There are pistols in .30 carbine; Ruger made a revolver ....Blackhawk IIRC, a sorta Single-Action-Army-like configuration that chambered to .30 Carbine, and the Automag II was chambered in .30 Carbine.
In pistols the round has, mainly, a reputation for; A.) being LOUD, and B.) producing nice muzzle flash. I recall radio commentator G. Gordon Liddy (of Watergate fame and gun enthusiast) claiming the .30 carbine in a handgun was "a bit much."
I don't know what the performance of 9mm. is from a carbine length or rifle barrel. If it doesn't possess enough powder to push it to the end then the additional length may actually be a little counter productive, so +P might be the way to go.
Just looking at the two cartridges side by side I have a hard time imagining the 9mm. ever being up to .30 carbine in power. The .44 magnum atleast has a girth advantage.
The .30 Carbine was a good round for close-in fighting and the light carbine found enthusiasts in the Pacific theater in jungle warfare, whereas in europe, where longer range shooting was often the norm, soldiers often found it wanting in power at great distance, yet its sight was regulated to 300 yards, which I daresay was optimistic.
Still, the relatively weak round had unusual penetration power.
The Japanese officers often wore crude metal plate body armor. The .45ACP from the 1911 or the Thompson, or grease-gun,, would not penetrate the armor.
.30-'06 from the Garand would.
And, so would the reputative "anemic" .30 carbine.
I somehow doubt that 9mm. would have penetrated, especially the 9mm. of the WW2 era .... but I don't know if that was ever tested.