Sheldrake wrote:Juha Tompuri wrote:The HE would be like a bonus, a freebie, don't you agree?
That isn't how the British Army thought.
Yes, that's how the things went.
Sheldrake wrote:There was a cost to developing and manufacturing an HE round
Weren't they already paid?
Urmel earlier wrote:Well the ammo was there. It just wasn't considered effective enough to bother.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6#p1991528
Sheldrake wrote: The British did not think that small calibre HE had any significant effect.
Yes, that's how they thought, but a bit strange that the other at the same situation thought differently, and issued HE ammo to their tanks.
IIRC, the bursting charge of the German 37mm tank gun HE ammo was quite much smaller than the at 2-pdr.
Still the Germans used their ammo with (at least some) success.
Sheldrake wrote:In their view, a .303 machine gun is better than a 20mm or 40mm HE. It has a similar range and puts more, and bigger holes in a soft target than the slivers of shell casing from a 20mm-40mm shell. This logic also led the RAF to prefer a battery of .303 to 20mm cannon.
How about the Matilda 7.92mm Besa - did it have ammo to penetrate German AT-gun shields? If so, from when on?
Sheldrake wrote:The British were wrong, and modified their views during the war.
Yes, learnt after perhaps unnecessary hard way.
Sheldrake wrote:If you accept this, then what exactly is your point?
The some strangenesses at the British tank constructions, equipping and strategies.
Regards, Juha