OK, you want an explanation. Here's why we're saying what we're saying.
1. The level of training that the British gave their officers on use of handguns was incredibly minimal. You get more training in the use of handguns at a 1 hour NRA instructor's course.
2. The issue British revolver was double action only. It has a relatively heavy, long trigger pull and it takes considerable training and practice to become proficient with it.
3. The Luger is a single action handgun with a relatively light, crisp trigger pull.
4. The Luger is generally considered to be one of the most naturally pointing handguns ever designed, greatly aiding the shooter's ability to hit with it. I've seen absolute novices shooting a Luger do very well with it, and do very poorly with other handguns.
5. The Luger round is considerably more powerful than the British issue service round.
All that considered, give someone with minimal training a Luger and a Enfield revolver to shoot, and they're going to do a LOT better with the Luger.
"Maybe hundreds of soldiers that had to kill lots of people know better than an armchair quarterback."
So, in other words, you're doubling down on the armchair quarterbacking, because you're AC QBing the people you accuse of being AC QBs.
Gotcha.
Gotta remember something... More than a few of us on this board, and in this thread, have served in the military, have extensive firearms application and use backgrounds, and have fired shots in anger.
There are more than a few people in this thread who are commenting quite knowledgeably based on their personal experience.
I don't have military service to my credit, one of my great regrets in life, but I have considerable depth of practical experience with the firearms that are being talked about in this thread.
So, AC QB to AC QB, what's your background?