Bayonets of the First World War - Claude Bera

[jscott]

Hi all

I just noticed a new book on WW1 bayonets which I thought may be of interest.

Has anyone got a copy, and if so, what do you think?

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/bayonets-of-the-first-world-war-claude-bera/1115100292?ean=9780764344596

Cheers, J

[4thGordons]

I just ordered it from Amazon as a matter of fact ($21.00) in the US.

Should be here next early next week so I'll let you know.

I suspect it is probably quite generic and not a specialist book (eg I don't think it will have lots of minutiae on stampings and sub variants) but I am hoping it will have a good overview of major types.)

Chris

[jscott]

Thanks Chris. Given its an area of interest I think I may just purchase a copy myself - if nothing else the photography on the cover page suggests it will be a good book to have. Looking forward to discussing soon!

Cheers, J

[jscott]

Hmm, it appears that this book isn't actually available in the UK for another 6 weeks or so... pre-order only.

[4thGordons]

Well mine arrived (delayed) a couple of weeks ago and was whisked away to be wrapped up for Christmas before I got a chance to look at it.

I reclaimed it today.

The book is largish format lots of glossy pictures and nice photographs of the main bayonet types organized by country.

It looks as thought the new museum at Meaux supplied the examples. The photos are very nice and clear, and also show various other bits of kit and uniforms. Very nicely presented....

BUT.....

You will appreciate it is Christmas day with family around so my time is limited.....

So I turned to the one set of bayonets of which I have some knowledge, the main British types

P32-33-34 (out of 80 pages total) There is one full page picture with only a caption and just a couple of hundred words of text.....nonetheless the authors manage to cram in a lot of errors!

1) The section is labelled "England" (not Britain, not UK, but England)

2) Opens with the claim that " The troops were mostly equipped with Short Magazine Lee Enfield No 1 , 1907 Mk 3 rifles, Short Magazine Lee Enfield No 1 1902 Mk I, M1913 rifles or Pattern 13 and Pattern 14 rifles. All these arms are 7.7 caliber (caliber 303). "

So where to begin?

a) complete mish mash of descriptions and terminology - none of which is correct! (combining post WWI numbering with previous and getting both wrong) What is an M1913 rifle (and how does it differ from a Pattern 13.....none of which were issued.... (oh and this is under a period illustration which appears to show MLEs which do not along with the P1888, get a mention!). The section then goes on to describe

"Saber-Bayonet Model 1907"......MODEL!??? ..."manufactured by "Wilkinson Chapman or Enfield" (no mention of other makers - Mole,Sanderson, Vickers, Lithgow, Ishapore, Remington)

It then goes on to discuss the "Knife-Bayonet Model 1903....intended for the 1902 Lee Enfield. It has an identical hilt to the precedent (sic) model...."

Errr so why 1907 before 1903? surely the logic is reversed.

It then moves on to "Saber-Bayonet Model 1913 for M14 Rifle Made in the United States......made in the United States from 1913 onwards (!!!!)......by Remington" (....no mention of Winchester)

You get the picture....

At this point (3 pages of "reading" and a quick flick through the pictures) I said something rather rude (rather too loudly) and put it down.

I am not as well qualified to comment on the other nations' sections and haven't dared to look at them yet.

I am absolutely flabbergasted by the number of errors in a couple of hundred words in a book presumably intended for a relatively specialized audience.

nice pictures I suppose....dread to think what the rest of the text is like.

Am I being too harsh?

I don't think so -- but this is the third attempt with self-censorship!

Chris

[Steven Broomfield]

So we take it that's a no, then, Chris?

[4thGordons]

It [grits teeth]....has. nice. pictures.

[militariaone]

It [grits teeth]....has. nice. pictures.

Yep, agreed.

Regards,

Lance

[Lancashire Fusilier]

It [grits teeth]....has. nice. pictures.

Chris,

I know the feeling, I just bought an expensive book on tanks, which from a review, I thought would have some good info and photos of WW1 tanks, only to find it was just the first page or two, the rest ( 95% ) was all WW2!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

Regards,

LF

[jscott]

That sounds a bit disappointing Chris (although in the past I admit I have purchased french books on militaria solely for the photos - as I don't speak French…).

Strangely I pre-ordered this book several months ago, and received an email cancelling my order only last week, on the basis that the publishing date had been pushed back indefinitely. Odd.

Cheers, J

[shippingsteel]

Great review Chris, thanks for adding ... I have been waiting in anticipation, but didn't expect one so soon.! Bad news travels fast.!

Yes you can never beat brutal honesty, especially in critical reviews. I think that is the worst problem with being part of this forum ...

You learn so much in passing that it becomes almost impossible to read anything concerning the GW without becoming a "critic".!

Cheers, S>S

[auchonvillerssomme]

But the review on Amazon is so positive!

[Mitter2k1]

Well since I am currently looking into reference books to add to my library, I am glad I saw this thread. I think I will instead buy a book that covers some web belts instead of wasting money on this.

Mike

[Garron]

I had a gift card for Amazon for Christmas and I was tempted before I saw this thread, cheers Gents you've done me a favor here.

Some things could be lost in translation (Sword/Sabre Pattern/Model ) as from the single review on Amazon

Translated from the french with a few glitches as often happens when going from one language to another

Even then a proof reader with any kind of knowledge or access to google could have corrected that.

Gaz

[4thGordons]

Hi Gaz,

I considered the translation aspect before commenting actually. There are some slightly stilted/awkward bits in the writing that are entirely excusable in the context of a translation - and I'm fine with that (such as the use of "precedent" rather than "preceding" in the section I quoted above) but I am not sure that applies to the actual description of the weapons that are the subject of the book.

"Sword" bayonet is used for lots of others (the authors seem to use Sword, Saber and Knife and whilst knife is used for shorter bayonets I am not certain what distinguishes sword/saber -- so P1907 and P1913 and USM1905 and M1917 are all described as "Sabre" but Belgian M1916, German M1898 a/A and interestingly the French Model 1886 are all described as "sword"....which seems to suggest that blade design is the issue (narrow = sword, broader = sabre?)

However, it seems to me that using the correct name for the rifles/bayonets is independent of any attempt at classification so Sword-bayonet, Pattern 1907 particularly when all the official lists of changes and almost every other reference I have seen refer to Sword.

I forgot to mention, there is an additional bayonet in the English section - while as noted, the P1888 is not covered at all, there is a mention (with photograph of a replica) of the Pritchard-Greener dagger bayonet for the Webley Mark VI! (with it's "bronze" hilt)

Having calmed down a bit, I went back to look at the US section (p72-73-74.) As with the "English" section, one full page of this (p73) is taken up with a picture of a tunic on a form with hat/rifle and helmet and three bayonets laid out in front so very little text (even less in this section)

There are short descriptions of the "US Saber-Bayonet Model 1905 for Springfield Rifles" and "US Saber-Bayonet M1917 for Enfield and Winchester Rifles and Trench Shotguns"

This section starts out with:

"American weaponry consisted of Lee Enfield M1917 7.62mm caliber rifles, Springfield M1903 7.62mm calibre rifles, English Enfield P14 rifles with chambers adapted for US cartridges......"

Arrghhhh! So US Enfield M1917 would be fine, but there certainly should be no Lee in there, and to then distinguish these from a separate weapon the "English Enfield P14 rifles with chambers adapted for US cartridges" is just inaccurate.

The brief text gives no indication of the relationship between the British Pattern 1913 and the US M1917 which seems odd given that they are virtually identical and if this is intended as a guide for distinguishing the types....

Furthermore, the caption on one of the pictures (and the pictures are very nice it must be restated) says "M1917 for Enfield and Winchester rifles and trench shotgun" - again this seems to wish to distinguish between "US Enfield Rifles" and "Winchester" rifles (when in fact Winchester / Remington / Eddystone were all manufactures of the US Rifle .30 Model 1917 or US Enfield)

The coup de grace is a picture at the top of p74 captioned "On French soil with colonial troops, Americans hold their U.S.17 rifles with saber bayonets" - the trouble is they are clearly holding M1903 Springfield Rifles with M1905 bayonets, as is the man in the picture below showing "Training with the US 17 rifle" !

So... If someone wants a glossy set of pictures of most of the main bayonet types of the Great War and some fairly detailed coverage of a range of Ersatz types (lots of pages dedicated to these) then the pictures in this book really are excellent. In terms of the information provided, in so far as the "English" and "US sections" are representative of the rest of the book, what text there is does not live up to the pictures. I suspect it will sell well to teenagers on school trips in museum gift shops.

Chris

[shippingsteel]

Thanks for adding such extensive detail Chris .... I'm sorry but I really had to laugh. It's easy to get a sense how frustrated you were feeling.

I can see you sitting there with your imaginary red marking pen, mentally marking down this "assignment" with much notes added in margin.!

Cheers, S>S