LugerForum Discussion Forums - View Single Post

Vlim · 01-08-2008, 08:10 AM

Hi Albert, Alf,

If you take the time to study the history of the major German companies during the last part of the 19th century and the early part of the 20th century, you will find that they based their production methods and the concept of interchangeability on American methods. All major contributors spent considerable time in the USA, trying to learn the American methods.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the German DIN standard, pioneered by Ludw. Loewe & Cie, was based on ideas and methods formulated in the USA.

About German quality: The theory of interchangeability of parts fell through when it came to the parabellum pistol. Just about 50% of all guns produced failed their first shooting tests. The weaknesses of the German ways of thinking also played a large part in their defeat during WW2. The USA (and Russia) managed to produce satisfactory products in great quantities using standardized components. The Germans tried to use rocket science on just about every small part they tried to build, with the result that they produced overcomplicated, bug-ridden, badly performing equipment in too limited quantities even if they had better specs on the drawing boards.

During the last years of WW2 the production methods were also hindered by too much red tape, too little knowledge on management levels and the strictly hierarchical structures by which the country was led.

The P08 design is a nice example: From day one on, the design was too expensive and had way too many machine steps, some of which were quite idiotic and could have been substituted by easier, faster steps without much problems. The Swiss managed to tweak the design and Mauser eventually succeeded in the 1970s.

There is a level of difference between 'quality' and 'overengineering'. In my mind, the Germans were (and still are) experts in overengineering.

Quality can best be described as the ability to produce something in a manner that meets demands in levels of functionality, cost effectiveness, reliability and ease/speed of production.

The P08 design, for example, failed to meet demands of cost effectiveness and ease/speed of production. And that's what killed it in the end.

01-08-2008, 08:10 AM	#13
Vlim Moderator Lifetime LugerForum Patron Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Europe Posts: 5,032 Thanks: 1,018 Thanked 3,873 Times in 1,184 Posts	Hi Albert, Alf, If you take the time to study the history of the major German companies during the last part of the 19th century and the early part of the 20th century, you will find that they based their production methods and the concept of interchangeability on American methods. All major contributors spent considerable time in the USA, trying to learn the American methods. There is no doubt whatsoever that the German DIN standard, pioneered by Ludw. Loewe & Cie, was based on ideas and methods formulated in the USA. About German quality: The theory of interchangeability of parts fell through when it came to the parabellum pistol. Just about 50% of all guns produced failed their first shooting tests. The weaknesses of the German ways of thinking also played a large part in their defeat during WW2. The USA (and Russia) managed to produce satisfactory products in great quantities using standardized components. The Germans tried to use rocket science on just about every small part they tried to build, with the result that they produced overcomplicated, bug-ridden, badly performing equipment in too limited quantities even if they had better specs on the drawing boards. During the last years of WW2 the production methods were also hindered by too much red tape, too little knowledge on management levels and the strictly hierarchical structures by which the country was led. The P08 design is a nice example: From day one on, the design was too expensive and had way too many machine steps, some of which were quite idiotic and could have been substituted by easier, faster steps without much problems. The Swiss managed to tweak the design and Mauser eventually succeeded in the 1970s. There is a level of difference between 'quality' and 'overengineering'. In my mind, the Germans were (and still are) experts in overengineering. Quality can best be described as the ability to produce something in a manner that meets demands in levels of functionality, cost effectiveness, reliability and ease/speed of production. The P08 design, for example, failed to meet demands of cost effectiveness and ease/speed of production. And that's what killed it in the end.