Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "M1915 Villar Perosa" video.
-
21
-
9
-
7
-
4
-
This gun has never been designed to be an aircraft SMG. It only happened that the first 350 samples (of over 14.000 produced) had been given to the Air Force (that, at that time, was a branch of the Army) cause the Army wanted the weapon ready to be mass produced first to start to field it. The MGs used on the aircrafts had a different mounting, without the round plate and with normal aerial sights. The round plate was intended to be used on the field with the shield. When used with the shield, the plate was integral part of the protection, and the hole sight was the only opening in it.
Its rate of fire serves the same purpose of the 1200 rpm ROF of the MG-42. they both had not been designed for suppression fire (heavy MGs were intended for that role), but to cover obligatory passages (through the barbed wires, or the mountain trails) and fire only when you actually see the enemy. Since the enemy is no stupid, he is visible only for a brief time, and, for this, a huge ROF is required to hit him.
In 1916 Capt. Bassi, creator of the Arditi, begun to use it, without the shield, to clear the enemy trenches. A stretch ot trench is 20m long at best. With a single burst of the Villar Perosa you can saturate it without even seeing. That's useful, since the assaults were often performed at night.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
Blair Maynard The MG42was arguably the most advanced MG of WWII. This is WWI, and had to be compared with other MGs of WWI. However, the MG42 was usually fed with a 50 rounds belt.
The job of a defensive MG in WWI was:
1) the enemy artillery barrage begins. You have to rapidly dismount the MG and take cover. The Villar Perosa was light and apt for this.
2) the enemy artillery barrage ends. You have to rapidly redeploy the weapon, cause the enemies are already running at you. The Villar perosa is light and apt for this.
3)The enemies are approaching, not from were they wants, but through obligatory passages that had been opened through the barbed wire, or through mountain trails. You have to aim at those. But the enemies are not idiots. Any of them is visible only for few instants. In those instants you spray a short burst at them and saturate that position. The Villar perosa has an high rate of fire, and is apt for this.
In defense, the Villar Perosa acts as a long-range shotgun.
As for the offensive role. From 1916 to 1918. the Villar Perosa was not "good" or "bad". It was THE ONLY ONE. It was, and by far, the best thing around for the SMG job, whithout any competition. Infact the Austrians copied it, double barrel, tripod and all. They didn't thought it could have been done better. Cause it was already the best.
But if you prefer to jump into an enemy trench with a bolt action rifle, your choice. I'll go with the SMG, even if it's not perfect.
Besides, 2 seconds for a 20m trench are an eternity.
2
-
This gun has never been designed to be an aircraft SMG. It only happened that the first 350 samples (of over 14.000 produced) had been given to the Air Force (that, at that time, was a branch of the Army) cause the Army wanted the weapon ready to be mass produced first to start to field it. The MGs used on the aircrafts had a different mounting, without the round plate and with normal aerial sights. The round plate was intended to be used on the field with the shield. When used with the shield, the plate was integral part of the protection, and the hole sight was the only opening in it.
As for the rate of fire, it serves the same purpose of the 1200 rpm ROF of the MG-42. they both had not been designed for suppression fire (heavy MGs were intended for that role), but to cover obligatory passages (through the barbed wires, or the mountain trails) and fire only when you actually see the enemy. Since the enemy is no stupid, he is visible only for a brief time, and, for this, a huge ROF is required to hit him.
In 1916 Capt. Bassi, creator of the Arditi, begun to use it, without the shield, to clear the enemy trenches. A stretch ot trench is 20m long at best. With a single burst of the Villar Perosa you can saturate it without even seeing. That's useful, since the assaults were often performed at night.
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
It had been MUCH useful as it was.
In attack, first, a sling that allowed to use it while walking, or running, designed by Col. Giuseppe Bassi, was added, then it was used a wooden stock that allowed to use the weapon on shoulder, and the MG had been extensively used for clearing trenches starting from 1916.
Maybe it could have been done better for that role, but remember that, since1916 to late 1918, it was the best thing around for that role anyway.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Blair Maynard
"I didnt start the MG42 comparison"
It was a comparison of kind of intended use. The intended use of both was that of point weapons. A lot of bullets on a little space in a short time. Not long bursts.
"The lesson of the MG42 is that "higher rate of fire is not always better". According to Wikipedia, the MG42's main drawback was ammunition consumption."
The Italians manufactured 836 million Glisenti rounds for 14.564 Villar Perosa manufacutred. More than 28.000 rounds for barrel. It seems that they were prepared for the consumption.
"If the MG42 gunner chose to use the 50-round belt "pods"..."
The standard lenght of the MG42 belt was 50 rounds. It could be lenghtened by linking several belts. But, again, you are comparing what's arguably the most avdvanced MG of WWII with WWI weapon.
"he would have to change magazines once every 50 rounds, while the Villar-Perosa gunner has to change magazines twice every 50 rounds."
Please, The 50 rounds drum of the MG42 was only a can that contained a 50 rounds belt. In order to change the drum the gunner had to: remove the spent drum, open the new drum, attach the new drum to the MG, open the action of the MG, extract the end of the belt from the drum, place the end of the belt on the action, close the MG.
It takes MUCH less time to change a pair of magazines, and you have not a spent belt hanging from the MG while you are running.
But, again, you are comparing what's arguably the most avdvanced MG of WWII with WWI weapon.
"Sure it would be a GREAT gun to defend narrow passages when a large number of troops try to get through at the same time, and you have the ability to spread or an angle your shots so that you arent putting all the bullets into the first person, but a Lewis gun would also be pretty useful there too"
And a Maxim, and a Schwartzlose, and a MG08, and a Hotchkiss... Have I said that others MG are useless? But the Villar Perosa has it's advantages. It's lighter, it's easier to manufacture and service, it's thougher (with the shield, the weapon is practically invulnerable to rifle-caliber projectiles), and its ROF makes it a point weapon.
"AND the Lewis gun..."
