British use of the Lee Enfield No.1 Mk.III (SMLE) with mag cutoff during WW2

[mkrnel]

Was looking at some online pictures of WW2 and noticed quite a few instances of Commonwealth (especially British) use of the early version of the Lee Enfield No.1 Mk.III (SMLE) with mag cutoff during WW2 in battle.

I would have thought that these early pattern rifles would have been replaced from front line units with newer version rifles before going into battle during WW2.

British Infantrymen in position in a shallow trench near Bardia, a Libyan Port, which had been occupied by Italian forces, and fell to the Allies on January 5, 1941, after a 20-day siege.

World War 2 British Soldiers 1st Manchester Regiment 17th Oct. 1941, volley sights clearly shown on third rifle.

British soldiers with Bren machine gun & Lee-Enfield rifles in Jerusalem, Palestine. The mag cutoff is clearly seen in the rifle resting on the wall.

And for interest I also found some pictures of Canadian World War 2 soldiers using P14 sniper rifles -

​

Canadian soldier with a P-14 Enfield rifle with scope, 23 Apr 1943.

​

​

 

[Power Pill]

The British and it's commonwealth still had millions of No1s when WW2 broke out..what did you expect they would do with them?

 

[mkrnel]

The British and it's commonwealth still had millions of No1s when WW2 broke out..what did you expect they would do with them?

According to your reasoning why not also issue them P14's, Snider's and Martini Henry's, they had plenty of those in their warehouses at that time too!

Actually what I expected was that they would as most first class militaries do when already at least 3 years into a war and reallocate the older and no-longer current issue firearms to their rear echelon and non front line troops like support troops or to facility guards and the home guard!

Typically if you send your troops into battle you try to make sure they have the latest equipment that has full and current support structures built up to repair and keep serviceable.

The SMLE Mk.III with cutoff and long range volley sights was declared obsolete standard in 1916!

 

[recce]

The SMLE Mk.III with cutoff and long range volley sights was declared obsolete standard in 1916!

The cutoff and volley sights didn't make the rifle obsolete, it was still very serviceable. Those parts were omitted in later Mks to save time/money and the tactics that called for them were obsolete.

I'd be surprised if a soldier really cared if it was a No I or No 4 when the bullets started flying.

 

[Power Pill]

According to your reasoning why not also issue them P14's, Snider's and Martini Henry's, they had plenty of those in their warehouses at that time too!

Actually what I expected was that they would as most first class militaries do when already at least 3 years into a war and reallocate the older and no-longer current issue firearms to their rear echelon and non front line troops like support troops or to facility guards and the home guard!

Typically if you send your troops into battle you try to make sure they have the latest equipment that has full and current support structures built up to repair and keep serviceable.

The SMLE Mk.III with cutoff and long range volley sights was declared obsolete standard in 1916!

They did issue P14s..... and the other rifles you mentioned wouldn't make sense logistically.

 

[plinker 777]

War's on, have rifle will shoot!? If it chambered a .303 Br. round, it went into service.

 

[mkrnel]

My point that most seem to overlook is not the fact that they had the rifles but that they still had front line WW2 infantry forces using them after the military had decided that those rifles and features were not needed anymore since 1915 and had moved to a complete new rifle design in 1939 (the No.4).

The US military still has first gen M16 in storage but don't issue them to infantry forces fighting against the Taliban!

And the Russian's still have lots of Mosin Nagants too but haven't issued them to their infantry since WW2.

 

[Eaglelord17]

They went back to producing the No. 1 Mk. 3 after WWI except with no volley sights. The No. 1 Mk. 3* was initially only intended as a substitute standard for ease of production. Some commonwealth nations never even manufactured the new No. 4 Mk. 1s (India and Australia) as they were happy with the No. 1 Mk 3(*)s.

There was also that thing called Dunkirk where they happened to lose quite a few rifles and were scrambling to find replacements. The Home Guard in Britain even ended up with some Rosses which were truly declared obsolete by 1916 (though I do feel with some improvements it could have been a fine service rifle).

Afghanistan and WWII are very incompariable for this discussion. It has been 40 years since we fought in Vietnam, and basically 60 years since the initial M16 came out. The US has since moved on variant wise and has had many years to do this. In WWII the No. 4 Mk. 1 was just accepted for use when war began and it would take a while for production to catch up with demand. Its kinda like how the M16 served alongside the M14, it wasn't a instant change over. And unlike the M14 the No. 1 Mk3(*)s weren't completely replaced by the newer rifles.

