US Carbine in CMAK

[Darkmath]

I wonder about US carbine Firepower. Here is the firepower table :

----------40--100--250

Carbine--21--8---2

And the M1 Garand firepower table:

----------40--100--250

Garand--13--7----3

I think the carbine is overpowered in comparison with the Garand, taking real weapon firepower into consideration .

In other way, carbine bullet kinetic energy is about 1350 Joules,whereas MP 44 "kurzpatrone" is 1500 Joules.

Carbine was criticized for lacking of stopping power.

What about MP44 bullet?

[ March 19, 2005, 04:44 AM: Message edited by: Darkmath ]

[Denwad]

well, a garand may be semi-automatic, but it isn't easy to keep it on target when you're firing as fast as you can.

[JasonC]

20 round magazine vs. 8 round stripper clip. That is the reason the carbine is given higher FP at close range. You can spend more time firing and less reloading. At 100m, let alone at 40m, you won't much care which round hits you - either way if it hits anywhere important you are going to have a very bad day.

[Darkmath]

The firepower value of the Garand is equal to *2 98K Firepower Value.

IMHO, It is difficult to shoot more than one bullet in 40m. distance with the bolt action 98K.

Then, I think the semi-automatic rifle Garand ,in CMAK, shoot two bullets in 40m.

Carbine is a semiautomatic too.

So,How many bullets can be fired with a carbine under 40 m.?

[securityguard]

They're both semi automatic, but like others have said a Carbine is a smoother ride. I have no idea how many rounds a Carbine can shoot under 40m - all I know is the person typically has more control than using a Garand.

Also, it seems you're taking the abstractions a little too directly - indivual bullets aren't modeled in CM, regardless what you see or hear. The ammo count is merely an abstraction of how much ammo they actually have overall. As for how many ammo points a Carbine uses, I'm not totally sure, probably more than the Garand since it's flinging more ammo more easily (?).

CMx2 will probably make all this more clear considering each man will have his own ammo count instead of a pool of ammo for the entire squad.

[ March 19, 2005, 05:11 AM: Message edited by: securityguard ]

[JasonC]

The K98 has half the fp of an M-1 in close because it has a 5 round clip not 8, and bolt action not semi.

As for "only one round at 40m", what is that supposed to mean? In what interval of time? There is no interval of time joined at the hip to the range 40m. Units can be stuck at 40m from each other for 2 minutes, or not. Units can have only fleeting LOS to each other at 300m. There is no deterministic connection between engagement range and engagement time.

An M-1 carbine can fire a full 20 round mag in under 10 seconds if you are trying. Large boxed mags have more to do with short range FP than any other weapon characteristic. (None of them are using peak ROF continually - they'd be dry in 3 turns - it is about the ability of a weapon to surge its fire when targets present).

[DrD]

Originally posted by JasonC:

... At 100m, let alone at 40m, you won't much care which round hits you - either way if it hits anywhere important you are going to have a very bad day.

Yes but don't forget penetration! If you are behind soft cover, like wood, soft stone, or a small amount of earth, a more powerful bullet may penetrate with enough energy to injure you, while the less powerful may not. Moreover, more powerful bullets when hitting stone can cause a spalling-like effect that can also result in significant injury.

[Wartgamer]

Is it a 15 round mag? The later M2 had a 30 round?

http://www.gunsandammomag.com/long_guns/m1_carbine/#cont

The weapon's main feature is combination of low weight and good defensive firepower. Its an ideal weapon for patroling or a runner/clerk/cook/etc. I am sure many assistant MG personel carried the weapon considering the loads they had to hump around.

Having close to twice the ready rounds to fire semiautomatically than a M1 Garand, it was certainly a welcome addition.

But at battlefield ranges against an enemy with cover, it would come up short. As has been mentioned, its penetration of cover (or even thick concealment) is lacking. I doubt any US infantry unit carried a majority of these weapons over M1 Garands. Airborne units may have had the most and even had a special model.

But even in the present game, at 250 m, the M1 Garand should outshoot (firepower abstraction) than a M1 Carbine. The M1 Carbine is given 2/3 the firepower of a Garand at 250m? Seems charitible.

