One issue to take into consideration with the carbine is the climate. I remember reading that during the Korean War, in winter weather, the carbine would often freeze up with ice and lack the power to fire semi- automatic, thus the operator had to cycle it manually until it warmed up. If that is true it would have likely done the same on the Russian front.
Is the M1 Carbine a More Effective Combat Weapon Than a Submachinegun?
- Thread starter SharpsDressedMan
- Start date
- Status
flightsimmer
Member
Wouldn't that also include the M1 Garand since they are very similar?
there was a "tanker' variant of the grease gun
I believe. Seems like I've seen pics of it, all chopped up beyond recognition, for "hosing" off boarders before fleeing a tank that was out of service, I think. Rather like the "bent barrel" mg that the Nazis were trying to build for similar use.
I believe. Seems like I've seen pics of it, all chopped up beyond recognition, for "hosing" off boarders before fleeing a tank that was out of service, I think. Rather like the "bent barrel" mg that the Nazis were trying to build for similar use.
Gun Master
Member
I have tried to keep in prospective the "actual" question in this thread's title, not a perceived "actual" question one might infer. If I have erred, I apologize.
Last edited:
JRH6856
Member
It might, but the Garand wasn't used much on the Russian Front, and OPs question didn't involve possible German use of the Garand so why would it matter?
The Germans actually did field weapons similar to the M1 Garand and Carbine, those being the MP-44 in 8mm Kurtz and the 8mm Mauser chambered K-43
Neither were fielded early enough or in enough quantity to make any real difference in the outcome and most scholars seem to think that if they had the issuance would have only prolonged the inevitable outcome.
Neither were fielded early enough or in enough quantity to make any real difference in the outcome and most scholars seem to think that if they had the issuance would have only prolonged the inevitable outcome.
Downside to MP40 to .30 was it's range. Fatal mistake in German airbone doctrine was to drop rifles and heavy weapons separately from paratroopers, and they only carried a pistol, gravity knife or MP40 depending on rank.
The airborne invasion of Crete was a severe tactical failure, do to the defense on the islands being armed with the British .303, and most paratroops were killed before they could reach their weapon crates due to their MP40's not being able to reach out and touch the enemy, but the .303 reach out and touched them.
Hitler abandoned all massive airborne campaigns after this failure. This is also why the FG42 was created.
The airborne invasion of Crete was a severe tactical failure, do to the defense on the islands being armed with the British .303, and most paratroops were killed before they could reach their weapon crates due to their MP40's not being able to reach out and touch the enemy, but the .303 reach out and touched them.
Hitler abandoned all massive airborne campaigns after this failure. This is also why the FG42 was created.
Gun Master
Member
M-1 Carbine / SMG Discussion
Guys, I think some of us need to read the rules of THR, especially #4 and #6. Some remarks have been made that might be considered "flaming, trolling, and personal attacks" described in rule #4, and certainly not "polite" under #6. Please keep it friendly, and don't "kill the messenger". One such called me "obtuse" (dull witted, unintelligent, stupid). Lighten up! The fate of the world does not depend on this discussion! It's OK to disagree, but stick to the rules. Let's have fun sharing info.
This thread has made me remember certain events during WWII. One being my daddy helped build the Oak Ridge Atomic Energy Power Plant, while we were living in the little village of Fountain City, TN. In a small way, he may have built the biggest gun of all, the A-Bomb.
I also remember VE Day (5-8-45), and finally VJ Day (8-15-45). People were happy, and what I thought were firecrackers, was actually mostly people shooting guns in the air (in Knoxville, TN). They really knew how to celebrate the end of an extremely costly war. That was the end of WWII! But it was not guns, or even the A-Bomb that won the war. It was "Our Boys" !
Guys, I think some of us need to read the rules of THR, especially #4 and #6. Some remarks have been made that might be considered "flaming, trolling, and personal attacks" described in rule #4, and certainly not "polite" under #6. Please keep it friendly, and don't "kill the messenger". One such called me "obtuse" (dull witted, unintelligent, stupid). Lighten up! The fate of the world does not depend on this discussion! It's OK to disagree, but stick to the rules. Let's have fun sharing info.
This thread has made me remember certain events during WWII. One being my daddy helped build the Oak Ridge Atomic Energy Power Plant, while we were living in the little village of Fountain City, TN. In a small way, he may have built the biggest gun of all, the A-Bomb.
I also remember VE Day (5-8-45), and finally VJ Day (8-15-45). People were happy, and what I thought were firecrackers, was actually mostly people shooting guns in the air (in Knoxville, TN). They really knew how to celebrate the end of an extremely costly war. That was the end of WWII! But it was not guns, or even the A-Bomb that won the war. It was "Our Boys" !
Last edited:
The reliability of the M2 carbine is probably a major contributor as to why the carbine production was not started up again for the Korean war and it was phased out as other replacement arms were produced.
Interesting, by the Korean war, production of the M1 Garand was resumed and it continued for a few years after the conflict.
The carbine can do things at range an MP 40 can't. However, the MP-38/40 is one smooth shooting piece. I got to handle one a couple yeas ago and everyone that got behind it was putting accurate lead on target at 50 feet. It was a REALLY good design. I don't doubt we COULD shoot it farther, but a 9mm isn't going to have a lot of pop at 100 yards, compared to the carbine.
By comparison the PPSH 41 and 43 we had to play with were EMPTY in a hurry. They just burn ammo. In fact I am NOT sure I'd say there were BETTER SMG's, but they were sure easier to make.
M2 carbines were meant to replace the sub gun, but never fully did. Even in the USA, the M3 soldiered on (as a tank crew issued weapon) well into the 80's. The carbine had long since been retired.
