M1 Carbine wasn't used in front line battle?

[Seaspriter]

From the History of the M1 Carbine (Wikipedia)
"Prior to World War II, Army Ordnance received reports from various branches (infantry, armor, artillery, supply) that the full-size M1 rifle was unsuitable as issued for an increasing number of soldiers with specialized training (mortar crews, rangers, paratroopers, machine gun crews, radiomen, tankers, artillerymen, forward observers, signals troops, engineers, headquarters staff etc.) who did not use the service rifle as a primary arm."

"During prewar and early war field exercises, it was noticed that these troops, when issued the rifle [M1 Garand or 1903 Springfield], often found their individual weapon too heavy and cumbersome. In addition to impeding the soldier's mobility, a slung rifle would frequently catch on brush, bang the helmet, or tilt it over the eyes. Many soldiers found the rifle slid off the shoulder unless slung diagonally across the back, where it prevented the wearing of standard field packs and haversacks. Alternate weapons such as the M1911 pistol and M1917 revolver, while undeniably convenient, were often insufficiently accurate or powerful, while the Thompson submachine gun, though reliable, was heavy and limited in both practical accuracy and penetration at typical combat ranges."

From M1 Carbine: America’s Unlikely Warrior, by Garry James:
"The M1 Carbine was developed in response to a requirement for a light, handy rifle to be carried by clerks, cooks, linemen, machine gunners, mortarmen and the like—soldiers who would not normally be issued a handgun, but for whom the bulkier Garand might be inappropriate."

[BrianQ]

So a less then accurate source references another less then accurate source.

How about a period document that says the intent of the M1 carbine is or was "to provide those behind the lines (like cooks, supply clerks, and truck drivers) with something with greater range than the pistol, but not as cumbersome as a heavy M1 Garand battlefield rifle."

[cali201]

is this really a question? Do you know MOH citations describe action with a carbine!!

[Sentryduty]

I found various references to the 5 page Ordinance Board requirements in 1940 and another reference to the earlier identification of a light rifle requirement in 1938, however I cannot find an online source of either of those documents to read what the original mandate for light rifle program was.

From the training aspect, I would think it reasonable to assess that the basic training of the day would include the main battle rifle, the M1 Garand, and any other weapons would require additional time, resources, ammunition, and practice to teach the manual of arms. This additional qualification time would seem to perhaps be a waste in non-front line combat or support trades.

I believe this common cooks and clerks terminology is a over-generalization of the "support trades" term, which was probably aimed at those that actually seen the front and had a high likelihood of needing to defend themselves in actual combat, while performing in their support role. Further, I think this over-generalization is being used by modern day detractors of the carbine's capability to paint it as a less-than rifle. Using an inglorious trade such as a cook or a clerk in a derogatory manner (my old paymaster would kill me right now) as way of illustrating the rifle isn't for serious combat and demeaning the role it filled.

This bit of "didn't see combat" is probably some extreme offshoot of the above concept, tabled by an either uneducated or willfully obtuse firearms enthusiast.

[BrianQ]

The subject pretty much shows the intent.

[Sentryduty]

That document is exactly what I was looking to uncover, and reflective of my assertions says exactly what I hoped it would.

If the document did indeed say cooks and clerks I would have to take both feet out of my mouth before I could stand corrected.

Thanks for that Brian!

[bczandm]

....and thanks for all the comments. I have six carbines and while I love the little rifles I don't know that much about them. Most of what I know I got from my dad who was an MP in WWII and was issued one. He guarded prisoners in Mineral Wells Texas and was issued an M1 Carbine. He was able to get his hands on large quantities of ammo from supply so he would shoot 500-1000 rounds a day while watching the prisoners that were on work detail. He said the Germans always picked on the little guns as being a kids toy.

In any event it got me wondering about what the guy said as my dad was really a "behind the lines" guy and had the carbine. He liked the "Springfields" and the "Big M1's" but they didn't really have many them around his POW camp so it really got me wondering if there was at least some truth to the post.

Thanks for all the comments.

Sincerely,

Bob

BTW- I went back to his post and it's now been deleted!!

