Senior Member
Care to cite a couple of examples? There were dozens of changes during the course of the war, so be sure to include the date. For the Feb 44 changes to the infantry regiment and its organic components, what you say is not correct. In fact, in that case, zero commissioned officers were authorized Garands.Originally Posted by RCS
Senior Member
Well, there's one vote in support of ignorance.
Might try one of those book thingies. A standard Feb 44 infantry regiment (with its organic components) was authorized Garands for exactly 100% of its drivers (82 total). Zero pistols. And where the radio operator MOS appeared, a Garand was authorized there too. Again, zero pistols (and zero carbines). You didn't make the mistake of guessing there was a radio operator in every type of rifle company just becuase you saw it in Band of Brothers, did you? (ooops! that was a book before it came on the TV)
Go to the back of the class with dave.
Member
FWIW:
I think dave's only sin here has been that he over-generalized all personnel not having a 'rifleman' MOS as "officers and rear personnel". Logic tells me his general argument is basically correct. The period correspondence provided by BrianQ is from, or as directed by, the Chief of Infantry and is written from the perspective of a military politician whose whole existence and future career must be totally infantry centered. Guess what - there are a lot of truck drivers, clerks, cooks, technicians and other non-rifleman personnel in an infantry regiment, as well as the machine gunners, mortarmen, ammo carriers and other heavy weapons crews, that would ideally never use their personal weapon in combat. Of course, getting political support for a new, expensive secondary personal weapon to arm "cooks and clerks" would stand much less chance of success than if it was for an "infantry" weapon.
I don't doubt that the carbine was intended to improve the hit capability of all "infantry" personnel, front and rear, over the service pistol in the combat zone. Most unpracticed shooters cannot effectively control a GI M1911 .45 pistol beyond about 25 yards (based upon my own experiences). Logic tells me that close range defensive effectiveness is the primary reason the carbine was developed, not just for front line Army infantry companies but for all US military personnel. By most accepted requirements, the carbine is not an alternative battle rifle but realistically it became used as one. Not as good as an M1 rifle but good enoiugh up close and a lot easier to carry. But it was a very good replacement for the .45 pistol in most cases, providing much better range and hit probability at only a marginal increase in weight and bulk.
My considered position is that the M1 Carbine was intended and developed almost solely to replace the .45 M1911 pistol as a secondary personal defense weapon issued to the heavy weapons crews and as a priimary personal defense weapon issued to those MOS personnel who would be unduly hampered in their routine non-combat work by the bulk of an infantry rifle, for the purpose of improiving the hit probability in the event the weapon ever had to be used for personal defense - period. If you sat accross the table from FDR and the Secretary for War in 1941(?) when the decision was made to proceed with development of the M1 Carbine then you may correct me. Otherwise, talk to the hand 'cause the face ain't listening.
Last edited by ChipS; 03-10-2015 at 02:14.
Senior Member
By the period TOEs the truck drivers, clerks, cooks in the infantry units were issued .30 cal M1 rifles, aka the M1 Garand. The machine gunners, mortarmen and other heavy weapons personnel were issued .30 cal M1 carbine. These specialties are were considered infantry specialties. The ammo bearers & messengers, neither of which is an occupational specialty but a repurposed 745 Rifleman, aka infantrymen, were issued .30 cal M1 carbine. The supply sergeant was the only non combat arms specialty to get a carbine. All this falls right in line with the original requirements documents.
Last edited by BrianQ; 03-10-2015 at 03:44.
Senior Member
Logic by itself is not sufficient. Facts are also needed. You don't present any, just generalizations. With your obvious interest in the subject, you've now been provided with the foundation to begin to understand the process. Long way to go.
Based on your research, how many is 'a lot'? Generalizations again. You have shown no grasp of the organization of any infantry unit (beyond noting that rifle companies contain riflemen).
That is clear. You do, however, doubt a mountain of facts contrary to your opinion.
There you go again.
Irrelevant to a discussion of development, adoption, and T/O&Es.
I had already figured out you weren't listening. Maybe you could tell us when this imaginary meeting happened. Is that the basis upon which you formed your opinions? Did FDR also hold meetings to discuss the hundreds of thousands of other items of war materiel?
Senior Member
Anybody remember the original question?
Senior Member
Nope...
Junior Member
Just to add, while their is empirical evidence suggesting it was an infantry procured weapon, even Army training materials say it was an issued officer and support weapon. Point of reference is the 1943 m1 carbine training film produced by the Army, which is amusing in itself. I think alot of folks dont understand that support personnel arent necesarilly rear echelon, like some read into. I hardly put Mortarman, Forward Observers, Artillaryman and the like in the same catagory as a clerk. It may well be a perpetuated belief that the carbine was simply a support weapon, but then it also has to be said that it was an Army sanctioned perpetuated belief too.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote