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 boeboe
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.
Not only is it not virtually impossible, it is absolutely necessary to support the claim that the Sturmgewehr "was the first "assault rifle". If there is no reference extant translating Sturm to Assault contemporary to the StG's introduction, then by what right does Ezell or anyone else have to retroactively and unilaterally change that meaning some twenty years after the fact? More, if all historical and military references for the term Sturmtruppen from 1900 to 1945 translate as Storm Troopers, then by what right does anyone have to retroactively and unilaterally claim some twenty years after the fact that while Sturmtruppen were indeed Storm Troopers, the Sturmgewehrs they carried were not similarly Storm Rifles but rather Assault Rifles? How is this inconsistency to be explained?
quote:
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.
No, it would go to substantiate nothing other than there are variant translations of the word sturm, which we already know. What needs to be found is a reference which translates Sturmtruppen as "Assault Troopers" in lieu of "Storm Troopers". What is at issue is not whether Sturmtruppen were assault troops, but whether Sturm, as used in the name Sturmtruppen, was ever translated other than "Storm" or "Shock" contemporary to its use. If such a source cannot be found, then by what right does Ezell or anyone else have to retroactively and unilaterally change that meaning some twenty years after the fact?
I was reading an interesting reference this morning in "German Small Arms of WWII" that stated the german military wanted to refer to the stg44 as a machinenpistole, but that Hitler himself changed the name to Sturmgewehr because he wanted the soldiers carrying rifles, not MPs.
This would seem to break the connection of Sturmgewehrs to Sturmtroopers pre-44 and to suggest that Hitler named the gun for reasons other than creating a new name for a new type of gun, for a new type of warfare etc.
quote:Originally posted by hughbetcha
I was reading an interesting reference this morning in "German Small Arms of WWII" that stated the german military wanted to refer to the stg44 as a machinenpistole, but that Hitler himself changed the name to Sturmgewehr because he wanted the soldiers carrying rifles, not MPs.
This would seem to break the connection of Sturmgewehrs to Sturmtroopers pre-44 and to suggest that Hitler named the gun for reasons other than creating a new name for a new type of gun, for a new type of warfare etc.
Really? I think you are confusing nouns with adjectives. What is at issue here is the translation of the adjective Sturm, not a choice of nouns (machinenpistole vs gewehr). That this to you somehow suggests an historical break in connection between Sturmgewehrs and Sturmtruppen is not only imponderable but impertinent, another example of coloring history so as to attenuate a point of view. I think that, like Ezell, you need to stop pulling stuff out of your * and passing it off as anything other than reverie. Please, let's just stick to the facts here. Thanks.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
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.
Not only is it not virtually impossible, it is absolutely necessary to support the claim that the Sturmgewehr "was the first "assault rifle". If there is no reference extant translating Sturm to Assault contemporary to the StG's introduction, then by what right does Ezell or anyone else have to retroactively and unilaterally change that meaning some twenty years after the fact? More, if all historical and military references for the term Sturmtruppen from 1900 to 1945 translate as Storm Troopers, then by what right does anyone have to retroactively and unilaterally claim some twenty years after the fact that while Sturmtruppen were indeed Storm Troopers, the Sturmgewehrs they carried were not similarly Storm Rifles but rather Assault Rifles? How is this inconsistency to be explained?
quote:
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.
No, it would go to substantiate nothing other than there are variant translations of the word sturm, which we already know. What needs to be found is a reference which translates Sturmtruppen as "Assault Troopers" in lieu of "Storm Troopers". What is at issue is not whether Sturmtruppen were assault troops, but whether Sturm, as used in the name Sturmtruppen, was ever translated other than "Storm" or "Shock" contemporary to its use. If such a source cannot be found, then by what right does Ezell or anyone else have to retroactively and unilaterally change that meaning some twenty years after the fact?
Then there is apparently no possibility that a criteria exists by which you personally can justify the fact that "assault rifle" is the most appropriate translation of the term "sturmgewehr", is that correct?
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by hughbetcha
I was reading an interesting reference this morning in "German Small Arms of WWII" that stated the german military wanted to refer to the stg44 as a machinenpistole, but that Hitler himself changed the name to Sturmgewehr because he wanted the soldiers carrying rifles, not MPs.
This would seem to break the connection of Sturmgewehrs to Sturmtroopers pre-44 and to suggest that Hitler named the gun for reasons other than creating a new name for a new type of gun, for a new type of warfare etc.
Really? I think you are confusing nouns with adjectives. What is at issue here is not the translation of the adjective Sturm (the subject at hand), but rather a choice of nouns (machinenpistole vs gewehr). That this to you somehow suggests an historical break in connection between Sturmgewehrs and Sturmtruppen is not only imponderable but impertinent, another example of coloring history so to attenuate a point of view. I think that, like Ezell, you need to stop pulling stuff out of your * and passing it off as anything other than reverie. Please, let's just stick to the facts here. Thanks.
Pull your own head out your * DWS. I just agreed with you that the term Sturmgewehr might not hanve any specific connection to Sturmtroopers, but might in fact have been made up by Hitler with no specific context to the firearm's mechanical or technical attributes.
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
Then there is apparently no possibility that a criteria exists by which you personally can justify the fact that "assault rifle" is the most appropriate translation of the term "sturmgewehr", is that correct?
