1915 Erfurts

Edward Tinker · 08-30-2002, 08:14 PM

Okay, reading this nicely pictured Luger book (Still; Imperial [img]biggrin.gif[/img] ) and was looking at the numbers of Lugers made during WW1.

So Erfurt geared up, and made

10,000 in 1911
21,000 in 1912
23,000 in 1913
30,000 in 1914

0 in 1915

80,000 in 1916
180,000 in 1917
175,000 in 1918

0 in 1915, doesn't make economical sense. Are there documents that show that the contract was over with Erfurt? (I know they were a gov't arsenal, but contract or directive over with?)

Was Erfurt making other guns during this time frame?

Or being a Arsenal, were they rebuilding different guns?

DWM had whack-o numbers too,

25K 1908
17K 1910
13K 1911
10K 1912
35K 1913
40K 1914
and then 120,000 in 1915
160K 1916
180K 1917
118K 1918

Is it possible that Erfurt made parts and supplied them to DWM for the war effort? Unless they were fixing rifles and pistols and too busy, or making other guns, it is a bit puzzeling to me.

Or did I miss something and one of the experts can tell me, [img]smile.gif[/img]

LP08 · 08-30-2002, 10:35 PM

Time for more wild speculation. Production numbers at Erfurt should be considered in the context of the government procurement system and the times. In business management, we call this an open systems view. A closed systems view considers only the production capacity of the firm and other internal characteristics. It is possible defense budgets did not support more lugers from Erfurt or other priorities took precedence such that by 1914, Erfurt had made enough lugers for the govt to request further lugers only from DWM. It may have taken until late 1915 to issue additional contracts to Erfurt (now that war needs upped demand for pistols). Prior to 1914, DWM and Erfurt may have completed the rearming program for the military--the war in Aug 1914 would result in months of planning and new contracts to increase production of small arms to war levels. The war, in 1914, was not believed to be one that would last long.

By 1916, Erfurt was back making lugers because DWM could not keep up with govt desire for P08s. Erfurt was also busy making rifles and this may have delayed restarting P08 production for a few months.

The pre-1915 production pattern at DWM makes sense for a long-time luger manufacturer. The contract requests could be quickly filled so production was high at first, then decreased until the war came along and production again increased.

Erfurt's production pattern is consistent with that of a second contractor with other guns to make. Production slowly increasing.

LP08 · 08-30-2002, 10:45 PM

Note that if you insert a contracting/start up delay of 18 months for the secondary contractor in the production pattern, you can explain some of the production differences. P08 is adopted and the production at DWM starts rolling out quickly (DWM is up and running with lugers because lugers are their pistol and are already in production). Erfurt receives a contract (to ensure a second source at a govt arsenal) in 1909 and in late 1910/early 1911 start cranking out some lugers, albeit more slowly, to peak in 1913 and in 1912/1913 the LP08 design is contracted to Erfurt (along with a bunch of carbines to keep em busy) because all the needed P08s have been made and DWM can produce some small maintenance quantity. Erfurt cranks out LP08s in 1914, eighteen months later, along with the last of the P08s. The war happens, and new contracts are issued such that Erfurt cranks out more P08s starting 18 months later in 1915.

Big Norm · 08-30-2002, 11:39 PM

I agree with LP08 but I would like to add another perspective. The Belgiums delayed the German rigid time table advance into France. This gave the French time to get their act together. All of which resulted in a tremendous loss of lives and weapons in the first year of the war. Rifles from Erfurt and a loss of workers probably caused manufacturing stress on the facilities at Erfurt. The priority for more rifles and bodies by the army over handguns may have influenced the shift in manufacturing to DWM. Gradually, military tactics moved from the civil war tactic of mass charges to something resembling WW2 tactics and everybody realized that the war would not be over in a few months. Manufacturing adjusted as did the armies.
Personally, I believe that there were bins of parts left over from the manufacture of Lugers at Erfurt. This would account for Erfurt army proof marks on artillery barrels well into 1918. Maybe Erfurt knew they would not produce artilleries for a long time and sold the barrels and some small parts to DWM.
Big Norm

Heinz · 08-31-2002, 07:45 PM

Ed, we discussed this topic on the General Discussion link under the title "Artillery Barrels and frames. There were some interesting comments you might want to look at.

Much of this question seems to revolve how P08s were numbered and proofed. The regulations quoted in John Walter's book seem to call for assembling the entire pistol, inspecting it and putting on an inspector's mark, then disassemling the whole pistol and marking all of the parts then proofing it with two hot loads followed by two magazines of normal ammo.and putting on the proofmarks. Or something close to this

This does not seem efficient from a production standpoint and I wonder if there is any evidence this was modified to allow a sequence where the barrel were assembled, inspection proofed and gauge stamped(or even fire proofed with a standard action) and sent on for toggle assembly and installation, at which point it could definitely be bench fired for a proof, then the barrel size checked against the gauge for unacceptable bulging, then barrel dated stamped
This would be followed by assembling to the grip frame and using bins of two digit stamped parts to match the assembly followed by sending it off for final inspection and proof.

This process would seem more efficient and may explain some anomolies but it would sure need need some data.

How else did Erfurt end up notching the frames for artillery sights when they may no artilleries after 1914??

Doubs · 08-31-2002, 09:42 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Heinz:
 <Snip> How else did Erfurt end up notching the frames for artillery sights when they may no artilleries after 1914??<hr></blockquote>

In November, 1916, an amendment was added to the P-08 Dimentional Tables that allowed the receiver to be cut for the Artillery rear sight. Many Erfurt pistols dated 1916, 1917 and 1918 will be found with the receiver so cut. ("Imperial Lugers", Still, Pg. 61)

This was apparently a step taken "in case" more Artillery models were ever needed.

Heinz · 09-01-2002, 07:23 PM

Thanks Doubs, I knew I read that but could not remember where. But, dosen't this still beg the question of why Erfurt would bother with an extra machining step when only DWM was making LP08's?

Doubs · 09-01-2002, 07:41 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Heinz:
Thanks Doubs, I knew I read that but could not remember where. But, dosen't this still beg the question of why Erfurt would bother with an extra machining step when only DWM was making LP08's?<hr></blockquote>

Erfurt, as a Royal arsenal, apparently felt bound to follow whatever edicts were laid down for the manufacture of military arms.... sensical or not. DWM, a private contractor, seems to have ignored many of the military directives that Erfurt obeyed.

The purpose of machining the notch in all receivers is what I don't understand. I know it's intended use but why make the extra cut on receivers not designated for Artillery barrels? There must have been a plan behind it but exactly what that plan was I don't know.

Heinz · 09-02-2002, 08:40 PM

Doubs, I just read Stills again and it says "This provided for" which does not exactly sound optional. I thought it was an optional notch but what is quoted does not sound that way.

I think one hypothetical explanation of the Erfurt notch is that Erfurt was making the LP08 barrels and recievers but not assembling the pistols. They shipped the frame to DWM who installed the tangent sight and the grip frame. I have no data to support this conjecture.

regards, Heinz

Doubs · 09-03-2002, 12:08 AM

[quote]Originally posted by Heinz:
Doubs, I just read Stills again and it says "This provided for" which does not exactly sound optional. I thought it was an optional notch but what is quoted does not sound that way.
regards, Heinz<hr></blockquote>

As I understand it, you would be correct in that the provision was in reality a directive. I believe Still also notes that most Erfurt Lugers dated 1917 and 1918 will have the notch. Many 1916 dated Lugers will also have the notch but the directive was issued late in '16 so many 1916's will be found without it. I've also seen 1917 and 1918 Erfurt Lugers without the notch but they are not as common as those with it. (I, in fact, own a 1917 Erfurt without the notch.)

The Royal arsenal at Erfurt was closed after the war and the machinery for manufacture of the Luger was shipped to Simpson. There is a lot of missing information where Erfurt is concerned and it would be nice to have answers to a whole host of questions. Perhaps records exist in a warehouse or archive somewhere that will one day be uncovered. We can only hope.

