But not in georgian ex red army fraction(still assuming).I am sure an enfield'd cost more than an average ak-47 in any of the ex-ussr nations/east europe,not to mention possible ammo problems of course.Also why an army/militia having tanks/HATs/APC's would issue a ww2- era bolt action rifle,especially if they are entrenched in a dense forest.Anyway dont wanna hijack the thread,its about tanks for militia.AnRK wrote:Aren't tank destroyers completely out and out obsolete now anyway? Since the advent of the MBT, I was under the impression that any tank destroyers still about would be so old that they weren't remotely capable of taking out modern armour.
Enfields are very old rifles though (obviously), and it makes sense, due to the British empires presence at the time of their use, that there will be many left in commonwealth countries and other countries such as Iraq and Palestine which we were in control of, or took control of, during WWI. According to Wiki's sources 17,000,000 were manufactured, so that in consideration too it's understandable they got about a bit.
And no they are not completely obsolete afaik,sweden developed a turretless a very low profile tank in 80s(source discovery channel),to slow down soviets' tank advance.But yes militia getting one of those impossible,at least almost impossible.
:
)
