Appalling Spalling effect

[43rdRecceReg]

The Red Churchill..

Russian Churchill.jpg (36.04 KiB) Viewed 1433 times

I saw an interesting picture of a WW2 soviet Churchill tank on Pinterest.. but what really intrigues me was the observation that Russians
liked the Churchill, and other British made tanks because their ductile armour was less subject to internal spalling (brittleness of internal turret surface converted into- in effect- a grenade by impact from HE shells, of armour piercing rounds). Full penetration of armour wasn't necessary to cause this crew- dismembering effect, even HE heels could achieve it. Somewhere else, I read that the Matilda 2 was probably the best tank of WW2...up to 1942, because it's 80mm armour (far better than that of the Panzer 3 and 4, as well as the 'Ronson'..aka Sherman) could deflect anything the Germans and Italians fired at it; with the exception of the dreaded 88mm anti-tank gun. Also, the armour seemed to absorb punishment without producing the catastrophic spalling effect that splattered hapless tank crews in other models. Repaired tanks, incidentally (hinted at in 'Fury') were often rushed back into action with a new crew, while some of the remaining gore from the previous one decorated the white interior..
Anybody got any in depth input on this? There's an interesting discussion on this website:
https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php? ... hell-hits/
When producing model battlefield models, perhaps more attention should be focused on wrecked and destroyed hulks...and also on mutilated scale tank crews, to give the diorama
the look and feel of authenticity..instead of just making tanks look rusty, or clapped out? Just an idea

[jarndice]

As you say the Matilda was pretty much impervious to A/T shells but because it was undergunned, slow and not able as an infantry support Tank to use A/T shells itself it became a metal box slowly trundling around the Battlefield with no real purpose.
This was another demonstration of the specifications for British Tanks failing to address the 3 basic qualities required in a Tank, Power (with Reliability) decent Armour and a multi-function high power main Gun,
This was a problem that would re-occur until the advent of the Comet Cruiser Tank.
And as we did not have the industrial capacity to swamp the Battlefield with indifferent Tanks (Sherman) which by sheer numbers could beat an enemy armoured force, By not getting it right too many brave young men lost their lives.
Shaun.

[tomhugill]

As you say the Matilda was pretty much impervious to A/T shells but because it was undergunned, slow and not able as an infantry support Tank to use A/T shells itself it became a metal box slowly trundling around the Battlefield with no real purpose.
This was another demonstration of the specifications for British Tanks failing to address the 3 basic qualities required in a Tank, Power (with Reliability) decent Armour and a multi-function high power main Gun,
This was a problem that would re-occur until the advent of the Comet Cruiser Tank.
And as we did not have the industrial capacity to swamp the Battlefield with indifferent Tanks (Sherman) which by sheer numbers could beat an enemy armoured force, By not getting it right too many brave young men lost their lives.
Shaun.

The 2 pounder is was armed with was far better than the contemporary axis at weapons in the early parts of the war.

[RobW]

Weren't the Mk 1's armed with machine guns?

[jarndice]

You are of course quite right Tom, The Matilda Mk 11 was fitted with the 2 Pdr OQF
Of course it could fire A/T what it could not fire was H/E and it was quite ineffective by 1941 being out gunned by the German 50mm,75mm,and of course the 88mm.
Rob the Mk 1 was armed with either a .5 Cal MG or a .303 Cal MG.
Shaun.