Re Norad




I do believe that the even the Garand and Mauser types are superior to the M-16 and its derivatives. The Garand and Mauser were also fine examples of the type but were not as reliable or durable and when considering the overall qualities were not as good in their design when compared to the Lee Enfield. The Garand was a semi-automatic model and as such had reliability problems as all semi-automatics do. The British had the Bren and Germans had their MG42s to keep their opponents heads down. The Masuer was more capable in terms of accuracy than the M1 but had only a 5 cartridge magazine and an inferior bolt action when compared to the Lee Enfield. The achievable rate of accurate fire for the Enfield would have been better than the Mauser but not as great as the M1 when it was working. But all being said these differences would be negliable compared to the differences in the skill of any individual aiming and firing the different rifles.

The reasoning for todays smaller cartridge weapons are to do with the amount of ammunition any single individual can carry and the type of warfare that would generally be expected to fight. Smaller ammunition and greater rate of inaccurate and indiscriminate fire is the order of today especially when fighting urban warfare. Even today the British Army has begun to realise the problems the US NATO 5.56 round has. It has limited range and killing power. Anything over 600 metres and the 5.56 round becomes effectively pointless. Even though the current standard British Army Rifle L85A2 has much more accuracy than any of the US army M16 derivatives the British army has now had to introduce many more bolt action L96A1's and Accuracy International AWM's (at least one per squad) to counter the 3rd world AKs (7.62s) and Lee Enfields (.303s) in Afghanistan and Iraq.



What I do remember was that the local farmer was being videoed in front of a downed Apache proudly displaying his bagged aircraft with his Lee Enfield. The Apache did have a few bullet holes in it. The most noticeable one was the one through the left hand pilots window. I guess it could have been one that had been abandoned after developing a mechanical fault and the crew had been rescued and then a propaganda piece being fabricated. But I think that it is normal procedure to destroy any downed aircraft if possible to ensure that they don't fall into a enemies hands to be used for intelligence or propaganda reasons.