1914 Erfurt dilemma--SOLVED!

Doubs · 08-24-2002, 06:10 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Garfield:
<strong>Doubs: Other than pure speculation, can you point to any fact that would tend to establish that 1914 chamber dated Erfurt receivers were placed in "factory stock" and later used by the Erfurt factory to asemble lugers in the following 4 years?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Other than the statement from Mr. Fisher concerning Jan Still's observation concerning the 1914 "q" block Erfurt Luger, and some first-hand knowledge of both manufacturing and the military supply system, no. But, then again, when have I been so bold as to phrase my "speculation" in terms of absolution? The possibilities I've advanced have, in each case, been stated as opinion and not fact. They are reasonable and logical "possibilities". Obviously, you don't see it that way.

Back in the first of the four threads on this topic you state that Erfurt didn't go into full production until 1917. What, exactly, is "full" production? Is it meeting the contract requirements? Is it utilizing the available workers to their fullest or is it capacity production of the arsenal using every available worker and resource?

Other than "guesstimated" raw production numbers of Lugers produced by Erfurt in 1914 and 1916, 1917 & 1918, what proof can you provide to support your contention that Erfurt didn't go into "full" production until 1917? Before you use the difference in production numbers between 1916 and 1917 as "proof", you'll need to demonstrate that the Luger assembly line wasn't working to capacity in 1916 using the available tools, workers and supplies. After all, the rest of the asenal workers may have been busy turning out rifles and machineguns. (That's purely speculation on my part. However, SOMEONE at Erfurt was turning out other arms because I've owned 1917 GEW98's.)

Much of what we "know" about Lugers is based on the experience of those who have the means to do the research. Some of those "facts" are concrete as proven by records, regulations, directives, first-hand knowledge of those there at the time etc. Other information that has been formulated from data gathered through various sources is a well-informed estimation... a guess, IOW. Many known "facts" of the earlier years have been proven faulty through additional research and records that have surfaced.

When I state something as a cold, hard fact I also provide my source as can be seen from my previous posts. If it's my opinion or speculation, I say it is. Half of the fun of Lugers is the "what-if" factor. Someone posts a "what-if" and often the result is a good discussion and everyone learns something. I often dive into a book to refresh my memory about a specific fact or to learn something new. Most of my efforts have been toward the Imperial period so I often pick up new information about the Nazi era guns. They just don't interest me as much as the older guns.

08-24-2002, 06:10 PM	#25
Doubs User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Byron, Georgia Posts: 1,736 Thanks: 819 Thanked 1,769 Times in 586 Posts	[quote]Originally posted by Garfield: <strong>Doubs: Other than pure speculation, can you point to any fact that would tend to establish that 1914 chamber dated Erfurt receivers were placed in "factory stock" and later used by the Erfurt factory to asemble lugers in the following 4 years?</strong><hr></blockquote> Other than the statement from Mr. Fisher concerning Jan Still's observation concerning the 1914 "q" block Erfurt Luger, and some first-hand knowledge of both manufacturing and the military supply system, no. But, then again, when have I been so bold as to phrase my "speculation" in terms of absolution? The possibilities I've advanced have, in each case, been stated as opinion and not fact. They are reasonable and logical "possibilities". Obviously, you don't see it that way. Back in the first of the four threads on this topic you state that Erfurt didn't go into full production until 1917. What, exactly, is "full" production? Is it meeting the contract requirements? Is it utilizing the available workers to their fullest or is it capacity production of the arsenal using every available worker and resource? Other than "guesstimated" raw production numbers of Lugers produced by Erfurt in 1914 and 1916, 1917 & 1918, what proof can you provide to support your contention that Erfurt didn't go into "full" production until 1917? Before you use the difference in production numbers between 1916 and 1917 as "proof", you'll need to demonstrate that the Luger assembly line wasn't working to capacity in 1916 using the available tools, workers and supplies. After all, the rest of the asenal workers may have been busy turning out rifles and machineguns. (That's purely speculation on my part. However, SOMEONE at Erfurt was turning out other arms because I've owned 1917 GEW98's.) Much of what we "know" about Lugers is based on the experience of those who have the means to do the research. Some of those "facts" are concrete as proven by records, regulations, directives, first-hand knowledge of those there at the time etc. Other information that has been formulated from data gathered through various sources is a well-informed estimation... a guess, IOW. Many known "facts" of the earlier years have been proven faulty through additional research and records that have surfaced. When I state something as a cold, hard fact I also provide my source as can be seen from my previous posts. If it's my opinion or speculation, I say it is. Half of the fun of Lugers is the "what-if" factor. Someone posts a "what-if" and often the result is a good discussion and everyone learns something. I often dive into a book to refresh my memory about a specific fact or to learn something new. Most of my efforts have been toward the Imperial period so I often pick up new information about the Nazi era guns. They just don't interest me as much as the older guns.