Making better Italian aircraft, 1933~1945 (1 Viewer)

[tomo pauk]

FWIW, this article seems to be very informative: link. Can be translated.
(the author of the article is well respected by T. Williams)

 

[Shortround6]

The Hotchkiss 13.2 gun was good for what it was, the reasons they were being moved away from by France and Italy didn't have to do with the performance.

What was it? A slow firing, awkward machine gun with the wrong feed system for what they were trying to do with it?

As for Japan, I have no idea what they were thinking with the Type 3. I believe they decided to abandon it because it was heavier than the Type 99 mark 1?

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.

It might be a good idea to rechamber it for 8x59mmRB Breda then - it's the closest in dimensions to .303 British and was already in circulation.
I'm pushing for the Breda-SAFAT to be turned into an infantry LMG due to the fact that it would require the least amount of changes to become man-portable compared to other LMGs like the Breda M37/38 or Fiat-Revelli mod 35. It was already sufficiently light (similar in weight to the Bren Mk 1 and MG 42, great deal lighter than the M1919A6), fired quickly (800-900 rpm), fired from belts instead of magazines and was highly reliable.
It may take a bit to get there, but it beats being stuck with that cruel joke of a weapon that is the Breda 30.

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.)

 

[TM06]

What was it? A slow firing, awkward machine gun with the wrong feed system for what they were trying to do with it?

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.

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.

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]

If you disagree still, what existing indigenous platform do you propose would be the best for a belt-fed MG42 equivalent?

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]

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.

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.

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.