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

[AndyBsk]

Yes it was already here in forum discussed, that bavarian used different letters T as in Prussia, should be looked there. Personally i would believe this is letter S as the oval part is too low for T, but possibly i am wrong as written S is not in pre 1908 manuals reported.   Note the T letters provided by Steve in older discussion.

 I would say this is a typical Telegraphen T not the previous letter.

Maybe Julian has more info about the script S or T variations in that updated 1909 manual?

Edited 13 January , 2022 by AndyBsk

[bert.f]

Hello, Andy

look like the letter S, but does not match the instructions 

in the link same unit mark

https://www.lugerforums.com/threads/s98-02-unit-marking-help.21051/

Edited 13 January , 2022 by bert.f

[shippingsteel]

Yes it is another very interesting marking, and found on the S98/02 bayonet. And from the linked thread there are others marked the same.

I think it has to be an S (see Kuenstler script) and I believe that Andy is on the money with his suggestion of the Scheinwerfer abteilung. Who knew that they needed Searchlights.!

Cheers, SS

Edited 13 January , 2022 by shippingsteel

[AndyBsk]

Yes it doesnt match the manual, same as there should be normally SA not a FSA as in designation of that unit is not Feld? but similar to FP when is Feld Proviant-kolonnen Abt., in older manuals is SA for Signal Abteilung, about Schweinwerfer unit is no mentioning in that early manuals as probably dont existed. As different font could probably this a good explanation, they could use different font to describe new type units.

[shippingsteel]

Yes I think we are seeing a quite rigorous and comprehensive marking regime playing out with these units of the Schutztruppe heading out to the DSWA campaigns.

From the main Feld-Regiments right through to the supporting units such as the Feld-Proviant-Kolonnen-Abteilung, and now even the most innocuous of minor units in the Feld-Scheinwerfer-Abteilung, the markings always remain consistent and neatly applied.

The common denominator being the F (Feld) prefix and what is seemingly a slightly larger size letter F stamp. And to cap it off every one of these markings can then be cross-referenced to the unit listings and organisation charts from the archive material.

Hopefully in future we will find more of these weapon markings to add to the picture and then perhaps fully complete the puzzle. 

Cheers, SS 

[bert.f]

 the letter is, maybe L?

-L

-T

Edited 15 January , 2022 by bert.f

[shippingsteel]

Hi Bert, it is a Capital letter S in the Kuenstler script which was developed in Germany in 1902, so would seem to fit the dates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuenstler_Script

Cheers, SS 

Edited 15 January , 2022 by shippingsteel

[bert.f]

Hi, SS

Youre right 

 

[AndyBsk]

You have posted sutterlin font here Bert not normal handwritten.

[bert.f]

This is not a Sutterlin, just Kurrentschrift

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Deutsche_Kurrentschrift.svg

Edited 15 January , 2022 by bert.f

[GreyC]

Well stated. Most people confuse the terms.

Sütterlin is one example of German Kurrent. Sütterlin was rather short lived, officially, but I know of people still writing Sütterlin in the 1970s, much to the dismay iof younger folk.

GreyC

GreyC

[AndyBsk]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sütterlin

I was focused in my work in BCN forum for the late period 1918 post, so the kurrent schrift was in that period used in form of Sutterlin, as original period book speak only from sutterlin in that period, as You corected me it should part of kurrentschrift used earlier.

Anyway the stamp was clearly S by handwritting not by other fonts.

Edited 16 January , 2022 by AndyBsk

[MichaelWC]

On 31/12/2021 at 10:38, trajan said:

The references in German that I have found all name the Schutztruppe {Fuhrpark} Kolonne as 'Abteilung', with a Roman numeral, I, II, III, etc. They also simply list them as 'Kolonne'. Given that there are no separate markings for Schutztruppen MG units, Camel units, etc., I agree with Andy. The Schutztruppe were Imperial units, and so would need some form of identifying mark to indicate that  

Yes, but SS, you are missing the point. On who's say-so and on what grounds are these marks to be identified as Schutztruppen markings? I have that FP.3.72 marking listed (not the other one though), and I found that in Noll's Imperial German Regimental Markings - he identifies it as a regular army Fuhrpark-Kolonne marking, which I agree with.

It has always bothered me when people suggest an identification for a marking that is noit supportable by any other evidence - or at odds with the regulations - the Germans were pretty thorough in regulations on such markings and frequently updated them.  So, the problem I have with the FP marking shown on the https://www.k98kforum.com/threads/research-project-firearms-of-imperial-german-colonial-forces.39183/ link - on what grounds is that ID made?

Another thing to bear in mind - I can't check with my volume on the German colonial forces as it is in my office. But did the Schutztruppe ever have Kar.98's? 

Trajan

What ground is that ID made. Well I can tell you because I wrote that weapons list. It comes from surviving examples and other experts in the field. Like my good friend Chris Dale the creator of "German colonial uniforms." Yes I love Schutztruppe history but I like there weapons a little more. If you're thinking what about paperwork? I will tell you most paperwork regarding Schutztruppe was  destroyed during WWII. Sadly very little survives today. I am happy to see my research has seen and used. I hope that helps you.

[trajan]

5 hours ago, MichaelWC said:

What ground is that ID made. Well I can tell you because I wrote that weapons list. It comes from surviving examples and other experts in the field. Like my good friend Chris Dale the creator of "German colonial uniforms." Yes I love Schutztruppe history but I like there weapons a little more. If you're thinking what about paperwork? I will tell you most paperwork regarding Schutztruppe was  destroyed during WWII. Sadly very little survives today. I am happy to see my research has seen and used. I hope that helps you.

Good to hear from you! As your mails is addressed to me then I should answer it. But I think you have missed my main point. You and others have made the ID on the weapons on your list from "surviving examples" and using the expertise of others in the field. But it is still, in the absence of surviving documentation, can only express your opinion.

Now, I am more than aware of how the much of the German Imperial military archives were destroyed thanks to allied bombing during the latter stages  of WW2. Thus I can well believe that the Schutztruppe records no longer exist. Thus we have to take an archaeological approach to what we have left - the artefacts and a limited amount of historical record. 

In archaeology, which is my field, with over 50 years experience, we usually base our determinations on a particular class of artefact from examples that come with a secure provenance - excavated items. The problem as I see it with the artefacts of the Schutztruppe is that we are dealing with artefacts in collections that usually do not have a secure provenance or secure 'chain of evidence'. Like some of my P.1888 and P.1907 with unit markings for regiments in action and bought from Turkish collections, I lack a secure chain of evidence to say they were used at Gallipoli instead of being bayonets that came here at a later date. After all, Swedish M.1896 bayonets can easily be found here but these were never used by any army in Turkey and so arrived at a later date through dealers. That could be the same with my 'Gallipoli' bayonets. I can only be certain of the  possibility these were used at Gallipoli, were captured there, and have remained in private collections ever since 

Thus the problem I have with the way this thread frequently digresses from what can be proven into what is hearsay, and then is announced as the appropriate dogma! As with these 'F' markings. We have no secure documentary evidence these were used by the Schutztruppe. We cannot even be certain when these markings were stamped or applied on the weapons that survive in collections. This is particularly true of rifles with unit-marked stock discs. It seems pretty clear from a brief examination of rifle serial and unit serial markings of admittedly a small number of 'artefacts' that, e.g., the Gew 98 with KS markings arrived as a job lot from a central depot / armoury consisting of rifles that had previously been issued to other units. At least on of those stock discs is known to have been re-used, IIRC. The bayonets probably came the same way - perhaps some of these 'F' markings were applied when in service with regular units stationed in Germany?

Basically, what I am trying to say is this. We cannot be 100% certain that these 'F' type markings are Schutztruppe markings. It is certainly possible that they are, and some might even say probable. But, we cannot be certain unless / until we have some form of secure documentation - which will probably never happen. I should stress that I am more than aware of the difficulties and deficiencies in the historical record when it comes to establishing the history and chronology of German and other bayonets. In two of my articles on German bayonets (both of them published in reputable journals after peer review, I should add) I have made the point that what the evidence of the artefacts tells us can both complement and contradict the historical record as preserved in the surviving documentary evidence. So, the fact remains that when looking at what might be called 'irregular' markings such as on the OPost bayonet and others of the same kind, we are obliged - if we consider ourselves to be objective researchers, whether from an academic background or not - to think in terms of possibilities and probabilities if we do not have a secure 'chain of evidence' and lack documentary support for our hypothese - and also accept that fundamental dictum in academic and non-academic discourse that the simplest explanation for something is to be prefered to something more convoluted! 

To conclude. I really am beginning to find this thread something of a bore as we go back and forth over the same ground. I do not deny the possibility that these 'F' markings might be Schutztruppe markings in use before the 'KS' marking was adopted. But we do not know for certain. This I just simply find the claim, on the basis of the available evidence to be in Scottish fashion 'unproven'. 

Best wishes, Trajan

[MichaelWC]

4 hours ago, trajan said:

Good to hear from you! As your mails is addressed to me then I should answer it. But I think you have missed my main point. You and others have made the ID on the weapons on your list from "surviving examples" and using the expertise of others in the field. But it is still, in the absence of surviving documentation, can only express your opinion.

Now, I am more than aware of how the much of the German Imperial military archives were destroyed thanks to allied bombing during the latter stages  of WW2. Thus I can well believe that the Schutztruppe records no longer exist. Thus we have to take an archaeological approach to what we have left - the artefacts and a limited amount of historical record. 

In archaeology, which is my field, with over 50 years experience, we usually base our determinations on a particular class of artefact from examples that come with a secure provenance - excavated items. The problem as I see it with the artefacts of the Schutztruppe is that we are dealing with artefacts in collections that usually do not have a secure provenance or secure 'chain of evidence'. Like some of my P.1888 and P.1907 with unit markings for regiments in action and bought from Turkish collections, I lack a secure chain of evidence to say they were used at Gallipoli instead of being bayonets that came here at a later date. After all, Swedish M.1896 bayonets can easily be found here but these were never used by any army in Turkey and so arrived at a later date through dealers. That could be the same with my 'Gallipoli' bayonets. I can only be certain of the  possibility these were used at Gallipoli, were captured there, and have remained in private collections ever since 

Thus the problem I have with the way this thread frequently digresses from what can be proven into what is hearsay, and then is announced as the appropriate dogma! As with these 'F' markings. We have no secure documentary evidence these were used by the Schutztruppe. We cannot even be certain when these markings were stamped or applied on the weapons that survive in collections. This is particularly true of rifles with unit-marked stock discs. It seems pretty clear from a brief examination of rifle serial and unit serial markings of admittedly a small number of 'artefacts' that, e.g., the Gew 98 with KS markings arrived as a job lot from a central depot / armoury consisting of rifles that had previously been issued to other units. At least on of those stock discs is known to have been re-used, IIRC. The bayonets probably came the same way - perhaps some of these 'F' markings were applied when in service with regular units stationed in Germany?

Basically, what I am trying to say is this. We cannot be 100% certain that these 'F' type markings are Schutztruppe markings. It is certainly possible that they are, and some might even say probable. But, we cannot be certain unless / until we have some form of secure documentation - which will probably never happen. I should stress that I am more than aware of the difficulties and deficiencies in the historical record when it comes to establishing the history and chronology of German and other bayonets. In two of my articles on German bayonets (both of them published in reputable journals after peer review, I should add) I have made the point that what the evidence of the artefacts tells us can both complement and contradict the historical record as preserved in the surviving documentary evidence. So, the fact remains that when looking at what might be called 'irregular' markings such as on the OPost bayonet and others of the same kind, we are obliged - if we consider ourselves to be objective researchers, whether from an academic background or not - to think in terms of possibilities and probabilities if we do not have a secure 'chain of evidence' and lack documentary support for our hypothese - and also accept that fundamental dictum in academic and non-academic discourse that the simplest explanation for something is to be prefered to something more convoluted! 

To conclude. I really am beginning to find this thread something of a bore as we go back and forth over the same ground. I do not deny the possibility that these 'F' markings might be Schutztruppe markings in use before the 'KS' marking was adopted. But we do not know for certain. This I just simply find the claim, on the basis of the available evidence to be in Scottish fashion 'unproven'. 

Best wishes, Trajan

I get what your saying. It just kind of sounds like you need hard proof or evidence of existence. Here take this carbine for example.

1905/Erfurt/8352/5.F.P.4.51 (note: 5.F.P.4.51 Fahrpark-Kolonne Nr.4 waffe Nr. 51 (Second pattern of carbine.) This carbine is part of the T. Dawes collection in South Africa.

The Schutztruppe did not get its arms from the factories but from army stocks. Also not every Schutztruppengewehr is marked K.S. Some 400 or so are marked L.P. 

[shippingsteel]

Greetings MichaelWC, and glad you could join us on this Forum. What a fascinating topic of research you have been working on, and I must commend you for your efforts.

I was hoping you might be able to add some photos of the markings from the rifle side of the equation, and you have immediately provided, so thank you.!

So here illustrated below is the unit that I believe corresponds to your marking on the Carbine, taken from the troopship listings in the archive material. See circled in red the 5 Proviant Kolonnen of the Kolonnen-Abteilung Nr.5 ... 

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

Cheers, SS 

Edited 17 January , 2022 by shippingsteel

[MichaelWC]

1 hour ago, shippingsteel said:

Greetings MichaelWC, and glad you could join us on this Forum. What a fascinating topic of research you have been working on, and I must commend you for your efforts.

I was hoping you might be able to add some photos of the markings from the rifle side of the equation, and you have immediately provided, so thank you.!

So here illustrated below is the unit that I believe corresponds to your marking on the Carbine, taken from the troopship listings in the archive material. See circled in red the 5 Proviant Kolonnen of the Kolonnen-Abteilung Nr.5 ... 

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

Cheers, SS 

This carbine is actually owned by a friend of mine in South Africa. 

[AndyBsk]

Extremely interesting carbine and unit marking, thanks for sharing it. Looks like they went to over 8xxx with Kar98a, the unit could be as SS mentioned

Feld Proviant Kolonnen Abteilung nr.5, Proviant Kolonne nr.4, weapon nr.54.

Edited 17 January , 2022 by AndyBsk

[shippingsteel]

3 hours ago, MichaelWC said:

This carbine is actually owned by a friend of mine in South Africa. 

Very nice, thanks for posting ... and the exact same Maker, Model and Year as the example in the Swakopmund Museum, if I am not mistaken. 

Cheers, SS