Fair warning:
This is a LONG post, and I apologize in advance. I wanted to make this shorter, but doing so would have eliminated too much of the 'meat' of the points I'm trying to illuminate and explore. Just ask Paul, he knows I'm prone to long passages...
There are a number of us that have LK5 marked rifles and carbines in our collections, but like a number of other markings from this era, we’ve largely been left to speculate on exactly what it or the similar LK3 and (possibly) the LK7 and LK9 markings signify. What’s not in doubt is that the LK5 marking is found with far greater frequency than the other examples. I’ve tried to flesh out the meaning of this for a bit and have mostly been satisfied at what are admittedly just theories regarding it’s significance and meaning. Some closer examination of the documentary evidence from the period and conversations with historians, researchers and fellow collectors hasn’t quite filled in all of the gaps, but it’s opened up a probable different avenue to the real meaning. I wanted to share this with you guys and see what your thoughts are, and how your observations compare with my own. First, some review of the current state of affairs…
The LK5 marking appears with greatest frequency on pre-war and very early wartime French carbines and rifles. This group far outnumbers any other type, to the extent that the others are very uncommonly found, and are valued relatively higher than their French counterparts. The marking is typically found on the left side of the butt stock, close to the leading edge of the butt plate, but I own an example that has been stamped on the right side. The LK5 marking is frequently accompanied by the presence of a one or two digit number stamped into the underside of the stock wrist, or on the stock grip flat on some rifles that have that feature. It is quite often the case that the marking and the numbers are the only things that differentiate these from unmarked examples of the same arms. That being said, I have observed and own examples on which some typical German modifications have been made, such as the bluing of bolts otherwise left polished in original production, and the numbering of other components with either the full or partial serial number of the weapon, and all on parts originally left unnumbered.
While an audience of German arms collectors is not necessarily in need of convincing at this point that this marking is German in origin, it wouldn’t hurt to review further what we do know about the types of weapons that bear the stamp:
-All of the weapons date either from the pre-war or early wartime period
-All of the weapons were either German, or originally produced in countries which fell under at least partial German control
-Many of the weapons bear additional, indicative markings or modifications that are consistent with other examples captured and later used by German forces
-None of the examples bear importers’ markings of any kind
-There is no documentation that lists the mark as being post-war, or from the rifles’ countries of origin
All things considered, there should not be any serious doubt that these were German used arms. In a manner of speaking, they appear to pass both the comparative captured weapons test and the ‘sniff’ test alike.
A current theory holds that the LK5 marking refers to ‘Luftgau Kommando 5,’ a corps-level like organization within the Luftwaffe similar to a Kreis or district. This entity was created in Stuttgart in September 1944 from the ashes of what was once Luftgau Kommando Westfrankreich, which presumably suffered heavily in the combat of the summer of 1944 throughout France. Luftgau Kommando 5 is a documented and known entity, with a listed command structure and record of operations (apparently ground flak roles) leading to their disbandment in southern Germany on 2 April 1945.
While the identification of the LK5 marking with Luftgau Kommando 5 might seem to be a perfect fit, there are a number of problems with this. Probably the most critical is that ‘Luftgau’ is not abbreviated as ‘L’ in the surviving documents. Instead, ‘Lg’ or ‘L.G.’ is used. Similarly, ‘Luftgau Kommando’ is found abbreviated as ‘L.G.K.’ or ‘LGK,’ but not ‘LK.’ To illustrate this, I was able to locate an entry for Luftgau Kommando Westfrankreich in a Luftwaffe Tagesbefehle. Instead of ‘LK Westfrankreich,’ it is noted as ‘LGK Westfrankreich.’ If we were to attempt an association with LK5 to a Luftkreiskommando as another possibility fitting the letter combination and size of the unit, it would still not accord with known abbreviated use. Luftkreiskommando is shown as ‘L.K.K.,’ not as LK. Additionally, while there was in fact a Luftkreis 5, it ceased to exist as a separate entity by that name when it was used to form Luftwaffengruppenkommando 3 starting on 4 February 1938.
