Recently acquired this bayonet and on the pommel it is stamped 1 WTS. I could be wrong but I think it was the abbreviation for the 1st battalion Wiltshire regiment? Would this have been unit marked during the Great War or would it have been out on there post war? Also does the month and year stamp look like 3 16 or 3 18? Feel free to share any info you know I would really appreciate it.
![Image]()
![Image]()
Cs_44
Identifying unit on p1907 ww1 British bayonet
Recently acquired this bayonet and on the pommel it is stamped 1 WTS. I could be wrong but I think it was the abbreviation for the 1st battalion Wiltshire regiment? Would this have been unit marked during the Great War or would it have been out on there post war? Also does the month and year stamp look like 3 16 or 3 18? Feel free to share any info you know I would really appreciate it.
![Image]()
![Image]()
Yep, Wiltshire. Can’t say when it was done though. Also can’t tell on the bayonet date itself, pic is horribly out of focus.
Yeah I agree the pics are pretty bad I’m gonna take better ones when it comes in. I also read somewhere that the British army stopped putting unit marks on bayonets in 1916 but it also said some units continued to do it anyways so my best guess is it probably was marked during the war because I don’t think they continued to unit mark them after the war was over.
The 62nd (Wiltshire) Regiment of Foot was linked to the 99th (Duke of Edinburgh's) Regiment of Foot in 1881, to become 'The Wiltshire Regiment (Duke Of Edinburgh's).
Further amalgamations with The Royal Berkshire Rgt. & the 49th Princess Charlotte of Wales Hertfordshire Regiment of Foot, ended up as the Duke of Edinburgh's Royal Regiment ( Berkshire and Wiltshire).
Further amalgamations with The Royal Berkshire Rgt. & the 49th Princess Charlotte of Wales Hertfordshire Regiment of Foot, ended up as the Duke of Edinburgh's Royal Regiment ( Berkshire and Wiltshire).
Someone else told me that all unit markings on bayonets were forbade for mobilized units during the war but I’m not sure if that sounds right?
Several schools of thought regarding the the unit markings on weapons.
While intel and espionage is in the forefront (and much more exciting in conversation) I personally believe it’s a matter of logistics.
The redistribution of battlefield recoveries. Sending available arms to where they were needed the most. Changing existing markings in the field would be a time wasting nightmare.
Weaponry waiting in queue when they were desperately needed on the front in a timed and coordinated movement.
Of course the other factor’s mentioned would surely reinforce the notion of eliminating the unit markings at that time. Wartime expediency.
Many units (not all) went back to using their identifier following the war. As evidenced by some of the 1940’s dated unit markings which have surfaced.
There is no definitive answer as to why unit markings disappeared only to reappear. Only speculation. And I’m in the salvage and logistics school of thought. At least mostly.
While intel and espionage is in the forefront (and much more exciting in conversation) I personally believe it’s a matter of logistics.
The redistribution of battlefield recoveries. Sending available arms to where they were needed the most. Changing existing markings in the field would be a time wasting nightmare.
Weaponry waiting in queue when they were desperately needed on the front in a timed and coordinated movement.
Of course the other factor’s mentioned would surely reinforce the notion of eliminating the unit markings at that time. Wartime expediency.
Many units (not all) went back to using their identifier following the war. As evidenced by some of the 1940’s dated unit markings which have surfaced.
There is no definitive answer as to why unit markings disappeared only to reappear. Only speculation. And I’m in the salvage and logistics school of thought. At least mostly.
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
