Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Forgotten Weapons" channel.

  1.  @jimmydesouza4375 No, sorry. Austrians broke the Triple Alliance pact when they declared war to Serbia (art. 7. of the 1891 treaty). Italy invaded Tyrol only at the and of WWI (where do you hear that the Italians invaded Tyrol? Lol! That's your knowledge of the facts?). So the Germans were going to win? To simply extend the pain of your population and the death of your soldiers when there are no possibilities of winning, and any further day of war is going worsen the peace conditions, is simply stupid and criminal. the Finnish quit way before Italians did (in terms of conditions on the field), and rightly so. However, according to your reasonong (if it could be called that way) Japanese were a bunch of pussies. They surrended when only a small island had beeen invaded.
    1
  2.  @jimmydesouza4375  Declaring war to Serbia broke the treaty, since it broke the status quo without previous agreement and not for the action of a third power. Doing something and having perhaps the intention of doing something are different things. Not sure where your issue with that is? Possibly you're not a human, and those simple concepts are alien to you? Any loosing party of a war surrender or ask for peace in the end. If you want to call this "betrayal", your choice, but you asking the others if they know the meaning of words is quite hilarious at this point.
    1
  3.  @jimmydesouza4375  The Triple alliance Treaty says that status-quo matters. Maybe you should learn to read first to write ("apparent" lack of knowledge? LOL!).
    1
  4.  @jimmydesouza4375  So the reaty stated that: a) Italy had no obligation to fight alonside Austria in a war it declared. b) a "temporary or permanent" "occupation shall take place only after a PREVIOUS agreement between the two Powers" c) Austria (in this case) had to give compensations for changes in the status quo in the Balkans. Austria invaded Serbia in 1914 (that's a change in the status quo and an occupation) without any previous agreement (breaking the treaties). Despite the obvious violation of point "b", Italy was willing to get over it in case Austria complied with "c". Austrian foreign minister Berchtold, agreed on some concession (the recognition of the Italian occupation of the Dodecanese and Valona, that already happened). Italians wanted the cities of Trento and Trieste. German mediator Bernhard von Bülow pushed for the Austrians to accept the cession of Trento, and the Italians to accept a bigger degree of autonomy for Trieste in the Austrian Empire. That would have been probably enough, but unfortunately on 13/01/1915 Berchtold had ben replaced by Stephan Burián, that retired any concession made by his predecessor, so breaking the talks, and exposing the Italian "neutralists" politicians (like Giolitti, that publicly stated Italy could gain much by peace) to ridicule, since it was evident that Austrians were not willing to give anything. After two months of unsuccessful attempts to obtain anything Italy started the talkings with the Entente. Bulow considered the Austrian position to be irrational. That's his opinion on the matter, from a letter to a friend, the journalist Felix von Eckhardt: "We must influence Vienna. It would be unheard of, for Austria, after pulling us into this war for its own incapacity in last two or three years, to deprive us of the collaboration of Italy and Rumenia, and to throw two million more enemies against us [. ..] I'll do what I can to spare us a new, great and not needed trouble. I'll do it for ourselves and for Austria, which must be saved from the hereditary defect of always arriving too late ". That's what you call "betrayal".
    1
  5. ​ @jimmydesouza4375  That's only valid as long as the treaty is valid. Since Austria broke the treaty, first invading a country in the Balkans without previous agreement (and that would have already been enough), and then refusing to give compensations (and that would have already been a concession on Italy's part), Italy was no more bound by it. If you want others to respect the treaties, you should respect them first, not violate it, and then cry foul when others consider them expired. It's pretty funny how, contrary to you, the Germans of the time had no problems in understanding this fact, and considered Austria's position to be irrational. Sorry, it's "temporary or permanent" occupation, not only conquest. As above, the Germans of the time had no problems in considering a military invasion an occupation. Only you have. Sorry, but Austria had not been "threatened" by Russia. It started a war with Serbia. Your very personal opinion of Russia threatening Austria via Serbia is pretty ridicolous, and had not weight in 1915. Trying to rewrite history to your liking is not going to do you any favour. Grow up.
    1
  6. Actually the bolt head and the bolt carrier moves at the same time, but at different speed. The 45% inclined surfaces force the carrier to accelerate at double the speed of the bolt head and, to accelerate a mass at double the speed in the same time, you need four time the energy. Like lever delayed and roller delayed, radial delayed replaces the mass of the bolt with the speed of a part of it.
