Good, better, best

[JMB1943]

I have read that the British SMLE rifle was superior to the German Mauser, and that the French 75 mm artillery piece was a very good field-gun. Similarly, the German coal-scuttle helmet provided better anti-shrapnel protection for the head than the British/French counterparts.

If you were to equip a British infantry division for the BEF in 1914 from top to toe with 20/20 hindsight, what "best of the best" equipment would it bear ? Please include bayonet/revolver/rifle/machine gun/grenade etc. and field artillery/trench mortar etc; uniform items (packs/greatcoats/boots etc).

I'm well aware that "superior" and "better" depend on who is making the call, and that circumstances (Bisley ranges in August are very different from winter in the trenches) play a large part. In short, I'm not interested in a nit-picking contest but I am trying to determine if there is any consensus of generally well-regarded weaponry (Austrian, Belgian, British, French German, Russian, Turkish etc) that any army would have been happy to have.

Regards,

JMB

[shippingsteel]

I'll get in early with my vote for the "best-bet" infantry rig-out, with the full benefit of knowing that the war will quickly descend into trench warfare conditions ...

Firstly I would select the Rifle, Short, Magazine Lee-Enfield in Mk.III specified to shoot the HV ammunition in .303 Mk.VII (compact size, 10 round magazine, etc)

It would be fitted with the Sword-Bayonet, Patt.1903 which again is the compact alternative, with superior penetration and strength from a 12" double edged blade.

While other countries did have some superior alternatives in some areas, it is the overall package to suit the conditions and situation, on which I made this decision.

Cheers, S>S

[Khaki]

Webbing equipment superior, leather equipment obsolete and inferior.

khaki

[MikB]

Some things are hard to weigh up - for example, Webley .455 vs P.08 9mm. Webley: excellent stopping power, robust and dirt-resistant design - Luger: better penetration and 2-3 more rounds between reloads, but you gotta keep it clean. How do you balance those?

I have to say that I think this kind of comparison isn't a good idea - you fight with what you stand up in, and arguing about the best is about as useful as fantasy football.

Regards,

MikB

[trajan]

... I have to say that I think this kind of comparison isn't a good idea - you fight with what you stand up in, and arguing about the best is about as useful as fantasy football.

Indeed... What's the betting, for example, that a bod with a SMLE and its faster rate of fire, etc., was more likely to waste shots than an opponent firing a Gew.98 with its lower rate of fire, etc? I would guess that - in theory, at least - those using a Gew 98 were more conscious of the need to conserve ammunition and re-load time and so fired more aimed shots than a chap with a SMLE. OK, I am basing this judgment on the Vietnam experience, where so much ammunition was wasted by US of A forces, and so (as usual) I am happy to be corrected!

[bu6512]

I think the fact neither side changed much from WW1 to WW2 in regards to basic equipment says it all really. the Lewis gun changed into the Bren and the MG08 into the MG34/42 with rifles almost staying the same. If one side had an advantage the other side would have adopted it, Tanks are a good example of that!

Mark

[shippingsteel]

I think the fact neither side changed much from WW1 to WW2 in regards to basic equipment says it all really ...

In regard to the basic infantry weapons, the rifle and the bayonet - the Germans were actually downsizing their weaponry even during the GW, and this continued into WW2.

So beginning in 1914 the standard German infantry service rifle was the Gewehr 98 usually fitted with a S98 quillback or S98/05 butcher bayonet, so quite a lengthy pairing.

But then later on in the war, we see the Stormtroops being armed with the more compact Karabiner 98AZ, and also other Infantry rifles fitting the short S84/98 knife bayonet.

This simply shows the evolution of the modern battle rifle. In the German case it became the Karabiner 98k & S84/98 bayonet into WW2. The British were ahead of the game.

