German M1898 "Quillback" Bayonet

[shippingsteel]

Recently picked up a nice early Model 1898 aA bayonet with the one-piece timber grips. This is the first (alter art) version made for the Mauser Gewehr 98 rifle. Apparently these were only made up until 1902 when they changed over to the regular two-piece grips with the plate inserted behind the crossguard. The very unique design of this type, which features a rounded spine through the centre of the blade, leads to them being described as "quillback" bayonets.

I believe these extremely long and slender blades were first introduced to compete with the French M1886 Lebel service bayonet. It comes as no surprise that both models of bayonets were of exactly the same length of blade - an extraordinary 20.5 inches. Around the turn of the century it appears that size did matter, especially when it came to bayonets and their 'reach'.!

But when it came time for the Great War, the conditions of trench warfare quickly proved that these were far too long and unwieldy, and they began to be phased out almost immediately in favour of a much shorter bayonet.

Cheers, S>S

[shippingsteel]

Here is the closeup shot of the one-piece timber grip which actually wraps around the tang of the hilt. Some high quality workmanship would have been involved in producing this type of grip. Probably the reason they weren't around for too long, as the two-piece grip panels would have been seen as not only more efficient to manufacture in the first place, but also much easier to replace when damaged. These examples are now regarded as being relatively scarce in comparison with other German bayonets.

Cheers, S>S

[shippingsteel]

Now we get into the serious business for all those 'hardcore' collectors out there - the all important markings of course.!!

Probably the highlight for this particular example are indeed the markings, which are neatly stamped into the metalwork on the ricasso, spine and crossguard.

Firstly on the ricasso we have the maker mark of Erfurt, which was the Prussian Royal Arsenal situated in Thuringen.

Then on the spine is stamped the crowned W, the Prussian Royal cypher of Kaiser Wilhelm marked over the issue date of 1901.

Finally stamped on the crossguard is the regimental unit marking for the 10. Rheinisches Infanterie-Regiment Nr.161, also indicating 12 Kompagnie and weapon number 23.

This was a Prussian Army infantry regiment that was first raised from the Rheinland region in 1897 and served throughout the war. Some more outstanding info HERE

Cheers, S>S

[robins2]

similar, blade 20" give or take, found at Varlet Farm, Ypres last year by my grandson

Regards

Bob R.

[shippingsteel]

Hi Bob, your examples might possibly be a couple of grades below mine condition wise ...... but still of great historical value nonetheless .!!

But seriously, both of those are good examples of the "quillback" design bayonet still being in use during the Great War. Are you able to put any dates together as to when the Germans were in that specific area near Ypres.?

The lighter and narrower one on the right is the M1898 version, and would have originally been 20.5" long in the blade. The heavier looking example on the left is actually a M1871/98 bayonet which was usually issued to units of the field artillery. These were earlier bayonets that were rehilted to fit the Mauser Gewehr 98. Its blade should be spot on the 20" inches in length, which is what you have described it as, so I'll take that as confirmation.!

Cheers, S>S

[robins2]

Hi Bob, your examples might possibly be a couple of grades below mine condition wise ...... but still of great historical value nonetheless .!!

But seriously, both of those are good examples of the "quillback" design bayonet still being in use during the Great War. Are you able to put any dates together as to when the Germans were in that specific area near Ypres.?

The lighter and narrower one on the right is the M1898 version, and would have originally been 20.5" long in the blade. The heavier looking example on the left is actually a M1871/98 bayonet which was usually issued to units of the field artillery. These were earlier bayonets that were rehilted to fit the Mauser Gewehr 98. Its blade should be spot on the 20" inches in length, which is what you have described it as, so I'll take that as confirmation.!

Cheers, S>S

you are right, just a couple of grades below yours

as far as dates go, Varlet farm was taken by the Naval Btns. I believe during the third battle of Passchendaele, the farm is between St. Julian & Passchendaele, and is as you might know is an excellent B & B

I also found the attached German shell base two years ago at Varlet, which appears to have been hit by a bullet & detonated, which would give some indication that artillery units were in the area

regards

Bob R.

