Fixing the Italian Military, 1933~1945 (1 Viewer)

[Dogwalker]

True but that is problem when you take a 1920s engine and put a reduction gear on the front and supercharger on the back and keep all the old stuff inbetween.

OK 2nd rate engine

You have a 32.65 liter engine turning at 2350rpm (at best?) and the DB 601 is 33.9 and turning 2400rpm and 2500rpm for take-off.

Ok, let's see.
BoreXstroke:
Asso XI 146x160
DB 601 150x160

RPM:
Asso XI RC.40
"normal": 2250 rpm
maximum: 2400 rpm, without time limit listed in the manual
"exceptional": 2590 rpm, for 30"

DB601 A-1
"normal": 2200 rpm.
("military"?): 2300 rpm for 30'
maximum: 2400 rpm for 5'
takeoff only: 2400 rpm (with more boost) for 1'.

They seem pretty comparable.
The real difference,apart for the slight difference in displacement, seems to be the supercharger rating. The Asso XI was a sea-level atmospheric pressure engine. At 2400rpm at 4000m it produced 900ps with 860mmHg/1.13atm pressure provided by the supercharger (and "normal" power, at 2250rpm, at 4000m was with 822mmHg/1.08atm). The DB601A-1 was slightly supercharged. At 2400rpm at 4000m it developed 1020ps with 1.30atm (for 5'). At takeoff the it could use 1.4atm for 1'.

I don't have the manual for the Asso L.121 , but it seems very likely they increased the pressure for that too, since it mantained the same bore and stroke and fuel of the Asso XI and rised 60hp power. It doesn't seem credible they further increased the rpm, when the Asso could already rev faster than the DB601.

 

[Dogwalker]

Several strong alternatives to the upgraded Ba.65:
- Ro 57 - it does use two engines (probably the only downside, considering the state of the Italian engine manufacturing), but can lug up to 1000 kg bomb; tweak bomb and fuel load for greater ranges
- bombed-up fighters - Re 2000 series is probably the best there due to it's generous wing and reasonably-powered engines; the Re-2003 was supposed to carry up to 650 kg of bombs
- Ca 355 - there is no reason that it cannot be made earlier, even accepting the lower powered engines and a lighter bomb load, as it was the case with the Ca-335

The Ca-335 is a big case of "What if".
Because it was nothing exceptional, it didn't require any stroke of genius, but it shows that could have been done with the available resources BEFORE the start of WWII.
The aircraft had very classic steel tube structure, with wooden wings. It's aerodynamic was good, but not super-refined. It had fixed rear wheel and mainwheels retracting backwards (that required two small pods under the wings, for the legs of the undercarriage). I like very much semi-chin mounted radiator (that Caproni also used for the modified Ca.165) because the radiator is directly under the rear couple of cylinders, a very compact solution that facilitates maintenance and replacement, but it's slightly less aerodinamically efficient than the ventral radiator "C.202 style". The aircraft was also quite well armed with central 20mm cannon and two wing mounted MGs.
Yet this not-exceptional aircraft, that flew for the first time in february 1939, with a Hispano-Suiza12Y-31 engine (860hp at 3250m) obtained 501 km/h max. speed at 4000m.
What if Caproni, instead of doing it for the Belgians, had been allowed (because prototypes were commissioned by the Regia Aeronautica) to make it a single-seat, Asso L.121 RC.40 engined, fighter for the 1938 "concorso caccia intercettore terrestre" competition (the one that produced the Re.2000 and Caproni Vizzola F.5)?
It's a gain of 18km/h speed only for the increased power of the engine, 12/15 km/h for the increased critical altutude. The effect of making it a smaller single seater (we are talking of about 2m shorter wingspan, 2m shorter length, and 200kg lighter weight) are harder to evaluate, but it's at least 20km/h. So we are talking of about 550km/h at 5000m, (practically a Dewotine D.520, that infact had an engine of similar performances). The Asso L.121 couldn't mount a central cannon, so it the fighter would have had the usual couple of cowling mounted Breda SAFAT 12.7mm (same installation than in the Ca.165) and, hopefully, it would have mantanied the two wing mounted Mgs.
At the August 1939 Guidonia trials, it would have been the fastest and the best armed fighter there, only 20km/h slower than a Bf109e, so still in the same ballpark. I can't say about the handling, but the Caproni Vizzola F.5 was the most maneuverable fighter in those trials, so there's no reason to think another Caproni fighter would have handled badly.

 

[Dogwalker]

Italy had a bad habit of shooting itself in the foot when it came to military development, from the shortsighted decision to nix inline engine development in 1933 to building tanks designed for the mountains of Sicily then using them in the deserts of Africa and the steppes of Russia.
So let's fix all of it, shall we?

Some possible theoreticals to kickstart the discussion (Bold lettering indicates what I believe would be the most important):

• Regia Aeronautica does not cancel all development of inline engines in 1933.
• Isotta Fraschini Asso XI / Asso L.122 becomes the main inline engine of Italian fighter aircraft.
• Scotti 20 mm or Breda 20 mm developed into aircraft-worthy cannons so Italy isn't reliant on the German MG 151/20.
• Italy invests more heavily into welding technologies, supplanting the riveting used to make a majority of their tanks.
• Italy obtains a license to produce the Brandt 60 mm and 120 mm mortars.
• Breda 30 LMG is replaced by either an indigenous copy of the ZB 26 or an MG 42/Bren equivalent.
• Mussolini does not mandate that steel be primarily withheld for the Navy, opening up more resources for the other military branches.
• Heavier development of the Alfa Romeo 135 radial / other high-potential radial engines.
• Earlier aircraft carrier development for the Regia Marina.
• FIAT-Ansaldo no longer maintains a duopoly on tank, artillery and gun design.
• 6.5 mm Carcano is given a spitzer nose as soon as WW1 ends, negating the need for the superfluous 7.35 mm Carcano.

- Agreed, it would have been way better. To develop a good indigenous (even if based on foreign designs) high-power radial would have been a good thing, but not at the expenses of ditching the development of inlines.

- It would have been way better. IE the L.121 engined Ca.165 had 40 km/h speed advantage and 1 minute time advantage in climbing at 6000m over the A.74 engined Cr.42. In a monoplane with retractable undercarriage, the advantage would have been higher.

