M1 Carbine vs Garand

While this is of course a propaganda style film made to bolster the US Army morale, it does show some real footage of the weapons available to and used by the US Infantry in WW2. The little carbine makes a pretty good show of itself against a German helmet at 100 yards, but the .30-06 round is simply lethal.

Goto:

INFANTRY WEAPONS AND THEIR EFFECT | War Movies, Military Videos, Rare Battle Footage | Real Military Videos

While it is, as I said a propaganda film it is interesting to watch none the less. Part 2 is also there, but the .30 Carbine is in part 1.

 

I have seen those movies and they are nice to see! Good find Clint!

 

Thanks for the link to a great film. I wouldn't necessarily call the film propaganda as much as confidence builders for the troops. Showing that the .30 Carbine could perforate a steel helmet was probably a morale builder to the “clerks & typist” who would have had to use it in a last ditch effort.

 

That is probably a better term Old Schoolr. A confidence builder, rather than propaganda film.

 

Why? Isn't that exactly the point of propaganda build confidence in your troops and tear it down in your opponents? In the long run that's why truth is often the best propaganda. The extreme over claiming on the part of axis propaganda broadcast led to them having the opposite effect of what was intended. While a film or a brodcast that is demostrably true and is positive helps in several ways.

 

Axis propoganda was no worse at over claiming than was Allied propoganda, it was all the same.

Also note some of the things that are claimed in the video, like the M1 Garand being the most accurate rifle in the world etc etc.. Brndirt1 is correct in determining it as a propoganda video meant as a confidence builder amongst US troops, cause it is.

I've seen many of these films, including some made specifically to try and meet the fear of German machineguns amongst US troops, coming up with slogans such as "Their bark is worse than their bite". This wasn't good advice however, seeing as their bite was ten times worse than their bark, and thus that is an example of very bad propoganda usage.

 

Was it? How many capital ships did the axis claim they sunk during the war vs how many actually sunk?
How many capital ships did the Allies claim were sunk vs the actual number sunk?
I think one of the British carriers was reported sunk 4 times by the Germans yet was still afloat at the end of the war. The Germans also gave some rather inflated claims of individuals as to both tank and aircraft kills. The allies from what I've heard tended to give more general claims.
If you look at the themes at American propaganda during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia you will note that inflating victories is conspicuously absent. On the other hand Lord Haw Haw and Tokyo Rose were rather famous for such broadcasts. Indeed take a look at the diffences in themes mentioned at Nazi propaganda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Then there's the quote from British propaganda during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's statments like this that illustrate why I don't trust your interpretation of things. You seem to be arguing that I don't consider the film to be propoganda?

Was it? I'd have to see the film and understand the context before I'll accept your conclusion in that regard.

 

Back to the question at hand. I have both and have fired many rounds through both.
They are both a hoot to shoot, but:

What works as cover from a carbine is only concealment from a Garand.
As for range,with the Garand if you can see it you can hit it.

As to suitability in the jungle, the carbine round was so light it wouldn't punch through foliage.
But a rifle round in a carbine body like the Enfield Jungle Carbine is equally problematic. I'll take the Garand.

 

Oddly enough when the French were fighting in Vietnam, and America was supplying them with some weapons they requested the .30 Carbine in the M2 style at a rate of 3 to 1 over other shoulder arms. Because they found this weapon was more effective in the jungle at short range than full sized rifles or rifle rounds in actual application in jungle combat. Interesting n'est pas?

 

I noticed that the USMC in WW 2 also used alot more carbines than Garands in the Pacific. The ratio there was about 1.5 carbines to 1 Garand.

 

I would imagine that the ability to put a lot more rounds in an area via the larger magazines, or full auto was a major reason for them being liked. As visibilty was generally restricted, being able to saturate a given area was of greater importance than power, as the range wasn't likely to be very long in the brush.

 

The fact that the M2 was switchable to full automatic mode might have played just as big a part in the decision, c'est possible, mon ami? By that time Garands were obsolete, so were M1 Carbines. Were they offered M14s?

WADR, Chief, this is a really misleading use of data.
1) The Corps had a hard-on about the Garand from the start, so the proportion is not surprising. They stayed with the '03 knowing there were better choices available.
2) Also take into consideration that early Garands had a problem in the rain, which might be a factor? So might the Carbine's greater maneuverability in foliage? The greater mag capacity? The less complex mechanism? Greater availability? Who knows what drove the decision to use more Carbines?
3) The proffered fact, although interesting, is non-sequitor to the discussion. Just because there were more of them didn't make Carbine rounds punch through foliage any better.
4) The M1 Carbine round is a wimpy round, pure and simple. The choice is between putting a lot of wimpy rounds in the air or a few effective ones.

 

Hats off to you that described the two rifles and their characteristics, they fit what they were designed for at least in their final design. You have kept me from stepping in and getting carried away on a favorite subject, military surplus guns. I tend to talk too much about them so you have prevented me from doing so.

 

They stated that they liked the little Carbines best in the jungle because of two separate things it had from jump street, not only was it short and quick/easy to maneuver in the foliage and undergrowth, it was the only weapon which had been designed from the start to have a chrome lined barrel (less fouling and rusting), it also had non-corrosive ammo its entire life; so that was abundant as well. They were offered the M14, and received a few, but they preferred the little Carbine for jungle fighting.

At least that is what I recall from the book I read on the weapon a number of years ago. I might be remembering some of it incorrectly though, so don't take it to the bank!

 

I think that the Garand was a fine infantry weapon, when used in close quarters against the Japanese bolt action rifles it gave the G.I.s and Marines a definite advantage. when I was a kid I always thought the M1 Carbine was a great looking weapon, bit as I found out later, both it and the Thompson were not even in the TO&E of the standard infantry companies (all seem to have Garands), the M1 Carbine was used more by Officers, Artillery men, and the Airbourne. but like all U.S. infantry weapons they could lay down alot of lead when used in close combat.

 

Small point but IIRC the M14 was the first US rifle to have a chrome lined bore. The M1 carbine ammo produced by the US did have non-corrosive priming from day one. The gas system of the Carbine doesn't field strip for cleaning like that of the M1 Garand. It was doable to make the ammo non-corrosive as there was nowhere near the amount of ammo required for carbines as this was for firearms using Cal. .30 M2.
Anyone interested in reading about the use of the carbine in combat should read "Shots Fired in Anger" by Lt. Col. John George.

 

"Old Schoolr", I put a disclaimer on the end remember? "Don't take it to the bank"! I has been donkey's years since I read that little book on the little Carbine. I was wrong on the chrome barrel, don't know why that stuck in my mind, but it did for some reason.

 

The M.1 Carbine could also be fitted with the M.8 Grenade launcher. I was informed that the M.1 Carbine was a weapon of choice of the French troops in indochina, do to its lightness and high rate of fire.

 

No offense intended.

 

Just to throw another wrinkle into the mix, here are a M1 and a LE side by side on my work bench. I'll try to find a picture of my M1 Carbine to show the physical size difference, but as you can see the M1 looked about right since the LE had been the military rifle of the Commonwealth for about 40 years by WWII.

KTK