British Uniforms & Equipment of The Great War 1914-18

[Grovetown]

I wonder which edition of E&L is referred to?

Dunno: it says 1984 as the date, but I got it from you in 2005.

Best wishes,

GT.

[Grovetown]

Part II: Content

Once again, John Bodsworth is to be congratulated for a plainly Stakhanovite effort in collating a welter of disparate information into one single volume. As the biased Armourer review states, much of the information has been available in a variety of guises – internet, magazines and other books – but no-one before has tried to bring together such massive detail, and complexity. Well done him!

It is indeed a most worthwhile addition to any serious collector's or student of the subject's bookshelf; even though they may wince at the price – we have all no doubt done so at similarly priced fare – or worry whether it may last the course of repeated inspection.

It is unlikely to appeal to the generalist or casual reader, given the incredible detail contained within. Of course, it would readily serve to inform all those occasional posters here wondering what this chevron here, or that hat there, signifies; but – inevitably – they are unlikely to trouble themselves with such a specialist, albeit useful, item.

And so, realistically, we must conclude that this is a book for the cognoscenti – the "fundamentalists", as the publisher prefers – and this is where, and why, its vices and virtues will be revealed.

While – at my first reading – there are errors (and I'm not going to even to attempt to explore Grumpy's area of specialism), they don't as yet seem in any way so numerous as to invalidate it as a whole.

Most of my concerns, such as they are, revolve around a few confusing elements, some important omissions and, overall, the balance of it – in terms of what areas are minutely inspected, and those barely touched.

And to the meat...

We start with badges and insignia. The author, justifiably, refers us to more specialist books on the subjects and gives a fair overview. In respect of collar badges on ORs SD, he is of the majority opinion – as until recently, most of us were – that these were only worn by cavalry, MMG and similar units. This has transpired to have a mythic element; as a recent thread on the forum has produced dozens of examples to the surprising contrary. As his thinking was prevailing until then, he cannot be held at fault and no doubt any subsequent edition will address this.

Shoulder titles is generally fine, although it is disappointing that he refers to slip-ons making their appearance in June 1916. They are a 1915 item, and doesn't refer to the two patterns – painted and embroidered – the latter being a June 1916 introduction. The order demanding that they be worn at the top of the shoulder is reproduced, but is dismissed as being "largely ignored". Sadly, there are plentiful examples of period images – and artefacts held by collectors – showing that they were indeed often worn as per the order.

This brings us to one of the wider omissions. Pattern numbers and dates – important and widely available information – are almost never used. For many, it is perhaps a detail too far – but, in important areas, like collecting slip-ons, SD, caps and so – it is essential knowledge to help date the introduction or obsolescence of artefacts.

We shall leave brassards to Grumpy, and there is useful – for 'non-fundamentalists' – coverage of the SWB, Imperial Service Badge, Wound Stripe and OS Chevrons. Battle patches, unsurprisingly, are only touched upon in brief and in general. It is, as fundamentalists will know, a vast and largely unmapped minefield, on which no complete authority exists. That said, the bibliography surprisingly includes Wheeler-Holohan's weak 1920 tract; but does credit Waring's Military Heraldry Society one – the best, if variable, work on the subject.

The development of SD is as might be expected, but slightly glosses the pattern changes; and doesn't address the important 1906 deletion of the ID card pocket, which ultimately gives us the SD Jacket the BEF went to war in.

The introduction of the Simplified is confusingly, to this reader, handled, although he does interestingly provenance the term "emergency or modified, drab" in respect of this jacket, which is a new one on me. He does not address the introduction of the Simplified Trouser at all.

More concerningly, from the collector's perspective, the introduction of the modified '1907' (or 06 or 08, as some prefer) pattern in 1915 is not dealt with. Obviously, these are identical externally; but differ in the interior and – as only the interior and linings of the 1915 pattern is illustrated – one would be none the wiser if encountering the earlier jacket.