- According to Chinn, the Scotti 20mm started as a project for an aerial cannon, apparently using the 20x100mm RB cartridge (the same of the Oerlikon LL and Japanese Type 99-2. Better than the 20x80mm RB of the German MGFF) and with Scotti having a working prototype already in 1932. however the problem was recognizing the need for such a weapon before 1941 (when finally, the Regia Aeronautica requested a 20mm aerial gun to the Italian manufacturers, and finally selected the Breda 20/70 Mod.41, that should have been mounted, IE, on the Piaggio P.119), so to have them mounted on production aircrafts before 1943.

- In this case also, the problem was in recognising the importance of tanks, in the '30s. Had Italy had modern designs, manufacturing capability, engines, etc. riveting vs. welding would have been a secondary problem.

- nothing to say

- Better designs, as the Terni 1931, and the Scotti LMG, had been available right after the adption of the Breda 30. But that's really a minor problem. the Breda 30 was not THAT bad. Replace all the Breda 30 of the Italian Army with the BREN of the Brits, and vice-versa, and it doesn't change the result of any battle.

- The problem was using that steel to build two 50.000t battleships too much, instead of five 10.000t cruisers and twenty-five 2000t destroyers. But the need of steel of the Army and Aviation would have always been residual in respect that of the Navy. Problem of the Navy was war in N. Africa. That sucked resources, especially of fuel for moving convoys, that, even giving priority to the Navy, Italy didn't have.

- The 135 was a very good engine on paper, but Alfa Romeo never developed anything similar before. For them it was uncharted territory, and that reflected in the long time required to homologate the engine. Obviously a faster development would have helped but, starting from scratch in the early '30s, FIAT and Piaggio were already developing quite fast.

- Some escort carrier would have helped, but they would not have been game changers (and even less one big squad carrier like the Aquila). Even for the Brits, the main use of Carriers in the Med was to launch aircrafts destined to Malta.

- I don't know if the division Italy had in Aeronautic would have helped in any way. FIAT and Ansaldo were simply the companies that had the more manufacturing capabilities to do them.

- 7.35 was a cost-saving measure in respect to make a spitzer 6.5, and had some other advantage. Problem was that it had been adopted too late, after Italy toyed with the intermediate cartridge Terni 1921 "assault rifle" (that would have been an even better idea) until the late '20s.

 

[Shortround6]

Many weapons have to be put into context.

intermediate cartridge Terni 1921 "assault rifle"

This on it's own it is a terrible idea, it is very terrain dependent. Such a weapon would have been very good for refighting WW I in alps although the feed system is the thing of nightmares for the troops (Just put a long box magazine in the thing for all that is holy). Basically, the thing is a 1921 US M1 carbine on weak steroids. Might have worked in Albania or Greece. A disaster in NA or East Africa? We have to look at weapons not only as individuals but their place in the scheme of things and here many armies had problems. and often one really good weapon made up for less than good weapons (or training) in otehr places. The German Mauser was a great Rifle...............for hunting, for infantry combat it was not so great, but the Germans, after WW I were no longer using the rifle as the base of firepower for the squad, or platoon or company. They were using the MG 34, at least until they came up with MG 42. One MG 34 for every 8-12 men, most of the men carried ammo for the MG 34 in addition to their own weapons and the squad was trained to keep the MG 34 firing even with great causalities. If the squad was reduced to 3-4 fen the MG 34 was supposed to be kept in action.
and that brings us to....................

But that's really a minor problem. the Breda 30 was not THAT bad. Replace all the Breda 30 of the Italian Army with the BREN of the Brits, and vice-versa, and it doesn't change the result of any battle.

Breda 30 was among the 3-4 worst light machine guns made by anybody at any point in history. Unfortunately, it was very well-made gun so they were spending a lot of money on a poor gun. It is one thing to make a poor gun cheaply, at least you can make a lot of them.
British were equipping their troops with around 50-100% more Bren guns per 1000 men than the Italians were issuing Breda 30s so there is a big problem even before we start discussing the guns themselves.
It is also true, in general, that artillery caused about 50% (more ?) of causalities so any individual infantry gun type was rarely decisive.
But the Bren gun was more accurate (but you need trained troops) and more reliable (NA sand was miserable but the Breda cartridge oiler was problem) and a bit longer ranged.
British also issued the gun to each squad. Italians were supposed to keep two guns in a machine gun squad and pair the machine squad with a rifle squad for a 22-24 man unit (losses will reduce total manpower) for a harder to maneuver unit.
The squad/platoon machineguns were the major firepower of the squad beyond 200 meters for most (all?) armies.
Machine guns have a number of different rates of fire. Some of the "book" rates are far from what is used in combat. The German guns are a bit overrated. An MG 42, if feed all the ammo in the squad is going to be out of ammo in around 35-45 seconds. The barrel is also going to be glowing red and perhaps drooping
Most guns were good for around 120rpm, Bren needed about 4 mags per minute on average, maybe two if just suppressing the enemy, maybe 5-6 if things were really desperate.
Breda 30 has a problem, the need to use a magazine attached to the gun and recharge it is using 20 round charges means it is harder to get 100-120 rounds through the gun when things get desperate. Forget what happened on the test range.
Maybe the Breda 30 was not as bad as some people claim but it was not good. Now the problem for the Italians is there is no back up. The Carcano rifle is not as bad as some people
but it is not as good as the British Enfield and going the other way, the Italian Breda 37 heavy machine gun was not as good as a Vickers. It seems to have had a better reputation than the Breda 30 but some of the "book" figures for it are a little suspect. Wike claims a "practical" rate of fire of 200rpm but that means one poor guy shoving a 20 round feed strip in the side of the gun 10 times a minute. Vickers gun used a 250round belt. Firing 200rpm for several minutes on end seems a bit more believable.
Part of winning battles involves moral. If your troops believe you have given them inferior weapons, not enough ammo/food/water it is that much harder to win.
Short range assault rifles can work if your light machine guns will work at longer ranges (200-600 meters?) or if you have some other weapon system that works at those ranges. In urban fighting or forests or jungle the range aspect changes but in open areas (desert/steppes) the range aspect changes back over.
The Bren gun was one of the two best LMGS of the war. ( US BAR was either really poor or not even in the LMG category). It's "book" numbers don't look that good but it was practical, reliable and effective, even if not as noisy as an MG 42

The problem was using that steel to build two 50.000t battleships too much, instead of five 10.000t cruisers and twenty-five 2000t destroyers.