I clearly stated what that criteria would be (see above). But I think if you're going to ask anyone that question, you should ask Ezell; for if no such criteria exists, upon what, then, was the claim that the Sturmgewehr "was the first Assault Rifle" made?
quote:Originally posted by hughbetcha
Pull your own head out your * DWS. I just agreed with you that the term Sturmgewehr might not hanve any specific connection to Sturmtroopers, but might in fact have been made up by Hitler with no specific context to the firearm's mechanical or technical attributes.
I think you need to extricate your own instead. I have every reason to believe that the term Sturmgewehr has a specific connection to the term Sturmtruppen. That connection is the adjective Sturm. That that adjective should have different translation depending on whether you rely on history or the word of gun writers is exactly the point here. That the name in fact was "made up by Hitler with no specific context to the firearm's mechanical or technical attributes" is a friggin' given, as those attributes were not taxonomized until the 1960's.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by hughbetcha
Pull your own head out your * DWS. I just agreed with you that the term Sturmgewehr might not hanve any specific connection to Sturmtroopers, but might in fact have been made up by Hitler with no specific context to the firearm's mechanical or technical attributes.
I think you need to extricate your own instead. I have every reason to believe that the term Sturmgewehr has a specific connection to the term Sturmtruppen. That connection is the adjective Sturm. That that adjective should have different translation depending on whether you rely on history or the word of gun writers is exactly the point here.
From the understanding of my source, it is the word gewehr or rifle, that is most important in the naming of the Sturmgewr. It is only one source but it does shed light on the topic of how the gun was named, whether or not the name indicates the gun was designed to meet the need of special assault troops etc.
I am not afraid to take a scholarly approach to the toipc, which means i dont mind making reference to something that does not generally support my own theories. You on the other hand are the type to make a horse's * of yourself by looking a gift horse in the mouth.
You ought to be jumping all over the fact that at least one source,pulled from the aforementioned book and not from my *, supports the notion that the term Sturmgewehr originated in the mind of a syphiletic, parkinson-afflicted madman(Im talking about Hitler not Ezell)
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
Then there is apparently no possibility that a criteria exists by which you personally can justify the fact that "assault rifle" is the most appropriate translation of the term "sturmgewehr", is that correct?
I clearly stated what that criteria would be (see above). But I think if you're going to ask anyone that question, you should ask Ezell; for if no such criteria exists, upon what, then, was the claim that the Sturmgewehr "was the first Assault Rifle" made?
The criteria was clearly stated, but then suddenly changed! In attempting to re-establish the criteria, the following statements were made and it seems that only thing you want is a printed reference dated between 1900 and 1945 wherein the word "sturm" as used in term "sturmtruppen" or "sturmmann" was translated to "assault". And if such a historic reference was found, would you accept the validity of translating "sturmgewehr" to "assault rifle"? I fail to see what else you are asking for.
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
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.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
No, it would go to substantiate nothing other than there are variant translations of the word sturm, which we already know. What needs to be found is a reference which translates Sturmtruppen as "Assault Troopers" in lieu of "Storm Troopers". What is at issue is not whether Sturmtruppen were assault troops, but whether Sturm, as used in the name Sturmtruppen, was ever translated other than "Storm" or "Shock" contemporary to its use. If such a source cannot be found, then by what right does Ezell or anyone else have to retroactively and unilaterally change that meaning some twenty years after the fact?
quote:Originally posted by hughbetcha
From the understanding of my source, it is the word gewehr or rifle, that is most important in the naming of the Sturmgewr.
That may be. But the translation of the word gewehr and Hitler's choice between the nouns gewehr and machinenpistole have nothing whatever to do with the subject before us, namely, the validity of the claim that the Sturmgewehr "was the first Assault Rifle".
quote:
It is only one source but it does shed light on the topic of how the gun was named, whether or not the name indicates the gun was designed to meet the need of special assault troops etc.
No, it only sheds light on why the gun came to be called Sturmgewehr instead of Sturmmachinenpistole, which, again, is irrelevant to this discussion.
quote:
I am not afraid to take a scholarly approach to the toipc, which means i dont mind making reference to something that does not generally support my own theories. You on the other hand are the type to make a horse's * of yourself by looking a gift horse in the mouth.
That which is irrelevant is hardly a gift horse, no matter how scholarly it is claimed to be.
quote:
You ought to be jumping all over the fact that at least one source, pulled from the aforementioned book and not from my *, supports the notion that the term Sturmgewehr originated in the mind of a syphiletic, parkinson-afflicted madman(Im talking about Hitler not Ezell)
Whether it does or does not support the notion is irrelevant. The notion of an "Assault Rifle" is not the issue here, but rather whether the name Hitler gave to it meant that at the time. If it didn't, and it appears from all accounts it didn't, then the claim that the Sturmgewehr "was the first Assault Rifle" is vacuous, except as an historical retrospective posited by a gun writer in the 60's with a compulsion for taxonomy. In other words, Hitler's gun and whatever he chose to call it did not become an "Assault Rifle" until it was called that some twenty years later by someone who had no justification for doing so, other than to illustrate the first of a class of military weapons he chose to categorize. But this does not say anything about Hitler's actual meaning and intention with the Sturmgewehr, only Ezell's assumption of it and which seems not to be supported by any historical evidence.
