“Barbarous German Bayonet”

[trajan]

10 minutes ago, Gunner Bailey said:

We all know that history is full of anomalies and in this case we have ...

 

Like I said above, I don't want to get into a fight on this!

 

But as Ross pointed out earlier, memories do get faulty over time, and it strains credulity that a member of the AK had a sawbacked bayonet in his possession. And I for one have certainly never heard of the Afrika Korps having old stock weaponry! I refer you back to post 16. Although some bayonets, etc., probably did disappear "under the bed", as it were in 1918-1920, the Weimat government was so meticulous on obeying the law and conditions of the Versailles Treaty that officers who held private purchase pistols had to register these to be given the 1920 mark to show they had been counted and were for official use. There was no 'old stock' weaponry hanging around when AH came to power, and so his re-major armament programme. And please note, I am not relying on "some "expert's books" when discussing sawbacks - I am using official orders, regulations, and laws!

So, with all due respect, please believe what you wish - and can we get back to my initial query and the subject of this thread, which is the earliest mention of these "barbarous weapons in English or French texts...

 

Julian

 

PS: Incidentally, though, there was plenty of old stock hanging around when the Honour Guard of the Bundeswehr was formed: until sometime in the 1970's/1980's (or possibly later!), all their rifles and bayonets carried the 3rdR "Waffenamt" eagle and swastika mark - and an Israeli friend of mine did his initial training in the 1960's with weapons marked the same way, smuggled in during 1948-1949!

[Martin Bennitt]

You two (you know who I mean): please just agree to differ on the veteran's reported story and stick to the topic subject.

 

Thanks and cheers Martin B

 

 

[MikB]

19 hours ago, zuluwar2006 said:

Dear MikB

I think you are wrong on this matter. 

 

 Yes, thanks for that - I don't mind at all accepting that.

 

I just would have expected that a saw back intended to cut - whatever the material might be >:-o  - might be more effective doing so on the pull stroke than the push, since there's no easy site to apply downward pressure whilst doing so.

[trajan]

10 minutes ago, MikB said:

 Yes, thanks for that - I don't mind at all accepting that.

 

I just would have expected that a saw back intended to cut - whatever the material might be >:-o  - might be more effective doing so on the pull stroke than the push, since there's no easy site to apply downward pressure whilst doing so.

 

There is somewhere a video of a - I think Pfm - cutting through a 2 x 2 and by the second stroke it was half way through. But certainly, if the saw on thes ebayonets as intended to cause a tearing wound, the teeth would be arranged backwards, on the 'pull' stroke?

[zuluwar2006]

15 minutes ago, MikB said:

 Yes, thanks for that - I don't mind at all accepting that.

 

I just would have expected that a saw back intended to cut - whatever the material might be >:-o  - might be more effective doing so on the pull stroke than the push, since there's no easy site to apply downward pressure whilst doing so.

I must add a point to you for this comment... 

I agree absolutely with you... 

Regards

D. 

[Gunner Bailey]

1 hour ago, Martin Bennitt said:

You two (you know who I mean): please just agree to differ on the veteran's reported story and stick to the topic subject.

 

Thanks and cheers Martin B

 

 

 

Thanks Martin. I don't need to differ. I saw and heard things at first telling and bought the items in question. It's not theoretical for me.

 

I happy for others to differ though.

[trajan]

1 hour ago, Gunner Bailey said:

 

Thanks Martin. I don't need to differ. I saw and heard things at first telling and bought the items in question. It's not theoretical for me.

 

I happy for others to differ though.

 

Same here so  mate!

[trajan]

On 06/02/2019 at 23:06, MikB said:

I always thought the purpose of a saw back was to catch and divert an opponent's blade. 

Mercifully I haven't had occasion to test that hypothesis.

 

Doesn't the direction of the teeth in Zuluwar's pic support this, or is it vice versa on the German examples?

 

Forgot to answer this! Doubt if they would catch an opponents blade - but I haven't tried either... The teeth on ZW's example go in the same direction as the German ones. Same as on a modern (or ancient!) hacksaw, etc., for cutting with a forward thrust. A coping saw is different - the teeth face backwards... One of the few things I remember from my woodworking instructor (aka 'Grub screw') at technical school all those years ago...

[trajan]

17 hours ago, trajan said:

The teeth on a real sawback are properly turned as in a real saw, each tooth bends out in alternating directions to create a "set", and so a wide "kerf" or cut, for cutting wood (and they do!). 

 

I couldn't find the video I saw before in which a guy used a German bayonet to cut a piece of 2 by 2, but did find this one of somebody using a Swiss WW1 period sawback for the same purpose on a piece of - looks to be - 6 inch diameter. This is at: https://www.full30.com/watch/MDAxMzkz/1914-swiss-butcher-sawback-bayonet-testing - you have to get through the gun adverts first though!

 

The bayonet is a Simson made one and they supplied sawbacks bayonets to the German army in WW 1 so presumably the same or similar teeth set-up.

 

Anyway, the guy shows how using the bayonet alone it took 72 seconds to cut a piece off a "windfall" log; when fixed to the rifle it took 29 seconds to cut another length off  the same log; when using a 'Bucksaw' it took 16 seconds.

 

Julian