In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by .280 freak
I'm not sure how relevant this is, but, ............
I'm afraid you have to dig a little deeper than consulting a thesaurus. Like maybe read some German history. The term Sturmtruppen (Stormtrooper) dates back to the late 1800's. Sturm in this context (and until the early 1960's) was always translated as Storm or Shock. How terribly and wonderfully convenient that that translation should suddenly change with Ezell, 20 years after the advent of the StG44. But while we're on synonyms, how about a few for "assault"... like "molest" and "violate". Maybe the Sturmgewehr was really "the first molestation rifle", Eva Braun's bedside companion?
I would agree it may take some deeper research, but .280 freaks conjecture seems, at face value, to be extremely valid. I consider the point is very well taken. Generally, the similarity in ancestry and commonalties between the German and English people is well known. Even during WWII, their characteristics as "cousins" were capitalized upon in propoganda released by the German government. To be realistic, we would really need to dig into distant commonalties of the language of these people and see if it would be appropriate for the Germanic people to use a term such as "strum" for "assault". The point of .280 freak is very well submitted, and deserves attention.
I give you good reason why it doesn't and in rebuttal you merely insist on the claim as if your agreement and iteration is a substitute for evidence. Perhaps a better and proper rebuttal would be to consult historical records to find instances where the proper noun Sturmtruppen appears as "Assault Trooper" rather than "Storm Trooper". Be advised, however, that mere mention that Storm Troopers "assaulted Cambrai" does not constitute evidence of a change in such translation, as "Storm Troops" or "Shock Troops" is a specific name for a specific class of German soldiers, in much the same way that SEALS is a specific name for a specific class of American sailors. In other words, not all German soldiers who assaulted positions were Sturmtruppen, any more than all sailors are SEALS.
I disagree. This is an if, but if within the German language it was common to use the word "strum" in the same manner the English word "storm" is used to describe a military assault (as in .280 freaks observation) then the original translation of of "strumgewer" to "assault rifle" becomes much more tenable. Use of the English word "storm" in describing conflict, such as "the soldiers stormed the wall" or "the soldiers stormed the hill", etc, etc, is very different than describing a severe atmosheric disturbance. If, indeed, the Germans used the word "strum" in a similar manner, the translation of "strumgewer" to "assault rifle" becomes, in my opinion, much easier to defend.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
I fear you have forgotten about Clinton's 10 year "assault weapons" ban from 1994-2004. Surely that disproves your statement in red. And you can bank of the fact that such a ban will return. In fact, in some states/cities it never went away. Instead it became a local ban instead of a federal ban. Instead of arguering debating endlessly among ourselves, we need to unite and provide a common front and act in concert for a common goal. From the endless debates here you can see that is not happening now.
Of course I have not forgotten. If you understand what I am saying, it can only happen again if Second Ammendment Supporters COMPROMISE.
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
I disagree. This is an if, but if within the German language it was common to use the word "strum" in the same manner the English word "storm" is used to describe a military assault (as in .280 freaks observation) then the original translation of of "strumgewer" to "assault rifle" becomes much more tenable. Use of the English word "storm" in describing conflict, such as "the soldiers stormed the wall" or "the soldiers stormed the hill", etc, etc, is very different than describing a severe atmosheric disturbance. If, indeed, the Germans used the word "strum" in a similar manner, the translation of "strumgewer" to "assault rifle" becomes, in my opinion, much easier to defend.
You continue to search for justification rather than provide evidence, which is a circular argument. Again, Sturmtruppen is a proper noun for a specific class of German soldier which in all historical accounts up until the 60's was translated as "Storm Trooper", not "Assault Trooper". Rather than grasping at etymological straws, what you really need to do is provide a single period historical record wherein Sturmtruppen is translated as "Assault Trooper" rather than "Storm Trooper". This ain't rocket science, and all this discussion about synonyms is really quite beside the point when it comes to proper names.
Would you agree that Sturmtroopers, whether the translation means Assault or storm, were specially trained and equipped soldiers who task was to break stalemates in trench warefare, bust into hardened positions etc.?
From my reading I beleive "stormtroopers" were equipped with the first flamethrowers, sawtooth bayonets etc. as well as autoweapons, because they had a speciifc mission to "assault" heaviliy defended positions etc. The US Army developed the Pederson device, Thompson subgun and BAR for the same purpose.
If so, it would mean that sturm in such a context would mean assault and that the weapons carried by such soldiers were designed for a specific purpose, ie. a lightweight weapon with a high volume of covering fire for use during during an infantry assault.
Would you agree that Sturmtroopers, whether the translation means Assault or storm, were specially trained and equipped soldiers who task was to break stalemates in trench warefare, bust into hardened positions etc.?
From my reading I beleive "stormtroopers" were equipped with the first flamethrowers, sawtooth bayonets etc. as well as autoweapons, because they had a speciifc mission to "assault" heaviliy defended positions etc. The US Army developed the Pederson device, Thompson subgun and BAR for the same purpose.
If so, it would mean that sturm in such a context would mean assault and that the weapons carried by such soldiers were designed for a specific purpose, ie. a lightweight weapon with a high volume of covering fire for use during during an infantry assault.
It doesn't matter what I think or agree with. Fact is, the term Sturmtruppen preceded the StG44 by more than forty years and referred to a late 1800's infantry tactic of rapid movement and deployment, not infantry in an assault. Again, you commit the same error as boeboe, looking for synonyms for Sturm rather than looking at the tactic for which the term Sturm was given in the first place, and the proper name of those who engaged in that tactic. That sturm can also be translated as gale, gustiness, tempest, turbulency, attack and assault does not change the fact that the term was originally given to name 19th century German infantry whose bolt action Mausers should more rightfully be called Sturmgewehr or "the first assault rifle" than the StG44.
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
I fear you have forgotten about Clinton's 10 year "assault weapons" ban from 1994-2004. Surely that disproves your statement in red. And you can bank of the fact that such a ban will return. In fact, in some states/cities it never went away. Instead it became a local ban instead of a federal ban. Instead of arguering debating endlessly among ourselves, we need to unite and provide a common front and act in concert for a common goal. From the endless debates here you can see that is not happening now.
Of course I have not forgotten. If you understand what I am saying, it can only happen again if Second Ammendment Supporters COMPROMISE.
Myself and millions of other Second Amendment Supporters did not "compromise" by agreeing to or of being accepting of the passage of Clinton's "Assault Weapons Ban". But we got it anyway. You can lose your guns by "compromise" or by being overpowered in the political arena. I.E., you can have sex by mutual agreement, by your being passive or by your being overpowered. So far your description of the problem only covers the first two ways.
I'm not making any linguistic connections between Strumtrooper and Sturmgewer. I'm saying Strumtrooper indicates a specific type of soldier trained for a specific mission. Whether the mission is rapid movement or assaulting trenches doesnt matter. What matters is that it is specialized mission, for specialized troops... ergo the notion that that they carry specialized weapons, whether they be auto-carbines, sub guns or flame throwers.
I believe that if you can make all the aforementioned connections from specialized mission to specialized weapons, it makes sense that a Strumgewer is a rifle for a Sturmtrooper. Therefore it would be a specific classification of weapon for a specific mission ie. fast moving shock troops.
quote:Originally posted by hughbetcha
Therefore it would be a specific classification of weapon for a specific mission ie. fast moving shock troops.
Precisely, like the Mauser Model 98 was when the tactic was first introduced. You make my point exactly: A Sturmgewehr is any rifle carried by Sturmtruppen, not just an StG44 or "a select-fire weapon with a detachable magazine firing an intermediate cartridge". In other words, it is the tactic that names the rifle, not the rifle that names the tactic. This is where Ezell went wrong and where all the literature subsequent went wrong.
If the stg 44 was only issued to sturmtroopen or all the sturmtroopen carried Stg. 44s, then I would say you are making my point exactly. I dont know if that was the case or not.
quote:Originally posted by hughbetcha
If the stg 44 was only issued to sturmtroopen or all the sturmtroopen carried Stg. 44s, then I would say you are making my point exactly. I dont know if that was the case or not.
The answer to both is No, but even if Yes your point would not be well taken, as you still have the embarrassing precedent of the Mauser Model 98 and every other rifle ever issued to Sturmtruppen between the years 1900 and 1944, which, by the way, not one matches the criteria of an "assault rifle".
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by hughbetcha
If the stg 44 was only issued to sturmtroopen or all the sturmtroopen carried Stg. 44s, then I would say you are making my point exactly. I dont know if that was the case or not.
The answer to both is No, but even if Yes your point would not be well taken, as you still have the embarrassing precedent of the Mauser Model 98 and every other rifle ever issued to Sturmtruppen between the years 1900 and 1944, which, by the way, not one matches the criteria of an "assault rifle".
The Mauser 98 was the "assault rifle" of its day, assuming you are talking about the early part of its career, pre-WWI. It wouldn't surprise me if Strumtroopers in 1898 carried the 98 mauser up through WWI. The definition of an "asault rifle" would have changed as technology evolved from bolt action to subguns, semi-auto rifles, stg44s, stg 58s etc.
quote:Originally posted by hughbetcha
The Mauser 98 was the "assault rifle" of its day, assuming you are talking about the early part of its career, pre-WWI. It wouldn't surprise me if Strumtroopers in 1898 carried the 98 mauser up through WWI. The definition of an "asault rifle" would have changed as technology evolved from bolt action to subguns, semi-auto rifles, stg44s, stg 58s etc.
Sorry, no cigar. Ezell and all related mythology subsequent is quite emphatic that the StG44 "was the first 'assault rifle'". So how can that be? More, the StG58 you cite is by definition not an "assault rifle", because it fires a full-power cartridge, not an intermediate cartridge. Did someone leave the cake out in the rain?
TR Fox- To answer your comment about what sort of handguns I prefer, actually I like double action revolvers- my favorite being a Colt Python. I do have a Ruger Mark I bull barrel/target grips that at one time I fired in competition, but the only semi-autos that I own are either 22s or shotguns.
I did not ask the question as a means of implying that anyone needed to justify their right to own one or several. I agree that a person should be the focus of responsibility, not some implement. I realize that they do have uses, but I don't care to train for such an eventuality, nor do I care for the process of manufacture that involves casting and stamping. so I have no desire to own such guns, however, just like most other things, I have no problem with someone else having several. If the person chooses to misuse them, then the person should be the one to accept responsibility for such actions.
quote:Originally posted by hughbetcha
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
Did someone leave the cake out in the rain?
I dont know...Is the Witchita lineman still on the line?
I believe it has come down to a matter of semantics, and simply playing with words in order to appear to make some point just because of the hatered for the use of the term, "assault rifle".
It would be easy to go back and forth between the German and English verbage and play particular games. For example, a "strummann" most literally translated is "storm man", and "sturmtruppen" is "storm troops". When translating the term "strummann" to English, a very appropriate translation would be "storm trooper" as opposed to "storm man". Why? Because the mental image suggested by "storm trooper" (as opposed to storm man) is closer to the intended meaning of "strummann". While the absolutely literal translation of "storm man" may be argued, there should be little argument that "storm trooper" will convey a much closer image of what the original German word intended to convey.
Petentially, I am seeing the same arguement could be made for translating "strumgewer". The closest absolutely literal translation is definately "storm rifle". But in making a translation that comveys most closely the intent of "strumgewer" we have to ask ourselves, did the original German usage of the term "strum" here intend to convey the image of a naturally occuring atmospheric disturbance, or was it intended to convey the image imparted by soldiers "storming" a position?
In making translations from one language to another, it would naturally be most appropriate to select terms that convey most exactly the original intended meaning of the word, as opposed to the literal translation. This is obvious, and happens all the time in making translations.
This being the case, the translation of "strumgewer" to "assault rifle" may indeed be much more appropriate than translating it literally to "storm rifle".
I think this is obvious to any reasonable individual.
But no doubt, the nuance between these terms will continue to be sharply contested and closely scrutinized by all those who simply loath the usage of the term "assault rifle".
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
I believe it has come down to a matter of semantics, and simply playing with words in order to appear to make some point just because of the hatered for the use of the term, "assault rifle".
It would be easy to go back and forth between the German and English verbage and play particular games. For example, a "strummann" most literally translated is "storm man", and "sturmtruppen" is "storm troops". When translating the term "strummann" to English, a very appropriate translation would be "storm trooper" as opposed to "storm man". Why? Because the mental image suggested by "storm trooper" (as opposed to storm man) is closer to the intended meaning of "strummann". While the absolutely literal translation of "storm man" may be argued, there should be little argument that "storm trooper" will convey a much closer image of what the original German word intended to convey.
Petentially, I am seeing the same arguement could be made for translating "strumgewer". The closest absolutely literal translation is definately "storm rifle". But in making a translation that comveys most closely the intent of "strumgewer" we have to ask ourselves, did the original German usage of the term "strum" here intend to convey the image of a naturally occuring atmospheric disturbance, or was it intended to convey the image imparted by soldiers "storming" a position?
In making translations from one language to another, it would naturally be most appropriate to select terms that convey most exactly the original intended meaning of the word, as opposed to the literal translation. This is obvious, and happens all the time in making translations.
This being the case, the translation of "strumgewer" to "assault rifle" may indeed be much more appropriate than translating it literally to "storm rifle".
I think this is obvious to any reasonable individual.
But no doubt, the nuance between these terms will continue to be sharply contested and closely scrutinized by all those who simply loath the usage of the term "assault rifle".
The point you are missing, and the point for several posts now I have been trying to make, is that there is NO nuance and that it is NOT a semantics issue. Why do you insist on making it one? That Sturm has multiple meanings does not matter; what matters is that in the context of usage from its inception in the late 1800's, Sturm as in Sturmtruppen has translated only as "Storm" or "Shock". not "Assault". And unless you can provide a single record where this is not the case, picking from a laundry list of other possible meanings to make a case is really quite besides the point. If anything, you illustrate the compelling nature of myths and the mental investment people have in their preservation. We are in effect arguing two very different things here, and unless you address the problems presented in my rejoinders to hughbetcha, I'm afraid all you are doing is stamping your feet. So here it is: Even if you do translate Sturmtruppen to mean "Assault Troopers" rather than "Storm Troopers", how is it that the Mauser Model 98 and every other shoulder weapon carried for nearly 50 years by these men were not also called "Assault Rifles", that the StG44 was the first? And if the abbreviation StG for Sturmgewehr really does stand for "Assault Rifle", how is it that the StG58 by definition cannot be an "Assault Rifle"?
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
I believe it has come down to a matter of semantics, and simply playing with words in order to appear to make some point just because of the hatered for the use of the term, "assault rifle".
It would be easy to go back and forth between the German and English verbage and play particular games. For example, a "strummann" most literally translated is "storm man", and "sturmtruppen" is "storm troops". When translating the term "strummann" to English, a very appropriate translation would be "storm trooper" as opposed to "storm man". Why? Because the mental image suggested by "storm trooper" (as opposed to storm man) is closer to the intended meaning of "strummann". While the absolutely literal translation of "storm man" may be argued, there should be little argument that "storm trooper" will convey a much closer image of what the original German word intended to convey.
Petentially, I am seeing the same arguement could be made for translating "strumgewer". The closest absolutely literal translation is definately "storm rifle". But in making a translation that comveys most closely the intent of "strumgewer" we have to ask ourselves, did the original German usage of the term "strum" here intend to convey the image of a naturally occuring atmospheric disturbance, or was it intended to convey the image imparted by soldiers "storming" a position?
In making translations from one language to another, it would naturally be most appropriate to select terms that convey most exactly the original intended meaning of the word, as opposed to the literal translation. This is obvious, and happens all the time in making translations.
This being the case, the translation of "strumgewer" to "assault rifle" may indeed be much more appropriate than translating it literally to "storm rifle".
I think this is obvious to any reasonable individual.
But no doubt, the nuance between these terms will continue to be sharply contested and closely scrutinized by all those who simply loath the usage of the term "assault rifle".
The point you are missing, and the point for several posts now I have been trying to make, is that there is NO nuance and that it is NOT a semantics issue. Why do you insist on making it one? That Sturm has multiple meanings does not matter; what matters is that in the context of usage from its inception in the late 1800's, Sturm as in Sturmtruppen has translated only as "Storm" or "Shock". not "Assault". And unless you can provide a single record where this is not the case, picking from a laundry list of other possible meanings to make a case is really quite besides the point. If anything, you illustrate the compelling nature of myths and the mental investment people have in their preservation. We are in effect arguing two very different things here, and unless you address the problems presented in my rejoinders to hughbetcha, I'm afraid all you are doing is stamping your feet. So here it is: Even if you do translate Sturmtruppen to mean "Assault Troopers" rather than "Storm Troopers", how is it that the Mauser Model 98 and every other shoulder weapon carried for nearly 50 years by these men were not also called "Assault Rifles", that the StG44 was the first? And if the abbreviation StG for Sturmgewehr really does stand for "Assault Rifle", how is it that the StG58 by definition cannot be an "Assault Rifle"?
Oh, is a single source sufficient? Hope this resolves things for you! Here are a few, if you need more, believe me, it won't take long to find them:
quote:The units that was originaly called "Stossruppen" (eng = Stormtrooper) got names as "Jagdkommando" (eng = hunting commando), "Patrouillentrupp (eng = raid troop) or the most famous name "Sturmtruppen" (eng = assault troops).
quote:The role of assault troops (Sturmtruppen) was to undertake fighting patrols and during the opening phases of an offensive to penetrate enemy defences..
