Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

When repeating bolt action rifles became standard military service weapons. there were still distinctions between true rifle (Gewehr in german, Fusil in french and other 'romance' languages) which as musket lenghts, which intended to equip infantrymen (and that lenghts fit well with bayonets attached to.. Back then which aspects of linear infantry trainings infantrymen of that time gets? apart of marching column or many trainings that lasts to this day. did they also get a classic square formations that intended to counteract cavalry charges? ...) ---(3 bands) and carbines (2 bands)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95Ljx5hjtUs

But when it comes to WW1 and slightly after. distinctions between rifles and carbines became blurred out (similar to the evolutions of muzzleloading ancestry--Arquebus and Musket, Originally began as a different class of firearms, later with improved ironworking technology by the late stage of Renaissance era. distinctions blurred in the times of 30-years war)... Many musket lenght rifles got their barrel cut to the carbine lenghts... and new class of 'rifles' (gewehrs / fusils) are now called 'carbines' (Karabiner) and now Infantrymen gets carbines instead of musket lenght rifles. (WW2 era standard infantry service rifle Germany used were referred to as 'Carbine (Karabiner 98k)' rather than 'Rifle' (Gewehr).

1. What country is the first to arm infantrymen with bolt action Carbines (which were once belonged to Cavs)?
2. And when did carbines are supplied to common infantrymen (as well as artillery crew) ? between or after WW1. and reasons why
3. What were the countries that retains musket lenght rifle of the earlier wars? did Imperial Japanese Army and Marines still uses rifles of that lenghts?
Not sure about my homeland though.
4. Is the Springfield Armory M1903 3-band rifle or rifled carbine that may equip either infantryman or cavalryman??

It depends on what you mean by Carbine, the line between Carbine and Rifle got pretty blurry between 1900 and 1930.

Advances in cartridges meant that you no longer needed a rifle to be as long as they were in the 1800s, meaning Rifles began to be shortened to what would have been considered a Carbine 20 years earlier but still called and used as Rifles. IIRC Italy was the first to realize this and try to standardize their rifle lengths because they realized there was no practical difference between the different rifle lengths in combat and all it did was make production more expensive. They weren't really successful but they did try.

This video sort of covers some of that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-lJZPF_fJQ Its not the focus of the video but he does cover rifle lengths a bit.

To the best of my knowledge, the first modern bolt-action carbine was the Short Magazine Lee Enfield Mk.5 used for jungle warfare in WW2. It was unpopular because a full power cartridge in a light weapon produced a lot of kick and muzzle flash.

By the time of the SMLE 5, concepts like the Browning M1carbine were also being introduced, with a lower power cartridge.

At the same time the Germans were introducing the Sturmgewehr.

The Sturmgewehr and the M1 were the forerunner of the modern assault rifle which is now the main weapon of infanry around the world.

Thus I think it can be said that there never was an era of bolt-action carbines. The transition from full length, full power rifles to lower calibre assault rifles happened too quickly, and ran alongside a transition from bolt-action full power to automatic full power rifles.

 Grey Templar wrote:
It depends on what you mean by Carbine, the line between Carbine and Rifle got pretty blurry between 1900 and 1930.

In this thread. barrel lenght, rather than units to be equipped. is a distinction criterion. (as in 30s when Germany broke the Versailles 'restrains' and began to rebuild and expand their armed forces. the new army must be equipped with 'most modern' weaponry based on lessons learned from previous war. With many countries replaced 3-band rifles with carbines, so should Germany and that's why a new 'Model 98' rifles used in WW2 are called Karabiners.

Other countries called this new breed of infantry standard weapons as Carbines... Soviet Union had developed yet another class of semiautomatic rifles, named SKS. ... AFAIK 'k' refers to 'Carbine' and made with carbine leights.

So in 1930s while there's still horse mounted cavalry exists. did Cavs get the SAME weapons infanrymen did?

Advances in cartridges meant that you no longer needed a rifle to be as long as they were in the 1800s, meaning Rifles began to be shortened to what would have been considered a Carbine 20 years earlier but still called and used as Rifles. IIRC Italy was the first to realize this and try to standardize their rifle lengths because they realized there was no practical difference between the different rifle lengths in combat and all it did was make production more expensive. They weren't really successful but they did try.

This video sort of covers some of that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-lJZPF_fJQ Its not the focus of the video but he does cover rifle lengths a bit.

Do the two factors related? weren't the reasons more on infantry combat statistics collected in WW1?

Us cavalry in WW1 and WW2 we’re armed with pistols and rifles. Pistols were fired from horseback from 25 yards and closer. Rifles were kept in saddle scabbards and used after dismounting to fight as infantry. Both the Springfield 1903 and the M1 Garand have a barrel length of 24 inches and the Mauser 98K has a barrel length of 23.6 inches.

 Lone Cat wrote:
When repeating bolt action rifles became standard military service weapons. there were still distinctions between true rifle (Gewehr in german, Fusil in french and other 'romance' languages) which as musket lenghts, which intended to equip infantrymen (and that lenghts fit well with bayonets attached to.. Back then which aspects of linear infantry trainings infantrymen of that time gets? apart of marching column or many trainings that lasts to this day. did they also get a classic square formations that intended to counteract cavalry charges? ...) ---(3 bands) and carbines (2 bands)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95Ljx5hjtUs

But when it comes to WW1 and slightly after. distinctions between rifles and carbines became blurred out (similar to the evolutions of muzzleloading ancestry--Arquebus and Musket, Originally began as a different class of firearms, later with improved ironworking technology by the late stage of Renaissance era. distinctions blurred in the times of 30-years war)... Many musket lenght rifles got their barrel cut to the carbine lenghts... and new class of 'rifles' (gewehrs / fusils) are now called 'carbines' (Karabiner) and now Infantrymen gets carbines instead of musket lenght rifles. (WW2 era standard infantry service rifle Germany used were referred to as 'Carbine (Karabiner 98k)' rather than 'Rifle' (Gewehr).

1. What country is the first to arm infantrymen with bolt action Carbines (which were once belonged to Cavs)?
2. And when did carbines are supplied to common infantrymen (as well as artillery crew) ? between or after WW1. and reasons why
3. What were the countries that retains musket lenght rifle of the earlier wars? did Imperial Japanese Army and Marines still uses rifles of that lenghts?
Not sure about my homeland though.
4. Is the Springfield Armory M1903 3-band rifle or rifled carbine that may equip either infantryman or cavalryman??

Arguably the British with the SMLE. After the Boer War it was intended to replace both Cavalry Carbines, Artilleryman's Carbines, and the standard infantry rifle. It was markedly shorter than other full size rifles, which, iirc, is why they issued the sword bayonets to keep the effective point length similar / the same to other contemporary rifles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S2-ItCQC6o

^ Reasons why Brits introduced Carbines to infantrymen instead of 3-band rifles? Did Boer war summarized that rifled carbines are no less effective in combat than musket-lengh repeating rifles?

 Lone Cat wrote:
^ Reasons why Brits introduced Carbines to infantrymen instead of 3-band rifles? Did Boer war summarized that rifled carbines are no less effective in combat than musket-lengh repeating rifles?

Well sort of. Thats the basic gist of why "rifles" got shorter. Sure, you can hit a target at 3000 meters with a 3 band rifle. But that is of no real gain if all combat occurs within 500 meters.

Its really the same reason why the M4's only advantage over an AK isn't really an advantage. So what if you can hit sub-MOA groups at 800 meters? Pretty much 99% of all modern combat occurs within 100 meters, and the AK is just as accurate at that range as an M4. The AK is far more reliable, cheaper, and deadlier. Oh and it can still hit reasonable groups at 800 meters. Enough to hit a man sized target if need be. Who cares if you can hit the right nipple if you can just hit the chest instead for the same results?

1. What country is the first to arm infantrymen with bolt action Carbines (which were once belonged to Cavs)?

This doesn't really matters, since it's adopted at about the same time by many armies. In larger WW1 armies it was Britain and Germany.
There were projects to shorten carbines more by using less powerful cartridges, but it was never produced.

2. And when did carbines are supplied to common infantrymen (as well as artillery crew) ? between or after WW1. and reasons why

1 meter long barrel and 550mm long barrel has similar accuracy at real combat distances (50-300 meters). But long rifles were unhandy (especially in trenches), so the result was even worse. War showed, that infantry shoudn't waste bullets, keep safe from shelling and let machine guns with artillery do the job. While defending trenches it was more importand to stay alive until enemy come close and then counter attack, so their support can't help to avoid friendly fire. During advance, it was also pointless to stop and shoot until you ran closer to the position of the enemy.

3. What were the countries that retains musket lenght rifle of the earlier wars?

France, maybe? Russia (I'm not sure how many dragoon rifles were used by infantry)? Even if they kept long lenght it was because of organizational difficultes of changing weapons.

did Imperial Japanese Army and Marines still uses rifles of that lenghts?

They changed caliber to smaller 6.5mm and used lighter and shorter Arisaka rifles. Probably, one of the first who used shorter rifles (carbines) as an common infantry weapon.

4. Is the Springfield Armory M1903 3-band rifle or rifled carbine that may equip either infantryman or cavalryman??

It was a rifle for any one. "3-band" sounds to archaic and British-specific.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Lone Cat wrote:
^ Reasons why Brits introduced Carbines to infantrymen instead of 3-band rifles? Did Boer war summarized that rifled carbines are no less effective in combat than musket-lengh repeating rifles?

Well sort of. Thats the basic gist of why "rifles" got shorter. Sure, you can hit a target at 3000 meters with a 3 band rifle. But that is of no real gain if all combat occurs within 500 meters.

Its really the same reason why the M4's only advantage over an AK isn't really an advantage. So what if you can hit sub-MOA groups at 800 meters? Pretty much 99% of all modern combat occurs within 100 meters, and the AK is just as accurate at that range as an M4. The AK is far more reliable, cheaper, and deadlier. Oh and it can still hit reasonable groups at 800 meters. Enough to hit a man sized target if need be. Who cares if you can hit the right nipple if you can just hit the chest instead for the same results?

