German Unit Bayonet Markings

[jscott]

To be honest I hadn't seen many 98/05s with MG markings until this thread was started! The metallurgical analysis sounds interesting - any ideas why the results point the way they do?

Yes I think it is an EB9 or similar, I'll get some more shots up when I get a moment. In the meantime, here is another clearly marked s98. What I found interesting was the very late date of manufacture for this model.

Cheers, Jonathan

[trajan]

Re the second bayonet, I am unsure whether the marking 3.M.G.77. refers to Machinengewehr-Kompagnie 3, Waffe Nr. 77 (i.e. unknown regiment) or whether it refers to Machinengewehr-Kompagnie 3, 77 IR. From what I can see Noll interprets markings in both ways. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

To be honest I hadn't seen many 98/05s with MG markings until this thread was started! The metallurgical analysis sounds interesting - any ideas why the results point the way they do?

Yes I think it is an EB9 or similar, I'll get some more shots up when I get a moment. In the meantime, here is another clearly marked s98. What I found interesting was the very late date of manufacture for this model.

We got back to Ankara last night and I am playing hookie - Gave my fellow-travellers free-time this afternoon so that I could get home and check on things before joining them tonight and for tomorrow!

1) OK, Carter has no 98/05's listed with MG markings, but Williams lists one (p.427) which is '3.E.M.G.K.71', which should be '3rd Ersatz-Maschinengewehr-Kompagnie Waffe 71'. The key to understanding your marking is, I think, (but I need time to do a thorough check and my Noll is in the UK), the lack of the 'K'. So your '3.M.G.77' would be '3rd [infantry Regiment], Maschinengewehr[-Kompagnie] Waffe 77' BTW, who is the maker and what year?

2) Yes, the analysis looks interesting - have to see a bladed-weapon chap to get confirmation of what it all means - but there is (IIRC) a lack or absence of chrome in all of them, this being added (again, IIRC) to prevent corrosion...

3) Carter vol 1 has schilling making 98/02's for Bavaria and Saxony up to 1905... Your Saxon one takes it significantly later!

3) Got distracted by boys coming home from school... It is a 98, not a 98/02... Carter vol 1 has Schilling making 98's for "all three states between 1903-14', and vol II has them making this for Saxony into 1914.

[trajan]

'236.R.5.165' is - I believe - Reserve-Infanterie-Regiment Nr. 236, see: http://wiki-de.genealogy.net/RIR_236

They seemed to have been formed 1914 at Koln-Deutz (site of an important late Roman fort!), around a cadre of bits and bobs from other units, and in October that year were at Güntersleben, which is in Wurzburg in Bayern... They served right though to the end of the GW...

TTFN,

Julian

[jscott]

Yes definitely a s98 (I wish it was a s98/02!)

Always nice to have a saxon marked bayonet and I particularly like the very crisp markings on this one. I guess the manufacture date of '14 with the regimental marking makes it more likely that this bayonet saw service in the war...

I'll take a look at Noll later and give a synopsis of my thoughts on the various machinengewehr markings. It seems that the "RMG" markings clearly refer to a regiment, but the "MG" markings are less certain, and can be read a number of ways.

Cheers, J

[trajan]

Yes, MG markings...

Carter has quite a few for the 71/84 along the lines of, e.g., 16.R.M.G.59, which he reads as '16 [infanterie-]Regiment Maschinengewehr[-Kompagnie] Waffe 59'; also some along the lines of 'J.R.141.M.G.43', which he reads as 'Infanterie-Regiment 141 Maschinengewehr[-Kompagnie] Waffe 43'

What I am thinking of with yours is that they took a shortcut, and didn't bother with a 'JR' or 'R' in the marking! Of course, these are only Carter's interpretations...

BTW - finally found a source that details the suspension of the weapons-marking instructions....

Prussian War Ministry document 3492 10, 16A 2, which is dated 2 November 1916, and applies to all - including Bavaria - stipulates that unit marking of the 'Gewehr 98 und Seitengewehr 98' (as according to DVE 298A) no longer needed to be done for the duration of the war.

Now, it doesn't say 'has to be completely stopped', and it only mentions the 'Gewehr 98 und Seitengewehr 98'... I have seen a reference somewhere to weapon markings for units in the 300 series, which are late-war, so evidently marking continued after this directive was issued.

