User blog comment:So-Pro Warrior/Lawrence of Arabia vs. Charles W. Whittlesey/@comment-4661256-20160331025346

El Alamein's Edges:

 Melee: Bayonet vs. Jambiya:  Everyone is giving the Jambiya crap and I think it's unwarranted. The bayonet is nice to attach on a gun and it gives it more reach, but there's a reason that in World War I they improvised melee weapons like clubs and maces or else used knuckle dusters and combat knives--it's because a bayonet is clunky as hell in a trench. If you bypass the tip of the blade then the rifle's reach works against the user. If you take the bayonet off the rifle, then it's way less effective because it was designed to be used as a spearpoint. The Jambiya is still able to deliver stabbing wounds if the need arises but its versatility as a slashing weapon makes it way more fluid--as a result, recoveries from a missed attack will be easier than from a bayonet's lunge or thrust. Also, in the close confines of a trench, the more up-close and personal the warriors are, the more useful the Jambiya will be.

Edge: Lawrence of Arabia

''' Close Range: Colt M1911 vs. Webley Mk. VI: ''' Well, not a lot to say here. The Webley does have good stopping power but that's matched by the Colt's .45 ACP round. The Colt has the larger magazine (7 rounds vs. the Webley's 6) and a much faster reload, making it by far the superior weapon in this comparison.

Edge: Charles W. Whittlesey

 Mid Range: M1917 Enfield vs. SMLE:  This is a tough one. The American Enfield has a longer effective range and higher muzzle velocity, so Whittlesey can hit from farther away and with more stopping power. However, the SMLE has a significantly larger magazine, and it's shorter and lighter. While normally having a shorter barrel would work against the rifle (as it means less range and accuracy) here in the trenches that's a godsend. It's way more maneuverable in tight spaces, so Lawrence's men won't be limited as seriously by the terrain, and its larger magazine means that the Bedouins can keep firing well after the Doughboys are fumbling to reload. Since this is taking place in a trench range doesn't matter all that much (as many trenches were very, very close to each other) and stopping power is negligible when we're talking about two hard-hitting bolt-action rifles. As a result, the SMLE's more compact design and larger magazine size gets it the edge.

Edge: Lawrence of Arabia

 Long Range: Browning vs. Vickers:  Both of these guns are crew-served; Lawrence's Vickers requires three men to operate properly, and while the Browning didn't have any specifications that I found in my very cursory Google search it still said crew-served. The point is both weapons are going to be taxing on each team's manpower, especially in a 5-on-5. Pretty much as soon as either side takes one casualty it won't be practical to use the gun any more and as soon as they take two it would be suicidal to insist on manning that gun. Also, everyone's giving the Vickers a bad reputation for jamming despite historical evidence that the British 100th Company fired ten Vickers guns continuously for 12 hours (using 100 barrels and firing over a million rounds) without a jam. LINK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_machine_gun#cite_note-2

That being said, the Browning still does have a higher muzzle velocity (greater stopping power, which is more significant with an automatic weapon than with a bolt-action one, in my opinion) and a longer maximum firing range (5000 m vs. 4000 m, although, again, in a trench this really doesn't make a huge difference). It's close but Whittlesey gets the edge.

Edge: Charles W. Whittlesey

 X-Factors:  I hate when people average X-Factors and give an arbitrary edge. That doesn't mean anything. What's important is what X-Factors are given to each warrior and why. Lawrence's superior combat experience means he's fought longer and against a wider variety of foes than his opponent, and his superior logistics mean he will be able to endure a protracted fight longer. I'd like to contest the endurance claim because Lawrence braved the desert and kept a highly mobile strike force in a hostile environment (hostile both militarily and environmentally). Yeah, Whittlesey undertook a very intense rescue operation but Lawrence faced similar high-intensity combat situations--it's his endurance in the desert that gives him a leg up over Whittlesey's standard forest-environment. Anyway, endurance aside, Lawrence's greater experience and better logistics give him an edge.

Edge: Lawrence of Arabia

WINNER: LAWRENCE OF ARABIA

Keep in mind that this fight is taking place in a trench. The Jambiya and SMLE are way more maneuverable and better suited to trench warfare than the M1917 Enfield and its bayonet--it's not even funny. While Charles W. Whittlesey has an edge in machine guns, it's a very slight edge first of all, but anyway they're both crew served weapons so will tax manpower so seriously in a five-man squad battle that it's not really worth using for too long. It'd be better to spread out and fire with five rifles than to cluster together over one gun and make a tempting target. Regardless, Lawrence's superior combat experience means he's fought a protracted guerrilla war. Whittlesey did have a tough time in Europe, I'm not contesting that--the thing is, he fought for less time and in a much more straightforward battle. Also, remember, this isn't just Lawrence vs. Whittlesey. They've got Bedouins and Doughboys in the mix. The Bedouins are rugged tribesmen who live and ride hard in the desert, while the Doughboys were mainly quickly-trained conscripts (sorry, draftees) who only had a fatigue advantage over their tired German counterparts. The Bedouins stomp hard. Lawrence's more maneuverable weapons, his better experience and the resultant tactics he's learned, and his better prepared troops will lead him to victory.