Is this an Austrian unit marking?

[siegersallee]

Hi All,
I recently saw a broomhandle that has this marking on one of the straps and on the stock.

A.R.95.1.K.8

Can anyone help me decipher it?


Richard

[NoncomRetired]

Originally Posted by siegersallee

Hi All,
I recently saw a broomhandle that has this marking on one of the straps and on the stock.

A.R.95.1.K.8

Can anyone help me decipher it?


Richard

I'll take a guess:

Artillery Rgt 95 1 Kompany waffen #8

(95th Field Artillery Regiment, 1st Company, weapon #8) part of the 10th Ersatz Div from 1916-1918

[Norme]

This particular gun has been the subject of prolonged debate on Jan Still's forum. The problem with Noncom's interpretation (which was also mine) is that Artillery Regiments did not have companies, they had Abteilungs and Battereien.
Regards, Norm
http://luger.gunboards.com/showthrea...-95-1-K-8-quot

[klaus 3338]

It is not according the D.V.E. 185 and means Anhaltisches Infanterie Regiment 93; it was part of the IV. army corps.

[NoncomRetired]

Originally Posted by klaus 3338

It is not according the D.V.E. 185 and means Anhaltisches Infanterie Regiment 93; it was part of the IV. army corps.

93 or 95?

[NoncomRetired]

Originally Posted by Norme

This particular gun has been the subject of prolonged debate on Jan Still's forum. The problem with Noncom's interpretation (which was also mine) is that Artillery Regiments did not have companies, they had Abteilungs and Battereien.
Regards, Norm
http://luger.gunboards.com/showthrea...-95-1-K-8-quot

Having spent seven years in the Filed Artillery, I had taken the 'K' used into consideration. What we have here is trying to interpret what transpired in assigning this Luger with this unit identification over 100 years ago. We don't really know what "exactly" happened.

Maybe the armorer had just been transferred to the artillery, after ten years service in the infantry and he hadn't become artillerized!!!!. Who knows???? Maybe he thought infantrymen were more smarter and had an attitude. I know we signal corpsmen always believed, 'if ya give an artilleryman a sold steel ball, he would have found a way to break it in five minutes"

What both you and I conceived was a natural interpretation.

[NoncomRetired]

Hope no one got the idea I never like 13B ground pounders, we loved the hell out of them in Nam, especially if they were on target but peacetime was a different story.

[klaus 3338]

Originally Posted by NoncomRetired

93 or 95?

uff, I made a big mistake. I oversaw the 95. Now I am at the beginning and must still say: scio, nescio!
Klaus

[NoncomRetired]

Originally Posted by Norme

This particular gun has been the subject of prolonged debate on Jan Still's forum. The problem with Noncom's interpretation (which was also mine) is that Artillery Regiments did not have companies, they had Abteilungs and Battereien.
Regards, Norm
http://luger.gunboards.com/showthrea...-95-1-K-8-quot

Well, more hours looking, researching, reading............it's a love/hate hobby finding historical data.

I guess it 'could' be as someone else on Dan's Boards pointed out:

Recruiting Depot of the Field Artillery Regt 95 "BUT" was it a 'company' or a 'battery'?? I can't find any 'depot' info but I will say this, for artillery battery to be called "battery' they would have to have 'guns'. A recruiting/depot company would not have any 'guns'. (artillery pieces)

Not to distract from the OP's thread but a bit of trivia:

Why do the call the Artillery the "King of Battle" and the Infantry the "Queen of Battle"?

[siegersallee]

Interesting information...but, is this an Austrian unit marking or a German?

[NoncomRetired]

Originally Posted by siegersallee

Interesting information...but, is this an Austrian unit marking or a German?

German....IMO.