    1
  7. Bren is a gas action. Way more complicated.
    1
  8. Same for the 6.5 Carcano and 6.5 Grendel for that matter. They have exactly the same ballistic. What differentiates a first gen smokeless powder cartridge and a modern one is exactly the fact that, working at a higher pressure and with some more knowledge about how the internal shape of the case works, modern ammos have the same performances in a smaller package.
    1
  9. Simply this rifle has the recoil spring behind the bolt, an M1 Garand has it around the op-rod. Other rifles with this scheme "hide" this by having part of the receiver in the stock (IE the AR15), but that makes the disassembly more complicate.
    1
  10. It has much to do with not fixing what’s not broken. At this point, the geometry of reliable single feed magazines and reliable feed ramps are well known. Designers haven’t to spend time, AND MONEY, to redesign those parts. If they want a "proprietary" magazine, they can (and they do) take an existing design, and only change some little bit, like the position of the magazine release cut. If they choose double feed instead, they have to design magazines and feed ramps from scratch, and that takes time AND MONEY. That’s why it seems are mainly manufacturers that don’t have to compete on the market and/or are government funded that nowadays decide to invest in designing double feed pistols (see Norinco CF98, GSh-18, MP-443 Grach…)
    1
  11. "not designed here"
    1
  12. It's not easy to strip a gun of 2/3 of it's weight. It's easier to design a new one.
    1
  13. Several semiauto shotguns have a magazine cutoff, even if not aimed at the law enforcement market. See for example the Beretta 391 or the Breda Xantos.
    1
  14. During WWII more M1 carbines than M1 rifles had been manufactured. Maybe there was something wrong with the greatest battle implement.
    1
  15. Blow forward weapons are known to increase the felt recoil.
    1
  16. No. The rearward motion of the slide is blocked by the fixed barrel and the frame. To disassemble the weapon you have to rise the rear of the slide and push it forward. The worst thing that can happen if you fire with the disassembly button depressed is that (and it's a case out of one-million) the slide can rise out of the rails in and be projected forward, so "automatically" disassembling the gun, but without any injury for the shooter.
    1
  17. Actually not only the Commonwealth reused all the captured Breda 30, but printed instruction manuals in English for the gunners issued with them, and flirted with the idea of converting them to .303 British too.
    1
  18. That's what happened when SIG headquarters told to the designers "we need to be more forward-thinking".
    1
  19. It's more complex than a tilting action, and it has more surface friction, so needing more lubrication.
    1
  20.  @jimmyh6579  This isn't direct impingment either. In his patent, Elklund clearly say it's a piston action.
    1
  21. @ The cylinder is what here is named "cup" that happens to be a cylinder. Many gas pistons don't have any gas ring, IE that of the M1 Garand (or, even better, the Degtyaryov DP-27, whose gas setup is practically identical to this gun, in having a "static piston" solidal to the barrel, and a cylinder/cup in the rod solidal to the carrier) . Here, enough sealing is provided also by the fact that the rim of the cylinder in the carrier protrudes and precisely enters in a slot in the receiver. Any gas piston action is "different in operation", but all of them are gas piston actions.
    1
  22. Guns with the recoil spring around the barrel aren't really made for an intense use.
    1
  23.  @jameshealy4594  Full auto 7.62 makes sense if it comes with a bipod and a muzzle-brake / compensator (a la BM59). That way the rifle can be used as an occasional LMG.
    1
  24. That's also another Ghisoni design. Unfortunately, the last one.
    1
  25.  @Israel_hans  As said, for sustained fire, water cooling is unbeatable. But it's only viable for firing from a fixed position. It's not only the weight of the water jaket. That water evaporates quite fast, so you need other water tanks, and a recirculating pump (you don't want to expose yourself to fill the water jacket), THEN the water jacket is exposed and gets easily damaged (and, without it, the MG overheats in a moment) so you have to add more armor to protect it, that's more added weight...
