Talk:StG 44/Archive 2

Developer
The StG 44 developer name should be added and linked to wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Schmeisser He was captured by Red Army in 1945 and assigned to "help" to develop AK-47. Note, that Hugo Schmeisser had about 40 years of experience in gun development and Mikhail Kalashnikov was 26 years old without any formal education with less then 3 years of experience. Also compare StG 44 and AK-47 appearance. This information's from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Kalashnikov — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.65.80 (talk) 17:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Naming?
It appears most literature and actual ordnance reports of the Third Reich use a space in the model designations, i.e. MP 44, StG 44 etc. Which would make sense since the full title also provides a space between the type classification and the model year (Maschinenpistole 43, not Maschinenpistole43). Koalorka (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

AK & MP44
AK are development from Sudaev' AS-44. In 1943, Soviet format M43 cartridge, after modified Mosin cartridge (Model M1942). Early M43 is 7,62x41 cartridge. In 1944, 3 types of AS-44 joined to conbat, LMG-assault rifle-and semi automatic rifle. In 1944, 1945, AS-44 modified in some prototype. Unfortunately, Sudaev fell severely ill in 1945 and died next year before finalizing his design. Before AK adopted in 1949, more one hundred prototype of dozens engineer are testing in M43 cartridge, example Tokarev, Bulkin...

MP-44 = machine pistol = pistole= short fire arm. AK is rifle = long fire arm. Germany machine rifle program is MKb-35, died before 1938. MKb-35= maschinen karabine model 1935=short and full automatic rifle, 2 prototype and some modifier to 1938, use GECO 7,92x40 cartridge.

First Assault rifle in the World is Fedorov Avtomat, 1911. This rifle is service from WWI to Soviet-Finland war. In 1915-1917 era, 3200 gun serviced in war (Russia-Romania). After October 1917, Fedorov Avtomat is first machine gun made by Soviet, manufacturing in Kovrov. In after 1922 era, Fedorov Avtomat change to Mossin cartridge, is a LMG, Fedorov-Degtriarev LMG. Fedorov-Degtriarev LMG are change by DP in 1924-1927.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.24.181.180 (talk) 12:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Postwar Use
Given the Soviet propensity of dumping stocks of captured German weapons into places like Vietnam, I'm curious if the StG 44 ever saw any use in Indochina in the hands of the Viet Cong? Does anyone know?--172.190.133.25 (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * An untruthful story —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.190.69.14 (talk) 05:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Good question. I don't know much about Soviet supply to Viet Nam at that time. It is known that the Viet Minh before first scavenged what the Japanese, French, and Americans had sent over or left behind. There is anecdotal usage of WWII German small arms in the hands of ex-German Legionnaires in Indochina, and they certainly left arms behind. Manhurin P-38s (manufactured in Germany in the French-occupied zone after the war) were issued to the French Foreign Legion and perhaps some Kar98s and Mp40s in addition to your standard French weapons (MAS rifles, MAB pistols, MAT smgs). As long as there were supplies of ammunition for these weapons, I'm sure they saw later use by the VC. Twalls (talk) 06:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the reference links is outdated and should be replaced with this as HZA Kulmbach has changed their websites: http://www.hza-kulmbach.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=110&Itemid=117&lang=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.215.27 (talk) 06:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone could also add that the flag of the "Hezbollah" of Libanon shows a Stg44 on it.--62.154.195.115 (talk) 09:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reliable source that says so.--Sus scrofa (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe not the use you intended, but it is reported by IMFDB (trustworthy?) that stg44 were mocked up to look like m16 in russian movies after WW2, much like Hollywood used cz58 ad ak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.232.234.189 (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikis are not reliable sources for Wikipedia since anyone can edit them. Otherwise you could just go to IMFDB and edit in something you wanted to add to Wikipedia and so on. --Sus scrofa (talk) 11:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Development history
According to "Weapons of the Third Reich" (Gander and Chamberlain, c.1978 ISBN 0 385 15090 3)the original development for the new intermediate cartridge were started in 1934 by GECO with a production contract issued to Polte in 1938. Also in 1938 specifications for rifles to use the new ammunition were let to the German armaments industry, resulting in the prototypes from Walther and Haenel. As such the inference in the article that the StG 44 was developed as a result of experience on the Russian Front cannot be true, as the specifications and prototypes developed in response to the specifications preceded the start of the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.43.254 (talk • contribs)


 * The article already says that the cartridge was developed in the interwar years, as for rifles, I know only of the intermediate cartridge Vollmer M35 that was cancelled in 1938.--Sus scrofa (talk) 11:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There were several cartridges proposed; has a picture (about half-way through the article, after the picture of the M35). A few more are mentioned in chapter 4 of  and here with more blurry picture. The Vollmer/Geco program was the most substantial before Haenel was given priority. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the liveleaks video
The identification there as "FSA fighter" is just as reliable as in the other video the same site which says he is an "Al Queda wanker". I don't recognized the logo of that obscure group myself one way or the other. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Considered by many
OK, according to WP:PEACOCK we are here to show, not to tell. The intro already says that it is an assault rifle and that it was the first of its kind, adding "it was considered by many to be the first modern assault rifle" straight after these statements is a peacock term, is redundant, and also introduces the question: "who are these many?". If you say it is explained in the article, then it is doubly redundant. Saying that a particular historian "considered it to be the first modern assault rifle" would be fine though. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ed Ezell, Ian Hogg, Chris Bishop, John Weeks, Vincent DiMaio, David Westwood, and WH Smith to name a few. No, it's not redundant, it's an important distinction to make. The other alternative is to say that "It WAS the first modern assault rifle" which would be true, however there is enough dissent to qualify the statement with the phrase, "Considered by many".   --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I always considered it to be the first. Should we change it to be "many historians (or one of those you mentioned) consider it to be the first", followed by a reference, then?


