WW1 intermediate cartridge

One factor was indirect fire, but it was primarily needed as an anti-aircraft weapon.
Wikipedia? And english-language at that? even if you just click on the 'svenska' you immediately get:
utvecklades av AB Bofors på uppdrag av Kungliga Arméförvaltningen för användning i den svenska Kulspruta m/14-29 så att räckvidden skulle förlängas över 2 400 meter. Den kom att användas i ett antal av Krigsmaktens vapen:
and
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 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/
Again it was mostly to deal with aircraft, with the longer range a useful benefit from having a bigger, heavier round.
The Breda 37 and 38 are "anti-aircraft heavy machine guns" now? seriously?
Again wikipedia, and again with a click on the "Italiano"
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.
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 :
che sarà l'ordinanza delle mitragliatrici italiane nella Guerra d'Etiopia,
where tanks weren't exactly anticipated to be a problem, but long-range firing most likely was. You literally just posted:
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:
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.
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.
Long ranges. An enemy using 8mm mauser. Longer reach than 6.5 Arisaka. Sounds reasonable.

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.
 
Wikipedia? And english-language at that? even if you just click on the 'svenska' you immediately get:
and
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/
Again, didn't say that that wasn't a use, just that as the Swedish link also says penetration was also an issue so the heavier bullet was needed for things beyond long range indirect fire, like anti-material use and armor penetration. Just like the M2 .50 cal US heavy machine it is multi-use.

The Breda 37 and 38 are "anti-aircraft heavy machine guns" now? seriously?
Again wikipedia, and again with a click on the "Italiano"
Per the link, that's what it says. As the Italian link says it does say anti-material/armor use as well (though that is a consideration in anti-air use as well).

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 :
where tanks weren't exactly anticipated to be a problem, but long-range firing most likely was. You literally just posted:
Again, multi-use like the M2 .50 cal. It was meant to be an anti-material HMG, but also happens to have extremely long range so is used for that too. Shockingly it was also used against infantry and direct fire against fortified positions too.

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.
Huh? You're making a really silly leap there. I never claimed the 7.35 was meant for anything other than infantry rifle use. Someone else claimed it was to be used for converted LMGs, but never provided a source and I've never seen that written anywhere else. Infantry platoon LMGs even if converted for that, clearly were only meant for anti-infantry use if they were going to adopt the 7.35. MMGs and HMGs would cover longer ranges and anti-material roles. Yeah if you're going to have specialized cartridges you need at least a dual caliber standard.

Long ranges. An enemy using 8mm mauser. Longer reach than 6.5 Arisaka. Sounds reasonable.
And also used for anti-material work:

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?
The Scandinavians would be fighting anyone who invaded them and they have a virtually magnum 6.5mm cartridge compared to the Arisaka:
140.4 gr (9 g) DK2,854 ft/s (870 m/s)2,540 ft⋅lbf (3,440 J)
Barrel Length: 24"
138.9 gr (9 g) FMJ770 m/s (2,500 ft/s)2,666 J (1,966 ft⋅lbf)
Test barrel length: 800 mm
The Arisaka was underpowered because the average Japanese soldier was something like 30-40 pounds lighter than the average Scandinavian at the time, not to mention several inches shorter. Like with the later Howa rifles that used lightly loaded 7.62 NATO cartridges to make it easier for their smaller infantrymen to use they tailored their material to what their average soldier was able to reasonably handle.

Since the Japanese ended up expecting to fight the Soviets or Chinese, the former using the 7.62x54 and the latter the German 7.92 Mauser, and they had already fought the Germans and Russians they apparently didn't think it was a problem before 1937. The Scandinavians didn't really fight until 1940, so were just estimating their needs rather than having any sort of combat experience. Though the Swedes did change from round nosed to spitzer-boat tailed bullets during WW2 and kept their 6.5mm cartridge until NATO standardization forced them to abandon it.

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.
I don't know what strawman you're tilting against, but I never said they didn't, just that multiple nations also adopted heavier stuff as well because heavier bullets penetrate better at equivalent velocity and even if not they can knock things loose:
Since the Japanese had combat experience and didn't seem to be worried about anti-material use, they didn't have anything heavier than the 6.5mm until they invaded China, this despite border clashes with the USSR and it's tanks.
There was after all more things to worry about besides just range by WW1.
Funny though that after WW2 despite that experience the Brits tried to adopt their .280 cartridge for all infantry use up through the MMG and would only keep an HMG and it's heavy cartridge for extremely long ranges and anti-material use.
 
Last edited:
Top