Why not more gas-seal revolvers?

larvatus

Moderator
I dont have the data, but it was in fact very rare for anyone who had made captain or above to really be in any danger except to arty.
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that high military ranks bear little risk of falling in battle. However, the junior officer corps were noted for heavy losses in British, French, German, and Austro-Hungarian armies. For example, British officer casualty rates as a whole were about twice as high as those of men in the ranks. (Laurence Housman and Jay Winter, War Letters of Fallen Englishmen, Pine Street Books, 2002, p. v.) The Russian military suffered especially high casualty rates in WWI. By 1917 less than ten percent of the Imperial officer corps were regular officers who had been in the service prior to 1914. (Brian D. Taylor, Politics and the Russian Army, Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 82 and the references therein.) In a typical engagement during the 1917 Nivelle Offensive, a Russian report placed the death count among their two brigades of infantry sent to fight by the side of the French, at 4472 men and 70 officers. (Jamie H. Cockfield, With Snow on Their Boots: The Tragic Odyssey of the Russian Expeditionary Force in France During World War I, Palgrave Macmillan, 1999, p. 105.)

So much for the safety conferred by noble descent. By contrast, the officer casualty rate for the egalitarian American forces in the Vietnam War was slightly below the enlisted rate. (John Ellis, The Sharp End of War, David and Charles, 1980, pp. 162-64; Richard Holmes, Arts of War: The Behaviour of Men in Battle, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1986, p. 350.)
 

Wildalaska

Moderator
For example, British officer casualty rates as a whole were about twice as high as those of men in the ranks. (Laurence Housman and Jay Winter, War Letters of Fallen Englishmen, Pine Street Books, 2002, p. v.) The Russian military suffered especially high casualty rates in WWI. By 1917 less than ten percent of the Imperial officer corps were regular officers who had been in the service prior to 1914. (Brian D. Taylor, Politics and the Russian Army, Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 82 and the references therein.) In a typical engagement during the 1917 Nivelle Offensive, a Russian report placed the death count among their two brigades of infantry sent to fight by the side of the French, at 4472 men and 70 officers. (Jamie H. Cockfield, With Snow on Their Boots: The Tragic Odyssey of the Russian Expeditionary Force in France During World War I, Palgrave Macmillan, 1999, p. 105.)

So much for the safety conferred by noble descent. By contrast, the officer casualty rate for the egalitarian American forces in the Vietnam War was slightly below the enlisted rate. (John Ellis, The Sharp End of War, David and Charles, 1980, pp. 162-64; Richard Holmes, Arts of War: The Behaviour of Men in Battle, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1986, p. 350.)

See...we read the same books:D

WildhesjustsmarterthanmeAlaska TM
 

larvatus

Moderator
In 1895 Europe officers were still mostly noblemen who were not expected to really fight in battles. Their purpose was to control their soldiers. THe pistol was designed to execute deserters and POWs.
Nonsense. Fighting in battle was the main qualification of nobility.
Showing up to battle, yes. Leading a charge, yes. Grabbing a rifle pointing it at an enemy soldier and pulling the trigger, not so much.
Your rebuttal misses my point, meant to refute the claim that aristocrats engaged in class struggle in wartime, instead of leading a charge against enemy troops.
I am not sure what your point with the movie link was, as I have not watched it
La grande illusion is notable for many things, not least of which is the soi-disant Count Erich Oswald Hans Carl Maria von Stroheim und Nordenwall telling Pierre Fresnay, a man of nearly equally suspect origins, born Pierre Jules Louis Laudenbach: "Boeldieu, I do not know who is going to win this war, but I know one thing: the end, whatever it may be, will be the end of the Rauffensteins and the Boeldieus." I object to insinuations that the equestrian classes failed to put up a good fight on their way out.
 

larvatus

Moderator
The Nagant was the right tool for its job, empowering babushkas to guard ammo dumps. The Tokarev was the sidearm of choice for front line duty.
Gotta disagree with you there Mike, the Nagant saw plenty of front line duty in WWII...

And at least in terms of numbers, the war year guns represent the bulk of the ones made
I didn't mean to deny the M1895 Nagant being made in vast numbers between 1941 and 1945, or seeing plenty of front line duty during that period. But its survival is anything but a matter of "it was there and the tooling to make it was there". On the contrary, as reported here, in late 1941 many of the sub-factories of the Tula complex responsible for its production, were moved to Zlatoust, Saratov, Kuibyshev, Chelatinsk, and Izhevsk. But the Tokarev TT33 was meant to replace the Nagant revolver in military service, and did so at the pace and to the extent of its availability.
 

