Clearly the Breda LMG did not compare well with top tier guns like the ZB26, M24/29, MG34 and Bren. However, I wonder if it looked a little better compared to the late WWI and not too long after WWI designs like the Lewis, BAR, Hotchkiss 1922 and Madsen? Especially if we talk about the gun design itself, apart from shortcomings in the 6.5mm round.
What are your thoughts? Detailed opinions would be particularly appreciated.
Breda LMg in context
-
LineDoggie
- Member
- Posts: 1280
- Joined: 03 Oct 2008, 21:06
Re: Breda LMg in context
Lewis gun was still superior to the Breda M30
"There are two kinds of people who are staying on this beach: those who are dead and those who are going to die. Now let’s get the hell out of here".
Col. George Taylor, 16th Infantry Regiment, Omaha Beach
Col. George Taylor, 16th Infantry Regiment, Omaha Beach
-
GoldenState
- Member
- Posts: 71
- Joined: 07 Sep 2013, 20:36
Re: Breda LMg in context
How do you think the other guns stack up against each other?
Re: Breda LMg in context
Having carried/handled many of the weapons listed (including the Breda 30), the main issue with the weapon was not the oil system or the feed system. While neither of these issue were a great feature, they weren’t the big problem with the weapon. A gunner/assistant gunner team could keep the weapon functional reasonably well.
The greatest drawback to weapon was handling/carrying. The Breda 30 is poorly balanced, being extremely barrel-heavy. Trying to advance with the weapon is very tiring and difficult to fire while moving. While firing while moving is not something one wants to do in combat, it does happen at times. It can’t be reloaded while moving.
The weapon is awkward to handle. It bristles with pointy ends and sharp edges. Carrying it across one’s back is painful. Resting on the shoulder always finds one bit that digs into the fresh. Using the sling across a shoulder pulls the gunner down (barrel heavy) and the weapon must be pushed forward away from the body to fire. There are no good location to place the gunner’s left hand. The natural place is right where the ejection port is placed (which is another reason not to fire while moving). The Breda was issued with a backpack/valise to carry the weapon on one’s back (significantly more comfortable), but the weapon is unavailable for immediate use when carried in this manner.
The weapon pretty much needs to be fired from the bipod. The bipod legs don’t adjust; forcing the gunner to use his body to compensate. The gunner can’t reload the weapon himself without a lot of maneuvering, making an assistant gunner/loader a requirement (magazine system is too far forward to reload with the weapon’s butt on the gunner’s shoulder).
To this you add the oiler, feed system, and the fact that the front sight is fixed to the receiver and not the barrel (as the barrel bushing wears, the weapon doesn’t hold true aim), you have many small issues that stack up to a mediocre weapon.
On the plus side, the barrel is easy to change and has a built in handle (no need to find your gloves). It is a simple weapon (direct blowback) and disassembly/cleaning is straight forward. Keeping it clean is more important than on other weapons.
To answer the question, the quick-change barrel was a significant improvement over existing systems. The fact that the Italian infantry squad was authorized two of these weapons in the 1938 TO&E changes was a good improvement. The rest of the weapon was an evolutionary branch that died a needed, quiet death.
Pista! Jeff
The greatest drawback to weapon was handling/carrying. The Breda 30 is poorly balanced, being extremely barrel-heavy. Trying to advance with the weapon is very tiring and difficult to fire while moving. While firing while moving is not something one wants to do in combat, it does happen at times. It can’t be reloaded while moving.
The weapon is awkward to handle. It bristles with pointy ends and sharp edges. Carrying it across one’s back is painful. Resting on the shoulder always finds one bit that digs into the fresh. Using the sling across a shoulder pulls the gunner down (barrel heavy) and the weapon must be pushed forward away from the body to fire. There are no good location to place the gunner’s left hand. The natural place is right where the ejection port is placed (which is another reason not to fire while moving). The Breda was issued with a backpack/valise to carry the weapon on one’s back (significantly more comfortable), but the weapon is unavailable for immediate use when carried in this manner.
The weapon pretty much needs to be fired from the bipod. The bipod legs don’t adjust; forcing the gunner to use his body to compensate. The gunner can’t reload the weapon himself without a lot of maneuvering, making an assistant gunner/loader a requirement (magazine system is too far forward to reload with the weapon’s butt on the gunner’s shoulder).
To this you add the oiler, feed system, and the fact that the front sight is fixed to the receiver and not the barrel (as the barrel bushing wears, the weapon doesn’t hold true aim), you have many small issues that stack up to a mediocre weapon.
On the plus side, the barrel is easy to change and has a built in handle (no need to find your gloves). It is a simple weapon (direct blowback) and disassembly/cleaning is straight forward. Keeping it clean is more important than on other weapons.
To answer the question, the quick-change barrel was a significant improvement over existing systems. The fact that the Italian infantry squad was authorized two of these weapons in the 1938 TO&E changes was a good improvement. The rest of the weapon was an evolutionary branch that died a needed, quiet death.
Pista! Jeff
Jeff Leser
Infantrymen of the Air
Infantrymen of the Air