The section on orders regarding unauthorized modifications is interesting; as is the great detail on the 'patch pocket' for gas helmets. This is completely new information for me, never having encountered a single example of this on any surviving SD, nor seen it illustrated anywhere before. Perhaps – like the slip-on order – it was "largely ignored".

Rank etc: over to Grumpy.

Post-war SD is sketchy, not referring to the 1921 introduction at all. While a fully-lined late SD is shown, not mentioning the infamous '22 ptn' – so often marketed as WW1 – is an oversight.

Trousers are reasonably dealt with – although the Simplified is not mentioned – yet I am worried about it. For instance, it is stated that the brace button arrangement for the SD Trouser was changed from six singles to 12 (six pairs) in 1916. I'm sure I've seen material from Joe Sweeney saying that 12 was actually the norm, reducing to six in 1918.

We then start to encounter difficulties with balance. Kilts are given a hearty 10pp (I haven't read for error), while shirts – of which there were nine types in 1915 – and woollens get two.

Officers' SD is very comprehensively managed, although – as alluded in the earlier post – it also distorts the balance of the book, and would have made a worthy volume in its own right.

More asymmetry issues in headgear. The Gor Blimey warrants a mere 14 lines – only one illustration of one in wear, none of a surviving example – while Glens, Balmorals and Tams get twelve pages... The Simplified Glengarries of 1914 are also not mentioned, which could be confusing to the uninformed holder of a solid coloured type.

Boot patterns – of which there were half-a-dozen – get very cursory treatment, and no survivors are shown. While we get a lot of detail about care and fitting, there is little on manufactured types – black, brown, chrome, eyelet numbers etc – which have often formed the basis of enquiries on the forum. And then we get TWELVE PAGES on PUTTEES, and FOUR on LEGGINGS...

Running out of steam here, so more later...save just two more quick observations.

No mention of the Mackintosh cape – surely one of the most iconic items of wartime garb – between the MKV groundsheet and the MKVII groundsheet cape. Unless this is the Cape, Oil Dressed briefly referred to, this is a serious oversight.

And the Jerkin – page 279 – is referred to as having, and illustrated accordingly, four composite buttons. Well: just need to look on the recent thread about that.

As I say, more when I get the chance.

While – to the publisher – this all might seem nitpicking by a "fundamentalist"; this is still a good and worthwhile book.

Buy it. It is worth having (assuming the repro issues have been addressed. I would have been aggrieved at 60 quid for that I hold): just don't treat it as a bible, nor the definitive work.

The errors that may be in the book are in no way life threatening to the user!

Indeed not, but might feel like it if you end up spending 1200 quid on a dodgy Gor Blimey, having relied on it.

Best wishes,

GT.

[Joe Sweeney]

Wow--interesting thread. I just got back from deployment to find perminent change of station orders awaiting--so my time home this year will be verify limited.

However, the nicest surprise was John's book.

I've only skimmed though it as yet but am very pleased. I only wish it were hard back--because I will have it apart from repeated use in no time.

It is very well researched and can not fault it at all. I especially loved the photos of sealed patterns and the Khaki drab kilt (I covet that). I guess one fault would be MORE PHOTOS!!!

The nicest surprise was the photo of the sealed pattern Mounted Great Coat--It is single breasted and I actually own an example and never knew it--oh darn.

The Scottish section is without equal (in English :-)) and impeccable.

I have delved into records John does not cite and do have some issues with the minutia such as trousers made of tartan vice serge (big deal except the most insane of us) and his conculsion of that the sealed pattern 9739 was introduced to save wool, in fact it only changed the manufacturing instructions to all machine sewing being acceptable.

My biggest grip is I wish he had posted an email address so I could contact him, a lot of my research supplements his and vice versa.

I would definately recommend the book as it is the best single source out there.

I applaud the publisher for taking a chance with this type of book-I once approached a Canadian publisher with a canadiate book and some of you have seen drafts of this heavily footnoted work. I was told it would not be practical for a small publisher to take a risk with a book that was too detailed and thus narrowing down the potential sales. Since then I've farmed out very much condensed sections to Militaira Magazine and only in French.

Joe Sweeney

[Joe Sweeney]

Part II: Content

The introduction of the Simplified is confusingly, to this reader, handled, although he does interestingly provenance the term "emergency or modified, drab" in respect of this jacket, which is a new one on me. He does not address the introduction of the Simplified Trouser at all.

The section on orders regarding unauthorized modifications is interesting; as is the great detail on the 'patch pocket' for gas helmets. This is completely new information for me, never having encountered a single example of this on any surviving SD, nor seen it illustrated anywhere before. Perhaps – like the slip-on order – it was "largely ignored".

Trousers are reasonably dealt with – although the Simplified is not mentioned – yet I am worried about it. For instance, it is stated that the brace button arrangement for the SD Trouser was changed from six singles to 12 (six pairs) in 1916. I'm sure I've seen material from Joe Sweeney saying that 12 was actually the norm, reducing to six in 1918.

GT,

I agree with your assessment.

I actually believe the "Emergency--" is actually referring to a series of emergency uniform items pattern sealed and not the simplified patterns.

I have never encountered the patch pocket on an original jacket, yet the orders exist and I published the same diagram in Militaria several years ago when I published an article on Gas Helmets. I think TM actually may have said he had seen a jacket so configured.

As for the SD trousers I had thought what you said was correct in regards to me and I wrote an article for the website 'before 1919" with wrong information in the mid 1990s. A single button arrangement was the norm up until Pattern 8408/1915, 5/6/15 "Trousers, Tartan, Drab-Mixture"--Double buttons on waistband for braces introduced. So John's statement on dates is incorrect.

Joe Sweeney

[tocemma]

Hi Joe,

There is an example of this jacket in a well known UK collection. I saw this some years ago, probably the early 90s and I know the collector concerned still has it. I will try to get a photo.

The RE signaller in the attached image has one of these pockets, note the bulky right side of his jacket and the bachelor buttons pinned through the skirt. I can't imagine this was an especially good idea so its easy to see why the take up/survival rate of these pockets is so rare.

That they were done to a limited extent is beyond question.

Re the subject of this thread. I have now received a second printing of John Bodsworth's book. Having used up my quota of contentious and or libellous posts last week, I am saving up for a new post on this book. Seems my comments both supportive and critical were deleted. I would applaud GTs posts which have been to the point and expanded on my somewhat blunter approach.

More to follow.

Tocemma

[tocemma]

Joe,

PS looks like he has a cut down Gor Blimey too.

TM

[Muerrisch]

Dunno: it says 1984 as the date, but I got it from you in 2005.

Best wishes,

GT.

The reprints are distinguished by an Editor's note bemoaning the deterioration in photo quality, which is noticeable I fear.

[Muerrisch]

I wondered where Joe had got to!

Could I please leave comment on the brassards/ armlets section to Joe, to whose knowledge I defer.

I am working up a head of steam on RANK as you may imagine.

[Joe Sweeney]

TM,

Love to see photos of the original and yes I think a cut down down WSD too. Thanks.

Grumpy, Still plodding through the book--I think what you've done on brassards is far more comprehensive.

Joe Sweeney

[Andrew Hesketh]

Fabulous contributors. Fabulous contributions. Amazing knowledge. This thread cannot be criticised in any way.

So I'm probably alone in finding it the most demoralising thread I've ever read on this forum.

Just my opinion of course.

[wainfleet]

TM

That is an interesting photo in post 55. Obviously RE because of the badge, but what shoulder title is he wearing? Any idea?

W.

[tocemma]

Looks like Signal Service

Tocemma

[Muerrisch]

Well. people, I have spent the weekend wondering how to deal with the Rank [and Appointment] section.

I am reminded of the "Irish" joke which has a lost stranger asking the way. "Well, if I was you, I'd start from somewhere different!"

There is so much wrong that the sheer mechanics and tedium of correcting it is too daunting for me. One glance at the bibliography confirms the absurd mish-mash of sources used, some of them unofficial and very wrong.

There should only be these sources needed:

KR as amended

Pay Warrant as amended [not strictly necessary but provides collateral]

AOs and the occasional ACI.

Clothing Regs.

Major NP Dawnay's 'rank' special for the JSAHR, which is almost without sin and a marvellous blow-by-blow account from early days to post-1945.

The precise fine detail of a badge varied from time to time and place to place, sometimes for exigencies of the service, sometimes economy, so Sealed Patterns and illustrations are not central: three chevrons are three chevrons however you look at them.

I will try to provide 'Grumpy's Guide to the principal ranks, appointments and the badges associated' off Forum, and make it available by e-mail via PM. I am tied up with imminent family celebrations so doubt if the job will be tackled within a fortnight.

I recommend that the section of the book be treated with the largest pinch of salt imaginable, and refuse to attempt to correct it.

[Roger H]

So I'm probably alone in finding it the most demoralising thread I've ever read on this forum.

/quote]

You have company

Roger

[Muerrisch]

I think the 'demoralizing' critics would have "tempered the wind to a shorn lamb" if claims like the following had not been made for the book:

Whatever titles on uniforms that the reader already has on his bookshelf are effectively redundant. In over 400 pages, this title describes more than the sum total of all titles yet seen".

Unless there is a conspiracy going on, the reviewer's statement is exposed as hyperbole, and the publisher's use of it as naive.

Rather than be demoralized, rejoice that the Forum has sufficient in-house knowledge and motivation to attempt to address the shortcomings. Note also that many members have found much to admire in the book [not its price, and not its binding]. None of us do this for money.

[davidflies]

I think the 'demoralizing' critics would have "tempered the wind to a shorn lamb" if claims like the following had not been made for the book:

Whatever titles on uniforms that the reader already has on his bookshelf are effectively redundant. In over 400 pages, this title describes more than the sum total of all titles yet seen".

Unless there is a conspiracy going on, the reviewer's statement is exposed as hyperbole, and the publisher's use of it as naive.

Rather than be demoralized, rejoice that the Forum has sufficient in-house knowledge and motivation to attempt to address the shortcomings. Note also that many members have found much to admire in the book [not its price, and not its binding]. None of us do this for money.

Naive perhaps, but innocent of any conspiracy - or have you something to add?

[Peter Doyle]

I would recommend that the loudest critics perhaps write their own volumes on the subject for public inspection/dissection. John's work represents one man's honest attempt at describing what he feels to be the most interesting aspects of a broad subject. And this obsession with the sales pitch carried on the reverse of the book is puzzling; surely we all live in the real world, don't we?

One of the most respected of all correspondents to this forum, the man whose knowledge many defer to (Joe), has not uttered a negative comment. Surely we should congratulate John in this spirit, and those who are unhappy should crack on with their own definitive tomes. In other words, can we not give the guy a break?

Peter

[davidflies]

I would recommend that the loudest critics perhaps write their own volumes on the subject for public inspection/dissection. John's work represents one man's honest attempt at describing what he feels to be the most interesting aspects of a broad subject. And this obsession with the sales pitch carried on the reverse of the book is puzzling; surely we all live in the real world, don't we?

And I will be looking forward to receiving your submissions if no-one else will publish.

[Muerrisch]

Please see Edwards and Langley British Army Proficiency Badges 1984, 2005 reprint, ISBN 0 9509427.0.7.

Plus the reissued Frank Richards's Old Soldiers Never Die and Old Soldier Sahib.

Also Blast of War [Nottingham Bantams]

and Duty Done, 2nd RWF in the Great War..

Plus many articles for ST! and MHS, only one of which attracted adverse comment, which found that one boring.

None of which were perfect, none of which claimed to be definitive, and many of which are widely quoted.

'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone'.

Indeed.

Peccavi.

As to Grumpy's Guide, I will write it and post a notice here in due course, but it will be only available to those who want to know via PM/ e-mail and not put in the public arena, out of respect to sensibilities. This will 'give the guy a break'

And that, you will be pleased to know, is my last word on the subject.

[Chris P]

I've read this thread from start to finish, whilst eagerly awaiting my own copy. I feel that as this thread is a book review, then any & all sensible & reasonable comments by readers of the book are valid.

I echo GT, whereas a paying customer, my interest is in the finished product, & not how, why, or by whom or what method it came to be. Constructive criticism is not a witchhunt - It will stand or fall by its quality & content, & the members of this forum are uniquely placed to judge that.

My own copy having arrived, I now feel qualified to join in.

Production quality - One of the poorest £60 plus books in my library. I'm being generous. No excuses here - other publishers do it better with equal works at the same price. I don't know if I have a good or bad copy, but I don't believe a change in the print quality will make a marked difference to my opinion.

Content - Sadly, it does not, in my opinion live up to the review, & for every useful bit of information, it seems that some is missing. Unbalanced in content, it could have been better served in at least two volumes. There is some very good detail in some areas, but then some glaring omissions. I'll leave it to others to point out the mistakes. It isn't a bible - for that, you need to quote chapter & verse. I won't use it as much as I hoped I would. On a positive note, it will undoubtedly sell to many collectors, & is the best single work of it's kind out there. There are many who won't have access to the depth of knowledge available here, or their own comprehensive library, who will appreciate it for what it is. For those it may well be the best £60 odd they ever spent.

It's all very well saying 'If you can do better, do it yourself'. That's not the point. If my mechanic said that when he serviced my car, he wouldn't do it any more. And I wouldn't pay him.

Of course it's a good effort, but I know what information & research is available - not least here on the GWF - & with some additional input it could have been what it should have been. I guess I'm just disappointed mainly for that reason, it seems like a good opportunity missed.

Chris P.

[Peter Doyle]

It's all very well saying 'If you can do better, do it yourself'.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm pointing out that it's a very easy proposition to stand back and criticise; a lot harder to sit down and actually write a book of the scale of the one presented. I'm actually saying "Before you criticise, could you do any better yourself?". All books will represent the personal bias of the writer, and I'm not sure that John himself has made the claims ascribed to the reviewer.

My case, I suppose, lies with the fact that I feel somewhat for John (someone I neither know or have met - nor for that matter had ever heard of before this point), and that I would like to see the second volume of the series appear - I hope that he is still writing it!

Peter

[Chris P]

I'm not saying that at all. I'm pointing out that it's a very easy proposition to stand back and criticise; a lot harder to sit down and actually write a book of the scale of the one presented. I'm actually saying "Before you criticise, could you do any better yourself?". All books will represent the personal bias of the writer, and I'm not sure that John himself has made the claims ascribed to the reviewer.

My case, I suppose, lies with the fact that I feel somewhat for John (someone I neither know or have met - nor for that matter had ever heard of before this point), and that I would like to see the second volume of the series appear - I hope that he is still writing it!

Peter

I don't disagree at all. A valiant effort by John, which deserves to do well. And will, with a certain market. However, I'm afraid Peter, the review did no favours. being impossible to live up to. Had it been the other way around, a bad review, we would all be defending the book by now, & it's good points!

A good review is, by default, good advertising - that's why it's on the cover. One cannot escape that. Ergo, the fallout when it ain't what is says on the can...

I for one could not have done better. But I have enough books to know this is not the best quality, & know enough about the subject matter to tell me this doesn't fill the gaps the hype says it will.

I hope my views will be seen as a critique, & not criticism per se. As a keen collector & student - exactly who the book is aimed at - I would have liked for nothing more than it living up to our expectations.

Chris P.

[Wardog]

Has anyone got the CD version? I'm torn between the book or the CD. Has anyone seen both? Regards, Paul.

[Wardog]

No one able to give comment on the CD? Regards, Paul.

[MrEd]

Thread ressurection - does anyone have this as a digital download and if so what’s the quality like - I.e are the images zoomable etc?

 

how’s the digital formatting, is it okay to read?