Comments by "The Looinrims" (@looinrims) on "Why the Soviets disliked the Matilda II" video.

This comment is what I would call making excuses more so than explanations Rifle grenades were nothing new, and every army had intended to support the infantry’s movement with the tanks, no he ammo is: hilarious in all honesty, especially since that’s a majority of all targets you’d be dealing with even in a world war 1 redux
22
@zlatanclovecic1944 he’s only talking about the gun, you’re conflating his statements
3
Not really because it was built for general combat ‘Horses for courses’ is just a way of saying ‘it sucks but we managed to do something with it even though we wanted needed and even sometimes had better equipment’ or well, usually no one did anything with them.
1
@wierdalien1 yeah really
1
@ no that’s exactly what it means when people use it, just because it upsets you doesn’t make any less true
1
@ again you saying it is just coping Here let me play it for you ‘French tanks had 2 men to make them cheaper and reduce manning requirements, this didn’t make them better or worse than other tanks, its just horses for courses’ Curious how no one says that though for that example…almost like they know its bullshit
1
@ no because protectionism, the smoothbore is better and cheaper in every way I love how you conveniently ignore the obvious destruction of your logic I made, wonder why Thanks for playing
1
Infantry don’t maneuver in British doctrine though, so that doesn’t really work
1
Because the idea was the tank would close fight with the infantry, who should be very well capable of killing soft targets The gun was for tanks bunkers and other hard targets, why waste the space for ammo you didn’t need that was mostly ineffective (in theory) anyway? Smart decisions? Absolutely not that’s why the British needed everyone’s help, but not a bad thought process for its time
1
@ until you remember 37mm HE existed, so, pretty pointless
1