During the Latvian War of Independence, the nationalist forces receiver a fair bit of support form the British, including some 20,000 P14 Enfield rifles. These were great for the Latvian infantry, but the Latvian cavalry wanted something shorter. So in the early 1920s, they ordered 2200-2350 (the numbers are unclear) carbines from BSA. These were assembled using old Lee Metford and Long Lee parts, 21 inch barrels, and modified with charger clip bridges per the British CLLE pattern.
These carbines remained in service until World War Two, as we know that replacement barrels were purchased from Tikkakoski in Finland in the late 1930s – and this example has one of those Tikka barrels installed. During the Soviet occupation of Latvia, the Latvian Army did not fight, and many of these carbines appear to have been put into reserve service with the Red Army (some appearing to have been retrofitted with Mosin-style sling slots). Others disappeared into the forest with anti-Soviet partisans, and very few survived after the war.
Many thanks to viewer Sam for loaning me this exceptionally rare rifle to film for you!
Video on the British CLLE Rifles:
“(…)you can tell that because the
rear sight goes out to 1,900 yards.
The ones that were for the older
ammunition only went to 1,800 yards.(…)”
Wait, does that mean that they used sights with British units? Was not that hindrance for users who were educated either with Imperial Russian system (with arshin equal 711mm, as opposed to yard equal to 914mm) or metric system (compulsory since 1920)?
OFF-TOPIC so ignore if you wish
Recently suppressed M2 machine gun was presented
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/shot-2025-kgm-suppressors-integrally-suppressed-m2-browning-44818597
I am not sure if suppressed heavy machine guns are much useful at 2025 battlefield, nonetheless I am wondering about expected life (number of shots) of said device, especially consider main mode of use of 12,7 mm machine guns is full-auto.
It’s all a tool in the toolkit… Sometimes, you want quiet. Other times, you don’t…
If you’re a nation like Holland, where your ranges are extremely close to civilians, then a suppressed .50 barrel system means you can still train with live ammo. In the US, the range constraints we work under are always tightening on most installations, because of civilian encroachment on the training areas and ranges. Time was, for example, at Fort Lewis? The ranges we used the .50 caliber guns at were right there conveniently located near the central impact area, and nobody cared. After decades of development, what was once rural is now developed, and the town of Dupont has grown up considerably, to the point where the .50 caliber range is right across I-5 from a bunch of civilian retail areas and housing. So… Most of the time, you want to fire .50 caliber weapons, it’s roughly a two hundred mile round trip to Yakima Firing Center. Which puts considerable restrictions on training opportunities that this barrel system would open up.
Tactically, I can think of some uses. I can also think of some situations wherein I would not want to reduce signature… It’s all part of the grand panoply of minor tactics and operational art.
Hell, I would love to have the ability to suppress a lot of the signature on artillery pieces, selectively. I’d also like to be able to dial it up such that it had more psychological impact, as appropriate.
You have to gauge these things: Sometimes, you want loud and terrifying. Other times, you want to as unnoticed as humanly possible.
Using pretty much any MG on an indoor range would be where a suppressor would be a necessity, IMHO. Just to prevent permanent hearing damage to all concerned.
Handguns and shotguns were bad enough even with hearing protection in my experience.
clear ether
eon
Another shout out to Sam for allowing Ian to show what im pretty sure i didnt know even existed.
As for the Russian Army having had no monoethnic units.
They had. Cossacks were recruited on a territorial basis.
Irregular, but kind of essential 🙂
They also have them today in the form of
(mostly dead) North Korean mercenaries.
Always with the negative waves Moriarty.
There’s an interesting contrast to be seen in personnel policies for the various empires we’ve had, over the millennia. As well, sometimes there’s been a bit of policy schizophrenia within the same empire.
The Brits are one of the more recent examples, and they generally practiced regional recruitment and training, with notable exceptions like the Paras. The Soviets did the exact opposite, continuing the Russian Imperial practice of mixed units, so that nobody would build up a loyalty/treason matrix.
I think there’s something there to be said for the contrast… Usually, if the empire ensures that everyone is well-mixed, they aren’t the nicest people around, and the empire is one that’s forced on everyone involved. The more benign imperial types have localized units with the troops coming from the same regions, at least.
I think there’s a certain amount to be learned about the nature of the empire under examination, with that whole thing. If you’re confident enough in the virtue of your imperial ambitions, then you recruit your Gurkhas, your Marathi, and your Highland Light Infantry formations. If you’re a despotic, negative sort of empire, and lack confidence…? Then, you worry about concentrating too many Latvians or Tuvans in specific units, for fear they’ll get together and turn on you.
Of course the Indian National Army, made up of Indian POW’s, that fought for Japan gave notice that the Empire,s “virtue” was open to some question.
There is Russian film footage of “workers militias” being issued P14s straight out of storage crates. P14s also show up in Spanish Civil War photos from where ..?