Best Bolt Rifle of World War I

Best Bolt Rifle of World War I

  • U.S. Springfield

    Votes: 47 24.6%

  • British Lee-Enfield

    Votes: 78 40.8%

  • German Mauser

    Votes: 50 26.2%

  • Russian Mosin-Nagant

    Votes: 7 3.7%

  • Other

    Votes: 9 4.7%
  • Total voters
    191
  • Poll closed .
Hypothesis

Mike - This thread appears to be winding down so I will permit myself a bit of a hijack.
About the earlier hypothesis contrary to fact....
it's not really contrary to fact. That scenario was examined in detail in a number of major studies post war.
Click to expand...

It is really contrary to fact. The fact is that all of those things that could have changed the final result if they had occurred did not happen. That is the fact. An intellectual excerise in the subjunctive doesn't change that.
What exercises like that leave out is that, even if those events had transpired, the element of chance in those unproven scenarios. may have provided some other factor to change the final result. (May be the generals would have made some other strategic or tactical error?

Pete
 
And a Swiss General informed his Nazi counterpart that if the Germans invaded Switzerland with 1 million men, each of his men would have to fire twice and the issue would be resolved.

"When the British retreated to Dunkirk in WW2, the Germans remarked that the British were showing them their fighting side (their buttocks)."

How'd that work out four years later at Gold and Sword Beaches? Whose buttocks were showing for the next 18 months?

Your point is?

With about 30 seconds of digging, I'm sure I could turn up dozens, if not hundreds, of similar, and similarly ludicrous statements by "grandiose" historical figures.

How many British soldiers did the Germans arrest at Mons, when von Kluck and his officers thought that they were facing as many as 60 Vickers guns per battalion, when in fact the British had two Vickers per battalion, and many of those weren't even in place when the battle started?

German FIELD commanders, those who actually commanded troops, regarded the British professional Army in 1914 very highly and were, in fact, quite worried about the British troops, much more so than the French troops.

You're really digging here, Scorch, and coming up with absolute non-sequitors to somehow "prove" a point which you're apparently very uncomfortable in admitting -- that the Lee Enfield was an EXCELLENT combat rifle, and the Mauser, while an excellent rifle, was its inferior as a combat rifle.

Of course, the old saw is "Well, if the Mauser wasn't a superior rifle, why did most of the world's armies adopt them?"

The answer to that is quite simple -- Peter Paul Mauser had a damned good marketing team working for him.

Mauser was a commercial company, dependent on sales to ensure its continuing financial success.

The Lee Enfield? The British government didn't give a damn if anyone bought the design from them. They got their money from taxes.
 
Darkgale,

You're getting two different scenarios confused.

You accused Wild Alaska of creating fantasy because it didn't match extant fact, or history.

In fact, he wasn't.

A significant part of military historical analysis goes beyond the cold hard facts and examines what very likely would have happened had, such as in this case, commanders stuck to the plans that they were to follow.

The FACTS are that, up to the point that von Kluge turned his army away from Paris to support von Bulow, the British and French were in full retreat, von Kluck was 13 miles from Paris, von Bulow was lagging and acting like a little old lady, and the army to von Bulow's east wasn't far behind von Kluck in closing the pincers on Paris and trapping the French army.

The FACT is that the French and British were, at that point, soundly beaten, in full retreat, and at that point incapable of turning their retreating armies in both the east and west.

Here's where analysis MUST diverge from fact. It's also why military historians and strategists examine history, to see what went right, what went wrong, and why it went wrong. Where do you think that the genesis for future war plans comes from?

The ultimate fact is that virtually every military historian and analyst agrees that von Bulow was NOT facing a recoalescing French army as he feared and had he nutted up and kept moving forward as per plan, Paris would have fallen, France would have been knocked out of the war, the British contingent would have fled back across the channel behind its Navy, and the situation in Europe would have been a LOT different.
 
All 4 are considered gods in the rifle world. You have a perfect flawless master craftsmanship hunting rifle which is the Mauser, a cheap durable accurate mass produced rifle that ruled the soviet empire the Nagant, The world wide empire ruling with the Lee Enfield with the men firing at such a rate of fire having call it "The mad minute" which is 15 hits onto a 12" round target at 200 yd within one minute by one man,and exceeding this stranded in the hands of an expert. Last but not least we have the 1903. A superb heavy hitting long range target rifle that won the war(s). With marines being able to pick off targets at 600+yards easily. (the rifle that helped American Marines get the name Teufel Hunden) My money is on the 1903. It won both world wars, went on to Korea and a couple issued in Nam when other rifles were not available.
 
Well since these rifles where intended to arm an army... What rifle would I want to carry if I was in WWI?

The Lee Enfield... Hands down. More firepower, Faster action. Accurate farther than I could hope to shoot.

The Mauser was also excellent and it would be my 2nd choice but the Enfield has the edge in firepower.
 
