Bayonets with a possible Gallipoli pedigree

[trajan]

Interesting to see this one because my one "possible" makes for an interesting comparison - a Turked p1907, also Australian marked and also Enfield manufactured, from the month before yours. Unfortunately not such a nice example!

4.jpg

1.jpg2.jpg3.jpg

Is it serialled? If so, I would go for Turked - otherwise I am as with SS - Up the Khyber! Scabbard looks German - central screw - with a repaired frog-stud.

But interesting, nonetheless!

[shippingsteel]

For your part you have kindly shown an example of a 1918 Vickers that Aleck has, and which been adapted to fit the Kirikale Mauser - and which is (IIRC) serial-numbered to boot. OK, so some P.1907's got to Turkey after the GW - but how? My point was that I could not really see any circumstances under which they could have been supplied to Turkey by the UK!

Your lack of understanding of what is a very simple matter continues to astound me.! You wanted proof of what I was talking about, so I offered an example as evidence in my first post.

You didn't bother to look at that example at the time, and so I posted it on this thread for easy reference. The point is that this bayonet is post-war, serial numbered and NOT modified.

Yes it has been 'Turked' as in cutdown to their standard length but it has NOT had its crossguard replaced. This shows that it was still being used on the SMLE rifle, no Kirrikale Mauser.

And as I said in that initial post "Turkey did purchase a lot of post-war surplus rifles". After the war Turkey was keen on re-armament and there was ample military surplus to choose from.

This does not mean that the British "supplied" anyone with rifles. After the war many countries had a surplus of now unnecessary equipment which they then felt a need to dispense with.

Cheers, S>S

[trajan]

You didn't bother to look at that example at the time, and so I posted it on this thread for easy reference. The point is that this bayonet is post-war, serial numbered and NOT modified.

You are quite right cobber, I was flashing up and down ("Ooooooh, Matron!") on that page and confused Aleck's with the one 4G posted! Classic case of my inability to multi-task when the kids are around... Oh, and yes, Otto shows some of those ones as well...

(Aleck's bayonet, by the way, was posted at: http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=166648&page=3#entry1625667, and here is a photograph of the ricasso showing the date - not visible in the one SS reproduced, which makes it look as if it doesn't have a clearance hole!)

So, I wonder where and when these unmodified but 'Turked' ones came from? I still think - not even an "opinion", mind! - that post Korea and from the UK is a possibility, given that the Turks did receive a large contingent of Garand's at that time. Anyway, Aleck's is not a Gallipoli or ME capture by any stretch of the imagination, so now we can get back on topic? And SS, do you have any possibles / probables to share with us?

[shippingsteel]

No, I have a problem with the premise of "Gallipoli Bayonets" as a description, and feel that kind of talk is reserved for dealers justifying a price.!

When you consider that the entire weapon inventory of the Australian Army that was made prior to 1915, has valid claims to be included on the list.

Unlike the British Army there was no pattern of unit marking as such, only the State/Military District markings, so there is no way of discriminating.

And to imply that remaining intact (ie. HQ) is any gauge is also not valid, as far more weapons stayed on in service to be later modified, right through WW2.

As shown by my example posted on the other page, made in 1911 & stamped for Australian use, continuing on until surplussed in the '60s, is a "possible".

Cheers, S>S

[trajan]

No, I have a problem with the premise of "Gallipoli Bayonets" as a description, and feel that kind of talk is reserved for dealers justifying a price.!

When you consider that the entire weapon inventory of the Australian Army that was made prior to 1915, has valid claims to be included on the list.

Unlike the British Army there was no pattern of unit marking as such, only the State/Military District markings, so there is no way of discriminating.

And to imply that remaining intact (ie. HQ) is any gauge is also not valid, as far more weapons stayed on in service to be later modified, right through WW2.

As shown by my example posted on the other page, made in 1911 & stamped for Australian use, continuing on until surplussed in the '60s, is a "possible".

Cheers, S>S

Ahhhhhh, now I am with you - but 'dealer talk! Now, now, SS - but hang-about, when I opted out of the Lithgow that was offered to me you wrote: "This would make it issued very late in 1914, right 'in the slot' for being a "Gallipoli bayonet".!" Shock, horror!

But I see your point, as it were. What I was hoping for was a show of examples in the family, museums, etc., that were indeed Gallipoli heirlooms. There are plenty of German bayonets around marked as souvenirs of this or that episode or event in the GW, but I am familiar with only one bayonet, a German one at that, which has a contemporary label explaining that it was picked up from a trench at Gallipoli and so is a certain 'bring-back'. I find it somewhat surprising that there don't seem to be any, or if so, very few, examples of marked or known veteran pieces with solid or probable Gallipoli connections.

