Upon reaching campaign level 17 I was really excited to try out the M1 Carbine. After playing a few matches, the best word to describe it is “disappointing”. The gun hits very weak at only 7.3 dmg with a high damage dropoff at range. It has an extremely slow bullet velocity. Even worse, it kicks pretty much the same as the m1 garand. To top it off, the grenade launcher would at best be described as “a neat parlor trick” you could use once or twice but has no practical use. The truth is theres no reason currently to use this over the m1 garand.
To fix this, a simple verticle recoil reduction should be used, along with a slight damage buff to say 8.0 damage per shot. The same extreme damage dropoff at range should still apply. Make this gun a better close quarters gun than the garand, but worse once you get beyond 50 meters or so so that way theres actually trade offs to choose between the two guns and not just one gun thats obviously superior.
i got the chance to get the m1 carbine.
in my personal experience, i have to agree that the damage is weaker.
weaker than an m1 garand.
but i think that the low damage is due to it’s magazine capacity.
because if you give the m1 carbine to a soldier that has the ammo perk, it’s pratically a weapon carrier ( almost )
but, the bullet velocity i 100% agree that must be a bit faster.
it’s like using an extended pistol.
i’m not gonna spend too much about the grenade gadjet, because i think it’s more situationals. like, it’s helpfull if you have a line of sight where enemies are clustered in bunkers, or capture point.
but yeah, it’s very situational. and pretty much up for the players.
for the first part, i agree. but isn’t better to increase the velocity of the bullet?
as a semi auto gun, it’s very easy to keep firing. otherwise i wouldn’t like that the gun would become more powerfull. but, i could be wrong.
and for the:
couldn’t have been said better.
anyway, cheers for bringing this up.
i wasn’t sure to be the only one thinking almost the same about the carbine.
No - it’s a carbine firing a smaller cartridge - it has no place being any better than a Garand at anything except weight and handiness.
we never said it has to be better than the m1 garand?
i said that the m1 carbine is weaker than the m1 garand as a matter of judgement.
like, unfortunally, you are kinda bound to use m1 garands rather than the m1 carbine.
i mean, you can still use cargines, but they are not efficent as m1 garands as they are worse.
that’s all.
and once again, i think that both weapons should be a choise for different aspects. not the one being better than the other.
Well someone said this:
I said it isn’t better than hte Garand for anything EXCEPT being smaller and lighter and handier - so no, it should not be a better close quarters gun, unless the game factors in size and weight somehow, which it does not.
It is in the wrong place in hte CBT - it should be there at hte start - not at a high level - it’s a ridiculopus placement for a weapon that was only intended to be a self defence firearm for troops who would usually be busy doing something else - like serving artillery or in a tank.
exept, it should be better for close quarter?
has much higher rate of fire, almost twice as capacity,
i don’t see why it shouldn’t, otherwise the m1 carbine will not have any uses outside taking dust.
weather i agree that should be much earlier,
i disagree. the gun in real life was effective and exelled in close quarter and mid range. i don’t see the case why it should here in enlisted. just for an example, paratroopers used for the most this weapon
not to mention, tanker or mortar company ( not sure for the last ) didn’t had carbines.
it’s a front line weapon. not an oversized side arm.
Actually that is EXACTLY what it is meant to be - better than a .45 pistol.
A standard rifle company had 28 carbines on issue - 9 to the HQ pln, 16 to the weapons Pln, and 1 to each rifle platoon - that in itself tells you exactly that it is for use by people with “other jobs to do” - eg see https://www.battleorder.org/usa-riflecoy-1942 - yes, the Mortar squad had carbines or pistols as their issue firearm.
Or https://www.battleorder.org/usa-armored-inf-rifle-co-1943 - or anywhere else you might like to look …
Airborne used it? Sure - see https://www.battleorder.org/us-airborne-ww2 - guess who it was issued to?? Yep - machinegunners, mortars, officers, …etc…
exept this game is not historical accurate.
you can provide all links that you want, which i respect.
but in gameplay perspective, the m1 carbine does not perform like it should.
at this point, why should people even bother give semi automatic “pistols” with big magazine when you can just bring a bolt action rifle and carry a side gun for close quarters?.
the main issue, is like getting battlefield v.
battlefield v had a somewhat good variety of weapons, but over the time some of them has become useless and not effective at all.
in enlisted case, it’s not fun or rewarding.
grinding for a weapon that it’s close to being useless.
that’s why i think each weapons in enlisted has should have it’s stenght and should have it’s drawbacks compared to others weapons.
examples? for moscow, the g41 it’s close to being a semi auto bolt action rifle, due to the same usage of bullets. but in close quarter and mid range it’s deadlier.
but, i have to admit that the above comparison is not really accurate as nor the german, and nor the russian as such a large and good variety of weapons of different type.
i don’t see why the m1 carbine should perform like a side weapon. just becase it’s accurate.
we already discussed about not having damage per bullet size.
so once again, i think that weapons of the same class could be used differently in order to left them in our inventory to take dust.
This game touts itself as having a high degree of historical accuracy. If you go around making things like the M1 carbine out-perform the Garand in any way then it loses that claim.
So the M1 Carbine should perform like the M1 Carbine - better than a pistol, but not as good as a full rifle.
It can be a useful weapon without having to delve into fantasy.
But if it does go into such fantasy then it’s going to lose a lot of paying customers - the ones who make it possible for it to be F2P. As I’ve said in other threads - Hell Let Loose and Post Scriptum are looking good for my dollars with the P2W system that’s being mooted here… 
no.
just simply no.
combinations of squads are totally random.
premium squads out of reality, and above all, too many smg to the germans if we consider moscow.
once again.
no one ever said that the m1 should outperform the m1 garand.
it should be slighly better than the m1 garand in terms of close quarter for common sense.
and make the m1 carbine unique and actually be a choise to bring in the field.
like?
explain.
honestly, i don’t see many people using m1 carbines outside the bots… so, it does lose a lot of paying customers.
can’t disagree there.
haha
funny.
good joke that i used to believe.
i used this one my self.
and guess what, it was a straight lie.
because i don’t think in world war two soldiers had to use upgraded equipment, that they started with unexperienced soldiers, and those soldiers had to prove that they are worthy to actually carry more stuff for whatever reason.
( or they had to pay in order to get stuff or even gamble for it 
)
so no, it’s not realism at all if you ask me.
We german players never complain about MAS-36
well, why would you complain?
( aside the fact that is a mosin place holder )
but you know,
it’s somewhat of a different weapon to use. something new and somewhat different doesn’t hurt after all. right?
The M1 should have less recoil than the M1. I agree, and I support your suggestion!
I think you should specify which one of the M1s if carbine, and which one is Garand. Just to be clear.
Which M1 should have less recoil?
That is what I am asking you.
You basically say “A must be better than A.”
And I assume the first one is Carbine, and second one is Garand, but it confuses me
Do you think the M1 should have less recoil than the Garand?
The M1 Carbine should have less recoil, yes. It should match the recoil of the M3, as it both fired the same round.