Classification of Fleet Badges based on obverse design

[Norm F]

Time for another classification thread — this time for that quintessential navy badge, the much-beloved Fleet War Badge.

Announced by Großadmiral Erich Raeder on April 30, 1941, the Flotten-Kriegsabzeichen was the fifth Kriegsmarine service badge to be introduced (omitting the Blockade Breaker badge for now since it was a civilian award and approved for navy personnel only later in December, 1942). There had been an 8 month hiatus between the release of the Minesweeper badge in 1940 and the quick flurry of new badge announcements in 1941 between April and June.

Although announced on April 30, that announcement wasn’t published in Uniformen-Markt until June 1st in the same article announcing the Hilfskreuzer badge which had been instituted by Raeder on April 24. At the time it was stated: “Die Entwürfe zu den beiden vorstehend geschilderten Kriegsabzeichen sind, wie wir hören, fertig, aber die Muster noch nicht.”
“The designs of the two above-mentioned war badges are, as we hear, complete, but the samples are not yet ready.”

That design was by Adolf Bock, a well-known marine artist who created only this one KM badge design, unlike Casberg, Placzek and Peekhaus who each designed more than one. The badge was finally shown in Uniformen-Markt on October 1, 1941, situated between the S-Boat and the Hilfskreuzer, both of which had been designed by Peekhaus. Arguably the most dramatic Kriegsmarine badge, Bock’s design depicts a Scharnhorst class battleship in full frontal approach bordered by the traditional vertical oval oak leaf wreath and topped by the ever present national symbol.

As with the U-Boat, Destroyer and Minesweeper badges, C. Schwerin & Sohn was the premier manufacturer and possibly the only official supplier to the Kriegmarine for the Fleet badge although joined later by 6 other producers and possibly one more. These 8 makers can be grouped into 4 categories by obverse design.

After the preamble I’ll define the 4 categories and then show the salient features for each manufacturer within each group. The differences are subtle as the Fleet badge design shows much greater consistency between makers than was seen in the manufacture of the earlier KM badges.

Finally, a summary table will be presented which assigns a “Fleet badge Classification Number’ (FC#) to each of 28 variants.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Norm F]

battleship features

For reference, here are some key points in the badge design correlated to photographs of the Gneisenau and Scharnhorst (the only two ships of this class). More detail on ship terminology can be found in Mike Kenny’s excellent analysis on Schwerin badges here:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~datumge...erminology.htm

[Norm F]

The 4 basic categories

The 4 basic categories.

Type 1: “Schwerin”
Type 2: “Wissmann-style”
Type 3: “R.S.&S.”
Type 4: “Juncker-like” (only one example known)

Schwerin was the archetype upon which the other 3 were based, but 5 makers are grouped within “Type 2” suggesting a shared tooling source for makers within that category.

[Norm F]

closeup on the 4 types

Although on first glance they all look very much alike (especially Types 1 and 2), the closeups of the hull and gun turrets show the key differences.

The Type 1 (Schwerin) shows a tiny bit of the central gun in the A turret peaking over the prow of the ship, and the portholes on the lower right (as viewed) have a dip in their alignment.

The Type 2 makes no attempt to depict the central gun in the A turret and the portholes show straighter alignment.

The Type 3 (R.S.&S.) shows a very distinct central gun barrel peaking over the prow but makes no attempt to show the oval openings in the B turret out of which the gun barrels project. The portholes are large and distinct.

The unique and rare Type 4 has wide slit-like bridge windows, no central gun barrel in A turret and shorter bevels on the corners of the turret. Also, it seems to be missing the front two portholes in the upper rows in the hull.

[Norm F]

The 8 makers by category

Here is a list of the 8 makers of the Fleet War Badge by category. Only Schwerin made a Tombak version which is the the usual badge found in German vet groupings.

Type 1: “Schwerin”

C. Schwerin & Sohn, Berlin (Tombak and zinc) - marked

Type 2: “Wissmann-style”

Steinhauer & Lück, Lüdenscheid (zinc only) - attributed
B.H. Mayer, Pforzheim (zinc) - marked
Friedrich Orth, Vienna (zinc) - marked
Rudolf Souval, Vienna (zinc) - marked
Alois Rettenmaier, Schwäbisch-Gmund (zinc) - attributed

Type 3: “R.S.&S.”

Richard Simm & Söhne, Gablonz (zinc) - marked

Type 4: “Juncker-like”

Unknown maker (zinc) - only one example known (but intriguing)

[Norm F]

Type 1: “Schwerin”

Type 1: “Schwerin”

Schwerin is the sole representative of the Type 1 and the archetype for other makers, and their badge was the one depicted in Uniformen-Markt in October, 1941. The comparison to the period photo shows the characteristic “beard”, a term sometimes used for the retained flashing under the eagle’s beak.

As discussed in Mike Kenny’s landmark study on the Schwerin Fleet badge, there is proposed a tentative “timeline” based upon a progression of tiny die differences, most notably in the left (as viewed) bridge window and the first porthole on the right. Traditionally the badges are divided into “early”, “middle” and “late” based on the observed differences which also correlate with a progression in hardware differences, finish and materials.

Surprisingly (and intriguingly) the badge shown in Uniformen-Markt in October, 1941 appears to be the “late” style with the new narrower open bridge window and well-defined first porthole. It is logical to infer that the “middle” and “late” dies were in fact used concurrently, and this is further supported by the observation that both sub-types occur also in zinc production (although the “early” style does not). The same phenomenon is observed in Schwerin’s Blockade Breaker badge where two different styles (flat-back and dish-back) occur in both Tombak and zinc suggesting the concurrent use of two die sets during the transition in base metal use. (This is observed in Juncker’s U-boat production as well).

At any rate although certainly not the rarest of badges, it's probably safe to say most collectors thrill to the feel of a Tombak Schwerin Fleet badge - the quintessential Kriegsmarine war badge.

[Norm F]

Type 2: “Wissmann-style”

Type 2: “Wissmann-style”

Paul Wissmann was a die maker in Pforzheim and supplier to badge manufacturers. We know from original wartime correspondence on S&L letterhead that S&L requested tooling for the Fleet badge from Wissmann. The first request occurs on December 18, 1941: “Können Sie uns auch das Flottenabzeichen liefern?”. A followup letter on January 16, 1942 repeats the request: “Wir nehmen nochmals Bezug auf unsere letzte Korrespondenz und bitten Sie doch sowohl die Werkzeuge zum Schnellboot-Abzeichen, wie solche zum Flottenabzeichen, uns sofort fertigzustellen.” Interestingly, both the S-Boat and the Fleet badge were included in that request and for both of these badges (and the Destroyer and Minesweeper badges as well) S&L’s obverse dies are very closely related to the Pforzheim and Vienna makers. The inference is that Wissmann very possibly supplied Kriegsmarine badge dies to all the companies in this Type 2 category. This category is analogous to Type 5 in the U-Boat classification system, Type 6 in the Destroyer classification system and Type 2 in the Minesweeper Badge classification.

It’s easy to see the close homology of the S&L attributed badge to that of B.H. Mayer (and the other three Type 2 makers in the next post), although different trimming of the margins imparts a different look to the eagle's beak. Every maker used different reverse dies and hardware. The S&L attributed badge is the only one to feature a semi-hollow reverse and is found with the variety of setups shown here.

The B.H. Mayer is quite uncommon and alway bears an L/18 stamp in the reverse designating it as an approved private purchase item.

[Norm F]

Type 2 continued

Again one can see the close homology between the remaining three makers in the Type 2 category, Orth, Souval and Rettenmaier. The searchlight in the centre of the upper observation deck has a slightly oval appearance in the Souval and the Rettenmaier-attributed badges.

There is no evidence to date that any of these late war zincers were official award pieces delivered to the Kriegsmarine, and they were likely relegated to the private purchase wartime and/or post-war souvenir markets.

[Norm F]

Type 3: “R.S.&S.”

Type 3: “R.S.&S.”

Richard Simm & Sons is the only maker of the Type 3 and again the comparison to Schwerin highlights the differences in the dies. Aside from the previously noted differences in the cannons, cannon openings and portholes, the oak leaf pattern can be seen to differ as well from both the Type 1 and Type 2 badges.

This Gablonz-made badge is the only one to feature crimped-in hardware and a ball hinge. The wide pin and sheet metal catch were prone to breakage at the thin points and no doubt the round-wire pin was a more robust solution.

[Norm F]

Type 4: “Juncker-like”

Type 4: “Juncker-like”

The Type 4 badge is an intriguing mystery. I know of only one example so far and it’s the one included in Volume II of “The Kriegsmarine Awards” on pages 562-563. I’ve included just a piece of the obverse photo in the comparison in the spirit of “fair use” for this study but more details can be found in the book. The badge detail is good (although the photo reproduction is fuzzy) and shows a unique style distinct from Schwerin’s archetype. In addition to the differences noted earlier in the bridge windows and portholes, the eagle’s body is narrower, the leaf pattern is different, and there is labour intensive, detailed hand trimming to the internal cutouts including a cut-out area above the upper guns of the secondary armament.

The reverse hardware on this badge is the generic type of short barrel hinge, wide pin and flat-wire catch seen on all of Juncker’s zinc KM badges, hence the nickname “Juncker-like” for this unknown maker. The wide pin even has a dark coating as is often seen on the pins of Juncker badges, like the APB and the Juncker-attributed Destroyer shown here.

Conceivably this could represent Juncker dabbling in Fleet badge production before abandoning the Fleet market to Schwerin in favour of Hifskreuzer production, but this is only speculation.

[Norm F]

Summary table

So there you have it, another badge classification to go with the others found in the pinned Classification Systems thread.

8 manufacturers of the Fleet War Badge, examples of which can be found in the List of Fleet Badge Manufacturers database thread.

Only 1 maker (Schwerin) manufactured in Tombak as well as zinc so that makes 9 badges of Tombak or zinc to collect. But when you tally up variants according to die characteristics and hardware you find at least 26 variants as described in the Classification Table presented here. As in previous badge classification systems, variations of finish are excluded. I’ve included columns to equate the new classification numbers, when applicable, to Mike Kenny’s Schwerin Fleet badge classification and also to the examples included in “The Kriegsmarine Awards” volumes II and III.

In the end, all variants can be grouped into these 4 categories.

Best regards,
---Norm

[JAndrew]

Another great job Norm.

I think the Souval variations will always be controversial to some degree but your description certainly reflects what most would agree is the current state of understanding. I have yet to see a R.S. badge that has the secondary armament separated from the wreath that was not "wartime compatible" (like the one in S&W's book), have you?

Also, it seems that all of the different types and subtypes of badges have been based on characteristics of dies, finishing, markings and materials in these various classifications. But I wonder if whether the hinge pin is inserted from the left or right side really constitutes a variant? It could have just been that there was a left handed and a right handed assembler putting them together. Just a thought.

Anyway, I really enjoy these classifications as it helps me keep a focus on my collecting. Kind of like the difference between shooting in the air vs. shooting at a target. Thank you again for all of your hard work.

Regards,
JAndrew

[BubbaZ]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH NORM!
Great classification and very helpful
Cheers,
Hubert

[Norm F]

I think the Souval variations will always be controversial to some degree but your description certainly reflects what most would agree is the current state of understanding. I have yet to see a R.S. badge that has the secondary armament separated from the wreath that was not "wartime compatible" (like the one in S&W's book), have you?

Hi JAndrew,

The Souval variations are a bit problematic and beyond the scope of this thread but some discussion can be found in this thread:
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=277649
For now I chose not to include the variable hand finishing as a separate variation (or as any specific indication for period of manufacture), but there may be more variations to add to the table of variants later if this becomes clearer.

Also, it seems that all of the different types and subtypes of badges have been based on characteristics of dies, finishing, markings and materials in these various classifications. But I wonder if whether the hinge pin is inserted from the left or right side really constitutes a variant? It could have just been that there was a left handed and a right handed assembler putting them together. Just a thought.

I fully agree, the direction of the hinge pin is a minor point, and probably irrelevant to most collectors. More correctly they are sub-variants rather than variants, but it would have been too complicated to add another decimal place (Type 1.1.1.1...!)

I chose to include that point since at least it is an objective, easily recognized, unambiguous feature which occurred in the factory, not subject to interpretation like variation in colouring (which exists but is omitted from the table) or part of a gradual continuum like die wear. Whether it's truly a random event, or related to two different workers, or two different workshops or two different periods of production is unknown. As a collector of Minesweeper variants myself, I like to have variants in hinge pin in my collection, and in some cases (but not always) the direction of the hinge pin correlates with other badge differences like the maker mark.

Best regards,
---Norm

[JAndrew]

Norm,
That is interesting. I was not aware there could be a correlation between hinge pin direction and other manufacturing differences. You continue to be a deep well of learning for me. Thank you.
JAndrew