Tamara

Moderator Emeritus
larvatus said:
However, the junior officer corps were noted for heavy losses in British, French, German, and Austro-Hungarian armies. For example, British officer casualty rates as a whole were about twice as high as those of men in the ranks.

Hence the old saw about the leftenant's main job being to die gallantly. (Frequently with swagger stick in hand and Webley still in holster, while inspiring the men of his platoon by the example of his senseless sacrifice.)

The Nagant is certainly more than adequate for shooting fleeing conscripts or putting a period at the end of a counterrevolutionary's signed confession.

The Nagant and the French Mle.1892 represent an odd evolutionary branch of military handguns; armies giddy over smallbore jacketed smokeless rifle rounds found out quickly that the concept didn't translate all that well to revolvers.

The Russians had a perfectly serviceable revolver before they went pistol shopping in Belgium, too...
 

Wildalaska

Moderator
I object to insinuations that the equestrian classes failed to put up a good fight on their way out.

Technically, they continued to put that fight up until the Bohemian corporal framed Von Fritsch. Yet, even today, there is a tendency to tug one's forelock at an impoverished Hohenstaufen or 3rd son of the Viscount Falmouth is there not?

Frequently with swagger stick in hand and Webley still in holster, while inspiring the men of his platoon by the example of his senseless sacrifice.

Or like Capt. Neville, kicking the soccer ball to the barbed wire...

http://www.iwm.org.uk/server/show/nav.2207

WildbettermanthaniamAlaska TM
 

larvatus

Moderator
The Nagant and the French Mle.1892 represent an odd evolutionary branch of military handguns; armies giddy over smallbore jacketed smokeless rifle rounds found out quickly that the concept didn't translate all that well to revolvers.

The Russians had a perfectly serviceable revolver before they went pistol shopping in Belgium, too...
It only goes to show that innumerable one-shot-stop casualties of the 7.62x38R round only got there by dint of lacking good old American stick-to-itiveness undeterrable by any bore size below .429".
 

Tamara

Moderator Emeritus
larvatus said:
It only goes to show that innumerable one-shot-stop casualties of the 7.62x38R round...

Behind the ear in an interrogation room doesn't count. Certainly for horses and restive wogs, projectiles in the .429-.455" range seem to be indicated.

Of course, by the 1950's, even the Soviets lost their fascination with being able to use the same cleaning jag on their pistols and rifles.

(And has any nation on the planet moved as far from one end of the handgun aesthetic spectrum to the other as did the Russkies when they went from the No.3 Russian to the M1895?... Well, maybe Germany went that far in the other direction when they traded their M1883 for the P.08.)
 
really? Check out the casualty figures among officers in WWI
The gun was designed and accepted 20years before the war. A lot changed in Russia from 1905 to 1917, and like I said before, the junior officers were there on the front, but they were doing a lot of yelling and posturing, not shooting at the enemy. Previous to WWI they were pretty lucky in that most organized armies would not target the other armies officers in Europe. Machine guns, poisonous gases, and ordering week long artillery barrages by the mile of front all changed that.
I am sure that having really practical long range rifles pushed it along also.
Remember that Washington was in the sights of British sharpshooters on several occasions and they did not pull the trigger.
 

larvatus

Moderator
A lot changed in Russia from 1905 to 1917, and like I said before, the junior officers were there on the front, but they were doing a lot of yelling and posturing, not shooting at the enemy.
Well, that clears it. The three-year attrition rate of the entire Imperial officer corps since 1914, adding up to over ninety percent since 1914, must have been due to popping a vein from doing a lot of yelling and posturing.
 

larvatus

Moderator
Behind the ear in an interrogation room doesn't count. Certainly for horses and restive wogs, projectiles in the .429-.455" range seem to be indicated.
Russian Civil War casualties number in the high seven figures. Many of them fell in battle under the fire of small arms. The Nagant M1895 was the dominant sidearm for both sides in the conflict, with no shortage of horses and restive wogs for targets. In fact, progressive Russians take justifiable pride in having allowed a wog to rule their land eight decades before retarded Americans followed suit.
 

Tamara

Moderator Emeritus
larvatus said:
In fact, progressive Russians take justifiable pride in having allowed a wog to rule their land...

Dzhugashvili was French?

The things I learn here... ;)

(I see that hyperbole plays better in some venues than others. This routine meets with thunderous applause elsewhere, but here at the Rotary Club of Beyond The Pillars Of Hercules the schtick seems to fall flat... :p )
 
Well, that clears it. The three-year attrition rate of the entire Imperial officer corps since 1914, adding up to over ninety percent since 1914, must have been due to popping a vein from doing a lot of yelling and posturing.
By 1917 you have an entirely different environment then 1895. For starters a whole lot of the casualties are taken from attacks on an area such as artillery or machine gun fire at max ranges. Tsar's army 1895, officers are not supposed to shoot at the enemy and enemy is not SUPPOSED to shoot at them. They lead the troops they discipline the troops, but they are not supposed to fill the role of "Lt. Richard Winters" Revolutionary army 1917 totally different story. Throughout WWI you get a very fast transition to the new role of an officer engaging the enemy directly.