Also by that time. did cavalry tactics changed to the point that a long reach of 3 band rifles inherited from the Enlightenment Era became irrelevant? or didn't 3-band lengh practical countermeasure against cavalry charges with swords/sabers or lances as anticipated??

And maximum distances a man can aim his rifle with naked eyes please. is it still possible to aim a man sized target wtih 3-band rifle at the distances of 3km without scope?

AFAIK Germany and Austria were slow to realize that infantrymen fights better with rifled repeating carbines and not full sized rifles. Germany entered The Great War with full size Gewehr 98 (and it is said that German militiamen in WW2 als equipped with fullsize G98, not sure that German Army did store G98 for this long!)

And also in the US. Springfield M1903 were made as carbines and not rifles ( M1903 never has 3-band variants) . Did the War Office (what was the name of Ministry of War in the United States at that time?) summarized the lessons from the war against Spanish Colony and , later. Moro princedoms in The Phillipines and concluded that infantrymen should be equipped with carbines and not full sized rifles?

 Lone Cat wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Lone Cat wrote:
^ Reasons why Brits introduced Carbines to infantrymen instead of 3-band rifles? Did Boer war summarized that rifled carbines are no less effective in combat than musket-lengh repeating rifles?

Well sort of. Thats the basic gist of why "rifles" got shorter. Sure, you can hit a target at 3000 meters with a 3 band rifle. But that is of no real gain if all combat occurs within 500 meters.

Its really the same reason why the M4's only advantage over an AK isn't really an advantage. So what if you can hit sub-MOA groups at 800 meters? Pretty much 99% of all modern combat occurs within 100 meters, and the AK is just as accurate at that range as an M4. The AK is far more reliable, cheaper, and deadlier. Oh and it can still hit reasonable groups at 800 meters. Enough to hit a man sized target if need be. Who cares if you can hit the right nipple if you can just hit the chest instead for the same results?

Also by that time. did cavalry tactics changed to the point that a long reach of 3 band rifles inherited from the Enlightenment Era became irrelevant? or didn't 3-band lengh practical countermeasure against cavalry charges with swords/sabers or lances as anticipated??

And maximum distances a man can aim his rifle with naked eyes please. is it still possible to aim a man sized target wtih 3-band rifle at the distances of 3km without scope?

The reasoning behind 2000 meter+ targeting was that a unit would simple bombard an area with their projectiles. It wasn't single target, but more of a small area of effect. But in theory if you could see a man sized target at 3000 meters you could potentially hit him.

As for cavalry, pretty much all of them had become dragoons at this point. IE: Cavalry were mounted infantry. Cavalry would ride to a position, dismount and fight dismounted, and when they needed to reposition they would remount their horses. Though a lot of cavalry units still had lances as part of their standard kit. Military officers still had fanciful dreams of glorious cavalry charges breaking lines of infantry, but in practical terms the cavalry fought with firearms most of the time. Though the Poles did actually charge some German infantry units with Lancers on the first day of the invasion, and were successful on that initial charge.

 Lone Cat wrote:
^ Reasons why Brits introduced Carbines to infantrymen instead of 3-band rifles? Did Boer war summarized that rifled carbines are no less effective in combat than musket-lengh repeating rifles?

IIRC, it was the infantry didn't need the extra length, and if you don't need the length then you don't need the extra weight. Also making and issuing one rifle/carbine is cheaper and logistically simpler than making and issuing several variants.

Long distance sharpshooting with a naked eye is not really possible at 3000m, but you can volley fire at an infantry or artillery formation from that distance using eyeballs and volley sights, which some rifles retained into WW1.

I think that this piece of work by Matt Ford may be of interest to those of you who care about this sort of thing. It's a thesis, so it might take a hot minute to download depending on your connection speed.

https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/files/2931678/540222.pdf

Keep in mind the origins of long barreled firearms. They were often smoothbore, and often doubled as spears following an initial volley or two - with plug bayonets and later sleeved bayonets. The expectation of combat was still "fire a few times...charge and make them break or run away". The original rifleman was more or less a weird combination of the Pike & Shotte era soldiers...combining the assault and firepower into one soldier (better bang for your governmental buck!). When firearms were inaccurate and slow to reload, major battles were still won with the bayonet charge and subsequent fierce hand to hand combat.

Much of this mentality was likewise carried over into WW1. Both sides still prominently featured long bayonets and the idea was very much clearing trenches with a heroic charge, etc. When your consideration is heavily based around potentially charging at bayonet-point, you want a rifle length weapon. Distance is your friend with a spear or pike, etc.

Even though we maintain the ability to mount small combat knives on our 16" length carbine rifles of the modern era...they're not really intended for a spear-point charge as was historically prevalent. Keep in mind how many Napoleonic-era tactics were still considered during WW1.