[calibre792x57.y]

Not really a bayonet collector but as I understand it the problem with the S.98aA was that the form of the one-piece grip made the tang very weak. During the Boxer Rising of 1900 the German units engaged found that using it on the heavily padded Chinese caused the tang to bend and the grips to fracture. This resulted in the appearance of the S.98nA with a reinforced tang and plate grips. It was also recognised that the slim blade was also liable to bending in vigorous use and this fault was made more apparent with the onset of the Great War. This resulted in production being halted in 1914 and the decision to standardise on the s.98/05, a much more practicable design. However it was intended that the replacement process would be a gradual one (relying upon wastage both of the weapon and its users!) and hence the S.98 was still commonly in use even during the Summer battles on the Somme.-SW

[shippingsteel]

Thats interesting, I had read somewhere that the original grips were quite fragile and prone to splitting and cracking, hadn't heard about the weakness in the tang though. The blade is that slender it would have to a prime case for bending and snapping off completely when put to use. The whole overall design just doesn't look robust enough to withstand the extreme conditions found on the battlefield during the GW. Another reason the replacement process for these was quite slow was that they were also desperately short of alternatives early in the war. Hence the production of the 'ersatz' bayonets and the modifications to captured stocks of bayonets to allow attachment to the German Mauser rifles.

Cheers, S>S

[N White]

Mine is unfortunately a 2 piece grip, although lacking a flashguard, and still rather early. 04 if I recall, and an Alex Coppel piece. Probably my most exciting bayonet acquisition last year, and an absolute steal.

[robins2]

I believe this bayonet falls into Ersatz class???

[robins2]

[robins2]

note bullet gouge in handle

The story goes as follows, the rifle & bayonet I obtained from friend, his in law was in the war and was supposed to have shot the German who was wearing the bayonet on his belt, he took the rifle & bayonet and returned to Canada after the war. they were stored in an attic wrapped in newspapers & completely covered in rust. My friend, who has since passed away gave them to me. I restored both as best I could.

[robins2]

[robins2]

[shippingsteel]

Mine is unfortunately a 2 piece grip, although lacking a flashguard, and still rather early. 04 if I recall, and an Alex Coppel piece. Probably my most exciting bayonet acquisition last year, and an absolute steal.

So its a M1898 nA, these 98's did not usually come with the flashguard fitted, although a small batch did - these were apparently Saxon marked and are quite rare. Keep your eye out for them.

Yours is looking good, especially nice to have the matching leather scabbard in good condition as well. These long scabbards did not stand up well to life in the trenches, and replacement steel ones began to be made for them from about 1915. These are also very scarce.

I see yours has the regimental markings on the crossguard. You may know already what they mean but I ran the ID for that unit anyway. They were an early Wurttemberg regiment first raised in 1716, so plenty of history there. During the Great War they were known as the (3. Württembergisches) Infanterie-Regiment Alt-Württemberg Nr.121 and it looks like 1. Kompagnie, Waffe Nr.147. That little bit of history is always nice to go along with a fine looking item.

Cheers, S>S

[shippingsteel]

I believe this bayonet falls into Ersatz class???

Yep definitely an 'Ersatz' model made during 1916. Large numbers of these were manufactured to suit a variety of rifles, but mainly for the Gewehr 98, as you have already found out.!

Cheers, S>S

[N White]

S>S my scabbard is steel, and absoulutely mint. I am just fine not having a leather scabbard, as I find steel ones easier to take care of! Not bad for $110 USD I'd say.

[calibre792x57.y]

Just an additional note for the previous posts re flashguards on the S.98. Be grateful that yours does not have a guard. The order directing that flashguards be fitted originated from the War Ministry in Berlin in September 1915 by which time the S.98 was obsolescent,and it is clear that the problem lay with those units using the Kar 98a. A weapon that would not normally be used with the S.98. The vast majority of 98s do not have this feature and it seems most likely that those S.98s that do had been withdrawn from front line service and re-issued to units armed with the Kar98a. The idea that it was Saxon in origin arises because the first two or three which came to the attention of collectors did happen to be Saxon. Since those days with the greater interest in collecting and the wonders of modern communication, it is apparent that only small numbers (of S.98s) were retro-fitted with flashguards and there is no obvious pattern. Since it was not usual in wartime to stamp unit marks on new production, unit markings can have no relevance to the presence or absence of a flashguard. Despite mentions of the fragility of the pipe-back blade few are found broken and the scabbards are the most usual casualty, not the bayonet. Cheers S.W

[calibre792x57.y]

A further point relating to the all-steel S.1888/98 series of bayonets. In fact these were produced early in 1915 as a substitute pending the step up in production of the S.98/05, not in 1916 as many think. A letter issued by the Generalkommandoe of the Bav.II A.K. in March 1917 ordered that any remaining of these all-steel bayonets be surrendered to Artillery Depots and the S.98/05 would be issued in their place. Thereafter photos of units in Training Depots often show these all-steel bayonets in use. Front line units should have had the S.98/05 but it seems clear that some did remain in service with these units as late as the summer of 1917, judging from postcards. S.W.