As a second line of interest I thought it would be interesting to see some of the possibles/probables that GWF members have. If nothing else it has at least brought up a crop of P.1888's which are in that possible/probable range, of interest to many, I suspect, given the debate over how commonly used they may have been at the time. Obviously, I think it would be taking a very negative and almost Norwegian approach to deny that intact examples of bayonets of the right period that are found in Turkey have a strong claim to be possible/probable captures - as for example with the Lithgow I posted, and which you (not me!) suggested might be a "Gallipoli bayonet". As a corollary it could be said that pristine Australian-marked HQ's found in Australia should be considered as ones that probably never left that continent. But let's not get too sidetracked on issues likes this, not the least because if we start on that then we have to consider that with 70,000 British troops at Gallipoli as opposed to 20,000 AIF, then yes, we would have to consider that the entire weapon inventory of the British Army made prior to 1915 has valid claims to be included on the list - excluding, of course, those items marked to units not involved in the campaign...

Trajan

[trajan]

For the German bayonet mentioned above as found at Gallipoli - see: http://s400910952.websitehome.co.uk/germancolonialuniforms/militaria/bayonets%20asienkorps.htm

It is a S.98/05. a.A., m.S., marked "W.K.2500", for "Werft Kiel" and so probably issued to a sailor from the SMS Goeben serving (or so it says on the page) with a detached machine gun unit.

[nigelfe]

Given that 29 Div, which landed early on 25 Apr, mostly comprised pre-war regular infantry battalions previously posted around the Empire, then they probably had an interesting mix of bayonets.

[trajan]

Taking note that some of the P.1907 and other GB bayonets I pick up over here with markings of units at Gallipoli may have come from elsewhere in the Ottoman Empire (or be even later imports!) I have re-titled this thread to reflect that fact.

And so we now proceed to post another example of what might be such a bayonet! I.E., one bought in Turkey and marked to a unit present at Gallipoli, in this case the WELSH Regiment, so possibly in use 'over 'ere' with either the 1/4th Battalion or 1/5th Battalion or 8th (Service) Battalion (Pioneers) at Gallipoli.

The hilt area is not in the best of conditions, as can be seen, but the blade is good, except that the markings are confusing. I think 1/11, with 're-issues' in 1912 and 1914, but I am - as always - happy to be corrected there. The 'serial' number is also a tad hard to read but I am 99% certain it is three digits not 4.

The scabbard has a SOS mark and is dated 1910. I suspect that the locket was replaced at a later date, as I always thought those lockets with the raised rivets were GW or even late GW period - again, happy for comments.

More to come!

[trajan]

Post 33 continued...

[jscott]

Nice bayonet, Trajan - what a cracking find. Is that a "2" above the "WEL" marking?

Scabbard markings are excellent too - no idea about the locket being a replacement, but if the scabbard is original to the bayonet (and it was found in Turkey) then it seems unlikely there would have been an opportunity to make such a replacement.

Cheers, Jonathan

[Michael Haselgrove]

Julian,

I too am unsure of the start date for rivet heads to be left proud although that provision may have been part of the wartime economies approved on the 19th November 1915. If it helps, I have three scabbards dated 1915 with the rivets left proud. However, I have some doubt that a Pattern 1907 would have been sold out of service during the war?

Regards,

Michael.

[calibre792x57.y]

Just one point worth considering is that Turkey was supplied with Enfield made Hotchkiss M.G,s during WW2 in an attempt to keep them on side. These were in their original 0.303 calibre. I bought three of them when they came onto the collector's market; none had any Turkish markings, nor sold out of service markings, all were made in 1918.. As these were 0.303 in calibre it seems not unlikely that the Turks also received British rifles and bayonets SW.

[shippingsteel]

With the SOS mark on the scabbard, it doesn't appear to be original to the bayonet, but it could be an Australian issue scabbard from pre-war shipments.

You need to inspect the locket closely for inspection markings near the staple to check if it matches the leather. Bayonet looks to have 3 'reissue' stamps.

Cheers, S>S

[jscott]

My latest contender for this thread. A 1912-dated HQR P1907 marked to the 4th KOSB. Not in the finest condition, but I'm starting to actually prefer the battered examples I own - gives me greater certainty that they saw some use.