The Lewis gun was a very good LMG, but the Lewis Gun was heavy, expensive, sensible to dirt, It's drum was difficult to change (see vintage and modern clips. The servent can't really replace the drum while remaining in prone position. In the end, again, it was easeir and faster to replace a pair of magazines) its low ROF makes possible for the soldiers in the trench to return fire. The Lewis gun was really more apt for ambushes, when the gun could be placed in partially covered position, than to run on the battlefield and clear trenches.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Extended 50 rounds magazines were used by the aerial SMGs. However this gun has never been designed to be an aircraft SMG. It only happened that the first 350 samples (of over 14.000 produced) had been given to the Air Force (that, at that time, was a branch of the Army) cause the Army wanted the weapon ready to be mass produced first to start to field it. The MGs used on the aircrafts had a different mounting, without the round plate and with normal aerial sights. The round plate was intended to be used on the field with the shield. When used with the shield, the plate was integral part of the protection, and the hole sight was the only opening in it.
As for the rate of fire, it serves the same purpose of the 1200 rpm ROF of the MG-42. they both had not been designed for suppression fire (heavy MGs were intended for that role), but to cover obligatory passages (through the barbed wires, or the mountain trails) and fire only when you actually see the enemy. Since the enemy is no stupid, he is visible only for a brief time, and, for this, a huge ROF is required to hit him.
In 1916 Capt. Bassi, creator of the Arditi, begun to use it, without the shield, to clear the enemy trenches. A stretch ot trench is 20m long at best. With a single burst of the Villar Perosa you can saturate it without even seeing. That's useful, since the assaults were often performed at night.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
All the English sources maybe, but, when they deals with other nation's designs, and especially unusual ones they usually only repeat what someone said before.
More than 14.000 Villar Perosa MGs had been manufactured during the war. The box of this one is the number 4216. In 1915 Italy only had some hundreds of aircrafts they could have used this MG on. There had never been a huge number of Villar Perosa dismounted from aircrafts to find a use for. In reality the weapon was adopted in 1915 as "Pistola mitragliatrice FIAT modello 15" as a field weapon, and only the first 350 samples had been given to the Aviation (a small branch of the army at that time) cause the Army wanted the manufacturer to be ready to mass produce it first to field it.
As for the rate of fire, it serves the same purlose of the 1200 rpm ROF of the MG-42. they both had not been designed for suppression fire (heavy MGs were intended for that role), but to cover obligatory passages (through the barbed wires, or the mountain trails) and fire only when you actually see the enemy. Since the enemy is no stupid, he is visible only for a brief time, and, for this, a huge ROF is required to hit him.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
a) From the fact that it had been used from the start as an infantry weapon, and in incredibly higher numbers than the few that had been used by the Air Force.
b) Cause the existing sources, already mentioned, that you prefer to ignore (see for example Vittorio Bobba, "Pistola mitragliatrice Villar Perosa Mod. 1915", in, Armigeri dl Piave, Quaderni di Oplologia n.11 2000, pp. 67-86) states that way. The same manual of the weapon ("Istruzioni per il funzionamento e la manutenzione della pistola mitragliatrice per cartucce regolamentari per pistola modello 1910". Note that this manual, even if stamped in 1916, was written first than the official adoption of the weapon, infact it doesn't contain what will be the official name "Pistola Mitragliatrice Fiat Mod. 1915, but identifies it as "submachinegun for the mil/spec cartridges of the M1910 handgun") Does not contain any hint of an aerial use, and the only sample images where the weapon is shown in an environment, are in infantry use with the shield mounted.
1
-
Yes, that shield. It's evident (even without looking at the manual) how the round plate was intended from the start to be used with it. Into the shield it's an integral part of the protection. Without the shield it is only an overweight link between the barrels. There is no need to do it so beefy only to ink the barrels.
As already stated, the first 350 MGs produced had been given to the Air Force. It's cause 350 MGs were a significative number for it, and an insignificant one for the infantry. The Army wanted the manufacturer to be ready to mass produce the weapon first to field it. Moreover, to use the MG on an aircraft required only to mount it and say to the observer-gunner how it worked. On the air, it was "everyone for himself". To use it for infantry use required to form the MG sections, train them to function as a squad, assign them to the battallions, make sure that the senior officiers knew the possibilities and limits of the weapons...
What were the original intentions of Revelli, is not significant. The weapon for which the manual had been printed, the weapon that had been tested and the weapon that had been adopted, was an infantry weapon. Maybe that he wanted to design the first aerial MG of the world, maybe he wanted to design the first cartridge-powered toothpick of the world. Where is the source that denegates the latter possibility? Sources are not speculations over the intentions.
1
-
1
-
The weapon that had been submitted to the army, the weapon that had been tested, the weapon that had been adopted and the weapon that had been fielded, was an infantry weapon.
the shielded "variant" was the only variant when the weapon was adopted, and is the only shown in the manual.
That the weapon was unsuited for ground use is your opinion. Not knowing who you are, I'm inclined to think that, between you and Col. Conso, the one that's ignorant about basic infantry combat isn't Col. Conso.
That "the weapon was very obviously not good in ground role" is, again only your opinion.
The people so quickly "realized that such high ROF was counter productive in a ground combat" that the MG-34 was designed to have 1000 rpm ROF and, after two years of war exprience, his replacement was designed to have 1200 rpm ROF.
What you call "the obvious thing", that's to put a single Villar Perosa Barrel on a Moschetto TS stock, could have been done after six month from the first deployment of the weapon, if indeed it was felt necessary. But it wasn't. Other modifications had been implemented (IE, the tubular mag retainer was replaced by a conventional spring release, the shield was discarded, a bipod was added...), but not that.
Cause, mind this. THERE WAS NOTHING BETTER AROUND.
When the guy with the Villar Perosa, after throwing a couple of offensive grenades into the enemy trench to stun the enemies, came over the edge with the machine gun in his hands to finish them, he didn’t find the guy with the MP18 waiting for him. Cause 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 (and infact the Austrians copied it, DOUBLE BARREL AND ALL, first with the Frommer Stop M.17 and then with Sturmpistole M.18 THEIR FIRST SUBMACHINEGUNS WERE COPIES OF THE VILLAR PEROSA).
After having adopted the Villar Perosa, the Italians took almos three years to develop the OVP18 and the MAB18 (that, as said, were nothing more than a single Villar Perosa barrel mounted on a Moschetto TS stock) not cause the Villar Perosa was unsatisfactory, but cause it was so satisfactory that they produced more than 14.000 complete MGs, so almost 30.000 single barrels, without feeling the urge to modify it.
