Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Forgotten Weapons"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ForceSmart You were arguing about "inconsistent quality of Italian ammunition". Are you really able to believe that the 381 shells and propellants were made with different tolerances than 203 ones?
I understand that there are people, like you, that prefer apparently simple explanations that spare them the effort to think. There are many.
For the same reason , you prefer ad hominem argument, talking about "emotional response". Again , an apparently simple explanation that, undermining your interlocutor's arguments because he's "emotional" spare you the effort to use your brain.
(to remember you that someone you called an "historian" is not an historian instead, is not an ad hominem argument. I think "ad hominem" is another expression that you use randomly to be spared the effort to use your brain cells).
You prefer to be spared the effort to make a simple proportion too. Someone said "over a kilometer" and you bought it, without even cheking, because cheking needs to use braincells. Of the picture shown, knowing the lenght of the HMAS Perth, the first salvo has a spread of 410m. The second one of 412m (a little more due to parallax). Or 1.7% of the distance. A single turret longitudinal spread of 2% of the distance in action was considered acceptable to good by any navy at the time. To make a comparison, US Navy obtained 1.1% single turret spread, but that was in tests, with the ship standing still and not steaming at 28 knots, after years of tuning, with delay coils already installed (Littorios had them installed in winter '42-'43) and with slower shells (for a simple geometrical reason, flatter trajectory shells, all things equal will show wider horizontal spread. That has little IRL effect since ships are not just horizontal targets and the flatter trajectory reduces the vertical spread - that's why flatter trajectory is preferred in rifle shooting - and the error in distance and bearing, by reducing the flight time). Richelieu shown a 2.1% single turret spread in tests (four guns in it's case) still in 1948, after delay coils had been installed, and that was considered acceptable.
The service of the Regia Marina, or its "worthiness", is not in question, and I don't need any treat. That's anoter mental shortcut of you.
Since I'm being "emotional" I'll give you another (other than the high speed of the shells) real reason why the dispersion of the Italian 381 was just average and not exceptional.
All the Littorios were very "new". The first two had been commissioned only in 1940. At the time, it took years of tests to "tune " the guns of a big ship (Nelson class shown horrible dispersion in tests still after 10 years since their commissioning). And in wartime those tests are just seldomly made, because there isn't the time, the fuel, and every time the ship leaves the port, it's at risk of being torpedoed.
That's what Adm. Emilio Brenta stated. By 1939 the Regia Marina corrected the dispersion of all of their guns, big and small, so much that, for some of them, there had been the necessity to open the spread, to maximise the probability of a hit (infact, the best dispersion is not the tightest one. That's, IE, a criticism the Americans made on Japanese gunnery). For the 381 there had simply not been the time.
But I'm sure you'll prefer to believe in "inconsistent quality of Italian ammunition". For some mysterious reason, only of 381 shells.
It spares you to think.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1