A few 98/05s, and unit marking help

[N White]

I realized today, going through my "dresser o' bayonets", that I have quite accidentally ended up with more 98/05s than I thought I had.

First up, the one I have had for years, and probably the best of the lot is a 1915 Erfurt, with high ears, no flashguard, and a (albeit rusty and rock hard) leather scabbard marked to 19.P.E 3.100.

To the left is my newest, snagged at a local show for $120, a reblued 1915 Amberg, with low ears, flashguard, and round clearing hole.

The leftmost two were both given to me, a 1915 Simpson with a distinct dogleg in the blade, broken hilt split between the high ears, and flashguard, and a relicy Durkopp 1916, low ears, flashguard, and the subject of this post, marked to A F.21.5.120.

[trajan]

...The funny thing with some of the crossguards is that they were actually made with a split at the top to allow easier fitment....

Actually, all the parierstangen or crossguards of the original 98/05 were made with a split at the top to allow these to be slid over the blade from the bottom, and positioned at the junction of the ricasso and the tang shoulder, after which it was rivetted into place, so closing the gap. Just as it is almost impossible to see the river heads in many cases, the split is often very hard to see, but look, and it will be there!

Trajan

[trajan]

19.P.E 3.100. Ersatz-Pionier-Bataillon Nr.19, 3. Kompagnie, Waffe Nr.100

A.F.21.5.120. Fussartillerie-Regiment Nr.21, 5. Batterie, Waffe Nr.120

For what it is worth, as far as I can establish the Fußartillerie-Regiment Nr. 21 had two active battalions, the Fußartillerie-Regiment Nr. 21/II.Bataillon was with the 44 Reserve Division, and Nr.21/III was with the 234 Infanterie Division.

I'll see what I can find about the Pionier unit, although IIRC (and I can't check yet as I have a class to give in 20 minutes!), I would have thought the Ersatz Pionier units marked their bayonets e.g., 19 E.P.3.100 - but happy to be corrected if I don't correct myself first!

Trajan

[trajan]

I'll see what I can find about the Pionier unit...

"Tennefus" - meaning 'break-time!

I need to check, which I'll try and do later when I get home, but according to some notes I have on my office PC, regarding a 2.P.E.1. marking, then 19.P.E.3.100 would be 19 Pionier-Battaillon Ersatz-Kompanie 3, waffe 100. But, I haven't found out anything about the 19 PB yet...

Some of these Pionier-Battaillon had quite a few sub-units - PB 12, for example, had four regular companies, plus one ersatz, while PB 10 had four regular and two Reserve companies.

Trajan

[trajan]

Shipping Steel,

I would not deny that all of us can and should learn more whenever we get the chance! And I do try to make it clear what is my opinion, what is supposition, and what I have taken from reliable source material - so do feel free to ask for a proper reference, etc., if you need clarification on something!

Now, if you read my post carefully then you will see that I actually wrote "I need to check, which I'll try and do later when I get home, but according to some notes I have on my office PC, regarding a 2.P.E.1. marking, then 19.P.E.3.100 would be 19 Pionier-Battaillon Ersatz-Kompanie 3, waffe 100. But, I haven't found out anything about the 19 PB yet..."

I am not making a "statement against someone else's opinion" - I am just offering an alternative which I have admitted that I need to check!

Oh, and BTW, no I have not read or own the book you kindly offered a link to. I just prefer to rely on primary German sources in the original, if I can get them, rather than secondary literature, no matter how well researched, and in this case it was. Yet even so, experts do get things wrong: my dear old Prof. Eric Birley, Major in MI in WWII, often retailed interesting stories about what they had and what they had not got right about Wehrmacht units... And our own dear old Prof. Norman Stone has had a few things to say when commenting on earlier literature re: both WWI and II. But back to the book, which was originally published in the 1930's, I believe, using the material then made available to the author: because it is worth bearing in mind that it is known to contain inaccuracies, e.g., its account of the 2nd Armee...

But more to the point - I don't quite see why you metaphorically throw this book at me simply because I queried your interpretation of a unit marking on a bayonet!