The assumed connection to a Luftwaffe unit would appear to be bolstered additionally by the fact that numerous period photographs have survived which portray identifiably Luftwaffe personnel with what are clearly captured weapons. On a practical level, it also makes perfect sense that non-combat Luftwaffe ground units would appropriately be issued captured weapons. Until their employment in defense of Germany proper in spring 1945, their duties would have been almost invariably static, uncontested and would have had a negligible draw on captured ammunition supplies and allotments. However, for as many period photographs which have survived of Luftwaffe personnel using captured weapons, there appear to be at least as many depicting Heer personnel with them. To a lesser extent, one can also locate pictures of RAD, Reichsbahn and Kriegsmarine personnel using captured weapons. It should come as no surprise that captured weapons would have offered these non-combat troops a deep and available pool from which to draw for their own needs, and certainly not solely or primarily for the Luftwaffe.
So what could LK5 signify? Using the same abbreviation conventions, ‘L’ could stand for a widely varying number of things, the vast majority of which would have nothing to do with small arms or possible units of assignment. Craig Brown (RIP) once suggested a possible meaning of ‘Lehrgang Kommando' (see this post: http://www.k98kforum.com/showthread...tos-MAS-1936-rifles-in-a-training-environment), but Lehrgang is not found abbreviated as ‘L.’ However, the substance of this possible association, that of a unit charged with training and preparation of personnel for assignment to active units makes sense. Moreover, while a 'Lehrgang Kommando' doesn't fit the LK designation, 'Lehr Kommando,' or 'Training Command' does. This type of designation accords with acknowledged, documented use of 'L' and 'K,' and implies a more general, non-branch specific title. In other words, what we might be seeing is a stamp used by dedicated training units on rifles and carbines designated for training purposes, including live fire, since these are usually encountered in fully functioning form.
Some of the period photographs mentioned above appear to show squad level and larger units in training environments, as shown by the lack of expected second and third line kit that would be used by troops going into combat/extended operations, and by the context of the photos themselves, which very clearly show training cadre providing instruction to the troops. In this environment, the weapons would not need to be standardized, or even use the same caliber. If all that was needed for a crew-served weapons unit was to have some kind of long arm slung while they performed their individual roles, then almost anything would have worked. In a more immediately practical vein, captured weapons chambered in 7.92x57mm would have likely been good candidates for basic marksmanship training of recruits, as they shared many parts in common with K98k Mauser rifles, as well as the type of ammunition used. This would allow a training unit to use assigned, standardized 7.92 ammunition without having to source captured foreign calibers within their own supply system.
Another possible argument in favor of the training weapon idea is that the variety of arms marked with the LK5 stamp extends beyond just the French weapons. Although the latter are clearly in the majority, this should be expected. France had one of the world’s largest armies in 1939, and was considered one of the best. Their navy was approximately the second largest in the world. It should then come as no surprise that the total conquest of France by Germany would result in a windfall of arms and materiel, which is exactly what happened. However, there are a number of other arms bearing the stamp which are not French. Polish, Soviet, British, Yugoslavian, Austrian, Czech and Belgian examples are also known. A geographic French association with the LK5 marking has presumably been assumed because of the title of Luftgau Kommando 5’s ill-fated predecessor, ‘Luftgau Kommando Westfrankreich.’ Because the latter had an obvious regional designation, it has been assumed that the weapons were sourced more or less locally. As a general rule, it’s probably safe to assume that was the case in many instances in which captured weapons were both needed and available in the same general area. France comprised a very large resting, refitting and training area for all branches of the Wehrmacht, both in preparation for the invasion of Britain, and in anticipation of a cross-Channel invasion by the Allies. It should then come as no surprise that locally available arms would be used at training facilities in country, augmented as needed by other captured arms, depending on the ebb and flow of supplies.
While I can’t definitively state that training lay at the core of the LK5 meaning, I do believe that the association with Luftgau Kommando 5 is both untenable and unsupported by the available documents. I’ve hopefully stimulated some thought here, and I wanted to prod you guys a bit to see if anyone else has come up with anything new on this sub-set of markings. If you have any thoughts or news on this, please chime in!
