Jump to content
News Ticker
  • I am now accepting the following payment methods: Card Payments, Apple Pay, Google Pay and PayPal
  • Latest News

    Trajan

    Active Contributor
    • Posts

      101
    • Joined

    • Last visited

    Posts posted by Trajan

    1. I have always believed it stands for Bekleidungsamt and the K stands for Korps. It is usually found together with a Roman numeral, which corresponds to the army corps district.

      Does anyone (Chip!) have a written period reference for this?

      Bekleidungsamt it is and as another person pointed out, this is a naval mark for Kiel: for the army it would be followed by the AK number (using Roman numbers). The DVE 185 regulations of 1909 and subsequently amended are the period reference you need. So, for example, it explains the marking "B.A.II.3.4." as "Bekleidungsamt des ...ten Armeekorps, Betriebsabteilung II, 3.Kompagnie, Waffe nr.4 - B.A.II.3.4."

    2. To my knowledge these crankhandles (EB1 according to Carter nomenclature) were officially issued (alongside EB2) to Prussian and Saxon troops primarily as trench knives. The Bavarians were offered the EB1 and EB2 but refused them saying they were too expensive and just bought regular trench knives for their troops. In May 1915, orders were given for six trench knives to be issued to each front line Infantry company - by June 1916 this had been increased to 24 per company. I think that the preponderance of Saxon unit marks on EB1 and EB2 just represent very conscientious Saxon armourers. EB1 with non-Saxon unit marking have been found but are even rarer the Saxon marked EB1- that are quite rare themsleves! Almost all EB1 and EB2 will have a small inspection stamp somewhere. Hope this helps. Allan

      I'd like to know where you got most of those details please! I don't recall Carter saying anything about these first being offered to the Bavrians, etc., but I am old and so my memory could well be seriously at fault!

      As for possible "very conscientious Saxon armourers." I am not so sure... I have been compiling (very slowly) an index of unit marks on imperial weapons for my personal  use (I am up to 1,000 or so by now), and off-hand, I don't recollect the Saxons being more or less 'conscientous' than any of the other state armourers when it comes to unit-marking . That said, I have some way to go yet with this project and so all might change! However, as there are many more marked Saxon ones than non-Saxon ones, it could well be because Saxony ordered them specifically for its own use. Until 1915, when bayonet orders were centralised at Erfurt, bayonets were ordered by the individual states (which is why most S.14 are marked to Bavaria and Wurttemburg), and this could well have been the case with these EB 01's.

       

      Trajan

    3. The S98/05 is a highly underappreciated bayonet nowadays... But just look at them! In the time the "butcher's knife" was develloped, most of the bayonets were much longer and thinner. This made them sort of fragile weapons. With the S98/05 a shorter bayonet with wider blade was a great improvement and the bayonet could also be used for other purposes like cutting wood etc.

      Actually, the S.98/05 was originally designed to be as much a robust cutting tool as a bayonet. When introduced, the sawback version was intended originally for issue to the Pioniere- and Eisenbahntruppen only, for cutting down and clearing small bushes and other vegetation, while issue of the non-sawback type was at first restricted to the Fussartillerie- and the Telegraphentruppen only, for field use as a basic chopping tool. It was only bcause of the shortage of S.98 and its unsuitability for field use that resulted in the issuing of the S.98/05 to all infantrymen commencing in late 1914 /early 1915.

      Not a hammer amigo! The 1915 Erfurt were not straight along the back... even when tey added the metal plate they had to bend it.... Here is a 1915 Erfurt with one of the regular ones with a straight flat plate...

      post-119-0-31233500-1386188595.jpg

      Nice pair of transitional ones there - the high ears were left on when the flashguard was fitted.

      Although made in the industrial age, these WW1 bayonets are still artisanal in a way... they have "personality" that WW2 ones dont... just see the small differences.....

      post-119-0-11105500-1386274885.jpg

      Too right they are highly personalised artefacts.... Try fitting the grips from one 98/05 onto another 98/05 - not always easy...

      I dont know if I am going to go down the rocky road of bayonet collecting, but here are the makers I have at the moment...

       

      Deutschemachinenfabrik A.G. Duisberg - notice even the screws are stamped!! Abnahme 1916

      post-119-0-37356500-1386407413.jpg

      That's a bit of  rarity as in my limited experience, by 1916 they had generally stopped stamping the screws... Wonder if they are old stock? Does the 'fraktur' letter match the ones on the pommel and/or the spine?

       

      Note incidentally the slightly bent 'back' - I have seen this on a fair few 98/05's, the tang being at a slight downwards angle to the blade spine. It can't be damage, IMHO, as it would take a heck of a lot to bend it like that. I guess a faulty press at the factory? The original blueprints for these bayonets are incredibly detailed and I can see how a mistake might have been made in the rush to get them produced.

