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

  1.  @TrangleC  I did, thanks. Apart for the fact that the FG-42 had been in limited use only since 1943, the FG-42 has a not replaceable pencil barrel (it had been made to be lightweight), so its practical volume of fire is no different than that of a BAR.
    1
  2. Err... no. As Ian said, those MGs at the start of the war were issued with 2 spare barrels. After the first battles it was noticed that those were not enough, and the provision had been enhanced to four. A barrel had to be changed after 200 rounds of continuous fire, so there was the real issue to fire more than 600 rounds with a single MG. Even three BAR would have had problems in doing the same thing in the same time. A proper LMG, even an unsatisfactory one, is anyway a completely different beast in respect to a rifle.
    1
  3. There were way worse. Type 11 for example and, as a LMG, the BAR was worse too.
    1
  4. Any army entered the war with a collection of equipment among whose there were the good ones, the acceptable ones and the bad ones. It's the result of a selection process where most of the actors had good intentions, but someone had antiquated ideas, and none could foresee the conditions the next war would have been fought. This LMG is actually not even that bad. Almost all the bashing is a result of internet era, where ideas tend to be repeated over and over, any time radicalizing them to get more attention. Allied wartime reports compared this weapon favourably with the BREN.
    1
  5. The gunner had one spare.
    1
  6. In 1930, when it had been adopted, there were not many better designs around.
    1
  7. The bolt carrier is the part where the recoil spring acts, the proper bolt, or bolt head, is the part in contact with the cartridge and that has the extractor, and so pushes the cartridge in the chamber and extract the spent case. The MG42 is a short recoil weapon, but its not a simple short recoil weapon, like a semiauto pistol, where there is a single piece bolt that recoils at the same speed of the barrel until the barrel stops and the bolt continues snatching the case out of the chamber. The MG 42 instead have a system whose purpose is to slow down the bolt head in respect to the bolt carrier, when the bolt separates from the barrel, to prevent extraction problems, cause pure short recoil systems (like those used in handguns) and long bottleneck cartridges doesn't match well. The rollers on the MG42, like the inclined surfaces on the MG34, or the accelerators on the M1919 and Breda SAFAT, are not bells and whistles added cause they were nice. All those systems are complications added to prevent the extraction problems that a simpler short recoil system /like that of a semiauto pistol) would have had. As for the Breda 30, its not like the Breda technicians really didn't know what they were doing, and didn't think to enhance the locking time, is that that wasn't the problem. The "simpler" solution would have been to not make the locking ring rotate at all (it should have acted like a simple barrel extension), and adopt a two piece bolt, with a rotating bolt head (to unlock it from the barrel) and a not rotating bolt carrier/striker that is pushed back at double the speed of the bolt head due to inclined surfaces, like in a SIA1918 - or in a MG34.
    1
  8. Sometimes I wonder what the vievers actually see when they watch theese clips. The bolt of this gun is made of 4 parts in total. The one of an MG34 is made of 28 parts.
    1
  9.  @jameslooker4791  The strip fed allowed it to fire without interruptions. Belts have to be changed.
    1
  10. The Breda 37-38 had always been considered a very good weapon. Wartime Allied reports deemed it to be "excellent".
    1
  11. The bolt of this gun is made of 4 parts in total. The one of an MG34 is made of 28 parts.
    1
  12. You asked for the worst LMG. M1918 BAR simply wasn't there for WWI, that's where it should have been, so it doesn't count if it had issues or not. It makes it a FAR worse gun than both the Breda 30 and the Chauchat. M1918A2 had a lot of issues (complicate to field strip and clean correctly, subject to jammings if not cleaned correctly, the pencil barrel overheating fast and without the possibility to replace it, unfit for firing in prone position...), so much that, had not the war ended, US would have replaced it with the WAR (Winchester Automatic Rifle) despite the logistical nightmare it would have been. If it was better or worse than the Chauchat or the Breda 30 is matter of debate. It depends mainly in the role you want to use it. The BAR was a better ambush weapon than the Breda (even if this advantage had been exploited much more in Korea than in WWII) but, in an automatic support fire role, it could provide only a fraction of the volume of fire of a Breda 30 (a Breda 30 barrel needed to be replaced after 200 rounds of continuous fire. At the start of the war, Breda 30s were issued with two spare barrels. Soon it was recognised ti was not enough, and that had been increased to 4 spares. Do the math). Obviously the US could cope with any inherent shortcoming of the weapon by manufacturing a shitload of them.
    1
  13. M1918 BAR. The one that was not there when it was needed. Japanese Type 11 is a close second. An LMG that used a complicate and completely unreliable feeding system to use the infantry rifle clips, and then was discovered incapable to use the same cartridges the infantry used.
    1
  14. The weapon used standard Carcano ammos. The "asterisk" shaped bolt is made that way exactly to give dirt some place to go instead of locking the mechanism, and it's heavy to give it more inertia. Infact allied reports of the time even deemed the Breda 30 to be superior to the Bren in dusty environments.
    1
  15. The BAR was a worse LMG than this one (and the bid was for an LMG). It became a decent one when FN modified it, but that happened only two years after the adoption of the Breda 30.