Best,
Pat
This is a LONG post, and I apologize in advance. I wanted to make this shorter, but doing so would have eliminated too much of the 'meat' of the points I'm trying to illuminate and explore. Just ask Paul, he knows I'm prone to long passages...
There are a number of us that have LK5 marked rifles and carbines in our collections, but like a number of other markings from this era, we’ve largely been left to speculate on exactly what it or the similar LK3 and (possibly) the LK7 and LK9 markings signify. What’s not in doubt is that the LK5 marking is found with far greater frequency than the other examples. I’ve tried to flesh out the meaning of this for a bit and have mostly been satisfied at what are admittedly just theories regarding it’s significance and meaning. Some closer examination of the documentary evidence from the period and conversations with historians, researchers and fellow collectors hasn’t quite filled in all of the gaps, but it’s opened up a probable different avenue to the real meaning. I wanted to share this with you guys and see what your thoughts are, and how your observations compare with my own. First, some review of the current state of affairs…
The LK5 marking appears with greatest frequency on pre-war and very early wartime French carbines and rifles. This group far outnumbers any other type, to the extent that the others are very uncommonly found, and are valued relatively higher than their French counterparts. The marking is typically found on the left side of the butt stock, close to the leading edge of the butt plate, but I own an example that has been stamped on the right side. The LK5 marking is frequently accompanied by the presence of a one or two digit number stamped into the underside of the stock wrist, or on the stock grip flat on some rifles that have that feature. It is quite often the case that the marking and the numbers are the only things that differentiate these from unmarked examples of the same arms. That being said, I have observed and own examples on which some typical German modifications have been made, such as the bluing of bolts otherwise left polished in original production, and the numbering of other components with either the full or partial serial number of the weapon, and all on parts originally left unnumbered.
While an audience of German arms collectors is not necessarily in need of convincing at this point that this marking is German in origin, it wouldn’t hurt to review further what we do know about the types of weapons that bear the stamp:
-All of the weapons date either from the pre-war or early wartime period
-All of the weapons were either German, or originally produced in countries which fell under at least partial German control
-Many of the weapons bear additional, indicative markings or modifications that are consistent with other examples captured and later used by German forces
-None of the examples bear importers’ markings of any kind
-There is no documentation that lists the mark as being post-war, or from the rifles’ countries of origin
All things considered, there should not be any serious doubt that these were German used arms. In a manner of speaking, they appear to pass both the comparative captured weapons test and the ‘sniff’ test alike.
A current theory holds that the LK5 marking refers to ‘Luftgau Kommando 5,’ a corps-level like organization within the Luftwaffe similar to a Kreis or district. This entity was created in Stuttgart in September 1944 from the ashes of what was once Luftgau Kommando Westfrankreich, which presumably suffered heavily in the combat of the summer of 1944 throughout France. Luftgau Kommando 5 is a documented and known entity, with a listed command structure and record of operations (apparently ground flak roles) leading to their disbandment in southern Germany on 2 April 1945.
While the identification of the LK5 marking with Luftgau Kommando 5 might seem to be a perfect fit, there are a number of problems with this. Probably the most critical is that ‘Luftgau’ is not abbreviated as ‘L’ in the surviving documents. Instead, ‘Lg’ or ‘L.G.’ is used. Similarly, ‘Luftgau Kommando’ is found abbreviated as ‘L.G.K.’ or ‘LGK,’ but not ‘LK.’ To illustrate this, I was able to locate an entry for Luftgau Kommando Westfrankreich in a Luftwaffe Tagesbefehle. Instead of ‘LK Westfrankreich,’ it is noted as ‘LGK Westfrankreich.’ If we were to attempt an association with LK5 to a Luftkreiskommando as another possibility fitting the letter combination and size of the unit, it would still not accord with known abbreviated use. Luftkreiskommando is shown as ‘L.K.K.,’ not as LK. Additionally, while there was in fact a Luftkreis 5, it ceased to exist as a separate entity by that name when it was used to form Luftwaffengruppenkommando 3 starting on 4 February 1938.
