British/Commonwealth Infantry weapons...poor?

[Smack]

Ha! I was talking about world war 2 to a few friends of mine whom happen to be Americans (Im Canadian). They began to speak of the Sten Gun poorly, and I did admit that it was a poor gun and Thompsons were often issued instead of a gun that had the chance of jamming in combat. But what happened next blew my mind!

They said that the Canadians shouldn't have used the Enfield'4 and should have used the Garand! Well I immediatly disagreed, stating that, although the Garand was great, both guns were of equal value and effiency so there was no use for the Canadians to change over. They then began to insult the Enfield, Calling it outdated and such. Of course I tried to defend it, saying that it remained in the British/Canadian armies frontline service until the 50's.

My points for the Enfield were these..

1. It had a excellent rate of Fire (15-20 RPM)

2. It shot straight and was accurate

3. It carried 10 Rounds, not 8

4. It was rugged and reliable...

5. It was a *better battle rifle than the German or Japanese rifles* (And That is what really matters!!)

Their points against the Enfield were these

1. BOLT ACTION

2. Garand had Better supressive fire

My response was...

[8 lee enfields at 20 rounds a minute with 2 extra rounds more in thier magazine, with a better Light Machine gun *Bren Gun* (That was admitted by them) I think the British did just fine at Suppressing]

3. Better Close Range fighting

(The Canadians fighting in Ortona seemed to do ok with the rifle, same iwht the Poles at Monte Cassino...)

4.Better Rate Of Fire...Agreed, but I dont think 8 rounds in a magazine was good...I mean, if youre gonna fire off shots in quick succession, then guess what? Youre gonna be out of Ammo Quite quickly with only 8 rounds in the mag.

5. Accuracy was just as good as the Enfield...(well I think the bolt action was good because a green rifleman couldnt just fire away at something and wasting his ammo. While the Bolt Action Rifle had a "Aimed shot" mentality.

Well this rant is over. Once Again I dont think that ANY rifle was superiour..THats was the point of this argument. That nobody can say the Lee Enfield was better than the Garand, or the Garand was Better than the Enfield. Both had the plus and minus side to them....

I do think CM has undermoddeled British/Commenwealth/Polish Infantry a tad...

Sorry for any typos or bad grammar...Its 4 in the morning and I just got off work Im normally quite well spoken

Bye for now, thanks for listening

P.S It wasnt a very big argument or anything, just a little squabble beetwen friends...something Americans and Canadians do often, but we do it as friends...

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Smack:

Well this rant is over. Once Again I dont think that ANY rifle was superiour..THats was the point of this argument. That nobody can say the Lee Enfield was better than the Garand, or the Garand was Better than the Enfield. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think 9 grogs out of 10 would disagree with this.

The M1 Garand is widely considered to be the best non-automatic rifle of WW2. Being semi-auto was a huge advantage over the Enfield and the K98k. Even with 2 fewer rounds per clip, the M1 could lay down a larger volume of sustained fire, and at equal or better accuracy.

[von Lucke]

Can't remember where I read this (could have been somewhere around here even), but I recall an anecdote about Yanks and Canucks serving together in Korea: They freely traded clothing, rations, automatic weapons --- but the Canucks steadfastly refused to trade their Enfields for Garands. Sez something right there, doesn't it?

When introduced in WW1 (ok, actually 1907) the .303 Lee-Enfield was probably the finest bolt-action magazine-fed military rifle in the world --- I recall a captured German soldier saying that the volume of fire his unit recieved from a company of Brit riflemen was such that he thought his unit was being strafed by HMGs!

The Lee-Enfield was reliable, accurate (so much so, that with the addition of a 4x scope and some stock bedding the Lee-Enfield No.4 Mk1 was arguably the best sniper rifle to come out of WW2), and rugged. And especially, as has been pointed out, much better then what the Germans and Japanese fielded.

The M1 Garand has the same qualities as the Lee-Enfield, but gives up some accuracy in favor of semi-auto fire. Really, just a different design philosophy: The Brits (and most other major players in WW2 --- excepting the Russians) prefered that their soldiers aim their shots (bolt action rifles) and stressed marksmanship. The Yanks went for the volume of fire (semi-auto, keep the enemy's head down) philosophy.