Italians could not always do exactly what they wanted. They were restricted by treaties from making more 10,000 ton cruisers at the time (they had already built the max number allowed), Same for making a large number of destroyers. And until June of 1940 the French were planning on two more Jean Bart's. The Clemenceau had been laid down but it didn't get very far. I am not sure if they had started getting materials for the Gascogne.

 

[Elan Vital]

Italians could not always do exactly what they wanted. They were restricted by treaties from making more 10,000 ton cruisers at the time (they had already built the max number allowed), Same for making a large number of destroyers. And until June of 1940 the French were planning on two more Jean Bart's. The Clemenceau had been laid down but it didn't get very far. I am not sure if they had started getting materials for the Gascogne.

They reportedly got to about 6% materials built by the June 1940 Armistice for Gascogne, with it supposed to be laid down later this year.

The extra pair of Richelieus had been intended to account for the Bismarcks (the first pair of Richelieus were a counter to the first pair of Littorios), so it's the Italians who were "forced to react with the extra pair of Littorios". So it may be harder for the Italians to just forgo building those ships.

 

[Dogwalker]

This on it's own it is a terrible idea, it is very terrain dependent. Such a weapon would have been very good for refighting WW I in alps although the feed system is the thing of nightmares for the troops (Just put a long box magazine in the thing for all that is holy). Basically, the thing is a 1921 US M1 carbine on weak steroids.

The trooper variant of the Terni 1921 was fed with a standard detachable box magazine and was semiauto only, practically an SKS Carbine 20 years in advance AND with a detachable magazine.
An M1 Carbine on weak steroids is EXACTLY what the US should have adopted instead of the M1 rifle. Not by chance they entred in the Korean war with the M1 Garand, and got out of it with the M2 Carbine, and that despite the limitations of the .30 Carbine round. What should they have done? What the French did with the 8mm Ribeyrolles. Take the .351 Wincester self Loading, and neck it down for a .30 spitzer round (the French necked it down for the 8mm Lebel balle D) For the same pressure (so without requiring another action) you'll have a bit more power for the increased case volume in respect to the .30 Carbine, and better ballistic and terminal effects due to the spitzer round.

What the Italians observed in WWI, and any serious study on the matter confirmed since then, is that:
90% of rifle exchanges happen at less than 100m distance.
99% atless than 300m distance.
That a stadard grunt with metallic sights can hit a human-sized target at over 300m distance is wishful thinking (even now US Army doesn't even train standard riflemen soldiers to hit at over 300m distance, and usually the 300m distance is simulated at 25m using smaller targets, so practically ignoring wind).
In over 70% of the possible battlefields, a soldier can't even see an enemy standing in broad daylingt at 300m distance, because there's something in between.
Fantastic quantities of ammunitions (3000 to 5000) are shot for every actual wound inflicted to an enemy.

So what the soldier needs is a rifle that's easy to use and lethal up to 300m distance and whose ammo are the lightest that's possible, so that he can carry the more that's possible What happens beyond 300m, is a job for the MG and the mortar.

Breda 30 was among the 3-4 worst light machine guns made by anybody at any point in history.

The Breda 30 was SURELY an unsatisfactory LMG, but was anyway better in that role than anything without a quick exchange barrel, and that includes, IE, the BAR.
Was it worse than the BREN? Yes, but not THAT worse. First of all, it was not that expensive. All the MGs then were machined. What was expensive was precision machining. And the Breda 30 requires a lot less precision machining than the BREN (check, the bolt assembly of the two weapons the one of the BREN is a macinist's nightmare). There were more BREN on the field? Yes. One of many things that were due to the fact that, in 1939, UK had 4 times the industrial production than Italy.
The instruction for he use of the BREN for British MG gunners advised them to fire ONE magazine every minute. In exceptional circumstances it was allowed to use 4 magazines a minute. Advising them that the entire provision of the squad was of 20 magazines (and battles tend to last more than 5 minutes) and that, at that rate, the barrel had to be changed every 10 magazines fired.
The Breda 30, for how unsatisfactory it was, had no problems in keeping that pace.
Most of the crap that had been throw on the Breda, is post-war armchair guessings repeated ad nauseam. Contemporaries had more nuanced opinions.
That', IE, is form the "Tactical and Technical Trends" (the magazine of the US Intelligence) No. 7, Sept. 10, 1942 "Use of Captured Italian Weapons" :
"Breda Light Machine Gun". The Breda light machine gun is similar to the British Bren gun. It is mechanically superior to the Bren gun under dusty conditions. It requires only one man to service it as compared to several for the Bren gun. It has a slightly higher rate of fire than the British weapon. Its disadvantages are that it has no carrying handle, cannot be fired on fixed lines, and has no tripod mounting.

MGs are crew served weapons. There were worse things to do in a army than shoving trays into the Breda 37. The Breda 37 was superior to the Vickers in several things:
It didnt' need water.
A damage to the water jacket didn't doom the gun.
It was lighter.
It was more mobile during firing (no belts hanging from the gun).
It was more easily serviceable.
The 8mm Breda cartridge was more powerful than the .303 British.
Again the "Tactical and Technical Trends" No. 23, April 22, 1943 "Italian 8-mm Breda Medium Machine Gun, Model 37"
This machine gun is not dissimilar to the French Hotchkiss, with the exception of the thumb trigger, like the British Vickers. From the following report, prepared at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, it appears to be an excellent gun.
The gun is gas-operated, air-cooled and has a quick-change barrel. The cartridges are fed from plate chargers holding 20 rounds, each round being housed in a separate compartment (see sketch). After firing, the empty cases, instead of being ejected, are replaced in the compartment of the plate charger.
The gun uses ammunition very similar to our own with the exception of the case which is shorter and the caliber which is .015 of an inch larger. It is made in ball, tracer, and incendiary tracer armorpiercing.
...
Comment: The gun is quite simple in its operational features, and is extremely easy to disassemble. The breech is positively locked at the moment of firing, the breechblock being forced up (without tilting) by the action of inclined surfaces on the piston extension, so that a projection on its upper surfaces engages in an opening in the top of the body. The barrel is sufficiently heavy (17-3/4 pounds) to enable it to fire a large number of rounds in quick succession without overheating.

