Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Ask Ian: Did the Finns Hate the Carcano?" video.
-
24
-
14
-
@luisnunes3863 Drachinifel is simply wrong. Or better, Drachinifel does not read Italian, so he has to rely on what he finds in English. Second hand sources, wartime propaganda, etc... A common problem between self-made historians. The only source for the problem with Italian naval shells was Adm. Iachino, that had to justify his fiasco at Gaudo / Cape Matapan, and had been debunked by other sources, IE Adm. Emilio Brenta. Reality is that in the conditions of the clash at Gaudo, no WWII battleship would have hit anything.
As a matter of fact, the Italian 152mm and 203mm are the only Cruiser naval guns that obtained some +20km hits during WWII (even twice in the same battle, so it was not a fluke). Tests conducted by the allies after the war simply concluded Italian shells were more reliable than German ones. Italian 381 had not been tested by the Allies for accuracy.
13
-
13
-
@alessandrorona6205 You are still stating your very personalpreferences.
If those are your criteria, you should have listed the Enfield above the Mauser, since it's smoother, faster to cycle, and at least equally reliable and easy to operate. The Mosin is back of the line.
In respect to the Mauser, the Carcano M38 has a little rougher action, is equally fast to cycle and reliable, faster to reload, easier to field strip, and lighter (Pretty important, since the rifle has to be carried much more than used).
8
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
A shame Drachinifel contributed to spread that bogus info (he never stated the quality being "all over the place, generally trending towards bloody awful. Ocasionally in spec", but that's internet). Infortunately he does not read Italian, so he has to rely on what he finds in English. Second hand sources, wartime propaganda, etc... A common problem between self-made historians.
The only source for the problem with Italian naval shells was Adm. Iachino, that had to justify his fiasco at Gaudo / Cape Matapan, and had been debunked by other sources, (IE Adm. Emilio Brenta, or the same Fire Director Officer of the Vittorio Veneto ad Gaudo). Reality is that in the conditions of the clash at Gaudo, no WWII battleship would have hit anything.
As a matter of fact, the Italian 152mm and 203mm are the only Cruiser naval guns that obtained some +20km hits during WWII (even twice in the same battle, so it was not a fluke).
4
-
4
-
3
-
@SidneyBroadshead The bullet was not unstable in flight and didn't have a wandering zero. Any spitzer bullet has the center of gravity displaced towards the back of the bullet, but that doesn't make it unaccurate.
The the aluminium tipped bullet was designed to be even more unstable, and so tumble more easily INTO THE BODY, not in flight. The Brits used the same trick in the .303 Ball MKVII, adopted in 1910, that served as standard issued cartridge through two World Wars, the Korean War and countless other smaller confrontations until the end of military use of the .303 British. Actually the Ball MKVII had a higher percentage of the bullet made out of aluminium, so was even more unstable, and none ever noticed it having a wandering zero. Today plastic tipped bullets are normally used for hunting.
The aluminium tipped bullet was also lighter than the original 6.5, so to have a faster muzzle velocity, and so a flatter trajectory in the first 300m of flight, so making the fixed 200m sight more useful.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
@eloiseharbeson2483 The Western Cartridge ammos were not "specially loaded". They had been made to original Italian specs even in bullet construction. They only used modern propellants, because Western Cartridge, obviously, didn't have access to the original Solenite.
The 6.5 Italian Carcano cartridge has much in common with modern 6.5 and not only 6.5. Being the first one to be adopted, it influenced many of them, both dimensionally and power-wise. IE back in the days when surplus Carcano cartridges were common, and 7.62X39 were unobtanium in the west, 7.62X39 were obtained by shortening and necking Carcano cartridges. The .264 USA of the US Army Marksmanship Unit still uses a shortened Carcano case. You can't put a 162gr round in a Grendel case, otherwise the muzzle velocity would have been practically identical to a 6.5 Carcano, and infact PPU 123 grains Carcano rounds achieve 2690 fps from a 21" barrel, that's even more than a Grendel does. The .264 USA, with 123gr bullet, produces 2,657 fps from 16.5" barrel. Still not that different.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ForceSmart You were arguing about "inconsistent quality of Italian ammunition". Are you really able to believe that the 381 shells and propellants were made with different tolerances than 203 ones?
I understand that there are people, like you, that prefer apparently simple explanations that spare them the effort to think. There are many.
For the same reason , you prefer ad hominem argument, talking about "emotional response". Again , an apparently simple explanation that, undermining your interlocutor's arguments because he's "emotional" spare you the effort to use your brain.
(to remember you that someone you called an "historian" is not an historian instead, is not an ad hominem argument. I think "ad hominem" is another expression that you use randomly to be spared the effort to use your brain cells).
You prefer to be spared the effort to make a simple proportion too. Someone said "over a kilometer" and you bought it, without even cheking, because cheking needs to use braincells. Of the picture shown, knowing the lenght of the HMAS Perth, the first salvo has a spread of 410m. The second one of 412m (a little more due to parallax). Or 1.7% of the distance. A single turret longitudinal spread of 2% of the distance in action was considered acceptable to good by any navy at the time. To make a comparison, US Navy obtained 1.1% single turret spread, but that was in tests, with the ship standing still and not steaming at 28 knots, after years of tuning, with delay coils already installed (Littorios had them installed in winter '42-'43) and with slower shells (for a simple geometrical reason, flatter trajectory shells, all things equal will show wider horizontal spread. That has little IRL effect since ships are not just horizontal targets and the flatter trajectory reduces the vertical spread - that's why flatter trajectory is preferred in rifle shooting - and the error in distance and bearing, by reducing the flight time). Richelieu shown a 2.1% single turret spread in tests (four guns in it's case) still in 1948, after delay coils had been installed, and that was considered acceptable.
The service of the Regia Marina, or its "worthiness", is not in question, and I don't need any treat. That's anoter mental shortcut of you.
Since I'm being "emotional" I'll give you another (other than the high speed of the shells) real reason why the dispersion of the Italian 381 was just average and not exceptional.
All the Littorios were very "new". The first two had been commissioned only in 1940. At the time, it took years of tests to "tune " the guns of a big ship (Nelson class shown horrible dispersion in tests still after 10 years since their commissioning). And in wartime those tests are just seldomly made, because there isn't the time, the fuel, and every time the ship leaves the port, it's at risk of being torpedoed.
That's what Adm. Emilio Brenta stated. By 1939 the Regia Marina corrected the dispersion of all of their guns, big and small, so much that, for some of them, there had been the necessity to open the spread, to maximise the probability of a hit (infact, the best dispersion is not the tightest one. That's, IE, a criticism the Americans made on Japanese gunnery). For the 381 there had simply not been the time.
But I'm sure you'll prefer to believe in "inconsistent quality of Italian ammunition". For some mysterious reason, only of 381 shells.
It spares you to think.
1
-
1
-
1