British Army adopts M1 Carbine as primary rifle for Normandy

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
Not in any reality-based universe. Rifles were M1, M1903, and M1917. M1 carbines, by definition, are not rifles in the context of the US Army during WW II.
Except of course production and use of M1 carbines vastly outstripped Garands. Garands were used by some of the combat infantry, but not all. The majority of the Army had M1 carbines. The reality is that soldiers of the US military were equipped with M1 carbines, artillery, and some other guns... :openedeyewink:
 
Last edited:

Dave Shoup

Banned
The 'Master Race' with substantial numbers of 'Stomach Battalions' and recruits from Soviet POWs?

More what they were equipped (or not equipped) with, how they were organized, where they'd be fighting, and how they'd be fighting. The IJA, for example, understood by 19454-45 that US artillery, armor, and air superiority was such that close infantry combat based on field and natural fortifications - trenches, caves, etc. - was about the only technique that - might - allow them to hold on to significant ground, much less inflict the casualties they imagined might be enough to force a negotiated settlement.

The Germans in 1944-45 were still thinking in terms of mobile warfare, at some distances, and using combined arms. They learned that wasn't going to happen in 1944 in France, so fell back on trying a mobile winter campaign; that failed in the Ardennes. After that, it was just dig in and die, but they still had much more artillery and armor than the Japanese were ever going to have.
 

Dave Shoup

Banned
Except of course production and use of M1 carbines vastly outstripped Garands. Garands were used by some of the combat infantry, but not all. The majority of the Army had M1 carbines. The reality is that soldiers of the US military were equipped with M1 carbines.

Carbines are not rifles. There's a reason the M1 and M2 carbines were not designated as the M2 and M3 rifles. They weren't.

Likewise, the combat infantry - which is what matters - were armed largely with the M1 rifle as their issue individual weapon. M1 carbines, SMGs, and BARs, were ALSO individual weapons (as opposed to crew-served) but those weapons were issued as needed for specific individuals within the combat infantry organizations. So were M1911s, but one can't call an M1 carbine a rifle anymore than one can call a .45 s/a pistol a rifle, either.

Certainly not - with any approximation of historical fidelity - in the context of the US military in WW 2 - or even today.
 
More what they were equipped (or not equipped) with, how they were organized, where they'd be fighting, and how they'd be fighting. The IJA, for example, understood by 19454-45 that US artillery, armor, and air superiority was such that close infantry combat based on field and natural fortifications - trenches, caves, etc. - was about the only technique that - might - allow them to hold on to significant ground, much less inflict the casualties they imagined might be enough to force a negotiated settlement.

The Germans in 1944-45 were still thinking in terms of mobile warfare, at some distances, and using combined arms. They learned that wasn't going to happen in 1944 in France, so fell back on trying a mobile winter campaign; that failed in the Ardennes. After that, it was just dig in and die, but they still had much more artillery and armor than the Japanese were ever going to have.
Marines did a far better job at combined arms, using Air, Armor, Artillery (NGFS and what was ashore) to get Infantry moving.

One reason the Army Pacific Transplants like Patch did so well in Europe, is they had an idea what worked from working closely with the Marines.

Having the 2nd Marine Division with Devers, Hürtgen Forest would have been easy compared to Saipan
 
Carbines are not rifles. There's a reason the M1 and M2 carbines were not designated as the M2 and M3 rifles. They weren't.

Likewise, the combat infantry - which is what matters - were armed largely with the M1 rifle as their issue individual weapon. M1 carbines, SMGs, and BARs, were ALSO individual weapons (as opposed to crew-served) but those weapons were issued as needed for specific individuals within the combat infantry organizations. So were M1911s, but one can't call an M1 carbine a rifle anymore than one can call a .45 s/a pistol a rifle, either.

Certainly not - with any approximation of historical fidelity - in the context of the US military in WW 2 - or even today.
Semantics young man.
Carbines are not rifles. There's a reason the M1 and M2 carbines were not designated as the M2 and M3 rifles. They weren't.

Likewise, the combat infantry - which is what matters - were armed largely with the M1 rifle as their issue individual weapon. M1 carbines, SMGs, and BARs, were ALSO individual weapons (as opposed to crew-served) but those weapons were issued as needed for specific individuals within the combat infantry organizations. So were M1911s, but one can't call an M1 carbine a rifle anymore than one can call a .45 s/a pistol a rifle, either.

Certainly not - with any approximation of historical fidelity - in the context of the US military in WW 2 - or even today.
We're just playing semantics games and I am being contrary for no reason. I agree with you completely.
 
They had that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLEM-1
Same exact operating system. The rimmed cartridge was dropped due to the lack of reliable feeding (the SVT-40 wasn't known for reliability or accuracy) in the Belgian design, but the Brits already had the 7.92x57 in production for the Besa MG.

How much of that was due to high quality Soviet war time workmanship though? There's nothing wrong with the operating system, half the world used it for decades and while a rimmed cartridge isn't ideal the .303 worked well enough in the Bren so shouldn't be much of a problem.
 

Deleted member 1487

Carbines are not rifles. There's a reason the M1 and M2 carbines were not designated as the M2 and M3 rifles. They weren't.

