Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Aug 27, 2016 21:22:40 GMT
Very interesting these two. Thank you for taking the time to do this excellent essay. Also shows how conservative the American Army establishment was. The French already had the M1896, in the context of this essay, a more artistic version of the industrial Patton, for years. Or is it the Patton was the industrial version of the M1896? Also, in around 1830 General Preval submitted his Preval sabre, which is the grand dad of the M1896. Anyway. The 1906E is a great find for the collection. Both of them are. But boy, the E sure does need some getting used to. It is not very pretty. That may not be a factor of importance here, but still. That thing is the ugliest sabre I ever saw. No offence.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Aug 27, 2016 23:23:56 GMT
That's really interesting, a good read. I'd have liked a 1911 Sabre though. Dang you Patton, making a decent cavalry sword!
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Aug 28, 2016 5:59:33 GMT
,, The 1906E reminds me of much older Indo-Turkic weapons. ''
Oh definitely. With the reverse grip of a 18th C. hunting sword. Bulky at the back and slender at the guard. Did the High Command have dealings with the Ottoman Turks at this time? There must be a reason for this highly un American hilt design. Stuff like that does not come out of nowhere.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Aug 28, 2016 10:35:10 GMT
The first sword I ever bought, which was in 1968 in Manhattan, Kansas, was a Model 1913 saber. The army called it a saber, so it was a saber. I recall showing it off in a fencing class I had in college a couple of years later. They really didn't know what to make of it. I thought it was an impressive sword myself but I really didn't know what to make of it, either.
The unusually large grip and hilt of the experimental saber reminds me of Japanese cavalry sabers, even though the blade is nothing similar.
Very good review, not to mention an exceptional find, too. It has started me wondering about the relative merits of curved and straight swords. Something maybe worth a new thread, as if no one else has ever mentioned it.
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Sept 2, 2016 21:54:04 GMT
Great catch!
I'll have to say... it's not the best looking sword I've seen. Also, it seems a bit short for a cavalry weapon? It's completely dwarfed by the US 1906; Old Blucher (the saber or the Field Marshal) could probably eat it for breakfast. Bet it makes an awesome infantry weapon though.
|
|
|
Post by darth on Sept 3, 2016 17:20:25 GMT
I'd really love to handle that thing. Might be a good foot sword. I kind of see a Filipino influence in the hilt.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Sept 3, 2016 19:29:00 GMT
Sometimes you see things like that and wonder what they were thinking. Sometimes it seems like experimental weapons were made by someone wandering through a warehouse full of junk. Of course, the only reason experimental weapons seem odd looking is simply because they are novel and unfamiliar for the most part. That one certainly is.
I also wonder now and then how difficult it is for a factory, in this case a sword factory, to turn out, say, two or three hundred samples of a new design from the tip to the pommel, plus the equally different scabbard. Scabbards always seemed like they would be more difficult to make than the sword itself (which it probably isn't). The scabbard for the Patton sword was especially involved, although it did not required high grade steel or anything like that.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Sept 4, 2016 13:33:15 GMT
You miss my point. The M1909E looks odd because it is uncommon and does not share features with many other models of swords, even though it immediately reminded a couple of contributors, myself included, of other swords. The M1911 on the other hand, does not look at all odd. Except perhaps for the scabbard, which would have been considered odd at the time, the M1911 remind me of nothing more than something that Cold Steel would offer for sale today.
In spite of the advances in manufacturing technology, there is still more handwork, which is to say skill, involved in making things than is generally appreciated. I am surprised that electrically powered machines were available (or in wide use) in 1900. Belt-driven equipment was very common in 1900 and I have even seen a fully equipped shop in which all the equipment was powered by belts driven from an overhead drive shaft.
I wonder, though, if just any well equipped factory could produce a blade or if there was specific skills and knowledge required to actually made a good quality blade. In theory, any machine shop could make a Colt Government Model and that was actually done in WWII but I wonder if blade-making technology was so specific that it could only be done in factories with experienced worders.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Sept 9, 2016 19:38:45 GMT
I notice that this particular saber is used in the illustrations (artwork) in the Provisional Regulations for Saber Exercise 1907, although you might not realize that it is the experimental model at first. So they may be much more common than I realize. In fact, there's one for sale on eBay right now.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Sept 13, 2016 16:08:37 GMT
I just reread this thread, which is very interesting, and you said this saber is rare. But I also have a question. Is the blade of this experimental saber 1906E close to the dimensions of the 1902 officer's sword? It looks almost the same, save for the lack of ornamentation. It makes for a very light blade, it would seem. The 1911 model on the other hand looks reasonably heavy but still not very long for a cavalry weapon. Also, were proof marks such as appear on German and British swords ever used on American made sword blades?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 2:40:30 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 2:43:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Sept 14, 2016 10:46:06 GMT
And to think I just bought a new car and didn't really need to: my wife won't let me go anywhere!
