Bandoliers

[PhilB]

Would advancing infantry be any better disposed to artillerymen they overran than they would to machine gunners?

[Rockdoc]

Good question. From what I've read, I suspect the treatment of surrendering soldiers depended on when they threw down their arms. Firing a MG until the advancing troops are feet away before putting your hands up probably meant you'd get killed and I'm sure the same would apply to gun crews who kept firing shrapnel into the oncoming mass up to the last minute.

Keith

[Peter Doyle]

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?

Puttees were a military fashion developed in the nineteenth century that went out of favour with most armies (notably excepting the Japanese and a few other nations) prior to WW2. There are lost of ways of arguing their use, providing support and protection to the lower leg is one, but it could just as well be for a matter of neatness. Others may have views on this. With regard to how they were wound, dismounted troops wore puttees wound from the ankle to just below the knee, the tapes tied at this point; mounted troops had them wound from the knee to the ankle, the tapes tied there. Whether this is an affectation, or had a practical value, others would have to argue.

With regard to bandoliers, they were worn in action in other theatres, surely, and there are plenty of illustrations to demonstrate this - none, I have, of course, to demonstrate this. The list of clothing and necessaries given by another member demonstrates the point, and for the RGA, by the way.

Peter

[findabetterole]

Peter.. here are a couple of pics of the bandolier being worn in action by the guncrew.

Seph

[centurion]

I'm not convinced that those are bandoliers - the strap is too thin. A front view is needed. Looking at a number of photos artillerymen kept their gas masks handy when in action (there are certainy some instances of a stake near the gun were gas mask haversacks could be hung). These could be gas mask havrsacks.

[findabetterole]

And now... in training

Seph

[grantsmil]

I'm not convinced that those are bandoliers - the strap is too thin. A front view is needed. Looking at a number of photos artillerymen kept their gas masks handy when in action (there are certainy some instances of a stake near the gun were gas mask haversacks could be hung). These could be gas mask havrsacks.

They are bandoliers - the straps are correct. They show the correct 'shaping' (wide at the shoulder and narrow at the waist), the tongued adjusting buckle is also present, these are not features of the gas mask haversack strap.

[reese williams]

I think Mr. Doyle hit close to the mark in post #45. I would also offer up that the P-08 webbing was in short supply, priority for issue went to the infantry. There were tons of P-03 gear still left in the system. Since artillery, transport drivers , supply troops etc are not going to be at the very point of the spear like the PBI will, it makes sense to have them make due with the older pattern until enough of the new stuff can be produced to supply the front-line troops. In this case I also suspect that since P-08 production never really got up to the point of being able to equip everyone, somewhere along the line, probably post war, somebody said "The P-03 stuff works really well for the people who are still using it, leave well enough alone." I know the P-03 bandoleer was produced well into WWII, though I understand it was mostly for Home Guard use.

Keith,

In regards to putees. If you are mounted and tie the puttee at the knee, the action of your knee rubbing the saddle tends to undo the puttee. If you tie it at the ankle the tie does not rub against anything and it stays tied.

[findabetterole]

Salisbury Plain.. 1916.. training exercise. The bandoliers are clearly seen and recognisable.

Seph

[Rockdoc]

Brilliant stuff, gents! As Mike Morrison wrote yesterday in Post 46, a simple query about bandoliers has produced a truly fascinating thread that will be of real use to other users.

Makes a chap sort of proud!

Keith

[findabetterole]

Not finished yet Keith.

Heres a pic entitled: 'Even horses require protection against gas!', and its listed as being in France in 1917. I think this might actually be ASC.. due to the height of the far driver, the design of the seating, and the fact that its only a two horse team

The sgt seated on the horse at left, does however, have an emblem between the horns of his chevrons on the right arm. Can't quite make out what it is though!

Note also.. all three men are wearing bandoliers.

Seph

[David B]

Hi

further to my fascious post about bandoliers, the Wiki statement on bandoliers says that they were used to keep the

weight off the hips when riding and of course easy access to the ammo. What say ?

David

[Rockdoc]

That certainly seems plausible. With the movement of riding a horse, anything on the body will bounce, however slightly, and there's not much meat on a hip to cushion the impact. I'd imagine riding for any length of time with a few pounds of ammo hitting your hips and thighs would raise a good bruise or two. With the poor suspension of wagons and lorries of the time I'd imagine that their drivers could get similar bruising moving over rough ground. Don't let's forget that many roads were still only macadamised - stone pounded into place by traffic - rather than tarmacadam as we think of for road surfaces today. They'd chew up quickly under heavy traffic.

Keith

[PhilB]

However, gents, if freedom of movement when in action is their raison d`etre, why not leave the bandoliers with the rifles? In fact, why wear them anywhere where you don`t carry your rifle? And why always in the photographer`s studio?

[Rockdoc]

The only explanation any of us seems to be able to come up with is that the bandolier was classed as part of the uniform and to be seen without it was to be improperly dressed. Perhaps webbing packs were seen as equipment? I guess we need to find the appropriate Regulation.

Keith

[Muerrisch]

Surprised that nobody has yet pointed out another essential use of rifle: the sad necessity of shooting disabled horses. A pistol was not reliably deadly in this context, I believe.

[Rockdoc]

And the pistol has the distinct disadvantage of the man on the other end having to get very close to a horse in severe pain and distress that could be thrashing about.

Keith

[valentinegt]

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.