[CINDERS]

Army cooks wouldn't need the carbine their cooking would incapacitate the enemy anyway, I shot an M-1 once at a friends farm you could muscle out the recoil so it was like shooting a 22 rifle very accurate close in but I would not want to try a 600m shot with it, I know which one I would like inside a building where its short length would be a bonus then again a 45 ACP would be just as lethal to the enemy.

(Only joking about the cooks )

Postcript - I realize it was not a 600m rifle it was a figure of speech as there is a big disparity in a 30 M-1 round and 30/06 bit like a pushbike against a Z900 Kawasaki it would be something very handy in a close situation recoil was light so average Joe could still be accurate as the Garand was a bit of a handful not saying those of a smaller stature could not handle the Garand but using the M-1 may find them putting more lead into the enemy.

[JimF4M1s (Deceased)]

Army cooks wouldn't need the carbine their cooking would incapacitate the enemy anyway, I shot an M-1 once at a friends farm you could muscle out the recoil so it was like shooting a 22 rifle very accurate close in but I would not want to try a 600m shot with it, I know which one I would like inside a building where its short length would be a bonus then again a 45 ACP would be just as lethal to the enemy.

(Only joking about the cooks )

The M1 Carbine wasn't designed for a 600 meter shot.

[Seaspriter]

Army cooks wouldn't need the carbine their cooking would incapacitate the enemy anyway,

(Love your humour!!)
Ha! While the food might not have been great, apparently it was better than the German's got, from all accounts, and certainly beat K-Rations! And we tend to forget that all cooks and clerks went through boot camp and were trained in small arms. Just because someone had a cooks rating doesn't mean they weren't called upon to fight when necessary.

He guarded prisoners in Mineral Wells Texas

When I was a midshipman going through Marine boot camp training in 1967, we were in barracks in Little Creek Virginia that were, from what we were told, used for German prisoners of war. I'd swear the bunks were very uncomfortable -- probably never changed from WWII.

, I shot an M-1 once at a friends farm you could muscle out the recoil so it was like shooting a 22 rifle very accurate close in but I would not want to try a 600m shot with it, I know which one I would like inside a building where its short length would be a bonus then again a 45 ACP would be just as lethal to the enemy.

Cinders, your point is right on-point with this. The M1 carbine has a recoil closer to a 22 than that from a 30-06 rifle -- which made it so handy. (FYI: Here is a pic of my small cartridge carbine collection -- M1 Carbine & Marlin 22 Models 989 & 995 )


While the M1 Carbine, in target shooting can be accurate at 200 yds, in reality it was really intended for the 20-100 yard zone (IMHO), while a 1911 Colt 45 pistol was best in close-range encounters. While in target shooting one can get better than 20-25 yard range out of a pistol, in the harsh realities of combat -- confusion, noise, sweat, fear, moving targets, moving platforms, etc. -- it's effective lethal range is only 20-25 yds. (I was a qualified marksman with the 1911-45 many years ago, and wore it as a side-arm in a couple of combat situations and was glad I never had to use it, as our enemy was in the sights of our BMGs and BARs.)

So often people confuse the idea of a Battle Field Rifle, with an Assault Rifle, with a M1 Carbine. The first two use heavy duty rifle cartridges (30-06, 7.62 NATO, .303, AK-47, etc.). The M1 Carbine started from modifying a .32 low powered Winchester sport rifle cartridge (that never sold well) that is, for all intents and purposes, comparable to a SW 38 Special or .357 Magnum revolver cartridge. IOW, the M1 Carbine is a pistol elongated to a carbine to get better accuracy and range. In the Audie Murphy commentary he stated:
"Crack! It is like being struck with a ball bat. The ricocheting bullet digs a channel through my hip and knocks me flat....I raise my carbine and with my right hand fire pistol-fashion. The bullet spatters between the German’s eyes." (Chapter 18)
Murphy says in an earlier chapter:
"My finger begins squeezing the trigger of my carbine. I think perhaps with a quick rake I can put most of the Germans out of action, but at this moment, I would give my chances in Paradise to have a tommy gun in my hands." (Chapter 14)
IOW, think of the M1 Carbine in the same league as an Tommy Gun or M3 Grease Gun (.45 ACP) or Sten Gun (9mm Luger).