TTFN,

Julian

PS: DVE 298A, by the way, was issued October 1913, and details the marking system and locations thereof for, inter alia, the S98; 98/05; 71/84; 84/98; 71; 71/98; and kS98

[trajan]

... a Bavarian marked ersatz...

Forgot that one! 'B.1.R.3.'- what? can't see the weapon number!

That aside, as you will know, Königlich Bayerisch 1. Infanterie-Regiment König, see: http://wiki-de.genealogy.net/1._IR_(KB), and 3rd Company...

I have a feeling I have seen that B.1. marking somewhere else, but I can't remember where... The KB 3 and 5 certainly used Ersatz jobs (an EB 10 and and EB 4 respectively), so there you go - Bavarian Ersatz bayonets do exist, but seem to be uncommon.

[jscott]

Hi Trajan - thanks for that. Weapon number is 3 (B.1.R.3.3).

Cheers, J

[trajan]

BTW - finally found a source that details the suspension of the weapons-marking instructions....

Prussian War Ministry document 3492 10, 16A 2, which is dated 2 November 1916, and applies to all - including Bavaria - stipulates that unit marking of the 'Gewehr 98 und Seitengewehr 98' (as according to DVE 298A) no longer needed to be done for the duration of the war.

Forgot to give the source for this document... Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, Abteilung IV, Kriegsarchiv MKr.4031

The relevant part of the text regarding ending weapons marking reads: “für die Dauer des Krieges” which literally means something like "for the duration of the war".

[jscott]

Thanks Trajan - thats an interesting source, and is consistent with my experience (i.e. seeing a big drop off of unit marking in war time dated bayonets).

Re the MG marking, I agree with the interpretation you give for the markings above. In terms of the shorter "MG" marking I've looked at Noll and the closest markings I could find are as follows:

M.G.252 - machine gun company of the 252 reserve infantry regiment

3.M.G.133.18. = infantry regiment 133, company 3, waffe nr. 18

2.M.G.133-71 = infantry regiment 133, company 2, waffe nr. 71

3.M.G.K.35 = company 3, waffe nr. 35

All of these markings were on lugers or flare pistols, I couldn't find anything analogous on bayonets. The first three would indicate that my marking (3.M.G.77) would be the 3rd MG company of the 77th infantry regiment, but unlike these markings my bayonet does not have an additional waffe number. And then the final example would suggest that the 77 would actually be the waffe number itself.

I guess that its not possible to be 100% sure on something like this, but at least its narrowed down to a few possible options.

Cheers, J

[trajan]

...Re the MG marking, I agree with the interpretation you give for the markings above. In terms of the shorter "MG" marking I've looked at Noll and the closest markings I could find are as follows:

...All of these markings were on lugers or flare pistols, I couldn't find anything analogous on bayonets.

...I guess that its not possible to be 100% sure on something like this, but at least its narrowed down to a few possible options.

Hi Jonathon,

As I indicated earlier, my Noll is in the UK, so thanks for filling in with those. I should be free this afternoon and will try to go through the Carter volumes and also Roy Williams' works to see what I can add - off-hand, I think that there are some bayonets around with just the XX MG YY combination.

I agree, we will probably never be certain on yours, but we'll see if any pattern emerges from what Carter and Williams have observed.

Julian

[jscott]

Thanks Julian - any further information would be much appreciated.

[trajan]

... Re the second bayonet, I am unsure whether the marking 3.M.G.77. refers to Machinengewehr-Kompagnie 3, Waffe Nr. 77 (i.e. unknown regiment) or whether it refers to Machinengewehr-Kompagnie 3, 77 IR. From what I can see Noll interprets markings in both ways. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

OK, so I have collated data on just over 100 "M.G." marked bayonets... Interesting - especially the variety in markings and the evidence that some units marked more than others, and/or, the bayonets of those units have survived in modern collections in disproportionate numbers!

The search revealed some shockers that would dismay the likes of those who think that everything was done by the book with regard to markings... E.G. our sceptical antipodean mate in post 27 above... How's about, for example, "M.G.SS.AB.24.17.STAB"? That's for the "Maschinengewehr-Scharfschutzen-Abteilung 24, Waffe 17, Stab", in case you had not worked it out...

