Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "OVP 1918: Italy's first WW1 Submachine Gun" video.

  1. The Villar Perosa had NEVER been designed for aircraft use. Unfortunately Ian's previous video contributed to spread this old tale, but it's evident from all the paperwork, relations, manual, ecc... that it was originally meant to be a field light machinegun and it had been used in this role right from 1915 (Italy's first year of war). It and had been adapted to aerial use in very limited numbers, simply because the Army destined the first 350 samples manufactured to the Aviation (that was a branch of the Army at that time) because they wanted it to be in full production first to start to distribute it to the troops. The OVP, Togheter with the Beretta MAB18 had simply been the first single stocked SMG, and first tries tend to be different from the subsequent ones, since the designer couldn't have a perfect foresight of the weapon's requirements.
    6
  2. I'd prefer to be the one wielding "this shit" and filling with holes that strange guy I saw advancing in a WWI battlefield with a sword in his hand.
    5
  3. 100 years old magazine.
    5
  4. Leave it to the Italians to INVENT the entire SMG thing BTW. The other can laugh, after having copied it.
    3
  5. Mike Lilienthal Oh my god... It doesn't requires any special skill or material to fire 9mm para instead of 9mm Glisenti ANY PISTOL CARTRIDGE IS WEAK. Simply the Glisenti 1910 pistol was originally designed, and dimensioned, to fire 7.65 Parabellum cartriges. When the Army didn't deemed the 7.65 to be a viable military cartridge, and required weapons in 9mm instead, MBT (that aquired the design from Glisenti in the meantime) simply necked the 7.65 Para round to 9mm without changing the load, so that it could produce 9mm weapons simply changing the barrel. Power-wise, the 9mm Glisenti was on par with many service rounds adopted in the same period, or later.
    3
  6. It wasn't meant to be an aircraft mounted MG. It and had been adapted to aerial use in very limited numbers, simply because the Army destined the first 350 samples manufactured to the Aviation (that was a branch of the Army at that time) because they wanted it to be in full production first to start to distribute it to the troops. It was meant to be a point weapon. Like a long range shotgun. See the enemy, fill it's position with a dozen projectiles. Pretty useful to guard bottlenecks in the barbed wires or in alpine trails.
    2
  7. The Villar Perosa was adopted and fielded in 1915. The Austrian copied the Villar Perosa design. First with the Frommer Stop M.17 (two full-auto Frommer Stop pistols mountged upside-down on a tripod ) then with the Sturmpistole M18 (a straight Villar Perosa copy).
    2
  8. The main part (few hundreds BTW. The OVP had always been a rare gun. The Beretta MAB 18 was far more common) of the OVP had been transferred to Italian East African colonies first than WWII, and had been used there in the first stages of the conflict.
    2
  9. The live round simply fell off in between of the normal cycle due to a worn out (100 years old) magazine spring and gravity. You need spring tension to keep rounds in place in a downward looking double-feed magazine.
    2
  10. Probably the magazine spring weakened. You need spring tension to retain ammos in a downward magazine.
    2
  11. The Villar Perosa had NEVER been designed for aircraft. Unfortunately Ian's previous video contributed to spread this old tale, but it's evident from all the paperwork, relations, manual, ecc... that it was originally meant to be a field light machinegun. It and had later been adapted to aerial use in very limited numbers, simply because the Army destined the first 350 samples manufactured to the aviation (that was a branch of the Army at that time) because they wanted it to be in full production first to start to distribute it to the troops.
    2
  12. +Luuuukich The 9mm parabellum is not a "far superior caliber". Ballistically a 9mm Glisenti projectile at the muzzle has the same speed of a 9mm Para projectile fired from 30 meters away. Since 9mm Para projectiles are lethal well over 100 m distance, the difference at tipical pistol distance engagement is negligible.
    2
  13. Err... no, The Steyr 1912 is a semiauto pistol, not a SMG or a machinepistol. The name you are afraid to write, because it'll expose how clueless you are is Repetierpistole M1912/P16, that's BASED on the Steyr 1912 pistol, but was adopted in 1916 (with a 16 round magazine). The Villar Perosa had been adopted in 1915, and is not based on anything existing before. It's not a pistol with the disconnector removed. So, other than having been adopted before, it had a longer development time. So no, Austrians didn't start experimenting with machine pistols first than the Italians delivered the first true SMG, and your insulting others only exposes your lack of arguments more. Sorry, but, even with the 32 rounds drum magazine, the Lange Pistole 08 was not capable of full auto fire. The first full auto capable versions of the C96 appeared only in the '20s. So, another time, you don't know what you are talking about. Obviously you can remove the disconnector to any semiautomatic weapon and obtain a full auto one, but "experimenting with machinepistols" is another thing than doing bubba works in a garage. Maybe you could have seemed less clueless even being only capable to google, had you know how to do it.
    2
  14. How? What's this machine pistol the Austrian started to experiment first than the Italians? Name it and prove me wrong.
    2
  15. I can do better than google. Thanks.
    2
  16. BTW notice that the Villar Perosa adopted in 1915 what CMMG just proudly patented as "radial delayed blowback".
    2
  17. 100 years old magazine.