    1
  16. IRL the reload time it wasn't such a issue. Mind that the "fast" fire rate of a BREN (to use only in emergency conditions) was of 4 magazines a minute, and the gunner had to keep present that, at that pace, the barrel had to be changed after ten magazines, and the provision of the entire squad was of 20 magazines (so, 5 minutes of fire). A Breda 30 can easily keep the same practical ROF using the clips. In the Allied reports about the use of captured weapons, two defects of the Breda 30 are mentioned, the absence of a tripod mounting (that the BREN had instead) and the absence of carry handle. The reload time, or the oiler, are never mentioned.
    1
  17. It had been described as "mechanically superior to the Bren gun under dusty conditions" too.
    1
  18. The MG34 was adopted by the Germans only in 1938. Only it's bolt was composed of 28 precision machined parts, the barrel change took way longer than that of the Breda and, when used as an LMG, to reload one of its "drum" 50 rounds magazines required more time and actions than to reload the magazine of a Breda 30 three times. The only thing that the Germans had better was industrial capacity.
    1
  19. It's actually a very simple design. Pistol-like simple. MG34 bolt: 24 parts MG42 bolt: 16 parts BAR bolt: 18 parts BREN bolt: 30 parts! Breda 30 bolt, 4 parts. Probably even too much simple. Some parts more, to provide some primary extraction, and the oiler would not have been encessary.
    1
  20. The MG34 was adopted by the Germans only in 1938. Only its bolt was composed of 28 precision machined parts (that of the Breda was composed of... 4 parts recoil spring included), the barrel change took way longer than that of the Breda and, when used as an LMG, to reload one of its "drum" 50 rounds magazines required more time and actions than to reload the magazine of a Breda 30 three times.
    1
  21. The goal was exactly to not have a detachable magazine, cause detachable magazines often had feeding issues, cause it was not easy to design a magazine that was so cheap to be discarded on the field, and so tough and consistently built to not have feeding troubles. The problem was real, so that the Brits too designed a tilting magazine for the BREN (they didn't adopt it in the end, but it was even more awkward than that of the Breda).
    1
  22.  @hugossg7908  27 rounds in the magazines instead of 30, or the weapon was likely to jam. The standard and emergency ROF, the necessity to change the barrel every ten magazines of emergency ROF and the provision of the squad are in the BREN manual. You believing or not is inconsequential.
    1
  23.  @hugossg7908  The recommended ROF of the BREN was one magazine (of 27 rounds, because 30 were likely to jam the weapon) a minute. In case of necessity, it was allowed an emergency ROF of four magazines a minute, advising the gunners that the squad had 20 magazines available (battles tend to last more than five minutes) and the barrel had to be changed every ten magazines. The Breda had no problems in keeping that real life ROF. That's why the loading method is not reported as detrimental, or even as a curiosity. Nor in that report, nor in the manuals written for the gunners that had to use the captured ones. Who had really to use the weapons on the field noticed other things than modern armchair "experts".
    1
  24.  @hugossg7908  Those were the words of those that had to use them.
    1
  25. Infact that's the king of the free floating barrels. Once the round is fired, the expansion of the case tighten the action and the gun is accurate. The MG34 barrels works the same way.
    1
  26. Ask to the Germans, that made the MG34, whose bolt was composed of 28 precision machined parts (that of the Breda was composed of... 4 parts, recoil spring included?).
    1
  27. Sometimes I wonder what the viewers actually see when they watch theese clips. It's acutally a lot easier to strip field this than a BAR. The bolt of this gun is made of 4 parts in total. The one of an MG34 is made of 28 parts. Ian is a human, and often "struggles" to strip down weapons whose strip-down sequence is simply different to what he's used to.
    1
  28. It's a false problem. BREN instructions indicated an ideal ROF during battles of a magazine (of 30 theoric rounds, and 27 practical ones) a minute. Early in the war it was contemplated an emergency ROF of seven magazines a minute but, during the war, experience on the field lead to reduce that to 4 magazines a minute (and alerting that, at that rate, the barrel had to be changed every ten magazines, and the entire provision of the squad was of 20 magazines, so 5 minutes of fire). You can easily keep that pace with the Breda 30 as it is. Infact Allied wartime reports didn't indicate the practical ROF of the Breda to be a problem at all.
    1
  29. And, to change the drum of the Lewis Gun, you have to expose your head over the weapon. A particularly useful charateristic, for the enemy.
    1
  30. The bolt of this gun is made of four parts. The one of a MG34 is made of 28 parts.
    1
  31. Allied reports of the time actually compared this gun favourably with the Bren, particularly for reliability in dusty environments.
    1
  32. The goal was exactly to not have a detachable magazine, cause detachable magazines often had feeding issues, cause it was not easy to design a magazine that was so cheap to be discarded on the field, and so consistently built to not have feeding troubles. The Brits too designed a tilting magazine for the BREN (they didn't adopt it in the end, but it was even more awkward than that of the Breda).
