Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Italy's Worst Machine Gun: The Breda Modello 30" video.

  1. There was worse. Tactical and Technical Trends (the magazine of US intelligence), No. 7, Sept. 10, 1942. "use of captured Italian weapons". "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." The British Long Range Desert Group notoriously preferred to use the Lewis Gun to the Bren exactly because it was deemed to be more reliable in dusty conditions (and the Lewis Gun in general was not known to be that tolerant of dirt).
    138
  2. Ammunitions needed to be carried before being fired. BREN instructions indicated an ideal ROF during battles of a magazine (of 30 theoric rounds, and 27 practical ones) a minute, and an emergency ROF of 4 magazines a minute (alerting that, at that rate, the barrel had to be changed every 10 magazines, and the entire provision of the squad was of 20 magazines, so 5 minutes of fire). Also belt-fed LMGs were impractical in real life scenarios (and still are today, that's why the Marines are phasing the SAW out). To change a belt requires more time than to change several magazines, and it jams easier, and it requires more time to clear jammings.
    43
  3. Every Hispano-Suiza HS.404, and derivates (included the 20 mm Mark 16 that's still in service) had his cartridges oiled. So did the Japanese Type 96 LMG. An oiler is not the end of the world. Is a charateristic. The resistance of the weapon to dirt is made of MANY charateristics.
    31
  4. The BAR was not a good LMG due to the pencil barrel without quick exchange and bottom placed magazine. Not the number of rounds.
    22
  5.  @theguy9208  The Marines chose to replace it, none forced them, and they did it because a belt-fed MG manned by a single man proved to be impractical in a real-life scenario.
    13
  6. The "not fixed barrel" is 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. The remark on the gun not having the sight on the barrel simply doesn't have any sense. Every MG with a quick exchange barrel had the same "problem" regardless were the sights are placed. It's not like, if one sight out of two is on the barrel, then the line of fire will follow it SINCE THE OTHER IS ON THE RECEIVER ANYWAY. Infact both the MG34 and the MG42-Rheinmetall MG3 had the front sights on the heat guard. It's rather surprising that none noticed this being a problem in 75 years of use of the weapon.
    13
  7. Sorry, but those are only modern day guessings. The ones above were the opinions of the ones that had to DAILY use those guns in combat. It's not the first time that real world observations contrast to popular harmchair beliefs. IE it's often repeated that the bottom opening of the Manlicher magazine design was a problem, cause it allowed dirt into the mechanism. In real world that had never been a problem, and contrast with what Vladimir Grigoryevich Fyodorov (the designer of the Fedorov Avtomat) observed in the Russo-Japanese war. He then observed that, in those extreme conditions, the Moisins quickly became single shot weapons, cause the magazine was stuck with mud and ice, while the passing of the en-block clips kept the action of the Steyr rifles tidy. Other than how much dust and dirt can get into the action, an even more important thing is how much dust and dirt is needed to lock the action. An action with very tight tolerancies needs very few dirt to be stuck. A "wobbling" action (even more a wobbling action with an heavy bolt and firing pin, so with a lot of momentum) is not stuck that easy, and is largely self cleaning.
    12
  8. Not all actually. Those of the enemies on capured samples were not that negative. 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.
    11
  9.  @bigvinnie3  The Germans used the Kar 98 bolt action as main infantry rifle for that matter. IIWW ended almost 80 years ago, I said "IS", not "WAS". TODAY the MG3 is used as a vehicolar MG. It's VERY rarely is used as an infantry MG, exactly for what I said. The armies that use the MG3 almost always have ANOTHER MG to provide automatic fire to infantry squads. The MG3 is almost always mounted on a vehicle. I got the idea that changing belt is slow because it is slow. It is slow ESPECIALLY when the belts are in a magazine like carrier like a gurttrommel. Have you ever considered all the actions you have to perform to change a gurttrommel, all to have puny 50 rounds? Detach the empty can from the MG. Attach the new can to the MG. Open the can. Open the MG. Take the end of the belt. Position the end of the belt on the MG. Close the MG. Pull the charging lever. All of that to have rich 2.5 seconds of fire. In the same time you could have changed four magazines. That's why none uses the guttromel any more.
    10
  10. It's not like the BAR didn't have it's fair share of problems.
    10
  11. Thanks, but, again, those were not my opinions. The ones I reported were the opinions of the ones that had to daily use those guns in combat. The Bren was surely a very good weapon, and I would have chosen it over the Breda 30, but advantaqes and shortcomings of weapons that had been issued after a long evaluation process are more a question of nuisances than one of "with this weapon you'll be killed for sure, with that other you'll win easily".
    9
  12. The source was the magazine of the US intelligence. Since it was their work to gain intelligence, my educated guess is that they talked with the Brits.
    8
  13.  @bigvinnie3  I'ts used as a vehicolar MG. VERY rarely is used as an infantry MG, exactly for what I said.
    7
  14.  @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
  15. Are you all the British WWII veterans?
    5
  16. Among the problems the Chauchat had, "open spaces" was the least of them. Other than how much dust and dirt can get into the action, an even more important thing is how much dust and dirt is needed to lock the action. An action with very tight tolerancies needs very few dirt to be stuck. A "wobbling" action (even more a wobbling action with an heavy bolt and firing pin, so with a lot of momentum) is not stuck that easy, and is largely self cleaning. IE the Webley semiauto was a very "close" design, but its tolerances were so tight that the action was easily locked by the dirt.
    5
  17. Today it can 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, and those had been built by countries 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 one). 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 inserting 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 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.
    5
  18. It's interesting that Allied reports on the use of captured weapons, and instruction manuals written for the Allied gunners issued with the captured Breda 30 don't mention the reloading system to be an issue AT ALL. All those are modern day armchair considerations.
    4
  19. Pretty spot on. In the subsequent years the Italians came up with several very interesting LMG designs, but the Breda 30 had already been selected, and the improvings were not considered worth to revert a decision taken only few years before. Already in 1932 the Terni arsenal LMG put in a single weapon all the best features of the various entries of the previous selection ( no oiler thanks to the Brixia 1930 mechanics; Breda 1930 tilting magazine, barrel change, bipod, barrel shroud and pistol grip; FIAT 1928 stock and barrel; http://www.archeologiaindustriale.org/cms/fucile-mitragliatore-modello-terni/ ) In1937 Scotti introduced another "Breda 1930 lookalike", retaining the style of the barrel and the general ergonomy but with his patented gas operation and a vertical detachable magazine ( http://alternathistory.com/files/resize/users/user32336/%20%D0%BF%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%82%20%D0%A1%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%82%D0%B8%20%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BB.%207.7%20%D0%BC%D0%BC-700x327.jpg it was aquired in few hundreds of samples and used as a tank weapon first than the introduction of the Breda 1938), and the Scotti naval antiaircraft rifle, an assault rifle in all but name ( https://i.pinimg.com/originals/71/6f/8e/716f8e33be4f124274a6de9457462b65.png there were versions with buttstocks).
    4
  20. The heavier the firing pin, the easier for it to activate the primer. The long travel and the fact that it can't sart moving until the bolt is in battery is meant to slow the ROF too.
    4
  21. Tight tolerances IS a thing. A thing that made several weapon designs VERY sensible to dirt.
    3
  22. +Jon-Paul Filkins It's the contrary. They didn't want a detachable magazine from the start. Cause at that time it was really difficult to manufacture a detachable magazine that was, at the same time, so well and consistently built to not have feeding issues, and so cheap to be discarded on the field. The problem was real, so much that the Brits too designed a tilting magazine for the BREN. In the end they didn't adopt it, but it's reloading was even more awkward than that of the Breda 30.
    3
  23. Not a single belt fed LMG for many years after the adoption of this gun.
    2
  24. fucile mitragliatore = automatic rifle.
    2
  25. At that time it was really a problem to design a magazine at the same time so consistently and well built to not have feeding issues and so cheap to be discarded on the field. In movies, and on the range, all is good, but in reality every WWII LMG had continuous jammings that the gunner had to clear, and most of them were caused by badly made or damaged magazines. Even the Brits designed a tilting magazine for the BREN to solve the problem. They didn't adopt it in the end, but it's reloading was even more awkward than that of the Breda. The italians decided to sacrifice a little practical ROF to always have a "perfect" magazine.
    2
  26. Not by any means. Allied intelligence reports of the time actually praised the weapon, comparing it favourably with the BREN. It was no perfect, but almost all the bashing is an internet era thing, when people tend to simply repeat what they heard before, every time extremising it to seem more interesting.
    2
  27.  @hannibalkills1214  "not advance in the same rate as the riflemen" doesn't mean he can stand in a fixed position to consume a 300 round belt at will. Reality doesn't work like that. US Army experts, analysing WWII infantly clashes, noticed that riflemen tended to gather around the BAR and the BAR was almost always the weapon that started the fire exchange. And US GIs were armed with M1 semiauto rifles and carbines (while the BAR was a suboptimal LMG), not with almost useless bolt action rifles.Yet the difference between the squad automatic weapon (20 rds) and the semiauto rifle (8 rds) was enough that the movement of the BAR dictated the movement of the squad. If the MG is slow, the squad is slow. I know the lafette mount, and you certainly know it was not always possible to use it. That's why the MG42 has a bipod as well. 2.5 seconds of fire at 6 seconds interval is reasonable. 3 seconds of fire at 2 seconds interval is better.
    2
  28.  @hannibalkills1214  I know what the point of the Gurttrommel was, and that it was better than a dangling belt, BUT IT WAS WORSE THAN ANY MAGAZINE ANYWAY, the Guttromel was a "necessary evil" to use a belt-fed MG as a LMG, but to use a belt-fed MG as a LMG was a sub-optimal solution. "an established position to provide covering fire"means that the MG is no more a LMG but it became a fixed-position HMG. It's not how it works if the squad is moving. It's fire-move-fire-move-fire... One of the most common WWII picture is the German machinegunner with one or two belts over the shoulders "el frito bandito" style (they decided that, compared to the guttrommel, the dangling belt was not that bad after all), but it was certainly not an optimal solution. 50 rounds in the MG42 are 2.5 seconds of fire regardless if they are fired continuosly or in short bursts. No "training" of the soldier can change the mechanics of the MG.
    2
  29.  @AbitantedelVault  Le Breda 37 e 38 erano considerate "eccellenti" nei report alleati, non si capisce cosa avrebbero di "antiquato".
    2
  30. Breda was a steelwork, locomotives and other railway machinery manufacturer, first than starting to build weapons, and still is. BTW it still makes shotguns too.
    2
  31.  @mistakenotou7681  a team of three for a LMG in WWII is actually a reduced team. A US Army B-team (the one with the BAR) was composed of four men, gunner, assitant gunner, and two ammo bearers. A US infantryman in WWII carried 88 rounds in combat, so 3 guys with M1 Garand would have had only 264 rounds to fire. The Breda would have just changed the first barrel.
    2
  32. the Revelli 1914 was, all in all, a good HMG. The 1935 conversion not so much (it fired from a closed bolt, that's indifferent for a water-cooled MG, but not so good on a air-cooled one) despite having at least a good feature, an ultra-modern disgregating metallic belt, but it was intended as a cheap stopgap. The ones that had been converted, had not been in exchange to other models, but simply to have more MGs on the field. The 7.35 carcano cartridge was developed to completely replace the 6.5 one but, as the war broke out when the conversion just started, the plans were cancelled and the 7.35 cartridge simply had not been used on the field. Austrian captured weapons had been used almost exclusively in AOI (Africa Orientale Italiana, Italian Eastern Africa, that means Ethiopia, Eritrea and Italian Somaliland). Due to the geography, those lands would have been completely cut off from the mainland in case of war with the British Empire (like they infact did), and the local troops would have had to use only what they already had there up to exhaustion, so logistic was less of a issue. The easiness of servicing was among the things Allied reports of the time praised about the Breda 30.
    2
  33. It compensated for worn-out barrels and ring-locks. One position was used when those elements were new, and the other when they were mid-life and would have opened the action too early.
    2
  34. Allied reports of the time actually praised the weapon. As strange at it may seem, they praised it's reliability in sandy environments compared to the Bren. Internet "truth" are often only misinformations repeated many times.
    2
  35. Every MG42-MG3 manufactured since 1942 has a rattling barrel (and a front sight on the barrel shroud). None ever noticed those being problems at all. Once fired, the expansion of the brass tightens all the parts.
    2
  36. Cacciatorpediniere means a ship that had been made to hunt another class of ships, today disappeared, called "torpediniere". Only later they had been adapted to anti-sub role. The French equivalent is "contre-torpilleur". "Destroyer" has the same meaning. In English it simply lost the first part (every warship is a "destroyer" of something. A Destroyer was originally a "torpedo-boat destroyer").
    2
  37. Actually the ZB vz.26 was one of them. The others were the Brixia 1930 ( https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5f/df/b0/5fdfb00e25648c59171c2db4d4b03a5a.png ) and the FIAT 1928 ( https://i.pinimg.com/originals/99/d7/f5/99d7f5ddb17e0ca743a53f338cc79cc1.png https://i.pinimg.com/originals/32/18/14/3218147f1d0a8d4d411f07ffdeb7ff21.png ). In 1932 the Terni arsenal LMG put in a single weapon all the best features of the various entries of the previous selection ( no oiler thanks to the Brixia 1930 mechanics; Breda 1930 tilting magazine, barrel change, bipod, barrel shroud and pistol grip; FIAT 1928 stock and barrel; http://www.archeologiaindustriale.org/cms/fucile-mitragliatore-modello-terni/ ) In1937 Scotti introduced another "Breda 1930 lookalike", retaining the style of the barrel and the general ergonomy but with his patented gas operation and a vertical detachable magazine ( http://alternathistory.com/files/resize/users/user32336/%20%D0%BF%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%82%20%D0%A1%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%82%D0%B8%20%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BB.%207.7%20%D0%BC%D0%BC-700x327.jpg it was aquired in few hundreds of samples and used as a tank weapon first than the introduction of the Breda 1938), and the Scotti naval antiaircraft rifle, an assault rifle in all but name ( https://i.pinimg.com/originals/71/6f/8e/716f8e33be4f124274a6de9457462b65.png there were versions with buttstocks). But at that point the Breda 30 had already been selected, and the improvings were not considered worth to revert a decision taken only few years before.
    2
  38. That's why US put a stripper clip guide on the M14, and they were the US, and it was post WWII. We are used to movies, where everything always works, but in reality, in the '30s, it was a REAL problem for anyone to manufacture magazines that were at one time so cheap to be discarded on the field, and so well and consistently manufactured to not have feeding problems. Even Brits manufactured experimental tilting magazines for the Bren (they had not been adopted in the end, but their loading was far more awkward than that of the Breda).
    2
  39. Actually the MG was considered to be very accurate. That of the "rattling barrel" is a fake problem. It rattles only as long as a round is not fired. At that point is the same expansion of the case that tightens the components. That of the "front sight on hte barrel shroud" is another fake problem. Any MG42 /Rheinmetall MG3 has a rattling barrel and a front sight on the barrel shroud, and none ever noticed this being a problem in the last 65 years.
    2
  40. We are used to see weapons in clips and movies where everything always works just fine but, In WWII it was a REAL issue to manufacture magazines that were so cheap to be discarded on the field and so well and consistently built to not have feeding issues (it's no chance that still the M14 had a stripper clip guide). The BAR and the BREN were plagued by jammings caused by incorrectly built or damaged magazines. In exchange of a little more time required in reloading, the Breda 30 avoided all the feeding issues caused by the magazines.
    2
  41. It's a false problem. The barrel is loose only as long as a round is not fired, then the same expansion of the brass tighten the action. Any MG42 and MG3 ever built has a rattling barrel, and none ever noticed this being a issue in 60 years of use.
    2
  42. The "tactical and technical trend" (the magazine of the US intelligence) deemed it to be superior to the BREN in dusty conditions. The oiler was surely a "minus", but it was not the only part of the gun. Other features (IE heavy bolt and plenty of space for the dust to be displaced during the bolt's run) made for a decent gun in those conditions.
    2
  43. German engineers giving lessons on simplicity? LOL! Have you seen the bolt of an MG34? Is made of 28 parts, only the bolt! This one is made of four parts.
    2
  44. Breda 37, Breda 38, Breda 20/65, Scotti 20/77...
    2
  45.  @jeffreytam7684  It seems weird. ;) Really that's the simplest way a strip fed MG can work. The same bolt that pushes the cartridge in the chamber, pulls the spent case back in the tray, so avoiding to have to open another window in the receiver to eject the spent cases, or to enlarge that of the spent strip to eject the brass too (so risking to jam the gun in ejection, due to the interference between the strip and the brass). All the other considerations often repeated (recovering the brass, keeping the position tidy...) were completely secondary. Simplicity was the main concern. Infact the "Tactical & Technical Trend" the magazine of the US Intelligence during WWII, praised the simplicity and reliability of the Breda 37 (the strip-fed 8mm HMG. The gas-actuated 8mm, 20mm and 37mm Breda HMGs and automatic cannons were scaled up versions of the same design).
    2
  46. We tend to think of weapons as we seen them in movies, where everything works fine, but at that time it was a REAL issue to build magazines so cheap to be discarded on the field and so consistently built to not have feeding issues. Bren and BAR were plagued by jammings caused by badly manufactured magazines, and those were built in countries that had not raw material shortages. This gun, eliminated feeding issues in exchange of a little more time required to load it.
    2
  47. 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.
    2
  48. Generally yes. Without oil there is the risk of case separation, due to the harsh extraction, but it doesn't happen for sure, or immediately, and it's known that some gunner ceased to use oil at all. Generally, brass cases worked fine without oil. Steel cases, made during the war due to material shortages, were more problematic.
    2
  49. The MG34 was adopted by the Germans only in 1938. Only it's bolt was composed of 28 precision machined parts (The Breda 30... four 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.