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
Oh, is a single source sufficient? Hope this resolves things for you! Here are a few, if you need more, believe me, it won't take long to find them:
quote:The units that was originaly called "Stossruppen" (eng = Stormtrooper) got names as "Jagdkommando" (eng = hunting commando), "Patrouillentrupp (eng = raid troop) or the most famous name "Sturmtruppen" (eng = assault troops).
quote:The role of assault troops (Sturmtruppen) was to undertake fighting patrols and during the opening phases of an offensive to penetrate enemy defences..
boeboe: You keep making the same error, i.e., (1) presenting sources written well after the fact (you might as well cite Ezell and your Beretta advertisements again) or (2) presenting material completely irrelevant to the translation (e.g., "The role of assault troops (Sturmtruppen) was to undertake fighting patrols and during the opening phases of an offensive to penetrate enemy defences.."). You need to find a contemporary historical record written between 1900-1945 to support your claim, not a 90's Wikipedia retrospective paraphrased from another questionable source or a definition from a dictionary published fifty years after the fact. You keep going in circles with this. Why? Just produce one historical record and answer how the StG58 is an "assault rifle" and you will have won.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
We are in effect arguing two very different things here, and unless you address the problems presented in my rejoinders to hughbetcha, I'm afraid all you are doing is stamping your feet. So here it is: Even if you do translate Sturmtruppen to mean "Assault Troopers" rather than "Storm Troopers", how is it that the Mauser Model 98 and every other shoulder weapon carried for nearly 50 years by these men were not also called "Assault Rifles", that the StG44 was the first? And if the abbreviation StG for Sturmgewehr really does stand for "Assault Rifle", how is it that the StG58 by definition cannot be an "Assault Rifle"?
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
Why? Just produce one historical record and answer how the StG58 is an "assault rifle" and you will have won.
You apparently are attempting to draw me into an arguement I never made.
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
You apparently are attempting to draw me into an arguement I never made.
Then what is the point of your citing the sources you do? Are you not claiming a translation of sturm other than storm or shock and using these sources in support? The problem is that none of your sources were attendant to the event, instead written well after and thus guilty of making the same historical assumption that you do. I'm afraid you can't have it both ways: If what you claim is historical fact, produce the record; if what you claim is merely a matter of semantics, then please explain why the first "Assault Rifle" didn't come into being until nearly fifty years after the first "Assault Troops", and why the StG58, which succeeded the StG44, does not meet the criteria of a Sturmgewehr as is by now commonly accepted?
Frog: Do you ever have anything remotely worthwhile to say, or are your peanut gallery asides and annotations to you a confused substitute for intelligent contribution?
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
And unless you can provide a single record where this is not the case, picking from a laundry list of other possible meanings to make a case is really quite besides the point.
quote:Follow-up post by DancesWithSheep
You need to find a contemporary historical record written between 1900-1945 to support your claim, not a 90's Wikipedia retrospective paraphrased from another questionable source or a definition from a dictionary published fifty years after the fact.
Your criteria apparently changes and changes, I supply what you request, and then require other criteria. Forever changing the rules, what to do. If I found a source that translated "sturmtruppen" to "assault troops" in the period you specify, you would simply say that doesn't matter, because it didn't say anything about sturmgewer or assault rifles. Your criteria will continue to change to satisfy yourself. Besides, what is my reward for going to the library and finding a source you would be happy with (one defining sturmtruppen as assault troopers)? Get real. It is laughable to suggest that you yourself have made such an effort, you simply don't know that such a source does not exist. It is clear that, for some reason, you care to argue nuance between the German and English translations of sturm-somethings. To what end?. None of this is really significant in any way to the "assault rifle" definitions that are used today.
I am not going to make a concerted effort to attempt to satisfy your ever-increasing criteria. Even the vast majority of the firearm community who deplore the use of the term "assault weapon" credit the term to Hitler. I have no idea why it is so significant to you, in light of the fact that the heaviest evidence suggest your position can't be supported (and even if it could, it wouldn't matter because 99.9999% of everyone else thinks differently).
Just for you, I will keep an eye open for the 1900-1945 reference to the use of the term "sturmtruppem" or "sturmmann" translating to "assault trooper(s)", don't be surprised when one shows up.[:D]
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
Your criteria apparently changes and changes, I supply what you request, and then require other criteria. Forever changing the rules, what to do. If I found a source that translated "sturmtruppen" to "assault troops" in the period you specify, you would simply say that doesn't matter, because it didn't say anything about sturmgewer or assault rifles.
The point is that you have yet to do either. I have not changed a single criterion since this debate started. It is time for you to either put up or leave it alone. This "if I did this, you would just say this" boloney is getting down to desperation time.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
Your criteria apparently changes and changes, I supply what you request, and then require other criteria. Forever changing the rules, what to do. If I found a source that translated "sturmtruppen" to "assault troops" in the period you specify, you would simply say that doesn't matter, because it didn't say anything about sturmgewer or assault rifles.
The point is that you have yet to do either. I have not changed a single criterion since this debate started. It is time for you to either put up or leave it alone. This "if I did this, you would just say this" boloney is getting down to desperation time.
No, the criteria has changed. It was just on page (5) of the discussion that you now want some reference dated between 1900 and 1945 that the "sturm" in "strumtruppen" was translated to "assault". This was following the criteria the previous criteria:
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
The point you are missing, and the point for several posts now I have been trying to make, is that there is NO nuance and that it is NOT a semantics issue. Why do you insist on making it one? That Sturm has multiple meanings does not matter; what matters is that in the context of usage from its inception in the late 1800's, Sturm as in Sturmtruppen has translated only as "Storm" or "Shock". not "Assault". And unless you can provide a single record where this is not the case, picking from a laundry list of other possible meanings to make a case is really quite besides the point.
This is the first time this criteria was required, and it was satisfied. Thereafter, you specified a requirement for the 1900-1945 time frame, which was not a criteria until after the first criteria was met.
So, if I were to find a source between the 1900 and 1945 time frame that fills this requirement:
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
The point you are missing, and the point for several posts now I have been trying to make, is that there is NO nuance and that it is NOT a semantics issue. Why do you insist on making it one? That Sturm has multiple meanings does not matter; what matters is that in the context of usage from its inception in the late 1800's, Sturm as in Sturmtruppen has translated only as "Storm" or "Shock". not "Assault". And unless you can provide a single record where this is not the case, picking from a laundry list of other possible meanings to make a case is really quite besides the point.
that is, one that effectively translates the "sturm" in "sturmtruppen" or "sturmmann" to "assault", would that satisfy your criteria? And would you further concede that the translation from "sturmgewer" to "assault rifle" is appropriate?
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
No, the criteria has changed. It was just on page (5) of the discussion that you now want some reference dated between 1900 and 1945 that the "sturm" in "strumtruppen" was translated to "assault". This was following the criteria the previous criteria:
Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
The point you are missing, and the point for several posts now I have been trying to make, is that there is NO nuance and that it is NOT a semantics issue. Why do you insist on making it one? That Sturm has multiple meanings does not matter; what matters is that in the context of usage from its inception in the late 1800's, Sturm as in Sturmtruppen has translated only as "Storm" or "Shock".
I'm afraid the criteria remains the same. In order to dispute "in the context of usage from its inception in the late 1800's, Sturm as in Sturmtruppen has translated only as 'Storm' or 'Shock'" as stated in the second part, you must provide "some reference dated between 1900 and 1945 that the 'sturm' in 'sturmtruppen' was translated to 'assault' as stated in the first part. This is entirely consistent and does not change the criteria one iota. And it is precisely this reference that you have yet to provide, along with explanation of how, if your translation is correct and StG is the abbreviation for "assault rifle", that the StG44 "was the first assault rifle" while the StG58 cannot also be an "assault rifle" if you keep to the same descriptive criteria of the StG designation you claim. If so, what is the probative worth of either StG or Sturmgewehr to your argument in this case?
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
No, the criteria has changed. It was just on page (5) of the discussion that you now want some reference dated between 1900 and 1945 that the "sturm" in "strumtruppen" was translated to "assault". This was following the criteria the previous criteria:
Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
The point you are missing, and the point for several posts now I have been trying to make, is that there is NO nuance and that it is NOT a semantics issue. Why do you insist on making it one? That Sturm has multiple meanings does not matter; what matters is that in the context of usage from its inception in the late 1800's, Sturm as in Sturmtruppen has translated only as "Storm" or "Shock".
I'm afraid the criteria remains the same. In order to dispute "in the context of usage from its inception in the late 1800's, Sturm as in Sturmtruppen has translated only as 'Storm' or 'Shock'" as stated in the second part, you must provide "some reference dated between 1900 and 1945 that the 'sturm' in 'sturmtruppen' was translated to 'assault' as stated in the first part. This is entirely consistent and does not change the criteria one iota. And it is precisely this reference that you have yet to provide, along with explanation of how, if your translation is correct and StG is the abbreviation for "assault rifle", that the StG44 "was the first assault rifle" while the StG58 cannot also be an "assault rifle" if you keep to the same descriptive criteria of the StG designation you claim. If so, what is the probative worth of either StG or Sturmgewehr to your argument in this case?
While I consider the argument about the StG58 to have merit, that is not my direction and I will leave it to others to argue that point...my arguement is to the nuance between the use of the word "sturm" to mean "assault" when used as a prefice in words such as "sturmtruppen", Sturmmann", or even "sturmgewere".
I am not part of the StG-58 "defense team" here (but a tip of the hat is warranted). My direction now is that the word "sturm" can, and has, been used historically by German speaking people to conotate a military offensive assault, as opposed to a meteorolgical atmospheric condition. Following this, you want evidence that the word "sturm" was used to describe this sort of military assault by German speaking people in the period between 1900 and 1945. You further want evidence that the word "sturm" was translated to "assault" to the English language in the translation of such military actions, and that there is record of this in the period between 1900 and 1945.
My question is, if I can supply evidence that the "sturm" was typically translated as such, in the period you specify, will you be willing to accept that a very appropriate translation of the word "sturmgewere" is "assault rifle"?
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
My question is, if I can supply evidence that the "sturm" was typically translated as such, in the period you specify, will you be willing to accept that a very appropriate translation of the word "sturmgewere" is "assault rifle"?
I am not sure what you are asking. I have already conceded that sturm can be translated as gale, tempest, attack, assault and several other ways. That it can be is not the point; the point is rather that sturm in the context of the terms Sturmtruppen and Sturmgewehr, is there a single historical reference contemporary with either that specifically translates the proper name Sturmtruppen as "Assault Troopers" rather than "Storm Troopers" and Sturmgewehr as "Assault Rifle" rather than "Storm Rifle"? Merely finding a contemporary source that says "Sturmtruppen were assault troops" will not serve your purpose, as it says nothing about the translation of Sturm in this context (in other words, it could just as well have said "Storm Troopers were assault troops", which everyone already knows and does not improve your case). To answer your question, if you merely find a translation of the word sturm somewhere as "assault", my answer is no; however, if you find a single historical record between 1900 and 1945 that translates the proper name Sturmtruppen as "Assault Troopers" rather than "Storm Troopers", or the proper name Sturmgewehr as "Assault Rifle" rather than "Storm Rifle", then yes, I would be willing to accept that a very appropriate translation of the word Sturmgewehr is "Assault Rifle".
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
My question is, if I can supply evidence that the "sturm" was typically translated as such, in the period you specify, will you be willing to accept that a very appropriate translation of the word "sturmgewere" is "assault rifle"?
I am not sure what you are asking. I have already conceded that sturm can be translated as gale, tempest, attack, assault and several other ways. That it can be is not the point; the point is rather that sturm in the context of the terms Sturmtruppen and Sturmgewehr, is there a single historical reference contemporary with either that specifically translates the proper name Sturmtruppen as "Assault Troopers" rather than "Storm Troopers" and Sturmgewehr as "Assault Rifle" rather than "Storm Rifle"? Merely finding a contemporary source that says "Sturmtruppen were assault troops" will not serve your purpose, as it says nothing about the translation of Sturm in this context (in other words, it could just as well have said "Storm Troopers were assault troops", which everyone already knows and does not improve your case). To answer your question, if you merely find a translation of the word sturm somewhere as "assault", my answer is no; however, if you find a single historical record between 1900 and 1945 that translates the proper name Sturmtruppen as "Assault Troopers" rather than "Storm Troopers", or the proper name Sturmgewehr as "Assault Rifle" rather than "Storm Rifle", then yes, I would be willing to accept that a very appropriate translation of the word Sturmgewehr is "Assault Rifle".
Why are we arguing? We seem to be picking flypoop from pepper, but unfortunatly, that seems to be part of my nature.
Okay! Of course, I hope you understand that the term "sturmgewer" is vitually out of the mix. That would, after all, only leave me the years 1944 and 1945 to find such a translation, and considering a war was going on, that might be impossible to do. To find a translation of the terms "sturmmann" or "strumtruppen" where the most appropriate translation would be, and is, translated to "assault trooper", "assault man", or "assault troop(s)" may not be so daunting. I am not guaranteeing that I can find such a reference within a couple of days, a week, or a year, but I will keep an eye out.. There is, after all, no time restrictions on uncovering truth, unless you have a court date to meet!
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
That would, after all, only leave me the years 1944 and 1945 to find such a translation, and considering a war was going on, that might be impossible to do.
Do you not find this the least bit troubling? Would not such a source have to exist in order for Ezell's claim that the Sturmgewehr was the first "Assault Rifle" to have any validity? Did he just pull it out of his * and present it as fact? Answer: Yup. Perhaps I can save you some trouble: About ten years ago I spent six months looking for just such a source. I came up empty. Good luck trying to do better.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
That would, after all, only leave me the years 1944 and 1945 to find such a translation, and considering a war was going on, that might be impossible to do.
Do you not find this the least bit troubling? Would not such a source have to exist in order for Ezell's claim that the Sturmgewehr was the first "Assault Rifle" to have any validity? Did he just pull it out of his * and present it as fact? Answer: Yup. Perhaps I can save you some trouble: About ten years ago I spent six months looking for just such a source. I came up empty. Good luck trying to do better.
But we are talking about something else, now, appropriate translation of "sturm" to "assault", in the military context, in the period between 1900 and 1945.
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
But we are talking about something else, now, appropriate translation of "sturm" to "assault", in the military context, in the period between 1900 and 1945.
No, you are talking about something else. I am saying for that period, I could not find a translation of Sturmtruppen that was specifically "Assault Trooper" or anything other than "Storm Trooper", nor a translation of Sturmgewehr that was specifically "Assault Rifle" or anything other than "Storm Rifle". And it is upon finding precisely such a source that Ezell's (and your) claim can have any legitimacy.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
But we are talking about something else, now, appropriate translation of "sturm" to "assault", in the military context, in the period between 1900 and 1945.
No, you are talking about something else. I am saying for that period, I could not find a translation of Sturmtruppen that was specifically "Assault Trooper" or anything other than "Storm Trooper", nor a translation of Sturmgewehr that was specifically "Assault Rifle" or anything other than "Storm Rifle". And it is upon finding precisely such a source that Ezell's (and your) claim can have any legitimacy.
Of course, it is no suprise that finding a reference to "sturmgewehr" with appropriate translation to "assault rifle" is virtually impossible between 1900 and 1945. The only realistic years to work with are 1944 and 1945, and I suspect that people had more on their minds than absolutely accurate translations from German to English for these two years. I would, however, not be surprised to see that the term "sturm", as used in terms such as "sturmmann" or "sturmtruppen" was translated to "assault" at some point, by someone, in the period between 1900 and 1945. Unless I miss your point, such a translation would go to substantiate the validity of translating "sturmgewehr" to "assault rifle" in following years.
I am certain that if you check the right sources you will find a reference to storm troopers as assault troops at least in the WWI time frame. The Troops were used to break stalemates in the trenches. They were the first troops to use flamethrowers etc.
You will not find a decription of a gun invented in 1944 in any reference source before 1944... duh. Those attributes were not available in a gun before 1944. You will find that stormtroopers were carrying guns such as model 98s etc. in WWI because that is what is available. They were also the first to make use of subguns when they were invented towards the end of WWI.
This does not mean that a gun with specific characteristics such as the stg 44 was designed not for a specific mission carried out by stormtruppen.
quote:Originally posted by Ray B
TR Fox- To answer your comment about what sort of handguns I prefer, actually I like double action revolvers- my favorite being a Colt Python. I do have a Ruger Mark I bull barrel/target grips that at one time I fired in competition, but the only semi-autos that I own are either 22s or shotguns.
I did not ask the question as a means of implying that anyone needed to justify their right to own one or several. I agree that a person should be the focus of responsibility, not some implement. I realize that they do have uses, but I don't care to train for such an eventuality, nor do I care for the process of manufacture that involves casting and stamping. so I have no desire to own such guns, however, just like most other things, I have no problem with someone else having several. If the person chooses to misuse them, then the person should be the one to accept responsibility for such actions.
Thank you for your response. In red above, it appears that you have more in common with the military-look-alikes and/or the semiauto lovers than your first response reveals. You like your Colt Python (nice gun). But just as with my AR-15, your Python will fire one shot for each trigger pull. And to get multiple shots, you need only continue to pull the trigger. And your .357 Magnum, at close range has a tremendous amount of power; just as with the right bullet, my 5.56 has plenty of power. The only important differences in the two guns is that mine will automatically eject the fired cases and it can hold 30 rounds or more compared to the six in your revolver. In 1994 the anti-gun crowd foolishly thought they could greatly reduce crime by limiting guns with magazines to only 10 rounds. They didn't worry about revolvers because they are, by design, limited to 9 rounds or less. But as is so often common with the left-wing, liberal thinking, if a criminal just absoutely, positively had to have more than 10 rounds in order to rob 7-11 or to kill someone they didn't like, all they had to do was bring along a few extra 10 round mags, or a few extra revolver speed loaders; or even an extra gun.
My point is, and it is not necessarily directed at you, is that a lot of gunners who don't care for semi-auto and/or military look alikes, should still support their brother gun owners (it appears you already do) in their desire to own such guns. Reason being that if we allow the anti-gun crowd to ban "assault weapons" simply because of the way the look/function, then they can expand that ban, and the reason for the ban, to revolvers. Just as with a semi-auto, a revolver will fire one round for one trigger pull and will continue that way until empty.
For some misguided reason, it appears that many revolver lovers think their firearms will forever be safe since they don't look nor function like one of those "evil" semiautomatics. I do not believe they are safe.
Comments
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by .280 freak
I'm not sure how relevant this is, but, ............
I'm afraid you have to dig a little deeper than consulting a thesaurus. Like maybe read some German history. The term Sturmtruppen (Stormtrooper) dates back to the late 1800's. Sturm in this context (and until the early 1960's) was always translated as Storm or Shock. How terribly and wonderfully convenient that that translation should suddenly change with Ezell, 20 years after the advent of the StG44. But while we're on synonyms, how about a few for "assault"... like "molest" and "violate". Maybe the Sturmgewehr was really "the first molestation rifle", Eva Braun's bedside companion?
I would agree it may take some deeper research, but .280 freaks conjecture seems, at face value, to be extremely valid. I consider the point is very well taken. Generally, the similarity in ancestry and commonalties between the German and English people is well known. Even during WWII, their characteristics as "cousins" were capitalized upon in propoganda released by the German government. To be realistic, we would really need to dig into distant commonalties of the language of these people and see if it would be appropriate for the Germanic people to use a term such as "strum" for "assault". The point of .280 freak is very well submitted, and deserves attention.
I give you good reason why it doesn't and in rebuttal you merely insist on the claim as if your agreement and iteration is a substitute for evidence. Perhaps a better and proper rebuttal would be to consult historical records to find instances where the proper noun Sturmtruppen appears as "Assault Trooper" rather than "Storm Trooper". Be advised, however, that mere mention that Storm Troopers "assaulted Cambrai" does not constitute evidence of a change in such translation, as "Storm Troops" or "Shock Troops" is a specific name for a specific class of German soldiers, in much the same way that SEALS is a specific name for a specific class of American sailors. In other words, not all German soldiers who assaulted positions were Sturmtruppen, any more than all sailors are SEALS.
I disagree. This is an if, but if within the German language it was common to use the word "strum" in the same manner the English word "storm" is used to describe a military assault (as in .280 freaks observation) then the original translation of of "strumgewer" to "assault rifle" becomes much more tenable. Use of the English word "storm" in describing conflict, such as "the soldiers stormed the wall" or "the soldiers stormed the hill", etc, etc, is very different than describing a severe atmosheric disturbance. If, indeed, the Germans used the word "strum" in a similar manner, the translation of "strumgewer" to "assault rifle" becomes, in my opinion, much easier to defend.
I fear you have forgotten about Clinton's 10 year "assault weapons" ban from 1994-2004. Surely that disproves your statement in red. And you can bank of the fact that such a ban will return. In fact, in some states/cities it never went away. Instead it became a local ban instead of a federal ban. Instead of arguering debating endlessly among ourselves, we need to unite and provide a common front and act in concert for a common goal. From the endless debates here you can see that is not happening now.
Of course I have not forgotten. If you understand what I am saying, it can only happen again if Second Ammendment Supporters COMPROMISE.
I disagree. This is an if, but if within the German language it was common to use the word "strum" in the same manner the English word "storm" is used to describe a military assault (as in .280 freaks observation) then the original translation of of "strumgewer" to "assault rifle" becomes much more tenable. Use of the English word "storm" in describing conflict, such as "the soldiers stormed the wall" or "the soldiers stormed the hill", etc, etc, is very different than describing a severe atmosheric disturbance. If, indeed, the Germans used the word "strum" in a similar manner, the translation of "strumgewer" to "assault rifle" becomes, in my opinion, much easier to defend.
You continue to search for justification rather than provide evidence, which is a circular argument. Again, Sturmtruppen is a proper noun for a specific class of German soldier which in all historical accounts up until the 60's was translated as "Storm Trooper", not "Assault Trooper". Rather than grasping at etymological straws, what you really need to do is provide a single period historical record wherein Sturmtruppen is translated as "Assault Trooper" rather than "Storm Trooper". This ain't rocket science, and all this discussion about synonyms is really quite beside the point when it comes to proper names.
Would you agree that Sturmtroopers, whether the translation means Assault or storm, were specially trained and equipped soldiers who task was to break stalemates in trench warefare, bust into hardened positions etc.?
From my reading I beleive "stormtroopers" were equipped with the first flamethrowers, sawtooth bayonets etc. as well as autoweapons, because they had a speciifc mission to "assault" heaviliy defended positions etc. The US Army developed the Pederson device, Thompson subgun and BAR for the same purpose.
If so, it would mean that sturm in such a context would mean assault and that the weapons carried by such soldiers were designed for a specific purpose, ie. a lightweight weapon with a high volume of covering fire for use during during an infantry assault.
DWS,
Would you agree that Sturmtroopers, whether the translation means Assault or storm, were specially trained and equipped soldiers who task was to break stalemates in trench warefare, bust into hardened positions etc.?
From my reading I beleive "stormtroopers" were equipped with the first flamethrowers, sawtooth bayonets etc. as well as autoweapons, because they had a speciifc mission to "assault" heaviliy defended positions etc. The US Army developed the Pederson device, Thompson subgun and BAR for the same purpose.
If so, it would mean that sturm in such a context would mean assault and that the weapons carried by such soldiers were designed for a specific purpose, ie. a lightweight weapon with a high volume of covering fire for use during during an infantry assault.
It doesn't matter what I think or agree with. Fact is, the term Sturmtruppen preceded the StG44 by more than forty years and referred to a late 1800's infantry tactic of rapid movement and deployment, not infantry in an assault. Again, you commit the same error as boeboe, looking for synonyms for Sturm rather than looking at the tactic for which the term Sturm was given in the first place, and the proper name of those who engaged in that tactic. That sturm can also be translated as gale, gustiness, tempest, turbulency, attack and assault does not change the fact that the term was originally given to name 19th century German infantry whose bolt action Mausers should more rightfully be called Sturmgewehr or "the first assault rifle" than the StG44.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
I fear you have forgotten about Clinton's 10 year "assault weapons" ban from 1994-2004. Surely that disproves your statement in red. And you can bank of the fact that such a ban will return. In fact, in some states/cities it never went away. Instead it became a local ban instead of a federal ban. Instead of arguering debating endlessly among ourselves, we need to unite and provide a common front and act in concert for a common goal. From the endless debates here you can see that is not happening now.
Of course I have not forgotten. If you understand what I am saying, it can only happen again if Second Ammendment Supporters COMPROMISE.
Myself and millions of other Second Amendment Supporters did not "compromise" by agreeing to or of being accepting of the passage of Clinton's "Assault Weapons Ban". But we got it anyway. You can lose your guns by "compromise" or by being overpowered in the political arena. I.E., you can have sex by mutual agreement, by your being passive or by your being overpowered. So far your description of the problem only covers the first two ways.
I'm not making any linguistic connections between Strumtrooper and Sturmgewer. I'm saying Strumtrooper indicates a specific type of soldier trained for a specific mission. Whether the mission is rapid movement or assaulting trenches doesnt matter. What matters is that it is specialized mission, for specialized troops... ergo the notion that that they carry specialized weapons, whether they be auto-carbines, sub guns or flame throwers.
I believe that if you can make all the aforementioned connections from specialized mission to specialized weapons, it makes sense that a Strumgewer is a rifle for a Sturmtrooper. Therefore it would be a specific classification of weapon for a specific mission ie. fast moving shock troops.
Therefore it would be a specific classification of weapon for a specific mission ie. fast moving shock troops.
Precisely, like the Mauser Model 98 was when the tactic was first introduced. You make my point exactly: A Sturmgewehr is any rifle carried by Sturmtruppen, not just an StG44 or "a select-fire weapon with a detachable magazine firing an intermediate cartridge". In other words, it is the tactic that names the rifle, not the rifle that names the tactic. This is where Ezell went wrong and where all the literature subsequent went wrong.
If the stg 44 was only issued to sturmtroopen or all the sturmtroopen carried Stg. 44s, then I would say you are making my point exactly. I dont know if that was the case or not.
