Trough in Gewehr 98 production: 1909?

Hi everyone, I’ve spotted a Spandau 1911 for sale and I’ve been trying to gather information about this year and more generally the few years before war broke out.

The first thing I noticed is that production collapsed in 1908/1909.

This post is a summary, the sources of which are Loewe/Paul’s posts (his comments and corrections will be appreciated) and Dieter Storz’s book “Rifle & Carbine 98”. All credit go to them.
First off, some events which happened over those years. In 1908, the Young Turks revolution puts an end to autocratic rule in Turkey and Bosnia is annexed by Austria-Hungary to the dismay of Serbian nationalists. 1911: Italo-Turkish war, Xinhai revolution in China, Second Moroccan Crisis, Paraguayan Civil War. 1912: First Balkan War.

Situation before the trough

Dieter Storz points out that production data for Danzig, Erfurt and Spandau have been lost with the Prussian military archives and does not speculate about their output.
Storz provides many details about the production at Amberg before 1914 (see p. 167 of his book) and the thing that jumps out from his bar chart is the collapse of G98 production in 1908 to its lowest level since 1902.
As regards Mauser and DWM, their peacetime output capacity seems to have been on a par with those of the three Prussian arsenals (150,000 rifles a year, Storz p.48 and p.176, DWM probably having a higher capacity than the others by looking at 1915 daily output, p.156). However, these companies were mainly export-driven. On average, domestic orders accounted only for 20% of DWM turnover before the war (Storz, p.159).
According to Storz p.176 and p.180, in 1907, Mauser produced 91,000 copies of G98 and DWM 73,000.

Why did it fall?

1908 must have been a busy year for German small arms manufacturers with the P08, Kar98a and MG08 officially adopted.

One might expect that those new firearms would compete with G98 for resources.

Loewe wrote in his article about Spandau (https://gewehr98.wordpress.com/2015/07/21/prussian-arsenal-spandau/):
“The most remarkable thing about this introduction of the MG08 into their production line up was the fact it doesn’t seem to have dramatically affected rifle production. While Gewehr98 production is known to have fallen sharply in 1908 and 1909, this is probably more due to the introduction of the Karabiner98 (Kar.98a) during those years.”

I guess Loewe meant that Spandau and DWM kept producing G98 while introducing the MG08, whereas Danzig, Amberg and Erfurt stopped manufacturing G98 while Kar98a came out of their factories.

It looks like Spandau, the largest arsenal, managed to adapt production lines to the Kar98a (although they produced most copies in 1908, they stopped between April 1909 and March 1910 – Storz, p68 -, made hundreds of them and finally stopped by the end of 1910). In the meantime, the carbine disrupted the production of the 3 other arsenals.

The 3 arsenals may have found it hard to switch to Kar98a (although they might have begun retooling and changing their processes in 1907 or 1908, arsenals had manufacturing problems in 1909 as explained by Storz, p.71), but, more importantly, they might have been instructed by the military to stop making G98 (this is a speculation).

As the total headcount of the Imperial army was 613,000 in 1908, the Kaiser and the General Staff might have been satisfied to have already two or three times as many rifles (speculation again).
Additionally, according to Storz p.49, the Prussian War Ministry had decided since 1905 to refurbish the most worn-out rifles or simply replace them by those held in depots. During that period, it appears the military institutions may have switched from an acquisition policy to a maintenance policy.

When is the trough?

According to Loewe’s observations, in 1908, Erfurt produced no G98 apparently. Neither did Mauser (Storz p.176). Production at Amberg nosedived (Storz, p.167).
Again according to Loewe, Danzig made a few G98 in 1908, but no rifles from them have been positively identified for 1909 (source: http://www.k98kforum.com/showthread.php?28221-1907-danzig&highlight=1908)

The only producers in 1909 were thus Spandau, DWM (33,150 copies in 1909, see Storz, p.180) and Mauser (10,000 copies in 1909, Storz, p.176).

1909 could be the year of the low water mark for G98 production. However, 1910 may not be ruled out as only Spandau and Mauser were active.

What happened after the trough?

Output at Spandau recovered in 1910 and 1911 as soon as they were done with the Kar98a. Loewe wrote that Spandau went up to the mid-late d block in 1911, meaning a probable cap at 45,000 copies (source: http://www.k98kforum.com/showthread.php?11395-1911-Spandau-Gew98&highlight=1911+Spandau+Gew98).
Amberg resumed its production in 1911 (Storz, p. 167).
DWM did not supply G98 in 1910, 1911, 1912 and 1913 (Storz, p.180) and probably returned to their export contracts, as Mauser did. Among their foreign clients were Turkey (M1903), Paraguay (M1907), Brazil (M1908), Argentina (M1909), Serbia (M1910).


Having said that, I see at least three big questions remaining:
1) Are there documents proving contracts were completed in 1908 or that any instruction has been given to drastically reduce the manufacturing of G98 for the Imperial Army?
2) Are there documents proving the Kar98a created other problems than those mentioned by Storz?
3) What could be the estimated output for the Prussian arsenals in 1907 and for Spandau in 1909 and 1910?

Again, this is only me trying to put the pieces together. I would be happy if it could start a debate and if, as a result, everyone can learn things in the process.

You cover a lot of ground in one post, I will try to address some of it later, but generally every event, situation, decision or action has to be placed in context, - rarely are things done in isolation or not influenced by other factors, for instance Hitler couldn't have started WWII without Stalin's acquiescence and trade pact, nor could Hitler have prevailed in 1940 against the West... Japan was also a significant factor in Stalin's decision making, in short every event or action has many influencing factors, this is true of German military rifle production.

