Dylan Posted 5 December , 2020 Share Posted 5 December , 2020 @AndyBsk Hi Andy thank you for your input... No nothing I could see, it is quite worn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyBsk Posted 5 December , 2020 Share Posted 5 December , 2020 It could be there was used a S84/98 from lenght of spures on hook of scabbard in hole area of the pouch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 6 December , 2020 Author Share Posted 6 December , 2020 10 hours ago, AndyBsk said: Corectly deciphered by Prussian, should be mentioned that piece is already a castrate, mostly from Faschinenmesser M1864 or Um(not from bayonet), the blade was shortened and both end of crossguard were cut off. Maker of blade Schnitzler & Kirschbaum Solingen. The frog could be for S98/05 or S84/98 as mentioned, any backside marking? Thanks for correcting on the type and filling in the maker Andy - the pre-1898 stuff is not my strong point! I thought it might be a Solingen maker, but no time to research that properly. Julian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve1871 Posted 6 December , 2020 Share Posted 6 December , 2020 You are spot on there Andy, no mortise slot,inlet for leaf spring, button, there were 3-4 variations from 1864 till the Lion Hilt M1892 replaced them. Seems it would be Great War. I do not see WW 2 using something that old. I have no idea about the frog. I know that K98 and some original 98/95 frogs were re- worked by adding a strap with snap closure . It is an interesting piece. Being well over a century old, it will be a great mystery Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prussian Posted 6 December , 2020 Share Posted 6 December , 2020 (edited) I can´t add more infos about the bayo, but here is a pre-war photo of a soldier of FAR42. He wears the Kaiser prize. Only the 3rd battery of that regiment received this award. 1901, 1905 and 1906 Edited 6 December , 2020 by The Prussian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyBsk Posted 6 December , 2020 Share Posted 6 December , 2020 Should be exactly look at the frog leather material, it could be too syntetic material as very thin layer was by wearing removed, steel rivets are not typical for WW1.when i remember correctly, i teoretically would tend to a Extra Frog. Should be examined for thicknes of leather as thiner material were used by dress items. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 7 January , 2021 Share Posted 7 January , 2021 This one just came up in another group I'm part of, and I think it must be the most unit-marked bayonet I've ever seen. Its a 71/84, made in Danzig with W89 on the spine. I am guessing that "E.M.G" is "Ersatz Maschinengewhre" but I'm utterly stumped on "F.KW". Any ideas? Scabbard is matching: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitecastle Posted 7 January , 2021 Share Posted 7 January , 2021 (edited) Looks more like F.M.G., particularly on the scabbard. So, maybe Maschinengewehr-Kompagnie des Fusilier-Regiments. The F.K. could be Fuhrpark Kolonne (Transport Pool Column). Edited 7 January , 2021 by Whitecastle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prussian Posted 8 January , 2021 Share Posted 8 January , 2021 (edited) Hello! Festungs-MG-Abteilung, Feste Kaiser Wilhelm II (Feste means Festung = Forteress) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_de_Mutzig Edited 8 January , 2021 by The Prussian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zuluwar2006 Posted 8 January , 2021 Share Posted 8 January , 2021 2 hours ago, The Prussian said: Hello! Festungs-MG-Abteilung, Feste Kaiser Wilhelm II (Feste means Festung = Forteress) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_de_Mutzig Dear Prussian, My contribution on this extremely rare unit marking. a 84/98 plain bayonet. W 17 date on the spine. Rich. HERDER manufacturer unit marking WAR TIME for Festungs Machingewehr - Formation Feste Kaiser Wilhelm II EXTREMELY RARE UNIT MARKING Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prussian Posted 8 January , 2021 Share Posted 8 January , 2021 Yes, I agree. I pretty rare item! Congrats!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyBsk Posted 8 January , 2021 Share Posted 8 January , 2021 Thats interesting unit, thanks Andy from Germany deciphered. Which is interesting the piece has exact location.It was probably a Waffenmeister stamping, as this is certainly not a manual confirmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve1871 Posted 8 January , 2021 Share Posted 8 January , 2021 Damn, I can barely say either one of those rare, LONG unit markings in a single breath! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 8 January , 2021 Share Posted 8 January , 2021 Many thanks to: Whitecastle The Prussian zuluwar2006 AndyBsk Vielen danke, Herren! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShrapnelDK Posted 8 January , 2021 Share Posted 8 January , 2021 23 minutes ago, Haukehaien said: Many thanks to: Whitecastle The Prussian zuluwar2006 AndyBsk Vielen danke, Herren! 23 minutes ago, Haukehaien said: Many thanks to: Whitecastle The Prussian zuluwar2006 AndyBsk Vielen danke, Herren! 23 minutes ago, Haukehaien said: Many thanks to: Whitecastle The Prussian zuluwar2006 AndyBsk Vielen danke, Herren! Yes thanks to you guys and I wanna say thanks too, Haukehaien, for posting my bayonet on this forum and help solve the mystery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShrapnelDK Posted 8 January , 2021 Share Posted 8 January , 2021 (edited) While we are at it you guys maybe want to take a look at the unit markings on the german 71/84 bayonet my buddy owns. Also from Danzig but stamped W87 on the spine. Overall it is in a bit better shape than mine, and also has and intact scabbard but It might be a bit more difficult to read. But I remember him. Saying something about the marine. But I have no clue . I read D85. R 15. 