Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
What was it? A slow firing, awkward machine gun with the wrong feed system for what they were trying to do with it?
The chronology is backwards. First use of the Type 3 is in the A6M5b fighter in place of one the 7.7mm cowl guns. The A6M5a had already shifted to the Type 99 Mark II type 4 gun in the wings. The Type 3 remained in use in the A6M5s until the end of the war, The A6M5B and later went to one type 3 in the fuselage and one type 3 in each wing in addition to the type 99 cannon. The thinking was to get more firepower. A gun that fired faster (800rpm) and higher velocity than the older 20mm guns.
Fastest way to get a good LMG was to swallow national pride and order/license the ZB 26. You get what was arguably the best LMG used in WW II, by anybody. It is available 13 years before WW II starts. Just license it and then don't mess with it!
Converted aircraft belt feed Browning's are NOT a good idea. There was a reason the M1919A6 was as heavy as it was. Air cooled LMGs have a serious problem with heat. A very, very serious problem with heat. The M1919A6 used a heavier barrel than the M1917. That gun used the water jacket and water to solve the heat problem. Without the water jacket and water the US went to the heavy barrel to use as a heat sink to keep from damaging the barrels. If you want to use a lighter/skinner barrel you have to train the troops to fire fewer rounds per minute (shorter bursts or more time between bursts). The Browning guns had user changeable barrels but they were NOT quick change like the ZB 26, Bren, MG 34/42 or even the Breda 30. Using an ex aircraft gun with it's higher rate of fire just made things worse. The US could afford to throw away barrels in short order (or even throw away the guns in some battles) to get a fire advantage. The Italians didn't have that luxury.
The US Army figured that the 1917 was good for 125rpm sustained fire (and firing 525rpm MAX),). The 1919A4 (with tripod) was figured at 40-60rpm ( 450rpm MAX) and the BAR was figured at 40rpm sustained and 150rpm MAX. The last two so the difference between 20 round box magazines and Belts but the 1919A4 has got to not be fired at max for very long or you burn the rifling out of the barrel. The gun will not shoot where the sights are pointed and the bullets are going sideways just a few meters in front of the gun.
Bren gun and MG 34/42s figured changing the barrels every 200-250 shots and then swapping the barrels back and forth (and sticking barrels in wet grass, brooks, or using canteen water.)
- Thread starter
- #83
TM06
Airman 1st Class
Genuinely? Yes.
Consider how much of a development hell the Hotchkiss 13.2 was stuck in for 5~6 years due to the incompetency of the French government and their idiotic handling of the weapon. The fact that it managed to be not just usable, but even decent, is impressive given the previously mentioned problems getting in its way.
I hear you and understand completely. But I also have a counterpoint; licensing the ZB 26 is boring
.Italy had more than enough time to make their own indigenous LMG that wasn't the Breda 30, and although the M1919A6 was an unmitigated disaster, the M2 Stinger gives me hope for the Breda-SAFAT LMG.
If you disagree still, what existing indigenous platform do you propose would be the best for a belt-fed MG42 equivalent?
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Ask your self in the MG 42 was really that good of a solution to the problem/s The Italians (or many other people) faced. This is heresy to a lot of people
The High rate of fire sounds like a cool Idea, but it needs a crap load of ammo, the gun fires more bullets but it also misses the target more. It needs more spare barrels. It needs more men to carry the ammo.
The MG was a 2nd generation GP machine gun, that is General Purpose machine gun. It was supposed to do everything. Squad machine gun on bipod, company (battalion) machine gun on tripod, AA machinegun on different tripod ( or same one folded up by an origami master). AA machine gun on multiple dedicated mount. AFV machine gun. It was better at somethings than others. The 1200rpm firing rate was real good for AA work, it wasn't so good for a lot of other roles. If you had the manufacturing faculties (the ability to to make a stamped sheet metal receiver) it was cheap to make. The stamping machinery was not cheap. You are trying to make a high cycle rate full powered belt feed machine gun. Manufacturing techniques that work on a 9mm submachine gun don't work anymore.
Italy was already producing the Big Breda 37 machine gun for the army in the company/battalion role and the AFV role. It seemed to do fairly well in those roles. Not ideal but it was generally considered to be reliable which goes a long way with infantrymen. They will put up with heavy, slow firing and even strange (idiotic) feed systems if the gun will fire when they need it to fire. Germans and just about everybody else was moving to heavier guns for AA work pretty quick during the war, assuming the factory capacity to do so.