Also the Russians stopped producing M91 Infantry Rifles in 1926 and M91 Dragoon Rifles in 1930-32 but they were still in use by the end of WWII.

 

[Power Pill]

My point that most seem to overlook is not the fact that they had the rifles but that they still had front line WW2 infantry forces using them after the military had decided that those rifles and features were not needed anymore since 1915 and had moved to a complete new rifle design in 1939 (the No.4).

The US military still has first gen M16 in storage but don't issue them to infantry forces fighting against the Taliban!

And the Russian's still have lots of Mosin Nagants too but haven't issued them to their infantry since WW2.

I don't think anyone has over looked your point...Even thought it may seem valid now..It makes no difference during times of war.

The Americans officially adopted the Garand in 1936, but some of the first troops fighting in the pacific were issued with the Springfield M1903.

The only practical difference between the No1 and No4 is the sights..Everything else its mostly cosmetic.

 

[purple]

The MkIIIs continued to be used in places like Italy, Burma and the Pacific even after the No4 came out. Cdn troops switched over to the No4 just prior to the invasion of Sicily in 1943. The Aussies used the MkIII exclusively thru WW2 and in Korea. As indicated, there wasn't much practical difference between the MkIII and the No4.

 

[enefgee]

The primary reason for the No4 was that it was cheaper to produce and required less hand work. As noted, after Dunkirk there was a very real shortage of rifles, they got the men off the beach, not their gear. Things were unbelievably desperate after Dunkirk - one of my relatives went from Private to RSM in 14 hours - he was a very big guy and spent 14 hours grabbing men and hoisting them onto boats, while standing chest deep in the water. When the troops got back, they spent time rigging every pier and dock in Great Britain with explosives. Anything that went bang was pushed into immediate use, it took several years to recover.

 

[RememberTheSomme]

A lot have said there is not a lot of practical difference between the No1 and the No4 except cosmetic and the sights of course. For those who have both and shoot them regularly, if you were driving the same full power round down range prone, say the MkVII or equivalent recoil,...think about this for a moment,..which one kicks harder? Noticeabily harder? I've always found the No1's were more uncomfortable with full power over the No4's. Some may find this the reverse. I believe the No4 is a tad heavier, but the perceived recoil to me is slightly heavier. Maybe its a tighter cheek weld on the No1 sights and corresponding cheek slap I don't know.

 

[5THBATT]

The MkIII with cutoff was not deleted/obsolete in 1915/16 the Volleysights were omitted from production of the MkIII from 1916 & in the same LoC of 1916 that these changes to the MkIII were introduced they also introduced another model of the SMLE that had no cutoff or slot & it was designated the MkIII*. If you dont believe me, try reading the LoC of 1916, the cutoff was not deleted from production until mid 1941!

 

[grelmar]

My point that most seem to overlook is not the fact that they had the rifles but that they still had front line WW2 infantry forces using them after the military had decided that those rifles and features were not needed anymore since 1915 and had moved to a complete new rifle design in 1939 (the No.4).

The US military still has first gen M16 in storage but don't issue them to infantry forces fighting against the Taliban!

And the Russian's still have lots of Mosin Nagants too but haven't issued them to their infantry since WW2.

If the US was invaded, or had to rush hundreds of thousands of troops through training to fight in emergency circumstances right friggin now those old first gen M16's would come out of storage and into service in a hurry.

I think you're underestimating the desperation and rapid mobilization of the first few war years.

And as for the Mosin Nagant - why do you think we're still getting them on the surplus market? Because they're still stockpiling enough AK-47's (also obsolete and superseded by the AK-74) and other small arms to a level that will let them feel sufficiently comfortable. The Soviets (Russians) got caught flat footed at the beginning of WWII without enough rifles and enough ammo to pass around. They never wanted to make that mistake again. Mosin superseded by the SKS? Put the Mosin in storage, it still shoots, and you never know. SKS superseded by the AK-47? Put the SKS in storage, it still shoots, and you never know. AK-47 superseded by ...

Well, you get the picture.