Likewise, the combat infantry - which is what matters - were armed largely with the M1 rifle as their issue individual weapon. M1 carbines, SMGs, and BARs, were ALSO individual weapons (as opposed to crew-served) but those weapons were issued as needed for specific individuals within the combat infantry organizations. So were M1911s, but one can't call an M1 carbine a rifle anymore than one can call a .45 s/a pistol a rifle, either.

Certainly not - with any approximation of historical fidelity - in the context of the US military in WW 2 - or even today.
That's just semantics. The German main battle rifle of WW2, the K98k, was also a carbine, the 2nd K was short for Karabiner.
Technically they didn't have a rifle either, just a bolt action carbine, with some actual rifles, the Gewehr 98, was used in limited sniping roles. That and the G43.

Technically the BAR was part of a team, they were supposed to have a second man carrying extra ammo, though I forgot when that changed.
 
That's just semantics. The German main battle rifle of WW2, the K98k, was also a carbine, the 2nd K was short for Karabiner.
Technically they didn't have a rifle either, just a bolt action carbine, with some actual rifles, the Gewehr 98, was used in limited sniping roles. That and the G43.

Technically the BAR was part of a team, they were supposed to have a second man carrying extra ammo, though I forgot when that changed.
He's making a fair point though. The intended battle rifle implement for combat infantry below sergeant was the Garand rifle. The M1 was generally the rifle for everybody else.
 
The standard individual weapon in the infantry units of the French 1st Army in 1944-45 was the M1917 in .30, along with some '03s and light autos (SMGs and carbines), as well as BARs and some M29s. The French had received a small number of M1 Garands, but they went largely to the units that were planned to be available for direct attachment to US Army units, like the French paratroops trained under US aegis (not the French SAS units).

The Canadians, Poles, Indians, South Africans, Belgians, Dutch, Greeks, Czechs, Palestinian/JBers, and Norwegians organized by or under British aegis were all armed with standard British weapons as well, including the SMLE/Sten/Bren mixture.

The point being, none of the Allies - even the smallest contingents - that operated in the ETO saw the concept of equipping a line infantry battalion (or anything more) with M1 or M2 carbines as a standard weapon as a good idea that appears to have been put in practice. Even the special operations units - the British Army and RM commandos, for example - were not equipped in such a way.
More what they were equipped (or not equipped) with, how they were organized, where they'd be fighting, and how they'd be fighting. The IJA, for example, understood by 19454-45 that US artillery, armor, and air superiority was such that close infantry combat based on field and natural fortifications - trenches, caves, etc. - was about the only technique that - might - allow them to hold on to significant ground, much less inflict the casualties they imagined might be enough to force a negotiated settlement.

The Germans in 1944-45 were still thinking in terms of mobile warfare, at some distances, and using combined arms. They learned that wasn't going to happen in 1944 in France, so fell back on trying a mobile winter campaign; that failed in the Ardennes. After that, it was just dig in and die, but they still had much more artillery and armor than the Japanese were ever going to have.

I remember being on a sort of German-wank site a few years back where they insisted that the Wehrmacht loved the M-1 carbine, and that they would replace all the individual weapons in select PanzerGrenadier platoons with them when they picked up enough guns and ammo to make it work...anybody else ever hear that one?
 

Deleted member 1487

How much of that was due to high quality Soviet war time workmanship though? There's nothing wrong with the operating system, half the world used it for decades and while a rimmed cartridge isn't ideal the .303 worked well enough in the Bren so shouldn't be much of a problem.
I'm talking about the pre-war models, they stopped making them during the war for the simpler Mosin-Nagants.
There is quite a lot wrong with the system, the tilting bolt/short stroke gas piston combo was only accurate out to about 350m even on the FN FAL.
The Bren used a different gas system and was quite a bit heavier than the FN-49/SVT-40/G43.
As to the magazines, yes they worked, but they were expensively built up and heavy, not something you want for a general issue rifle.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dave Shoup

Banned
Marines did a far better job at combined arms, using Air, Armor, Artillery (NGFS and what was ashore) to get Infantry moving. One reason the Army Pacific Transplants like Patch did so well in Europe, is they had an idea what worked from working closely with the Marines. Having the 2nd Marine Division with Devers, Hürtgen Forest would have been easy compared to Saipan

Yeah, okay. Like the Marine operations in forested country (Guadalcanal, for example) were easy.

And what does Jacob Devers have to do with the Huertgen Forest? The Huertgen was in the 12th Army Group's operational area, not the 6th Army Group.
 

Deleted member 1487

He's making a fair point though. The intended battle rifle implement for combat infantry below sergeant was the Garand rifle. The M1 was generally the rifle for everybody else.
Ok, and? You're talking about the US army, I'm talking about a what if for the British army. Nomenclature the US used doesn't mean that the British couldn't consider it something else. After all the US army of WW2 would probably consider the M16 a carbine too.
 

Deleted member 1487

I remember being on a sort of German-wank site a few years back where they insisted that the Wehrmacht loved the M-1 carbine, and that they would replace all the individual weapons in select PanzerGrenadier platoons with them when they picked up enough guns and ammo to make it work...anybody else ever hear that one?
That's a lot further than I've heard it. I have seen it claimed that they liked it and would grab it if they could find one with enough ammo, plus there are a fair few pics with them being used by German troops, but you also have to consider that the StG was preferred if it was available.
 
Top