 * WH Smith? That's a newsagent. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Google is your friend: --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * WH Smiths.It was weak joke that backfired. Chances are I read something by him, but since my books are spread between three houses, bit hard to check (I don't own three house, that's why they're all over the place). Brutaldeluxe (talk) 02:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Redux
a. Wasn't the Fedorov Avtomat earlier? Also the Cei-Rigotti. b. Why modern? Either modern means the last several centuries, since before muzzle-loading hunting rifles, or ... modern can mean any undefined period, amounting to a weasel word. 108.45.79.25 (talk) 03:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  01:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  00:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  02:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope. Sources call it "modern" so that isn't a weasel word. This has been discussed at length here. You would need sources that refute this in order to have an argument here.
 * Is there any dispute that the Fedorov was (a) earlier (b) modern or (c) an assault rifle? 108.45.79.25 (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, apperently there is. But wouldn't it be a better description to refer to the StG 44 as the first widely-used assault rifle, avoiding the implication of ancient of medieval assault rifles? 108.45.79.25 (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No one would make that mistake. Why argue with the sources? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 to name a few. The Fedorov had nothing to do with inspiring the StG weapon designs and therefore not part of the lineage of modern assault rifles. The Fedorov may be considered a failure. On the other hand, the AK weapons were heavily inspired by captured StGs. You might say that the StG was the "first widely-used modern assault rifle" and sources can show that. Is that what you are after?
 * I'm not an expert on the subject, I'm just (a) trying to figure out why the article specifies modern, as if we need to distinguish this from ancient or medieval assault rifles, and (b) not sure why lineage matters. For example, the Gatling and Mitraleuse are considered machine guns, without being part of he lineage of the Maxim gun. 108.45.79.25 (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Lineage is important because we have had different people trying to rewrite history often with national pride at the heart of the matter. Being shown so many sources above, you haven't acknowledged those. You haven't supplied reliable sources to show why "modern" shouldn't be used. Your example is incorrect but I agree that they aren't part of the lineage of the Maxim gun. You can see my edit that shows the Maxim as the first true machine gun. The Gatling gun is not a machine gun but rather a rapid-fire weapon. Machine guns are fully automatic and powered by the recoil; the Gatling is human powered...stop turning the crank and it stops. Also, in legal terms a Gatling isn't considered a machine gun but rather a curio and relic.
 * , random aside: C&R status is a Gun Control Act thing and exempts C&R holders from restrictions on interstate transfers. Something can be both a C&R and a machine gun. (Though to be fair by 2036 all legally transferrable machine guns will be C&R anyway, so whatever.) The thing that makes the Gatling Gun (and reproductions thereof) a GCA firearm is that it's hand-cranked, not self-loading. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that they could have both statuses, thank you. I have Form 4 and Form 5 weapons but no C&Rs. I do have a Barhorst Twin Gatling that requires no BATF forms. I built this kit centered around two stainless Ruger 10/22s, added two customized recoil buffers turned down from Delron, and added a .45 Auto wraparound Pachmayr grip on the handle. Mine is on the tall T6 riser like what is in the video on that page. I have the M-1 conversion kit and a case of M-1 30rd magazines...but it is more fun and cheaper to leave as .22LR.

Not a assault rifle
The STG 44/MP 44 should not be considered an assault rifle but rather a machine pistol, or a storm rifle. When the idea was presented to Hitler himself in 1942 he declared it to revolutionary. The gun was modified from its original state to fit as a machine pistol. Despite this weapons selective fire, and range it was not produced to operate as a rifle. Also it should be noted that Hitler made it very clear that he felt the idea was to revolutionary. Many make the arguement that the term Storm Rifle really means assault rifle in modern terms but also note the MP 40 was a storm rifle and it is cleary not an assault rifle. Using that term alone is not enough to back the Stg 44 as an assault rifle, and if they orginaly submited the gun as an assault rifle how could it stay as one after it was changed to fit another category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.1.47 (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. Regardless of the gun designation changing from MP44, the German designation of the ammunition never changed. Pistole Patronnen 7.92 x 33mm. Pistol ammo! (SM527RR (talk) 06:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC))


 * The StG 44 has all the characteristics of an assault rifle, which means that it is an assault rifle. Claiming that it isn't an assault rifle because it was originally referred to as a submachine gun and not as an assault rifle, or because the 7.92x33mm was called "pistol ammo" and not assault rifle ammo, shows an almost unbelievable level of ignorance, or worse, since neither the category of weapons that are now referred to as assault rifles nor the name "assault rifle" existed at that time. Allan Akbar (talk) 14:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Assault rifle appeared long ago before Mp44. That is the Fedorov Avtomat and the SK-39.

