Effect of small arms to the outcome of WWII
-
James Patrick
- Member
- Posts: 456
- Joined: 05 May 2002, 17:14
- Location: Saint Louis, Missouri, USA
Except for the US, most countries used bolt-action rifles as their standard infantry weapon and they were considered state of the art at the time. This was the same in the Korean War. All the countries, except US, used bolt action rifle as their standard rifle. I own a bolt-action Lee Enfield that was made for war reserve as late as 1955. Even today in Afghanistan you'll still might see WWI Enfields going up against US M-16s and M-4 carbines.
Completely disagree, the Enfield is a great rifle, it was well liked by most of the troops that used it. Better then the K98 I don't know, but it was not far behind.wotan wrote:Hmm.. dunno abot that.. Lee-Enfield never outclassed the Mauser in any way.. and the Garand had its shortcommings as well.. It was less accurat and you couldnt change mags without firing away all the rounds. Remember that many million Mauser K98k are still in use todayThe British Lee-Enfield and the American Garand certainly outclassed the Mauser
The Garand was a much better battlefield rifle then the mauser period. Sure the Mauser may have been more accurate at extreme ranges but that is not practical on the battlefield anyway so is not an issue. You did not have to fire the rifle to clear the fixed magazine either,simply working the bold if there was really a reason to to start with.
There are a great deal of Garands still in use today, if you go to a long range shooting competition in the United States the Garand is prominent member of the some the best shooters in the world. Being only topped by the son of the Garand the M14A1. I do not know anywhere were the K98 is being used in the millions for anything, there are millions of Garands though no doubt of that. The 03' Springfield is used far more then the Mauser in the United States for shooting competition also, mainly because of the 30-06.
Hi,
Lee-Enfield principal asset as an military weapon was that it's action is far faster to use compared to Mauser and it's copies. Important factor in military rifle and a aspect that somewhat explains how Brits could live with it until late 1950s.
On the other hand Mauser 98-actions (and it's copies) phenomenal reputation all-around world is largely explained by it's greater strenght, and therefore better capacity to handle more powerfull cartridges and (at least theoretically) better accuracy, and above all and everything - it's controlled feed and very sturdy extractor. These assures that (if case doesn't fail) you just couldn't have misfeed, double-feed, or sticked case, even if you do something stupid. It works perfectly upside down etc.. All atributes that are very valuable on military weapon, but especially in hunting rifle. That's why basically same design is still manufactured and is sought after by serious hunters and remains so for another 100 years for sure. But, like said previously it is much slower to use than Lee-Enfield for the second, third, fourth... shot.
M1903 Springfield is copy of Mauser, so above covers it also.
Regards, Mark V
Lee-Enfield principal asset as an military weapon was that it's action is far faster to use compared to Mauser and it's copies. Important factor in military rifle and a aspect that somewhat explains how Brits could live with it until late 1950s.
On the other hand Mauser 98-actions (and it's copies) phenomenal reputation all-around world is largely explained by it's greater strenght, and therefore better capacity to handle more powerfull cartridges and (at least theoretically) better accuracy, and above all and everything - it's controlled feed and very sturdy extractor. These assures that (if case doesn't fail) you just couldn't have misfeed, double-feed, or sticked case, even if you do something stupid. It works perfectly upside down etc.. All atributes that are very valuable on military weapon, but especially in hunting rifle. That's why basically same design is still manufactured and is sought after by serious hunters and remains so for another 100 years for sure. But, like said previously it is much slower to use than Lee-Enfield for the second, third, fourth... shot.
M1903 Springfield is copy of Mauser, so above covers it also.
Regards, Mark V
My basis for claiming the Lee-Enfield as superior to the Mauser was based on its quicker action and ability to hold 10 rounds at a time instead of just 5. However, as many people have pointed out, the Mauser was superior in other categories to the Lee-Enfield. I own a Mauser, and can testify to the abilities of its strong action and extreme lack of misfires with old milsurp ammo.
Regards,
-Mike
Regards,
-Mike
Also when comparing Lee-Enfield and Mauser we should consider to who they were designed for.
Lee-Enfield has capacity to fire faster than Mauser, but to fully exploit that capacity you need a highly trained, very experienced soldier. What could be better description of an British Army soldier before WW1 ?? Too bad that the best had died by the end of 1914.
Germans needed a reliable, easy to use weapon to arm their vast conscript army. Speed was propably not the primary concern, instead they had to take account all possible human errors that frightened reservist might do in the stress of battle.
To British the most propable war situation was limited conflict somewhere in the vast Empire which could be dealt with small professional army. To Germans the most propable conflict was always full scale clash between them and French.
So, both were perfectly suited to the task at hand.
Regards, Mark V
Lee-Enfield has capacity to fire faster than Mauser, but to fully exploit that capacity you need a highly trained, very experienced soldier. What could be better description of an British Army soldier before WW1 ?? Too bad that the best had died by the end of 1914.
Germans needed a reliable, easy to use weapon to arm their vast conscript army. Speed was propably not the primary concern, instead they had to take account all possible human errors that frightened reservist might do in the stress of battle.
To British the most propable war situation was limited conflict somewhere in the vast Empire which could be dealt with small professional army. To Germans the most propable conflict was always full scale clash between them and French.
So, both were perfectly suited to the task at hand.
Regards, Mark V
Well, the pipe and bolt of the Mauser is used in hunting rifles today. A friend of mine has a hunting rifle that is a modified K98 from the war.. Still has a swastika on it printed on the side. Only in my small country Norway there are thousands of these modified Mausers.I do not know anywhere were the K98 is being used in the millions for anything
Yes. And in every other country in world also. These weapons mostly don't look at all like original military rifle, but action is the same. There are several examples where same action is recycled in 3th or 4th hunting rifle allready - so good they are. Military G98/kar98k action or rifle could still be bought at somewhat reasonable price and provides an excellent base for first class hunting rifle. Original civilian market Mauser actions, especially magnum lenght ones are nowdays as rare as gold teeth and cost almost their weight in gold. 8)wotan wrote:Only in my small country Norway there are thousands of these modified Mausers.
OK. Same quality could be accomplished also with: Springfield M1903 (high-numbered only) , CZ rifles and pre '64 Winchester 70 - but not with anything else.
It might be surprising information but the ultimate solution for action of bolt-action hunting rifle was invented in Germany well over 100 years a go. Most "development" after that has only been just savings in production costs to make more money for arms manufacturers and above all - poorer quality of end-product. OK, steel quality has improved over years but that's it.
Regards, Mark V
A very exciting debate indeed! I think the initial question was THE EFFECT of small arms on the war outcome. My opinion - MINIMAL. The troops on all sides fought with what they had. They'd been told it was the best available - and acted accordingly. The training in small arms use of the ordinary infantryman - had a bit to do with it. Some were able to hit targets with more accuracy than others - that's all. What most required in whatever they were issued with - was RELIABILITY, that the damned thing would work when required. In some of the 'champions' mentioned above,that was less likely than others, but generally they all performed well because they were extensively tested before being accepted.
In the overall picture the main casualties were caused by artillery and mortar fire,rather than small arms and with the exception of isolated cases where commanders obviously had never studied WW 1 - the machine-guns, light and heavy - never achieved the ascendancy of the battlefield that they had held thirty years earlier.
In the overall picture the main casualties were caused by artillery and mortar fire,rather than small arms and with the exception of isolated cases where commanders obviously had never studied WW 1 - the machine-guns, light and heavy - never achieved the ascendancy of the battlefield that they had held thirty years earlier.