Italians could not always do exactly what they wanted. They were restricted by treaties from making more 10,000 ton cruisers at the time

Italy didn't sign the second London Treaty, so, since 1 January 1937, they could do exactly what they wanted. The Roma had been laid down 18 September 1938 and the Impero 14 May 1938. Quite usless employ of about 100.000 tons of steel. Clemenceau and Gascoigne had been laid down after them. They were answers to those two ships.

 

[Dogwalker]

Italy had a bad habit of shooting itself in the foot when it came to military development, from the shortsighted decision to nix inline engine development in 1933 to building tanks designed for the mountains of Sicily then using them in the deserts of Africa and the steppes of Russia.
So let's fix all of it, shall we?

One of the most important things in this is to decide when it has to be fixed. Without even talking about the rest or the armed forces, it would be very different to become the chief of staff of the Regia Aeronautica in 1933 or in 1938. In 1933 things could have been profoundly different. In 1938 you had to go with what you had.
1938 is when the Regia Aeronautica, launched the "Programma R" (Program R, R standing for "renovation") and, with it, several competitions for fighter, attack aircraft, bomber, etc.
So, knowing those were the designs, those the engines, those the weapons. What could have been done better?

The Best use of the FIAT A.74 engine would have probably been on the IMAM Ro. 57. It would have been a good heavy / long range fighter, naval fighter, torpedo bomber, fighter/bomber. It could be modified with more weapons and more powerful engines, and, with those, a twin seater version (Ro.58), equipped with a radar, could have been a good night fighter.
The best use of the P.XI would have probably been on the Reggiane Re. 2000, that also had possibilities to be used as long range fighter and fighter bomber. It could have ben modified to use the more powerful Piaggio engines (P.XII, P.XV...) as soon as they were available.
The best use of the Asso L.121 engine, would have been on the abovementioned fighter version of the Caproni Ca.355, or on the Caproni Vizzola F.4 (originally proposed with that). Even those could use subsequent evolutions of the engine (L.122, L.123... or licenced DB)
For dive bombing, a dive bomber, IF Delta engined, version of the Ca.355 had been done, (the Ca. 335). It didn't show particular defects. A more powerful IF L.121 engined version would have likely been even better.
For light bomber/reconnaissance, another use of the FIAT A.74, the CR.25. That also could have been modified to use more powerful engines as soon as they were available.
For medium bomber, the Cant Z.1018. Same as before.
No need for heavy bombers. Italian industry couldn't sustain those.
FIAT should have acquired the licence for the DB engines.
Piaggio should have kept on developing its radials.
Isotta Fraschini its inlines.
Alfa Romeo (that was state owned at the time), should have manufactur its Bristol derivates for replacement on existing aircrafts (SM.79) and Piaggio radials.

All the others aeronautical companies should have manufactured the selected types, or parts for them (as they historically did. Most of the Macchi c.202 had been made by Breda IE).
The armament of all the fighters should have been increased (at least a pair of MGs in the wings).

Scotti and Breda should have been asked for 20mm aerial cannons in 1938, not in 1941. in the meantime, The Oerlikon FFL could have been acquired.

 

[Shortround6]

As far as infantry weapon ranges go, a US study from the 1950s or 60s says that for rifles
400 meters covered 97% of engagements or less.
300 meters covered 88% of engagements or less.
200 meters covered 72% of engagements or less.
100meters covered 30% of engagements or less.

We can argue about whose data they used or if the US was biased or if they were trying to make a case for the AR-15 rifle and were biased the other way. I doubt it was going change things by more than a couple of percent.

The problem for using reduced size rifle rounds, and there is quite a good case for doing so, is that the rifles are very often not the deciding infantry weapon of the infantry, especially in WW II. When they looked at machine gun use (and here it is all machineguns) they found that
1600 meters covered 97% of engagements or less.
1200 meters covered 80% of engagements or less.
750 meters covered 50% of engagements or less.
400 meters covered 20% of engagements or less.

Obviously machine guns needed larger, more powerful ammo than rifles, but things are not quite that bad. Lumping all machine gun use together biases the numbers to longer ranges that are used by tripod mounted guns or vehicle guns (tank co-ax machineguns). Trying to use LMGs on bipods at longer than 800 meters is pretty much useless. Bipod mounted guns have a max effective range of 600-800 meters depending on gun, caliber, weight, and how good the bipod actually is or how optimistic the manual writers were.
A bipod mounted machine gun is going to much more effective at 200-300 meters than most troops with rifles and at 4-500 meters is even more marked.

As far as the US and small rifle rounds goes. The US was all in favor of them in the 1960s and 70s, In fact the US and some others tried to go even smaller. Then came dessert Storm and there was a lot of back tracking and scrambling for old weapons in the dusty corners of old depots/arsenals. The US is still arguing about the proper size of the rounds and the proper mix of small rifles to larger rifles and MGs to this day.