    1
  26. The weapon was supposed to be used with a shield, and with it it was plenty stable. https://modernfirearms.net/userfiles/images/smg/smg127/villar-perosa_1915_3.jpg That hole sight was literally the only hole in the shield. The weapon was designed to be a point weapon. Like a long range shotgun. Put it to surveil obligatory passages (alpine trails, openings in the barbed wire) and, when an enemy shows up, throw a short burst in his direction. With half a dozen 9mm Glisenti bullets in his body, he’ll think better. The MG-42 for example, with its 1200rpm ROF was designed with this job in mind. Not fire continuosly, but fire when you actually see the enemy. Given the charateristics of the two warfares, it was more suited the Villar Perosa to WWI (when you almost always had some obligatory passage to surveil) than the MG-42 to WWII. The weapon had been higly successful in the attack role too. So much that the Austrians copied it, double barrel, bipod and all. At the end of the conflict a total of 14.564 MGs had been produced (so, more than 29000 barrels, VS only about 5000 MP18), and 836 millions of 9mm Glisenti rounds for them. Mind this. THERE WAS NOTHING BETTER AROUND. When the guy with the Villar Perosa, after having thrown a couple of offensive grenades into the enemy trench to stun the enemies, came over the edge with the SMG in his hands to clear it, he didn’t find the guy with the MP18 waiting for him. Because there was not any MP18, or anything similar. What he had in his hands was incredibly better for that role than anything the enemy had, that were bolt action rifles and showels. After having adopted the Villar Perosa, the Italians took almos three years field the MAB18 (that were nothing more than a single Villar Perosa barrel mounted on a Moschetto TS stock) not because the Villar Perosa was unsatisfactory, but because it was so satisfactory that none felt the urge to modify it.
    1
  27. He wasn't a sniper in the true sense. More a master at ambush tactics.
    1
  28. Making it able to shoot .30 Remington. Still small, still lightweight, still not too powerful to require an heavy weapon, but more effective than .30 Carbine. .30 Remington is practically the same energy than 7.35 Carcano in a smaller package.
    1
  29. Glocks replaced the M45A1 (not the Beretta) before the SIG was selected by the Army.
    1
  30. That with aircraft sights is not the original model, but a model modified to be mounted on aircrafts. The original model is the one with the round sector, made to be mounted into a shield. 1916 is a year later than the adoption of the Villar Perosa as field LMG by the Italian Army. Sorry, but your guessing at 100 years later means little. As said, it's evident from all the paperwork, relations, manual, ecc... that it was originally meant to be a field light machinegun.
    1
  31. I already said why a very limited number of samples of the first year of manufacture had been used on aircrafts. In the original manual of the Villar Perosa there is not a single sentence or image of it's use as an aircraft weapon. The technical relation of col. Conso, chief of the Technical Department of Italian Supreme Command, on the trials of the weapon, states that "la mitragliatrice leggera Revelli avrebbe potuto rendere ottimi servizi sia come arma difensiva sia nelle azioni offensive, dove avrebbe rappresentato un notevole aumento dell'efficienza di fuoco sulle brevi distanze" (the Revelli light machine gun could have provided excellent services both as a defensive weapon and in offensive actions, where it would have represented a considerable increase in the efficiency of fire over short distances), not a single sentence had been spent on its eventual use as an aircraft weapon. The first production order for the Villar Perosa had been for 1.600 weapons for the Third Army, the objective was to have 4 weapons and 60.000 cartridges for any infantry company. OVP built a production facility with a capacity of 500 weapons for month, a production volume that didn't have any sense for the small requirements of the Air Corp. Only the slow start of the production made so that the first 350 samples had been delivered to the Air Corp.
    1
  32. As someone who spends most of his time reading manuals and information about guns you should know that there should be some information, including the weapons technical manual, that suggests that IT WAS manufactured with aircraft in mind to say it was. BUT THERE ISN'T ANY, while there is plenty of info about it's projected field use. Fact this that the gun had not been proposed by the designer as an aicraft weapon (in april 1914, when it had been patented there was not even the concept of "aircraft weapon"), it had not been tested as an aircraft weapon, it had not been adopted as an aircraft weapon, it had not been ordered as an aircraft weapon and, from the capacity of the production facility, is easy to know that its manufacturer knew he wasn't going to produce an aircraft weapon. M1915 is the name of the gun. The English manual on Forgottenweapons' site is not dated, and, since it talks of "experiences in the field" and of the gun being manufactured by the "Canadian General Electric company" I higly doubt it being from 1915. It's more probably of 1917 (the year the Canadian General Electric Company started to produce it), and probably quite late on that year. Conso was the chief of the department. He decided about the tests. Due to his favourable technical relation the gun was adopted as M1915 light machinegun.