Cheers,

Trajan

[trajan]

Nwhite,

PB 19 is proving elusive... Not helped by there being one similarly named in WWII...! (Never knew that! Amazing what you find when you research things!!!).

On the other hand I have tracked down a Ersatz Battaillon of the - wait for it - Pionier REGIEMENT Nr. 19 at their recruiting depot ... Never realised such units existed, but like all of us, I am following the learning curve upwards (with the odd slip backwards!). Anyway, there is a nice photograph of these guys in 1915 on this English language web site, run by the great-grandson of a WWI Pionier(!), along with lots of photographs of other Pionier and Army units, so you can get some idea of what the guy who 'owned' your bayonet may have looked like!

Cheers for now,

Trajan

Try this link - http://pommerschespionier.com/index.php/collection/postcard/

[trajan]

Actually, all the parierstangen or crossguards of the original 98/05 were made with a split at the top to allow these to be slid over the blade from the bottom, and positioned at the junction of the ricasso and the tang shoulder, after which it was rivetted into place, so closing the gap.

I was initially alerted to this split in the crossguard business on 98/05's by Shippingsteel, on http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=172698&hl=crossguard.

So I did the research into the book he quoted in that post, which was Carter's volume 1, and where it is clearly stated on p. 18 why this split exists, and then on p.114 provides the attached diagram! Always helps to follow up on things!

So, for your pleasure, Nwhite (and others!), here is a copy of the relevant original specification paper and a more detailed image. I don't know how good your German is, but the top diagram shows the parierstange or crossguard as made, with the 0.5 mm (yep!) slit on the top, so that this can be passed over the blade below the ricasso, and then slid into position, the other two diagrams explaining how it will look when rivetted into place.

In most German bayonets the crossguards were slid over the blade and then positioned and fixed, but the swelling edge of the 98/05 prevented that. So, when you think about how much time and effort this added to the production process of the 98/05, not so much "Vorsprung mit teknik" as, well, shades of (as I understand it) still making LEATHER seats for Me. 109's in 1945!

Regards,

Trajan

PS: Still haven't nailed that PB 19... But working on it when I can!

[trajan]

The good news?

Well - possibly! My research ( which we all need to do a little of before making any comments!) shows Carter in Vol.I noting that a 2. Elsässisches Pionier-Bataillon Nr. 19 existed in 11.08.1893. I followed that hint to this German site - http://dictionary.sensagent.com/NEUPREUSSISCHE%20PIONIERBATAILLONE/de-de/#2._Els.C3.A4ssisches_Pionier-Bataillon_Nr._19

Which has:-

2. Elsässisches Pionier-Bataillon Nr. 19

Das 2. Elsässische Pionier-Bataillon Nr. 19 war gemeinsam mit dem 1. Elsässischen Pionier-Bataillon Nr. 15 der 3. Pionier-Inspektion bzw. demKommando der Pioniere beim XV. Armeekorps unterstellt. Friedensstandort 1914 war Straßburg im Elsass.

But I went no further - you can do that!

The (not quite so) bad news? I still haven't found an exact or similar match to that marking on yours, but verification of a kind for my interpretation of yours is indicated by the relative frequency of markings such as '13.P.4.230', and the like, so in that example, it would be 13.Pioneer Batallion, 4.Company, weapon 230. And so your 19.P.E.3.100 would likely be 19 Pionier-Battaillon Ersatz-Kompanie 3, waffe 100

I have found one 98/05 marked P.30.E.B.4.72, which superficially should be 30.Pioneer Battalion Ersatz Battalion 4, weapon 72, but that is an odd enough marking to make anyone doubt the assertion that all the markings had to be done as per orders (normally between 1909-1918 the unit number comes before the unit abbreviation) - unless, perhaps, as I am inclined to think, it is a Weimar or 3rd Reich marking...

I really know very little about this subject, just what I have picked up here and there from reliable reference works, and so that (and all above on this mark!) is only a suggestion! Hopefully somebody else on GWF has done more research on this topic and can answer that! Or buy - at great expense - Jeff Noll's German Regimental Markings book, 2nd not the 1st edition!

Best of luck!

Trajan

[N White]

Thanks for the help. I will confess to a woeful ignorance of German units and organization, so the information thus far is quite helpful. I figured I should add an actual picture of the other marking. The bayonet looks like it spent a lot of time in an attic somewhere. I wish I knew its story, it popped up several years back at a local auction that does a lot of estate sales.

[trajan]

Thanks for the help. I will confess to a woeful ignorance of German units and organization, so the information thus far is quite helpful. I figured I should add an actual picture of the other marking. The bayonet looks like it spent a lot of time in an attic somewhere. I wish I knew its story, it popped up several years back at a local auction that does a lot of estate sales.

It has been a fun exercise (made possible by deciding to show my two x 2hr Monday classes documentaries instead of having to prepare actual classes!).

I think most of us are in the same boat when it comes to these regimental markings and as far as I can establish the only reliable tome on these is that by Jeff Noll, which I have never seen (and if I get my hands on a loan copy I will quite probably scan!). And quite honestly I don't know how reliable that one is anyway as I don't know what his sources were, but most weapons guys in the USA (at least those on GBF) seem to rate it highly! That aside, John Walter's The German Bayonet pp. 121-123 gives a handy but highly summarised explanation of the marking system and the more common abbreviations, and that's where I started to learn something about them, following up with, well, basic observations on published material.

Fortunately most markings follow the official (and highly detailed!) pre-WWI regulations regarding these, and VERY broadly speaking it seems that most WWI markings are pretty straightforward. Anything with a 'B' at the front is Bavarian; then comes the number of the unit; then the type of unit (e.g., 'A.F', Fuss-Artillerie; 'P', Pionier; 'R', Regiment; etc); then the company number; then the weapon number.

The problem comes with those examples that don't exactly follow regulations or refer to units that are not easily identifiable or trackable in the surviving records... My own personal take on this (and this seems to be the common belief amongst German bayonet collectors also) is simply that regulations were not always followed to the letter (no pun intended!) between 1914-1915/1916 which was the period (it seems) when bayonets were still being marked (but possibly somewhat later with non-front units). I would guess that part of the problem was the profusion of new units that did not quite fit the 'regular' system. E.g., pre-WWI Pionier units had regular and some also reserve companies, so their bayonets could be marked as per regulations, but what do you do when suddenly a recruiting and/or ersatz company is added as well? But there are still quite a few mystery markings that so far defy conclusive interpretation, as with one of mine: 'FLZ 1036', for which there are at least four possible explanations, and five if you include a Flying unit! - see http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=207144&hl= Whatever it was, it has to be a large unit to require over 1,000 bayonets!

Best wishes,

Julian

[shippingsteel]

Imperial German Army, 1914-18: Organisation, Structure, Orders of Battle

by Hermann Cron

[trajan]

Thanks SS!

Although I don't think that I said anywhere that there were no Ersatz battalions? So I don’t quite see why you needed to send this! Mind you, though, it is nice to see that the page you quote and the part you underlined kind of agrees with what I had already quite independently discovered (in an earlier post) about the 19.PB, that it was in the same Pionier Inspectorate as the 15.PB (the full title of the latter being – surprise, surprise – the 1.Elsässisches Pionier-Bataillon Nr. 15).

But it is the reading and interpretation of the marking 19.P.E.3.100 on N.White’s bayonet that we are concerned with. And it seems that you are I are doomed not to agree on it! Two dogs one bone??!! I suppose I could drop the subject, but having done some research on it then I shall share with you (and others) the results of that research to explain and clarify my tentative conclusions on the matter - with the usual caveats. That is to say, that from my exceedingly limited experience, and the books in my library, and from what books I have begged and borrowed and copied, and what research I could do from other sources, etc., then the sequence of the marking 19.P.E.3.100 indicates to me that on the balance of possibilities, this refers to an Ersatz Company 3 (as with, e.g., the 2.Ersatz Kompanie of the 3.Pionier Battaillon in the 4.Ersatz Division) and not an Ersatz Battalion.