Going back to the Italians in the 1930s, the Italians did some things right and some things wrong. Along with everybody else you either use the same round for both rifle and machine guns for simplified logistics or you use two different rounds. The Italians are trying to operate in Libia and Ethiopia for the most part but need to secure the northern border, always against France but against Austria changes with the year. This may affect weapon selection depending on when in the 30s.
The Italians were trying to do things on the cheap (so were a lot of other people) and the ideal rifle for NA was not the ideal rifle for other areas. The Italians apparently thought that changing over from the round nose heavy bullet to a lighter weight spitzer was going to be too expensive. The magazine and chambers in the existing 6.5 Carcano rifles may have had compatibility issues (more jams?) or there was problem with the rifling. In any case somebody thought that boring the exist barrels out to 7.35mm would be cheaper? But they didn't have enough time after 1938 and had to change back (sent the modified guns to 2nd line troops or low threat areas). The 8mm Breda 37 doesn't show up until 1937 and that is 7 years too late to affect the selection of the Breda 30.
I have my doubts about the "Tactical and Technical Trends" entries. Not that are anything different in any way from what you wrote but my doubts are about the writer/s being unbiased and impartial
The Breda light machine gun is similar to the British Bren gun.
really? compared to what? the BAR?
It is mechanically superior to the Bren gun under dusty conditions.
Bren gun does not use an oiler, Bren gun has fewer openings for crap to get inside.
It requires only one man to service it as compared to several for the Bren gun.
And yet the Italian manual calls for a 3 man crew. Granted one man to "use" the gun for short period of time may be different than a "crew".
Trying to use the Brda 30 as a single operator with that reload system pretty much turns it into very poor semiautomatic rifle. Since both guns weighed within about 10% of each other (depending on the MK of the Bren) I fail to see any reason why a single man could not pick the Bren and with 1-2 mags inside his tunic advance a short distance and fire 50-80 rounds until a 2nd man with more mags can join him. Italian manual says the crew carried two spare barrels. British manual says crew carried one spare barrel.
It has a slightly higher rate of fire than the British weapon.
ROFLMAO.
Breda was supposed to fire at 500rpm cyclic. Bren guns were supposed to fire at 480-520rpm depending on exact Mark. Very few guns fired exactly at the book figure anyway, some were faster and some slower. Breda was short recoil operated and maybe there was a way to adjust it. But You tube videos make no mention of adjustments to springs or buffers. Or any buffer at all. Now the real kicker, the Brens were gas operated and the firer could easily select one of 4 gas tracks in the regulator to increase gas flow in dusty/dirty conditions to get the gun back up to speed. Or to increase rate of fire when clean although this was probably frowned on. That said the largest gas track was selected for AA use and get the gun up to 900-1000rpm if needed. A clever feature was that the gas from the gas cylinder was vented to the outside through holes and if the gun started to foul from powder residue twisting the bipod back and forth would usually clear the holes from fouling which is dispersed by the gas from the next shot. Now go back to the bit about the Breda being superior to the Bren in dusty conditions.
Sounds like the US writer for "Tactical and Technical Trends" never fired a Bren gun or fired one very briefly and never bothered to read the manual.
Its disadvantages are that it has no carrying handle, cannot be fired on fixed lines, and has no tripod mounting.
Well, finally, something that sounds right. And 3 things that can be done with the Bren. In fact the Bren can be used on several different tripods/mounts and can be provided with AA sights and can be provided with 100 round drum for AA use. Not often used in practice.

We can go over the Breda 37 later

 

[Dogwalker]

As far as infantry weapon ranges go, a US study from the 1950s or 60s says that for rifles
400 meters covered 97% of engagements or less.
300 meters covered 88% of engagements or less.
200 meters covered 72% of engagements or less.
100meters covered 30% of engagements or less.

We can argue about whose data they used or if the US was biased or if they were trying to make a case for the AR-15 rifle and were biased the other way. I doubt it was going change things by more than a couple of percent.

The problem for using reduced size rifle rounds, and there is quite a good case for doing so, is that the rifles are very often not the deciding infantry weapon of the infantry, especially in WW II. When they looked at machine gun use (and here it is all machineguns) they found that
1600 meters covered 97% of engagements or less.
1200 meters covered 80% of engagements or less.
750 meters covered 50% of engagements or less.
400 meters covered 20% of engagements or less.

Obviously machine guns needed larger, more powerful ammo than rifles, but things are not quite that bad. Lumping all machine gun use together biases the numbers to longer ranges that are used by tripod mounted guns or vehicle guns (tank co-ax machineguns). Trying to use LMGs on bipods at longer than 800 meters is pretty much useless. Bipod mounted guns have a max effective range of 600-800 meters depending on gun, caliber, weight, and how good the bipod actually is or how optimistic the manual writers were.
A bipod mounted machine gun is going to much more effective at 200-300 meters than most troops with rifles and at 4-500 meters is even more marked.

As far as the US and small rifle rounds goes. The US was all in favor of them in the 1960s and 70s, In fact the US and some others tried to go even smaller. Then came dessert Storm and there was a lot of back tracking and scrambling for old weapons in the dusty corners of old depots/arsenals. The US is still arguing about the proper size of the rounds and the proper mix of small rifles to larger rifles and MGs to this day.

Going back to the Italians in the 1930s, the Italians did some things right and some things wrong. Along with everybody else you either use the same round for both rifle and machine guns for simplified logistics or you use two different rounds. The Italians are trying to operate in Libia and Ethiopia for the most part but need to secure the northern border, always against France but against Austria changes with the year. This may affect weapon selection depending on when in the 30s.
The Italians were trying to do things on the cheap (so were a lot of other people) and the ideal rifle for NA was not the ideal rifle for other areas. The Italians apparently thought that changing over from the round nose heavy bullet to a lighter weight spitzer was going to be too expensive. The magazine and chambers in the existing 6.5 Carcano rifles may have had compatibility issues (more jams?) or there was problem with the rifling. In any case somebody thought that boring the exist barrels out to 7.35mm would be cheaper? But they didn't have enough time after 1938 and had to change back (sent the modified guns to 2nd line troops or low threat areas). The 8mm Breda 37 doesn't show up until 1937 and that is 7 years too late to affect the selection of the Breda 30.
I have my doubts about the "Tactical and Technical Trends" entries. Not that are anything different in any way from what you wrote but my doubts are about the writer/s being unbiased and impartial
The Breda light machine gun is similar to the British Bren gun.
really? compared to what? the BAR?
It is mechanically superior to the Bren gun under dusty conditions.
Bren gun does not use an oiler, Bren gun has fewer openings for crap to get inside.
It requires only one man to service it as compared to several for the Bren gun.
And yet the Italian manual calls for a 3 man crew. Granted one man to "use" the gun for short period of time may be different than a "crew".
Trying to use the Brda 30 as a single operator with that reload system pretty much turns it into very poor semiautomatic rifle. Since both guns weighed within about 10% of each other (depending on the MK of the Bren) I fail to see any reason why a single man could not pick the Bren and with 1-2 mags inside his tunic advance a short distance and fire 50-80 rounds until a 2nd man with more mags can join him. Italian manual says the crew carried two spare barrels. British manual says crew carried one spare barrel.
It has a slightly higher rate of fire than the British weapon.
ROFLMAO.
Breda was supposed to fire at 500rpm cyclic. Bren guns were supposed to fire at 480-520rpm depending on exact Mark. Very few guns fired exactly at the book figure anyway, some were faster and some slower. Breda was short recoil operated and maybe there was a way to adjust it. But You tube videos make no mention of adjustments to springs or buffers. Or any buffer at all. Now the real kicker, the Brens were gas operated and the firer could easily select one of 4 gas tracks in the regulator to increase gas flow in dusty/dirty conditions to get the gun back up to speed. Or to increase rate of fire when clean although this was probably frowned on. That said the largest gas track was selected for AA use and get the gun up to 900-1000rpm if needed. A clever feature was that the gas from the gas cylinder was vented to the outside through holes and if the gun started to foul from powder residue twisting the bipod back and forth would usually clear the holes from fouling which is dispersed by the gas from the next shot. Now go back to the bit about the Breda being superior to the Bren in dusty conditions.
Sounds like the US writer for "Tactical and Technical Trends" never fired a Bren gun or fired one very briefly and never bothered to read the manual.
Its disadvantages are that it has no carrying handle, cannot be fired on fixed lines, and has no tripod mounting.
Well, finally, something that sounds right. And 3 things that can be done with the Bren. In fact the Bren can be used on several different tripods/mounts and can be provided with AA sights and can be provided with 100 round drum for AA use. Not often used in practice.

We can go over the Breda 37 later

Yeah. MGs requires larger rounds than rifles. As stated: What happens beyond 300m, is a job for the MG and the mortar.
As for the US, the Ordnance Corp is been trying to sell the same recipe for a century. "one shot, one kill at long distance", "taking back the infantry half-kilometer", "it doesn't count if the soldier carries less ammo, this new sight will eliminate the need for more ammo".
It never worked. It's not going to work this time too.
As for scrambling for weapons. After Vietnam, The Ordnance Corp served the grunts what none that came out of it asked for, a longer, heavier, more accurate M16 with more complicate sights. The A2.
The M4 was intended as a PDW for non combat troops. Truck drivers, cooks, etc.
What happened is that those non combat troops didn't see one of those M4 for ten years after adoption, because the grunts snatched from their hands every sample they could find, while the A2 gathered dust in the armories, until it became standard.
None in Ukraine wants a battle rifle. Some sample had been used only as long as there weren't enough ARs available.
And yes, the MG needs a tripod to be effectife at distances beyond 800m.
The M250 doesn't even have an attachement for a tripod.
So it's not going to be effective at distances beyond 800m.

The Italians in the .30s did what all the 6.5 caliber users did (Dutch, Norwegians, Swedish, Greeks). Adopted an heavier round for the MMG.
As for 6.5 vs. 7.35. It's mainly a question of money. Let's say that you have in the armories a million unusable rifles, relics of WWI, with worn out barrels. And the ones that you are currently using, are in various conditions of use, from almost new to almost to scrap, and even the good ones, are of a model that's not modern (IE, it's too long, and due to the progressive rifling, can't be shortened).
If you pass to 6.5 spitzers, or you build new rifles for all the troops, or you, at least, have to change all the sights for the existing, working, rifles (because the spitzer bullets, being lighter, has a different trajectory) and, in the end, you'll have a million unusable rifles, relics of WWI, with worn out barrels in the armories, a number of old rifles with new sights in various conditions of use, form almost new to almost to scrap. And you'll have to build new rifles from scratch. With different lenght from the ones you are already using (because the old WWI long rifle is too long for modern use) anyway.
BUT, if you adopt 7.35, you can take all those WWI relics and the ones you are using, shorten the barrel, rebore it, change the sights, and you'll have as many NEW rifles, all identical, at a fraction of the cost.
AND, since you are using a lighter bullet that has a flatter trajectory in the first 300m of flight, you can also ditch adjustable sights (that's what the M16 did some 30 years later).

As for the Breda 30, I dont' pretend to know better than the guys that had to daily fight against those weapons, reuse the captured ones (the Brits also published manuals in English for the gunners that had to use the Breda 30), or provide US troops and commanders with reliable infos. I said that: "Contemporaries had more nuanced opinions."
As for the oiler: was it a minus? Yes, it obviously was. Was it the only part of the gun? No. It wasn't. Reliability is given by many parts. IE the Breda 30's bolt was "*" shaped to give dirt a place to go instead of locking the gun. The Bren didn't have anything similar. Did that alone made up for the oiler? Did something else? I dont' know. I wasn't there. AND I CAN'T EXCLUDE IT. What I can say is that "Contemporaries had more nuanced opinions."

 

[tomo pauk]

I'll cast my vote to the 'Breda 30 was one of the worst machineguns of ww2' ballot box, FWIW.

 

[Shortround6]

eah. MGs requires larger rounds than rifles. As stated: What happens beyond 300m, is a job for the MG and the mortar.

The Italians in the .30s did what all the 6.5 caliber users did (Dutch, Norwegians, Swedish, Greeks). Adopted an heavier round for the MMG.

This accepts the need for two different infantry rounds and gives up on compatibility.
A big question is where does the changeover happen?
Both in range (300meters or 500 meters or?) or in the force structure. As in the heavy rounds show up in the infantry platoon or show up in a support squad in the company attached to the Company HQ or does the particular army only supply the big machine guns at battalion level? And in what quantities. 4 guns per battalion or 16 or somewhere in-between?
The more big machine guns in the Battalion the less range is needed by the rifles and LMGs. But if the number of big machine guns is too few the LMGs at least need enough range and power to cover the 300-700 meter area.
A lot does depend on each army's doctrine.
we can also argue about mortars. The Italian Brixia mortar offered fire support out to around 500 + meters which is a bit short for a support weapon. So was the British 2 in mortar but the British 2in bomb was heavier with more HE and the 2in had several different types of bombs for more tactical flexibility. Like smoke and illuminating rounds for night fighting. The Italian mortar, while clever, was also expensive for what they got. Italians did do a very good job with the 81mm mortar and the British screwed it up with cheap construction and a short range bomb for too long.
Now we get into how does a small unit call for fire support? How does a platoon call for mortar support? or for more than LMG support or for artillery in general? Or is support decided by the company commander? Or requests decided by battalion HQ? Radios, field phones, carrier pigeons, signal flags, men on foot running?

Each weapon (or most) have to fit into a structure and if certain pieces of the structure are missing (communications) then support weapons needed be in lower echelons for quick response.

Neither the British or the Americans had true machine gun and rifle ammo compatibility. While each type of gun could fire the others if needed each type had it's own special ammo optimized for it's role. The US M2 ball ammo still kicked rather hard, was heavy, and was powerful than needed for rifle use but it kicked less and was a fraction lighter than the M1 ball used in machine guns.
True long range machine gun fire (like over 1000meters?) got replaced by more/bigger mortars and more artillery fire but this also required better transport and more radios.

AND, since you are using a lighter bullet that has a flatter trajectory in the first 300m of flight, you can also ditch adjustable sights (that's what the M16 did some 30 years later).

The fixed V notch rear was an abomination.

