Talk:StG 44

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you.

Definition

It is a combination of automatic rifles and SMGs. (the ability to fire accurate, single shots at distance + rapid fire in close combat). A LMG is used (so far as I know) primarily for suppression / rapid fire at distance. Oberiko 13:16, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Accurate, single shots at distance" sounds more like a semi-automatic rifle to me. Originally the Wiki article Automatic rifle redirected to a specific weapon - the Browning Automatic Rifle (which seems like an LMG to me) - I changed it to disambiguate between the BAR, LMGs and assault rifles. If there is an additional class of weapon called "automatic rifle" feel free to edit the Automatic rifle article again... GCarty 12:35, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oops, I actually meant to say semi-automatic rifle. This point was just to justify why I changed the article from "combination of light machine gun and submachine gun" to "combination of semi-automatic rifle and submachine gun.". Good eye. Oberiko 13:17, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm a little puzzeled to see the term Maschinenpistole used for this weapon. In a book I have on WWII small arms, the author (John Weeks) only refer to this weapon as MK (Maschinen Karabiner) 42, MK 43 and StG 44 and never uses the phrase MP. I also find it a little peculiar that the Germans would name this an MP, since it is a rifle. I have though seen the word MP 44 used in PC games, with St/44 (followed by a number) clearly seen on the left side of the weapon. I don't have the full picture here, so I'm just trying to clear things up. One thing is sure though, in the infobx, the calibre is wrong. Wouldn't it also be right to set the year of design to 1942, even though models issued to troops at the eastern front may be considered field trials?. I see the infobox refer to the StG 44, but wouldn't it be fair to include the MK(MP) 43 in the production period and number, since the design barely changed with the StG 44 and the prodution of that model was considerate? Stalwart 10:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

It was officially ID MP44, for reasons that escape me, tho I suspect it was to imply it was an improved MP40. Recall, Hitler was opposed to the Army using MP for much of the war. Trekphiler 00:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

IIRC Hitler was adverse to the creation of a "new" rifle but did appreciate advancement in sub-machineguns, hence its designation by the designers as MP-44 would permit it to be developed. While this was seen as subterfuge initially the results spoke for themselves and Hitler subsequently embraced the new weapon, hence its official renaming to Sturmgewehr.

Caliber

Fixed the caliber. Also, "Sturmgewehr" does not "literally translate as 'storm rifle'. The noun Sturm is also used to describe an assault, rush, attack.Kar98 03:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

"Storm" can be used to describe an assault, as in "Storming the beaches of Normandy," so the translation is not necessarily inaccurate. --DOHC Holiday 03:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I corrected the caliber in the text. It was designated 8x57mm (commonly, 8mm), though the bore was 7.92, same as the Kurz. Trekphiler 00:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Sturm should be translated as Assault and not Storm. Special care needs to be taken when translating old German military terms as they have loose and multiple meanings to many words. GunpicsBAS (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Moved from assault rifle

This was cluttering assault rifle, feel free to merge:

The first assault rifle labeled as such was the German StG 44 "Sturmgewehr" [1] ("assault rifle"). The term stuck with the weapon type and is still used to describe similar weapons.

For much of the pre-WWII period the German Army had relied on the machine gun as the primary infantry weapon, with rifles as a support weapon only. However in close combat both weapons proved largely ineffective, the machine gun being too heavy and powerful to move in "snapshot" situations while walking, and the rifle having far too slow a rate of fire to effectively suppress quickly dodging targets. Combat teams increasingly started using the sub-machine gun in place of rifles, and by 1943 "close combat" troops were common in the German Army.

While they served well in this role, the submachine gun's lack of power was a concern. Such weapons were useful only in the short range role, leaving the infantry with a weapon with a reasonable rate of fire but useless in anything but short range, or alternately a weapon with good range but useless in close combat. The answer was a weapon half-way between the sub-machine gun and rifle, one that was fully automatic but used a less powerful round to control recoil.

