Talk:Matilda II

"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)

Dead link
This is the google cache of the WWIITechPubs article. 

Arras
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * "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)

"Australian Designed and Built"
Several Australian War Memorial photos of the Matilda have summaries referring to the Matilda as achieving 22mph with the Leyland engine and then continues "the Matilda, Australian designed and built". Does anyone know why the AWM would make this mistake, especially when most sources say the AC1 was the only tank build in any numbers in Australia during WWII (and that was never used in combat)?

The name 'Matilda'
"The name Matilda itself comes from a cartoon duck."

Highly unlikely, if the character history on the linked page is correct (character created in the 1950s). Strikes me as a bit of picked-up folk etymology on the tank book author's part; on the other hand, the page says Barks had been writing McDuck stuff far enough back that his 'Matilda' could've possibly shown up early enough. Anyone know better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.243.198 (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Fletcher (the only source listed currently) says it was assigned as a code name during the initial development phase with no other explanation. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Matilda" is an old Anglo-Saxon girl's name that IIRC means something like 'Mighty in Battle'. It is also sometimes spelt "Mathilda".


 * See Matilda (name) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 12:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Name
I just moved this to Matilda Mk II but is was reverted. "Matilda tank" is the common name, sure, but it's also the common name of the Matty I. That's why Leopard II is where it is and not at Leopard tank. It's also why Challenger II is where it is and not at Challenger tank. This page hsould be converted to a disambiguation. I'm going to do juust that as I don't see how you can disagree now, but if you still do revert it...-- Patton t / c 23:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you areopen to accepting a reversion, then you should be open to discussing it first before making the move, and allowing time to see if there are more opinions. Matilda is different to Challenger (besides there being three of them) in that while both modern Challengers had substantial active use, the earlier Matildas contribution to military history began with the invasion of the Low Countries and ended with the fall of France whereas the other had a much longer active life. There were 140 "Tank, Infantry, Mk I" Matildas and nearly 3,000 of the Tank, Infantry, Mk II ones. Matilda was still largely an unofficial name in the early part of the war with moving to (easier to remember) names coming into full effect later - largely at Churchill's urging I think. The result is that on wikipedia the Matilda II overshadows the earlier one - the effect of making Matilda tank a disambig page is that now there are about 160 pages leading to that page rather than the correct one. Unlike a redirect these will not be picked up by a bot but need to be checked and edited manually. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Then make this page into a redirect. "Tank" in the name is essentailly a disambiguator without brackets, and it's uneeded considering thius has an unambigious name. We can't have it at "Matilda tank" because there was more than one matty. We don't have M1 Abrams at Abrams tank now do we? I'm sure most people would just call it an Abrams yet "tank" is a disambiguator and isn't needed because it has an unambigious name.-- Patton t / c 11:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In this case the second Matilda is the primary topic and carries the common name "Matilda tank". The "xxx tank" form is used for a number of articles on wikipedia: Panther tank, Mark I tank, BT tank Crusader tank, Churchill tank et al, Iosif Stalin tank. For US equipment Model identifier plus name seems to be an accepted form for the article name (cf the aircraft naming conventions), I didn't find a discussion on the move of "Sherman tank" to "M4 Sherman", and in some cases the model designation is the whole of it as in T-34. Would you like to take this over to the milhist project? There are existing naming guidelines on ships and aircraft, and a stub of a guideline on wepaons, but nothing on vehicles and there could be other cases that would benefit from a general discussion. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Matilda MK II" isn't even the correct name. The Infantry Tank MK II was the Matilda, just as the Infantry Tank MK III was the Valentine. The Matilda itself (as with many British tanks) went through various modifications, each designated with the tank name plus a "Mk" designator. Thus the "Matilda Mk II" would be the incomplete but otherwise correct name for the second version of the Matilda II, i.e., the full name would be Infantry tank Mk II, Matilda Mk II. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You have a point there that muddies the waters a bit more. I'll move this back to Matilda tank until we have figured this out rather than leave a trail of redirects. I think a discussion on naming conventions on MILHIST would be advantageous to get a broader opinion as it also affects the name of the earlier tank as well as conceivably other article names. We can, if needed, flag it this article as a Requested move to get the braodest coverage. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that I can't because Matilda tank has been edited since the move. So I'll do a redir, then we can start discussion on MILHIST.GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The current article name, "Matilda Mk II" is completely incorrect unless we intend this article to cover *only* the second version (what the US would call the "A1" version, or, I suppose, the Germans would call the 'ausf B') and I don't think anyone had that intention.
 * I'll be the first to admit British nomenclature can be confusing, but that's a flimsy excuse. We can get this right. If we go by formal designators it should be "Infantry Tank Mk II Matilda", but according to wikipedia policy we do not always use the formal name. The Osprey title (a popular-type history written by David Fletcher, a profession military historian) uses the term "Matilda Infantry Tank". He also uses the name "Matilda" (not "Matilda II") when describing the A12 series of tanks, i.e., the tank sometimes called 'Matilda II'. He uses the term "Matilda Mk II" to describe the second A12 variant armed with the ZB (Besa) MG instead of the Vickers used in the first A12s.
 * Clear as mud? :)
 * I would recommend the article be called "Matilda Tank", or "Infantry Tank MK II Matilda", or possibly something else, but most certainly NOT "Matilda Mk II" which is simply incorrect.
 * Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * On the subject of things being wrong; isnt the title in the lead incorrect: Tank, Infantry, Mk II, Matilda II (A12)?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Fletcher uses "Infantry Tank Mk II Matilda Mk(x) throughout. Since he is a professional historian and, I believe, a honcho at the Tank Museum, one would think he is a pretty good source. I may be wrong but I believe the 'A' designator refers to the initial design prototypes, not the series production vehicles. That is, once a prototype has been accepted for production, the tanks coming off the assembly lines are not called A12s by the Army, they're Infantry tank Mk IIs.....etc.