    4. This AS71/98 is a hard to find bayonet... Anyway, it took me more than 15 years to find one with matching numbers...
      The AS71/98 is a transformed AS71 (Artillerie Seitengewehr model 1871), actually they used only the blade of a AS71 and replaced the handle à la S98 to fit the Gew. 98... The original scabbard of the AS71 was used unaltered... This happened between 1910 and 1914...
      The AS71/98 was mostly used by Artillerie and Landwehr...
       

      jowo.jpg

       

      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

    5. 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. 

    6. Guys,

       

      Got this tonight, the sawback appears to have been removed at some point, it is dated 18 and the frog is the best part I think?

       

      I will try and strip back the scabbard while my hand is still in having done the MG 131 recently, I also have some of the hammerite left, can't do any worse than it looks now.

       

      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... 

    7. Recently I picked up this interesting CdV portrait, from a photograpic studio in (Hamburg) Altona. It is an Unteroffizier of the Hanseatic Infantry Regt. Nr.76.

      Interesting, because on the reverse of the card is not, as usual, the name and address of the photographer but a bird's view over the Regimental Barracks.

      Also interesting to note is the special Kokarde, with the Hanseatic Cross (Red on white), not to be mixed up with the Landwehr cross.

      Nice card! Would I be correct in thinking that he is wearing a Prussian Centennial Medal?

    8. Hello,

      Here is the quote from Kraus, "Ein weiterer Entscheid von 14.9.1917 wies darauf hin, daß Wickelgamaschen nur für Fliegerformationen, planmäßige Sturm-Bataillone und Truppen mit Gebirgsausrüstung zugelassen seien." So, it was actually 1917 that this decision was made. He goes on to say that in practice, this directive was largely ignored.

      Chip

      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!

    9. 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-BataillioneFlieger, and mountain troops. 

       

    10. Hi all,

      Here is a better image of the person in question. Ccj was correct about the pilot badge.

      And here is another photo of (I think) a member from the same regiment, who was also in the Fliegertruppe.

       

      Thanks agin.

      Matt.

      post-15692-0-49272100-1414952763.png

      post-15692-0-10873200-1414952779.png

      Hmmm. I think that second photo might actually be of a J.z.P officer.

      At first I thought these men had Currasier cuffs so what is the difference in the uniform between Currasiers and Jaeger zu Pferde please? 

    11. The marking appears to be "3.K.R.3.119", which to me would stand for "Kürassier Regiment Nr.3, 3.Eskadron, 119" The 119 being the weapon's number. However, my reference on weapons markings say the Kürassier used only a "K", no "R".

      ... It's also possible that the markings mean entirely something else.

       

      Chip

       

      I agree with Chip. Kürassiere did use only a "K".

      The sabre ist stamped with 1920. What about a changing of the regimental stamp? Please have a look at the K. There is a bow above it. If yes, it could be changed into an R. So we´d have:

      3./R.R.3.119

      In 1920 it would indicate the 3.Esk./Reiter-Regiment 3, weapon 119. The 3./RR3 was in Stendal.

       

      Having research sword markings for my own collection, there is nothing more confusing than pre-WW1 unit markings. One list I have copied suggests K.R. could simply be Kavallerie-Regiment

      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

    12. The regiment was newly formed in Bulgaria in October of 1916 as a Jäger regiment consisting of three battalions of Jägers, two of which were Prussian (7th and 9th Jäger Batls.) and one Bavarian (b.Res.Jäger Batl.Nr.1).

       

      In 1917 the Bavarian Kriegsministerium officially named it, "29.Inf.Rgt.(Jäger Regiment)".

       

      I believe they fought the Turks (their supposed allies) over the oil fields.

       

      Chip

      According to this site - https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/29._Bayerisches_Infanterie-Regiment_(Jäger-Regiment) formed on the 25th October to be precise!

      Eric has a point.... Prussian Kokarde with Bavarian Buttons....

      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.

    13. 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.

    14. 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.

    15. 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!

    16.  

      I am hoping someone can identify what the uniform means as far as rank, position, etc...  All I know is that the gentleman was a member of the Ulan (Ulanen??) in Germany, the picture was taken between 1873 and 1975, and the gentleman was approximately 20 years old when the photo was taken.  Any help would be greatly appreciated - as it is an ancestor. :)  BTW - what's with the cigar?!??!?!?!?

      Carl_Wilhelm_Lueg_abt_1873-1875.thumb.jp

       

      Oops - the pic was taken between 1873 and 1875.....

      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!

    ×
    ×
    • Create New...

    Important Information

    We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.