But, back to Jonathan's one - that "3.M.G.77".! I have found two only that come close to it: "1.M.G.92.", on an EB made from a Chinese M.1907; and "3.M.G.94" on an EB 146. My feeling, after looking at all the others, is that the armourer missed out a final "K", so that it should be "3.M.G.K.94", OR, he missed out an "R" after the initial number, and so "3.R.M.G.94". So, take your pick!

For obvious reasons, I won't present all the data here, but most of these "M.G." marked bayonets are the short ones, a reasonable number are Ersatz, but I have recorded six 98/05's (including Jonathan's), one being a scabbard marking...

Enjoy!

Trajan

[trajan]

... "Bereits am 9. Februar 1912 informierte das Kriegsministerium alle Generalkommandos und die maßgeblichen Inspektionen über das Ende der Handwaffenstempelungen" (No, of course there is no reference to back this up... )

I would translate that along the lines of:

"Already on [by] 9 February 1912 the War Ministry informed all General Commands and the relevant Inspections [Inspection Departments?] about the ending of the stamping of [unit marks on] hand weapons."

So, that seems pretty decisive. Weapons were being marked up to 1912 - but I must still check the 1909 Regulations about what they actually say there about when the marks were to be applied...

Oh, and the same German webpage indicates that as late as 2 November 1916, weapons were still being stamped with unit marks, and so the Kriegsministerium issued an order that day to stop doing this - there is a reference in this case, so I'll try and find it!

Finally got some references for all the above - and have dealt with the 1916 'ending of markings' above on post 105...

The 1912 regulation is: Kriegsministerium Nr.448/1.12.A2, dated 9 February 1912, and archived in Munich as Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, Abteilung IV, Kriegsarchiv MKr.4031. It basically states that in the event of mobilisation, DVE 185, on the marking of weapons, is suspended in the event of battlefield conditions, in which case the marking of bladed weapons will no longer be necessary.

[trajan]

Of course I haven't yet fully analysed the data but one thing that surprised me when doing those MG unit markings was the incidence of high weapon numbers in the M.G.K. series... E.g., an EB 47 marked "3.E.M.G.K.550", or an 84/98 marked "3.E.M.G.K.637"...

My notes said that in 1914 each M.G.K. had four officers and 95 NCOs and squaddies - hence my surprise, as although I understand that the number of men in these machine gun units changed as these units were reorganised during the GW, it still seemed an awful lot of bayonets for a single company. Then the penny dropped, as it were: the really high numbers (i.e., 300 and above) were almost always associated with Ersatz units, although a few Festung garrisons had high numbers also... So, a quick look into our old friend DVE nr.185 was required, and here we have it on p.4 (I think!):

Freely translated that would be:

"Weapons issued to Ersatz formations in war time as substitutes for those sent forward to field units shall also be marked. However, they shall not be marked with the [same] numbers as the weapons that were forwarded but the next in sequence, so that the highest consecutive weapon number of the company, squadron, etc., will at the same time indicate how many weapons of that type have been forwarded from that unit"

Alles klar?

Trajan

[trajan]

Re the second bayonet, I am unsure whether the marking 3.M.G.77. refers to Machinengewehr-Kompagnie 3, Waffe Nr. 77 (i.e. unknown regiment) or whether it refers to Machinengewehr-Kompagnie 3, 77 IR. From what I can see Noll interprets markings in both ways. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

OK, so I have collated data on just over 100 "M.G." marked bayonets... Interesting - especially the variety in markings and the evidence that some units marked more than others, and/or, the bayonets of those units have survived in modern collections in disproportionate numbers!

The search revealed some shockers that would dismay the likes of those who think that everything was done by the book with regard to markings... E.G. our sceptical antipodean mate in post 27 above... How's about, for example, "M.G.SS.AB.24.17.STAB"? That's for the "Maschinengewehr-Scharfschutzen-Abteilung 24, Waffe 17, Stab", in case you had not worked it out...