Using a new "cut down" version of their standard 7.92 mm round known as the Kurz (for short), a new rifle was designed for this role. When it was introduced in late WWII as the Sturmgewehr 44 (StG44), it quickly created an intense demand that was not met before the war ended. Today this concept is known as the assault rifle.

Dan100 12:11, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Sturmgewehr Redirect

Why does Sturmgewehr direct to this one, and not for example to Machine_Gun ?

Prove it.

"The StG44 can still be found in action to this day in some places, including Iraq and the Sudan, although it is not currently manufactured."

How can this be? Can this be backed up? If not, I'm removing it. Radiodog 03:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

No one proved it, I removed it. Radiodog 22:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Soldiers in Iraq confiscated a few, but none were in use. The ones 'confiscated' in Iraq were genearlly trophies. At any rate, it's irrelevant to the article that a handful of examples might be in the hands of collectors, gang members, etc. Keep it out of the article. It's already muddy enough.--Asams10 03:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Had to remove that line again. Who's doing that? Prove it or stop it. Radiodog 18:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It was put back by Kurt Leyman for some reason. He seems to edit WWII stuff a great deal, but I agree it's a trivial point. In fact there are StG44's in action all over the world as there are examples of any weapon made in such numbers.--Asams10 20:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

There have been few pics of Stg 44's both in hands of Iraqi militia, and confiscated by Coalition forces. I've also seen picture of African tribal warrior/militiaman holding one. I think that Stg's post-war use deserves a mention: at the moment, there isn't anything on that in the article. It is known that it was used at least by DDR and Yugoslavia, and ammo was also manufactured post-war. Other sightings could be addressed "small number of Stg's entered global arms markets and have been sighted at various conflicts around the world" or something to that effect. --Mikoyan21 18:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there should be some mention of post-war service (Yugo, DDR, et al.). Maybe a one sentence reference (and possibly a link to the photos) of StG-44s in Iraq would be good as it is a current-events note. I've seen photos of some in a captured weapons cache an another in the hands of a militant chearing on their leader (Al-Sadr I believe).

Also, saw an article in the latest SGN that ammo is being manufactured again. Go figure.

I don't doubt there's some demand amongst collectors who shoot tropy MKbs & MP44s. Gotta be pretty expensive, tho; reloading .30-06 brass'd be way cheaper... Trekphiler 00:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is an interesting photo from Iraq: http://www.militaryzone.cz/gallery/1124223488_235658-stg-44.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.59.43.5 (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

"In fact there are StG44's in action all over the world as there are examples of any weapon made in such numbers.--Asams10" Only 450,000 were ever produced. Quite a low number considering GunpicsBAS (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

...AND??? There were fewer Walther PPK's made during WWII, IIRC, and there are many of those still in use. In fact, taking note of my 'in-use' firearms, most of those were made in numbers fewer than HALF A MILLION! --Asams10 (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Half a million is nothing compared to the estimated 12 million Kar98k, 5 million PPSh-41's, 16+ million Mosin-Nagants etc produced. Your comparison with the PPK is invalid by the way, first off its not a military pistol so production will be low, second they were still in production until reletively recently so of course you'll see them frequently. GunpicsBAS (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh, you're saying the PPK isn't a military pistol? I also wasn't speaking of commercial PPK's. You're saying that nobody uses the StG44 and all 450,000 of them are out of commission? Yeah, I'll let the reader decide. --Asams10 (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course the PPK isn't a military pistol, for goodness sake look at the name Police Pistol Short. How is that a military designation? It's a commercial pistol and the majority of sales were commercial to the Police or private (keep in mind that German WWII officers were NOT issued pistols but expected to purchase their own privately). Contrast that to the Walther Heers Pistol latter called the P.38

And where did I say that the StG.44 wasn't used after the war? I just pointed out that they were made in small numbers compared to other military rifles at that time. I should add that they have a mystiqe of their own now and when ever a picture of one pops up from a conflict zone, everyone sits up and says "oh wow! they have MP.44s". But nobody bats an eyelid at the piles of Mausers lying in the corner. This mystiqe makes it appear that they are more prevelant than they actually are (in my opinion). GunpicsBAS (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

While i admit that there used, i dont feel enough are used to justify the mention of it in the article. Also 450,000 is pretty low to the 100 million AK47's made. A weapon which was was what? made just 5 or 6 years after the STG44. БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 23:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Inaccuracy

"In the early stages of the war, the Wehrmacht's medium machine guns proved to be far too large to be operated on the move, meaning that the troops had to use their rifles while moving up." -You mean during the Poland, France and Norwegian campaign? That is so wrong it's not even funny. Either back that up or remove it. If you make qualitative statement like that back them up.

