StG44 in 1942?

[Uffz.Juschkat]

Here:
Here's a picture of a Feldwebel with one. He has a M36 tunic with early war silver buttons, and a m35 helmet that still has the "dirty bird" on it. I believe the Germans stopped manufacturing helmets with the service branch decal in '43. He doesn't have any winter equipment on so I would like to say its either fall, spring. I'd probably place the time of this picture around March 1943. If I didn't know about the production numbers I would say this could be taken in August of 1942. I doubt this was inside Germany as this Mkb.42 has a sling on it, meaning it would be for front line use, or so one would think. Regardless I'm thrilled that the Mkb.42 is going to be in the game as no game has ever had it. Heck, I might just add this picture to my signature.

 

[Redken]

Please! (Sarcasm) There is only one ex-German soldier claiming the MKb 42 Assault Rifle was at the Stalingrad Battle and if Tripwire (Sorry to be rude) would just do a little research they would find out his story and photo fall apart under its own weight.

The copyrighted photo in question is label

 

[SneakyDog]

2.) I stated that​

 

[LemoN]

That quite obviously is no Mkb.42 but either a Mp43, Mp43/1 or Mp44.
Which absolutely rules out this picture of being earlier than Mid-late 43.

 

[The Masta]

Can't this just be locked and the discussion never brought up again?


:IS2::IS2:

 

[Russ Schulke]

SneakyDog /Gebirgsjaeger cap?

SneakyDog /Gebirgsjaeger cap?

SneakyDog;

Are you claiming that a non-Gebirgsjaeger (A pioneer) was authorized to wear a Gebirgsjaeger cap in October/November 1942?

Russ

 

[Lt_Kettch]

Can't this just be locked and the discussion never brought up again?

I agree

 

[Uffz.Juschkat]

SneakyDog;

Are you claiming that a non-Gebirgsjaeger (A pioneer) was authorized to wear a Gebirgsjaeger cap in October/November 1942?

Russ

If he had been transfered into that unit then yes he probably would hang on to his bergmutze, highly unlikely seeing that this picture isn't in Stalingrad, but around the same time when the M-43 cap was introduced.

 

[Zetsumei]

I think this thread needs to die now.

Given the concentration of troops, and the level of outright destruction and loss of life proof of it being there is not going to be easy to come by, if possible. Just like proof it wasn't there. Regardless of which is more likely.

It's in the game, TWI are happy it's in the game, I'm happy its in the game as are many others (as a hero weapon like the AVT40 which is also questionable in the same way). We can't really say more.

I think nobody is hating its inclusion and personally I love the addition of an mkb42 especially as it could be used for later war maps to have something that acts similar to a STG44 at least. It could hypothetically be in stalingrad and for me that's enough to completely accept its inclusion whether it was there or not.

However as can be seen in this thread generally it is a wildly discussed topic whether there have been mkb42's in stalingrad. And the general consensus out of that discussion is that it wasn't there.

For that reason I'm interested in the proof that TWI got of the mkb42 being in stalingrad. It's not that I don't trust TWI, but I'm just interested in that TWI apparently got the missing link for this debate. A picture of a mkb42 in Stalingrad would truly have some historic value.

 

[SheepDip]

Well yeah, proof would be nice. But really, even if we see a pic that says it's from Stalingrad - there'll be no way to confirm it, surely? Unless you've got a soldier clearly showing the 6th army insignia, with identifiable date-able uniform, clearly in Stalingrad (showing recognisable architecture etc) holding one then anyone can doubt it's legitimacy.

 

[Hans Ludwig]

Geee guys, it's a game.

Oh, yes. I heard that same thing on the Codemasters forums when they were about to release OFP: DR and the non-fanboys raised concerns about having no mission editor for the consoles and a tether for an open world for PCs and the Blackhawk isn't used by the Marines or Navy. Then the fanboys swarmed in with the "it's just a game."

Interesting link on the Mkb 42 with download link to research material.
WW2INCOLOR FORUMS

DOWNLOAD RESEARCH MATERIALS

 

[-[SiN]-bswearer]

I think nobody is hating its inclusion and personally I love the addition of an mkb42 especially as it could be used for later war maps to have something that acts similar to a STG44 at least. It could hypothetically be in stalingrad and for me that's enough to completely accept its inclusion whether it was there or not.

However as can be seen in this thread generally it is a wildly discussed topic whether there have been mkb42's in stalingrad. And the general consensus out of that discussion is that it wasn't there.

For that reason I'm interested in the proof that TWI got of the mkb42 being in stalingrad. It's not that I don't trust TWI, but I'm just interested in that TWI apparently got the missing link for this debate. A picture of a mkb42 in Stalingrad would truly have some historic value.

agreed!

also to note, locking the thread would not only deprive us all from learning something new about history that we didn't know before, but it would only further fuel skepticism for some people regarding the "we have proof" stance.......i mean look at former president Bush.....when asked about WMDs in Iraq the CIA said "we have proof"....let's reflect on how that turned out

in all seriousness, ultimately i am happy that the weapon will be in the game.....but as a person who loves history and always tries to look for the truth in things, it would be nice to see some of these pictures

 

[dogbadger]

I generally don't get involved in the "why can't we have this - you can't include that - this is not accurate" arguments-
i may bring up the odd gameplay suggestion myself but it's more for the sake of general discussion than anything else.

The hard graft of learning to code, model, animate and the like - and then following it through - earns devs the sole right to decide what fruit their labours should bare.
No developer that is honest about their product has to justify anything that it contains as far as i'm concerned.

If you think you know best as to exactly what should be in video game, learn to make one.

 

[hockeywarrior]

Oh, yes. I heard that same thing on the Codemasters forums when they were about to release OFP: DR and the non-fanboys raised concerns about having no mission editor for the consoles and a tether for an open world for PCs and the Blackhawk isn't used by the Marines or Navy. Then the fanboys swarmed in with the "it's just a game."

I understand your sentiments, but the argument of the PC version of OFPR not getting basic features and the discussion about very technical historical accuracy of this one (very cool) gun in RO:HOS are NOT the same thing.

One is a question of getting what we just assumed we would get -- the other is nitpicking, perhaps in a case that doesn't really need to be nitpicked. OFPR was complete fail all around -- a lack of a mission editor was the least of that game's worries.

I mean think about it -- we are complaining about the INCLUSION of a weapon in the game. But not just any weapon -- a gun never featured (let alone portrayed realistically) in any FPS thus far. I mean, really? What gaming community does that?

Oh yeah, that's right, this is the RO community. I guess in someway I would be sad if we didn't debate these silly things.

 

[Hans Ludwig]

The hard graft of learning to code, model, animate and the like - and then following it through - earns devs the sole right to decide what fruit their labours should bare.
No developer that is honest about their product has to justify anything that it contains as far as i'm concerned.

If you think you know best as to exactly what should be in video game, learn to make one.

This statement is about 100 times worse than "it's just a game."

Oh, could you have made yourself sound just a tad bit more elitist?

 

[Reise]

If you're going to complain about the inclusion of the Mkb42 or the AVT, you might as well go on and complain that every map isn't an exact historical replica of each battlefield, or that each soldier and fighting unit isn't 100% represented to perfect detail.

 

[213]

it's fine to leave out things, a game cannot simulate reality 100 percent. putting in things that don't belong is an entirely different thing.

i really don't care about the outcome of this, but will you people please stop using ridiculous logic in your arguments? thanks.

 

[Reise]

That's the thing though, you guys are acting like armchair historians denying that these weapons could have been used in Stalingrad. Meanwhile we have people on the Tripwire team who spend much of their time and livelihood surrounding themselves with such things saying these weapons should be included in the game.

The argument isn't about whether the weapons belong in the game or not, it's about whether you people are assuming too much based on what little knowledge you have from Wikipedia production numbers and things you've heard from other people.

 

[Colt .45 killer]

history < gameplay at some point.

Guaranteed that idea is not popular around here and the particular point has been pushed MUCH further towards history when compared to any other game. But they have made the '42, and if you whiners succeed in getting it removed from the game, I shall eternally hold a grudge against yee!


In all seriousness, its a weapon never yet included in a video game. Secondly it's supposedly hero only weapon, meaning the ammount they have shown it in demo videos has probably been over exagerated and should be quite rare in game. ( presuming there are ways to loose rank instead of just gain it, as eventually everyone might have access to it.... )

 

[danshyu]

Chances are custom mappers would be making maps based on later battles during Eastern front once the game's out. Having the options of newer weapons would be nice.