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
The criteria was clearly stated, but then suddenly changed! In attempting to re-establish the criteria, the following statements were made and it seems that only thing you want is a printed reference dated between 1900 and 1945 wherein the word "sturm" as used in term "sturmtruppen" or "sturmmann" was translated to "assault".
No, you keep reintroducing the term Sturmmann, which has no relevance to the translation of the proper noun Sturmtruppen, which has always had specific translation. Sturmmann may be translated any damn way you please, and is irrelevant to the connection between Sturmtruppen and Sturmgewehr.
quote:Originally posted by Lowrider
Hey jbjm04: I hope this discussion has been a great help to you in your purchase of an "assult rifle." [xx(][xx(]
Let's not get ahead of ourselves.
We have to decide whether there is such a thing as an assault rifle, whether it would be politically correct to call it an assault rifle if there was, and what it would look like if it was an assault rifle, before we could ever get around to helping someone decide which assault rifle to buy.
It seems that many have taken DWS' bait and are seeking a GERMAN reference when, perhaps, they should be looking for a RUSSIAN adaption of "Assault Rifle"
quote:The history of the concept of the assault rifle started in the early 1910's, when the famous Russian armorer, col. Fedorov designed a small-bore selective-fire rifle with detachable box magazine. Initially, Fedorow designed a brand new small-caliber 6.5mm cartridge for his rifle, but, due to WW1, switched to the Japanese 6.5mm Arisaka load, which was less powerful than the Russian 7.62x54R and available in quantity. This rifle was aquired by the Russian army in small numbers in 1916 and served (in very limited quantities though) with the Russian and Soviet (Red) Army up to 1925. While the design of the selective-fire rifle was not unique for that time, the concept of the "lightened" cartridge, more suitable for full-auto fire, was new. Also, col.Fedorov invented the idea of infantry weapons families (assault rifle, light machinegun, medium machinegun, vehicle and/or aircraft mounted MGs) based on the same actions and receivers.
I would bet that if the good jbjmo4 goes out to buy an assault rifle, he surely will be abel to find an obliging FFL who will sell him one whether any of us thinks it existed or not, whether there is historical precidence and whether or not the word pendejo was ever used in Germany between 1899 and 1939 or not.
quote:Originally posted by He Dog
I would bet that if the good jbjmo4 goes out to buy an assault rifle, he surely will be abel to find an obliging FFL who will sell him one whether any of us thinks it existed or not, whether there is historical precidence and whether or not the word pendejo was ever used in Germany between 1899 and 1939 or not.
quote:Originally posted by He Dog
I would bet that if the good jbjmo4 goes out to buy an assault rifle, he surely will be abel to find an obliging FFL who will sell him one whether any of us thinks it existed or not, whether there is historical precidence and whether or not the word pendejo was ever used in Germany between 1899 and 1939 or not.
Maybe DWS can get his Pectiniculus trimmed when it's Sheep Shearing time in the Sawtooths!
quote:Originally posted by iceracerx
It seems that many have taken DWS' bait and are seeking a GERMAN reference when, perhaps, they should be looking for a RUSSIAN adaption of "Assault Rifle"
quote:The history of the concept of the assault rifle started in the early 1910's, when the famous Russian armorer, col. Fedorov designed a small-bore selective-fire rifle with detachable box magazine. Initially, Fedorow designed a brand new small-caliber 6.5mm cartridge for his rifle, but, due to WW1, switched to the Japanese 6.5mm Arisaka load, which was less powerful than the Russian 7.62x54R and available in quantity. This rifle was aquired by the Russian army in small numbers in 1916 and served (in very limited quantities though) with the Russian and Soviet (Red) Army up to 1925. While the design of the selective-fire rifle was not unique for that time, the concept of the "lightened" cartridge, more suitable for full-auto fire, was new. Also, col.Fedorov invented the idea of infantry weapons families (assault rifle, light machinegun, medium machinegun, vehicle and/or aircraft mounted MGs) based on the same actions and receivers.
Do you thrive on impertinence? The claim that the Sturmgewehr was the "first Assault Rifle" is the conventional wisdom embraced since the sixties, and in your mind this is bait that I am casting? Are you really that mentally deficient? I suggest you reread the thread and revisit the insistence on the part of many here that that conventional wisdom is correct, and my efforts over the past six pages to disprove it. Nevermind Fedorov, military history is fraught with implications for Ezell's claim. One need only look to the M2 Carbine. What truly astounds me is that someone who would bother to introduce an historical reference that only proves my point would then turn around and accuse me of using that point as bait. You are one confused sack of ca-ca, dude.
What truly astounds me is that someone who would bother to introduces an historical reference that only proves my point would then turn around and accuse me of using that point as bait. You are one confused sack of ca-ca, dude.
DUDE! Take a deep breath! You are stuttering!!! We don't want you to vapor lock
Now you are going to deny that you DEMANDED reference to a GERMAN usage of "Assault Rilfe" between 1899 and 1944???!!!??
How do you fit your EGO into that Hummer of yours? (I know that you won't fit it into a RUBICON - well only with the Top off)
quote:Originally posted by iceracerx
DUDE! Take a deep breath! You are stuttering!!! We don't want you to vapor lock
Now you are going to deny that you DEMANDED reference to a GERMAN usage of "Assault Rilfe" between 1899 and 1944???!!!??
