Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Forgotten Weapons" channel.

  1. 1
  2. 1
  3. 1
  4. 1
  5. 1
  6. 1
  7. 1
  8. 1
  9. 1
  10. 1
  11. 1
  12. 1
  13. 1
  14. 1
  15. Actually, when this MG had been adopted (1930) the only design around that was really demonstrably better was the ZB vz. 26. Today it could seem strange, but, in the first half of XX century, to design a detachable magazine that was at the same time so cheap to be discarded on the field, and so well and consistently built to not cause feeding problems was really an issue. The BAR and the BREN were plagued by jammings caused by defective magazines, ant those had been built by bountries that had not raw materials shortages. The British actually designed a fixed magazine for the BREN, loaded with two 15 rounds clips (they didn't adopt that, but it was really awkward compared to the Breda). So, in 1924, FIAT came out with a LMG design (FIAT 1924) that had a fixed magazine on the left of the weapon, loaded inserting a 20 round clip (similar to that of the subsequent Breda) from the right. In exchange of a little time lost in recharging, all the feeding problems were avoided. The flaw was that, to load a MG insrting a clip from one side, the gunner, or the servent, had to expose himself a little, and, laterally pushing the weapon, they can move it, loosing the line of sight. So the Breda had the subsequent evolution. By tilting the "fixed" magazine, in exchange of a little more time lost in recharging, the gunner could load the gun (and change the barrel, for that matter) without changing position at all. In the end, ten years later, at the start of WWII, it was an already outdated design, but it was actually not that bad. There is a tendency, on the net, when a weapon had some defect, tho extremize them, concluding that "it's the worst gun ever made!", "I would have rather fought naked than carrying that piece of junk!" and things like that. But those are modern days shenanigans. The contemporaries of the weapon, those that had to fight them daily, and reuse the captured ones, thought it was not that bad. From 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. Mind that, to use 4 spare barrels (the number the Italians deemed to be necessary after having used the gun in combat), you have to fire at least 800 rounds in quick succession. So much for the gun not being capable to really provide automatic fire.
    1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. To me the original ZB vz.26 was superior to the BREN, cause the BREN had to use rimmed cartridges. I think a shorter barrel VB vz. 26, with a 25 round magazine in 6.5 Carcano would have been the perfect LMG for the Italians in WWII. That said, the Italians used the Lewis gun in WWI, it was not like they didn't know it. The Lewis Gun was a good weapon for WWI, but it was not by chance that everyone of its users, bar one, phased it out of first line use first than WWII (and it was not by chance that 20-25 round magazines was the norm for WWII LMGs). The Lewis gun was heavy, it didn't have a quick exchange barrel, it was extremely sensible to the slightiest trace of dirt, it jammed easily and jammings were very difficult to clear, it was difficult to field strip and clean, to replace the pan magazine required the servent to expose himself, since it had to be made while looking at the weapon from above. Even in WWI it had been noted that it was more an ambush weapon, when it could fire from at least partially protected positions, than a real attack weapon. Unforunately there is a tendency, on the net, to sanctify some weapon and to damn some other only on the base of often repeated rumors, and regardless of what the contemporaries (those that had to DAILY use those) thought of them. From Tactical and Technical Trends (the magazine of 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. Was the Breda 30 the best, or among the best WWII LMGs? Surely not. But it get the job done, and, on the field, the differencies with other designs were very limited. MInd that, to use the four spare barrels the Italians deemed necessary for the Breda 30 after having used it in combat, you have to fire at least 800 rounds in quick succession. that was what the Breda was capable of. Try it with a Lewis Gun, or a BAR for that matter.
    1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. Blair Maynard "I didnt start the MG42 comparison" It was a comparison of kind of intended use. The intended use of both was that of point weapons. A lot of bullets on a little space in a short time. Not long bursts. "The lesson of the MG42 is that "higher rate of fire is not always better". According to Wikipedia, the MG42's main drawback was ammunition consumption." The Italians manufactured 836 million Glisenti rounds for 14.564 Villar Perosa manufacutred. More than 28.000 rounds for barrel. It seems that they were prepared for the consumption. "If the MG42 gunner chose to use the 50-round belt "pods"..." The standard lenght of the MG42 belt was 50 rounds. It could be lenghtened by linking several belts. But, again, you are comparing what's arguably the most avdvanced MG of WWII with WWI weapon. "he would have to change magazines once every 50 rounds, while the Villar-Perosa gunner has to change magazines twice every 50 rounds." Please, The 50 rounds drum of the MG42 was only a can that contained a 50 rounds belt. In order to change the drum the gunner had to: remove the spent drum, open the new drum, attach the new drum to the MG, open the action of the MG, extract the end of the belt from the drum, place the end of the belt on the action, close the MG. It takes MUCH less time to change a pair of magazines, and you have not a spent belt hanging from the MG while you are running. But, again, you are comparing what's arguably the most avdvanced MG of WWII with WWI weapon. "Sure it would be a GREAT gun to defend narrow passages when a large number of troops try to get through at the same time, and you have the ability to spread or an angle your shots so that you arent putting all the bullets into the first person, but a Lewis gun would also be pretty useful there too" And a Maxim, and a Schwartzlose, and a MG08, and a Hotchkiss... Have I said that others MG are useless? But the Villar Perosa has it's advantages. It's lighter, it's easier to manufacture and service, it's thougher (with the shield, the weapon is practically invulnerable to rifle-caliber projectiles), and its ROF makes it a point weapon. "AND the Lewis gun..." The Lewis gun was a very good LMG, but the Lewis Gun was heavy, expensive, sensible to dirt, It's drum was difficult to change (see vintage and modern clips. The servent can't really replace the drum while remaining in prone position. In the end, again, it was easeir and faster to replace a pair of magazines) its low ROF makes possible for the soldiers in the trench to return fire. The Lewis gun was really more apt for ambushes, when the gun could be placed in partially covered position, than to run on the battlefield and clear trenches.
    1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1