The M1 Carbine was so ineffective in Korea

[browningautorifle]

I still like his original story about encountering bandoleers for the first time, telling his troop "Aw , you're just stupid!"...sounds familiar...pretty funny.

[Aragorn243]

Getting back to the original comment, the M1 Carbine did have some serious issues in Korea. A Marine unit in the deep of winter was surrounded by the enemy and the M1 was not stopping them. They were bundled and wrapped in so many layers of clothing that the rounds were not penetrating. When this was discovered, they were ordered to shoot only at the heads and in this they were effective but it's a lot harder to hit a head than a center of mass. The North Koreans had in effect a form of body armor the 30 carbine round could not overcome. Doesn't make it bad, in normal circumstances it is a fine round and gun but in this particular situation it was outmatched.

[browningautorifle]

They were bundled and wrapped in so many layers of clothing that the rounds were not penetrating

I've heard that story also.

[Barryeye]

I’m sorry but I still find such stories hard to believe. The fact that it is often gets repeated does not make it any more believable. I’m sure I have seen video of people trying to reproduce this myth and not being able to. How many layers of padding would it take to stop a carbine round? Could a soldier dressed up like a Michelin man run, let alone shoulder a weapon? I doubt that there is one person on this forum who would be prepared “dress up” and shot to confirm this belief.

Barry

[Aragorn243]

I’m sorry but I still find such stories hard to believe. The fact that it is often gets repeated does not make it any more believable. I’m sure I have seen video of people trying to reproduce this myth and not being able to. How many layers of padding would it take to stop a carbine round? Could a soldier dressed up like a Michelin man run, let alone shoulder a weapon? I doubt that there is one person on this forum who would be prepared “dress up” and shot to confirm this belief.

Barry

Then I suggest you find a copy of "The Last Stand of Fox Company" by Bob Drury and Tom Clavin so your disbelief can be dispelled. It's often repeated because it happened and is fact. 10,000 Marines of the First Division surrounded by 100,000 Chinese in November of 1950.

It's not only a matter of penetrating, it is a matter of penetrating with enough remaining energy to stop the individual. When you increase the amount of material a bullet has to travel through, that material is absorbing the energy of that bullet.

These soldiers of Fox company on these bitter cold winter days found that their M1 Carbines were lacking in stopping the Chinese forces which were attacking them unless they aimed for the heads. If you still don't believe it, tell it to the guys that were there that they are wrong.

[fjruple]

I believe the M1 Carbine was being used beyond it original intent. The M1 carbine was suppose to replace the M1 Rifle and M1911 pistol as personal defense weapons for technicians, cooks, drivers, NCOs, commanders who assigned mission tasks are other than squeezing bullets at the enemy. As with any new weapon the tactical infantry folks are very quick to adopt a weapon that is light, high capacity, and have a reasonable degree of hitting power. The US military went along with the use of the M1 Carbine as a first line tactical weapon. Late in WWII we saw the development of the M2 Carbine and conversion kits as a direct result combat feedback from front line troops requests for a full automatic capability. The M1 Carbine was not an M1 Rifle and was not designed as its replacement. The Carbine does not have the reach and longer range power of the M1 Rifle. At close range the Carbine can be very effective but it may take more than one shot to take an individual down.

I had asked my father-in-law this question about the Carbine effectiveness. He was in an Aviation Construction Battalion in the Pacific in WWII. He stated to me his unit was issued primarily M1 carbines. The islands he was on were "secure" and his unit would go in to build air bases and strips for the US Army Air Forces. But he indicates that a lot of times there were still plenty of Japanese soldiers still hiding in the jungle close to the air strip. He related having been attacked by a Japanese soldier with a bayonet while working on top of a bulldozer. He said it took several shots from his M1 Carbine to bring the attacker down. He said the second time he was attacked by a Japanese soldier he had a M1 Rifle, it only took one shot to bring the attacker down. He stated that a friend of his was killed by three Japanese soldiers while on top of his bulldozer. He manage to kill all three of the Japanese soldiers with a Carbine but not before himself being killed by one of the soldiers. My father-in-law says that after that attack his unit had enough of these attacks and a "hunting party" was organized with all of the unit personnel that could be mustered. By the time the "hunting party" was finished they had killed over 100 Japanese soldiers still hiding in the jungle. My father-in-law has since passed on. He says he was just an ordinary "joe" doing his job. One of the "greatest generation".

--fjruple

[DaveHH]

Specifically Turkey Hill, was a kill or be killed situation. I think that an M1 carbine might be defeated by clothing at say 200 yds or further, but up close, not so. The fact that it lacked stopping power is another issue altogether. The Marines were using Tommy guns collected from dead Chinese as well as carbines. That round is another candidate for the layered clothing stops bullets theory yet no mention is made to that weapon. Comparing the power of an M1 rifle to a Carbine is like comparing a Ferrari to a Ford truck. The best argument against the clothing stops bullets is the hundreds of dead Chinese littering the fields many shot dead by the carbine, most by the heavy 30 cal machine gun.

[bonnie]

I'm with you on this and I have read those accounts. A FMJ carbine round is very good at zipping right through a body unless it hits something hard like bone. Very much the same thing the old round nosed 38 Special rounds did before the advent of soft point and hollow point bullets.
A missed shot, a through and through hit, Chinese soldiers on drugs. I will believe these. Bouncing off padded clothing? No.

I’m sorry but I still find such stories hard to believe. The fact that it is often gets repeated does not make it any more believable. I’m sure I have seen video of people trying to reproduce this myth and not being able to. How many layers of padding would it take to stop a carbine round? Could a soldier dressed up like a Michelin man run, let alone shoulder a weapon? I doubt that there is one person on this forum who would be prepared “dress up” and shot to confirm this belief.

Barry

[browningautorifle]

We had this exact same thread about a year ago. I still think shot placement has a great deal to do with stopping...

[firstflabn]

Those who lack a basic understanding of physics are susceptible to fervently expressed opinions. Only the incurious accept implausible claims without hard evidence. They're mostly in it for the entertainment value anyway. Energy transfer is about 98% myth. If it mattered, then the shooter - who absorbs roughly the same force as the target - would also be injured. Energy matters as to the ability of the round to keep on going - and thus crush additional tissue. Longer wound channel, better chance of striking something vital. Bleedout becomes a factor at some point, but even an Aorta shot gives the victim 15 seconds or so - seemingly well outside the typical timeline in these accounts.

The location and extent of the permanent wound channel is what injures and kills. Hitting brain, spine, major nerve in lower back or legs, or load bearing bone is what puts on the brakes immediately. Hit one of those spots with a .22 Short and your chances are very good your target will stop advancing. When a round tumbles, it crushes more tissue. In that regard, the carbine round being about half the length of the .30-06 would be expected, on average, to do less damage. However, there are so many variables resulting from shot placement that even animal testing is impractical.

Misses and poor shot placement somehow are never mentioned in these tales as the good guys never miss. And almost never seen is any mention of examining the victim afterwards. If vets' memories are infallible, then the myth of getting decapitated by the overpressure from a near miss artillery round when the chinstrap is buckled must also be true (hint: it's not) and it must also be possible to get crabs from a toilet seat.

If energy mattered, why would anyone carry an M1911? What sort of magic happens (in the mind of the gullible) where the carbine round is ineffective, but a slower round is OK?