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

rzm frogs with AC310 strap

navy AC310

navy marks

the last frog i ever get. made 1945 out of reuse leather peaces. worse quality. brown laether. painted front balck. Original a AC310 strap but cut off.

details

Hello Gardist,

I think that much of your data is reasonably similar to what I have found. Also thinking that the timeline is a factor when looking at the frogs with (generally speaking) cut off dates for some things like the letter codes, R.B. Nr.’s, etc. Where I might have some minor disagreement (or a misunderstanding) is with: “My statistik shows that the number of makers prodcued AC31o and AC311 were relativ constant until the end of war.” My opinion is that the AC 311 type of frogs fell out of favor especially in the 1940’s. Which seems to have been shared by the late Anthony Carter who mentions only two post 1940 makers in Part II of his last book on the topic - versus fourteen entries for the AC 310. And only the addition of one R.B. Nr. AC 311 in the third and final update - versus twenty three additional post 1940 entires for the AC 310 type frog. A ratio of 3/37, which is not necessarily equal, but very similar to the numbers I have seen.

No two people are ever going to see exactly the same thing, and my recollection is seeing more AC 311 (pierced backpiece tie strap) with the tie straps never factory installed. And a few AC 310 no tie strap, but with a place for the tie strap impressed into the leather backpiece (but the strap never installed/sewn to the frog). I’ve also seen all sorts of different conversions to Czech frogs (which makes me think they were done in small independent shops). But as for no tie German frogs with tie straps added. My general sense of it is that they also were field done, or possibly by a small local leather workers, but not factory manufactured. Although I do have a few frogs which looked like the straps were removed at the factory. And one that looks like it was factory overstitched, with both types possibly to satisfy an order for no tie frogs??

Looking at pictures of Luftwaffe Fallschirmjäger in early field operations (not later Luftwaffe infantry that were “Fallschirmjäger” in name only). I saw a lot of them carrying Luger pistols. I have never seen a Luftwaffe property marked general issue pistol (the small number of Krieghoff and Kü Lugers are an exception). Nor holsters with the already mentioned exception of the Luftwaffe marked holsters. Looking into the matter a little it seems the Luftwaffe purchased/acquired almost all its pistols directly from the German Army (Heereswaffenamt).

And judging from the relative rarity of Luftwaffe marked holsters. It would seem that especially during wartime, the Luftwaffe also acquired the great bulk of its holsters and other goods also from Army sources, versus private Luftwaffe contracts. (Acknowledging there were private Luftwaffe contracts for a number of items like aircrew holsters, fighting knives, uniform items, etc. etc.). And the Kriesmarine which is another area of interest seems to parallel to some extent the Luftwaffe. With the German Navy (which also got its arms from the Army) abandoning naval property markings in mid 1940. Only to reinstitute the practice to a very limited extent much later in the war probably during the buildup of troops (IMO) assigned to the Atlantic Wall effort.

PS: The marking on the 1945 dated frog you posted. Is it “bcy”, or is it “hcy”, or ? Also, I cannot find any markings on the frog you asked about. Which to me is not particularly surprising as even some early frogs have no maker marks, and it’s not at all uncommon for mid to late types.

Best Regards, FP

Hello,

i´m short in time so first the maker

hcy = Max Ficker & Sohn Lederwaren Remse/Muelde

maker of leather equipent, ammunition pouches and belts

The number of makers of the AC 310 and AC 311 frogs... the total quantiaty of the plants... were conseqent...with little differnets...the same since the end oft the war.

The makers who made the AC 311 frogs were not so many like the makers of the AC310. Some makers produce the two modells paralell.

the less produktion of AC311 started ca.1942.
bevor this time i observed ca. 17 Makers of AC311 frogs after only ca. 6.

I only meen the original produktion...not the added ones.

the produktion of frogs with straps is a litte bit convusing.
Since 1939...the general order was to produce only frogs with strap. But this order was never realisized by the makers.
The reasons...i don´t know.
With the new modells of DAK frogs and M42 frogs the order was realisized.

straps were put away and fittet in the field, by soldiers or feldzeugmeistereien or Bekeidungsdepots..this is like a faktory.

AC 310 frogs were normaly made without a place...pressed in the backpiece letter. The AC310 frogs were made only by stitching the leatherparts together... the prodces was much easyier as the work for the AC311 frogs.

This place you discribt normaly can be found on AC310 with a replaced strap and stichted new together. So the leather of the backpicke hold the pressed strapform.

The repair or the adding of straps was a "big bussines". serveral firms produce straps for this since the 1930 jeahrs. You can see by the maker insinde the strap. Often differnet makers can be found...for the frog and for the srap.

The equipment of airforce/army/navy was often mixed. It is...until today...a german speciality, made thins compliced with to much bureaucracy.

Normal weapons, bayontes too, and serveral equipement normal not furnish by Luftwaffe, Navy or Army itself.
This was the compentence ot the Waffenamt (1933-1935 Waffenamt 1935-1939 Wehrmachts-waffenamt, 1939-1945 Heeres-Waffenamt).

The waffenamt deal the equipent to army/navy or airforce. This weapons or equipent bears the diffenent WaA stamps.

The army, navy and the airfoce themselfs had serval own contrakts for equipent. The best examples are the belt buckles in this case.

The army equipmnet by own contracts is stamped B, K, E, D etc. The navy with eagle. The airforce LBA, LBA B, LBA(S).

In less cases..for example...the airforce gets WaA stamped leather equipment with WaA stamp...withot LBA(S) marking. I own a airforcefrog and a holdingstrap with WaA stamp.

The holsters out of WaA acquisition bear no stamp...or the WaA stamp.
weapons always were furnish by WaA.

SS, police and state organisations ordes themselfs or get captured things. they normaly never get weopons over the WaA.

WaA stamp on Luftwaffe frog.

and on a brown laqued strap out of 1939

Hello Gardist, Speaking only to small arms and some accessories: It’s my understanding that the Heereswaffenamt began with the Waffen und Munitions besschaffungsamt of the First World War, but was renamed in 1922. With selected personnel attending the Heereswaffenmeisterschule (Army weapons armorers school).

With what we call Waffenamts (but were commission numbers) being assigned to individuals who were sometimes moved around to different locations (WaA 546 = ?).

Posted below: A period Luftwaffe acceptance stamp next to an (Army) maker coded/Waffenamted P-38 holster.

And an illustration of part of what I was trying to get across. Here is a late frog which has been factory re-stitched where the tie strap should have been. With small clumps of threads where the machine started and stopped (for some reason it's more noticeable on the rear). The age/wear of the threads are exactly the same. Best Regards, FP

I dont believe the WaA on frogs are normal there, frogs were obtained through small firms and probably send directly to Bekleidungs Amt, without stamping them with WaA. Property Marine or Police stamps could be real.best regards,Andy

Hi guys, i need your thumbs up or down on this one. Condition is really excellent, it smells old. Looks old, feels old. what do you think ?

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Arnaud,

Short answer: If that is a 1944 date appended to what appears to be an (illegible) maker’s name the frog leaves me wondering. And would not one that I would be eager to acquire except at a very, very cheap price which would minimize my risk.

Long answer: When Gardist first mentioned the subject of fake tropical frogs - from time to time I had seen them here but not in great numbers. When he first posted what to me was unquestionably a re-dyed fake Luftwaffe frog along with some discussion of the color fastness of the threads it did not help alleviate my doubts. (Fortunately later images were more typical of what I thought should be expected.)

My point here being that apparently there is some concern regarding fakes entering primarily (it seems) the European market. And while excellent pictures such as yours can help. I can't discount the possibility of better quality fakes being made or period originals being modified. So while most of my tropical frogs have been used, I also have some unissued examples. Meaning that condition by itself is not necessarily a determining factor when looking at images on the Internet.

PS: One other thing bothers me. Maybe it’s just the lighting, but the frog seems a little too orange colored (IMO).

I don’t know if this helps you or not - and I hope that Gardist has more to say about the fakes currently being sold.

Best Regards, FP

Maybe UV light test could help on this? best regards,Andy

FP, the frog is as you say more orange than usuals. I have several good AK frogs, and that's why this one bugs me. Fabric, stitching look fine... but the color... is different.

serveral shapes of colours exisit... i think it not a question of originaly if the colour is to orange.

on the first sight the DAK frog looks good to me. the material of the strap is typical by originla ones. The makers mark is not to reed... the year too... so i think nobody can say something about the year. But 1944... no... never.

In 1944 the clear maker name was not stamped on the items... there mus be a r.B.nr. or a code.

the stamp can be
-offermann - bennsberg 1942 or 1943

other one exist with the stamp: L.Krum - Langhardt 1942 + 1943

i think the frog is ok. typical ink stamp... not readable... the colour is ok.

I don’t think that it’s an Offermann The font size is too small, and of the four I looked at (including an as new olive green 1942 example) all had stitching around the frog stud hole in the tie strap. L. Krum not a readable example, but I think that the 9 or 10 characters in the top line of the frog in question exclude that possibility. That also excludes the letter code examples. And most probably the L.L.G. types which are either stacked with the L.L.G on top, or placed lengthwise on the back piece as are the R.B. Nr. types.

The possibilities have not yet been exhausted as I have some not very readable examples to examine. But so far I’m not getting any positive hits. FP

Still looking into possible maker’s names for the frog Arnaud posted, I observed what I thought was an interesting coincidence. The Waffenamt on the P-38 holster I posted was WaA195 (‘ewx’ = Franz & Karl Vögels Lederwarenfabrik).

At the same time Offermann is also seen with the same WaA195 Waffenamt. Being assigned the maker code ‘dkk’ in mid 1941 with holsters seen using that code (while earlier Offermann P-08 holsters are seen with a WaA727).

Thinking that maybe I was on to something, it seems that besides the above: WaA195 is also seen on holsters by ‘dla’ (Karl Barth), ‘dta’ (Waldhausen), ‘dtu’ (G.J. Ensink), ‘eqf’ (Karl Böcker). With most, but not all, in more or less in the same general geographic area.

While some patterns may be emerging - I’m not quite sure at the moment what this all might mean. And if anyone has some additional insight that they could share it would be appreciated. FP

LLG maker kannt be... only LLG hessen is know... stamped in a box in the middel of the backside.

the WaA stamps are not a good way of indification... on to much equipemnet it was used.

clear marker names used until 1943.

the problem is the non readable stamp. I own 2 with the stamp on the same place and the same shape.

In my collection i found the same type, with the same canvas. only different is the colour of stitching.

here a picture of one of my examples with same unreadable maker stamp... also... it seams to be the date of 1944... but i can´t be.

the problem is the worse made ink stamp... it can be all.

others, better to read... shows the Offermann maker.

interesting else is the light green stitching.

else

.

..

...

Gardist,

Taking some more images convinced me of one thing. What the human eye sees in sunlight is not always the same thing as a digital camera in artificial lighting. In the images posted below the Offerman tropical frog to the far left is what I would call an olive green, But looks more brown in the images. Whereas the one to the far right looks more tan/brown and is closer to what it looks like in sunlight.

And some frogs that seem (to me at least) a little closer to what you posted in comparison with yours. All three have the leather button protector and sewn (not woven ) frog stud holes in the tie strap.

And the same frogs with the example that is under discussion. Besides the sewn frog stud tie strap holes, to me the font size and spacing of the markings are different.

PS: My point with the Waffenamts was that German Army inspection personnel applied Waffenamts to the holsters. But declined to do so for other goods from those factories that made both holsters and other (presumably) non-inspected items.

Best Regards, FP

has anyone looked at how many threads make up each knot?

the stamps of the DAK frogs out og 1942 seems to be stamped all at the same position.

L.krumm 1942 also stamped in the middle of the back.

also like LLG Hessen and others.

so i think it es possible that 1943 or maby later the maker stampes chaned position to the top.

Bump!! FP