Okay, that topic wold help us clear some questions.
With reason can we use to classificate weapon as SMG ?
First known reason: pistol cartridge. SMG should use standard pistol cartridge, for ex. .45ACP (Thompson M1921, M1928, M1, M3/M3A1 Greasy gun), 9 mm Para (Sten gun, MP38/40, Suomi), 7.62x25mm TT (PPSH, PPD, PPS).
Second known reason: how it operatin. In most cases SMG use automatic with free springed bolt blowback - is it meand usual SMG don’t hawe any thing, that should lock barrel with bolt. Chamber of SMG closing only by recoil spring, and bolt don’t opening during shot (wile bullet still in barrel) only by pressure of spring and own mass. No SMG operated by gas or short locked barrel recoil. Simply because pistol cartridge not hawe enough power to operate that way.
Third known reason: how SMG shot. Most SMG shot from “back sear” or “from opened bolt”, is it meand - firing pin fasten motionless on forward side of bolt. Sear hold bolt in open position and when trigger pressed - bolt move forvard, take cartridge from magazine, put cartridge in camber then firing pin hit primer (bolt still moved forward a bit).
Range of effective fire not reason to classifacte weapon as SMG. Yes, usual range of effective SMG fire - 200, but what about PPSH or another USSR made SMG for 7.62x25 TT ? They got range a bit less than MP43/Stg44, but it don’t made PPSH an assault rifle anyway.
Same story with UZI - 9mm Para caliber, but in Israel Army it use improved 9 mm Pare cartridge, more powerfull. Still fire from opened bolt, but with long barrel and wooden butt (“rifle modification” of UZI) got range of fire closely to some ARs.
But nobody classified that UZI modification as assault rifle. Just SMG.
Few SMG don’t operate from “opned bolt”, Scorpion, HK MP5, Kedr - but still use pistol cartridge and it classified as SMG, never assault rifle.
Assault rifle (AR).
First known reason: cartridge. Medium-power cartridge, “intermediate”, which would be much lighter than usual rifle cartridge and easier to fire accurately in full-auto mode. Full-auto mode usability made difference between assault rifle and battle rifle, by the way.
Medium-power cartridge - most important indication of assault rifle.
Second know reason: how it operate. Mechanically AR can use varos ways, but newer “fire from opned bolt”. They fire allways from locked bolt, and allways hawe hard lock between barrel and bolt. Most AR are gas operated. And all AR have moveable firing pin and striker.
By these reasons Fedorov “Avtomat” , M1Carbine (Especially M2 Carbine), MP43/StG44 etc. are exactly assault rifles.
I can agree to put M1 Carbine in class of battle rifles, or in some kind of short (“carbine”) autorifles, but never in SMG class.
Short range of effective fire M1 Carbine made not cartridge but wrong rounded nose of bullet. .30 carbine cartridge was powerfull enough - muzzle velocity~570 m/s (1860 fps), quite closely to MP43 velocity (680 m/s). But bullet shape make M1 Carbine effective range about 200, after it range bullet speed fall harshly.
Last note: M1 Carbine never was replacement of Colt M1911A2 pistol. M1 Car. was a replacement for M1 Garand for units, who need a bit shorter than M1 Garand rifle but something more powerfull than M1 Thompson or M3. Paratroopers, for example.
And a M1 Thompson as well M3 never was a replacement for M1911A2.
I think we are talking along the same lines and agreeing on most points.
It was seen that the pistol was not suitable for practical defence over 25m. the pistol was the standard weapon for officer and support troops. The idea was to produce a weapon that used a pistol round but had more punch a range. And so they came up with the idea of the M1. In reality it ended up being used as well as the pistol and did not replace it. It was popular as it was not as heavy as the rifle and the ammo was light. But to classify it as an assault rifle is wrong. If it were a good all-round rifle its production would have continued longer than the war, but production stop at 600,000. I accept it was suitable for what it was used for but I would not like to be in a section with only M1s or M2s as the only rifle.
This sight you may find very interesting. He is very informative and has a number of books on weapons under his belt.
As an aside I was told that the reason the UK used the 9mm for the Sten, and not one of the other revolver rounds it produced, was that they captured millions of 9mm from the Italians in the desert.
