M1 Carbine wasn't used in front line battle?
A post on a local board claimed that the M1 carbine wasn't really used it battle, that it was issued to "cooks" and others that rarely saw battle. I didn't even know how to respond that that claim as I've seen the M1 Carbine in historic battle photos as much if not more than any other rifle. The poster claimed that the movies were more responsible for it's reputation than the real facts.
Is there even a shred of truth to this? Were carbines at all held back for non combat positions? I doubt it, but was wondering what the experts say.
Bob
Tables of Organization & Equipment
Thanks for the research on the Tables of Organization & Equipment. These are always helpful data points for verification.
But (no disrespect intended), TOEs are static documents that are the result of committees & bureaucracies and are finalized after months of debate -- a process that is fine in peace time when things are somewhat static/stable.
Wartime, however, presents a very different circumstance – dynamic change in the crucible of action puts everything in the field into a state of flux. A US Army TOE issued in March 1943 (cited earlier) was obsolete the day it was issued because of dynamic adaptation in at the battle front and requirements in the supply lines. (In Systems Analysis, it's called variance, which tells us how much deviance there is in a system from the standard, and often why the variance is there -- either intentional or accidental, reactive or proactive, etc. etc. Often stories and anecdotes from the field are the best way of understanding systems variance from the headquarters standard.) Particularly in war, TO&Es should be thought of as "guidelines" not "law." (Think of General Patton's ivory-handled 1873 Colt revolvers; they certainly weren't on a TO&E)
Here’s a good example of a first-hand account from the 101st Airborne Screaming Eagles (TRIGGER TIME - 101st Airborne WW2)
“A typical Parachute Infantry Regiment rifle company at the time of Normandy, had 130 EM and 8 Officers. The Company HQ group was not a platoon, not even a squad. It consisted of ten men and was more of a Co. HQ 'Section'. Each rifle platoon had 40 men. Three rifle squads of 12 men each and a 4 man mortar squad (60mm mortar).
"Most members of a rifle squad were armed with 30-06 caliber M-1 Garand rifles, which were a much more potent weapon than the carbine, which lacked range and knockdown power. The M1-A1 carbine with a folding stock, was issued to officers, also to some members of crew-served weapons (i.e. 60mm mortar squad), while non coms(sergeants) carried the M1-A1 or M1928A1 Thompson submachine-gun. This included Staff Sgts (platoon Sgts) and 3 stripe Buck Sgts (squad leaders). These weapons were prescribed by the TO&E (Table of Organization & Equipment), but individuals frequently opted for-and usually got, whatever they wanted. This switching was done on the battlefield, if not accomplished prior to a mission. Since the M-1 Garand was the best all-around weapon, many officers also used it, instead of the carbine, and some noncoms swapped their TSMG for an M-1. Some members of crew-served weapons also preferred the M-1 over the carbine, despite it's extra weight, when they were also carrying such items as MG ammo, tripods, baseplates, mortar tubes, 40lb A-4 machineguns, etc. If all the paratroopers had been equipped with carbines instead of M-1 rifles, it would have been a lot more difficult for the 101st Airborne to win any battles.
"Not every paratrooper who wore the screaming eagle patch was a killer. A radioman from HQ/3 501 recently told me he went through Normandy, Holland, Bastogne, and So. Germany without ever firing his carbine in combat. Job clasifications were not necessarily an indicator of who would kill. For example, Joe Mero, a clerk typist in HQ/2 501 shot many Germans from his roost in a grain elevator at Veghel, Holland on 23 September, 1944. Joe was fatally wounded the following day. Being scattered behind enemy lines meant that any individual might be called upon by circumstances to kill or be killed.”
Here's another good "story" (another example of variance, this time with a Tommy Gun, from Mark Goodwin, "US Infantry Weapons in Combat")
"Shifty Powers, E Co., 506th PIR, 101st Airborne Division, the “Band of Brothers” - As a rifleman, they expected you to carry an M1, but they weren’t very strict about it. If you could pick up a Thompson submachine gun you could carry it or a carbine, whatever. Most everybody stayed with the weapon they were familiar with. I swapped one time; we were getting ready to make a jump before Holland. We were out at the airfield, but Patton overran the drop zone. While we were at the airfield, they came out and told us the area we were going to drop in; the Germans had a lot of guard dogs. Well, I’m kind of a little bit scared of dogs, so I talked to another guy about swapping, I gave him my M1 and he gave me his Thompson. I figured I could spray the dogs. They called that jump off, so I went back and swapped back with him. The Thompson was a good weapon, the only fault I heard about the Thompson was that you had to keep them clean or they would jam. The most amazing thing about that M1 is you could throw that thing down in a mud hole, drag it through it, pick it up and it would fire. It wouldn’t jam; it would fire. What we did mostly was keep the outside of it as clean as we could with a rag or something. And we’d clean the bore out as often as we could. Any time we were off the line we’d clean the rifles well. In combat, when you were right on the line you don’t take time out to clean the rifle. You just kept the mud and dirt wiped off the outside of it the best you can. They were outstanding weapons, that rifle worked all the time."
This is why first-hand accounts are so important – they let us understand the realities in the chaos of war and how wide the variance. While some armies would not tolerate variance (such as the British in WWI -- which resulted in horrendous losses at the Battle of the Somme, while other armies were far more tolerant, such as the Canadians in WWI -- which resulted great ingenuity and a major victory at the Battle of Vimy Ridge) Variance sometimes results in lack of discipline (think Bubba), sometimes it results in innovation for success, other times its for survival, and still other times it is for simplicity or expediency. Think of this just like evolutionary mutations in biology -- not every mutation is a success, but with great numbers of mutations, new evolutionary species come into being, while others die off (Darwin, BTW, did not imply "survival of the fittest" about humans. He believed human evolution was a result of collaborative innovation, cultural selection, and moral conscience, as expounded in his second book, "The Descent of Man," which very few ever bother to read.)
As a combat vet, I had plenty of experience with variance from TO&E. We were infuriated with top brass in Washington because they were seldom in touch with the realities of war; we referred to the Pentagon as the “PUZZLE PALACE.” Our combat unit was outfitted with gear that never showed up on an official TO&E. I even had to forge requisitions to get equipment out of supply depots because Washington dragged their heels and I couldn’t face my men with a pile of BS excuses as to why we were going into the line of fire without being able to defend ourselves adequately. I recall bribing shipyard workers with cases of coffee to “swap” equipment during a “midnight raid,” targeting another ship in our squadron that just pulled in for repairs and had the operational equipment we desperately needed; we were heading into the combat zone the next morning ill-equipped without the unauthorized “swap.” Our supply crew was “authorized” by our senior officers to engage in “cumshaw” – an old Navy expression from the 1800s meaning “grey market trading.” We had a cache of "stuff" we didn't need, like leather bomber jackets, coffee, etc. that made great cumshaw -- none of which was on the TO&E. And certainly we never reported this to CINCPAC Fleet or the PUZZLE PALACE.
Solving a historical question requires a multitude of data inputs – official, contrarian/ anomalies, anecdotal, photographic, analytical, pattern recognition, interpretive, projective, cultural, and intuitive (this is how we found Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden). All these factors need to be weighed in the balance when drawing conclusions. Naturally different people will weigh the evidence differently -- what's what makes the journey so interesting.
