• 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/

StG44 in 1942?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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
Unless someone posts some amazing documented evidence/proof I'm really genuinely done posting in here now.

I think this makes about three times you said you were going to leave. Yeah, I know it was a cheap shot and a hit below the belt. But they are fun.

Even if God almighty came down from the heavens and pronounced there were no Mkb 42s used in the Stalingrad, you would still say it wasn't true and you want it to be implemented in RO2.

And why is that we have to produce the evidence when the burden of proof is on you to provide the smoking gun (no pun intended) that it was used in Stalingrad?

yabint said:
Pg 157 of "Sturmgewehr from Firepower to Striking Power" by Hans - Dieter Handrich. Also read this thread: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=71&t=105168http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=71&t=105168

Also this photo: (pictured in the Tripwire discussion)
mkb_1.jpg


Appears in "The MKb 42, MP43, MP44 and the Sturmgewehr 44" book from the Propaganda Photo series Pg. 65. It is describes as Northern Russia, Summer of 1943. (Bundesarchiv Kolblenz No. 698/49/27A)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I'm going to say it again:
The burden of proof lies on your side.

You are trying to do the same trick as Christians try it with Science.

a bit confused......he's trying to claim (like some others including Ramm have) that it is up to the "naysayers" to give evidence that proves it was NOT there, is that correct? the consensus of most of the people that claim it wasn't there do so saying that it is up to the other side to give evidence to prove it's existance, right?

the burden of proof lies on the side that made the initial arguement that the gun was used in Stalingrad....period.

(to note, the religion vs. science example isn't really a good analogy because it could be flipped around either way depending on what is being questioned....especially when the issue of accepting a source, like the Bible for example, as historical evidence comes into play....meh let's not get into religious/scientific debate :eek::D)

anyway, this debate is really pretty simple. one side claims there is proof it existed in stalingrad in 1942 and the other side is asking for that proof. so far there hasn't been any actual proof aside from hearsay that TW "saw a picture". it's a shame nobody was smart enough to "right-click, save-picture-as, mkb42_in_stalingrad" cause then this debate would long be over :rolleyes:
 
Upvote 0
a bit confused......he's trying to claim (like some others including Ramm have) that it is up to the "naysayers" to give evidence that proves it was NOT there, is that correct? the consensus of most of the people that claim it wasn't there do so saying that it is up to the other side to give evidence to prove it's existance, right?
Indeed, and you can't prove something wasn't there, you can only put up evidence that suggests it probably wasn't.

We can't prove that the Romans didn't have firearms, black power, or even lasers, yet there is strong evidence that suggests they didn't have those things.
Now, if someone comes in and claims the Romans had those things everyone will simply ask for proof.

You can't prove the absence of something in history.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Now, if someone comes in and claims the Romans had those things everyone will simply ask for proof.

exactly! which is why when proof is asked for, and somebody says they have it, then it better be there.....like i said, somebody made a major booboo by not right-clicking and saving the picture, or saving the link in favorites etc... that picture would have hopefully ended this debate already.

then again, people might start claiming "it's fake, photoshopped, mislabeled!" and a whole new debate would start. gotta love history debates :D
 
Upvote 0
exactly! which is why when proof is asked for, and somebody says they have it, then it better be there.....like i said, somebody made a major booboo by not right-clicking and saving the picture, or saving the link in favorites etc... that picture would have hopefully ended this debate already.

then again, people might start claiming "it's fake, photoshopped, mislabeled!" and a whole new debate would start. gotta love history debates :D


Actually the Problem ain't that they don't have it, from what i read, but that they got a big pile of Pics... finding the one pertaining to the MKb42 ain't that easy...
 
Upvote 0
Indeed, and you can't prove something wasn't there, you can only put up evidence that suggests it probably wasn't.

We can't prove that the Romans didn't have firearms, black power, or even lasers, yet there is strong evidence that suggests they didn't have those things.
Now, if someone comes in and claims the Romans had those things everyone will simply ask for proof.

You can't prove the absence of something in history.

actually, the burden of proof is still on your side. in order to prove it was there, you're the one who needs to provide evidence, not the other way around. evidence, ie definitive proof that it was used at stalingrad.

that's how it works. you got it flipped, saying that in order for people to prove that it wasn't there, they have to provide evidence that it wasn't there. all they have to do is cite that no such evidence exists, and you're back on page one...you have the burden of proof.
 
Upvote 0
actually, the burden of proof is still on your side. in order to prove it was there, you're the one who needs to provide evidence, not the other way around. evidence, ie definitive proof that it was used at stalingrad.

that's how it works. you got it flipped, saying that in order for people to prove that it wasn't there, they have to provide evidence that it wasn't there. all they have to do is cite that no such evidence exists, and you're back on page one...you have the burden of proof.

Wat, I never said so. Please learn how to read.

All we can do is provide evidence that it's highly unlikely that it was there, but we can't prove that it wasn't there as that's impossible.
The people who claim that it was there will have to provide that proof.
 
Upvote 0
Wat, I never said so. Please learn how to read.

All we can do is provide evidence that it's highly unlikely that it was there, but we can't prove that it wasn't there as that's impossible.
The people who claim that it was there will have to provide that proof.

why would you have to prove that it wasn't there? that's not really relevant to your argument. imo, your ability to communicate clearly is the problem here.

anyway, moving on...
 
Upvote 0
Actually the Problem ain't that they don't have it, from what i read, but that they got a big pile of Pics... finding the one pertaining to the MKb42 ain't that easy...




considering how long people have been talking about this subject, that's given them more than enough time to "dig up" evidence if it had actually been documented in an organized fashion. that leads to three possible situations.....
  1. it was never saved or documented
  2. it never existed in the first place (which nobody wants to believe)
  3. or my favorite, the :IS2: destroyed this photo to fuel a 15+ page thread just to keep historians (and wannabe historians) debating about something to draw more attention to the TW forums and in turn to the greatest thread of all time about the GREATEST TANK OF ALL TIME
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.