"German Rifle" - Made in the USA?

[shippingsteel]

I know you distain documentary evidence but I would be very interested in anything to support these contentions

I don't think I need to prove anything to you Chris, but if you feel a need for a reference then here is a LINK.

Much of my knowledge is gained through widespread reading, and in this particular case Paul Scarlata covers the German gun shortage very well.

He did a couple of excellent articles on "The German Gun Shortage of the First World War : Substitute Rifles1914-1918" which pretty much sums it up I think.

Regarding the captured Belgian Mausers, these were often converted to the 7.92mm Patrone S and designated Belgisches Infanteriegewehr M.89 just for fun.!

May I humbly suggest a spot of catchup reading over the holidays ..... because its obvious you're not going to be believing me anytime soon - oh well ....

Cheers, S>S

[4thGordons]

OK thanks - can you help me out - I have some of Scarlata's stuff but I cannot find this article "The German Gun Shortage of the First World War : Substitute Rifles 1914-1918" where is it to be found?

Chris

Just as a point of explanation, I am trying to annotate something in a formal publication and "shippingsteel says" is not sufficient. I understand completely if you do not wish to or cannot provide documentation for me to follow up upon and that is fine, and I appreciate your suggestions but sorry, no, I am not willing to take your claims "on trust", particularly when your assertions run contrary to my readings in the area. I am happy to be proven incorrect but that is not the same as simply being contradicted. The notion that the rifle in question is a Belgian Mauser is a possibility but given that the markings would flatly contradict those reported I would need more than supposition to suggest that as an explanation.

[shippingsteel]

LINK provided showing captured Belgian Mauser being carried by a German soldier.

Specifically a member of the 2. Hannoversches Feld-Artillerie-Regt. Nr.26 (Verden) of the X Armee Korps.

What else do you want me to prove exactly.?

Cheers, S>S

[4thGordons]

I don't think I need to prove anything to you Chris, but if you feel a need for a reference then here is a LINK.

Cheers, S>S

That's great! Thanks - but my confusion was that this was NOT the link you provided initially above - the link you provided initially was to Scarlata's book page, which did not seem to illustrate much - especially as I had one of the books next to my PC.

The photo is excellent.

I suspect, given the helmet etc on the soldier, that this is earlier picture than 1917 but thanks.

I never doubted that the Germans utilized captured Belgian Mausers - what I was looking for was supplementary information that they (specifically at your suggestion, US produced ones) were in use in late 1917 and were there to be recaptured by the French and misidentified (and misread) by Orcutt leading to the entry in his diary.

Chris

[shippingsteel]

That's great! Thanks - but my confusion was that this was NOT the link you provided initially above - the link you provided initially was to Scarlata's book page, which did not seem to illustrate much - especially as I had one of the books next to my PC.

That link was provided as a reference to an author (just in case you were not aware of him or his books) who wrote the article to which I clearly referred.

The fact that you cannot easily locate the said article is not really my problem, and your implication that I simply make this $#!% up is frankly not that encouraging.

Cheers, S>S

[shippingsteel]

I never doubted that the Germans utilized captured Belgian Mausers - what I was looking for was supplementary information that they (specifically at your suggestion, US produced ones) were in use in late 1917 and were there to be recaptured by the French and misidentified (and misread) by Orcutt leading to the entry in his diary.

Why would they not still be in use in 1917.? They were perfectly good modern rifles and Mausers to boot. The fact that they had access to many thousands of them plus ammunition meant they could arm whole units with ease. Probably in the main issued to 'support' troops, but they definitely would have been used in the front-line areas, otherwise why would they have been converted to the Patrone S.

"During the invasion of Belgium in World War 1, large quantities of this rifle (M1889) were seized by the Germans, with many issued to support troops without alteration; however it appears that sizeable quantities were converted to accept the German 7.92mm cartridge." Robert Ball, Mauser Military Rifles of the World, 4th edition, 2006, pp 25-27

In regard to the American made M1889 rifles I believe that a shipment had been delivered to the Belgians prior to the demise of Hopkins & Allen, as it was the failure to receive the necessary payment for this initial delivery that did not help the financial cause of the firm, eventually leading to it being taken over by Marlin Rockwell, who subsequently completed the contract with final delivery of the bulk in Sept.1918.

"Only about 15,000 rifles with the A and B prefix serial numbers were actually Hopkins and Allen products, the remaining 165,000 rifles having been manufactured in the old H&A facilities by the new owners, Marlin Rockwell." Robert Ball, Mauser Military Rifles of the World, 4th edition, 2006, p 26

"The remnants of the Belgian army fighting alongside the French placed production contracts with Hopkins and Allen of Norwich, Connecticut, after the fall of Belgium and about 8,000 had been delivered by 1916." John Walter, Rifles of the World, p 305

So to cut a long story short, and in reply to your initial question regarding a "German Rifle - Made in the USA.?" I believe you have been given a perfectly reasonable explanation, and possibly the most logical one available given the facts. Now it just remains for you to mark me on my 'assignment', (and rush off to check my references) - ain't that right professor.?

Cheers, S>S

[4thGordons]

You have indeed provided a plausible explanation, for which - many thanks.

But look, here is what I am responding to, in your own words....

"....but then again I am seldom found reading the textbooks or other references. Most of my knowledge has been gained from studying the articles in my hands, and then finding out where they came from ie. the bottom up process."

I am sorry I was not aware your ego was so fragile, nor that I was cast in the role of either "encouraging" or "marking" you.

I was attempting to make use of the depth of knowledge on the forum to cast light on an issue that was puzzling me.

I was simply seeking an explanation for what appeared to be an inexplicable combination of factors and you have indeed provided one of these, although the weakness in the explanation to my mind appears to be that it rests on a Harvard educated individual misreading or mistaking New Jersey for another state.

Despite apparent appearances to the contrary I do in fact appreciate the suggestion and substantiation you have provided. As large numbers of people consult the forum for information I do think it is important to provide supporting evidence for claims and statements, perhaps this is indeed a result of my background (which you appear to enjoy mocking so much) but I do not think I am willing to apologise for this.

I suspect that this constant bickering is far more tedious for others to read than it is to us to produce (although for my part this is difficult to imagine) so perhaps it is simply time to move on. I will make a conscious effort to avoid it in the future.

Chris

[shippingsteel]

Simply trying to help answer the question/s Chris, as requested. The rest is just a bit of "friendly sledging" - you get that where I come from.!

When you start questioning integrity it's never going to end well though, maybe best to lighten up.? Best wishes for a Happy Easter, mate.!

Cheers, S>S

[shippingsteel]

Following on with the 'captured weapons' theme here is another LINK to a nice photo of a Mosin-Nagant rifle in German use.

This one is carried by a member of the 14th Landsturm Bataillon of the IV Armee Korps. Note the 'ersatz' bayonet which has been adapted to suit.

The Germans didn't like the Russian spike bayonets so made their own arrangements, and designated the rifle Russisches Dreiliniengewehr M.91

EDIT. Some of these Mosin-Nagant rifles were also Made in the USA, by Remington Arms and the Westinghouse company.

Pics of these are shown below, from the 7.62x54r.net website.

Cheers, S>S

[TonyE]

Having been in the United States for the last week I have come to this thread late, but would like to add a few thoughts.

We can never know what the rifle actually was, but on the balance of probabilities, I would doubt that it was a Belgian Mauser made by Hopkins and Allen. Apart from the fact that there is no connection with New Jersey, I doubt if it was sufficiently remarkable (in the literal sense) bearing in mind its overall similarity to the German weapon. On the other hand, a Moisin Nagant from Westinghouse New England could indeed have caused comment and it only needs a slight error of memory to convert “New England” into “New Jersey”. However, that is only speculation.

On the question of usage, as Chris has already said no one doubts that the Germans equipped second line troops with Belgian Mausers captured during the invasion, either from Belgian troops or stocks at Fabrique Nationale. (Itself German owned as part of the DWM empire that also included Waffenfabrik Steyr, more properly known as Oesterreichische Waffenfabrik Gessellschaft)

Presumably sufficient ammunition was also captured, as I know of no German production of 7.65x53mm during the war, unlike 8x50mm Lebel and 7.62x54mm Russian which was produced in quantity by the Germans from 1916 for use in captured French and Russian rifles.