Hopefully cmx2 will delve into firepower vs cover.

[ March 19, 2005, 10:16 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[DrD]

Yes, I hope CMx2 takes into account penetration more, this is another reason why MG's seem underpowered. IRL, a BAR was supposed to provide covering fire for a whole squad! In CM, its FP is insufficient when the enemy is under good cover, because penetration isn't modeled.

I think it would be simple to give each weapon a penetration factor (I think that's already modeled somewhere for anti-armor purposes) and reduce cover by some percentage based on said penetration.

So a squad in a stone building under fire by a 50 cal MG would have its cover reduced alot, and the MG would be much more effective than say 12 carbines.

And the difference between the carbine and Garand would be more realistic.

[JasonC]

15 or 30, you are correct, not 20.

As for how common they were, over 6 million were made compared to 4 million full rifle M-1s. They were not scarce. More common in the rear echelons and among teams, crews, drivers etc certainly, but there were scads of these things. Anyone who wanted one, for ease of carry or larger ammo load or the mag size or limited recoil for a small guy, could have one. Range was the only drawback, it is serious but should not be overstated.

As for the penetration arguments and bad mouthing carbines for largely imaginary "stopping power" concerns, they don't make much sense. Carbine ammo is not rifle ammo but is a heck of a lot more than pistol ammo. The supposedly weak M-1 carbine or MP44 have about 4 times the muzzle energy of .45 ACP or WW II era 9mm, and twice that of a PPsH or a .357 magnum. Anybody want to be shot twice by a .357 magnum or 4 times by .45 ACP and pretend that isn't enough "stopping power"?

Much higher muzzle energy does one significant thing - it increases range. The drop a bullet undergoes in flight is a parabola. Flatter ones can mean a dramatic difference in bullet drop at a given range, which translates into accuracy at that range.

Pistol ammo is marginal at 100 yards, even with lots of them fired as from SMGs. Its natural range is more like 50 yards (meaning, the drop is small enough to that range that you can hit people by pointing at them, not by playing golf and chip-shoting a falling bullet into the pocket). Carbine ammo is marginal beyond 200-250 yards, and its natural range is more like 100-150 yards. Meanwhile full power rifle ammo remains accurate out to 500 to 800m, or even to 1000m if you add full auto short bursts of fire.

If the enemy is only 40m away, any of the above will do. If he is 125m, the carbine or rifle will do. If he is 400m away, you want a full rifle cartridge, or you are wasting your time. That is what energy does for you, that and precious little else. It is enough.

[Wartgamer]

Stopping power, or knockdown, is hotly debated. My own feelings are that a hit by a rifle, any rifle, should absolutely take someone down (not a kill yet but he is badly incapacitated), and result in long term rehabilitation.

I once fired a M1 Carbine (about 30 rounds) and decided not to buy it from someone. Pays to drive before you drive.

I like the way it feels and you could defend a home with it. But at 150 yds it was not too accurate. Its OK around 50-100 yds really. But it was an old weapon. 250 yds? Please. I have very long arms and it just feels too miniature. At 250 yds its like a SMG at 125 yds.

To knock someone down, you need velocity. To rip off limbs, etc; velocity is good. Any bone hit with nearly any weapon (under reasonable range) is a good hit. But HV is the key. I never hunt deer with canonballs. I use a HV rifle.

Given the weight of 45 cal ammo and the weight of the Tommy Gun, I would probably prefer the M1 Carbine. In my opinion, the thompson holds very little advantage except in street fighting or other non-typical battles.

The M1 Garand was used with AP ammo. This has excellent penetration and 'killing' (knockdown) power. So did the 30 cal MGs the US used. The mechanism by which it really induces damage is related to the absorption of energy and the tissue expansion that results. major vessels, nervous system, and other vitals get pinched and destroyed. Men drop like rag dolls if hit in vitals. We are like big gel bags held together with kindling.

The M1 Carbine may have had a better HV round (it was turned down) but it was squelched by the same dummies that thought 45 cal was such a hit. If it had this round, the US would have rapidly had a world beater.

[ March 19, 2005, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]