1
-
Infact, a substantial number of Villar Perosa remain, in various museums or privately owned. there are weapons more produced, more recently, that are harder to find.
For the others. At the beginning of 1918, the first samples of MAB18 were distributed among the troops. Suddenly the main users of the Villar Perosa, the Arditi shocktroops, found that there was a weapon more suited for the attack role than the Villar Perosa was, and began to insistently demand that their Villar Perosa were replaced with MAB18. The Villar Perosa literally went from being a perfectly fine and advanced weapons, to being obsolete, in a matter of weeks.
So, at the end of the war, the Italian Army had this stockpile of obsolete MGs, and had to figure out what to do with them.
Many were simply too worn out to be of any use (the Italians produced something like 836 millions of rounds for them, so more than 57.000 rounds for weapon, or almost 29.000 rounds for barrel), and were destroyed.
Other were stored, and were destroyed some year later (the Army is not a conservation institute. When something is useless it's simply scrapped).
Many of them were disassembled, the barrels separated, and transformed in OVP18 SMGs. There were so many of them infact, that Beretta was not able to do so that the more advanced MAB18/30 was adopted by the army. The OVP 18 was still in use at the beginning of WWII.
When, finally, the army adopted the further improved MAB38, the main part of the OVP18s were assigned to colonial troops, and ended their life in Libya and East Africa. Many were captured by the British, but, being substantially obsolete, and charged with a round that was not easily available, they had not interest in them and simply discarded them. So, the main part of the Villar Perosa, turned in OVP18s simply rusted out somewere in Africa.
Is not that I believe it was an effective weapon. Simply it was.
Sorry, I think that you have not enough knowledge of the operations on the Italian front in WWI to deal with the subject.
1
-
Infact it had been a widely produced weapon that was more effective than what was available at the time.
As I said. I dont' think you know much of the course of operations on the Italian front on WWI. To sum up the prformances of sereval armies over several years with a single word is pointless, for how much internetian commenters like to do that, especially when they know nothing about what they are talking of.
To think that a single fielded weapon could change the course of the war is... naif to say the least.
In WWI casualties, the part of the lion was that of the artillery. To an artillery shell is indifferent if the target has a Villar Perosa or his bare hands.
To use a SMG in attack, you have to come to see the enemy first. While you are running through the no man's land, what you have in you hands is indifferent.
Stalemates on WWI were related mainly on wrong tactics. Even when the necessity of specialized shock troops had been recognized, those of all the side of the conflict were instructed, when they conquered an enemy trench, to wait there for the regular troops to relieve them, trying to repel the counter attacks in the meantime. That obvioulsy led to huge losses to conquer few palms of land that often can't be taken for long. That situation lasted until late 1917 (when different tactics started to be used) and is not changed by the presence of a SMG.
Armies are not equipped with a single weapon. They usually have a mix that includes some exceptional weapon, some good one, some mediocre, and some abysmal, and, obviously, numbers counts. IE the French, among the major powers, had probably the worst long rifles of the war, but they managed to field an incredible number of Chauchat LMGs, and had a very good HMG in the Hotckiss. Italians, for about two years, had the only SMG of the war, but they fielded a comparatively small number of HMGs, and even less LMGs (also cause the Villar Perosa did part of the LMG job). So, even if the Villar Perosa, for some time, had been a very good weapon, the overall equipment of the Italian Army was not so exceptional.
"and when arming oneself..."
So it's very strange that the Austrians, after having seen the drawbacks of this weird Italian idea, instead to made the oh-so-obvious improvements, decided to field the second SMG of the world, and to make it identical to the first, with a SMG composed of two indipendent barrels.
But obviously that's cause the Austrians were idiots, that didn't knew how to fight like Iono Sama.
1
-
"The state Austria was" means nothing. To make a SMG like the Villar Perosa need double the resouces than to make a single barrel MG. So it's very strange that the Austrians, after having seen the drawbacks of this weird Italian idea, instead to made the oh-so-obvious improvements, decided to field the second SMG of the world, and to make it identical to the first, with a SMG composed of two indipendent barrels.
But obviously that's cause the Austrians were idiots, that didn't knew how to fight like Iono Sama.
What you are expecting from a battlefield you knows nothing of, has little importance. I already explained why a single field weapon couldn't change the course of the war. Your observations only mean "but I was expecting it could change it". Simply, in the gret scheme of things, SMGs are not so important.
Sorry, but I think you don't have a grasp not only on what happened on the Italian front, but on the scale of the operations of WWI at all. A production of 14.000 MGs is respectable, but not stunning. The Austrians manufactured several tens of thousands of Schwarzlose M1907/12 (that was, indeed, a very good weapon) during the war.
The Italians had not started with any "hard offensive". At the start of the war the army was not fully mobilized, and so it could not perform a full-scale attack. The early Isonzo battles were small-scale ones, and the Villar Perosa had not even been fielded yet.
1
-
"The state Austria was" means nothing. To make a SMG like the Villar Perosa need double the resouces than to make a single barrel MG. So it's very strange that the Austrians, after having seen the drawbacks of this weird Italian idea, instead to made the oh-so-obvious improvements, decided to field the second SMG of the world, and to make it identical to the first, with a SMG composed of two indipendent barrels.
Why the Austrians would have want to "increase the number of weapon with similar capability" if there was a so obvious way to make a better weapon with half the resources?
Evidently cause it was not so obvious.
And they initially didn't copy the design in the sense you mean. The Sturmpistole M18 (1918) was a Villar Perosa copy in 9mm Steyr, but the Frommer Stop M17 (1917) was a copy in the sense that it was mounted, had double barrel, ecc, but the action was original, so they designed it from scratch to have a weapon that could function like a Villar Perosa (and only later they resorted to completely copy the Italian design, probably cause it worked better).
So, in the end, your is not common sense. You are only guessing about things you dont' know.
It's interesting however how you come from asking "sources" to stating as matter of facts some misinformed guessing.
"And a single weapon like SMG wasn't much of an effect on the war? Maybe, maybe the Germans with their MP18..."
Infact they won WWI, didn't they? You are using an example that contraddict your tesis.
"But the most telling testament..."
Please. Is like saying that, since none copied the P51-D, that's a demonstration that the P51-D sucked. Spare me this nonsense, and avoid arguing with your straw men only to write something. Even a troll should mantain some dignity.