But, back to Jonathan's one - that "3.M.G.77".! I have found two only that come close to it: "1.M.G.92.", on an EB made from a Chinese M.1907; and "3.M.G.94" on an EB 146. My feeling, after looking at all the others, is that the armourer missed out a final "K", so that it should be "3.M.G.K.94", OR, he missed out an "R" after the initial number, and so "3.R.M.G.94". So, take your pick!

Generally speaking, all official weapons markings follow the principle of 'Big unit; sub-unit; weapon number'. There are of course exceptions that prove the rule. But - not having Noll to hand - I did wonder why (post of Jscott above) he might have though it could be backwards. I assume examples must exist. But what I have since noted is that there are quite a few photographs in which the system is back-to-front, so to speak. See, e.g., below, courtesy of kaiserscross, an excellent web-site I only found this morning. This one, recording the "3.M.G.K. 6 Bayer.Res.Inft.Regt" is at: http://www.kaiserscross.com/246801/56722.html

So, backwards naming, which if repeated on their weapons with no weapon number would give "3.M.G.K.6"...

Even so, from my own analysis of existing markings I tend to think that Jonathan's "3.M.G.77" is on balance more likely to be missing the 'K', and so "3.M.G.K.77" was what was meant.

[jscott]

Trajan - that's interesting, good find. So your interpretation would be that the mark is for the 3rd MG company of the 77th regiment? That was where I'd come out at as well, so would agree. Also I think there was only one MG company per regiment until around 1916 at which point they expanded this to up to three companies for certain regiments, so the timing works as well.

Cheers, J

[trajan]

The opposite really - 3rd Machine Gun Company weapon 77.... But it is really is a case of your choice!

I just somehow feel it would be easier to start lettering something and forget a final 'K' than to leave off an 'R' at the start. So, 3rd MG company weapon 77 of an unknown regiment. But that's just my feeling. The great majority of MG units marks I have recorded do read (as expected) along the line of "XX.R.MGK.Y.ZZ" OR (fewer in number) "X.MGK.YY".

[trajan]

This is an interesting one spotted on a web-site - a Gebr.Weyersburg IS (infanterie-Seitengewehr) 71, with spine mark W/74, and unit marked '107.R.E.3.493'.

So, this is an old style (1877) marking for the Ersatz Battailon, Kgl. Sächs. 8. Infanterie-Regiment Prinz Johann Georg Nr.107, Kompagnie 3, Waffe 493, the Ersatz battalion in this case being the regiment's training battalion.

What makes it interesting is not so much the bullet-shrapnel-shell splinter mark on the quillon but the details. Although Saxony got most of its IS 71's via Prussian army stocks (as this one was), relatively few of the bayonets so-supplied were from this particular company, although the year 1874 is apparently the most common (well, the most common recorded!) for Prussian-issued IS 71's, and and Gebr.Weyersburg the second most common maker for that year. That aside, there is also only one other recorded IS 71 known for the regiment.

[trajan]

And here is a nice one for y'all to get your teeth into! Spotted on a web-site, an S.71 and leather/brass trimmings scabbard. The bayonet has two markings, one 'lined' out, the scabbard three markings, two 'lined' out, and the last two markings on both seem to match - which is a bit of a rarity as if I recall correctly most S.71's have scabbards with non-matching serials.

OK, I'll let those of you with younger and keener eye-sight work out the first one on the scabbard. A possible clue is that the scabbard has one of those narrow frog studs which, I think, are associated usually with Wurtermburg scabbards...

The next one looks to me like 88. or 98. L.R.10.87 or 97. So, a Landwehr Infanterie Regiment, but a quick search doesn't show a LIR 88 or a 98... Hmmm, puzzling.

The last one on the scabbard is R.BC.12.9. That is a fun one - Reserve-Backereikolonne Nr. 12. Waffe 9. So, a baker's bayonet!

The bayonet's original crossguard marking looks to be 165.R.7.226, and so I'll guess 5. Hannoversches Infanterie-Regiment Nr.165.

The second marking would seem to be the same as the last scabbard marking - that is to say R.BC.12.9, so Reserve-Backereikolonne Nr. 12. Waffe 9.

The bayonet is a Coppel, and is dated 79 - but the owner doesn't indicate which emperor... I'll take a guess that it is W/79 given the make and the markings indicating 'Prussian' use. Coppel don't seem to have made any Saxon bayonets...