1895 Tsar is picking out revolvers, the 7.62X38r meets the specs needed for an officer in HIS army.
1917 and it really does not.
I agree the pistol survived so long because it was available along with the machinery to manufacture. It was adequate as an officers sidearm in WWII, but nothing terrific.
 

larvatus

Moderator
Tsar's army 1895, officers are not supposed to shoot at the enemy and enemy is not SUPPOSED to shoot at them.
The Russian army suffered catastrophic officer casualties in every conflict it had along the Southern frontier. Why would they suppose otherwise in 1895?
 
Dear Larvartus,
You are missing the point here. No one is arguing the officers were not getting shot. The argument is that their role was not to shoot. You do not have to shoot in order to get shot. Assuming we are talking about the non-european border of Russia with the term "Southern Frontier" I think you make a point for me. Asian armies never had this post renaissance attempt to limit officers as targets that you see in Europe. In Europe you go from Knights being practically immune to a foot soldier to high caliber guns that shred armor. THe aristocracy responds with this notion that officers are there to control the soldiers not do the fighting. Doesn't mean they don't get shot or the never shoot an enemy soldier in combat. It just isn't their role. Like a medic today. They still get killed. They still get targeted at times, even though they aren't supposed to be targeted. In some situations they even kill someone themselves. It is not their role.
 

Sulaco2

New member
Harrumph!

Getting back to the revolver in question….Two versions, single action for NCOs’ and simple solders. Double action for officers and their demonstrated higher smarts level. Also say what you want about the trigger but the Russians after WWII competed around the world in pistol competitions with the Nagant and won! :eek:
There is also a 2” version made for the KGB, no long range shooting here, the behind the ear grouping was all that was required. Worked on the Czar’s family in prison at least. Story is the pistol was a failure in shooting the family at first until the KGB guys realized that the woman had stuffed gold and jewelry in their girdles’. :barf:
 
Russians after WWII competed around the world in pistol competitions with the Nagant and won!
THis amazes me. I can't hit a can at 15 yards with mine. Even single action.

Two versions, single action for NCOs’ and simple solders. Double action for officers and their demonstrated higher smarts level.
I read this all the time, but I have never seen a SAO nagant and I would assume SAOs would be more common if they were given to NCO and support enlisted.

Sewed, stuffed, same thing.
 

Sulaco2

New member
I have seen acouple SA versions but you are right they do seem to be rare. Maybe the Reds just gave up and did DA? After all the USSR was THE place for diversity and tolerance of the masses.....:eek:
 

larvatus

Moderator
No one is arguing the officers were not getting shot. The argument is that their role was not to shoot.
Whatever validity it might enjoy in the West, this argument fails for the Russian military. Russian officers of all ranks were trained and expected, both to shoot, and to be shot at. This training enabled Alexander II to dodge five or six revolver bullets fired by Alexander Soloviev in his 1879 assassination attempt, by running zigzag and then crawling on all fours to safety. As an aside, the revolver was an American-made, big-bore, so-called "Bear Killer".
I can't hit a can at 15 yards with mine. Even single action.
The TOZ-36 and the TOZ-49, derivatives of the M1895 Nagant chambered in 7.62x38R and 7.62x26R, are two of the most accurate repeater handguns ever made. There is nothing wrong with their prototype, that cannot be fixed with a modicum of marksmanship.
I have never seen a SAO nagant and I would assume SAOs would be more common if they were given to NCO and support enlisted.
Here you go.
 

Wildalaska

Moderator
THis amazes me. I can't hit a can at 15 yards with mine. Even single action.

Come play with me, I have hit silhouettes at 100 yards :) Takes a while to get there though

I have seen acouple SA versions but you are right they do seem to be rare.

Most of the SA ones were refurbed after the Bolsheviki took over and the SA feature removed. May I mention that I have an original, unrefurbed SA one:p

Dzhugashvili was French?

Actually, IIRC, he would have been a wog in the eyes of the Great Russians, especially since the issue as to whether he was part Ossetian still exists.

On the other hand, wogism may very well be a uniquely British concept..especially as tamara is evidently referring to the fact that wogs start at Dover (aren't you Tam?)

WildwhatawonderfulhistoricaldebatethisisAlaska ™
 
Top