None said that the Villar Perosa was the best SMG of WWI, and I clearly stated that the design was obsolete at the end of it. But it had been an efficient and effective weapon during it, and infact, during it, it had been copied.
1
-
The Frommer Stop M17, like it could function in full auto with a 25 round mag in a double barrel configuration, could have functioned the same way mounted on a single stock, obtaining double the weapons with the same resouces. Why the Austrians would have want to "increase the number of weapon with similar capability" of the Villar Perosa if there was a so obvious way to make a better weapon with half the resources?
Evidently cause it was not so obvious. What is obvious is that they spent resources to have an equivalent of what their enemies had, cause they thought it was good.
Ahhh... so, if your reasoning does not applies. you change the terms of it, going from "copied" to "distributed" (usually for free. What a sign of success...).
Had the Italians gave avay their Villar Perosa for free at the end of WWI, you can take for granted that someone would have accepted them.
But, in the case of the Villar Perosa, there was still a way to use it in contemporary warfare. And that was done.
Dont' make a fool of yourself. The P-51s were given away so freely by the US precisely cause they knew they were rapidly becoming obsolete, and were happy to get rid of them.
Besides, US gave enough P-51 to equip a relevant part of an Air Force to few countries (many had very few samples of them) what for the others? Why none tried to copy it, if it was so good? Why none tried to produce P-51s for those countries that have had only four or five samples from the US, if it was so good? Again, cause the P-51 was rapidly becoming obsolete. It can't be used in it's original role of fighter, and could only be used to fill the gap in ground attack role until it was phased out.
And that of P-51 was only a case among many. Many optimal WWII designis had not been nor distributed nor copied (FW 190D? TA 152?). Simply, everyone knew that, for how much they had been good during the war, they were obsolete at the end of it. Infact the only WWII aircrafts that had been copied after it were the Me-262 (Sukhoi Su-9-11-13) and the B-29 (Tupolev Tu-4), that were the last technologies developed into it.
The Cavalier Mustang really demonstrates that none really wanted a P-51 after WWII. That the only idea of using it in it's original role of fighter was laughable (they, again, tried to sell it for ground attack). And even the one to use it against low-tech guerrilla fighters, by then, was frowned upon to say the least. In general, it had been a utter failure, with only 21 samples build, most of them given away by the US to Bolivia for free.
None said that the Villar Perosa was the best SMG of WWI, and I clearly stated that the design was obsolete at the end of it. But it had been an efficient and effective weapon during it, and infact, during it, it had been copied.
"Something that's good..."
And that's the "law of Iono Sama for what's good?". Sorry, but it does not apply outside you head. There had been many succesful, efficient, and even ground-breaking tecnologies that simply disappeared after something better had been developed.
1
-
Simply, to demonstrate that the Villar Perosa was good there is the fact that it had been made in substantial numbers, it's use increased constantly thorughout the war, and it had been copied by the enemies.
Those are facts.
To demonstrate that it wasn't good, you have brought nothing other that figments of your mind.
About the Cavalier.
It seems that you didn't realized it. You just demonstrated infact that none that could have had ANYTHING else would have bought it, and even them wanted it only for free.
Hardly a demonstration that the P51 platform was sought after, after the war, isn't it?
"Generally speaking, a design that is actually good will survive..."
As said, that' true only in your head. There had been many succesful, efficient, and even ground-breaking tecnologies that simply disappeared after something better had been developed. None said that the Villar Perosa was the best SMG of WWI, and I clearly stated that the design was obsolete at the end of it. But it had been an efficient and effective weapon during it, and infact, during it, it had been copied.
1
-
Again. To demonstrate that the Villar Perosa was good there is the fact that it had been made in substantial numbers, it's use increased constantly thorughout the war, and it had been copied by the enemies.
Those are facts.
To demonstrate that it wasn't good, you have brought nothing other that figments of your mind.
-To decide to ignore facts is your choice.
-Your statement on ROF is simply false. Modern SMGs, assault rifles and MGs have generally higher ROF than LMGs and MGs of the past, and just inferior (when they are inferior) than those of the Villar Perosa.
-General statements, often refuted, about "1st iteration" doesn't demonstrate anything. The Villar Perosa had been made in substantial numbers, it's use increased constantly thorughout the war, and it had been copied by the enemies. Those are facts. To ignore them only to keep on discussing is your choice.
It's obvious that you know nothing about ballistic and about the Glisenti cartridge. To use a 9mm para beyond 100m is a "questionable action" cause it's difficult to aim, especially with an handgun, not cause the bullet isn't dangerous. At 400m a 9mm Para still delivers an energy comparable to that of a .32 ACP at the muzzle. Are you implying that a .32 ACP at point blank isn't dangerous? With a FMJ bullet is an energy sufficient to completely go through a human body. The MAB38 in 9mm Para was widely know to be lethal still at 500m. Even a .22 LR can inflict serious wounds at 400m.
As for the cartridges, the 9mm Glisenti used in the Villa Perosa is in the same ballpark of the milder commercial 9mm Para loads. The ones that USCCo made for the Italian Army (89.460.000 of them during WWI) were charged with 4gr bullseye. Many reloaders use that charge for their 9mm Para and 45 ACP rounds.
1
-
"Being a fanboy..."
Unfortunately, you continue to write without knowing anything about the topic.
A ROF in excess of 1000 rpm is more common today than in WWII, when 500-600 rpm were the norm, and the 1200 rpm of the MG-42 (that continues to have been used extensively and effectively with 50 rounds belts) were exceptional.
IE, the FAMAS F1 had been made with an average ROF of 1050 rpm. When the French designed the refined G2 version, they INCREASED the ROF to 1150 RPM.
Cause they thought it was useful.
And the FAMAS uses a 25 round magazine.
And again. None said that the Villar Perosa was the best SMG of WWI. That's only a straw man you built. I clearly stated that the design was obsolete at the end of it. But it had been an efficient and effective weapon during it, and infact, during it, it had been copied.
"and sure.. 9mm Glisenti"
Unfortunately you keep on writing without knowing anyting about ballistic.
it's raher funny however that you keep asking me to "go find" something, when you are incapable to find anything besides uninformed guess.
The 9mm Glisenti is a subsonic round. It comes out from the muzzle being just subsonic.
