They're not going to remove it. It's a good thing that it's in, as it gives modders an easy way to replicate an STG 44.
I think his comment was sarcastic.
Upvote
0
They're not going to remove it. It's a good thing that it's in, as it gives modders an easy way to replicate an STG 44.
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 think his comment was sarcastic.
Just for the record, there is a great deal of proof.
Where? There is no recorded proof of it's absence...given that such a thing cannot exist.
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.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 reader's understanding of the Writing Center's mission to serve the UNC community is not affected by omitting the information about its location.
"The Writing Center . . . serves the entire UNC community."
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 . . ."3. Use punctuation marks in combination with ellipses when removing material from the end of sentences or clauses.
The Writing Center " . . . serves the entire UNC community."
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."Likewise, if you excerpt material at the end of clause that ends in a comma, retain the comma.
"The boys ran to school. . . . Even though they were out of breath, they made it on time."
"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."
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.
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.
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.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:
That is some pretty good evidence in favor of its absence, no?
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 ...
Stop beating this poor dead horse.As said... I don't really know why the hell people keep posting in this thread... let it die.
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
...
Evidence is not proof. Given that the text I posted directly contradicts this text, as do many others.
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.
Most people already said (in this thread) and most sources state that the first combat trials were held in April 1943.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!