    1
  18. Because the soldier on the side preferred to not eat brass.
    1
  19. +Razor 1uk None doubts that being sarcastic but, reading the last line, it really seems sarcastic about the weapon's design.
    1
  20. It's simply a weak magazine spring. You need spring tension to keep the rounds in place in a downward looking double feed magazine, and no magazine is designed to last 100 years.
    1
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. +PurpleIsALetter So? Have you googled enough to find that project that should prove me wrong?
    1
  26. You didn't mentioned any model. You made an unsupported statement, failed to prove it, and keep on failing. So, what's this machine pistol the Austrian started to experiment first than the Italians? Name it and prove me wrong if you can. Fact is that you can't, so you are only spinning out hoping to not seem too dumb.
    1
  27. 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
  28. Sorry guy, but you seem pretty desperate now. "Googling" doesn't work any more?
    1
  29. Actually the Villar Perosa had NEVER been designed for aircraft use. Unfortunately Ian's previous video contributed to spread this old tale, but it's evident from all the paperwork, relations, manual, ecc... that it was originally meant to be a field light machinegun and it had been used in this role right from 1915 (Italy's first year of war). It and had been adapted to aerial use in very limited numbers, simply because the Army destined the first 350 samples manufactured to the Aviation (that was a branch of the Army at that time) because they wanted it to be in full production first to start to distribute it to the troops.
    1
  30. Actually the Villar Perosa had NEVER been designed for aircraft use. Unfortunately Ian's previous video contributed to spread this old tale, but it's evident from all the paperwork, relations, manual, ecc... that it was originally meant to be a field light machinegun and it had been used in this role right from 1915 (Italy's first year of war). It and had been adapted to aerial use in very limited numbers, simply because the Army destined the first 350 samples manufactured to the Aviation (that was a branch of the Army at that time) because they wanted it to be in full production first to start to distribute it to the troops.
    1
  31. Not if you are crawling out of a trench or under the barbed wire.
    1
  32. Actually the Villar Perosa had NEVER been designed for aircraft use. Unfortunately Ian's previous video contributed to spread this old tale, but it's evident from all the paperwork, relations, manual, ecc... that it was originally meant to be a field light machinegun and it had been used in this role right from 1915 (Italy's first year of war). It and had been adapted to aerial use in very limited numbers, simply because the Army destined the first 350 samples manufactured to the Aviation (that was a branch of the Army at that time) because they wanted it to be in full production first to start to distribute it to the troops. It was a point weapon. You see thre enemy, you fill the area with a dozen projectiles. Like a long range shotgun.
    1
  33. Those kind of movements become automatic soon, and doesn't seem awkward any more.
    1
  34. 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
  35. A pretty good one, since no sober guy of other places managed to design a SMG before.
    1
  36. Good double feed magazine. Unfortunately it wasn't meant to last 100 years, and caused some malfunction. However the OVP was chambered in 1915 Glisenti, a hotter 9mm Glisenti ammo developed for the villar Perosa SMG. It's about 10% less powerful than a standard 9mm parabellum (instead of the standard 1/4 less of the 1910 Glisenti load). IE USCCo made a batch of 84 millions of those cartridges loaded with 4gr bullseye for the Italian Army during WWI. http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g377/r3dj3st3r/9mmGMaxim.jpg
    1
  37. You aim first. Then fire. Then there are a dozen holes where you aimed. It was like a long range shotgun.
    1
  38. More a weak magazine spring. You need spring tension to keep the rounds in place in a downward looking magazine.
    1
  39. yeah. It was already present in the first SMG ever.
    1
  40. This is a villar Perosa with it's original shield. https://modernfirearms.net/userfiles/images/smg/smg127/villar-perosa_1915_3.jpg http://api.ning.com/files/srCi9PsNqhpOc-3a6Iw348Gz9nm8pCTbMcH9TGZf5Z4-mJgrnFOnhLcu8omn2dU-wLNDXUuq*kmXVRssHz8vz2F3FZx2Cf6W/Villarperosascudo.JPG?width=737 As a defensive weapon it was rugged, (no water jackets to pierce), lightweight (it could be dismantled from the shield to take cover in case of bombardment in seconds) and safe (the only opening was the small sight hole in the selector). As an offensive weapon, it was more awkward. The shield was soon ditched for the offensive role, so the weapon remained naked and without a stock, but it was A FIRST. There was nothing better around to clear trenches, so none really thought of improving it until 1918.
    1
  41. Probably a weak magazine spring. You need spring tension to keep the rounds in place in a downward looking double feed magazine.
    1
  42. This is a double feed magazine, so in between the lips there is the space for a round to pass. It's the spring tension that prevent them to fall, but if the spring is worn out...
    1
  43. its a 100 years old magazine. You need spring tension to retain ammos in a downward looking magazine. Probably the spring on that one weakened a little.
    1
  44. What's "weirdly over complicated" in this gun? This is A FIRST. Others could have seen its performances and enhanced the design, but only after having copied it.
    1
  45. Yes, and that made it more compact and usable too. The stock too was a slightly modified Carcano TS stock
    1
  46. 100 years old magazine.
    1
  47. The idea that magazines in general are not designed to last 100 years had not touched your head, had it?
    1