Knight´s Cross "4"

[Sal Williams]

If somebody says that he did not get this S&L Knights Cross at that date in 1944 it is the same as calling Mr. Glunz a liar. There is nothing ambiguous in this above stated sentence. No wiggle room, no interpretation, nothing. He says he got that cross and that set of oaks on that day from Adolf Hitler. Period! End of discussion!

Dietrich, from the translation you made earlier it seemed to me that one could take his statement either way. Could you re translate or explain how it is so certainly meant the one way?
Not doubting you but I am losing something in the translation.

Best, Sal

[ChrisJ]

You're saying the finishing die could leave impressions on the beading then?

Yes, exactly

[Sal Williams]

Yes, exactly

How Chris? Wouldn't it just be a cookie cutter to cut off the excess silver around the frame?

[ChrisJ]

How Chris? Wouldn't it just be a cookie cutter to cut off the excess silver around the frame?

Far more complicated than that. Trimming punches/dies are specialist tools.....maybe Dietrich (as someone who has worked in this industry) could educate us how such a tool for EK trimming would look like, if indeed they existed...(as a total amateur I can only speculate...but I find the uniformity of my S&L inner frames puzzling for supposedly hand cut items).

[Leroy]

This is a question which has occured to me while I was trying to "self-educate" (a dangerous thing!) and better understand, last night (with no engineers lurking about to help me!), the die striking process involved in the manufacture of S&L RK's. I would appreciate it if Dietrich (as our "resident die expert") could answer it:

Is the meaningfullness of the Vickers hardness ratings for various types of silver affected if the physical properties of the material causing the "dent row" are unknown? We have been told, from many sources, that the die itself was crafted from a selected particular type of steel and was made to leave, each time, the same imprint on the selected silver being struck. Would the material causing the "dent row", if different from the material of the base die itself, make a difference? According to an explanation of the Vickers hardness test found on the internet: "The basic principle, as with all common measures of hardness, is to observe the questioned materials' ability to resist plastic deformation from a standard source." If the material lodged in the die was different from the material of the die itself, would there still be that "standard source" as far as the impact effect was concerned? I know that the die itself (and anything in it) would be hitting the silver at the same speed, and presumably with the same pressure, but could the predicted effects, under these circumstances, be altered or themselves change when the silver is hit by two different materials at the same time?

It may be, and probably is, a very stupid question, but if it's not asked I won't know!
Thanks,
Leroy

[Dietrich Maerz]

Dietrich, from the translation you made earlier it seemed to me that one could take his statement either way. Could you re translate or explain how it is so certainly meant the one way? Not doubting you but I am losing something in the translation.

Sal, I cannot give you a better translation but I can assure you that the German sentence leaves not even the slightest room for interpretation.

Dietrich

[Dietrich Maerz]

We have been told, from many sources, that the die itself was crafted from a selected particular type of steel and was made to leave, each time, the same imprint on the selected silver being struck. Would the material causing the "dent row", if different from the material of the base die itself, make a difference?

The basic trick of any forming, metal or clay or wax or whatever, is that the die into which the to be formed material is pressed is made of material that is harder than the to be formed material. It really doesn't matter how much harder.
Weld material to repair the die is/was for sure something special. I would also think that major repairs on the die would involve the 'soften' the die block before the repair (annealing) and after the repair was done, the die was hardened again. Including the 'weld splatter.'

According to an explanation of the Vickers hardness test found on the internet: "The basic principle, as with all common measures of hardness, is to observe the questioned materials' ability to resist plastic deformation from a standard source."

The Vickers method is a 'standardized' method to determine hardness by means of 'relative to each other'. A pyramidal diamond is pressed in to the test material with a pre-determined force and later on the diagonal of the imprint is measured and compared to the imprint of another material. The longer the diagonal the softer the material. This method has no direct influence on the stamping process.

If the material lodged in the die was different from the material of the die itself, would there still be that "standard source" as far as the impact effect was concerned?

One cannot compare the Vickers test (deliberate impact) with the stamping process (use of die material so that it is for sure a lot harder)

I know that the die itself (and anything in it) would be hitting the silver at the same speed, and presumably with the same pressure, but could the predicted effects, under these circumstances, be altered or themselves change when the silver is hit by two different materials at the same time?

No. The forming process is not done under speed (what you might have in front of your inner eye is the making of coins or other smaller metal parts which are stamped out of a sheet metal). With the forming process we have here the die closes slowly and under the same force. There are no dynamic forces involved, just pressure.
As long as the forming material is harder than the silver (in this case) the imprint will be made. The existence of the dent row over a long period of time is witness to it's hardness. The disappearance over time has not necessarily it's reason in being a softer material but rather in it's location. It is clear that an exposed dimple is far more subject to wear than a smooth and coherent surface is. Soft water erodes even the harder rock over time and makes it smooth.

So it could very well be that the weld splatter is even harder than the balance of the die.

[mdj]

This is the correct translation:

"The Ritterkreuz with Oak pictured on this photo is the award which Adolf Hitler gave me personally on 3.8.44. This award I gave to my father for safe keeping where it stayed during the war."

The question which I am interested in is why the oaks are attached to the KC as in postwar Comrade- meetings (OdR/JG26) Addi Glunz kept his S&L KC+oaks displayed in 2 seperate cases....

Martin

[Leroy]

Dietrich,
Thank you very much for your answer.
Best,
Leroy

[Brian S]

I hope this ends the discussion on the silver content differences... It is not an argument.

I am curious about Chris' idea about a final trimming die. From my perspective I could think the trimming die would hold down the cross without touching the beading. I've noticed what almost appears to be a valley between the beading and edge that might support this.

[Leroy]

Does any one (perhaps from a JG26 photo album or other source) have any other (and clearer) photos of Adolf Glunz showing him at the time of his original RK award, by which the type awarded might be really confirmed? Following mdj's comment, I am again unclear as to what Glunz actually meant. I certainly have faith in Dietrich's translation and understand that it could certainly be understood clearly that Glunz meant that both the cross and the Oakleaves came at the same time. But I could also see that Glunz might, just possibly, have been referring to only the higher award in a "unitary" fashion, carrying the cross along with it, even though WE see both a cross AND a set of Oakleaves. Of course, Glunz is no longer with us, and the photos posted of him so far are too lacking in detail, to accept his remark at this point as being anything other than a reference to both awards at once. Does his use of the word "Auszeichung" imply that the award was viewed by him as a "single" award, even though two separate "objects" are depicted? Would the other word have been "Auszeichnungen" if both awards, as separate entities, were being thought of?
Best,
Leroy

P.S. This could be turned into a separate thread if it is distracting here.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Following mdj's comment, I am again unclear as to what Glunz actually meant. I certainly have faith in Dietrich's translation and understand that it could certainly be understood clearly that Glunz meant that both the cross and the Oakleaves came at the same time.

As you might have seen the only change mdj made was adding the date. We can discuss this till the cows come home but ther is no wiggle room in the German sentence.

Of course one can argue what the meaning of "is" realy "is"...

There is no way you can prove or disprove what cross he got when. Pure statistical data (which you don't like, I understand) point clearly to an L/12 as his first cross.

[Leroy]

There is no way you can prove or disprove what cross he got when. Pure statistical data (which you don't like, I understand) point clearly to an L/12 as his first cross.

Dietrich,
A CLEAR photograph, taken at, or shortly after, his original award ceremony in 1943, WOULD prove whether (or not) he had an S&L originally. I am NOT saying for sure that he had an S&L in 1943. WE DON'T KNOW AT THIS POINT! If you personally wish to rely on statistics UNTIL we have other proof one way or the other, that is fine with me, just as it is fine with me that you personally do this with other aspects of the ongoing S&L debate. If there is a chance other information will emerge, however, I will not close the door, or necessarily believe I have the full story from statistics.

Does the use of the word "Auszeichnung" as opposed to the word
"Auszeichnungen" mean anything, one way or the other, to you as a native German-speaker?
Regards,
Leroy

[Dietrich Maerz]

Does the use of the word "Auszeichnung" as opposed to the word" Auszeichnungen" mean anything, one way or the other, to you as a native German-speaker?

"Auszeichnungen" is the plural of "Auszeichnung". In this context it means that he described the set as one piece, i.e. one "Auszeichnung". For me as a genuine German it is clear that he saw that set as one thing. As I said, there's no wiggle room.

[DavidM]

I hope this ends the discussion on the silver content differences... It is not an argument.

I am curious about Chris' idea about a final trimming die. From my perspective I could think the trimming die would hold down the cross without touching the beading. I've noticed what almost appears to be a valley between the beading and edge that might support this.

Hello

I've just come across a reference here on the WAF to the use of trimming dies in connection with EK production:

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/iron...ufacturing.htm

which says:

1) "Blanking Die" Method; From the beginning of the war to 1942, the manufacturing process went as follows; The first operation, on a blanking die, stamped the shape of the frame into a thin sheet of silver. The center of the cross was not punched out and the area between each of the arms was likewise solid. This sheet metal was then placed on a finishing die, which cropped off all the excess around the shape of the rim.

This is the only reference I can find that mentions trimming dies, all others say that the production means was traditional. So, depending on the accuracy of this reference, (which judging from the accompanying photos looks good), the use of a trimming die may be feasible for the RKs.

Regards
David