Metallurgical aspects of GW period edged weapons

[trajan]

I am opening this thread to continue the discussions of GW period bayonet / sword metallurgy that began here - http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=234820&page=2#entry2350493 , a thread originally devoted to something else entirely! As these posts have stimulated wider(?!) interest in the matter it seemed advisable to start a new thread...The metallurgical studies on that thread, BTW, began at post no. 26, and I'll take the liberty of repeating here the most recent relevant contribution there, post 35, by JMB, as what comes next in this post is my answer to that...

From JMB:

"Since you mentioned the Wilkinson/Solingen connection, I thought I would put up this comparison of English vs. German sword-making steel from 1892. Of course I'm making the (justified/unjustified ?) assumption the sword- and bayonet making steels are the same.

English German

Carbon 1.08 0.738
Silicon 0.141 0.427
Manganese 0.185 0.49
Copper trace 0.06
Phosphorus 0.002 0.036
Sulphur 0.02 0.023

These are %-values. From other reading, the differences (apart from added Carbon) are due to the geographic source of the iron ore.
As an aside, I have read (very likely on GWF) that German rifles resisted rusting better than did British ones; this may correlate (again if rifle steel is similar to blade steel) with enhanced 'etch resistance' that you mention above for higher P-content steel.

1) I honestly have no idea as to whether or not bayonets and swords used the same steel or not. I was always under the impression that except in the case of cavalry swords, they were generally more springy and bendable - except in the case of that carried by poor Captain Dreyfus...

2) Mike Rose, in his Twelve Inches book includes the metal specification for the P.1888 bayonet, which (oddly enough) was not issued until 1 September 1897... This specification, which stipulated crucible steel (more expensive than bulk steel) is listed as "SA/118, Sword Bayonet, Rifle, Pattern 1888":

"Carbon 0.90% - 1.15%
Silicon not above 0.20%
Manganese 0.15% - 0.35%
Phosphorus not above 0.02%
Sulphur not above 0.02%
Copper, and other impurities - traces"

3) For comparison, I just happen to have on my portable box (working away from home and office today) the official specifications for the crucible steel used by Haenel for the S.98/05.

Carbon 0.70% - 0.90%
Silicon 0.40%
Manganese 0.55%
Phosphorus 0.03%
Sulphur 0.03%
Copper 0.12%

4) I don't have my Ersatz metal analyses to hand - but these were all done XRF, and so will not show all the 'trace' elements... I'll post them at some point.

5) I have no idea as to gun barrels - Khaki might have an observation there, as doubtless will others!

Going back to the points 2) and 3), though, the Haenel specifications are for a much higher level of phosphorus than the P.1888, and we see the same thing in the 1892 Solingen 'recipe' for swords compared to the British one. So, yes, Solingen-made steel for edged weapons was of a higher quality in this respect - and also for other things: according to one source, by 1913, Soligen-made cutlery satisfied almost 60% of the world market, so, yes, their products were damn good!

Julian

EDIT: minor location correction!

[Khaki]

thank you Julian,

Just for the sake of an unqualified opinion, I would agree that as in (1) the blades of swords would have to be 'springier' based on the nature of their work requirement, especially with swords used in mounted action, a sword blade thrust into an opponent while on the move would require a flexibility of recovery to prevent deformity or breakage.

A bayonet still requires flexibility but not as much as a sword as the blade is shorter and less likely to encounter the same degree of stress, the knife blade bayonets are more rigid compared to epee blades which suffer a greater degree of deformity which is apparent to most collectors.

In the case of rifles, and again I am no expert, a complete different set of metal treatments and requirements are involved to handle combustion and gas pressures. I think that the sciences involved are about not only about metal content, but also the various heat treatments.

experts please wade in

khaki

[MikB]

"We was 'idin' under bedsteads more than 'alf a march away,

We was layin' up like rabbits all about the countryside,

An' the major cursed 'is maker 'cause 'e lived to see that day,

An' the colonel broke 'is sword acrost - an' cried."

(Kipling - 'That Day')

Would Kipling's Victorian colonel have been able to do that, with a Solingen sword?

[PhilB]

A couple of comments:-

1/ Steels can`t be made to a spec like making a cake, particularly in those days - you do your best and take what comes, especially in wartime when the demand is for output.

2/ Copper is often added to steel to enhance its antirust properties. Much used on rail wagons in days of yore.

[Khaki]

2/ Copper is often added to steel to enhance its antirust properties. Much used on rail wagons in days of yore.