Belt feed light machine guns look a lot cooler in movies than in real life. Dragging belts through dirt, sand, foliage and other "stuff" usually leads to jams/stoppages with Mr Murphy sitting in a camp stool nearby. Which means there were all sorts drums, boxes, bags and sleeves showing up to hold the ammo as the guns moved (Germans usually unloaded the gun or only left a short belt exposed with moving)Practical Rate of fire of a bipod mounted machinegun is usually down around 120-150rpm due to cooling issues rather than feed issues or actual cycle rate of the gun mechanism.
Italians used the MG 42 (MG 3)for quite a while after WW II, they also came up with a different bolt that would lower the cycle rate to 900rpm. There was also a spring plunger that could reversed and lower spring action also lowered the firing rate. One recommendation for the MG 42 when firing at a rate of 225-250 round per minute (trigger held back for about 20% of the time) was to change the barrel after firing three 50 round belts. Think about that one
Start with cold barrel, fire at 225-250 rounds per minute and change barrels twice in the first 2 minutes. At the end of 3 minutes you have fired off every belt the squad was carrying for the gunner.MG 42s work a lot better when the gunners are riding in APCs or trucks.
yulzari
Tech Sergeant
This displays the same dilemma faced by the breech loading rifle and magazine rifle when a sailing ship then wooden cart or pack horse was first the only way to get ammunition from the factory to the front line to resupply the soldier. Later with some railway help. A fast rate of fire is that which can be supplied with ammunition not the rate of fire of the gun. Napoleonic battles simple muskets and muzzle loaded cannon ate up powder and bullets/cannon balls by the many tens if not of tons and all of which was moved by horse and resupply began with a man on a horse (at best) hand carrying a piece of paper saying load up your wagons and walk your horses across unmade roads to the regiment rear. By Plevna the Turkish soldier in the entrenchments was supplied with 80 rounds and open boxes of a 1,000 placed about, but that was in a fortified position with the reserves plentiful and close at hand.Ask your self in the MG 42 was really that good of a solution to the problem/s The Italians (or many other people) faced. This is heresy to a lot of people
The High rate of fire sounds like a cool Idea, but it needs a crap load of ammo, the gun fires more bullets but it also misses the target more. It needs more spare barrels. It needs more men to carry the ammo.
The MG was a 2nd generation GP machine gun, that is General Purpose machine gun. It was supposed to do everything. Squad machine gun on bipod, company (battalion) machine gun on tripod, AA machinegun on different tripod ( or same one folded up by an origami master). AA machine gun on multiple dedicated mount. AFV machine gun. It was better at somethings than others. The 1200rpm firing rate was real good for AA work, it wasn't so good for a lot of other roles. If you had the manufacturing faculties (the ability to to make a stamped sheet metal receiver) it was cheap to make. The stamping machinery was not cheap. You are trying to make a high cycle rate full powered belt feed machine gun. Manufacturing techniques that work on a 9mm submachine gun don't work anymore.
Italy was already producing the Big Breda 37 machine gun for the army in the company/battalion role and the AFV role. It seemed to do fairly well in those roles. Not ideal but it was generally considered to be reliable which goes a long way with infantrymen. They will put up with heavy, slow firing and even strange (idiotic) feed systems if the gun will fire when they need it to fire. Germans and just about everybody else was moving to heavier guns for AA work pretty quick during the war, assuming the factory capacity to do so.
Belt feed light machine guns look a lot cooler in movies than in real life. Dragging belts through dirt, sand, foliage and other "stuff" usually leads to jams/stoppages with Mr Murphy sitting in a camp stool nearby. Which means there were all sorts drums, boxes, bags and sleeves showing up to hold the ammo as the guns moved (Germans usually unloaded the gun or only left a short belt exposed with moving)Practical Rate of fire of a bipod mounted machinegun is usually down around 120-150rpm due to cooling issues rather than feed issues or actual cycle rate of the gun mechanism.
Italians used the MG 42 (MG 3)for quite a while after WW II, they also came up with a different bolt that would lower the cycle rate to 900rpm. There was also a spring plunger that could reversed and lower spring action also lowered the firing rate. One recommendation for the MG 42 when firing at a rate of 225-250 round per minute (trigger held back for about 20% of the time) was to change the barrel after firing three 50 round belts. Think about that one
MG 42s work a lot better when the gunners are riding in APCs or trucks.
