Bandoliers

[David B]

Chewing gum ??

[Rockdoc]

More likely a packet of Woodbines or a small tin of St Bruno!

Keith

[Rockdoc]

The official answer to what was carried in the bandolier is 50rds SAA.

Ten to a pouch, then (my Grandfather is wearing five)? Presumably the rounds were kept in clips so that they could be inserted straight into the rifle?

I suppose the other way to look at it would be that, although 50 rounds doesn't sound a lot (especially given the rate of fire that British servicemen could achieve), with so few rifles relative to the number of men the amount of ammunition available was considerable.

Keith

[west coast]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Feb 7 2009, 08:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why was it thought necessary for gunners to carry bandoliers but not infantrymen?

was it because it was easier to reload while mounted from a bandolier .

cheers,...mike.

[Rockdoc]

There may have been occasions where the Cavalry fired while mounted, although in mobile warfare I believe they were still more likely to use swords. I'd be very surprised if many drivers ever fired from horseback. They controlled the horse they rode with their right hand and legs while controlling the horse to their left with a whip held in their left hand. They would have had lose control of both horses to hold a rifle.

I would think drivers' priority when they came under fire was to get the horses and cargo to a place where they could be relatively safe before dismounting. The last place you want to leave supplies is where the enemy can raid them and horses were both expensive and vulnerable in the open. I suspect, as has been said, that the bandolier allowed a mounted soldier to carry a limited amount of ammunition while both keeping his hands free and allowing his arms potentially more freedom of movement than webbing packs.

Keith

[Ron Clifton]

The Pattern 1903 bandolier, when introduced, was standard for all arms. The cavalry version had nine pockets, four on the back from which it would have been difficult to load mounted. Ten rounds per pocket, in two clips (or possibly chargers) of five.

The Pattern 1908 web equipment, for infantry and dismounted RE, had ten ammunition pouches. The standard infantry "ration" was 120 rounds on the man, so three clips in some pockets, two in others. In action a man could be issued with two 50-round cotton bandoliers, one over each shoulder, to bring him up to 220 rounds.

Cavalry usually dismounted to fire - i.e. they were effectively "mounted infantry" in the traditional sense, or "dragoons" in the even older sense.

Artillery drivers had probably taken the horses out of the way before the guns came under attack. They could, if necessary, snatch up rifles if the guns were in danger of being captured, or to defend the gunners.

Ron

[centurion]

The bandolier was standard for all mounted troops - some mounted RE also wore it and were issued with rifles.

[Rockdoc]

How did the mounted RE carry their rifles, Centurion? Was it on their person or strapped to a wagon, similar to a the limber in the photo Seph posted?

Keith

[centurion]

How did the mounted RE carry their rifles, Centurion? Was it on their person or strapped to a wagon, similar to a the limber in the photo Seph posted?

Don't know - only picture I've seen has the man standing with his rifle.

[Grovetown]

In action a man could be issued with two 50-round cotton bandoliers, one over each shoulder, to bring him up to 220 rounds.

While there's no doubt the cotton bandoliers were issued as supplementary rounds; the rounds carried in the 1914 Pattern pouches were supposed to carried in the bandoliers - i.e the filled bandoliers were ostensibly to be stuffed into the pouches.

Best wishes,

GT.

[Peter Doyle]

One of my favourite pics from my collection. Men of the RGA in pretty much full 1903 pattern bandolier equipment.

Peter

[Rockdoc]

Stupid question (most of mine are!): Are you sure these are RGA? I thought the RGA were classed as un-mounted troops yet these men are wearing puttees, like the RFA/RHA. The cap badge on the tubby chap second from the left doesn't look like an Artillery one, either. I suppose he could be one of their ASC contingent, though.

Keith

[centurion]

I'm begining to wonder if the criteria for wearing the bandolier was that the soldier wouldn't normally wear a pack with its associated webbing etc rather than simply that he rode on horse or in vehicle.

[PhilB]

I suspect, as has been said, that the bandolier allowed a mounted soldier to carry a limited amount of ammunition while both keeping his hands free and allowing his arms potentially more freedom of movement than webbing packs.

Keith

But this would be an advantage for an infantryman too? I`m struggling to see the advantage of carrying your ammo round in a bandolier while your rifle is stored elsewhere! What do you reckon the 303 capacity of a RA bandolier was?

[Rockdoc]

50 rounds according Joe Sweeney in Post 20 of the thread.

