Doughboys Weapon of Choice

[shippingsteel]

I' m no expert on US WW2 ordnance, which is forgivable on this forum. But, am presently reading a collection of articles John Steinbeck wrote when he was a correspondent during WW2. He wrote one of his articles after travelling across the Atlantic on a troop ship in Mid 43. He wrote that the troops, who were bound for England i.e. not going directly to a combat zone, were equipped with a mix of M1's, M1 carbines, Springfield' s and what he described as Enfield' s, which presumably(possibly) were M1917' s.

Yes I have just been watching a few of the early episodes of the Pacific (I must say quite a letdown so far) in which the troops are always grumbling about having to go into the early battles using the same weapons their fathers took into the first war. The Browning M1917 does get quite a bit of screentime and in my opinion has probably played the starring role to date.!! It does suggest that the M1917 rifles could quite possibly have still been in service, or quickly grabbed out of storage to equip some units in a hurry. If that was the case I'm sure that many of the scabbards that had been in storage would have been unusable, and lends weight to the theory of the canvas scabbard being an emergency replacement for use in jungle fighting.

Cheers, S>S

[shippingsteel]

My attention has recently turned to some of the units that made up the AEF in 1917. It surprised me to find that up to 40% of these troops were drawn from existing pre-war National Guard units. Can anyone tell me anything more about these units.? Did they retain their unit structure or were they just assimilated into the newly formed regular army divisions.? Were these units referred to as National Guard back then or did they have different designations that they were known as.?

Cheers, S>S

[4thGordons]

My attention has recently turned to some of the units that made up the AEF in 1917. It surprised me to find that up to 40% of these troops were drawn from existing pre-war National Guard units. Can anyone tell me anything more about these units.? Did they retain their unit structure or were they just assimilated into the newly formed regular army divisions.? Were these units referred to as National Guard back then or did they have different designations that they were known as.?

Cheers, S>S

This is a HUGE question and draws on a largish literature.

I have the detailed breakdown of AEF and the units that made up the various divisions. As you say pre war National Guard (yes they were known as that) units made up a considerable propotion of the AEF. Some of the figures are a bit misleading however as the composition of NG divisions was heavily modified and by the time they reached the front a large proportion of thier manpower were wartime draftees, sometimes from their original home region - often not. So because the Units were pre war does not mean the men that served in them always were.

I have looked at my "local" divison in this respect (33rd Div) and also looked at the service of local men (a proportion of whom went to the 33rd but not it seems a majority)

I think this is probably worthy of a thread all of its own in the Units section. (it has little to do with arms)

I have a 1918/9 publcation with a full breakdown of the National Guard Divisons which I can look out.

Chris

[4thGordons]

The publication to which I referred above and which I believe may well answer most of your questions is:

"Composition of National Guard Divisions and Disposition of Former National Guard Units 1917" (Washington DC Government Printing Office 1918)

Chris

[shippingsteel]

This is a HUGE question and draws on a largish literature.

I think this is probably worthy of a thread all of its own in the Units section. (it has little to do with arms)

Chris

Yes you are absolutely right Chris how thoughtless of me (do we actually have a topic in this thread.?? - joking.!!)

We should ask the mods to shift my question and your replies over into the Units section (I'm not sure how - can you assist.?)

Cheers, S>S

[4thGordons]

Yes you are absolutely right Chris how thoughtless of me (do we actually have a topic in this thread.?? - joking.!!)

We should ask the mods to shift my question and your replies over into the Units section (I'm not sure how - can you assist.?)

Cheers, S>S

I am not sure it is possible to shift bits of a thread.

No matter, really as you say this thread has been shall we say, "wide ranging"

As an attempt to resteer.

I was thinking about your mention of "the troops are always grumbling about having to go into the early battles using the same weapons their fathers took into the first war."

In large regard, at least in respect of rifles, this was more true of every army other than the US army.

UK - SMLE MkIII - serves throughout WWII and even its replacement in British and commonwealth service is essentially the same weapon with relatively minor sighting and production modifications - the No4 Mk1/Mk1*

Germany - KAR 98 = shortened GEW 98

USSR - Nagant M91/30 = shortened Mosin Nagant M1891

Japan - Arisaka Type 38 - serves throughout, supplemented by the Type 99 in 7.7mm (although a very similar design)

Italy - Carcano M91/38 or M40 - shortened or rechambered M1891 Mannlicher- Carcano

Of course all of these were supplemented with sub-machine guns (used very little in WWI) and semi-auto rifles. However, to the extent that the M1 Garand was actually the standard service rifle of the US army by 1944 then I would suggest this was the only army in the field with weapons substantially different from those their fathers held.