Funding influenced production, especially at the arsenals, the patent holders (Loewe/DWM) had export contracts to fill and like you say DWM's contract/licence to build the MG08 and the introduction of the P.08 all played a factor, but you can see in the lead up to the introduction of the Kar.98a production, that of the G98 diminished (and eventually stopped), though how much is unclear... for one most of the arsenals serialed w/o rolling over, they would make no suffix rifles but the vast majority of production continued where the previous year left off, so exacting figures are impossible, this was not the case with Spandau, DWM/WMO and Amberg, they rolled serialing over each year. This all changed around 1906 when all started to roll over at the new year. As for DWM 1908 was the strongest year of production of the G98, 1906 & 1907 for WMO, huge numbers while the arsenals all dropped by 2/3 from 1906 to 1907, of course Danzig and Erfurt would not recover/restart G98 production until the war after 1908, both stayed with the 98a until Danzig dropped the 98a to go back to G98 production. This clearly indicates Kar.98a production was the greater influence on Danzig, while Erfurt's G98 production ended by a combination of factors, eventually by the war Erfurt's considerable capacity was consumed by Kar.98a (by 1917 the highest production of any maker, any modell until WMO surpassed them in 1943), MG08, MG08/15 and P.08, which truly is astonishing they could make all these systems at the same time, plus bayonets to 1915 and even quite a few G98's 1915-1917...

The only production documents I am familiar with are those that Jon Speed provided me, Stephan and another collector in NZ that deal with production of G98's and MG's, these are not too focused on each manufacturer, but rather sub-contractors and historical context as I recall. Jon Speed also provided WMO production figures so I could compare "fact" (his company figures) with "observations" (my trends) and they were extremely close across the spectrum, no year significantly short, - while this doesn't prove that my trends are equally accurate across the board (all makers), it does indicate some accuracy, further the fact I haven't found a new high serial in at least five years for any maker also indicated relative accuracy. Lastly, trends have developed enough to show, even among meager numbers, the breaks in early G98 production.

I should also say that my research on trends were first started, developed using Mark Weiringa's KCN database, this was 20 or more years ago, most of which have been revised many times over, for instance when it was discovered early production not rolling over all the low and high ranges had to be revised, rifles from low years, especially among DWM/WMO early production being discovered but a few others where no figures were previously known. One can only imagine where Mark's has taken his research, it is probably further along than mine, but impossible to say.

Anyway, be more specific in the questions, not too many at once and not in a editorial setting, - I will leave the editing to you for you project, - I do not mind elaborating on any subject I am familiar with, I am not trying to keep my research secret, as when old researchers pass all is lost that wasn't shared before hand (which makes the time spent developing it wasted), but my trends and database are enormous and it is too complex to navigate, I doubt anyone else would have the patience to learn its structure! Especially as it is always in transition, I am constantly changing, improving recording and recall, so it is very individualistic in structure (as most things are).

Hi Loewe, thanks for taking the time to answer the post.

I know that most events do not have single causes and until the day comes when some new documents emerge, we will never get the answers to my questions n°1 and n°2 and know for sure why there was this sudden fall. I know almost nothing about P08 or MG08, but I assume there is as little left about the manufacturing of these weapons at Erfurt or Spandau as for the G98.

Loewe said:

This all changed around 1906 when all started to roll over at the new year.

Click to expand...

Very interesting. By the way, do you know when the reset of the numbering was done : beginning of the calendar year (Jan 1) of beginning of the operational year (Apr 1) ?

Loewe said:

As for DWM 1908 was the strongest year of production of the G98, 1906 & 1907 for WMO, huge numbers while the arsenals all dropped by 2/3 from 1906 to 1907

Click to expand...

This is a speculation, but it looks as if DWM and WMO were rushing to complete a contract (that of 1904?), while the arsenals were indeed preparing for the new weapons.

Loewe said:

by the war Erfurt's considerable capacity was consumed by Kar.98a (by 1917 the highest production of any maker, any modell until WMO surpassed them in 1943), MG08, MG08/15 and P.08, which truly is astonishing they could make all these systems at the same time, plus bayonets to 1915 and even quite a few G98's 1915-1917

Click to expand...

The meteoric rise of Erfurt is an interesting phenomenon. Storz’s chapter deals exclusively with the Kar98a and left me hungry for more, but I guess few documents survived.

To be more specific in my questioning, I may come back to the title of the thread: is 1909 the trough? Or 1910?

Here is my theory based on guesstimates:

1) Leaving Spandau’s production in 1909 aside, if 1909 if the trough, then Spandau would have had to produce 33,150+10,000-16,400 (WMO prod in 1910) = 26,750 rifles in 1910 to compensate the “loss” of DWM.

2) Coming back to Spandau in 1909, I’ve seen here (https://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?855-Gew98-Research) that a 1909 with a block a serial was identified as a high back in 2004. Let’s thus assume a production of 17,000 rifles at Spandau for 1909.

Then, it would mean that for 1909 to be the trough, Spandau would have had to produce no less than 43,750 rifles (stopping somewhere in the d block)… nearly as close as the 1911 production I've assumed based on your observations.

If you find this more suitable, you can PM me to let me know your opinion about my theory. My intention is to know more about these rifles, get one when I see one, and perhaps avoid that some of them are used as hunting rifles in the future: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFaA0hhwpLI

Cheers,

Guillaume