View Full Version : Discussion Question: Did the M-1 Carbine Inspire the German Assault Rifles?
Southron
03-05-2015, 07:09
I have always considered the M-1 Carbine to be the inspiration for the German Assault Rifles like the STG-44.
Here is my reasoning:
Before World War II German Espionage in the U.S. was very active. One thing we have learned since the war is that very early on (like before the war) the Germans had learned all of the secrets of the then "Top Secret" Norden Bomb Sight, even though for security the three different parts of it were manufactured in three different plants under "Top Secret" restrictions.
That being said, there was nothing "Top Secret" about the M-1 Carbine program as the Ordnance Department publicly advertised for manufacturers to submit samples of their own carbine designs for testing at Aberdeen.
After the Winchester designed M-1 Carbine was adopted, the Ordnance Department contracted with different manufacturers to produce the little carbine.This had to raise additional interest of the Germans because the emphasis the Ordnance Department was putting on getting the carbine mass produced by a variety of manufacturers.
After we invaded North Africa, I am sure the Germans captured enough M-1 Carbines and ammo to send samples back to Germany for a full series of tests.
My theory is that the Krauts looked at the M-1 Carbine and then improved on it with their Assault Rifles, i.e., the Germans developed a more powerful cartridge, the 7.92 Kurtz and "upped" the firepower by making their Assault Rifles "Selective Fire" rather than just semi-automatic like the M-1 Carbine.
The M-1 Carbine shares several characteristics with ALL military Assault Rifles ever developed but the most striking one is the use of an "Intermediate Power Cartridge" the M-1 Carbine was the FIRST to do that.
My understanding is that there are tons of captured World War II German documents in the National Archives. Hopefully, one day, a researcher will find the reports of the German Ordnance tests of the M-1 Carbine and and the role it played in inspiring the development of the German Assault Rifles.
So what do you think? Did the M-1 Carbine "Inspire" the development and manufacture of German Assault Rifles?
The daddy of all assault rifles was the Federov Avtomat which was designed and put into production in WWI by the Russians. It was a selective fire shoulder weapon fed from a detachable magazine using the 6.5 mm Japanese cartridge since the 7.62 mm Russian round was considered too powerful for such a light weapon. In concept it was the first. These rifles saw limited service in both WWI and WWII.
The M1 Carbine wasn't initially produced with the selective fire capability of a true assault rifle. It's cartridge isn't, in my opinion, truly intermediate; it is ballistically similar to a .357 Magnum pistol cartridge when that round is fired from a rifle. I tend to think of the selective fire M1 carbines as being more like .357 Magnum submachine guns than assault rifles.
Research on an intermediate cartridge was started in Germany in 1934, and in Russia about 1940. The Germans let the first contract to develop a weapon for their intermediate cartridge in 1938. Both Walther an Hanel were working on prototype "sturmgewer" type rifles by 1940 and the first prototype lots were produced in early 1942.
Short answer, no the Germans weren't influenced by the carbine.
n64atlas
03-05-2015, 07:39
The Perdersen device of WWI was one of the first "intermediate" rounds, if not the first.
The Perdersen device of WWI was one of the first "intermediate" rounds, if not the first.
The .30-18 cartridge used in the Pederson Device is identical to and interchangeable with the 7.65x20mm Longue pistol cartridge used by the French until the early 1960s in their M1935 pistol and MAS 38 submachine gun. Ballistics wise it's a pistol cartridge pure and simple. From an M1903 rifle with the Pederson Device attached it develops a muzzle velocity of 1,300 fps with an 80 gr. bullet or about the same as the 7.65x25 mm Mauser pistol cartridge from a "broomhandle" autopistol.
Col. Colt
03-05-2015, 08:30
As I recall, select fire was originally planned for the M1 Carbine in the design phase - I'm not clear on why it was not provided initially.
Lots of inventions, worldwide seem to pop up in different places at about the same time - because the world wide technology to produce it becomes available, and the old thinking of how to do something is being challanged in several places at once.
But sometimes you can trace the "Father" pretty accurately. US Army Air Corps officer Claire Chennault, later of Flying Tigers fame, developed a staged "distant early warning net" in Hawaii before he even had radar - then used it again in China, and pioneered the Paratroop concept, doing actual drop trials with US soldiers and their equipment using biplanes and Ford Trimotors.