[Gunner Bailey]

Just picked up two of these extraordinary bayonets. Here's a photo of the best one.

John

[shippingsteel]

All good info SW, thanks for posting. Interesting about the flashguards being retro-fitted to these models. I guess if they stopped making these in 1914 and the flashguard order came late in 1915, then they must have been retro-fitted as you say.! Just one point in regard to the Saxon reference, those few bayonets would not have needed to be unit marked to be regarded as being of Saxon origin. I think most collectors take the issue markings on the spine of the blade (ie. the Royal cypher markings) as being indicative of which region the example actually originated from. So the "Saxon flashguard examples" most probably just had the Saxon issue markings on them (such as a Crowned AR, GR or FA.) I do understand what you are saying though, that because the flashguards were retro-fitted this must have just been a random coincidence.! Thanks again.

Cheers, S>S

[shippingsteel]

Just picked up two of these extraordinary bayonets. Here's a photo of the best one.

Hi John, might take just a drop of oil ..... and a rub with a little wire wool .....

Cheers, S>S

[calibre792x57.y]

For S/S:- I was thinking of the Cypher marks but went on to make a point about unit markings. In fact one cannot really rely on the latter to trace the history of any individual bayonet as is often attempted. Like G.B. the Germans had to arm newly raised formations and the Gew 98 was not well suited to mass production; but every effort was made to ensure that units in the line had modern weapons and obsolescent weapons were issued to Recruiting Depots, LoC troops etc. This also meant that when a unit came out of a hot spot and were posted to a quiet area they often had to hand in their Gew 98s and accept Gew 88s, certainly during 1915. Interestingly, after the Battle of Loos in September 1915 an attempt at an intelligence assessment was made by recovering German rifles from the battlefield. It was remarked that a large proportion of these were new and were breech-ring dated 1915. So even marked weapons may well of not been serving with the unit which added the unit marks in the sunny days of peace. S.W.

[shippingsteel]

Found some nice period photos of these S98 bayonets fitted to the rifles, to really put their length into perspective.

The first one shown is the S98 aA with the one-piece timber grip, click HERE (Also note the length of the scabbard and how vulnerable to damage it is.)

The next one is the S98 nA with the sawback added, usually issued to NCO's, click HERE (Looks to be a big strong chap, but the bayonet still appears far too long.)

Cheers, S>S

[shippingsteel]

In fact one cannot really rely on the latter to trace the history of any individual bayonet as is often attempted. Like G.B. the Germans had to arm newly raised formations and the Gew 98 was not well suited to mass production; but every effort was made to ensure that units in the line had modern weapons and obsolescent weapons were issued to Recruiting Depots, LoC troops etc. This also meant that when a unit came out of a hot spot and were posted to a quiet area they often had to hand in their Gew 98s and accept Gew 88s, certainly during 1915. So even marked weapons may well of not been serving with the unit which added the unit marks in the sunny days of peace. S.W.

I agree that these older style bayonets would have been withdrawn from front-line service as soon as the more suitable alternatives could be made available. They would then be used to equip Reserve units and other second-line troops. I would suggest that the only reason for some of these better condition examples surviving today is that they were withdrawn from active areas and supplied to troops serving in quieter sectors and rear-echelons of the army. The few relic condition examples that have been posted on this thread are testament to the loss and wastage of much of the equipment that remained anywhere near the front-lines for any length of time. The markings found on any weapons are what they are - something that was done at a particular point in time for a certain reason. Where they relate to identifying a weapon to a particular unit, all we can say from that is that the item was once issued to a certain unit. To imply any other historical associations - without further evidence - is certainly as you say, just speculation.

Cheers, S>S