JMB1943 Posted 2 March , 2016 Share Posted 2 March , 2016 Could somebody check their reference books to find the List of Changes (para. & date) that instructed armourers to drill the clearance hole in the already-issued P.07 bayonet ? Regards, JMB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Upton Posted 2 March , 2016 Share Posted 2 March , 2016 See posts 60 and 67 in particular: http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=218182&page=3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMB1943 Posted 2 March , 2016 Author Share Posted 2 March , 2016 Andrew----thank you ! Was there similarly an LoC that instructed armourers regarding the removal of the hook quillion from P.07 bayonets in service ? Regards, JMB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Upton Posted 2 March , 2016 Share Posted 2 March , 2016 Andrew----thank you ! Was there similarly an LoC that instructed armourers regarding the removal of the hook quillion from P.07 bayonets in service ? Regards, JMB A somewhat contentious issue - see post 32 in particular: http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=185724&page=2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 3 March , 2016 Share Posted 3 March , 2016 Could somebody check their reference books to find the List of Changes (para. & date) that instructed armourers to drill the clearance hole in the already-issued P.07 bayonet ? Regards, JMB JMB, I had previously posted the text of LoC 17692 and here is a copy of that LoC which includes the diagram. List of Changes Para 17692 was published in the Army Circular of April 1916, which is considered to be the official date on which the List of Changes became effective. Regards, LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 3 March , 2016 Share Posted 3 March , 2016 Was there similarly an LoC that instructed armourers regarding the removal of the hook quillion from P.07 bayonets in service ? JMB, List of Changes Para 16755 - Sword Bayonet, pattern 1907 Mark I. C dated 29 October 1913 - states " Future manufacture to be without hook on cross-piece A pattern of the above mentioned sword bayonet ( LoC 14170 ), made without a hook on the cross-piece, has been sealed to govern future manufacture ". Many of the original Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonets with hooks, subsequently had their hooks removed and some did not, and there is photographic evidence of Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonets with their hooks attached still in service in the 1920s and as late as 1939. There is a very interesting and little mentioned LoC Para 17465 dated 6 September 1915, which refers to a leather-guard being fitted to those Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonets which still have their hooks attached to prevent the hooks from damaging the straw filled sacks used in bayonet practice. So clearly, the Army was still taking steps to deal with those Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonets which still had their hooks/hooked quillons still attached in late 1915, and did not appear to mind if the hooks were still attached or not. Here is a copy of that LoC 17465. Regards, LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMB1943 Posted 3 March , 2016 Author Share Posted 3 March , 2016 Andrew & Lancs Fus, Thank you for your postings, which clarify the official position. I must admit to being surprised that there was no indication to armourers to remove the HQ as there had been for the CH issue. Regards, JMB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 3 March , 2016 Share Posted 3 March , 2016 I must admit to being surprised that there was no indication to armourers to remove the HQ as there had been for the CH issue. JMB, A decision was taken by the War Department to cease making Pattern 1907 Bayonets with hooks fitted to the cross-piece, and I have not been able to discover the real reason behind that decision. Was it a cost saving decision ?, or was it made for tactical/practical reasons. Were it made for tactical/practical reasons, one would assume the War Department would then have issued a directive for all Pattern 1907 hooks to be promptly removed, and as they did not, it may possibly be that real reason for the hooks being dispensed with, was it being just plain cheaper to make Pattern 1907s without the hooks. Regards, LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMB1943 Posted 3 March , 2016 Author Share Posted 3 March , 2016 LF, You may well be right about a cost issue. Skennerton in 'Australian Service Bayonets' says that 146 operations were required in the manufacture of the HQ bayonet; that must have been reduced by eliminating the hook. I believe that I read somewhere that HQ was removed because of catching on everything even during routine training, but cannot find that now. Perhaps someone can confirm that. Regards, JMB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 5 March , 2016 Share Posted 5 March , 2016 ... Skennerton in 'Australian Service Bayonets' says that 146 operations were required in the manufacture of the HQ bayonet; that must have been reduced by eliminating the hook. ... I believe that I read somewhere that HQ was removed because of catching on everything even during routine training, but cannot find that now. Perhaps someone can confirm that. ... I was thinking on this... The crossguard was made as one piece so eliminating the hook did not save on operations. As for eliminating it because of catching in clothes, well, that doesn't really sound right either... Lots of armies had hooked quillon bayonets before 1914 (e.g., France, Germany), and some dropped them post 1914 (France) and some did not (German). I have often wondered anyway why the P.07 was made with a hook. The well-worn explanation for the hooked bayonet is that it helps in bayonet fighting - which it might well have done when chappies had single shot rifles and events might be determined by the bayonet, and so a twist with the bayonet when an opponent's blade was trapped there could be decisive. But in all honesty I think the hook on the P.07 was put there simply because it was already there on the Arisaka, which the P.07 is based on. After all, there was no hook on the indigenously developed P.1888 or P.1903. In fact, I think I am right in saying that no GB-made pre-P.07 bayonet ever had a hooked quiilon!(?) In other words, I think the P.07 hooked quillon is what we in my trade call a skeuomorph: a now-redundant feature in one artefact that copies the same feature in another artefact and which was originally there for a purpose. E.g., the concave bases still found today in many wine bottles that contain regular vin d'plonk, and which are derived from the ones used as sediment trap in "olden days": they have no function but they are still there! I think LF has it. A simple matter of - to put it bluntly - "Hang about, why are we making these things with a hook anyway? We can save a few bob here!" As for the decision to remove the damn thing from those that had them? Sounds to me as if it was just a matter of choice. Despite their over-rated rarity there are so many of these around - and some still in service even into WW2 - that I very much doubt that there was ever an official order to the effect. Perhaps it was done simply for uniformity? Everyone else in a unit has the post-1913 type so let's have the hook of this one? Julian PS: JMB, a PM to come tomorrow (Sunday). 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