Thick font arr43 with a rare tool.

CanadianAR said:
Flat HKW appear in 1943 according to observations.....Is it not possible that eoz made flat tools all along and others eventually followed suit? Someone pioneered it. Like the kreigsmodell changes made by Mauser. Documented to be designed long before implemented.
Click to expand...

Good point.
But why would the German Army order their armorer spare chains and HKWs from a company, not involved in the production of the RG34 at all. Hahn & Kolb had to set up new machinery, train the workers .....
Why didn't they simply order more/extra chains/HKWs from Appel, Mundlos ...?
Thanks
PS: Are there any armorer spare oilers known?
Is there any other company known, that made only armorer spares? I'm not talking about subcontractors that made parts for regular production and armorer spares.
 
Last edited:
Amberg said:
Is there any other company known, that made only armorer spares? I'm not talking about subcontractors that made parts for regular production and armorer spares.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you refers to the Bruno Mädler firm, although everything indicates that their Rg34s were assembled using parts supplied by Gustav Appel.
 
Another interesting question Wolfgang. But, who’s to say Hahn & Kolb didn’t order these parts from another company and simply mark them? My supposition is these eoz marked parts belong/originate from inside some larger armorers cleaning set of some sort and are not intended as armorers spare components. But as with other things pieces are spread to the wind by the people using them.

One other thought I had, did Hahn & Kolb have anything to do with postwar cleaning kits and/or armorers kits? They are still in business even today making similar objects as they did in WW2. I haven’t studied postwar Waffenmeisterkiste.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
mrfarb said:
.... But, who’s to say Hahn & Kolb didn’t order these parts from another company and simply mark them?
Click to expand...

Because their HKWs are totally different to HKWs from other makers. ??

Do you, or anybody else out there have a complete table of contents for the grosse Waffenmeisterkiste?
Thanks
 
Let me see what I can find. The issue is there are small variations of armorers kits that seem to change with each contract or timeframe. I’m not convinced these are real or fake myself, more info is needed. Interesting these eoz HKW seem to originate from Germany only.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
mrfarb said:
It’s a good point about the flat type tool not showing until 43.
Click to expand...

But do we know this for certain? With the exception of Braunschweig and Mundlos there are no HKW dated after 1942. The Braunschweig marked HKW are not flat stampings. There are Mundlos HKW of both types marked ab43 although most that I have encountered are the earlier pattern. This certainly helps date the flat HKW introduction at least by Mundlos. The flat Hawig made HKW are unmarked. The flat HKW by Appel are either stamped cnx without date or are unmarked. My point is, we don't know with certainty when the flat HKW were introduced by Appel and Hawig. It could have been as early as 1941 when their codes changed. The fact that so few HKW are marked or dated after 1942 makes it difficult to determine when these pieces were manufactured. And it is hazardous to rely on behälter contents especially with HKW as they are so often missing. My thoughts only .....
 
That an armourers repair kit would have One of these for their own use makes the most sense to me. Also I still suggest motive for faking. We have what? Two known? I think we’d see them more often as so many tools are missing you’d think people would be buying and putting them in kits. Like gmm marked tools, they can be seen relatively frequently. Maybe more people will notice and more will show up now.
 
As for the introduction of the flat HKW...
Mundlos marked their tools until 1943 and practically all the tools that I have observed from that year are flat, so I am assuming that this firm made the change earlier that year.
Regarding the Hawig tools, this firm marked their tools with the code cmr without the year until 1942 -probably towards the end of that year-, and also most of the 1943 equipment that I have observed already comes with the flat tool so I assume that this company must have introduced it also in early 1943.
As for the tools manufactured by the Gustav Appel firm, those found inside their kits manufactured during the early and mid war period present the cnx code and the Waffenamt WaA20, although the latter was soon phased out. I have observed a few flat tools with the cnx code without Waffenamt but never inside a matching kit. I assume that Gustav Appel introduced the flat tools in their military kits towards the mid-war period, but not in the early period. I am of the opinion that within the commercial kits the flat tool was never introduced, perhaps only towards the very end of the war.

Antoni
 
dot said:
Regarding the Hawig tools, this firm marked their tools with the code cmr without the year until 1942 -probably towards the end of that year-, and also most of the 1943 equipment that I have observed already comes with the flat tool so I assume that this company must have introduced it also in early 1943.

As for the tools manufactured by the Gustav Appel firm, those found inside their kits manufactured during the early and mid war period present the cnx code and the Waffenamt WaA20, although the latter was soon phased out. I have observed a few flat tools with the cnx code without Waffenamt but never inside a matching kit. I assume that Gustav Appel introduced the flat tools in their military kits towards the mid-war period, but not in the early period.
Click to expand...

Were is the evidence or documentation for these assertions? We simply don't know that cmr marked their HKW until 1942. Same for when Appel introduced their flat HKW. Making assumptions without supporting empirical information is not good for the hobby. We have both researched the rg34 for many years and I am confident that you, like I have examined thousands of pieces. These observations certainly helps provides a basis for theory and possible explanations but further research is needed before stating them as fact. I have personally never handled an eoz HKW and at this point am unconvinced one way or the other as far as originality. I feel the same way about making unsupported assumptions on when a certain maker introduced the flat HKW or when the sheet metal oiler was first produced or the twisted wire chain for that matter ......

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens
 
dot said:
Regarding the Hawig tools, this firm marked their tools with the code cmr without the year until 1942 -probably towards the end of that year-, and also most of the 1943 equipment that I have observed already comes with the flat tool so I assume that this company must have introduced it also in early 1943.

As for the tools manufactured by the Gustav Appel firm, those found inside their kits manufactured during the early and mid war period present the cnx code and the Waffenamt WaA20, although the latter was soon phased out. I have observed a few flat tools with the cnx code without Waffenamt but never inside a matching kit. I assume that Gustav Appel introduced the flat tools in their military kits towards the mid-war period, but not in the early period.
Click to expand...

Were is the evidence or documentation for these assertions? We simply don't know that cmr marked their HKW until 1942. Same for when Appel introduced their flat HKW. Making assumptions without supporting empirical information is not good for the hobby. We have both researched the rg34 for many years and I am confident that you, like I have examined thousands of pieces. These observations certainly helps provides a basis for theory and possible explanations but further research is needed before stating them as fact. I have personally never handled an eoz HKW and at this point am unconvinced one way or the other as far as originality. I feel the same way about making unsupported assumptions on when a certain maker introduced the flat HKW or when the sheet metal oiler was first produced or the twisted wire chain for that matter. Heck, without further evidence I still remain unconvinced that Ky is Aktien-Maschinenfabrik Kyffhäuserhütte ......

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens
 
Slash said:
Were is the evidence or documentation for these assertions? We simply don't know that cmr marked their HKW until 1942. Same for when Appel introduced their flat HKW. Making assumptions without supporting empirical information is not good for the hobby. We have both researched the rg34 for many years and I am confident that you, like I have examined thousands of pieces. These observations certainly helps provides a basis for theory and possible explanations but further research is needed before stating them as fact. I have personally never handled an eoz HKW and at this point am unconvinced one way or the other as far as originality. I feel the same way about making unsupported assumptions on when a certain maker introduced the flat HKW or when the sheet metal oiler was first produced or the twisted wire chain for that matter. Heck, without further evidence I still remain unconvinced that Ky is Aktien-Maschinenfabrik Kyffhäuserhütte ......
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but with my affirmations I don't want to seem pretentious or try to convince anyone, for me this is also a hobby and I enjoy doing research on this and other topics. I make my assertions to the best of my knowledge and belief, based largely on a detailed study of numerous Rg34 examples. For example, my assertion years ago that the letters KH/Ky correspond to Aktien-Maschinenfabrik Kyffhäuserhütte firm is a conjecture based mainly on a detailed study of numerous parts and equipment, but IMHO I believe that to date, with the information available, it is the most plausible. That more evidence is needed to prove it, yes of course ... that's where we go!
Regarding my claim that the Hawig firm marked their HKWs until 1942, it is also based on the observation and careful study of many 1942 cmr kits, where some show the code on their tools and others do not, so IMHO it is most likely that Hawig stopped stamping his code on their tools that year.
I have not had an eoz HKW in my hands either and I think like you ... more study is needed ! As for the eoz chain from 1942 that appears on my blog, I know its provenance and although I cannot certify its authenticity, after a close study everything indicates that it is.
I recognize that my asseveration that the flat tool was introduced in 1943 and not before is difficult to prove because Gustav Appel did not date his equipment, but looking at the perspective evolution of the Rg34 manufacture during the war, I do not see Gustav Appel as the leading company in simplifying their manufacture, specially regarding their parts.

Antoni
 
Last edited:
Very informative thread. Unfortunately, in this instance there is no "smoking gun" to absolutely prove which conjecture is correct. We try to assemble a complex puzzle with many pieces, but without the missing ones, cannot get a complete view. Thus, we use logic, comparisons and share experiences to try solving the puzzle. Seems this is where we currently are and hopefully further research will result in providing the answers we seek.
 
I personally don’t see why they chose to break all the rules for coding their cans. I’m not aware of any other firm that just decided to use their first two letters. That’s not even initials. BSW makes clear sense. Lance may have his own more developed reasons. I’m new to this field. But I wonder still. KH even makes more sense.
 
Up until the end of 1940 firms used their name on cans. Mundlos, Hawig, GAppel, and Kyffhaüserhütte. Pretty long name or maybe they normally used that abbreviation commercially.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
mrfarb said:
Up until the end of 1940 firms used their name on cans. Mundlos, Hawig, GAppel, and Kyffhaüserhütte. Pretty long name or maybe they normally used that abbreviation commercially.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Then why change from Kh to ky? No other RG34 firms seemed so that in the 30s. These kits were for some reason not following suit with other production anyways so who knows.
 
No idea why KH but you could make the argument it’s still similar to Kyffhäuserhütte.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Quote Originally Posted by Slash:
"Heck, without further evidence I still remain unconvinced that Ky is Aktien-Maschinenfabrik Kyffhäuserhütte"

Quote Originally Posted by Amberg:
"What are your concerns about "Ky" being Kyffhäuserhütte? Thanks"

Was looking through my copy of J. Preuss' Zahlencode System Des Heeres Von 1955 bis 1940. Maybe this is common knowledge, but there are two entries for Kyffhäuserhütte:

Firmenziffer 568 (Company number 568) Aktien Maschinenfabrik Kyffhäuser Hütte, vorm. Paul Reuss; Antern Quelle 1 (Source 1).

Fertigungskennenzeichen ayw (Manufacturer identifier ayw) Aktien-Maschinenfabrik Kyffhäuserhütte, vorm. Paul Reuss, Antern/Sachsen Quelle 2 (Source 2).

It is interesting to note the differences in the verbiage used on both entries. I believe Preuss entered the information exactly as it was written in the period documentation he uncovered for the numeric, S and alphabetic codes. There must be a reason one firm has an assigned numeric code and the other a alphabetic one. Since KY was utilized up to 1941, I doubt "Source 2" was later changed to the early alpha code "ayw". Seems likely if there was a code change, it would be from the numeric one to a alpha code. Also, with KH & Ky alpha codes being so close together, the firms they were assigned to likely received them date-wise, around the same time. One question is if both firms were active at the same time or was Source 2 a satellite factory which became active at some later time. However, if not, could it be plausible one of these factories was assigned KH and the other Ky? Hummmm...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top