Disregard of the ammo and catridge is your ignorance because if you want your gun to have a good fire range and a good power, you need good gunpowder and a good design for the bullet. A terrible bullet cannot fly long and far and does not give a good punch and that means you do not have a rifle. Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 08:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Simple, the weapon wasn't changed, they changed the name so they could get funding meant for submachine guns. The idea was not presented to Hitler and declared too revolutionary, he merely said no new rifles, so they changed the name to get funding (not unlike governmental/political spending). And sturmgewehr while literally translated as "storm rifle", is better translated as "assault rifle", the whole class name comes from rifles that share many of the characteristics of the StG 44. Also, the MP 40 wasn't an assault rifle or storm rifle or whatever you choose to call the class, it was a submachine gun (although the German word for submachine gun also translates as "machine pistol".--LWF (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "submachine gun" ? is nick of Thompson SMG - English, German word is MP.


 * For the 189th time now, It is this simple bureaucratic name change that is so greatly confusing you. They could have called the Walther P38 the "Maschinenpistole 38" to get around politics, does that mean it is a submachine gun? No! It is still a pistol no matter what they call it. The Stg 44 is, according to the entire rest of the world, an assault rifle. If you think we should call it a machine pistol, you'll have to convince the rest of the world before it gets on wikipedia. Good luck with that. —  DP 5  02:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * pistole ? PP2000=Maschinenpistole http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg61-e.htm . hand pistole and SMG, all these are pistole.


 * The East Germans actually redesignated the StG 44 as the "MPi.44," not because they viewed it as a submachine gun - they also referred to the AK-47 and AKM as the MPiK and MPiKM. There is no doubt that the name Sturmgewehr still had the National Socialist war propaganda connotation. Twalls (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * they also referred to the AK-47 and AKM as the MPiK and MPiKM == spam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.190.69.14 (talk) 05:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The Stg 44 shows all characteristics of an assault rifle:

-selective fire (semi- and fully-automatic) -the round which is used (7,92x33 // medium sized, in comparison to a short pistol round or a longer rifle round) -curved mag, which is a characteristic one can see at most of the assault rifles of today.

....hence: IT IS AN ASSAULT-RIFLE.

--62.154.195.115 (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No.
 * MP5 is a submachine gun although it has a curved magazine.
 * MP44 does not have handguard which is neccessary for the rifle user to make a proper aim.
 * Pistolpatrone is a MP bullet.
 * End of story. Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 08:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Why is there no citation for the sentences, "The name was chosen personally by Adolf Hitler for propaganda reasons and literally means "storm rifle" as in "to storm (i.e. "assault") an enemy position". After the adoption of the StG 44, the English translation "assault rifle" became the accepted designation for this type of infantry small arm"? Dkelber (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Further down in the article, in the section "MP 43, MP 44, StG 44" there is a citation given for the name (#15 at the moment) that links to |"Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 57, April 1945", a wartime publication by the U.S. War Department. It says that the StG 44 is 'an automatic small arm which Adolph Hitler has personally designated the "Assault Rifle 44"'. It's not the best source (old, produced by a biased source etc.) but I think it shows the connection between the word sturmgewehr and the term "assault rifle". |Dictionary.com pegs the origin of the term "assault rifle" to 1970-75 so this might be wrong, I don't know.--Sus scrofa (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "Curved magazines" have nothing to do with whether a gun is an assault rifle or not. It's a byproduct of the shape of many cartridges. Rifle cartridges tend to be tapered, while pistol rounds are cylinders. That's why assault rifles often have "banana clips" and SMG's straight magazines, but it's far from universal. The only requirement is that both have high-capacity mags, typically 20+ rounds. The shape is irrelevant, and drums and other shapes can also be used.
 * The StG44 DOES have a handguard around the barrel. That's what that stamped sheet metal thing forward of the magazine is. Look at the M3 submachine gun if you want to see what a gun without a handguard looks like.
 * The StG44 wasn't called an assault rifle because the term didn't exist back then. That's why they called it a "machine carbine", which is probably a better term than "assault rifle" anywhere. "Assault rifle" was a term Hitler made up because it sounded cool and would look good on propaganda. They had already redesignated the 7.92mm Kurtz ammo as "pistol ammo" in order to hide it from Hitler, what would be the point of re-redesignating it again? It's just a name to use while keeping records, and unless they had a good reason to change it again, why would they bother?
 * Bottom line is, the 7.92mm Kurtz is NOT "pistol ammo". Can you name a single pistol that has ever fired that ammunition? No. Because none has, it's far too powerful to be a useful pistol round. It's a medium-power rifle round, regardless of what some logistics officers decided to call it in their paperwork. Pistil ammunition is pistol ammunition because it was designed to be fired from a pistol, not because it was decided to call it that for political reasons. In the modern day, we have the 5.7mm and 4.3mm cartridges. Both were designed for use in SMGs or PDWs. Neither is considered a pistol round even though there are pistols chambered for both.
 * How can one argue that the StG44 isn't an assault rifle when it was the origin of the term? Without the StG44, the term "assault rifle" wouldn't exist. They would be called "automatic carbines" or something equally rational.
 * The StG44 meets every criteria to be called an assault rifle: it's more compact than a rifle, yet larger than an SMG (significantly larger). It is selective fire, and has a large capacity magazine. And it fires 'intermediate powered ammunition. Even if you wanted to insist its actually "pistol ammunition" even though it's never been used in a pistol, a simple comparison graph of the power, muzzle velocity and effective range of various cartridges ranging from .380ACP to .50BMG will reveal that the 7.92mm Kurtz falls right in the middle range, close to cartridges like the 7.62x39mm, 5.56x45mm, 5.45mm, .30-30 Winchester, .222 Remington, etc. These are all intermediate powered cartridges, and so is the 7.92mm Kurtz, whatever you want to call it. I believe the phrase goes something like "a rose by any other name.. ", etc.
 * The StG44 was, and is an assault rifle. It meets every criteria easily. To argue that it wasn't on the basis of the technicalities such as its ammunition being officially designated "pistol ammo" is specious. I would remind you that Nazi officials also designated Jews and Slavs, etc, as "subhumans" and declared they had a right to exterminate them. Doesn't make what they said correct, does it? AnnaGoFast (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Rate of fire
It says the StG44 had a "comparable" rate of fire to the PPS and PPSh-41. That may be true of the PPS, but the PPSh-41 has almost double the cyclical rate of the StG44. A bit less than 1,000 rpm, as opposed to less than 600. That's why they called it the" burp gun". AnnaGoFast (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Prototypes
I can't follow this: "In December 1940, a prototype rifle from Haenel and Walther was tested by the HWA at Kummersdorf. It had multiple jams, several barrels got bulged, and one had a catastrophic failure." It says both companies made a prototype, two different guns. "A prototype rifle from Haenel and Walter" makes it sound like a single gun made in collaboration. Worse, it then says "it" had malfunctions...which is "it"? There should be two prototypes in competition. If only one malfunctioned, it should say which. If both did, saying "it" malfunctioned is bad grammar and hard to follow. AnnaGoFast (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * A search gives
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=8RxJxY7wQn0C&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&source=bl&hl=en&sa=X&f=false
 * The contracts were let in 1933 (Haenel) and 1940 (Walther) (page 32). Testing in 1942 (page 33); not clear it was at Kummersdorf or if there were malfunctions. Walther MKb42(W) design preferred after testing (page 33), but Haenel had provided 50 MKb42(H) prototypes; Walther had provided just one MKb42(W). Twenty-five of the MKb42(H) prototypes were sent to the Russian Front. The MKb42(H) was adopted with modifcations and became the MP43/1. Later mods made it the MP43. In 1944, it became the MP44. German troops on the Russian Front were now against troops armed with submachine guns. The quick alternative was the MP43 or MP44, which was renamed to StG44.
 * Glrx (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit
This edit has restored material that has been challenged since 2012 & 2014:


 * The British were critical of the weapon, saying that the receiver could be bent and the bolt locked up by the mere act of knocking a leaning rifle onto a hard floor. A late-war U.S. assessment derided the weapon as "bulky" and "unhandy", prone to jamming, and meant to be thrown away if the soldier could not maintain it. Many of these criticisms are more a testimonial of the Allied aversion rather than an accurate view of the weapon's characteristics, which were proven highly effective during combat in the war.

To the editor who restored it, would you be willing to provide the required information? Yes, the tenor of the paragraph changed, but the two sentences removed failed WP:V, so they should have been removed. Please advise. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

lede section should mention how the germans used the stg-44
What could be more important than how the stg-44 was used in combat? What matters more about the stg-44 or about anything than how it's used? Was the stg-44 a ceremonial rifle? Was it's primary purpose cosmetic? Was it an entrenching tool? Was it the first spork? The first combination spoon and fork? It was a german rifle that was used primarily as a semi-automatic rifle. That is one of the most important things to put in the lede of this article.TeeTylerToe (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No one is arguing the things you are proposing here. The lede is for the most noteworthy facts about a subject. The StG is most noteworthy for being considered the first assault rifle. It is not most notable for being subject to orders to use it primarily in semi-auto mode. Hence why the former information belongs in the lede and the latter does not. Go ahead and try to get consensus for this edit if you like, but I don't think you'll succeed. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * So you're arguing that the lede shouldn't include how the german military employed the first assault rifle? If how it was employed isn't notable than what is notable about it?TeeTylerToe (talk) 00:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am saying that a detail about the instructions given for use of this rifle does not belong in the lede. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

It's how the rifle was employed in combat. The most important thing about the rifle that could be mentioned.TeeTylerToe (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * But not in the lede. Irondome (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Aren't people who read the stg-44 article want to know how the stg-44 was used? Or is that not something they will want to know? Will they want it to be a surprise? The lede already talks about how one of the most significant pieces of information about the stg-44 is that it increased the firepower of the german soldiers wielding it. How can that belong in the lede but not that it was primarily used as a semi-automatic rifle, and not as a lmg or something. It's very important information about the rifle.TeeTylerToe (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Very well colleague, I will cut to the chase. You have just come off a two week block for tendentious editing on this very subject. Now you are straight back. The issue here is not how this bloody chunk of metal was used, but your behaviour pattern. Drop it. Irondome (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with how the amount of firepower that the stg-44 outputs is important enough to be in the lede but not that that "amount of firepower" is the firepower of a semi-automatic rifle? Not to mention that the block was lifted the 20th of last month and lasted I think two or three days?TeeTylerToe (talk) 00:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You are so not listening. I am sure others can guide you. Good luck. Irondome (talk) 01:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of National Security source
This seems like a problematic source, as, though google, it seems like the quote being used for the citation is "[the stg-44] met the german need for a gun more powerful than the submachine gun but smaller in size and with less recoil." For one, the book seems to have mis-worded that. AFAIK assault rifles and the stg-44 are larger than submachine guns, and apples to apples, have more recoil than submachine guns. So I'd recommend not using this as a citation, and it only supports a small amount of the text it's being used as a citation for.TeeTylerToe (talk) 01:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is tendentious editing. The previous paragraph in the source makes it clear that it is comparing the StG 44 to both submachine guns and the then-existing battle rifles. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Or, if you like, you could just revert back to the previous consensus wording. That would be OK too. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 01:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, you've already done 3 reverts on this page. So I have another proposal.  I'll replace the text that you added this encyclopedia of national security citation to with a similar quote from the actual text.  That should satisfy everyone, particularly people concerned about editors pushing one agenda or another agenda.  Of course I'm demonstrably open to discussion and compromise.  This is just a proposal on my part.  I hope we can find common ground that we all can agree on.  Also, it wouldn't hurt to focus more on the content.TeeTylerToe (talk) 01:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've done two reverts, since we're talking about contributors and not content. You can make whatever edit you like, and if there is consensus for it I am sure it will stick. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 02:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Place of Origin
Why does it say "Nazi Germany"? The country was Germany. Since when is a country's ideology a part of its name? Maybe call Cuba "Communist Cuba" instead of Cuba? That doesn't make any sense. Andrew Gunner (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Please see Talk:Gewehr 43 for a previous discussion of this subject.--Sus scrofa (talk) 10:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Removed section
Let's just go through why this doesn't belong here:


 * It's using a source which can't be confirmed, and has had that tag since 2014. As a result, it should be challenged and removed per WP:V.
 * It's UNDUE: it's using one source to make a flat statement of fact that tries to overrule two others. If restored, it should match the format of the other two (the British said, the Americans said, this author said).
 * It uses weasel words, starting "many of these criticisms." Which ones specifically?
 * It's flatly untrue. The Americans might have been criticising the MP44 for not being identical to the M1 / M2 carbine (which is basically the gist of their report), but the British report is one from after the war and is being mischaracterised. It actually praised the MP43, but the authors felt that the sacrifices made for mass production in the MP44 had compromised the durability of the weapon. They based this on actual destructive testing of real weapons and the ultimate conclusion of the report was the Britian should develop their own assault rifle in .280, which they started doing almost as soon as the war ended. Hardly an "allied aversion!"

If this exceptional claim that both sets of testing represented "propaganda" is really popular among firearms historians, it should be laughably easy to give chapter and verse for it. As it stands now, the paragraph reads like it was edited by an StG fanboy making excuses, and the citation is invalid. Don't add it back without a valid one. Stoneman85 (talk) 07:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't join the edit war, although I was tempted to. I don't know and therefore take no position on whether the information in the removed sentence is true, but I agree with StoneMan85 that the information should at least come from a verifiable source before it can be reconsidered for inclusion in the article. For what it's worth I have tried to find the cited book in my local university library and on Amazon with no luck. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * All the comments in the paragraph are weak. The first statement, "the receiver could be bent and the bolt locked up by the mere act of knocking a leaning rifle onto a hard floor," is not a clear statement (and it has an open page request). The second statement, "meant to be thrown away if the soldier could not maintain it," is patently absurd and not stated on the cited page. If you actually look at the text of that reference, it says "The innovative Sturmgewehr 44 was a firearm ahead of its time." The page does quote some intelligence reports, but suggests the report "concluded somewhat disingenuously". The removed statement countered those. When this paragraph came up, there was a search for the Musgrave ref; the author wrote about machine guns, but we could not find a title/year match. IIRC, that was part of an RSN about StG 44 ballistics cited in a reprint. We also looked for other criticism of the StG and could not find it. Hatcher does not complain about the reliability. German generals wanted more of the weapon, so it was not a piece of junk that the first two statements claim. The weapons clearly drove the move to assault rifles. Leaving the removed sentence out ruins a NPOV, so I'd say delete the entire paragraph as WP:UNDUE and misquoted. Glrx (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * German generals probably wanted more of them in the sense that over a hundred thousand of the things spent the war stuck in depots and never reached the front line, leading to the Soviet Union capturing so many StG-44s that they're still floating around in the Middle East and the Soviet film industry would mock StG-44s up as M16s for movies. Besides, military brass wanting more of something certainly doesn't mean that thing is objectively good, the soldiers taking a liking to it doesn't either (soldiers in Vietnam were fond of the M60, that doesn't mean it didn't have some truly boneheaded engineering in it), and negative contemporary evaluations of it should not be ignored just because you personally feel they were being unfair. Bones Jones (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Gewehr means "rifle" ?
Oh hoh hoh, so "Maschinengewehr" is machine... rifle ??? Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 07:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * A look in the dictionary tells us that "gewehr" can be translated as both "gun" and "rifle". Words can have multiple meanings. Translating is also more than putting the literal meaning of words into the translated text.--Sus scrofa (talk) 12:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

How about sturm?
But apparently "sturm" can only mean "assault" in this article (another look in the dictionary) or maybe there's another explanation. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Sturm = storm...as in "have fun storming the castle". In this context, the most commonly used translated synonym is "assault". Therefore, the most common english language translation for "sturmgewehr" is "assault rifle". See...the fifth definition in the verb section of the above source (another look in the dictionary). This is also well referenced within the article. As Sus scrofa said above..."Translating is also more than putting the literal meaning of words into the translated text."--RAF910 (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I can appreciate the intention of a catchy phrase, but the lead says "(abbreviation of Sturmgewehr 44, "assault rifle 44") is a German assault rifle...". Aside from being grammatically redundant and poor writing, its a misnomer considering that how the name came to be is detailed in the body of the text. So in this context, since the term did not exist until the creation of this firearm (but I'll acknowledge that it is responsible for the terms future popularity) it is misleading without explanation which is what I attempted to do with this edit. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It wasn't the first time the word was used in a similar context; Sturmtruppen had already been coined. What were they called in military English?  Bromley86 (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of LoneSentry website
Scalhotrod refuses to accept reference that refutes his point of view http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/stg44-assault-rifle.html Machine Carbine Promoted," Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 57, April 1945. This is a well establish internet resource proving digital copies of government documents, it is widely used on wiki and in books and other publication (a simple google search will prove this). I believe that he cannot accept the fact that the German word "sturmgewehr" is commonly translated into English as as "assault rifle" and believes that it should be translated as "storm gun" instead. Also, he seems upset that the source states that Adolph Hitler coined the term (see assault rifle page). And, since the reference in question is the first time that the term "assault rifle" is used, he is attempting to discredit it.--RAF910 (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you basing the phrase "well establish internet resource proving digital copies of government documents" on? The reference pointed to text that claims to be a reprint of the Government document, but even the LoneSentry.com website states, "As with all wartime intelligence information, data may be incomplete or inaccurate. No attempt has been made to update or correct the text." How is this a WP:RS? The source you are pointing to is just text, not a copy or photostat of the original. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * With regard to "storm rifle" vs. "assault rifle", from a historical and encyclopedic standpoint, I believe that this (and only this) article should use the phrase "storm rifle" simply because this rifle is the origin of the entire category of firearms. Furthermore, I only tried to insert the phrase ONCE in the lead to emphasize the fact that this firearm was origin of the term that became popular or common much later on. I'm not trying to discredit anything, I'm trying to better explain something within the proper context. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that you forgot to write the first and last sentence of Lonesentry.com disclaimer...so for my fellow users it states "DISCLAIMER: The following text is taken from the U.S. War Department publication Tactical and Technical Trends. As with all wartime intelligence information, data may be incomplete or inaccurate. No attempt has been made to update or correct the text. Any views or opinions expressed do not necessarily represent those of the website." U.S. War Department publications are by definition reliable sources. The website simply puts a standard disclaimer at the top of each article.

Also, Lonesentry.com is clearly an established and reputable source of information. A simple Google search reveils that numerous books use Lonesentry.com resources as references (see sample list below...I'm afraid there are too many to list them all).

MG 34 and MG 42 Machine Guns By Chris McNab

The Infantry's Armor: The U.S. Army's Separate Tank Battalions in World War II By Harry Yeide

The Legacies of a Hawaiian Generation: From Territorial Subject to American ...By Judith Schachte

The Infantry's Armor: The U.S. Army's Separate Tank Battalions in World War II By Harry Yeid

Soviet Submachine Guns of World War II: PPD-40, PPSh-41 and PPS By Chris McNab

German Automatic Rifles 1941-45: Gew 41, Gew 43, FG 42 and StG 44 By Chris McNab

Faith and Fortitude: My WWII Memoirs By Ronald Bleecke

Unforgettable: The Biography of Captain Thomas J. Flynn By Alice Flynn

Steeds of Steel By Harry Yeide

West Point '41: The Class That Went to War and Shaped America By Anne Kazel-Wilcox, PJ Wilco

Tragedy at Dieppe: Operation Jubilee, August 19, 1942 By Mark Zuehlke

The Infantry's Armor: The U.S. Army's Separate Tank Battalions in World War II By Harry Yeide

4th Armored Division in World War II By George Forty

A Cause Greater than Self: The Journey of Captain Michael J. Daly, World War ...By Stephen J. Ochs

The Sky Rained Heroes: A Journey from War to Remembrance By Frederick E. LaCroix

The Generation that Saved America By Bettye B. Burkhalte

Dig & Dig Deep By Richard Arnold

World War II By Walter A. Haze

Hero Street, U.S.A.: The Story of Little Mexico's Fallen Soldiers By Marc Wilson

Letters Home: From a World War II "Black Panther" Artilleryman By Philip M. Coons, Harold M. Coons

Savage Lies: The Half-truths, Distortions and Outright Lies of a Right-wing ...By Bill Bowman

One-of-a-Kind Judge By Joan Cook Carabin

Operation Thunderclap and the Black March: Two Stories from the Unstoppable ...By Richard Allison

Going for Broke: Japanese American Soldiers in the War Against Nazi Germany By James M. McCaffry

Hard Times, War Times, and More Hard Times By London L. Gore

Saving Lives, Saving Honor By Jeremy C. Schwendiman

--RAF910 (talk) 04:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the first and last sentence change the fact that the website admits that its contents may not be accurate. I'm not contesting that the original source of the information is the U.S. Government, I'm challenging that LoneSentries reporting of it can't be trusted as a WP:RS by the site's own admission. It's reposted text without any proof of the original source.


 * As for your list of books, OK, so what? Without the context of how each and everyone of these publications is citing the information, this is a baseless assertion. You seem to be accepting blindly that the LoneSentry site is 100% accurate, but not offering any verifiable evidence as to why. Authors want to make money too, why wouldn't they use sources that back up their writing. Would you mind posting links to your research and better explain your opinion?


