FirstFreedom
Moderator
Oops - damn, should have put this in full auto from the get-go...sorry.
Who made the first submachine gun?
- Thread starter FirstFreedom
- Start date
- Status
Johnny Guest
Moderator in Memoriam
Well, darnit, gifted - - -
Now you have me doubting my own recollection. I looked for my VHS tape of The Last Crusade over the weekend, but may have loaned it out. I hate to need to rent a movie that I already own!
Johnny
Now you have me doubting my own recollection. I looked for my VHS tape of The Last Crusade over the weekend, but may have loaned it out. I hate to need to rent a movie that I already own!
Johnny
I seriously doubt the twin mounted tail gun unit on that german biblane in "Indiana Jones and the last crusad" was a V-P.
It makes no sense in any way.
A. According to IMDB, the film is set around 1938. Why would ANY german aircraft EVER have an antiqueted, and VERY obsolete, italian sub-machinegun for defense against enemy aircraft instead of there own array of light machine guns specifically designed for this use??? I believe almost all the Luftwaffe's aircraft used MG-15's and MG-17's for air defense at this point.
B. Why would any 30's era airplane, biplane or monoplane, mount pistol calliber weapons for air defense against fighters wich were at that time armored and mounting up to four or more machineguns and light cannon in an array of callibers from .303inch to 20mm???
C. It was a movie, I bet the biblane used wasnt even german, IMDB says it was the same planes used in The Mummy. And of all the weapons to install on the plane for the movie, where would they get a V-M, and what remotely historical basis would there be for them to use it???
It makes no sense in any way.
A. According to IMDB, the film is set around 1938. Why would ANY german aircraft EVER have an antiqueted, and VERY obsolete, italian sub-machinegun for defense against enemy aircraft instead of there own array of light machine guns specifically designed for this use??? I believe almost all the Luftwaffe's aircraft used MG-15's and MG-17's for air defense at this point.
B. Why would any 30's era airplane, biplane or monoplane, mount pistol calliber weapons for air defense against fighters wich were at that time armored and mounting up to four or more machineguns and light cannon in an array of callibers from .303inch to 20mm???
C. It was a movie, I bet the biblane used wasnt even german, IMDB says it was the same planes used in The Mummy. And of all the weapons to install on the plane for the movie, where would they get a V-M, and what remotely historical basis would there be for them to use it???
Johnny Guest
Moderator in Memoriam
Well, yeah - - -
konig - -
Your observations are valid, but . . .
My sweet wife is much amused when I grumble about firearms or police procedural errors on the screen. It is a running joke in our household. I comment; She points to the TV and says, “Tell-ee-vision.” Waves her hand around the living room and pronounces, “REE-AL-I-TEE.”
I recall the Last Crusade scenes one way, others another. A matter for discussion until I can find a copy and look at it again. No biggy.
Why a VP in the movie? Well, probably because the prop master was looking for a gun emplacement that could easily be mounted without modifications to the airframe. Some collector or gun rental place (Stembridge??) had this little rig (I still think a V-P) available. It is notably easier to adapt a 9mm SMG for full auto blank fire than most other calibers.
Agree with your premise that the Germans had several standard, full caliber, flex mount machine guns They were/are large and heavy. I dunno if the little plane was actually flown with gun(s) in place for filming the movie, but the little gun used is substantially lighter than a twin mount MG-17, ammo or no. Not to mention the length in proportion to the little biplane used in the movie.
As to anachronisms in the Indiana Jones movies - - They are replete with ‘em. Tams mentioned one, the flying wing. The Nazis played with such a design, sure, but there were none operational during the war, much less in 1936 (Lost Ark.) Same movie - - The Nazis used P38 pistols and MP40 SMGs. (Though I note that in Last Crusade, there was an MP18 in use.
) Indy threatened to blow up the ark with a panzerfaust anti tank rocket. A bit early for those, as well.
I don’t recall any glaring out-of-era examples in Temple of Doom.
Fun topic, this.
Best,
Johnny
konig - -
Your observations are valid, but . . .
My sweet wife is much amused when I grumble about firearms or police procedural errors on the screen. It is a running joke in our household. I comment; She points to the TV and says, “Tell-ee-vision.” Waves her hand around the living room and pronounces, “REE-AL-I-TEE.”
I recall the Last Crusade scenes one way, others another. A matter for discussion until I can find a copy and look at it again. No biggy.
Okay on the 1938 setting. I figured ’37, but hey - -
Why a VP in the movie? Well, probably because the prop master was looking for a gun emplacement that could easily be mounted without modifications to the airframe. Some collector or gun rental place (Stembridge??) had this little rig (I still think a V-P) available. It is notably easier to adapt a 9mm SMG for full auto blank fire than most other calibers.
Agree with your premise that the Germans had several standard, full caliber, flex mount machine guns They were/are large and heavy. I dunno if the little plane was actually flown with gun(s) in place for filming the movie, but the little gun used is substantially lighter than a twin mount MG-17, ammo or no. Not to mention the length in proportion to the little biplane used in the movie.
(Emphasis added.) Right-oh, ol’ chap. I’m not up on my 1930s-era British aircraft, but I’m certain the biplane was a DeHavilland - -- Gypsy Moth, Tiger Moth, one of those. I’ve never read of the Germans using a parasite aircraft being carried aboard any of their Zeppelin airships. The USA had a few, for a while, though.
As to anachronisms in the Indiana Jones movies - - They are replete with ‘em. Tams mentioned one, the flying wing. The Nazis played with such a design, sure, but there were none operational during the war, much less in 1936 (Lost Ark.) Same movie - - The Nazis used P38 pistols and MP40 SMGs. (Though I note that in Last Crusade, there was an MP18 in use.
) Indy threatened to blow up the ark with a panzerfaust anti tank rocket. A bit early for those, as well. I don’t recall any glaring out-of-era examples in Temple of Doom.
Fun topic, this.
Best,
Johnny
Johny Guest,
Good observation, I also forgot that I believe almost all the germans are wearing Africa Korps M40 field caps before they were ever designed. Go figure.
But I made a much more glaring overlook, I completely overlooked the "flying wing" you mentioned that they used in "Raiders Of The Lost Ark".
In that case, anything goes.
Good observation, I also forgot that I believe almost all the germans are wearing Africa Korps M40 field caps before they were ever designed. Go figure.
But I made a much more glaring overlook, I completely overlooked the "flying wing" you mentioned that they used in "Raiders Of The Lost Ark".
In that case, anything goes.
Vp
it was a mock up of a VP. not a real one and since it was a british tigermoth biplane painted in german colors why cant it have an italian machine gun? LOL
pertanant points
1 last crusade did feature a mocked up italian viller perosa
2 it was on a british made biplane
3 launched from a german zepplin
4 you figure out where the BS in this movie starts(like the 1938 mps being used in 1936 which is when i believe the movie takes place)
5 did you notice the 2 stroke single cylinder dirt bikes being used by the germans in the famous jausting sequence?
the point is its a movie not a historical document watch it and laugh and point and enjoy.... or dont LOL
it was a mock up of a VP. not a real one and since it was a british tigermoth biplane painted in german colors why cant it have an italian machine gun? LOL
pertanant points
1 last crusade did feature a mocked up italian viller perosa
2 it was on a british made biplane
3 launched from a german zepplin
4 you figure out where the BS in this movie starts(like the 1938 mps being used in 1936 which is when i believe the movie takes place)
5 did you notice the 2 stroke single cylinder dirt bikes being used by the germans in the famous jausting sequence?
the point is its a movie not a historical document watch it and laugh and point and enjoy.... or dont LOL
First SMG used in combat? http://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7811043/m/589109167
For the MP 44 here you go http://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7811043/m/750108067
The Villar Perosa was the first true submachine gun, but it wasn't designed that way from the begining; it was originally designed for and issued to Italian mountain troops ("Alpini"), as a lightweight machinegun that could be carried without too much difficulty. The trouble is, an MG in 9mm Glisenti doesn't have nearly the range that mountain troops would require, so most of them were stripped down and rebuilt as OVPs (the Villar Perosa is just two blowbacks that sit side by side in the same frame, each fed with their own magazine, and the OVP is just ONE of those firearms placed into its own stock).
As far as "assault" firearms go, I think a good case could be made that the first one was the Russian Federov Avtomat; it's a select-fire rifle chambered for a lower-recoil cartridge (6.5mm Arisaka).
As far as "assault" firearms go, I think a good case could be made that the first one was the Russian Federov Avtomat; it's a select-fire rifle chambered for a lower-recoil cartridge (6.5mm Arisaka).
rem870hunter
New member
panzerfaust
the rocket launcher that indy used in raiders of the lost ark was. an R P G. "rocket propelled grenade". not a panzerfaust. the panzerfaust was'nt fired from the shoulder. but held under the arm it had a flip up sight. did not have a long range but was more powerful than the american bazooka. the panzerschreck is similar to the bazooka. shoulder fired but a larger shell than the bazookas 2" shell.
the rocket launcher that indy used in raiders of the lost ark was. an R P G. "rocket propelled grenade". not a panzerfaust. the panzerfaust was'nt fired from the shoulder. but held under the arm it had a flip up sight. did not have a long range but was more powerful than the american bazooka. the panzerschreck is similar to the bazooka. shoulder fired but a larger shell than the bazookas 2" shell.
max popenker
New member
It is all depends on the angle and term definitions.
