It appears to be designed by people who've never used a gun before in their lives.

I've no experience owning an Italian car, but I've read accounts. Its much worse than having to pull an engine to swap spark plugs.

I love italian cars because they are often so stupid, but look so great, but i would absolutely never buy one. At least they perform well when they actually do work. This gun is just a whole different story. Its basic mechanism is over-engineered, in that it's overthought, yet still stupid and makes the gun worse that much simpler designs. And that's completely ignoring the awful magazine system and the need for an oilier.

Considering his hats, he better.

I like how his knowledge of guns doesn't come off as macho. He's very matter of fact about it. Seems like tons of other gun youtubers are either the paranoid NRA types or the over compensators.

With you CMark, he's showing pure and passionate knowledge rather than chest pounding man-gun freakness. I also appreciate his curiosity and awareness of how the mechanics of the actual thing works rather than how many things it can shred.

Yeah, I watch his channel quite a bit because he shows some really masterful early machining.

Except, according to this guy, Italy had pretty good small arms designs. He claims that only the gun featured in this video was terrible; all their other guns varied from "pretty good" to "fantastic".

His opinion of the Japanese light Nambu light machine gun is also very high. He said it's perhaps the best light machine gun of the war. So in other words it's the katana of light machine guns.

the Japanese did a little better than the French

I remember that a small arms designs had a minimal impact on an army's performance in WW2 and all conflicts since then.

Almost every fight in WW2 was decided by tactics, numbers and heavy weapons. There were very few large scale fights in which numbers were even or the attacked party knew an attack was coming.

Hell even D-day, which the allies managed to fuck up in almost every way possible short of landing on the wrong shore, still was a success despite the germans having far superior small arms

All the accounts of D-day I've read have spoken well of the Allies' performance. Do you have any links (or book recommendations) about how they fucked it up?

I picked up what I know from a documentary but this sums most of it up;

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/10-things-that-w ent-badly-wrong-on-omaha-beach.html/3

The rangers not only got tricked into attacking the wrong area, but they were supposed to have mortar-launched climbing hooks to quickly scale the cliffs. these all failed, as they were designed and tested with dry ropes. with ropes getting soaked during approach, the hooks didn't make it anywhere close to their targets.

Another part was diet. The attacking grunts were given a celebratory feast as a send off. With the rough seas and stomachs full, a lot of men were puking their guts out on approach.


The germans, while very well entrenched and armed, but didn't get reinforcements due to hitlers command structure, and mental state, being ass backwards at this stage of the war. Defeat was inevitable if enough bodies were thrown at them.

Funny; after reading your link I now recall having read about some of those things. I'd just never seen all of them collated like that... and a lot of it was new.

Thanks for the link & additional info.

FINE FORGET IT

Solro. Most of the D-day landings faced little or no opposition at all.
Also it was the biggest amphibious assault ever, a stupendously large and complex undertaking (eg. they brought their own giant floating concrete ports with them!) and the yet allies managed to pull it off without the germans knowing when it would happen.

But the only part of d day most Americans know about is Omaha beach, which was a clusterfuck