View Single Post
Old September 20, 2012, 02:46 PM   #23
Scouse
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2011
Posts: 133
RC20 - Firstly, I do not believe the OP claimed that the Lee Enfield was the most technically accurate rifle of the war, he appears to be talking about the fact that to fire another rifle as quickly as the SMLE one would almost certainly sacrifice accuracy much more than with the SMLE.

The point is, it has been explained how what you claim did not happen, exactly did happen, repeatedly, in 1914.

The technical capabilities of the Lee Enfield, combined with the training of the riflemen were instrumental in allowing the British infantry to hold recently occupied ground, unentrenched or in shallow scrapes, often under artillery fire and against overwhelming odds. In similar situations against the French in 1914, there were plenty of times when the German attack broke through. I am not talking about attacks against prepared positions protected by presighted artillery and machine guns and wire obstacles - thin lines of riflemen with little support turning attacks with what should be decisive numerical advantage, with nothing more than rifle fire.

It is easy to overemphasise this, and it has been romanticised and the SMLE mythologised by some, but the fact remains, a substantially higher rate of fire is possible with the Lee Enfield than any other rifle on the Western Front. That might not matter so much when you have an army largely incapable of utilising its full potential, like the British from 1915 - but when battles are won largely by infantry fire, like many of them in 1914, it matters.

If it was ''incompetently utilised'', as you put it, what does that have to do with the technical capabilities of the rifle? Not much, I would suggest.

None of this would have happened without the obsessive musketry training of the British Army 1906-1914 - but the speed of the Lee Enfield was crucial too, it was instrumental to battlefield success.

On another point, if I were an allied infantryman who had just occupied a piece of German line, now under heavy bombardment preparatory to the customary German counterattack, I would prefer myself and my companions to have ten rounds ready rather than five. The SMLE was best suited to rapid fire which won battles in the opening months of the war, but it was also best suited to small unit trench warfare, which is what characterised most infantry engagements of the war NOT set piece over the top attacks. Not decisive perhaps, but given the choice, which would you take?

Heck, it is even possible, though unverifiable, that the battles in 1914 would have gone as they did regardless of the British Army's rifle, doesn't change the fact that on the basis of its combination of durability, rate of fire and magazine capacity with more than adequate accuracy STILL made the SMLE a superior rifle for the conditions of the WW1 battlefield.

Also, with respect, to claim that the USA "came in and won WW1 and WW2" betrays a distinct lack of understanding of both wars. Not to do down the contribution of US forces in any way, I just feel that statement is a massive oversimplification and exaggeration and reflects the national myths that every nation creates about wars. The British have them too, and they are just as ridiculous.

The Mosin did fine in a different war, a war won by factories and production numbers and 20million dead Soviets - not the adequacy of the Mosin or the fact that a platoon's worth of M1 Garands could compete with the MG42.

Montgomery's tactics were nothing like those of WW1, actually. Montgomery had a reputation for being overly cautious - not something that characterised WW1 British generalship. He might not have been a brilliant general by any means (he has been mythologised by some of my countrymen who fall for the national war myths mentioned earlier), but he was no Haig.

By WW2 the bolt action battle rifle was clearly outdated, its heyday were the couple of generations before. The fact that the M1 Garand is a better battlefield weapon would be pretty obvious to most people. Doesn't change the fact that the Lee Enfield was the best of that outdated bunch.

Like Kraigwy says, arguing about the best battle rifle based on remarks about the tactics common to all combatants in that war makes little sense.
Scouse is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.02346 seconds with 8 queries