The 9mm Para is a supersonic round. It comes out from the muzzle being just supersonic (with conventional loads. Sometimes subsonic loads are used in 9mm Para, to enhance accuracy).
For the rest, they are identical.
For subsonic speeds, the drags increases with the cube of the speed.
But, when an object goes transonic, due to compressibility, the drag increases up to ten times that figure.
For that reason, supersonic bullets rapidly loose speed, until they become subsonic, and, from that moment, their speed decreases much more slowly.
A 9mm Para (124 grains, fmj) become subsonic in the first 30m of its trajectory. From that moment it has the same speed, and trajectory of a Glisenti bullet.
What a 9mm Para does at 500m, a 9mm Glisenti does at 470m.
Try better.
At the end of the day, everywere outside your head, the Villar Perosa had never been designed having aerial warfare in mind. It had been designed from the start as an infantry weapon, and had been used in that role with success, infact it had been made in substantial numbers, its use increased throughout the war, and it had been copied by it's enemies.
1
-
Oh, dear. Someone keep writing of things he don't know only to reply.
Obviously the Germans did not know what they were doing when they designed a 1200 rpm MG. The French did not know what they were doing when they designed a 1050 rpm assault rifle,and upgraded it to 1150 rpm in its second iteration. The Czechs did not know what they were doing whan they designed the 1150 rpm Skorpion Evo 3. The Koreans did not know what they were doing when they designed the 1100 rpm Daewoo Telecom K7. The Russians did not know what they were doing when they designed the 1000 rpm PP-91 KEDR, and so on... Despite all the first hand accounts, they had been terribly ineffective weapons. Cause Iono Sama says that high ROF is ineffective and undesidered, and only him knows weapons.
Unfortunately, in the real world, you know nothing about what you are writing about. Weapon designers and militaries that commissioned them are not fools, and know their job FAR better than you do.
"And oh please, you don't seriously..."
Sorry, but ignoring reality is non going to bring you anywere. A 9mm Glisenti bullet is still lethal at 300m. A 9mm Para is still plenty dangerous at 500m (to write "DEFINITELY" in capital letters does not make you any more believable, it only shows more clearly that you don't know anything about ballistic) A 9mm Glisenti bullet effectiveness only fall 30m short of a 9mm Para one. To aim at that distance is possible, and, as already said, those sights were not intended fo precision shooting. So you are arguing over nothing.
"No one bothered..."
Except the ones that had to fight agains it, and that you are conveniently ignoring. Pretty funny indeed.
Again. None said that the Villar Perosa was the best SMG of WWI. That's only a straw man you built. I clearly stated that the design was obsolete at the end of it. But it had been an efficient and effective weapon during it, and infact, during it, it had been copied.
"Wait what's that? Chauchat was made a lot as well? oh.. it was bad? What? they used it just because they got nothing else like it but the weapon was terrible?"
No. It was not. That's only another demonstration that you know nothing of what you are talking about.
The Chauchat, in its original calibre, was a reliable weapon, and it had been an INCREDIBLY effective design. Federov designed it's Federov Avtomat after being impressed by the volume of fire the Chauchats could deliever. It's effectiveness was exactly in ease of manufacturing. In a partly occupied country, the French managed to build FIVE TIMES more Chauchat than the number of Lewis Gun that UK and US made in the same time. On a one-vs-one basis, the Lewis Gun was a better design, but, five versus one, there was not comparison.
Sorry, but real world works differently than into your head.
1
-
Again. Your claims are based on knowing nothing about any weapon of any time. Automatic weapons of comparable ROF had been designed and used all the way, form the Villar Perosa to modern times. Other than MGs and assault rifles, I already gave you examples of SMGs with comparable ROF, but you know so little about the topic, that you didn't even understand they are SMGs.
Unfortunately for you, I don't have to "justfy" anything. You claimed that High ROF means that a weapon is ineffective, and you brought nothing to justify that claim. Instead there are many examples of successful designs with high ROF.
Keep stating uninformed bullshit about bullet effectiveness is not going to keep you anywere. A 9mm Glisenti bullet is still lethal at 300m. A 9mm Para is still plenty dangerous at 500m. A 9mm Glisenti bullet effectiveness only fall 30m short of a 9mm Para one. the fact that there are rounds that are better at that range doesn't change this fact. To aim at that distance is possible, and, as already said, those sights were not intended fo precision shooting. So you are arguing over nothing.
Again. None said that the Villar Perosa was the best SMG of WWI. That's only a straw man you built. I clearly stated that the design was obsolete at the end of it. But it had been an efficient and effective weapon during it, and infact, during it, it had been copied.
1
-
"sure, like..."
No, like all the SMG that had been mentioned in my previous post, and that you keep ignoring, raising the doubt if you are doing it for your convenience or cause you are not so good at reading too. As said: "A ROF in excess of 1000 rpm is more common today than in WWII, when 500-600 rpm were the norm, and the 1200 rpm of the MG-42 (that continues to have been used extensively and effectively with 50 rounds belts) were exceptional."
The fact that you keep ignoring the basics of ballistic does not change the fact that a 9mm Glisenti bullet is still lethal at 300m. A 9mm Para is still plenty dangerous at 500m. A 9mm Glisenti bullet effectiveness only fall 30m short of a 9mm Para one. the fact that there are rounds that are better at that range doesn't change this fact. To aim at that distance is possible, and, as already said, those sights were not intended fo precision shooting. So you are arguing over nothing.
"But I have enough common sense..."
Unfortunately you have not common sense. What you have are uninformed guess that you keep taking as "proofs" of something, when they are disproved by widely available datas.
"And yep you can keep"
I know I can. Unfortunately for you, that's the reality, and you have brought nothing to disprove it.
1
-
"Disprove? the other way around, since the weapon had no..."
The fact that you don't know somethind is not a proof that it didn't exists (It seems is more a proof of the contrary though).
"and i already see it from the beginning that you completely avoid touching anything regarding effective range with Villar Perosa, and rightfully so"
Sorry, but in the real world I adressed completely the argument. The fact that you are incapable to understand anything of ballistic and so keep on taking your uninformed guess as "proof" (calling them "common sense") doesn't change the facts.
"Oh so you want argue..."