I still think the 1911 looks just like something that Cold Steel would be selling. At the rate they're going, they just might, too, and a couple of models are already pretty close. The scabbards for the 1911 and the 1913 are very interesting but would be clumsy on foot.
I notice in the grab bag lot of 1906E blades and parts that the blades are of various lengths. But the 1902 came in different blade lengths and still does, curiously enough. The current variation of the US NCO sword, which I would not call a Model 1840 (neither does the manual), is also available in various blade lengths, although you might have more trouble finding them.
|
|
|
Post by Spathologist on Oct 3, 2016 1:00:24 GMT
LOL! I don't think there was any serious intent to issue the 1906Es as a weapon. Although it is noted by several authors that the Army had already issued the 1902 standardized, all branch saber. The 1906E reminds me of much older Indo-Turkic weapons. The XM1906 was certainly intended to be a weapon. Its genesis was the dissatisfaction of Teddy R. with the then-current bayonets and sabers. He felt that if those articles were issued, they should be implements that soldiers could actually fight with, and the Army hastily convened a board to consider both weapons. His displeasure with the saber was directed at the M1902, which, ironically, provides the blade base for the XM1906. M1902 and XM1906 blades are almost identical, save for a longer tang and different distal taper on the XM1906. Both sabers will fit into a Springfield M1902 scabbard. The grip was the brainchild of a Naval Engineer and respected swordsman named A.C. Cunningham. The purpose of the tapering design was to act like a cork in a bottle and prevent the hand from slipping rearward during use. Cunningham was so delighted with the XM1906 as a weapon that he proposed replacing cutlasses and naval officer swords with it. He even wrote a manual of arms for the Navy starring the XM1906 and himself (SABRE and BAYONET By Civil Engineer A. C. Cunningham, U. S. Navy.) The XM1906 came in three lengths: 27", 30", and 32". [ETA: The complete report and correspondence of the equipment board on the development of the XM1906 can be found in Appendix IV of Volume IX of the 1905 Annual Reports of the War Department.]
|
|
|
Post by Spathologist on Oct 3, 2016 13:12:34 GMT
There is a huge incongruity here. The adoption process also coincides with the execution of the Stimson Act which placed the military bureaus firmly under the command of the Chief of Staff of the Army for the first time. The proposal of the 1906 certainly ended with general ridicule and a completely different weapon in the 1912 model. On the contrary. Several of the foremost swordsmen of the day were involved in the design, and all expressed satisfaction with the final product. Of 201 officers across all branches that submitted a report after the field trials, 154 reported favorably with many expressing extreme satisfaction with the XM1906 as a weapon. The main dissatisfaction was with the scabbard, which was rightly considered too fragile for field service. The XM1906 was meant to be a "one for all" weapon, from ground officers to Cavalry troopers. The distinction between enlisted and officer versions was to be the scabbard. Pigskin for officers to match the then-regulation material used in officer kit, and leather scabbards for enlisted troopers. Two Cavalry regiments requested, and were granted, permission to continue using the XM1906 after the trials. I'm not sure what your references are that produce an incongruity, but the period documents show that it was favorably received by the field as a weapon. Exactly why further development and eventual issue was halted is something of a question mark; the correspondence record on these sabers stops after a few suggested modifications were field tested, with no official decision record having yet come to light.
|
|
|
Post by Spathologist on Oct 5, 2016 22:10:14 GMT
Exactly why further development and eventual issue was halted is something of a question mark; the correspondence record on these sabers stops after a few suggested modifications were field tested, with no official decision record having yet come to light. I stand corrected, however, I plainly can see why it fell on its ass: Evelyn Wood, Teddy Roosevelt and Stimson (all Rough Riders) and all with an agenda to exert their authority over the Bureaus, a case made for why George Patton's 1913 was so readily adopted. I guess I'm having problems following your thought...the XM1906 test was completed by 1908. This was 4 years before Patton would make his reputation in the 1912 Olympics, General Leonard Wood was commanding the Department of the East and two years away from becoming Chief of Staff, and Henry Stimson was US Attorney for the Southern District of New York. None of the players who influenced the adoption of the M1913 over the M1911 experimental were in place and certainly in no position to decide the fate of the XM1906. At any rate, the impetus behind the XM1906 was T.R. himself, so there were certainly no points to be made in blocking it. The XM1906 was designed, fielded, tested to good reviews and....petered out. If you know of any documentation that explains why the XM1906 faded out of the picture, I'd be quite interested.
|
|