At the OP time you could move far more and far more quickly than in young Boney's day but the principle still applies. It was why the ground use version of the Vicker VGO was withdrawn from service as the troops simply could not carry enough drums forward to cope with its rate of fire. Equally it was the reason the Great War Machine Gun Corps was created as it was far easier to supply a battery of Vickers Guns with repeated wagon loads of ammunition at a single rear placed high level controlled than individual regimental guns scattered about the battlefield.
- Thread starter
- #86
TM06
Airman 1st Class
I actually was going to say GMPG but I decided against it as the term didn't exist at the time.Ask your self in the MG 42 was really that good of a solution to the problem/s The Italians (or many other people) faced. This is heresy to a lot of people
The High rate of fire sounds like a cool Idea, but it needs a crap load of ammo, the gun fires more bullets but it also misses the target more. It needs more spare barrels. It needs more men to carry the ammo.
The MG was a 2nd generation GP machine gun, that is General Purpose machine gun. It was supposed to do everything. Squad machine gun on bipod, company (battalion) machine gun on tripod, AA machinegun on different tripod ( or same one folded up by an origami master). AA machine gun on multiple dedicated mount. AFV machine gun. It was better at somethings than others. The 1200rpm firing rate was real good for AA work, it wasn't so good for a lot of other roles. If you had the manufacturing faculties (the ability to to make a stamped sheet metal receiver) it was cheap to make. The stamping machinery was not cheap. You are trying to make a high cycle rate full powered belt feed machine gun. Manufacturing techniques that work on a 9mm submachine gun don't work anymore.
Italy was already producing the Big Breda 37 machine gun for the army in the company/battalion role and the AFV role. It seemed to do fairly well in those roles. Not ideal but it was generally considered to be reliable which goes a long way with infantrymen. They will put up with heavy, slow firing and even strange (idiotic) feed systems if the gun will fire when they need it to fire. Germans and just about everybody else was moving to heavier guns for AA work pretty quick during the war, assuming the factory capacity to do so.
Belt feed light machine guns look a lot cooler in movies than in real life. Dragging belts through dirt, sand, foliage and other "stuff" usually leads to jams/stoppages with Mr Murphy sitting in a camp stool nearby. Which means there were all sorts drums, boxes, bags and sleeves showing up to hold the ammo as the guns moved (Germans usually unloaded the gun or only left a short belt exposed with moving)Practical Rate of fire of a bipod mounted machinegun is usually down around 120-150rpm due to cooling issues rather than feed issues or actual cycle rate of the gun mechanism.
Italians used the MG 42 (MG 3)for quite a while after WW II, they also came up with a different bolt that would lower the cycle rate to 900rpm. There was also a spring plunger that could reversed and lower spring action also lowered the firing rate. One recommendation for the MG 42 when firing at a rate of 225-250 round per minute (trigger held back for about 20% of the time) was to change the barrel after firing three 50 round belts. Think about that one
MG 42s work a lot better when the gunners are riding in APCs or trucks.
I also think there's a small misunderstanding here, I'm not saying that it needs to be the MG42 of Italy. I'm saying that it needs to be the reliable portable infantry LMG of Italy in the same vein as the MG42, Bren, DP-26, Lahti L-26, Type 99, ZB 30 and the like. Because the Breda 30 sure as hell isn't any of that.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
You said the ZB 26 was boring
3 of the guns on your list trace back to the ZB 26 but it was the best place to start/copy.
Some of the countries that messed with it (Japan and the Type 96) did NOT improve it.
You want a top mounted magazine. It makes 30 rounders easier to use. You don't want drums, more costly and easier to damage and you don't have as many so a damaged one hurts your fire power more. The ZB 26 just did almost everything right and very little wrong. Neither the DP-27 or the Lahti-26 can say that. Being better than the Breda 30 is very low bar.
Not sure if the Breda 30 was better or worse the Japanese type 11.
3 of the guns on your list trace back to the ZB 26 but it was the best place to start/copy.
Some of the countries that messed with it (Japan and the Type 96) did NOT improve it.
You want a top mounted magazine. It makes 30 rounders easier to use. You don't want drums, more costly and easier to damage and you don't have as many so a damaged one hurts your fire power more. The ZB 26 just did almost everything right and very little wrong. Neither the DP-27 or the Lahti-26 can say that. Being better than the Breda 30 is very low bar.
Not sure if the Breda 30 was better or worse the Japanese type 11.
- Thread starter
- #88
TM06
Airman 1st Class
Coming back to this topic after a little while with some new ideas, I've decided to make this more all-encompassing by including the Regio Esercito and Regia Marina in the discussion.
Something that's been on my mind recently is the possibility of the Breda PG, Armaguerra Mod. 39 or Scotti Mod. X not being forced to convert over to 7.35 mm Carcano. 6.5 mm Carcano was more than enough for a semi-automatic battle rifle, and the decision to completely convert over the 7.35 mm kneecapped the development of a lot of weapons that would have been in service far earlier.
The Breda PG would be my pick, as it was made the earliest (trialled in 1931) and has the incredible advantage of a 20 round magazine with the possibility of a 4-round burst as seen on the Costa Rican variant.
Something that's been on my mind recently is the possibility of the Breda PG, Armaguerra Mod. 39 or Scotti Mod. X not being forced to convert over to 7.35 mm Carcano. 6.5 mm Carcano was more than enough for a semi-automatic battle rifle, and the decision to completely convert over the 7.35 mm kneecapped the development of a lot of weapons that would have been in service far earlier.
The Breda PG would be my pick, as it was made the earliest (trialled in 1931) and has the incredible advantage of a 20 round magazine with the possibility of a 4-round burst as seen on the Costa Rican variant.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
I don't know some of the reasons that the Italians changed from the 6.5mm to the 7.35mm caliber. Some of the reasons given in some sources make no sense to me.
I have stated a number of times before that I am a fan of the 6.5mm bore size.
For some reason/s the Italians never updated the cartridge keeping the original 10.5gram (162 grain) round nose bullet until the end of production. Many other major nation (and few minor ones) had changed to Spitzer nose bullets before WW I with better ballistics and less recoil (and less raw materials). Sweden changed their 6.5mm over in 1941.
A problem the Italians had was that it may have been difficult to cut off the old long rife barrels to shorter carbine barrels and still keep accuracy. The Italians used gain twist rifling. Little or no twist right in front of the chamber with increasing rate of twist as it approached the muzzle. Which means if you take an existing 780mm rifle barrel and cut off about 250mm to turn it into a carbine, the shorter barrel not only has less velocity it may not be spinning the bullet fast enough to stabilize well for accuracy.
Boring the barrel out a bit and re-rifling it 7.35mm and uniform twist may solve that problem? It obviously introduced others.
Spending a lot of money on semi-automatic rifles may not be where Italy want's to spend their resources. The 1938 7.35mm Carcano were often a cheap conversion and the idea of issuing an infantry rifle with fixed sight for 200meters underscores the low level of importance the Italian authorities were placing on the infantry rifle.
With a spitzer bullet and even a 2 position rear sight effective range could have been increased by several hundred meters. But that means trying to change over/replace a lot of the existing ammo.
Italians needed to more than double their manufacture of LMGs. That was probably the most effective way of increasing the Italian infantry's firepower. Especially if they changed from using the Breda 30.
For most of the war the German soldiers with K 98s pretty much acted as ammo carriers for the MG 34/42.
I have stated a number of times before that I am a fan of the 6.5mm bore size.
For some reason/s the Italians never updated the cartridge keeping the original 10.5gram (162 grain) round nose bullet until the end of production. Many other major nation (and few minor ones) had changed to Spitzer nose bullets before WW I with better ballistics and less recoil (and less raw materials). Sweden changed their 6.5mm over in 1941.
A problem the Italians had was that it may have been difficult to cut off the old long rife barrels to shorter carbine barrels and still keep accuracy. The Italians used gain twist rifling. Little or no twist right in front of the chamber with increasing rate of twist as it approached the muzzle. Which means if you take an existing 780mm rifle barrel and cut off about 250mm to turn it into a carbine, the shorter barrel not only has less velocity it may not be spinning the bullet fast enough to stabilize well for accuracy.
Boring the barrel out a bit and re-rifling it 7.35mm and uniform twist may solve that problem? It obviously introduced others.
Spending a lot of money on semi-automatic rifles may not be where Italy want's to spend their resources. The 1938 7.35mm Carcano were often a cheap conversion and the idea of issuing an infantry rifle with fixed sight for 200meters underscores the low level of importance the Italian authorities were placing on the infantry rifle.
With a spitzer bullet and even a 2 position rear sight effective range could have been increased by several hundred meters. But that means trying to change over/replace a lot of the existing ammo.
Italians needed to more than double their manufacture of LMGs. That was probably the most effective way of increasing the Italian infantry's firepower. Especially if they changed from using the Breda 30.
For most of the war the German soldiers with K 98s pretty much acted as ammo carriers for the MG 34/42.
ThomasP
Chief Master Sergeant
Does anyone know how the Italian infantry squad was organized and their normal tactical methods - ie were they MG-centric like the Germans, rifle-centric like the US (for most of the war), or in-between like the UK?
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
From what I can remember for old war games or find quickly on line the Italians used a rather oddball platoon structure. There were two "squads" in each platoon which complicated fire and movement. What really screwed things up was that each "squad" was 18-20 men and had two "sections". The machine gun section of 9 (?) men with a leader and two man machine gun teams, each with a Breda 30 (gunner, loader and two riflemen/ammo carriers). The other 9 man section was all rifles with the platoon leader. Sprinkle in a Sub machine gun or two?
At times there was a 2 man 'scout section'.
Now how this actually worked in practice I don't know. Did the "squad leader" divide his two mgs so one would cover the other as they advanced or did the pair of mgs cover the rifle men as they advanced and then the rife section covered the mgs or ....................?
American, British and Germans used 3 squads and would often use two squads to cover the 3rd and advance in rotation but each squad had equal fire power with a machine gun (or BAR) each.
Unfortunately just comparing squads or platoons gives an incomplete picture. Even comparing companies doesn't give the complete picture.
Battalion strength/weapons give the best picture as that is usually where 81mm mortars and heavy machine guns are located.
Getting back to the Italians it was at Battalion level where the 45mm mortars were organized but the mortar platoon squads were often deployed at one 'squad/3 mortars' per company.
British had a single 2in mortar per platoon. US had a pair of 60mm mortars per company but the US 60mm mortar used a bigger bomb and much greater range. US also made up for the BAR (to some extent) by using a pair of tripod mounted 1919 machine guns in each company. The US company commander had a heavy weapons platoon to support his 3 rifle platoons.
Not trying to argue if this was better or not, just pointing out that comparing squads or even platoons doesn't show the whole picture.
Italians had heavy weapons at the Battalion level with a very good 81mm mortar and with the decent if not outstanding Breda 37 8mm tripod mounted machine gun.
Squads/platoons only rarely fought on their own. Granted support weapons at higher levels (company or battalion) called for better training and communications or a lesser ability to disperse (vocal communications?).
Did the British keep their 3in mortars in a central 'battery/platoon' or did they divvy them up with 1-2 mortars per company at times? British had problem the first few years with about 1600 yd range for the 3in mortar which sometimes complicated trying to keep them in a central location and still cover the needed area compared to having a 2400-2800yd range mortar.
- Thread starter
- #92
TM06
Airman 1st Class
To be honest I've never been sold on 7.35 mm Carcano in general - it seems like a waste of time given the other options Italy had during the period. It might've been a better choice to adopt 8 mm Mauser en masse given the superior performance and significant headstart.
Hell, even the 8x59 mm Rb Breda might've been less disruptive due to it already existing in the supply chain along with giving the advantage of carrying ammunition compatible with the main two infantry-level MMG's - that being the Fiat-Revelli 35 and Breda 37/38.
Italy was not foreign to the concept of auto-loading rifles even prior to WW1. Theoretically you could go back even further to the Cei-Rigotti of the 1890's which also used 6.5 mm Carcano. While possibly disruptive to the supply chain, any planner worth their salt would see the value in something like that.
Not to mention that said supply chain issues would've been completely negated had they converted the 6.5 to a spitzer design shortly after or during WW1 like every other cartridge manufacture elsewhere.
Having a reliable self-loading rifle in a cartridge already in circulation would be a massive boon to Italy, and they had multiple chances to introduce weapons that fit the bill. The fact that they didn't when everyone else did is astonishing given their massive headstart on the idea.
From the manufacturing and logistical standpoint, that's a far superior solution than the introduction of a new 7.35 mm cartridge. End one does not loose basically anything wrt. the ballistic performance.
Italians also have the rimmed 7.7mm cartridge (sibling to the .303 British) in use and in production. So between the two cartridges, there is really no need to reinvent the wheel for a heavier MG.
Italians having, on the light/low end, something like the Japanese Type 96, firing the 6.5mm spitzer, would've helped their infantry firepower immensely.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
There is a noticeable difference between the 6.5mm rounds, even with spitzer bullets and the 8mm rounds (Italian and Swedish).
I like the 6.5 but it is not as effective at armor piercing, or barrier penetration, especially at longer ranges. May not be as good for long range tracer.
If you are willing to use two different cartridges for the squad automatic and the company/battalion heavy machine guns that may be OK. Opinions can differ.
The lower power rounds kick less, the crew can carry more rounds for the same weight. Important for infantry that travels on it's feet with limited motor transport.
The Italians screwed up with the 7.35mm change over. It wasn't powerful enough to replace the 8 X 59mm machine gun round and it didn't enough to the table to replace a 6.5mm with a Spitzer bullet.
The Breda 30 had a host of problems, some big and some small. The main failing IMHO was that is was way too expensive to manufacture for it's battlefield effect. It had a large number of well made machined parts on a gun that fired slowly, it reloaded slowly, it wasn't accurate (barrel flopped around), it was issued with 3-4 different barrels each but only one could zeroed to the sights. Not the only gun to do that but the work around for some of the other guns were boarding on ludicrous. Gunner was supposed to wright down the correct sight settings for each barrel in his note book and then adjust the sights every time the barrels were switched. Might work on the range in training, but in a firefight and at night?
Now this might be more acceptable on cheap gun with lots of stamped parts that could be issued in more numbers. On an expensive well made gun there were just too many things wrong.
The Breda 30 was by far the worst infantry gun the soldiers had to deal with. The rifles weren't that much worse than anybody else's bolt actions (except the British), they had the best sub-machine gun. The Breda 37 may not have been among the worst but it was powerful and fairly reliable.
The next problem for the Italian infantry was the 45mm Brixia mortar.
Once again, way way too much money for it's combat effect. A 0.45kg bomb launched to 530 meters? It used blank cartridges feed by the magazine to launch the bombs.
I am not saying there never any other rounds than HE but they are not mentioned most of the time.
The British 2in was a lighter, much simpler device that fired an HE bomb of about twice the weight to 460meters. It also fire two types of smoke, an illuminating round and signaling star shells in four colors. All types of ammo may not have been available to a particular use at all times but it was, on the whole, a much more useful weapon (AT batteries had one 2in mortar for both smoke and for firing illuminating rounds for night attacks.
As noted earlier, the Italian 81mm mortar out ranged the British 3in by a large margin for most of the desert war.
For some armies there was a resistance to the semi automatic rifles or selective fire. Yes they offered more firepower, but only as long as the ammo lasted. There was a considerable amount of argument/bickering even in the US army as they adopted the M-1. It was pointed out by Melvin Johnson (of Johnson Arms) that most soldiers from around the 1300s on could go through 60 rounds of ammo in 15 minutes if they just loaded and fired as fast as they could. A few muzzle loaders excepted. Now the Americans and British were moving to motor transport of the supply train but the infantry were still expected to walk.
The Soviets were issuing semi autos to platoon or squad leaders, not general issue.
Where do you put your money (manufacturing effort)?
You can select your machine gunners, one out of every 8-10 men. General issue Semi-autos maybe a luxury the Italians cannot afford until they fix a few other things.
I like the 6.5 but it is not as effective at armor piercing, or barrier penetration, especially at longer ranges. May not be as good for long range tracer.
If you are willing to use two different cartridges for the squad automatic and the company/battalion heavy machine guns that may be OK. Opinions can differ.
The lower power rounds kick less, the crew can carry more rounds for the same weight. Important for infantry that travels on it's feet with limited motor transport.
The Italians screwed up with the 7.35mm change over. It wasn't powerful enough to replace the 8 X 59mm machine gun round and it didn't enough to the table to replace a 6.5mm with a Spitzer bullet.
The Breda 30 had a host of problems, some big and some small. The main failing IMHO was that is was way too expensive to manufacture for it's battlefield effect. It had a large number of well made machined parts on a gun that fired slowly, it reloaded slowly, it wasn't accurate (barrel flopped around), it was issued with 3-4 different barrels each but only one could zeroed to the sights. Not the only gun to do that but the work around for some of the other guns were boarding on ludicrous. Gunner was supposed to wright down the correct sight settings for each barrel in his note book and then adjust the sights every time the barrels were switched. Might work on the range in training, but in a firefight and at night?
Now this might be more acceptable on cheap gun with lots of stamped parts that could be issued in more numbers. On an expensive well made gun there were just too many things wrong.
The Breda 30 was by far the worst infantry gun the soldiers had to deal with. The rifles weren't that much worse than anybody else's bolt actions (except the British), they had the best sub-machine gun. The Breda 37 may not have been among the worst but it was powerful and fairly reliable.
The next problem for the Italian infantry was the 45mm Brixia mortar.
Once again, way way too much money for it's combat effect. A 0.45kg bomb launched to 530 meters? It used blank cartridges feed by the magazine to launch the bombs.
I am not saying there never any other rounds than HE but they are not mentioned most of the time.
The British 2in was a lighter, much simpler device that fired an HE bomb of about twice the weight to 460meters. It also fire two types of smoke, an illuminating round and signaling star shells in four colors. All types of ammo may not have been available to a particular use at all times but it was, on the whole, a much more useful weapon (AT batteries had one 2in mortar for both smoke and for firing illuminating rounds for night attacks.
As noted earlier, the Italian 81mm mortar out ranged the British 3in by a large margin for most of the desert war.
For some armies there was a resistance to the semi automatic rifles or selective fire. Yes they offered more firepower, but only as long as the ammo lasted. There was a considerable amount of argument/bickering even in the US army as they adopted the M-1. It was pointed out by Melvin Johnson (of Johnson Arms) that most soldiers from around the 1300s on could go through 60 rounds of ammo in 15 minutes if they just loaded and fired as fast as they could. A few muzzle loaders excepted. Now the Americans and British were moving to motor transport of the supply train but the infantry were still expected to walk.
The Soviets were issuing semi autos to platoon or squad leaders, not general issue.
Where do you put your money (manufacturing effort)?
You can select your machine gunners, one out of every 8-10 men. General issue Semi-autos maybe a luxury the Italians cannot afford until they fix a few other things.
Even the 'knee mortar' was a far better weapon than the Brixia mortar, all while doing it on a cheap. Have Italians buy the licence in Japan for it, while negotiating the sale for the Italian bombers for Japan?
Italians also have had in their arsenal the long & heavy 81mm bombs, more than twice the weight of the normal, short bombs (6.825 kg vs. 3.3 kg). Weight of the explosive charge was 2 kg, vs. the light bombs having just 0.45 kg.
Seems the Italians shot themselves in the knee with a bit too much choice in rifle calibers. So they had the 6.5, then they decided that it wasn't powerful enough and introduced the 7.35, but then soon decided that the war is going to start soon, 7.35 didn't really live up to expectations, and there isn't time to switch over, so they switched back to the 6.5. But they never introduced a modern spitzer type bullet for the 6.5, was there any technical reason why this wasn't possible like needing a different kind of rifling, or different length of cartridge requiring redoing magazines and feed mechanisms etc.? And then they introduced the 8x59 in the mid 1930'ies for the medium machine guns, by which time the German 7.92x57 Mauser was already well established as one of the 'standard' calibers in the region, why not just go with that? And the air force were using the .303 due to historical reasons. And they're introducing a new .303 gun (Breda-SAFAT) into service in the late 30ies, a point when air forces should be thinking of migrating away from rifle caliber MGs.
Perhaps the Italians thought that, since the 7.35mm cartridge is in development, there is no need to spend the money on improving the cartridge that is about to be replaced?
As for the technicalities, other people managed to introduce the spitzer bullets for the legacy cartridges without hiccups. Engineers can toy with bullet size & weight, as well as with the propellant charge weight/power in order for the new bullet to be a good fit for the existing barrels.
On the related issue: Italian production artillery pieces was really pathetic.
That problem had a lot to do with Italy not being a rich country, and the expenses they made during the SCW (seems like Italians spent even more than Germans there, helping the Nationalists) and the Abyssinia war.
Some not so expensive changes might've helped them, though. Like, when their Navy was upgrading in the 1930s, the older guns that are still in good shape will need to be transferred to the Army. Producing just the adopted split carriages will be less taxing wrt. the money, resources and time than making all new guns. The ww1 75mm anti-aircraft guns that are beyond useless in that role should also find their new home as the part donors for the field artillery pieces.
The new 75mm M37 gun was a good gun, but it was produced in meager quantity. Perhaps going earlier with the longer barrel for the M1934 howitzer (like for this gun) would've been a faster way to get a more potent gun in service earlier?
Wrt. the more potent pieces, the new 149mm howitzer was as good as it gets, but again the production was insufficient, both due to the already mentioned problems, as well as due to the late start. Perhaps moving to 152mm calibre (the same diameter used by the Navy) might've sped up the job?
That problem had a lot to do with Italy not being a rich country, and the expenses they made during the SCW (seems like Italians spent even more than Germans there, helping the Nationalists) and the Abyssinia war.
Some not so expensive changes might've helped them, though. Like, when their Navy was upgrading in the 1930s, the older guns that are still in good shape will need to be transferred to the Army. Producing just the adopted split carriages will be less taxing wrt. the money, resources and time than making all new guns. The ww1 75mm anti-aircraft guns that are beyond useless in that role should also find their new home as the part donors for the field artillery pieces.
The new 75mm M37 gun was a good gun, but it was produced in meager quantity. Perhaps going earlier with the longer barrel for the M1934 howitzer (like for this gun) would've been a faster way to get a more potent gun in service earlier?
Wrt. the more potent pieces, the new 149mm howitzer was as good as it gets, but again the production was insufficient, both due to the already mentioned problems, as well as due to the late start. Perhaps moving to 152mm calibre (the same diameter used by the Navy) might've sped up the job?
- Thread starter
- #99
TM06
Airman 1st Class
A large factor contributing to the inadequacy of Italy's artillery was due to them basing their ground strategy off the mountainous terrain the country was surrounded by. This mountain-based thinking bled into tank design, weapon design, artillery design and so on.
However I think the biggest problem is something I alluded to earlier in the thread - Fiat-Ansaldo held an iron grip monopoly on weapon / vehicle design. If Italy wants to ramp up production numbers, that monopoly cannot stand.
My suggestion would be divert heavier artillery piece design and manufacturing to OTO given that they already had extensive experience building weapons of similar classes for ships. Then increase the presence of Lancia and SPA (possibly Breda as well?) in regards to the heavier military trucks and prime movers in order to ease the strain on Fiat.
I'm unsure on where to expand tank design and production however, as the only options that come to mind (Isotta-Fraschini, Piaggio, Alfa Romeo) would already be burdened with other tasks.
I guess that lightning some fire under the corporate seats of the big companies might've produced some results. OTOH, Italian government seems like being in the hot bed with the rich industrial 'caste', so to speak, so that attempt on improving the things might've been a long shot.
As for the tanks/AFVs - I'd again suggest that focus is on the Semoventes, rather than on the flimsy tanks. Neither the 37 nor 47mm gun was that good in either AP category, nor as the HE throwers, so a 75mm gun that does 500+ m/s and has a 6.5kg HE shell is a major upgrade. Accept the fact that the gun traverse is as limited as it is and start making these. The gun will also do well with the HEAT shell, once available.
Get the better design (more powerful gun, better armor, better engine etc.) in the pipeline once the design and testing of the 1st generation is done.
As for the lighter tanks/AFVs, I'd try to have a SP AA vehicle, armed with the 20mm gun (again, not the 1st time suggestion). Crew of 3, engine next to the driver, two men in the turret, at least 75 deg elevation. Splinter- and bullet-proof armor. As with all SP AA guns, these can be used in ground combat.
AB-41 was a good, if not a great light armored car, more of these will be very useful. Here the 20mm gun with high elevation would've also been useful.
Army will also need the bigger light AA guns, Breda has the 37mm for the navy, so piggy-back on these. Great if these can be part of the SP AA system (on a 'medium' tank), but also as towed or on the bed of the trucks.
As for the tanks/AFVs - I'd again suggest that focus is on the Semoventes, rather than on the flimsy tanks. Neither the 37 nor 47mm gun was that good in either AP category, nor as the HE throwers, so a 75mm gun that does 500+ m/s and has a 6.5kg HE shell is a major upgrade. Accept the fact that the gun traverse is as limited as it is and start making these. The gun will also do well with the HEAT shell, once available.
Get the better design (more powerful gun, better armor, better engine etc.) in the pipeline once the design and testing of the 1st generation is done.
As for the lighter tanks/AFVs, I'd try to have a SP AA vehicle, armed with the 20mm gun (again, not the 1st time suggestion). Crew of 3, engine next to the driver, two men in the turret, at least 75 deg elevation. Splinter- and bullet-proof armor. As with all SP AA guns, these can be used in ground combat.
AB-41 was a good, if not a great light armored car, more of these will be very useful. Here the 20mm gun with high elevation would've also been useful.
Army will also need the bigger light AA guns, Breda has the 37mm for the navy, so piggy-back on these. Great if these can be part of the SP AA system (on a 'medium' tank), but also as towed or on the bed of the trucks.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
