Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Best SMG of World War Two: The Beretta M38A" video.

Probably more the fact that Beretta outsourced the building of many parts to family workshops in Val Trompia (they still did for their shotguns for several decades after the war). Once the workshop had tooled to produce a part, it was simply not economical to retool, and, since the workshops were labour-intensive family business, the economy in building a part that was intended to simplify mass production was negligible so, along with the mass produced parts built directly by beretta, there was still a continue influx of original M38A parts.
8
The Allies deemed the Breda 37, Breda 38 and Breda 20/65 machineguns to be "excellent".
3
@Giloup92 He said the Carcano M38 (not any Carcano) it was the best bolt action. Simple, fast to load, rugged and lightweight. Obviously semiautos were on another legue.
2
@Kuschel_K They used the Bren for their tanks, both as AA machinegun than as alternative to the BESA in coaxial mounting.
2
@Kuschel_K The Brits used the Bren.
2
Well, no. There are a lot of outstanding Italian firearm design not made by Beretta. Scotti action, Breda gas action, Bernardelli Semiautomatico shotgun action, Breda-Benelli inertia anction...
1
@M.M.83-U But Beretta outsourced the manufacturing of many parts.
1
The other nations started the war with comparably complex ir even more complex SMGs. Thompson, MP35, Lanchester, KP31...
1
@bobmcbob49 Really? As Ian stated, the Italians adopted several much simplified versions of this, along with other, stamped, SMGs. The Thompson instead, at the end of WWII, still outnumbered the M3 grease gun by three to one. The MP35 was still in production by 1944. The Lanchester was still in production in 1945. The production of the Kp31 ended in 1998.
1
the other nations started the war with comparably expensive or even more expensive SMGs. Thompson, MP35, Lanchester, KP31...
1
@drxym Really? As Ian said, the Italians adopted several much simplified versions of this, along with other, stamped, SMGs. The Thompson instead, at the end of WWII, still outnumbered the M3 grease gun by three to one. The MP35 was still in production by 1944. The Lanchester was still in production in 1945. The production of the Kp31 ended in 1998.
1
As Ian just explained the Romanians ordered the rifle directly to Beretta, and received them in 1940. At Stalingrad the Romanian 3rd and 4th armies simply dissolved in Operation Uranus well before the Italian 8th army, that resisted for a month more and was defeated in Operation Little Saturn. They couldn't have taken control of anything.
1
@BewareTheLiveWire Certainly not with the Italian 8th Army weapons, since what little remained of the Rumenians 3rd and 4th armies left Stalingrad a month before the italians, and it's not likely they came back there to collect the weapons after the front advanced for some hundred kms. However it doesn't seem they had been rebuilt and rearmed at a level even remotely comparable to what they were before Operation Saturn.
1
The ejection port was there so that a right handed shooter could see into the chamber without moving the gun. The charging handle was there to be operated with the right hand while mantaining the weapon in line with the left one.
1
The Thompson was heavier, more complicate, less stable, the magazine was atrocious. "Hypocrisy" was shared by the GI. See Ordnance Went Up Front, of the then Ordnance Sergeant Dunlap, Roy F., p. 58: "No one ever bothered with any other kind of submachine gun if he could get hold of a Beretta M38, and keep it. The New Zealand boys especially loved them. Even the Germans liked it, and they hated to admit anything was good except their own stuff".
1
Because having the charging handle on the right side, and so operating it with the shooting hand, while holding the weapon on the forestock with the other hand, it's the only way to reload without moving the weapon out of line. That's why any bolt action rifle has the charging handle on the right side ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Jo9gifLCDs&t=291s ), that's why the M1 Garand had the charging handle on the right side, that's why the BREN had the charging handle on the right side... that's why most semiauto and auto weapons that haven't an ambidextrous charging handle (Included almost any SMG: Thompson, M3 grease gun, Sten, KP31, PPSH...), have it on the right side.
