Gunboard article on the P14 Navy

[Jasta2]

This might be linked to before, but it was just forwarded to me. I guess I've missed the Navy being called a P14 before. I have not seen a Navy referred as a P14 in any of the Luger books I have. In any case, the write up is very positive. That U-boat commander was one sure shot with his Navy. But one chap, Cisco Kid, was very demeaning of the Navy Luger and all Lugers in general. I was surprised, form what I read, he had a new breach block machined that took over a year to make for his Luger. In all a good article, except for the some negative replies. Then again, each to their own opinion.



https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/navy-p14-luger/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=20180730_BlogDigest_288&utm_campaign=/blog/navy-p14-luger/

[Norme]

If the fact that the whole thing is a pack of lies and misinformation doesn't bother you then yes, it's a good read.
Norm
http://luger.gunboards.com/showthrea...ttle-Navy-Read

[Jasta2]

Does it bother me? No if one takes it in context. What I enjoyed is the story of the U-boat captain. A tall tale to tell! All the rest is basically B.S. Still it's interesting as to how others ( most likely do not own one) like to invent their own stories badmouthing Lugers. If one does not know the facts, just make them up. In discussing my Lugers with a diehard 1911 fan ( not representing all 1911 fans of which I am) told me that Luger were pretty much junk. I ask if he ever shot one much less owning one? He said no. I ask if he would like to shoot mine? He declined. Wonder why.

[HerrKaiser]

I don’t understand the Luger badmouth. I remember watching the YouTube video where those guys do mud tests on weapons. When it came to Lugers, both his WW2 Mauser and his 1916 DWM were dropped and almost unrecognizable due to the mud, yet they fired two full magazines without any failures. The 1911...not so much. My 1911 is a modern one and very robust, but I think a lot of the bubbas who Modified their Lugers for their own purposes gave all of them a bad name. There don’t seem to be many records of German infantry complaining about their Lugers in the field during either war. I’m still of the conviction that the only reasons they were dropped we’re because the P. 38 was much cheaper to produce and because Luger parts weren’t always easily interchangeable between different pistols.

[m1903a3]

Originally Posted by Jasta2

Does it bother me? No if one takes it in context. What I enjoyed is the story of the U-boat captain. A tall tale to tell! All the rest is basically B.S. Still it's interesting as to how others ( most likely do not own one) like to invent their own stories badmouthing Lugers. If one does not know the facts, just make them up. In discussing my Lugers with a diehard 1911 fan ( not representing all 1911 fans of which I am) told me that Luger were pretty much junk. I ask if he ever shot one much less owning one? He said no. I ask if he would like to shoot mine? He declined. Wonder why.

The entire story about the captain is total fiction, just like the rest of the article. Well, he was the captain of that sub for one voyage, and they did spell his name correctly, Other than that, pure BS.

[m1903a3]

Since some (many?) of you aren't members of the other Luger forum, here's what I posted over there:

Groan . . .

A lot of errors, and a ton of BS in the comments.

1. All Navy Lugers were P.04s There was never a P.14

The Navy never changed the basic nomenclature as the pistols evolved. The 1914 designation for the late, short frame, P.04s is the invention of modern collectors seeking a convenient way to identify major versions. It is itself wrong, based on the erroneous assumption that they were made for a 1914 contract which was actually the contract for the last long frame P.04s known to collectors as 1908 models.

2. The grip safety was not deleted for the late short frame "1914" pistols, it was deleted as a WWI production expedient in the 1914 contract for the last of the long frame P.04s.

3. The author gives the impression that the toggle checkering for the "1914" pistols differs from the previous long frame pistol. The checkering is the same for all P.04s made from the original 1906 contract through the final production in 1917.

4. Saying the checkering differs "if you can bring yourself to care" is pretty idiotic given that the only ones with the different checkering are the original 150 pistols made for the Navy carrying trials and are easily worth 10 times as much. Those pistols have several differences, including a flat mainspring, a toggle lock, and a heavier barrel.