Cheers, S>S

[calibre792x57.y]

I do wonder if the superior magazine capacity and faster bolt of the SMLE made any difference at all. In my youth I met several infantry veterans of the war, notably a Grenadier Guardsman from Loos, a Notts and Derby man from the Somme, and a Yorkshire Light Infantryman, again a veteran of the Summer battles on the Somme and others. None claimed to have fired an aimed shot at an enemy soldier from a rifle. In contrast two Lewis gunners both had fired upon the enemy and one knew he had inflicted casualties. I don't think it was lack of opportunity as the first two had been themselves wounded in action by small arms fire. I think that many if not most soldiers never fired a shot. It was the Artillery and other crew- operated weapons that inflicted the vast majority of casualties. - SW

[Uncle George]

Khaki, rather than feldgrau or horizon blue.

[trajan]

This simply shows the evolution of the modern battle rifle. In the German case it became the Karabiner 98k & S84/98 bayonet into WW2. The British were ahead of the game. {emphasis added}

Well, not quite ahead of the game in one respect - the long P.1907 was still the regular British and Comm. service bayonet in 1918 and into the 1930's...

[Khaki]

I believe the mills bomb was a more effective grenade than the stick grenade, defensive-v-offensive I know, but used in both roles.

khaki

[T8HANTS]

I was under the impresion that the 07 bayonet was a throw back to the idea of 'guarding against mounted cavelry', with the 03 rejected because of the missing inches.

For general thrusting the 03 wins hands down, and has excellent pentration as a mate of mine found when he put his through his hand when returning it to the scabbard - didn't feel a thing until 3" had gone between thumb and index finger!

G

[trajan]

I was under the impresion that the 07 bayonet was a throw back to the idea of 'guarding against mounted cavelry', with the 03 rejected because of the missing inches.

For general thrusting the 03 wins hands down, and has excellent pentration as a mate of mine found when he put his through his hand when returning it to the scabbard - didn't feel a thing until 3" had gone between thumb and index finger!

You are quite right on that business about the P.07 being adopted to lengthen the reach against a mounted charge - don't have any reference books or notes to hand but I am certain that somewhere in GWF there is a reference to a question being asked in the House about this matter of reach. The '03 (and '88) were perfectly good for what was needed - long enough to penetrate a Russian greatcoat, if I remember the specification correctly! Quite why the Germans resumed full-scale production and delivery of the long 98/05 in 1917 has always intrigued me as by then the shorter bayonet must have shown its value in trench conditions. And quite why the Brits never adopted a short one until they went for the pig-sticker is another puzzle. There again, committees... Sometimes they produce something useful - or so I have been told!

Sorry about your mate with the '03! Hope he wiped the blood off quickly as that can eat into the metal...

[Uncle George]

Robert Graves writes of patrol weapons in 'GtAT': "The bowie-knife was a favourite German patrol weapon because of its silence. (We inclined more to the 'cosh', a loaded stick.)"

[JMB1943]

Thanks to all who have provided a definite response to my question.

MikB & Trajan----did you read or did you speed-read my question ? I specifically requested no "nit-picking", but neither of you provides a real answer, instead it's Webley this....., but Luger that........ and how do you balance that ? Together with irrelevancies about who was, or was not, wasting ammunition.

What prompted my question is that I have no personal knowledge of ANY Great War weaponry, and only a little secondhand knowledge gained by reading, and from this forum.

If YOU (officer with handgun) were going into the front-line tonight, how would YOU balance that, given that you will almost certainly have to lead trench raids (maybe repel also); I doubt that you would go empty-handed because you cannot decide which is the "better" gun for your circumstances.

By the way, what is fantasy football---is it a video game ? I'm not familiar with that.

Regards,

JMB

[Khaki]

Hello JMB,

For what it's worth, I consider the top two primary handguns of the Great War, being the Colt Govt 1911 and the Webley MkV1 (also the MkV), I like the Colt for speed of fire, reloading and a powerful cartridge 45acp, I would also feel very confident if I had to carry a Webley, another solid manstopper cartridge, a rugged revolver good in bad conditions and solid enough to be used as a club and still function.

regards

khaki

[MikB]

Thanks to all who have provided a definite response to my question.

MikB & Trajan----did you read or did you speed-read my question ? I specifically requested no "nit-picking", but neither of you provides a real answer, instead it's Webley this....., but Luger that........ and how do you balance that ? Together with irrelevancies about who was, or was not, wasting ammunition.

What prompted my question is that I have no personal knowledge of ANY Great War weaponry, and only a little secondhand knowledge gained by reading, and from this forum.

If YOU (officer with handgun) were going into the front-line tonight, how would YOU balance that, given that you will almost certainly have to lead trench raids (maybe repel also); I doubt that you would go empty-handed because you cannot decide which is the "better" gun for your circumstances.

By the way, what is fantasy football---is it a video game ? I'm not familiar with that.

Regards,

JMB

Well, my understanding of fantasy football from noticeboards in various workplaces is that you imagine a football team composed of the players you think best in various play positions. What happens after that I never really knew, but I'd expect there was some alleged way of predicting a result, and people made small bets on the outcome.

But actual football teams play with the players they have, just as soldiers fight with whatever they're issued or acquire in the front lines.

As with most matters, the skill and determination with which such things are used counts for enormously more than their specified capabilities. I've shot quite a few of the standard WW1 weapons on the range, but that's a helluva long way from having used them in battle. And there are very few left alive who have - and those will have used them in later wars where conditions weren't the same.

Regards,

MikB

[trajan]

... MikB & Trajan----did you read or did you speed-read my question ? I specifically requested no "nit-picking", but neither of you provides a real answer, instead it's Webley this....., but Luger that........ and how do you balance that ? Together with irrelevancies about who was, or was not, wasting ammunition.

But the digressions and nit-picking are all part of the joy of GWF! And speed of re-loading, the possibility of ammunition wastage, etc., are all part of the answer. So, some would say an SMLE, but I would prefer a Gew.98, some would like a P.'03 bayonet, but a S.98/05 is better for chopping wood, etc....

But, back to the OP. You are "trying to determine if there is any consensus of generally well-regarded weaponry (Austrian, Belgian, British, French German, Russian, Turkish etc) that any army would have been happy to have." A simple answer is - I doubt if there is a consensus as there are too many plus/minus factors involved.

Trajan

[Khaki]

I think the choice of rifle is open to the greatest debate, always has been and always will be, essentially one has the mauser action which includes the springfield and the G98 and variants and the enfield actions, I think I would discard all rifles of excessive length namely the G98, Lebel, Berthier, Ross, Arisaka, Mosin Nagant and I would also discard the obsolete the G88, Vertelli, the Long Lee's, which leaves me with the smle, the 03 Springfield, the M17 and the Mauser az. The latter (mauser) was not what I consider a main battle rifle and although common enough was not the primary arm so I will leave that out. That brings me to the smle, the M17 and the 03 Springfield. Again in my opinion the smle's attributes are the ruggedness, the fast action and of course the magazine capacity, the Springfield has on it's side the ease of handling (like a sporting rifle)and handles better than the M17 so I will drop the m1917 and it also chambers a fast flat shooting cartridge. The other attribute for the smle that is often ignored is the design ability to replace butt stock size to fit the shooter. So what would be my choice? if I was on the move I would opt for the Springfield, if I was fighting a muddy trench based action I would choose the smle.

khaki

[JMB1943]

Khaki,

Thanks for your reasoned explanations of your main contending rifles and handguns (exactly what I was hoping for); given 20/20 hindsight about the course of the war would seem to lead you to the SMLE and the Webley.

Regards,

JMB

[shippingsteel]

... and the Mauser az. The latter (mauser) was not what I consider a main battle rifle and although common enough was not the primary arm so I will leave that out.

The Karabiner 98AZ was indeed a late-war primary arm (especially of der Sturmtruppen) and provides the best all-round contender from the Germanic side.

It's compact size and turned down bolt were important factors. The Germans voted with their feet arming their best troops, and carrying it through into WW2.

Cheers, S>S

[dman]

Would add a few pump action shotguns to each company, Winchester model 1897 and Remington Model 10, for clearing enemy trenches, raids and patrols

Nothing better as a clean range weapon

Ammunition would be the all brass 12 gauge 9 pellet buckshot

[gew98]

Indeed... What's the betting, for example, that a bod with a SMLE and its faster rate of fire, etc., was more likely to waste shots than an opponent firing a Gew.98 with its lower rate of fire, etc? I would guess that - in theory, at least - those using a Gew 98 were more conscious of the need to conserve ammunition and re-load time and so fired more aimed shots than a chap with a SMLE. OK, I am basing this judgment on the Vietnam experience, where so much ammunition was wasted by US of A forces, and so (as usual) I am happy to be corrected!

I agree to a point. The "Kitchener's mob" of pre 1915 was one very well trained force in musketry. As known they could deliver rapid aimed fire with SMLE's like no other. The gew98 has superior battle sights and is a rugged rifle. A good bit unwieldly. My understanding of the german mindset was for them to always be frugal with ammunition use and recovery of spent brass whenever possible. Surprisingly they did reload alot of fired brass for training use. The wastage of ammo really started I think in WW2 with the advent of gobs of semi and auto weapons on all sides of the conflict. The more poorly trained troops tended to spray and pray. And with the abundant amount of small arms ammunition the US produced in WW2 made alot of green troops think of ammo as a finite item like the germans surely did.

[gew98]

I think the choice of rifle is open to the greatest debate, always has been and always will be, essentially one has the mauser action which includes the springfield and the G98 and variants and the enfield actions, I think I would discard all rifles of excessive length namely the G98, Lebel, Berthier, Ross, Arisaka, Mosin Nagant and I would also discard the obsolete the G88, Vertelli, the Long Lee's, which leaves me with the smle, the 03 Springfield, the M17 and the Mauser az. The latter (mauser) was not what I consider a main battle rifle and although common enough was not the primary arm so I will leave that out. That brings me to the smle, the M17 and the 03 Springfield. Again in my opinion the smle's attributes are the ruggedness, the fast action and of course the magazine capacity, the Springfield has on it's side the ease of handling (like a sporting rifle)and handles better than the M17 so I will drop the m1917 and it also chambers a fast flat shooting cartridge. The other attribute for the smle that is often ignored is the design ability to replace butt stock size to fit the shooter. So what would be my choice? if I was on the move I would opt for the Springfield, if I was fighting a muddy trench based action I would choose the smle.

khaki

The kar98a was always plagued with accuracy issues due to it's front band arrangement. I find the sights although as rugged as the gew98 have a too low of a sight picture into the handguard for quick effective shooting. The US Model 1903 was way too delicate to be effective in the trenches. Lots of issues with it's fine front sight blade being bent or knocked off.The sheet metal front sight cover was small enough to be a bugbear to clean if plugged with mud...and always slopped to one side or the other of the front sight base. The rear sight monstrosity while a target shooters dream was a nightmare for field and or hard use. The Model 1917 rifle had superb sights and was rugged as all hell , like the Patt14 which was it's 'father'.

[gew98]

Thanks to all who have provided a definite response to my question.

MikB & Trajan----did you read or did you speed-read my question ? I specifically requested no "nit-picking", but neither of you provides a real answer, instead it's Webley this....., but Luger that........ and how do you balance that ? Together with irrelevancies about who was, or was not, wasting ammunition.

What prompted my question is that I have no personal knowledge of ANY Great War weaponry, and only a little secondhand knowledge gained by reading, and from this forum.

If YOU (officer with handgun) were going into the front-line tonight, how would YOU balance that, given that you will almost certainly have to lead trench raids (maybe repel also); I doubt that you would go empty-handed because you cannot decide which is the "better" gun for your circumstances.

By the way, what is fantasy football---is it a video game ? I'm not familiar with that.

Regards,

JMB

If I had to carry a pistol in the first war trench environment it would be either a 1911 pistol or a large frame S&W...arguably the most reliable pistols of the period. I have a soft spot for 455 webleys...they are beautiful but I feel not as rugged as the 1911 or S&W pistols. As noted the P08 was way too delicate and not easy to get out of it's totally enclosed holster.

The SMLE was likely the most user friendly and maintainable rifle in use during the great war. Even with it's relatively fine sights those protective ears allowed quick and fairly accurate shooting . As known most of the rifles in use at the time had unrealistic battle sight settings often making shots go high.