Artillerymen wore bandoliers -

[Tyrim]

Another thread has a photo where a complete battery sat for a picture and, except for four officers and one corporal, every man is wearing a bandoleer. Does anyone know why artillery men wore empty bandoleers?

I've yet to see a picture of an artilleryman armed with a rifle or with rifles stacked nearby. I know from my Father in the RFA that they had rifles in their hut while in England but I never found out how they were handled in the field.

With all the manual labor involved, rifles and bandoleers would certainly get in the way. So where were they kept? Did the indiidual gunners have control of them or were they in some sort of armory?

When firing was in progress were they stacked near the guns or, again, stored in an armory?

Since bandoleers were part of the uniform it's not likely that a soldier would toss his into a pile and hope to retrieve the same one later. So how was ammunition controlled?

[TonyE]

It is my understanding that the rifles for the gun crews were stored in the limbers, clipped to the lids.

I think there was a picture posted a long while back showing the limber stowage.

Regards

TonyE

[squirrel]

Carried on the limbers as you say and also on GS wagons for use by the drivers.

[Tyrim]

Thank you TonyE and Squirrel! That makes sense.

Is it safe to assume that the ammunition was there as well?

[Rockdoc]

The other thread was one of mine and it was shown that the gunners carried ten rounds of .303 in each pouch, in the case of the RA that meant 50 per man. Other versions of the 1903 equipment used by other parts of the Army could have up to, I believe, ten pouches - five on the man's front and five on his back.

Keith

[Tyrim]

Thank you for that, Keith! I can see where 50 rounds would be enough to protect themselves in the unusual case of being directly assaulted by ground troops while 100 rounds, and more, would be necessary for the infantry.

Were you able to determine why the artillery wore bandoleers as part of their uniform? They seem natural with the infantry but have always looked a little odd to me on an artilleryman.

Thanks again,

Tyrim

[marc coene]

Hello,

Hereby photo of 154 Siege Battery. Where you can indeed also see the Bandoleers.

Hereafter photo with the artillerymen at their guns. On the underside of photo you can see their guns laying on ground.

Regards,

Marc

Hello,

Hereby photo of 154 Siege Battery. Where you can indeed also see the Bandoleers.

Hereafter photo with the artillerymen at their guns. On the underside of photo you can see their guns laying on ground.

Regards,

Marc

[Rockdoc]

Were you able to determine why the artillery wore bandoleers as part of their uniform? They seem natural with the infantry but have always looked a little odd to me on an artilleryman.

It's something of a truism but all soldiers are primarily infantrymen although some have specialisms. Every man would have had training with a rifle and would have been expected to use one if the need arose. We've had this discussion before and the consensus was that the 1903-pattern was retained after the introduction of webbing equipment by units that did not wear a haversack. This mostly applied to mounted troops but not exclusively.

Hope this helps,

Keith

[Michael Johnson]

I would imagine that the bandoliers would always have had some chargers in them. Perhaps not the full load of two chargers per pouch, but at least one. If you are going to need to use your rifle, you do not want to have to go find a GS wagon to get ammunition.

[Tyrim]

coemar,

Thank you for the great photos. The first is the kind of shot that raised my curiousity about bandoleers. The second pic is a little hard to make out and I may be mistaken but I wonder whether those are truly rifles. They appear similar to the poles that are holding up the camo and the bucket adjacent to them is in a position where it could be knocked over and spill its contents onto them. I can't imagine a sergeant turning a blind eye to rifles being left on the ground like that. In my experience that would be cause for having to sleep with your rifle for a few nights until you understood its importance.

Keith,

Thank you for your response. An old picture of my Father, who was in the RFA, shows him wearing a bandoleer while in most photos of infrantrymen that I've seen there's none in sight. It always seems odd to me but, the uniform regulations are the rules!

Michael Johnson,

Yes, that's part of the problem of men whose primary job isn't rifleman. What kind of balance do you set so they have weapons and ammunition readily available to defend themselves and yet, not interfere with their main job, in this case, firing the big guns. The quantity of ammunition is also a factor. You don't want to have large supplies in the hands of men who are not likely to need it, not cost effective as we would say today.

[Capt_Starlight]

I agree they look more like cam poles than rifles BUT stranger things have happened.....

In any case, weren't the limbers in the RHA/RFA equipped to hold several rifles ? I can remember stories of the retreat in 1918 when the gunners were forced to defend their positions from the advancing Germans while their guns were retrieved or spiked. The impression was that these weapons were part of the normal equipment not "lifted" from retiring troops or such like.

[Rockdoc]

Keith,

Thank you for your response. An old picture of my Father, who was in the RFA, shows him wearing a bandoleer while in most photos of infantrymen that I've seen there's none in sight. It always seems odd to me but, the uniform regulations are the rules!

It seems to be quite usual for any unit that had the 1903-pattern equipment to wear the bandoleer in photographs. Every formal photo I have of my Grandfather in Service Dress has him wearing one, the sole exception being a tinted one taken in India where he's wearing a formal blue uniform with red facings. His brother-in-law, who served with the ASC, is also invariably shown with a bandoleer.

Gunners didn't wear them while in action so they were presumably stored near the rifles so the maximum amount of ammunition was where it would be most needed should the need arise.

Keith

[TonyE]

I agree, those are not rifles on the floor. I suspect they are the the parts of the cleaning rod for the gun. It looks like they have brass jointing ferrules on the end of each length.

Regards

TonyE

[Tyrim]

Capt_starlight, Keith and TonyE,

Thank you for your input.

I didn't realize that so many units wore the bandoleer. I thought it was only for a few.

As for the battery site, it would be interesting to see how a typical battery was layed out. It would have to have been highly organized to provide for all contingencies; the big guns. camoflaged and with ammunition nearby, light rail tracks to bring in ammunition and supplies and to remove empty shell casings and refuse, dugouts for protection, "living" quarters for 150+ men, food and water supplies, limbers with small arms and ammunition, horses, fodder, communication facilities and who knows what else. It's easy to see the truth in the old saying about war being about logistics rather than tactics.

[Ron Clifton]

Hello all

A six-gun battery was equipped with 36 rifles. I have always assumed that these were for the use of the drivers rather than the gun detachment, but in any case they were kept in clips on the limbers or ammunition wagons.

I doubt that many gunners wore bandoliers in action - in most cases they did not even wear their service dress jackets - but they wore them for parades and, as others have commented, all sodiers (except possibly RAMC personnel) received a basic training with the rifle.

The 1903 pattern bandolier was worn in the British service by all mounted services, including regimental drivers of infantry battalions. The 1908 pattern web equipment was worn (by Regulars, at any rate) by the rest of the infantry and by dismounted men of Field Companies RE.

Ron

[johnreed]

I have identified some parts that are laying on the ground, The canvas water bucket is where is should be, the contents are used for swabbing the mushroom head and also for swabbing out the chamber. There is no evidence of any rifles, in my day on the guns all small arms were to the rear of the gun within easy reach.

John

[ianjonesncl]

A six-gun battery was equipped with 36 rifles. I have always assumed that these were for the use of the drivers rather than the gun detachment, but in any case they were kept in clips on the limbers or ammunition wagons.

Ron

Having looked at many photgraphs of gun detatchments and artillery on the move I can not recollect ever seeing any rifles. Were there 36 rifles on the equipment schedule, but not issued or allocated elsewhere ?

Looking at pictures of 18 pounder limbers I can not see any clips:

Gun Limber http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=139259&view=findpost&p=1331353

Ammo Limber http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=139259&view=findpost&p=1328530

Does anyone have any pictures of RA with rifles ?

[ianjonesncl]

from Firepower

From Firepower

[johnreed]

Four rifles were carried two stowed on the front of the Limber Carriage, and two on the front of the Limber (Ammunition Wagon)

John

[Muerrisch]

musketry courses were indeed prescribed for all RA, but not for RAMC. Somewhere in the dim and distant recesses of what used to pass for a mind, I recall that RAMC were issued arms [and bayonets] for 'savage warfare'. They don't like it up 'em!

[Tyrim]

Thank you all for your insight.

John, your explanation of the tools and their placement next to the siege gun makes sense.

Having two rifles per limber would seem to support your assumption, Ron, that they were for use by the drivers. Since they may or may not be near the battery at any given time it's hard to imagine they would be of use to anybody else. That still leaves the battery unprotected in case of a sudden breakout. I imagine there had to be other rifles available somewhere nearby.

The photo from Firepower shows the same uniform my Father was wearing in an old picture. Oddly, I remember him speaking about training with horses but don't recall any talk of training with a rifle, although I'm sure he must have.

[squirrel]

The gunners most likely, on occasion, to be in direct contact with enemy infantry would be the RHA and RFA.

IIRC I have read short accounts of units of both using their rifles in the retreat from Mons and in the German Spring attacks of 1918.

However, the main weapon they had against such a target would be the gun itself. Firing shrapnel,with instantaneous fuse, effectively a 13 pdr or 18 pdr shotgun. Much more effective than rifle fire at short range.

[johnreed]

Minimum fuze setting on a T & P is 1 sec which would function at about 450 yards it is debateable whether this methed would be used. I would rather engage by rifle fire also with the enemy that close the guns would be moving to a new location.

John

[squirrel]

Point taken John - I was just trying, in an admittedly clumsy way, to point out that field guns can be used at short range should the circumstances require, which as you pointed out would not be very likely to happen but may have done in certain situations.

[green_acorn]

Tyrim,

May I hypothesise the reason why artilleryman wore bandoliers, in the case of the RHA (like cavalry), being horse and limber riders it was more comfortable, convenient and practical to wear a bandolier and have the remainder of your equipment on the horses saddle or attached to the limber. It isn't comfortable to sit in a saddle or on a limber bench with back rest with webbing on. I would expect the other "artillery's" wore bandoliers for the same reason. The reason why you don't often see gunners working the larger guns (and 18 pdrs behind the line) in action wearing bandoliers (or shirts during summer) is convenience and comfort, the bandolier would be taken of and placed on the limber.

Cheers,

Hendo