Afrika and tanks

Why is it said that the Matilda II armour could only be penetrated by the German 88s only and nothing else could defeat the armour of the MAtilda II. Uless I am wrong the PzJg-1b had a 4.7cm Pak L43.4 could penetrate 87mm of arourm and the Matilda armour was thickest as 82mm. I am aware that the Germans had very little of those spgs but they could defeat the armour of the Matila II therefore not only 88 could defeat the Matilda's armour.

Did the Germans use the StugIIIb's in Africa if so I doub tthta the 2pounders could penetrate the front top armour of the stug.

Also how good did the Cruiser tank fair in the desert I heard not too much better than the M13/40, is that true? I wouldnt be surprised because its 2 ppunder gun thought still effective and very thin armour.

 

It is probably said either by the ignorant, or as a generalisation.

The weak armour & open cab of the Panzerjaeger IB would have made it very vulnerable to the 2 pdr & Besas of the Matilda II.

Only 3 x StuG & then not until mid 1942.

Cruisers reliability not good. 2pdr = Iti 47mm in performance, but had inferior ammo. Cruisers faster & armour plate of superior quality. British crews on the whole received more & better training than Italians.

Sorry about brevity of post, work beackons.

 

I wasn't aware of any German SPG's being used in North Africa, but certianly not in the early fluid stages.

The british cruisers were very poor. I believe they had over heating problems, and that was before they shipped them to the desert.

There gun was also of limited use and the armour was not particually good.

FNG

 

Early StuG IIIs didn't have a weapon more powerful than that of the Panzer IV, and their armour wasn't much thicker either. This remained true throughout the war since both designs more or less kept up with each other in upgrades.

 

I think it is more the case that the 88 was the first weapon discovered to be able to penetrate the Matilda. And, presumably, it remained the most common weapon available that could do so.

The British cruiser tanks were, generally, under-gunned and under-amoured, but fast (when they weren't breaking down).

By the time our cruisers started getting 6pdrs the Sherman was entering widespread service.

 

the M3 lee's/grants started to replace the UK cruisers and were a far better tank, which is a shame as they were pretty rubbish as well.

yes, early stugs would have had 75 mm short like the PIV as they were designed as infantry support units, not anti armour.

88's in north africa were actually fairly rare at first. Would the 50 and 75 mm Pak be able to penetrate the matilda? When if ever were any sent to north africa?

FNG

 

At minimum ranges the 50mm, which was the most common German AT gun in 1942 and 1943 in Africa, would have been able to penetrate the Matilda. However since the Matilda itself was fairly rare and the Germans had become proficient at luring them into 88mm traps, I doubt they would have risked engaging them like that (this is all conjecture though).

Few if any 75mms were delivered to North Africa.

 

Wait a minute! Rommel got a lot of Russian 76mm guns, both towed and self propelled, didn´t he?
As far as the 47mm gun is concerned, using APCR ammo it penetrated 100mm at 100m. Bad idea, very, very bad idea!

 

Yes lots of 76.2(r). And few if any 75mm.
But all some time after the Matilda had all but disappeared from the N/A battlefield.

 

I thought Matilda's were often grouped togethor to increase their effecientcy. I think their main role was to punch a hole in the German line.

 

They were infantry tanks, whose role was to advance slowly with the infantry and support them. They were bunched together after the efficiency of concentration of their nigh impenetrable armour was proven at Arras in 1940.

 

Sure the Matilda IIs were infantry tanks but they only carried AP rounds and no HE rounds, for that matter I do not think there evan were HE rounds for the 2 pounder. I may be wrong though.
Also I read that the SdkFz 7 ( I know Im terriable at germ,an accrenimes) was perfect for transporting the infamous 88s across teh desert and the crew as well.

By the way Roel thanks for deleting my double post

 

Not even A.P I'm afraid. Just solid shot.

 

Although they did have a co-axial mg.

I read somewhere that the favourite tactic with Matildas in the early days of fighting the Italians was just to drive them straight into their fortified positions, as the Italians did not have a gun that could touch it. The cruiser tanks would then be waiting round the back of the fortified position to cut off any escaping Italian toops.

 

I believe it was Tony Williams who explained that while a HE round for the two pounder did exist, it was not being produced. However, I can't remember why not. It may have had to do with a simple lack of factories.

 

They had machine guns didn't they? Only wimps and americans need a HE round!*










*I'm kidding! I'm kidding!

 

Ebar I think I need an HE round....

I heard that the Italian 13.2 Breda HMG could penetrate the armour of cruisers on teh siders and back using AP ammo, is this true? I don't know it sounds like it could be true but..... I am not sure.

 

At some points the armour of early Crusader-type cruiser tanks was no more than 14mm thick. I assume a heavy MG like the 13.2mm would have no trouble with that.

 

The Matilda II was one of my favorite early-war tanks. It looks imposing in profile and was heavily armored for it's time.
It was a slow-mover to be sure, but gave the Germans fits trying to knock one-out... before the 88mm was introduced as an anti-tank gun.
In some armor-gaming I've done, the only way you could knock one of the bloody things-out was to sneak around behind, and hit 'em hard in the arse.
Too bad it wasn't twice as fast and armed with a 6-pounder. (Or would we just call it a Churchill?)
I also like the Cruiser-series Crusader MkIV. Yes, reliability wasn't great, and they tended to shed track in quick manuevering. That's why the little M3 Stuart was so beloved by the British. Fast, agile and reliable--compared to it's contemporaries--and the tracks stayed-on in quick manuevers.
"Yes, Sir. It's a HONEY!"

The tank battles of North Africa are some of my favorite stories. There was a notion of chivalry still present between enemies, and the British showed that they were as masterful at navigating a sea of sand as they were the Atlantic Ocean.

Tim

 

But the Matilda's armour was just as thick in the rear as it was in the front. Your best shot would probably be the sides.

The Churchill, IIRC, was just as slow...