StG44 in 1942?

  • Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/
  • Weve updated the Tripwire Privacy Notice under our Policies to be clearer about our use of customer information to come in line with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) rules that come into force today (25th May 2018). The following are highlights of our changes:


    We've incorporated the relevant concepts from the GDPR including joining the EU and Swiss Privacy Shield framework. We've added explanations for why and how Tripwire processes customer data and the types of data that we process, as well as information about your data protection rights.



    For more information about our privacy practices, please review the new Privacy Policy found here: https://tripwireinteractive.com/#/privacy-notice
Status
Not open for further replies.

Lucan946

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 12, 2009
636
84
0
I don't understand the masochistic line of thought that could make people want to remove the gun from the game.

Without any proof that the gun didn't make it to Stalingrad, I'd vote for what gives the game more variety. :IS2:

Just for the record, there is a great deal of proof.

I think his comment was sarcastic. ;)

I thought he was drunk, actually, so yeah, that's likely.
 

Hans Ludwig

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jan 13, 2010
255
567
0
Where? There is no recorded proof of it's absence...given that such a thing cannot exist.

Fixed

There is no recorded proof of it's absence, given that such a thing cannot exist (I would have probably worded the ending differently since it doesn't quite flow right)


When do I use those three dots ( . . . )?

Whenever you want to leave out material from within a quotation, you need to use an ellipsis, which is a series of three periods, each of which should be preceded and followed by a space. So, an ellipsis in this sentence would look like . . . this. There are a few rules to follow when using ellipses:
1. Be sure that you don't fundamentally change the meaning of the quotation by omitting material.

Take a look at the following example:
"The Writing Center is located on the UNC campus and serves the entire UNC community."
"The Writing Center . . . serves the entire UNC community."
The reader's understanding of the Writing Center's mission to serve the UNC community is not affected by omitting the information about its location.
2. Do not use ellipses at the beginning or ending of quotations, unless it's important for the reader to know that the quotation was truncated.

For example, using the above example, you would NOT need an ellipsis in either of these situations:
"The Writing Center is located on the UNC campus . . ."
The Writing Center " . . . serves the entire UNC community."
3. Use punctuation marks in combination with ellipses when removing material from the end of sentences or clauses.

For example, if you take material from the end of a sentence, keep the period in as usual.
"The boys ran to school, forgetting their lunches and books. Even though they were out of breath, they made it on time."
"The boys ran to school. . . . Even though they were out of breath, they made it on time."
Likewise, if you excerpt material at the end of clause that ends in a comma, retain the comma.
"The red car came to a screeching halt that was heard by nearby pedestrians, but no one was hurt."
"The red car came to a screeching halt . . . , but no one was hurt."
Also, if I employ your strange logic, I want the KT in RO2 because it wasn't documented. Because of that, it had to exist in 1942 in Stalingrad.
 
Last edited:

Sichartshofen

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
1,410
99
0
34
awnifgh3820ta3.jpg
 

dogbadger

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 19, 2006
3,230
553
0
here to kill your monster
Fixed

There is no recorded proof of it's absence given that such a thing cannot exist (I would have probably worded the ending differently since it doesn't quite flow right)


Also, if I employ your strange logic, I want the KT in RO2 because it wasn't documented. Because of that, it had to exist in 1942 in Stalingrad.

You're talking total bollocks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peter.Steele

Lucan946

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 12, 2009
636
84
0
Where? There is no recorded proof of it's absence...given that such a thing cannot exist.

Back on topic, do the Tripwire researchers have access to the book "Sturmgewehr from Firepower to Striking Power" by Hans - Dieter Handrich. Published by collector grade publications?

It is based on actual German documents, well researched and dispells a few of the myths surrounding the StG.44 series of weapons.

1. The story of the MKb.42 being dropped into the Cholm pocket is most likely that, a story. As someone else mentioned the breakout of Cholm was well photographed and there are none which show the MKb.42

2. First recorded combat troop trials of the MKb.42 was in April 1943

Page 157:


3. The troop trials of the MKb.42 were not favourable, some quotes from the troops that used them (pg 162 & 163):



My comments in italics.



I think it can be safely said that the chances of there being a MKb.42 present at Stalingrad as so slim that they might as well be zero.

But hey it is a game after all so if it improves game play, go for it.

That is some pretty good evidence in favor of its absence, no?
 

Witzig

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jan 16, 2006
2,189
52
0
Germany
I'd like to go Off Topic here.


Since the MKb. 42 was already announced to several Press People, it would not be a good choice to remove it. TWI could add a note somewhere that if their Pic ain't showing the Gun in Stalingrad/close to it, that it wasn't there in history but they let it stay in Maps of inapporpiate Timeframe until it can be replaced.

Research in Historical events even "if" only 68 Years in the Past are not easy to research and a lot of documentation didn't survive WWII.
And errors in Research can happen, TWI has a photo they are searching for to show us, which did show the MKb.42 in Stalingrad.
They didn't pull that fact out of Thin Air, its not that they were "OMG lets add that CoolZ Weapon to da Game.", at most they did have a misdated/placed Pic.

So even if there was an error in Research, they do a LOT of research on Map Locations/Weapons etc. If they get one thing wrong it ain't killing the Game.


Just my 2 Cents.
 

hockeywarrior

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
3,229
1,982
0
The RO Elitist's piano bar
www.youtube.com
I don't understand the masochistic line of thought that could make people want to remove the gun from the game.

Without any proof that the gun didn't make it to Stalingrad, I'd vote for what gives the game more variety. :IS2:
I find it rather humorous that if you track the arguments in this thread from the beginning to the end they are the same ... so many pages for so little to be said.

So let's go for a few more pages boys! Just keep restating the same things over and over and over again ...
 

skittlesareyum47

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 29, 2009
707
246
0
I find it rather humorous that if you track the arguments in this thread from the beginning to the end they are the same ... so many pages for so little to be said.

So let's go for a few more pages boys! Just keep restating the same things over and over and over again ...

As said... I don't really know why the hell people keep posting in this thread... let it die.
 

bas

FNG / Fresh Meat
Dec 4, 2005
151
14
0
New Zealand
www.gunpics.net
I'm coming out of retirement.

How is that source "definitive"? The actual production started in November 1942 (according to almost every source I've found), it's highly unlikely to have taken 5 months before any of them saw combat.

And from [url]http://www.amazon.com/German-Assault-Rifle-1935-1945-Senich/dp/087364400X[/URL] again
...

SheepDip, "The German Assault Rifle 1935-1945" is a great book for its time, I have a copy myself. However it is now dated and some of the information it contains has found to be incorrect as more research has been published. This is the nature of history research as you will be well aware.

The text I quoted is from a translation (by a native German speaker) of a primary source which clearly states that the first rifles will be ready for combat trials in April 1943. The actual units left the factory directly, bypassing normal supply chains to get them to the front sooner. They were also accompanied by Haenal staff members to assist with training the soldiers on the new weapons.

So we have a documented primary source detailing the delivery of the first MKb.42s to front line troops, we have their written reports back on their combat experiences with the new rifle as factual evidence of their first combat use. You have a summary in the dust cover of a book that was written 20 years ago which contains a number of errors and there is the promise of a photo which has yet to materialise.
 

bas

FNG / Fresh Meat
Dec 4, 2005
151
14
0
New Zealand
www.gunpics.net
Evidence is not proof. Given that the text I posted directly contradicts this text, as do many others.

This is a problem faced by many areas of research. Too many people repeat what others before them have said without actually varifying the information themselves by going back to the primary source.

You visit any firearms forum with knowlegable people and ask their opinion of Ivan Hogg (a much published guns expert and author) and they will list numerious mistakes he has made where he has just repeated mistakes made by other authorities. I'm not talking simple mistakes here, but actual errors in how a firearm functions which would be immediatly noticable to someone that has used the gun.
 

SheepDip

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
3,626
495
0
38
The Elitist Prick Club
I completely agree. Dated 1987, and the book you've posted from is from 2004. So you could argue firstly that the older book will likely have less accurate information due to the restrictions around acquiring information over 20 years ago. But you could counter-argue that the newer books sources will be more watered down due to the breakdown of information in just the way you have described.

And that's why we cannot discuss this any further. The technology, obviously existed, and the weapon quite probably did too in some form. That's as far as we can go.

We can only see second hand information - and it's highly unlikely the first hand information exists anymore, at least somewhere that we can get a look at it.
 
Last edited:

bas

FNG / Fresh Meat
Dec 4, 2005
151
14
0
New Zealand
www.gunpics.net
We can only see second hand information - and it's highly unlikely the first hand information exists anymore, at least somewhere that we can get a look at it.

But thats my whole point; the first hand information does exist and it clearly points to late April 1943 as the first combat use of the MKb.42.

We have letters detailing how many guns and of what type will be sent where, we have the dates they were sent and we have written combat reports from the troops that participated in the combat trials. You can't get much better than that.

In absence of any other strong, reliable information we have to conclude that this is fact. Especially given how well the 1943 combat trials are documented and the total absence of any documentation of other combat trials pre-dating it.
 

SheepDip

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
3,626
495
0
38
The Elitist Prick Club
I really need to stop posting in this thread, this is pointless. We used to be arguing whether the weapon was out in the field in time to actually be issued to someone in Stalingrad, and now you're suggesting (contrary to everything but the one source you have quoted) that it didn't even see combat until a year after the campaign started!

I absolutely fail to see why every source I've seen so far states late 1942 as prototypes & first production runs, or even why the weapon would keep the designation Mkb.42 if it developed further and sent to troops in mid 1943. By all accounts it would have been designated the MP-43/1 by then?

Max Popenker says late 1942, Peter Senich says 1942, Dieter Handrich says 1943...If "Sturmgewehr from Firepower to Striking Power" has stamped official images of the documents, letters about their use...whatever...then please post them.

Otherwise, they're sources in the back of a book - and just as viable as any other text on the subject.

Unless someone posts some amazing documented evidence/proof I'm really genuinely done posting in here now.
 
Last edited:

LemoN

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 26, 2006
6,293
2,346
0
33
Prussotroll's Bridge
I really need to stop posting in this thread, this is pointless. We used to be arguing whether the weapon was out in the field in time to actually be issued to someone in Stalingrad, and now you're suggesting (contrary to everything but the one source you have quoted) that it didn't even see combat until a year after the campaign started!
Most people already said (in this thread) and most sources state that the first combat trials were held in April 1943.

If you look at the production numbers listed per month from Nov '42 to April '43 it does make a lot of sense.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.