Imperial German Bayonets

[motojosh]

Picked up a few new pieces...

EB53 ersatz

 

71/84 with matching Jager unit marking on cross guard and scabbard

 

More below

Edited 31 January , 2021 by motojosh
missing photos

[motojosh]

Erfurt 84/98nA marked to a Maschinen Gewehr Zug unit (mg field unit)

 

 

1914 Saxon s98nA with flash guard added for use on the Kar 98a

 

 

 

 

Edited 31 January , 2021 by motojosh

[trajan]

As usual, nice selection of finds there Josh. Markets are so much better where you are than over here - and importing is very difficult as the import of bladed weapons is prohibited...

Of the ones you have shown, the 71/84 - well, I'd happily part with one of my HQ P.1907's for that! It is the one really big missing piece in my Imperial collection (well, apart from a S.98/02)! And I doubt if I'll ever find one here as Germany shipped its spare bayonets in to Turkey in 1917, by when this was long obsolete... That aside, matching numbers and frog to boot - all you need now is the troddel! And a dash of extra cream on the cupcake... I'm not very hot on frogs, but that looks like it might be Bavarian? The bayonet is the short-fuller version - right? In which case I'll make a guess that this will be one of the two job-lots WK&C did for Prussia in 1887 and in 1888: I would make a tentative guess of 1887, as that is when the 6.Jaeger received theirs.

That EB.53 is an excellent example - never seen one of those in Turkey! Is that a FAG scabbard?

The Erfurt 84/98nA - is 'Erfurt' the only mark? In which case dated anywhere between 1915-1917?

The 1914 Saxon s98nA is a rare very late one, produced between August and October, I would guess - and as Saxon, I'll guess WK&C or Haenel? Ones with flash guard added are very unusual indicating this was still in service in late 1915 - but mind you, I am not certain I'd want to stick a long thing like that on the end of a short Kar.98AV!

Julian

[trenchtrotter]

With regard to the 84/98 what is the correct frog? Same as the 98/05?

I've seen some with a retaining loop. Are these later examples from post 1918?

Thanks

TT

[trajan]

With regard to the 84/98 what is the correct frog? Same as the 98/05?

I've seen some with a retaining loop. Are these later examples from post 1918?

Thanks

TT

I'll have to check, as frogs are not really being my thing as I have no reference works to hand. However, the S,98/05 frog is larger (obviously) than the S.84/98, while the ones with the retaining strap are no earlier than Weimar, and essentially late 3R and WW2 period. There are some S.98/05 frogs with retaining straps, but this is because the bayonet was still in service with some units (notably the Luftwaffe) during the 3R period and into WW2.

Trajan

[trajan]

Erfurt 84/98nA marked to a Maschinen Gewehr Zug unit (mg field unit) ...

One thing I forgot to add about this is in my earlier post is that unit-marked S.84/98 are uncommon finds. IIRC, 'prototypes' or 'trials' versions of this model bayonet appeared at the end of 1914, with production beginning in 1915, and according to the in-force army regulations, no bayonets were to be unit-marked after hostilities commenced in August 1914. That aside, note the unusual size of the letter 'Z'...

Trajan

[trenchtrotter]

Thanks Trajan. That's what I suspected.

TT

[motojosh]

As usual, nice selection of finds there Josh. Markets are so much better where you are than over here - and importing is very difficult as the import of bladed weapons is prohibited...

Of the ones you have shown, the 71/84 - well, I'd happily part with one of my HQ P.1907's for that! It is the one really big missing piece in my Imperial collection (well, apart from a S.98/02)! And I doubt if I'll ever find one here as Germany shipped its spare bayonets in to Turkey in 1917, by when this was long obsolete... That aside, matching numbers and frog to boot - all you need now is the troddel! And a dash of extra cream on the cupcake... I'm not very hot on frogs, but that looks like it might be Bavarian? The bayonet is the short-fuller version - right? In which case I'll make a guess that this will be one of the two job-lots WK&C did for Prussia in 1887 and in 1888: I would make a tentative guess of 1887, as that is when the 6.Jaeger received theirs.

That EB.53 is an excellent example - never seen one of those in Turkey! Is that a FAG scabbard?

The Erfurt 84/98nA - is 'Erfurt' the only mark? In which case dated anywhere between 1915-1917?

The 1914 Saxon s98nA is a rare very late one, produced between August and October, I would guess - and as Saxon, I'll guess WK&C or Haenel? Ones with flash guard added are very unusual indicating this was still in service in late 1915 - but mind you, I am not certain I'd want to stick a long thing like that on the end of a short Kar.98AV!

Julian

Thanks Julian and good guess, the 71/84 is 87 dated. The matching scabbard was a nice surprise as the seller didn't mention that in the auction which helped keep the price down. The frog has a regimental marking as well "J.R.14" which I believe would denote an infantry regiment.

The EB 53 does have a FAG scabbard and it has a good portion of original paint remaining.

84/98 is w15.

The s98 is by WK&C. It also has a RC revision commission marking on the pommel. I've kept track of a few other 14's I've run across below.

VC Shilling Suhl FA14 (gb forum member peashooter owned)

CG Haenal Suhl W14 (dealer)

CG Haenal Suhl L14 (gb forum member gangstera owned)

Alex Coppel Solingen L14 (dealer)

I've also heard of 1915 dated examples, but haven't seen a photo or run across one in any reference material

One thing I forgot to add about this is in my earlier post is that unit-marked S.84/98 are uncommon finds. IIRC, 'prototypes' or 'trials' versions of this model bayonet appeared at the end of 1914, with production beginning in 1915, and according to the in-force army regulations, no bayonets were to be unit-marked after hostilities commenced in August 1914. That aside, note the unusual size of the letter 'Z'...

Trajan

Yeah, I've found the 84/98 to be quite scarce with regimentals although I've been lucky enough to acquire 5 examples in the last year. Finding an S14 with unit markings is even tougher though.

[jscott]

Cracking bayonets Motojosh, I'm jealous. The unit marked examples in particular really tickle my fancy.

[motojosh]

On 03/09/2015 at 02:57, jscott said:

Cracking bayonets Motojosh, I'm jealous. The unit marked examples in particular really tickle my fancy.

Thanks jscott, the unit marked examples are my favorites.

Here's a few new ones:

-1907 s98nA by Erfurt with unit mark of the 235th Reserve Infantry Regiment. The 235th was part of the 51st Reserve Division and fought at the battle of the Yser, the Somme, and Verdun among others.

-1916 84/98nA by F Herder / Walter Co with rare Uhlan unit mark. This one came in a mismatched 71/84 scabbard.

-EB3 with 1.K.1.99 Kurasser Regiment marking unusually placed on the pommel.

 

 

Edited 31 January , 2021 by motojosh

[shippingsteel]

EB3 with 1.K.1.99 Kurasser Regiment marking unusually placed on the pommel.

I believe that what you have here is NOT a Regimental unit marking, but a secondary unit-level marking. The K in this case stands for 1st Kompagnie with the Waffe Nr.199

This type of marking is fairly common, below is a scan of one of mine on an Imperial scabbard frog-stud. There were 250 men to a Kompagnie and 12 Komp. to a Regiment.

Cheers, S>S

[trajan]

I believe that what you have here is NOT a Regimental unit marking, but a secondary unit-level marking. The K in this case stands for 1st Kompagnie with the Waffe Nr.199

This type of marking is fairly common, below is a scan of one of mine on an Imperial scabbard frog-stud. There were 250 men to a Kompagnie and 12 Komp. to a Regiment.

Cheers, S>S

275.jpg

SS, we have been down this road before... See: http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=208823&page=2posts no.39 and 41.

In none of the official German regulations on unit markings that I have seen is there any reference to 'K' standing for 'Kompagnie'.... For Kommando, Kaiser, Kürassier, Kriegkasse(!), Kriegschule, Kanonen (15 cm Kanonen), Kraftwagenpark, Kavallerie, and Korps, yes, and all of these are shared by Prussia and Bavaria, with Bavaria alone having 'K' for Kempstadt... From my own working list of unit markings I can offer you:

1.K.1.7 = Kürassier Reg.1.Esk.1.Waffe 7 = Revolver 1879

8.K.3.14 = Kürassier Reg.8.Esk.3.Waffe 14 = Pistol 1908

7.K.4.13 = Kürassier Reg.7.Esk.3.Waffe 13 = Pistol 1908

etc., etc..

This is not to say, of course, that 'K' was never used for 'Kompagnie'. So for example:

134.5.K.26 = Inf.Reg.134 5.Komp.Waffe 26 = EB 02

8.B.3.K.21 = Bay.Inf.Reg.8 3.Komp.Waffe 21 = EB 10

R.44.2.K.223 = Inf.Reg.44 2.Komp.Waffe 223 = EB 47

R.J.R.212.I.B.3.K.11 = Res.Inf.Reg.212.[?]1.Batail. 3.Komp.Waffe 11 = EB 01

2.E.55.1.K.487 = 2.Batail. Ersatz Inf.Reg.55 1.Komp. Waffe 487 = EB 04

(plus five or so other similar markings all for Ersatz units on Ersatz bayonets which I don't think I need to post here)

However, these 'K' for Kompagnie markings are rare and clearly identifiable as such, and are likewise clearly unofficial / irregular instances - I have about 10 only of these in a growing catalogue of unit marks that now exceeds four figures.

In which case, let's go for the more plausible explanation, that as Josh's markings fits into the regular series of K for Kürassier markings and is on a short bayonet of the type specified for cavalry units in December 1914, then that is what it stands for.

TTFN,

Trajan

[trajan]

Here's a few new ones... -

1916 84/98nA by F Herder / Walter Co with rare Uhlan unit mark. This one came in a mismatched 71/84 scabbard.

EB3 with 1.K.1.99 Kurasser Regiment marking unusually placed on the pommel.

Yes, more nice ones from an ace collector!

A 1916 unit-marked bayonet of any kind is a rarity - and this one, 15.U.5.23., follows on from a W/15 example for the same unit, 15.U.3.158 - Carter II, 183. I assume that this has the regular F.HERDER A^SN / SOLINGEN stamp?

The EB 3 marking is discussed above in post 12. Pommel marked bayonets are not that common, but seem to be more common on Ersatz than 'regular' issue bayonets.

[shippingsteel]

Trajan, I am not surprised that you still haven't got your head around these "K" markings, as they were never official Regimental markings so they will never feature "in a List".

The usage of unofficial forms of abbreviations is well established, and as these "K" markings DO NOT fit into the established format (ie. 4.K.3.77) they must be seen as such.

The key is whether a suspected marking for a Kurassier Regimenter has an Eskadron number or not. Many such "K" marking examples do not have this Nr (& high Waffe Nr)

The reason I believe these markings to be internal unit Kompagnie markings, is that they are often found on weaponry that were NEVER used by any Kurassier Regimenter.

For example is there any evidence that Kurassier Regiment's used the Gew98 rifle with the long S98 quillback bayonet attached. My example posted is from such a scabbard.

Cheers, S>S

[trajan]

Trajan, I am not surprised that you still haven't got your head around these "K" markings, as they were never official Regimental markings so they will never feature "in a List".

The usage of unofficial forms of abbreviations is well established, and as these "K" markings DO NOT fit into the established format (ie. 4.K.3.77) they must be seen as such.

The key is whether a suspected marking for a Kurassier Regimenter has an Eskadron number or not. Many such "K" marking examples do not have this Nr (& high Waffe Nr)

The reason I believe these markings to be internal unit Kompagnie markings, is that they are often found on weaponry that were NEVER used by any Kurassier Regimenter.

For example is there any evidence that Kurassier Regiment's used the Gew98 rifle with the long S98 quillback bayonet attached. My example posted is from such a scabbard.

Cheers, S>S

SS, I seem to be missing something here, so please help me out if necessary - without abuse if possible!

Now, first of all I gave examples of 'K' marked weapons that conform to the unit marking regulations in use for Kurassier Regiments in 1914 and earlier, for example 1.K.1.7 = Kürassier Reg.1.Esk.1.Waffe 7. So I don't quite see why you say that Josh's mark, if we read it as '1.K.1.99' does "NOT fit into the established format (ie. 4.K.3.77)". That said, though, it seems to me (and evidently to you also) that Josh's mark is actually '1.K.199' not '1.K.1.99' and so in apparently lacking an Eskadron number I think it will be a staff weapon - 'my bad' as our American cousins would say in not making myself clear. There are any number of weapons that are so marked, that is to say, unit number, initial and then waffe number only. For example:

5.R.A.41 = Res.Feld Art.5 Reg.Stab.Waffe 41

7.H.28 = Husaren.Reg.7 Stab.Waffe 28

1.A.2 = Feld Art.Reg.1 Stab.Waffe 15

2.O.R.10 = Osta.Inf.Reg.2.Stab.Waffe 10

(I can give more if you like...)

Then I wrote: "This is not to say, of course, that 'K' was never used for 'Kompagnie'" (stress added) so I don't understand why you say that I have not "got [my] head around these "K" markings" as you see them, as kompagnie markings. In fact I gave five examples of these and I can provide more - but the ones I have listed so far in my personal records number a mere 10 or so - and that's in over 2,000 markings I have collected, and so as I indicated, this type of marking is an irregular form, and thus I naturally agree with you that "they were never official Regimental markings"... I am also aware that your marking is on a S.98 scabbard, and so it is, if you like, a good 'exception that proves the rule', as it is highly unlikely that a cavalryman would have an S.98 as a sidearm.

My main point, though, remains. Rather than come up with an alternative explanation for Josh's mark, why not accept what is by far the most likely one, that it is for a Kurassier Regiment, especially as it is on a short bayonet of the general type that began to be issued to cavalry in early 1915, on the eastern front first, then the western soon after (see, e.g., Bayer. Kr.A, FZM 287, etc.)...

Trajan

[shippingsteel]

The key is whether a suspected marking for a Kurassier Regimenter has an Eskadron number or not. Many such "K" marking examples do not have this Nr (& high Waffe Nr)

My main point, though, remains. Rather than come up with an alternative explanation for Josh's mark, why not accept what is by far the most likely one, that it is for a Kurassier Regiment ...

I can't see Josh's marking as having an Eskadron Nr and so I take it's Waffe Nr to be 199, which is too high to be from ANY sub-unit in an Imperial Kurassier Regiment.

Cheers, S>S

[trajan]

... I can't see Josh's marking as having an Eskadron Nr and so I take it's Waffe Nr to be 199, which is too high to be from ANY sub-unit in an Imperial Kurassier Regiment.

Cheers, S>S

SS, this is a case of where it helps to know the source material, which you clearly don't... And in particular the source material relating to the unit-marking of weapons, which for the GW period is DVE 185 of 28 January 1909, with a series of printed amendments which go up to 1910 in the case of my copy. However, as mine has much of the blurb relating to when weapons are to be marked crossed out, I suspect it was last corrected in 1915.

That aside, what you need to know about in particular are Sections I.2 - I.4, which all stress the need for the consecutive numbering of weapons as they are issued as replacements. Section I.4, for example is quite specific and limited to a single sentence: “Jede Waffenart ist in sich mit fortlaufender Nummer zu stempel.” – which I translate as “Each weapon type is to be stamped with a consecutive number in this manner.” (i.e., as outlined in the preceding Sections I.2 and I.3). The reason for doing this is best explained in Section I.3: "... die höchste laufende waffennummer ... angibt wie viele Waffen derselben Art dem truppenteil überwiesen sind." – which I translate as “… the highest current weapon number … indicates how many weapons of the same type / kind are assigned / allocated to that military unit”.

What this means in practice is that it is possible to get a weapon number that is higher than the paper strength of the unit or sub-unit it belongs to. For example, B.11.R.A.5.260 = Bay.11 Res.Feld Art.Reg.Batt.5 Waffe 260. And as the weapons are numbered consecutively by type as they are issued, then a new weapon supplied to a member of a regimental staff can have a high number, for example, G.K.122 = Garde Kür.Reg.Stab Waffe 122. These are both examples from my catalogue, and if you insist I can give you the reference to these - and others! - but two should be enough!

So Josh’s example, which if it is 1.K.199, is the 199th example of that type of bayonet which was issued to the Kür.Reg.1, and which was then assigned to the regimental staff, so having no Eskadron number...

Best wishes,

Trajan

[motojosh]

Hi guys,

It’s difficult to make out from the photograph, but there is what looks to be a period on top of the footing of the 1 which is more visible in hand. Dennis Ottobre also had this identified as 1.K.1.99.

That being said, it's seen some use and the period on the 1 could be an incidental ding so 1.K.199 is a real possibility.

There's a similarly marked example on pg 141 of The Imperial German Regimental Marking Redux Edition by Jeff Noll:

Eb9 Ersatz: 3.K.70 – (Kurassier-Regiment 3, Stab, Waffe Nr.70)

Yes, more nice ones from an ace collector!

A 1916 unit-marked bayonet of any kind is a rarity - and this one, 15.U.5.23., follows on from a W/15 example for the same unit, 15.U.3.158 - Carter II, 183. I assume that this has the regular F.HERDER A^SN / SOLINGEN stamp?

The EB 3 marking is discussed above in post 12. Pommel marked bayonets are not that common, but seem to be more common on Ersatz than 'regular' issue bayonets.

ah thanks! I keep telling myself the next bayonet will be my last, but my collection keeps growing lol. Waffe on the Uhlan is 233 and it's got the Asn Solingen stamp. This is my latest dated unit marking.

[trajan]

... It’s difficult to make out from the photograph, but there is what looks to be a period on top of the footing of the 1 which is more visible in hand. Dennis Ottobre also had this identified as 1.K.1.99. That being said, it's seen some use and the period on the 1 could be an incidental ding so 1.K.199 is a real possibility.

... I keep telling myself the next bayonet will be my last, but my collection keeps growing lol. Waffe on the Uhlan is 233 and it's got the Asn Solingen stamp. This is my latest dated unit marking.

Yes, it is a troublesome piece in that respect - but if there was a period there it is not that clear! Either way, I think it is safe to assign it to the Kurrasiers! Just to add for the information of others a couple of things that I know you know of, that pommel markings are not common but do exist, and that the use of bigger or smaller than the specified letters is also known in markings.

Now, come on, you know deep down that there is no such thing as a last one to collect! I have just branched out into makers marks on 98/05's - easier than trying to get the whole range of Ersatz!

Oh, one other thing... There are pistols around with 1917 dates that have unit-markings, and I have heard of, but never seen, 1917 dated bayonets with unit markings... These must be very, very rare...

Best,

Julian

[motojosh]

On 15/09/2015 at 02:50, TRAJAN said:

Yes, it is a troublesome piece in that respect - but if there was a period there it is not that clear! Either way, I think it is safe to assign it to the Kurrasiers! Just to add for the information of others a couple of things that I know you know of, that pommel markings are not common but do exist, and that the use of bigger or smaller than the specified letters is also known in markings.

Now, come on, you know deep down that there is no such thing as a last one to collect! I have just branched out into makers marks on 98/05's - easier than trying to get the whole range of Ersatz!

Oh, one other thing... There are pistols around with 1917 dates that have unit-markings, and I have heard of, but never seen, 1917 dated bayonets with unit markings... These must be very, very rare...

Best,

Julian

There's a few '17 dated examples listed in Noll and Williams so they're definitely out there.

Recently picked up this EB111. It's not in the greatest shape, but has been on my want list for quite awhile. This started out as a model 1866 Chassepot which the Germans modified by grinding down the original cross guard and adding an Sg71 cross guard below it. It also has a single step cut in the pommel and will fit on the Mauser 71,71/84, and 88 Commission rifle.

 

 

Edited 31 January , 2021 by motojosh

[jscott]

Thats a great find motojosh - I have never seen one of those in my life. I think the condition is appropriate - its clearly seen a huge amount of use over its lifetime - potentially 45+ yrs of use between the Franco-Prussian war and WW1. Are there any unit markings on the bayonet?

cheers, J

[Michael Haselgrove]

Motojosh,

You have some excellent bayonets - thanks for sharing.

Trajan and S>S,

I have read with interest your above comments regarding regimental markings. In Dieter Storz's book with reference to the M/71 rifle he writes that the 26th Infantry Regiment from Magdeburg, having used the M/71 for nine years, sent in the worst 40 rifles from each company to be replaced by new ones. This was repeated each year until, by 1886 when the 71/84 was to be introduced, the whole regiment already had new (replacement) rifles. I know this question relates to rifles rather than bayonets but presumably the same marking system was applied to rifles and bayonets. That being the case, and assuming the original rifles and new rifles were regimentally marked, I wonder if either of you can say how the numbering of the replacement new rifles was dealt with?

Regards,

Michael.

[trajan]

There's a few '17 dated examples listed in Noll and Williams so they're definitely out there.

Recently picked up this EB111. It's not in the greatest shape, but has been on my want list for quite awhile. ...

Like I said before, you know your literature! Somehow missed or forgot about those ones in Noll and Williams.

Now, that Chassepot... Nice one, but... Slippery slope there, mate - there are, what, over 150 variants of Ersatz and Ersaoc and adapted captures? Take care!!!

Best,

Julian

[trajan]

I have read with interest your above comments regarding regimental markings. In Dieter Storz's book with reference to the M/71 rifle ... I wonder if either of you can say how the numbering of the replacement new rifles was dealt with?

Very good question... The 1909 regulations, though, are quite precise that the application of consecutive markings applied to all weapons, but one problem with checking that is that the 1909 regulations were still current in 1914, and state that weapons marking was to cease in war time. Well, we know that weapons marking did not stop then, but it does mean that there is a smaller sample to work from for the GW period...

As it is, the highest number I have for anything on a Gew.71 is on one dated 1881 and marked B.8.R.R.383 for Bay.8.Res.Inf.Reg.Waffe 383, and in the Gew.71/84 series is on an 1888 dated one marked B.3.R.R.358, for Bay.3 Inf.Reg.Rekr.Dep.Waffe 358 - but that is a Recruiting Depot... Anyway, I'll have to check with the earlier regulations which I will try to do later.

BTW, didn't know that Storz had done a Gew.71 book - I like and have learnt lots from his Gew.98 and so I must look this one out.

[Michael Haselgrove]

Julian,

Firstly, I wasn't being very precise when referring to Dieter Storz's book. I actually meant his book Vol.1: From the Werder Rifle to the M/71.84 Rifle - one of his set of three on German Military Rifles.

If you can check the earlier regulations I will be grateful. Until I read your above post I had been labouring under the probably mistaken idea that the replacement rifles, or any rifles or bayonets issued to replace damaged ones, would be numbered identically to the item being replaced. If that was correct it would at least explain why we don't see rifles/bayonets marked with much higher numbers.

Regards,

Michael.