The answer to both is No, but even if Yes your point would not be well taken, as you still have the embarrassing precedent of the Mauser Model 98 and every other rifle ever issued to Sturmtruppen between the years 1900 and 1944, which, by the way, not one matches the criteria of an "assault rifle".
quote:Originally posted by hughbetcha
If the stg 44 was only issued to sturmtroopen or all the sturmtroopen carried Stg. 44s, then I would say you are making my point exactly. I dont know if that was the case or not.
The answer to both is No, but even if Yes your point would not be well taken, as you still have the embarrassing precedent of the Mauser Model 98 and every other rifle ever issued to Sturmtruppen between the years 1900 and 1944, which, by the way, not one matches the criteria of an "assault rifle".
The Mauser 98 was the "assault rifle" of its day, assuming you are talking about the early part of its career, pre-WWI. It wouldn't surprise me if Strumtroopers in 1898 carried the 98 mauser up through WWI. The definition of an "asault rifle" would have changed as technology evolved from bolt action to subguns, semi-auto rifles, stg44s, stg 58s etc.
The Mauser 98 was the "assault rifle" of its day, assuming you are talking about the early part of its career, pre-WWI. It wouldn't surprise me if Strumtroopers in 1898 carried the 98 mauser up through WWI. The definition of an "asault rifle" would have changed as technology evolved from bolt action to subguns, semi-auto rifles, stg44s, stg 58s etc.
Sorry, no cigar. Ezell and all related mythology subsequent is quite emphatic that the StG44 "was the first 'assault rifle'". So how can that be? More, the StG58 you cite is by definition not an "assault rifle", because it fires a full-power cartridge, not an intermediate cartridge. Did someone leave the cake out in the rain?
Did someone leave the cake out in the rain?
I dont know...Is the Witchita lineman still on the line?
I did not ask the question as a means of implying that anyone needed to justify their right to own one or several. I agree that a person should be the focus of responsibility, not some implement. I realize that they do have uses, but I don't care to train for such an eventuality, nor do I care for the process of manufacture that involves casting and stamping. so I have no desire to own such guns, however, just like most other things, I have no problem with someone else having several. If the person chooses to misuse them, then the person should be the one to accept responsibility for such actions.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
Did someone leave the cake out in the rain?
I dont know...Is the Witchita lineman still on the line?
I believe it has come down to a matter of semantics, and simply playing with words in order to appear to make some point just because of the hatered for the use of the term, "assault rifle".
It would be easy to go back and forth between the German and English verbage and play particular games. For example, a "strummann" most literally translated is "storm man", and "sturmtruppen" is "storm troops". When translating the term "strummann" to English, a very appropriate translation would be "storm trooper" as opposed to "storm man". Why? Because the mental image suggested by "storm trooper" (as opposed to storm man) is closer to the intended meaning of "strummann". While the absolutely literal translation of "storm man" may be argued, there should be little argument that "storm trooper" will convey a much closer image of what the original German word intended to convey.
Petentially, I am seeing the same arguement could be made for translating "strumgewer". The closest absolutely literal translation is definately "storm rifle". But in making a translation that comveys most closely the intent of "strumgewer" we have to ask ourselves, did the original German usage of the term "strum" here intend to convey the image of a naturally occuring atmospheric disturbance, or was it intended to convey the image imparted by soldiers "storming" a position?
In making translations from one language to another, it would naturally be most appropriate to select terms that convey most exactly the original intended meaning of the word, as opposed to the literal translation. This is obvious, and happens all the time in making translations.
This being the case, the translation of "strumgewer" to "assault rifle" may indeed be much more appropriate than translating it literally to "storm rifle".
I think this is obvious to any reasonable individual.
But no doubt, the nuance between these terms will continue to be sharply contested and closely scrutinized by all those who simply loath the usage of the term "assault rifle".
I believe it has come down to a matter of semantics, and simply playing with words in order to appear to make some point just because of the hatered for the use of the term, "assault rifle".
It would be easy to go back and forth between the German and English verbage and play particular games. For example, a "strummann" most literally translated is "storm man", and "sturmtruppen" is "storm troops". When translating the term "strummann" to English, a very appropriate translation would be "storm trooper" as opposed to "storm man". Why? Because the mental image suggested by "storm trooper" (as opposed to storm man) is closer to the intended meaning of "strummann". While the absolutely literal translation of "storm man" may be argued, there should be little argument that "storm trooper" will convey a much closer image of what the original German word intended to convey.
Petentially, I am seeing the same arguement could be made for translating "strumgewer". The closest absolutely literal translation is definately "storm rifle". But in making a translation that comveys most closely the intent of "strumgewer" we have to ask ourselves, did the original German usage of the term "strum" here intend to convey the image of a naturally occuring atmospheric disturbance, or was it intended to convey the image imparted by soldiers "storming" a position?
In making translations from one language to another, it would naturally be most appropriate to select terms that convey most exactly the original intended meaning of the word, as opposed to the literal translation. This is obvious, and happens all the time in making translations.
This being the case, the translation of "strumgewer" to "assault rifle" may indeed be much more appropriate than translating it literally to "storm rifle".
I think this is obvious to any reasonable individual.
But no doubt, the nuance between these terms will continue to be sharply contested and closely scrutinized by all those who simply loath the usage of the term "assault rifle".
The point you are missing, and the point for several posts now I have been trying to make, is that there is NO nuance and that it is NOT a semantics issue. Why do you insist on making it one? That Sturm has multiple meanings does not matter; what matters is that in the context of usage from its inception in the late 1800's, Sturm as in Sturmtruppen has translated only as "Storm" or "Shock". not "Assault". And unless you can provide a single record where this is not the case, picking from a laundry list of other possible meanings to make a case is really quite besides the point. If anything, you illustrate the compelling nature of myths and the mental investment people have in their preservation. We are in effect arguing two very different things here, and unless you address the problems presented in my rejoinders to hughbetcha, I'm afraid all you are doing is stamping your feet. So here it is: Even if you do translate Sturmtruppen to mean "Assault Troopers" rather than "Storm Troopers", how is it that the Mauser Model 98 and every other shoulder weapon carried for nearly 50 years by these men were not also called "Assault Rifles", that the StG44 was the first? And if the abbreviation StG for Sturmgewehr really does stand for "Assault Rifle", how is it that the StG58 by definition cannot be an "Assault Rifle"?
I'm afraid you have to dig a little deeper than consulting a thesaurus.
How the heck was I supposed to "consult the 'saurus"? Didn't you know that them thar things is all ex-stinked?
Geez, I had you figgered as smarter than that.
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
I believe it has come down to a matter of semantics, and simply playing with words in order to appear to make some point just because of the hatered for the use of the term, "assault rifle".
It would be easy to go back and forth between the German and English verbage and play particular games. For example, a "strummann" most literally translated is "storm man", and "sturmtruppen" is "storm troops". When translating the term "strummann" to English, a very appropriate translation would be "storm trooper" as opposed to "storm man". Why? Because the mental image suggested by "storm trooper" (as opposed to storm man) is closer to the intended meaning of "strummann". While the absolutely literal translation of "storm man" may be argued, there should be little argument that "storm trooper" will convey a much closer image of what the original German word intended to convey.
Petentially, I am seeing the same arguement could be made for translating "strumgewer". The closest absolutely literal translation is definately "storm rifle". But in making a translation that comveys most closely the intent of "strumgewer" we have to ask ourselves, did the original German usage of the term "strum" here intend to convey the image of a naturally occuring atmospheric disturbance, or was it intended to convey the image imparted by soldiers "storming" a position?
In making translations from one language to another, it would naturally be most appropriate to select terms that convey most exactly the original intended meaning of the word, as opposed to the literal translation. This is obvious, and happens all the time in making translations.
This being the case, the translation of "strumgewer" to "assault rifle" may indeed be much more appropriate than translating it literally to "storm rifle".
I think this is obvious to any reasonable individual.
But no doubt, the nuance between these terms will continue to be sharply contested and closely scrutinized by all those who simply loath the usage of the term "assault rifle".
The point you are missing, and the point for several posts now I have been trying to make, is that there is NO nuance and that it is NOT a semantics issue. Why do you insist on making it one? That Sturm has multiple meanings does not matter; what matters is that in the context of usage from its inception in the late 1800's, Sturm as in Sturmtruppen has translated only as "Storm" or "Shock". not "Assault". And unless you can provide a single record where this is not the case, picking from a laundry list of other possible meanings to make a case is really quite besides the point. If anything, you illustrate the compelling nature of myths and the mental investment people have in their preservation. We are in effect arguing two very different things here, and unless you address the problems presented in my rejoinders to hughbetcha, I'm afraid all you are doing is stamping your feet. So here it is: Even if you do translate Sturmtruppen to mean "Assault Troopers" rather than "Storm Troopers", how is it that the Mauser Model 98 and every other shoulder weapon carried for nearly 50 years by these men were not also called "Assault Rifles", that the StG44 was the first? And if the abbreviation StG for Sturmgewehr really does stand for "Assault Rifle", how is it that the StG58 by definition cannot be an "Assault Rifle"?