By freedom of movement, I meant, in particular, that a driver would have been better able to work both of his horses. With one horse being controlled simply by the application of a folded whip to its back and shoulders anything that might interfere, however slightly, with giving the animal a clear signal would be dangerous. On the other hand, I think Centurion is onto something when he suggested that a bandolier may have been issued to all soldiers who would not normally wear a pack.

Keith

[PhilB]

50 rounds according Joe Sweeney in Post 20 of the thread.

Keith

The RA men do seem to wear their bandoliers at times when an infantryman wouldn`t be wearing pouches - like in a photographer`s studio.

[Peter Doyle]

Stupid question (most of mine are!): Are you sure these are RGA? I thought the RGA were classed as un-mounted troops yet these men are wearing puttees, like the RFA/RHA. The cap badge on the tubby chap second from the left doesn't look like an Artillery one, either. I suppose he could be one of their ASC contingent, though.

Keith

Yep, hi-res version shows these guys wearing RGA titles. Most RGA men would wear puttees, and this wouldn't set them apart as mounted/unmounted troops per se, although they would be wound from knee to foot in mounted troops. They are all wearing RA cap badges, including the 'tubby' guy - the badge has just been bent back so the wheel is prominent.

Peter

[Rockdoc]

Mike Morrison, earlier in the thread, wrote that he could not find a photograph of an Artilleryman anywhere out of action without a bandolier, suggesting that it was considered part of their normal uniform. I'm probably talking total gibberish but it might be that webbing wasn't seen in the same way. It would probably have been a lot clumsier to have about you on leave.

Keith

[PhilB]

Mike Morrison, earlier in the thread, wrote that he could not find a photograph of an Artilleryman anywhere out of action without a bandolier, suggesting that it was considered part of their normal uniform. Keith

That is the only explanation I can come up with.

[Peter Doyle]

In the Second World War, artillerymen were equipped with 1937 pattern webbing, but in so-called 'musketry order' that entailed the use of two small ammunition pouches in place of the usual rectangular utility pouches. These were issued to men who were equipped with rifles but who were not riflemen.

Artillerymen in the First War would also be expected to use a rifle where it was expedient. Rather than an issue of full 1908 pattern webbing, it makes sense that the bandolier, which could be easily removed and thereby not constrict movement, was the issue. Of course, this has become associated also with mounted troops, but we have to be careful of generalisation. I guess the appropriate regulations, etc, need to be consulted. Rather than a cosmetic issue, there was real point to this.

Cheers

Peter

[CSMMo]

Well. I believe I've found a photo where they are wearing bandoliers while firing a combat mission. This in 1917 in Salonika. The 2.75 in. Mountain Gun is in recoil. Several men appear to be wearing their bandoliers as well as helmets - something I have rarely seen, but was evident later in the war when their mission was close-in to the combat activity. This is, as marked, an IWM photo.

Mike Morrison

p.s. This is a good example of an fascinating discussion starting with a simple question and yielding detailed information about how things were done. Great history. MMM

[ororkep]

Reference Rifles/ Bandoliers/ webbing last qtr 1916 How Handbook (there is a similar page for the ASC in same handbook)

Rgds Paul

[Rockdoc]

.....although they would be wound from knee to foot in mounted troops.

Here's another chance for me to display my ignorance!

1. Are puttees used to protect the gap between the boot and bottom of the trouser-leg - a sort of glorified bicycle clip?
2. What difference would it make which way they were wound?

It certainly looks as if Paul's confirmed Centurion's suggestion about when bandoliers were issued and Mike's photo shows that bandoliers were sometimes worn in action. I wonder whether their use on the Salonika Front was in response to a perceived greater risk of the Bulgarians reaching the gun emplacements than in other theatres?

Keith

[centurion]

I wonder whether their use on the Salonika Front was in response to a perceived greater risk of the Bulgarians reaching the gun emplacements than in other theatres?

Mountain artillery tended to be much less dependent on attendant vehicles (even limbers) than the ordinary field artillery so there would be less ability to keep the rifle ammo handy in a nearby wagon. It also tended to have to shoot and scoot sometimes. Given its shorter range I would guess it was also in greater danger of retaliation by the enemy infantry (or even cavalry)

[Rockdoc]

It also tended to have to shoot and scoot sometimes.

What a picture that evokes and also gives a sense of the clenched buttocks they must have had at times when the enemy was all too close for comfort. A great choice of words!

Keith