Is the M1 Carbine a More Effective Combat Weapon Than a Submachinegun?

[GRIZ22]

I didn't read all the responses but the course of WWII would not have been altered by the effectiveness of either side's small arms. Tanks, artillery, ships, and aircraft and the ability to build a lot more of these than the other side is what determined the outcome of WWII.

FWIW, I would prefer a sub gun that fires from a closed bolt (think MP5) over a M1 carbine. I've fired a MP5 enough to know its fairly accurate at 200 meters. If you limit me to a sub gun that fires from an open bolt I'd take the M1 carbine.

 

[armsmaster270]

The M-1 carbine fires from a closed bolt as well as the M-2.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

"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. "......................................................................................................................................
You may be forgetting the 5-6 year advance that Germany had to produce and arm for the impending war they were to bring on the world. That gave them a distinct advantage at the beginning of the war. Also, had they not started to lose their submarines to the Allies' improved tactics and detection, all those supplies that we shipped across the Atlantic might have gone to the bottom. It wasn't as clearly decisive a victory from just our production standpoint.

 

[JRH6856]

It wasn't as clearly decisive a victory from just our production standpoint.

As the war progressed, the balance of power in production distinctly favored the US. Our production capacity was not threatened or affected by daily and nightly bombing as was Germany. As with the American Civil War, it was only a matter of time before the industrial capacity of one side overwhelmed the other.

 

[Gun Master]

K-43

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.

I have owned and shot a K-43, and it is an accurate, well made, and sweet gun to shoot. It has an 10 rd. box mag full of 8mm Mauser. Personally, I'd take the K-43 over the M-1(Garand)(both can use stripper clips), M-1 Carbine, Thompson SMG, or M3(Grease Gun). My 2nd choice would be the M-1(only 8 rd. internal mag), but I like all. The closest thing I have now(compared to the K-43) is an SKS. I wish someone would re-produce the K-43(at an affordable price). The originals are going for 2k and above.

 

[torqem]

yeah, right, an MP5 is effective at 200 yds a derringer is at 20 yds. Even the M1 carbine is 0pretty lame at 200 yds. you can flip up the "long range" wing of the peep sight, to get your rounds somewhat on target with the Carbine, but that doesn't do anything for wind drift, nor does it make the rds more power-ful penetrative. Look at a ballistics chart sometime. The very blunt bullet of the .30C means that it slows down really fast. At 200 yds, it's down to 9mm pistol type power levels. The M4's 223 softpoint is very, very superior to the 30c, beyond about 50 yds, (where the 30c will no longer reliably expand a rifle type softpoint). The Mm4, using the steel capped rd, will still penetrate concealable armor at nearly 300 yds. Itwill do so at 150 yds with softpoints, too.

the argument really should be between the $200, used Hi-point 9mm, with laser sight or an M4, Cause everything in between costs as much as the AR, without the AR's advantages. If it's not going to have the AR-223 advantages, then it should be cheap, low in blast/flash, and usable on indoor ranges (with cast bullets), like the Hi Point.

 

[Ash]

Sharp, I am not forgetting. The US had the majority of the war making CAPACITY. That means that while our factories were idle, we had means to manufacture at a scale that utterly dwarfed the Axis powers. Indeed, were you to take the entire capacity of the world in 1941, the US still had more capacity. That was born out when the US made more air craft carries in 1944 than Japan made the entire war, plus more battleships, etc. There were some 50,000 M4 Shermans, not counting the Grants or Stuarts. The US could better supply our troops in Europe than Germany could, yet we had a vastly longer supply chain.

 

[Gun Master]

Sharp, I am not forgetting. The US had the majority of the war making CAPACITY. That means that while our factories were idle, we had means to manufacture at a scale that utterly dwarfed the Axis powers. Indeed, were you to take the entire capacity of the world in 1941, the US still had more capacity. That was born out when the US made more air craft carries in 1944 than Japan made the entire war, plus more battleships, etc. There were some 50,000 M4 Shermans, not counting the Grants or Stuarts. The US could better supply our troops in Europe than Germany could, yet we had a vastly longer supply chain.

My daddy and his two brothers were sheet metal / boiler makers. They worked in ship building, or otherwise in the war production, especially the early part of WWII. As a kid I remember moving around a lot. Once, as my family was walking on the beach in Panama City, FL at night, we had a Coast Guard PT Boat, shine their spotlight on us. We supposed they were looking for enemy subs or other potential invaders.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Were I used to work we had most of the common SMGs used in the World. I got to fire most of them. We also had the Carbine. With the exception of the MP5 all the SMGs were clumsy and heavy for the unbalanced fire power they provided. Unbalanced firepower as in great at close range/not good at the ranges the Carbine still was easy to get hits with. Clumsy and heavy to carry around, not handy at all as in I would rather carry a Garand, and even when on a sling across my chest I just wanted to put most of them down. The MP5 was the only one I felt had the balance of capability the Carbine provided for all situations. The MP5 is more durable than the Carbine but since I would be in the Army there would be DS/GS support available for the Carbine. I like the Carbine more than the MP5 if the choice is for carrying around for all military situations. So the answer to the thread title is “Yes”. It would have made a difference in German operations. It would not have contributed to destroying the B.E.F. before evacuation, not resulted in the capture of Egypt or Moscow or the Caucasus, made Overlord a disaster, or resulted in the capture of Antwerp in January 1945 anyone of which would have needed to occur to alter the course of the war.

 

[Ash]

Gun, I had a grandfather who worked in ship building in Florida during the war (the other grandfather was a combat engineer). He was working on a ship that caught fire and had to cut his way out with a torch, losing an eye in the process. The literal homestead is about an hour away from Panama City. My dad worked for NBC there during the 1960's.

 

[Art Eatman]

Hokay. We're wandering too far from home, now.