    1
  33. It's a false problem infact. None noticed rattling barrels (or front sight on the barel shroud for that matter) being a problem in over 70 years of use of the MG42-MG3. When the round is fired, the expansion of the brass tightens all the parts.
    1
  34. They had a spare magazine, like a lot of other things, but really it wasn't such a issue. Mind that the "fast" fire rate of a BREN (to use only in emergency conditions) was of 4 magazines in a minute, and the gunner had to keep present, that, at that pace, the barrel had to be changed after ten magazines, and the provision of the entire squad was of 20 magazines (so, 5 minutes of fire).
    1
  35. The "not fixed barrel" was a non-issue. The barrel rattles only as long as the round is not fired. When a round is fired, the expansion of the cartridge tightens the action that, at that point, works like a free floating barrel.
    1
  36. The only real problem with the gun is the presence of the oiler. Too much oil in the action in sandy environments is no good. Fot the rest, it was not overcomplicate (IE the bolt of this gun is made of 4 parts in total. The one of an MG34 is made of 28 parts) or too hard to disassemble and clean (the BAR is way harder). Even the"problem" of having the front sight on the barrel shroud, or a rattling barrel, are invented problems that exist only in tabletop theorical reviews (none ever noticed those being problems in over 60 years of use of the MG-42 / MG-3, and it's not that the modern MG optics, all mounted on the receiver, compensate for the change of barrel).
    1
  37. No. the catch only prevents the barrel to rotate.
    1
  38.  @bruensal7182 Dave Emary , former Chief Ballistic Scientist at Hornady Manufacturing Inc and notorious contributor to several specialized magazines, on the "terrible Carcano calibre" and rifles. http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/emary.html
    1
  39. Pure short recoil systems (like those used in handguns) and long bottleneck cartridges doesn't match well. In a short recoil system, in the moment the barrel stops, the case, in respect to the chamber, abruptly passes from "0" to the max speed. Long rifle cases have a lot of surface that's stuck to the chamber's walls, so, even if the pressure isn't high, with this abrupt acceleration there are high chances to damage the cases, sometimes break them, and so jam the action. To avoid this, there are several possibilities. To unlock the bolt from the barrel first than the rearward motion of the barrel ended, so allowing the residual pressure of the gasses to start extracting the case first than the barrel stops ("chiusura labile", like in the Fiat Revelli 1914). To use a lever action to ensure that the bolt recoils slightly faster than the barrel ( Browning M1919, Brixia 1920, Breda SAFAT...). To reduce the locking surface of the case (fluting the chamber). Or to reduce the friction between the case and the chamber (lubing the case). Pure blowback weapons are safer in this repect. It's only a question to have enough mass in the bolt so that the energy of the cartridge can't move it rearward enough first than the pressure reaches safe levels.
    1
  40. Joe Langley
    1
  41. Lahti-Saloranta M/26 "assorted mistakes". Type 11 Type 96...
    1
  42. Infact is a short-recoil rotating lock.
    1
  43. Actually not only the Commonwealth reused all the captured Breda 30, but printed instruction manuals in English for the gunners issued with them, and flirted with the idea of converting them to .303 British too.
    1
  44.  @TimThompson19791979  As said, the bolt of this weapon is composed of four parts. It's as simple as that of an SMG. In practice all WWII MGs had more parts. 28 for the Mg34, 16 for the MG42...
    1
  45. I sometimes wonder if people know what a "Rube Goldberg" design means. An MG34 bolt is composed of 28 parts. That of a BAR is composed of 18 parts. This one is composed of ...four parts, recoil spring included.
    1
  46. The BAR was bad mainly because it didn't have a quick-exchange barrel. A Breda 30 could provide a way higher volume of fire.
    1
  47. The Breda 38 is an heavy tank MG ( http://beutepanzer.ru/Beutepanzer/italy/spg/DA_47_32/DA_47_32-17.jpg ), the Suomi KP is a SMG. Maybe you meant Beretta MAB38 vs Suomi.
    1
  48. And they came up with the DP-28, whose pan magazine requires the gunner to expose his head over the weapon to reload, and whose barrel requires him to grab the red-hot muzzle to replace it. Or the MG-34 MG-42, whose "drum magazine" (really a can containing a 50 rounds belt) requires double the time of the Breda 30 magazine to be changed. Or the BAR, whose pencil, not exchangeable, barrel forced the gunner to stop firing after only about 150 rounds of rapid fire (as Ian stated, the Breda was originally issued with 2 spare barrels, that had to be changed after 200 rounds of rapid fire. After the first battles the provision was raised to four, so there was the necessity to rapidly fire more than 600 rounds with that weapon)...
    1
  49. Simply commenters on the net tend t exagerate things. A weapon becomes "the best ever" or "the worst ever, better to throw bullets at the enemy by hand than being equipped with this piece of crap" basing on very small differencies or often repeated tales. In reality, the difference between the "best" and the "worst" was a question of nuisances.
    1
  50. Sometimes I wonder what the viewers actually see when they watch theese clips. It's acutally a lot easier to strip field this than a BAR. The bolt of this gun is made of 4 parts in total. The one of an MG34 is made of 28 parts.
    1