With regard to rifle shortages in the German army, of course they suffered in the same way as every other nation in the early part of the war, sending units to the front without weapons in the hope that sufficient could be found once they got there. By the second half of the war they had considerable numbers of rifles in store At the beginning of 1917 there were 350,000 unissued rifles in depots and at the start of 1918 some 1.5 million. (Rifle and Carbine 98, Dieter Storz, Verlag Militaria, 2006)

With regard to the alleged German weapons and the South American connection, this is something I have looked into in some detail whilst researching my secondary small arms books. The initial source was the official history of the Ministry of Munitions which states “Much time, energy and ingenuity were expended in April and May 1915, upon an attempt to secure for the British forces 400,000 rifles with 900,000,000 rounds of ammunition, which were said to be lying in Rio de Janeiro, and to be controlled by a German syndicate in New York.”(History of the Ministry of Munitions, Vol.XI Part IV, HMSO, London, 1923)

The Admiralty sent Sir Trevor Dawson, Deputy Chairman of Vickers to the United States and Brazil to try to obtain these, but eventually it all came to naught. Sir Trevor’s twenty eight page report is in the National Archives and it is doubtful that the weapons actually existed, certainly no representative of the British government actually saw them. It was probably a scam operated by the infamous Colonel Allison (also implicated in the purchase of Vetterlis from Italy) who earned one of my favourite quotations from the Foreign Office when they described him as “unfavourably known to His Majesty’s Government and entirely untrustworthy”.

Finally, let me stand alongside Chris on his disagreement with Shippingsteel. I am sure S>S you believe your “friendly sledging” is typical Aussie “humour”, but I have to say it comes across to us poor Poms as snide and tedious. Sorry about that !

Regards

TonyE

[shippingsteel]

We can never know what the rifle actually was, but on the balance of probabilities, I would doubt that it was a Belgian Mauser made by Hopkins and Allen. Apart from the fact that there is no connection with New Jersey, I doubt if it was sufficiently remarkable (in the literal sense) bearing in mind its overall similarity to the German weapon. On the other hand, a Moisin Nagant from Westinghouse New England could indeed have caused comment and it only needs a slight error of memory to convert "New England" into "New Jersey". However, that is only speculation.

On the question of usage, as Chris has already said no one doubts that the Germans equipped second line troops with Belgian Mausers captured during the invasion, either from Belgian troops or stocks at Fabrique Nationale. (Itself German owned as part of the DWM empire that also included Waffenfabrik Steyr, more properly known as Oesterreichische Waffenfabrik Gessellschaft)

Presumably sufficient ammunition was also captured, as I know of no German production of 7.65x53mm during the war, unlike 8x50mm Lebel and 7.62x54mm Russian which was produced in quantity by the Germans from 1916 for use in captured French and Russian rifles.

Fair enough TonyE, the point is taken. I can see the headline now, "Pom's see Aussies as snide and tedious" - you'd be forgiven for thinking the Ashes were still on.! (oops sorry 'humour' again)

Seriously though, we do miss you when you're not around - and BTW that was a very good post. I just have a couple of quick points to comment on and then I'll be gone.

In the OP the writer notes the weapon is a "German rifle" which actually implies it IS very similar to the normal German weapons being encountered, albeit the "latest type".

The poilu offering the item would also have known what a standard German rifle looked like, and he obviously described it as such during the writer's conversation with him.

We are also assuming it is a newly captured weapon, but the poilu could also have 'acquired' it by other means, possibly when serving alongside Belgian troops in the line.?

The point about the non-standard ammunition would probably make it less likely that a Mosin-Nagant would be seen in action near the front-line around the time of 1917.

Do you know anything of the conversion of captured Belgian Mausers to take the standard German round, as this point could be the difference as to where they were used.

As you said, they are very similar to the German rifles and if converted to the Patrone S would possibly be much more likely to have been in service at the front at that time.

The fact that no new ammunition was being produced specifically for the Belgian Mausers also reinforces the point that the rifles were being converted to the standard round.

I understand that we will never know the facts for certain, but nonetheless it is quite interesting to discuss the possibilities. Hence the information I have posted.

Cheers, S>S

[Pete1052]

We'll never know for sure if we can't see the rifle with our own eyes. Piling one supposition onto another is a waste of time, though if you phrase your hypothetical got-you questions well enough you might put yourself in the running to be the next British Minister of Defence.