Lets begin by looking at actual examples of bayonet markings. Well, I know of two only other examples marked along similar lines to this one with its 19.P.E.3.100, and they are:

12.P.E.3.182, and 13.P.E.2.22.

Thirty years ago Carter interpreted these as referring to Pioneer Ersatz Battalions – but that was 30 years ago, and I think it was you who observed on another thread that Carter’s information is now somewhat dated and is not necessarily as 100% accurate as we would like it to be. But in any case both of these bayonets were made before 1909, when a new system of regimental markings was introduced in Prussia for the Reichsheer (with Regulation no.185, issued 28 January 1909), followed by Bavaria in 1910 (Regulation no.1948). So, it could well be the case that a pre-1909 P.E. marking does refer to a Pioneer Ersatz Battalion. I simply don’t know. Nor do I know whether those who are much better placed to judge than either of us accept Carter’s reading of these marks.

But N.White’s 19.P.E.3.100 marking is on a 1915 issue 95/08 bayonet, and so post-1909 regulations apply. Of course, I haven’t been able to find a single bayonet with a known date that has a P.E. marking - the 2.P.E.1. example I referred to in an earlier post was seen on an internet auction…! But, let’s see how the 1909 regulations regarding the correct abbreviated regimental markings that follow the unit number were in use in WWI, and so the period of the bayonet we are concerned with. I should add before going any further, though, that these are readings accepted by better authorities than you or I!

E.B.I.R. = Ersatz Battalion, Infantry Regiment

E.B.J.R. = Ersatz Battalion, Infantry Regiment

E.B.L.J.R. = Ersatz Battalion, Landwehr Infantry Regiment

E.B.L.R. = Ersatz Battalion, Landwehr Infantry Regiment

E.K.K. = Ersatz Kraftwagen Kolone

E.L. = Ersatz Landwehr Infantry Regiment

E.F.A.R. = Ersatz Feld Artillerie Regiment

Note the letter sequence: E.B. for an Ersatz Battalion comes after the number and before the rest of the unit identifier, with a single E after the number and before the identifier used for an Ersatz unit. There are bound to be exceptions, but this is the standard arrangement for regimental markings on weaponry

Now, let’s look at some actual Pionier markings that I have recorded and their interpretations according to the standard system of marking used both before and after 1909, and during WWI. That is to say, unit number; unit identifier; company number; weapon number.

20.P.3.161 = 20 Pionier Bataillon company 3, weapon 161.

B.2.P.3.17 = Bavarian 2 Pionier Bataillon company 3, weapon 17

R.2.P.24.68 = Reserve 2 Pionier Bataillon company 24, weapon 68

13.P.R.226 = Recruiting depot, 13 Pionier Bataillon, weapon 226 (recruiting depots generally did not have companies)

And for completeness, how about this one?

15.P.S.12 = 15 Pionier Searchlight Company, weapon 12

So, taking into account the letter sequence used as above for other units between 1909-1914/1918, then I would expect the marking of an Ersatz Battalion of a Pionier unit on a WWI bayonet to read something like:-

[number].E.P.[numbers], or

[number].E.B.P.[numbers]

There again, there is always an exception (and sometimes more than one!) that proves the rule! Remember that P.30.E.B.4.72 marking I mentioned in an earlier post? It’s on a W/08 98/05, and I interpreted this as reading 30.Pioneer Battalion Ersatz Battalion 4, weapon 72, and possibly being post WWI. But while researching this reply I discovered this one, P.30.E.B.3.192, on a W/15 98/05 trans, which Carter reads as 30.Pioneer Battalion, Ersatz Battalion, Company 4, weapon 192… Confusing, isn’t it! But interesting to see that in this case Carter accepts E.B. as the appropriate marking for an Ersatz Battalion in a Pioneer regiment…

Of course, logic doesn’t always apply, and what I would expect the marking to be like on a bayonet issued to the Ersatz Battalion of a Pioneer unit is no more than my interpretation of the evidence available to me regarding unit markings on weapons. It could well be the case that the Ersatz battalions of the Pioneer units marked their bayonets with an E after the Unit identifier, contrary to the common (usual? offical? regulated) practice of other units. I don’t know, and I certainly do not claim, nor have I claimed, to be an expert on the matter. But I think I have shown enough good reason to believe that – until something else turns up! - the marking we are in dispute about is on the whole more likely to refer to an Ersatz company rather than an Ersatz battalion. It certainly would seem to be the case if we apply the following well-known rule of thumb: "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate", or, as you prefer(!), "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."