The ultimate fact is that virtually every military historian and analyst agrees that von Bulow was NOT facing a recoalescing French army as he feared and had he nutted up and kept moving forward as per plan, Paris would have fallen, France would have been knocked out of the war, the British contingent would have fled back across the channel behind its Navy, and the situation in Europe would have been a LOT different.
Click to expand...

And to continue...had Von Falkenheyn nutted up and given the Crown Prince the troops he wanted and permission to attack down the left bank of the Meuse the Germans would have taken Verdun and France would have battered itself into submission trying to take it back.

Instead, the soul and spirit of the German Army was broken at Fort Douaumont and on the slopes of Le Morte Homme.

Even so and thereafter, the Allies could do nothing to move the Germans and only the power of America broke the German 1918 offensive.

The Marne and verdun were the two military mistakes that changed the course of history

WildthegermanswerewinningotherwiseAlaska ™©2002-2011
 
WADR

With all due respect..and I mean that sincerely....Mike and Wild A.....
I did not accuse WAK of creating a fantasy. That is an overstatement. I was, perhaps, too much wanting to see a neat qualification.... " the Germans would most probably have won."
Other than that, I yield to your knowledge of events.
Pete
 
The Mosin, however did win WWII, as the other allies would not have been able to take Germany without their help. If the Germans full force had been on the western front, I am sure we would've been speaking German or Japanese.

People underestimate how close we were in WWI and II to losing, at several points our then antiquated military techniques cost thousands of lives and we were in such deadlocks that through attrition, the Germans had a good chance of defeating us. The Achilles heel of Germany in WWI was that they relied too much on the Allies delay in adapting to the trench warfare, in WWII it was Hitler sabotaging weapons development, had weapons like the MP44 and FG42 and so on had been more heavily fielded, we would have been devastated.

Enough with the aside.
 
The best bolt rifle of WWI has to be the British Lee-Enfield. I say this with both authority & bias:), as my grandfather Captain Arthur Leslie Hanna DSO -(4th Australian Light Horse/ then ,11th King Edwards Own Lancers) joined up for WW1 as a volunteer in the first weeks looking for adventure, hence his low serial number 273.
My grandfather survived the war fighting many battles in differing conditions, from beaches to deserts & mountains. He was equipped with a .303 SMLE bolt action rifle in Europe, the Middle East, North Africa & India. His service saw beach landings, hand to hand combat, trench warfare & cavalry charges.
If it wasnt for his trusty "303" I wouldnt be here today, so for me its a no-brainer - British Lee-Enfield.
 
Last edited:
Has anyone ever seen any AAR's or other reports describing Russia's Winchester 1895's? I've often wondered how those few rifles fared in wartime service.
 
The Mosin, however did win WWII, as the other allies would not have been able to take Germany without their help.
Click to expand...
No, it was the fact that their leader was a total madman who was willing to throw millions of his citizens against the Germans until their bodies clogged up the tank treads.

Without massive amounts of US and British Aid, Germany would have crushed Russia.
 
Guys, again, not a discussion on who won WWII and why. Best bolt rifle of WWI :p

If one of you wants to start a thread on what won WWII, I'll give you the premise- did a weapon win WWII, or did the Studebaker truck? Did a weapon win WWII, or did the Higgins boat? Did a weapon win WWII or did the C-47? Those who have studied the subject may not chose "weapon"

But that's a different topic. Feel free to begin it!
 
RedDameonFox, I think the thing that won the second world war was Hitlers stupid mistakes, if he hadn't off startd bombing London he would've won the Battle of Britian and if he hadn't ov invaded Russia he would've taken all Europe and Africa.
 
Yipe

Hypotheses contrary to.....oh, never mind. Those are awfully important ifs.
(the past subjunctive...contrary-to-fact clauses that state imaginary or hypothetical conditions)

Pete
 
Last edited:
Well I guess we discovered a few things.

There are things other than rifles that have an effect on warfare.

Some folks can't stay on topic if you had all the choices from the original poll pointed at them.

Enfields are such "junk" that I can't be bothered to offer the poster of that bit of wisdom $25.00 for his, so he'll just have to suffer with it.:D
 
Hypotheses contrary to.....oh, never mind. Those are awfully important ifs.
(the past subjunctive...contrary-to-fact clauses that state imaginary or hypothetical conditions)

Pete
Click to expand...

The 'woulda-coulda-shoulda' clauses. I hear ya

But...again we need a new thread. It's starting to become humorous to me that I'm sounding like a moderator
 
Well just to let you all know,Im half German and Half Polish.One guy told me that I must be always fighting myself lol but anyways what Id like to know what rifle did the Polish use in World War II before they quickly got defeated? :D
 
Poland inherited a wide variety of weapons upon independence, principally Mosins (in the former Russian parts), Mausers (in the former German parts), and Steyr-Mannlichers (in the former Austrian parts.) They standardized on the 8mm Mauser round and produced Mauser-type rifles based on the 1898 action. They also converted Mosins to fire the 8mm Mauser round. I don't know if they kept their Steyr-Mannlichers or traded them off to other newly-independent countries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top