Jump to content


Bronze Membership
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Trajan

  1. Very nice bayonet and even nicer scabbard! So, Clemens and Jung makers? And the 'G' is for Garantie Stahl (Guaranteed Steel)? But, the blade is dated 1862, so I don't think it can be from an AS.1871 - but I could be wrong, and if so, please explain... I am away from homes and will check my books when I get back for this one. Trajan
  2. Neither link worked for me but there is this - http://www.grensland-docs.nl/brondocumenten/monograms-of-german-regiments-1914-1918/
  3. The S.14 is, in many ways, the first of the 'Ersatz'! It and the 'Ersatz' were produced because quite simply, after calling up the reserves, etc., by the end of 1914 Germany found itself well short of almost a million rifles and their bayonets for these men... The design for this bayonet was commissioned on 11th November 1914, with the official name being the Interimsseitengewehr 14, or ‘Interim bayonet (19)14'... The formal blueprint allowed for two versions, one with a muzzle ring for fixing to a Gew.88 the other without for attaching to a Gew.98, which is what was eventually made. It was clearly intended that production of this bayonet be contracted out to small private enterprises instead of the usual large steel-making concerns that were presumably already having problems with making sufficient numbers of S.98/05. In the event, at least six small-scale concerns, none of them with any previous connection with bayonet making, became involved in the making of the S.14, the earliest order apparently being that given by the Bavarians to a Dr.L.Gottscho on the 15th December 1914 for 15,000 S.14, although there is as yet no evidence for the production of any of these weapons by any of the firms involved until the early months of 1915. The type was first extensively discussed by R.W.A.Franz in his Preußisch-reichsdeutsche Bajonette und aufpflanzbare Seitengewehre: von 1807 bis 1945, vol.1, 262-271; then by A.Carter in his German Bayonets, vol 2, 147-159: and morercently it has been exhaustively discussed by I.Jackson, Seitengewehr Models 1914, 5-79.
  4. A nice bayonet, nice frog, and a nice scabbard also now that you have finished working on it! But, the data you give raises some questions... Waffenfabrik Mauser 98/05's dated 1918 are not that common, as most of their production was in 1917, with only (according to my notes) about 239,000 being made in 1918. But a sawback made / issued in 1918 is even less common, and extremely odd as - according to my notes - the order to stop making these 98/05's with sawbacks was issued in July 1917. That aside, the order to remove sawbacks from all those bayonets in service use that had them followed (again according to my notes) in January 1918. Incidentally, given that only 6% or so of 98/05's ever had sawbacks, and that not all were removed, then in reality the sawback removed version that you have (Säge abgeschliffen) is one of the rarer types of S.98/05's...
  5. And along with them large stocks of 'Erstaz' bayonets and Waffenfabrik-Mauser S.98/05's! Almost all the S.98/05's I see over here are WM made, and spine marked and dated 'W / 17'
  6. Looks to me to be a S.98 second pattern (or n.A.) with the two piece grips - you can see the press stud on the pommel
  7. I like the way that the photographer had to amend the placard from a neat 'Erinnerung an den Krieg / 1914' ('It'll all be over by Christmas'!) to add the '-15'...
  8. Nice card! Would I be correct in thinking that he is wearing a Prussian Centennial Medal?
  9. Yes, but my understanding was that the original order for the ordinary man in the trenches re: Wickelgamaschen was made in 1915, and that this order ('Ein weiterer Entschied...) came in 1917... I am away from home for the next few days and cannot check directly, and so would be happy to be corrected!
  10. According to Krauss, Die deutsche Armee, p. 198, with no reference to support unfortunately, when the Herresverwaltung discovered that Gamaschen or Wickelgamaschen were being worn with shoes / ankle boots on the West Front they found this quite unacceptable because (if I understand it properly) they were potentially unhealthy as they would retain moisture. And so they were banned sometime in 1915, except for special troops, e.g. Sturm-Bataillione, Flieger, and mountain troops.
  11. I am pretty certain this is the uniform of the Freiwillige Sanitätskolonne, a volunteer organisation that usually worked in hospitals. The man is a veteran, clearly, but the white hat cover is the giveaway...
  12. At first I thought these men had Currasier cuffs so what is the difference in the uniform between Currasiers and Jaeger zu Pferde please?
  13. First things first - the system of markings did change over time so be careful to use the correct regulations for the relevant period! Second, it is not at all clear from the photograph if the erased mark on the hilt is the same as the scabbard. It looks close, and I will assume that it is. In which case a 1915 sword and scabbard should be marked according to the 1909 regulations (DVE 185), as later ammended, in which case a regular 'K' on a sword and scabbard is appropriate for 'Kavallerie' - but also for 'Kommando', and for 'Kriegsschule'. (And it IS a 'K' not a large 'R' as [1], the letters were always the same size in these markings, and [2], you can see the serifs at the top of the upstrokes on the 'K'!). But I can't think of a military command or kriegsschule that begins with an 'R',,,, In which case, given that DVE 185 gives a regular 'R' for 'Regiment' and also for 'Rekrutendepot', then I would suggest 'Kavallerie Regiment Nr.3, Esk.3, waffe 119' or 'Kavallerie [Regiment] Nr.3 Rekrutendepot, Esk.3, waffe 119'. BUT, that creates a problem... To the best of my knowledge there was no 'Kavallerie Regiment Nr.3'... There was, however, a Kürassier Regiment Nr.3, and although the 1909 regulations do not show a 'K' for Kürassier, they do give - as an example - the marking 'G.K.' as the official marking for the Garde-Kürassier Regiment... So, I reckon it is an 'irregular' marking designating the Kürassier Regiment Nr.3 As for the 1920' mark, this is a nice example of this official marking - and examples on swords are rare as there were so few swords around in the post-1920 German Army! (And while on that subject, although I cannot check right now, I should make it clear that I am pretty certain this marking is not a post-1920 one as if I recall correctly, the marking system under the Weimar was quite different from this.) That apart, for those who don't know, the 1920 mark indicates that this was one of those weapons selected for service use by the Reichswehr after the order of 1 August 1920 (HVBl. 657/7.20.J2.(W2) IV), that all weapons held by them be stamped with the year-mark 1920 to show these have been officially retained for service use as per the Treaty of Versailles regulations. This order, by the way was re-confirmed on 28 August 1920 (HVBl. 498/8.20.J2 (W2)), with official instructions issued 28 September 1920 regarding the size and placement of the mark (HVBl. 302/9.20.J2.(W2)). Trajan
  14. Great photograph! There is a great site on these units at: http://www.grensland-docs.nl/brondocumenten/formationsgeschichte-minenwerfer-1914-1918/ According to that site, if yours is Bayerische no. 4, then it was a Schwere Minenwerfer-Abteilungen
  15. According to this site - https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/29._Bayerisches_Infanterie-Regiment_(Jäger-Regiment) formed on the 25th October to be precise! Well, I am not so sure it is a Prussian cockade... Some of those Bavarian cockades are rather deep blue and that, plus the angle the photograph was taken, might just account for it looking more black than blue... That aside, I would think this is a late war period photograph on account of the absence of any Bavarian collar piping - but that is just conjecture on my part. I know that Bavarian units still had these in the early part of the GW, but don't recall when they stopped wearing them.
  16. 1) The wearing of swords by officers was ended with an order of 19th July 1915, which stipulated that from then on they were to wear a S.98/05, with the exception of airmen and airship personnel who were allowed to wear the kS.98. The Bavarians issued a similar order four weeks later on 20th August. However, photographic evidence is clear that in spite of the regulations many officers preferred to carry the kS.98 or another knife bayonet. 2) An Imperial decree issued in late 1914 ordering that the various cavalry units of the ‘Reichsheer’, which had begun the war with the Kar/98a or Kar/98AV but no bayonet, be issued with the short S.84/98, evidently in response to the way that cavalrymen were increasingly being employed more usefully in a dismounted capacity. This process was certainly under way by February 1915. However, from what I can remember (I will have to check when I get back home), the order for cavalry units to hand back their swords to depots was not issued until about May 1915.
  17. S.98/05's without state ciphers or year dates on the blade spine are not that uncommon but are unusual. This one has the usual 'fraktur' marks in the usual places and so it was certainly officially approved even if the inspector did not complete the spine markings. Perhaps it was unclear as to which state it was going to? Remember that after January 1915, there was a mad rush to order and produce the required number of S.98/05's... In addition, although bayonets were at being ordered on a state-by-state basis at the start of the GW, after 2nd March 1915 the orders for all types of bayonets was centralized at Erfurt. I have a feeling that after that date all bayonets were given a 'W' for Prussia spine mark whoever used them - but I am away from home and can't check my books, so don't quote me on that just yet! But, if that is the case, then this could well have been made early 1915.
  18. Ooops - didn't see your correction (the pic was taken between 1873 and 1875.....) until after I posted the above - so you knew the date... As for the uniform, I would make a guess that this chap has a dark blue uniform with a yellow or red front - both of these colours appear dark grey or even black because of the type of film that was used. He also seems to have silver buttons, in which case I think it could be anyone of Ulan regiments Nrs.5, 6, 7, 8 or 14 (red) or 15 (yellow). No doubt somebody will correct me if I am way off the ID!
  19. The photograph was almost certainly taken before March 1897 which is when a Kaiserheer order instructed the wearing of the national cockade above the State cockade on peaked hats and field caps, the national cockade to be placed on the right side of the pickelhaube and the State version on the left side. I can't find the exact reference for that date right now, but will look for it if it is needed. Nor can I help with the uniform just yet as I am away from home!
  20. A very nice looking piece! It looks like a WR over II, and so 'Wilhelm Rex II' = Wilhelm II. I have seen some of these in photographs of senior officers and I suspect they were some kind of gift for those who gave personal service to Kaiser Bill in his role as King of Prussia. According to my notes Lubbe and Carter's book on German bayonets shows three examples, e.g. pp.132-133, a S.84/98 with a horn handle and monogram badge; also pp.182-183, a non-fixable KS 98; also pp.192-193, a fixable KS 98. Carter vol.II reports that on 19th July 1915, the Prussian War Ministry ordered all regimental officers to replace their swords with S.98/05 bayonets (except for airmen and airship personnel who were allowed to carry the kS.98), the Bavarians following suit a bit later (as usual!). However, the photographic evidence suggests that many officers chose to wear a kS.98 or other short bayonet rather than a S.98/05. Trajan
  • Create New...