Some WWI types remained in production and service far longer of course (see below)

[shippingsteel]

I am guessing that shot is of "that band thingy" on an Ishapore made SMLE, surely they weren't still making them in 1988.?? Have you verified that it is a genuine article.? Is that khaki paint smeared all over it.? Didn't the Indians ever hear about the international arms market and the AK-47.!!

The US troops that were complaining about their weapons were Marines. Apparently the Navy was having some difficulty getting their hardware requirements as the Army had first preference, especially with the focus being on Europe first. In this particular case the weapons they had actually did come out of storage from after WW1, they weren't just the same design they were using.

Cheers, S>S

[TonyE]

Have you not seen any newsreel footage of the recent events in India S>S? Many of the police and Militia units are still armed with the Ishapore Lee-Enfield TODAY, probably mostly 2A versions in 7.62mm NATO but I would not be surprised if some of the rural units still had .303s. Chris can probably confirm, but I think 1988 was the last year Ishapore made the .303.

Regards

TonyE

[4thGordons]

Have you not seen any newsreel footage of the recent events in India S>S? Many of the police and Militia units are still armed with the Ishapore Lee-Enfield TODAY, probably mostly 2A versions in 7.62mm NATO but I would not be surprised if some of the rural units still had .303s. Chris can probably confirm, but I think 1988 was the last year Ishapore made the .303.

Regards

TonyE

I am not absolutely certain when they were last made (I am not sure anyone is, 100%) but 1988 is the last date most people have seen.

The MkIII was made until the mid 1960s then, 1963-1970 the 2A and 2A1 (in 7.62mm) were made and it is not clear that MkIIIs were made simultaneously in this period, however there was a small production run of .303 rifles in the early-mid 1970s and then another in the mid-late 80s (it is hypothesized that parts etc were being used up). Apart from the rather rough cosmetic finish (it shares the rough black enamel finish with the 2A/2A1 rifles), and the hand-stamped wrist date (which BTW one also sees on WWII Dispersal rifles) this is a well made rifle, with all the appropriate Ishapore proofs/inspection marks. Production of these continued despite the fact that India had adopted a version of the FN-SLR as its main rifle

Although India has obviously surplussed out lots of SMLEs (hence there appearance on the market in the US) as TonyE says news footage appears to demonstrate that large numbers remain in service with paramilitary and police forces. News footage from both terrorist attacks and the recent election showed police so armed. Many of them were indeed .303 rifles (inc. the No4 which was never produced in India, but large numbers were refinished)

(desperate attempt to stay relevant to WWI)

Regarding the use of WWI weapons - yes, it appears that the Marines often got replacement equipment far later however, many of the SMLEs used by UK/Commonwealth forces in WWII were also clearly of Great war vintage - there was a very significant program to refurbish and renew stockpiled rifles for issue and large numbers of WWI SMLEs that show up today have WWII rebarreling or refinishing dates on them. Both Australia and India (where MkIII production continued throughout WWII as the No4 rifle was not produced there) did this to large numbers of rifles.

You will also note that the 1988 rifles is actually a MkIII* i.e. the Great War standard configuration for simplified production approved in 1916. (see I knew it was on topic!)

Chris

[shippingsteel]

Chris have you applied a white substance onto those Chilean Mauser stamps to bring the markings up like that.?

I have seen it done quite a bit with stuff that is sold on ebay, but never knew exactly what it was that they did it with. Can you shed any light on the process.?

Cheers, S>S

Like in this shot of yours

[4thGordons]

I did not do it - and actually don't like it much. It was done by a previous owner.

I believe it is chalk or white paint. It removes reasonably easily so when I get time I will get rid of it.

I think the process is simple, paint/chalk over the markings then wipe the surface leaving the white in the stamped in markings.

It makes some sense I suppose on blued metal where the markings are less distinct and you want to highlight them for photographs but I am not sure it even works very well on metal "in the white" like this.

