Imperial German S 1898 aA Sawback ~ F.P.3.33. regimental........? ? ?

[bert.f]

1 hour ago, trajan said:

Hi Bert,

What is the source for that?

Julian

Hi ,Julian

scan from a friends who deals with the topic of Schutztruppe

[AndyBsk]

Thanks for adding it SS, as 3.Proviant Abt. has only Stab+3 kolonnen so it would be certainly smaller as the other Kol. Abt, 5 important is too when was done similar diagram on Bert is March 1905, the other text is from 1905 and from 1906, which i assume were changed the configuration of that units.

[GreyC]

11 hours ago, shippingsteel said:

however the 5th Proviant Kolonne on its own had 800 men,

Sorry, but it didn´t. It says five Kolonnen. So it is plural and the number given refers to the 5th Kolonnen-ABTEILUNG plus Stab. It had 800 men.

There is a difference between Kolonne and Kolonnen-Abt. A Kolonne is more like a company, an Abteilung had the size of a battailon. See No 28, too. Here it´s the same thing. By the way: the Train-Bataillone at home in Gerrmany were renamed Train-Abteilungen from 1st April 1914 (no April fools day joke then or today).

 

Edited 10 January , 2022 by GreyC

[bert.f]

To sum up.

FP 3.33- Proviant kolonnenabteilung nr.3, weapon 33 ?

FP 3.72 Proviant kolonnenabteilung nr.3, weapon 72 ?

FP 1.33 Fuhrpark .kolonnenabteilung nr 1, weapon 33 ?

5.FP.4.51 Proviant kolonnenabteilung nr 5, kolonne nr 4, weapon 51

3.FP.2.3 Proviant kolonnenabteilung nr 3, kolonne nr 2, weapon 3  ( 2nd provision column of the 3rd (provisions) column departament, weapon nr 3)

 

Edited 10 January , 2022 by bert.f

[trajan]

47 minutes ago, bert.f said:

To sum up. ...

Whatever - but NO evidence this was a Schutztruppe bayonet!

[AndyBsk]

Yes when this is a real piece of Schutztruppe even not fully confirmed so the designation could be 

5.F.P.4.51 Feld Proviantkolonnen Abteilung nr.5, Proviant kolonne nr .4, weapon 51

F.P. 3.33 Could be made inside of 3. Feld Proviantkolonnen Abteilung, or the first digit is missing here ? as not stamped per regulations and is for 1.Proviant Kollonen Abteilung , 3.Proviant Kolonne, weapon nr.33, or easy way the number was forgotten to stamp.

Edited 10 January , 2022 by AndyBsk

[AndyBsk]

Even not good oriented in materie of Schutztruppen to stamps that were here provided i believe the F is identical with same die errors on both mentioned piece, secondly is oversized minimum for 0,5mm to P and R stamp, we could assume already that Williams piece 2.F.R. is of KSch Feld Regiment, the old aA modells evidently were send from Garde to this expedition corps, question is all were converted to S ammo, as there is listing that majority are in that configuration. Thirdly the FP could be wout dot between and even not regular stamp, the KSch unit would be here real. Anyway the best choice would be compare the marking of bayonets with real rifles of K.Sch. For 2.F.R. dont exist other explanation as Feld Regiment, as Fusilier didnt existed in that numbers, and the smaller unit fully corespond . Maybe FP has other explanation as here discussed in various pages.

Edited 10 January , 2022 by AndyBsk

[bert.f]

56 minutes ago, trajan said:

Whatever - but NO evidence this was a Schutztruppe bayonet!

I know it will be difficult to find proof that this is a designation the Schutztruppe,  but no evidence this was that he wasnt

[trajan]

1 hour ago, bert.f said:

I know it will be difficult to find proof that this is a designation the Schutztruppe,  but no evidence this was that he wasnt

Hi Bert,

This one will go on and on...

There is no evidence either way to say if it is or if it is not a Schutztruppe item - yes, that is true! But the most basic starting point from which we should examine this item should be - in Latin - pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate, freely translatable as “Don't look for another interpretation if a simpler one is available". This is a standard approach in all aspects of philosophical reasoning, from medicine to the sciences. Take the simple explanation over the complex one, especially when the simplest explanation is easier to verify or find support for.

This is an irregular unit marking. They do exist. We all agree on that, I think. What do we have that can be used to interpret what it is?

Well, it is a S.98/05 sawback marked F.P. It is being suggested by some as a Schutztruppen bayonet from 1904-1906 just because official documents say that the Schutztruppen had a 'Feld-Proviant-Kolonne'!  

BUT, as AndyB pointed out, and myself also, it is an irregular marking of a type that finds no exact parallel in the official regulations. From the 1909 Regulations we can suggest that: F = Fusilier, Festungs, Fuss, Fuhrpark (Kolonne), Feldhaubitz (Munitionskolonne), and also from later regulations, Flieger: and P can be: Pionier, Proviant, Pferde-(Depot), Park, or (Jaeger oder Grenadier Regimenet zu) Pfrede, or - even from other sources Polizei. Take your pick! But note there is no F = Feld here...

The fact is that the simplest explanation is - in standard philosphical thinking - always more likely to be accurate than a complex one. Take into account it is an irregular marking, yes. But just for starters bear in mind the bayonet is of a type issued initially to Pioniers and railway troops only and which on the available evidence, was only issued to Pioniers and Railway troops until 1907 at the VERY earliest. Of course - it could be the exception that tests that rule, that proves it is not a rule. But, pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate applies... 

I have said it before, and I will say it again. We simply do not have any evidence to determine what this marking stands for. I can give you several such markings which defy a simple explanation.

But rather than look for an explanation that identifies it as a bayonet issued to a rather small unit, think of it simply as one of the many bayonets (re)issued to the regular Imperial German army between 1914-1918 - especially as there is nothing in the bayonet's history (as far as we know) to connect it to German South West Africa.

Best wishes, Julian   

[trajan]

2 hours ago, AndyBsk said:

Even not good oriented in materie of Schutztruppen to stamps that were here provided i believe the F is identical with same die errors on both mentioned piece, secondly is oversized minimum for 0,5mm to P and R stamp, we could assume already that Williams piece 2.F.R. is of KSch Feld Regiment, the old aA modells evidently were send from Garde to this expedition corps, question is all were converted to S ammo, as there is listing that majority are in that configuration. Thirdly the FP could be wout dot between and even not regular stamp, the KSch unit would be here real. Anyway the best choice would be compare the marking of bayonets with real rifles of K.Sch. For 2.F.R. dont exist other explanation as Feld Regiment, as Fusilier didnt existed in that numbers, and the smaller unit fully corespond . Maybe FP has other explanation as here discussed in various pages.

Really late here - time for bed! 

Sorry Andy, I do not see the 'same' die errors you mention and as for irregular sized letters in a single stamp, well, they are not that unusual, e.g.

Julian

Edited 10 January , 2022 by trajan

[GreyC]

On 09/01/2022 at 21:28, shippingsteel said:

Stab (Staff)  +  X. Proviant-Kolonnen. =  X. Kolonnen-Abteilung 

Actually it is Stab + 1.+2.+3.+4.+5. Proviantkolonne=5. Kolonnen-Abt.

[shippingsteel]

Just a minor point, if you are going to undertake a rebuttal based on evidence, it might be best to remember exactly what the FP marking was stamped on in the OP.! (It was an SG.98 and these were used in DSWA by the Schutztruppen eg. see 2FR etc.)

Regarding the Kolonnen-Abteilung, I understand that they may have been normally organised differently, however I am simply reporting the organisation as I see it from the troopship manuscripts. And as I mentioned it appears that Stab + X. Proviant Kolonnen = X. Kolonnen-Abteilung. Feel free to look yourselves at the pages I linked, the details are in the Appendices. I know Kolonnen is plural just posting it as THEY called it in the source documents. 

https://brema.suub.uni-bremen.de/dsdk/content/pageview/1836258

But we should not forget that their are other FP marked items to consider as well. It is easy to disregard just another bayonet, but it gets more difficult when you have a string of items all marked in the same pattern, that all point in the same direction. In particular the closest marked example being the rare Kav.Kar.98 with Aufplanzvorrichtung for the SG.98 bayonet. Not many were made let alone modified to take the same bayonet as in the OP. 

http://ycgg.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/kar98.pdf

So the naysayers would also have to explain why and how this carbine bears the FP. They were basically a trials weapon and rapidly replaced, and the timing fits perfectly with the DSWA campaign. We do know the Schutztruppen received these carbines and they are still found in South Africa.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/paranoid_womb/6928341734/

So to understand why it has to be a Schutztruppen marking you must first understand all the weapons and the situation in the period in question, and then look at the organisation and how it was set up. Including the reasons why they were called Feld-Reg and Feld-Komp which was particularly unique and which seems to have carried through into the weapons marking.

Cheers, SS 

Edited 10 January , 2022 by shippingsteel

[GreyC]

9 hours ago, shippingsteel said:

however I am simply reporting the organisation as I see it from the troopship manuscripts. And as I mentioned it appears that Stab + X. Proviant Kolonnen = X. Kolonnen-Abteilung. Feel free to look yourselves at the pages I linked

Hi Shippingsteel,

could it be that you misinterpreted the German sources?

From the source you transcribed it and you made up the equation: Stab + X. Proviant Kolonnen = X. Kolonnen-Abteilung.

This is not what the source says. It says (and I repeat myself):  5 Proviantkolonnen not 5. Proviantkolonnen

which correctly equals Stab + 1.+2.+3.+4.+5. Proviantkolonne = 5. Kolonnen-Abt.   You put a "." in your text were there is none in the original. 

I wouldn´t insist if it were not (seemingly) so important to get the facts right in this difficult matter.

Best,

GreyC

 

Edited 10 January , 2022 by GreyC

[shippingsteel]

GreyC, yes I understand what you are saying but when you look at the entire listing you have to find the same components to make up the 5 individual Abteilung. We see numbers 1-5 mentioned but from there it is quite confusing. If you look at all the Kolonne listings you will note they are ALL in the plural sense. I am happy to be wrong here just trying to make sense of it in an overall situation. 

See the link I provide to the source document below, you will need to check through the following couple pages of the document as well to get the entire listing (see small arrows near the Page numbers)

Cheers, SS 

https://brema.suub.uni-bremen.de/dsdk/content/pageview/1836258

Edited 10 January , 2022 by shippingsteel

[GreyC]

Thank you Shippingstell,

I don´t quite see the problem.  In Anlage 2 "Übersicht 1904-1906", running numbers 1-44 you have listed as being shipped 4 of the 5 Kolonnen-Abteilungen present in DSWA with different numbers of Kolonnen being shipped.

In 1904:

18: 2. Kolonnen-Abt. (unspecified numbers of actual Kolonnen, which seems to indicate the whole Abteilung was shipped)

27: Stab and two Proviantkolonnen of 3. Kolonnen-Abteilung; the whole of 4. Kolonnen-Abteilung; unspecified number of soldiers as reinforcement of 1. Kolonnenabteilung.

In 1905:

28: 3 Proviantkolonnen der 3. Kolonnen-Abteilung

30: Stab und 5 Proviantkolonnen der 5. Kolonnen-Abteilung.

In 1906:

ZERO

What does this tell us? The

1. Kolonnen-Abteilung was not shipped. Seems to have been in Africa before 1904. Only reinforcements were shipped in 1905.

2. Kolonnen-Abteilung was probabably shipped in toto with unspecified number of Proviant-Kolonnen.

3. Kolonnen-Abteilung was shipped in two instances. 1st in 1904 with Stab and two Proviant-Kolonnen, 3 Proviant-Kolonnen in 1905 totals 5 Proviant-Kolonnen of 3. Kolonnen-Abteilung.

4. Kolonnen-Abteilung shipped in toto (probably).

5. Kolonnen-Abteilung was shipped with 5 Proviant-Kolonnen and Stab.

My guess is, going by the numbers of 3rd and 5th Kolonnenabteilung, that the Kolonnen-Abt. consisted of 5 Proviantkolonnen + Stab.

For the 5. Kolonnen-Abteilung the numbers (Stab included) are given as 34/?/800. If we subtract 50 Mannschaften for Stab we would have 150 soldiers per Proviant-Kolonne.

If (and only if) all 5 Kolonnen-Abteilungen were present in Afrika fulll strength, that would give us 170/?/4000 officers and men in the Proviant-Kolonnen of the Kolonnen-Abteilungen.

By the way: the Proviant-Kolonnen were commanded by a Hauptmann, were divided into two Züge with 3 Sektionen each (makes it 6 Sektionen), each Sektion with 5 waggons. Info courtesy of a friend and specialist in Coionial-troops. Data from a handwritten paper of a Feldwebel serving in one of the Proviant-Kolonnen.

Hope that helped clarify matters.

GreyC

PS: It might be of interest to note that none of the Kolonnen-Abteilungen nor any of the Proviant-Kolonnen are c alled Feld-Kolonnen-Abteilungen or Feld-Proviant-Kolonnen, whereas other units do bear the prefix.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 11 January , 2022 by GreyC

[shippingsteel]

Excellent work GreyC, you have summarised that very well thank you for the expert assistance, and I am happy to go along with that as you describe. Apologies for my mistake. I blame my poor language skills.! 

So that organisation as described would also back up all the other FP markings that have been listed previously. Again also of interest, note that NO Fuhrpark units have been mentioned.!

Cheers, SS 

Edited 11 January , 2022 by shippingsteel

[GreyC]

Your very welcome! German can be very tricky.

Your quite right with the Fuhrpark. instead they used Transportkompanien. Do note that the only units named with the prefix Feld- are Feldsignalisten, Feldtelegrafen and Feldvermesser of all troops shipped.

Best,

GreyC

 

 

[AndyBsk]

Julian dont worry about, Your picture has identical size of A and F, which is not the case in FP.  As mentioned is allways best compare stamp on rifles, as bayonets are only parts of them. Unfortunally dont see here any links to gun samples similar marked.

[AndyBsk]

there is SanitaetsFuhrpark in the units, and the listing of power strenght could varying by various type of Abteilungen, could be smaller or larger, problem there is too additional units are listed in the list of SS.

As special units, there were not exactly stamped under manuals, thats the explanation of strange units designations. Certainly is good to bring maximum archive material to solve this. train units were very tricky as in peace time low number only for NCOs and basic people, they rises in war time to 5x even 10x of personal strenght.

Edited 11 January , 2022 by AndyBsk

[trajan]

6 hours ago, shippingsteel said:

Excellent work GreyC, you have summarised that very well thank you for the expert assistance, and I am happy to go along with that as you describe. Apologies for my mistake. I blame my poor language skills.! 

So that organisation as described would also back up all the other FP markings that have been listed previously. Again also of interest, note that NO Fuhrpark units have been mentioned.!

Cheers, SS 

Yes, thanks GreyC! Credit given in heaps where credit is due!

The fact remains, as I have repeatedly said, we will never know what the marking means.

But I would also add and stress that it is inherently unlikely - but not impossible - that the Schutztruppe were supplied with sawback S.98's - certainly not at the time of the DSWA campaign of 1904-1906/07. The evidence is that the stated aim of the Kriegsministerium was to supply all front line regiments with the S.98 by 1907, secondary units receiving these from 1912 or so. As it is, unit markings suggest that this primary aim of supplying the S.98 to front-line units was achieved in 1906/07 when the AK VI started receiving them.  

Julian

[shippingsteel]

3 hours ago, trajan said:

But I would also add and stress that it is inherently unlikely - but not impossible - that the Schutztruppe were supplied with sawback S.98's - certainly not at the time of the DSWA campaign of 1904-1906/07. 

Well that's what happens when you get too comfortable in your position as Naysayer ... it is easy to forget about the data, and what we have actually learned along the way.! 

Going way back to page1 of this thread and the info that Bert kindly posted referencing the Schutztruppe provided very valuable information about the FR markings. 

We see not just one but two individual SG98 Sawback bayonets marked to sub-units of the Schutztruppe Feld-Regiment Nr.2 as shown in these snapshots of the Colonial Uniforms page linked below. It seems that the SG98aAS was de rigeur for the campaign in DSWA.?

http://www.germancolonialuniforms.co.uk/militaria/bayonets dswa.htm

Cheers, SS 

[AndyBsk]

Some sources says that in normal infantry units were sawbacked bayonets mainly by S98aA model used with NCOs, i assume in so a campaign as K.Sch was the major contingment of soldiers were long year serving NCOs. So its logical that more S98aAS were used by them.

[trajan]

2 minutes ago, shippingsteel said:

Well that's what happens when you get too comfortable in your position as Naysayer ... it is easy to forget about the data, and what we have actually learned along the way.! 

Going way back to page1 of this thread and the info that Bert kindly posted referencing the Schutztruppe provided very valuable information about the FR markings. 

We see not just one but two individual SG98 Sawback bayonets marked to sub-units of the Schutztruppe Feld-Regiment Nr.2 as shown in these snapshots of the Colonial Uniforms page linked below. It seems that the SG98aAS was de rigeur for the campaign in DSWA.?

http://www.germancolonialuniforms.co.uk/militaria/bayonets dswa.htm

Cheers, SS 

There is no need for ad hominem remarks SS.

 

But thanks for posting the pages from the Colonial Uniforms website. For the record, the S.98aAmS referred to there is marked 'K.S.539', it is an Erfurt 1900 product. The only other 'K.S' marked bayonet I know of apart from the kS 98 ones is a S.71/84, marked 'K.S.22b', made in 1888. I don't have a major problem with that regimentally marked S.98 or the S.98 scabbard having gone out to South Africa - note, it is the scabbard that is marked not the sawback it is shown with. I am merely stating my opinion on the basis of what the records say regarding the supply of S.98 bayonets - that is NOT 'naysaying'.

We have gone a long way from the first comments on the OPost bayonet, in a thread that has generated some very fruitful and interesting material and comments. But I am getting the sense that you are scrabbling around to prove you are absolutely right in your changing opinion on the marking on this OPost bayonet and other aspects of the Schutztruppe, and anyone who contradicts you is a 'Naysayer' - or perhaps it is just me???!!!  Whatever, we end up getting sidelined.

Well, to quote the late TonyE in a post to you on how to interpret another bayonet marking you had strong opinions on  "I wish you well with your quest, but unless you can find references for your theories, they are no more than that, theories. I say that not to discourage you, but rather the opposite, to keep researching." As you yourself said in that same thread, "I love doing the research, beats reading paperbacks any day of the week.!!' To true!  

Now, can we at least agree that the marking shown in the OPost is an irregular one and is one that defies an 100% accurate interpretation? 

Trajan

 

[trajan]

1 hour ago, AndyBsk said:

Some sources says that in normal infantry units were sawbacked bayonets mainly by S98aA model used with NCOs, i assume in so a campaign as K.Sch was the major contingment of soldiers were long year serving NCOs. So its logical that more S98aAS were used by them.

Not an unfounded belief  Andy - there is a Bavarian directive on that matter if I remember rightly stressing they were for NCO's. I will have to check later.

In my 2020 article in Conflict Archaeology on sawback bayonets I do note - as others have done - that the 6% of German bayonets that were given a sawback is more-or-less equivalent to the percentage of NCO's in an infantry unit.  

The Ostasiatishes Korps were supplied with S.98, but all their sawback versions were marked for Pioniers if I remember rightly.

Julian

Edited 11 January , 2022 by trajan

[AndyBsk]

Yes this could be, in case where the position needed a NCO and it was a table position of Regiment it was used a proper bayonet, even not all time by NCOs.

So 6% of sawback bayonets doesnt mean already a 6% of NCOs. But this is other discussion.

Even not clear here on 100% its a Schutztruppe piece the FP 3.33, is evident by period pictures,listings of armory and by gun reports from Kar98k forum, the Gew98 was used in majority so the KS98 and S98 bayonets were used intensively by these units, evidently the R.Williams piece 2F.R.E4.179 could be positively confirm as only K.Sch.piece as other explanation was not found prior to this time, so when 2 or more pieces exist, as there is in link other scabbard of same unit but 1.Company, is evident the armorer of 2.FR intensively stamped the equipment of his units. Even not 100% by regulation of 1897 manual as this was a short living unit.

 

Edited 11 January , 2022 by AndyBsk