How do you fit your EGO into that Hummer of yours? (I know that you won't fit it into a RUBICON.
Do you not have anything remotely intelligent to contribute here, psycho? Or are all your posts meant to be a tedious expression of your inner disconnect, a cry for help? There is something pathological in your attention, and it is evidenced on every thread to which you post. I only wish you were here; you'd be removing your colon polyps with your teeth.
Exactly what are you planning to defend your family against? Roaming hordes of Latinos intent on your freeze-dried peaches? Gubmint agents with kevlar kneepads checking under your bed for links to Al Qaeda? Young punks coming in the night to steal the sterling tea cozy you got from Aunt Viv? Conveniently, all these fantasies involve yet another fantasy, an "assault rifle"; you imagine yourself with a double-serrated Gerber in your teeth and ten loaded magazines by your side, downing foe after foe from a clever position of cover and concealment, glorious, victorious, making it through another day of defending hearth and home just in time for American Idol. And later, by Coleman light, you will clean your trusty AK or AR or whatever and smile, confident in the wisdom of your purchase and in God's good grace.
Yep, I'm the Impertinent one.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
I only wish you were here; you'd be removing your colon polyps with your teeth.
Please send directions. I am headed to Idaho next summer to do a bit of bike riding.
Well, hold on there, little buddy! I should suspect that bike riding in the vicinity of DWS, one might very well encounter some perimeter greeters of the same nature with names like "Bouncing Betty" and "Claymore"!
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by iceracerx
Please send directions. I am headed to Idaho next summer to do a bit of bike riding.
Will do. Will your domestic partner be coming as well, or is that too soon after his * reconstruction surgery?
Got an email from jbjm04 and he bought a nice assault rifle, with which he is very happy. He will be picking me up in about half an hour and we are going to go assault some targets.
quote:Originally posted by He Dog
I would bet that if the good jbjmo4 goes out to buy an assault rifle, he surely will be abel to find an obliging FFL who will sell him one whether any of us thinks it existed or not...
I'm afraid that is not possible. jbjmo4 can go out and buy a semi-automatic, military-style rifle and certainly find an obliging FFL to sell it to him, but what he is buying is by definition not an assault rifle, even if assault rifles existed. And that precisely illustrates the problem: People confuse terms given to a thing with the thing itself; I mean, is not menopause a triumph of coagulation? Often the mind believes it is thinking, when it is only passing from one metaphor to the next.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
The criteria was clearly stated, but then suddenly changed! In attempting to re-establish the criteria, the following statements were made and it seems that only thing you want is a printed reference dated between 1900 and 1945 wherein the word "sturm" as used in term "sturmtruppen" or "sturmmann" was translated to "assault".
No, you keep reintroducing the term Sturmmann, which has no relevance to the translation of the proper noun Sturmtruppen, which has always had specific translation. Sturmmann may be translated any damn way you please, and is irrelevant to the connection between Sturmtruppen and Sturmgewehr.
Don't be niave, of course they are related. Sturmmenn composed Sturmpatrouillen and Sturmbataillons. Ranks included terms such as Sturmkolonne and Sturmoffizier. Are you suggesting that the terms Sturmpatrouillen, Sturmbataillons, Sturmkolonne, and Sturmoffizier are not related to Sturmtruppen?
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
Don't be niave, of course they are related. Sturmmenn composed Sturmpatrouillen and Sturmbataillons. Ranks included terms such as Sturmkolonne and Sturmoffizier. Are you suggesting that the terms Sturmpatrouillen, Sturmbataillons, Sturmkolonne, and Sturmoffizier are not related to Sturmtruppen?
No, I am suggesting that, regardless of their relation or translation, these terms are irrelevant as to whether the Sturmgewehr "was the first Assault Rifle". Or are you saying that even though Sturmtruppen was for sixty years translated only as "Storm Troopers", if you find a translation of Sturmbataillons to be "Assault Battalions", then in your mind Ezell may have a case?
quote:Originally posted by He Dog
It looks like an assault rifle, it shoots like an assault rifle, it is ugly like an assualt rifle, it ain't a duck.
No, it looks like a military rifle, but it doesn't shoot like a military rifle, even if it is ugly like a military rifle and ain't a duck. In legal language (which is the only place where assault rifles exist), a Remington 7600 with a collapsible stock and extended magazine is by definition an "assault rifle". Do you really think that a Remington 7600 is what jbjm04 had in mind?
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
Don't be niave, of course they are related. Sturmmenn composed Sturmpatrouillen and Sturmbataillons. Ranks included terms such as Sturmkolonne and Sturmoffizier. Are you suggesting that the terms Sturmpatrouillen, Sturmbataillons, Sturmkolonne, and Sturmoffizier are not related to Sturmtruppen?
No, I am suggesting that, regardless of their relation or translation, these terms are irrelevant as to whether the Sturmgewehr "was the first Assault Rifle". Or are you saying that even though Sturmtruppen was for sixty years translated only as "Storm Troopers", if you find a translation of Sturmbataillons to be "Assault Battalions", then in your mind Ezell may have a case?