A visiting Russian Military Delegation watched one of Chennault's early experiments at dropping US Army troops and equipment - and Russia immediately offered Chennault a job! When he refused, they immediately developed their own Paratroops, then shared the concept with their new found friends, the Germans. Many think it was a Russian or German concept - because we were slower to promote it! "A Prophet is without honor in his own country". CC
AS stated above the M1 Carbine and the Paterson device were both pistol cartridges, not intermediate types at all. The M1 Carbine was developed for officers and rear personal to have a weapon easier to learn to use and fire then the 1911. It became so popular with front line troops it ended up being made in massive numbers. But it was never intended for that use.
Col. Colt
03-05-2015, 12:31
I'm not sure it's right to call the .30 Carbine a "pistol cartridge". It was not designed for a pistol, but a Carbine. CC
The M1 Carbine was developed for officers and rear personal to have a weapon easier to learn to use and fire then the 1911. It became so popular with front line troops it ended up being made in massive numbers. But it was never intended for that use.
The M1 carbine was developed for the infantry not for "officers and rear personal".
firstflabn
03-05-2015, 04:54
The first 237 times Brian corrected this misimpression, he added that the info appears in the first few pages of War Baby! Don't know if he's gettting old or tired (all of the above?).
Looking at it another way, the army infantry battalion Table of Organization showed an 80% drop in pistols from the last revision prior to adoption of the carbine to the first revision with carbines. I don't have detailed USMC infantry battalion data, but at the regimental level, the drop in pistols is over 95% from just before the carbine to the first table with the carbine.
The "officers, cooks, and clerks" chestnut is also mostly wrong, but that correction will have to wait for another day.
If Brian would only write the book we all know is inside him, he could get his knowledge out there much more efficiently. But he says he won't so I guess he has another umpteen hundred posts to do....
I'm not sure it's right to call the .30 Carbine a "pistol cartridge". It was not designed for a pistol, but a Carbine. CC
Oh, so you would not say a modern repro 1873 Win. in 45 Colt uses a pistol cartridge?, or any of the original small lever action rifles? We are talking about power here, velocities, trajectories, etc., not design intent!
The M1 carbine was developed for the infantry not for "officers and rear personal".
Read Phillip Sharps book, I will take his word over yours, not to mention other authors. Pp.532, Rifle in America. "It is generally assumed a man can shoot better when a gun is held in both hands, and it was the 'original' intention of the General Staff to replace the 30 year old automatic pistol with a light weapon of increased fire power, accuracy and range". It goes on to explain the Peterson device of WW1 (which the official name was 'Caliber .30 model of 1918 pistol), and development of the carbine.
For all you who are unfamiliar with Phil Sharpe he was a US Army Ordinance expert in WW11 and before. Original specs for carbine ammo, 110 gr bullet @ appox. 1800 ft. sec. and was designed by Win., around the Win. 1905 32 Self Loading Cart. The Paterson cart. is identical to the French (1936) 7.65 m/m Long pistol and sub-machine gun cart. Hmmm!?
Read Phillip Sharps book, I will take his word over yours, not to mention other authors. Pp.532, Rifle in America. "It is generally assumed a man can shoot better when a gun is held in both hands, and it was the 'original' intention of the General Staff to replace the 30 year old automatic pistol with a light weapon of increased fire power, accuracy and range". It goes on to explain the Peterson device of WW1 (which the official name was 'Caliber .30 model of 1918 pistol), and development of the carbine.
For all you who are unfamiliar with Phil Sharpe he was a US Army Ordinance expert in WW11 and before. Original specs for carbine ammo, 110 gr bullet @ appox. 1800 ft. sec. and was designed by Win., around the Win. 1905 32 Self Loading Cart. The Paterson cart. is identical to the French (1936) 7.65 m/m Long pistol and sub-machine gun cart. Hmmm!?
Nothing above supports your misconception that "The M1 Carbine was developed for officers and rear personal...."
BTW it is not my word it is fact, straight from the Chief of Infantry in 1938.
30121
You don't have to read past the first sentence to see the intent was for combat personnel from the very beginning.
Well if the ORIGINAL concept was to replace the 1911, who else generally carried them? No not all rear people did but also they did not need full power heavy M1 rifles. And according to report you posted it also included "crew served weapons" personal who are armed with pistols or pistol is the only 'practical weapon' for them. But is was not designed for the average foot slogging infantry soldier (to replace the rifle)!! Basically what you posted was what Sharpe said---to replace the 1911, not a basic infantry weapon. A carbine is what I was issued in Korea. I was in the AF, not the infantry.
Jeeeze, read and understand what you post!
firstflabn
03-07-2015, 10:11
The M1 Carbine was developed for officers and rear personal to have a weapon easier to learn to use and fire then the 1911. It became so popular with front line troops it ended up being made in massive numbers. But it was never intended for that use.
Wrongo! Can we send you a calendar?
You obviously overlooked the fact that the infantry battalion T/O of April 1, 1942, replaced 80% of the pistols with carbines. How exactly did the carbine become so wildly popular with the infantry when only a few pre-production models existed? (Answer: because infantry use was the justification for commitment of resources in the first place.)
Hows about we look at a period document prepared by an organization with policy making authority (instead of the recollections of a worker bee who had labored at a work bench)?
The FY42 annual report of the Services of Supply (forerunner of the Army Service Forces) contains the following nugget in its review of the year's activities:
"To increase the defensive and offensive power of those enlisted men heretofore armed with pistols or revolvers, and of combat officers below the grade of major, the Ordnance Department standardized, after exhaustive tests of various specimens, a new caliber .30 carbine."
What alternate definitions can you concoct for "offensive" and "combat" in the above quote?? Do you believe those terms apply better to rear area or front line units?
Well if the ORIGINAL concept was to replace the 1911, who else generally carried them? No not all rear people did but also they did not need full power heavy M1 rifles.
Sorry Dave, every time you post your argument gets weaker and weaker. Nothing in the initial requirement documents does it state what became the M1 Carbine was for "Officers and rear personnel".
From paragraph 2 of the original document. "The Chief of Infantry considers that the number of men in the Infantry regiment who must be armed with some other weapon other than the service rifle establishes a distinct military requirement for a special weapon and that such weapon should be developed. "
At the time the service rifle was the M1 Garand so we can deduce the M1 Carbine replaced the M1 Garand for certain infantry soldiers.
Perhaps you should actually research the subject before you enter into a discussion.
blackhawk2
03-07-2015, 03:47
The title in the subject line is, Light weapons for Ammunition Carriers....As these guys were going to be humping ammo, no use for them to be carrying a pistol or a 03....With fewer than 5,000 M-1 garands produced, the word in the field on the Garand, in Sept 1938, that it was a dog...After all, there were 901,548 03's on hand, with 506,514 in the hands of the troops...So, is it not a stretch to deduce the carbine was intended for support personnel?.....regards....alex
The TO&E during WW2 for infantry - the officers were to be issued M1 rifles and even when I was an armorer during the M1 rifle period, the officers had M1 rifles assigned to them.
Many times the officers only carried pistols
"...The M1 Carbine was developed for the infantry..." Nope. Despite what a book might claim. It was a replacement for the 1911A1. Easier to train troopies with zero shooting experience (Like nearly all W.W. II troopies, despite the "Nation of Riflemen" fairy tale.), than it is to teach 'em to use a pistol well enough to defend themselves.
Not about "officers, cooks, and clerks" either. Drivers, rad ops and arty types and anybody else, other than officers, who would have carried a pistol for "work". Officers carried pistols as a status symbol. Most PBI officers soon learned it got 'em shot. Of course, so did carrying anything out of the ordinary like a Carbine.
"...The M1 Carbine was developed for the infantry..." Nope. Despite what a book might claim. It was a replacement for the 1911A1.
Apparently reading isn't one of your strong points.
The document posted is a photo copy of the original document from the Chief of Infantry to the Chief of Ordnance requesting the development of a "special weapon". The M1 Carbine became that "special weapon".
Here is a follow up request from the Chief of Infantry to The Adjutant General.
30158
I especially like the part is the first paragraph that states ",this office recommended the development and adoption of a carbine for infantry."
firstflabn
03-08-2015, 04:53
The TO&E during WW2 for infantry - the officers were to be issued M1 rifles
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.
firstflabn
03-08-2015, 05:32
Despite what a book might claim.
Well, there's one vote in support of ignorance.
Drivers, rad ops and arty types and anybody else, other than officers, who would have carried a pistol for "work".
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.
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.
FWIW:
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,
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.
firstflabn
03-10-2015, 05:41
Logic tells me his general argument is basically correct.
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.
Guess what - there are a lot of truck drivers, clerks, cooks, technicians and other non-rifleman personnel in an infantry regiment.
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).
I don't doubt...
That is clear. You do, however, doubt a mountain of facts contrary to your opinion.
Logic tells me...
There you go again.
the carbine is not an alternative battle rifle but realistically it became used as one. Irrelevant to a discussion of development, adoption, and T/O&Es.
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.
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?
keith smart
03-16-2015, 06:37
Anybody remember the original question?
BravoSierra
04-11-2015, 08:01
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.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.