Best wishes,

Trajan

[shippingsteel]

I am not interested in engaging in long-winded arguments of little benefit to anybody, except to point out the basic facts to anyone who may be interested.

During the war each of the Pioneer units had an active battalion away fighting at the front, and an ersatz battalion at home for training up the new recruits.

So the 19th Pioneers would have the active battalion designated as 19.P. etc and the ersatz battalion designated as 19.P.E. followed by company number.

This is the established format in the Imperial regulations for indicating the ersatz battalion, and is shown as thus in several reference books on this matter.

So we see examples such as G.E. for ersatz battalions in Garde Regiments, and R.E. for ersatz battalions in Infanterie Regiments. It's not rocket science.!

An E at the beginning of the marking string was already used to indicate other branches of the army, so was not used per regulations to denote ersatz units.

Cheers, S>S

German Military Handguns, 1879-1918

by John Walter

[shippingsteel]

And here is the Feldpost stamp from that postcard that was linked to - which proves the existence of the Ersatz-Pioneer-Bataillon Nr.19

Please don't confuse the everyday description of the unit on the postcard, with the way things were marked as per the official regulation.

Cheers, S>S

[trajan]

Whoah there Shippingsteel! If you are “not interested in engaging in long-winded arguments of little benefit to anybody” about the 19.P.E.3.100 marking on N.White’s bayonet then why continue bringing it up? Especially as in an earlier post on this subject that has since disappeared you explained that you were offering your opinion as to its’ meaning and didn’t want to go into discussion on this? Well, nor am I inclined to continue with this debate – my less intimidating choice of phrase, as the term “argument” conjures up more of a bicker than a reasoned discussion! However, the fact of the matter is that how we interpret these markings on German bayonet and other weaponry does need to be openly and publicly discussed for others to formulate their own opinion - especially so if what you offer as a counter to my contribution is imperfect and/or flawed.

But before continuing let me refer you back to an earlier discussion on GWF on the subject of weaponry markings, namely

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=140705&page=2. As Tony E advised you in that one, “[u}nless you can find references for your theories, they are no more than that, theories. I say that not to discourage you, but rather the opposite, to keep researching”.

In this particular debate you present no more than a theory about this marking, a perfectly good and acceptable theory, as I have conceded, which is more than what you have been prepared to do with my alternative theory, which you reject out of hand. True, they are only theories, with the principal difference between us being this. In my earlier post I supported my theory with the help of late 20^th and early 21^st century reference works by acknowledged bayonet experts on bayonet marking patterns, along with my own research into German sources on bayonet markings and army units, together with a selection of actual bayonet markings that have been published and are on record, and how they are physically marked, and how these are to be interpreted as according to current understanding (i.e., in 2014) of these markings.

Your response is to reply from a book published in 1980 with a quote on how Reichsheer pistols were marked with no indication in the text you copied as to what the relevant date or period was. The author of the book you quote, John Walters, is of course one of those who put modern bayonet studies in train, especially for German bayonets, and it is true that in his 1976 ‘The German Bayonet’, p. 122, he states that the letter E for Ersatz, “when used with other marks, i.e., ‘G.R.E.’ signifies the Ersatz-battalion…” Yes, well, that was what was thought in 1976… Things have moved on from there… And many more WWI regimental markings are on record now than was the case in 1976 or 1980 for that matter…

The principal point I want to make here is that, as far as I am aware, nobody has yet found the crucial and missing official German document (if such ever existed) that explains all of the varied weaponry markings as used between 1909-1918 - if somebody out there knows any different please let us all know! In the absence of such then we have to accept on at least a provisional basis how those who study these things are interpreting them as according to the most recent literature. So, I repeat, I do not and have never doubted that Ersatz Battaillons of Pioneer regiments existed – I could probably give you a list, if you wanted. But, as I pointed out before, with examples, the nature of the markings on this particular bayonet conforms to a fairly well recognised pattern, in that the letter E after the name of a unit is on balance more likely to refer to a Ersatz Company than an Ersatz Battalion. I could well be wrong (and note that I do admit that I could be wrong!) – but that is what the available evidence points to, and so Okham’s razor DOES apply.

Now, to your more specific points.

“During the war each of the Pioneer units had an active battalion away fighting at the front, and an ersatz battalion at home for training up the new recruits.”

Excuse me? I really had to re- and re- and re-read that one… Then I realised that you were referring to what was the practice in the Wehrmacht in 1944… Not the same in WWI, I’m afraid…. To the best of my knowledge – correct me (with proof, please) if I am wrong – most if not all WWI Ersatz units saw actual combat in WWI. There were even complete Ersatz divisions in front line service. Some like the 19th Ersatz Division, were – if I understand the German correctly – in the front-line as early as Summer/Autumn 1914, and certainly so by 1916. That division, by the way, even included an Ersatz company of pioneers, the 1.Ersatz-Kompanie Kgl. Sächsisches 2. Pionier-Bataillon Nr. 22 (and which, in theory at least, if its armourers followed usual practice, would have its bayonets marked something like ‘22.P.E.1.XXX’ – after all, it was a company, not a battalion!).

“So the 19th Pioneers would have the active battalion designated as 19.P. etc and the ersatz battalion designated as 19.P.E. followed by company number.”

Well, I do not doubt and I never have doubted that the 19.Pionier battalion had an ersatz battalion, not the least because I knew of that postmark you also posted (always helps to do research, you know! – in fact I think I provided a link that lead to it?). But my understanding of this 19.P.E.3.100 marking, following the usual marking system on bayonets as that is currently understood and not on as on pistols as that was understood in 1980, is that it is a company marking. I could be wrong: but I would prefer to follow 21^st century authorities on bayonet marking patterns rather than hypothesise an as yet unsupported reading of a specific marking! Note, please, that I do not deny your interpretation may be correct. But it is unsupported.

“This is the established format in the Imperial regulations for indicating the ersatz battalion, and is shown as thus in several reference books on this matter.”

References please! As in, “I’ll show you mine if you show me yours”! As far as I can see you are relying on an a single unsupported statement from a page in a book on pistols that was published in 1980… And I have shown you actual examples of markings on bayonets from much more recent publications (and I can give you ISBN and page numbers if you would like these!). And I have also shown you – on another thread – examples of markings that do NOT conform to regulations!

“So we see examples such as G.E. for ersatz battalions in Garde Regiments, and R.E. for ersatz battalions in Infanterie Regiments. It's not rocket science.!”

No, it’s not rocket science… And rockets have changed somewhat since 1976, when the book you rely on for that information was published (and it should be 'G.R.E.', not 'G.E.'.)… I gave some examples of how those markings are read now, in the 21^st century… The acknowledged experts who have developed the reading of these markings could be wrong, in which case an awful lot of people who have followed them are going to be rather upset. But there again, read on…

“An E at the beginning of the marking string was already used to indicate other branches of the army, so was not used per regulations to denote ersatz units.”

You must mean the E used for Eisenbahnen units… As with ones in my records, an Erfurt made W/02 98/02 marked ‘E.A.6.182’, and the Luneschloss 98/05 marked W/15 ‘58.E.A.2.353’ (with A for abteilung in both examples).

In which case, then, if I follow you correctly, the ‘3.E.M.G.K.619’ marking on a undated Koeller made S.84/98, and the ‘3.E.M.G.K.508’ and ‘3.E.M.G.K.585’ markings on two 98/05’s that I have recorded do not indicate the 3^rd Ersatz Machine Gun Company as I and others (including Jeff Noll) thought but actually the 3^rd Eisenbahn Machine gun Company? Makes sense to me, in a strange way! But I am not so certain that the man with the Erfurt made W/15 84/98 marked “1.E.M.G.K.16.A.K.99”, thought to indicate attachment to the 16 Armee Korps was doing that kind of detached duty. I am even less certain that those men carrying undated Artillerie S. 71/98’s marked ‘2.E.I.R.53.9’ and ‘2.E.I.R.53.61’, normally interpreted as the 2^nd Ersatz 53 Infantry Regiment (5 Westfalisches), were on the wagons, so to speak, as this seems a strange way to use an entire regiment.

But what on earth do we make of this one - an Erfurt made 98 bayonet marked ‘1.E.S.B. 1670’? Most have assumed that this marking indicated the I.Ersatz Seebattaillon... Ah, I get it now! It’s really the ‘1.Schwabisches Eisenbahnen Battalion’, the guys the song is about, responsible for calling out all those stations from Stuttgart through Ulm and Bierberbach, and so on? Well, nothing would surprise me – and this unit and its legendary railway line would make a suitable subject for research for a good paperback wouldn’t it?

I conclude by wishing you and all other readers a ‘Happy St.Patrick's Day’! And in earnest hope that unless anything directly relevant to the subject comes up, then it can now be laid to rest!

Trajan

[shippingsteel]

I haven't got the time to read all of that above, so will just continue to reiterate that I am confident of my sources and that they (Walter) were well researched.

The primary source document is the 1909 markings regulations, Vorschrift uber das Stempeln der Handwaffen, which I know that Walter had access to so ...

I have a fairly well stocked library that covers many areas of weaponry from that period, and I have spent many hours studying this material to gain knowledge.

I believe that is how knowledge can be dispersed, when people are prepared to share what they know. People with no books & less study have little knowledge.

The regulations stated how things should be marked, with the formats showing details for the use of armourers. Of course not every marking is per regulations.

I believe Walter was the best English author from his time in regard to covering markings on Imperial weaponry. His chapter in that book is the best I have found.

So you either believe what an author writes that has accessed the primary source document, or you don't believe it and prefer alternative theories, it's your choice.

Below is the scanned pages showing the source document from the quoted book and you can see the level of detail that is described on every page, very specific.

Cheers, S>S

[trajan]

Thank you! That is a revelation and it is nice to see that such an actual document exists - even though one obviously did as I had a reference to its number and its date of issuance! Do you have the whole thing? It would be nice to get it more widely disseminated! And in the meantime I will see what examples I have noted of bayonets with any of the markings shown on those two pages!

I agree with you on Walter. After Dangre, he and Carter were the seminal figures in bayonetology - to coin a phrase! My single gripe in this field is the lack of published references to support statements that we are then meant to take as fact. By which I mean it would have been nice and helpful if Walter quoted the document and the page number he used as his source for bits of information - he was not, of course, alone in this. Perhaps I am too sensitive on the issue, but I would not dare to publish a paper in my field without giving the source of information I have used so that others can check it. But there again, I doubt that Walter ever suspected that such a wide interest would have eventually developed in such matters of detail!

Best wishes,

Trajan

[trajan]

... I still haven't found an exact or similar match to that marking on yours, [but] ... your 19.P.E.3.100 would likely be 19 Pionier-Battaillon Ersatz-Kompanie 3, waffe 100...

Well, I still haven't found an exact or even a close match for your marking but confirmation of a kind that the placement of the 'E' indicates an Ersatz Kompagnie is to be had from Carter's original Ersatz Bayonets volume. In his comments for EB 9 he notes the following mark "R.75.1.E.K.55" on of these, which he then explains indicates the Infanterie-Regiment 75, 1 Ersatz-Kompagnie, Waffe 55. (BTW, I have not read every single sentence in the 1877 or 1909 regulations, but as far as I am aware, in neither is there any reference to the use of the letter 'K' for Kompagnie).

