UBB.threads Forums Edged Weapons The BCN Bayonet Forum material rivets 98k bayonet frogs

My compliments for some very interestingly marked frogs and accessories!

As requested, here are the markings on the M42 that was mentioned.

The front and rear.

The inside of the pouch showing the hollow rivets.

The rear showing the slightly dome shaped rivet backs.

Another M42 showing not only an R.B. Nr., what I think might be the makers initials, and a 1944 date. Also note the matte finish, and very rough leather.

A somewhat (I think) unusually marked Luftwaffe frog. It also has a high polish finish type of leather. And at times I�ve speculated on whether or not it perhaps was for an Honor Guard or parade unit? Regards to All, FP

Hallo.

very nice examples.

The type of M42 you first post (with the special hollow rivet modell) it also produced under the r.B.Nr. 0/0750/0072 with a single line stiched leatherpice at the strap.

Hallo, yes very nice M42 Exaples.

i think the first r.b.nr is 0/0638/0044

0/1250/0011 Erzeugungsjahr 1944 is well known maker. he also prodcue large quantitys of pistol holstersd and other bagdges.

The Luftwaffe frog you shown is from the maker Gustav Vogel Chemnitz. I can�t read the year bit i know this maker out of 1939.

the stamp is a unitmarking of a Fliegerhorst Komandantur. It is the staff of an airfield.
The stamp is a rare one...but not a unusully unit marking.

this maker prodcues with fine lines at the adges of the laether an coated the frogs with a bright shade of brown.

the shades of brown had often varietis... brighter brown to darker brown.

The colour normal are very gloss...like a mirror.

a hounor guard normal condsiders out of normal soldiers who were taken to do the job.
They had to polisch/clean the equipment of every-day use. But they had the need to do it every day. They use brown leather polisch.

only special hounor guards like the LSSAH or Bachbataillion formations use special gear.

i think yur frog is in a very good condition. so the colour is perfecly obtained.

i post pictures of a Friedrich Sch�fer Frog with the darker shade of brown. you can see the gloss surface.

else

Those are nice frogs!

The date on the Luftwaffe frog is in fact 1939. And Gardelegen (besides being an airbase) was also a home base for some Fallschirmj�ger troops. I understand what you are saying about special gear for elite Honor Guards. But was thinking more about local troops that were sometimes selected to perform special duties, and the fact that it was a HQ unit marked frog(?). No proof, just speculation.

Here is I think an interesting view of two frogs by the same maker in the same year. The 1940 marked Luftwaffe example to the left has what is a common finish for many frogs. While its close Wehrmacht cousin to the right has a much more glossy finish. Both are in about the same general condition. I think that it very likely was just a function of something like the leather quality, seeing the same kind of variety at least through 1943.

I will also try and take some pictures this afternoon of an original (4) hollow rivet M42 frog using two different styles of rivets.

PS: Thanks for the information on the 1944 dated M42 frog. I had not made the connection. FP

Hello,

yes the two E.O G�tze Frogs are nice examples of the changeover in the year 1940.

The two frogs are Luftwaffe examples.
The first one, originaly painted brown (often after 1940 they were repainted black) and the other one with the gloss black finish.

in the years 1940-1944 a lot of versions of the black laque was used. from semi gloss the high gloss.

in 1940 E.O.G�tze produce another Luftwaffe frogtype with big waschers in the front. These ones are out of natural leather...without laque. Maby for southern front.

It is correct what you written days ago about the struktre of the finisch. their are differnts... bust mostly in the end of the war.

sometimes they use finsh with now acid componets...so the leather will changes colour or resolved.


From my Grandfather i know that, in case of an "Ehrenformation", the leather gear was polisched up. But in the baraks it was normal to do it every day. So the leather was very gloss. A special unit in an normal camp...no.

here are two examples one of my glossest ones...and one oft my semi glossest ones.
(but a lot of version exists). the right one is a scare Luftwaffe version only produced in 1940 with a hollow rivet insted the short line of stichting.

Hello Gardist,
Thank you for sharing that center rivet equipped 98K bayonet frog. I don�t think that I have ever seen one before. Also for the information on the Honor Formations. I was thinking back to my time in the military, and depending on where you were sometimes individuals were selected to represent the unit (or base) at formal occasions. I�m afraid, however, that I may have to respectfully disagree with one of your statements. They are not IMO both Luftwaffe frogs.

But assuming that perhaps I was wrong. I took a look at my same style frogs in 1940, and 1941, looking at the number of short stitched thread frogs versus the number of long center line stitched frogs but did not reach a conclusion. Then I looked at my 1942 dated frogs (some early and late 1942 dated examples posted). I had almost no long center line stitched frogs as compared to the short center line stitched frogs. Then I looked at the data that the late Anthony Carter compiled and found out something very interesting! The number of short line stitching frog makers from 1942 onward outnumbers by a ratio of two to one the makers of long center line stitched frogs. I think that is a fairly significant piece of information.

And on its best day later in the war the Luftwaffe had perhaps 30 plus assorted ground divisions? Versus how many hundreds and hundreds of Army divisions?? And then we add in the Waffen SS divisons. And some Naval troops? You may have some information that I am lacking. But from my perspective I don�t see how it could be true that it was only the Luftwaffe that was issued the short center line stitched frogs.

The purpose of this set of images is not to be argumentative about any of the discussion points presented in earlier discussions. There is no question that there is fakery going on and the faked items often share certain characteristics. The purpose of the images is to show that IMO items have to be looked at in context. And that there can be legitimate variations which may share some of the characteristics of known fakes.

The first is the front and rear of a pebble grained tie strap equipped M42 with (4) hollow rivets. Two different types of rivets were used to make this frog.

The inside of the pouch.

The rear.

While the �nib� on fake tie strap stud presented earlier appears to have higher profile. Nibs can also be seen on a number of legitimate frogs. Although usually some effort was made to remove them resulting in a lower profile (or no nib) being present. Here are (4) samples including an early Luftwaffe. In person they seem to be a little higher than in the images. Best Regards, FP

Hello,

now... the frogs with the short line of middle stiching are in the origin a Luftwaffe contrakt.
befor 1940...easy to make out. always brown surcface and sudden with an Luftwaffe unit mark.
Only Luftwaffe examples were found.

the short line of stitching cames in 1936. no example dated befor 1936 is found.
before this date the early Luftwaffe uses a long third line of stichting.

The airforce had mostly differnet eqipment. the frog design is only one of a lot of differnts between army and airforce.

I found about 10 makers (can be more...short look and forst sight counting) who produces at the same time long and short stitching. other ones only produce long stiching ones...others only short.

I found ca. 60 makers who produce the ones with short line 1936-1944...After 1940 only 20-25 makers produce this frogs with the short line of stitching.
About 180 makers produce the rest. (the data of Includs the firms who produce al frog typs.)

most of the makers change to models with retaining strap.

The firms who produce the typ with the short line before 1940 always laque the frogs brown.

so i�m the meaning this makers work only Luftwaffe contracts... other on only army etc.
Brehme Walsrode for example had contracts with the navy, airforce, army and police. so this firm produces in the same period the differnt contract modells.

it makes no sence if a maker produces in the same time two differnt moddels for only one contrakt.

After 1940, no LBA stamps or unit marks were used.
Army, airforce, navy, ss or other organistation frogs had to laque in black.

so the frogs can�t be recognize to their colour or stamps. But it is more than possible, that the short line of stiching was a attribute of Luftwaffe used frogs.

at the end of the war...ca 1945 surely the eqipemnet was mixed... ss, wh and Lw fighting often together. but this was non-regular.

one of the last two one regular short line and long line stitching. probably made 1944. Rb.Nr. without date.

you are right when you say always to look at the context.
I always try and searching in statistik, knowlegement of materials, photos etc etc.

the nips on the studs are not the problem. i know about the differnt way of prodcing them. And i know that there were made today in the same way...no chance to recognize.

the stud i the former pic is from an older not well done fake. but this studs can be found on serveral fakes.

the nip isn�t the problem... the wohle "lense" form ist the point of kritik. No original i�ve ever seen or own has this stud.
This studs are coming with the first wave of fakes.

We are headed out for the evening so this will be very brief and I will try and followup tomorrow. While I don't disagree with some generalizations as early no tie Luftwaffe frogs tend to follow the pattern. It's not an absolute: Posted is a Luftwaffe unit marked long thread, and no (zero) center thread. And if we go to an earlier image # A and #B are either natural or bare leather not coated brown or black. I also have the E.O.G�tze large washer Luftwaffe marked frog in black which has (from memory) something else different which I will have to look at later. Best Regards, FP

The first image.

no,
i write before 1936 they used a center stitching and in 1936 they changed to shirt center stichting. And i don�t say any bear unit markings. I own serval befor 1936 made...and serval without unit marking. but there are brown laque in the majority or scarely natural finisched.

2-3 makers produce shirt line stichtching ones with no brown colour in natural finisch. This is the one you called B.
But they don�t laque black. Some i found were polished brown. The most bear the LBA stamp.
L.Krumm, Hepting and G�tze are the well known makers of the natural finish LW frogs. The most ware made 1938-1941. the reason is unknow.

here two out of 1936. the canching year from long line to short line stitching - copper/brass to alu rivtes.

Gardist, Nice frogs!! I think that somebody must not have gotten the instruction. The � long� and �zero� thread frogs posted are dated 1937. Also (just as a matter of interest) the unit marking on the long thread is for a FLAK regiment.

I don�t disagree that the Luftwaffe had its own way of doing things. As evidenced by things created for it like special Luftwaffe pistol holsters for aircrews, the FG42 for paratroopers, etc. etc. And that it had its own contracts for uniforms and accouterments (including things like dress daggers) especially in the early years. That said, it still to rely on the Army for most of its small arms and other items produced under the control of the Heereswaffenamt. But even then: G�ring still managed to lavish special attention on his namesake Luftwaffe combat formations which (arguably) were the best equipped units in the entire Wehrmacht.

Posted below: Three 1940 dated black frogs by E.O.G�tze. The (dull finished backpiece) Luftwaffe example to the far right seems to be the earliest (?) having aluminum washers. And while the non Luftwaffe marked example to the far left looks like it might possibly have aluminum washers. They in fact are steel (as are all of the rivets). Best Regards, FP

For many collectors variations and exceptions to the rules are what it is all about. It seems that just about the time you think you have it all figured you find something new (which has happened to me more times than I can remember). Over the weekend I rediscovered a pebble grained tie strap equipped frog that was on a mid/late war commercial H�rster I have. My first, which is just about the time I was developing a real interest in the bayonets.

As long as I have had it I have never been able to decipher the name of the maker, and would be very grateful for any help in that area. In the images the smaller flat head rivets look like they might have been painted. But in fact closeup it looks more like bluing, and they should not be confused with any of the fakes that might be currently in circulation.

A closeup.

The markings inverted. While it would be nice to have the maker's name finally deciphered, I won�t be surprised if that does not happen. It has defeated my best efforts for a very long time. FP

The first word looks like Werke?.the second row is location? maybe a white powder could be help to make it visible the stamp. best regards,Andy

FP,

Though the marking will be hard, if not impossible, to decipher, could you try and make a sharper close-up of it. The image currently not being 100% sharp is adding extra difficulty. Sometimes it helps using daylight outdoor and play with the angle of the incoming light to create shades in the lettering.

Thank You Gentlemen! I will give both a try although my photographs skills are not the best. It is one thing to look at something and make an evaluation as compared to other period artifacts that have been encoutered. But the closer you are to the source the easier I think it is to obtain specific information (for example: For years I have tried to find what the steel standard DIN 1611, St. 70. 11, � actually says. So I can compare it to period American steels - but no luck so far). And it was not until Gardist (who has considerable knowledge on the topic) gave me the key to EZGJ (0/1250/0011 Erzeugungsjahr 1944) that I knew who made one of the frogs I posted earlier.

It seems that I have some experimenting with light and shadows to do. Best Regards, FP

So...i�m back again :-)

to Luftwaffe frogs. In the changing time...it is normal that standard had been mixted for a short produkton ruin. Maby the contract chancing from brown to black colour was earlier as the order to end the depot stamp. Because the finisch in the factory and the proof mark of the Clothing department was not made together.
But this is not a realy a variation. It is only mixed standard for a short time.

it will only be imortant if the were markings out of 1941, 42 or 43.

For the Luftwaffe eqipment there had been made extra contacts.
The Waffenamt (WaA) was not involved. The Bekleidungs�mter ot the troop units (Clothing departments) were the contracting Partner of the makers. this is german privat law and organisation of the departments. So there is always a rivalry between the departments.

The Kriegsmarine, Heer, Luftwaffe hab own contracts with the makers.
They marked the most of the equipement with the depot markings. -Reichswehr- or nazi-Eagle over M - for Navy or B.A.M. (Bekleidungsamt Marine), LBA/LBAB/LBA(S) for Luftwaffe and B (Heeresbekleidungsamt) vor the army.

Not every frog bear a proof, but this is not importend.

For example Brehme Walsrode exits until today. In the third reich Brehme produces for every Troop formation.

The contracts until 1940/41 are known:

Luftwaffepattern with short middle stitching, brown colour.
Luftwaffepatern with strap like Carter Nr.311., brown colour.
Army pattern with long middle stichting or/and with straps, natural colour
Navy pattern in a very dark brown colour. Strap like Cartner 110 and 311, without fine lines at the edges.

this is the reason one maker (moere are known) produces serval typs of frogs...

So it is not fiction what i�ve been writen.
The short line stitching always made for LBA contract. not army, not navy, not RZM, not police.

No short line stitching examples has nver been found with B oder navy markings... or??


The g�tze big washer examples exists in natural, brown and black.

the typ on the maker of the shon frog is well know.

It is Lederwerke Sadina Finkenwalde.

hollow rivtes on frogs often found on comercial ones... RZM or Police contrackts.

FP,

It�s completely off topic and I don�t know in which context you�re asking, but St.70 (Stahl 70) is a very high tensile strenght general construction steel, also known as Fe-690. Currently in DIN 17100.

DIN 17100

Gardist, Thank You!!! for the maker�s name on that frog. It has frustrated me for a number of years and now I have an answer.

I don�t claim that my brief survey was necessarily accurate or complete. But when I reorganized my frogs I saw that with my 1942 dated frogs (the short thread types) they were about half the total. The tie strap types were about 40%, with the rest being the long thread types.

When I did the 1943 dated and/or R.B. Numbered frogs. The tie straps were close to 70%, the short threads about 20%, and the rest the long thread types (no maker, and unidentifiable frogs were not included). The results seem to reflect the fact that foot infantry was being replaced by mechanized troops. Which in fact what was happening across the entire Wehrmacht including the Luftwaffe.

What surprised me a little was the fact that the Carter # 311 (which has the two piercings in the front of the backpiece for the tie strap). Which was a fairly common Luftwaffe frog of the 1930�s was not very well represented. Why is that? I don�t think that the Luftwaffe stopped using leather tie strap equipped frogs for its soldiers. Especially as it became more mechanized. Do the Luftwaffe contracts show that they abandoned their old pattern to adopt the more simplified Army style Carter # 310?

PS to Killian: Many Thanks!! The specification I quoted was supposed to be the RZM standard for dagger blades. Tests of the actual alloys used for the blades seem to be all over the landscape. The information I�m looking for has to do with the percentages of the various elements that comprise the alloy for that period DIN standard. The data was somewhat helpful, but did not seem to be a one to one equivalent having a lot of variables thrown in. I will look at it some more to see if I can decipher it a little better. And Thanks Again for going to the effort of looking into the topic for me. Best Regards to All, FP

The pieces of the puzzle are coming together albeit slowly. It seems there was a shift in the types of frogs used by the Wehrmacht circa 1940 which included not only the Luftwaffe, but the German Navy as well. Like most things it probably did not happen exactly at the same time or date for all makers, but sometime during the year or even beyond for a short while.

To the far left a 1939 dated Luftwaffe marked frog by E.O G�tze & Sohn. A black 1939 dated Kriegsmarine marked frog by Franz Brehme - Walsrode (not pictured) is basically the same other than than being from a different maker. This (AC 311) style frog has twin piercings to accommodate the tie strap which is a little more complicated to manufacture.

To its right is the more simplified (AC 310) style Kriegsmarine frog lacking the piercings also from Franz Brehme - Walsrode, but dated 1940.

Posted to its right is one of the seemingly much scarcer post 1940 AC 311 style frogs. With this example by bmn - Bottcher & Renner N�nberg-Ost dated 1943. Between 1940 and 1943 for most practical purposes the manufacture of the AC 311 style frogs seems to have been in hiatus. (As an aside, compared to some of its contemporaries the frog seems to be surprisingly well made.)

And to the far right a late no maker AC 311 style frog. Made from what seems to be less than top quality leather it probably was the best that the maker could find at the time. Another AC 311 style frog which does not seem to be particularly common. FP

Hello,

fine frogs.

the straps is a very complex theme... you are correct.

For example Breme Walsrode produced 1937-1939 AC 311 in brown collour, fine lines at the adges for the Airforce. And AC 310, very dark brown without fine lines at the edges for the Navy.

During the years 1933 - 1945 very often Frogs without a strap get one... stiched like AC 310 or with to piercings in the front (AC311).

The same you can see at altered czech frogs.
Frogs out of the WW1 often altered too. i own a former S98/05 frog made in 1916 with a B.A.G. (bekleidungsamt Garde-Korps) stamp, converted in a M98 frog... later in the WW2 this frog gets a strap AC 310 type with a steel stud.

So often it is difficult to say if they are original straps are later made. The later fixed Straps often bear a marker mark.

the last frog i observed of 1945 had a AC 310 strap. (Strap is cut of...:-( )

during my observations i registrate all makers and the prodcuing standadrs:

during 1934-1943 **clear maker name on frog** ca. 40 makers produce AC310 frog and only 15 produce AC311 frogs.

1941-1945 **three-letter-code maker*** ca. 7 AC310, ca. 2 makers AC311.

1943-1945 R.B./R.F.Nr. ca. 31 maker produce AC 310 and only 4 AC311.

Firms produced for Luftwaffe (clearly recognized 1934 until 1941 brown colour LBA etc.)9 makers AC311 and only 3 AC310. Luftewaffe uses more AC311 than other units.

SS (RZM + VA) manly AC310

Navy and Army is mixed.
(I own a 1935 Reichswehr-navy marked one of R�mer and a Brehme 1938 one with nazi-eagle-navy stamp. always AC310. But I see 1 AC311 navy marked frog.)

My statistik shows that the number of makers prodcued AC31o and AC311 were relativ constant until the end of war.

But the total of makers made no evidence about the produced quantities.

But i found more AC310 frogs then AC311 frogs.
But AC311 also not rare... you are correct.

the late war frog without colour...bear this one a maker?

at the end oft the war...like 1933-1940/41 the frogs often were prodcued without colour. the soldiers had to paint them.

AC310 middle-late war

two frogs with later added straps in AC310 style. these are only examples...serval can be found also AC311 style..

1= frog of 1936 with a strap with feldgrey painted steel studf

2= frog of 1918. former 98/05 frog. added strap with steel stud.