Big Norm · 09-03-2002, 02:15 AM

Heinz,
I keep reading and rereading your post regarding assembling, measuring, testing and proofmarking the artillery. I may be missing something here. In the Sept/Oct 2001 issue of the Handgunner magazine, there is an excellent picture of a 1916 DWM LP-08 with an Erfurt army proofmark on the barrel. It seems logical that that proofmark would have to have been placed there before all the assembling, testing and soforth. I am thinking that the barrel would have to have been created, measured and proofed at Erfurt before being shipped to DWM for further work.
Big Norm

Heinz · 09-03-2002, 08:46 PM

Norm, The Imperial proof instructions seem the follow the British standard that required pistols and revolver be proofed in a finished assembled state. This makes some sense for revolvers where it is usually the cylinder that is the weakest link. For Pistols this seems like the waste of a good action for a bad barrel.

Since the barrel was gauged before and after proof to insure it did not expand out of spec, the sensible approach would seem to be to proof a barreled action with a "proofing toggle."

But if this was done seems a mystery but the Erfurt proofed DWM LP08s combined with Erfurt production of tangent sight notched recievers when Erfurt was not making LP08s seems to suggest that Erfurt may have been the barreled reciever source for DWM.

This would call into question the real proceedure for proofing and marking the various components.

regards.
Heinz

08-30-2002, 08:14 PM	#1
Edward Tinker Super Moderator Eternal Lifer LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: North of Spokane, WA Posts: 15,909 Thanks: 1,986 Thanked 4,500 Times in 2,076 Posts	1915 Erfurts Okay, reading this nicely pictured Luger book (Still; Imperial [img]biggrin.gif[/img] ) and was looking at the numbers of Lugers made during WW1. So Erfurt geared up, and made 10,000 in 1911 21,000 in 1912 23,000 in 1913 30,000 in 1914 0 in 1915 80,000 in 1916 180,000 in 1917 175,000 in 1918 0 in 1915, doesn't make economical sense. Are there documents that show that the contract was over with Erfurt? (I know they were a gov't arsenal, but contract or directive over with?) Was Erfurt making other guns during this time frame? Or being a Arsenal, were they rebuilding different guns? DWM had whack-o numbers too, 25K 1908 17K 1910 13K 1911 10K 1912 35K 1913 40K 1914 and then 120,000 in 1915 160K 1916 180K 1917 118K 1918 Is it possible that Erfurt made parts and supplied them to DWM for the war effort? Unless they were fixing rifles and pistols and too busy, or making other guns, it is a bit puzzeling to me. Or did I miss something and one of the experts can tell me, [img]smile.gif[/img] __________________ Edward Tinker ************ Co-Author of Police Lugers - Co-Author of Simson Lugers Author of Veteran Bring Backs Vol I, Vol II, Vol III and Vol IV

08-31-2002, 09:42 PM	#6
Doubs User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Byron, Georgia Posts: 1,670 Thanks: 769 Thanked 1,611 Times in 525 Posts	[quote]Originally posted by Heinz: <strong> <Snip> How else did Erfurt end up notching the frames for artillery sights when they may no artilleries after 1914??</strong><hr></blockquote> In November, 1916, an amendment was added to the P-08 Dimentional Tables that allowed the receiver to be cut for the Artillery rear sight. Many Erfurt pistols dated 1916, 1917 and 1918 will be found with the receiver so cut. ("Imperial Lugers", Still, Pg. 61) This was apparently a step taken "in case" more Artillery models were ever needed.

09-01-2002, 07:41 PM	#8
Doubs User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Byron, Georgia Posts: 1,670 Thanks: 769 Thanked 1,611 Times in 525 Posts	[quote]Originally posted by Heinz: <strong>Thanks Doubs, I knew I read that but could not remember where. But, dosen't this still beg the question of why Erfurt would bother with an extra machining step when only DWM was making LP08's?</strong><hr></blockquote> Erfurt, as a Royal arsenal, apparently felt bound to follow whatever edicts were laid down for the manufacture of military arms.... sensical or not. DWM, a private contractor, seems to have ignored many of the military directives that Erfurt obeyed. The purpose of machining the notch in all receivers is what I don't understand. I know it's intended use but why make the extra cut on receivers not designated for Artillery barrels? There must have been a plan behind it but exactly what that plan was I don't know.

09-03-2002, 12:08 AM	#10
Doubs User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Byron, Georgia Posts: 1,670 Thanks: 769 Thanked 1,611 Times in 525 Posts	[quote]Originally posted by Heinz: <strong>Doubs, I just read Stills again and it says "This provided for" which does not exactly sound optional. I thought it was an optional notch but what is quoted does not sound that way. regards, Heinz</strong><hr></blockquote> As I understand it, you would be correct in that the provision was in reality a directive. I believe Still also notes that most Erfurt Lugers dated 1917 and 1918 will have the notch. Many 1916 dated Lugers will also have the notch but the directive was issued late in '16 so many 1916's will be found without it. I've also seen 1917 and 1918 Erfurt Lugers without the notch but they are not as common as those with it. (I, in fact, own a 1917 Erfurt without the notch.) The Royal arsenal at Erfurt was closed after the war and the machinery for manufacture of the Luger was shipped to Simpson. There is a lot of missing information where Erfurt is concerned and it would be nice to have answers to a whole host of questions. Perhaps records exist in a warehouse or archive somewhere that will one day be uncovered. We can only hope.

08-30-2002, 10:35 PM	#2
LP08 User Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Colorado Posts: 71 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Time for more wild speculation. Production numbers at Erfurt should be considered in the context of the government procurement system and the times. In business management, we call this an open systems view. A closed systems view considers only the production capacity of the firm and other internal characteristics. It is possible defense budgets did not support more lugers from Erfurt or other priorities took precedence such that by 1914, Erfurt had made enough lugers for the govt to request further lugers only from DWM. It may have taken until late 1915 to issue additional contracts to Erfurt (now that war needs upped demand for pistols). Prior to 1914, DWM and Erfurt may have completed the rearming program for the military--the war in Aug 1914 would result in months of planning and new contracts to increase production of small arms to war levels. The war, in 1914, was not believed to be one that would last long. By 1916, Erfurt was back making lugers because DWM could not keep up with govt desire for P08s. Erfurt was also busy making rifles and this may have delayed restarting P08 production for a few months. The pre-1915 production pattern at DWM makes sense for a long-time luger manufacturer. The contract requests could be quickly filled so production was high at first, then decreased until the war came along and production again increased. Erfurt's production pattern is consistent with that of a second contractor with other guns to make. Production slowly increasing.

08-30-2002, 10:45 PM	#3
LP08 User Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Colorado Posts: 71 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Note that if you insert a contracting/start up delay of 18 months for the secondary contractor in the production pattern, you can explain some of the production differences. P08 is adopted and the production at DWM starts rolling out quickly (DWM is up and running with lugers because lugers are their pistol and are already in production). Erfurt receives a contract (to ensure a second source at a govt arsenal) in 1909 and in late 1910/early 1911 start cranking out some lugers, albeit more slowly, to peak in 1913 and in 1912/1913 the LP08 design is contracted to Erfurt (along with a bunch of carbines to keep em busy) because all the needed P08s have been made and DWM can produce some small maintenance quantity. Erfurt cranks out LP08s in 1914, eighteen months later, along with the last of the P08s. The war happens, and new contracts are issued such that Erfurt cranks out more P08s starting 18 months later in 1915.

