DESCRIPTION
Lee–Enfield No.5 Mk I “Jungle Carbine” is a shortened and lightened version of the British Lee–Enfield, created in 1944 for jungle warfare. Compact, with lightening cuts in the receiver and a conical flash hider, it offered better maneuverability due to its reduced length and weight.
SPECIFICATIONS
Caliber: .303 British (7.7×56R)
Action type: bolt-action
Feed system: detachable 10-round box magazine
Overall length: 100–101 cm
Barrel length: 48.3 cm
Weight (unloaded): 3.1–3.3 kg
Weight (loaded): 3.5–3.7 kg
Muzzle velocity: 740 m/s
Rate of fire: (approximately) 20–30
call me crazy but I think Japan should get captured jungle carbines as well just because as an entire faction they lack any sort of bolt action rifle that can fire and stay zoomed in
Actually, the No. 5 never made it to Australia, they had their own unique take on the concept of a lightened Lee-Enfield, where instead of taking the No. 4 and lightening it they instead took the No. 1 and lightened that.
So, if anything… The No. 5 Rifle in the tech tree, No. 6 for Australian event/premium squad?
Comparisons of the No. 1 to No. 6 and No. 4 to No. 5
A No. 1 Mk III (in game “SMLE Mk III” because they felt like using the incorrect name for the WW2 era):
And here’s the No. 5, note again that the sight configuration is the same as the parent version:
The No. 5 also used a new and unique bladed bayonet, the No. 5 Bayonet, and it looks like the No. 6 used the same one rather than the old Lee-Enfield blade bayonet.
You’re thinking of Thailand (or forgetting that they’re an optional source, as yes, almost everything existed in China, it was quite the mess at the time).
Mannlicher M1888, straight pull, 15k purchased by Siam/Thailand:
I was, just Manchuria came to mind instead for some reason.
Though if I recall, the Hanyang 88 was a straight pull as well, could be a fun captured weapon for the Japanese to get? I know a lot of them were captured and then used in service by reserve units of Japan or Manchuria proper in this case.
True, though it was more that it had one very vicious flaw, rather than several.
The No. 5 rifle had an issue where the zeroing of the sights would drift noticeably and quickly, even mid during a firefight (most people call this isse the “wandering zero”). Whilst no definitive answer to what was causing this was reached with certainty by military testers, it was assumed that the extensive lightening cuts to the rifle made the weapon flex ever so slightly from the preasures of firing, causing the parts of the weapon to misalign.
No solution was ever found to the issue of the wandering zero, as it was concluded that the flaw was inherent to the design. Production of the new rifle ceased in 47 due to these flaws, whilst the earlier No. 4 would stay on in production well into the 50s.
