Imperial German Bayonet’s from my Collection

[zuluwar2006]

On 11/10/2021 at 02:15, Steve1871 said:

Bayonet #56.             
10/10/21

S.69/98 Yatagan

The Bavarians used a long Yatagan as well as a strait, saw backed pioneer bayonet for their M69 Werder “Blitz” or lightning rifle. After the full adoption of the M.71 Mauser by all German states, Bavaria found that simply by adding a slim bushing to the muzzle ring and make a “step” in rear of brass pommel, it would fit the M.71 as well. Only other adaptation was change from stud on scabbard. These were known as  S.69/71.  Later with the adoption of the Gew.88, the S.69/71 was used with the Gew88 without change, some individual bayonets would be a little loose due to the crowned muzzle face. These were also used by reserve and other rear / support troops in beginning of the Great War

As we all know here on forum, Germany ( every country) was not prepared for all out war. Germany, their leadership deciding that ALL soldiers must be equipped with a gun and edged weapon, most with rifle and bayonet, some special troops, hand guns ect.

So next we have the great scramble to supply Guns and bayonets. On Bayonets, a wide range of ERSATZ ( substitutes) were created. Also, the whole line of S.71 family were used, since they already were issued with Gew88 pre-war. 
 

Among the scramble, Bavaria found it still had some original S.69 Werder bayonets. With the Gew.98 being the new weapon for the war, someone was able to authorize the modification on both types of Werder S.69

 new cross guard and pommel, grips to fit the Gew.98 to become S.69/98.      
I only have the Yatagan so far. Hope you like

My example, the early High “ears” cross guard. The blade looks to have been cleaned some time in the past, not polished I think. The pommel and wood grips look original. Very little use. The pommel has 2 acceptance stamps . Wood grips are very nice 

The scabbard, all steel was used from some other bayonet, think Austrain.  Have seen 2 others sold recently with this steel scabbard. Has original green Paint on top fits just right where a frog would have been, protecting the paint for so long. A Rare Bayonet. There is a photo/ cover of post card showing a soldier in trench with one of these mounted on his Gew.98. I can not find it right now. Anyone else know, feel free to add it

 

A very nice bayonet and extremely rare to find. 

I believe scabbard is for portuguese 1886 kropatchek??? 

Regards

D. 

[AndyBsk]

I believe there is a hard visible proof on hook of scabbard, and M1886 is little smaller blade as Werndl M1873.The OEWG stamp is on Kropatchek on different place same as the backside would be serial numbered inside of portugal contract.

[Steve1871]

Sorry for being gone so long from the post, was sick

[Steve1871]

Bayonet #57.        
12/9/21

S.71/98. 
 

This is kind of an odd one due to markings. Both sets of markings “look” original , but does not make sense.   
unit marked correctly   5.K.33.   
not sure of unit, if something was worn off in front, but separated by periods

The odd thing is another unit is stamped on other side, but does not use any periods, I know periods were regulations, but in field, things happen, but if reissue, older unit should be marked off ( were many different ways). This bayonet was not expensive, 

One theory would be someone added a unit to make it more rare., but bayonet was not expensive, and I see no reason to add second unit. Just an odd one to me.

What is your opinion here guys?

[Steve1871]

For some reason, the left side of guard loads upside down only, I try reload other directions 

[ersatz]

Hi Steve, 

A very interesting bayonet there!  My opinion is that the markings are fine.  I have a 98/05 aA Pioneer Sawback in my collection that has 2 different regimental markings.  I will attach photos.  The 5.K.33. marking belongs to a Kurassier-Regiment as per Jeff Noll's book, The Imperial German Regimental Marking, Revised Edition.   Knowing the Kurassier's were cavalrymen, it seems unrealistic that such a lengthy bayonet would be used by horsemen.  However, Jeff Noll's book, page 132, also references a M1898 nA plain blade bayonet marked with 3.K.6. (Kurassier-Regiment 3, Stab, Waffe Nr. 6.).  Surely a short bayonet would seem more logical for those on horseback, but apparently longer models were also utilized.  Just my opinion.  

[ersatz]

Steve, I neglected to include this photo of the 1898nA with similar regimental..............

[Mickster]

Very nice ersatz. 

Mickster

 

[Steve1871]

Thanks for the help Ersatz.   
 As for “long weapons”, we have all seen a few photos of lancers, one common photo has a Lance and gas mask 

[AndyBsk]

This is a nice bayonet, but certainly it should be part of marking so mostly Reserve Infanterie Regiment nr.233 which was mobilised in war, which unit is here , so the 5K means its 5.kompanie of this regiment. not link with Kurassier even not with artillery blade S71/98 conversion, this is not a ersatz bayonet is a adapted bayonet from AS1860 to Gew98 system called by germans S71/98. Maker is Clauberg Solingen.

By ersatz presented piece S98/05aA are the units stamps smaller so the correct designation could be used only on one side of crossguard. RJR 235, 5.companie and weapon nr.77, when one piece so the old unit of 8.Pioneer was properly striked out.

Edited 10 December , 2021 by AndyBsk

[trajan]

7 hours ago, ersatz said:

Hi Steve, 

A very interesting bayonet there!  My opinion is that the markings are fine.  I have a 98/05 aA Pioneer Sawback in my collection that has 2 different regimental markings.  I will attach photos.  The 5.K.33. marking belongs to a Kurassier-Regiment as per Jeff Noll's book, The Imperial German Regimental Marking, Revised Edition.   Knowing the Kurassier's were cavalrymen, it seems unrealistic that such a lengthy bayonet would be used by horsemen.  However, Jeff Noll's book, page 132, also references a M1898 nA plain blade bayonet marked with 3.K.6. (Kurassier-Regiment 3, Stab, Waffe Nr. 6.).  Surely a short bayonet would seem more logical for those on horseback, but apparently longer models were also utilized.  Just my opinion.  

 

1 hour ago, AndyBsk said:

This is a nice bayonet, but certainly it should be part of marking so mostly Reserve Infanterie Regiment nr.233 which was mobilised in war, which unit is here , so the 5K means its 5.kompanie of this regiment. not link with Kurassier even not with artillery blade S71/98 conversion, this is not a ersatz bayonet is a adapted bayonet from AS1860 to Gew98 system called by germans S71/98. Maker is Clauberg Solingen.

Much as I respect and admire Jeff Noll's work he is not fully aware of the various official German regulations on unit markings, plus those exceptions that test the rule! A single stand alone 'K' can also mean a 'Kriegschule' (Bavaria 1891 regulations, Prussian version 1900), or a 'Kraftfahr-Bataillon' (Prussian 1913).

My money is on the last. A kriegschule should have a letter before the abbreviation to indicate the place where it was located, and I don't think was orhganised into companies (happy to be corrected!). A 'faschinemesser' makes sense for a Kraftfahr-Bataillon. and so we have 5 kraftfahr-Bataillon, Waffe 33.  The only hesitation I have is that there is no company number, so possible it is a 'staff' weapon for the 5 kraftfahr-Bataillon?

Julian

[AndyBsk]

Kraftfahr battalion is probably correct by designation but not on this Steves bayonet, the bayonet itself could be not used by soldier or driver of a vehicle, they used mainly refurbished S84/98aA short blade bayonets as seen on period pictures even in Williams wrongly declared. Here 5K.33 is mostly only part of larger unit, in case of S71/98 of RIR233, the piece presented by Ersatz S98 with 3K.42 is too a war time stamp when looking at size of the stamp, i dont believe its for Kurassier or other cavalry unit, as they didnt have long S98 in equipment, its easiest way a shortage for 3.Kompanie and weaon nr.42. thats the simplest deciphering. Noll have some errors as obvious by similar books.

[trajan]

 

 

31 minutes ago, AndyBsk said:

Kraftfahr battalion is probably correct by designation but not on this Steves bayonet, the bayonet itself could be not used by soldier or driver of a vehicle, they used mainly refurbished S84/98aA short blade bayonets as seen on period pictures even in Williams wrongly declared. Here 5K.33 is mostly only part of larger unit, in case of S71/98 of RIR233, the piece presented by Ersatz S98 with 3K.42 is too a war time stamp when looking at size of the stamp, i dont believe its for Kurassier or other cavalry unit, as they didnt have long S98 in equipment, its easiest way a shortage for 3.Kompanie and weaon nr.42. thats the simplest deciphering. Noll have some errors as obvious by similar books.

Yes, Andy, you are quite right - I have just checked the official regulations and they do indicate that Kraftfahrtruppen were issued wih S.84/98... So K for Companie it is.

Julian 

[Steve1871]

Andy, you mention unit as RIR 233. But it is RJR 233, does the “J” change things a bit

[AndyBsk]

Not the J was declared as I, and letter I was used as romanian numeral 1.

Reserve Infanterie Regiment is stamped with RJR even as war stamp the first R is not cursive as typical for prewar peace stamping.Visible on ersatz presented other piece here.

http://wiki-de.genealogy.net/RIR_233

Edited 10 December , 2021 by AndyBsk

[ersatz]

We all have opinions and it's good that we express them, and there is even an old saying pertaining to one's opinion as well.   I only have Jeff Noll's book and I enjoy searching through the pages for knowledge of the various regimental markings I have in my collection.   I do not have the various books on "Official German Regulations" and quite frankly don't care to.  Many times it has been noted on this forum that the "regulations" for marking weapons were often not adhered to during wartime whether it be from a rogue armourer, or for whatever reason.  There still remains much speculation and uncertainty concerning the interpretation of many German regimental markings.   Who can actually say that they are 100% correct all the time?  I know I cannot!  Regardless, It's nice to share information and opinions among fellow collectors.......................

[Steve1871]

Trajan and AndyBsk both have huge knowledge on German units and markings, far more than I could ever hope to near. Also seem to have big libraries to research.      
Trajan had been collecting his own research 

( I hope will publish) they still miss once in awhile, so I look forward to the two of them  hashing it out, It is a passion of theirs, I glad to have pieces worthy of debate😊

[AndyBsk]

Certainly interesting items here presented by Steve and his excellent collection,the marking is not based on opinions,there are exact manuals about marking,should be looked by Ruediger,1877,1897,1909 that defined the unit stamping,the only problems are war period and mainly second line and school units which were unit marked,to compare on minor marking by combat weapons of front line. Some stamps are not complete as they never mooved to other location,so the smaller units were added inside of base unit,which fysically was not stamped.second point is to known what branch of army You are talking about.

[zuluwar2006]

 

My unit marked bayonets with RJR for reserve infantry tegiment. 

Regards

D. 

[shippingsteel]

I agree with Andy's summation on the K for Kompagnie marking, and this "short version" of the unit marking is commonly seen on the German weaponry including on rifles. I also have some items in my collection with this type of marking, and so I have been banging on about this for years.! It is good to see another very experienced and informed opinion on this topic, thank you Andy for your input here.

Cheers, SS 

https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/208823-a-few-of-the-other-bayonets/?do=findComment&comment=2061994

Edited 10 December , 2021 by shippingsteel

[Steve1871]

Great piece there Demitrios, thanks

[zuluwar2006]

Gentlemen, 

I will agree with ersatz and Andy as well and off course Julian's opinion is always correct, and SS's comments  also. 

RJR is for sure Reserve Infanterie Regiment. 

K is for sure Company, when follow the RJR unit marking. 

Is logic to assume that front line armourers, did not had the time to follow exactly the regulations on stamping unit markings on bayonets. 

Some times we can observe mistakes on unit markings, as on the 98/02 bayonet i am displaying. 

"2358" is certainly not an existing reserve regiment. 

"235" is an existing. 

"8" is the company number. 

Bu rush or by mistake, the armourer did not place the dot between 235 and 8.

This is logical to explain the confusion on unit markings during war time period. 

Regards to all

D. 

 

[AndyBsk]

Yes the war stamps are already not done per manuals but remains still readable with logics of german marking, the S98/02 is interesting as old Pionier unit was striked out on bayonet on correct side of crossguard, the new unit stamp was marked on wrong place, with wrong stamps, as RJR should be larger, with wrong sequence as 235 should be normally in front of unit, what is correct is the number of company 8 and weapon nr.105 from size. But still remains the unit clear readable.

[trajan]

12 hours ago, ersatz said:

We all have opinions and it's good that we express them, and there is even an old saying pertaining to one's opinion as well.   ... There still remains much speculation and uncertainty concerning the interpretation of many German regimental markings.   Who can actually say that they are 100% correct all the time?  I know I cannot!  Regardless, It's nice to share information and opinions among fellow collectors.......................

Please don't misunderstand me! As I said before, I greatly respect Jeff's work - and it was this started me on my own research. My sole criticism is that as he was not able either  to access and/or check the official German regulations OTHER than 1909, the final pre WW1 issue.

The point being that I know of - and have copies of some - at least 13 issues of regulations regarding unit markings after 1872 and before 1909, and there are both Prussian and Bavarian versions, with the Bavarian ones including letter markings not in the Prussian ones. Each of these issues has the list of markings in force at the time of its issue until superseeded by another issue.  Add to that the various amendments that were issued from time to time after 1909 - see the attached from my  1911 hand-corrected copy of the 1909 regulations.

Jeff used the 1909 regulations, but some of his interpretations of letter symbols are not based on factual evidence - his opinion, if you like! So for example he gives one meaning of 'F.' as a 'Flieger-Battallion'. But in none of the regulations I have seen is it given this meaning. It quite probably did so, if found on the right type of post-1914 weapon, but caution needs to be exercised in taking this interpretation at face value. Note also the problem of 'updated' markings on old-type weapons - several bayonets I have seen made before 1909 have 1909 markings on them... 

At some point in the future I will publish the more than 5000 stamps I have listed with their interpretations - official or interpreted - but first I have to find the time - not easy with a full-time teaching position and two young boys around!  In the meantime, then, as you rightly say - There still remains much speculation and uncertainty concerning the interpretation of many German regimental markings.   Who can actually say that they are 100% correct all the time?  ... Regardless, It's nice to share information and opinions among fellow collectors.......................

10 hours ago, shippingsteel said:

I agree with Andy's summation on the K for Kompagnie marking, and this "short version" of the unit marking is commonly seen on the German weaponry including on rifles. I also have some items in my collection with this type of marking, and so I have been banging on about this for years.! It is good to see another very experienced and informed opinion on this topic, thank you Andy for your input here.

Cheers, SS 

https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/208823-a-few-of-the-other-bayonets/?do=findComment&comment=2061994

As I made clear, SS, I also agree with Andy. One general point to bear in mind with 'K' though is the  Zweite Orthographische Konferenz of 1901, which stipulated replacing - in some specific cases - the letter 'C' with 'K', so Companie became Kompanie - but for some reason 'Coln' remained there for a while before becoming 'Koeln'! 

Edited 11 December , 2021 by trajan

[trajan]

Just seen Andy's recent post - came in as I was writing my last one. Quite simple, unless a marking conforms exactly with what is among the examples given in 1909 or the older issues, then we will always be reliant on measured opinion - but it has to be based on knowing all the possible variations and the date of the weapon!