Why not? What would be the difference? Why limit it to "sturmtruppen" when the German military preficed many things with the word "sturm"? Are you simply seeking to narrow your odds?
Comments
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.
Not only is it not virtually impossible, it is absolutely necessary to support the claim that the Sturmgewehr "was the first "assault rifle". If there is no reference extant translating Sturm to Assault contemporary to the StG's introduction, then by what right does Ezell or anyone else have to retroactively and unilaterally change that meaning some twenty years after the fact? More, if all historical and military references for the term Sturmtruppen from 1900 to 1945 translate as Storm Troopers, then by what right does anyone have to retroactively and unilaterally claim some twenty years after the fact that while Sturmtruppen were indeed Storm Troopers, the Sturmgewehrs they carried were not similarly Storm Rifles but rather Assault Rifles? How is this inconsistency to be explained?
quote:
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.
No, it would go to substantiate nothing other than there are variant translations of the word sturm, which we already know. What needs to be found is a reference which translates Sturmtruppen as "Assault Troopers" in lieu of "Storm Troopers". What is at issue is not whether Sturmtruppen were assault troops, but whether Sturm, as used in the name Sturmtruppen, was ever translated other than "Storm" or "Shock" contemporary to its use. If such a source cannot be found, then by what right does Ezell or anyone else have to retroactively and unilaterally change that meaning some twenty years after the fact?
This would seem to break the connection of Sturmgewehrs to Sturmtroopers pre-44 and to suggest that Hitler named the gun for reasons other than creating a new name for a new type of gun, for a new type of warfare etc.
I was reading an interesting reference this morning in "German Small Arms of WWII" that stated the german military wanted to refer to the stg44 as a machinenpistole, but that Hitler himself changed the name to Sturmgewehr because he wanted the soldiers carrying rifles, not MPs.
This would seem to break the connection of Sturmgewehrs to Sturmtroopers pre-44 and to suggest that Hitler named the gun for reasons other than creating a new name for a new type of gun, for a new type of warfare etc.
Really? I think you are confusing nouns with adjectives. What is at issue here is the translation of the adjective Sturm, not a choice of nouns (machinenpistole vs gewehr). That this to you somehow suggests an historical break in connection between Sturmgewehrs and Sturmtruppen is not only imponderable but impertinent, another example of coloring history so as to attenuate a point of view. I think that, like Ezell, you need to stop pulling stuff out of your * and passing it off as anything other than reverie. Please, let's just stick to the facts here. Thanks.
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
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.
Not only is it not virtually impossible, it is absolutely necessary to support the claim that the Sturmgewehr "was the first "assault rifle". If there is no reference extant translating Sturm to Assault contemporary to the StG's introduction, then by what right does Ezell or anyone else have to retroactively and unilaterally change that meaning some twenty years after the fact? More, if all historical and military references for the term Sturmtruppen from 1900 to 1945 translate as Storm Troopers, then by what right does anyone have to retroactively and unilaterally claim some twenty years after the fact that while Sturmtruppen were indeed Storm Troopers, the Sturmgewehrs they carried were not similarly Storm Rifles but rather Assault Rifles? How is this inconsistency to be explained?
quote:
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.
No, it would go to substantiate nothing other than there are variant translations of the word sturm, which we already know. What needs to be found is a reference which translates Sturmtruppen as "Assault Troopers" in lieu of "Storm Troopers". What is at issue is not whether Sturmtruppen were assault troops, but whether Sturm, as used in the name Sturmtruppen, was ever translated other than "Storm" or "Shock" contemporary to its use. If such a source cannot be found, then by what right does Ezell or anyone else have to retroactively and unilaterally change that meaning some twenty years after the fact?
Then there is apparently no possibility that a criteria exists by which you personally can justify the fact that "assault rifle" is the most appropriate translation of the term "sturmgewehr", is that correct?
quote:Originally posted by hughbetcha
I was reading an interesting reference this morning in "German Small Arms of WWII" that stated the german military wanted to refer to the stg44 as a machinenpistole, but that Hitler himself changed the name to Sturmgewehr because he wanted the soldiers carrying rifles, not MPs.
This would seem to break the connection of Sturmgewehrs to Sturmtroopers pre-44 and to suggest that Hitler named the gun for reasons other than creating a new name for a new type of gun, for a new type of warfare etc.
Really? I think you are confusing nouns with adjectives. What is at issue here is not the translation of the adjective Sturm (the subject at hand), but rather a choice of nouns (machinenpistole vs gewehr). That this to you somehow suggests an historical break in connection between Sturmgewehrs and Sturmtruppen is not only imponderable but impertinent, another example of coloring history so to attenuate a point of view. I think that, like Ezell, you need to stop pulling stuff out of your * and passing it off as anything other than reverie. Please, let's just stick to the facts here. Thanks.
Pull your own head out your * DWS. I just agreed with you that the term Sturmgewehr might not hanve any specific connection to Sturmtroopers, but might in fact have been made up by Hitler with no specific context to the firearm's mechanical or technical attributes.
Then there is apparently no possibility that a criteria exists by which you personally can justify the fact that "assault rifle" is the most appropriate translation of the term "sturmgewehr", is that correct?
I clearly stated what that criteria would be (see above). But I think if you're going to ask anyone that question, you should ask Ezell; for if no such criteria exists, upon what, then, was the claim that the Sturmgewehr "was the first Assault Rifle" made?