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by von Lucke:

The Yanks went for the volume of fire (semi-auto, keep the enemy's head down) philosophy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, US troops were specifically trained not to shoot at anything they couldn't see. However, in actual combat it was found that the volume of fire philosophy was superior, as enemy soldiers were rarely visible during combat.

When firing a bolt action rifle you have to reacquire the target ofter every shot, while with a semi-auto you can keep it in your sights until you reload. So in a typical combat, I would argue that the M1 had generally more accurate fire.

Of course, its something of a moot point, as soldiers in combat usually are firing at an area where the enemy is known to be, rather than at a specific enemy soldier. When an enemy was visible is was usually for a brief moment.

I think CM has the M1 and Enfield effectiveness modeled quite well.

[ 08-16-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Actually, US troops were specifically trained not to shoot at anything they couldn't see.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That may be what they were trained to do but I would suggest they were not trained very well because in reality they tended and still tend to, blaze away at everything in sight.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

When firing a bolt action rifle you have to reacquire the target ofter every shot, while with a semi-auto you can keep it in your sights until you reload. So in a typical combat, I would argue that the M1 had generally more accurate fire.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Errr, I spent 10 years firing a semi-automatic rifle, the Rifle, Self-loading, L1a1. You definitely do have to "reaquire" your target after each shot. I don't know where you got that from, but the recoil of most full-power cartridge weapons is more than sufficient to force the firer to reaquire their sight picture if they are hoping to actually hit their target. Although, as you pointed out, perhaps that wasn't what the US soldiers sought to do, preferring to hope that throwing enough rounds down range might mean they hit something, eventually?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Of course, its something of a moot point, as soldiers in combat usually are firing at an area where the enemy is known to be, rather than at a specific enemy soldier. When an enemy was visible is was usually for a brief moment.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is when he is aimed at. The Commonwealth training is to fire at a specific target and, unless ordered to, make each round count. Section fire is possible but is recognised as usually being an enormous waste of ammunition for the most part.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

I think CM has the M1 and Enfield effectiveness modeled quite well.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I have real problems in that there appear to be no section LMG's, in any army. One of the best features of the Commonwealth armies was that they had an LMG whereas the Americans did not. The US Army made do with either a converted MMG (the .30 cal) or an automatic rifle. The Germans had something even better, a GPMG.

Another problem with the way in which MMG's and GPMG's are handled is that they are dipicted as having only one man crews. Both in fact usually had at least 3-5 man crews (and needed them, too!).

The Commonwealth's MMG, the Vickers is also much too inaccurate (admittedly, it doesn't get a chance to shine at its proper medium to long ranges). It, along with the Bren were in fact perhaps _too_ accurate, always throwing their rounds slightly high and to the right (because of the twist in the barrel). It was also incredibly reliable. Firing for over several days at a stretch during the attack on Antwerp, stopping only for barrel changes and ammunition belts.

Oh, and my final point. The only advantage of the M1 over the Enfield was that you could give a man off the street an M1 and know he could fire 8 rounds a minute, whereas to get to the much higher rate of 20 rounds a minute for a .303 SMLE, you had to put in quite intensive training. But then, not all of the US Army was armed with M1's, so the point is moot IMO. Springfields were never replaced and I'm surprised to see the game has fallen for the Hollywood ideal rather than reality.

[Cybeq]

To me, this topic is rather laughable. Around the turn of the century the Germans invented their Mauser action and developed the K98. This rifle was vastly superior to anything anybody else had. The Brits and Americans came up short in the bolt-action rifle department and desired a "K98" of their own. The Americans developed the 1903 Springfield and the Brits developed the Lee-Enfield, both borrowing heavily from the Mauser design. Among these three rifles the K98 is generally considered to be superior with the 1903 Springfield a close second and then the Enfield. All in all a fairly equal bunch. These rifles all participated in WWI. When WWII rolled around the Brits and Germans carried their WWI weapons into battle while the Americans developed a next-generation battle-rifle. This rifle, the Garand (designed by a Canadian no less) is considered by many to be the greatest battle rifle ever developed (including Patton). It's accuracy, range, power, and rate of fire surpass the Enfield. It is still used today in rifle matches.Garand Match

It's value today on the open market surpasses the Enfield by a huge margin. In short it is superior to the Enfield in every conceivable way. Well, except magazine capacity. If your American friends give you a hard time about the superiority of the Garand again gently remind them it was invented by a Canadian, John Garand.