Chris

[shippingsteel]

(desperate attempt to stay relevant to WWI)

Regarding the use of WWI weapons - yes, it appears that the Marines often got replacement equipment far later however, many of the SMLEs used by UK/Commonwealth forces in WWII were also clearly of Great war vintage - there was a very significant program to refurbish and renew stockpiled rifles for issue and large numbers of WWI SMLEs that show up today have WWII rebarreling or refinishing dates on them. Both Australia and India (where MkIII production continued throughout WWII as the No4 rifle was not produced there) did this to large numbers of rifles.

You will also note that the 1988 rifles is actually a MkIII* i.e. the Great War standard configuration for simplified production approved in 1916. (see I knew it was on topic!)

Chris

Aahh Chris, very sorry to interrupt but does the word "Doughboys" ring any bells ...???

In regard to the white markings it looks okay from a distance but not so good close up. They do it on ebay to bring up the markings for photos, which I hate because it makes it that much harder to make validation judgements based on the stampings and marks etc. Thanks for the heads up.

Cheers, S>S

[4thGordons]

Aahh Chris, very sorry to interrupt but does the word "Doughboys" ring any bells ...???

And as I said......

(Hamel 1918, King decorates members of the 33rd Division)

carrying....now what would that be on his right shoulder I wonder?

[shippingsteel]

No I definitely think that is a staged photo Chris, those guys in the background have gotta be wearing camo fatigues ....??

Cheers, S>S

[shippingsteel]

Just for a bit of fun I thought I'd drag out another bayonet for a photo opportunity happy snap session.

(Have to come up with some kind of counter to the "4th Gordons military shooter expose" now don't I - nice one Chris.!)

Anyway just to make sure that I'm sticking on-topic I need someone to ID this bayonet for me and tell me if it could ever have been a "doughboys weapon of choice".

OK so here's the deal, I'll provide the pictures and then its up to everyone else to tell me exactly what it is.

What I'm looking for is 1) Bayonet pattern, maker and date of manufacture (and possibly S/N of soldier it was first issued to.!)

and after establishing that 2) Reasons and evidence provided that this item could ever have been a "doughboys weapon of choice"

So thats it, sounds simple enough - should be straightforward to all you budding armchair experts out there. Let's see what you've got.!!

To provide a little background this is a particularly interesting example that served throughout both wars and would have seen a lot of history pass before it.

I look forward to your replies - (and Chris you might want to sit on your fingers for a little while, after your last "lucky" effort.!)

Cheers, S>S

[shippingsteel]

No takers it would appear .... how about another angle.? Are there any thoughts on that blade finish.??

Chris if the others are too shy, you may have to drop in here as the "pinch hitter" guy .....!!

EDIT: Remember, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then its probably a duck.!!

Cheers, S>S

[shippingsteel]

So lets take a look at the possibilities. Firstly its pretty obvious the overall look and shape of the bayonet screams P1907, or one of the American made variants in the P1913 or M1917, or even possibly a trials version of those mentioned. But it comes with apparent inspection marks and has been used in both wars, so definitely NOT a trials version bayonet.X

Then we have the standard looking pommel and grips for the P1907, but the blade has that grey looking parkerised finish that you find on the American bayonets.?? The grips for the American bayonets always came with the double vertical grooves to differentiate that they could not be attached to the SMLE rifle. The crossguard also appears to be the standard P1907 fitment as opposed to the extended offset crossguard found on the P1913/M1917 versions.

Perhaps the parkerised finish could have been added during the refurbishment program for WW2.?? This did happen, however in this case the inspection markings all appear very crisp and mostly intact. Normally the examples that have been "re-parkerised" show markings that have been nearly obliterated and have that sand-blasted effect, while the bluing line on the ricasso is also often quite hard to distinguish.

Some more food for thought.!

Cheers, S>S

[Wardog]

Is it an early-pre war bayonet -perhaps quillion removed? Just avoided the later sandblast finish? Cannot see anything out of the ordinary with the info you have given, but then i'm no expert. Cheers, Paul.

[4thGordons]

Getting off his hands.....

SNAP!

This is a 1918 wilkinson unit marked to the T. Royal Norfolks with what appears to be an identical finish, also the markings are sharp - importantly no reissue marks from the interwar period.

I was puzzled by this self same finish a couple of months ago and so did some digging:

I think wartime sandblasting of blades (which gives a dull roughish feel) was actually quite common - although not many appear to have survived being subsequently polished prior to reissue post 1919.

