UBB.threads Forums Edged Weapons Army, Navy, and Luftwaffe Forum Waffen Loesche Berlin

I could not get the link in post #302287 to work. It appears correct.

--dj--Joe

I fixed the link

Thank you.

I will take this opportunity to tack on a couple more links.
https://forum.germandaggers.com/ubb...waffen+loesch&Search=true#Post263496
+
https://forum.germandaggers.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=251617&page=1
+
https://forum.germandaggers.com/ubb...waffen+loesch&Search=true#Post336789
+
https://forum.germandaggers.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=19517&page=1

It's been awhile since I have seen these discussed. (WAFFEN-LOESCHE BERLIN).
Has any new information surfaced?

--dj--joe

https://forum.germandaggers.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=299199&page=1

I believe this is still relevant

Paul

Paul,
Thank you. Also posted back in 2014. Time flies.

--dj--Joe

Another link to these knifes. (Blades).
https://forum.germandaggers.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=111704&page=1

--dj--Joe

Or this one, a lot of info.....

https://www.warrelics.eu/forum/luftwaffe/luftwaffe-forestry-knife-waffen-loesche-ch-w-688163/

Gerrit1963,

Thank you.

One would think with all the different people researching, that a period catalog or period in wear picture would be discovered. Hold out hope.

--dj--Joe

Final results:

I guess following is the only proper explanation.

Abbrevement Ch A.W. is Chef des Ausbildungswesens.
The proper abbrevement for Chef is Ch
It also explains the numbering on most of the blades, they are Kammerstempel - inventory numbers.
It also explains the Horn grips, as the Luftwaffe permitted the use of Standhauers for Foresty pupils in their regulations.
That simply makes Waffen-Loesche the maker ( or at least they ordered the parts, as it was a big company in the days)

Below a picture of the Luftwaffe regulations about the standhauer.
So imo Thomas Johnson was right to design this Knife as a Luftwaffe Forestry NCO, look at the Luftwaffe Regulations 4. C (Standhauer for Forestry pupils)
Chromolit was purely an assumption published in a book, and everyone just copied it and made it "truth" we see that all the time
Online you can find an artical publeshe Bundesarchiv Freiburg that gives following info in German, here the google translated text:

From the Federal Archives Freiburg:



Head of Training / General of Aviation Training
IDENTIFICATIONRL 4LANGUAGE OF DESCRIPTIONGermanDATE OR PERIOD1 Jan 1929 - 31 Dec 1945DIRECTORY LEVELCollectionLANGUAGES

German
SOURCEEHRI partner

ONLINE SOURCE
https://invenio.bundesarchiv.de/invenio/direktlink/e3f60dbe-09f9-460a-b1b6-97585e4b5010/

SCOPE AND MEDIUM
written material

153 storage units

11.3 linear meters

PROVENANCE POINT(S)
Training departments in the Reich Aviation Ministry (with inspections and weapons generals), 1939-1945
BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
History of the inventory designer

The Chief of Training Department (Chief AW) was formed in February 1939 to relieve the burden on the 3rd (Training) Department of the General Staff of the Air Force, which was then limited to tactical training. According to the instructions of the Reich Minister of the Air Force, the Chief AW took over all remaining training of the Air Force.

Equipped with the position and disciplinary powers of a commanding general, he had the right to monitor the training orders issued and to attend the service of the units to check the training status of the troops. However, he did not exercise direct command over the troops.

The head of the training system was structured as follows:

training department,
Regulations and teaching materials department,
Strength and Equipment Department,
Aerial Photography Department.
The Strength and Equipment Department, responsible for the internal structure of the units and their personnel and material plan in cooperation with the 2nd (Organizational) Department of the General Staff, was placed under the head of the Air Force in April 1940. As part of the restructuring in the areas of motor transport and supplies, the department was briefly subordinate to the Quartermaster General in 1943 and again to the head of the air force in autumn 1943.

In May 1944, the now independent Department 3 (strength and equipment of the Air Force) was subordinated to the Air Force Wehramt (at the same time the General for the Air Force's personnel deployment) and at the same time the Air Force Wehramt was subordinate to the Chief of Personnel Armaments and Nazi Command. In January 1945 the Strength and Equipment Department was placed under the control of the Quartermaster General (see: RL 2-III).

The Aerial Photography Department, which was taken over by the Inspection of Reconnaissance Aviation and Aerial Photography (L In 1) in 1939, was subordinated to the General of Reconnaissance Aviation in January 1943.

The head of the AW initially reported directly to the Inspector General of the Air Force, from April 1940 to the Chief of the Air Force, from the end of 1942 again to the Inspector General of the Air Force, and from autumn 1944 to the General Staff of the Air Force.

Around July 1943, the Chief AW office was renamed General of Aviation Training. In March 1945 the name was changed to Commanding General of Aviation Training.

Since February 1939, Air Force Inspections 1-14 were subordinate to Chief AW, and from April 1940 only Air Force Inspections 1-3, 8-10 and 12. Further inspections were separated from being subordinate to Chief AW. The inspection of the pilot schools (L In 9) was dissolved in March 1943. The tasks were assigned to the training department. transferred to the boss AW. In the fall of 1943, only the inspection of the education and training system of the air force (L In 10) was subordinate to the general of pilot training, until this inspection was also subordinate to the general staff of the air force as the general for military training.

With the reorganization of the inspections into weapons generals, these were put on an equal footing with the chief AW or general of pilot training.



For the purist here the German text:
Aus dem Bundesarchiv Freiburg:



Chef des Ausbildungswesens / General der Fliegerausbildung
IDENTIFIKATORRL 4SPRACHE DER BESCHREIBUNGDeutschDATUM ODER ZEITRAUM1 Jan 1929 - 31 Dec 1945VERZEICHNUNGSSTUFESammlungSPRACHEN

Deutsch
QUELLEEHRI-Partner

ONLINE-QUELLE
https://invenio.bundesarchiv.de/invenio/direktlink/e3f60dbe-09f9-460a-b1b6-97585e4b5010/

UMFANG UND MEDIUM
Schriftgut

153 Aufbewahrungseinheiten

11,3 laufende Meter

PROVENIENZSTELLE(N)
Ausbildungsdienststellen im Reichsluftfahrtministerium (mit Inspektionen und Waffengeneralen), 1939-1945
BIOGRAFISCHE ANGABEN
Geschichte des Bestandsbildners

Die Dienststelle Chef des Ausbildungswesens (Chef AW) wurde im Februar 1939 zur Entlastung der 3. (Ausbildungs-)Abteilung des Generalstabes der Luftwaffe gebildet, die danach auf die taktische Ausbildung beschränkt wurde. Der Chef AW übernahm nach den Weisungen des Reichsministers der Luftwaffe die gesamte übrige Ausbildung der Luftwaffe.

Gleichsam mit Dienststellung und Disziplinarbefugnissen eines Kommandierenden Generals ausgestattet, hatte er das Recht, die erlassenen Ausbildungsanordnungen zu überwachen und zur Prüfung des Ausbildungsstandes der Truppe dem Dienst der Einheiten beizuwohnen. Eine unmittelbare Kommandogewalt gegenüber der Truppe übte er jedoch nicht aus.

Der Chef des Ausbildungswesens gliederte sich wie folgt:

Ausbildungsabteilung,
Vorschriften- und Lehrmittelabteilung,
Abteilung Stärke und Ausrüstung,
Abteilung Luftbildwesen.
Die Abteilung Stärke und Ausrüstung, zuständig für die innere Gliederung der Einheiten und deren personelles und materielles Plansoll in Zusammenarbeit mit der 2. (Organisations-)Abteilung des Generalstabes, wurde im April 1940 unter den Chef der Luftwehr gestellt. Im Zuge der Umstrukturierungen im Bereich des Kraftfahrwesens und des Nachschubwesens war die Abteilung 1943 für kurze Zeit dem Generalquartiermeister unterstellt, im Herbst 1943 wieder dem Chef der Luftwehr.

Im Mai 1944 wurde die jetzt selbständige Abteilung 3 (Stärke und Ausrüstung der Luftwaffe) dem Luftwaffen-Wehramt (zugleich General für den Personaleinsatz der Luftwaffe) unterstellt unter gleichzeitiger Unterstellung des Luftwaffen-Wehramtes unter den Chef der Personellen Rüstung und NS-Führung. Im Jan. 1945 wurde die Abteilung Stärke und Ausrüstung dem Generalquartiermeister unterstellt (siehe: RL 2-III).

Die Abteilung Luftbildwesen, 1939 von der Inspektion der Aufklärungsflieger und des Luftbildwesens (L In 1) übernommen, wurde im Januar 1943 dem General der Aufklärungsflieger unterstellt.

Der Chef AW unterstand zunächst unmittelbar dem Generalinspekteur der Luftwaffe, seit April 1940 dem Chef der Luftwehr, ab Ende 1942 wieder dem Generalinspekteur der Luftwaffe, ab Herbst 1944 dem Generalstab der Luftwaffe.

Ca. Juli 1943 wurde die Dienststelle Chef AW in General der Fliegerausbildung umbenannt. Noch im März 1945 erfolgte die Umbenennung in Kommandierender General der Fliegerausbildung.

Seit Februar 1939 unterstanden die Luftwaffen-Inspektionen 1-14 dem Chef AW, ab Apr. 1940 nur noch die Luftwaffen-Inspektionen 1-3, 8-10 und 12. Weitere Inspektionen wurden aus der Unterstellung unter dem Chef AW herausgelöst. Die Inspektion der Flugzeugführerschulen (L In 9) wurde im März 1943 aufgelöst. Die Aufgaben wurden der Ausbildungs-Abt. beim Chef AW übertragen. Im Herbst 1943 unterstand nur noch die Inspektion des Erziehungs- und Bildungswesens der Luftwaffe (L In 10) dem General der Fliegerausbildung, bis auch diese Inspektion als General für militärische Ausbildung dem Generalstab der Luftwaffe unterstellt wurde.

Mit der Umorganisation der Inspektionen in Waffengeneralen wurden diese dem Chef AW bzw. General der Fliegerausbildung gleichgestellt.

Cheers,
Ger

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1716286[/ATTACH]

Edit of precious post:

Dienstkleidungsvorschrift-Uniform regulations
4. Hirschfänger
c).
translated:
Candidates of the higher forest service and Forestry Students wear a Standhauer instead of a Hirschfänger

Cheers
Ger

Hello Gerrit! I appreciate your efforts in new clearance of the term “ChAW”.

But I really wonder WHY the marking “Chef des Ausbildungswesens” should be on the place were 100% of sidearms have the manufacturer mark. Even at eg RAD hewers where the RAD triangle (meaning RAD leadership) is situated near(!) the trademark, the trademarks are first/also on this prominent place. Btw I would like to see another (Chef Ausbildungswesen) stamping (as mentioned on eg. guns) to see how the stamping looks like; up to now I have not seen such a stamping.

We do not know WHO did wear this well known sidearm/edged weapon, we do not know if there exists at least in any connection with the Luftwaffe but we now should now know for sure that the abbreviation should be “Chef des Ausbildungswesens”???” BTW the certain sidearm/edged weapon by “WAFFENLOESCHE/Chromolit Arthur Wingen” can, due it´s dimension and character, in NO WAY be compared with a (cit.)“Standhauer”. And all sidearms in connex with hunting and forestry is well documented.

How much you might write in this case I still stay with the -for me prooved- and most logical explanation which is also supplied by local Solingen swordsmiths and a lot of advertising material, that ChAW is the abbrevation for Chromolit Arthur Wingen. So I heartfully agree to disagree.

Regards

Wotan the statement that a Standhauer should have a larger blade in fact is not correct.
The Eickhorn Model 356 is advertised as a Standhauer in the 1912 catalog of Eickhorn and has a SG blade, in dimensions not wider then the Loesche one.
The 8481 is also named a Salon-Hirschfänger and Standhauer.
I own one and the blade is just SG size, the rounded guard of the Loesche knife can also be called hunting related. the 356 and 156 both have a roundel on front, the 937 shows a similar guard, so taking all that in consideration it can be qualified as a short Standhauer without any doubt.
There has NEVER been any proof deliverd that CH stands for Chromolit, in fact the Chromolit Logo used on SA daggers or HJ Knives shows a complete other stylistic Ch, why would that be different here?

My conclusions also explains the numbering, the gripplates and the use, the previous thoughts about thios knife were only speculations, with CH are Chromolit as an assumption with no proof at all.
Here an advertisment that shows a Standhauer with a SG blade, and a sheet of the standhauers that Eickhorn offered.

Best
Ger

Gerrit, if you lead a discussion, with arguments, you should read correct. I NEVER have written about Standhauer in regard of the blade per se. I have written "WAFFENLOESCHE/Chromolit Arthur Wingen edged weapons” can, due it´s dimension and character, in NO WAY be compared with a (cit.)“Standhauer”, which is also very vivid documented by the drawings you do show us from "Standhauer". So YOUR comment that I would have argumented "Wotan the statement that a Standhauer should have a larger blade in fact is not correct." is absolutely incorrect.

If you look how a "standhauer" is defined in the refering literature (eg "HEAVY Hirschfaenger or -cutting knives with which branches can be cut) it is obvious that Standhauer are not those edged weapons looking like bayonets but more looking like RAD hewers ("Praxen"). Weight is a very big point when it comes to "Standhauer".

I see that you do a thinking error when simply compare the outer shape, both edged weaopns, the socalled "Waffen Loesche" and "Standhauer" have a totally different charcter.

The proof for "Ch" as Chromolite is eg in a lot of advertisements also in this thread.... The style of the writing for sure is no argument, the style of makermarks differs in nearly each makermark of any maker over the years and due to how it was fixed.

Btw the abrevation for Ausbildungswesen (from Chef des Ausbildungswesens) would be due to "Chef" = "Ch." correctly "Aw." or "A.w." but not "A.W." .

Regards,

Hi Wotan,

sorry i read it wrong, but i guess you felt what i ment.
there are different types of Standhauer, and the heavy ones indeed do not match the weight etc of the Loesche, but there are also leight ones like the 356, not only in blade size they match the loesche but also in weight.
On this we disagree.
Here on the forum there have been posts about the Ch A W markings, i think they deserve- need a bit of investigation.

I quote:

Then about the Ch. A. W. markings comes up following by OROP

Gentlemen,

You will also find the Ch A W markings on early Postschutz rifle stocks. These were the first of the newly manufactured Kar.98 rifles that were supposedly for the DRP but were tested by the Heer, according to Law. Law also interpreted this marking to be the Chef d. Ausbiltungs-Wesen in his book on Mauser rifles.

I always felt the distinctive blade shape (with integral tang as Houston describes) on this Seitengewehr looked a lot like the early stiletto shape made by WKC. The grinding technique of the narrow fuller and abruptly cut swedge and narrow blade is strikingly similar to their early Extrawaffen police bayonet blades.

Another thing to consider is that not all of these Waffen-Loesche Seitengewehre bear the Ch A W markings. Likewise, some are obviously items of issue and have serial numbers while others do not. It may be logical to assume that the Ch A W marking does not indicate a maker marking.

I agree with Ron and Houston that the blades should be polished steel and the scabbards are distinctive, with most of them having brass frog studs.

Mike, I would be concerned if the Seitengewehr you are getting actually has a plated blade. Hopefully, it is simply highly polished and the fellow did not describe it properly.

George

also on GDC member JoeW

Houston, are you sure about the explanation for Ch A W? The reason I ask this is that this marking is also seen on .22 trainers marked on the bbl/receiver area. I have always interpreted the marking to mean Chef d.Ausbildungs-Wesen, the ranking officer in charge of SA training. I can't understand how the Chromolit-Anton Wingen interpretation would be applied to .22 rifles.

we all search for a proper answer for the Ch A W markings, and there are lots assumptions done in the past that have been proofen wrong by time.
So lets keep an open mind and lets try to unridle this puzzel.

Best,
Ger

Ok Gerrit, in a haste each of us can do a mistake in reading, me too. I fully understand what you want to say and to proof but I still claim that the whole CHARACTER of a "Standhauer" and the "WAFFEN LOESCHE" knife, which is often eroneously classified as "bayonet"-because it has THIS certain character-, are totally different. As said I think this is also well shown in the drawings shown by you.
Here is THE statement concerning the abbreviation "Ch.A.W." done by the most restpected researchers concerning trademarks of german edged weapons, the late J.Anthony Carter, John Walter and the SOLINGEN swordsmith Henning Ritter: