Ersatz Bayonet

[Michael Haselgrove]

I thought I would share an ersatz bayonet that has been in my collection for many years. Using Anthony Carter's classification, the bayonet is, I think, an EB 5. It has a plain, unfullered blade and a crossguard made in two sections. The scabbard is the second type without the tip protecting ferrule and is marked FAG indicating manufacture by F A Gobel. The frog is marked STEINMETZ BRESLAU 1915. I'm afraid the frog has seen better days and was in that condition when I purchased the bayonet.

The nice thing about this bayonet is that it retains a great deal of the original paint and, scratched into the paint on the scabbard is "Found Near Hill 70 27.IX.15.

Anyway, I hope it is of interest.

Regards,

Michael.

P.S. I don't know if it has been mentioned elsewhere but I recently purchased a new book on ersatz bayonets by Christian Mery. I haven't finished reading it yet but I do recommend it.

[Michael Haselgrove]

More photos.

[Michael Haselgrove]

And finally.

[trajan]

That is a superb piece to have! Paint, troddel, frog and all - and a rather rareish scabbard to boot! Unfullered blades like that are thought to be 'late' war, as you probably know, but if that bayonet and scabbard came together (and they look like it!), then that date of September 915 is interesting...

Mery's book is excellent - not quite the fully informative academic standard of Carter's, but great photographs and a very straightforward text. At the back, IIRC, there is a troddel guide, so you should be able to identify yours. Off-hand (away from books), I am thinking it's bushy, so NCO?

Any idea where (or which!) Hill 70?

Trajan

[Michael Haselgrove]

Hi Trajan,

Many thanks for your reply. I did not know that unfullered blades are thought to be "late" war and wonder if you have a reference for that. I had thought that all the ersatz bayonets were manufactured in the early part of the war. Indeed, Carter says at page 8 of Vol. III that "bayonets described as ersatz were cheap and relatively easy to produce, but they were not made because of a shortage of materials as claimed in the 1st edition. They were produced at the start of the war to augment the stocks of standard service weapons".

As far as Hill 70 is concerned it was a major feature in the Battle of Loos in September 1915. The attack on the 27th September 1915 by the Guards Division was towards Bois Hugo, Puits 14 and Hill 70 and was supported by the discharge of some 450 cylinders of gas.

Any history of the Battle of Loos will contain references to Hill 70. Interestingly, it was in the area of Hill 70 that, on the 27th September 1915, 2nd Lieutenant J. Kipling, the son of Rudyard Kipling, was reported missing; in that respect, if you can get a copy read the very sad story My Boy Jack - The Search for Kipling's Only Son - by Tonie & Valmai Holt.

Best wishes,

Michael.

[Gew88/05]

You are correct Michael, and thanks for showing your EB5, it is certainly in better condition than mine. I agree with Trajan, to have that much paint and a very nice frog with knot is something you don't see very often, you are to be congratulated.

[jscott]

A superb bayonet (and frog/ troddel) and a wonderful piece of history. Thanks for sharing.

J

[trajan]

Hi Trajan,

Many thanks for your reply. I did not know that unfullered blades are thought to be "late" war and wonder if you have a reference for that. I had thought that all the ersatz bayonets were manufactured in the early part of the war. Indeed, Carter says at page 8 of Vol. III that "bayonets described as ersatz were cheap and relatively easy to produce, but they were not made because of a shortage of materials as claimed in the 1st edition. They were produced at the start of the war to augment the stocks of standard service weapons".

As far as Hill 70 is concerned it was a major feature in the Battle of Loos in September 1915. The attack on the 27th September 1915 by the Guards Division was towards Bois Hugo, Puits 14 and Hill 70 and was supported by the discharge of some 450 cylinders of gas.

Any history of the Battle of Loos will contain references to Hill 70. Interestingly, it was in the area of Hill 70 that, on the 27th September 1915, 2nd Lieutenant J. Kipling, the son of Rudyard Kipling, was reported missing; in that respect, if you can get a copy read the very sad story My Boy Jack - The Search for Kipling's Only Son - by Tonie & Valmai Holt.

Best wishes,

Michael.

Away from my books, but I think it was in one of Carter's - perhaps the original 'Ersatz' volume? - that he made the comment that unfullered blades were likely to be 'late' war (or, rather, late in the sequence of their production?), as making an unfullered blade was easier than making a fullered one. Yes, the evidence is (the late 1914 'S14' types, for example) that these 'emergency' bayonets were being made from a very early stage in the war to allow the big companies to concentrate on the big stuff, my own feeling (no more, no less) being that early 1915 was the start of the mass-production of the entirely steel versions. As for when they ceased to be made, again, feelings only, but given the relative frequency and sudden appearance of Waffenfabrik W/17 98/05's, then I would suggest that late 1916 or early 1917 was the cut-off date. A simple check of Carter's vol 1 with production years for 98/05's might support that idea, if there is an increase in the numbers of makers of these in 1917.

Thanks for the location evidence. I knew of the story regarding Kipling's son, but did not know of the book.

Julian

[calibre792x57.y]

Carter's comment re the production of plain blades comes in his 'Ersatz Bayonets' when describing the EB 3 - 5; ' .....similar to the preceding two, but it was produced later in the war with an unfullered blade.' He doesn't claim that they were late war. Furthermore in his later book 'German Bayonets Volume 3' this comment is not repeated. He obviously thought better of it. - SW

[shippingsteel]

Both very nice examples. So why is it that most Ersatz Bayonets do not show any Issue markings, or for that matter any Maker markings.? They were obviously being Issued ...

I realise that most were produced by lesser firms in a 'part-time' capacity but it seems strange they were not marked. At the same time as the Ersatz bayonets were being made, the other 'standard' models were all being marked and dated. So why not the 'ersatz'.?

Cheers, S>S

[trajan]

Carter's comment re the production of plain blades comes in his 'Ersatz Bayonets' when describing the EB 3 - 5; ' .....similar to the preceding two, but it was produced later in the war with an unfullered blade.' He doesn't claim that they were late war. Furthermore in his later book 'German Bayonets Volume 3' this comment is not repeated. He obviously thought better of it. - SW

Thanks SW, I knew that I had seen something somewhere on those lines. Well, ok, 'later in the war' rather than 'late war' - so I guess we have to define when 'late war' began! But in any case, as you say, Carter dropped the reference in his vol III.

I can see the way he was thinking, though, that simpler manufacture (i.e., unfullered) is later than detailed (fullered). Likewise I think he suggested that the EB 9 and allied types, with the monoblock crossguard, were later that the EB 3, with the double-block crossguard (like Michael's above) - perhaps you would check the original Ersatz volume and vol III for this. It's a typology of sorts but there is nothing to hang it on. It could be the other way round; or these differences could have no chronological value at all.

One possible way of checking the idea would be to cross-reference the so-called 'Fraktur' marks by EB type, as in theory at least, then as bayonets with the same fraktur were inspected by the same person, so they were made by the same factory or group of factories to the same specification. I.e., if all EB 3's have the one same fraktur and all EB 9's have another, then different factories...

Trajan

[trajan]

As previously mentioned Trajan, here is an EB 24 bought very recently and quite cheaply. Although overshadowed by Michael's magnificent example it is still interesting in that it has never been field sharpened although the matching scabbard shows wear from a frog. I haven't even wiped the blade! Cheers and Merry Xmas. - SW

Very nice! Looks like there might be some original paintwork there - I have scraps on all of my Ersatz scabbards, but nothing complete...

[trajan]

Both very nice examples. So why is it that most Ersatz Bayonets do not show any Issue markings, or for that matter any Maker markings.? They were obviously being Issued ...

I realise that most were produced by lesser firms in a 'part-time' capacity but it seems strange they were not marked. At the same time as the Ersatz bayonets were being made, the other 'standard' models were all being marked and dated. So why not the 'ersatz'.?

Cheers, S>S

By issue markings do you mean regimentals? If so, then a fair few Ersatz do have these. But in any case, on another thread somewhere I think I listed the German documents that refer to the need - or lack thereof - to unit mark bayonets in war time, with an order in 1916, I think, that said basically, 'Oy, you lot, I said STOP unit marking bayonets'.

If, however, you are referring to inspection markings, along the lines of the 'W/16' 'issue' marks - good question. BUT, over half of my limited collection do have 'fraktur' marks, so they were inspected by an official inspector who 'proofed' them before issue - which also means that you are not quite correct to say 'it seems strange they were not marked' - they were. Now, I can think of some reasons why the Ersatz were not dated and kingdom-marked, whereas the other 'standard' models made at the same time (1914-1916/1917) were, but I hesitate to go any further without having the chance to check my books... Ask me again in February!

[Michael Haselgrove]

Dear All,

Thanks for your kind comments - looking again at the photos I posted there is, I see, a certain amount of duplication for which I apologise.

Julian,

I have followed your interesting suggestion and had a look at production of the S98/05 during the war. In 1914 there were nine manufacturers of that bayonet and in 1915 nineteen. In 1916 this had risen to twenty five and in 1917 it was twenty eight. In 1918 the number had fallen to eleven. This is, of course, a very rough and ready way at looking at things as no account of the number of bayonets produced by each manufacturer is included. However, Anthony Carter does write at page 9 of Vol.III that the S88/98 (ersatz bayonets) were only intended to be used until they could be replaced by the S98/05 which were being manufactured in large numbers by many companies.

S>S,

An interesting question as to why the ersatz bayonets were not maker marked. Anthony Carter says it is impossible to estimate how many firms were involved in their manufacture; different firms probably produced the pommel blocks, press studs or the blades while others assembled all the component parts supplied by sub-contractors. It is interesting that the scabbards are more likely to be maker marked. He does liken the situation to the production of No.4 spike bayonets where the British turned to firms which had never made bayonets previously. He says that some firms made only parts for the bayonet and that only eight manufacturer's trade marks or code numbers are identifiable out of the thirty eight firms making them in the U.K. alone.

Best wishes,

Michael.

[trajan]

... In 1914 there were nine manufacturers of that bayonet and in 1915 nineteen. In 1916 this had risen to twenty five and in 1917 it was twenty eight. In 1918 the number had fallen to eleven. This is, of course, a very rough and ready way at looking at things as no account of the number of bayonets produced by each manufacturer is included. However, Anthony Carter does write at page 9 of Vol.III that the S88/98 (ersatz bayonets) were only intended to be used until they could be replaced by the S98/05 which were being manufactured in large numbers by many companies.

... An interesting question as to why the ersatz bayonets were not maker marked. Anthony Carter says it is impossible to estimate how many firms were involved in their manufacture; different firms probably produced the pommel blocks, press studs or the blades while others assembled all the component parts supplied by sub-contractors. It is interesting that the scabbards are more likely to be maker marked. He does liken the situation to the production of No.4 spike bayonets where the British turned to firms which had never made bayonets previously.

Thank you Michael, that clarifies one way of looking at things. Yes, a rough and ready measure, but an interesting one. IIRC, most of those uncommon double-marked 98/05's and the 84/98's were also made late in the game (how I miss my books!).

Carter's comparison of the Ersatz-making process with that of the pig-sticker is an interesting one - and one I didn't know of. Yes, I can see how multiple makers could be employed on making the component parts rather than complete units (again, think on those double-marked 'standard' bayonets).

But note the Gottscho's... Along with the S14's these are (IIRC) the earliest of the Ersatz series (in the true sense of being the original auftenhilfs seitengewehre!), and the Gottschos are maker-marked. There are also those EB 2's that can be assigned to Robert Klaas & Cie (manufacturers stamp of the 2 birds), along with the (I think - don't quote me!) EB 47(??), which has a similar riveting system. One can hypothesise a situation in which the S'14's and Gottschos were the first to be made under the Ersatz emergency system, and then other metal workers were dragged in to make the components. After all, what are most Ersatz bayonets - nice blades with pressed steel handles! And the variety of handle shapes that Carter identified for the same basic type does hint at multiple small-scale makers. Whatever, there is a promising Ph.D thesis topic for somebody here!

[shippingsteel]

An interesting question as to why the ersatz bayonets were not maker marked. Anthony Carter says it is impossible to estimate how many firms were involved in their manufacture; different firms probably produced the pommel blocks, press studs or the blades while others assembled all the component parts supplied by sub-contractors. It is interesting that the scabbards are more likely to be maker marked. He does liken the situation to the production of No.4 spike bayonets where the British turned to firms which had never made bayonets previously. He says that some firms made only parts for the bayonet and that only eight manufacturer's trade marks or code numbers are identifiable out of the thirty eight firms making them in the U.K. alone.

Yes I can fully understand why the ersatz bayonets were not 'maker marked' as much of the manufacturing was contracted out to the smaller firms who were capable of doing the 'piece-work'.

My question was directed more at the lack of Issue markings (ie. the State cypher and date on the spine). It seems standard models were being stamped with Issue marks but not the ersatz.?

Cheers, S>S

[trajan]

Yes I can fully understand why the ersatz bayonets were not 'maker marked' as much of the manufacturing was contracted out to the smaller firms who were capable of doing the 'piece-work'.

My question was directed more at the lack of Issue markings (ie. the State cypher and date on the spine). It seems standard models were being stamped with Issue marks but not the ersatz.?

Cheers, S>S

I think the answer to the question ('Why don't Erstaz bayonets have state cypher and year marks?') is tied in with the observation that Erstaz jobs are piece(?)-made by smaller firms on individual contracts whereas 'standard' bayonets were made by established firms on a longer-term contract basis. Think, for example, P1888 bayonets. The regular contract-made and official issue ones have royal cyphers; the volunteer ones don't.

I am not saying that the analogy is exact, but it does help hint at an explanation. So, a single small-scale maker or group thereof gets a quick contract to supply just enough bayonets for a newly mobilised reserve (and local?) unit. As these are not directly commissioned by the War Ministry, then all that happens is that the factory or factories are assigned an official inspector to proof the product, hence the 'fraktur' mark(s) - but no state cypher or year mark. So, in a sense, their production and marking method is analogous to P1888 bayonets commissioned for volunteer units - made to an official format, but no royal cypher or year mark...

[calibre792x57.y]

Here is a rather better photo of my recently acquired EB 24. Most of the paint on the cast steel hilt has flaked off, leaving just enough here and there to see that it exactly matches the scabbard. There is only one somewhat undecipherable inspection mark on the back of the blade. They were rated by Carter in his scale of rarity as R 5. - SW

[trajan]

It is indeed a nice piece - and even better to have that little bit of paint on the hilt! I don't think that any of my small collection of Erstaz have that...

[trajan]

This seems the best place this little incomplete piece (on top). It came with a nice clear fraktur, niceish scabbard, excellent fully-functioning press stud, and a German frog - but missing its bolster / crossguard!

It is one of the EB-3-8, 9-13, 14-16, 17-18, series, with a doubled bolster/crossguard, which is now missing... Apart from the blocked clearance hole (see tag in the lower example for its position), what is nice here is to see the rivet that originally attached the missing bit to the hilt - the examples of this type in my small collection (so unquantified observation only!) all show the rivet head for the bolster on the left side but nothing on the right, as in the bottom example, so presumably it was standard practice to drive it through from that side.

I was planning to take this one apart with a saw (local mechanic!), as I want to see how the whole thing is assembled. An obliging X-Ray technician did a preparatory X-Ray and nothing came out from that... But then I thought 'this is so nice' - and I do have a really 'orrible rusty corroded and Turked Ersatz so I will probably use that instead for the sectioning.

[Michael Haselgrove]

Julian,

Before getting out your saw take a look at page 15 of German Ersatz Bayonets by Christian Mery which I think you may have. There you will see a sectioned EB37.

Regards,

Michael.

[trajan]

Julian,

Before getting out your saw take a look at page 15 of German Ersatz Bayonets by Christian Mery which I think you may have. There you will see a sectioned EB37.

Regards,

Michael.

Yes, thanks, I know of that one - and have it twice over as I bought (and struggled through!) the French edition before getting the English one - which has more period-use photographs in it.

I am still working on the grip-assembly system used in the EB series, but grip shape variations apart, it seems to me that (from a limited collection of most basic types) there are three basic methods used in this process, of which the most common method does seem to be this type EB 03-18 type... It is barely visible on most examples but the pommel of one of my EB 03-18 was used as a hammer and thanks to that the head of the pommel has split, and one can see the solid pommel-block and the joint at the bottom of the sheet-metal grip, showing how this was folded over the tang assembly. The one I have in mind to take apart (a fuller-less EB 9-13) is really not that good and so it will be useful for my research to see how the thing was put together. What did astound me though was how the X-ray photographs did not pick up anything of the internal structure of the one I had analysed that way... I will post them if you like, but there is really very little to see. BTW, this is of course pure hobby work - I am just curious in how everything goes together and wanted to go beyond the anodyne descriptions of how these 'orrible things were made...

Julian