azraelck
Posts: 581
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline
|
I agree that the SMLE is a fine battle rifle. I disagree with the arrogant and baseless assumption that just because the U.S. issued semi-automatics, their marksmanship ability was in any significant way impaired. Battle field conditions are far different than sipping tea on a range, and on the killing fields the American GIs and Marines proved themselves more than capable of killing German, Japanese, and Italian foes; just as well as their British, Polish, French, Dutch, or Soviet counterparts. On the range, the Garand remains a common weapon in competitions, the SMLE and No 4 Mk 1 lost to obscurity. It has long been able to match any other battle rifle built in accuracy, if not exceed them entirely.
The SMLE was horribly difficult to manufacture and expensive, which is why the US built the P14 Enfield design (a Mauser copy, essentially) to supplement it, the P14 (M1917 in the US) equipping the majority of both US and British forces in WWI.
Do not let your hatred of America cloud any judgement. The M1 Garand has held more influence of future designs, causing most major countries to develop a semi-automatic battle rifle. There are no SMLE copies or duplicates outside of the Khyber Pass Copies, which are very poorly made out of whatever materials available, based on a real rifle, and used in irregular forces with wildly varying degrees of quality, and equally wildly varying degrees of ammunition quality. The M1 Garand is in production today, and is even a standard issue service arm in at least one South American country, still chambered for good old .30-06.
The cartridge itself is wildly used and almost universally praised. The .303 British round was criticized when new for being outdated, long before WWI and WWII. The Lee Enfield itself was almost replaced, along with the cartridge, had it not been for WWI; and a new round would have added to a logistical nightmare. It's replacement rifle fared equally well on the battle field.
The only rifle that saw use in WWII that has just as much an effect on small arms and could be considered for this is the Mauser Karabiner Model 1898 Kurz. That rifle was duplicated repeatedly, not only by the US but Britain as well, and many, many other countries. It still sees extensive and ironic use in the hands of Israelis, as well as in the hands of various irregular forces. Modern sporting rifles using the exact same action are made today. I only discount it because it's effect; which included some things that were copied by the SMLE, was far earlier, being a proven design prior to WWI. The only thing the SMLE did was do away with seperate long and calvary-length rifles, thus influencing somewhat the K98k, in that it was a shorter rifle. The M1903 had already done so, and after reviewing battlefield conditions during WWI, it is more likely that the thought to shorten the rifles would have occurred anyway, whether the SMLE ever existed.
Yes, the SMLE is a fine and capable battle rifle. It also had a weaker action, an outdated cartridge, is difficult to adapt to a more modern cartridge, and did not have any outstanding reputation for any high degree of accuracy. Only the Mauser and it's derivatives, like the M1903, did. The SMLE also had the fasted bolt action design ever, and still holds the world record at 38 shots fired in under 60 seconds. The M1 Garand was simply a more revolutionary design, and proved itself equally capable of both the intense fire that characterized all battlefields, whether they held Tommys or not; and highly accurate fire necessary for sniper duty. The M1 actually saw more use as a sniper rifle. The M1 simply had more of a lasting effect, and it's higher rate of fire proved to be more useful on the battle field than the slower rate of fire and imagined higher accuracy of the SMLE and No 4 Mk 1. Had the SMLE been widely copied, used as the basis for thousands upon thousands of sporting rifles, and still in major production outside of basements and caves, you could say it had a lasting effect. However, both the Garand and Mauser had long reaching, more profound effects, beyond becoming a fall-back rifle in case of war.
Your arrogant hallucinations are both insulting and degrading to Americans who left home to die across an entire ocean fighting a foe that they weren't interested in, and equally insulting and degrading to the English, Welsh, Irish, and Scottish soldiers who fought and died along side them. Not a one from any country would be sitting up eyes lined up with his sights looking for his head to get shot off. They pop up, take a few shots, then drop back into cover.
_____________________________
"Wait... Holden was a cat. Suddenly it makes sense."
|
Printable Version
The Most Effective Rifle of WWII? - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread