M1 Carbine wasn't used in front line battle?

[henry r]

Beyond their entertainment value, photos serve as research for the lazy. Like any anecdote, all they can reliably do is to disprove a claim that something never happened or perhaps to show the first appearance of some detail. If you found an old Phoenix newspaper and it showed it had rained an inch in the area the day before, that wouldn't lead to a conclusion that it rained a lot thereabouts (that's pretty weak, even on an internet forum).

i have to strongly disagree with your thoughts on photographs as a research tool. if read correctly and with the biases inherent in the act of taking a photograph factored in to the reading, photographs can form an invaluable primary source.

i will say that my main experience with using them as source materiel is for another hobby, prototype based model railways, not military history. with regards to modelling in the form that interest me, being creating an accurate 4 dimensional representation of what was happening at a particular time and place, photographs and oral/written histories are the only way to know how things actually were as supposed to how things were "supposed" to be. all of the plans and paper documentation still leave massive gaps in the information needed to accurately portray what really happened.

as we all know, in the real world, the way we are "told" to do something isn't always the same as the way it gets done.

the purpose of the taking of the photographs really sets the to fields apart, i'm not sure about military laws relating to private photography in the US services in WW2 but i believe it was illegal for Australian servicemen to take photographs on duty. of course it still happened (the family still has some photographs taken in singapore by my grandfather) so the majority of ww2 photographs we see were taken by the services themselves or news agencies.

pre digital when we as normal people, took a photograph, it is generally for our own usage, to capture capture a moment, the people we are with or the scene we are seeing. for a service or press photographer it was meant for the consumption of others an as such that end use (with its intended message) was considered during the act of taking the photograph.

as we know official ww2 photographs were often staged to get the desired end result and most railway photographs were taken by interested people to capture a scene or moment in front of them, making the railway photographs far easier to read.

knowing who took a photograph originally makes the choice of how to read it a lot easier, but you can make a educated guess of who took a photograph just by looking at it's mechanical quality, subject matter and it's art/design values.

another thing to remember is that photographs can not only be read individually but also as part of a set (or sets) that together can give a far greater overview and extra information than each photo separately. by reading photographs (or any document for that matter) we also add our bias to the interpenetration but as long as you know you are doing this it can be partially mitigated.

[CINDERS]

Does it really matter how many and who they were issued to as in a CQB situation in a building the carbine would be a handier proposition especially if fully auto with a 30 round mag on it as long as it killed the enemy may take 5 slugs in their chest instead of 1 from a Garand but who cares it did its job and eliminated a threat, the carbine was controllable in recoil you could fire it one handed like a pistol (As I did that at the farm with M-1 ball ammo).
Maybe I am reading to much into the figures given by various people who are well intentioned and we have all been hoodwinked like an Area 51 scenario and the M-1 does not exist or was it the Philadelphia experiment I am getting confused with!!!!

[imarangemaster]

Hmmmm.... I guess someone should have told my father (on Iwo Jima) and my uncles (on other Pacific Islands) that they weren't really supposed to be fighting the Japanese in combat with M1 Carbines in the front lines of the Pacific! The are probably more than a few Imperial Troops that wished they weren't LOL!

[firstflabn]

i have to strongly disagree with your thoughts on photographs as a research tool. if read correctly and with the biases inherent in the act of taking a photograph factored in to the reading, photographs can form an invaluable primary source.

You put words in my mouth. What I said was in the context of assertions of the form, "Well, I've seen lots of carbines in WWII combat photos." It's a question of selecting the right tool for the job. You might note in the second line of the OP's first post he questions an assertion that carbines were for cooks. I responded to that with info from the governing document - the T/O&Es for an infantry regiment. How many photos would it take to meaningfully respond to that question? How many WWII photos list the unit and MOS of a subject? Then again, I wouldn't suggest using a T/O&E to establish an earliest date for field use of an M7 Grenade Launcher.

Photos are often misused by those either too lazy to do actual research or lacking basic analytical skills to even pose the right question. Seeing a particular feature in a photo can certainly initiate an interest or raise a question, but are wholly unreliable to draw sweeping conclusions from.

Using photos alone, how would you answer the following question: did the M2 Carbine (not field mod versions) see action in the ETO?

[firstflabn]

Does it really matter how many and who they were issued to...

It mattered to the OP, hence this thread.

You have my blessing to pursue any interest your heart desires and I would be the last to draft anyone into service to my own varied subject list. Said better:

"Let them that don't want none find pleasure in not getting any."

If you think of anything relevant to say on the topic, I would be pleased to hear it.

[bczandm]

It mattered to the OP, hence this thread.

You have my blessing to pursue any interest your heart desires and I would be the last to draft anyone into service to my own varied subject list. Said better:

"Let them that don't want none find pleasure in not getting any."

If you think of anything relevant to say on the topic, I would be pleased to hear it.

As Firstflabn noted it does matter to me, that's why I asked. However I must admit I did not expect it to take the turn it has, rather I thought we'd get some good stories on how they were used in battle.
Sincerely,
Bob

[CINDERS]

# 4 says it all from one of your country's most decorated USMC heroes and it does not come much better that that source as to the M-1's usage in WWII. Funny thing is I was just watching and got fleeting glimpse in WWII archival footage of a fire fight between a Das Reich division and the USMC on TV and lo and behold who runs across the screen during the battle a US soldier in the front line carrying the M-1 apparently this battle was crucial to an area in France and the USMC triumphed over the Germans. The buyer was after a Schwimwagon that was photographed after the battle, a French farmer had collared it after the battle and the buyer went to see him if it was for sale. Needless to say the vehicle was pulled to bits but all there with the battle damage with the original but faded number plate and the dreaded symbols of the SS the farmer turned down the chaps offer of 60,000 Euros.........

In reply to bczandm and no disrespect intended they were used in battle to do their bit and kill the enemy much like all the other weapons designed through and for conflicts which seem to abound in various theaters of the world.

[Seaspriter]

Some of us simply enjoy discovering a long hidden truth that's been encrusted by the cob-webs of time -- it's better than reading a mystery novel.

A good historian is a detective, willing to take a critical look at all the evidence, unearthing clues, wrestling with anomalies, and separating fact from mythology. A good detective also needs to read between the lines, put oneself in the positions of those who were making decisions, test theories against evidence, understand connections and relationships, separate correlation from coincidence from cause and effect, and weigh all the facts in both the larger context and in the details.

Being a healthy skeptic is essential in our understanding of the past; dispelling myths is a standard of excellence.

But never should skepticism become so obsessive that it crosses the boundary into unbridled cynicism that inordinately negates the reliability of a preponderance of hard data, denies the veracity of scores of learned authorities, downplays hundreds of first-hand accounts, automatically discounts compelling photographs, distrusts archival collections, and castigates those of integrity who hold a different point of view.

If nothing can be trusted because everything is faulty, then all that remains is the hollow clang of opinions.

[firstflabn]

I guess my feeble mind is far too wrapped in the big picture to see the details.
...

At the Divisional Level, M1 Carbines outnumbered M1 Rifles 2 to 1.[/I]
(I will let others far more knowledgeable than I to state why the Divisional proportion of Carbines to Rifles was so much higher than the Regimental proportion -- my opinion would be sheer speculation -- I like the facts, the evidence, and the data to support conclusions).

Which takes us full circle to the original proposition.

Having left LeBron James (or whatever his name is) behind, you're now on the right track. Starting with the known, then moving to the lesser known is the only method I know of that works. Big picture first means you've got 'em surrounded and none can get away.

Speaking broadly, carbine percentages fall even faster in Army infantry divisions as you move towards the front. Two intertwined reasons for this: USMC infantry battalions had more crew served weapons and the Marines assigned carbines rather than pistols to these gunners.

If you're genuinely interested in the subject, you might look into acquiring CCNL #373 for an analysis of Army ground and service forces T/O&Es in the ETO and CCNL #374 for a treatment of USMC T/Os.

If, like the OP, your interest continues on to actual usage, and you're willing to accept ammo expenditures as a decent proxy, then you might add CCNL #375 for the ground campaign in the ETO and CCNL #376 for selected ground campaigns in the Pacific to your shopping list.

If USAAF T/O&Es are your thing, then your wish list should grow to include CCNL #383. Finally, if USN and USMC carbine procurement quantities get you all hot and bothered, then CCNL #384 is the ticket. The latter contains only a smattering of unit issuance info.

Here's two little tidbits from #373 on ETO T/O&Es on V-E Day. These are rather broad estimates. Both items speak to the broad misunderstandings around this entire subject that lead me to respond:

1. Because of the high proportion of T/O&E carbines to Garands in ETO armored divisions and to a slightly lesser extent the same phenomenon in airborne divisions, the number of carbines in ETO divisions as a whole is almost identical to the number of Garands. That surprised me.

2. If to the above you add authorized carbines and Garands for ETO combat support units (remember the definition of 'combat support' from earlier?), then the total number of carbines surpasses the number of Garands by about 50,000. So, if you artfully configured your criteria as 'ground units that as their main mission shot something at the enemy' then there were more carbines assigned than Garands. You're perceptive enough to spot the mild liberty taken with the definition.

OK, I said two tidbits, but here's a bonus: If you had an uncle or grandfather who you knew was serving in the ETO on V-E Day, and you knew absolutely nothing about his unit, his rank, his MOS, or even whether he was in ground forces, service forces, or USAAF, there was a 50/50 chance he was authorized a carbine by T/O&E. For the Garand, a bit more than a 20% chance.

Now, in the immortal words of Ringo Starr at the end of Helter Skelter: "I got blisters on me fingers," so I'm going to stop. Your turn.

[CINDERS]

"Maybe they should have issued them with squirrel guns and held their fire till they looked'em in the eye" that much we do know of American history and the issuance of weapons most were privately owned I gather for that particular war, either way the penny falls and conflicts of interest who was issued with what the historians have probably written more books than the knowledge base on this web site and the evidence is there through out all the archived materials and war footage, percentages of who was allowed and who wasn't allowed to carry a carbine is irrelevant. It went to war with troops, it shot and killed the enemy and helped win the war everything else is just icing on the cake. Goodness me if I was using a Mk III as issued to me in a war and got caught with No.4 now wouldn't that be sad for me even though they were both very good at killing the enemy.