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:

That may be what they were trained to do but I would suggest they were not trained very well because in reality they tended and still tend to, blaze away at everything in sight.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um... I said that in the next sentence.

Note that the only thing poor about their training was that they were taught to only fire at what they could see.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You definitely do have to "reaquire" your target after each shot. I don't know where you got that from, but the recoil of most full-power cartridge weapons is more than sufficient to force the firer to reaquire their sight picture if they are hoping to actually hit their target. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't mean to suggest that the gun didn't move. So, let me rephrase that: A semi-auto gun can reacquire the target quicker than a bolt action.

Believe me, I have fired a large number of semi auto and bolt action rifles, both at stationary targets and at moving ones (i.e. mule deer and elk )

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Although, as you pointed out, perhaps that wasn't what the US soldiers sought to do, preferring to hope that throwing enough rounds down range might mean they hit something, eventually?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Generally, yes. That's the nature of combat.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Which is when he is aimed at. The Commonwealth training is to fire at a specific target and, unless ordered to, make each round count. Section fire is possible but is recognised as usually being an enormous waste of ammunition for the most part.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That may well have been the way they were trained (same as US soldiers), but actual combat taught them differently.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Springfields were never replaced and I'm surprised to see the game has fallen for the Hollywood ideal rather than reality.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is a reason why no developed nation in the world still uses bolt action rifles as its main infantry weapon. And it has nothing to do with Hollywood.

[ 08-16-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cybeq:

When WWII rolled around the Brits and Germans carried their WWI weapons into battle while the Americans developed a next-generation battle-rifle. This rifle, the Garand (designed by a Canadian no less) is considered by many to be the greatest battle rifle ever developed (including Patton). It's accuracy, range, power, and rate of fire surpass the Enfield.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed.

In the years before the war the US Army conducted a number of tests comparing the M1 with the Springfield and found the M1 to be superior in almost every way. And it wasn't because they were training their soldiers to blaze away at anything that moved (just the opposite, in fact).

[Conscript Bagger]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:

That may be what they were trained to do but I would suggest they were not trained very well because in reality they tended and still tend to, blaze away at everything in sight.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IIRC, Doubler ("Closing With the Enemy") says exactly the opposite - because of their training, US troops new to the theater tended to wait for a visible target to fire at, and therefore were not effective at suppression.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Actually, I have real problems in that there appear to be no section LMG's,

...

Another problem with the way in which MMG's and GPMG's are handled is that they are dipicted as having only one man crews. Both in fact usually had at least 3-5 man crews (and needed them, too!).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you select virtually any squad in the game and hit Enter, you'll see that they have squad MGs - MG42, BAR, or Bren. Also, that one man in an MG crew is only the graphic, just like the three-man squad is only a graphic. MG units have anywhere from 2-6 men in their crew, depending on the weapon.

[ 08-16-2001: Message edited by: Offwhite ]

[Username]

The Garand could be fired easier/more accurately on the move (yeah, I know there was a trick to working the bolt of the brit rifle to kind of do this). The whole US infantry squad was based on single man weapons being used very effectively when moving to objectives. The base of fire came from the belted MGs outside the squad. It was more a platoon philosophy.

Since the brits did not have a belted MG that didn't require a mule to move, they were somewhat lacking. They relied on the clip fed LMG Bren. The Vickers, great as it was, is not a weapon of movement. Its a weapon that is "brought up". The US air cooled MGs, remedied the lack of true LMG.

The garand, even with the 8 round limit, was the battle rifle of WWII. The Devil Brigade (US and canadians in some hybrid unit), what did they use?

Lewis

[coe]

You would have thought that after encountering the Garand the Germans would have developed something new rapidly (ok ok

we have the SG44 but that was only produced

in limited numbers)

[jgdpzr]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by coe:

You would have thought that after encountering the Garand the Germans would have developed something new rapidly (ok ok

we have the SG44 but that was only produced

in limited numbers)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Germans did develop a semi-automatic rifle (forgot the designation), but it was deemed to be too unreliable, cumbersome, and difficult to manufacture to be widely produced.