    2
  50. Pure short recoil systems (like those used in handguns) and long bottleneck cartridges don'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 ends, 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). However this is not the only example. The Japanes Type 96 LMG had an oiler, and the Hispano Suiza Hs 404 cannon, and it's derivates in use up until today, has an internal oiler as well.
    2
  51.  @jimbob1427  150 Rounds in a minute is what you could fire with the BAR, first to have to stop and take cover for five minutes, waiting for your weapon to cool off while the other guys fought. BREN gunners were expected to fire a magazine a minute (30 rounds theoretical, 27 real). At the start of the war it was contemplated a "rapid" fire, to use in emergency situations, of 7 magazines a minute. During the war, due to the practical experience on the field, it was REDUCED to 4 magazines a minute (120 theoretical rounds, 108 real), and keeping in mind that the entire provision of the LMG squad was of 20 magazines, so only 5 minutes of fire at that pace. That's why, in Allied reports on the Breda 30, and instruction given to the Allied soldiers that were ISSUED with the captured ones, the rate of fire and the reload time HAD NEVER BEEN DEEMED AS PROBLEMS. RL is quite different form movies.
    2
  52. Actually the Breda 30 could provide far more firepower than a BAR. As Ian stated, the weapon was originally issued with two spare barrels. After the first battles, the provision was increased to four. A barrel has to be changed after 200 rounds of almost continuous fire, so it happened quite often that those weapons fired more than 600 rounds continuously. That's full HMG territory.
    2
  53. Yeah. There was at least one spare for gun.
    2
  54. The BAR had been sanctified by the victory, but it was not such a great design.
    2
  55. And think that this sample is made in the XX year of the fascist era, so from october 1942 to october 1943. It seems really impossible to find a Breda made weapon whose machining is less than perfect.
    2
  56. Actually, when this MG had been adopted (1930) the only design around that was really demonstrably better was the ZB vz. 26.
    2
  57.  @omartorres5688  It took decades to make it reliable. Still in WWII, more than 20 years after its introduction, it jammed easily, was hard to clean, and not really suited to work as an LMG (pencil barrel without quick exchange). As Ian stated, the Breda 30 was issued at first with two spare barrels. After the first battles, the provision was enhanced to four. A barrel needed to be changed after 200 rounds of rapid fire, so there was the real problem to fire more than 600 rounds of rapid fire with the Breda. It was 4 times what a BAR could do. Simply, if the BAR was not ideal, the US could throw more BAR at the problem.
    2
  58. The Breda oil was made so to not freeze in cold environments, as vegetal oil does. For all the other weather conditions, vegetal oil was fine. And yes, Italian Army used olive oil for weapon manteinance back then. It was more abundant than other kind of oils. You can easily see lead made Italian Army oilers for Carcano rifles on the net (the lead prevented the vegetal oil from rancidify).
    2
  59. Actually the problems of the "open magazines" are mostly modern days guessings that none noticed when those weapons were in use.
    2
  60. Cause the goal was to not have a detachable magazine. We are used to the fact that, in movies, or at the range, with freshly serviced weapons, all works flawlessly, but at that time 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 the reloading was even more awkward and time consuming than that of the Breda. The very same fact that they considered it speaks volumes).
    2
  61. The function of the part is clearly explained in the manual.
    2
  62. "probably after advancing..." That had something to do with the fact that BOTH the Breda 30 and the BAR were used by 3 men crews? "Oh, and don't forget..." Really the Allied used them, The Brits even stamped an English manual for the British gunners equipped with the Breda 30. That's what the Tactical and Tecnical Trend (the magazine of the US Intelligence) No. 7, Sept. 10, 1942 "Use of Captured Italian Weapons" said of it : "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." That was what the contemporaries, the ones that had to DAILY fight the weapon and use the captured ones, tought of it. Not the armchair opinion of someone that saw it once on a video. No hints of the oiler or the dust cover, or the loading procedure, to be problems at all.
    2
  63. No, cause there is the "out of battery" safety.
    2
  64. Actually the manufacturing standard and the machining of that gun, like that of any Breda made gun, is no less than perfect. You can question the design, but the realization is outstanding.
    2
  65. It's actually pretty simple. The parts count is not that different from any WWII LMG.
    1
  66. There was worse. IE the Type 11.
    1
  67. The handle that's needed to easily replace a hot barrel?
    1
  68. 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
  69. It was meant to adjust the timing of the breech opening when the locking collar was new or worn out.
    1
  70.  @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
  71.  @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
  72.  @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
  73.  @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
  74.  @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
  75.  @firepower7017  Any weapon had been desgined having something in mind. "armies prepare themselves to fight the last war, not the next one".
    1
  76.  @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
  77.  @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
  78.  @firepower7017  And in this sense, the BAR was definitely worse. Allied reports actually praised the Breda 30. All the bashing is a modern-era thing when, in armchair reviews, there is an annoying habit of "if it's different to what i'm used to, then it has to be wrong".
    1
  79.  @firepower7017  And so? Any weapon ever made had been made for a reason. When is mentioned a "worst" is implied "used in a perceptible quantity".
    1
  80.  @firepower7017  It doesn't make any sense. The BAR had been used in WWII, the Type 11 had been used in WWII, etc. They are not exempt by anything.
    1
  81. Actually there were worse. This is the worst Italian machiegun, not the worst WWII.
    1
  82. You are welcome. Mind also the post-WWII battle rifles that still had the provision to be fed with stripper clips (M14, FAL, BM59...). Originally the M14 armed GIs were not issued with all the rounds already in magazines, but with four or five loaded magazines only, and the rest of the rounds in stripper clips (and you needed four stripper clips to load a 20 round magazine). Because magazines were expensive.
    1
  83. It's not misconstrued, it's their function. When the rollers are forced inwards during the recoil, they not only retreat the firing pin, but all the rear part of the bolt, that's really heavy. So they accelerates the rear part of the bolt in respect to the front part, and, by reaction, since the energy impaired to the system is fixed, they slow down the front part and prevent extraction problems.
    1
  84. There had never been a special load for the Breda 30.
    1
  85. For those that had been hit by it.
    1
  86. Other good ideas: Quick exchange barrel. it's the fastest of WWII along with that of the MG42, and it doesn't require the gunner to change position or to move the weapon (M60 designers should have taken note). Reload, doesn't require to the gunner to change position or to move the weapon (differently from the DP-28, or any belt fed MG). Breda weapons tended to be "overmachined", but there is very little precision machining involved (Not by chance the very precise "H" piece is a separate one), so machining was not time consuming.
    1
  87. The CR.42 had been in first line service when the Gloster Gladiator was as well.
    1
  88. Actually to use your most able hand to reload is not a fail. It's not like you are doing much with your right hand while reloading, better to use it for the complex movements, and the left one to simply hold the gun. Mind that this weapon has a shoulder support, so you don't need the right hand to keep it in position.
    1
  89. Is not that they didn't know detachable magazines. Is that 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 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). There was not a single belt fed LMG in the world in 1930. Belts were not that a great solution for LMGs in general, cause, for weight consifderations, you cannot use too long belts in LMG role, and to change a short belt, requires more time than to replace two or three magazines (and you don't have a spent belt hanging from the rifle while trying to run).
    1
  90. It got people killed. A lot of enemies. It wasn't the best design out there, but it usually got the job done.
    1
  91. In WWII to have more than 25 rifle rounds in a magazine meant to be in search of problems.
    1
  92. Why the US Army put a stripper clip guide on the M14, and they were the US, and it was post WWII? We are used to movies, where everything always works, but in reality, in the '30s, it was a REAL problem for anyone to manufacture magazines that were at one time so cheap to be discarded on the field, and so well and consistently manufactured to not have feeding problems. Even the Brits manufactured experimental tilting magazines for the Bren (they had not been adopted in the end, but their loading was far more awkward than that of the Breda).
    1
  93.  @plasticbeetle6209  The trouble with the M249 belt, as described in a Marine report, is that, when it jams (that, with any automatic belt fed weapon is not a question of "if", nor of "when", but of "how often"), the gunner opens the action to clear the jam, and the belt falls into the box. At that point the gunner, other than clearing the jam, has to decide if open the box and search for the end of the belt to use the rest of it, or discard the box and use another one of his limited supply. While he performs all those actions, he's not supporting the squad and he's defenseless.
    1
  94.  @badcopnodonut08  OK. Now come back when you understood at least half of what I said, or when you have cleared up your mind about what a LMG is (a hint. It's NOT a M240). Thank you for having confirmed that to change a belt requires the same time than to change several magazines anyway,
    1
  95. 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. So, no.
    1
  96. Not really better, since its main problem was the lack of a quick change barrel, and the tendency to lock due to overheating.
    1
  97. in WWII Only HMGs could shoot more than 200 rounds continuously without barrel change (if you wanted to mantain it usable), and not all of them. The barrel change of the MG42 was every 150 rounds.
    1
  98.  @BanCorporateOwnedHouses  So who wrote the Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 7, Sept. 10, 1942, was Italian too? That's a really peculiar opinion. The BAR was not a light machinegun, and had been forced to cover that role. It had not a quick exchange barrel, the very light barrel rapidly overheated, it was difficult to strip and service, but if not completely serviced on a daily basis, it rapidly became inoperable. It was so "satisfactory" that, had not the world ended, the US would have replaced it with the WAR (Winchester Automatic Rifle) despite the logistic nightmare that would have meant.
    1
  99.  @BanCorporateOwnedHouses  As said, the US could simply trow more rifles at the problem, and yet, there were multiple occasions were the rifelmen were left without automatic fire cover because the BAR was cooling down. If you needed three BAR to do the work of a single Breda 30, then the BAR is not "sure as hell better than this", it is an inferior design, but the soldiers were lucky enought to be born in a country that could manufacture much more of them. Actually the US Intelligence praised the Breda 30. The "tactical and tecnical trend" (the magazine of the US intelligence) compared it favourably to the BREN, for performances in dusty conditions and because it was more apt to be manned by a single man. To me it was, all in all, a less than satisfactory weapon, but all the bashing is the product of internet era, when opinions tend to be repeated time after time, every time radicalising them further.
    1
  100. A WWII BAR B-Team was composed of a gunner, an assistant gunner and an ammo bearer, for a rifle that, other than having reliability and mainteinance issues, easily overheated (and at that point the gunner only had to wait for it to cool down and NOT provide support fire, since the rifle had not a quick exchange barrel), and was not really apt for firing in prone position, nor for firing from the shoulder. The thing it was really designed to do, firing from the hips, was practically forgotten with the end of WWI. The Breda 30 was originally issued with two spare barrels. After some months of war it was noted that they were often insufficient for the volume of fire the weapon had to provide, and the provision was enhanced to four spare barrels. Any barrel of the Breda 30 is heavier than that of a BAR, and can fire more rounds first to overheat. So how many BARs are needed to provide the volume of fire of a single Breda 30? The USA could simply adress BAR's issues by throwing more rifles at the problem, but that doesn't mean it was better than anything else.
    1
  101. Breda 37, Breda 38, Breda 20/65, Scotti 20/70...
    1
  102. Sometimes I wonder what the vievers 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
  103. Fact is that it was not THAT bad. The "Tactical and Technical Trend" (the magazine of US intelligence) No. 7, Sept. 10, 1942 deemed it to be "mechanically superior to the Bren gun under dusty conditions". Overall it had been surely a less than satisfactory weapon, but all the bashing is more an internet era product.
    1
  104. The Breda 30 was the last offspring of a long development line. All the previous designs of that line had an oiler. Several competitor projects (Ie the Brixia 1930, or the FIAT Model "S", and even the LMG that the Breda 30 replaced (the SIA 1918) hadn't. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/36/d6/cc/36d6cc10cfc38fd03d92dd54b1c646a3.jpg
    1
  105. Non proprio corretto. In realtà ci sono un bel po' di amenità. Ad es: Ogni MG42-MG3 mai costruita ha una canna "tremolante". La canna si muove solo finchè un colpo non viene sparato, poi è l'espansione della cartuccia che ferma il tutto, e l'arma è precisa. Nessuno ha mai notato il mirino sul copricanna essere un problema in sessant'anni di uso dell' MG42-MG3. Ogni mitragliatrice leggera moderna ha un ottica montata sul ricevitore, che non compensa il cambio canna, eppure... Sono classici casi di problemi inventati a tavolino perchè tu sai che l'arma era "cattiva", e quindi devi trovare i motivi per cui era cattiva.
    1
  106. "going into battery" means having the cartridge correctly seated into the chamber and with the bolt closed over it. "out of battery" means having the cartridge not correctly inserted into the chamber. It took the name from the naval artillery battery, where the muzzle loaded guns were moved "out of battery" for recharging, and then moved back "into battery" to fire.
    1
  107. It was enough to change the barrel, since the parent case was the same between 6.5 and 7.35.
    1
  108. Not really Rube Goldberg. 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. The only parts in the action that required precision machining were the "H block" and the rotating lock, so two small separate parts. it was actually an easy MG to manufacture.
    1
  109. Allied reports of the time actually praised the Breda 30. As strange at it may seem, they praised it's reliability in sandy environments compared to the Bren. Internet "truth" are often only misinformations repeated many times. The Chauchat had problems even if kept perfectly clean (the barrel jamming in the shroud due to thermal expansion), but the real plus of the Chauchat was that France could manufacture 260.000 of them in a partially invaded country in the same time UK manufactured 50.000 Lewis gun. One vs one, the Lewis Gun was a better weapon, but one vs five, the Chauchat wins big time.
    1
  110. 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
  111. 20-25 rounds were the norm for LMGs in WWII. Bigger magazines meant to be in search of troubles.
    1
  112. Not really. To change the 50 rounds belt took much more time than to reload even this LMG.
    1
  113. FG-42 was not available in 1930. 20-25 rounds magazine was the norm for LMGs then. More meant to be in search of problems.
    1
  114. There are not loose rounds if you remove a loaded mag.
    1
  115.  @stanleystrycharz2572  MG42 bolt, greatly simplified in respect to the MG34, 16 parts. Bren bolt, 30 parts. Breda 30 bolt, still 4 parts. So, what's the part of the weapon that has so many pieces to make up for the fact that its action had from 1/4 to less than 1/7 parts that that of the concurrent designs, and to make you state "I guess Italians never understood the K.I.S.S. model of designing things! "?
    1
  116. Lots of pieces? 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
  117. Actually the US intelligence deemed it to be superior to the BREN in dusty conditions. An oiler is less than ideal in those conditions, but that's only ONE of the charateristics.
    1
  118. In the MG42 the rollers force the rear part of the bolt to recoil at an higher speed than the front part. Since the force impaired to the bolt by the cartridge is fixed, higher speed of the rear part of the bolt means slower speed of the front part. Since the rear part of the bolt is the heavier one, a slightly higher speed of the rear part means a considerably slower speed of the front part, and the speed of the front part is what counts to avoid extraction problems. The MG34 works the same way. Only it uses inclined surfaces instead of rollers. When the front part of the bolt rotates, the rear part (the heavier one) has to recoil at double the speed of the front one, but to accelerate something at double the speed in the same time, you need 4 times the energy. Here energy is fixed, so what you obtain is the slowdown of the front part of the bolt. In the Breda 30 the bolt doesn't rotate and is a single piece. Bolt and barrel recoil in a straight line until the barrel stops and the bolt snatch the case from it. Like in a typical semiauto pistol.
    1
  119. Actually the Breda 30 it had a better real ROF than a BAR. As Ian said, the MG was initially issued with two spare barrels. After the first clashes, it was seen that they were not enough, and the provision was rised to four. A barrel had to be replaced after 200 rounds of continuous fire. So there was the real problem to fire more than 600 rounds in continuous with this gun. A the same time, a BAR, after 150 rounds of continuous fire, was pretty much a club, waiting for it to cool off.
    1
  120. The Japanese Type 11 was way worse.
    1
  121.  @rudolphantler6309  You are welcome. It comes from: "Old French baterie, from battre ‘to strike’, from Latin battuere . The original sense was ‘metal articles wrought by hammering’, later ‘a number of pieces of artillery used together’".
    1
  122. It comes from the time of black powder muzzle-loaded guns in warships. Those guns recoiled during fire (tipically of a broadside) into the ship, so that it was possible to muzzle-load them. Once done, they had to be pushed to the side of the ship again, once there they were "in battery" (with all the other guns), ready to be fired again. Today, "in battery" means that the cartridge is perfectly seated in the chamber, and the breech is closed, so the firearm is ready to be fired safely.
    1
  123. False. The first weapon that failed was the Tommy gun of Walter Audisio (good example of US MPs quality), the second was the Beretta 1934 pistol of Lampredi, and the one that worked was a French MAS36, of Moretti.
    1
  124. The US B-team (the one that serviced ONE BAR in WWII) was composed of three men as well. Gunner, assistant gunner, ammo bearer. That was the norm for any automatic weapon in WWII and later.
    1
  125. The MG34's barrel rattles as well, but both guns were considered to be very accurate. The barrel rattles only until a round is fired. Once fired, the expansion of the case tighten the action, and the barrel acts like a free floating barrel.
    1
  126.  @TrangleC  Yeah. That's the difference. The difference is between extracting the old magazine, inserting the new one, and opening the magazine, inserting the clip, closing the magazine. Many people, like you, think everything they are not used to is a big issue. In reality the time spent in reloading has very little importance. Is a problem only for harmchair "experts". IE the wartime instructions on the use of the BREN provided a practical ROF of one magazine a minute. It was contemplated an "exceptional" ROF of four magazines a minute, warning that, at that rof, the barrel had to be changed after 10 magazines (so two minutes and half of fire), and the entire squad had only 20 magazines available (so 5 minutes. Battles tend to last a little more). A second more in reloading counts for nothing.
    1
  127.  @TrangleC To have a quick exchange barrel is what determines the practical rate of fire of a MG. To spend three seconds in reloading the weapon instead of two doesn't change it. There is no way to quickly fire 600 rounds with a FG-42, like there wasn't with the BAR.
    1
  128.  @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
  129. 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
  130. There were way worse. Type 11 for example and, as a LMG, the BAR was worse too.
    1
  131. 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
  132. The gunner had one spare.
    1
  133. In 1930, when it had been adopted, there were not many better designs around.
    1
  134. 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
  135. 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
  136.  @jameslooker4791  The strip fed allowed it to fire without interruptions. Belts have to be changed.
    1
  137. The Breda 37-38 had always been considered a very good weapon. Wartime Allied reports deemed it to be "excellent".
    1
  138. The bolt of this gun is made of 4 parts in total. The one of an MG34 is made of 28 parts.
    1
  139. 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
  140. 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
  141. 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
  142. 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
  143. 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
  144. It had been described as "mechanically superior to the Bren gun under dusty conditions" too.
    1
  145. 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
  146. 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
  147. 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
  148. 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
  149.  @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
  150.  @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
  151.  @hugossg7908  Those were the words of those that had to use them.
    1
  152. 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
  153. 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
  154. 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
  155. 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
  156. 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
  157. The bolt of this gun is made of four parts. The one of a MG34 is made of 28 parts.
    1
  158. Allied reports of the time actually compared this gun favourably with the Bren, particularly for reliability in dusty environments.
    1
  159. 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
  160. 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
  161. 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
  162. 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
  163. 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
  164. No. the catch only prevents the barrel to rotate.
    1
  165.  @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
  166. 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
  167. Joe Langley
    1
  168. Lahti-Saloranta M/26 "assorted mistakes". Type 11 Type 96...
    1
  169. Infact is a short-recoil rotating lock.
    1
  170. 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
  171.  @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
  172. 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
  173. 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
  174. 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
  175. 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
  176. 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
  177. 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
  178. The Brits regularly reused the captured Breda 30 both in East and North Africa. They printed instruction manuals in English for the gunners that were ISSUED with the captured Breda 30 and, in the reports, even praised them, comparing it favourably with the Bren.
    1
  179.  @michaels5210  Sorry, Youtube doesn't allow to post direct links. You can search for the "tactical and technical trends", for the Breda 30 English manual (printed by the Brits for the gunners that had to reuse captured weapons) or for George M. Chinn "the machinegun" (Prepared for the Bureau of Ordnance , Department of the Navy, 1951) vol I.
    1
  180.  @michaels5210  How was the general tone of "BAR, BREN, zb26, etc…. All very effective with one operator... MG34, much more firepower..." was to you? Tactical and Technical Trends (the magazine of US intelligence), No. 7, Sept. 10, 1942. "Use of Captured Italian Weapons" "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." You can google "MG42 drum" and have all the images and descriptions you want. It contained a 50 rounds belt. IE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol6q5NRiUP Having already loaded "drums" the operations to switch "drums" are: Rack the charging handle. Detatch the empty drum. Open the feeding window of the loaded drum. Extract the belt to expose some live round. Open the MG. Attach the loaded drum. Place the first round of the belt precisely into the action. Close the MG. All this for 50 rounds. To not wanting to hear is only up to you.
    1
  181.  @michaels5210  So the change of barrel affects especially the Breda 30, because the Breda 30 was bad, without any document of the time noticing it? Please. You said the thing was complicated, I said why it was not. You then started with "BAR, BREN, zb26, etc…. All very effective with one operator... MG34, much more firepower..." and I'm being passive aggressive?
    1
  182.  @michaels5210  Despite the existence of people that take them as gospel, these clips are amateur works, and I take them as that. The "shifting zero" is the classic example of a problem invented because you "know" that the weapon is bad, and so you feel to have to illustrate some "problem". The MG42/MG3 has the front sight on the barrel shroud exactly like the Breda 30. None ever noticed that being a problem in 80 years of use of the weapon. The DP-27, despite having a fixed barrel, and so it could have had the front sight on the barrel, had the front sight on the barrel shroud exactly like the Breda 30. None noticed it being a problem for all the decades of use of the MG. Every modern MG has an optic fixed to the receiver that doesn't compensate for the barrel change. None noticed that being a problem to this day. We are used to movies where weapons always works, but that was not the case in WWII. Then an automatic weapon jamming was not a problem of "if" nor a problem of "when". It was a problem of "how often". At that time it was a REAL problem to manufacture magazines that were so well built to not have feeding issues and so cheap to be discarded on the field. Even the Brits experimented tilting magazines with the BREN (they didn't adopt them in the end, but they were much more awkward than that of the Breda, and you needed two clips to fill one). It was still a felt problem for the NATO countries in the '50s. Have you ever wondered why the M14 has a stripper clip guide? This is the stripper clip of a Canadian FAL, does this remind you something? Only that you need TWO of them to fill a magazine ( https://i1.wp.com/www.forgottenweapons.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Screen-Shot-2019-07-02-at-8.59.38-AM-copy.png?fit=684%2C738&ssl=1&w=640 ) "large gaps to allow gunk to get into ammo" is another "harmchair problem". A minor issue that harmchair "experts" inflates to gigantic proportions "that gun will jam at the slightest sign of dirt!" Ironically the same people seem to came over belt feeding. Were belts closed? I said BOLT. Bolt body, extractor, striker, striker spring, four parts. Do you want to add the locking ring despite it not being really part of the bolt? Make five. A BREN BOLT ASSEMBLY IS MADE OF 30 PARTS. All in all the Breda 30 was an unsatisfactory weapon for several reasons, but the difference between the best and the worst WWII LMG is a question of nuances.
    1
  183.  @michaels5210  When used as LMGs, the MG42 and MG34 used a 50 rounds belt can (that the MG eats in 2.5 seconds). Had you ever seen a MG42 gunner trying to change it? It's MUCH quicker to change two or three magazines, even reload the Breda 30 two or three times. It's not by chance that the concept of GPMG took decades to impose itself (It practically needed them to be almost always carried by trucks) and it's not a definitive victory. The General Dynamics NGSW doesn't have a belt-fed option. And you can see how to change some magazine is infact faster than changing the short belts of the other bids. The rate of fire of the Breda is NEVER mentioned as a problem of the weapon in Allied reports. Instead Allied reports indicates that the Breda was more apt than the BREN exactly to be used by a single man, infact a single gunner, with the BREDA, can both reload and change barrel without changing his position, or the position of the weapon. They indicate as issues instead the lack of a carrying handle and that of a dedicated fixed tripod (BUT NOT THE RELOAD OR THE RATE OF FIRE). See how the people that REALLY used the weapons back then gave importance to COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS than what modern harmchair "experts" tend to do? IE, Ian just reviewed the DP-27. It has a quick exchange barrel, right? Not really. Hypotetically, by moving the weapon out of line and grabbing the scorching hot muzzle, you could change the barrel, but in reality, no spare barrels were provided to the gunner. The pan magazine was a good solution, right? Not really. You can't really change magazine without looking at what you are doing, so exposing your head over the weapon. A thing that can easily have lethal consequences. The M1 Garand with its pencil, not quick change, barrel could provide a laughable volume of fire in respect to the Breda 30, or any other real LMG.
    1
  184.  @michaels5210  The BAR, with its pencil, not quick change, barrel could provide a laughable volume of fire in respect to the Breda 30, or any other real LMG. At the start of the war the Breda 30 was issued with two spare barrels. After the first battles, it was deemed to be insufficient, and the provision was rised to four. That means there was the real problem to fire more than 600 rounds in quick succession with the Breda 30. Good luck to do anything close with the BAR. The lone MG operator in WWII exists only in Hollywood. A US B-team (the one with the BAR) was composed of gunner, assistant gunner, ammo bearer. At least three people. The mag change of the BREN was made by the assistant. To operate any WWII belt fed MG without someone holding the belt meant to be in search of stoppages. As for practical volume of fire, the BREN manual allowed the operator to fire ONE MAG FOR MINUTE in normal circumstances. In exceptional circumstances that volume of fire could be enhanced to four mags for minute. Keeping in mind that, at that pace, the barrel had to be changed after 10 mags, and the entire provision of the squad was of 20 magazines. Battles tend to last for more than 5 minutes. The allied reports on the Breda 30 NEVER mention volume of fire as a problem of the weapon.
    1
  185. ? 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
  186.  @Sreven199  The BAR doesn't have a quick exchange barrel,and that alone makes it an inferior LMG. Not only the Breda 30 had, with the MG42, the fastest barrel exchange of WWII (and one that didn't require to move the gun, or the gunner to change position at all. M60's designers should have taken note) but, as Ian stated, after the first battles the provision of 2 spare barrels had been enhanced to four. Since a barrel needed to be changed after 200 rounds of continuous fire, that means that there was the real problem of firing more than 600 rounds for gun in quick succession. You couldn't even think to do anything like that with the BAR, so it was a worse LMG. Mind that wartime allied reports praised the Breda 30 and compared it favourably with the BREN, deeming it to be more reliable than the British LMG in dusty conditions. The bashing is mostly an harmchair internet-era thing.
    1
  187.  @Sreven199  The BAR was a way worse LMG than the Breda 30.
    1
  188. 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
  189. Much simpler than a BAR actually.
    1
  190. No. The 6.5 Carcano is not "whimpy" (it's more powerful than the 5.56 NATO and in the same range of the 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC). The problem of short recoil actions with rifle cartridges is that, when the barrel stops, and the bolt keeps on moving, the cartridge, in respect to che chamber, accelerates fron "0" to the max speed instantly, and that can cause a too harsh extraction and a case rupture (the problem was not that the MG didn't extract, but that it ripped the base of the cartridge from the side) .That doesn't cause problems with pistol cartridges, because they are short (so there is not much surface of the case attached to the chamber) and low pressure. But already with shotgun ammos, Browning invented the complicated long recoil action to give the cartridges all the time in the world to shrink down and be extracted at slow speed. All the short recoil rifle action that don't use oil or fluted chamber use a "cam" system that starts to extract the cartridge when the barrel is still moving (Fiat 1914, Browning 1919, MG42...). BTW, the Hispano Suiza HS404 20mm cannon, and all its derivates in use still nowadays, uses oiled cartridges.
    1
  191. 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
  192. From a manufacturing/finishing point of view, no WWII Breda made weapon is less than excellent.
    1
  193. Infact in almost 80 years of use of MG34 and MG42/MG3 none noticed this being a problem at all. It becomes one when you are talking of a gun that today is almost universally considered a failed design (wartime reports were not so one-sided actually), but on the functioning of wich you only have third-hand reports, and so you are guessing what could be "wrong" with it.
    1
  194. The easiness of servicing was among the things Allied reports of the time praised about the Breda 30.
    1
  195.  DOUG HEINS  The Brits not only used the captured ones, but printed manual in English for the British gunners issued with them. https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/11720886/breda-model-30-manualpdf-forgotten-weapons For the Allied opinion on the Breda 30, see Tactical and Technical Trends (the magazine of US intelligence), No. 7, Sept. 10, 1942, "Use of Captured Italian Weapons": "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." For that matter the 6.5x52 Carcano has 43% more muzzle energy than 5.56 NATO, 22% more than 7.62X39 and 6.8 SPC and about the same of 6.5 Grendel. If you don't consider that adequate, is only your problem.
    1
  196.  DOUG HEINS  I didn't miss it, but I've read wartime allied reports on the use of captured weapons that stated that the Breda 30 was "superior to the Bren in dusty conditions", and consider the opinion of those that had to daily fight vs. the actual weapon, and daily use the captured ones, superior to an harmchair review. Apparently you missed the difference between an information and an opinion.
    1
  197.  DOUG HEINS  So did the Breda. As Ian stated, the weapon was originally issued with two spare barrels. After the first battles, the provision had been enhanced to 4. that means that the Breda 30 gunners encountered the REAL problem of firing more than 600 rounds without interruption. Try this with a BAR.
    1
  198. Don't know for the Model T, but the Breda 30 surely had FAR less moving parts than much of the concurrent designs. MG34 bolt: 24 parts MG42 bolt: 16 parts BAR bolt: 18 parts BREN bolt: 30 parts! Breda 30 bolt, 4 parts.
    1
  199.  @BobSmith-dk8nw  I did, and it doesn't count. We are not talking of our personal experiences here. Those were other weapons used in other wars by crews with completely different training.
    1
  200.  @BobSmith-dk8nw  Making appreciations on your interlocutor isn't doing you any favour. Fact is that armours for the water jackets had been made, armours for barrels haven't. Heavy water jackets had been replaced with heavy metal barrels in MMGs after WWI. A water jacket is a way bigger target than a barrel, it's way easier to damage, and, if you have a quick exchange barrel damaged, you can simply replace it. It's quite obvious that any piece of equipment can be moved. But MMGs are not made for that, and so to try to use them like that had limits. Both LMGs and MMGs had a role in WWII. Soviets had the DP-28 and the Goryunov. Italians had the Breda 30 and Breda 37. Japanese had the Type 99 and Type 92. It's not that the US were special in this regard. Weapons are designed for a role, and the role the BAR had been designed for was marching fire from the hip. It shown its limits in every other use (it's not that it doesn't work. It's that it could have been made better for any other role). Unfortunately marching fire from hte hip had shown to be impractical already in WWI. The way the Marines used the weapon was the way they worked around the problem, thanks to the fact they could have more of the weapons. But more of good weapons would have worked better anyway. Simply M1919 barrels were not changed on the field during battles. It was an armorer's job. Squads had not spare barrels, and they were not supposed to dismantle a scorching hot weapon under fire with small parts lying on the ground. If you have to dismantle a weapon under fire, something went wrong. Overheated closed bolt MGs cook off belts because of their very same mechanics.The fact that other kind of failures can cause the same problem doesn't change this fact. If you burnt out you barrel, something went wrong either. Equipment in general is not intended to be damaged. To intentionally damage it was a way to work around the problem, while a quick exchange barrel would have solved it. See "working around the problem". Yes, people in the army tend to know how to use the tools they were given. Being them LMGs without quick exchange barrels, or LMGs with clip-fed magazines. See "logistics". FN modified The BAR it into a viable LMG in 1932, but the US Army preferred to keep it as it was for the sake of interchangeability of parts. The limitations of the BAR became evident only once they had been used in combat, and, at that point, it was too late. You can change the engine in an already designed airframe (the P-51 had been designed for the V-1710), not the action of an already designed MG.
    1
  201.  @BobSmith-dk8nw  They had two, one to use, and a spare in case the first one was damaged. The magazine was normally loaded with the stripper clips while attached to the weapon. Fact is that to load them that way "wasn't a problem" at all. The magazine didn't limit the practical ROF in respect to other LMGs. The BAR had been originally designed for walking fire. That kind of fire proved to be impractical already in WWI. In WWII a LMG was needed, but the BAR was what was in the US Army inventory, so they used it. FN modified it into a viable LMG, but the US Army preferred to keep it as it was for the sake of interchangeability of parts. The weapon was unfit for the task, and there were reports about BAR gunners often taken out of action, waiting for their weapon to cool off but, as said the US could simply throw more BAR to the problem. It's obvious that having 50% more weapons solves a lot of problems, but having 50% more good weapons would have solved more. The M1917 was an HMG (47 kg with the tripod). It was not portable. It was heavier than a Breda 37 with tripod. Also, as noticed during WWI, water jackets were prone to be pierced by bullets and splinters or damaged otherwise (especially using short recoil actions, that requires the barrel to move). That's one of the reasons none designed new water cooled MGs after WWI, but they had been replaced by quick exchange barrels. obviously, if all you have is a water-cooled MG, you use what you have. As said, If you didn't want to overheat the M1919, your ROF was limited to 60 rounds a minute. 450-500 rpm was the cyclic ROF, and yes it was regulated to be like that, like for any rifle caliber MG in WWII. There is no problem to obtain a cyclic ROF of around 1000 RPM in a rifle caliber MG. It's more difficult to limit it and, to obtain that, several "tricks" were used (heavier bolts, longer travel of the bolt, machanical rate reducers...). The long travel of the striker of the Breda 30 is meant to reduce the ROF to what was deemed as optimal too. The M1919 couldn't be intentionally overheated because it fired from a closed bolt, so the moment it overheated, it cooked off an entire belt if the gunner didnt' intentionally jam it (notice that the Brits modified their M1919s, used in flexible mountings on aircrafts, to fire from an open bolt, the US Army never did it). Equipment in general is not intended to be damaged. To intentionally damage it was a way to work around the problem, while a quick exchange barrel would have solved it. As said, if the US had a problem with their weapons, they could throw more weapons to the problem. Others were not so lucky and so, to use subpar equipment, was more damaging for them. To change the barrels of BARs and M1919 was an armorer's job. It wasn't done on the field. It would have required to completely disassemble the weapon while scorching hot.
    1
  202.  @BobSmith-dk8nw  I saw that clip. But I read wartime reports as well. The Allied ones. So the ones that could compare the Breda 30 to the Allied weapons their soldiers were used to. The Brits reused the captured Breda 30, wrote manuals for the Allied gunners issued with them, and wrote intelligence reports. The magazine had never been mentioned as a problem, and not even as a curiosity. At all. The reason is the one i mentioned. The magazine didn't limit the practical ROF in respect to other LMGs (real LMGs, better to not even talk of the BAR, forced into a LMG role without even having a detachable barrel. Mind what Ian mentioned. After the first battles the provision of spare barrels of the Breda 30 was enhanced from 2 to 4. That meant that the Breda faced the real problem to fire more than 600 rounds continuously in battle). You could fire 6 Breda 30 magazines (so 120 rounds) in a minute reloading the magazine while it was attached to the weapon (the practical ROF was actually indicated in 150 RPM). And that practical ROF was needed only in dire emergency. Because the squad had not enough ammunitions to sustain it for long anyway. Battles don't last five minutes. BTW, the M1919 had the same problem of the BAR. If you didn't want to overheat it, your ROF was limited to 60 rounds a minute. The faster you decided to shoot, the sooner you'll have to stop to cool-off the weapon. simply, if the US had a problem with their weapons, they could throw more weapons to the problem.
