Rearm the American Infantry for WWII.

The problem with the M1 carbine is while it's a good carbine, it is not as good when used as a beefed up SMG: recoil is much more important and thus accuracy suffers. Honestly, a cheap SMG (3 times cheaper than a carbine) which is easy to use and very controllable is better. At less than 100 metres, a M3 Grease Gun firing bursts of 45 ACP with good stopping power is perfectly adequate for heavy weapons' crews being forced to defend themselves.
And the problem with M3
It weighs 50% heavier
Ammo is 100% heavier

and shoots to 100m. An M3 is 50m

One of the important parts of rear defence,
Keeping attackers beyond grenade range ,
Something SMGs don’t
 
Last edited:
And so it proved with the M3 pretty much retained as a tankers weapon with the M1/M2 used for pretty much everything else
The M3 was retained by tankers as there was no room for M1 carbines!
Racks were designed for Thompsons.

The only advantage was the tankers had m1911 and the heavy M3 fitted through the hatches a bit easier.
 
View attachment 590807

less room than the M1928A1 that the M3 Lee and M4 Sherman were set for
View attachment 590808
M1A1 would have been nice, but the airborne had them all. M1s sent back and refurbished.
Only 150,000 M1A1 for paratroopers

A pistol was best in the AFV.
“To keep the glacis plate clear!”

An M1 carbine would have been much better to run with and keep the hordes at bay.

US tankers only were issued 1 Thompson until late in the war. Last year 5 M3.

Very low priority
 
Last edited:
And the problem with M3
It weighs 50% heavier
Ammo is 100% heavier

and shoots to 100m. An M3 is 50m

One of the important parts of rear defence,
Keeping attackers beyond grenade range ,
Something SMGs don’t
If you can throw a grenade at 50 metres with some accuracy, you're an absolute athlete. The maximum practical range was 30 metres, beyond this, it's grenade launchers (up to 150 metres).
And heavier means controllable. A light weapon has more recoil. Weight is a weapon is a double-edged sword. Why the SUOMI was so controllable? Because it had the right weight which kept the barrel down while firing bursts. The M3 followed the same logic. A fully automatic M1 carbine is too light to be controllable.
 
If you can throw a grenade at 50 metres with some accuracy, you're an absolute athlete. The maximum practical range was 30 metres, beyond this, it's grenade launchers (up to 150 metres).
And heavier means controllable. A light weapon has more recoil. Weight is a weapon is a double-edged sword. Why the SUOMI was so controllable? Because it had the right weight which kept the barrel down while firing bursts. The M3 followed the same logic. A fully automatic M1 carbine is too light to be controllable.
When you fire rapid accurate semi fire, you don’t need weight to make the weapon controllable.

50m is at the limit of SMGs. Reliable hits less.
Remember the fragment range is 15-20m.
30+20m for grenades
 
45s drop like rocks, but you could get a grease gun on target at 100 yards without much trouble, especially if you're walking it on target in full auto. I'd expect similar results from the Sten, done similar shooting with my own personal 9mm rifles at that range and it's not bad.

Now with drop being parabolic, you wouldn't want to push either one much further than that, but they're not hard-limited to 50 meters either.

The full auto recoil on the Carbines isn't bad either. I had a Carbine with a sticky firing pin, and it would randomly double/triple when you pulled the trigger. I played with it for a few boxes before cleaning it - "it's a feature, not a bug." Keeping it on target for a quick burst was no problem at all, even when that burst caught me by surprise. If you were just hosing a target down, I don't think 150 yards would be a problem.

If the M1 was used as a submachine gun to replace the Thompson from the word go, I think it would have been very successful. It would need a better magazine because the issue magazines are chintzy as hell and full auto would exacerbate that, but otherwise it would be entirely adequate.
 
45s drop like rocks, but you could get a grease gun on target at 100 yards without much trouble, especially if you're walking it on target in full auto. I'd expect similar results from the Sten, done similar shooting with my own personal 9mm rifles at that range and it's not bad.

Now with drop being parabolic, you wouldn't want to push either one much further than that, but they're not hard-limited to 50 meters either.