I find this thread interesting because I didn't think there was any question the Garand was the finest rifle of the war. I mean, every source I can remember points to that rifle being probably the greatest single asset the US infantryman had. The US may have fielded arguably sub-par tanks and some other weapons systems, but the M1 has been widely hailed as revolutionary and superior to any other rifle of the period, bar none. I'm not trying to sound pompous, in fact I usually scoff at most accounts of US weapon superiority, but to argue that the Enfield or the K98 were its equal flies in the face of all I have ever heard or read, and runs counter to reason. The rifle's accuracy was favorable to those guns and the volume of fire it provided the US rifle squad was so superior to bolt action rifles that I believe this transcends subjectivity. No disrespect to the fine British and German bolt action rifles, but this almost seems like saying the Panther is superior to the Abrahms (OK, I exaggerate). I simply cannot buy the argument that lower ammo expenditure results in a better weapon.

[ 08-16-2001: Message edited by: jgdpzr ]

[jgdpzr]

sorry...double post

[ 08-16-2001: Message edited by: jgdpzr ]

[Marlow]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jgdpzr:

The Germans did develop a semi-automatic rifle (forgot the designation), but it was deemed to be too unreliable, cumbersome, and difficult to manufacture to be widely produced.

[ 08-16-2001: Message edited by: jgdpzr ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The G 41 was their first try. It was not well accepted. An improved attempt, the G 43, was a much better rifle, and a half million or so were made. IIRC, it was not a high priority due to the appearance of the SG 44.

[Marlow]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:

Springfields were never replaced and I'm surprised to see the game has fallen for the Hollywood ideal rather than reality.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you would be hard pressed to find a U.S. infantry unit in 1944 that used the 1903 for anything other than a sniper rifle. Earlier in the war some infantry units had the Springfield, but only because production of the Garand had not caught up to demand.

[Username]

How would the Garand compare to the russian semi (Tokarov?).

I have fired 7mm mag. Has anyone fired a 7mm mag and a garand and can comapre the kick? The 7mm would be a bitch to fast fire.

[von Lucke]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cybeq:

It's accuracy, range, power, and rate of fire surpass the Enfield. It is still used today in rifle matches.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're not seriously comparing the accuracy of a spottlessly balanced match rifle (turned barrel, hand-loaded rounds, expert marksman, etc.) with an off-the-rack piece caked in mud fired by Pvt Joe Snuffy, are you?

[rleete]

I own both a 7mm Mag (Ruger) and a Garrand M-1 (in pretty rough shape). The recoil of the 7mm is far more than the M-1. Part of the reason may be that the 7mm is bolt action, while the Garrand is semi-auto. Although, that said, I wouldn't want to have to fire either rifle for extended periods. Those soldiers in the PTO or Korea that had to fend off human wave attacks must have felt wounded themselves. I rarely put more than a 2 clips through the M-1 at any one time, because it is punishing.

[Subvet]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by von Lucke:

The M1 Garand has the same qualities as the Lee-Enfield, but gives up some accuracy in favor of semi-auto fire. Really, just a different design philosophy: The Brits (and most other major players in WW2 --- excepting the Russians) prefered that their soldiers aim their shots (bolt action rifles) and stressed marksmanship. The Yanks went for the volume of fire (semi-auto, keep the enemy's head down) philosophy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is no doubt the Enfield was a great bolt action rifle. But the Gerand was better as the main weapon for your average grunt. There is a reason armies left bolt action rifles behind. The volume of fire philosophy proved to be more effective.

[Chad Harrison]

im no grog, but i grew up hunting and shooting. my father has a vintage M1 Carbine, and M1 Garand; both of which i grew up shooting. i was stated above that the garand was not that accurate. now im no expert, but i know that now when i shoot that rifle, or my M-14 (very similar), i can hit what i can see. how much farther do you want to shoot? true as a sniper weapon, the enfield may be better, but for open sight shooting, the garand i would argue is just as accurate.

when i shoot at targets with a bolt action, i find that i trade off a little accuracy for more time inbetween shots. anyone who says that you can shoot a bolt action as fast as a semi automatic with the same accuracy needs to spend more time shooting. no it doesnt take forever to chamber another round, but you have to line yourself up again to a greater degree than with the garands semi automatic capability. the garand itself packs quite a kick (especially when your 10), but you have a lot less "readjusting" that needs to be done after each shot, esp. if your an experienced rifleman.

as for the close combat effectiveness, i am no expert. obviously the garand is not something you would want to shoot from the hip at more than a couple meters range. yet, having fired both bolt action (i own a browning 30-06 hunting rifle, which is just a capable as the old enfield) and semi automatic heavy calibre rifles at close range, i would never want to be in close combat with a bolt action. yes you could make due, but the thought brings shivers up my back. those two extra rounds aint going to do much if you arnt there to fire them.

maybe in just partial because im an american, but still my experience in shooting them leads me to favor the garand as an all purpose battle rifle.

