Was UK the only nation to have such a clever thoughts?Urmel wrote:Well the ammo was there. It just wasn't considered effective enough to bother.
As above.Urmel wrote:So a separate gun seems to be the only solution.
Regards, Juha
Was UK the only nation to have such a clever thoughts?Urmel wrote:Well the ammo was there. It just wasn't considered effective enough to bother.
As above.Urmel wrote:So a separate gun seems to be the only solution.
I have not noticed that anyone said the HE swung the battle,Urmel wrote:Well I take the War Office's view on this matter over your opinion. But you're welcome to provide your unique insight into where 40mm HE swung the battle.
Wondered that too.John T wrote:I have not noticed that anyone said the HE swung the battle,Urmel wrote:Well I take the War Office's view on this matter over your opinion. But you're welcome to provide your unique insight into where 40mm HE swung the battle.
what battle?
Yep.John T wrote:And a bit more general I find it hard from a combat unit perspective to deny the gun crew a possibility to engage soft targets with their guns.
?Urmel wrote: unique insight
Urmel wrote: since he made the claim that it was a waste of resources, in line with forum rules its up to him to provide the proof. Maybe he can also define what he means by 'waste of resources'?
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6#p1984746Pips, yes wasted resources as for having an infantry tank for not being able to deal with the enemy infantry, AT-guns etc as well as they could have, if equipped reasonably, as you mentioned.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6#p1984746Pips wrote:I've never understood the lack of high explosive for the 2 pdr Matilda's. What's the point of having an infantry tank that can't support the infantry attack with high explosive?Urmel wrote:That's what the MG was for.
You might have forgotten that according to the Forum rules I have answered to your question about the wasted resources about the lack of anti-personel ammunitionUrmel wrote:Okay, so we're not going to see you comply with the forum rules you're supposed to moderate. I expected that. I guess it's one rule for members, and one for moderators, in your book.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6#p1984746Juha Tompuri wrote:Pips wrote:I've never understood the lack of high explosive for the 2 pdr Matilda's. What's the point of having an infantry tank that can't support the infantry attack with high explosive?Pips, yes wasted resources as for having an infantry tank for not being able to deal with the enemy infantry, AT-guns etc as well as they could have, if equipped reasonably, as you mentioned.Urmel wrote:That's what the MG was for.
Regards, Juha
Do you mean this question?Juha Tompuri wrote:
P.S. Is it possible for us to have answers to the questions I have earlier made?
If so the answer is not sure, but the OP re 2 pdr effectiveness may refer to 37mm Bofors AT for which HE was more available than 2 pdrDid the Ordnance QF 37 mm Mk 1 (37mm Bofors AT-gun) have HE rounds in British service?
If so - do there exist any mentions of their usefulness?
Regards, Juha
Thank yoy very much for your answer, but actually after the unanswered ones later made:Sheldrake wrote:Do you mean this question?Juha Tompuri wrote:
P.S. Is it possible for us to have answers to the questions I have earlier made?
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6#p1991532Juha Tompuri wrote:Was UK the only nation to have such a clever thoughts?Urmel wrote:Well the ammo was there. It just wasn't considered effective enough to bother.
As above.Urmel wrote:So a separate gun seems to be the only solution.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6#p1991911Juha Tompuri wrote:Wonder did anyone ever regret there(/Africa) the War Office's view?
A bit strange also is that how the War Office had all the wisdom in the world compared to the all(?) other about the same calibre range guns using main tank building nations in the world, when denying the gun(s) anti-personel capabilities in practice.
?Urmel wrote: unique insight
That's your opinion. I am asking you for some proof of that. So no, you haven't answered it.Juha Tompuri wrote:You might have forgotten that according to the Forum rules I have answered to your question about the wasted resources about the lack of anti-personel ammunitionUrmel wrote:Okay, so we're not going to see you comply with the forum rules you're supposed to moderate. I expected that. I guess it's one rule for members, and one for moderators, in your book.
(actually even before you asked):
Juha Tompuri wrote:Pips wrote:I've never understood the lack of high explosive for the 2 pdr Matilda's. What's the point of having an infantry tank that can't support the infantry attack with high explosive?Pips, yes wasted resources as for having an infantry tank for not being able to deal with the enemy infantry, AT-guns etc as well as they could have, if equipped reasonably, as you mentioned.Urmel wrote:That's what the MG was for.
The same thing I have posted earlier, in other words:Urmel wrote:That's your opinion. I am asking you for some proof of that. So no, you haven't answered it.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 5#p1991953Juha Tompuri wrote:What harm would the having anti-personel ammo aboard have done in the first place?
Other than some AP rounds less?
For not equipping the tanks as well as they could have been, was wasting the bonus they (anti-personel ammo) would brought.Urmel wrote:What is not a fact but your opinion is that it was a waste of resources.