Sandblasting of 1907 blades was announced in the LOC of the 4th of Feb 1915 "for future manufacture during the duration of the war the blades shall be sandblasted instead of polished"... this should mean post 1915 blades should have sandblasted finish rather than polish... post war a WO memo in June of 1919 indicated sandblasting should cease as early as possible all new and repaired bayonets should be once again polished finished" (Skennerton and Richardson pp192)

As with all such things there were no doubt overlaps, gaps and omissions and certainly the sandblasted finish is the least common finish on my 1907 bayonets.

So, like Paul - claiming no particular expertise I don't see anything extra-ordinary with what I can see so far

Chris

[shippingsteel]

So you are saying its a standard P1907 with a parkerised finish from new, which is a little different but not that unusual overall - I think you might be right. The American variants in P1913 and M1917 came mostly in parkerised finish as standard though. And its not a HQ removed example as the crossguard is in normal configuration without any evidence of filing or reshaping. So that just leaves the maker and date to be validated - any thoughts.??

(The clues are always there for those who wish to look - i think that might be a proverb or something, then again maybe not.!!)

Cheers, S>S

[4thGordons]

I think parkerising is a chemical finish (phosphate based). What I was suggesting was this was a sandblasted finish, which I think is different (although sandblasting might be part of the parkerising process).

Skennerton and Richardson mention bright, blued, sandblasted and parkerised as all original finishes at some point - with the mix complicated by finishes and refinishes.

As to maker - I normally try and look rather than guess! However I think the clearance hole looks to be normal size so that probably discounts Vickers

The particular finish and general overall look (something about the size of the pattern/date stamp) suggests to me that it might be a Remington produced bayonet, I believe they made about 100,000 or so which would make it a bit more scarce - I think these bayonets were dated June/July 1915 for about a year until production switched to the P1913/M1917 in May 1916.

Chris

[Wardog]

What is the differance between parkerised and blued? I have had more than one Sanderson made bayonet in a finish all over like the ricasso area, is that blued or parkerised? Cheers, Paul.

[4thGordons]

What is the differance between parkerised and blued? I have had more than one Sanderson made bayonet in a finish all over like the ricasso area, is that blued or parkerised? Cheers, Paul.

I am sure that there are others out there who are more expert in this but as I understand it:

Polished = surface of the steel polished no other treatment (the original finish of pre war P1907 blades)

Sandblasted = surface sand blasted to give matt/dulled finish

Blued = chemical "rusting" (controlled) which puts a layer of blue/black oxidation on the surface to seal and protect the rest. It's not normal rust Fe02 but something else chemically (Fe304?) created on the surface of the metal to provide protection - this is what is used on many firearms and in manufacuting is done using hot chemicals but it can be done cold using preparations that are commercially available. On P07s, as I understand it, the original pre war finish was polished (untreated)blade and blued last inch or so and crossguard and pommel (ie the exposed bits). Blueing - as the name implies give a bluish black - smooth finish. Some P07 blades were indeed fully blued.

Pakerising is a phosphate (also perhaps sometimes manganese) finish and is actually a form of coating on the surface of the metal (as opposed to chemical altering of the surface) This gives a slightly rough feeling greyish/greenish finish, common on US WWII vintage firearms. A light greenish-grey parkerising finish was also applied to later WWII vintage Lithgow SMLEs and bayonets.

Hope this helps

Chris

(edited for typo)

[shippingsteel]

Just for comparison here is the photo again from post #24, which shows the difference between the parkerised finish on the top and bottom American P1913 bayonets and the bright finish/polished P1907 second down. The Springfield bayonet third down is in the blued finish.

As for the maker of the mystery bayonet there should be no need for guessing, how many P1907's came without the imprint of the crown/cypher.??

And did you check out the style of that fuller - looks kind of weird doesn't it.??

PS. Chris, I think your Wilkinson could be in the (British) phosphate finish by the looks of it, but I haven't seen that many so can't be certain.

EDIT: I think there is a difference between the phosphate process used by the British and the parkerisation process of the Americans, this certainly shows in the appearance anyway.

Cheers, S>S

[Wardog]

Thanks gents. Any chance of a close up of a parkerised blade next to a sandblasted? Also, is there a known time period when 1907 bayonets were made blued? Regards the 1907 being shown, hands up from me, what am I looking at? Cheers, Paul.