1/10/2025 4:56:33 PM
Reply
or ReplyNewSubject
Section 9: Military Weapons Subject: M1 Carbine Effectiveness Msg# 1218754
|
||||||
Yep, knowing the purpose of the tool is important. It was supposed to replace the 1911 pistol for officers, senior NCOs, members of crew served weapons, rear area personnel, etc. during WWII. The interesting fact, however, is that many/most of those people who carried 1911s before the M1 Carbine was issued to them continued carrying 1911s along with the Carbines (or SMGs).
Issuing them to riflemen to replace M1 Rifles worked out OK initially for jungle fighting in the Pacific, but as the islands got bigger (i.e. Saipan, Okinawa) the lack of lethality at longer ranges became obvious. Korea was even more dramatic in that respect. Select fire didn't improve that aspect either, although it might have had a psychological effect on the grunt using it. The cold weather problems in Korea causing weapons to freeze up introduced Vitalis and Lucky Tiger hair products (with alcohol and glycerin additives) as anti-freeze lubricants, but not only to Carbines, but M1 rifles as well. The idea that it was only Carbines that froze up was simply untrue. Going forward one war, the Carbines were better thought of in Vietnam by both local sides (ARVN and VC), so I guess the tool fit the purpose more, eh? I've had about 5 M1 Carbines over the years, including a sick bird M2 and a clone. They were fun to shoot when there was abundant and inexpensive surplus ammunition, but when that became scarce it was less fun for me. I sold them all, probably too soon it would seem, at far lower prices than current dollars. Harvey |
||||||
|
||||||
For reference, the above message is a reply to a message where: Here is one of the most comprehensive articles I've seen on the M1 carbine covering its use and relative effectiveness from WWII through Vietnam. I'm a fan of them and should have bought one back when I could have afforded it... |