No kidding. The MG34 may have been too uncontrolable to fire on the move (has anyone tried it to know for sure?), but they sure weren't too large or heavy (one guy could carry it just fine), and they sure would have been laying down supressing fire as the riflemen moved up. Heck, that was german doctrine at the time.

I can't provide a source but as far as I know the accuracy of mobile fire from MG34/43 was not good, they did not generally have slings to support forward weight. I have seen illustrations of two man teams overcoming this by having the loader standing in front of the gunner, either side on or back to the enemy with the bipod resting on his shoulder. the pair could then advance with riflemen while providing more accurate fire. I believe the "osprey" military history books have an illustration of this technique. I believe that post war soviet forces also used the same technique.

The MG34 weighed 26-7 lb (without tripod)compared to the BAR 16-19lb and the bren at 22 lb, it was also a good ten centimetres longer than the bren, without a sling (allowing the weapon to be carried in balance with the stock behind the gunners centre of gravity) this weight and length would would presumably impact negatively on accuracy while walking (the longer the barrel the more muzzle travel with each pace), let alone running, figures quoted are from wikipedia.

No light machinegun is particularly accurate or comfortable when firing from the hip. The difference between Bren or MG34 are negligible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.152.104.25 (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The MG.34 was issued with a sling. A specific one which split in the middle so that it could be used as a carry handle. In the training manual for MG gunners there are instructions on how to equip the sling for an assault role so that the MG can be fired from the hip and on the move. Given enough physical strength (I can't but a friend can) the MG.34 can be shouldered in the standing position but I'd imangine that it would run away from you as soon as you started shooting it. GunpicsBAS (talk) 04:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

FG 42

The little tidbit in the introduction has nothing to do with this article. Removing it. --Graphic 19:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Origin

The section referring to the meeting in which the weapon was accidentally revealed has been fixed, along with how Hitler actually became familiarized with it. The original content was inaccurate and made it appear that Hitler did not actually touch the weapon before approving production and giving it the standard name. Steelcobra 0911, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this?--Asams10 11:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It was on an episode of Tales Of The Gun. Though the exact episode eludes me, it was likely one of the following: German Small Arms of WWII, Rapid Firepower, or The Rifle. Steelcobra 1708, 18apr06 (UTC)

My wife complains when I watch "Tales of the Gun." I yell at the TV because of the constant stream of inaccuracies. It's a poorly written and researched show mostly espousing the opinion of people who have access to the guns they want to photograph for the episodes, not researchers or experts. They perpetuate urban myths as a matter of policy. There might be an authoritative source out there, but that's certainly a bit of trivia that should be sourced outside of TV.--Asams10 16:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"...after Hermann Göring had created the FG-42 in a separate program from the army's similar Gewehr 41 efforts, Hitler cancelled all new rifle projects completely."-Hermann Göring didn't develop the FG42. He probably didn't even order it personally. Stop making stuff up. -ClydeFrog

Added Small Tid-Bit

I changed:

While the design details are quite different, the purpose of the StG44 was obviously carried on in the most famous and most numerous assault rifle, the AK-47.

to:

While the design details are quite different, the purpose of the StG44 was obviously carried on in the most famous and most numerously manufactured assault rifle, the AK-47.

To make the message clearer.

