Armory Sponsor
Posted: 9/3/2014 10:11:31 AM EDT
|
as a collector of various historical militaria i have always wondered how common it was for a soldiers bayonet to actually match their rifle ion terms of date.
meaning : say a Army Rifleman was issued his garand in 1943 before going to the ETO. was it likely that he was also issued a 1943 bayonet? better example due to the longevity of the rifle. The brits used the No.1 MK3* SMLE from WW1 into WW2 in 1939 when the Tommy went over the channel to fight jerry was he given a newly made bayonet or is it more likely that he was thrown a bayonet from the pile of various dated knives going back to WW1? |
| As far as Enfields go, the only contract for P'07 bayonets during WWII was a Royal Navy contract for use on the Lanchester SMG. Thus, any bayonet issued to a soldier going to fight in France would have very likely been a WWI bayonet (and as virtually no rifles had been made for the Army since 1918, his SMLE would be too). |
Parts numbering is for the euroweenie trash. Parts interchangability for the win! Murica!!! 
That being said, in early 1943 he would have been issued a 16" M1905, the next one out of the box, which would have been promptly recalled later and chopped down to M1905E1 specification or, in mid-late 1943, a transitional 10" 1943-dated M1. |
|
If they matched it was due to happen chance only. There was most certainly no effort made to do such matching. Supply folks only see parts and items, for the most part user soldiers see it the same way.
On the German side same story except the bayonets were sn# for accountability in the pay book. Collectors over think such things. |
Armory Sponsor