Page 1 of 2

Rifles Vs. Carbines

Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 7:58 pm
by Quitch
Seeing as the manual is waaaay outta date, what the heck is the difference between a rifle and carbine?

Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:50 pm
by Tim_Myth
I'm not sure of the difference in game mechanics, but in real life, carbines were shortened rifles typically used by cavalry. It was much easier to shoot a 2 1/2 foot long rifle thana 3 1/2 foot rifle from a horses back. The carbines in WWII were typically issued to paratroops, since they were lighter and more managable when you were strapped to a parachute. They had a slightly shorter range and were slightly less accurate as a general rule of thumb.

Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2005 11:28 pm
by Garnier
In the american army, the M-1 carbine was sort of a cross between an M-1 rifle and a sub machinegun. It had a 15 shot clip and fired more rapidly than the Garand, though as you said with less accuracy and range. Typically issued to leaders.

Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 3:29 am
by Legacy
Well, carbines are compact, so they are issued to troops who have roles not centered around infantry/line combat, special forces operators(especially urban ops), or vehicle crews. They have shorter barrels to make them shorter, some fire pistol cartridges, and are, as a rule, less accurate than their bigger brothers. Of course, for some uses, especially special operations, a lighter weapon is a fair tradeoff, and for vehicle crews, they are easier to handle inside the cab or crew compartment. Nowadays, the role of a shorter weapon can be filled by the so-called "bullpup" rifles. The working mechanisms of these rifles are housed in the stock and allow for the barrel to be seated towards the rear, so teh rifle can be shorter than a standard rifle, and still have hte longer barrel, allowing for the accuracy and stopping power of a rifle in the package size(length) of a carbine.

Now, overall, I tend to favor rifles because of their accuracy at the distances I shoot. Of course, the gun-control nuts could argue that carbines(we're talking automatic, modern carbines like the M4 here) serve no practical purpose to hunters and such(they are wrong, but most of them have never seen a gun outside of TV or movies) and they have no respect for the fact that some of the most law-abiding citizens are those who own automatic and semiautomatic weapons that they consider assault weapons.

Before I twist this into a debate on the Right to Bear Arms, I'll get back on topic with a brief summary: Carbines are good for support troops and urban operations where you need power but not necessarily range, whereas rifles are powerful, long ranged weapons that dominate over distances and in the open.

On a side note, pistols(and SMGs, as SMGs fire pistol cartridges) penetrate flesh deeper and do more damage than NATO 5.56mm rifle rounds.

Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 8:02 am
by guest
im an old fashioned guy i love rifles


my buddy has carbines and likes those


for me it just seems a rifle is a beautiful thing...

the rifles can really reachout and touch someone
the carbines were easy to carry and more rapid fire

during world war one this pitted rifles vs carbines i think
german mausers VS m1a garands? and you can see who won...

Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 8:03 am
by guest
guest wrote:im an old fashioned guy i love rifles


my buddy has carbines and likes those


for me it just seems a rifle is a beautiful thing...

the rifles can really reachout and touch someone
the carbines were easy to carry and more rapid fire

during world war one this pitted rifles vs carbines i think
german mausers VS m1a garands? and you can see who won...


OOPS world war two...

Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 10:17 am
by Garnier
the M-1 Garand is a rifle, not a carbine. It was just as accurate and powerful as the mauser, but was semiautomatic with 8 shot clips.

Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 10:26 am
by Andy
NATO rules of war type stuff decrees that weaponry should be as non-lethal as possible (fine fight, but try not to kill each other :wink: ). forces tend not to go agaisnt this because a wounded man can occupy up to 3 guys (2 stretchers + a medic) whereas a dead guy takes a bloke to lean over n pick up his dog tag, and someone to pick him up later, unless your something like the SAS somewhere you shouldnt be, in which case you gotta take those corpses with you. thats why smaller grenades are used nowadays rather than frags. the french however ignore this completely and use bullets that split open like and orange, and corkscrew into flesh, going from 6mm to 36mm
________
Scion xP

Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 11:57 pm
by guest
Andy wrote:NATO rules of war type stuff decrees that weaponry should be as non-lethal as possible (fine fight, but try not to kill each other :wink: ). forces tend not to go agaisnt this because a wounded man can occupy up to 3 guys (2 stretchers + a medic) whereas a dead guy takes a bloke to lean over n pick up his dog tag, and someone to pick him up later, unless your something like the SAS somewhere you shouldnt be, in which case you gotta take those corpses with you. thats why smaller grenades are used nowadays rather than frags. the french however ignore this completely and use bullets that split open like and orange, and corkscrew into flesh, going from 6mm to 36mm


i just keep remembering chaka zulu got tired of this kinda of war
and you know what he did...

Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 8:19 am
by Andy
no, no i dont :wink:
________
Aprilia Pegaso 600

Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 1:37 pm
by Quitch
[quote="Andy"]NATO rules of war type stuff decrees that weaponry should be as non-lethal as possible (fine fight, but try not to kill each other :wink: ). forces tend not to go agaisnt this because a wounded man can occupy up to 3 guys (2 stretchers + a medic) whereas a dead guy takes a bloke to lean over n pick up his dog tag, and someone to pick him up later[quote]

Sorry, maybe I'm misreading, but you appear to contradict yourself. You're saying forces prefer NATO rounds (which sound like they MORE likely to wound than kill than older rounds) while saying forces prefer having to deal with corpses than wounded...??

Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 1:54 pm
by Guest
That's not really a contradiction. They use ammo that will more likely wound and not kill the enemy so the enemy has to tend some wounded.
That is not unique to NATO. Even the Nazis made booby-traps that were intended to do just that.

Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 1:55 pm
by Tim_Myth
From a strictly logistical stand point, corpses are better than casualties. Casualties require doctors, nurses, and medicine in addition to the same food and supplies a healthy soldier requires. All this attention must be supplied fairly quickly, so you must have enough staff and supplies to meet the demand or you simply end up with corpses. Also, it should go without saying that you get little or no work from a wounded man.

On the other hand, a corpse simply requires burial, and the burial can be performed at a more leisurely pace than required by casualities. Depending on the weather, a burial could wait at least 2 or 3 days before disease becomes an issue (and you have to prevent disease or you end up with casualties!).

Now, if I'm fighting a coldly calculated war, I'd prefer to have as few casualties as possible, either by preventing injury or ensuring injuries are fatal. I'd also like to give the enemy as many casualties as possible, which will require him to spend time, energy, and money caring for his wounded men.

Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 9:10 pm
by Quitch
Okay, I get it now, cheers.

Re: Rifles Vs. Carbines

Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 11:57 am
by JeanBoule
Quitch wrote:Seeing as the manual is waaaay outta date, what the heck is the difference between a rifle and carbine?



I took it that in the case of germans, a carbine is the assault rifle which came into general use about 1943/44. It fired cartridges intermediate in power between pistol and rifle. Also could fire bursts.