[gew98]

I have had several MG marked german bayonets. I do have one 1914 dated S98 and a buddy hasa 15 dated S98 I'd like to get from him one day. Most likely the simplified MG marking is an Abtielung ( detachment ) . I had a sawback S84/96 marked to a Sharp shooter Abtielung and had an 98/05 marked to an emma gee company of an Armeekorps. Jeff Noll got all these from me in trade years ago...and he has a beautifiul collection of MG marked imperial gear.

To be honest I hadn't seen many 98/05s with MG markings until this thread was started! The metallurgical analysis sounds interesting - any ideas why the results point the way they do?

Yes I think it is an EB9 or similar, I'll get some more shots up when I get a moment. In the meantime, here is another clearly marked s98. What I found interesting was the very late date of manufacture for this model.

Cheers, Jonathan

IMG_2267.jpg

IMG_2268.jpg

Also it looks like a Bavarian proof above the 1914 date.

[jnoll]

All, A friend (gew 98) just pointed me towards this site as he knows I have an interest in MG marked bayonets. A very interesting string to be sure. Just a single point on FLZ. There were thousands of troops assigned to anti-aircraft units In 1918. Flak Batterien numbered into the 700s. Flak-Züge numbered into the 400s. These are only two of the many different organizations. Where the high weapon numbers come from is anybodys speculation but it was probably under some central training command similar to an Ersatz Bataillone. In my humble opinion FLZ can mean nothing except Flak-Züg. Remember placing regimental markings on weapons was discontinued in 1916 so anything marked after that could only be un-official. Also, my book, The Imperial German Regimental Marking (REDUX), is available again. I do not know if it is allowed to place advertisements within threads but one can do a net search on the title and find several postings with the details. wr Jeff

[trajan]

All, A friend (gew 98) just pointed me towards this site as he knows I have an interest in MG marked bayonets. A very interesting string to be sure. Just a single point on FLZ. There were thousands of troops assigned to anti-aircraft units In 1918. Flak Batterien numbered into the 700s. Flak-Züge numbered into the 400s. These are only two of the many different organizations. Where the high weapon numbers come from is anybodys speculation but it was probably under some central training command similar to an Ersatz Bataillone. In my humble opinion FLZ can mean nothing except Flak-Züg. Remember placing regimental markings on weapons was discontinued in 1916 so anything marked after that could only be un-official. Also, my book, The Imperial German Regimental Marking (REDUX), is available again. I do not know if it is allowed to place advertisements within threads but one can do a net search on the title and find several postings with the details. wr Jeff

Welcome on board Jeff! As one of your naggers on GBF to get the IGRM (redux) out, great to have you contributing here! And thanks for the comment on that FLZ marking!

I have incidentally accumulated a fair number of MG bayonet markings, although my list will probably come nowhere near matching yours. Even so it is interesting to me to see that some units are, in a sense, over represented, meaning that there are several examples of these from the same unit.

Julian

[jnoll]

Trajan, Cute little girl! Mine was that age just a short time ago and now she is 32! About the only markings I try to keep-up on are from lugers and other imperial German pistols. Lots of people keep lists of rifles and bayonets and I do not want to step on their research/listings. BTW I own 37 (choke) MG marked imperial bayonets. I can provide you a list of my holdings to supplement your MG bayonet listing. Jeff

[trajan]

Trajan, Cute little girl! Mine was that age just a short time ago and now she is 32! About the only markings I try to keep-up on are from lugers and other imperial German pistols. Lots of people keep lists of rifles and bayonets and I do not want to step on their research/listings. BTW I own 37 (choke) MG marked imperial bayonets. I can provide you a list of my holdings to supplement your MG bayonet listing. Jeff

Cheers Jeff,

I got almost all my markings from your IGRM (redux) and from the five Carter volumes, with a few web-site ones. If I ever get the chance to retire I'd certainly like to work towards getting a compendium of bayonet marks together - much more fun than collecting railway engine numbers!

Julian

PS: Common mistake - but my 'little girl' avatar is my big son when he was aged 5 - he got fed up with being mistaken for the fairer sex and now aged 8 goes for the Turkish army conscript soldier look - I think you know that as the buzz-cut??!!

[jnoll]

Oh my! Sorry.