1
Exceptionally reliable, exceptionally stable while firing in full auto (you can se Ian's clip of him firing it), very accurate, optimally designed magazines. Every competitor failed in one or more of those departments. Yeah. Obviously the army, once the reality of mass warfare kicked in, preferred more simple to manufacture versions, but had not been the only one. Other nations started the war with comparably complex or even more complex SMGs (Thompson, MP35, Lanchester, KP31...), and kept on manufacturing them until the end, yet they were not on par. Roy Dunlap's classic "Ordnance Went Up Front": "The Beretta 38 is my favorite gun of its class, as it was of the Eighth Army. As easy to fire and control as a .22 sporting autoloader, it had terrific punch and range. The special 9mm cartridges loaded for it made it effective at 300 yards and dangerous up to 500 (when you consider that the .45 Thompson is an even-money bet at 100 yards, you'll understand why we liked the Beretta). It would operate well with German, British or American 9mm Luger ammunition," ... "the later model guns were equipped with bayonet studs, and with a fixed bayonet and a ten-round clip they were the answer to a soldier's prayer for guard duty of any kind - prisoner chasing or just keeping them out of the mood for argument. All the guns were really accurate and a pleasure to shoot. No one ever bothered with any other kind of submachinegun if he could get hold of a Beretta M38 and keep it. The New Zealand boys especially loved them. Even the Germans liked it, and they hated to admit anything was good except their own stuff."
1
It's not true. It worked with the 9mm parabellum and the 9mm M38, a very hot 9mm Para made expressely for the MAB38. The Glisenti cartridge risked to not completely cycle the action, as noted by the US armorer Roy F. Dunlap, that highly praised this weapon in his classic "Ordnance went up front".
1
The Allies deemed the Breda 37, Breda 38 and Breda 20/65 machineguns to be "excellent".
1
@Tom-zc9gs The Breda 37 extraction is not complex at all. It's the simplest way a tray-fed MG can work. The same bolt that pushes the cartridge into the chamber, pulls it back in the tray. That way there's no a further ejection window. the same Allied reports praised the simplicity and ease of field stripping the gun. The "special tool" is a loader, exactly like a belt loader. The only difference is that it's WAY faster than any belt loader. To load the trays was a backline activity. Only loaded trays, like only loaded belts, were supposed to reach the first line. To think that the Italian soldiers loaded the trays under fire is like believing that German soldiers loaded the MG42 belts under fire.
1
@hendriktonisson2915 The Breda 37 extraction is the simplest way a tray-fed MG can work. The same bolt that pushes the cartridge into the chamber, pulls it back in the tray. That way there's no a further ejection window. The same Allied reports praised the simplicity and ease of field stripping the gun. The "special tool" is a loader, exactly like a belt loader. The only difference is that the one of the Breda is WAY faster than any belt loader. To load the trays was a backline activity anyway. Only loaded trays, like only loaded belts, were supposed to reach the first line. To think that the Italian soldiers loaded the trays under fire is like believing that German soldiers loaded the MG42 belts under fire.
1
@hendriktonisson2915 "Excellent" is the word used in Allied reports "From the following report, prepared at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, it appears to be an excellent gun". (see the Tactical and Technical Trend, the magazine of the US Intelligence, No. 23, April 22, 1943 "ITALIAN 8-MM BREDA MEDIUM MACHINE GUN, MODEL 37"). I prefer to rely to original wartime reports than modern armchair impressions. As already said, to load the trays, like to load the belts, was a backline activity. Only loaded trays, like only loaded belts, were supposed to reach the first line. A broken loader (but what's the possibility for a loader to break? It's so remote to be immaterial in choosing a gun) could be fixed, and obviously there were other loaders around. However, since the tray has a clear stop to mark the position of the cartridges and, being rigid, can be placed on the ground or on a box during the operation, I beg to differ on what was easier to load by hand.
1
@Tom-zc9gs As already said, I prefer to rely on the original wartime reports of those that had to daily fight the weapon and had extensively tested it, comparing with their own, than modern armchair impressions of those that had seen it firing once in a clip. "Machine carbine" is what the MP44 was. it's not like since the term "assault rife" imposed itself later, then who used "machine carbine" didn't understand the weapon. Between the MP44 and the M2 Carbine (select fire M1, it's not like at Aberdeen didn't know them) I would have selected the M2. The Mp44 WAS heavy (it was heavier than a FAL or an M14. 1.2kg heavier than an AK47 unloaded. 2.1kg heavier than a M2 carbine, almost double its weight) in exchange of what? The fact that it's concepts (but not the gun) imposed themself after the war didn't mean it was a superior weapon at the time. Also, the fact that the Tactical and Technical Trends criticised a good weapon, it's not a proof that they tended to praise bad weapons. Quite the contrary infact. There's an obvious bias in favour of what one knows. The weapons of the enemy had to pass that bias to be considered good. The Breda 37 had been considered exceptional DESPITE the bias, not thanks to it. The hindsight of successive weapon designs and industrial development has nothing to do with wartime weapons and conditions. Its misleading and has to be left out. A weapon doesn't become good in WWII because it's development had been good in Korea. The supposed problems of the Italian army have nothing to do with the quality of the Breda 37. It was an MG, not an army. Nor those that used it daily nor those that tested it as a weapon of the enemy noticed this supposed unreliability nor this "constant necessity of maintenance", nor those problematic features. The weapon had always been deemed to be very reliable and simple to mantain.
1
@Tom-zc9gs Those that used daily it used it in the sands of Egypt and the snow of Russia, and deemed it to be very reliable. None noticed this supposed "lot of work to maintain on the field of battle" or that "Other MGs had far more reliability in the same conditions". It seems like something you decided by yourself. Canvas belts had been dropped as well, aren't they? One can invent supposed "general problems" of belts without taking in consideration the weapon he'stalking about at will. Judge them without having ever touched one, decide they are easy to damage... talking of the strips being "hard to keep clean and running" in comparison with belts is really funny anyway. 500m? Please. 90% of rifle exchanges in WWII had been fought at less than 100m, and 99% at less than 300m. So what's the use of doubling the weight for something that's useful in maybe 1% of the cases? And ist's not like the .30 carbine is harmless over 300m. Even a 9mm Para can still pass completely through a human body at 500m. Between the MP44 and the M2 Carbine (select fire M1, it's not like at Aberdeen didn't know them) I would have selected the M2. The Mp44 WAS heavy (it was heavier than a FAL or an M14. 1.2kg heavier than an AK47 unloaded. 2.1kg heavier than a M2 carbine, almost double its weight) in exchange of what? The fact that it's concepts (but not the gun) imposed themself after the war didn't mean it was a superior weapon at the time. the "tons of improvements that could be made" had not been made yet, it was the Mp44 that had to be judged, not "tons of possible improvements". Still in 1958 the contender of the AR15 was the Winchester Light Weight Military Rifle, a classic wooden-stocked forged-receiver rifle (and it could have won, the testers listed many advantages over the AR15) and, guess what? Both contenders had weights comparable to that of the M2, not that of the Mp44. A rifle really similar to the M2 Carbine was still a contender, an Mp44 would not have even been considered. The Mini14 is still appreciated now, and it's largely the same rifle, What modern weapon is really similar to the Mp44 as the Mini14 is similar to the M2?
1
Considered how reliable were the magazines and drums of those weapons...
1
Probably more the fact that Beretta outsourced the building of many parts to family workshops in Val Trompia (they still did for their shotguns for several decades after the war). Once the workshop had tooled to produce a part, it was simply not economical to retool, and, since the workshops were labour-intensive family business, the economy in building a part that was intended to simplify mass production was negligible so, along with the mass produced parts built directly by beretta, there was still a continue influx of original M38A parts.
1
Err... not really. An M16 is a quite complicate gun to manufacture. It's made of over 100 parts. Only the bolt is made of 19 parts.
1