Pull your own head out your * DWS. I just agreed with you that the term Sturmgewehr might not hanve any specific connection to Sturmtroopers, but might in fact have been made up by Hitler with no specific context to the firearm's mechanical or technical attributes.
I think you need to extricate your own instead. I have every reason to believe that the term Sturmgewehr has a specific connection to the term Sturmtruppen. That connection is the adjective Sturm. That that adjective should have different translation depending on whether you rely on history or the word of gun writers is exactly the point here. That the name in fact was "made up by Hitler with no specific context to the firearm's mechanical or technical attributes" is a friggin' given, as those attributes were not taxonomized until the 1960's.
This is the most posts I have ever saw on one topic
Yes, normally we try desperately to keep it superficial around here. Sorry for this lapse of decorum.
quote:Originally posted by hughbetcha
Pull your own head out your * DWS. I just agreed with you that the term Sturmgewehr might not hanve any specific connection to Sturmtroopers, but might in fact have been made up by Hitler with no specific context to the firearm's mechanical or technical attributes.
I think you need to extricate your own instead. I have every reason to believe that the term Sturmgewehr has a specific connection to the term Sturmtruppen. That connection is the adjective Sturm. That that adjective should have different translation depending on whether you rely on history or the word of gun writers is exactly the point here.
From the understanding of my source, it is the word gewehr or rifle, that is most important in the naming of the Sturmgewr. It is only one source but it does shed light on the topic of how the gun was named, whether or not the name indicates the gun was designed to meet the need of special assault troops etc.
I am not afraid to take a scholarly approach to the toipc, which means i dont mind making reference to something that does not generally support my own theories. You on the other hand are the type to make a horse's * of yourself by looking a gift horse in the mouth.
You ought to be jumping all over the fact that at least one source,pulled from the aforementioned book and not from my *, supports the notion that the term Sturmgewehr originated in the mind of a syphiletic, parkinson-afflicted madman(Im talking about Hitler not Ezell)
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
Then there is apparently no possibility that a criteria exists by which you personally can justify the fact that "assault rifle" is the most appropriate translation of the term "sturmgewehr", is that correct?
I clearly stated what that criteria would be (see above). But I think if you're going to ask anyone that question, you should ask Ezell; for if no such criteria exists, upon what, then, was the claim that the Sturmgewehr "was the first Assault Rifle" made?
The criteria was clearly stated, but then suddenly changed! In attempting to re-establish the criteria, the following statements were made and it seems that only thing you want is a printed reference dated between 1900 and 1945 wherein the word "sturm" as used in term "sturmtruppen" or "sturmmann" was translated to "assault". And if such a historic reference was found, would you accept the validity of translating "sturmgewehr" to "assault rifle"? I fail to see what else you are asking for.
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
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.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
No, it would go to substantiate nothing other than there are variant translations of the word sturm, which we already know. What needs to be found is a reference which translates Sturmtruppen as "Assault Troopers" in lieu of "Storm Troopers". What is at issue is not whether Sturmtruppen were assault troops, but whether Sturm, as used in the name Sturmtruppen, was ever translated other than "Storm" or "Shock" contemporary to its use. If such a source cannot be found, then by what right does Ezell or anyone else have to retroactively and unilaterally change that meaning some twenty years after the fact?
From the understanding of my source, it is the word gewehr or rifle, that is most important in the naming of the Sturmgewr.
That may be. But the translation of the word gewehr and Hitler's choice between the nouns gewehr and machinenpistole have nothing whatever to do with the subject before us, namely, the validity of the claim that the Sturmgewehr "was the first Assault Rifle".
quote:
It is only one source but it does shed light on the topic of how the gun was named, whether or not the name indicates the gun was designed to meet the need of special assault troops etc.
No, it only sheds light on why the gun came to be called Sturmgewehr instead of Sturmmachinenpistole, which, again, is irrelevant to this discussion.
quote:
I am not afraid to take a scholarly approach to the toipc, which means i dont mind making reference to something that does not generally support my own theories. You on the other hand are the type to make a horse's * of yourself by looking a gift horse in the mouth.
That which is irrelevant is hardly a gift horse, no matter how scholarly it is claimed to be.
quote:
You ought to be jumping all over the fact that at least one source, pulled from the aforementioned book and not from my *, supports the notion that the term Sturmgewehr originated in the mind of a syphiletic, parkinson-afflicted madman(Im talking about Hitler not Ezell)
Whether it does or does not support the notion is irrelevant. The notion of an "Assault Rifle" is not the issue here, but rather whether the name Hitler gave to it meant that at the time. If it didn't, and it appears from all accounts it didn't, then the claim that the Sturmgewehr "was the first Assault Rifle" is vacuous, except as an historical retrospective posited by a gun writer in the 60's with a compulsion for taxonomy. In other words, Hitler's gun and whatever he chose to call it did not become an "Assault Rifle" until it was called that some twenty years later by someone who had no justification for doing so, other than to illustrate the first of a class of military weapons he chose to categorize. But this does not say anything about Hitler's actual meaning and intention with the Sturmgewehr, only Ezell's assumption of it and which seems not to be supported by any historical evidence.
