K98 mauser

15 aimed rounds per minute, to hit a 2ft target at 300 yards was the level to which recruits were instructed. This is a standard level, which already defeats the K98, (and I have heard of one marksmanship instructor scoring 37 hits in one minute). The Enfield was capable of much faster rates of fire than the one officially required. If you look at some of the opening battles of WWI, many Germans believed themselves to be under machine gun fire, such was the firepower a Lee Enfield-armed division could lay down. General von Kluck at Le Cateau believed himself to be fighting 6 Divisions (instead of the 2 he actually faced) due to the fire he encountered. Given that the Enfields of both world wars are mechanically very similar, it is not unreasonable to deduce that a soldier of the Second War was capable of a similar rate.

True, but the 0.2mm difference is rather marginal, wouldn't you agree?

I have not heard this before, and while I cannot disprove it at moment, I am sceptical. Why should a 0.303 round travelling at 738 m/s be much more inaccurate than a 7.92mm round travelling at only 8 m/s faster? Incidentally, I have read various accounts of the bolts of German soldiers' K98s freezing solid during Russian winters and becoming inoperable.

I presume you have not heard of the Lee Enfield No. 4 Mk I (T), the sniper variant of the No. 4. It was used very successfully during WWII, so successfully in fact that Mk I (T) rifles, rechambered for 7.62 mm NATO ammunition remain in service by police and military marksmen.

This is not in dispute. That a single rifle may not be a war-changing weapon does not change the fact the Enfield No. 4 was a superior weapon to the K98.

[ 22 October 2002, 09:04 PM: Message edited by: Greenjacket ]

 

Just thought I'd *bump* this old thread for BratwurstDimSum and others who are thinking K98 thoughts recently.....

There are some interesting comments in some of these vintage WWII Forums postings !

 

Yep - the PTRD and PTRS Russian anti-tank rifles fired a very powerful 14.5x114 cartridge. This was later adopted for the KPV HMG and is also now available again in some anti-materiel rifles. It develops around double the power of the .50 Browning. See the picture below (from the Ammo Photo Gallery on my website). That weedy little 12.7x99 is the .50 Browning!

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

 

The Garand's capacity is 8.

If you were a soldier being overwhelmed by hoardes of Russian soldiers and being forced to reload every 5 rounds, you'd probably care quite a lot. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]I remember talking about this one a while back and being put in my place so lets set a record straight. The infantry platoon of the German army had k98ks which were single shot bolts but we are comparing them with semi-shot garands.

Most of you are forgetting, that there was a different ratio of rifles to light machine guns in both armies. The tactics of both armies around the MG were also different.

What the k98 lacked in rate of fire was replaced by more machine guns per platoon than in the American equivalent.

Ergo, a Rate Of Fire comparison of these rifles in combat is meaningless. We should concentrate of aspects such as single shot accuracy, weight etc.

oh and C.Evans ... sorry I have to say "Frainch" is spelt "French".

 

We aren't comparing squad firepower, however, and how a squad derived it's firepower isn't relevant to a discussion of individual riflemen.

 

Yes mate I know...I was trying to make that same point when I saw this quote previously on the thread:

 

Fair enough, rather grasped the wrong end of the stick there.