On submachine gun side, it is either a Vilar-Perosa (pistol-caliber automatic gun, but with tactical role of a crew-served short-range machine gun) or Bergmann-Schmeisser MP.18.I (a true, one-man SMG)
On assault rifle side, it is somewhat more complicated. In fact, Fedorov "Avtomat" was an automatic rifle firing standard rifle ammunition (just not the most powerful one). Considering other automatic rifles, the infamous Chauchat M1915 could be considered in the same class (individual automatic rifle); it appeared a year before Fedorov and was made in large numbers (well over 200K) as opposed to several hundreds of Fedorov avtomats built (hand-made) prior to revolution of 1917.
The third gun in the same class is the BAR M1918, which was in the same tactical niche as Chauchat and Fedorov - an automatic rifle for assault troops - just heavier than others because of bigger cartridge.
The first intermediate round automatic rifle was probably Winchester 1907 converted to select-fire and fitted with extended mags, as ordered by French during WW1, following the Swiss experimental M1921 automatic rifle in 7.65x35, designed by Furrer.
On submachine gun side, it is either a Vilar-Perosa (pistol-caliber automatic gun, but with tactical role of a crew-served short-range machine gun) or Bergmann-Schmeisser MP.18.I (a true, one-man SMG)
On assault rifle side, it is somewhat more complicated. In fact, Fedorov "Avtomat" was an automatic rifle firing standard rifle ammunition (just not the most powerful one). Considering other automatic rifles, the infamous Chauchat M1915 could be considered in the same class (individual automatic rifle); it appeared a year before Fedorov and was made in large numbers (well over 200K) as opposed to several hundreds of Fedorov avtomats built (hand-made) prior to revolution of 1917.
The third gun in the same class is the BAR M1918, which was in the same tactical niche as Chauchat and Fedorov - an automatic rifle for assault troops - just heavier than others because of bigger cartridge.
The first intermediate round automatic rifle was probably Winchester 1907 converted to select-fire and fitted with extended mags, as ordered by French during WW1, following the Swiss experimental M1921 automatic rifle in 7.65x35, designed by Furrer.
carguychris
New member
OK, it's a bit off topic, but I'll take a stab at it anyway...
1) All-metal armored monoplane fighters were newfangled high-tech in 1936. Most planes in service at the time were built the old-fashioned way- cotton fabric over welded steel tubing, wood, or some combination thereof. In this case, small-caliber firearms are effective because the primary goal is to hit the enemy flight crew. WWI air combat started out with crew members firing at each other with handguns.
2) Slow, lightly-armed, "obsolete" biplanes were used throughout WWII for attacking "soft" ground targets. The Soviets used Polikarpov Po-2 biplanes for this mission with devastating effectiveness. Losses to German fighters were minimal because the Soviet biplanes flew at night at treetop level, making them almost impossible to spot from overhead.
3) It's a movie.
The Madsen LMG could also be placed among the early assault rifles. If my memory serves me right, they were used as cavalry weapons by either the Russians or the Japanese in the Russo-Japanese war.
There is one problem with finding the first when it comes to guns, because the idea is often born long before the gun is, the gun itself usually is not one gun but a range of diffrent designs, prototypes and conversions going from the ludicrous to the stupid to the outright ingenious. And it is an incredible fact that smart people who think up new and smart things, are often born in the same generation and think it up allmost paralell to each other.
Also, the period from about 1880 up to WW2 was a period where weapon design was changing at a rate that never was, or ever will be, matched again. Nations adopted a design, 2-3 years later it was declared obsolete, over the next 2-3 years they tested new designs by the week, finally found one they liked, set it into production, and by another decade or so it was obsolete as well. And the process started again.
This was the golden age of firearms design, and in adition to the excellent stuff that we know today like the Mauser bolt action, the Maxim machine gun, John M. Browning's pistols and Machine guns, the open-bolt SMG's, The Garand rifle and a hell of alot of other designs there was alot of stuff that never made it past the prototype, drawing board or inventors mind.
