An interesting US take on contemporary British Commonwealth/Empire small arms from WW2:
American Rifleman | Throwback Thursday: British Lion At Bay, Part 1
Printable View
An interesting US take on contemporary British Commonwealth/Empire small arms from WW2:
American Rifleman | Throwback Thursday: British Lion At Bay, Part 1
I started to enumerate all the silly contradictions and childish cliches, but I gave up.
The "shadow of defeat"? In April 1942 he only had to look out his window to see that.
To talk about British weapons as "muddled through" is laughable; this is the country that fielded the Chauchat in WWI because Col. Lewis had a feud with someone in the army hierarchy. The AEF suffered massive casualties in WWI simply because they insisted on "muddling through" rather than learning from their recent allies. Then Gen. Pershing took pains to remove the evidence from the archives!
The SMLE "bulky and gadgety-looking"? This clown must never have seen the sights of a Springfield or taken the action apart.
To field that pathetic little scope that was fitted to the Springfield, or that ridiculous Unertl? Hardly evidence of "careful planning".
We could go on to things like the Sherman tank, but time does not permit!
All I can say is the Americans are the only nation I know of to have written off 1 million firearms due to poor heat treating. And they almost adapted a British firearm to replace those 1 million rifles (M1917).
Thanks for the link. The author's intention was not to be critical, but to answer critical ethno-centric jabs. It's not only a very interesting article written before most of us were born, but it's even more interesting to see the reaction evoked nearly 75 years after the article was published. Seems like some wounds never heal, carried by generation to generation. No wonder we are still fighting in the Middle East -- some are still reacting to the atrocities of the Third Crusade.Quote:
Originally Posted by scoobsean
I think that in many of these wartime propaganda type films the telling of the absolute truth is forsaken in the interests of creating a spirit of unity between us all, in spite of our many & varied backgrounds.
As a modern day American I can say the SMLE always looked bulky to me. A fine arm non the less. The fact is most American shooters don't understand the finer points of getting one to shoot with decent accuracy that's why they're not that popular here. Lets be honest here, a whole lot of ducks need to be in a row for one to shoot good, No1 or No4. Glass bedding the action and/or free floating the barrel as we know ain't gonna cut it.
Fellas, let's not start casting stones at each others countries because that's a two-way street that dead-ends both ways...:beerchug:
Well then why don't you take 3 or 4 seconds and tell us all about the superior types and numbers of tanks your country produced and supplied to it's allies during WWII instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Surpmil
Interesting point that. My sister lives in Windsor On and her man spent 30 years on the gate there doing ID card checking...anywayzzz, she told me they still had (for a long time) the molds for making tank bodies there...Chrysler Canada...what tank body would that be if not Sherman? Anyone...anyone?
By the way, lets never mind the in house fighting about nothing...we share the same interest. The narrator of the story was obviously opinionated...as many of those tend to be. I've owned most small arms of the world and know their merit and faults. Don't need his help.
The M3 Lee/Grant. Canada made a few medium tanks called the Cruiser Tank Ram Mk.I & II based on the M3 hull. The main gun was housed in a Canadian designed turret rather than being sponson-mounted like the Lee/Grant.Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
I have always said that if you look at the Springfield/Mauser action and compare it to the Lee Enfield, you can see which one was designed by a gun maker and which one was designed as a weapon.
I found the article interesting, but as previously said, it must be read bearing in mind what "spin" the author was trying to promote.
I was very interested to see the phrase "Tommy gun" used as a generic for SMG, as, when I was a young boy this was still being done in the UK.
I believe there's one of those in London On in a park close to where my folks lived for some time. My dad called it a Ram...he would have known...Quote:
Originally Posted by vintage hunter
The Royal Small Arms Factory was at Enfield and built alongside the River Lea (or Lee, both are correct). The river originally supplied the power to the water mills which supplied much of the motive power.
Enfield is not on the Thames as the article states, but 12miles to the North, The factory actually lies on the Meridian, due North of Greenwich.