I’m with you all the way on your description of SMGs, it also falls in line with accepted military classification.
As I’m sure you know, but perhaps some of the other readers might not, SMGs are often referred to as MPs or Machine Pistols in europe. This originally came from when the Imperial German Army was developing weapons for it’s Stormtroopers in WW I and used the name Machine Pistol as a cover.
When we get to wpns such as the VP70 and 93R classifications get can messy !
Similarly the Stg was called a MP as Hitler was a great proponent of SMGs and not overly keen on rifle development.
2nd of Foot is quite right when he states that the M1 Carbine was intended as a light & handy replacement for those soldiers armed with pistols.
In 1938 a request was submitted for a light rifle suitable for arming machine gunners, mortarmen, clerks, cooks and company grade officers. It was refused but resubmitted in 1940.
I don’t know how much it’ll cost in Russia, although the library might be able to help, but see if you can find a copy of ‘War baby!: The U.S. caliber .30 carbine’
by Larry L Ruth, it’s a damn good book if a little esoteric at times.
(See also ‘War baby! Comes Home: The U.S. caliber .30 carbine Vol II’)
However it does fall short of the energy levels developed by the 7.92 k, and far short of the ammunition used by contemporary rifles
An acquaintance of mine, who took part in the early Malayan dust-up used an M1 carbine and sacked it for a Jungle Carbine after emptying a whole magazine of .30M1 into a fleeing CT to no good effect.
The target was dropped by another who used a No 5.
On checking the body, all rounds had hit but penetration was poor.
Having tried the AMT Javelina I like the .30 Carbine round as a pistol cartridge, but not a rifle one. That said, both the M1 and M2 are fun little items to shoot.
An attempt to define an assault rifle with the terminology used in the now defunct Assault Weapons Ban has been made by our resident walt. Unfortunately the Wikipedia definition was misquoted from the AWB so is inaccurate before we start, besides it was for a different category of firearm. Anyway experience drawn purely from computer games has no place in the real world, and with little or no actual use of automatic military weapons such pontification by an ‘expert by google’ may be immediately discarded.
However an ‘assault rifle’ can be classified by the tactical doctrine behind it and work it from there, for example:-
One needs a light, handy selective fire weapon, firing an intermediate power cartridge (eg. 7.92 Kz/(M43)7.62x39 or .280/30) which is a general issue to all troops. It would need to be capable of being powerful enough to put down a high volume of fire in the assault and effective aimed fire at normal battle ranges in defence.
This would tend to disqualify the .30 M1/M2 carbine, since it was intended as a personal weapon for officers, signallers and the like; more like an elongated pistol than an assault rifle, firing, as it does, the equivalent of a whippy pistol round.
Thanks a lot for interesting posts, I always very much think much of opinions of people who had practice with the discussed weapon. I only once held this M1 Carbine in hands and make few shots. It was M1 Carabine delivered in USSR as war-help during WWII, produced by IBM. Today this M1 Carabine - service weapon of forest guard near Archangelsk.
When i put M1 Carbine as assault rifle - i just meand very formaly correspondence M1 Car to assault rifle. Specially designed mid-power cartridge, gas operated, detachable magazine, M2 has selective fire - all signs of assault rifle, isn’t that so ?
By the way - if don’t speak in official terms, i tought M1Carbine - weapon “one on kind”. Something between ususal SMG, short auto-rifle or very weak asaault rifle…
Russian’s weapon books refering M1 Carbine to semi-auto rifles class. Same story with M2 Carbine…
Funny (for me, offcourse) classificaton of assault rifle by AWB - it make me chuckle each time, when i hear about… pistol grip - most funny point in description… especially when i see cripple butts of semi-auto FN-FAL or clumsy butt of semi-auto HK rifle (don’t remember how it exactli named)…
By the way - wat about difference between battle rifles (M-14, FN-FAL, SKS) and assult rifles ? Can we differented their by cartridge power, caliber and usability in full-auto mode ?
I have tested M-14 and FN-FAL and it make me a fanatic of 7.62 NATO… And today i’m a FN-FAL maniac…closely resembles me SVD…
About M1 Carabine as weapon for non-battle units… i can’t understand one thing. During WWII US Army, i guess, got enough SMGs, M1 Thompsons, M3/M3A1… it would be enough for non-battle units, or not ?
At my expirience - M1 Carbine was better than M1 Thompson (and no doubts than M3) by range, firepower, controllability and accuracy. I never belive if somebody sayd - “I once have hit target with my Tommy gun more than 100 yards from me”… I meand exactly M1 Thomson, not M1926 or M1921.
Just reference for those who never heard about No 5 and I.A.I
Malayan dust-up - the Malayan Emergency (1948-60), http://members.tripod.com/Askari_MB/index.htm
“who used a No 5.” “for a Jungle Carbine” - short version of main British bolt action rifle in WWII Lee Enfield SMLE No 4 Mk. 1
SMLE No 5 Jungle Carbine have a shorted stock and barrel, rubber overlay on butt and conic flame dumper on muzzle.
AMT Javelina - all about M1911A2… usual for 10 mm Auto cartridge.
Produced by Arcadia Machine and Tool also known as iAi, Irwindale Arms Incorporated. 6226, Santos Diaz St., Irwindale, CA, 91702 US
It didn’t make sense to me until recently, when I read the head of one of the police associations in the US explaining why he had supported the assault weapons ban at the time but didn’t think it was needed now.
Turns out it had nothing to do with how well the rifles shot, but everything to do with what they looked like. Apparently, there was a major problem with criminal gangs, for whom it had become fashionable to have the most military-looking weapon. Since these weapons are (for a change) actually rather efficient and easy to do a lot of damage with, the police were concerned. The ban was (apparently) designed to get rid of the features that made them attractive (and if so, it worked very well). Now they’ve gone out of fashion with the criminal fraternity, the legislation is of no further use and is being repealed.
This is all culled from an article in the NY Times, so make of it’s reliability what you wish. It’s the first explanation that makes sense to me however…
Thanks, pdf27 !
As a ex-cop i always tought - “Better gun in my hand than cops by telephone”.
In Russia cittizens can buy for selfdefence only shotguns, CS-guns and funny guns, looks like real, but shot with rubber ball (useless toys)… Hunters can buy also rifles, selfloaders only…
No way legally buy any handguns, full-auto rifles etc… But criminals never have a problems to get any weapons. From old WWII digged out SMG to todays AK-74 and UZI. Anyway, if country got army or police - criminals can find ways to get some weapon.
I’m really was on tracks of this AWB act, even got shooter’s magzines from USA… and allways wondering - wich difference between military SVD and AWB-prepared SVD… that stupid butt without pistol grip make SVD unusable for crime, huh… :roll: And if i got old SVD with pistol grip - is it make this selfloader a tool of crime ? Five additional rounds in Beretta 92FD makes this pistol really more dangerous than same with 10 rounds mag ? I can reload any pistol with button-magazine relise in a part of second…
Yes, maybe that maked criminals unhappy… i don’t know. Maybe. Can’t judge about that from Russia.
Hope i’ll look at it someday a bit closer. :lol:
Originally posted as a comment to posts in the ‘Best LMG’ thread in the ‘General WWII Discussion’ forum.
These comments stem from the misinformed post following that made by ‘2nd of foot’ on the M1 and M2 Carbines.
2nd’s post is the seventh on the eleventh page of that thread.
Link:- http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=3192
Hi 2nd of foot,
He’s off on one again isn’t he ? One sometimes wonders if the voices in his head are just part of the fantasy or if they actually control him.
One would have thought that he would be able to learn from others as he mentioned elsewhere, but it appears he meant that others should bow to his, sometimes rather odd, claims rather than that he opens his own mind to established military thinking. I suppose it must be easier in computer games, the characters there obey his will unquestioningly.
To claim that the M-2 was the inspiration for the Mini-14 is disingenous, for a start it is as the name suggests, a smaller version of the M14, which is itself an adaptation of the venerable Garand.
As an aside for anyone that is interested, it is not merely a scaled down version of the Garand/M14 system. For a start the chamber pressure of the 5.56 x 45 is greater than that of the 7.62 x 51 so the forces imposed, while reduced by the smaller areas involved, are still high and direct scaling is impossible.
The Mini-14 is a semi-automatic rifle and the M2 selective, something that our walt holds very important, probably because he has no experience of this latter type of weapon. Maybe he should visit the Gun Store in Vegas.
On second thoughts no, he’d probably want to become CiC !
2nd, don’t you think it’s odd that he can cite himself as a source for definition ? (The Wikepedia one can hardly count, being as it was a misquote of part of the now defunct AWB.)
The ammunition aspect is interesting too. That he owns a box of 30M1 is laudable from a collector’s point of view, although I think we should avoid reference to the walt’s closet, lest other inferences be drawn.
Claiming that because it uses a short rifle cartridge it must be an assault rifle is filled with pitfalls. There are other metallic cartridge weapons that use a shorter cartridge for the carbine version than the rifle, but that would hardly make them assault rifles.
Indeed pistols have been chambered for the 30M1 cartridge, because it has of a power level in the pistol magnitude.
(While the Xp’s and T/C’s have also been chambered for rifle cartridges, they have had rifle lockups due of the pressure of the cart concerned.)
The muzzle velocity is misleading too, given the length of the M1\M2 barrels.
That ‘the M1 Carbine rifle was also used quite a bit by front-line troops’ does not make it an assault weapon, any more than using a Shovel GS to take out sentries makes that a Commando weapon. It merely shows the soldiers’ adaptability, I’m sure Spear and Jackson did not envisage the ways the troops would use their product.
I found the list of the soldiers who took Foy to be most illuminating, showing as it does the issue of the carbine for personal protection to certain types of troops. Note that they are all either signallers, commanders or support weapons troops, ie those who are laden down with other equipment and less likely to take part in the assault.
That our walt’s numeracy skills are on a par with his tactical experience comes as sad, though not altogether unexpected, news.
I have no doubt whatsoever that the carbine is light and handy, and for the minority issued them they proved to be effective at close range which is an extremely common occurrence in urban ops.
The one part that puzzles me is addition of the ‘TAC’ and ‘Morale’ levels, as I don’t play computer games I am at a disadvantage here, can anyone enlighten me about this ?
Okay, again about M1/M1A2/M2 Carbine and assault rifles…
Let’s look at first really assalt rifle MP-43/StG 44 and M1/M2 /Carbine.
Range of fire - frequently used argument against M1/M2.
Range of effective accurate fire (real):
M1Carbine/M2 - 200 meters.
MP43/Stg 44 - 600 meters.
Hypothetical situation:
Can single US GI armed with M1 Car manage with single nazi armed with MP43 at range about 400 meters ?
I sure - NO. At range more 200 meters M1 Carbine - useless thing. But MP 43 at 600 meters - still accurate and 7.92x33 bullet got enough speed.
7.92x33 Kurz was really powerfull cartridge, more powerfull than todays russian 7.62x39.
.30 Carbine was a just mdified revolver cartridge, and one was wrong - flat bullet nose, same as revolver’s bullets.
I faound some interesting information - today’s .03 more powerfull and with sharp nose bullet gom much bigger effective range of fire.
Third argument - selective fire.
…
Fourth argument - purpose.
MP43/Stg 44 should in future (is nazis got some future) replace Mauser C-98 and MP 38/40. MP43/StG 44 supposed to be main rifle in german army.
M1/M2 Carbine was designed as replacement in some version for M1911A2 or M1 Thompson… i offer leave alone discuss “what should M1 Car replace.”
It was weapon for non-combat units and weapon for paratroopers or commandos too. Anyway M1 Car was better than M1 Thomson for paratroopers by accuracy and range with quite equal weight, i can bet it.
Is it really imoptant poin - purpose. I never have read or heard that US Army or Marines planed replace all M1 Garands and Springfield M1903 with M1 Carbine. Or even replace with M1 Car all M1 Thomson and M3 Greasy Gun.
Was M1 Carbine and especially M2 Carbine an assault rifle ? BY some academical, formal reasons - yes. By mechanical reasons - yes.
Intermediate cartridge, gas operated, lightweighted weapon - with affectation i can agree with it. If M1/M2 get good powerful cartridge right from a start - yes, no doubts, it would be exactly assault rifle.
Was M1/M2 Carbine really assault rifle ? Hmm… with range around 200 meters ?
How we can calssified M1/M2 Carbine ?
I guess isi it one on kind weapon. Less powerfull than MP43/StG44 (i really still tought - it was really first assault rifle, Fedorov’s Avtomat - battle rifle with selective fire, something between LMG and selfloader). More powerfull than SMG.
Something middle. Short light auto-carbine.
Anyway - name doesn’t matter. Thing does matter.
M1 Carbine was good enough weapon for he’s pupose.
Important question for men with war-expirience.
How long was range of usual gun-fight ?
At my short expirience - about 100-300 meters and closer.
And i never belive in predictable accurate headshot with standard rifle (and cartridge) without scope at range more than 600 meters in battle conditions. In open space, offcourse. 300 meters - okay, sure. 600 meters - oh, lucky son of a bitch ! More… Walt, yeah… :lol:
Why i start talking about usual combat range ? I just trieng state the value of M1 Carbine in usual battle.
Cuts, please, can you tell us more about conditions and distance ?
And, by the way, few bottles of beer (your preferable sort ) from me - you can get it if you’ll be in St. Petersburg someday or when/if i’ll be in… oh, i still don’t know where you live…
Not wonting to teach you to suck eggs, but I am not sure as to your background knowledge and to make thing clear I will start with the basics.
A soldier needs to group a number of shots onto the target to prove they can shoot. In this case the British army requires that a soldier achieve the minimum of 5 rounds within a 200mm area fired from 100m. Once they have achieved this they can then go on to zero the rifle to themselves. As the target moves away from them the group size will increase in proportion to the distance. So a 200mm group at 100m will be 400mm at 200m and 800mm at three. So if a soldier fires 5 rounds at 300m and the target size is 400mm wide the chances of hitting the target are not good as this shots will fall somewhere in an 800mm circle.
The idea of the head shot is more Hollywood than real life. We are taught to aim for the centre of mass and over 200m it is very difficult to identify a head let alone hit it (unless you have a X4 sight). Don’t forget that your enemy is trying not to be seen.
In general an individual riflemen will engage targets up to 300m. Over 300m will be difficult to identify and hit. You would fire at a location ie small bush to left of tree, not at a person and every one will engage the target. Under 300m one or two soldiers would be ordered to fire on the target. This saves ammo and leaves the rest of the section to cover their arks.
And to hit a moving target greater than 100m……………… that’s why you have MGs :lol: :lol:
You should look at this site as I think it will interest you,
Why talk like an asswipe? What’s with the “walt” garbage in every post? Grow up. I’ve put up with it in a gentlemanly manner for a long time now, and not allowed myself to be drawn into that kind of behavior. Start acting like a gentleman and you will not elicit ungentlemanly responses as well.
You claimed that the M1 Carbine was not a rifle, and you thought it used pistol ammunition. My description of the weapon’s ammunition was to show that to be incorrect. It had nothing to do with whether or not the M1 Carbine was an assult rifle.
So you read this:
“Pistol-based carbines were a natural extension of the occasionally recurring fad for equipping pistols with detachable shoulder stocks in order to permit more accurate aiming.”
…and assumed the M1\M2 Carbines used pistol ammo. Well, they don’t.
Misleading? The manufacturer was misleading about the rated velocity? You mean all of those weapons experts are wrong? Now you want to say that the M1 Carbine had a much lower MZ than it did to support your claims?
That story sounds questionable to me. In fact, it sounds like utter bullcrap. i don’t believe that one my friend.
I could empty a 7 round .22 rifle magazine into you at 100 yards and you’d drop like a sack of potatos - guarenteed. In fact a .22 will even pass through a 2x4 at close range, and your body is a helluvu lot softer than pine. Imagine what a .30 rifle does to a man at 200 meters, especially when the bullet flattens out. And this guy emptied a mag from an M1 Carbine into a fleeing man… to no effect? LMFAO Don’t go that far into the abyss. Obviously the guy never hit him.
The soldiers of WWII in Eurpoe and the Pacific, and the USMC use the M1 Carbine to kill many Chinese soldiers wearing heavy canvas winter coats lined with multiple layers of stitched cotton (the heaviest winter coats of any army in the world) at distances of up to 250+ meters at Chosin without having to hit them but once or twice. The kill ratio was 10-1 in favor of the USMC… a large percentage of whom used an M1 Carbine. You see, I had just been in a debate of that very matter in another forum a few months ago where another guy said the M1 Carbine would not penetrate, so I asked my father (who used one at Chosin). “There was no penetration problem with the M1 Carbine. None at all.” In fact he told me that it seemed that every other man on the front lines had an M1 Carbine - because it was faster to reload and well suited for that task.
Debating whether or not the M1 Carbine was a rifle (which you said it was not), or whether or not it uses pistol ammunition (which you said it does), is one thing. But trying to put down the weapon with claims that it could barely penetrate is beyond unreasonable. Don’t go that far into the abyss.
Well, there you have it. The M1 Carbine had no penetration problems when used in it’s perspective range, which is up to 300 yards. BTW, the perspective range for the weapon, given by it’s manufacturer (300 yards) is the maximum distance at which the weapon will provide good penetration. wink
It would not need to be issued to “all troops” to be an assult rifle any more than a door needs to be in every hallway to be a door. Although there are guidelines used to define an assult rifle, to all of which the M2 Carbine complies, it is more accurate to say that a rifle is an assult weapon by the manner of it’s use so long as it fits the description.
So from this we can summize that the M1 Carbine was an assult rifle, like the M2 Carbine, not because the M2 had selective fire or because the M1 Carbine did not have selective fire, but because it was used extensively in that role by US troops, and most importantly, because it was very well suited to that role.
A better understanding of the role of an assult rifle and how the M1 Carbine was used in that role may clarify this for you:
[b]You must remember that the term “assult rifle” was invented by the Germans to describe their new weapon because of the manner in which it was used most effectively. The bulk of the German army used bolt action rifles supported by MG. The new weapon enabled them to fight at short to med range in a more aggressive manner for the foot soldier, because they were no longer limited to the slow, long and unwieldy bolt action rifle. This is the same reason that the US troops in Europe used M1 Carbines so much as they did - in assult and search-and-destroy roles -because the fighting had become more urban than rural, and in city fighting, a long rifle is less desired - so the M1 Carbine, like the German MP43/44 was used to levy assults upon the enemy. The weapon had done a virtual about-face in role. It was now recognized that the M1 Carbine had significant advantages in such a role, and it was issued far more than it had been at the start of the war.
Remember also, the MP40 was pretty scarce, and few German soldier used one - mostly commanders. When the Germans had begun to be pushed back into Germany on both sides, they had to change fighting tactics. it was no longer suitable to shoot from a distance with a bolt action rifle supported by MG’s and mechanized units. They needed a weapon that would allow them to levy quick assult’s on foot if they were to keep up with the Allied weapons in combat - the semi-automatic and automatic weapons, such as the Sphagin, M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, and Thonpson.
The way the term is used today descends from that first useage. Today we use the term “assult weapon” because SMG’s are used more for assults than they were in the WWII era. So now we have changed the term to fit the description of the way the weapon is used, not stricly because of the characteristics of the weapon. In that light, looking back on the weapons usage, the M1 Carbine is surely an assult rifle, for it was used in that capacity as much as it was for it’s intended use as a light rifle for support troops.
It is impotant however, that to be an assult weapon, or for a weapon to be used as an assult weapon, it should meet at least the most critical criteria for the role, such as having a carbine length barell, short, (preferably light weight) fast firing, and effective at the intended range. The M1 Carbine meets all of those requirements for that role. The fact that it was without selective fire is far less important than the greater number of characteristics of a weapon well suited to an assult role, and is of little consequence in the end result.[/b]
…and the M1 Carbine’s action is a scaled down version of the action of the M1 Garand, as Preatorian so kinly pointed out some time ago.
True. But the role for which it was used does, and it was used very much as an assult rifle by US troops assulting Japanese positions in the Pacific Theatre and in the cities in Europe.
If the weapon were not up to the task, it would not have been issued, and there would not have been more M1 Carbines present than M1 Garands. One of the reasons the weapon was issued so much because of it’s light weight to ease the burden of those carrying equipment (support personell). That does not mean that those troops were not using it in combat, such as the Seargents who went with their troops.
Thanks a lot, 2nd of foot !
You give me really interesting information and i have no idea where i could found it without you. Sure. British army have good resonable traning program at my look. Russian army got different idea, someday i will talk about it.
Sure, from 200 meters really hard recognize head. But i have an story…
:lol:
I pretty good can imajine how it does sounds, but i have seen it with my own eyes.
Man, i sure - one on kind, make shoot from about 500-600 with RPK machinegun, in semi-auto mode, directly in head of enemy trooper. Without scope. From cover. Trough open space. In windless weather, about 08.00 AM. Enemy soldier was not covered and was in steady position. And it was first shot of fight.
You can name me Walt, if you like - but is it real story. I’m doubt that i can repeat that result with scoped SVD.
Okay, enough storyes for now.
It would seem that the M1 Carbine was used quite a bit along with the M1 Garand and Thompson, especially in city fighting and short range battles. I think the reason it was used so much was that it was well suited for such ranges.
Truly, it was no replacement for the M1 Garand, especially in open spaces. However, 6,221,220 M1 Carbines were manufactured, not 600,000.
That info is from one of the companies that manufactured it during WWII:
I just thought it would be useful to know how many were made. It was indeed used a whole lot more by front line troops than was ever imagined it would be, especially in closer quarters fighting, like in cities and short battlefields, such as the Ardennes and in Korea.
You claimed that the M1 Carbine was not a rifle, and you thought it used pistol ammunition. My description of the weapon’s ammunition was to show that to be incorrect. It had nothing to do with whether or not the M1 Carbine was an assult rifle.
No, have never clamed that is not a rifle. And my phrase was your comment on a carbine being French for short rifle. I am referring to it not being a full bore rifle.
Cuts wrote:
The muzzle velocity is misleading too, given the length of the M1\M2 barrels.
Misleading? The manufacturer was misleading about the rated velocity? You mean all of those weapons experts are wrong? Now you want to say that the M1 Carbine had a much lower MZ than it did to support your claims?
What he is referring to is that the ballistics of the round cause it to attenuale a lot quicker than if it was pointed at the front and so although it’s MV at start may be high by the time it has travelled a distance it is dropping off rapidly.
That story sounds questionable to me. In fact, it sounds like utter bullcrap. i don’t believe that one my friend.
I have a similar one from Vietnam involving NZ troops and the SLR vs the M16 from a soldier who was there but you would not believe that either. Similar stories have emerged from Afghanistan involving US troops and the M16A2. and if you go back it is also the reason why the US introduced the .45.
You have not attributed your comments, so it is pointless, it could have come from the 13 year old down the road for all we know and is as valid as hot air.
The comment within your bold area
They needed a weapon that would allow them to levy quick assult’s on foot
The notable thing about the German infantry was that they would counter attack as soon as possible and had been doing so through out the war, the introduction of the AR did not change their small unit tactics.
it should meet at least the most critical criteria for the role, such as having a carbine length barell
small dangly things.
Life’s to short to pick all the hole in you orbat.
Thanks a lot, 2nd of foot !
You give me really interesting information and i have no idea where i could found it without you. Sure. British army have good resonable traning program at my look. Russian army got different idea, someday i will talk about it.
Sure, from 200 meters really hard recognize head. But i have an story…
:lol:
I pretty good can imajine how it does sounds, but i have seen it with my own eyes.
Man, i sure - one on kind, make shoot from about 500-600 with RPK machinegun, in semi-auto mode, directly in head of enemy trooper. Without scope. From cover. Trough open space. In windless weather, about 08.00 AM. Enemy soldier was not covered and was in steady position. And it was first shot of fight.
You can name me Walt, if you like - but is it real story. I’m doubt that i can repeat that result with scoped SVD.
Okay, enough storyes for now.
Thanks again.[/quote]
That is why Napoleon when asking about a general said something like “ I do not care if he is good, is he lucky?”
:lol: