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

  1. ​ @Tom-zc9gs  As already said, I prefer to rely on the original wartime reports of those that had to daily fight the weapon and had extensively tested it, comparing with their own, than modern armchair impressions of those that had seen it firing once in a clip. "Machine carbine" is what the MP44 was. it's not like since the term "assault rife" imposed itself later, then who used "machine carbine" didn't understand the weapon. Between the MP44 and the M2 Carbine (select fire M1, it's not like at Aberdeen didn't know them) I would have selected the M2. The Mp44 WAS heavy (it was heavier than a FAL or an M14. 1.2kg heavier than an AK47 unloaded. 2.1kg heavier than a M2 carbine, almost double its weight) in exchange of what? The fact that it's concepts (but not the gun) imposed themself after the war didn't mean it was a superior weapon at the time. Also, the fact that the Tactical and Technical Trends criticised a good weapon, it's not a proof that they tended to praise bad weapons. Quite the contrary infact. There's an obvious bias in favour of what one knows. The weapons of the enemy had to pass that bias to be considered good. The Breda 37 had been considered exceptional DESPITE the bias, not thanks to it. The hindsight of successive weapon designs and industrial development has nothing to do with wartime weapons and conditions. Its misleading and has to be left out. A weapon doesn't become good in WWII because it's development had been good in Korea. The supposed problems of the Italian army have nothing to do with the quality of the Breda 37. It was an MG, not an army. Nor those that used it daily nor those that tested it as a weapon of the enemy noticed this supposed unreliability nor this "constant necessity of maintenance", nor those problematic features. The weapon had always been deemed to be very reliable and simple to mantain.
    1
  2. ​ @hendriktonisson2915  "Excellent" is the word used in Allied reports "From the following report, prepared at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, it appears to be an excellent gun". (see the Tactical and Technical Trend, the magazine of the US Intelligence, No. 23, April 22, 1943 "ITALIAN 8-MM BREDA MEDIUM MACHINE GUN, MODEL 37"). I prefer to rely to original wartime reports than modern armchair impressions. As already said, to load the trays, like to load the belts, was a backline activity. Only loaded trays, like only loaded belts, were supposed to reach the first line. A broken loader (but what's the possibility for a loader to break? It's so remote to be immaterial in choosing a gun) could be fixed, and obviously there were other loaders around. However, since the tray has a clear stop to mark the position of the cartridges and, being rigid, can be placed on the ground or on a box during the operation, I beg to differ on what was easier to load by hand.
    1
  3.  @hendriktonisson2915  The Breda 37 extraction is the simplest way a tray-fed MG can work. The same bolt that pushes the cartridge into the chamber, pulls it back in the tray. That way there's no a further ejection window. The same Allied reports praised the simplicity and ease of field stripping the gun. The "special tool" is a loader, exactly like a belt loader. The only difference is that the one of the Breda is WAY faster than any belt loader. To load the trays was a backline activity anyway. Only loaded trays, like only loaded belts, were supposed to reach the first line. To think that the Italian soldiers loaded the trays under fire is like believing that German soldiers loaded the MG42 belts under fire.
    1
  4.  @Tom-zc9gs  The Breda 37 extraction is not complex at all. It's the simplest way a tray-fed MG can work. The same bolt that pushes the cartridge into the chamber, pulls it back in the tray. That way there's no a further ejection window. the same Allied reports praised the simplicity and ease of field stripping the gun. The "special tool" is a loader, exactly like a belt loader. The only difference is that it's WAY faster than any belt loader. To load the trays was a backline activity. Only loaded trays, like only loaded belts, were supposed to reach the first line. To think that the Italian soldiers loaded the trays under fire is like believing that German soldiers loaded the MG42 belts under fire.
    1
  5. The Allies deemed the Breda 37, Breda 38 and Breda 20/65 machineguns to be "excellent".
    1
  6. The Thompson was heavier, more complicate, less stable, the magazine was atrocious. "Hypocrisy" was shared by the GI. See Ordnance Went Up Front, of the then Ordnance Sergeant Dunlap, Roy F., p. 58: "No one ever bothered with any other kind of submachine gun if he could get hold of a Beretta M38, and keep it. The New Zealand boys especially loved them. Even the Germans liked it, and they hated to admit anything was good except their own stuff".
    1
  7. The ejection port was there so that a right handed shooter could see into the chamber without moving the gun. The charging handle was there to be operated with the right hand while mantaining the weapon in line with the left one.
    1
  8.  @BewareTheLiveWire  Certainly not with the Italian 8th Army weapons, since what little remained of the Rumenians 3rd and 4th armies left Stalingrad a month before the italians, and it's not likely they came back there to collect the weapons after the front advanced for some hundred kms. However it doesn't seem they had been rebuilt and rearmed at a level even remotely comparable to what they were before Operation Saturn.
    1
  9. As Ian just explained the Romanians ordered the rifle directly to Beretta, and received them in 1940. At Stalingrad the Romanian 3rd and 4th armies simply dissolved in Operation Uranus well before the Italian 8th army, that resisted for a month more and was defeated in Operation Little Saturn. They couldn't have taken control of anything.
    1
  10.  @drxym  Really? As Ian said, the Italians adopted several much simplified versions of this, along with other, stamped, SMGs. The Thompson instead, at the end of WWII, still outnumbered the M3 grease gun by three to one. The MP35 was still in production by 1944. The Lanchester was still in production in 1945. The production of the Kp31 ended in 1998.
    1
  11. the other nations started the war with comparably expensive or even more expensive SMGs. Thompson, MP35, Lanchester, KP31...
    1
  12.  @bobmcbob49  Really? As Ian stated, the Italians adopted several much simplified versions of this, along with other, stamped, SMGs. The Thompson instead, at the end of WWII, still outnumbered the M3 grease gun by three to one. The MP35 was still in production by 1944. The Lanchester was still in production in 1945. The production of the Kp31 ended in 1998.
    1
  13. The other nations started the war with comparably complex ir even more complex SMGs. Thompson, MP35, Lanchester, KP31...
    1
  14.  @M.M.83-U  But Beretta outsourced the manufacturing of many parts.
    1
  15. Because having the charging handle on the right side, and so operating it with the shooting hand, while holding the weapon on the forestock with the other hand, it's the only way to reload without moving the weapon out of line. That's why any bolt action rifle has the charging handle on the right side ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Jo9gifLCDs&t=291s ), that's why the M1 Garand had the charging handle on the right side, that's why the BREN had the charging handle on the right side... that's why most semiauto and auto weapons that haven't an ambidextrous charging handle (Included almost any SMG: Thompson, M3 grease gun, Sten, KP31, PPSH...), have it on the right side.
    1
  16. Exceptionally reliable, exceptionally stable while firing in full auto (you can se Ian's clip of him firing it), very accurate, optimally designed magazines. Every competitor failed in one or more of those departments. Yeah. Obviously the army, once the reality of mass warfare kicked in, preferred more simple to manufacture versions, but had not been the only one. Other nations started the war with comparably complex or even more complex SMGs (Thompson, MP35, Lanchester, KP31...), and kept on manufacturing them until the end, yet they were not on par. Roy Dunlap's classic "Ordnance Went Up Front": "The Beretta 38 is my favorite gun of its class, as it was of the Eighth Army. As easy to fire and control as a .22 sporting autoloader, it had terrific punch and range. The special 9mm cartridges loaded for it made it effective at 300 yards and dangerous up to 500 (when you consider that the .45 Thompson is an even-money bet at 100 yards, you'll understand why we liked the Beretta). It would operate well with German, British or American 9mm Luger ammunition," ... "the later model guns were equipped with bayonet studs, and with a fixed bayonet and a ten-round clip they were the answer to a soldier's prayer for guard duty of any kind - prisoner chasing or just keeping them out of the mood for argument. All the guns were really accurate and a pleasure to shoot. No one ever bothered with any other kind of submachinegun if he could get hold of a Beretta M38 and keep it. The New Zealand boys especially loved them. Even the Germans liked it, and they hated to admit anything was good except their own stuff."
    1
  17. It's not true. It worked with the 9mm parabellum and the 9mm M38, a very hot 9mm Para made expressely for the MAB38. The Glisenti cartridge risked to not completely cycle the action, as noted by the US armorer Roy F. Dunlap, that highly praised this weapon in his classic "Ordnance went up front".
    1
  18. Well, no. There are a lot of outstanding Italian firearm design not made by Beretta. Scotti action, Breda gas action, Bernardelli Semiautomatico shotgun action, Breda-Benelli inertia anction...
    1
  19. Imagine to be on the beaches of Normandy, with Germans that shoot at you from small openings in bunkers 100-200m distant. Or to be in urban warfare, with enemies that shoot at you from the windows of the buildings. What makes the difference, in a situation like that, is to be able to put the equivalent of an hand grenade into that openings from 100-200m distance. What really made the difference between the Tromboncino and other rifle grenades of the time, is that you could aim with it. The other rifle grenades required the soldier to fire them putting the the stock on the ground. They were not intended for direct fire. The Mortaio Brixia, other than being able of direct and indirect fire, and his grenades having double the TNT filling in respect to those of the Tromboncino, had a higher ROF, and was capable of adjustement shots. Thus it was ultimately preferred.
    1
  20. "little trombone"
    1
  21. It's not a gas regulator. It's the external part of a spring-loaded plate that holds the grenade in place.
    1
  22. It's the external part of a spring-loaded plate that holds the grenade in place.
    1
  23. The SR2 bomb was filled with 32gr of TNT, into an iron case, and with an iron spiral around it to ensure fragmentation. The explosive filling was inferior to the later (from 1944) US MKII hand grenades, but superior to the earlier ones, so I wouldn't deem them as "ineffective". simply it was not the quality of the bomb. They discarded the whole idea.
    1
  24. The SR2 bomb was filled with 32gr of TNT, into an iron case, and with an iron spiral around it to ensure fragmentation. The explosive filling was inferior to the later (from 1944) US MKII hand grenades, but superior to the earlier ones, so I wouldn't deem them as "ineffective". The bomb was designed to contain it's effects in a 50m range, and so the shooter was instructed to not shoot at closer distances (see "Istruzione provvisoria sull'uso della bomba S.R.2 con governale").
    1
  25. The SR2 bomb was filled with 32gr of TNT, into an iron case, and with an iron spiral around it to ensure fragmentation. The explosive filling was inferior to the later (from 1944) US MKII hand grenades, but superior to the earlier ones, so they were not really "flash bangs", they had been designed to be lethal. Italian grenades, in general, were designed to fragment in smaller pieces in respect to the "pineapple" designs. That way the lethal radius was smaller, but the pattern was more uniform (cast iron "pineapple" grenades tended to fragment in few pieces, so they hit at random, maybe killing someone distant from the bomb, and sparing someone close to it).
    1
  26. This thing had never been intended for close quarter fights. The shooters were trained to not shoot at less than 50m for their own safety, and the three position of the grenade sights were intended for 130m, 190m and 230m. The grenades were roughly as powerful as hand grenades.
    1
  27. google "bomba SR2" and you'll easily find the original instruction manual (in Italian).
    1
  28. It's the external part of a spring-loaded plate that holds the grenade in place.
    1
  29. The reason is that this cartridge, like the 9mm Glisenti (power-wise they are practically the same cartridge) was exactly at the limit where blowback action became impractical. More powerful and, if you wanted to use a blowback action, the pistol became heavier than a breechlock action, top heavy and less durable. Less powerful, and breechlock actions were more complicate than blowbacks without advantages, but, exactly at this level, advantages and disadvantages of the two actions were even. Infact the 9mm glisenti started as a cartridge for the breechlock Glisenti 1910, and was then used in the blowback Beretta 1915 and 1922. The 9mm Ultra was developed to be used in a blowback (the Walther PP), but then the Germans decided that the PP frame was no up to the task (infact the Beretta in 9mm Glisenti had a buffer spring to avoid the frame to take a too hard beating) and developed a breechlock action for it. But, if you have to use a breechlock, you might as well use a 9mm Parabellum.
    1
  30. Because obviously the reactions would have been completely different had they banned the manufacturing or the owning of those guns.
    1
  31.  @tedhodge4830  The Beretta AR70/90 instead (that is the one that had been adopted. The AR70 had never been adopted by the italian Army) has sights for 250 and 400m. https://www.collezionareexordinanza.it/uploads/products/101_2019-01-20_img_3585.jpg Pretty simple.
    1
  32. The Marines' M4 are sighted for 300m.
    1
  33. Their actions are not even close to be similar.
    1
  34. Until at least the Gulf War the general consensus was that the M16 was a defective rifle, and the direct gas impingement was the main responsible. The Beretta AR70/90 came out as the Italian Army Assault rifle from a competition were one of the competitors, the Socimi AR-831, was an AR15 (bolt, bolt carrier, recoil spring, recoil spring guide, magazine catch and hold-open device, trigger group, fire selector, general receiver and plastic furnitures design), with a AK47 style gas piston (The subsequent AR-871 used an AK47 recoil spring too, so to have a fully collapsible stock), yet, the Beretta design was chosen. Every army has its specific requirements. French and Brits wanted a bullpup. The Italians, like for the previous BM59 and the subsequent ARX-160 wanted a select fire LMG.
