Talk:Villar Perosa aircraft submachine gun

Untitled
I think that the rate of fire is "only" 1200 rounds per minute. "The great book of guns" (Salamander Books 2004) says that.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.154.107.15 (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is terrible
See ; at minimun it needs to separate the AAMG from the handheld SMG; they had different rates of fire etc. The Skoda built M.18 was a clone of the latter using Austrian ammo etc., etc. Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Also calling an "aircraft" gun in the title is iffy, even if that was the intent at some point. It was commonly issued with a shield (of 26KG) for infantry use, although the shield was often abandoned by troops. See for infantry use details. Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

There was also a fairly significant difference between the OVP smg and the Beretta(s); see pictures here:. Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

a notice
the Villar-Perosa M1915 is considered a machine gun and not a submachine gun — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.65.25.116 (talk) 09:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The distinctions between both categories of firearm during this period of history are utterly nebulous. One person’s submachine gun is another’s machine gun - this is further complicated by language and nomenclature. These types of firearms (fully-automatic pistol-calibre) were not originally called “sub-machine guns” - this term came a bit later, I believe coined by an American during the development of the Thompson series of firearms.

The Germans called their MP18 a term roughly analogous to “machine pistol” - either way, this long-standing argument has no definitive answer, because it’s a matter of perspective. The Villar-Perosa technically fits the most basic tenets of what we now call a “submachine gun” (which, if you want to be literal the term’s meaning at face value would pretty much fit the Villar-Perosa to a T - it being a sub-calibre machine gun), the other side can state “the Villar-Perosa isn’t the first because it wasn’t used in the same way as SMG’s would go on to be used in the future. A counter argument is that it was used in a similar way, just defensively instead of how the Germans used their MP18 purely offensively - and the arguments would go on and on because there is no right answer because the term itself is utterly nebulous when trying to apply it to a period of history in which the term has no basis or meaning or legacy.

It all comes down to personal preference and nationalistic pettiness. An attempt at compromise is that BOTH implements contributed to the modern concept of the submachine gun, the MP18 pioneering it offensively and the Villar-Perosa pioneering the class of firearm defensively. Both can be first, since the debate itself is ridiculous already, the attempt to reconcile both assertions might as well match.

That said, I find the point that the Villar-Perosa can’t be an SMG because it’s actually a light machine gun to be a very lackluster argument, which authority decides such things? Again, it comes to arguing over nomenclature that hadn’t even fully formed yet. The Villar-Perosa sure doesn’t resemble other light machine guns such as the Lewis or Madsen, the sub-caliber and all. Why can’t it be both? 73.80.251.173 (talk) 12:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)