I have mentioned plenty of SMGs. The fact that you keep ignoring them, raises the doubt if you are doing it for your convenience or cause you are not so good at reading too. As said: "A ROF in excess of 1000 rpm is more common today than in WWII, when 500-600 rpm were the norm, and the 1200 rpm of the MG-42 (that continues to have been used extensively and effectively with 50 rounds belts) were exceptional."
And, again. None said that the Villar Perosa was the best SMG of WWI. That's only a straw man you built. I clearly stated that the design was obsolete at the end of it. But it had been an efficient and effective weapon during it, and infact, during it, it had been copied.
Again. That an high ROF makes a weapon ineffective is a thing that exists only in your head. A ROF in excess of 1000 rpm is more common today than in WWII, when 500-600 rpm were the norm, and the 1200 rpm of the MG-42 (that continues to have been used extensively and effectively with 50 rounds belts) were exceptional. Besides, even a weapon with a defect could be very good. the M1 Garand had been a very good, even exceptional. weapon, despite the fact that none used an en-blok clip to feed a semiauto rifle after it, and despite the fact that it could have been better using a magazine.
"Or what? perhaps you'd like to suggest..."
You keep on being plagued by mental issues, since I already adressed the topic of how the weapon had been used, both in attack and in defense.
1
-
"but of course"
I have mentioned plenty of SMGs. The fact that you keep ignoring them, raises the doubt if you are doing it for your convenience or cause you are not so good at reading too.
You came up wit the nonsense that a high ROF is alone a thing that makes a weapon ineffective. Reality is that a ROF in excess of 1000 rpm is more common today than in WWII, when 500-600 rpm were the norm, and the 1200 rpm of the MG-42 (that continues to have been used extensively and effectively with 50 rounds belts) were exceptional, and a single unwanted charateristic isn't enough to say that a weapon is ineffective, even a weapon with a defect could be very good. the M1 Garand had been a very good, even exceptional. weapon, despite the fact that none used an en-blok clip to feed a semiauto rifle after it, and despite the fact that it could have been better using a magazine.
"with the effective range of 9mm Glisenti with the effective range of 9mm Glisenti... which u constantly like to claim..."
Sorry, but in the real world I adressed completely the topic. The fact that you are incapable to understand anything of ballistic and so keep on taking your uninformed guess as "proofs" (calling them "common sense") doesn't change the facts. You can keep on believing that a 300m sight had been placed on that weapon as a joke, or cause, like the Germans, the French, the Czechs, the Koreans, the Russian, and so on, the Italians did not know what they were doing when they designed the weapon.
Reality is that all of them were much more competent than you.
"A soldier using a Villar Perosa..."
Had an SMG in his hands, to clear a trench or stop an assault. The alternative was a bolt action rifle. The SMG was more efficient. Infact it had been copied.
"And of course... you would not touch..."
Sorry, but in the real world I adressed completely the topic. You came up wit the nonsense that a high ROF is alone a thing that makes a weapon ineffective. Reality is that a ROF in excess of 1000 rpm is more common today than in WWII, when 500-600 rpm were the norm, and the 1200 rpm of the MG-42 (that continues to have been used extensively and effectively with 50 rounds belts) were exceptional, and a single unwanted charateristic isn't enough to say that a weapon is ineffective, even a weapon with a defect could be very good. the M1 Garand had been a very good, even exceptional. weapon, despite the fact that none used an en-blok clip to feed a semiauto rifle after it, and despite the fact that it could have been better using a magazine.
About touching something. You can try to adress the fact thet the subsequent MAB 18/30, that fired the same cartridge, had adjustable sights up to 500m.
1
-
"sure you did, including machine pistol as well, but you totally won't touch their ROF right?"
I have mentioned plenty of SMGs and reported the rpm of all of them. The fact that you keep ignoring them, raises the doubt if you are doing it for your convenience or cause you are not so good at reading too.
"you address that the weapon..."
You came up wit the nonsense that a high ROF is alone a thing that makes a weapon ineffective. Reality is that a ROF in excess of 1000 rpm is more common today than in WWII, when 500-600 rpm were the norm, and the 1200 rpm of the MG-42 (that continues to have been used extensively and effectively with 50 rounds belts) were exceptional. Anyway, even a single unwanted charateristic isn't enough to say that a weapon is ineffective, even a weapon with a defect could be very good. the M1 Garand had been a very good, even exceptional. weapon, despite the fact that none used an en-blok clip to feed a semiauto rifle after it, and despite the fact that it could have been better using a magazine.
About adresing something. You can try to adress the fact thet the subsequent MAB 18/30, that fired the same cartridge, had adjustable sights up to 500m.
"but you can't... "
I plenty adressed both the topics. The fact that you keep ignoring them, raises the doubt if you are doing it for your convenience or cause you are not so good at reading too.
"What's next?"
Not much really, since you are incapable to bring new topics, and keep on repeating the old nonsense I already adressed. A ROF in excess of 1000 rpm is more common today than in WWII, when 500-600 rpm were the norm, and the 1200 rpm of the MG-42 (that continues to have been used extensively and effectively with 50 rounds belts) were exceptional.
"You've been making total sense so far indeed... trying to justify..."
Unfortunately for you, I don't have to "justfy" anything. You claimed that High ROF means that a weapon is ineffective, and you brought nothing to justify that claim. Instead there are many examples of successful designs with high ROF.
"and 9mm Glisenti being effective..."
The fact that you are incapable to understand anything of ballistic and so keep on taking your uninformed guess as "proofs" (calling them "common sense") doesn't change the facts. You can keep on believing that a 300m sight had been placed on that weapon as a joke, or cause, like the Germans, the French, the Czechs, the Koreans, the Russian, and so on, the Italians did not know what they were doing when they designed the weapon.
Reality is that all of them were much more competent than you. To aim at that distance is possible, and, as already said, those sights were not intended fo precision shooting. So you are arguing over nothing.
About adresing something. You can try to adress the fact thet the subsequent MAB 18/30, that fired the same cartridge, had adjustable sights up to 500m.
"Did you think that with Villar Perosa's rate of fire you could..."
The fact that you are incapable to understand anything of ballistic and so keep on taking your uninformed guess as "proofs" (calling them "common sense") doesn't change the facts. You can keep on believing that a 300m sight had been placed on that weapon as a joke, or cause, like the Germans, the French, the Czechs, the Koreans, the Russian, and so on, the Italians did not know what they were doing when they designed the weapon.
