trajan Posted 23 April , 2015 Share Posted 23 April , 2015 Well, I had wanted to place this interesting piece on the Turkish Bayonets thread - but that has been locked... So, I'll open a new one for all sorts of Turkish bayonets used in the GW! This one is an interesting specimen as superficially it looks to be a rare Turkish Model M.1913 - same blade width and length, same type of quillon. But closer examination shows the pommel is wrong (squared-off instead of sloping) and then the real give-awa, ricasso markings - for a Turkish M.1903. So, a M.1903 that has been cut down to size to masquerade as a M.1913! This is the first one like this that I have seen, which is why I wanted to post it, as more usually - in my limited experience - the Turks chose the M.1887's and M.1890's for cutting down in the 'great shortening'. That aside, for completeness I have taken the liberty of reproducing at the end, for reference purposes, a M.1913 from Otto's Turkish bayonets CD, as my two examples of this rare one are nowhere near as presentable... Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 25 April , 2015 Author Share Posted 25 April , 2015 I found a reference the other day to Turkey having sent their Martin-Peabody rifles to Steyr in 1912 for refurbishing and changing the calibre, creating the 'M.1874/12'. I cross-checked with http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=161354&page=7#entry1736186 post 164 where it is stated that this was done in 'the Imperial arsenal' in 1909/1910... So a first question is: which date and who did it? The second question being: did this involve any change in the MRD of the 1874 bayonets for fitting to the M.1874/12?EDIT: Now see below post no. 4 - 1912 at Constantinope and no change in MRD... I have examples of both the long and the shortened (and socket) version of this bayonet (see http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=161354&page=7#entry1736186posts 163-165), and the MRD seems to be the same in all at 1.6/7cm... Oh, and yes, rifle and bayonet were in use in the GW! Thanks in anticipation! Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 26 April , 2015 Author Share Posted 26 April , 2015 Checking through some old posts I found an interesting quote relevant to 1903's and 1874's by Michaeldr at: http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=152688from Handbook of the Turkish Army, 8th Provisional Edition, February 1916, Intelligence Section, Cairo' original 1916, reprinted 1996, ISBN 1-870423-66-6 (dif. no. for the USA eds.) "It was believed in the autumn of 1914 that the Turkish Army had about 500,000 7.65 Mauser rifles (later this is also described as being the "1903 pattern and short bayonet") and perhaps 200,000 9.5mm Mausers. It also possessed Martini-Henry, Martini-Peabody rifles to the number of perhaps 500,000, but many of these were very old (370,000), dating from the war of 1877-1878. It had in addition a considerable number of Remingtons and Winchester repeating rifles, but little ammunition for them." I gather that the original report was written by T.E.L., but what especially interested me was [A] the reference to the "1903 pattern and short bayonet", as these bayonets are the hardest of all the Turkish ones to find in Turkey (even harder than 1960's FAL - and that is saying something!); and , the lack of reference to any of the alleged Steyr M-Peabody 1874 conversions to 7,65 Mauser to become 1874/12 (or 1874/09-10?) ... An avenue to explore? Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 27 April , 2015 Author Share Posted 27 April , 2015 RE: the M-P. 1874/12 in 7.65 calibre Well, a little bit of googling turned up a page at http://britishmilitariaforums.yuku.com/topic/3627/765-Martini#.VT4D1tKqqko which does add some detail - with a list of sources, though, and few detailed references. This article notes that the parts required for the conversion - "150,000 barrels in calibre 7.65mm, 150,000 rear sights Model 1903, 25,000 forends including hand guards Model 1903 for the Transformed Martini-rifle in calibre 7.65mm" are listed in the contract book of OEWG, p.130, for October 1910-March 1911 (Turkish financial year 1326). These were delivered to Constantinople and the fitting done there and that the left side of the receivers were now marked in addition to the Providence Tool Cy markings for the Constantinople arsenal and the year of conversion 1912 (Turkish financial year 1327). The article also states that there were some 600,000 M-P 1874's around and intended for conversion, but these figures indicate that only around a sixth were actually done. It also notes that the M-P 1874 [and/or 1874/12] continued in service until 1933, when it was taken out of service following the "general introduction of the 7.9mm Mauser cartridge in the Turkish army". Finally, a point I found interesting, was that - according to the article anyway! - "At the muzzle, the new barrels were dimensioned to use the old Peabody-Martini bayonets." Trajan PS: One of these converts is in the IWM, FIR 7353. this example having been captured "during the First World War in Mesopotamia. Originally chambered for a .45 inch cartridge, it has been converted to accept the more modern Turkish 7.65mm round." Here's a picture (cropped here for size and to remove curator's feet...), from: http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/30035042 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 27 April , 2015 Author Share Posted 27 April , 2015 The same article referred to in the preceding post (http://britishmilitariaforums.yuku.com/topic/3627/765-Martini#.VT4D1tKqqko) also quoted figures for the supply to Turkey by Waffenfabrik Mauser of their M.1887, 1890, 1893, and 1903 rifles - these are apparently taken from the following publication mentioned at the end of the article: Wolfgang Seel, Mauser rifles under the Half Moon/Turkish Mausers, Deutsche Waffen Journal, Verlag Schwend GmbH, Schwbisch [sic] Hall (for November 1981?) "Rifles delivered by Mauser to the Turkish 220,000 rifles M1887, calibre 9.5mm, manufactured between 11th of March 1887 and 16th of March 4000 carbines M1887, calibre 9.5mm, manufactured between 19th of January 1890 and 29th of December 280,000 rifles M1890, calibre 7.65mm, manufactured between 1st of January 1891 and 5th of December 46,000 Carbines M1890, calibre 7.65mm, manufacturing dates 200,100 Rifles M1893, calibre 7.65mm, manufactured between 5th of December 1893 and 16th of March 1,800 Rifles M1893, calibre 7.65mm, manufactured between 27th of August 1896 and 21st of September 207,000 rifles M1903, calibre 7.65mm, manufactured between 1903 and ? Carbines M1905, calibre 7.65mm, manufacturing dates 1,100 Rifles M1903, calibre 7.65mm, manufactured in 1910/11 (Macedonian Police)" Trajan PS: A quick guess as the possible German title of Seel's work threw up the following: Wolfgang Seel: Mauser-Gewehre unter dem Halbmond. Türken-Mauser. In: Deutsches Waffen-Journal. Band 17, 1981, Nr. 6, S. 796-803, Nr. 7, S. 976-981, Nr. 8, S. 1160-1164, Nr.9, S. 1264-1269, Nr. 10, S. 1418-1423, Nr. 11, S. 1578-1582, Nr. 12, S. 1722-1727, 18 (1982) Nr. 1, S. 52-57 Also: Wolfgang Seel: Mauser-Puzzle. Wie der Türkenauftrag zustande kam. In: Deutsches Waffen-Journal. Band 28, 1993, Heft 1, S. 42-47. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 27 April , 2015 Author Share Posted 27 April , 2015 Just spotted a photograph at:http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/23/asia/gallery/anzac-archive-photos/index.htmlno, 9, in which some Turkish soldiers, allegedly at Gallipoli in 1915, seem to have M-P rifles... Check out the man at the extreme left - that looks like a M-P receiver to me - and the lever mechanism is clear to see. EDIT: Found this photograph which is the same as in the CNN one. It is shown on three web-sites with the claim or implication that it is of Turkish soldiers at Gallipoli in 1915, but there is nothing specifically distinctive here to prove that - except that the uniforms suit the period! Again, the chap on the extreme left. EDITED: typos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 27 April , 2015 Author Share Posted 27 April , 2015 And here, for lovers of the M-P (well, I assume that there are some out there???!!!), two pages from their 1878 catalogue. I downloaded these some time ago and have lost the references - apologies. That aside, note the registered weight of the thing with socket bayonet and with 'sabre' (i.e., 'yataghan') bayonet - and I have to confess, I had no idea that they could be supplied with a 'trowel' bayonet! Also, note that a brass-handled 'yataghan' is shown - the Turks took leather-gripped ones. As I understand it, Turkey took sockets originally and later the yataghan type. And I am wondering now if the shortened M-P 'yataghan' bayonet was introduced around the time of the change in calibre in 1912 to fit these, and was not simply done to create a short sword for NCO's as is usually believed... Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 27 April , 2015 Author Share Posted 27 April , 2015 So, how does one tell a M-P 1874 socket bayonet from a M-H socket bayonet? Not certain if there is any variation in the MRD, to be honest, but the one M-P socket I do have has the identical 'inspector's' mark of a 'W' on it as one of my M-P 1874 yataghan's'. (Do, note, though, that the yataghans come with different 'inspector' marks - off-hand I have one marked 'K' and probably other letters...). The other thing I do not know for certain is if these socket ones were used in the GW... Trajan PS: Yes, I apologise for the poor condition of the bayonets and the photographs, but a small flat leaves little working space... EDIT: the 'W' on the socket is central axis, and aligned to the 27.5 cm mark; that on the yataghan is central to the ricasso, also at about the 27.5 cm mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 28 April , 2015 Author Share Posted 28 April , 2015 ... The other thing I do not know for certain is if these socket ones were used in the GW... Well, I still don't know the answer to that, but this photograph in the LOC archive (LC-USZ62-80141 - see http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2002708819/) is of Turkish 'soldiers' and is caption-dated '1912 or 1913': they look to be carrying lever-actuated rifles, and so I think M-P 1874's, with socket bayonets. Unfortunately no indication at all as to who or what they are - maybe Jandarma, as the uniform doesn't quite fit with what I think the army was wearing at the time? The wearing of the fez is ok for that date: as I understand it, the "Enveriye" head covering (aka in different versions as the kabalak or bashlik) was around in 1911 but didn't become a regular issue item until 1913... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 28 April , 2015 Author Share Posted 28 April , 2015 Getting there... Slowly.... Found a link to: http://www.ottoman-uniforms.com/maison-militaire-de-s-m-imp%C3%A9riale-le-sultan-abdul-hamid-ii/ and which shows the same photograph as in the previous post, and there described by Chris Flaherty, as the 1st Albanian Regiment of the Imperial Guard, also dating the photograph to period 1890-1908. And on another thread: http://www.ottoman-uniforms.com/ottoman-army-water-carriers-1800-till-1918/ Flaherty shows this one, from the LOC collection, members of the same regiment - probably / presumably NCO's as they have the yataghan version of the M-P 1874 bayonet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 28 April , 2015 Author Share Posted 28 April , 2015 Ah well... all good things come to an end... Apparently after the regime change in 1908 the Imperial Guard (including the Albanians) were "sent home and mustered out of service” - the source for that is I gather a "Foreign Correspondence’s" piece titled "SOLDIERS OF TURKEY FAVOR NEW REGIME", THE NEW YORK TIMES (December 27, 1908). So, M-P around in service with socket bayonets and all up to then, and other evidence (including T.E.L analysis) to support contention that M-P rifles around up to the GW - but nothing to show that sockets in use in the GW... Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 29 April , 2015 Author Share Posted 29 April , 2015 Time to get into the Turkish M1887's ... Note that I do not claim especial competence in these - I am relying mainly on published works for the information presented in this post and seriously do not mind corrections (well, politely phrased ones!) For starters, I see that nobody following this thread picked up on the glaring omission in the statement I reprinted re Mauser production of the M.1887 rifle in post no. 5 above from: (http://britishmilita...ni#.VT4D1tKqqko): "Rifles delivered by Mauser to the Turkish220,000 rifles M1887, calibre 9.5mm, manufactured between 11th of March 1887 and 16th of March..." Records indicate that as late as 1912 Mauser could only manage to produce as many as 200 Gew.98 a day (Storz p.176), so the 220,000 M.1887 for Turkey were made between 11th March 1887 and 16th March 1888. (Moreover, according to Carter III, p.299, production of these was shared with Loewe... Also, I have this vague memory that Sommewalker(?) posted something about the initial order being for 500,000? EDIT: Yes, SW post 182 on the Turkish Bayonets I thread - http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=161354&page=8 The cumulative evidence is that German-made weaponry for Turkey used the AH (Islamic Year) dating system, not the commercial 'Rumi' calendar (see. e.g., http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=143205&p=1369654), and so these dates would equate to Jumaada al-Thaany 1304 - Jumaada al-Thaany 1305. But the really odd thing is that all of the bayonets I know of that go with this M.1887 rifle, the like-named M.1887 (surprised?!) are Islamically dated 1306... Otto has certainly noticed this also, and both he and Shipping Steel have observed that this has to be the AH and not Rumi dating, and so they were made between September 1888 and September 1889. It seems a bit odd that the Ottoman government left the ordering of bayonets to a year or so later - and even odder that they then decided to use no less than five different makers! These were: Alex Coppel et Cie (Solingen); J.P.Sauer & Sohn (Suhl); V.C.Schilling (Suhl); Simson et Cie (Suhl); and Weyersburg, Kirschbaum, et Cie (Solingen). Their marks are as below (Aleck, I know you will like these!), taken from Carter, III, p. 300 - I'll put up some originals later as these do vary somewhat from what Carter's drawings show. In each case (according to Carter - not personally checked) the reading is (right to left), 'from [place name]' (i.e., Solingen'da or Suhl'da); name of company, using the phonetic equivalents of foreign names; and fabrikasi, 'factory of'. Solingen, Coppel, fabrikasi Suhl, Sauer, fabrikasi Suhl, Schilling, fabrikasi Suhl, Simson, fabrikasi Solingen, Weyersburg Kirschbaum, fabrikasi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 29 April , 2015 Author Share Posted 29 April , 2015 Checking through some old posts I found an interesting quote relevant to 1903's and 1874's by Michaeldr at: http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=152688from Handbook of the Turkish Army, 8th Provisional Edition, February 1916, Intelligence Section, Cairo' original 1916, reprinted 1996, ISBN 1-870423-66-6 (dif. no. for the USA eds.) "It was believed in the autumn of 1914 that the Turkish Army had about 500,000 7.65 Mauser rifles (later this is also described as being the "1903 pattern and short bayonet") and perhaps 200,000 9.5mm Mausers. It also possessed Martini-Henry, Martini-Peabody rifles to the number of perhaps 500,000, but many of these were very old (370,000), dating from the war of 1877-1878. It had in addition a considerable number of Remingtons and Winchester repeating rifles, but little ammunition for them." Another point, while I remember... I'll be looking at M.1903 bayonet's later, but the M.1903 rifle was not originally supplied with a short bayonet... Did TEL (if the author) mean the short M.1913 and/or shortened M.1890 and/or 1903 bayonets? Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pernull Posted 29 April , 2015 Share Posted 29 April , 2015 Have you heard about hans von Pernull , he's my great grandad and was a friend of enva pasha , I have a MI5 on him and it says he sold arms to the ottoman army . I also have pictures of him with enva pasha and some generals and he is wearing a Turkish uniform . Despite being English Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 29 April , 2015 Author Share Posted 29 April , 2015 All I know of this character is from http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=195057! Sorry! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 29 April , 2015 Author Share Posted 29 April , 2015 Now, back to 1887 bayonets - I forgot to post a photograph, so here goes:- These are four of mine representing four of the makers... And the scabbards (or bits!) that came with them... Previously posted at: http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=161354&page=8entry2216517 Distinguishing characteristics are the low muzzle ring... Like distinguishing a P.1907 from a M.1917: low to start with, and high afterwards... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khaki Posted 29 April , 2015 Share Posted 29 April , 2015 Very nice selection, An uncut Turkish bayonet has always eluded me, I am envious. regards khaki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 29 April , 2015 Author Share Posted 29 April , 2015 And here for explication, a Coppel marked M1887 with the Carter drawing of the same... There are some slight but clear differences between the two (e.g., in the Solingen mark) - I suspect (have not checked) that the Carter drawing is based on the M.1890 mark. Now, if I am wrong, please correct me! EDIT: I found these two on my files simply listed as '1887 Coppel' with no indication as to where I downloaded them from... I suspect that they came from the original Turkish bayonets thread and so they may well have been posted there by Shipping Steel. But whoever posted them, please let me know and I'll acknowledge or remove as preferred! More to the point, do note how despite the first one being badly pitted there is just enough visible to be certain that it is a Solingen mark, and as it is not Weyersburg, then Coppel is the most likely reading... Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 30 April , 2015 Author Share Posted 30 April , 2015 Very nice selection, An uncut Turkish bayonet has always eluded me, I am envious. Thanks Khaki! Funny thing is that over here, one of these 1887's will pop-up about every three months or so, but 'Turked' bayonets are real rarities... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 31 October , 2015 Author Share Posted 31 October , 2015 Back onto Martini-Peabody's, or, rather, their socket bayonets... This was sent to me some time back, but it is undated and unsourced and so I have no details - any will welcome such. That aside, it is presumably pre-1908/13, given the headgear, and I suspect that these chaps are probably infantry, given what seems to be a number on their epaulettes, and the two men in the middle having stripes to indicate they have the rank/grade of cavus. However, they may be Jandarma... Either way, I gather that in the GW period, although the Jandarma operated as a branch of the regular Army, and so were not the separate police-militia they are today, photographs of what seem to be the same time from Eastern Turkey show them still wearing the fez and this type of uniform, and armed with the M-P rifle, and so M-P socket bayonets may still have been in use then. After all, the Russians were quite happy to use them in the GW! My single example of one of these MP sockets, BTW, came with a scabbard locket, but this was unmarked... Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 8 November , 2015 Author Share Posted 8 November , 2015 Just found another Turkish M.1913! And even better with its original leather scabbard and a frog that certainly belongs, as can be seen from the wear marks! The crossguard markings removed, sadly, although the tughra can still be made out on the reverse side of the pommel... This is my third example of this rare type, but only one of these has the 'Tuna Han' markings and tughra in place, these having been defaced on the other ones from when they were re-used in the Republic period. That Tuna Han one and the other both came with metal scabbards, and this is the first leather scabbard for these that I have seen... Haven't checked yet, although doubtless SS will remind me to do so, but the chape looks to be from a regular M.1903 scabbard... Sorry about the quality of the photograph - daylight saving ended today(!!!), and so these had to be done indoors... Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Haselgrove Posted 8 November , 2015 Share Posted 8 November , 2015 Julian, Congratulations on your latest acquisition; it looks to be in nice condition. However, having read this thread I now find myself a little confused. I have only one Turkish bayonet and thought from the photograph in "World Bayonets 1800 to the Present - An Illustrated Reference Guide for Collectors" by Anthony Carter that my bayonet was a Model 1903 Knife Bayonet. However, it looks very similar to your latest acquisition and I am now wondering if the caption to the admittedly incomplete photograph in Carter's book is a mis-print. I attach a couple of photographs and any comments will be appreciated. Regards, Michael. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 8 November , 2015 Author Share Posted 8 November , 2015 Julian, Congratulations on your latest acquisition; it looks to be in nice condition. ... However, having read this thread I now find myself a little confused. ... I have only one Turkish bayonet and thought from the photograph in "World Bayonets 1800 to the Present - An Illustrated Reference Guide for Collectors" by Anthony Carter that my bayonet was a Model 1903 Knife Bayonet. However, it looks very similar... Hello Michael, Thank you - I am certainly happy with this one! Yours is indeed similar and in fact a better example of what I have just come by at the local Antika Pazari. What you have is one of the original 1913's in perfect condition with intact markings! The literature on these ones is a bit confused and at the time Carter wrote very little was known about them... Thanks, though, to research by 'Otto', a big bayonet collector and authority in the US of A - much more is now known. I don't claim to be an expert, but as far as I have been able to establish it seems that after some experience with the bayonet model adopted with the M.1903 rife, this being a long quillback - basically a German S.98 but thicker - the Ottoman Empire decided to adopt a short bayonet. Thus the production in or around 1913 of the 'Tuna Han' and/or the M.1913 bayonet. The designation 'Tuna Han' and '1913' have no official textual backing but come from the inscription in Osmanli script found on the outer face of the crossguard of these, made - as I understand it - at the eponymous arsenal in Constantiople. So, 'Tuna Han' is above the numbers '31' for AH 1331 = 1913 - and that is exactly what you have. There should / might also be a crescent moon on the crossguard below the blade? The mark on the reverse of the pommel has not, to the best of my knowledge, been properly elucidated. I initially thought it was a tughra, but looking back at the one unaltered 'Tuna Han' example that I have, and at yours, and the one I have just come by also, well, I am not so sure now that is what it is - it is something else all together. That aside, my unaltered 'Tuna Han' example has markings on the obverse side of the pommel also which I haven't read yet, although there is a '31' there. The problem I have with my unaltered 'Tuna Han' is that the pommel markings, along with the crossguard, are obscured by a black iron oxide that I have never managed to remove - but I'll try and photograph it for you and others to see... The other two M.1913's of mine, including the new one, have been 'scrubbed' and so have no markings left at all, except for a trace on the reverse of the new one that matches the mark on yours and my unaltered 'Tuna Han'. Now, there are other Turkish M.1913's around - but these are shortened (and narrowed) versions of the M.1903. The main give-away is the way that on these converted M.1903's the fullers extend closer to the tip, but the real clue is the pommel, which originally would have had a tughra marking and, more obviously. a straight edge to the grips, not a sloping one, as on the M.1913. So, you have a nice and rare specimen there! Julian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Haselgrove Posted 8 November , 2015 Share Posted 8 November , 2015 Julian, Many thanks for your very detailed and interesting reply. The research you have carried out is most impressive and you are absolutely correct about the crescent marking; there is one on the crossguard and another on the pommel. I am attaching photographs for your information. Regards, Michael. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 8 November , 2015 Share Posted 8 November , 2015 Trajan ... just to give you the heads-up, that 'accepted' reference to (err cough) "Tuna Han" on these 1913 bayonets is a total load of 'b0ll0cks'. And it always makes me laugh. When I was doing the work on the Turkish bayonets I went and did translations on every piece of Ottoman war materiel that I could find and I can tell you this isn't "Tuna Han".! I can see why they tried to attach a handle to the inscription, and why they struggled. The Osmanli script is often 'stylised' and this makes normal translation virtually impossible. Cheers, S>S 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