It appears that you are you're enjoying our Military Surplus Collectors Forums, but haven't created an account yet. As an unregistered guest, your are unable to post and are limited to the amount of viewing time you will receive, so why not take a minute to Register for your own free account now? As a member you get free access to our forums and knowledge libraries, plus the ability to post your own messages and communicate directly with other members. So, if you'd like to join our community, please CLICK HERE to Register !
Already a member? Login at the top right corner of this page to stop seeing this message.
I often see threads on how underpowered the Carbine is and how it shouldn't be considered a valid battle rifle, yet I constantly see pictures of GI's carrying the Carbines in action. If it was unfit for front line usage as many seem to think, why would they have one?
So it makes me wonder, other than perhaps paratroopers, were M1 Carbines actually issued to front line ground troops during WW2 or Korea as their primary battle rifle or were the ones you always see in pictures 'acquired' by the troops some other way other then being issued?
Information
Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.
Yes they were issued as front line weapons. The job required one as a radioman or weapon crew for instance or a commander who wasn't supposed to actually engage the enemy. The commander was to command not shoot. These examples would only need personal protection. In the front lines.
Thanks Jim, I guess my question is a little wide the way I asked it. To narrow down a bit, I am asking if the M1 or M2 was formaly issued with any regularity, to primary combat troops (Army or Marine) with the intent of it being their sole battle rifle duing active war campaigns, outside of officers, or support or specialty MOS types. I am asking this out of curiosity to see if the Military ever acknowledged this rifle as a battle rifle and issued it for normal combat duty, or if they considered it to be only a .45 cal replacment for a select group of users and the pictures I see of combat GIs carrying the M1-C in both wars were doing so on their own accord having scrounged up one from some other means.
I don't think they were but there are guys here that will know for sure. It's always been the way of the troop to secure a bit of extra kit to make his lot easier but I don't think a man in a rifleman position in a rifle platoon would be able to carry a weapon not on the TOE. His firepower would be important as an M1 rifleman. Or a Thompson gun or a BAR...even when you're short-handed organization is a big thing.
You're on the right track. There was an official document in WWII (and forward) called a Table of Organization & Equipment assigning weapons to each member of a unit determined by his role. And there were hundreds of different unit types, though we tend to focus on combat units. These went through almost constant revision (as did unit manpower) throughout the war as they gained experience.
Just to give you an idea - a 1943 army infantry division had 5,204 carbines and 6,761 Garands for its 13,688 officers and men. But an infantry division has many support troops in it, so let's just look at the rifle regiment in an infantry division. You'll find 853 carbines and 1,871 Garands. In a 1944 rifle battalion it's 219 and 571.
A Marine infantry division, with a higher proportion of heavy weapons than the army division, had a much higher percentage of carbines. By 1944 the Marine infantry divsion had 10,953 carbines and 5,436 Garands. That could be where you see so many carbines.
If you need further info, there's a little book titled US Army Handbook 1939-1945 by George Forty. My copy was $8 on the used book market.
Particularly during Korea, the carbine in either semi-auto or select-fire trim was prevalent among U.S. forces. So your answer is 'yes'. The select-fire carbine is probably the most powerful sub-gun ever fielded. Not to be confused with an automatic rifle like the BAR or M14 or an assault rifle like the AK-47 or M-16 which all use rifle or short-rifle cartridges. The M1/M2 Carbine uses the .30 Carbine cartridge which is essentially a high-powered pistol round, so it should be compared only to other submachine guns using a pistol round, like the Thompson .45, Russian 7.62x25 and German 9mm sub guns. Compared to the Thompson, velocity and energy are both easily twice as high. The carbine's longer barrel and longer sight radius along with it's rifle configuration combine to also make it potentially more accurate and easier to control, with greater effective range.
It Vietnam in the early days, it was also issued to advisors as their primary weapon in M2 form. Jungle warfare is close and personal (50-100 yards), and it does that very well. Where it got into trouble is trying to use it at rifle ranges of 200-400 yards! I carried one as an LEO trunk weapon for many years, and still prefer it to my ARs and 870 Remington as a house PDW. I've killed deer at about 100 yards with it. It works well within those ranges. An M1 Carbine is about 100 short of an AR: ME of a Carbine at 100 is what an AR is at 200, etc.
Well, with all the people that preach shortcomings of the carbine, there's a lot of guys in the ground because of them. If they all sat up at once it would be quite a crowd.
Carbines actually issued to front line ground troops during WW2 or Korea as their primary battle rifle or were the ones you always see in pictures 'acquired' by the troops some other way other then being issued?
Information
PM