Reality is that all of them were much more competent than you. To aim at that distance is possible, and, as already said, those sights were not intended fo precision shooting. So you are arguing over nothing.
"did you seriously think... that because a weapon had a sights that indicates..."
The fact that you are incapable to understand anything of ballistic and so keep on taking your uninformed guess as "proofs" (calling them "common sense") doesn't change the facts. You can keep on believing that a 300m sight had been placed on that weapon as a joke, or cause, like the Germans, the French, the Czechs, the Koreans, the Russian, and so on, the Italians did not know what they were doing when they designed the weapon.
Reality is that all of them were much more competent than you. To aim at that distance is possible, and, as already said, those sights were not intended fo precision shooting. So you are arguing over nothing.
"WOW, i guess the Thompson..."
The fact that you are incapable to understand anything of ballistic and so keep on taking your uninformed guess as "proofs" (calling them "common sense") doesn't change the facts.
The .45 ACP has a slightly worse ballistic coefficient than the 9mm bullet of the 9mm para and 9mm Glisenti, so it loose energy first. But there are no dubt that a .45 ACP bullet is dangerous at 500 yards. The actual distance precision shooting record with a Colt 1911 (8 hits out of then aimed shots at a 36" bullseye, with iron sights) is of 600 yards.
1
-
"Might want to do something about copy..."
Since you only manage to reiterate topics I already adressed, is much simpler this way.
"So because someone..."
Is pretty funny how first you didn't know a pistol bullet was effective at long distances. Once I told you the probele was that, for you, it was impossible to aim at that distances. Now that I told you that its' possible with a weapon much more difficult to ain than a SMG on a support (a pistol with iron sights), you return back to your previous nonsense.
The fact that you are incapable to understand anything of ballistic and so keep on taking your uninformed guess as "proofs" (calling them "common sense") doesn't change the facts. You can keep on believing that a 300m sight had been placed on that weapon as a joke, or cause, like the Germans, the French, the Czechs, the Koreans, the Russian, and so on, the Italians did not know what they were doing when they designed the weapon.
Reality is that all of them were much more competent than you. To aim at that distance is possible, and, as already said, those sights were not intended fo precision shooting. So you are arguing over nothing.
About adresing something. You can try to adress the fact thet the subsequent MAB 18/30, that fired the same cartridge, had adjustable sights up to 500m.
"You have a very interesting definition of effective"
It's obvious that you know nothing about ballistic and about the Glisenti cartridge. To use a 9mm para beyond 100m is a "questionable action" cause it's difficult to aim, especially with an handgun, not cause the bullet isn't dangerous. At 400m a 9mm Para still delivers an energy comparable to that of a .32 ACP at the muzzle. Are you implying that a .32 ACP at point blank isn't dangerous? With a FMJ bullet is an energy sufficient to completely go through a human body. The MAB38 in 9mm Para was widely know to be lethal still at 500m. Even a .22 LR can inflict serious wounds at 400m.
As for the cartridges, the 9mm Glisenti used in the Villa Perosa is in the same ballpark of the milder commercial 9mm Para loads. The ones that USCCo made for the Italian Army (89.460.000 of them during WWI) were charged with 4gr bullseye. Many reloaders use that charge for their 9mm Para and 45 ACP rounds.
"All you've been doing with SMG..."
...Is demonstrating to you that the fact that an high ROF makes a weapon ineffective is a thing that exists only in your head. A ROF in excess of 1000 rpm is more common today than in WWII, when 500-600 rpm were the norm, and the 1200 rpm of the MG-42 (that continues to have been used extensively and effectively with 50 rounds belts) were exceptional. Anyway, even a single unwanted charateristic isn't enough to say that a weapon is ineffective, even a weapon with a defect could be very good. the M1 Garand had been a very good, even exceptional. weapon, despite the fact that none used an en-blok clip to feed a semiauto rifle after it, and despite the fact that it could have been better using a magazine.
It's replacement...
Again. None said that the Villar Perosa was the best SMG of WWI. That's only a straw man you built. I clearly stated that the design was obsolete at the end of it. But it had been an efficient and effective weapon during it, and infact, during it, it had been copied.
1
-
"They are all also much more competent than you..."
They are. Infact It's not me that is questioning their work without knowing anything of the topic he is writinga about. It's you.
"which they will state clearly NONE of which are of course foolish enough to claim maximum ballistic range"
To claim that 400 or 500 m are the maximum ballistic range only further demonstrates that you know nothing about ballistic. You can keep on believing that a 300m sight had been placed on that weapon as a joke, or cause, like the Germans, the French, the Czechs, the Koreans, the Russian, and so on, the Italians did not know what they were doing when they designed the weapon.
Reality is that all of them were much more competent than you. To aim at that distance is possible, and, as already said, those sights were not intended fo precision shooting. So you are arguing over nothing.
About adresing something. You can try to adress the fact thet the subsequent MAB 18/30, that fired the same cartridge, had adjustable sights up to 500m.
"You also seems to have a case of selective attention..."
The fact that an high ROF makes a weapon ineffective is a thing that exists only in your head. A ROF in excess of 1000 rpm is more common today than in WWII, when 500-600 rpm were the norm, and the 1200 rpm of the MG-42 (that continues to have been used extensively and effectively with 50 rounds belts) were exceptional. Anyway, even a single unwanted charateristic isn't enough to say that a weapon is ineffective, even a weapon with a defect could be very good. the M1 Garand had been a very good, even exceptional. weapon, despite the fact that none used an en-blok clip to feed a semiauto rifle after it, and despite the fact that it could have been better using a magazine.
"Best SMG of WW1?"
I already suspected that you are not fully capable to understand what you read. None said that the Villar Perosa was the best SMG of WWI. That's only a straw man you built. I clearly stated that the design was obsolete at the end of it. But it had been an efficient and effective weapon during it, and infact, during it, it had been copied.
"But oh no..."
Unfortunately for you, this topic had been already fully adressed. The fact that it was possible to do better does not imply the SMG was ineffective when it had been used in any place that isn't your head. None said that the Villar Perosa was the best SMG of WWI. That's only a straw man you built. I clearly stated that the design was obsolete at the end of it. But it had been an efficient and effective weapon during it, and infact, during it, it had been copied.