Keith

Sorry Keith but my late father, RHA 1931-1938, told me that you ride the nearside (left) horse and control the other with a rein in your left hand and a whip in your right.

[Rockdoc]

My mistake! I would have sworn it was the other way around yet the photo in Post 59 shows it as you describe.

Keith

[reese williams]

Grumpy,

A pistol, especially a .455 would be more than adequate to euthanize a horse. Keith makes a point, though, that if the horse were thrashing about you wouldn't want to get close. Sometimes I think we very much over analyze these situations. Given that most of the men who worked with the horses daily, such as the drivers, formed an attachment to many of their charges. When the need arose to put a horse down they would use whatever firearm they could lay hold of fastest and easiest. I've had to put down horses that I was very fond of. Once you've made the decision that it has to be done, you want it done as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Over on the militaryhorse.org forum there was a fairly long thread about putting a horse down with a firearm. It might be of interest if you're curious about the process.

[Rockdoc]

I wouldn't be surprised if the handlers developed a close relationship with their charges and, possibly, an even stronger bond than they had for their fellow servicemen. I think you would have to keep a degree of emotional distance from the men you served with because you were going to lose a lot of them as sure as eggs is eggs. I don't think you could be a successful handler without an attachment of some sort.

Keith <just musing/rambling>

[PhilB]

I got the impression from the military horse forum that cavalry were still using the farrier`s axe in WW1 to put horses down. Was the gun a more usual method for them and did the artillery employ a farrier`s axe?

[truthergw]

I had the great good fortune to spend my first two working years as a vanboy, alongside a veteran of WW1. He had a lifetime of driving horses behind him and had served as a driver with The Scottish Horse. I can assure you that there was little or no emotional attachment to the horses in the teams he drove. Common sense alone would strongly suggest that to allow oneself to get emotionally attached to a draught animal would be very foolish. In time of peace they were driven as hard as they could be until their strength failed then sold for horsemeat or to the knacker for hides and glue. In time of war, where whole teams could be obliterated by a shell, it would be putting an unnecessary strain on oneself to get attached. The notion that one would get attached to a horse or horses but keep one's distance from your mates is preposterous and shows a complete lack of understanding of the bond of mutual trust that evolves between a team of men in stressful conditions. My pal, Jeck, carried a very sharp knife for cutting the traces of a fallen animal and shot them, he never mentioned ' euthanizing' , with a rifle. As mentioned above, a horse which has been eviscerated by a shell fragment needs to be isolated and killed quickly before it can injure a man or another beast. That meant standing as close as one could safely get and shooting them as many times as necessary. At Passchendaele, many horses and mules were lost in mud holes. The trick was to cut the traces quickly before the whole team or the gun were bogged. A rifle was then employed to put the beast out of its misery.

[wainfleet]

A very interesting post Tom, thank you for sharing that insight into the thinking of the time.

To return to the question of the bandolier equipment: it was not a matter of getting at rounds while on a horse, wearing a pack, etc. The 1903 bandolier equipment had been introduced for all arms after the Boer War, but shortcomings became apparent and it was replaced for the infantry and some others such as dismounted REs by the 1908 web equipment. However it was presumably thought too expensive to reequip the whole army. The lightly-armed cavalry, artillery and ASC went on using the bandolier equipment.

[Rockdoc]

Tom is quite wrong in suggesting that I have no concept of the tight bonds that can develop between workmates. I come from a mining background and such bonds are commonplace to the point that, if there is an accident, miners from the same colliery are not allowed to assist in the rescue operation for fear that they will expose themselves to excessive danger in attempting to rescue their colleagues. I did not say that soldiers did not become close but that I believe that the bonds were possibly - and subconsciously - less close than in civilian situations because of the constant risk of death. People could not function under such circumstances if they went to pieces every time someone was hit.

It can be argued that horses were more important in the Army than they were in civilian situations. Army horses required training beyond the simple tasks of hauling to be any use under fire. I'm quite sure that they would have to be looked after as well as practically possible even at the front because getting another wasn't just a short trip to the local market. I don't doubt that horses were worked very hard if not over-hard in the war and in peacetime but I don't think that it's automatically comparable.

Could men be dispassionate about the horses? Of course. My Grandfather told of a notice that came round, following an outbreak of disease in the horse lines that killed without warning. Any horse that died without an obvious cause had to be taken to the vets for a post-mortem. One of the Battery's horses died overnight and he and another were immediately sent with the horse on a GS wagon to the rear, missing breakfast. They arrived at the vet's and were told to wait - so they missed anything going at mid-day. When the post-mortem was complete the horse was diagnosed as having been kicked by a neighbour and that had burst its bladder. "Take it back and bury it" they were told.

By the time they got back it was late afternoon and they were starving. My Grandfather had the idea of tipping the cook sixpence to butcher the horse and cook some of the meat. The smell of fresh meat wafted down the line and other soldiers came to find out what was they were eating."Give the cook sixpence and he'll give you some". The cook did well and the men had a good feed - until someone asked:

"Where did you get the meat, Bert?"

"It's that horse we took to the vet's this morning"

He would laugh loud and long, adding that only he and his mate kept it down.

Wainfleet,

The decision on which units kept bandoliers may well have started as one of expediency but Post 47 shows that webbing could be issued to Artillerymen if they might be required to wear haversacks. That suggests there were enough to go round, if necessary, later in the War and that bandoliers were used where haversacks were not required.

Keith