Cheers, Jonathan

[jscott]

[shippingsteel]

That's an interesting bayonet you have there J. Seen some use alright, been dehooked, had a hole drilled, and SOS'd (with multiple reissues right into the late 1920's it seems)

Cheers, S>S

[msdt]

Yes Jonathan, a nice bayonet - I like them in that condition too.

Your bayonet, Trajan, reminds me of the one I posted previously that was the subject of debate as to whether it was to the 1st Battalion of the West Surrey Regiment - I think it is. It is an EFD HQR of Jan 1910 (without a clearance hole), and has 3 reissue dates for '11, '12 and '14 - so all before WW1.

Cheers,

Tony

[jscott]

Nice bayonet Tony, I really like the HQR examples. A 1914 reissue date is always nice to have as well.

Hey S>S, there is actually a '37 reissue date as well (near the SOS marking). It would be fascinating to know the actual history of the bayonet and where it has been. I'm currently trying to work out when that style of marking, i.e. "T / 4KOSB", was actually used. The bayonets I have seen with it generally have post-ww1 reissue dates which would suggest it could be a post-war / WW2 marking. Having said that I don't want to leap to conclusions as my personal sample is only two - a 4KOSB and a 9RF.

Cheers, Jonathan

[trajan]

Back from an enforced absence (no, not law, nor wife!), and so sorry for late response...

Nice bayonet, Trajan - what a cracking find. Is that a "2" above the "WEL" marking?

I was wondering about that possible '2' but did not have the courage of my own convictions! Thanks J!

... it seems not unlikely that the Turks also received British rifles and bayonets SW.

Indeed, SW, which is why I changed the title. In fact an Aussie contact of mine is researching that aspect right now, and has already shown me some records to bolster that angle, but it is his research and so I'll leave it for him to comment when he's ready. In the meantime, though, yes, a note of caution is always needed, and I would only go over the 50% possibility when it comes to a bayonet bought in Turkey and marked to an ANZAZ unit. As far as I know, no Aussie or NZ bayonets made their way back to Turkey in any post GW or later exchanges...

With the SOS mark on the scabbard, it doesn't appear to be original to the bayonet, but it could be an Australian issue scabbard from pre-war shipments.

You need to inspect the locket closely for inspection markings near the staple to check if it matches the leather. Bayonet looks to have 3 'reissue' stamps.

Cheers, S>S

Too right! Those scabbards get around and everywhere! I'll check the inspection markings later... Any extra on those 'reissue' markings? I could see two, and thought there were three, but I was bu**ered if I could work it!

Trajan

[trajan]

And so - onward!

IMG_0603.jpg

That's a fun one! But isn't that clearance hole on the large side?

Yes Jonathan, a nice bayonet - I like them in that condition too.

Your bayonet, Trajan, reminds me of the one I posted previously that was the subject of debate as to whether it was to the 1st Battalion of the West Surrey Regiment - I think it is. It is an EFD HQR of Jan 1910 (without a clearance hole), and has 3 reissue dates for '11, '12 and '14 - so all before WW1.

Many thanks for posting that - I don't have a large collection of these P.1907'2, nor do I claim to know much about P.1907's and their 're-issue' markings, but interesting to see how these on yours and on mine are all stacked on the one side.

Trajan

[trajan]

So here's another that I think has a somewhat stronger than 50% claim to be a Gallipoli capture - it's marked for Victoria on the crossguard plus SOS on the pommel. It is in Turkey with a collector I have bought from before, and may come my way - but being the honest guy ( ) I identified the marking for him and so it is probably now out of my price range....

[trajan]

There is another possible spanner in the works here, regarding Turkish use of pre- and Gallipoli period P.1907's and bayonets which I have just coma across... Namely that according to P.Jowett's Armies of the Greek-Turkish War 1919–22, p.22, the 'Nationalists' fighting for Mustafa Kemal Pasha in that revolutionary episode also had access to ".303in Lee Enfield rifles" that had been originally supplied by the British to the recently defeated Armenian army. Indeed, on the same page the claim is made (but with no reference) that MK Pasha "...sent an ironic message to British Prime Minister Lloyd George, thanking him for the 40,000 rifles received from this source".

Can anyone verify this story?

Trajan

[Mickjam]

Hi here is my 1914 Lithgow,but i cannot read MD markings.

Mick

[trajan]

SS is the one for these markings, and he'll put something up later, I suspect - but what is that crossguard number? Should be a sequence - I think - like "MD [single digit number] [five or more digit number]. Also it will help to see the markings on the other side of the ricasso.

Trajan

[Mickjam]

Hi Trajan

Here is another view.

Mick