1
-
"LOL, and did you think i did not see that edit..."
Another thing that exists only in your head. None said that the Villar Perosa was the best SMG of WWI. That's only a straw man you built. I clearly stated that the design was obsolete at the end of it. But it had been an efficient and effective weapon during it, and infact, during it, it had been copied.
"Oh boy, you might have a hard..."
It takes two to tango. You have something for being owned evidently.
"And unlike say a Garand..."
It was you that kept saying nonsense about the ineffectiveness of the weapon basing that on the fact that it had some charateristics that had not ben used after it. Reality is that an unwanted charateristic isn't enough to say that a weapon is ineffective, even a weapon with a defect could be very good. the M1 Garand had been a very good, even exceptional. weapon, despite the fact that none used an en-blok clip to feed a semiauto rifle after it, and despite the fact that it could have been better using a magazine. The Villar Perosa instead was the first SMG, so there was not "plenty" of others to confront it, but in it had been copied by the second, so it's charateristics were evidently not considered a hindrance, and were even envied.
"except you just did"
You should really do something for your mental issues. None said that the Villar Perosa was the best SMG of WWI. That's only a straw man you built. I clearly stated that the design was obsolete at the end of it. But it had been an efficient and effective weapon during it, and infact, during it, it had been copied.
"And of course... until now..."
ONly in your head the fact that it was possible to do better means that the weapons was uneffective when it had been used. Reality is that an unwanted charateristic isn't enough to say that a weapon is ineffective, even a weapon with a defect could be very good. the M1 Garand had been a very good, even exceptional. weapon, despite the fact that none used an en-blok clip to feed a semiauto rifle after it, and despite the fact that it could have been better using a magazine. The Villar Perosa design was obsolete at the end of WWI, but it had been an efficient and effective weapon during it, and infact, during it, it had been copied.
"You can also keep dreaming..."
Your mental issues continues to play tricks to you. I clearly stated that the Villar Perosa was not a saturation weapon.
1
-
"Sure, we'll just pretend that..."
It's nota question of "pretend". None said that the Villar Perosa was the best SMG of WWI. That's only a straw man you built. I clearly stated that the design was obsolete at the end of it. But it had been an efficient and effective weapon during it, and infact, during it, it had been copied.
"Villar Perosa is not a saturation weapon you say"
I said from the start the use it was destined.
"And yet you obviously focused on claiming..."
It had been you that, not knowing anything about ballistic, questioned the sights on the weapon. You can keep on believing that a 300m sight had been placed on that weapon as a joke, or cause, like the Germans, the French, the Czechs, the Koreans, the Russian, and so on, the Italians did not know what they were doing when they designed the weapon.
Reality is that all of them were much more competent than you. To aim at that distance is possible, and, as already said, those sights were not intended fo precision shooting. So you are arguing over nothing.
About adresing something. You can try to adress the fact thet the subsequent MAB 18/30, that fired the same cartridge, had adjustable sights up to 500m.
"Are you suggesting that they fired the weapon in an accurate firing..."
as already said, those sights were not intended fo precision shooting. So you are arguing over nothing.
"And so it's a weapon not meant for saturation..."
Infact the MG42 was not meant for saturation, and had a very high ROF. We have already adressed the topic.
"Which incidentally you kept claiming that it is not a flaw"
I don't need it. Only in your head a single flaw makes a weapon ineffective, so you are desperately search for one. Reality is that an unwanted charateristic isn't enough to say that a weapon is ineffective, even a weapon with a defect could be very good. the M1 Garand had been a very good, even exceptional. weapon, despite the fact that none used an en-blok clip to feed a semiauto rifle after it, and despite the fact that it could have been better using a magazine. The Villar Perosa instead was the first SMG, so there was not "plenty" of others to confront it, but in it had been copied by the second, so it's charateristics were evidently not considered a hindrance, and were even envied.
"Instead you tried to claim "unwanted charateristic isn't enough to say that a weapon is ineffective" so you DO recognize that the ROF on it was in fact a flaw,"
No. I'm telling you that only in your head a single flaw makes a weapon ineffective. Reality is that an unwanted charateristic isn't enough to say that a weapon is ineffective, even a weapon with a defect could be very good. the M1 Garand had been a very good, even exceptional. weapon, despite the fact that none used an en-blok clip to feed a semiauto rifle after it, and despite the fact that it could have been better using a magazine. The Villar Perosa instead was the first SMG, so there was not "plenty" of others to confront it, but in it had been copied by the second, so it's charateristics were evidently not considered a hindrance, and were even envied.
"And then you tried to use Garand ... this during a time when basically every single other rifle in service, all used clips..."
It had been you dthat come up with the nonsense that, if the subvsequent weapons had been done differently, than the previous one had to be ineffective. But that's true opnly in your head. Reality is that even a weapon with a defect could be very good. the M1 Garand had been a very good, even exceptional. weapon, despite the fact that none used an en-blok clip to feed a semiauto rifle after it, and despite the fact that it could have been better using a magazine.
When the Villar Perosa was used, there was not "any other SMG". It had been the first, and the second was copied from it. So it's charateristics were even envied.
"the ROF is not an issue, using MG42..."
I have mentioned plenty of SMGs. The fact that you keep ignoring them, raises the doubt if you are doing it for your convenience or cause you are not so good at reading too.
A ROF in excess of 1000 rpm is more common today than in WWII, when 500-600 rpm were the norm, and the 1200 rpm of the MG-42 (that continues to have been used extensively and effectively with 50 rounds belts) were exceptional. Anyway, even a single unwanted charateristic isn't enough to say that a weapon is ineffective, even a weapon with a defect could be very good. the M1 Garand had been a very good, even exceptional. weapon, despite the fact that none used an en-blok clip to feed a semiauto rifle after it, and despite the fact that it could have been better using a magazine.
"in order to justify..."
Unfortunately for you, I don't have to "justfy" anything. You claimed that High ROF means that a weapon is ineffective, and you brought nothing to justify that claim. Instead there are many examples of successful designs with high ROF.
"If the weapon is "efficient"..."
...it had been made in substantial numbers, its use increased throughout the war, and it had been copied by it's enemies.
1
-
1