    1
  35. You are welcome. Really it has already been, at least partially done. One of the competitors of the AR70/90 in the Italian Army AR selection contest was the SOCIMI AR-871 (evolution of the previous AR-831). It had a AR15 style receiver and bolt (but with a reciprocating, left placed, bolt handle), but with an AK47 style long stroke gas piston, with the recoil spring in the gas cylinder and over the bolt, like in a AK47.
    1
  36. The shortest version of the AR70, the SCS70/90 has a 352mm barrel, and the shortest version capable to fire a rifle grenade, the SCP70/90 has a 369mm barrel. A bit shorter the first, and almost identical the second to the 370mm of the M4 carbine.
    1
  37. At that time you can't buy rifles in 5.56 NATO / 223 Rem in Italy, so those couldn't be sold to civilians anyway. The ban had been lifted only recently.
    1
  38. It's actually pretty simple. The parts count is not that different from any WWII LMG.
    1
  39. There was worse. IE the Type 11.
    1
  40. The handle that's needed to easily replace a hot barrel?
    1
  41. The muzzle booster of the MG34 and MG42 enhanced the recoil speed of the barrel, so giving more energy to the entire mechanism (that had to pull the belt too), but didn' affect the relative speeds of the barrel, front and rear part of the bolt in any way, and are those relative speeds that counted to avoid extraction problems. Instead is revealing that they decided to use a muzzle booster instead of lightening the bolt, despite the bolt of the MG34 and MG42 being rather heavy. But that weight (and the weight differential between the front and the rear part of the bolt) was necessary to avoid extraction problems.
    1
  42. It was meant to adjust the timing of the breech opening when the locking collar was new or worn out.
    1
  43.  @firepower7017  Think that a first line aircraft of TWENTY years ago, is still a very good fighter today. A first line tank of TIRTY years ago is still a very good tank today. In 1939, a first line aircraft, or tank, of 1930, belonged only to museums.
    1
  44.  @firepower7017  It's not exactly surprising that a decade last for ten years. what makes it "long" or "short" are exactly the shifts that happen during that time.
    1
  45.  @firepower7017  the '30s HAD BEEN very long. Think to what the aircrafts were in 1930 and 1939. Think to what the tanks were in 1930 and 1939. The possibilities of those weapons had been revolutionized over that decade.
    1
  46.  @firepower7017  A decade is quite a long time. Especially then. The Breda 30 had been adopted in 1930, non in 1937. Poland was not really a surprise. France was, for the German generals as well.
    1
  47.  @firepower7017  Not even the Germans predicted how the next war would have been fought. The main part of their army was not mechanised at all. They totally overlooked the improtance of bombing, ecc... The early success of the "blitzkrieg" had been a surprise for them too. In 1930 nazis had not yet taken the power in Germany. Aircrafts were still fabric covered biplanes. Germany didn't even start designing the Panzer I...
    1
  48.  @firepower7017  Any weapon had been desgined having something in mind. "armies prepare themselves to fight the last war, not the next one".
    1
  49.  @firepower7017  Actually the reliability of the BAR was really not good for various reasons that were partly fixed only after WWII. After WWII Italy simply changed service cartridge and BARs were cheap (actually they were free). They had been replaced with the MG42/59 and the BM59 as soon as the Italian Army had the money to do it. As for the attitude, no WWII report i know of criticised the feeding system of the Breda 30. It's barely mentioned at all (at that time there was more variety of designs, so it was normal for different weapons to work differently). And for good reasons. The British doctrine of employ of the Bren was to fire one magazine a minute. In exceptional circumstances was allowed a 4 magazine a minute ROF (keeping in mind that the entire squad had 20 magazines and one spare barrel, that, at that ROF, had to be changed after 10 magazines, so, for that BAR, the battle would have been over after 5 minutes of fire). For that practical ROF, the feeding system didn't make any difference. Ian here criticised the rattling barrel and the front sight on the barrel shroud, that's really "I know that this weapon is bad, so I have to invent something to say it's bad". NONE ever noticed the rattling barrel and the front sight on the barrel shroud being a problem in almost 70 years of use of the MG42/MG3. Today any LMG/squad MG has an optic fixed on the receiver. Do those optics compensate for the barrel change?
    1
  50.  @firepower7017  The BAR was actually much criticised during WWII. Its limitations were well known (but the US could simply "throw more BAR to the problem"). It acquired a semi-mithical status later, because "it won the war".
    1