5. The P.04 was not designed for ship to ship combat, nor were submarines a consideration. At the time the P.04 was adopted the first U-Boot had yet to be laid down. The U-1 wasn't commissioned until fives months after the first contract for 8,000 P.04s had been delivered and U-Boots are not mentioned in the Tirpitz instructions for small arms. The P.04 and its stock were intended for use on small vessels, primarily torpedo boats, and by officers and machine gunners of larger ships. to replace GeW98s for use by boarding and landing parties. They most certainly were not intended for use as sniper weapons to pick off enemy captains!

6. The statement that the BATFE exempts Lugers from the "arcane" barrel and stock restrictions is dangerously inaccurate. The BATFE exempts Navy P.04s and Army LP.08s only when used with their original stocks. You cannot use an LP08 stock on a P.04, or a P.04 stock on an LP.08, and no stock can be used at all on an Army P.08.

[m1903a3]

Regarding the story:

In addition to the numerous inaccuracies about the P.04, I feel compelled to call "BS" on the underlying story. As a student of the Kaiserliche Marine, and one who has read a great many accounts by German officers about surface and submarine actions, nothing in the story rang true. British merchant mariners were civilians, they wouldn't have had machine guns and rifles to shoot at a submarine. In the early years, U-Boats followed the rules of cruiser warfare and would surface and allow a crew to abandon ship before sinking it by gunfire. Torpedoes were both unreliable and limited in number, so the deck gun was the preferred weapon. Neutral ships had to be boarded and determined to be carrying arms before they could be sunk. That changed with the introduction of Q-Ships (heavily armed ships disguised as unarmed merchant vessels) and the addition of a deck gun with a Royal Navy gun crew to many ships, which led to using torpedoes while submerged more frequently.

But the ship in this story doesn't have a Navy gun crew and gun, but a civilian crew with rifles and at least one machine gun. Not plausible. Then there is the circumstance of the sinking. Stalking a British merchant vessel in the North Sea and finally sinking it after it first opens fire on the U-151. The problem with that story is that the U-151 only sank a single British merchant ship while under the command of Kaleu Kophamel - the Gryfevale. But she wasn't in the North Sea, she ran aground at Cape Blanco on the west coast of Africa while trying to evade the U-151 before she was ultimately sunk by gunfire.

Finally, the holster of the P.04 is attached to the stock, making for a bulky thing to wear. Sub captains wouldn't be wearing such a thing, especially when they might have to dive through a small hatch at a moments notice. The only pictures I have ever seen of them being worn on a U-Boat are NCOs and enlisted men who are either part of a boarding party or are guarding prisoners on the deck of a U-Boat. Other than the Marinekorps Flandern, the only photo I have ever seen of an officer wearing a P.04 was in a landing party.

The story appears to be pure fiction, and not particularly plausible.

The picture is a 1915 painting by Willy Stöwer, a well known painter of Kaiserliche Marine related subjects. This particular one is "The Sinking of the Linda Blanche out of Liverpool". The little 369 ton steamer was sunk off Liverpool on 30 Jan 1915 by U-51, an event totally unrelated to the story.

The picture below it is another unrelated picture, an Alamy stock photo of an unidentified U-Boot.

The first photo is of U-15, one of the earliest boats and also unrelated to the story.

The last is the most interesting. It is a picture of U-155 in London after she was surrendered at the end of the war. That submarine was actually the first of the U-151 class boats built. The first two were actually unarmed civilian merchant vessels designed to carry 700 tons of cargo between Germany and the USA by going under the British blockade of German ports. They were built by a German shipping company, with the first one christened the Deutschland and the second Hamburg. The Hamburg was lost on her maiden voyage, but the Deutschland made two successful round trips to the USA carrying high value cargo. She received an enthusiastic reception in Baltimore on her first trip, and a slightly less enthusiastic one in New London on her second, which was marred by another U-Boat sinking a couple of ships just off the coast. The third trip was cancelled because of the deteriorating relations with the US and the expected entrance of the US into the war. The remainder of the boats were taken into the Navy and completed as the U-151 class U-Kreuzers, very long range subs heavily armed with four deck guns but only two torpedo tubes. The Deutschland was rebuilt with a new bow with six tubes and a pair of 15cm deck guns and commissioned as the U-155. The Deutschland and her captain were extremely famous, so much so that you can generally find several photos of both on eBay at any given time.

That picture at least shows a U-151 class boat, although that is unimportant given the entire story is bogus.