Jump to content

M1 Carbine - Did Marine Riflemen use this weapon in the Pacific?


stealthytyler
 Share

Recommended Posts

stealthytyler

Trying to find out how common it was for a Marine Rifleman to have used an M1 Carbine in the Pacific during WWII (Guadalcanal, Peleliu, Okinawa, etc.) Would they not have been issued an M1 Garand exclusively? Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if we can draw any conclusions from it, but from the photos I scanned at NARA for my book, I see Marines using carbines during nearly every major invasion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have an old friend who was a wireman in a Marine mortar crew fighting on Guam and was issued an M1 carbine, which he hated. During some training on Guadalcanal he picked up a 1903 Springfield and carried that until he found a BAR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I had read, and I am in no way an expert voice on it. But the M1 Carbine was designed and built mainly for non-combatants. The Garand being the "Battle Rifle". I also read that non combatants were offered their choice of the M1911, or the M1 Carbine. That is not to say that some combatants didn't carry a carbine due to it being much less weight to tote around. Im sure they were because as mentioned above there are many pictures of Marines, and other infantry carrying the M1 Carbine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Garandomatic

I think George Wahlen (cmoh) was issued one as a navy corpsman. He pointed out in his book that the Navy/USMC operated differently in that respect than the army in terms of arming medics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In general, the Army received newer gear - including firearms - first. So, none of them on earlier assaults, and trickling in through the island-hopping campaign is what I understand. A WWII USMC friend of mine participated in the assaults on New Guinea, Cape Glouchester, Peleliu, and Okinawa. He said they had 1903s and WWI helmets on New Guinea. On Peleliu, he carried a Garand.

 

I have also heard the notion that the M1 Carbine was not intended originally for front-line combat roles, where that was their primary weapon. More for air crew, tankers, etc, where the smaller form-factor would be appropriate. To the individual, WWII combat veterans I've spoken with despised the carbine as under-powered. Now, I know some contemporary ballistics guys that try making arguments for the carbine from chronograph and gel results. That said, I'll take the word of the guys from Bastogne, Iwo, etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I To the individual, WWII combat veterans I've spoken with despised the carbine as under-powered. Now, I know some contemporary ballistics guys that try making arguments for the carbine from chronograph and gel results. That said, I'll take the word of the guys from Bastogne, Iwo, etc...

 

I have heard that also concerning the power of the carbine. I think some of that early complaint is echoed today, but for what the rifle was designed for, they did the job. They were never intended to be a long range knock down weapon. I seen a youtube video awhile back disputing that power myth (I'll call it a myth, if it is,or aint, Im on the fence actually), and the Gel test results showed that the M1 Carbine round had similar ballistics as a .357 Mag round. Sure, not a high powered rifle round, but I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of one. And for at least something for the corpsmen and other non combatant troops to have with them just in case, it's better then a stick and a couple rocks.. ;) Again, that may or may not be debatable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are some screenshots of the applicable parts of some of the NARA images. Starting with Torokina Island (Bougainville) then Tarawa and then Tinian.

carbinerendova.jpg

carbinetarawa.jpg

carbinetinian.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you completely. To your point, it was probably very good at what it was designed for. As the saying goes, if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree it will always fail.

 

And there is no doubt, the carbine was better than a stick - LOL.

 

 

 

I have heard that also concerning the power of the carbine. I think some of that early complaint is echoed today, but for what the rifle was designed for, they did the job. They were never intended to be a long range knock down weapon. I seen a youtube video awhile back disputing that power myth (I'll call it a myth, if it is,or aint, Im on the fence actually), and the Gel test results showed that the M1 Carbine round had similar ballistics as a .357 Mag round. Sure, not a high powered rifle round, but I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of one. And for at least something for the corpsmen and other non combatant troops to have with them just in case, it's better then a stick and a couple rocks.. ;) Again, that may or may not be debatable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you completely. To your point, it was probably very good at what it was designed for. As the saying goes, if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree it will always fail.

 

And there is no doubt, the carbine was better than a stick - LOL.

 

 

 

Yep.. I actually love both the carbine and the Garand. I have a couple of both. The Carbine is just fun to shoot. I take mine out to the range every so often for the exercise of it and to keep it going. Every time I take it out, someone wants to shoot it too.. lol.. They are fun for that, but they do also have practical uses. They are small and light and actually make a good home defense rifle. There certainly to be better modern choices, but the M1 is easy to fire in confined areas. My Dad and my Father in law both kept them in their trucks as a truck gun, and/or ranch/coyote gun. Was great for that as well, but then again that was when they were plentiful, not collector pieces and you can buy them for sub $100.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before the day of the M-4 I had one in the trunk of my squad car for a lot of night shifts, and yes think the Marines carried a lot of Carbines in the PTO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trying to find out how common it was for a Marine Rifleman to have used an M1 Carbine in the Pacific during WWII (Guadalcanal, Peleliu, Okinawa, etc.) Would they not have been issued an M1 Garand exclusively? Thanks

 

By definition, a Rifleman was authorized a rifle, just like a Mortarman was authorized a mortar. In the mid-'44 Marine infantry battalion of 741 officers and men, there were only 81 Riflemen - one in each fire team.

 

If you meant Garands overall, there were 369 authorized (almost exactly one for every two battalion members) vs. 291 carbines. In the division there were about twice as many carbines as Garands.

 

In general, the Army issued pistols to crew served weapons members where the USMC used carbines, thus significantly increasing the percentage of carbines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My grandfather carried an M1 at Iwo Jima. He was a machine gun section leader with E Co. 2/27. Before that he was a BAR gunner with L co. 3/6 at Guadalcanal and Tarawa. Marines carried the M-1 Carbine extensively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't recall any photos of M1 carbines being used by Marines on Guadalcanal.

Don't think M1 carbines made it into combat until 1943. I have read the 32nd Infantry Division didn't have them when they entered combat in New Guinea in September 1942.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In general, the Army received newer gear - including firearms - first. So, none of them on earlier assaults, and trickling in through the island-hopping campaign is what I understand. A WWII USMC friend of mine participated in the assaults on New Guinea, Cape Glouchester, Peleliu, and Okinawa. He said they had 1903s and WWI helmets on New Guinea. On Peleliu, he carried a Garand.

 

I have also heard the notion that the M1 Carbine was not intended originally for front-line combat roles, where that was their primary weapon. More for air crew, tankers, etc, where the smaller form-factor would be appropriate. To the individual, WWII combat veterans I've spoken with despised the carbine as under-powered. Now, I know some contemporary ballistics guys that try making arguments for the carbine from chronograph and gel results. That said, I'll take the word of the guys from Bastogne, Iwo, etc...

"He said they had 1903s and WWI helmets on New Guinea." Are you speaking of New Britain 1943/1944? I was not aware the USMC fought on New Guinea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi CW. I believe he was referring to Finchhaven, where the 1st MARDIV was held in reserve support of the Australian mission there.

 

"He said they had 1903s and WWI helmets on New Guinea." Are you speaking of New Britain 1943/1944? I was not aware the USMC fought on New Guinea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Catfishcraig

My great uncle was on a 60mm Martor crew in support of his company riffle squad crew Okinawa and was issued a M1 carbine. But he also spoke in his letters that they would share weapons when needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Salvage Sailor

Interesting photo you posted Dave - Note the two (2) buttstock pouches on the carbine, one left side, one right side. Also, none of them are wearing cartridge belts or bandoliers.

carbineiwo3.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave - can you post the rest of that photo? Curiosity is killing me. Maybe clearing a cave?

 

Also, I don't recall seeing many pairs of those bib overalls. Anybody know the designation on those?

 

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...