Hi guys,
these are some italian weapons of ww2:
Beretta 1934
Beretta 38/42
Beretta 38 A
Breda 301
Breda 371
F.N.A.
T.Z. 45
Welcome Cervex, I’m sure you’ll enjoy the site.
I’ve worked on some of the WWII Italian MGs, and believe them to be impressive feats of engineering if not exactly ideal practial designs.
Typo for Modello 30 and Modello 37 ?
Mitragliatrice Breda calibro 6.5mm Modello 30
(renamed Fucile Mitragliatori Breda Modello 30 in 1935)
Advantages:
- Blowback operation: simple construction - just not in this case.
- Permanently mounted hinged mag: the magazine lips could be properly machined and these parts were therefore less liable to damage than those of detachable mags.
- Rapid change bbls.
Disadvantages:
- Blowback operation: hard extraction which was ‘solved’ by adding an oil pump to to lubricate the rds prior to chambering.
- Oil pump: attracted dust & sand to the rds & through the wpn. Produced higher chamber pressures.
- Permanently mounted hinged mag: a greatly reduced rate of fire and the possibility of the weapon being out of action should the mag body be damaged.
- Rapid change bbls: no handle with which to grip the hot bbl.
- No carry handle: the gun must be cradled or carried across the shoulders.
- No provision for SF mount.
Mitragliatrice Breda calibro 8 Modello 37
Once again this had no primary extraction so the trusty (?) oil pump was wheeled out with it’s accompanying problems.
It fed from Hotchkiss-style trays. Some Grappa-gripped genius had the brainfart to design the action so that once the rds had been removed from the strips, chambered, fired and extracted, they were reinserted into the tray ! The gun numbers then had to strip this brass from the trays prior to reloading them.
The deskwallah theory was that the MG fired a higher pressured rd than the rifles, and the trays and brass would be backloaded. Perhaps the team were thinking of that when incorporating this energy-wasting system into the design, perhaps they were just sitting on their brains.
I don’t think anybody here seriously believes that things run smoothly during wartime, confusion, pressure an enemy action combines to ensue that most systems will go pear-shaped sooner or later, these MG trays were often reloaded with rifle carts.
Despite these shortcomings, the Model 37 served throughout the war and earned a reputation for reliability…
…amongst those who had no experience with foreign MG designs.
Welcome to our forum.
It fed from Hotchkiss-style trays. Some Grappa-gripped genius had the brainfart to design the action so that once the rds had been removed from the strips, chambered, fired and extracted, they were reinserted into the tray ! The gun numbers then had to strip this brass from the trays prior to reloading them.
Yeap, that characteristics was retained in the 20 mm automatic cannon, tidy but unnecessary complicated.
More on the Breda 6,5 mm MG:
“The machinegun, history and development. Vol I” J.M Chinn.
The little mortar “Brixia”.
The one constant in Italian arms design, particularly around the Second World War, is how crap their products are!
Somethings never change. I think the Beretta 1934 bears an uncanny resemblance to Beretta’s M9 (aka 92) pistol.
Also, the Italians, with their modern weapons, were unable to beat the Ethiopians, who had weapons dating back to the 1890s, without the help of the Germans. Sad.
Hi All
Sorry if this post is in the wrong section!!
What type of flamethrowers did Italian infantry use in WW2 and if so in what theatres ? I seem to recall a pic of an Italian engineer running with a German type flamethrower in Albania ???
Also, the Italians, with their modern weapons, were unable to beat the Ethiopians, who had weapons dating back to the 1890s, without the help of the Germans.
I don’t recall any German assistance against the Ethiopians. Can you elaborate?
What type of flamethrowers did Italian infantry use in WW2 and if so in what theatres ? I seem to recall a pic of an Italian engineer running with a German type flamethrower in Albania ???
The Italians used the Modelos 35 and 40 as their main flamethrower (lanciafiamme). Both of these had two fuel tanks, though I also believe they had a three-tank version (I can’t recall the designation). Viewed in profile, the two tanks might look like the single-tank German Flammenwerfer 34/35.
Nice info Ardee.
thanks for the info, I was always wondering what weapons they would use, because i don’t recall ever seeing an italian soldier with one of these (in fact, in the only picture i can recall of an italian soldier with his rifle in view, he held an mp40)
how widespread where these weapons, especially after the germans occupied italy?
Fantastic information. I learn so much here.
how widespread where these weapons, especially after the germans occupied italy?
Hi Schuultz,
I don’t know how widespread these weapons were within the Regio Escrito, but if you do a search for Italian organization on engineering units, you’ll probably get an idea. The Italians also exported the weapon to other Axis nations, including Finland, Hungary, and Romania.
I have no idea of what happened to production/use after 1943. My understanding is that the Italian contribution in manpower to the Allies is best described as modest, and was mostly equipped with American gear. The Axis RSI seemed to use a mixture of Italian and German gear. I can’t swear to it, but I seem to dimly recall seeing a photo of a German using the Italian flamethrower, probably in Italy.
If you want to find general photos of Axis Italian forces, try the Commando Supremo web site, which I’m sure has been referenced to many times before on this site:
:lol:
Didn’t Beretta make a decent sub-machine gun though?
I believe the Beretta 38A Machine Pistol is indeed universally well-thought of, as is the FNAB 43. The Italian medium mortar – I would guess larger models as well – were pretty much the same as the standard weapons in all of Europes armies. Artillery-wise, the Italians also produced the Cannone Da 75/32, which I understand to have performed well - the Italians just couldn’t make them fast enough, and then had to sell abroad some of what they did make to finance their war effort. The Obice (howitzer) da 75/18 was also a modern, well-performing gun.
I don’t know much about things outside of light artillery and small arms, but I believe several Italian aircraft were well-thought of, and their navy, if armed with better luck and better commanders, might have been a much greater threat than the actual events proved.
The flamethrower, in any case, seems to also have been a successful weapon. Their standard rifle comes from the same era as the German 98k, and I don’t recall any especially disparaging critiques of it. IIRC, the main objection to one (I can’t recall which) of the two main Heavy MGs the Italians used was that it was strip-fed, not belt-fed, etc – but that was hardly unique to that weapon (e.g., so was the Japanese “woodpecker”). I think what Man of Stoat is referring to is the impression left by such weapons as the Brixia 45mm light mortar, the Breda LMG, and few other examples of over-engineered, overly-complicated, or just-plain-bad designs that didn’t measure up in the field.
A video of the Breda 1930 Mg, note the weird action for loading it.
Video the Beretta MAB ( Moschetto automatico beretta) submachinegun
Well, that’s a nice video. But nothing compares to the easy handling of the MP40 
The grandma shooting …yes, that is a classic video. 