Talk:Gewehr 43
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Vaarok 04:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Reliability claim
Does anyone have any concrete reference to the superior reliability of the K-43? I have always heard from collectors of Nazi German firearms who posess G/K-43s that they are less reliable than the SVT-40 rifle or M-1 Garand.
- There is none as if anything the opposite is the case due to the poor quality of raw materials during the period most G/K43s were produced.
-
- It would be wonderful if someone could cite a written source for this.--Sus scrofa 12:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Production
I believe the G43 is more well-known and was produced in higher numbers then the G41. Oberiko 14:13, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Merged with K 43 page.
I've merged this page with the Karabiner 43 page. Why? Well, it was very redundant. That page still exists in the edit prior to my redirecting it back to this page. I've merged the unique info from that page into a small addition to this article. I think this clears things up. I've gone through and fixed all of the "What Links Here" links so. The K43 is clearly a MINOR subvariant of the Gewehr 43 and belongs under that heading. --Asams10 06:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Pic
Think you can get a picture that shows the whole rifle? Thanks. Aaron L
[edit] Schiessbecher
My info tells me that the Gewehr 43 could be equipped on a Gewehr 43
EDIT: I meant the Schiessbecher.
[edit] Nazi Germany vs. Germany
I think it's important to make this distinction. We've got one annonomous vandal who keeps removing the reference without comment, but the distinction should be made between the various stages of Germany.--Asams10 15:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=68.162.161.12 it seems 68.162.161.12 is intent on going around scrubbing Nazi German firearms articles of negative statements and I'm think of restoring the other info he changed too (from "illogical restrictions" to "some restrictions" and so on). I'm also curious about the status of the sniper variant as it went from one of the worst to one of the best sniper rifles in the war in one edit and it would be nice if there was a source to clear this up.--Sus scrofa 04:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- I am not the one doing the editing, but I agree with it. We dont usually have a note in front of Germany for any other stage, IE Imperial Germany, Weimar Germany (OK maybe for West Germany Id understand). There was not two germanys at the time, IE in the case of 'Nationalist Spain' and 'Republican Spain'. The word 'nazi' is POV. No member of the National Socialist party (that I am aware of) ever referred to themselves as 'nazi'. Wikipedia is terrible when it comes to 'nazees' and POV. On the sniper rifle, I am not aware of it being preferred. However I have not met every German sniper WW2 vet, so I cannot say. Semi Auto Sniper rifles seemed to be less popular in practice though. user:Pzg Ratzinger
- I believe some of the snipers that trained on the G43 preferred it, and those who trained on the K98 sniper (majority) preferred the K98, although the K98 was definitely farther ranging than the G43, but with decreasing engagement ranges, the G43 and K98 were both about equal in hit consistency, as the gun didn't suffer from vertical-shot dispersion like the SVT-40 and the G43 scoped definitely had the fire-power advantage.Hunt3r.j2 (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, there weren't two Russias for most of the Soviet Union's existence either. Both terms (N Germany & S Union) signify an unique period of time when those states where dominated by one party systems and I think it's a good practice to tell that to the reader. If the Nazi in Nazi Germany is the problem then that discussion should be taken to the Nazi Germany article itself first and not be edited out in every article now linking to it, I would think. As for the effectiveness of the sniper variant there has to be some sort of source for this claim: field trial reports or the like and if no such source can be brougth forth nothing should be said of the effectiveness.--Sus scrofa 10:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- The distinction between the Soviet Union and Russia is an excellent example. Germany, as it exists today, is neither the same area of land nor does it encompass the same people. It was significantly changed by the ravages of genocide, warfare, fascism, communism, etc. Nazi Germany was a significantly larger country than it is today and one with a political and national will starkly different than Germany as we see it today. One of those going around editing Nazi out of everything also edits articles on Holocost denial and Eugenics. This signifies, in my opinion, a revisionist attitude that needs to stay out of factual articles.--Asams10 16:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- I may agree with the lack of the 'nazi' term used in front of Germany, however I am NOT one of the people editing Eugenics, etc. Now, I wont pretend that I dont have an interest in the time period (and I look at it very neutrally, which is important on WP) but I am not advocating any racism etc. But, I also dont think you should be censoring and silencing other people's ideas on even highly contriversal topics such as Holocaust Denial (if they have real proof of any points, which 'some' do). Back on topic though. User Asams10 makes a good point (esp where in land area is concerned), but I counter that the same point could be made toward any given country that went through a dramatic goverment change. While Spain under defacto leader Franco was largly a conservative/facist mix, people nevertheless refer to it as Spain after the Civil War..as there was no question whether or not it was the rightful govermental body of Spain. Likewise, on articles concerning WW1, I suppose then youd support calling Germany 'Imperial Germany' or 'German Empire' as apposed to just plain 'Germany', as per your point, it had a larger land mass than even the NS Germany, and much more so than today's Federal Germany. In conclusion however, I dont think an article on a firearm is the area to be discussing this, as it is a larger issue. On the issue of the sniper '43, the G43s I have fired have been less accurate than a K98, as well as 'fussy' and very sensative to heat. Quite frankly they break easily. For this reason, I imagine this happened even though the rifles are 60+ years of age, this happened then as well. I cannot find anyone who agrees with the 'good' sniper G43 comment though. I would remove it. user:Pzg Ratzinger
- Nice as (politically correct) this discussion might be, Nazi Germany just isnt the correct name. One can choose from 'Germany', 'the Greater German empire', 'The german empire' or 'The 3rd Empire' and so on. I never come across the distinction Democrat USA vs Republican USA either. --Vosselmans 12:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm, this discussion is neither politically correct, nor are your comments timely. I'm more than happy to engage this conversation again, as it's timeless. You're wrong. We don't use the official names of a country in common use, nor would we say something like, "Germany sent millions of people to death camps." We use the qualifier "Nazi" to distinguish the national will of modern Germany from that of the Nazi Germany. The term "Republican USA" is incorrrect as it encompasses the same people, the same land, and the same government as did the "Democratic USA" or the "Whig USA" for that matter. Your arguments seem politically motivated and your edits of another user's page seem a bit odd. Have you read the article on Germany? Do you actually understand the history of Germany? Do you understand that "Germany"now is not the same land as "Nazi Germany" or any of the dozens of empires or collections of states and/or city/states that formed various alliances in the past? Any clue what the Austro-Hungarian empire was? It seems that your view is that Germany is and always was a country and your plain wrong.--Asams10 12:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- I could take a lot of offense on your last remarks asams10, being apparently the wiser I won't however. Calling Germany "Nazi Germany" is itself politically motivated and just plain wrong. I wont go into a lengthy discussion however, certainly not with someone who talks like you, (you might even want to reread wikipedia's guidelines on discussions). I'll just end my 2 cents by saying it's very sad, pathetic even, that trying, as as serious non-english history student, to correct something minor like this, still results in being called "politically motivated". I thought , hoped is more appropriate i think, Wikipedia had evolved past that, apparently i thought wrong. --Vosselmans 15:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Since I'm having a hard time following what you said, it seems you are either: 1) denying that Nazi Germany existed in which case you are an apologist, or 2) saying that the Germany today is significantly similar to Nazi Germany that you deny any distinction needs to be drawn. Either you are a Nazi Apologist or you're attacking modern Germany. Either way, you're wrong.--Asams10 16:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Asams10. The Third Reich era in German history was such a distinct one that it needs to be specified, at least in an encyclopedic article. --DOHC Holiday 03:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm, this discussion is neither politically correct, nor are your comments timely. I'm more than happy to engage this conversation again, as it's timeless. You're wrong. We don't use the official names of a country in common use, nor would we say something like, "Germany sent millions of people to death camps." We use the qualifier "Nazi" to distinguish the national will of modern Germany from that of the Nazi Germany. The term "Republican USA" is incorrrect as it encompasses the same people, the same land, and the same government as did the "Democratic USA" or the "Whig USA" for that matter. Your arguments seem politically motivated and your edits of another user's page seem a bit odd. Have you read the article on Germany? Do you actually understand the history of Germany? Do you understand that "Germany"now is not the same land as "Nazi Germany" or any of the dozens of empires or collections of states and/or city/states that formed various alliances in the past? Any clue what the Austro-Hungarian empire was? It seems that your view is that Germany is and always was a country and your plain wrong.--Asams10 12:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] G41
I am about to move the G41 content to its own page and expand upon it, in a seperate article. The rifle is different enough to warrant a second article with a more detailed description. user:Pzg Ratzinger
- Why is the information still on this page? The information is exactly the same on this page and on its own page. It also doesn't add much to this article.Watersoftheoasis (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Quality
"The Gewehr 43 was an overall accurate and robust rifle. Carrying the 7.92x57mm round, it could deal damage at an effective range of 400m. The rifle had low-recoil and could fire a cycle rate of 70 rounds a minute. It could also easily reload from a 10-round detachable box-magazine, which allowed for more firepower during combat. In many ways, the Gewehr 43 was superior any other semi-automatic rifle available."
This paragraph is kind of misleading. The K43 was very often of mediocre quality due to the steel shortage of German arms manufacturers at that time. Many examples left today support this view. I also fail to see what makes the rifle superior to, for example, the SVT-40. The two rifles are very identical, with the SVT having the bolt-carrier move inside the receiver (superior to the G43s partially external bolt-carrier.
[edit] Quality
I do believe that the design was a bit lower quality than the SVT and M1 Garand mainly because insane amounts of muzzle gases tapped to work the bolt, which in climates warmer than the Ostfront winter would make the entire bolt assembly come flying off the weapon into your face after a thousand rounds or so.
Also, this should be noted in the article, as the G43 did NOT have a gas regulator like the SVT-40 so therefore was prone to last only a thousand rounds before self-destructing.Hunt3r.j2 (talk) 04:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- No 'muzzle gasses' were used in the operation of the G43 and no 'insane amounts' of gas were required to operate the rifle in the Russian Winter. Further, bolts flying into people's faces and rifles self-destructing? Really? REALLY?! Cite it. The SVT-40 was a more fragile rifle and the Garand (also lacking a gas regulator) was twice as strong as the SVT-40. If you're going to Disparage the G43, please concentrate on its actual weaknesses, not on overblown anecdotes. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Actually muzzle gases work all gas-powered guns, from the AK47 to the M16 to the AR-18 to the STG-44. G41 and G43 were no exception. what, are you going to dump some oil to work the bolt? The SVT-40 was a train wreck for Russian soldiers, even the M1 Garand used muzzle gases, the only reason why it needed no regulator was because it was a long stroke and therefore operating pressures are lower. The SVT and G43 would have huge amounts of muzzle gas if the gas tube was wide open with no restrictor. This explains the reason why 1945 models later had holes drilled into the gas piston to relieve the insane pressures on the weapon. You can see the rear receivers on war-torn G43s being bent and stressed. The bolt might not "fly" off but repeated pressure and stress eventually makes the poor war-time made G43 either explode or be permanently broken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunt3r.j2 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
You use terms like "huge amounts of gas" and "insane pressure" and they make you look like you don't know what you're talking about. We're talking about very small amounts of gas under high, not insane pressure. While I concede that these amounts are higher than the revised models. Have you any citation of any G43's exploding? Are you an engineer or otherwise qualified professional? Did you watch the history chanel and caught some second rate documentary and take their every word as fact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.215.75.4 (talk) 04:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)