After WW2 it slowed down, most nations setteled for something they liked, or accepted a compromise such as Britain, when they binned their EM-2 project and the .280 British Cartridge to adopt the 7.62X51 NATO and FN FAL to comply with the NATO caliber standard in the 50's
Today new designs still come, but invariably most of them also go. The good old stuff however, is staying on. The Russians, and countless other nations, have adopted and modified the Kalashnikovs system, a design that is now good and well 60 years old, and still going strong. The US and many of the nations within its sphere of influence are sticking to Eugene Stoners flawed system with the AR15\M16 system. Some do go new ways, like Britain resurrecting the Bullpup idea of the EM-2 from the 40's, yet basically rearranging the magazine and fire-controll placement of Armalite's AR18.
Some manufacturers, like Heckler & Koch do invent new and improve on other designs to a degree that is amazing, such as the A2 upgrade of the British L85, and the recent HK 416 improvement, replacing a gas piston system for Stoners direct gas impingement system, creating a proper workhorse from a borderline ridiculous weapon that should never have reached front-line service, and only did so due to politicians.
Truly new and revolutionary designs in conventional guns may never come again, after all there is only so many ways to make something perform a fairly simple mechanical operation, and we've more or less perfected it over the last 100 years to the point where it will do it almost indefenitely.
There is one problem with finding the first when it comes to guns, because the idea is often born long before the gun is, the gun itself usually is not one gun but a range of diffrent designs, prototypes and conversions going from the ludicrous to the stupid to the outright ingenious. And it is an incredible fact that smart people who think up new and smart things, are often born in the same generation and think it up allmost paralell to each other.
Also, the period from about 1880 up to WW2 was a period where weapon design was changing at a rate that never was, or ever will be, matched again. Nations adopted a design, 2-3 years later it was declared obsolete, over the next 2-3 years they tested new designs by the week, finally found one they liked, set it into production, and by another decade or so it was obsolete as well. And the process started again.
This was the golden age of firearms design, and in adition to the excellent stuff that we know today like the Mauser bolt action, the Maxim machine gun, John M. Browning's pistols and Machine guns, the open-bolt SMG's, The Garand rifle and a hell of alot of other designs there was alot of stuff that never made it past the prototype, drawing board or inventors mind.
After WW2 it slowed down, most nations setteled for something they liked, or accepted a compromise such as Britain, when they binned their EM-2 project and the .280 British Cartridge to adopt the 7.62X51 NATO and FN FAL to comply with the NATO caliber standard in the 50's
Today new designs still come, but invariably most of them also go. The good old stuff however, is staying on. The Russians, and countless other nations, have adopted and modified the Kalashnikovs system, a design that is now good and well 60 years old, and still going strong. The US and many of the nations within its sphere of influence are sticking to Eugene Stoners flawed system with the AR15\M16 system. Some do go new ways, like Britain resurrecting the Bullpup idea of the EM-2 from the 40's, yet basically rearranging the magazine and fire-controll placement of Armalite's AR18.
Some manufacturers, like Heckler & Koch do invent new and improve on other designs to a degree that is amazing, such as the A2 upgrade of the British L85, and the recent HK 416 improvement, replacing a gas piston system for Stoners direct gas impingement system, creating a proper workhorse from a borderline ridiculous weapon that should never have reached front-line service, and only did so due to politicians.
Truly new and revolutionary designs in conventional guns may never come again, after all there is only so many ways to make something perform a fairly simple mechanical operation, and we've more or less perfected it over the last 100 years to the point where it will do it almost indefenitely.
There is a select fire artillery luger (8" barrel, 32rd snail drum, detachable stock) that was made in 1913 (it's in a museum in Ireland). It's one of a kind, but it is the earliest pistol caliber, full auto, stocked firearm that can be documented.
I thought Sean Connery took down the plane with his umbrella (by scaring a flock of birds into it's path).
What about the Mondragon. Patented in 1907, used by German aircrews early in WW1, a few were select fire with a 30rd drum, in 7mm Mauser.
I thought Sean Connery took down the plane with his umbrella (by scaring a flock of birds into it's path).
What about the Mondragon. Patented in 1907, used by German aircrews early in WW1, a few were select fire with a 30rd drum, in 7mm Mauser.
As reading memory serves, both or perhaps it was one or the other, the Russians or the Japanese, think it might have been the Russians were "experimenting" with selective fire rifles (Assault Rifles) period to or during WW 1.
As to submachine guns, the term applies to an automatic or selective fire weapon chambered for a pistol cartridge.
As to submachine guns, the term applies to an automatic or selective fire weapon chambered for a pistol cartridge.
What's in a name? Lots!
Back before the gun-banners got the politicians to (wrongly) define certain semi-auto rifles and pistols as "assault weapons", the commonly accepted definitions for pistols, rifles, automatic rifles, assault rifles, light machineguns and machine guns were (roughly) as follows:
pistols/handguns - intended to be fired held in the hands - no shoulder stock actual caliber didn't matter, as a bolt action handgun firing a .308 Winchester was still a "pistol", just as a .25ACP was.
rifle - stocked and intended to be fired from the shoulder. Again, caliber didn't matter. The subvariant of rifle was "carbine" which is a rifle with a shorter than standard barrel length. Originally intended for easier use by mounted troops, back when mounted meant "on horseback".
machineguns - fired standard rifle cartridges (by normal military definitions), and fire full auto, being either belt fed, or magazine fed. Generally, light machineguns weighed less than heavy MGs, and while there were variations, generally LMGs were air cooled, while heavy MGs were water cooled. Over time this changed, with water cooled guns falling out of use, and the term heavy machinegun came to mean heavy caliber machineguns (.50, 12.7mm, etc.) more than anything else.
automatic rifles - this term overlaps light machineguns somewhat, the key point being that they fire regular rifle rounds. They may be selective fire, or they may be full auto only, depending on design.
Submachine gun - is a machinegun that fires pistol rounds
Assault rifle - fires an intermediate power round (as defined by WWII standards), and is selective fire.
The first gun that fits the submachine gun definition is generally accepted to be the Villar Perosa. The Russian Federov would be an automatic rifle, because of the 6.5mm round it uses. The M1 carbine (or the select fire M2) would not be a true assault rifle because the .30 carbine round is essentially a pistol round, although a powerful one.
The first true assault rifle is the German MP43/MP44 (Stg 43/44). Indeed, the definition of assault rifle is derived from these guns, along with the name. Although originally called MP (Maschinen Pistole - machine pistols), this was a subterfuge to decieve Hitler into allowing the guns to be built, as at the time Hitler had forbidden any further weapons developement except for machine pistols. Once small numbers of these guns were fielded, requests from the troops for more of them revealed how well they worked, and Hitler agreed to their manufacture, naming them Sturmgewehr. Sturm translates into English as assault or storm (as in assaulting or storming an objective)
In US legal defintion, assault rifles are legally machineguns. The irony of the "Assault Weapons Ban" is that the law did not effect a single assault rifle, only semi-auto guns that just looked like assault rifles.
Back before the gun-banners got the politicians to (wrongly) define certain semi-auto rifles and pistols as "assault weapons", the commonly accepted definitions for pistols, rifles, automatic rifles, assault rifles, light machineguns and machine guns were (roughly) as follows:
pistols/handguns - intended to be fired held in the hands - no shoulder stock actual caliber didn't matter, as a bolt action handgun firing a .308 Winchester was still a "pistol", just as a .25ACP was.
rifle - stocked and intended to be fired from the shoulder. Again, caliber didn't matter. The subvariant of rifle was "carbine" which is a rifle with a shorter than standard barrel length. Originally intended for easier use by mounted troops, back when mounted meant "on horseback".
machineguns - fired standard rifle cartridges (by normal military definitions), and fire full auto, being either belt fed, or magazine fed. Generally, light machineguns weighed less than heavy MGs, and while there were variations, generally LMGs were air cooled, while heavy MGs were water cooled. Over time this changed, with water cooled guns falling out of use, and the term heavy machinegun came to mean heavy caliber machineguns (.50, 12.7mm, etc.) more than anything else.
automatic rifles - this term overlaps light machineguns somewhat, the key point being that they fire regular rifle rounds. They may be selective fire, or they may be full auto only, depending on design.
Submachine gun - is a machinegun that fires pistol rounds
Assault rifle - fires an intermediate power round (as defined by WWII standards), and is selective fire.
The first gun that fits the submachine gun definition is generally accepted to be the Villar Perosa. The Russian Federov would be an automatic rifle, because of the 6.5mm round it uses. The M1 carbine (or the select fire M2) would not be a true assault rifle because the .30 carbine round is essentially a pistol round, although a powerful one.
The first true assault rifle is the German MP43/MP44 (Stg 43/44). Indeed, the definition of assault rifle is derived from these guns, along with the name. Although originally called MP (Maschinen Pistole - machine pistols), this was a subterfuge to decieve Hitler into allowing the guns to be built, as at the time Hitler had forbidden any further weapons developement except for machine pistols. Once small numbers of these guns were fielded, requests from the troops for more of them revealed how well they worked, and Hitler agreed to their manufacture, naming them Sturmgewehr. Sturm translates into English as assault or storm (as in assaulting or storming an objective)
In US legal defintion, assault rifles are legally machineguns. The irony of the "Assault Weapons Ban" is that the law did not effect a single assault rifle, only semi-auto guns that just looked like assault rifles.
- Status