    1
  33. It's not a question of deciphering. The manual is clear, and only talks about field use and shows field use. Sorry, but this "everyone" you speak of is only the English speaking world, and it does because of Chinn's "The Machine Gun". Unfortunately, for how much a good work it was, it's not the only case where "the Machine Gun" is inaccurate.The order for the Third Army had been made as soon as the weapon had been adopted and, again, a facility capable to produce 500 weapons for month for the needs of a 1915 Air Force is beyond ridiculous. At the start of the conflict (may 1915 for Italy) the Italian Air Corp had 86 combat aircrafts in total. In a month they would have produced more guns than the aircrafts capable to mount them. Still in April 1918 The Air Corp had 232 fighters, 66 bombers and 205 recognitors. You know that it's not like this that it works. To say that it was intended for aircraft use you have to find documents stating that BEFORE it had been really used on aircrafts. Unfortunately you can't point to any of those, because that wasn't it's intended use. Instead there is plenty of documents that point out to it's intended use as a field weapon from the start. Because THAT was its intended use. There are pictures of the weapon used on aircraft because it had been used on aircrafts TOO. To say it was it's intended use from the start is like saying that the intended use of the Mondragon was on aircrafts, because the Germans used it that way. I already said to you that the English manual is form 1917 at least.
    1
  34. Sorry, but it seems to me that you simply want to believe.It's weird to hear someone say "I've not read any document that says it shouldn't be used as an aerial gun, so it was conceived as an aerial gun". As said, there is plenty of info on it's projected use as a field weapon BEFORE the actual use and even BEFORE the actual adoption. None on the aerial use.
    1
  35. And that despite the technical relation, the manual, the initial order for the Third Army that was more than four times the number of guns given in total to the Air Corp, and the sheer size of the production facility.
    1
  36. Ask to Walther. This had been made before.
    1
  37. The Reggiane Re.2000, that lost the competition to the macchi C.200 and Fiat G.55 in Italy, was sold to Hungary, Sweden and United Kingdom (the contract with the Brits was blocked by the Ministry only due to the onset of the war).
    1
  38. It seems to be a first series "Moschetto TS" (Special Troops Musket). It was made for all the troops (IE artillerymen, engineers...) that didn't need a long rifle, and would have been encumbered by it.
    1
  39. In the XM9 program, other than failing the endurance and firing pin energy test, the reliability was less than 1/4 of that of the Beretta 92. In the XM10 program, being the control weapon no more the 1911, but the M9 and, due to the rules of the competition, to perform significantly worse than the control weapon even in one of the tests meant to be eliminated, the chances of the S&W to win without a complete redesign of the weapon were practically none.
    1
  40. Field strip is different from disassembly, and what's shown here is a disassembly of the rifle. A normal field strip (to clean the gas chamber, inspect and maybe replace the recoil spring, clean the bolt and maybe replace the firing pin) can be made in seconds without tools, that was not a given at that time.
    1
  41. They made an harness specifically for this.
    1
  42. At that time it was a REAL PROBLEM to manufacture a magazine that was enough well and consistently built to not have feeding issues and cheap enough to be discarded on the field.
    1
  43. Infact is a short-recoil rotating lock.
    1
  44. The MPL looks like this.
    1
  45. The idea that magazines in general are not designed to last 100 years had not touched your head, had it?
    1
  46. +Razor 1uk None doubts that being sarcastic but, reading the last line, it really seems sarcastic about the weapon's design.
    1
  47.  @robosoldier11  The problem with Italian field equipment was of quantity, not of quality. Every WWII army had a mix of issued items, some very good, some good, some decent, some subpar. The BAR, IE, was an abysmal LMG, but the US could simply "throw more BAR at the problem". The ubiquitous 47/32 Mod. 1935 cannon was as good an AT gun as the as the 3,7 cm PaK 36 and Ordnance QF 2 lb, with the advantage to have anti-personnel HE shells also. Problem was that often it had ONLY HE shells provided. Later in the war, all those guns had been made obsolete by new tank models. The Cannone da 75/32 Mod. 1937 was as good as the German 7,5 cm PaK 97/38, but, again, it had been made in little quantities.
    1
  48.  @Rammkommando  Italian standard troops were not well trained, and that affected their combat performances, while "special" units (Alpini, Bersaglieri, paratroopers, tank crews, artillery...), that had better training, performed admirably. Former Italian infantry soldiers that transitioned to other nations' units (IE those that joined the Waffen SS after the 1943 armistice) always remarked how better and more effective the training was. I remember a veteran stating "before I joined the SS, none told me what to do if a hand grenade was tossed in my direction".
    1
  49.  @chapiit08  That had nothing to do with Communists. Fascism created a completely inefficient army logistic, filled with corruption and people that reach their position due to how well they licked the boots of their superiors.
    1
  50. There were not those huge stockpiles of .30-06. Traditionally the US had a small army and historically the adoption of a new rifle was the moment to adopt a new cartridge. The old rifles didn't disappear anyway, so there were ways to use the old cartridges.
    1