Lee enfield accuracy question

[CINDERS]

Let me wade through my 4 volumes on Ludendorff who wrote on WWI My War Memories 1914 - 1918 though I am especially looking forward to the 2 volumes titled The General Staff and its Problems.
The Australian army in WWI WWII was a volunteer to a man they adored "Birdie" and I understand the mindset of the front line troops not wanting a conscripted person who does not want to be there and may also funk it at a critical point in a battle.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, the Aussies though called a rabble and undisciplined were fluid thinkers on their feet and adapted quickly in the battle the Tommy was dogmatic and just kept coming, what did they have in the way of knowledge the generals of a full scale war on a mammoth scale with at the time modern weapons and the introduction of the Battle Field Reaper the M.G's.
What did they have some policing actions that went on in Africa with the Zulus, Boers the Crimean war these were not a touch on the global confrontation that was awakened after the assassination of the Duke Ferdinand and his wife all because the driver took the wrong road and an opportunist saw his chance.

Today the modern soldier is far better trained and equipped even though they have massive support the single person is taught to survive in a hostile enviro and adapt to change but like all wars it is the bloke next to you.
I once asked my father long after WWII of course who did he think was the best soldier in WWII he replied the British Tommy (Dad was a British subject) to which he added like I said above would just keep going there was no doubt he was correct in a sense as they would just keep on going what argument could I put up as a young teenager and a father who spent 4 years away at war in other lands like so many others.

I try to understand and am not an armchair General I believe our forces and those of the Allied Nations fought for what we all believe in then and now and that is freedom for all, free speech for all, equality and a peaceful existence so I salute you those that have gone away to protect those ideals no matter what you did you were protecting a belief of a mere mortal.

#42 How the aussie troops suffered relentless marches in Egypt across burning sands fully kitted out how much damage would be done to them as if the Bizars and back street beer was not doing enough to them, I am sure France did not have 50 degrees celcius in the shade, like you said it was the thinking on the day and based on doctrine of a well established British Army.

#46 An artillery round does not care about rank it is just there to blow things up or a stray round maybe a sniper!, imagine how the French felt in the forts when the Krupp 420mm "Big Bertha" (Not to be confused with the "Paris Cannon.") let drive against them smashing them quite well, try to read The Price of Glory on the French army in WWI.

#48 To PaulS was not a certain General known as "His Guts, Our Blood"

[Richard Hare]

h Batt wrote;

"The Spanish flu that followed was a bigger disaster, about 17 million died in WW1 but 20 to 50 Million from the Flu, some estimates put it at 50 to 100 million but of course the returning troops & displaced people returning home help spread the disease so it can be partly blamed on the war."

Probably the Spanish Flu made inroads on folks in a run -down condition as well, 5th. (war related)
Grandad's brother enlisted in 1914, was a Major by 1918. (Northumberland Fusiliers) Got married on leave Sept. 1918, and died of the 'Spanish' flu' in December 1918. Irony or what?

[Frederick303]

5th Batt,

It was not the deaths as much as the effect it had on western civilization.

The First and Second great international debates changed the entire focus of western worldview from a confident, liberal (19th century version) increasingly cosmopolitan civilization to one lacking confidence in its own institutions and its basic values. Communism, fascism, feminism and widespread nihilism all came out of the lack in western values.

Not only the doubt raised by the 2 wars, but the loss of so many dynamic men. The leaders of the day were the first to respond to the call to colors in those days, now......not so much. The very aggressive aspects of western man that had lead to the west spreading its institutions around the world were to a large part bred out, as two successive generations were slaughtered.

The west now seems in definite decline, with the an internal 5th column. Either the west will have to go through a period as bloody as WWII and remove the destructive influences (unlikely) or in a century folks will look back at the fall of the west like the medieval age looked back at the fall of Rome.

[CINDERS]

I concur Fredrick the nature of warfare has changed where set piece battles can be fought for a definitive outcome now the dilemma that faces the free thinking nations is what if any means can be employed on a scale that will give the correct outcome. Too many spot fires to contain, as what they are faced with is like a tree in a bush fire. Sure as eggs I have put them out and yet weeks later a fire will start else where from the roots that have burned and smoldered along under ground out of sight to spring up at a distance from the stump to start it all over again. Another thing be very wary walking near burned trees after a good fire lest you step on a patch of ground and watch your foot disappear into a hole full of hot coals from a burnt root system.

