Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Forgotten Weapons"
channel.
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@knurlgnar24 Yes and no.
Yes and no.
Factories and workshops of the time were not that controlled environments, they were not clean places, and they could be hot, cold, and anywere in between.
WWI HMGs, like the Vickers, the MG08 and so on, were built with the same concept, and had been among the most reliable self loading firearms ever.
Because, like the industrial tooling of their time they were massively overbuilt. It was like they couldn't be bothered by the simple energy of a cartridge firing. And, in their frame, there was a lot of void space, so the dirt had a lot of places to go before locking the mechanism.
The Madsen LMG was kind of a smaller version of that. As that, it was a little more sensible to elements and dirt, but no more (and maybe less) than any LMG of the time (Hotchkiss Portative, Lewis Gun... not to talk about the Chauchat).
6
-
6
-
6
-
@RandomUser-cx9kn In the post-war years Bernardelli had a lot of know-how on making guns, but only of estabilished patterns, while the market required something new. Unfortunately the small company had not experience in designing new weapons and, as an engineer that worked there at that time recalled, even the access to specialised literature was very limited, especially in foreign languages. So they simply copied what they could put their hands on. They put their hands on a SVT and "oh, whe can make a shotgun out of this".
Later the situation was different. Thus not being Beretta, The Bernardelli 60 had been quite a success, and the P0.18 too. Unfortunately the company invested heavily in the Italian Army AR trial, but it had not been the only one. Franchi did it too with the 641 (derived from the H&K G41), and SOCIMI with the ambitious 871 (piston driven, reciprocating charging handle AR15).
The P.One evolution of the P0.18 was an exceptional firearm, that today would probably have it's place in the market exactly for it's "classic" features (all forged steel slide and frame, 1911 style safety but with a decocker too, like modern CZ and Taurus), unfortunately it was released in the worst possible moment for an all-steel pistol.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@hannibalkills1214 if... if... If the enemy was not armed with firearms, an MG wouldn't have been needed at all. "Reality doesn't work like that". The German army's reality was that they had to adapt to the situation like everyone else, and a tool that limits your ability to adapt is a liability.
The BAR was suboptimal because it's firepower was very limited in respect to it's weight (among some other problem) due to the fact of not having a quick exchange barrel. All in all, with all it's limitations, the Breda 30 was a better LMG. Simply the US had the industrial capability to "throw more BAR to the problem". Also the ability to "call for Arty" made so that MG tactics had always been neglected by the US Army (still today). IE, in a British squad, every grunt was instructed in how to use the BREN and, had only one remained alive, he was supposed to use the BREN. In a US Army squad, only the BAR gunner and his assistant were trained in using it.
The GPMG concept (and the centrality given to the MG tactics by the Germans in WWII), did born because the WWI peace conditions limited the number of both LMGs and HMGs for Germany (and practically banned mortars and artillery). To have an MG that could cover (even with some limitations) both roles, in a certain sense, doubled the allowed nuber.
5
-
5