The assumed connection to a Luftwaffe unit would appear to be bolstered additionally by the fact that numerous period photographs have survived which portray identifiably Luftwaffe personnel with what are clearly captured weapons. On a practical level, it also makes perfect sense that non-combat Luftwaffe ground units would appropriately be issued captured weapons. Until their employment in defense of Germany proper in spring 1945, their duties would have been almost invariably static, uncontested and would have had a negligible draw on captured ammunition supplies and allotments. However, for as many period photographs which have survived of Luftwaffe personnel using captured weapons, there appear to be at least as many depicting Heer personnel with them. To a lesser extent, one can also locate pictures of RAD, Reichsbahn and Kriegsmarine personnel using captured weapons. It should come as no surprise that captured weapons would have offered these non-combat troops a deep and available pool from which to draw for their own needs, and certainly not solely or primarily for the Luftwaffe.
So what could LK5 signify? Using the same abbreviation conventions, ‘L’ could stand for a widely varying number of things, the vast majority of which would have nothing to do with small arms or possible units of assignment. Craig Brown (RIP) once suggested a possible meaning of ‘Lehrgang Kommando' (see this post: http://www.k98kforum.com/showthread...tos-MAS-1936-rifles-in-a-training-environment), but Lehrgang is not found abbreviated as ‘L.’ However, the substance of this possible association, that of a unit charged with training and preparation of personnel for assignment to active units makes sense. Moreover, while a 'Lehrgang Kommando' doesn't fit the LK designation, 'Lehr Kommando,' or 'Training Command' does. This type of designation accords with acknowledged, documented use of 'L' and 'K,' and implies a more general, non-branch specific title. In other words, what we might be seeing is a stamp used by dedicated training units on rifles and carbines designated for training purposes, including live fire, since these are usually encountered in fully functioning form.
Some of the period photographs mentioned above appear to show squad level and larger units in training environments, as shown by the lack of expected second and third line kit that would be used by troops going into combat/extended operations, and by the context of the photos themselves, which very clearly show training cadre providing instruction to the troops. In this environment, the weapons would not need to be standardized, or even use the same caliber. If all that was needed for a crew-served weapons unit was to have some kind of long arm slung while they performed their individual roles, then almost anything would have worked. In a more immediately practical vein, captured weapons chambered in 7.92x57mm would have likely been good candidates for basic marksmanship training of recruits, as they shared many parts in common with K98k Mauser rifles, as well as the type of ammunition used. This would allow a training unit to use assigned, standardized 7.92 ammunition without having to source captured foreign calibers within their own supply system.
Another possible argument in favor of the training weapon idea is that the variety of arms marked with the LK5 stamp extends beyond just the French weapons. Although the latter are clearly in the majority, this should be expected. France had one of the world’s largest armies in 1939, and was considered one of the best. Their navy was approximately the second largest in the world. It should then come as no surprise that the total conquest of France by Germany would result in a windfall of arms and materiel, which is exactly what happened. However, there are a number of other arms bearing the stamp which are not French. Polish, Soviet, British, Yugoslavian, Austrian, Czech and Belgian examples are also known. A geographic French association with the LK5 marking has presumably been assumed because of the title of Luftgau Kommando 5’s ill-fated predecessor, ‘Luftgau Kommando Westfrankreich.’ Because the latter had an obvious regional designation, it has been assumed that the weapons were sourced more or less locally. As a general rule, it’s probably safe to assume that was the case in many instances in which captured weapons were both needed and available in the same general area. France comprised a very large resting, refitting and training area for all branches of the Wehrmacht, both in preparation for the invasion of Britain, and in anticipation of a cross-Channel invasion by the Allies. It should then come as no surprise that locally available arms would be used at training facilities in country, augmented as needed by other captured arms, depending on the ebb and flow of supplies.
While I can’t definitively state that training lay at the core of the LK5 meaning, I do believe that the association with Luftgau Kommando 5 is both untenable and unsupported by the available documents. I’ve hopefully stimulated some thought here, and I wanted to prod you guys a bit to see if anyone else has come up with anything new on this sub-set of markings. If you have any thoughts or news on this, please chime in!
Best,
Pat
Last edited:
