The Butterfly Effect: A British AAR

Chapter XCI: An Inauspicious Beginning​

With four tank designs either already undergoing testing or just beginning the process there was no shortage of new designs available for the newly formed Royal Armoured Corps to review. To described the designs as 'mixed' would be a masterful piece of under-statement, while there were genuinely innovative ideas and developments incorporated into some of the designs the crippling 'economy' measures enforced by the Treasury were also present in abundance. However it would be unfair to entirely blame the Treasury, there were more than enough War Office mistakes present to cause problems. This neatly brings us to one of the worst tank designs to ever emerge from a War Office specification; the A11 Matilda.

The Matilda began life in 1934 on the recommendation of Lieutenant General Hugh Elles, a member of the Army Board who who was double-hatted as both Master-General of the Ordnance and Director of the Mechanisation Branch. On paper he was one of the most qualified and experienced tank officers in the British Army, he had been General Haig's representative during the development of the Mk I "Mother" tank on the basis of which he had been appointed head of the Heavy Branch of the Machine Gun Corps (the first tank unit in the world). After leading the Branch through the failures at Ypres he had overseen the successes of Cambrai and the formation of the Tank Corps at it's Bovington Camp base. After overseeing the setting up of the Corps and navigating the brutal post-war Geddes Axe on defence spending his armoured career culminated when he became the first Tank Corps inspector. While this is indeed a most impressive tank CV it has one crucial flaw; it shudders to a halt in the early 1920s, after that point his career was a succession of staff roles for infantry units and War Office postings. While this could have been a positive move, giving him a better idea of how tanks and infantry should work together, it was in fact disastrous as his armoured thinking stagnated. Having left the Tank Corps before it gained it's royal prefix his thinking was still based around Medium Mark Cs and trench warfare, the developments of the Experimental Mechanised Force for instance had bypassed him completely.

Thus on his appointment to the Army Board he was almost the stereotypical 'Old Guard' officer, mainly interested in how to re-fight the Great war to best effect, an attitude reflected in his specification for the Matilda. The A11 was to be an "Infantry Tank", a relatively new concept for the Royal Tank Corps and was to be heavily armoured but armed with only a single machine gun and to travel 'as fast as a man on foot'. While this specification could never have produced a worthwhile modern tank the final kiss of death came when low cost was set as a prime consideration, after the Treasury had vetoed the infinitely more capable Medium Mk III on cost grounds the Matilda had to be cheap, this would have disastrous consequences for an already fatally compromised design.


The first Matilda prototype was duly delivered by Vickers in mid-1936 to a decidedly nonplussed Royal Tank Corps, while the process of digesting the Abyssinian War experience had barely begun one fact was blindingly obvious; it had not involved any significant trench warfare. It was therefore equally obvious that a tank that was optimised for trench warfare and little else was of questionable value, quite simply there had been no situations in North Africa when the Matilda would have been of much more use than a tankette. Indeed a Light Tank Mk VI was cheaper, faster, more manoeuvrable and with two machine guns better armed, for anything other than charging dug in enemy positions the Matilda would have been inferior to almost every other tank the Corps already possessed. While the design was put through it's paces there was never any question of it being adopted into service, the tests were as much about checking the evolving infantry tank doctrine and identifying the actual requirements of a new tank as an actual assessment of the design.


Long before the Matilda was formally rejected, which it duly was at the beginning of 1937, thoughts turned to a new design with a new specification. The sensible move would have been to wait until the new Royal Armoured Corps had developed an idea of exactly what it wanted, however as we have seen the Treasury (or more correctly the fear of the Treasury) intervened and forced a rushed decision. With time of the essence it was not believed possible to start with a fresh piece of paper and so instead the existing A7 medium tank was selected as a base. The A7, originally an experimental tank produced by the Royal Ordnance Factory Woolwich as a test bed, had been under development since 1929 and so was considered a well understood starting point. The new specification, logically enough A12, specified the same thick armour (for the time) of the A11, a full 60mm on the hull and 65 on the turret, a larger three man turret with the then standard Ordnance QF 2-pounder and provision for both AP and HE rounds and a new larger engine, gearbox and running gear to ensure the A12 could maintain the same speeds as the A7 (25mph on road, 15mph cross country) despite all the additional weight of armour.

Almost the only things the A11 and the A12 had in common were their notional roles and the name, the A12 receiving the name Matilda II from it's unwanted predecessor. As with so many decisions at the time this was political, admitting the A11 had been a complete failure would have only strengthened the hand of those who wanted to centralise procurement. It was therefore important that the Matilda be presented as a success to help the War Office and the Army could fend of the MoDC and others who lusted after their budget. Thus the A12 was touted as a development of the A11 and, in order to keep up the pretence, had to share the same name. This 'development' pretence, combined with the need to meet the spring deadline for the budget's Army Estimates, forced the Army Board and Royal Armoured Corps to order the Matilda II straight off the drawing board, hardly the ideal way for the new Corps to begin it's life.

---
Notes

First off apologies for splitting this one, but it should make the men of tanks happy and isn't that worth a two part update?

Game Effects;
A few Old Guard generals knocked out, not all of them but a decent chunk. I mostly removed the ones who had retired in the 1920s or those who like Gowrie were Governor-General of distant Dominions. While I'd prefer a full on purge it was never on, so still plenty of 1 skill old guard generals clogging up the auto-promotion system. The only relief is I can justify getting rid of Massingbeard so at least there's a free F-M slot.

For the rest Elles is entirely historical, he's almost the archetype old guard officer who sadly had too much influence on armoured design. Fortunately not this time round. OTL the Master-General of Ordnance role did disappear in 1938 when the Ministry of Supply started up and did all military procurement (apart from for the Royal Navy and Aircraft production, so basically the Army and all non-aircraft RAF buys). The idea had been around for years so I figured Super Mac would push it as A) more power to him and B) OTL he served there as a junior minister and liked it so probably agreed with the idea. I also think the Cabinet would like it as a stick to threaten the Service Ministries with, just in case.

Onto the tanks, the Matilda I was that awful while my Matilda II will be somewhat different to OTL. Slightly lighter armour and a bigger and better engine will help it to be faster and probably more reliable due to less stress on the engine. I fear the suspension will still be ropey and the turret is too small, but then something had to go wrong. Beside the 2-pdr wasn't that bad, particularly with HE ammo on standard issue. All these changes should also mean it's less of a contrived shape so should be easier to cast and so cheaper to make, the thinner turret armour (65mm not 80mm) in particular will really help and shouldn't impact protection too much, it will still be better armoured than a 1942 Pz IV.

And now onto cruisers!