The criteria was clearly stated, but then suddenly changed! In attempting to re-establish the criteria, the following statements were made and it seems that only thing you want is a printed reference dated between 1900 and 1945 wherein the word "sturm" as used in term "sturmtruppen" or "sturmmann" was translated to "assault".
No, you keep reintroducing the term Sturmmann, which has no relevance to the translation of the proper noun Sturmtruppen, which has always had specific translation. Sturmmann may be translated any damn way you please, and is irrelevant to the connection between Sturmtruppen and Sturmgewehr.
Hey jbjm04: I hope this discussion has been a great help to you in your purchase of an "assult rifle." [xx(][xx(]
How can you buy something that only exists in language? Perhaps we can assist him in his selection among unicorns, as well.
Hey jbjm04: I hope this discussion has been a great help to you in your purchase of an "assult rifle." [xx(][xx(]
Let's not get ahead of ourselves.
We have to decide whether there is such a thing as an assault rifle, whether it would be politically correct to call it an assault rifle if there was, and what it would look like if it was an assault rifle, before we could ever get around to helping someone decide which assault rifle to buy.
quote:The history of the concept of the assault rifle started in the early 1910's, when the famous Russian armorer, col. Fedorov designed a small-bore selective-fire rifle with detachable box magazine. Initially, Fedorow designed a brand new small-caliber 6.5mm cartridge for his rifle, but, due to WW1, switched to the Japanese 6.5mm Arisaka load, which was less powerful than the Russian 7.62x54R and available in quantity. This rifle was aquired by the Russian army in small numbers in 1916 and served (in very limited quantities though) with the Russian and Soviet (Red) Army up to 1925. While the design of the selective-fire rifle was not unique for that time, the concept of the "lightened" cartridge, more suitable for full-auto fire, was new. Also, col.Fedorov invented the idea of infantry weapons families (assault rifle, light machinegun, medium machinegun, vehicle and/or aircraft mounted MGs) based on the same actions and receivers.
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as00-e.htm
FLAME AWAY SHEEP MAN
It seems that many have taken DWS' bait
He's a master baiter...
I would bet that if the good jbjmo4 goes out to buy an assault rifle, he surely will be abel to find an obliging FFL who will sell him one whether any of us thinks it existed or not, whether there is historical precidence and whether or not the word pendejo was ever used in Germany between 1899 and 1939 or not.
What's a matter HeDog? Afraid to take the bait?
He's a master baiter...
[8D][8D][8D][8D][xx(][xx(]This is a visual I DIDN'T need
I would bet that if the good jbjmo4 goes out to buy an assault rifle, he surely will be abel to find an obliging FFL who will sell him one whether any of us thinks it existed or not, whether there is historical precidence and whether or not the word pendejo was ever used in Germany between 1899 and 1939 or not.
Maybe DWS can get his Pectiniculus trimmed when it's Sheep Shearing time in the Sawtooths!
It seems that many have taken DWS' bait and are seeking a GERMAN reference when, perhaps, they should be looking for a RUSSIAN adaption of "Assault Rifle"
quote:The history of the concept of the assault rifle started in the early 1910's, when the famous Russian armorer, col. Fedorov designed a small-bore selective-fire rifle with detachable box magazine. Initially, Fedorow designed a brand new small-caliber 6.5mm cartridge for his rifle, but, due to WW1, switched to the Japanese 6.5mm Arisaka load, which was less powerful than the Russian 7.62x54R and available in quantity. This rifle was aquired by the Russian army in small numbers in 1916 and served (in very limited quantities though) with the Russian and Soviet (Red) Army up to 1925. While the design of the selective-fire rifle was not unique for that time, the concept of the "lightened" cartridge, more suitable for full-auto fire, was new. Also, col.Fedorov invented the idea of infantry weapons families (assault rifle, light machinegun, medium machinegun, vehicle and/or aircraft mounted MGs) based on the same actions and receivers.
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as00-e.htm
FLAME AWAY SHEEP MAN
Do you thrive on impertinence? The claim that the Sturmgewehr was the "first Assault Rifle" is the conventional wisdom embraced since the sixties, and in your mind this is bait that I am casting? Are you really that mentally deficient? I suggest you reread the thread and revisit the insistence on the part of many here that that conventional wisdom is correct, and my efforts over the past six pages to disprove it. Nevermind Fedorov, military history is fraught with implications for Ezell's claim. One need only look to the M2 Carbine. What truly astounds me is that someone who would bother to introduce an historical reference that only proves my point would then turn around and accuse me of using that point as bait. You are one confused sack of ca-ca, dude.
What truly astounds me is that someone who would bother to introduces an historical reference that only proves my point would then turn around and accuse me of using that point as bait. You are one confused sack of ca-ca, dude.
DUDE! Take a deep breath! You are stuttering!!! We don't want you to vapor lock
Now you are going to deny that you DEMANDED reference to a GERMAN usage of "Assault Rilfe" between 1899 and 1944???!!!??
How do you fit your EGO into that Hummer of yours? (I know that you won't fit it into a RUBICON - well only with the Top off)
DUDE! Take a deep breath! You are stuttering!!! We don't want you to vapor lock
Now you are going to deny that you DEMANDED reference to a GERMAN usage of "Assault Rilfe" between 1899 and 1944???!!!??