--JesseCM

Postwar Use - Relevance

What is the reason for continuously removing information about postwar use of the StG44? It is indeed remarkable that such an historic (and relatively rare) weapon still sees action today, over 60 years after its manufacture - especially with AKs being so prevalent. How did they get there? German surplus, including these rifles, was exported to many client states of the Warsaw Pact countries as military aid. Since these figures were not freely available in the West, they might be hard to immediately document. I have read that Egypt purchased a considerable quantity of them, and a British acquaintance of mine who owned a down-converted one (pre UK semi-auto ban) said he purchased 7.92 Kurz ammo of Egyptian manufacture. I have seen photos of StG44s in action in Somalia, Lebanon, Iraq and elsewhere. Postwar, they were used as auxiliary weapons by the GDR, Czechslovakia, and by Yugoslavia. I've seen a photo from the '80s of Yugo paratroopers with StGs, so apparently it remained in service with some regular forces until then at least. MANY Wikipedia articles about WWII-era firearms include information on their postwar service or use.

Perhaps inventories of arms captured by US/Coalition/UN forces in Iraq, Bosnia, Somalia, etc., if available somewhere, could be used to back up the claim that they are still being issued to some forces, albeit irregular ones. The information is certainly relevant to the history and significance of the weapon, and certainly a testament to its design and serviceability. Twalls 04:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Another reason that it's remarkable that this firearm sees action to this day was that is was officially in German service less than one year (Jul '44 to May '45). What's more, the Serbian state ammunition factory in Uzice currently manufactures 7.92 kurz - and I find it hard to believe that their only markets are US Class III buffs or Swiss collectors. Twalls 01:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I dunno. If I were a Serbian ammo manufacturer, I think I'd be pretty desperate... Trekphiler 00:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ouch!

Prvi Partizan is a major military and commercial munitions supplier. There is also a German company that makes the round currently, as well as blanks in that caliber: [2] Twalls 01:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible that manufacture of the rifles was resumed after the war? The East German Army used them and then they were apparently exported to Africa and the Middle East.--Sus scrofa 16:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the German factories producing it were located, but it's possible. I know the East Germans produced kurz ammo well into the '60s. There were Kar98s (re)chambered for the kurz round as well. I've read that many of the StG 44s captured by US forces in Iraq are in fairly good condition - they were either stored for a long time or manufactured later - I tend to think the former, though. The couple found in the Husseins' palaces will end up in museums, but ones captured from insurgents have dates with the blowtorch :(. I'm sure it would be profitable to deactivate them and sell them as dewats. Twalls 18:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

question

Are there any surviving Stg44's today?

What do you mean by "surviving"? Existing? Yes - in the hands of collectors, museums... and in limited numbers in combat, in the Middle East and possibly a few other places. In my research they were even turning up in SE Asia until about a decade or two ago.Twalls 05:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

700m effective range? flat out lie

in the info box of this weapon someone has put '700 meter effective range' , thats as bullshit as colt's claim to the M16 having an 'effective' range of 800 meters. if the Stg44 has a effective range of 700m , how come the K98k which has both a longer barrel and a bigger cartridge and not to mention the much more accurate bolt action system , has only an effective range of 500m without an optic. till this is proven true , im removing it and replacing with a more believeable range of 300m. it seems to me people are getting maximum confused with effective. Effective range should be the measure the average soldier can effectively engage a target.

Losing something in the translation, but still true. At 700 meters, the StG44 is still effective against area targets and point targets as well. That doesn't mean that you can snipe with it, only that you can walk your fire onto a target and expect kills at that range.--Asams10 14:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a matter of defining "effective range" I believe. If it is defined as the range at which a user has a decent chance to hit a target it's probably closer to 300 meters. If it's the distance that the bullet can travel and still be effective when it hits the range is longer. I think some armed forces do two estimates like Asams10 says, one for aimed fire and another for area fire. --Sus scrofa 15:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The effective range is actually probably under 300m as 300m is the effective range of the more modern AK-47 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.164.128 (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

How is a design that was made what 6 years after the StG44 more modern? RoyalOrleans 05:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

First assault rifle?

