The New "Inland" M1 Carbine

ha ha...this thread is on fire... where can I get me some fancy clear stuff in 4 litre jugs...want to test my Gov approved slingshot (not in city limits ,though)

wanted to test those jugs against lawn darts, but a lawsuit brought by a father who hit his kidlet in the head with one, prevents us from using them anymore.
doh

really miss plinking.
oh canada

 

I call your bluff and raise you a crappy American beer. Here's photographic evidence of a soldier using a mere 11x17" looseleaf sheet of paper as armor. Clearly he trust his life to this mix of polysaccharide and other organic compounds and is so confident in its superior armor capabilities that he didn't even bother to paint it in Rhodesian brush-stroke camo! The logical conclusion is that a phone book is much more effective. Who knows, this may even be the critical component in the Chobham armor used on the M1 Abrams.

 

Perhaps not now with smart phones, but back in 1951 the North Koreans could armor a machine gun position using only the 'Kim' section of the Chosin phone book.

.

 

The Park and Lee sections were used as applique armor on the T34.

 

one of the better episodes of mythbusters-

 

Aww, shucks!

.

 

I hope you find it to satisfy my curiosity.

.

 

Definitely a getter in the Pacific theater, though no one said shooting ranges were always short around the trees and beaches.

Just from (selective data) paratroopers in the European theater, the preferred guns to carry when dropping into enemy territory are:

1. garand
2. thompson
3. folding carbine
4.1919 machine gun

the Garand was always viewed as the goto rifle in a fight. the thompson gives one confidnence (?) in a sudden firefight (??). the carbine is a great weapon for a para solely for the weight savings. The 1919 is real firepower in your hands, "every paratrooper should have it." (!!!)

the bad ones were:
1. 1918 BAR
2. M-1 carbine
3. 1911

the BAR didn't give enough firepower for its weight (which incuded the magazines.) paratrooppers can fire the 1919 mg a few seconds upon hitting the ground. The M-1 carbine seems like a weak round that it doesn't give you confidence in a dense firefight. The 1911 is just extra weight, they say. Better to carry more ammo for your rifle.

 

Your list brings to mind something I always wonder about; why the M-1918 BAR is so often denigrated on online discussion forums? The combat soldiers and Marines liked it and had confidence in it. The Marine Corps in fact went from one, to two, to three BAR's per squad during WWII. The WWII US Army's 26FEB1944 TO&E called for 27 BAR's per infantry battalion. This number jumped to 47 per infantry battalion with the 30JUN1944 TO&E, so they must have thought it was useful. Production couldn't keep up with demand, and combat losses were greater than anticipated which led to a critical and chronic shortage up into 1945.
During Korea the troops had very high confidence in the weapon and it was THE decisive weapon in many engagements. I think most of the negative comments come from people that try to compare it against light machine guns, which it wasn't intended to be. It was, as it's name states an automatic rifle. When employed using the appropriate tactics, it was good at it's job. The role was obviously seen as tactically important because they developed a successor, the select fire M14.

 

^
I agree with you there. I think I'd rather have an automatic that I can carry around and run with (remember that movie with the kid running through no-man's land with a BAR, and finally reaching his base?) than anything. But the article was very specific for parachuting troops. I suppose the adrenaline in such a situation will allow you to use a 1919 as a sub-machine gun.

 

Did the paratroopers actually carry the 1919 with them when they dropped? Or was it in a supply canister? I can see how a BAR would be a bit cumbersome to land with but I'd think a 1919 even more so.

 

I recall two accounts, "While Eagles Screamed" and one Ballantine series. I'm assuming paratroopers used the one-man portable A6 version which had a bipod, and a buttstock.

 

Less one thinks this thread wanders toward the inane, on occasion, I actually learned something. A careful reading of The Diego's post finds the folding carbine being on the good list and the M1 carbine being on the bad one. Being both bored and intrigued simultaneously I was inspired that KodiacBear conducted his own definitive test so I decided to do the same. I enlisted, no pun intended here, the aid of Auburn University's physics lab. Our conclusion, the steel folding stock of the folding model, when erected, compressed under the force of 37.8 Newtons, we used the rare +P version of the M1 carbine round, when released added it's energy to the projectile increasing it lethality by 3.67%. The wooded stocked MI version absorbed the recoil thereby reducing the power by -1.83 %.

It is clear the folding carbine is the better weapon and secures its place in military history and no doubt changing the course of the war.