recall he said it was a good small/medium tank, far more reliable than the Crusader and (more importantly) able to absorb a lot more punishment and rough treatment

ORIGINAL: spence

In my PBEM, the Japanese are apparently landing in Australia so it is likely that my tanks will meet their tanks on the battlefield shortly. In AE (as in WitP) do the IJA gum-wrappers with spit-wad throwers still hold their own against tanks with armor and real guns?

I would believe the Matilda would have a large enough round to if not penetrate a typical Japanese tank, but actually blow a track off even with a HE round, where as I don't believe the Japanese tanks had a chance, since the Germans faced Matilda's with 50mm L/60 and could not penetrate from the front.

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

How do you get the tank regiments to upgrade? Just leave at rest and replacements 'Y' in a nice big place like Brisbane or Syndey with lots of supplies for a few weeks and watch their establishment?

They also need to be in range of a command HQ.

Any command HQ or just an infantry/army/their own one?

ORIGINAL: Reg


As Andy will tell you, what you see in game is a compromise (long and hard thought about..) for the very reasons described above.

To utilise Australian armour effectively, you will need to set the units to 'Do not Upgrade' or the Matildas will quickly be replaced by Lee/Grants and you won't be able to downgrade.

I don't have my game up and running right now, but I thought that our only option was "replacements on " or "replacements off", with no switch for upgrades. If you leave replacements off once your units get Matildas they won't upgrade to Lee/Grants, but then any losses won't be made up either...