A two aperture flip sight is not that expensive or hard to train with. Maybe (most likely?) they don't need the 600yd setting the British used but giving two different ranges does eliminate a lot of controversy of the fixed sight. I would go for a large aperture rear sight (ghost ring?) for short range and/or fast shooting as trying to use most of those WW II V notches and the small tapered front sight are both slow and inaccurate. Especially in less than good conditions. As long as the soldier looks through the rear sight ring and puts the blade on/under the target that should be good enough. This type of sight was often used on submachine guns and in fact was used on few million M1 carbines.

 

[Shortround6]

It is well to remember that the 1930s were about 90 years past the first major war using rifled guns in large numbers. We are now about 170 years from that war. Ideas and tactics have swung back and forth a number of times. It is only about 112 years since the machine gun made a large difference in land warfare and the infantry mortar a few years less. Muzzleloading black powder mortars were usually an artillery weapon before that.
The view of a lot of officers about the capability of the infantrymen they were commanding varied widely from could not chew gum and walk in a straight line at the same time to near superman status. Closer to the former than the latter most of the time.
Effective range of infantry shoulder arms went from about 100yds to 400-500yds in one jump. But there were different definitions of what effective range was. In the 1850 and 1860s the officers were still, at times, lining their men up in 2 or 3 ranks and standing shoulder to shoulder in lines hundreds of men long. A soldier was 'effective' if he could get his bullet, some of the time, to hit somewhere in that mass of men. In fact one hit out of 10 was considered very effective. Such 'accuracy' pushed back field artillery ranges several hundred yards. The infantry was not aiming at one man but at the entire group of men standing around the cannon.
US was using muzzle loaders much like the Crimean war and the French and Germans were trying to use crude breechloaders. By the 1870s most modern armies were using breechloaders using metallic cartridges. It was taking battle tactics a while to catch up. Turkish troops shot the crap out of the Russians not once but twice when they advanced in mass 10 men wide in columns hundreds of men long before turning sideways to deploy starting at ranges over 1000yds. Russian officers had not learned the first time.
Smokeless powder, in theory, could extend ranges even further. But there are limits to the number of battlefields you can see more than 1000yds, and how well the troops can see the crappy sights of the time and how long the officers are going to stay dumb and not spreading their troops out to decrease chances of getting hit.
Things swung the other way in WW I when most of the troops got a fraction of time training with rifles that some peacetime troops got. British were the extreme with this. Some of the continental armies never did a lot training in marksmanship and it did not get better as WW I went on.
But the weapons mix changed considerably in 4 years.
1914 Battalions had no mortars.
They often had 2-4 machine guns.
They had no hand grenades.
The commander of a WW I battalion had the rifles and bayonets and the handful (or a few fingers worth) of machine guns and few pistols for the officers and that was it. Artillery fire ws pretty much shrapnel shell with only about 10-20& HE depending on army.
The US went a bit overboard on rifle accuracy after WW I but some other armies went the other way and concentrated firepower on the machinegun. WW I had shown that in order to advance more than 100-200yds the advancing infantry needed to bring support weapons with them, the existing tripod mounted machineguns were too heavy to move with the riflemen and lighter machine guns were needed. Proper infantry support weapons took a while to sort out, French and others went for small 37mm guns that could be moved by 3-6men that could take out a machine gun nest (with how many shots). Others went for small mortars. Communications back to higher units and/or artillery was still very iffy.
Artillery was firing over 80% HE but that required a huge increase in HE production. Also required a huge increase in field phones or telegraph equipment.

This is the hard part of saying what some countries should have done or should not have done. At the end of WW I nobody really knew and everybody was feeling their way based on their own experience and not the war as whole and trying to integrate a number of weapons that had shown up in 1917-1918 and not for all four years.
Cost of building new weapons in the economic booms and busts didn't help.
Many countries were buying weapons based on national pride and not what was actually good design. British managed to avoid this, mostly.
A 1930s battalion commander, in many armies, had to figure out how to use/deploy
81 mm mortars,
More large machine guns.
Light machine guns,
small mortars.
Rifles
Submachine guns?
Anti tank rifles? or a few AT guns?
A few infantry guns?
Several types of hand grenades?
Bayonets.
Things were a lot more complicated

 

[Airborne2001]

You may be right. But it was going to take lot to turn the I-F into a first rate engine.
View attachment 850347
1. Make sure the crankcase and crankshaft (and con rods) can stand up to the desired power and try for 2600rpm?
2. Replace the individual cylinders with either a 6 cylinder block or at least two three cylinder pieces.
Stronger, better cooling, fewer leaks.
3. Throw out that cylinder head and either redesign the intake system to use one big carb on the supercharger or go the the Hispano system of using 6 carbs. How does the intake charge get to the end cylinders? Poor breathing and poor mixture distribution means the adjacent cylinders do NOT have the octane mixture and the lean cylinder/s will start detonating first. One big carbs means you can put the intake the middle of the engine?
4. Fix the supercharger(swipe the one off the W-18?)
5. Design two speed drive for the supercharger.

They could've maybe gotten some help from Reggiane (Re 104):

Reggiane Re 101 to Re 105 Aircraft Engines

During WWII, the Italian aircraft manufacturer Reggiane designed a few aircraft engines. Only the Re 103 was built. It was an inverted W-18 that produced 1,740 hp (1,298 kW) and displaced 2,435 cu …

oldmachinepress.com

The Re 104 engine was a development of the Asso L.121 with a two-speed supercharger. The engine was supposed to be a 1,100hp domestic alternative to the DB 601. It was designed in 1941, which was a bit late. However, in an alternate timeline where the 1933 "No liquid cooled inlines." directive never came to be, this could've existed in time for WWII.

 

[TM06]

Sorry to be absent from the forums for so long! Some real life issues and problems took priority.

They could've maybe gotten some help from Reggiane (Re 104):

Reggiane Re 101 to Re 105 Aircraft Engines

During WWII, the Italian aircraft manufacturer Reggiane designed a few aircraft engines. Only the Re 103 was built. It was an inverted W-18 that produced 1,740 hp (1,298 kW) and displaced 2,435 cu …

oldmachinepress.com

The Re 104 engine was a development of the Asso L.121 with a two-speed supercharger. The engine was supposed to be a 1,100hp domestic alternative to the DB 601. It was designed in 1941, which was a bit late. However, in an alternate timeline where the 1933 "No liquid cooled inlines." directive never came to be, this could've existed in time for WWII.