fedorov avtomat seems to be predataing it... some confusion, there. 24.147.19.45 06:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No 'seems' about it. Problem is, the term "Assault Rifle" was first used to describe the MP43/MP44. The Russian weapon, while similar, can only be considered the first Assault Rifle in hindsight. At any rate, it was not made in significant numbers and had little impact on anything beyond the academic. It is sure the Germans knew of the weapon, but their design followed a completely different course in both ammunition and rifle design.--Asams10 11:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Lebanese Forces DO NOT use StG44s

I just recieved some emails form lebenese military collector and former army officer and they both said that: "This is the FIRST time we see this weapon in Lebanon EVER, the Lebanese army does not use them nor did the Syrian Army. This is the FIRST TIME ever we see it in Lebanon..."

"See" refers to latest pictures in the net showing lebanese civilan rioters fighting with the military.

So I think moderator can remove a note from the StG article about these rifles still being used. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.23.251.188 (talk) 12:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

The website of the Lebanese Forces lists the MP44 / StG44 as part of their current arsenal: [3] Twalls 23:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen that page. But this one above is a "first-hand information". I'll try to inquire more

The Lebanese Army (LAF) itself never issued it officially, but the _Lebanese Forces_ were formed by a coalition of Christian militias, each with their own individual arsenals. I wouldn't expect a high degree of standardisation among them. What were the pictures being referred to? I didn't understand that bit. Cheers, Twalls 15:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The anonymous post above would also constitute original research and therefore cannot be used. The fact that the official site of the Lebanese Forces states that they issue the rifle should be sufficient. You may be right, the original poster may be confusing the Lebanese Army with the aforementioned militia group. 71.93.238.53 03:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Gas system deleted?

Contest this claim that the gas cylinder was deleted from the MKb42(H) as parts lists and exploded photographs for this and its antecedents the MP43/44, StG44 plainly show the gas tube, piston and blot carrier. The construction and the dimensions of the gas tube changed from a full length machined tube on the MKb42(H) to a 2/3 length stamped tube on the MP43 and subsequent models. Both the MKb42(H) and MKb42(W)were gas operated, tapping gas from the barrel to unlock and cycle the action, they just had different gas system designs.--Raucherman 01:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Please learn how to post comments. I also don't think you've closely read what the text is actually stating here. --Asams10 13:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your courtesy and help I am new at this and just want to improve the content of the page. Readers should not have to divine for themselves what is written, it should be plain and straight forward. The sentence is ambigous at best. What it should mention is the change to the front sight and changing the gas tube to a stamping. Those changes were made to ease and speed manufacture. Looking at an external photo of the MK42 most people will think the piston runs to the end of the tube or just before the front sight post like on the SAFN.--Raucherman 02:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

In actuality, this minutia is lost on all but the most advanced readers and, so long as it's accurate, makes little difference anyhow. It is cumbersome to read, but I believe it's accurate. Agreed somebody should rewrite it for diction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asams10 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Wrong barrel length?

Shouldn't it be 412 mm (as in original 1944 'MP 44 Konstruktionszeichnungen') instead of 419 mm ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.23.21.252 (talk) 12:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

What do you mean? Also a source is required.--Sus scrofa 13:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not possible to cite any reliable source because all of them are mistaken - I know how it sounds but this is the fact. Each and every measured barrel has a 412 mm instead of 419 mm. Will pictures be considered as proof or they'll be against "no original research" and "verifiability" rules?

An update: Peter Senich in his "German Assault rifle" says it has 16.25 inches which is 412,75 mm.