Carter's listing of other marks for the same EB 9 type would also seem to confirm what I indicated in an earlier post, that where the letter 'E' precedes a unit number and name, this indicates an Ersatz-Bataillon, as, e.g., "E.L.1.R.3", = Ersatz(-Bataillon) Landeswehr 1st (Infanterie-)Regiment (Stab) Waffe 3.

...I have a fairly well stocked library that covers many areas of weaponry from that period, and I have spent many hours studying this material to gain knowledge.... I believe that is how knowledge can be dispersed, when people are prepared to share what they know. People with no books & less study have little knowledge....The regulations stated how things should be marked, with the formats showing details for the use of armourers. Of course not every marking is per regulations.

I entirely agree with SS that we should share our knowledge, which is why I am happy to share with you and others my discovery about the EB 9 marking(s). I am also glad to see that SS accepts that "Of course not every marking is per regulations". As noted above, neither the 1877 or 1909 regulations apparently refer to the use of the letter 'K' for Kompagnie, and yet it does seem to have been used in that way. Evidently the marking system went rather haywire during WW1, with markings being introduced that people at the time understood, but whether or not these were ever officially approved in some form of official document is perhaps one of Rumesfeld's 'unknown unknowns'!

TTFN,

Julian

[trajan]

Just for information. I have found a reference on a German thread about markings being officially discontinued in 1915, but I haven't yet nailed down the source of that - it seems to be an official diktat from Berlin. So, Nwhite, rest assured that your markings are petty certainly pre-1916!

Trajan

[Scoteee]

Hello Trajan 

 

I have sent you  an image a 1915 ww1 issued s9805 ( I think ) bayonet. I’m beginning to think post 1914 these were not marked with units for safety and security reasons. Do you have any thoughts? I’m really hoping to find the source 
 

Sincerely; 

 

 

Scoteee... 

[Steve1871]

Julian

Everybody loves when you get your interest up and your curiosity runs wild, You put out so much specific information and back it up as well as use similar unit to better understand, and you did all this in very short order is AMAZING 

 

I love reading about all these units, but it is very hard for me to figure which post you did or posted on to use your info to research my own unit marked pieces. 
 

Please try to start your own German Unit/ Regimental markings for us

Great work here😊

[Steve1871]

Thanks SS, your unit vs ersatz unit makes sense, for me living on the road, no room for a library of books. I will remember this

You always have great posts and answers for us struggling researchers for our own collections

[Steve1871]

Julian, I meant Please start your book on units/ markings

[trajan]

I have a potential publisher lined up but I'll have to convince the uni first to give me time off... But ones like this example posted by Scottee will always be a puzzle!

 

Julian

[trajan]

On 17/03/2014 at 05:47, shippingsteel said:

I haven't got the time to read all of that above, so will just continue to reiterate that I am confident of my sources and that they (Walter) were well researched.

The primary source document is the 1909 markings regulations, Vorschrift uber das Stempeln der Handwaffen, which I know that Walter had access to so ...

I have a fairly well stocked library that covers many areas of weaponry from that period, and I have spent many hours studying this material to gain knowledge.

I believe that is how knowledge can be dispersed, when people are prepared to share what they know. People with no books & less study have little knowledge.

The regulations stated how things should be marked, with the formats showing details for the use of armourers. Of course not every marking is per regulations.

I believe Walter was the best English author from his time in regard to covering markings on Imperial weaponry. His chapter in that book is the best I have found.

So you either believe what an author writes that has accessed the primary source document, or you don't believe it and prefer alternative theories, it's your choice.

Below is the scanned pages showing the source document from the quoted book and you can see the level of detail that is described on every page, very specific.

Cheers, S>S

 

Just a quick recap to SS's reply from all those years ago! It is important to know that there were six or so versions of the Stempeln regulations issued from the 1870's, the 1909 one being current for Prussia, etc., in WW1, but Bavaria had its own version at the time. Also, my own copy of the 1909 regulations has various entries ammended and even pasted over in the years leading up to 1914 or so - 'current' regulations always had a habit of changing! The real bu**er is reading that spidery handwriting German clerks often used for copying the new stuff into their own regimental library versions...