I have a 1918 #1 Mk III, that was re-barreled at Longbranch around 1940, and got the C Broad Arrow on the barrel (ie: went back into service). At the outbreak of WWII, none of the Western nations had enough of their "current" rifles to put in people hands, so all the old ones got dusted off, sometimes refurbed quite extensively, and put back into service. It was still quicker to rebarrel a #1 than it was to make an entire #4 - and it put guns in troops hands, and lead downrange.

 

[mkrnel]

I don't think anyone has over looked your point...Even thought it may seem valid now..It makes no difference during times of war.

The Americans officially adopted the Garand in 1936, but some of the first troops fighting in the pacific were issued with the Springfield M1903.

The only practical difference between the No1 and No4 is the sights..Everything else its mostly cosmetic.

While not wanting to labour on the point or keep going back and forth on this the Brits only had 1 standard rifle type during WW2 the bolt action Lee Enfield. The Americans kept the Springfield as a standard issue arm during WW2 and actually kept making them right up until 1949!

They were just like the German's, Russian's, Swedish and others who had two different standard infantry rifles (one Bolt action and one or more Semi auto) and used them as doctrine and training called for. They all had repair parts for them in the field repair units as they were current issue weapons.

My statement was trying to point out that while these rifles are still useful they should have been only in use by rear echelon and non front line troops like support troops or to facility guards and the home guard!

With my previous military background in small arms weapons support, I know it was and is standard military practice to only have front line field support units repair and service current issue weapons and not carry parts or perform repair service for older non standard weapons.

These infantry pictured must have been from smaller regiments who were sent to the front battle lines without updating to current kit and only got to replace these WW1 issue rifles when they had a repair issue. If you had a SMLE and the rear sight broke off in combat and your small arms field repair support unit only had No.4 rear sights on hand then that rifle was effectively non functional.

These photos are from 1941 and 1942. the British army should have had plenty of time to replace No.1 Mk.III with volley sights from front line units by then.

The P14 sniper rifle was still a standard issue Sniper rifle until it was declared obsolete in British service in 1947 (but kept on longer in some Commonwealth armies), most of the scoped sniper versions were actually made up into sniper rifles after WW1. The Lee Enfield .303 No4 MkI (T) sniper rifle did not start to enter service until about Nov. 1942.

 

[kennymo]

^^ It hasn't been noted that at the outbreak of war the No.4 Mk.1 hadn't entered service yet despite the design being accepted in '39. The country was still fighting massive debt left from WWI and the Great Depression, rearming the troops (with more or less the same rifle yet) wasn't a priority with millions of SMLE's collecting dust in stores. Britain was pretty cozy with Hitler as well, almost right up to the opening of hostilities, and saw no reason to press production.

ALL of the early combat was with the older rifle, P14's and the Ross rifle were issued to naval units, the home guard and some sharpshooting units. As stated previously, anything that could chamber a .303 cartridge was pressed into service, including Martini-Enfield single shots. The Germans owned the continent by 1940, U boats cut off raw materials for manufacturing, there was no way they could manufacture the new rifles quick enough to arm every unit. That's how we wound up with No.4's being built at Longbranch and Savage, the British had no possible way to keep up with demand. Some outfits carried the No.1 Mk.III on D-day, and right through the end of the war, they never did make enough No.4'a for everyone. Which turned out to be not that big a deal, the rifles are extremely similar.

 

[kennymo]

Also of note, not all the SMLE's were leftovers from WWI as you stated. Production had continued in spurts throughout the 20's and 30's, and I believe some factories continued production into WWII, since there was no tooling available for making No.4's until later in 1940 or very early 1941. Those 'obsolete' rifles you're complaining about could very well have been fresh off the assembly line.

And the rear sight on a No 1 is pretty robust. The armourers would not only have likely had proper spare parts, since both rifles were in widespread service, but I'm guessing there were some spare rifles kicking around at the time.

 

[scott585]

While not wanting to labour on the point or keep going back and forth on this the Brits only had 1 standard rifle type during WW2 the bolt action Lee Enfield. The Americans kept the Springfield as a standard issue arm during WW2 and actually kept making them right up until 1949!

They were just like the German's, Russian's, Swedish and others who had two different standard infantry rifles (one Bolt action and one or more Semi auto) and used them as doctrine and training called for. They all had repair parts for them in the field repair units as they were current issue weapons.

My statement was trying to point out that while these rifles are still useful they should have been only in use by rear echelon and non front line troops like support troops or to facility guards and the home guard!

