Wikipedia? And english-language at that? even if you just click on the 'svenska' you immediately get:One factor was indirect fire, but it was primarily needed as an anti-aircraft weapon.
The swedes went as far as issuing a ground mount fully as complex as the Lafette specifically for long-range ground fire https://www.forgottenweapons.com/medium-machine-guns/swedish-kulspruta-m36/verkan upp till 2 400 meter var mer beroende av kulsprutans uppgifter och taktiska användning än av kalibern. Över detta avstånd betraktades 7,9 mm med 14,2 ;grams kula som överlägsen, både vad gällde precision, inträngningsförmåga och inte minst att dödande verkan (satt till 20 kgm. anslagsenergi) uppnåddes upp till 3 600 meter vilket överträffade resultatet av kaliber 9 mm.
The Breda 37 and 38 are "anti-aircraft heavy machine guns" now? seriously?Again it was mostly to deal with aircraft, with the longer range a useful benefit from having a bigger, heavier round.
Again wikipedia, and again with a click on the "Italiano"
A bit further down the page it mentions that this ammunition was primarily used for its anti-tank capability, which seems more than a little odd in light of :Durante la Grande Guerra, il Regio Esercito aveva impiegato la munizione in calibro 6,5 × 52 mm Carcano, oltre che sui fucili anche sulla FIAT-Revelli Mod. 1914. Nonostante gli ovvi benefici di standardizzazione e approvvigionamento, tale calibro si era rivelato troppo debole per l'uso con le mitragliatrici. Negli anni '20 così furono testate diverse munizioni di calibro 7 ed 8 millimetri.
where tanks weren't exactly anticipated to be a problem, but long-range firing most likely was. You literally just posted:
this cartridge was even more feeble at long ranges than the 6.5, so it seems odd that the italians would basically be "hey, we were outgunned by enemy machine guns before but now we have the amazing power of 7.35 we are fine apart from aircraft". Literally every single nation who has stepped down to something this weak has kept a beefier cartridge around to cover longer ranges, light cover etc.Italy was the only one who tried with their 7.35mm cartridge for rifles, which was basically an intermediate caliber in power, barely more powerful than the 7.62x39:
Long ranges. An enemy using 8mm mauser. Longer reach than 6.5 Arisaka. Sounds reasonable.The Japanese were a bit different in that their issue was fighting in China at long ranges against and enemy that used 7.92mm Mauser, so had a lot longer reach than the 6.5 Arisaka cartridge, so the partial switch to the 7.7mm was to keep up at longer ranges.
Who were the swedes, norwegians and Italians likely to be fighting, and what cartridges were those nations using?
What cartridges were the swedes, Norwegians and Italians using, and how did those cartridges compare in power to 6.5 arisaka?
So exactly what is "a bit different" about the japanese?
I find it extraordinary that you have no difficulty believing that the Japanese would want something with a bit more reach than their 2,700J spitzer 6.5 for those vicious long-range chinese but cannot bring yourself to believe evidence that nations facing a threat from the Russians, Germans, British, French etc anticipated the need for something with a bit more reach than 2,600J round-nose 6.5x55 or 2,400J featherweight 7,35x51.