Question from the uninformed

Rod WMG · 03-20-2006, 10:48 PM

Okay, first I was never in the military so I'm pretty ignorant about such things. But this has bothered me for awhile, so I guess I'll ask and reveal how little I really know.

Why do navy models (at least the ones I know about) have 100 and 200 meter rear sight settings? That seems pretty optimistic for a pistol under battle conditions. I'd assume that stocks weren't routinely used though I know they existed for navies.

Granted, firing "ship to ship" might require longer range shooting, but wouldn't other, "heavier" weapons (deck guns and machine guns) be better for that? Given the circumstances, could the sailors reasonably expect accurate aiming/firing with these pistos at those distances from the deck of a ship?

Ron Smith · 03-21-2006, 12:00 AM

Rod,

The concept was that they could be used as a carbine for boarding parties and landing forays. At first they were ordered for torpedo boat crews. Storage space was at a premium.

Also, deck guns and machineguns are more effective, but with each member of the deck crew having a small accurate firearm. The firepower of the vessel was enhanced that much more. At the time they were issued. Large gun mounts were usually open, on the smaller vessels. Not enclosed to protect gun crews as they are now. If you could rain enough metal down on the crews, they couldn't aim and fire accurately. And the chances of eliminating them altogether was pretty good.

Every little bit helps when your life depends on keeping that big pointy thing above water.

Navy lugers equiped with a stock and the adjustable sight are extremely accurate at 100+ yards.

Ron

Rod WMG · 03-21-2006, 12:49 AM

Thanks, Ron. So I take it the stocks were a commonly issued item? I can see that they would be accurate with them, but assumed they would be most commonly employed without them.

I hadn't considered landing forays. I tend to think of the navy as a "water only" entity. I know that isn't strictly true, but just think that way.

I appreciate the insight.

Ron Smith · 03-21-2006, 09:10 AM

Rod,

I'm not a Navy expert, although I wish I had a safe full of them. I believe that the stock was issued with each pistol, holster harness ,etc.

When I was in the Navy, back before there was color, each ship had a designated "Landing/ Boarding Party" to go ashore to rescue downed pilots, or for whatever was required. I was in the landing party on my first ship. We were issued 1911s, M-1 carbines, Thompsons and a BAR. These remained in the armory until required.

Ron

Edward Tinker · 03-21-2006, 09:25 AM

I am no navy expert either, but parts of the navy in WW1 fought many land battles, plus there were land detachments.

ed

Lugerdoc · 03-21-2006, 10:01 AM

After 1915, since sea engagements were few, many SB (like our Marine Corp) personel, were reassigned to shore infantry duty in Belgium and elsewhere (many German colonies) and beginning with the 1916 production, many Navy lugers were issued with belt holsters, sans stock. TH

Rod WMG · 03-21-2006, 02:58 PM

Thanks to everone for the education. Ignorance isn't always bliss.

Navy · 03-21-2006, 05:25 PM

In my archives I have a WONDERFUL photo of two young matrosen with Torpedoboot halbflotilla on their mutzen band. One is wearling his P-o4 with stock, holster and shoulderstrap. The other is wearing his in a Type two belt holster on a fabric belt. A way cool picture.

Tom A

03-20-2006, 10:48 PM	#1
Rod WMG User Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: The Edge of Texas Posts: 514 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Question from the uninformed Okay, first I was never in the military so I'm pretty ignorant about such things. But this has bothered me for awhile, so I guess I'll ask and reveal how little I really know. Why do navy models (at least the ones I know about) have 100 and 200 meter rear sight settings? That seems pretty optimistic for a pistol under battle conditions. I'd assume that stocks weren't routinely used though I know they existed for navies. Granted, firing "ship to ship" might require longer range shooting, but wouldn't other, "heavier" weapons (deck guns and machine guns) be better for that? Given the circumstances, could the sailors reasonably expect accurate aiming/firing with these pistos at those distances from the deck of a ship?

03-21-2006, 12:00 AM	#2
Ron Smith User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Orygun Posts: 4,243 Thanks: 118 Thanked 245 Times in 150 Posts	Rod, The concept was that they could be used as a carbine for boarding parties and landing forays. At first they were ordered for torpedo boat crews. Storage space was at a premium. Also, deck guns and machineguns are more effective, but with each member of the deck crew having a small accurate firearm. The firepower of the vessel was enhanced that much more. At the time they were issued. Large gun mounts were usually open, on the smaller vessels. Not enclosed to protect gun crews as they are now. If you could rain enough metal down on the crews, they couldn't aim and fire accurately. And the chances of eliminating them altogether was pretty good. Every little bit helps when your life depends on keeping that big pointy thing above water. Navy lugers equiped with a stock and the adjustable sight are extremely accurate at 100+ yards. Ron __________________ I Still Need DWM side plate #49... if anyone runs across a nice one. What ~Rudyard Kipling~ said...

03-21-2006, 09:10 AM	#4
Ron Smith User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Orygun Posts: 4,243 Thanks: 118 Thanked 245 Times in 150 Posts	Rod, I'm not a Navy expert, although I wish I had a safe full of them. I believe that the stock was issued with each pistol, holster harness ,etc. When I was in the Navy, back before there was color, each ship had a designated "Landing/ Boarding Party" to go ashore to rescue downed pilots, or for whatever was required. I was in the landing party on my first ship. We were issued 1911s, M-1 carbines, Thompsons and a BAR. These remained in the armory until required. Ron __________________ I Still Need DWM side plate #49... if anyone runs across a nice one. What ~Rudyard Kipling~ said...

03-21-2006, 09:25 AM	#5
Edward Tinker Super Moderator Eternal Lifer LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: North of Spokane, WA Posts: 15,916 Thanks: 1,992 Thanked 4,507 Times in 2,081 Posts	I am no navy expert either, but parts of the navy in WW1 fought many land battles, plus there were land detachments. ed __________________ 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

03-21-2006, 10:01 AM	#6
Lugerdoc Patron LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: POB 398 St.Charles,MO. 63302 Posts: 5,089 Thanks: 6 Thanked 736 Times in 483 Posts	After 1915, since sea engagements were few, many SB (like our Marine Corp) personel, were reassigned to shore infantry duty in Belgium and elsewhere (many German colonies) and beginning with the 1916 production, many Navy lugers were issued with belt holsters, sans stock. TH __________________ Tom Heller POB 398 ST.Charles, MO. 63302 Tel 636-447-3006 lugerdoc@charter.net

03-21-2006, 12:49 AM	#3
Rod WMG User Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: The Edge of Texas Posts: 514 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Thanks, Ron. So I take it the stocks were a commonly issued item? I can see that they would be accurate with them, but assumed they would be most commonly employed without them. I hadn't considered landing forays. I tend to think of the navy as a "water only" entity. I know that isn't strictly true, but just think that way. I appreciate the insight.

03-21-2006, 02:58 PM	#7
Rod WMG User Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: The Edge of Texas Posts: 514 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Thanks to everone for the education. Ignorance isn't always bliss.

03-21-2006, 05:25 PM	#8
Navy RIP Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Dc 'burbs in Virginia Posts: 2,482 Thanks: 0 Thanked 16 Times in 10 Posts	In my archives I have a WONDERFUL photo of two young matrosen with Torpedoboot halbflotilla on their mutzen band. One is wearling his P-o4 with stock, holster and shoulderstrap. The other is wearing his in a Type two belt holster on a fabric belt. A way cool picture. Tom A