In your Opinion...

eclancy · 08-15-2007, 10:55 AM

Gentlemen,
...Why did so many type's of assault weapons like the M1 Carbine, MP 44 Sten Guns Tommy Guns etc., Start to be built and used so early during WW 2.
Thanks again
Clancy
ps could use some help guys TIA

Gio · 08-15-2007, 11:06 AM

I would guess because of the urban enviroments they were fighting in trying to take towns and cities.

Bravo · 08-15-2007, 11:32 AM

That would be my guess as well. The effective range on the Thompson, Sten, and MP44 is probably no more than 100 yards (I don't know for sure). These guns would seem to be ideal in Urban areas, where one would have to patrol a street in a city or scout through a building.

The Carbine was originally designed for those who needed something more than a handgun, but couldn't carry the heavy guns like the Garand or BAR. In the end, paratroopers, medics, engineers, mortar crew, and officers received the M1 Carbine. If you've ever held one, you would agree that it weighs nearly nothing, and it's accurate to over 100 yards.

BFRANKlin · 08-15-2007, 12:57 PM

It could have been from being stung by the big Garands we were using. The enemies wanted something that would spit out more bullets and try to gain an advantage over the big powerful American rifles.
By the way, Tommy guns were already built. And the others mentioned are sub- (pistol) caliber machine guns, the Stens, MP 44s and Tommy guns, and not true assault rifles. Assault rifles shoot intermediate rifle cartridges like the M2 carbines & AKs, or full size rounds like the StG. 42s & 43s, and later M 14s. (I think those are what I'm thinking of.) The full size Brownings, Maxims, etc. are machine guns.

JoeLee · 08-15-2007, 01:20 PM

For close range work,Room Broom Capabilities?

tbonecpk · 08-15-2007, 06:51 PM

not to mention the Tommy make a really good brush gun and IMHO ideal for the jungle warfare that was being fought in the pacific theater

jerry · 08-15-2007, 08:37 PM

Beginning of the end of marksmanship. Replacing with firepower.

Bravo · 08-15-2007, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jerry

Beginning of the end of marksmanship. Replacing with firepower.

So true

M1D-Garand · 08-16-2007, 01:29 AM

A lot of fire power with less people, that are not trained to be a sharpshooter!

Rob

rfc357 · 08-16-2007, 07:27 AM

Read your history. The Thompson was designed in 1918 as a trench weapon. The US Army did not begin buying them in large quantities unil the late 1930s.

Most other subguns were originally intended to be defensive weapons for officers and NCOs, as was the M1 carbine. They were alternatives to the pistol, which most people could not employ effectively. Their use evolved to be offensive weapons where ranges were relatively short.

The Soviets intended their subguns as arms for masses of shock troops who would go into battle riding armored vehicles. The Russian army uses this paradigm to this day.

Assault rifles firing intermediate cartridges were intended for short range offensive work. The US Army today considers the rifle-armed trooper to be a 200-yard weapon system, so a full-power rifle is unnecessary for most troops.

However, the M14 is making a comeback in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This is a very general discussion of a very complex subject. Read the history books to get the full story.

TheJoker · 08-16-2007, 05:55 PM

The M1 carbine specifically was the result of the US government seeing Hitler's Blitz across Europe. They saw that with Blitz tactics your behind the lines support folks could be facing serious combat and didn't feel the .45 or .38 handguns in used were powerful or accurate enough. It is interesting that the .30 Carbine cartridge came before the actual carbine.

Coeloptera · 08-16-2007, 06:10 PM

I see some folks beat me to it...but I would like to add that pistols aren't the best weapons for suppressing fire, even in an urban environment at closer ranges. Some of the nasty fighting within French towns seemed to indicate that use of suppressing fire to keep enemies pinned down while other friendlies flanked them through bombed out buildings was a viable and effective tactic.

I'd also have to say weight in mobile units. A STEN weighs about two-thirds what a Garand does. I know I'd prefer to be swinging 7 pounds of SMG at a target in CQB than 10 pounds of semi-auto rifle.

- Coeloptera

BFRANKlin · 08-16-2007, 09:12 PM

I want one of the original 'trench brooms' with no stock & 13" bbl. (or AOs semi-auto remake.) It was considered a pistol but had 2 Tommy gun gangster type grips, no buttstock, .45ACP and 50 rd. drum mag. I think a very few of them did see action in late WW I, but not positive about that.

tbonecpk · 08-17-2007, 06:28 PM

rfc357 yes I understand it was designed as a trench weapon but it performed outstanding none the less in the thick jungles of the south west pacific.

Dookiebutt · 08-17-2007, 08:57 PM

Because the other guys had them.

A-10 · 08-17-2007, 09:10 PM

R.I.P.

Here lies Marksmanship
Son of Rifle

08-15-2007, 10:55 AM	#1
eclancy Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: N. Catasauqua, Pa Posts: 1,338	In your Opinion... Gentlemen, ...Why did so many type's of assault weapons like the M1 Carbine, MP 44 Sten Guns Tommy Guns etc., Start to be built and used so early during WW 2. Thanks again Clancy ps could use some help guys TIA __________________ http://www.garandm1rifle.com http://www.users.fast.net/~eclancy Last edited by eclancy; 08-15-2007 at 11:00 AM.