[Ts9]

In my opinion the Garand is a better rifle than the Tokarev. The two rounds seem to have a similar performance although the 7.62 x 54 seems be a little more powerful.

The SVT is much more lightly built than the

Garand. Not nearly as robust. It also has a fairly substantial kick to it. 10 round removable box magazine (can also be reloaded by stripper clips) compared to the 8 round enbloc of the Garand. The Tokarev is longer than the Garand, in fact it's slightly longer than my BAR, but seems very well balanced. A good rifle, but for a combat rifle I would take the Garand. It would handle the abuse of combat much better.

[Triumvir]

Oh, goody good good. Brian Ross is here, from s.m.m... I've always wanted to have a good game with him and CM is a great platform.

A word of warning; Brian loves to troll, and be inflammatory. Try not to jump with both feet into his posts...

[Hanns]

I'd like to add a few comments to the discussion. My father owns a .303 Enfield Mk4 and I used to own a 1940 K98k in 8mm Mauser. We both used them as deer rifles and when we went to the target range my Mauser always printed better groups at 100 yards. Mind you I fired both weapons and got the same result even though the Enfield had better sights for long range accuracy. I've fired a lot of different weapons in my life and found the Mauser to be one of the easiest to operate. The manual of arms is incredibly simple which was one of it's strong points. You can train someone to use one in a matter of minutes and they can accurately shoot it with little or no training. The Enfield (and Springfield) being copies of the Mauser are similiar in their ease of use. The only problem is after each shot you must reacquire your target. There is a lot of moving around, especially when prone to chamber a new round. On the other hand with a semi-auto you squeeze the trigger, make minor adjustments to your target and fire again. It's a Hell of a lot simpler than using a bolt-action and the more simple things are in combat the more attention you can pay to what's going on around you. The comment about the Americans and Canadians trading everything except for weapons in Korea is a flawed example of the superiority of the Enfield. The main reason is that the two weapons used different ammuniton. Imagine you're Joe Canuck who's managed to get a spanking new Garand rifle from some American. The horde of Chinese comes rolling over the hill and you're happily pegging away. Next thing you know you're out of ammo and all the rounds your mates have is .303 Brit. Plus all the ammo you're issued is .303 Brit and you have to scrounge ammo for your Garand by trading more of your pantyhose to those dirty Americans Granted in Korea there were a lot of problems with weapons freezing up due to the extreme cold but this effected semi's as well as bolt actions well. It's a little hard to use a bolt action when the bolt is frozen closed! Happened to me my first year hunting with the Mauser. I used a standard weight lubricating oil and brought my rifle from inside the nice warm Jeep to the -20°F outside. In a matter of minutes the moisture and thickened oil froze my bolt to the receiver. I had to pound on that sucker to break it free. Ended up wiping all the oil from the bolt and it worked okay after that. The main point is that if the Enfield was as good as the Garand, then why did both the Germans and the British attempt to copy it during the war? Another interesting note is that the Americans had racks of Garands sitting in armories during WWI but considered it too much of a risk to let fall into enemy hands so they kept them in the US.

[Stalin's Organ]

Anyone who thinks the Lee-Enfield was a POOR weapon probably can't be saved.

It was one of eth best, if not the best, bolt action rifles of all time.

But it is not a semi-auto rifle, and so you might as well compare teh brown bess musket to the Garand for all teh good it does.

both weapons were products of their times - the semi-auto rifle is generally held to be superior to bolt actions rifles, and hence have replaced them in service.

AFAIK nothing in the Lee-Enfield was copied from Mauser designs. The Brits had been impressed with the ausers used by the Boers and had thought of adopting the cartridge but never got around to it.

The bolt action was invented by Scott Le - and ex-patriot Scot living in America.

[Andrew H.]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:

But it is not a semi-auto rifle, and so you might as well compare teh brown bess musket to the Garand for all teh good it does.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Brown Bess musket was great! It was the standard British infantry firearm for 150 years. You have to admire that.