Carbines wouldn't have made a difference in the urban fights like Stalingrad, which was won NOT by 'the war of the rats' (which was a stalemate/battle of attrition) but rather massed artillery and an end around by Soviet armor through Romanian troops that cut off the city making the fight there.. well, pointless.
I like the carbine, but I'd want soft points in it to make it effective.
By comparison the PPSH 41 and 43 we had to play with were EMPTY in a hurry. They just burn ammo. In fact I am NOT sure I'd say there were BETTER SMG's, but they were sure easier to make.
M2 carbines were meant to replace the sub gun, but never fully did. Even in the USA, the M3 soldiered on (as a tank crew issued weapon) well into the 80's. The carbine had long since been retired.
Carbines wouldn't have made a difference in the urban fights like Stalingrad, which was won NOT by 'the war of the rats' (which was a stalemate/battle of attrition) but rather massed artillery and an end around by Soviet armor through Romanian troops that cut off the city making the fight there.. well, pointless.
I like the carbine, but I'd want soft points in it to make it effective.
Panzerschwein
member
I would think for anything but room to room/very close action a carbine would be better than an SMG in most situations. Bullets hitting targets is firepower, not bullets hitting dirt, unless of course suppressive fire is the order of the day though in most cases again, aimed accurate fire killing bad guys beats a spray and pray mentality.
I personally think the M1 carbine is an underrated firearm that bests most compact/pistol caliber carbines even to this day. It is still an amazing weapon for mid range combat and realistically would hold it's own against an AR-15 or AK clone at ranges under 200 yards or so. If collectors haven't jacked the prices of them up so high and .30 carbine ammo was cheaper and easier to come buy, I'd have one without a doubt.
I personally think the M1 carbine is an underrated firearm that bests most compact/pistol caliber carbines even to this day. It is still an amazing weapon for mid range combat and realistically would hold it's own against an AR-15 or AK clone at ranges under 200 yards or so. If collectors haven't jacked the prices of them up so high and .30 carbine ammo was cheaper and easier to come buy, I'd have one without a doubt.
Ash
Member
As far as ammo goes, 30 Carbine ammo isn't hard to get and isn't all that expensive. It's cheaper to feed than any commercial rifle ammo other than 7.62x39 - though surplus rifle ammo beats it easily.
In any case, no small arm would have trumped German infantry doctrine where troops supported the machine gun. That doctrine would have been better to change first.
In any case, no small arm would have trumped German infantry doctrine where troops supported the machine gun. That doctrine would have been better to change first.
And it wouldn't have served as long as it had if it were an oddball caliber like .30 Carbine.
WW2
was not about small arms.
Everyone had to have them to occupy ground,
but i believe the allies would have beat germany
if they had the K98 and the Wehrmacht the Garands and M1s.
It was about industrial power and resources in the end.
"Lend lease" ships full of stuff, ammo, parts, food.
was not about small arms.
Everyone had to have them to occupy ground,
but i believe the allies would have beat germany
if they had the K98 and the Wehrmacht the Garands and M1s.
It was about industrial power and resources in the end.
"Lend lease" ships full of stuff, ammo, parts, food.
Yep, we had more tanks than the Germans had shells
to fire out of tanks. And we were just getting started, too. The rifle only accounts for 10% of casulties, at most, guys. Nearly all hits are obtained inside 100 yds, and most hits are random accidents. After the War, they interviewed 1000's of troops to get that info, and that's why the Army abandoned the idea of individual marksmanship. That and the fact that 80+% of the men ADMITTED that they had been unable to aim at a man and fire, under conditions where they could see the other man's face.
to fire out of tanks.
And we were just getting started, too. The rifle only accounts for 10% of casulties, at most, guys. Nearly all hits are obtained inside 100 yds, and most hits are random accidents. After the War, they interviewed 1000's of troops to get that info, and that's why the Army abandoned the idea of individual marksmanship. That and the fact that 80+% of the men ADMITTED that they had been unable to aim at a man and fire, under conditions where they could see the other man's face.Gun Master
Member
Ash
Member
During WWII, the US had the bulk of the World's war-making capacity. Sheer production, backed by the will of the people angered by Pearl Harbor, guaranteed victory.
sixgunner455
Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,052
Logistics, strategy, tactics>particular weapons when technological parity is somewhat close.
SharpsDressedMan
member
Speaking of lend lease, does anyone know the magnitude of the number of Thompson SMG's sunk in the Atlantic by German U-boats? I have heard tales of such. I know a LOT of Thompson KITS returned to the US a few years ago from Russia, prior to a ban on barrels and such. There were photos of hundreds of Thompsons (1928's) awaiting disassembly for export that would just make you cry. The kits started at about $200 and rapidly got up over $1000 before the vendors ran out.
If the Germans had something like the M-1 carbine I strongly doubt it would have made a difference. They had the STG44 which was a better weapon and influenced the AK 47 design. May experience with the M-1 carbine made me believe I did not want to have to use one in combat. One Gunny at Pendelton said he hit a Chinese eleven times and his charge only stopped when the Marine next to him shot him (the Chinese) with a .45 Thompson. In my experience the M-1 carbine was the least reliable and least accurate rifle I ever shot.
RX-178
Member
This is worth about as much as you paid for it, but if given the choice myself, and the weapons were functional to the point of their intended condition, I would probably go with the M1 carbine.
armsmaster270
Member
My uncle was a glider pilot in WW2 with 3 missions in europe. He was issued a M1 Carbine, and he told me after he landed and one of his men was KIA he would destroy his carbine and take the KIA's Garand and ammo the carbine just wouldn't put them down. I still have the flag he captured in holland from a Nazi HQ.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