208. I also see a faint M in Front of the D and the number 522 above R 15.208. I'm eager to see if you guys can dechifrere this one. Edited 8 January , 2021 by ShrapnelDK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyBsk Posted 8 January , 2021 Share Posted 8 January , 2021 Looks like there was different unit striked out,there are weapon nr. twice,hard to tell what is really there,85IR, company and number,and additional unit in front? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShrapnelDK Posted 8 January , 2021 Share Posted 8 January , 2021 55 minutes ago, AndyBsk said: Looks like there was different unit striked out,there are weapon nr. twice,hard to tell what is really there,85IR, company and number,and additional unit in front? Yes it appears so that it was issued A different unit number at some point I can see the line where it was striked out, but I really can't tell if it i the ciffer 1 or letter I because of the ciffer 522 stamped on top of it. There is a letter/ number on the muzzle ring that doesn't make sense to me. The way I see it is M D 85.R15. 208. Or like this (some letter on the muzzle ring) following MD 85.RI 522 The (522) i guess is stamped instead of the 208. Wich should be the weapon number right? But it also looks like they altered the 208 by adding the ciffer 6 to it. I hope it that it make some sense to you, because I think it's really difficult to describe.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyBsk Posted 9 January , 2021 Share Posted 9 January , 2021 (edited) I believe the 85R .15.208 is old stamp which is ligtly striked out, new stamp could be I. M.D. 522 when in front is a roman 1 numeral, for I.Matrosen Division weapon nr.522. Unfortunally it was heavy finished probably and in upper area was rust. There was written anywhere that in beginn of war marine units returned their 98 weapons and got older HF71 or S71/84 as not directly in front areas involved. Edited 9 January , 2021 by AndyBsk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zuluwar2006 Posted 9 January , 2021 Share Posted 9 January , 2021 On 08/01/2021 at 08:11, zuluwar2006 said: Dear Prussian, My contribution on this extremely rare unit marking. a 84/98 plain bayonet. W 17 date on the spine. Rich. HERDER manufacturer unit marking WAR TIME for Festungs Machingewehr - Formation Feste Kaiser Wilhelm II EXTREMELY RARE UNIT MARKING Another similar unit marking on a 98/05 bayonet. Festungs Machine Gewehr Kompanie, 14th Army Korps. Regards D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prussian Posted 10 January , 2021 Share Posted 10 January , 2021 Hello! That´s a little bit strange... XIV.AK didn´t had any MG-companies. First there were only 3 Trupps: 1 Trupp with 6 MG in Hüningen 1 Trupp with 12 MG in Istein 1 Trupp with 10 MG in Neuenburg Later another Trupp for each fortress was formed. Some of them became parts of MG companies of infantry regiments in 1915. Those were Ldw.Inf.Rgt.110, Ldw.Inf.Rgt.109 and Ldw.Inf.Rgt.87 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShrapnelDK Posted 10 January , 2021 Share Posted 10 January , 2021 21 hours ago, AndyBsk said: I believe the 85R .15.208 is old stamp which is ligtly striked out, new stamp could be I. M.D. 522 when in front is a roman 1 numeral, for I.Matrosen Division weapon nr.522. Unfortunally it was heavy finished probably and in upper area was rust. There was written anywhere that in beginn of war marine units returned their 98 weapons and got older HF71 or S71/84 as not directly in front areas involved. Well it makes sense. And at least we know some of the story behind it now , thanks . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zuluwar2006 Posted 10 January , 2021 Share Posted 10 January , 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, The Prussian said: Hello! That´s a little bit strange... XIV.AK didn´t had any MG-companies. First there were only 3 Trupps: 1 Trupp with 6 MG in Hüningen 1 Trupp with 12 MG in Istein 1 Trupp with 10 MG in Neuenburg Later another Trupp for each fortress was formed. Some of them became parts of MG companies of infantry regiments in 1915. Those were Ldw.Inf.Rgt.110, Ldw.Inf.Rgt.109 and Ldw.Inf.Rgt.87 Dear Andy, As the date on the spine of the blade is 1917, what do you think??? A late formed Ww1 unit mayebe? On 1917 and 1918 a lot of units reunited in another formations, as this was dictated by the spirit of war, after the end of 1916, and because the military headquarter wanted to cover the tremendous losses caused on 1915 and 1916 during war. Regards D. Edited 10 January , 2021 by zuluwar2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prussian Posted 10 January , 2021 Share Posted 10 January , 2021 (edited) Hello! I´m not sure, but I have the listings of all MG formation during the war. Like I said, I couldn´t find any Fortress MG companies in the XIV. army corps. Could the "F" be an "E"? Each army corps formed "Ersatz" MG-formations. Baden (XIV.AK) formed three of them. 1.Ers.MGK August 2, 1914 2.Ers.MGK August 2, 1914 3.Ers.MGK June 14, 1917 Since january 1917 each company was under command of the "Commander of the Ersatz-MG-Troops of XIV.AK" (Kommandeur der Ersatz MG-Truppen des XIV.AK) Edited 10 January , 2021 by The Prussian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyBsk Posted 10 January , 2021 Share Posted 10 January , 2021 Andy should be right, even the letter doesnt looks like E, the dot behind the letter and its possition speaks for E letter, possible the die could be damaged in lower part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now