Tommy Or M1 Carbine ?
Posted 10 December 2004 - 03:35 PM
If you were going into action during WW2 would you rather have an M-1 carbine or a Thompson ?
Be objective (if possible
Posted 10 December 2004 - 03:47 PM
Full auto versus semi
30 rd mag versus 15 rd. mag
Absolutely without a doubt TSMG
Posted 10 December 2004 - 04:45 PM
had been talking about this with my Dad just a few weeks ago.
I was comenting on the underpower of the carbine. He said that he saw quite a lot of mess created by the little carbine!
It had a bit of range to it, light and quick. Recalled one on a marine non-com with a sawed off buttstock.
But, he would rather have his .45 Thompson, again, for the knockdown, and the rampant "tumbling"
as he called it that the bullet would make at a certain range. He said the destruction from a .45 was incomparable
with other small calibers.
Note: he was a 20mm. aerial gunner on landing ships in the pacific, and followed up by stating that more then once he turned his twin barreled twenties beachward. He recalls actually lifting a beached truck on Saipan while laying down covering fire with that puppy!
But his Thompsons were his favorites. Two Savage Navy 28's by his description, finned barrels, horizontal foregrips, Cutts and four L drums and a case of XX's. He was issued one by the Navy and traded a Samuri sword for the other.
After getting wounded and evacuated out of Saipan, both vanished along with his trusty 1911 he wore in a shoulder holster at all times...
He really wanted to bring home one of those Navy T's, but such is such!
Posted 11 December 2004 - 03:12 AM
The carbine is light and handy but the 30 rounders for it came out way to late i.e. 1945 or 46ish. A Thompson you had your choice of 20, 30, or 50 if you had a 28. I've never heard of a Thompson failing to fire from cold but heard it more than once about carbines. One other point is my arms are longer than some and the Thompson points better. ( the 10" not the 16")
just my .02
Posted 11 December 2004 - 05:56 PM
Posted 11 December 2004 - 08:42 PM
i kinda like the carbine myself.
Posted 19 December 2004 - 12:28 PM
I like TSMG but it has several draw backs that make me chose the Carbine, first is the weight 10lbs plus loaded mags, the length of pull is to long for me and the fixed sights make adjustments difficult( I know the adjustable carbine sight came out later). The overall poor ergonomics of the TSMG make quick snap shooting difficult for me which I consider to be very important in a combat role.
Edited by mike735, 19 December 2004 - 12:31 PM.
Posted 19 December 2004 - 12:55 PM
I agree on many of your points... I would rather carry a carbine thru the jungle, but for close up firefights I think the Thompson would be what I wanted in my hands.... And you're right the length of pull is to much for all but really BIG guys as far as I'm concerned...
Posted 19 December 2004 - 01:17 PM
Posted 19 December 2004 - 02:04 PM
Now regarding going into action during WW2 would you rather have an M-1 carbine or a Thompson ?
I'll take the M14E2.
Sorry, someone had to be the funny man!
Posted 19 December 2004 - 03:56 PM
Posted 19 December 2004 - 08:11 PM
Posted 20 December 2004 - 08:05 AM
Posted 20 December 2004 - 08:41 AM
Posted 20 December 2004 - 09:47 AM
Posted 20 December 2004 - 10:39 AM
Posted 20 December 2004 - 10:52 AM
Posted 20 December 2004 - 10:52 AM
I would choose the carbine w/paratrooper stock, for weight, range, accuaracy, compactness and reliability.
This added with the ammount of ammo one can carry (as opposed to .45 acp) and the inability to waste it with full auto fire.
My reeenacting web gear carries 15, 15rnd mags. Thats 240 rounds total with one mag in the weapon. I have worn this web gear with a full load of live ammo: there is not that much weight and very little bulk added to your body.
To match this you would have to carry one of the following for Thompson
12 'XX' mags,
8 'XXX' mags
5 'L' drums.
I think this would add a considerable amount of extra weight and bulk to ones frame.