Now that is very interesting, I had not heard of that.

khaki

[dman]

Steel specs are inline for 1075/1095 carbon steels

Specs are 1 indicating carbon steels

0 - no other alloying elements

7 and 9 indicating amounts of carbon (,7 to ,8% / .9-1.0%)- increasing carbon results in harder steel, too much makes it brittle

5 .(.5 %) amount of manganese - adds toughness

1075 and 1095 grade steels are called spring steel do to ability to be bent and still return to original shape without breaking

[PhilB]

Now that is very interesting, I had not heard of that.

khaki

http://www.metallurgvanadium.com/copperpage.html

British Steel manufactured it as Corten.

[trajan]

"We was 'idin' under bedsteads more than 'alf a march away,

We was layin' up like rabbits all about the countryside,

An' the major cursed 'is maker 'cause 'e lived to see that day,

An' the colonel broke 'is sword acrost - an' cried."

(Kipling - 'That Day')

Would Kipling's Victorian colonel have been able to do that, with a Solingen sword?

Good question, though!

A couple of comments:-

1/ Steels can`t be made to a spec like making a cake, particularly in those days - you do your best and take what comes, especially in wartime when the demand is for output.

2/ Copper is often added to steel to enhance its antirust properties. Much used on rail wagons in days of yore.

True, they could not be made to exact specifications, as today, and what there is provided in the specifications must be guidelines I suppose. But, a good blade-maker would - or should! - certainly know his material and its suitability for working with. I obviously have not studied the Solingen industry in detail but I do know from limited 'bookish' learnin' that right up to the end of the 19th century it was dominated by a form of cottage industry, and the excellence of their products suggests to me that some pretty-skilled metal-makers were around.

Steel specs are inline for 1075/1095 carbon steels

Specs are 1 indicating carbon steels

0 - no other alloying elements

7 and 9 indicating amounts of carbon (,7 to ,8% / .9-1.0%)- increasing carbon results in harder steel, too much makes it brittle

5 .(.5 %) amount of manganese - adds toughness

1075 and 1095 grade steels are called spring steel do to ability to be bent and still return to original shape without breaking

That's useful to know - thanks.

Trajan

[JMB1943]

ID: 26  Posted just now · Report post

Trajan,

A year to the day, so time to brush the dust from this thread.

From 'Textbook of Small Arms, 1929' War Office, p.84

The following is the specification for the P.1907 bayonet

Carbon................0.90 - 1.20 %

Silicon.................not above 0.20 %

Manganese.........0.15 - 0.45 %

Phosphorus.........not above 0.20 %

Sulphur................not above 0.20 %

Copper et al.........only traces

 

In general this follows the sword-steel spec. in #35, bearing in mind that the sword-steel spec. may just be a "typical" analysis, rather than an actual spec.

I do find it interesting that the cased display shown by S>S in the P.1888 thread (from which this topic emerged) has absolutely pristine looking blades, with not a stain amongst them.

BTW, is there any news on the metallurgical front from your ersatz, or other, bayonets ?

 

Regards,

JMB

Edited 10 January , 2017 by JMB1943
Hard to know where this post will land.

[trajan]

9 hours ago, JMB1943 said:

ID: 26  Posted just now · Report post

... A year to the day, so time to brush the dust from this thread.

...I do find it interesting that the cased display shown by S>S in the P.1888 thread (from which this topic emerged) has absolutely pristine looking blades, with not a stain amongst them.

BTW, is there any news on the metallurgical front from your ersatz, or other, bayonets 

 

Thanks JMB for the timely reminder... In fact it is exam period here and so a chance to do lots of things that have been laid over for a while and so later today or tomorrow I'll post up some XRF data from 10 or so Ersataz, plus from some others...

 

SS's bayonets are, yes, well, remarkably shiny... I suspect they have been (over?)cleaned. I know a sword collector in the UK and he showed me how he cleaned his and they all had that shiny new finish - rather like the one they pulled out from that '2300' years old Chinese grave! See: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/01/04/ancient-but-still-shiny-2300-year-old-sword-found-in-china.html  SS always claimed to collect only pristine ones, but I do remember some that he had cleaned. All I can say is that if those ones of his were found in that condition, then they were either never issued or certainly did not see much service use!

 

Best wishes,

 

Julian

[trajan]

Ok, here goes.

