Hi Matt,
Ummm - I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I have some pragmatic points....
First - I've read that thread:
http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...3&page=1&pp=15 previously and I stopped reading it when many folks appeared to be bent on trying to show that Krieghoff was in some way involved. To note, even your own thought process in that thread - the HK 1944 LWaA S/2 (and some P codes) has absolutely
no bearing whatsoever on trying to show as the progression of the LZA. I could bore you with over 20 years of personal HK research and minutia - but trust me - there is no correlation. If you can prove there is a direct, repeatable correlation and historical documentation to the contrary â?? then you would be the first HK historian to ever bring that fact forward.
Second, as to holsters. Yes, I have seen your pictures. To this point specificially â?? No, I still have not seen a K?¼ P08 holster with the LZA and as I noted, and once again - I have only have seen verified K?¼ P08 holsters with either a "K?¼" or an LWaA 2.
Third - I note that many believe that Sam Costanzo's book is valuable. It is - however, absolutely wrong with the "K?¼" ("KRIEGHOFF UMBRICHT"
sic) annotation and many of Mr. Costanzo's references to HK specific marks/proofs. I do believe I'm in a rather strong position to make that statement.
Fourth - I saw Mr. Brock's comments regards the "LZA" where he and I agree (see my comments above in my previous post) and he states
"...The LZA or eagle with ZA inside was used at all Luftwaffe depots.. From our combined perspective - the LZA might have been done anywhere, and does not â?? in any way â?? get tied to K?¼strin specifically. For decades, both "K?¼" collectors and HK collectors have agreed that the LZA shows strong ties specifically to the Luftwaffe, so there is no â??new news thereâ?, and that aspect has been well debated and discussed..
Fifth - I believe your last post in the thread on the other forum queries
"Did the Luftwaffe have a Depot in Kustrin?.. Again, as I noted above - yes they did, but neither the complement nor the facilities could support the manufacture of 5000 Lugers (all conjecture notwithstanding). However, you stated that Mr. Brock said the
"depot was very large, with machinery and equiptment to overhaul many of the Luftwaffe rifles, pistols, machine guns, and cannons!". First â?? I did not see Mr. Brockâ??s reply to your inquiry stating those expansive facilities. Second - therefore - shouldn't we see other "K?¼" marked "rifles, pistols, machine guns, and cannons". Unfortunately â?? the fact is - we don't. Not even as re-work marks on whatever they did at that facility. Isn't that somewhat contrary to the thesis of the K?¼strin facility and its size, if it was indeed as pervasive as Mr. Brock/yourself theorize? As we do not see the "K?¼" on other small arms, this discrepancy is difficult to make a leap of faith on - and again, reinforces the size/capability of K?¼strin depot actually within the city of K?¼strin.
Sixth - I'm also pretty certain I've been through this topic as many times as you (probably more times, if it mattered) - not that it makes a bit of difference without conclusive evidence.
Seventh - even after reading your thread and this thread (and threads on the old LugerForum for the past 5+ years) - we still don't have any more evidence then we did when these threads first started up...
In short - "wishing something to be true" doesn't "make it historical" fact. While a terrific exercise to explore all avenues of these K?¼ Lugers - and much needed - pragmatically - we are no further from a conclusive and definitive result then we have been for decades.
Therefore, I'd also challenge your assumption that in regards to these collective theories: "it's definately strong asphalt" - because frankly - there are still no road-signs on "this asphalt highway" written down for anyone to follow and further - I still feel there is no conclusive evidence or reseach other then conjecture.
In conclusion â?? I donâ??t want to throw out any idea or thought process on this variation, and you have obviously given this a lot of thought â?? but without historical proof, all we still have is arm-chair speculation with a heaping dose of â??this has to be right because we canâ??t think of anything else.!!.â?â?¦
John D.