With my previous military background in small arms weapons support, I know it was and is standard military practice to only have front line field support units repair and service current issue weapons and not carry parts or perform repair service for older non standard weapons.

These infantry pictured must have been from smaller regiments who were sent to the front battle lines without updating to current kit and only got to replace these WW1 issue rifles when they had a repair issue. If you had a SMLE and the rear sight broke off in combat and your small arms field repair support unit only had No.4 rear sights on hand then that rifle was effectively non functional.

These photos are from 1941 and 1942. the British army should have had plenty of time to replace No.1 Mk.III with volley sights from front line units by then.

The P14 sniper rifle was still a standard issue Sniper rifle until it was declared obsolete in British service in 1947 (but kept on longer in some Commonwealth armies), most of the scoped sniper versions were actually made up into sniper rifles after WW1. The Lee Enfield .303 No4 MkI (T) sniper rifle did not start to enter service until about Nov. 1942.

the home guard got mostly p14s from the pics i have seen.

logistically speaking, it would make the most sense to keep a unit armed with all on or the other, not a mix. it also would make sense to keep the unit using the same rifle right through to reduce retraining (i think the IDF does this, you keep the same weapon until you are done, new recruits get the newest stuff)

if you had a rifle in good repair from 1918, it was still a good rifle in 1943. if your whole unit has the same model, with or without cutoff or volley sights, it could be maintained pretty easily.

 

[mkrnel]

Also of note, not all the SMLE's were leftovers from WWI as you stated. Production had continued in spurts throughout the 20's and 30's, and I believe some factories continued production into WWII, since there was no tooling available for making No.4's until later in 1940 or very early 1941. Those 'obsolete' rifles you're complaining about could very well have been fresh off the assembly line.

And the rear sight on a No 1 is pretty robust. The armourers would not only have likely had proper spare parts, since both rifles were in widespread service, but I'm guessing there were some spare rifles kicking around at the time.

Not complaining about the Mk.III at all, I have one myself and very much like the rifle, I wonder were that came from, anyhow, my observation as recorded at the outset when I started this post was how regular infantry units fighting on the front lines (note in bold) and not as mentioned previously repeatedly, rear echelon and non front line troops like support troops are still issued Mk.III's with cutoffs and volley sights.

My OP was just a observation that came from my previous 12 years of army service which also comprised time in brigade EME units that actually carried out the function of supporting and repairing issued infantry weapons, that these pictures seems to contradict normal modern battlefield infantry small arms doctrine. And that by 1941 and 1942 these front line infantry should have the updated Mk.III* at the least and most definitely not the Mk.III with mag cutoff and volley sights.

The British military found early into WW1 that the mag cutoff on the Mk.III was a tactical problem for 2 reasons, one was that it slowed down the loading of the rifle in the heat of battle as soldiers trying to load their mags with clips sometimes failed to notice that the cutoff was on and blocking the mag, especially during the night and in dim smoke filled areas or when under battlefield stress. It also slowed down the loading in battle when they had to disconnect the cutoff.

Also, they had it removed when they found that the new trained method of rapid fire by using your palm to cycle the bolt during advancing rapid fire was impacted by soldiers hitting their palms during the forward movement on the cutoff which slowed the movement down and sometimes activating the cut off.

It was a obsolete rifle feature from a time when the military had just progressed from single shot rifles and did not need or want their soldiers using rapid fire at will as the soldiers were trained then to only fire on each instance as commanded/directed by a supervising officer. This tactic went out well before WW1 and was never brought over to the P14 as a needed feature when it was designed in 1913.

I will leave it at that as I think this post has gone way off tangent and have no desire to debate further the reasons why they still had front line infantry with mag cutoffs and volley sights when by 1941 the British had by reliable estimates already 4 million No.1 Mk.III*'s from WW1 and 1.5 million No.4 Mk.1's with a standing army of only 2.2 million men in all fields including cooks.

So why they had front line infantry using Mk.III's with mag cutoff's and volley sights in 1941-2 and maybe later is baffling when you would think they could have just issued all the updated rifles to the infantry as they moved to the front and left the older rifles for the supporting troops.

 

[Mike Webb]

Just curious. Where did the figure of 4 million No.1 Mk3 and 1.5 million No.4 rifles come from? The British armed their Home Guard units with 1910 Ross and Pattern 14 Enfields in early WW2. If that many Lee Enfields were on hand why bother with rifles requiring a whole different set of parts?