The Reggiane inline engines were discussed prior in this thread and are unfortunately too idealistic for the time frame required. Reggiane as a company basically didn't exist as we would come to know it until 1936 as the entire company was hanging by threads throughout the majority of the thirties.
Best-case scenario is that they could be produced by Reggaine's parent company Piaggio, but that likely wouldn't be neccessarry given that the Asso or Asso development would already exist and fill the same niche.

 

[Shortround6]

The Italians pretty failed to keep up with armored developments in the 1930s.
Forget 25=30 ton tanks with 75mm guns.
They built way too many L.3/33s during the 1930s without enough R&D into what came later or larger.
This is really sad as they built 52 (?) of these in 1930/31

Same gun as later used in the M 11/39. Only one man in the turret. It was faster than the French Renault 17.

The French were building a number of tanks in the 1930s, like the AMR 33 which they developed into the AMR 35 and then the R35. The French kept the 2 man crews but by 1935 they were putting a cannon in the turret PLUS a co-ax machine gun. The Vickers 6 ton tank dates from 1928 and in the single turret version.

and a very short/low velocity 47mm gun and a co-ax machine gun.
It should not have taken until 1939 for the Italians to get a 10/11 ton 3 man tank into production.
Putting the 37mm in the hull and using that ridiculous one man turret with the paired machine guns was NOT the answer.

the 'commander' in the turret had poor vision, no radio (communication by signal flags?) the machine gun armament was not very useful. Little better than a pair of Bren guns but using magazines of 80% the capacity of a Bren. Keeping the guns firing and on target even in a stationary tank was about all one man could do. The two guns did not give any additional firepower than most other countries single guns.
In a "what if" I don't think asking for a 3 man tank with a two man turret with the cannon in the turret is too much to ask for.
Asking for a better machine gun should also not be asking for too much? Breda-Safat 7.7mm aircraft gun? heavy barrel and reduced rate of fire?

The Italians spent too much time building SP guns instead of even light tanks. They also spent way too much time playing catch up in the power of their tank guns.
The gun in the M15/42 was what they should have been using in late 1940 or early 1941. Getting a tank gun in 1942 that equaled the guns that were in the Soviet T-26 tanks in Spain
1937 was really running late.

 

[tomo pauk]

Asking for a better machine gun should also not be asking for too much? Breda-Safat 7.7mm aircraft gun? heavy barrel and reduced rate of fire?

Bingo.
Plus, a fair quantity of the ammo and barrels from the captured French stocks might've been possible to negotiate with Germans.

The Italians spent too much time building SP guns instead of even light tanks.

A SP gun with a 75mm gun/howitzer vs. a light tank that has a problem of deciding whether two MGs are the way, or a single 20mm automatic (that is not useful as an AA gun being in a tank)?

 

[Airborne2001]

The Italians pretty failed to keep up with armored developments in the 1930s.
Forget 25=30 ton tanks with 75mm guns.
They built way too many L.3/33s during the 1930s without enough R&D into what came later or larger.

I echo what earlier sentiments stated with the idea that the Italians should've copied the British and turned their most of their tankets into universal carriers. This would've helped with mobilization quite a bit. Do that, and then take the remaining number and break them down to and recycle parts to be used to help speed up the building of other more modern tanks.

 

[Shortround6]

turned their most of their tankets into universal carriers.

Might have helped, might not have done very much. Italian L.3/33s used 43 hp engines, French Renault UE Chenillette used a 38hp engine. The British Bren and Loyd and Universal carriers used 85hp Ford V-8s. Trying to add longer hulls and tracks to existing vehicles to hold more payload was possible but the savings in cost gets smaller. And with the low powered engines you may need to use different drive gear and an accept lower speeds/less payload.

take the remaining number and break them down to and recycle parts to be used to help speed up the building of other more modern tanks.

There isn't much to save. Small engines, small transmissions, small steering equipment (steering clutches and brakes) won't work in larger vehicles. Suspension parts and tracks for 3-4 ton vehicles won't work on even 6-8 ton vehicles let alone 10-15 ton vehicles. Italians didn't use very good vision devices in the early vehicles or use radios (or not more than 1 vehicle in 10). Trying to save small things like hatch handles, hinges and springs might be more trouble than they are worth.

The Italian tanks were not only small, they didn't have good guns for their weight most of the time. Other countries also made that mistake but less often or had other tanks to take up the slack. British were operating under gunned for most of the war, but that is another thread. Italians missed their opportunity.

 

[Airborne2001]

Might have helped, might not have done very much. Italian L.3/33s used 43 hp engines, French Renault UE Chenillette used a 38hp engine. The British Bren and Loyd and Universal carriers used 85hp Ford V-8s. Trying to add longer hulls and tracks to existing vehicles to hold more payload was possible but the savings in cost gets smaller. And with the low powered engines you may need to use different drive gear and an accept lower speeds/less payload.

Ah. So maybe smaller ones then, but still better than outdated tankettes imo. I did some quick research, and maybe they could've gone with a few planned variants like the L3 tank upgrade, Semovente upgrade, or the Armored Recovery Vehicle route (though it would be a bit weak for this latter one).

There isn't much to save. Small engines, small transmissions, small steering equipment (steering clutches and brakes) won't work in larger vehicles. Suspension parts and tracks for 3-4 ton vehicles won't work on even 6-8 ton vehicles let alone 10-15 ton vehicles. Italians didn't use very good vision devices in the early vehicles or use radios (or not more than 1 vehicle in 10). Trying to save small things like hatch handles, hinges and springs might be more trouble than they are worth.

The Italian tanks were not only small, they didn't have good guns for their weight most of the time. Other countries also made that mistake but less often or had other tanks to take up the slack. British were operating under gunned for most of the war, but that is another thread. Italians missed their opportunity.

Perhaps they maybe go a very literal "boil them down" approach for conserving metal? Instead of saving specific stuff, maybe just totally break them down to have more metal for use in producing tanks. Would some of the tankette hardware have been better suited for lighter vehicles instead? Italy did need better motorization for its army, and that could've helped with more things available for lighter vehicles.

 

[Airborne2001]

<snip>

Actually, I did another quick search and I saw that a stronger version of the tankette, the L3/38, used the much better Torsion Bar suspension unlike the L3/35 and L3/33. If Italy could get more of the 38s, then maybe that could do the trick.