08-30-2002, 11:39 PM	#4
Big Norm RIP Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: SE Michigan Posts: 1,864 Thanks: 1 Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts	I agree with LP08 but I would like to add another perspective. The Belgiums delayed the German rigid time table advance into France. This gave the French time to get their act together. All of which resulted in a tremendous loss of lives and weapons in the first year of the war. Rifles from Erfurt and a loss of workers probably caused manufacturing stress on the facilities at Erfurt. The priority for more rifles and bodies by the army over handguns may have influenced the shift in manufacturing to DWM. Gradually, military tactics moved from the civil war tactic of mass charges to something resembling WW2 tactics and everybody realized that the war would not be over in a few months. Manufacturing adjusted as did the armies. Personally, I believe that there were bins of parts left over from the manufacture of Lugers at Erfurt. This would account for Erfurt army proof marks on artillery barrels well into 1918. Maybe Erfurt knew they would not produce artilleries for a long time and sold the barrels and some small parts to DWM. Big Norm

08-31-2002, 07:45 PM	#5
Heinz User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Greenville SC Posts: 1,004 Thanks: 377 Thanked 410 Times in 180 Posts	Ed, we discussed this topic on the General Discussion link under the title "Artillery Barrels and frames. There were some interesting comments you might want to look at. Much of this question seems to revolve how P08s were numbered and proofed. The regulations quoted in John Walter's book seem to call for assembling the entire pistol, inspecting it and putting on an inspector's mark, then disassemling the whole pistol and marking all of the parts then proofing it with two hot loads followed by two magazines of normal ammo.and putting on the proofmarks. Or something close to this This does not seem efficient from a production standpoint and I wonder if there is any evidence this was modified to allow a sequence where the barrel were assembled, inspection proofed and gauge stamped(or even fire proofed with a standard action) and sent on for toggle assembly and installation, at which point it could definitely be bench fired for a proof, then the barrel size checked against the gauge for unacceptable bulging, then barrel dated stamped This would be followed by assembling to the grip frame and using bins of two digit stamped parts to match the assembly followed by sending it off for final inspection and proof. This process would seem more efficient and may explain some anomolies but it would sure need need some data. How else did Erfurt end up notching the frames for artillery sights when they may no artilleries after 1914??

09-01-2002, 07:23 PM	#7
Heinz User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Greenville SC Posts: 1,004 Thanks: 377 Thanked 410 Times in 180 Posts	Thanks Doubs, I knew I read that but could not remember where. But, dosen't this still beg the question of why Erfurt would bother with an extra machining step when only DWM was making LP08's?

09-02-2002, 08:40 PM	#9
Heinz User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Greenville SC Posts: 1,004 Thanks: 377 Thanked 410 Times in 180 Posts	Doubs, I just read Stills again and it says "This provided for" which does not exactly sound optional. I thought it was an optional notch but what is quoted does not sound that way. I think one hypothetical explanation of the Erfurt notch is that Erfurt was making the LP08 barrels and recievers but not assembling the pistols. They shipped the frame to DWM who installed the tangent sight and the grip frame. I have no data to support this conjecture. regards, Heinz

09-03-2002, 02:15 AM	#11
Big Norm RIP Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: SE Michigan Posts: 1,864 Thanks: 1 Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts	Heinz, I keep reading and rereading your post regarding assembling, measuring, testing and proofmarking the artillery. I may be missing something here. In the Sept/Oct 2001 issue of the Handgunner magazine, there is an excellent picture of a 1916 DWM LP-08 with an Erfurt army proofmark on the barrel. It seems logical that that proofmark would have to have been placed there before all the assembling, testing and soforth. I am thinking that the barrel would have to have been created, measured and proofed at Erfurt before being shipped to DWM for further work. Big Norm

09-03-2002, 08:46 PM	#12
Heinz User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Greenville SC Posts: 1,004 Thanks: 377 Thanked 410 Times in 180 Posts	Norm, The Imperial proof instructions seem the follow the British standard that required pistols and revolver be proofed in a finished assembled state. This makes some sense for revolvers where it is usually the cylinder that is the weakest link. For Pistols this seems like the waste of a good action for a bad barrel. Since the barrel was gauged before and after proof to insure it did not expand out of spec, the sensible approach would seem to be to proof a barreled action with a "proofing toggle." But if this was done seems a mystery but the Erfurt proofed DWM LP08s combined with Erfurt production of tangent sight notched recievers when Erfurt was not making LP08s seems to suggest that Erfurt may have been the barreled reciever source for DWM. This would call into question the real proceedure for proofing and marking the various components. regards. Heinz