08-15-2007, 11:06 AM	#2
Gio Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 804 Images: 8	I would guess because of the urban enviroments they were fighting in trying to take towns and cities. __________________ Blow you up.

08-15-2007, 06:51 PM	#6
tbonecpk Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: San Diego Cal Posts: 1,590 Blog Entries: 2	not to mention the Tommy make a really good brush gun and IMHO ideal for the jungle warfare that was being fought in the pacific theater __________________ "Speak softly but carry a big stick" -Teddy Roosevelt

08-15-2007, 08:37 PM	#7
jerry Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 10,870 Images: 9 Blog Entries: 1	Beginning of the end of marksmanship. Replacing with firepower. __________________ I'm a down home back woods redneck

08-16-2007, 01:29 AM	#9
M1D-Garand Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Europe Posts: 367	A lot of fire power with less people, that are not trained to be a sharpshooter! Rob __________________ 8 Bangs and a Pling

08-15-2007, 11:32 AM	#3
Bravo Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Maine, USA Posts: 1,879	That would be my guess as well. The effective range on the Thompson, Sten, and MP44 is probably no more than 100 yards (I don't know for sure). These guns would seem to be ideal in Urban areas, where one would have to patrol a street in a city or scout through a building. The Carbine was originally designed for those who needed something more than a handgun, but couldn't carry the heavy guns like the Garand or BAR. In the end, paratroopers, medics, engineers, mortar crew, and officers received the M1 Carbine. If you've ever held one, you would agree that it weighs nearly nothing, and it's accurate to over 100 yards.

08-15-2007, 12:57 PM	#4
BFRANKlin Banned Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Southern Ohio Posts: 258	It could have been from being stung by the big Garands we were using. The enemies wanted something that would spit out more bullets and try to gain an advantage over the big powerful American rifles. By the way, Tommy guns were already built. And the others mentioned are sub- (pistol) caliber machine guns, the Stens, MP 44s and Tommy guns, and not true assault rifles. Assault rifles shoot intermediate rifle cartridges like the M2 carbines & AKs, or full size rounds like the StG. 42s & 43s, and later M 14s. (I think those are what I'm thinking of.) The full size Brownings, Maxims, etc. are machine guns.

08-15-2007, 01:20 PM	#5
JoeLee Banned Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: North New York State. Posts: 1,241	For close range work,Room Broom Capabilities?

08-16-2007, 07:27 AM	#10
rfc357 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 741	Read your history. The Thompson was designed in 1918 as a trench weapon. The US Army did not begin buying them in large quantities unil the late 1930s. Most other subguns were originally intended to be defensive weapons for officers and NCOs, as was the M1 carbine. They were alternatives to the pistol, which most people could not employ effectively. Their use evolved to be offensive weapons where ranges were relatively short. The Soviets intended their subguns as arms for masses of shock troops who would go into battle riding armored vehicles. The Russian army uses this paradigm to this day. Assault rifles firing intermediate cartridges were intended for short range offensive work. The US Army today considers the rifle-armed trooper to be a 200-yard weapon system, so a full-power rifle is unnecessary for most troops. However, the M14 is making a comeback in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is a very general discussion of a very complex subject. Read the history books to get the full story.

08-16-2007, 05:55 PM	#11
TheJoker Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Indianapolis, IN Posts: 281	The M1 carbine specifically was the result of the US government seeing Hitler's Blitz across Europe. They saw that with Blitz tactics your behind the lines support folks could be facing serious combat and didn't feel the .45 or .38 handguns in used were powerful or accurate enough. It is interesting that the .30 Carbine cartridge came before the actual carbine. __________________ "Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors... and miss." -- Lazarus Long

08-16-2007, 06:10 PM	#12
Coeloptera Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 1,846	I see some folks beat me to it...but I would like to add that pistols aren't the best weapons for suppressing fire, even in an urban environment at closer ranges. Some of the nasty fighting within French towns seemed to indicate that use of suppressing fire to keep enemies pinned down while other friendlies flanked them through bombed out buildings was a viable and effective tactic. I'd also have to say weight in mobile units. A STEN weighs about two-thirds what a Garand does. I know I'd prefer to be swinging 7 pounds of SMG at a target in CQB than 10 pounds of semi-auto rifle. - Coeloptera

08-16-2007, 09:12 PM	#13
BFRANKlin Banned Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Southern Ohio Posts: 258	I want one of the original 'trench brooms' with no stock & 13" bbl. (or AOs semi-auto remake.) It was considered a pistol but had 2 Tommy gun gangster type grips, no buttstock, .45ACP and 50 rd. drum mag. I think a very few of them did see action in late WW I, but not positive about that.

08-17-2007, 06:28 PM	#14
tbonecpk Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: San Diego Cal Posts: 1,590 Blog Entries: 2	rfc357 yes I understand it was designed as a trench weapon but it performed outstanding none the less in the thick jungles of the south west pacific. __________________ "Speak softly but carry a big stick" -Teddy Roosevelt

08-17-2007, 08:57 PM	#15
Dookiebutt Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: America's North Coast Posts: 1,156	Because the other guys had them.

08-17-2007, 09:10 PM	#16
A-10 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: North Carolina Posts: 732	R.I.P. Here lies Marksmanship Son of Rifle