stg44 vs M1 Carbine

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

BasinBictory RE:stg44 vs M1 Carbine 12/29/2005 7:00:56 AM

The stg44 was by far the superior weapon. As many others have posted, the M1 Carbine was not intended as a front-line weapon. It was conceived and designed in part due to the Germans' success at blitzkrieg. It was feared that, if the Germans broke through the front line, the REMF's would have to fight it out with nothing better than the standard issue 1911 pistols, which were the common weapon issued to support troops prior to WW2. The Carbine was a far better weapon at medium range than any pistol (even one with the sainted .45ACP round), but obviously not as hard hitting as a 30-06. Why the StG44 is better than the M1 Carbine: 1) Full auto fire vs. semi-auto fire only. 2) Heavier caliber 3) It looks really, really cool. :-)

Quote Reply

shawn RE:stg44 vs M1 Carbine 12/29/2005 7:43:51 AM

I think I recall seeing pictures of Fillipino police forces armed with M1 carbines, and I do know that Israel still uses the carbine cartridge with its police force: link You can probably find the M1 in para-military service in Thailand and Indonesia as well.

Quote Reply

AlbanyRifles M1 Carbine-SSFJ 12/29/2005 11:29:05 AM

My bad on .300 Winchester....misunderstood the name of the round. My point was that is was more powerful than a pistol cartridge but a lot less powerful than the full rifle caliber .30-06.

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:stg44 vs M1 Carbine 12/29/2005 12:45:59 PM

>>The stg44 was by far the superior weapon. As many others have posted, the M1 Carbine was not intended as a front-line weapon.<< A matter of semantics perhaps, but this is a false claim. The M1 carbine was an organic weapon system within the infantry rifle platoon, so it was certainly a "front-line weapon," and was intended as such. This claim is a bit like saying the Thompson submachinegun was not a front-line weapon. It was not intended as a general service rifle, which the StG-44 could have aspired to be given more prudent use of R&D and procurement resources by the Germans. But M1 carbines were certainly employed as front-line combat weapons (by the Germans as well as Americans, who used captured M1s with apparent relish, perhaps in part because there were never enough StG-44s and 7.92 Kurz ammunition to go around). >>It was conceived and designed in part due to the Germans' success at blitzkrieg.<< The initial requirements were set down in 1938, apparently -- it did not take Panzers rolling across Poland or France to clue people into the fact that submachineguns were too short ranged and full-powered rifles like the M1 Garand were excessive, even in the pre-WW2 era. (i.e. the Garand was originally designed for the ballistically excellent .276 Pedersen, a muscular sort of intermediary round that would have outperformed 7.92x33 Kurz remarkably well, but MacArthur while CoS of the Army vetoed its introduction; likewise Soviet designers and researchers were calling for an assault rifle type weapon based on .25 Remington in the mid-1930s as well, etc.).

Quote Reply

mustavaris RE:stg44 vs M1 Carbine 1/21/2006 9:38:23 AM

Stg was used by JNA (Yugoslavian Federal Army) pretty long... maybe until seventies or something. Some weapons may have come from that source, because I know that Yugoslavians did sell pretty many of them after withdrawing them from service. I have a feeling that I have read about Soviets giving old German weapons to Baath regimes, or maybe it was DDR... cannot remember for sure. Just guessing-

Quote Reply

towgunner1960 RE:stg44 vs M1 Carbine 1/24/2006 12:32:13 AM

I read the article about several stg44's being found in Iraq. It was in SOFmag. I disagree that the stg44 was the first true, widely used assault rifle. Just because the germans called it that first doesnt make it so. The m1 carbine was already in widespread use by the time the first stg44's were used and did basically the same thing.

Quote Reply

flamingknives RE:stg44 vs M1 Carbine 1/24/2006 6:38:10 PM

towgunner: The M1 can't really lay claim to being an assault rifle, as the usual definition is that they be capable of selective fire. The M1 carbine was semi-auto only, full-automatic coming only with the M2.

Quote Reply

Yimmy RE:stg44 vs M1 Carbine 1/24/2006 8:17:58 PM

Also, assault rifles fire intermediate rounds, those being between full power rifle rounds and pistol rounds, while the M1/2 Carbine fires glorified non-bottle necked pistol rounds.

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:stg44 vs M1 Carbine 1/24/2006 9:14:55 PM

>>Also, assault rifles fire intermediate rounds, those being between full power rifle rounds and pistol rounds, while the M1/2 Carbine fires glorified non-bottle necked pistol rounds.<< So you're saying assault rifles fire ammunition intermediate between full power rifle and pistol rounds, but the M1 carbine is not an assault rifle because it . . . er . . . fires a round intermediate between full power rifle rounds and pistol rounds? The .30 carbine pushes 955 foot-pounds of muzzle energy (US M1 loading, mileage may vary with civilian loads), exceeding anything out there smaller than hot .44 Magnum loads. In terms of basic kinetic energy at the muzzle,t his does not compare particularly poorly with the former Soviet/Russian 5.45x39mm (a mere 90 ft-lbs more at 1045 ft-lbs -- also meaning the .44 Magnum can give it a run for the money in terms of ME as well), and is not terribly anemic compared to NATO 5.56mm's 1325 ft-lbs. It significantly overpowers FN 5.7mm or HK 4.6mm, as well as being a superior killing round in the real world beyond simple physics against opponents not wearing body armor. In short, it's at the light end of the spectrum, but I would consider it to be an intermediate round as it is customarily defined (and as you defined it above, plus/minus the issue of the straight case, which is rarely cited as a disqualifier in theoretical senses). Now, that said, I'll readily admit it is not an ideal round -- round nose, strangely low operating pressures, and oversized caliber preclude that. But in terms of it not being considered the first assault rifle, the catch would seem to be more the previously noted lack of selective fire in the original M1 versions (though this was a specification called for but dropped before type classified), not the round itself. Of course, definitions vary, and most consider the M1/2 carbine to be in a niche besides the assault rifle and more akin to the FN P90 (which, curiously, has not been particularly well marketed as a PDW, despite initial specifications and claims, but that's another topic . . .).

Quote Reply

Yimmy Horsesoldier 1/24/2006 9:21:20 PM

The .30 Carbine round is a round nosed, straight walled round, a little bit beefier than .357 magnum. It is a pistol round, not an intermediate round. It would be particularly interesting in a lever rifle though, that and .218 Bee.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT