My U.S. 121st Infantry, 8th ID, Hurtgen impression

[TC1c Dunigan]

Afternoon,

I wanted this to be a small om-age' to the confederate soldiers that were the grandfathers of this particular regiment. Unique parts to this impression, to make it my own and individualistic among the rest... The trouser belt IS a leather garrison belt(although you can't see it very much), the patch, and the bedroll.

i130.photobucket.com/albums/p254/aco_30thir_3rdid/DSCN0929.jpg
i130.photobucket.com/albums/p254/aco_30thir_3rdid/DSCN0931.jpg
i130.photobucket.com/albums/p254/aco_30thir_3rdid/DSCN0932.jpg
i130.photobucket.com/albums/p254/aco_30thir_3rdid/DSCN0933.jpg
i130.photobucket.com/albums/p254/aco_30thir_3rdid/DSCN0934.jpg
i130.photobucket.com/albums/p254/aco_30thir_3rdid/DSCN0935.jpg
i130.photobucket.com/albums/p254/aco_30thir_3rdid/DSCN0936.jpg

Headgear:
U.S. M-1 "Fixed Bale" Helmet(Original, restored by yours truly)

Uniform:
U.S. Jacket, Field, Model 1941(At The Front)
U.S. Shirt, Field(Original)
U.S. Belt,Garrison/Trouser(What Price Glory)
U.S. Trousers, Field(WWII Impressions)
U.S. Leggings, Model 1938, Dismounted(Original)
U.S. Service Shoes, Type II(WWII Impressions)

Equipment:
U.S. M-1923 Cartridge Belt(At The Front)
U.S. M-1910 Canteen, Cup and Cover(Original)
U.S. M-1942 First Aid Kit/Pouch(Original)
U.S. M-1943 E-Tool w/ Cover(Original)

Bedroll:
U.S. Shelter Half w/ Pole and Pegs(What Price Glory/Original)
U.S. Blanket(Original)
C-Rations(1) M-1 Unit and (1) B Unit(Signal Depot)
Toiletry Kit(Complete)(Original)
Sewing Kit(Complete)(Original)
(2)Handkerchief(Original)
(1) OD Underwear(Original)

Weapon:
U.S. Rifle Cal. 30 M1, Dated: March 1944(Original)
U.S. M1905E1 Bayonet, Dated: 1909(Original)

Any and all critiques welcome.

Regards,
FRISCAN

PS ~ Before anyone here says it... yes, I know its clean. This is in preparation for an event to get it squared away, not a "combat" impression. Its going to get plenty dirty at the event where we will be taking tons of photos.

[1marinediv]

I think the civil war tie is interesting, the impression looks really good, nice work!!!!

[TC1c Dunigan]

Mar 1, 2011 18:21:44 GMT -5 1marinediv said:

I think the civil war tie is interesting, the impression looks really good, nice work!!!!

Thanks!

The U.S. 121st Infantry Regiment, of the U.S. 8th Infantry Division was originally from 1861-1865, a part of three different Confederate units. The 4th Regiment of Georgia Volunteers, the 3rd Georgia Infantry Battalion and the 37th Georgia Volunteer Infantry Regiment.

The 121st wasn't Federalized till 1916.

Regards,
FRISCAN

[GyreneGreen]

i130.photobucket.com/albums/p254/aco_30thir_3rdid/DSCN0935.jpg

Interesting choice on the bayonet. Myself and a buddy have been looking for a long time for a picture of the 1905e1 "beak tip" bayonet in use. Have you seen any?

Pictures of cutdown bayonets are particularly hard to find but we managed to find two of "spear" points. It is also hard to pinpoint how many bayonets were modified to "beak tips" because the Army cataloged them all as M1 bayonet.

[TC1c Dunigan]

I haven't seen any. However, the unit depicted here is a national guard unit. Mostly likely would have had the M-1903's longer then the regular army units. Therefore still utilizing the M-1905's would make them a candidate for early cut down before deployment.

I remember reading an article some years ago how the National Guard units were the first to go through the cut down process stateside. I can't remember what magazine but, I remember it was something along those lines.

As to the cut-downs they refer to the "Beak Tip" as the 1st Pattern of the cut down process. The 2nd or later process is the "Spear Tip." For the impression, I wanted to go with a different style on the bayonet, instead of the typical 2nd pattern M-1905E1, just a little different instead of the norm.

Regards,
FRISCAN

[GyreneGreen]

Mar 1, 2011 19:23:42 GMT -5 TC1c Dunigan said:

I haven't seen any. However, the unit depicted here is a national guard unit. Mostly likely would have had the M-1903's longer then the regular army units. Therefore still utilizing the M-1905's would make them a candidate for early cut down before deployment.

I remember reading an article some years ago how the National Guard units were the first to go through the cut down process stateside. I can't remember what magazine but, I remember it was something along those lines.

As to the cut-downs they refer to the "Beak Tip" as the 1st Pattern of the cut down process. The 2nd or later process is the "Spear Tip." For the impression, I wanted to go with a different style on the bayonet, instead of the typical 2nd pattern M-1905E1, just a little different instead of the norm.

Regards,
FRISCAN

Just because a unit was part of the first to turn in their 1905 bayonets (love to see that article) does not correlate to being the first to get 1905e1 bayonets or mean that they got 1905e1 bayonets at all. They could have received the new M1 bayonets. Bayonets were shortened at Springfield Arsenal and various bayonet manufacturers, and then most likely entered into the Army's supply system and were not returned directly to the units they were initially surveyed from.

From what I have read the first pattern was the spear point, and it was because of the fragility of the modification on the square fuller (typically early 1905 bayonets) that they introduced the beak point. There is no hard and fast rule with saying that all square fuller bayonets were cut to beak point though, as evidenced in this article. www.usmilitaryknives.com/bayo_points_2.htm

[TC1c Dunigan]

See, I've heard the opposite. The "beak tip" was first because they eventually DID go to the "spear tip" of the manufactured M-1's that came afterward.

I have several of photos of "spear tip" style with the 3rd ID in mid-44'.

As to the issuing, I didn't say they'd of got the ones back they turned in. Being that they were Nat'l Guard they would have had the older style bayonets. Therefore probably the first to have them turned in to upgrade. Even at that, the US Army would have issued out their suitable reserves before handing out the newer manufactured M1's most likely.

Either way they were issued out and used. So, they would be correct for this impression.

Regards,
FRISCAN

[GyreneGreen]

This is from the link I posted.

"Originally the plan was to shape the point of the newly shortened blade to what it had been - a spear point. But it was soon found that this could cause a problem, especially with the Model of 1905 bayonets, and some of the early 1942 contract production, which had what is termed a "square" fuller."

Cut downs were originally in the spear point style. It was only when they found that the spear point caused breakage in the square fuller bayonets that they changed the style.

"As the shortening program had already begun, some bayonets with square fullers can be found with spear points, and even rarely (and probably accidentally) a round fuller with a beak point."

The spear point was the first modification.

Can you post the pictures of the 3rd ID with cut downs, they would be useful to many people researching the use of 1905e1s. I really want to see any 1905e1 beak point bayonet pictures you have, or any data on that particular modifications issuance.

There is no evidence to support that the Army would have issued "suitable reserves" before new M1 bayonets. It is conjecture, ungrounded and without factual basis. The same could be said about the issue of beak point bayonets, they were produced (in unknown quantities- issued in unknown quantities) but at least we can provide some evidence of spear point cut downs in use.

I found this qoute particularly interesting,

"There was an unknown amount of loss/wastage during the process, enough that the Bayonets, Knives and Scabbards report mentioned above stated: "..the slow rate at which bayonets were being received, together with the high scrappage rate, was making the modification program very disappointing." The variety of steels used in the bayonets, plus the differing fuller shapes made the process slower and more difficult than had first been expected."

[cco23i]

OUTFRICKENSTANDING!! Lookin' good!!!

Scott

[TC1c Dunigan]

Tom,

I've got one photo of the 30th IR on pass and review near Rome for O'Keefe and O' Daniels. The photo is grainy but, it looks as if there are a couple of beak points in the mix just looking at them from the angle but, a lot of spear points as well. Most likely ACTUAL M1 bayonets.

The thing that defeats you argument of "they aren't WWII correct" or "we don't see many of them" is that fact that (1) we know they did this process(albeit slowly) during WWII, (2) Some did make it into service during WWII, although not in large numbers they are still there and lastly, just because YOU nor I see a lot of photos with them in them, doesn't make them any less there in WWII.

So, for say one or two individuals out of a platoon(lets say) to have one I'd say wouldn't probably be out of the question. The event I am attending is a hardcore event, by "invitation only" and we are forming only two rifle squads for this small private event. So, I think I'm safe with it for my individual impression.

Scott,

Thanks a TON! Always enjoy seeing you and your guys impressions!

Respectfully,
FRISCAN

[david]

No lockbar sight.

[Boogiewoogie]

Lets not get into that with Jim, AGAIN!!! He doesn't like them.

Martin

[GyreneGreen]

Can you please post the picture of the parade in which beak point bayonets are visible?

The beak modification was done- in UNKNOWN quantities and issued in UNKNOWN quantities. If I was going to use that type of bayonet, I would want to hang its legitimacy on more than "it was done...and just because you don't see them doesn't mean they weren't there." Not seeing them would be ok if we had more archival research to substantiate their actual use but we don't. At the end of the day we have inconclusive textual evidence and non-existent photographic evidence (so nothing other than ambiguity and "it was done so they had to have been there, but don't ask me how many or where").

The Bayonet Points article claims that 1,007,671 cut downs were returned to the Army by manufacturers, and that the estimated M1 production was around 2,920,000 *(author admits this is a rough estimate). Already you have M1 bayonets outnumbering cut downs in production almost 3:1, then you have the beak modification which seems to have been fairly uncommon- notice how on the article I posted two of the three square fuller cut downs (which should have beak modifications) have spear tips.

[TC1c Dunigan]

Mar 2, 2011 8:36:59 GMT -5 Boogiewoogie said:

Lets not get into that with Jim, AGAIN!!! He doesn't like them.

Martin

Quite right Martin. Although, I may get a set sometime in the future just not on the priority list as of yet.

Mar 2, 2011 10:09:03 GMT -5 GyreneGreen said:

Can you please post the picture of the parade in which beak point bayonets are visible?

The beak modification was done- in UNKNOWN quantities and issued in UNKNOWN quantities. If I was going to use that type of bayonet, I would want to hang its legitimacy on more than "it was done...and just because you don't see them doesn't mean they weren't there."

Tom,

I'll scan it and post it some time in a few days as I'm about to head out for an event.

Secondly you know with your comment above you contradicted yourself? You do realize if they were issued out(whether in known or unknown quantities)they were used?Right?

Therefore, I'd say its safe to use them in limited quantities. Would I say EVERYONE should use them? Absolutely not but, one here and there wouldn't probably be out of the question.

You can feel free to go on quoting your "authentic" website as a legitimate historical reference but, its not going to prove your point anymore then it has failed to do.

Respectfully,
FRISCAN

[GyreneGreen]

Jim,

Put up some pictures of them in use. Better than that, put up anything that validates their issuance to your unit. Best- show them in use by the unit you portray.

Failing that you can still take refuge in ambiguities if that makes it ok for you to use, go nuts. It is still a very flimsy argument.

At least I have posted some research, unless you consider "I read an article somewhere" or "I have pictures of them in use that I won't post" to be research.

I really hope you do have pictures of beak point bayonets in use. Their has been a discussion amongst my friends for a long time about this same subject and we haven't been able to turn any up.

Finally, I didn't contradict myself. The entire point of my questioning is to establish how much research you had done on the subject and if you knew anything beyond "it was done so it's authentic".

[MissMartha]

Where's your tie and your shirt collar is crooked -- ;D

Just funning with you!

Martha

[oldmp]

As always. You look outstanding!!

Mike

[GyreneGreen]

Mar 2, 2011 13:05:31 GMT -5 TC1c Dunigan said:

You can feel free to go on quoting your "authentic" website as a legitimate historical reference but, its not going to prove your point anymore then it has failed to do.

Respectfully,
FRISCAN

Just some background on the "authentic" author of those articles.

He wrote this and is generally considered the foremost expert on the subject:
www.midwayusa.com/viewproduct/?productnumber=934161

[TC1c Dunigan]

Mar 2, 2011 13:33:06 GMT -5 GyreneGreen said:

Jim,

Put up some pictures of them in use. Better than that, put up anything that validates their issuance to your unit. Best- show them in use by the unit you portray.

Failing that you can still take refuge in ambiguities if that makes it ok for you to use, go nuts. It is still a very flimsy argument.

At least I have posted some research, unless you consider "I read an article somewhere" or "I have pictures of them in use that I won't post" to be research.

I really hope you do have pictures of beak point bayonets in use. Their has been a discussion amongst my friends for a long time about this same subject and we haven't been able to turn any up.

Finally, I didn't contradict myself. The entire point of my questioning is to establish how much research you had done on the subject and if you knew anything beyond "it was done so it's authentic".

Tom,

Do you realize how you sound? You do realize you are the ONLY one to say anything negative against this impression?

I'm mean you can go on about this bayonet and that bayonet or that article and how authentic it is. The fact is that I take more out of oldmp's information or posts than yours. Why you may think? Because they are positive. I think in all the time you've been on this forums I have not once come across a post that you made that wasn't negative.

I like to be around authentic like minded well rounded historians. Not just someone who is a "collector grade" historian on one subject. You are foolish to listen to one person and believe everything that person says. You need multiple sources, there are some items that if there isn't any information on readily available, then you have to find a happy medium.

For this impression I am the ONLY one with this style bayonet. Am I incorrect? No. They were used in WWII in limited quantities, we know they were. If we know that much, then they are period authentic. There are not many photos of the 121st in combat or any where for that fact so we are having to be very reserved on many items within the 121st. The two things we have no doubts about of the 121st are (1) they had bed rolls, and (2) they had the early style uniform w/ 38 leggings (yes, this late in WWII).

Is this impression going to be 100%? It can't be without full documentation. We don't have that... So, the best we can do is to find a happy medium in this particular impression. Does this make me a farb? No. Sometimes the research only goes so far.

Respectfully,
FRISCAN

PS ~ I'll post that pic soon.

[MARNEPUPPY]

Criticism and questioning the status quo is important, as otherwise stuff like this would just be mutual masturbation.

MARNEPUP!