Well it wasn't non-standard when they adopted it, as they were the first ones to do so if memory serves.
AHC: Improve the Italian military's performance in WW2.
- Thread starter John Dusk
- Start date
Deleted member 1487
It seems you're right. I thought it had come after the rest, but seems to have been one of if not the first adopted. Clearly a conspiracy against the Italians.
McPherson
Banned
Or they could have done what the, Czechs and other smart nations did. Gone Tedesco and "borrowed" a working caliber and then borrowed the "guns" that went with it.
The Italian air force was familiar with Mister Browning. No reason the Esercito could not have "adopted" the same results.
Breda Safat
Cousin.
Congratulations if you recognized that as the Ho 103.
Now we come to the 7.7 mm rifle AND MACHINE GUN problem. You will notice that the Japanese, like the Italians and THE GERMANS, did not adopt cross service commonality like the Americans and to a lesser extent the British did with infantry and aircraft weapons?
The Japanese IJN used British .303 (7.7x 56) ammunition. The IJA (army) had bullet envy and designed their own cartridge .303 (7.7 x 58) and uprated the Arisaka rifle (too late) to go with it.
The Italians went one better and did not even standardize service machine gun cartridges in the Esercito within the medium machine gun line using a mixed bag of 6.5 Italian and 8 mm Austrian cartridges among their machine gun line, though they tried to standardize the rifles a bit. Ridiculous supply line fiasco.
Breda Safat already stole the Browning patents and made British bullets to run those guns. Why not go whole hog and steal either the Springfield or the Arisaka to go with the cockamamie bullet? Then do the ground mount barrel mods for the air-cooled aircraft machine guns. If I had to choose between the US Springfield or the Arisaka, go with the Springfield. It fits Italian milling tech better and is slightly cheaper in man-hours.
As for the carbine role, Baretta's M39 SMG is properly an auto carbine with Isotta Fraschini "hot" 9 mm ammunition. Politics and a blundering bureaucracy means that ILP is the standard up til 1943. Nothing says Baretta can't turn out 2,000 a month easy, (checked this) and 5,000 if pushed hard.
The Esercito is fighting in North Africa. They need a bullet that will carry for the machine gun line and punch into engine blocks to ruin trucks as well as men. Go big or stay home.
There it is... North Africa. What works? (^^^)
One of the things about Italy's army that has always boggled my mind is the Breda 37.
Why is it that the infantry are fighting in the desert with a ridiculously heavy gun that feeds from a Hotchkiss-esque ammo strip (for all your fouling needs), while a significantly lighter machine gun which fed from enclosed detachable box mags is exclusively used for the bow MGs of tanks? Also why does it's tripod weigh as much as the gun?
Actually why use either when the belt fed Fiat–Revelli Modello 1935 exists and could probably be easily upgraded? Or why not a SAFAT in 8mm Breda? Hell the Italian army actually did use a hand full of SAFATs. Actually, since this is supposed to be a heavy MG, why not go the full 9 yards and just skip 8mm Breda all together in favour of widespread use of 12.7mm SAFATs?
Why is it that the infantry are fighting in the desert with a ridiculously heavy gun that feeds from a Hotchkiss-esque ammo strip (for all your fouling needs), while a significantly lighter machine gun which fed from enclosed detachable box mags is exclusively used for the bow MGs of tanks? Also why does it's tripod weigh as much as the gun?
Actually why use either when the belt fed Fiat–Revelli Modello 1935 exists and could probably be easily upgraded? Or why not a SAFAT in 8mm Breda? Hell the Italian army actually did use a hand full of SAFATs. Actually, since this is supposed to be a heavy MG, why not go the full 9 yards and just skip 8mm Breda all together in favour of widespread use of 12.7mm SAFATs?
You didn't say Italian Wikipaedia.
Also for what I have in mind I need a source that is more reliable. The other problem it's the figure for the Ca 133T. I also need to know how many troops a standard Ca133 could carry and how far it could carry them.
Finally I need to know how many troops a S.M.81 could carry when operating in the troop carrier role and how far it could carry them.
McPherson
Banned
The Fiat Revelli Modelli 1935 was an engineering disaster and an armorer's nightmnare.
Exploded cartridge jams, runaway gun, breech burst, and fouled barrel stops were just some of the more interesting eccentricities. When a gun is not used, the question why usually is answered in the end users' distrust of the weapon. Italian infantry hated it.
McPherson
Banned
Caproni C-133T Up to 18 troops. I would rate it more like 14-15 equipped paratroopers + flight crew of 3, from burden limit in the data. Effective radius of action (very optimistic) about 400 km or 250 miles.
Savoia Marchetti S.M. 81. Another plane from which one must extrapolate based on load carry burdened data. It's limit is approximately 3,500 kgs with 500 kg safety cushion after crew, fuel and consummables is added. Figure 16-18 (100 kg each) paratroopers + independent gear. Range (ferry) 2800 km (1800 mi) effective combat drop radius about 1/3 of that, or 750-900 km (450-560 miles) because ferry range is always one way unburdened.
Speaking of the S.M. 81, it was one of the earliest bombers that I think had the speed and payload to make skip bombing useful. Had the Italians invented this technique and invested in the training required, they could do some serious damage to British shipping without the expense of torpedoes.
The fact that the Italians didn’t develop naval aviation further was another failure. The Germans failed to do that, but it was understandable given their focus on land warfare. Had the Italians developed a four engine B-17 class bomber for the navy, it would benefit not only them but possibly help Germany win the war on the Atlantic convoys.
The fact that the Italians didn’t develop naval aviation further was another failure. The Germans failed to do that, but it was understandable given their focus on land warfare. Had the Italians developed a four engine B-17 class bomber for the navy, it would benefit not only them but possibly help Germany win the war on the Atlantic convoys.
Last edited:
I am not all that hung up on small arms per se - as improved organisation and logistics are far more important...but.....
If you are looking for a 'modern' easier to produce bolt action rifle then instead of the 1903 Springfield which is essentially an improved copy of the 1892 Spanish Mauser and K98, make the Enfield P14 / M1917 'Enfield' - it was easier to build than a Springfield and the Eddystone built M1917s is considered by many to be the finest mass produced bolt action 'battle rifle' ever built.
2/3rd of the doughboys went to France armed with it in 1917/18!
The Baretta MAB 38 SMG is considered by many to be the finest SMG of WW2, but outside of special units such as the Colonial police units in Italian Africa the Italian Army was very slow to order it - sort this out earlier and production might allow at least 1 per rifle section/squad. It was designed in 1935 so an earlier decision could easily see this weapon mass produced in the numbers required - with a simplified MAB 38/42 model put into production during the war.
I am still not sure on the Squad / platoon level LMG - In think the best choice would be the MG 34, but the weapon design was a state secret in Germany so unlikely to be shared with Italy - certainly not in a timely fashion.
Therefore next best would be the ZB30 LMG (effectively the Bren gun)
For a modern MMG - well again look to the Czechoslovakians and licence the ZB 53 (the AFV varient known in Britain as the BESA and used on most of their AFVs) and simple and robust belt fed medium machine gun - that was of a then modern design that leveraged modern design methods and practices making it easier to mass produce than earlier MMGs such as the Browning 1919 and the Vickers MMG.
It came in 3 versions tripod mounted MMG, AFV varient (for Coax and Bow MG) and a fortress version designed to be fitted to bunkers, pill boxes and the like.
Obviously if they could build the MG34 then it would be produced instead of both LMG and MMG as well as AFV MG - but I cannot see Germany licencing it to anyone in this time frame!
As for Calibre - I am not so hung up but many of those existing designs were already in 7.92mm x 57 Mauser and I am sure that the P14/M1917 Enfield could be chambered for this round.
A better bolt action rifle is the least of all the things that the Italians needed. The Carcano was designed around Italian industry capabilities and is a quite adequate bolt action rifle for the users needs. Not the best nor coolest but it does the job. The factories were there. The handling was familiar and the stores had the ammunition. Leave the poor thing alone until one has addressed all the far higher priorities.
Start with what Italy could both make and afford. Don't start a war and trim your forces to the good kit you can produce. Recruit a professional but smaller army etc. Pay them properly, train and exercise them properly and have a merit based career structure which will build a firm SNCO base as well as an officer base. Stop Benny's willy waving foreign policy. Did I mention not starting a war?
Deleted member 1487
Alright, what qualifies as more reliable to you? The basic Ca-133 was used much in the same way as the dedicated transport version...but then too the 133T was the most produced variant.
Good luck there, nothing easily found. It says 1000kg bomb load...so 1000kg of men and equipment? Wikipedia again say 1500km maximum practical combat range. With 2000kg 640km was about all that could be expected with ideal cruise conditions.
Deleted member 1487
Either would have worked
The Germans had the same calibers for the Luftwaffe and Heer...and Kriegsmarine.