[Seaspriter]

The First and Second great international debates changed the entire focus of western worldview from a confident, liberal (19th century version) increasingly cosmopolitan civilization to one lacking confidence in its own institutions and its basic values. Communism, fascism, feminism and widespread nihilism all came out of the lack in western values....Not only the doubt raised by the 2 wars, but the loss of so many dynamic men. The leaders of the day were the first to respond to the call to colors in those days, now......not so much. The very aggressive aspects of western man that had lead to the west spreading its institutions around the world were to a large part bred out, as two successive generations were slaughtered.

Frederick, your insights here are quite deep -- the impact of the war on people's beliefs, their faith in their leaders, and the spin-off movements in the aftermath of the war could fill volumes. Had a peace accord been signed after the Battle of the Somme (1 July to 18 November 1916 - the largest battle of World War I on the Western Front; more than one million men were wounded or killed, making it one of the bloodiest battles in human history), the future of the world would have changed. The Russian Revolution (1917) might never have led to world wide communism. The economic Depression of the 1930s that led to Hitler would probably have been less severe and the Second World War would probably not have occurred and on and on.

After the war the prevalent belief was the Great War was the war to end all wars -- no one would be so stupid as to trigger such carnage ever again. Faith in the rational ability of humans (especially leaders) to make intelligent, compassionate, reasonable decisions was eroded, and then crushed by Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, followed by a succession of dangerous leaders who are requiring our vigilance to this day -- epitomized by the expression: Man's Inhumanity to Man -- now with more advanced technology.

[Paul S.]

This is where I point out that the sociological changes that most attribute to the war, the growth of socialism and communism actually pre-date WWI. Make no mistake here. Socialism had been a growing political and sociological factor since the middle 19th century. The first decade of the 20th century was awash with the Internationalist movement in particular. There is a bigger historical picture here that tends to be overlooked as one focuses on the war itself.

[Roger Payne]

I think what the war did was create fertile ground in which socialism/communism (& for that matter social democracy) could vie to become the future route taken by numerous countries. Of course, in Russia communism prevailed over the white Russians' fledgeling democracy. And, after a short delay in which the hardships of economic depression fuelled the resentment to the Versailles Treaty, the National Socialists were voted into power in Germany, with its 'Thousand Year Reich' that in fact only lasted twelve, but which in that time period the world was dragged through an even more catastrophic meat grinder than in the first half.

[CINDERS]

Just braking things a little; The Lee was by that stage a bit more refined that its earlier models and whilst it may not have had quite the accuracy of the P-14 or 17 or the Mauser it was certainly good enough to hold its own in that quagmire where it could tolerate a good ingress of mud and slush. I am not saying they did not malfunction but as was told to me from a WWII vet about clearing the mud from them by urinating on them to clear them may well be true. I think the MkIII was a design that best fitted the need for reasonable accuracy but had the good edge of functioning in crappy environments. I liken it to the footage of the Owen gun test in WWII where you physically see the weapon placed in a pool of mud and grit submerged in it sloshed around a bit then pulled out cocked and expend a mag, this is what troops need a weapon that will be as reliable as could be expected in the harshest of conditions.

It is in war that the true mettle of a weapons design comes to the fore with reliable functioning look at the M-16 copped a fair bit early on in the VN war as a space age piece of plastic junk, I also believe their would have been a fair few soldiers in WWI that perished due to rim overs when the furnace was on. The MkIII fitted the bill not a beauty to behold, not a real tack driver at super long ranges but up to 300yds in a WWI battlefield with a soldier of average shooting ability with the enemy advancing there is a good chance you the enemy is going to be put into the ground.

[Frederick303]

Gents,

I think there are a few things you might be missing as to why WWI was such a disaster compared to periods of war prior such as the 100 year war, the 30 year war or the French revolution through Napoleonic war:

Socialism and communism had been fighting for a place in the sun since the French revolution. The 1830 French revolution and the general debacle of 1848, the commune of 1871, the Russian revolution of 1905 all failed. In the 6.5 decades from 1848 to 1913 a lot of the socialist policies started to be incorporated into countries legislation, as the overall wealth created by the industrial revolution allowed for it. As the populaces became able to handle self representation so it was allowed, by 1913 Germany had universal manhood voting, England had around 32% of same and France I forget but it was not that far off. Even Austria-Hungry had a monarchy limited by parliament. All due to un-presented wealth creation and the near universal education that that wealth allowed. Had war been avoided you would have seen all of the various European monarchies end up politically much like Denmark, Holland and Sweden are today, most likely by the early 1920s.

Now The war was so very bloody and it became obvious within a short period after that the war could have been ended much earlier, had various governments not been concerned with the immediate fate of the politicians in charge, that the war generated a great deal of political instability. Great Britain's gun legislation came out of the Great War and the Irish troubles of 1916. Many have marked the end of the growth in 19th century liberalism with WWI.

Further the political instability did not end. The 1920s and 1930s saw authoritarian movements, most based in middle age veterans that were not too happy. The war did something to a generation of fighting men, many never really came back or were able to integrate themselves back in a peacetime mind set, worrying about domestic tasks did not matter to men who had had youthful characters formed in a far harsher world. Many withdrew from the give and take of normal politics and went towards something much less ideal. Can anyone imagine the existent the English Fascist union without the discontentment of WWI?

Unlike the small armies of the past it had an almost universal effect on families, indeed in Great Britain, Germany, France, Russia Austria, etc., hardly any family avoided loss of 1 (or more) males out of the extended branches. Faith in the western institutions, leadership and the very righteousness of western Christendom was shaken to its core. Men can fight in war and 10 years later be comrades with their previous foes, if the fight is short and the ending allows for an honorable way out for all involved. That was not done at the end of WWI, almost assuring a war to come in 20 years.

An important issue also, unheard of in the entire sweep of history, was the near universal granting of the right of suffrage to women, all within a 8 year period from 1918 to 1926. That changed the entire direction representative governments took. That came out of, not 19th century liberalism, but a near universal feeling that if women voted there would never be another war. Alas so wrong, when you kill a women's family she and her heirs will hate those people for 2 to 3 generations. Governments with the input of women were not more peace-loving, but certainly more inclined to short term socialist thinking beyond that which 19th century liberalism would have allowed.

Giving women the vote/feminism has objectively sapped western civilization, likely in tandem with the dual World War butchery which seems to have killed off a lot of aggressive dynamic family lines. Much of this was concealed by the cold war, but the decline was occulting even in the 1960s. Women's entire world view and preferences are different from the men who created western civilization. The men of today do not compare to the old men I knew from the WWI generation when a tiny lad, in part due to political states that are set up towards female inclinations. Not exactly sure why, but it can be seen in the present decline and collapse of western democracies which cannot even replace their existing populations. Europe and Northern American are dying societies and the folks being imported to replace the indigenous populations will surely result in something far different in 20 to 40 years, unless all these societies start thinking a lot like more like 1940 era Europeans. The populations streaming in are not able to maintain stable civilizations or governments in their own lands, further they show no sign of adopting western values, religion or long time preference thinking (vital to the west's success) The choice all the former nations that made up western Christendom are facing is similar and it is not a pretty. Either a decline into something like Brazil/Lebanon (or worse) or a set of internecine wars and ethnic cleansing that have not been seen since the late 1940s in Europe.

All of the prior disasters of western civilization resulted in an ultimate stronger and more dynamic societies. WWI and the war that followed on its heals have resulted in something altogether different and what appears to be headed for a general collapse.

Of course I could be wrong and hope I am. In any case WWI resulted in a sharp turn in the direction of Western Christendom, one which has not been good in any way, it has put that civilization on a path to suicide.

[browningautorifle]

regarding the superiority of the P14 over the SMLE ( ie "accounted a better battle rifle" ) and "it was ( the P14) found to be more accurate and reliable than the SMLE sniper rifles". It also stated by 1917 that the SMLE was not accurate enough "even with a telescopic sight".

Any one care to comment?

Above is the question as it started...Are we far enough off topic yet folks? This last one specially...it's way past ridiculous...