6' 09 HQ P1907 and early scabbard

[Fromelles]

Trajan

Like you I have a small collection of HQs (three I think), I know I have a SA marked example and a NSW one also, I will have to dig them out to see if they comply with the regs.

Could your '1877' be a NZ example? I have no idea of NZ markings and suspect they probably would incorporate a 'NZ' but really don't know.

I'm a bit of an anorak when it comes to researching, I need to know chapter and verse of orders and regulations and I'll go to quite some lengths to acquire them. A reference to some other publication will send me off in search of some previously unknown gem. 

 

2 hours ago, Mattr82 said:

(Pic attached). Of note in this photo is what appears to be Patt 1888 leather frogs for the bayonets which QLD Police issued HQs also used for P1907 bayonets whilst in service. Pattern 1908 webbing was yet to be introduced until 1911.

 

I'd suggest it is the standard Commonwealth Pattern frog, 1910 is the earliest date I've seen and all were made by JJ Weeks, Sydney (I own three 1910 dated examples)

Dan

[trajan]

10 minutes ago, Fromelles said:

.. Could your '1877' be a NZ example? I have no idea of NZ markings and suspect they probably would incorporate a 'NZ' but really don't know.

I'm a bit of an anorak when it comes to researching, I need to know chapter and verse of orders and regulations and I'll go to quite some lengths to acquire them. A reference to some other publication will send me off in search of some previously unknown gem. 

Come to think of it, yes, I think you are right... It is NZ... I have a vague memory of it being identified as such when I first posted it on GWF. I'm not really a GB bayonet buff, more a German Imperialist, so the memory banks are not so good on my P.1907's, and I have neglected them for some time. Now COVID is (almost!) over here in Turkey (or Turkiye as it now likes to be known!) then I should do a bayonet sort this summer...

No, it's not being anorakish to want references and sources! I am an archaeologist and historian, and sources are our meat and drink to correct 'fake' news. E.g., I have just finished an article on the 'Plevna Delay' which uses the contemporary sources to show that the Ottoman defenders did not use the Winchester M.1866 to win that delay despite several recently published USA claims that it did! That weapon constituted less than 6% of the available Ottoman firearms at Plevna...

Quite simply, sharing our evidence on bayonets instead of hoarding information or data on personal collections is what advances our knowledge. Without such data we are just supposed to buy the story being offered in posts here, not the facts. 

Julian

[Mattr82]

Good point on that frog. Could be! My knowledge lies more in the issuing of equipment logistically so maybe I'll stick to that haha.

So I'm all over the pairing of bayonets to rifles etc however the inventory numbers were relevant to each individual weapon system. During pre-WW1 audits, it would have been relatively easier to account for stock but once WW1 started, it was a lot different. The mobilisation in 1914 caused tremendous logistical stress amongst the MDs and this is where the efforts to keep rifles and bayonets paired fell apart.

Certainly the MDs in WW1 maintained a continuation of inventory numbers despite not having that actual amount. 4MD is an example of that.

And agree with the AWM part on accuracy, I have brought this up with them on occasions especially with a Lithgow that was left behind at Gallipoli. They state the 16AI as being a NSW battalion. I stated that the 16th was from WA and received Lithgows in Sept 1914 as they were at Broadmeadows in Victoria at the time of being significantly equipped for mobilisation.

 

 

Edited 4 June , 2022 by Mattr82

[trajan]

The odd thing to my mind about this pairing of rifles and bayonets via serial numbers in GB at least is there is no mention of it (to my knowledge) in official regulations until the 1931 edition of Instructions to Armourers... And in that case it is only mentioned in connection with renumbering a bayonet after it had been refurbished.... There is nothing about this in the 1897, 1912, or 1916 editions. 

The Wehrmacht had a different approach: a soldier's bayonet serial number was given in his pay book - but these were the serial numbers that the bayonet makers placed on their blades and matching scabbards, not military issue numbers.

Julian

Edited 4 June , 2022 by trajan
Clarification of sentence

[shippingsteel]

Fromelles, regarding the replaced items marking issue, I dont believe the corps marking mentioned are the same as the Inventory numbers. 

What I mean is that particular reference is contradictory to your Standing Order references which state there are to be no Corps marking on the bayonets, but we all know they bear the Inventory numbers as such.

As I mentioned previously, marked out Inventory numbers are not commonly seen.

Cheers, SS

[Mattr82]

6 minutes ago, shippingsteel said:

Fromelles, regarding the replaced items marking issue, I dont believe the corps marking mentioned are the same as the Inventory numbers. 

What I mean is that particular reference is contradictory to your Standing Order references which state there are to be no Corps marking on the bayonets, but we all know they bear the Inventory numbers as such.

As I mentioned previously, marked out Inventory numbers are not commonly seen.

Cheers, SS

Correct SS, the corps markings they refer to are the actual unit references eg. 3 ALH or 10AI etc. Inventory numbers on weapons gained from the British in early to late 1916 (once the Australians handed in equipment in Egypt) had no Australian inventory numbers.

Unit QMs maintained numbers of items from stocktakes after battles or during rest periods and this would be passed up to a brigade level ordnance staff who would then sort out the required kit from brigade salvage depots or from forward British depots. This is in France mind you. The Middle East was a different issue all together.

Edited 4 June , 2022 by Mattr82

[Fromelles]

47 minutes ago, shippingsteel said:

Fromelles, regarding the replaced items marking issue, I dont believe the corps marking mentioned are the same as the Inventory numbers. 

What I mean is that particular reference is contradictory to your Standing Order references which state there are to be no Corps marking on the bayonets, but we all know they bear the Inventory numbers as such.

As I mentioned previously, marked out Inventory numbers are not commonly seen.

Cheers, SS

SS,

I can accept that, however as the bayonet was to be marked to the rifle it has the same effect.

As to 'marked out' (struck out) inventory numbers, I doubt you would find many pre-war examples, I would imagine only if a rifle was replaced would a number be changed. I'd assume during the war, and after, it would have been found too impractical to continue this system.

 

40 minutes ago, Mattr82 said:

Correct SS, the corps markings they refer to are the actual unit references eg. 3 ALH or 10AI etc. Inventory numbers on weapons gained from the British in early to late 1916 (once the Australians handed in equipment in Egypt) had no Australian inventory numbers.

Unit QMs maintained numbers of items from stocktakes after battles or during rest periods and this would be passed up to a brigade level ordnance staff who would then sort out the required kit from brigade salvage depots or from forward British depots. This is in France mind you. The Middle East was a different issue all together.

So that would be the brass marking disc? Seems a strange inclusion for something that didn't require marking in the first place!

For the AIF I agree this system couldn't continue far into the war; lost and destroyed weapons would soon make the system unmanageable. 

Dan

[shippingsteel]

For anyone interested in looking at some physical examples of these Australian markings, here is an old thread that I started on the matter.

https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/189766-australian-bayonets/

Over all the years I have been looking at these markings I have never seen a Victorian issue P1907 stamped on the pommel with the Inventory numbers. The other States did follow the regs as can be seen in my photos.

Shown below is a pic I found of my earliest marked Victorian issued bayonet showing the V 36 inventory number on the crossguard.

Cheers, SS

 

[Mattr82]

12 minutes ago, Fromelles said:

So that would be the brass marking disc? Seems a strange inclusion for something that didn't require marking in the first place!

For the AIF I agree this system couldn't continue far into the war; lost and destroyed weapons would soon make the system unmanageable. 

Dan

Yes that's correct. The MDs loved to mark their stuff early on with unit names. Early Light Horse equipment is a prime example.

With regards to pre-war bayonets being remarked, mine has a lower inventory number on the opposite side. For bayonets & rifles left behind when the AIF left in late 1914, there was a bit of reshuffling amongst the MDs (much to the annoyance of 3MD and 2MD). MDs such as Tasmania and WA received equipment from Victoria,and NSW to help bolster numbers whilst newer Lithgow made equipment filled out Victoria and NSW inventories.

[Fromelles]

17 minutes ago, Mattr82 said:

With regards to pre-war bayonets being remarked, mine has a lower inventory number on the opposite side. For bayonets & rifles left behind when the AIF left in late 1914, there was a bit of reshuffling amongst the MDs (much to the annoyance of 3MD and 2MD). MDs such as Tasmania and WA received equipment from Victoria,and NSW to help bolster numbers whilst newer Lithgow made equipment filled out Victoria and NSW inventories.

Do you know when the second number would have been added, pre- or post-war?

[shippingsteel]

18 minutes ago, Mattr82 said:

With regards to pre-war bayonets being remarked, mine has a lower inventory number on the opposite side.

Well not technically an Inventory number as there is no State prefix or MD stamped, but obviously a serial number of some kind, perhaps matching a British made rifle serial, but still in the 'unknown' basket I would have thought.

Cheers, SS

[Fromelles]

39 minutes ago, shippingsteel said:

Over all the years I have been looking at these markings I have never seen a Victorian issue P1907 stamped on the pommel with the Inventory numbers. The other States did follow the regs as can be seen in my photos.

Shown below is a pic I found of my earliest marked Victorian issued bayonet showing the V 36 inventory number on the crossguard.

Cheers, SS

SS,

Possible there are Orders that countermand the Standing Orders, though I would have thought in the hierarchy of orders Standing Orders would trump. Why should 3MD (Vic) be allowed to stamp their bayonets differently than the other States

Nice low numbered (notice I didn't say 'early' ) bayonet by the way.

Dan

[shippingsteel]

Yes Dan, I cant explain why but thats what they did.! Trust the Victorians to think they are something special.!! 

All my info has been gathered together from looking at the physical evidence and personal experience. So make of that what you will. Plenty of evidence still out there on the Internet ...

Cheers, SS

 

 

[Fromelles]

Still looking for any 'evidence' of when the adoption of the bayonet may have been.

I found this interesting article; The Sydney Morning Herald of Monday, 16 January 1911 (page 12). 

[Fromelles]

This extract from 'The Argus' (Melbourne) of Wednesday, 18 August 1909 (Page 6) indicates that no bayonets has yet arrived in Australia -

 

[Fromelles]

The Telegraph (Brisbane, Qld) - Wednesday 27 October 1909 (Page 7) - 

This shows the question being asked if the bayonets could be made in Australia rather than purchasing them or if bayonets were even worth getting, to which the answer was that the order for them had already been made.

I believe this is in reference to the initial order for the bayonets, which according to other newspaper articles appear there was a delay in their delivery.

Dan

[JMB1943]

Dan,

In you latest post, there is a reference in the newspaper to ‘Mort’s Dock’ potentially making millions of them.

Could you elaborate on that?

Regards,

JMB

[Fromelles]

JMB,

Mort's Dock and Engineering Company, Ltd - see: Mort's Dock

William Henry Wilks MP obviously believed they could manufacture the bayonets, but this may have just been an off the cuff comment

Dan

Edited 18 June , 2022 by Fromelles

[trajan]

Great stuff! Thanks!

Trajan

[Fromelles]

The Daily Telegraph (Sydney, NSW) - Saturday 18 June 1910 (Page 15) -

This is the earliest notification of the issue of a new bayonet that I have found, and I've had a good look, but would be more than happy to be set straight if anyone has anything that proves otherwise.

Dan

Edited 18 June , 2022 by Fromelles

[JMB1943]

Dan,

Thanks for the info regarding Mort's Dock.

Given the presence of iron & brass foundries , plus the expertise for making locomotives they would certainly seem to have the potential for a million bayonets.

However, bayonet-making required a LOT of operations, and automated power-driven machinery would have been needed; that type of thing did not exist in Australia (I believe) until installed at Lithgow in 1913 by Pratt & Whitney.

Regards,

JMB

Edit: I would have thought that the Patt. 1907 at 22 in long was considerably longer than the Patt. 1903 at 17 in.

Edited 18 June , 2022 by JMB1943
Add info.

[Fromelles]

JMB

Yes, not even 12 months before these questions were being asked of the Minister of Defence, tenders had been called for the supply of a plant for the manufacture of small arms, bayonets, and scabbards.

I believe there were 3 British and 1 American, but no Australian tenders.

Dan

[JMB1943]

Also interesting that you had a ‘Minister of Defence’ back in 1910, while the UK, and I’m pretty sure all of the European countries, had a Minister for War.

Regards,

JMB

[Fromelles]

On 04/06/2022 at 18:12, shippingsteel said:

If all bayonets were marked to correspond with rifles then that implies no SMLE rifles were issued in numbers until after late 1909 as that is when the first bayonet markings are observed across all States.

Cheers, SS

SS,

Not at all, the Ordnance Department consecutive number would be marked on the rifles prior to issue, at a later date, the bayonets would be marked prior to their issue using the same consecutive numbers.

 

Daily Herald (Adelaide, SA) - Tuesday 5 March 1912 (Page 6) - 

Edited 19 June , 2022 by Fromelles

[trajan]

This is all good stuff, Fromelles! Thanks! What rifles were those 'Scottish infantry' using? I assume SMLE's?

Julian