Michael Haselgrove Posted 20 October , 2015 Share Posted 20 October , 2015 I will be very interested to know if anyone has in their collection, or has seen, an S 98/05 with no false edge. In German Bayonets by A. Carter Vol.1. page 32 under “Blade Points” he wrote: “The blade of the S 98/05 has no false edge, only a flat surface where the back curved down towards the point, and this was thought to be a design fault after the first twelve months of the war. On the 16th September 1915 the War Ministry in Berlin, referring to the regulations concerning the maintenance of weapons in which the bayonets used by the Infantry and Light Infantry had their blades sharpened not only on the cutting edge but also on the back for about 4cm from the point, extended this practice to all troops equipped with the S 98/05. It further ordered that all S 98/05 being manufactured should be given a sharp false edge, adding that the Army High Command had asked the War Ministry to send instructions to all units ordering the armourers to sharpen the bayonets in service. Armourers frequently gave the blades a slightly longer false edge than specified. Very few S 98/05 exist today without this alteration proving that the instructions to armourers were carried out thoroughly”. I have one example in my collection and attach a few photos. Made at Erfurt and marked W 15 it was hit by a bullet at the top of the hilt, bending the hilt and making it impossible to use as a bayonet. Interestingly, it has a private purchase scabbard. One photo shows the bayonet I mention without a false edge and another with a false edge for comparison. I have seen only one other S 98/05 without a false edge and if anyone has seen another I will be very interested to hear. Regards, Michael. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 20 October , 2015 Share Posted 20 October , 2015 No Michael, I don't recall having seen an example that has not been modified. The sheer numbers of wartime bayonets versus pre-war examples makes the chances remote. Just for illustration I post some pictures of one of my early (1911) sawbacks that has had the false edge most certainly well applied.! (As per the 1915 regulation stated above) Regarding your bayonet I wonder if the pommel damage was actually part of a crude 'deactivation' process.? I understand that after the war numbers were 'limited' in this way. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 21 October , 2015 Share Posted 21 October , 2015 I will be very interested to know if anyone has in their collection, or has seen, an S 98/05 with no false edge. ... it was hit by a bullet at the top of the hilt, bending the hilt and making it impossible to use as a bayonet. ... ... The sheer numbers of wartime bayonets versus pre-war examples makes the chances remote. Regarding your bayonet I wonder if the pommel damage was actually part of a crude 'deactivation' process.? I understand that after the war numbers were 'limited' in this way. I don't have one, but to clarify what SS was indicating, note that the 98/05 only became the 'standard' weapon for the army after November 1914, with mass-production of these only expected to peak in August 1915 (according to official estimates), while up until November 1914, the weapon itself originally had a very restricted use: it was intended only for the Pioneer and Railway troops (Pioniere- and Eisenbahntruppen), who received the sawback version, and the Foot Artillery and Telegraph troops (Fussartillerie- and Telegraphentruppen), who received the non-sawback type alone (except, apparently, for the the 6% proportion of sawbacked bayonets usual in the infantry). In other words, the numbers of 98/05's around before September 1915 were rather small compared to later ones (I have the figures somewhere!), and so the chances of seeing one with or without an applied false edge are remote to begin with! And in any case the statement by Carter should be modified to read "Very few pre-1915 S 98/05 exist today without this alteration proving that the instructions to armourers were carried out thoroughly”. The decree ordering the application of the false edge, by the way, survives in a Bavarian copy - Bayer. KA, MKr. 4011. Note also that this one has high ears and doesn't have a flashguard, as far as I can see - and so it was not in for re-furbishing for that process either. As for the damage, well, I think a bullet! The de-commissioning of these 98/05's by the V-notch was a cut done under allied supervision, which may not have that close, as some still had working catches - but this is, to my mind, too irregular, and a gouge, so not a botched effort at doing that. Apart from which, the grip is twisted, which ties in with bullet imapct. Whatever, a very nice example! Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 21 October , 2015 Share Posted 21 October , 2015 ... the 98/05 only became the 'standard' weapon for the army after November 1914, with mass-production of these only expected to peak in August 1915 (according to official estimates) ... Just to elaborate a little on that question of the rarity of the pre-1915 S.98/05. According to the figures I have, between February - July 1915, Bavaria had been supplied with exactly 42,740 98/05's compared to some 114,000 of all other bayonet types... These figures for the proportion of 98/05's in Bavaria may apply to other states, but note that some 88,000 of the bayonets in Bavarian use at the time were Aushilfsseitengewehre! Planned output of the 98/05 and all other regulation bayonets was supposed to match that of the Aushilfsseitengewhere by August 1915, and replace them entirely by the end of that year, and by the end of 1916, it was intended that there should be enough of these 98/05's around to start issuing them to the Ersatz, Reserve, Landwehr and Landsturm. Between mid-1915 and 1918, Waffenfabrik Mauser alone had delivered 1,105,962 of the 98/05's - for a price of 11,699,609.90 marks, and they were not a major manufacturer of the type... References can be supplied if requested... Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolyboy11 Posted 21 October , 2015 Share Posted 21 October , 2015 A very interesting question Michael and one which I was discussing with a friend and fellow collector only a couple of weeks ago. He collects by maker and has 30-40 examples, like you has only one with no false edge and thinks them quite scarce. The majority though are wartime produced examples. I did a quick tally through mine and got a very different picture. I only really go for unit marked examples, so quite a few are pre war dated which may be significant. Of 26 examples, (11 are Naval marked) 8 have no false edge. Of these, 5 are Naval marked, pre war (or 1914 which obviously could be either). So small a sample proves nothing but maybe suggests the Navy were not so conscientious as nearly 50% are not altered. One example, a 1913 aA converted to nA with its sawback removed has a Weimar M over anchor mark on the blade. It has no false edge either suggesting the Navy, even post war, possibly did not consider it a problem. The other 3 are a - 1914 marked to a Pionier Reg, 1906 Eisenbahn, 1908 Foot Artillery. Not sure if this takes things any further but I thought interesting non the less. Rolyboy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 21 October , 2015 Share Posted 21 October , 2015 ... He collects by maker and has 30-40 examples, like you has only one with no false edge and thinks them quite scarce. The majority though are wartime produced examples. I did a quick tally through mine and got a very different picture. I only really go for unit marked examples, so quite a few are pre war dated which may be significant. Of 26 examples, (11 are Naval marked) 8 have no false edge.Of these, 5 are Naval marked, pre war (or 1914 which obviously could be either). So small a sample proves nothing but maybe suggests the Navy were not so conscientious as nearly 50% are not altered. One example, a 1913 aA converted to nA with its sawback removed has a Weimar M over anchor mark on the blade. It has no false edge either suggesting the Navy, even post war, possibly did not consider it a problem. The other 3 are a - 1914 marked to a Pionier Reg, 1906 Eisenbahn, 1908 Foot Artillery. Not sure if this takes things any further but I thought interesting non the less. I wish I could collect by maker but over here very few examples of anything other than WAFFENFABRIK MAUSER appear - and most of these are W/1917! So, of yours, once you take out the Naval marked ones, we are down to 21, of which 3 have no false edge. Yes, a small sample, but even so, interesting, and yes, suggesting that the navy were not so concerned by the issue. Those 1914 navy ones, though - which makers? There is always a problem with samples such as this, a necessary point to bear in mind is bias, and you do collect unit-marked ones, and so these would have been in service use in 1915, which brings in that element of bias - maybe you have collected ones that stayed in service use and so were not altered? Indeed, what about their ears and their flash guards? If unaltered ears and no flashguard, then not given back to the armourers, and so no false edge. What would be really interesting would be a series of examples of pre-1915 date with no unit mark and also no false edge. This is not to knock your observations in any way - I would just like clarification! Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Haselgrove Posted 21 October , 2015 Author Share Posted 21 October , 2015 Dear All, Many thanks for all your interesting replies. The reason I asked this question is that I was looking through Roy Williams book Part One and between pages 412 and 419 there are photos of a number of S 98/05 bayonets and it appeared to me that several do not, or may not, have a sharpened false edge. I was wondering if perhaps collectors had not taken the trouble to check and that A. Carter's statement that very few exist today is worth checking. S>S. That's a really nice looking bayonet and the false edge has certainly been well and truly sharpened. I am, in fact, certain that the damage to my bayonet was caused by a bullet. I attach a photo showing the bent grip. My opinion is that it saw little service and was picked up as a souvenir in late 1915. I can't explain the private purchase scabbard but it was on it when I purchased the bayonet 30+ years ago for £16 if memory serves. Julian. I agree that pre-war bayonets are relatively scarce but by September 1915 enough had been manufactured to give us a good picture regarding the sharpening of the false edges. I suppose if Carter's text was to be modified it would have to read "pre-1916" as bayonets were presumably manufactured without a sharpened false edge until mid-September 1915 if not later. Rolyboy. It sounds as though you, and your friend, respectively have great collections. No wonder unit marked examples are so hard to come by! With 8 of your 26 bayonets being unmodified my thought is that perhaps Carter's statement that very few S98/05 bayonets exist today without the alteration is worthy of reconsideration. Regards, Michael. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 21 October , 2015 Share Posted 21 October , 2015 ... I can't explain the private purchase scabbard but it was on it when I purchased the bayonet 30+ years ago for £16 if memory serves. ... Forgot to ask, why do you think this to be a private purchase scabbard? I guess you mean a leather one, but...??? One other thing, I have been trying to get figures for actual S.98/05 manufacture up to and beyond 1915, and these are not easy to come by. However, you might be interested to know that between August 1914 and 31 March 1918, the Saxon Ordnance Department received 89,287 S.98/05's m.S and 453,387 S.98/05's o.S. In theory, if we calculate the number of Saxon soldiers who should have had these before the end of 1914 (i.e., engineers and the like), then that might be used as a rough guide to establish how many S.98/05's were received between 1915-1918. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Haselgrove Posted 21 October , 2015 Author Share Posted 21 October , 2015 Julian, Interesting figures - thanks very much. I'm not sure how far they take us as there will certainly be a number of additional factors to be taken into account but worthy of study in any event. As far as the the scabbard is concerned it has plated steel mounts. In addition, there are no inspection/acceptance marks, the screw securing the mouth piece is smaller than on the service scabbard and the staples securing the metal fittings to the leather are narrower, the leather has no seam down the centre of the back and is rather "bunched" where it is inserted into the metal fittings and the mouth piece is shaped to the blade. I attach a couple of photos which I hope illustrate the above points. Regards, Michael. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 22 October , 2015 Share Posted 22 October , 2015 Interesting figures - thanks very much. I'm not sure how far they take us as there will certainly be a number of additional factors to be taken into account but worthy of study in any event. As far as the the scabbard is concerned it has plated steel mounts. ... Hi Michael, On the first point I do agree wholeheartedly - but remember my background is in archaeology where we have to use what little we have to get a clearer picture even when we know that there are all sorts of other Rumsfeldian factors to take into account! A good example is the commissioning and the survival rate of Roman military tombstones... But I digress... That is an interesting scabbard - thanks for showing it! The mouth piece is an entirely new one for me, and probably most collectors of this type. The frog stud also looks odd - and even a tad amateurish, given the apparent irregularity of the grooves. Julian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Haselgrove Posted 22 October , 2015 Author Share Posted 22 October , 2015 Hi Julian, Funnily enough my cousin is an archaeologist specialising in the Iron Age to Roman period. I'll ask him about your tombstones next time we meet. However, I too digress..... The private purchase bayonets are not my area of interest and I'm afraid my knowledge of them is limited to what Carter has written in German Bayonets Vol. I. They must be rare as I can't recall seeing one for sale although, since I don't collect them, I wasn't really looking. I had thought of swapping the scabbard for a "regulation" one but who is to say it wasn't being used with the bayonet during the War. Certainly the condition of bayonet and scabbard match well. Regards, Michael. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 6 November , 2015 Share Posted 6 November , 2015 Slowly, slowly, sorting through the 98/05's, as I re-house bayonets in a new drawers, and think I do have one w/o a false edge! Well, it's a HAENL W/14 with high ears and no flash guard, and nothing seems to have been done to the blade at the sharp end. I also have a COPPEL W/15 with ears and no flashguard that does look to have been given a 'false edge' on one side.... But there again, there is a WAFFENFABRIK W/17 with a false edge clearly added, so I'll look some more and do some photographs when weather, boys' football, classes, exam marking, my better half, etc., etc., allow... Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 7 November , 2015 Share Posted 7 November , 2015 False alarm... It is more like a chamfer than a false edge, but looking at the blueprints for the 98/05 there should not be a chamfer there... Anyway, it made me look at some of the others to see what variations there were, and as a sample, here we have from left to right: HAENEL a.A.m.S, W/14, with high ears, no flashguard, chamfer rather than a true false edge; COPPEL a.A., W/15, with high ears, no flashguard, false edge, but one side of the blade only; STAHLBLUME n.A, W/16, very distinct false edge, nicely done; WAFFENFABRIK n.A., W/17, false edge, re-ground. Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Haselgrove Posted 8 November , 2015 Author Share Posted 8 November , 2015 Julian,Intereresting - thanks very much for the photos. As mentioned above, according to Carter, the Regulation provided for a false edge of about 4cm from the point on all existing S98/05 and those manufactured after 16th Sept. 1915. He says that armourers frequently gave the blades a slightly longer false edge than specified. Your post has caused me to look more carefully at the false edges of my S98/05 collection. As in your collection they vary in length considerably. The shortest is about 3cm on a S98/05 aA made by Simpson & Co Suhl and marked W 10. The longest at about 9cm or a little more is on Transitional S98/05 aA made by Alex. Coppel Solingen and marked W 15. Of these two the former will definately have been sharpened by an armourer whereas the latter may be applied by the manufacturer. Interestingly, I have a S98/05 nA made by Ferd. Esser & Co Elberfeld marked W 17 that appears not to have been re-sharpened post manufacture and which has a sharpened false edge of 8cm. One would expect that the false edge applied by the manufacturer to more nearly conform to the regulation but it is, of course, possible that I am wrong and it has been sharpened post manufacture. Regards, Michael. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jscott Posted 24 November , 2015 Share Posted 24 November , 2015 Michael I just saw this thread and checked my butcher bayonets. The last one I checked has no false edge, and like yours is an Erfurt W15 (transitional). Here are a few shots. Cheers, Jonathan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jscott Posted 24 November , 2015 Share Posted 24 November , 2015 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