A well designed 6.5mm bullet will do that (see Swedish sniper bullet, later adopted as the standard bullet for the army, good for 1000m sniper competitions). In fact the historical 6.5mm Carcano bullet had better penetration than the 7.35mm bullet adopted. LMGs though generally don't need to shoot out to 1000m, save that for the MMGs/HMGs, which could use 8mm Mauser if needed. The 140 grain Swedish sniper bullet as a model for the Carcano cartridge would be lighter than the standard Italian round nose bullet, but with much better ballistics and faster, so therefore flatter, due to the lighter weight. It would punch through a vehicle body at normal infantry combat ranges, while it would certainly penetrate far enough into an engine block to stop it.
Not spreading themselves too thin by going into Russia, per my previous thread that saves thousands of trucks, dozens of aircraft, lots of various guns, and supplies.
If you can ever figure out Italian military 'logic' with the above, let the rest of us know.
The Luftwaffe did develop a specialist anti-shipping unit pre-war and in fact used them in the Spanish civil war. Part of the issue is that the German navy jealously guarded access to things like an aerial torpedo and their experienced naval flyers, who in turn were confined to just using flying boats, but there was very effective Luftwaffe anti-shipping units in WW2:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10th_Air_Corps
They were in fact used extensively in the Mediterranean.
Plus there as the dedicated Atlantic anti-shipping units:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fliegerführer_Atlantik
The MG34 was too difficult to make, so the Germans designed the MG42, which was initiated in 1939. Not really worth it for the Italians. Now the ZB-26 (different from the 30/Bren due to caliber) already used 8mm Mauser and would be cheap and easy to make for the Italians and could source ammo from the Germans if needed. Plus it was designed initially with a belt feed mechanism, so could be designed with such a system and used as a MMG and replace the wide variety of crap the Italians had. I don't see why it couldn't also be used as an HMG if needed, provided the proper barrel/tripod. The British tried to do that post-WW2 with the Bren, but screwed up the feed system with a Rube Goldberg contraption; I mean if the Belgians realized that the MG-42 feed system was the way to go for the FN MAG, which didn't the Brits???
Regardless, in a lot of ways the ZB-26 was the 1930s/40s PK-series of machine guns and could have been a universal MG for the Italians and anyone else interested.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok, so Im still waking up (my cat, Miss Kitty, named for Eric Cartmans cat) is very much like her namesake, a complete slattern. She's in heat and kept me up all night, I'm still drinking coffee trying to come to my senses. So when I read the phrase "Stop Benny's willy waving foreign policy" it took me until just now to comprehend it, and the mental image that popped into my head..... Thanks for that Yulzari, I got a good laugh that I needed!
It was a barely adequate rifle compared to what they could have had though
The Carcarno is a late 19th Century design using production methods from that period - we are attempting to improve the Italian Military and as part of that improvement lets get them to bring modern Kahn type factories into play - that is large numbers of modern single use machine tools allowing less skilled workers to produce a quality item in large numbers.
In that case you then need to have a design that lends itself to modern methods - allowing a better product to be built in larger numbers faster and cheaper than an older design.
Hence my suggestions of the P14/M1917 Enfield, ZB 30 and ZB 53.
Oh and the only winning move is not play is a given for Italy but thats not the Ops question.
The 6.5 is a good enough caliber. If your shooting a truck at 1000m you don't need to worry about shooting the engine block. There is nowhere on that truck other than perhaps the engine the bullet wont go through, so whether it hits tires, radiator or the crew and passengers the truck isn't going far. I think we've beaten that horse sufficiently.
What about improving the comms? Was the Italian Army well outfitted with radios?
What about improving the comms? Was the Italian Army well outfitted with radios?
I read this just after hitting my send button. Is it impossible to modify the Carcano to meet the production methods you mention? Just how different is the machinery and tooling? Finally did the Italians ever run short of rifles? If not, while it may be a definite improvement, it seems ill timed to try.
Well thats the thing they did introduce a change in 1938 - a shorter carbine version of the Carcano with some slight improvements 'and an ammunition change' to 7.35 x 51 and then in 1942 due to issues with producing enough rifles and supply issues with having multiple calibres reverted production to the previous 6.5 calibre. So there was issues with the rifle and producing it in enough numbers. Units in Russia for example ended up ditching the Modello 38s and using older Modello 1891s because of supply issues that the new Ammunition compounded.
So the issue to me was an outdated design with outdated inefficient production methods compunded by introducing a new calibre jsut for the rifle - both design and production issues should be addressed.
So instead of buidling the Carcano in 7.35x51 in the mid 30s switch rifle production to a modern factory - pick a more modern design (effectively the most recent and modern design in the mid 30s would be the P14/M1917 Enfield) that can be built using modern methods - pick a modern LMG (ZB30) also being built in a modern factory - align calibres (say Mauser 7.92) and then spam them out.
Not doing this actual cost them more and caused them all sorts of problems OTL.