 * It may perhaps be instructive to add that the Matilda Mk III is a version with a different engine, Mk IV had modifications to the engine compartment, etc... so while we may not all agree on what the name ought to be, I hope we can agree the name "Matilda Mk II" is utter nonsense.


 * Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The A numbers refer to General Staff specifications, drawing comparison between the Air Ministry specifications and RAF service names for aircraft. eg E.28/39 led to 2 prototype aircraft the Gloster E.28/39 while B.18/38 leads to 600 Armstrong Whitworth Albemarle the latter was (probably) known as the Armstrong whitworth B.18/38 at some point during planning and development of the design (but I'd have to check to be sure). GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ill check out Thomas Jentz' book on the fighting in North Africa when i get home and report back on what he says; am sure it will be something along the lines of what has already been said i.e. Infantry Tank Mk II Matilda.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thomas Jentz (Tank Combat in North Africa) confirms what Graeme said regarding specification - General Staff Specification A.11 etc (p. 11). This tank was called: Infantry Tank MK.II, Infantry Tank MK.II.A and Infantry Tank MK.II.A.* - previously all known as the A.12 or the Matilda II (p.12)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The official designation is likely to have been Tank, Infantry, A12, Matilda II with Mk. I or Mk. II, etc., as a suffix.


 * ... and for the earlier vehicle; Tank, Infantry, A11, Matilda I with Mk. I or Mk. II, etc., as a suffix — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested Move
Matilda Mk II → ? &mdash; DMorpheus (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The page should be renamed to either: - or -
 * Infantry Tank MK II Matilda
 * Matilda tank

The first is technically correct according to David Fletcher; the second is probably the most common name. The current name, "Matilda Mk II" is both inaccurate and misleading. it is logically equivalent to naming the Sherman tank page "Sherman M4A1".

I vote for "Infantry Tank Mk II Matilda" with redirects to ensure those looking for "Matilda tank" find what they need, but I am open to the second choice also. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Good point, "Matilda Mk I" is incorrect also and should also be changed. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Matilda tank - as per WP:common name (see also my other comments above). If not, using Primary topic disambiguation guidance, "Matilda tank" should redirect to the second Matilda tank. There are other Matildas with numerics eg Matilda II, Countess of Boulogne and Matilda I of England, otherwise we could have had Matilda I and Matilda II as options. Infantry Tank Mk I with or without "Matilda" will suffice for the first tank. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * After glancing over that guideance page i agree with Graeme, call this page Matilda tank. Although its not entirely ideal i guess we will have to go for Infantry Tank Mark I for the other page.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it, yes i keep flip flopping, couldnt we just name the articles Matilda I (tank) and Matilda II (tank)? That way we keep with the most common names and people should be able to find them when they do a search?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no strong opinions on the subject, but Matilda I (tank) and Matilda II (tank) seems like the most logical suggestion so far. EyeSerene talk 12:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Overlooking the fact that the requested move was closed rather precipitously - admins normally review at 7 days - primary topic still holds and I have set Matilda tank to be a redirect to Matilda II (tank). GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)

Variants
The book that i have by Jentz only covers the first few variants of the Matilda (all those i have corrected and added a source too) does anyone have sourced information for the Infantry Tank Mk IIA** "Matilda IV" and the "Matilda V"?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Osprey's Modelling the Matilda Infantry Tank states the Mark V had Westinghouse air servos for gear change but also notes that there are no records for it being built so it might have been conversions. It also says some IV's may have been III's. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The Mark III however was the Valentine tank, am a little confused now? Does this book give a full designation i.e. Infantry Tank Mk IIA** Matilda IV and presumably Infantry Tank Mk IIA*** Matilda V etc?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Try this....

Infantry tank Mk I: also known as A11 or Matilda (I) with MG armament only.

Infantry tank Mk II: Matilda (II) also known as A12 or Matilda senior, all variants.

Infantry tank Mk III: Valentine, all variants

Infantry tank Mk IV: Churchill, all variants

Now, *within the infantry tank Mk II designation*, the Matilda had Mks I-V as follows:

Infantry tank Mk II, Matilda Mk I: Original, first production model with Vickers coax MG and twin AEC diesels

Infantry tank Mk II, Matilda Mk II: same but with ZB (Besa) coax MG

Infantry tank Mk II, Matilda Mk IIA and Mk III: Leyland diesel

Infantry tank Mk II, Matilda Mk IV: improved engine mounting

Infantry tank Mk II, Matilda Mk V: improved transmission

All this is from Fletcher, pp. 12-14.

This is why the article name "Matilda Mk II" is such a bad name. It names one variant rather than the tank series, which is really what the article is about.

In US terms, the "Infantry tank Mk II" is the equivalent of, say, the 'M4' designator for all Sherman-series tanks. The "Mk X" after the name 'Matilda' is the equivalent of the 'A1, A2, A3' and so forth designators naming each variant of the main type.

Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah! I see what he meant by Mark III now.

Jentz states the first production model Matilda was not called the Matilda I - he states they were all Matilda II's.
 * As noted by the information i put into the article this morning, it seems Jentz is suggesting that they didnt go through Infantry Tank Mark II Matilda MK I-V but only changed the first part of the designation i.e.
 * Infantry Tank Mark II, Infantry Tank Mark II.A, Infantry Tank Mark II.A*, Infantry Tank Mark II.A** etc
 * Therefore what is the correct way of showing the tanks progression if the sources are contridcting one another?--86.17.0.3 (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I havent got my thinking head on today! Ok i have seen what you have done with the article - merged Jentz' and Fletcher's information together. I think the variants section has came along quite nicely now and makes quite a bit more sense than it did yesterday. The only improvement i would suggest is to add an inline citation next to Jentz' as he doesnt provide all the information Fletcher does and vice versa.--86.17.0.3 (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * paraphrasing from Osprey's book. Some Matilda II Mark IV's might have been (converted? wrongly recorded?) Mark IIIs. From July 1941, a naming scheme for this tank of "Matilda (Mark) I", "Matilda II", "Matilda III" etc was adopted, and the "Infantry Tank Mk IIA" naming (which had been adopted in 1940) was dropped. I guess with that the *** naming stopped too. A Military Modelling Magazine article referred to a War Office civil servant as coming up with the star to denote the engine differences. The tendency to write Tank, Infantry, xxx may also muddy the waters. My interpretation is at somepoint they just decided to use the short names as it was easier. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Jentz' also supports the stars indicating engine differences in the models.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Variants / conversions
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)

Armour
The infobox says the thickest armour on the tank was 78 mm (most likely the front) and is cited however the main text says the frontal armour was only 75mm - sourced from "WWII Equipment" - the latter having nothing in the reference section. Can we clairfy?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I'd formatted the WWII equipment webpage reference but not moved it from External links. The page itself refers to "AVIA 46 188, AVIA 22 456-514, WO 194"  of which the last is  "Fighting Vehicle Research and Development Establishment and predecessor establishments: records, 1921-1968. Tracked vehicle tests." The first two look like misspellings as AVIA is aviation related but AVIA 22/2749 is within contracts and covers "Infantry tank Mk 2 Vulcan Foundry Ltd." the thickest part is the "lower hull nose" at 78 mm; the "Hull front" was 75mm GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * AVIA is not actually "aviation related", it's simply a series of "[f&#93;iles of the Ministry of Supply which relate to functions not transferred to the War Office in 1959 and inherited by the Ministry of Aviation". Ain92 (talk) 08:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Cheers for those fixes however we have a new problem that has cropped up, the article is contridicting itself between sources:


 * 1) Designer, Jentz states it was the mechanization board and Vulcan, the other source states the Royal Arsenal.
 * 2) Weight, Jentz states the combat wieght was 25 tons. The other source states the overall tonnage was 27 long tonnes or 27 metric tons.


 * We need to clear this up i think.

The armour specification in the article exaggerates the toughness vs a German 88. It states that this particular German gun was only able to beat the Mathilda armour at short ranges. That is untrue and unsubstantiated. Even the early 88 (in fact an AA gun) were able to penetrate 100 mm armour on medium ranges easily in the 1940 campaign in the West. Grebbegoos (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Engines
PS: What does - A183 (left hand side) and A184 (right hand side) - mean? As a layman when it comes to engines this means nothing to me, this info has been moved to a note instead of an inline citation so we can expand a little on this if needed.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It means the tank was powered by twin engines which were almost, but not quite, identical. DMorpheus (talk) 12:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So they are the engine model numbers?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes


 * I think they were "handed" so they could fit together neatly in the engine compartment, all manifolds between the cylinder heads (pics on this page here along with more engine details and pics from what looks like manuals. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ammunition
Two questions about the guns - their ammo really.

1. Isn't it true that the 2 pounder was provided only with solid shot?

2. Wasn't the 3-inch close-support gun given smoke shells only? DMorpheus (talk) 13:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I remember reading that there was HE shells available for the 2 pounder but they just were not distrupted for some reason. Looking through Jentz' book last night he mentions that it was 90 something rounds of solid AP shot only - i provided an inline citation supporting the info box in this regards.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The QF 2 pounder article has refs to the extent that there was HE ammunition, but none that it wasn't issued. For the 3 inch Howitzer there's a fourm discussion here which gives a source for smoke and HE. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It does at the bottom, this is simlar to what i have read elsewhere:

The guns were never equipped with High Explosive rounds which would have given the gun some capability against un-armoured targets, although the rounds had been produced. The shells were not introduced, however, because it was felt that the tiny amount of explosive contained in such a relatively small shell would be ineffective.


 * The problem with producing an HE shell for a gun the size of a 2 pdr (40mm) is that in order to produce a hollow shell that is strong enough to withstand the firing forces, the shell walls have to be of a certain minimum thickness. This limits the amount of explosive that can be carried within the shell, and in the 2 pdr the amount was so small, due to the smallish calibre, as to be not worthwhile.


 * The 2 pdr was designed as an anti-tank gun which fired its projectiles at a higher muzzle velocity than perhaps an ordinary gun or howitzer so the firing stresses were greater than they would have been for a simple artillery piece, so the shell walls had to be thicker, and the calibre was too small for a useful explosive charge to be carried. IIRC an HE shell was developed for the the 2 pdr but it was never introduced as it did little additional damage to the target over and above that of the normal AP shot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 13:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Engine power
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

1948 Arab Israeli war
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)
 * I have removed this reference. No citations produced to support. Irondome (talk) 04:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Waltzing Matilda
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)


 * 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)

Black Prince variant
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)


 * 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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link 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 II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
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)

Crotian Matilda
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)

British tank name conventions
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)

Armored or Armoured
Why is the spelling US

So what is the difference? Well, like in many cases in modern times, the only difference between "armour" and "armor" is whether you are talking to British or to Americans - & this is a British Tank ???