    1
  203.  @BobSmith-dk8nw  Mind that any WWII LMG team was composed of several people. The US Army B-team (the one with the BAR) was composed of machine-gunner, assistant-gunner and ammo bearer. In the British BREN team it was the assistant that changed the magazines (and communicated to the gunner that the weapon was ready by patting his helmet). the task of the gunner was to aim and fire. Actually one of the advantages of the Breda 30 (recognised by Allied reports) was that the weapon could be reloaded and the barrel changed by the gunner without he having to move the weapon or change his firing position (the designers of the M60 should have taken note). That of the magazine was a false problem. WWII LMGs actually didn't fire that much. In the British manual on the use of the BREN the ideal ROF was of one magazine (of 30 theoretical rounds, and 27 real ones) a minute. It was contemplated an emergency ROF of 4 magazines a minute, keeping in mind that at that pace, the barrel had to be changed every 10 magazines, and the provision of the entire squad was of 20 magazines (so of only 5 minutes). A Breda 30 could fire at the same practical ROF without problems. To reload the MG34 with the "drum" 50 rounds magazine (in reality a can containing a 50 rounds belt) took so long that it was faster to reload a Breda 30 three times. All in all, the Breda was not a great weapon by any means, but it was not so bad either.
    1
  204.  @BobSmith-dk8nw  You are looking at all the weapon. I said "bolt". ONLY the bolt of an MG34 is made of 28 parts, and that of a BAR is made of 18 parts. Breda 30 bolt is made of bolt body, extractor, firing pin, recoil spring. It's as simple as that of an SMG. This is the bolt (only the bolt) of an MG34. https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1524/1342/products/MG34GDF1_12.jpg?v=1600557086 Rube Goldberg for you. That of the MG42 had been greatly simplified, but was still composed of 16 parts.
    1
  205. 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
  206. No. An MG34 bolt is composed of 28 parts. This one is composed of ...four parts, recoil spring included. The barrel change of the Breda 30 is way faster and easier. To change an MG34 50 rounds "drum" magazine requires more time than to reload the Breda 3 times.
    1
  207. the MG42 is a recoil operated weapon, but is not a purely recoil operated 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 wedge that pushes out the roller is both part of the striker and of the bolt carrier, as the bolt carrier is in direct contact with it during recoil and, when the wedge shaped part recoils in respect to the bolt head , pushed by the rollers it pushes back the bolt carrier too. The iternal spring around the striker (bolt catch) wasn't generally present in wartime MG42s, it had been introduced very late in the war only to adress cases of out of battery shots caused by the rebound of the bolt carrier. It only serves to provide to the bolt carrier a "soft landing" when the action closes. There are several models of it, some of them doesn't load the locking wedge at all (so working purely by inertia). As for the Breda 30, I would not have adopted it. It was not that poor of a design, but it was not easily improvable, and there were better designs to start from, transfering in them the good features of the M30 (essentially, the quick exchange barrel). IE the Brixia 1920 (a rather unfortunate HMG, but a good base for a LMG), or the SIA 1918 (a scaled up Villar Perosa, but a good base for a lever delayed LMG, it already had a two piece bolt with the rear one recoiling faster due to inclined surfaces, but the rear bolt-striker was really too light compared to the front part). Waiting a couple of years, they could have adopted a gas operated LMG based on the Breda PG instead.
    1
  208. It's a foldable shoulder support. It's useful when you fire from prone position (that way the weapon is suspended between the bipod and your shoulder, and you don't have to keep it high with your arms.
    1
  209. And what I'm saying is that the Breda 30 had been adopted in 1930. The MG 34 did non exist then. In 1930, the only LMG design that was demonstrabily better than the Breda 30 was the ZB vz. 26. In the subsequent years, some other better design was introduced, but the armies usually don't replace the weapons they adopted after only few years, only cause something that could be better had been introduced somewere. Think, for example, that the US soldiers fought in Korea with a semiauto rifle, six years after the adoption of the AK47 and ten years after the adoption of the STG44. Shouldn't the US have copied and produced a weapon such as the STG44 or the AK47, instead of providing his army with an obsolete weapon? And, in 1959, ten years after the adoption of the AK47, and 15 after the adoption of the STG44, the M1 rifle had been replaced with a battle rifle that was already obsolete the moment it had been adopted. Cause sometimes armies keep on designing weapons based on obsolete ideas until those proved to be obsolete on the field.
    1
  210. If you copy something four years in advance, is not copying.
    1
  211. IE cause the MG34 had been adopted four years later, and usually armies don't replace their weapons after only four years since the adoption.
    1
  212. The reloading is a false problem, and infact wartime Allied reports didn't indicate it to be a problem at all. It's only different to what youi are use to. BREN instructions indicated an ideal ROF during battles of a magazine (of 30 theoric rounds, and 27 practical ones) a minute, and an emergency ROF of 4 magazines a minute (alerting that, at that rate, the barrel had to be changed every 10 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 well.
    1
  213. Complexity? The bolt of this gun is made of four pieces. The one of the MG34 is made of 28 pieces.
    1
  214. LIke for any WWII Army, the Italian one had some exceptional equipment, some good one, some average, some subpar and some abysmal. Their problem had always been of quantity (Italian industrial production in 1939 was 1/4 of that of UK, and you can't expand your industrial base by snapping your fingers), not of quality. You can check the first battle of Bir el Gubi to see how POS those tanks were, the few times they could fight in near numerical parity.
    1
  215.  @ImmortalSugimoto792  And the gunner is supposed to ditch it in case of barrel change? Recently added or not, the 240 iso only an example. Practically any modern GPMG has an optic made that way, and the gunner aims with that. The iron sights are there only in case the optic is damaged. It's not like, when the barrel is changed, the optic is removed.
    1
  216.  @ImmortalSugimoto792  The 240 is issued with an optic fixed to the receiver and the gunner aims with that. The iron sights are there only in case the optic is damaged. It's not like, when the barrel is changed, the optic is removed.
    1
  217. The front sight on the barrel shroud, or the rattling barrel, are those problems that exist only in tabletop reviews, when the reviewer knows that the weapon is "bad" and has to find some reason for it to be bad. None noticed them being problems in 60 years of use of the MG42/MG3. ALL Modern general-purpose machineguns have a single optic, mounted on the receiver, how do they cope with barrel change? https://blog.1800gunsandammo.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/fn-762-minimi-4.jpg The oiler was a minus. but it wasn't strictly needed, and many gunnenrs didnt' use it. Simply, already during WWI, it was noticed that, whit automatic weapons, it was all peaches and dandelions until you could use brass cased ammos but when, due to war shortages, you had to use steel cased ammos, extraction was a lot less granted. However, despite the oiler, allied reports praised the behaviour of the weapon, compared to the BREN, in dusty conditions. The heavy bolt, so with a greater inertia, star-shaped to give the dirt somewere to go instead of locking the mechanism, were plusses. To use more than 20-25 rounds for magazine in WWII meant to be in search of problems, and it was a REAL problem to manufacture magazines that were, at one time, so cheap to be discarded on the field and so consistently manufactured to not have feeding issues (it was a problem still for the US in the '50s, that's why the M14 has the stripper-clip rail, and that was the US Army). Even the Brits tried a fixed tilting magazine for the BREN (it had not been adopted in the end, but it was much more awkward than the Breda one). The reduced volume of fire was not really a problem. A BREN gun was supposed to fire a magazine a minute in normal battle conditions. At the start of the war it was allowed an "emergency" rof of seven magazines/minute. during the war, due to battel experiences, that was reduced to four magazines/minute, and advertising the gunners that, in those conditions, the barrel had to be changed after ten magazines, and the entire provision of the squad was of just 20 magazines.
    1
  218. Since they had them, they could decide what method was better.
    1
  219. Every MG had at least a spare magazine, like it had two (and then four) spare barrels.
    1
  220. Both the MG34 and MG42 are mainly delayed blowback actions, with a secondary help by the short recoiling barrel, and the Vickers unlocks the barrel from the bolt way before the barrels stops, allowing the bolt and the barrel to start to separate slowly. None of them is a pure short recoil design. Like that of an handgun, or that of the Breda M30. They have a short recoiling barrel, a bolt, AND some other system (two piece bolt with the parts recoiling at different speed, toggle, ecc...) That's revealing in itself. A pure short recoil action is simpler than the systems used in MG34, MG42, Vickers and so on. Why had they to complicate the designs, if a pure short recoil action can work flawlessly? Cause it doesn't work so flawlessly, so you have to invent something to make it work. Obviously gas operated MGs can have extraction issues, and lever delayed blowback can have them, and simple blowbacks can have too. The fact that pure short recoil actions and long bottleneck cartridges doesn't match well doesn't mean that only short recoil actions can have extraction issues. But in those cases is really question of bad tuning. The HS 404 is a "gas unlocked recoil operated" design. The gas doesn't cycle the action, but simply unlocks the bolt, and then the residual pressure of the gasses in the barrel cycle the action. It's not impossible to make a similar design work without oiling the cartridges (The Scotti action worked the same way, only with the bolt rotating instead of tilting, and only the Mod. X rifle required oiling, while all the MGs didn't), but to find the perfect timing to open the action (when there is enough pressure in the barrel to cycle the action and not enough to damage the cases) is more difficult than in a straight gas-operated weapon.
    1
  221. The "weird wrapping" was standard from the factory. It had a better aspect when new, but not even that much. It was not made to be nice to see.
    1
  222. It's actually a very simple weapon. IE 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
  223. Actually there was a very handy manual in English, printed by the Brits to instruct the machinegunners to reuse captured ones ( https://www.forgottenweapons.com/wp-content/uploads/Breda%2030/Breda%20Model%2030%20manual.pdf ). None of the cited "problems" is indicated as an issue at all. The US intelligence even deemed the Breda to be "superior to the BREN in dusty conditions" ( Tactical and Technical Trends, the magazine of US intelligence, No. 7, Sept. 10, 1942. "use of captured Italian weapons").
    1
  224. An MG34 bolt is composed of 28 finely machined parts. A BAR bolt is composed of 18 parts. A Breda 30 bolt is composed of... 4 parts, recoil spring included. In the receiver practically only the H block and the locking piece (so two separate parts) required precision machining. It actually was a pretty easy MG to manufacture.
    1
  225. Not really. All in all it was an unsatisfactory weapon, but with several good design choices in respect to other designs.
    1
  226. Unusual is different from overengineered. The bolt of this gun is made of four parts. The one of a MG34 is made of 28 parts.
    1
  227.  @walker68175  This gun has a pretty straightforward ejection. No such problem had ever been reported, and you can see in samples fired the consistency of the ejection pattern. https://youtu.be/C-D3nN4QycM?t=274
    1
  228. It can be easily detatched actually, and the gun was issued with a spare.
    1
  229. The MG42 is mainly a roller delayed blowback and the MG34 is mainly a lever delayed blowback (using inclined surfaces instead of a lever). Infact in those weapons is simply the weight of the bolt that dictates the ROF. Both of them work by making the rear part of the bolt accelerate at a higher speed than the bolt face. Having a bolt face comparatively slow in the first part of the extraction prevents problems. In the Vickers, bolt and barrel unlock way before the barrel stop its rearward motion, so they begin separating slowly.
    1
  230. The mechanism actually worked. It's not like the gun didn't fire. 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
  231. At that time, 20-25 round mags were the norm for LMGs. To build bigger magazines meant to be in search of problems. 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
  232. The long travel of the firing pin was useful to reduce the ROF too. To have an automatic weapon that fires 900-1000 RPM is easy. To have one that fires 450-500, especially in a weapon that is not gas actuated, you have to use some trick.
    1
  233. They were used, and the Brits even stamped an English manual for them. 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
  234. In reality it worked just fine, it was by no means among the best LMGs of the war, but it get the job done. All the "worst LMG ever made" thing are just after-war shenanigans.
    1
  235. Infact in this gun the only parts that had to be built to top notch specs were he H block and the locking collar. All the rest needs a lot of machining, but not that much precision.
    1
  236. 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.
    1
  237. Cause the goal was to not use a detachable magazine. We are used to the fact that, in movies, or at the range, with freshly serviced weapons, all works flawlessly, but at that time 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 the reloading was even more awkward and time consuming than that of the Breda, requiring two stripper clips and the magazine having to be kept still by hand during reloading. The very same fact that they considered it speaks volumes).
    1
  238. 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
  239. Yes, but in the sense that the Chauchat was actually a good weapon, and the Breda 30 was not that bad.
    1
  240. What could be called the LMG version of the M1919 (being very generous, cause 15kg is not "light" by any means), the A6, came out only in 1943. The MG08/15 was an HMG with a stock.
    1
  241. At the time of it's adoption there was not a single belt fed LMG in the world, and the concept wouldn't be a success still for several decades.
    1
  242. Seven what?
    1
  243. Given the design of the weapon (with the barrel not being locked on the receiver, but on the locking collar), the wobbling is simply given by the headspacing. Once fired, the expansion of the cartridge tightens all the parts, and the weapon is very accurate.
    1
  244. 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
  245. Actually the thing is field strippable without tools in any parts that needs cleaning. That was not granted at that time (cough… BAR… cough…).
    1
  246. It's understandable, but really it doesn't have effect on accuracy. Given the design of the weapon, the wobbling is simply given by the headspacing. Once fired, the expansion of the cartridge tightens all the parts, and the weapon is very accurate.
    1
  247. Tell to the 22nd Armoured Brigade that at Bir El Gubi their asses had been kicked by non effective enemies then.
    1
  248. Actually the Brits used intensively the captured samples, and printed an English manual for it.
    1
  249. And so? Several WWII LMGs didn't have one. Recently Ian made a video on DP-28 vs LS-26. Neither of those had a carrying handle.
    1
  250. The problem of the Breda 38 was that it only came out in 1938. The Italian Army didn't wan't to change its main LMG after only 8 years since the adoption.
    1
  251. I'll try to be more clear. THERE HAD NEVER BEEN A SPECIAL 6.5 CARCANO LOAD MEANT TO BE USED IN MACHINEGUNS. NEVER. Then, I'm not talking about "modern loading" but about the loading used at that time. AT THAT TIME the 6.5X52 Carcano was as powerful as the 6.5×54mm Mannlicher–Schönauer (Greek service cartridge) and the 6.5X53R (Dutch and Romanian service cartridge), that were direct 6.5 Carcano copies, and slightly more powerful than the 6.5x50 Arisaka. (Japanese service cartridge). All those cartridges, like the 6.5X52 Carcano can cycle machineguns without problems. Finally, it's not "i.e. than the 6,5 swedish" but "ONLY the 6.5 swedish". The 6.5 Swedish was THE ONLY 6.5 service round that was more powerful than the 6.5 Carcano at that time.
    1
  252. The Breda 30 uses exactly the same cartridges of the rifle. The 6.5x52mm Carcano cartridge is not "quite weak" compared to other 6mm rifle cartridges. It's as powerful as the 6.5×54mm Mannlicher–Schönauer and the 6.5X53R Dutch-Romanian (that were 6.5 Carcano copies) and slightly more powerful than the 6.5x50 Arisaka.
    1
  253. Mind that this gun is at least effectively field strippable, in any part that needed cleaning, without using tools. A thing that wasn't guaranteed at that time.
    1
  254. "but we also had the browning m1919." And the Italians also had the M37 and M38, so? "In wartime units are under strength more often than not. It was probably more likely used by an individual with one other person humping ammo." And that's true only for the US Army? The Italians had never been under strenght? What you think "would be an unnecessary use of manpower" is immaterial. The story is that the Breda 30 was meant to be used by a 3 men team EXACTLY AS the BAR was meant to be used by a 3 men team. Occasionally they were BOTH used by reduced crews. The difference was that, after 150 rounds of continous fire, the 3 men crew of the BAR had to gaze their navels until the gun cooled off.
    1
  255. A BAR is a 20 round weapon, and it's team (B-team) was composed of a gunner, an assistant gunner and an ammunition bearer, that means a 3 men crew. With the difference that a BAR has not a quick exchange barrel. 150 rounds and the 3 men crew was no more a MG crew until the mg cooled down. 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.
    1
  256. Cause the goal was to not have a detachable box magazine.
    1
  257. A US BAR team (B-team) was composed of three persons as well. Only there weren't barrels to swap. You had only to wait for the gun to cool off.
    1
  258. Thanks to you for the kind reply :) The BAR was not really an LMG. It wasn't apt for firing in prone position, it wasn't apt for sustained fire (there was a reason if the Italians carried two spare barrels for the Breda 30, and then enhanced them to 4 spare barrels. How much the thin and fixed barrel of the BAR would have lasted in the same conditions?), it was difficult to field strip and clean, and, if not cleaned properly, it jammed easily. The only really improved version, with a quick detachable barrel and an effective bipod, was adopted by the Swedish only in 1937. It has to be noted that, to use 4 spare barrels, you have to fire at least 800 rounds in quick succession. So much for the gun not ben capable to really provide automatic fire. That said. To not be misunderstood, the Breda 30 had really been, all in all, a less than satisfactory weapon. And the Italians would have done better adopting the ZB vz. 26. (that they tried). But 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 nacked than carrying that piece of junk!" and things like that. Reality is that the weapons was actually not that bad, and the contemporaries, 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.
    1
  259. Actually, when this MG had been adopted (1930) the only design around that was really demonstrably better was the ZB vz. 26. The Lewis gun was really good for WWI, but it was not by chance that all of its previous users, bar one, phased them out of first line use first than the beginning of WWII, and the reputation of the Madsen was less than stellar. The Breda instead was not really good, but not even that bad.
    1
  260. +Metal.Pigeon The Breda 30 wasn't either. All the fuss over the "worst light machine gun ever made" are actually post-war guessings repeated over and over. During the war the reports on it's functioning were not that bad.
    1