 

The only published official specification I know of for 98/05's or any other form of German bayonet is for Haenel, which is:

 

		Cu	Fe	As	Zn	Cr	Mn	C	Si	P	S
98/05	Haenel	0.12	98.07				0.55	0.7-0.9	0.4	0.03	0.03

 

So, for XRF of others this is all that I have:

Type	Maker	Cu	Fe	As	Zn	Cr	Mn	Date
EB 03		0,13	99,11	0,04			0,73	1914-15
EB 03		0,22	99,0	0,03			0,75	1914-15
EB 04			99,3	0,03			0,65	1914-15
EB 03		0,15	98,4	0,06			0,86	1914-15
EB 03		0,15	99,0	0,03			0,80	1914-15
EB 09		0,15	99,0	0,04			0,82	1914-15
EB 09		0,18	99,0	0,04		0,17	0,60	1914-15
EB 09			99,05				0,95	1914-15
kS 98	E/F Horster	0,21	98,97	0,10			0,73	1908-1918
98/05	Waffenfabrik	0,25	98,96	0,04			0,75	1917
84/98	crs	0.13	99.17			0.018	0.67	1940
84/98	fze	0.11	99.27		0.1	0.066	0.46	1944
M/49	Israel/Czech	0.033	99.15			0.015	0.8	1949

 

 

 

 

I included the last three to see what differences there were from the WW1 ones, but note that tradition says that the Israeli ones were made of railway steels, but there is a chance - I suspect, no evidence! - that they may have been made in Czechoslavkia which certainly supplied other weapons to what became the IDF. Interesting that chrome is only used in the one Ersatz and not in the Haenel specifications or the kS.98 and W/fabik 98/05, but is used in the WW2 and Israeli ones. 

 

Julian

Edited 12 January , 2017 by trajan

[JMB1943]

On 1/9/2016 at 03:37, dman said:

Steel specs are inline for 1075/1095 carbon steels

Specs are 1 indicating carbon steels

0 - no other alloying elements

7 and 9 indicating amounts of carbon (,7 to ,8% / .9-1.0%)- increasing carbon results in harder steel, too much makes it brittle

5 .(.5 %) amount of manganese - adds toughness

1075 and 1095 grade steels are called spring steel do to ability to be bent and still return to original shape without breaking

 

[JMB1943]

 The P.1907 bayonet did have to undergo a quite severe bending test without breaking, so your comment regarding spring steels is spot on.

 

Regards,

JMB

[JMB1943]

On 1/8/2016 at 08:08, PhilB said:

A couple of comments:-

1/ Steels can`t be made to a spec like making a cake, particularly in those days - you do your best and take what comes, especially in wartime when the demand is for output.

2/ Copper is often added to steel to enhance its antirust properties. Much used on rail wagons in days of yore.

Well, the War Office did specify only Swedish ore (or an equivalent high grade ore) and an analysis was expected to match the spec. above.  So I would accept that steel was indeed made to a spec.

Regards,

JMB

[JMB1943]

Trajan,

 

Thank you for posting your XRF analytical results.

I looked at the Cu & Mn data as indicators of consistency and they are both quite variable.

My guess is that the blockade by RN cut off supplies of the high-grade iron ore from Sweden, and the German steel-makers had to use whatever they could get.

 

Regards,

JMB

[PhilB]

39 minutes ago, JMB1943 said:

Well, the War Office did specify only Swedish ore (or an equivalent high grade ore) and an analysis was expected to match the spec. above.  So I would accept that steel was indeed made to a spec.

Regards,

JMB

Certainly made to a spec but it would only quote ranges or maxima/minima. In wartime I imagine the inspectors might be a bit flexible in their interpretation!

[trajan]

13 hours ago, JMB1943 said:

... I looked at the Cu & Mn data as indicators of consistency and they are both quite variable. My guess is that the blockade by RN cut off supplies of the high-grade iron ore from Sweden, and the German steel-makers had to use whatever they could get.

 

1) Well, the arsenic will certainly be a trace element as adding it to a steel mix provides no benefits  that I am aware of - and if I recall correctly, it would evaporate, as it were, and so prove rather toxic than eating a whole box of marzipan or bitter almonds...!!! I know that arsenic is found naturally in copper deposits (hence the existence of arsenical bronzes in the Balkans and Egypt in the Bronze Age, but it would be interesting to establish if it is found in iron ores in Europe rather than Scandinavia.

 

2) Looking at the Ersatz and other WW1 bayonets, then the copper (for corrosion-resistant purposes) seems to be a consistent addition. I haven't been able to discover the date of the Haenel specification, but they were making 98/05's in 1910, and so it could date to then. It is on the low side, at 12%, compared to what is in some of those Ersatz jobs - never mind the 1917 Waffenfabrik! 

 

3) Manganese for hardness, I assume, and again reasonably consistent amounts.

 

I do take PhilB's point about exact specifications not being attainable, although obviously standards were set - as with the P.1907 specifications, and the Haenel lso, in a sense, although the perscribe maximum percentages not a range as with the P.1907's, except, of course, for the carbon, for which they do give a range.

 

Incidentally, I am currently finalising an article on the XRF of an 18th century Turkish yatghan sword which is almost certainly a local blacksmith's job, and so when I get that done I'll add the specs, for that here also.

 

Julian