Oh, is a single source sufficient? Hope this resolves things for you! Here are a few, if you need more, believe me, it won't take long to find them:
(From Websters on-line dictionary)
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/translation/Sturmtruppen
quote:
Sturmtruppen
English Translation: sturmtruppen
Language: German
Expression: sturmtruppen
English Translation or Definition: assault troops
http://www.bellum.nu/basics/concepts/blitzkrieg.html
quote:The units that was originaly called "Stossruppen" (eng = Stormtrooper) got names as "Jagdkommando" (eng = hunting commando), "Patrouillentrupp (eng = raid troop) or the most famous name "Sturmtruppen" (eng = assault troops).
http://www.kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk/austamps/dixnut/dn5.htm
quote:The role of assault troops (Sturmtruppen) was to undertake fighting patrols and during the opening phases of an offensive to penetrate enemy defences..
And a couple or three more, if you care to look.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1903040019/102-8107071-0420104?v=glance&n=283155
http://www.netmovies.ch/movie.php?typeID=7930
http://www.answers.com/topic/stormtrooper
I coulda swore I just heard a gasp for breath up Ideeho way![:0][:D]
Oh, is a single source sufficient? Hope this resolves things for you! Here are a few, if you need more, believe me, it won't take long to find them:
(From Websters on-line dictionary)
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/translation/Sturmtruppen
quote:
Sturmtruppen
English Translation: sturmtruppen
Language: German
Expression: sturmtruppen
English Translation or Definition: assault troops
http://www.bellum.nu/basics/concepts/blitzkrieg.html
quote:The units that was originaly called "Stossruppen" (eng = Stormtrooper) got names as "Jagdkommando" (eng = hunting commando), "Patrouillentrupp (eng = raid troop) or the most famous name "Sturmtruppen" (eng = assault troops).
http://www.kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk/austamps/dixnut/dn5.htm
quote:The role of assault troops (Sturmtruppen) was to undertake fighting patrols and during the opening phases of an offensive to penetrate enemy defences..
And a couple or three more, if you care to look.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1903040019/102-8107071-0420104?v=glance&n=283155
http://www.netmovies.ch/movie.php?typeID=7930
http://www.answers.com/topic/stormtrooper
boeboe: You keep making the same error, i.e., (1) presenting sources written well after the fact (you might as well cite Ezell and your Beretta advertisements again) or (2) presenting material completely irrelevant to the translation (e.g., "The role of assault troops (Sturmtruppen) was to undertake fighting patrols and during the opening phases of an offensive to penetrate enemy defences.."). You need to find a contemporary historical record written between 1900-1945 to support your claim, not a 90's Wikipedia retrospective paraphrased from another questionable source or a definition from a dictionary published fifty years after the fact. You keep going in circles with this. Why? Just produce one historical record and answer how the StG58 is an "assault rifle" and you will have won.
We are in effect arguing two very different things here, and unless you address the problems presented in my rejoinders to hughbetcha, I'm afraid all you are doing is stamping your feet. So here it is: Even if you do translate Sturmtruppen to mean "Assault Troopers" rather than "Storm Troopers", how is it that the Mauser Model 98 and every other shoulder weapon carried for nearly 50 years by these men were not also called "Assault Rifles", that the StG44 was the first? And if the abbreviation StG for Sturmgewehr really does stand for "Assault Rifle", how is it that the StG58 by definition cannot be an "Assault Rifle"?
I am not arguing that point.
Why? Just produce one historical record and answer how the StG58 is an "assault rifle" and you will have won.
You apparently are attempting to draw me into an arguement I never made.
You apparently are attempting to draw me into an arguement I never made.
Then what is the point of your citing the sources you do? Are you not claiming a translation of sturm other than storm or shock and using these sources in support? The problem is that none of your sources were attendant to the event, instead written well after and thus guilty of making the same historical assumption that you do. I'm afraid you can't have it both ways: If what you claim is historical fact, produce the record; if what you claim is merely a matter of semantics, then please explain why the first "Assault Rifle" didn't come into being until nearly fifty years after the first "Assault Troops", and why the StG58, which succeeded the StG44, does not meet the criteria of a Sturmgewehr as is by now commonly accepted?
Frog: Do you ever have anything remotely worthwhile to say, or are your peanut gallery asides and annotations to you a confused substitute for intelligent contribution?
And unless you can provide a single record where this is not the case, picking from a laundry list of other possible meanings to make a case is really quite besides the point.
quote:Follow-up post by DancesWithSheep
You need to find a contemporary historical record written between 1900-1945 to support your claim, not a 90's Wikipedia retrospective paraphrased from another questionable source or a definition from a dictionary published fifty years after the fact.
Your criteria apparently changes and changes, I supply what you request, and then require other criteria. Forever changing the rules, what to do. If I found a source that translated "sturmtruppen" to "assault troops" in the period you specify, you would simply say that doesn't matter, because it didn't say anything about sturmgewer or assault rifles. Your criteria will continue to change to satisfy yourself. Besides, what is my reward for going to the library and finding a source you would be happy with (one defining sturmtruppen as assault troopers)? Get real. It is laughable to suggest that you yourself have made such an effort, you simply don't know that such a source does not exist. It is clear that, for some reason, you care to argue nuance between the German and English translations of sturm-somethings. To what end?. None of this is really significant in any way to the "assault rifle" definitions that are used today.
I am not going to make a concerted effort to attempt to satisfy your ever-increasing criteria. Even the vast majority of the firearm community who deplore the use of the term "assault weapon" credit the term to Hitler. I have no idea why it is so significant to you, in light of the fact that the heaviest evidence suggest your position can't be supported (and even if it could, it wouldn't matter because 99.9999% of everyone else thinks differently).
Just for you, I will keep an eye open for the 1900-1945 reference to the use of the term "sturmtruppem" or "sturmmann" translating to "assault trooper(s)", don't be surprised when one shows up.[:D]
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
You apparently are attempting to draw me into an arguement I never made.
Frog,
...are your peanut gallery asides and annotations to you a confused substitute for intelligent contribution?
Yes, by Jove, you've got it!! And what better after 4 pages of this B_LLSH_T! It certainly doesn't call for an intelligent contribution![:D][:o)][:D]
Your criteria apparently changes and changes, I supply what you request, and then require other criteria. Forever changing the rules, what to do. If I found a source that translated "sturmtruppen" to "assault troops" in the period you specify, you would simply say that doesn't matter, because it didn't say anything about sturmgewer or assault rifles.
The point is that you have yet to do either. I have not changed a single criterion since this debate started. It is time for you to either put up or leave it alone. This "if I did this, you would just say this" boloney is getting down to desperation time.
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
Your criteria apparently changes and changes, I supply what you request, and then require other criteria. Forever changing the rules, what to do. If I found a source that translated "sturmtruppen" to "assault troops" in the period you specify, you would simply say that doesn't matter, because it didn't say anything about sturmgewer or assault rifles.
The point is that you have yet to do either. I have not changed a single criterion since this debate started. It is time for you to either put up or leave it alone. This "if I did this, you would just say this" boloney is getting down to desperation time.
No, the criteria has changed. It was just on page (5) of the discussion that you now want some reference dated between 1900 and 1945 that the "sturm" in "strumtruppen" was translated to "assault". This was following the criteria the previous criteria:
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
The point you are missing, and the point for several posts now I have been trying to make, is that there is NO nuance and that it is NOT a semantics issue. Why do you insist on making it one? That Sturm has multiple meanings does not matter; what matters is that in the context of usage from its inception in the late 1800's, Sturm as in Sturmtruppen has translated only as "Storm" or "Shock". not "Assault". And unless you can provide a single record where this is not the case, picking from a laundry list of other possible meanings to make a case is really quite besides the point.
This is the first time this criteria was required, and it was satisfied. Thereafter, you specified a requirement for the 1900-1945 time frame, which was not a criteria until after the first criteria was met.
So, if I were to find a source between the 1900 and 1945 time frame that fills this requirement:
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
The point you are missing, and the point for several posts now I have been trying to make, is that there is NO nuance and that it is NOT a semantics issue. Why do you insist on making it one? That Sturm has multiple meanings does not matter; what matters is that in the context of usage from its inception in the late 1800's, Sturm as in Sturmtruppen has translated only as "Storm" or "Shock". not "Assault". And unless you can provide a single record where this is not the case, picking from a laundry list of other possible meanings to make a case is really quite besides the point.
that is, one that effectively translates the "sturm" in "sturmtruppen" or "sturmmann" to "assault", would that satisfy your criteria? And would you further concede that the translation from "sturmgewer" to "assault rifle" is appropriate?
No, the criteria has changed. It was just on page (5) of the discussion that you now want some reference dated between 1900 and 1945 that the "sturm" in "strumtruppen" was translated to "assault". This was following the criteria the previous criteria:
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
No, the criteria has changed. It was just on page (5) of the discussion that you now want some reference dated between 1900 and 1945 that the "sturm" in "strumtruppen" was translated to "assault". This was following the criteria the previous criteria:
My question is, if I can supply evidence that the "sturm" was typically translated as such, in the period you specify, will you be willing to accept that a very appropriate translation of the word "sturmgewere" is "assault rifle"?
I am not sure what you are asking. I have already conceded that sturm can be translated as gale, tempest, attack, assault and several other ways. That it can be is not the point; the point is rather that sturm in the context of the terms Sturmtruppen and Sturmgewehr, is there a single historical reference contemporary with either that specifically translates the proper name Sturmtruppen as "Assault Troopers" rather than "Storm Troopers" and Sturmgewehr as "Assault Rifle" rather than "Storm Rifle"? Merely finding a contemporary source that says "Sturmtruppen were assault troops" will not serve your purpose, as it says nothing about the translation of Sturm in this context (in other words, it could just as well have said "Storm Troopers were assault troops", which everyone already knows and does not improve your case). To answer your question, if you merely find a translation of the word sturm somewhere as "assault", my answer is no; however, if you find a single historical record between 1900 and 1945 that translates the proper name Sturmtruppen as "Assault Troopers" rather than "Storm Troopers", or the proper name Sturmgewehr as "Assault Rifle" rather than "Storm Rifle", then yes, I would be willing to accept that a very appropriate translation of the word Sturmgewehr is "Assault Rifle".
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
My question is, if I can supply evidence that the "sturm" was typically translated as such, in the period you specify, will you be willing to accept that a very appropriate translation of the word "sturmgewere" is "assault rifle"?
I am not sure what you are asking. I have already conceded that sturm can be translated as gale, tempest, attack, assault and several other ways. That it can be is not the point; the point is rather that sturm in the context of the terms Sturmtruppen and Sturmgewehr, is there a single historical reference contemporary with either that specifically translates the proper name Sturmtruppen as "Assault Troopers" rather than "Storm Troopers" and Sturmgewehr as "Assault Rifle" rather than "Storm Rifle"? Merely finding a contemporary source that says "Sturmtruppen were assault troops" will not serve your purpose, as it says nothing about the translation of Sturm in this context (in other words, it could just as well have said "Storm Troopers were assault troops", which everyone already knows and does not improve your case). To answer your question, if you merely find a translation of the word sturm somewhere as "assault", my answer is no; however, if you find a single historical record between 1900 and 1945 that translates the proper name Sturmtruppen as "Assault Troopers" rather than "Storm Troopers", or the proper name Sturmgewehr as "Assault Rifle" rather than "Storm Rifle", then yes, I would be willing to accept that a very appropriate translation of the word Sturmgewehr is "Assault Rifle".
Why are we arguing? We seem to be picking flypoop from pepper, but unfortunatly, that seems to be part of my nature.
Okay! Of course, I hope you understand that the term "sturmgewer" is vitually out of the mix. That would, after all, only leave me the years 1944 and 1945 to find such a translation, and considering a war was going on, that might be impossible to do. To find a translation of the terms "sturmmann" or "strumtruppen" where the most appropriate translation would be, and is, translated to "assault trooper", "assault man", or "assault troop(s)" may not be so daunting. I am not guaranteeing that I can find such a reference within a couple of days, a week, or a year, but I will keep an eye out.
That would, after all, only leave me the years 1944 and 1945 to find such a translation, and considering a war was going on, that might be impossible to do.
Do you not find this the least bit troubling? Would not such a source have to exist in order for Ezell's claim that the Sturmgewehr was the first "Assault Rifle" to have any validity? Did he just pull it out of his * and present it as fact? Answer: Yup. Perhaps I can save you some trouble: About ten years ago I spent six months looking for just such a source. I came up empty. Good luck trying to do better.
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
That would, after all, only leave me the years 1944 and 1945 to find such a translation, and considering a war was going on, that might be impossible to do.
Do you not find this the least bit troubling? Would not such a source have to exist in order for Ezell's claim that the Sturmgewehr was the first "Assault Rifle" to have any validity? Did he just pull it out of his * and present it as fact? Answer: Yup. Perhaps I can save you some trouble: About ten years ago I spent six months looking for just such a source. I came up empty. Good luck trying to do better.
But we are talking about something else, now, appropriate translation of "sturm" to "assault", in the military context, in the period between 1900 and 1945.
But we are talking about something else, now, appropriate translation of "sturm" to "assault", in the military context, in the period between 1900 and 1945.
No, you are talking about something else. I am saying for that period, I could not find a translation of Sturmtruppen that was specifically "Assault Trooper" or anything other than "Storm Trooper", nor a translation of Sturmgewehr that was specifically "Assault Rifle" or anything other than "Storm Rifle". And it is upon finding precisely such a source that Ezell's (and your) claim can have any legitimacy.
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
But we are talking about something else, now, appropriate translation of "sturm" to "assault", in the military context, in the period between 1900 and 1945.
No, you are talking about something else. I am saying for that period, I could not find a translation of Sturmtruppen that was specifically "Assault Trooper" or anything other than "Storm Trooper", nor a translation of Sturmgewehr that was specifically "Assault Rifle" or anything other than "Storm Rifle". And it is upon finding precisely such a source that Ezell's (and your) claim can have any legitimacy.
Of course, it is no suprise that finding a reference to "sturmgewehr" with appropriate translation to "assault rifle" is virtually impossible between 1900 and 1945. The only realistic years to work with are 1944 and 1945, and I suspect that people had more on their minds than absolutely accurate translations from German to English for these two years. I would, however, not be surprised to see that the term "sturm", as used in terms such as "sturmmann" or "sturmtruppen" was translated to "assault" at some point, by someone, in the period between 1900 and 1945. Unless I miss your point, such a translation would go to substantiate the validity of translating "sturmgewehr" to "assault rifle" in following years.
I am certain that if you check the right sources you will find a reference to storm troopers as assault troops at least in the WWI time frame. The Troops were used to break stalemates in the trenches. They were the first troops to use flamethrowers etc.
You will not find a decription of a gun invented in 1944 in any reference source before 1944... duh. Those attributes were not available in a gun before 1944. You will find that stormtroopers were carrying guns such as model 98s etc. in WWI because that is what is available. They were also the first to make use of subguns when they were invented towards the end of WWI.
This does not mean that a gun with specific characteristics such as the stg 44 was designed not for a specific mission carried out by stormtruppen.
TR Fox- To answer your comment about what sort of handguns I prefer, actually I like double action revolvers- my favorite being a Colt Python. I do have a Ruger Mark I bull barrel/target grips that at one time I fired in competition, but the only semi-autos that I own are either 22s or shotguns.
I did not ask the question as a means of implying that anyone needed to justify their right to own one or several. I agree that a person should be the focus of responsibility, not some implement. I realize that they do have uses, but I don't care to train for such an eventuality, nor do I care for the process of manufacture that involves casting and stamping. so I have no desire to own such guns, however, just like most other things, I have no problem with someone else having several. If the person chooses to misuse them, then the person should be the one to accept responsibility for such actions.
Thank you for your response. In red above, it appears that you have more in common with the military-look-alikes and/or the semiauto lovers than your first response reveals. You like your Colt Python (nice gun). But just as with my AR-15, your Python will fire one shot for each trigger pull. And to get multiple shots, you need only continue to pull the trigger. And your .357 Magnum, at close range has a tremendous amount of power; just as with the right bullet, my 5.56 has plenty of power. The only important differences in the two guns is that mine will automatically eject the fired cases and it can hold 30 rounds or more compared to the six in your revolver. In 1994 the anti-gun crowd foolishly thought they could greatly reduce crime by limiting guns with magazines to only 10 rounds. They didn't worry about revolvers because they are, by design, limited to 9 rounds or less. But as is so often common with the left-wing, liberal thinking, if a criminal just absoutely, positively had to have more than 10 rounds in order to rob 7-11 or to kill someone they didn't like, all they had to do was bring along a few extra 10 round mags, or a few extra revolver speed loaders; or even an extra gun.
My point is, and it is not necessarily directed at you, is that a lot of gunners who don't care for semi-auto and/or military look alikes, should still support their brother gun owners (it appears you already do) in their desire to own such guns. Reason being that if we allow the anti-gun crowd to ban "assault weapons" simply because of the way the look/function, then they can expand that ban, and the reason for the ban, to revolvers. Just as with a semi-auto, a revolver will fire one round for one trigger pull and will continue that way until empty.
For some misguided reason, it appears that many revolver lovers think their firearms will forever be safe since they don't look nor function like one of those "evil" semiautomatics. I do not believe they are safe.