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 have no stake in this beyond my personal interest in the series of weapons. I am only interested in the facts as we know them and don't care if the date is 1942 or 1943 as long as it is factual. To date the best published source I have read on these rifles is Han's book. If you have a better source please tell me what it is as I'd love to have a copy of it too!
I absolutely fail to see why every source I've seen so far states late 1942 as prototypes & first production runs
Everyone agrees that production started late 1942. We are discussing the date it first was issued to combat troops. And Hans is the first author to be able to give a definitive date, all others have been a general "mid 1942"
Look at Max's comment:
The first weapons were issued to front line units on the Eastern front by the mid-1942, and the low-rate mass production began in late 1942
Issuing weapons to combat troops before mass production has started? Isn't that a case of putting the cart before the horse?
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?
The first troop trials in April 1943 included a small number of MKb.42 B rifles which later on was renamed to the MP.43/1. When the troop trials began the MKb.42 had already been superceeded by the closed bolt MP.43/1 This is reflected in the instructions to the troops responsible for the combat trials.
Why is it so difficult to accept that it took a year from the production of the first 50 prototypes until the rifle was avaiable in enough numbers for first combat trials. You also need to keep in mind that there is more to it than just the rifles; you need to have enough magazines, ammunition, pouches etc. The receiving soldiers need to be trained in the use of the new rifle, they need to be shipped along with sufficient ammunition to the front (by rail, truck or horse and cart).
If you think about it, its an impressive feat that they got the guns from the prototype stage to production and front line as fast as they did.
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.
Funny how you place a higher burden of proof on the book that disagrees with your opinon.
I have read Peter's and Han's book. Peter perpetuates the same myths surrounding the series of guns that many authors do. Hans address's them directly and where he can provides source documents to disprove them and where he can't he says so. The Cholm myth is a good example. According to Hans, at the time of the Cholm breakout 50 rifles had been produced (documented fact) of those 25 had been send to the weapons testing range (documented fact) 25 rifles and a quantity of ammunition are therefore not accounted for so it is possible that they were dropped into the Cholm pocket (speculation). The Russians claimed to have captured a MKb.42 from the Cholm battle and display it in a museum (where Max gets his date from). But the serial number is too high to have been one of the original 50 (503 from memory) so that is an unreliable source.
Upvote
0