Well, I guess it would fall under the rule against original research unless it can be made really obvious, like a picture of Stg-44 barrel being measured to 412 mm.--Sus scrofa 17:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said Peter Senich in his "German Assault Rifle" says it has 16.25 inches ---> 412,75 mm. Please give me an email where I am to send the picture of measured barrel

On second thought, I think a picture would still fall under the rule against original research. IIRC, the way wikipedia is meant to work is that if the reliable sources are wrong then wikipedia should be wrong too; the wikipedia editors are to "report facts" and not investigate them on their own (I think). If you want you could change the barrel length and refer to your source, but I can't since I haven't seen it myself and can't verify it.--Sus scrofa 22:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ian Hogg says it is 16.5 in. (418 mm). in Military Small Arms of the 20th Century. LWF 22:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

With what little respect is due, Ian Hogg is not the most authoritative or accurate authors available. Prolific, yes. I won't read his crap though. Try the late Ed Ezell or somebody else who actually cared about accuracy.--Asams10 11:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with regards to Hogg; however, a quick search of other sources also finds the barrel length listed as 16.5". These include "Small Arms of the World" (12th ed), "Jane's Infantry Weapons" (2nd ed), "International Armament" (1st ed), and a British Army report reprinted in "EM-2 - Concept and Design." FWIW: I can't find a reference to a 16.25" barrel in my copy of Senich's "The German Assault Rifle." What page did you see that on? D.E. Watters 20:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I respect that "no original research" rule but I don't uderstand it - "if the reliable sources are wrong then wikipedia should be wrong too" - it's one of the most amazing things I've ever heard...

But to the point: http://www.fotosik.pl/pokaz_obrazek/bb19fc443fe4cf76.html http://www.fotosik.pl/pokaz_obrazek/6f211589e02e1535.html http://www.fotosik.pl/pokaz_obrazek/61ad6fd2a29ad4a7.html and http://www.fotosik.pl/pokaz_obrazek/4316635c51cd5e87.html

Bigger version of the technical drawing on demand.

I commend your desire for accuracy and envy your access to these firearms, however I'd like more clarification that what you've provided. Barrel Lentgh is not the lenght of the metal part that one calls a barrel, it is the distance from the face of the bolt to the point at which the bullet exits the barrel. When a cartridge is inserted in the barrel, it may or may not extend beyond the back of the barrel. The only reliable method of measuring barrel length is to place a dowel down the bore when the bolt is forward and the hammer/firing pin retracted. Mark the point at the end of the muzzle and measure that distance. That will give you the standardized barrel length.--Asams10 11:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sturmgewehr Translation

'Sturmgewehr'- means 'storm rifle' not 'assault rifle'. 'AngriffGewehr'- means 'assulat rifle'. Such as 'stormtroop' means 'sturmtruppe', NOT 'angrifftruppe'. But Sturm can also mean 'barrage' or even 'assault' in german militray terms but it was originally meant as 'storm rifle', as crissoned by Hitler. See- http://www.sturmgewehr.com --NordicFire 12:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The translation of "sturmgewehr" to "assault rifle" is merely non-literal. "Assault" and "storm" are synonyms.--Sus scrofa 21:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I find the following detail, provided in the current version of the article, quite usefull : "(Sturm also refers to the weather phenomenon, adding a second meaning)".

I wonder weither it might be interresting (or relevant) to add a reference to the Sturm und Drang movement as well. Opinions ? Alain BECKER (w:FR) --62.212.107.234 21:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Only if there's some sort of explicit connection.--Sus scrofa 21:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no connection whatsoever. Sturm und Drang is a literary school from the 18th century. It's like mentioning the song "Stormy Weather" in an article on storm clouds. Twalls 01:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Or bringing up actor Vin Diesel in a discussion on diesel engines. Twalls 03:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Description

As far as cheap stampings that bend and distort being used for the weapon i reallly find "propaganda" literature suspect. I have never handeled a STG44 but from the sources that i have read that have (such as Jack Lewis' "Assault Weapons") they describe the stampings as "making the AK-47 look flimsy by comparison", far from what is described in the referenced source. -WildCard

Place of origin

Place of origin states "Nazi Germany". I think it should just be "Germany". Even though fascists/nazis/national socialists ruled there at that time.

If the rifle was from Italy from 1940, it would still be from Italy and not from "Fascist Italy". If it was from the USA, no one would use "Capitalist USA".

You're very late to this debate, and the concensus was that it's Nazi Germany. Go back to the dozens of articles' Talk pages and re-read the debate before you try to make points that were shot down in flames before.--Asams10 14:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Gewehr 43#Nazi Germany vs. Germany for a previous discussion of this subject.--Sus scrofa 14:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

m/s

Currently the article states that "The StG44 was an intermediate weapon for the period; the muzzle velocity from its 42 cm barrel was 647 m/s, compared to 880 m/s (K98k), 744 m/s (Bren), 600 m/s (M2 Carbine), and 365 m/s (MP40)". The second clause seems like a non-sequitur, especially with the inclusion of the M2 Carbine; it should list muzzle energy rather than muzzle velocity, or be split off as a separate sentence. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ashley, the Sport-Systeme Dietrich site only features the BD44 in the original 7.92x33 caliber, not 'in a variety of calibers' as you wrote (although Ralf Withum makes an MP44 replica in .22 LR). Twalls (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right - I reckon I saw the BD 3008 name in their product list, and somehow conflated this in my mind with .308 (although the BD 3008 is a completely different product). I must have been very non-linear at that moment. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Make???

What about the manufacturer??? --201.141.145.218 (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

I reverted the most recent edits by Quickload. While well-intentioned, they were unencyclopedic, and although the image added was very interesting to me personally, I felt it was redundant. The Lebanese Forces use is referenced, and until evidence to the contrary is produced, it should not be removed. Also, the assertion that the current reproduction made by SSD is available 'variety of calibers' simply is not true, according to the official site. It says a .22 LR version is planned. A 'variety of calibers' would seem to imply .30 Carbine, 7.62x39 et cetera, which is not the case. Twalls (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Quickload, your edits contain a number of misspellings and are not carefully worded, and putting "BS" in the edit summary doesn't really help your case. As far as the photograph, it is nice, but doesn't add anything to the article beyond the image already used. I re-added it in

good faith (let other editors be the judges) but I reverted your edits for the reasons I list above.

If you are indeed in touch with Sport-Systeme Dietrich, tell them to update their official literature so it can be duly referenced (and find out when their products will be available in the US, while you're at it). Calling them on the phone for the purpose of information on the article would be WP:OR. Plus, the article is not about the BD44, it's about the StG44. Perhaps the BD44 deserves its own article. Twalls (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I am really interested to know the reference about the Stg being used by the Lebanese Forces.

If you find my edits unencyclopedic, ,a good part of the article is good for the dust bin.

I am the one who REMOVED the assertion that the current reproduction made by SSD is available 'variety of calibers'

The BATFE has ruled out the import of SSD BD 44, they are available only in Canada for the time being.

Edmond HUET (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Production history Designed 1943 Produced July 1944–May 1945 Number built 425,977

I disagree with the above, these Germans were really supermen, almost half a million Stg made in 10 months..

Edmond HUET (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I notice that link number 7 has been removed. the "Lebanese Force" site was in fact the commercial site of a lebanese party. http://www.lebanese-forces.org/ is the only official LF site and they have a forum. The only time Stg44 were seen in hands of LF soldiers was they captured them from PLO in the 70s

Edmond HUET (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, I know your intentions are good here, but your edits really need some work. Several words are misspelled and the Wikilinks and footnote links are removed every time you paste your copy into the section. Twalls (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the misspelled words, I'm just a poor furiner. ;-)

Edmond HUET (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No prob, i'm sure you have a lot to add. I can help clean that up including the footnotes issue etc. just not while I'm at work :) Twalls (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Page name?

I believe the weapon's designation should be reflected by the acronym as in all Nazi-era weapons. That is StG44 rather than the full name. We're not using the full name for the MG42, FG42, MG3, Steyr AUG etc.. Koalorka (talk) 07:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, support. БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 07:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What you say makes sense. --Sus scrofa (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

We'll need to do a page move request as StG44, StG 44, MP44, and MP43 already redirect here. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll put in the request. And so we're clear, it'll be StG44 correct? Koalorka (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, looks like that won't be necessary. Can someone edit the text body accordingly, I've got lectures. Koalorka (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

After the fact, yes, that's what the name should be. Goes along with MG34, MG42, FG42, etc. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)