 * Back to the subject of "sturm" for a moment, I asked about this on the Lead talk page and also looked up the translation here. If you click the "More translation" link to show the full list, it pretty clearly shows that another use of the word "sturm" is attack or assault. So my apologies for the misinterpretation, "sturm" = "assault" in German. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The website is not saying the document is incomplete or inaccurate, it is saying the information in the document might be incomplete or inaccurate, because it is a wartime document made based on what information on the subject could be found out at the time. You are misreading the disclaimer. Bones Jones (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand this...the hundreds if not thousands of authors that have use Lonesenrty resources as references are all a bunch of hack-writers and you expect me to prove their research. While you...who now by your own admission could not correctly translate the German word "sturmgewehr" to the English term "assault rifle" (despite 70 years and countless books and articles on the subject), alone possesses the knowledge to invalidate the research of hundreds if not thousands of writers. I don't think so...and, I will no longer entertain you.--RAF910 (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * , just show me (and everyone else who might be reading this) a link that supports any of what you are saying. If there are "hundreds if not thousands of authors that have use Lonesenrty", then lets see it. Please try to calm down and have a rational discussion. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Continuation
For the sake of continuity, this issue has been discussed further. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Administrators Noticeboard here
 * Reliable Source Noticeboard here

Update - Examination of the Lone Sentry website and the Tactical Trends publication seems to indicate that neither is particularly reliable in the case of the StG 44 article unless it is corroborated by a second source per the discussion above at RSN. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Update - Discussion has been archived and no action taken.--RAF910 (talk) 05:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean aside from several Editors removing the use of the source from this article entirely? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Update - Consistent with the Terms of Use, User:Scalhotrod has been banned by the Wikimedia Foundation from editing Wikimedia sites.--RAF910 (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Sturm means Storm; Assault is Angriff
Sturm and storm are LITERALLY the same word. They are exact cognates - almost certainly from Proto-Germanic.

Translating "sturm" as assault is incorrect. In fact, the only reason that "sturm" and "assault" are confused is due to idiotic marketing of military rifles in the 80s.

Thus the proper translation is "Storm Rifle 44". Calling it an "Assault Rifle" merely plays in to the propaganda of the anti-self-defense crowd (aka the Gun Grabbers).

PainMan


 * See the quite lengthy discussion above, . No need to cover old ground on the meaning of "sturm". As for "assault rifle", that is a legitimate military term that's been around since at least the 1960s. What the anti-gun lobby usually means by the term is "assault weapon". - BilCat (talk) 03:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * There's no separate 'Sturm' in Sturmgewehr, you have to translate the whole word. Cutting it in part and translating the parts results in odd/wrong translations. Plus Sturm in this context (=Sturmangriff) is best translated as Assault too.--Denniss (talk) 07:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

The "storm" used is as in "to storm a castle," and so can also be translated correctly as "assault." It's the same as how the German Sturmgeschütz is translated into English as "assault gun." Bones Jones (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * There's no need to discuss how to translate "Sturm" as the word to translate is "Sturmgewehr", this is translated into assault rifle. If you cut the word in two the resulting translation would be based on "Sturm Gewehr" but not Sturmgewehr. It's actually a grave error to cut a word into pieces and then try to get a proper translation out of these parts (this usually fails badly). --Denniss (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Naw, that's not really true, the meaning of "sturmgewehr" is derived from the meanings of "sturm" + "gewehr." This could be translated literally as "storm rifle," but you don't usually use 1:1 literal translation because you lose a lot of meaning: it isn't clear if the direct translation in this case is a rifle that's used for storming things, used only during storms, used to fire storms, used to fire at storms, etc, so we use the more exact "assault rifle" which makes the intended meaning of the original German clearer (this is particularly true with Sturmgeschütz, where "storm gun" sounds weird and doesn't really tell you what the thing is for). Arrival has a good example of this in that if you literally translate the Sanskrit word for war you end up with "a desire for more cows:" obviously an actual translator would translate this as the English word "war" instead.
 * The problem doesn't so much come from translating a compound word in parts (which is the only real way to translate one) but from ignoring that language is contextual and so the most direct translation into another language won't necessarily be the one that preserves the most meaning. "Avtomat Kalashnikova" translates literally as something like "automatic device belonging to Kalashnikov," but it's usually translated as "Kalashnikov's automatic rifle" or similar because that's the intent of the phrase. Similarly if you were translating out of English, it would be context that allowed you to determine the correct translation of "Colt revolver" was not "device for rotating young male horses."
 * Also, proof that it was being called an assault rifle in 1945. Those gun-grabbers sure seem to have started early. Bones Jones (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, good source. No need to editorialize about 'gun grabbing' DMorpheus2 (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh, I wasn't, Painman was talking about it being a "gun grabber" term at the start of this exchange, as well as claiming the term originated in the 80s. Bones Jones (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2017
Dzogaib (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Empty request, nothing to do - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 23:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

translations of meters to feet are incorrect.
multiple instances where m/ft are wrong. i.e. 400m / 440ft. Wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.151.38.212 (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * They're being converted to yards, not feet. Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Translation
"the name was chosen personally by Adolf Hitler for propaganda reasons and means 'assault rifle' as in 'to assault an enemy position'" "Sturmgewehr" literally means "Storm Gun" or "Storm Rifle," as in "to storm an enemy position." ("Gewehr" can be translated into a couple of different specific English words depending on the context; it doesn't necessarily have to be a rifled firearm.) I disagree with the translation provided here, especially without a citation to justify the English. If the Germans wanted to call it the "Assault Rifle," they would have named it the "Angriffgewehr" and the title of this article would be AnG44. I understand that there's a connection and a lot of people in the English speaking world connect "Sturmgewehr" to "Assault Rifle," but this is better explained in the following sentence: "After the adoption of the StG 44, the English translation 'assault rifle' became the accepted designation for this type of infantry small arm." I note that this second sentence still lacks a citation (I have not found the term "assault rifle" in UK nor US infantry publications, but I'm happy to learn something new if we can cite a legitimate source). My main point, however, is that the article already equates Sturmgewehr to Assault Rifle, so there's no valid reason to purposely translate it loosely the first time. Perhaps the problem lies in that "Assault" is also a type of crime ("Körperverletzung"). Providing the form-based or literal translation first in the context that it's written would help the reader when the meaning-based translation is provided in the next sentence. Please consider reverting the revert of my correction. Canute (talk) 19:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sturmgewehr is assault rifle. Sturm Gewehr would be Storm rifle. Do not cut a german word in parts, translate these parts and expect a proper translation. The proper military term is to assault an enemy position. Which is also the translation of the german verb stürmen in a military context. --20:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We can also look in the dictionary which plainly states Sturmgewehr = assault rifle: https://dict.leo.org/german-english/Sturmgewehr Sus scrofa (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

AK-47: M1 Garand or StG 44
It seems most of the revisions to this page are about whether the StG 44 or the M1 Garand influenced the AK-47. Does anyone have the means to prove which is correct so we can put this to rest and not have the page be vandalized so much?Blamazon (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

AK-47: M1 Garand or StG 44
It seems most of the revisions to this page are about whether the StG 44 or the M1 Garand influenced the AK-47. Does anyone have the means to prove which is correct so we can put this to rest and not have the page be vandalized so much?Blamazon (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

MP v STG
We can all agree that the first versions of this model started with MP. And a lot of people call it an MP44 instead of STG44. This page also seems to believe this. But I think this page should say that STG is the more appropriate designation. MP is the designation for german SMGs and the STG44 is an assault rifle. It is a completely different weapon with its own cartridge and it was made for different roles than the SMG. I think the page should say this and also use STG44 as the proper designation except for the past variants of the weapon.

Any thoughts?Blamazon (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Ammo type
Isn't the caliber it fires 7.92mm Mauser? 69.5.100.85 (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Sturmgewehr Means "STORM" Rifle, Not "ASSAULT" Rifle.
This form of lazy, indifferent, even contemptuously malicious mis-translation of a basic word has caused nearly 100 years of needless argument about "the first assault rifle"; The Sturmgewehr 44 is not and never was the first assault rifle, and it wasn't even called "assault rifle." (Also, the "rifle" part is iffy, "gewehr" means both rifle and gun, and HITLER being HITLER, there's no real way to know which he meant, but he had ordered no development on "assault rifles," but did allow sub-machineguns, so it's thought he was allowing the Army to circumvent his order by clever naming.) 69.10.163.44 (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Learn the german language, especially military terms, then you'll see you are terribly wrong. Hint: not related to weather at all but to a military action. Do never split a foreign word in parts, translate these part and expect a proper translation.--Denniss (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * A look in the dictionary proves that the translation is correct: . See also the entry "assault [MIL.]" which is translated as "der Sturmangriff pl.: die Sturmangriffe". Sus scrofa (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Use in Ukraine (2022-)
Any evidence of the Sturmgewehr being used during the 2022 Russian invasion? If it was used in the Donbas and this list of weapons used in the Russo-Ukrainian war mentions it, then it could still be in use. Snorfsnaff (talk) 05:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

First successful assault rifle
Fedorov Avtomat and Cei-Rigotti send their regards. The StG 44 fulfilled its role effectively, particularly on the Eastern Front, offering a greatly increased volume of fire compared to standard infantry rifles. OK, this first successful assault rifle remark looks nicer than "First assault rifle" claim.

But I don't like this passage: The StG largely influenced the Soviet AK-47, introduced two years after the war concluded. I mean, why would the author highlight AK-47 specifically? It wasn't the StG per se, it was the sturm-something tactics of performing an assault with such a gun. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 08:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect Name
The StG44 was not called an Assault Rifle. The name doesnt even mean assault rifle. StG44 is the abbreviation for Sturmgewehr 44. Sturmgewehr DOES not mean Assault Rifle. It translates LITTERALLY as Storm Gun. Sturm = Storm Gewehr = Gun Thats what it translates as. If it were Assault Rifle, it would read as Angriffgewehr 44 Angriff = Assault This article is factually incorrect. ArikDeylan (talk) 14:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source that corroborates that claim? Loafiewa (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * https://en.langenscheidt.com/english-german/storm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.10.163.44 (talk) 03:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * https://en.langenscheidt.com/german-english/sturm#sense-1.5.1 BilCat (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)


 * This issue has been discussed several times, particularly at Talk:StG 44/Archive 2, Talk:StG 44/Archive 2, and Talk:StG 44/Archive 2. I don't see the need to rehash those discussions if the OP has nothing new to add to them. BilCat (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)


 * always funny to see someone splitting a source word into parts, translate these parts and expect this to become a proper translation. --Denniss (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't say what the translation of "assault" in German is, but it's not Sturm, and was never meant to be understood that way; It was meant to impress upon enemies the "storm" of German soldiers that would be carrying them into battle. (FWIW, it was meant for the propaganda value, how effective that was is open to debate.) I for one always find it funny when people are proven wrong, and try to hide behind "interpolation" to protect their stupidity... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.10.163.44 (talk) 03:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it can be funny. It can also be sad. BilCat (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)