The full auto recoil on the Carbines isn't bad either. I had a Carbine with a sticky firing pin, and it would randomly double/triple when you pulled the trigger. I played with it for a few boxes before cleaning it - "it's a feature, not a bug." Keeping it on target for a quick burst was no problem at all, even when that burst caught me by surprise. If you were just hosing a target down, I don't think 150 yards would be a problem.

If the M1 was used as a submachine gun to replace the Thompson from the word go, I think it would have been very successful. It would need a better magazine because the issue magazines are chintzy as hell and full auto would exacerbate that, but otherwise it would be entirely adequate.
My understanding of the Magazine issue was that they did not like extended field use and were easily degraded over time

This was not such an issue for the US Army as they simply pushed so many magazines that troops could replace 'old' with new almost as if they were a disposable item

I suggested in another thread that the M1 Carbine ammo actually be supplied in bandioliers of 6 x 15 round magazines or 4 x 30 round magazines and not 12 x 10 round stripper clips
 
Another quick thing re: Thompsons vs Carbines in full auto. The tommy guns were beloved for their gilt-edged full auto accuracy, where you can literally write your name in bullets.

There's a reason for that. In terms of weight, grunts were literally packing around a Garand that fired 1911 bullets. Yeah, your Garand-sized pistol is going to feel awesome when it comes to recoil, but it's overkill in every other sense. You're talking something that's twice as heavy as a Carbine and uses a third as powerful of a round.

Someone earlier in this thread compared the Carbine's recoil to an M16's, and I'd say that's accurate. You're probably not going to be signing your name with a full-auto M16, but the recoil is still so light that drill instructors can shoot it off their crotch.

My understanding of the Magazine issue was that they did not like extended field use and were easily degraded over time

This was not such an issue for the US Army as they simply pushed so many magazines that troops could replace 'old' with new almost as if they were a disposable item
I don't know what the thinking was behind the carbine's magazines. I doubt they were considered disposable by an army that still insisted on clips for the Garand, but they were definitely not built for hard use. I guess the expectation was back-rankers simply wouldn't use them that much.
 
I don't know what the thinking was behind the carbine's magazines. I doubt they were considered disposable by an army that still insisted on clips for the Garand, but they were definitely not built for hard use. I guess the expectation was back-rankers simply wouldn't use them that much.
There is a good interview on the weapon here and the Magazine 'issue' is addressed - its mainly a post war issue were old magazines (and old guns) were used by Non US Armed forces and civilians who did not enjoy the ability to simply grab fresh magazines

 
Last edited:
The M3 was retained by tankers as there was no room for M1 carbines!
Racks were designed for Thompsons.

The only advantage was the tankers had m1911 and the heavy M3 fitted through the hatches a bit easier.
As the Chieftain said about the M3, its role was to make the other guy keep his head down while you ran away from your burning tank.
 
A fully automatic M1 carbine is too light to be controllable.
No, the M2 Carbine was fine on FA. I've done it. It's actually far better than the Thompson, that you got to fight to keep lined up. You would think that heavy pig would be easy, but it certainly isn't from the too high RoF.
 
As the Chieftain said about the M3, its role was to make the other guy keep his head down while you ran away from your burning tank.
Best thing about the Grease Gun, was for Road Marches with full gear, you could 'forget' and leave the heavy bolt behind, while you march with a light steel tube. More than one DAT told me about that.
 
No, the M2 Carbine was fine on FA. I've done it. It's actually far better than the Thompson, that you got to fight to keep lined up. You would think that heavy pig would be easy, but it certainly isn't from the too high RoF.
I never praised the Thompson for being controllable, I was talking about the Grease Gun, which definitively is. And, even if the US Army didn't care much about spending a lot of money in the 1940's (quite revealing about their financial and industrial might, I'll admit it), you can produce two M3 for one M1 Carbine and borderline exceed the Soviet production of SMGs in that regard (we are talking more than 8 MILLIONS smgs here, probably around 12 millions). That's a mind-boggling amount of decent and reliable weapons (provided they're designed to use the Thompson's excellent magazine) which would litteraly takes a couple of days for a private to be familiar with. M2 Carbines are good, I've never said the opposite (see my previous posts and I too watch Forgotten weapons about it, I'll also recommand VickersTactical videos in that regard), but they require more training.
 
Top