How do you fit your EGO into that Hummer of yours? (I know that you won't fit it into a RUBICON.
Do you not have anything remotely intelligent to contribute here, psycho? Or are all your posts meant to be a tedious expression of your inner disconnect, a cry for help? There is something pathological in your attention, and it is evidenced on every thread to which you post. I only wish you were here; you'd be removing your colon polyps with your teeth.
Exactly what are you planning to defend your family against? Roaming hordes of Latinos intent on your freeze-dried peaches? Gubmint agents with kevlar kneepads checking under your bed for links to Al Qaeda? Young punks coming in the night to steal the sterling tea cozy you got from Aunt Viv? Conveniently, all these fantasies involve yet another fantasy, an "assault rifle"; you imagine yourself with a double-serrated Gerber in your teeth and ten loaded magazines by your side, downing foe after foe from a clever position of cover and concealment, glorious, victorious, making it through another day of defending hearth and home just in time for American Idol. And later, by Coleman light, you will clean your trusty AK or AR or whatever and smile, confident in the wisdom of your purchase and in God's good grace.
Yep, I'm the Impertinent one.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
I only wish you were here; you'd be removing your colon polyps with your teeth.
Please send directions. I am headed to Idaho next summer to do a bit of bike riding.
Please send directions. I am headed to Idaho next summer to do a bit of bike riding.
Will do. Will your domestic partner be coming as well, or is that too soon after his * reconstruction surgery?
quote:Originally posted by iceracerx
Please send directions. I am headed to Idaho next summer to do a bit of bike riding.
Will do. Will your domestic partner be coming as well, or is that too soon after his * reconstruction surgery?
Witty, you're oh so witty, witty and wise
Enjoy the debate.
I would bet that if the good jbjmo4 goes out to buy an assault rifle, he surely will be abel to find an obliging FFL who will sell him one whether any of us thinks it existed or not...
I'm afraid that is not possible. jbjmo4 can go out and buy a semi-automatic, military-style rifle and certainly find an obliging FFL to sell it to him, but what he is buying is by definition not an assault rifle, even if assault rifles existed. And that precisely illustrates the problem: People confuse terms given to a thing with the thing itself; I mean, is not menopause a triumph of coagulation? Often the mind believes it is thinking, when it is only passing from one metaphor to the next.
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
The criteria was clearly stated, but then suddenly changed! In attempting to re-establish the criteria, the following statements were made and it seems that only thing you want is a printed reference dated between 1900 and 1945 wherein the word "sturm" as used in term "sturmtruppen" or "sturmmann" was translated to "assault".
No, you keep reintroducing the term Sturmmann, which has no relevance to the translation of the proper noun Sturmtruppen, which has always had specific translation. Sturmmann may be translated any damn way you please, and is irrelevant to the connection between Sturmtruppen and Sturmgewehr.
Don't be niave, of course they are related. Sturmmenn composed Sturmpatrouillen and Sturmbataillons. Ranks included terms such as Sturmkolonne and Sturmoffizier. Are you suggesting that the terms Sturmpatrouillen, Sturmbataillons, Sturmkolonne, and Sturmoffizier are not related to Sturmtruppen?
Don't be niave, of course they are related. Sturmmenn composed Sturmpatrouillen and Sturmbataillons. Ranks included terms such as Sturmkolonne and Sturmoffizier. Are you suggesting that the terms Sturmpatrouillen, Sturmbataillons, Sturmkolonne, and Sturmoffizier are not related to Sturmtruppen?
No, I am suggesting that, regardless of their relation or translation, these terms are irrelevant as to whether the Sturmgewehr "was the first Assault Rifle". Or are you saying that even though Sturmtruppen was for sixty years translated only as "Storm Troopers", if you find a translation of Sturmbataillons to be "Assault Battalions", then in your mind Ezell may have a case?
It looks like an assault rifle, it shoots like an assault rifle, it is ugly like an assualt rifle, it ain't a duck.
No, it looks like a military rifle, but it doesn't shoot like a military rifle, even if it is ugly like a military rifle and ain't a duck. In legal language (which is the only place where assault rifles exist), a Remington 7600 with a collapsible stock and extended magazine is by definition an "assault rifle". Do you really think that a Remington 7600 is what jbjm04 had in mind?
Well if that doesn't make them real, I don't know what does!
He might want a 7600 Remington, ya gotta figure one mans assault rifle is another mans deer rifle.
My assault rifle is Winchester model 62, but I am not a really serious assaulter.
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
Don't be niave, of course they are related. Sturmmenn composed Sturmpatrouillen and Sturmbataillons. Ranks included terms such as Sturmkolonne and Sturmoffizier. Are you suggesting that the terms Sturmpatrouillen, Sturmbataillons, Sturmkolonne, and Sturmoffizier are not related to Sturmtruppen?
No, I am suggesting that, regardless of their relation or translation, these terms are irrelevant as to whether the Sturmgewehr "was the first Assault Rifle". Or are you saying that even though Sturmtruppen was for sixty years translated only as "Storm Troopers", if you find a translation of Sturmbataillons to be "Assault Battalions", then in your mind Ezell may have a case?
Why not? What would be the difference? Why limit it to "sturmtruppen" when the German military preficed many things with the word "sturm"? Are you simply seeking to narrow your odds?