Empire Troops equipment

[Iain]

A question ? did the countries of the empire and dominions use the exact same webbing and uniforms as their British Counterpart?, I know that basic infantry weapons ( Lee enfield rifles,etc) were humogenous, but waht about the webbing, artillery ,cooking stoves, transport etc?

[Moonraker]

The First Canadian Contingent was hastily recruited and fitted out with Canadian equipment before coming to Salisbury Plain in mid-October 1914. Nearly every item of kit had to be replaced before it left for active service in February 1915. Just about the only exception was the British-made artillery.

Particularly contentious was the quality of the boots, which quickly disintegrated, and the Canadian Ross rifle - excellent for target-shooting on the ranges but prone to jamming in battlefield conditions. There was a variety of North American vehicles (both motorised and horse-drawn), which took a hammering on Salisbury Plain, with spare parts being the other side of the Atlantic.

The British authorities were also keen for compatibility of equipment, though there have been suggestions that one ulterior motive in replacing kit was more business for British manufacturers (who had more than enough work equipping the Kitchener armies). There were some very heated arguments about the replacements between the two Governments, with Sam Hughes, Canada's arrogant and idiosyncratic Minister of Militia, refusing to accept that anything was wrong with the original equipment, much of which he had commissioned.

See here for more.

Moonraker

[Crunchy]

To the best on my knowledge, and going by photographs of the day, the AIF used British webbing, weapons etc. The SMLE were made in Australia but not sure about the webbing.

Two exceptions I know of - the Australian uniform was quite distinctive and the water carts were locally designed and made - by Furphy.

[green_acorn]

Iain,

The 1st AIF were intially equipped with a mixture of Pattern '08 web equipment ('08 indicating it was accepted in 1908 as the offical design) produced by the Mills Equipment Company which was meant to be the common British Empire webbing. However due to cotton shortages, the overwhelming Empire demand and priority elsewhere, as well as the lack of (non-existent) Australian production capability many left with an Australian copy of the webbing in leather, the Pattern '08/15 ('08/15 indicating it was a copy of the 08 pattern made to local requirements in 1915). Leather not being as durable as the cotton webbing meant that P'08/15 webbing didn't last long in the field, particularly once they got to Europe.

In general military designed equipment was made to a common British pattern, it enable faster and larger production runs and reduced training and logistic needs.

Cheers,

Hendo

[moggs]

Two exceptions I know of - the Australian uniform was quite distinctive and the water carts were locally designed and made - by Furphy.

That's just a rumour!

[Crunchy]

That's just a rumour!

Touche!

[Andrew Upton]

...The 1st AIF were intially equipped with a mixture of Pattern '08 web equipment ('08 indicating it was accepted in 1908 as the offical design) produced by the Mills Equipment Company which was meant to be the common British Empire webbing. However due to cotton shortages, the overwhelming Empire demand and priority elsewhere, as well as the lack of (non-existent) Australian production capability many left with an Australian copy of the webbing in leather, the Pattern '08/15 ('08/15 indicating it was a copy of the 08 pattern made to local requirements in 1915). Leather not being as durable as the cotton webbing meant that P'08/15 webbing didn't last long in the field, particularly once they got to Europe.

Do you have a reference for the "cotton shortages"? The only grounds I have ever seen for the shortage of webbing equipment necessitating a leather substitute was the fact that only two firms could produce it (Mills and Wright & Sons), whereas many smaller industries could easily produce the necessary leather equipment. And that when Mills had sufficiently expanded to meet war-time commitments the immediate requirement for leather equipment instead then began to drop away:

http://www.karkeeweb.com/patterns/1914/1914_introduction.html

[Iain]

I suppose that it made sense to have as much of the equipment and arms to be of the same standard and specification , helping with re-equiping units, etc being as it would take several months for new and replacements reaching the various nationalities.

I know The American General Clarke during WW2 bemoaned the fact that (during the Italy Campaign) Kesselring did not need to worry abot ammunition for weapons as his troops were equipped with same calibre weapons etc, whereas Clark had to contend with different munitions for different nationalities as well as (in the case of French Colonial and British Empire and dominion troops) dietrary considerations.

[green_acorn]

Do you have a reference for the "cotton shortages"? The only grounds I have ever seen for the shortage of webbing equipment necessitating a leather substitute was the fact that only two firms could produce it (Mills and Wright & Sons), whereas many smaller industries could easily produce the necessary leather equipment. And that when Mills had sufficiently expanded to meet war-time commitments the immediate requirement for leather equipment instead then began to drop away:

http://www.karkeeweb...troduction.html

Andrew,

Sorry no I don't have the reference at hand for the Australian cotton shortage. But nor did Australia have a strong cotton milling industry in 1914/15 and the Commonwealth Government had had to create the Commonwealth Government Clothing Factory in 1912 to overcome the lack of commercial capability and meet Army's (Militia) needs. From memory I don't even know if we grew cotton back then, at that time not having indentured labour like the US or India or the irrigated land, I doubt we grew it, though it is a big business now.

I would suggest just like the British firms the Commonwealth Government Clothing Factory could not have met the demand for the 1st AIF in the time frame required and that was the cause of the shortage. The CGCF is now ADA http://ada.com.au/company-history.php#/history/

Cheers,

Hendo

[42ndRHC]

Hello Iain,

The Canadian Corp used a lot of British supplied uniforms and equipment but there are many exceptions. I went through the Canadian Corp and Canadian Third Division ordnance diaries few years ago and picked out quite a few interesting items.

Canadian Corp Ordnance Diary:

04/12/1916 – Regarding the proposal made by Canadian Authorities to send Canadian pattern ankle boots to France for trial at the front, the position now is - 1. On receipt of the letter written by Gen. Carson to Gen. Alderson I wrote at Gen. Woods request to instruct Ashford to send over 2000 for each division to be issued on arrival to a Battn of Inf and a Divl. Train Co. in each Division 2. Day before yesterday D.D.O.S. sent me copy of letter from D.E.O.S. in which he proposed that only 2000 pairs shld be sent over for the whole Corps & asking if Corps Commander agrees 3. On submission to Corp Commdr. he agreed & said I was to arrange for only 1 Co’s per Division to be fitted with these boots on their arrival. 4. I therefore wrote to Division & explained accordingly. 5. Today however letter received form D.D.O.S. saying that by mistake 6000 pairs sent across to France instead of 2000 & D.O.O.’s of 1^st & 2^nd Divisions report them in receipt of 2000 each. 6. I therefore have wired each D.O.O. to the effect that the 1^st instructions were to be carried out, explained reason; Also they must report me how it is proposed to dispose of the Service Ankle boots withdrawn.

Acc to D.D.O.S. the following Trench Steel Helmets have been issued to D.O.O. 2^nd Can. Div. 7527 from Base, 2500 from Australians & 1500 from 3^rd Div – Total 11527. My records which are kept form D.O.O.’s reports of receipt of consignments only show 7504 D.O.O. 2^nd Can. Division says he has only received 9667 from Base. Discrepancy being enquired into.

12/15/1919-12/16/1916- Reinforcements arriving with Canadian Pattern boots & request received from 2^nd Canadian Division to demand Service pattern boots in large no’s. to replace them & at same time to retain the former for use while at rest.

08/28-1916-08/29/1916 - It having been decided by Q.M.G. to re-arm 4^th Can. Div with Short L.E. rifles notification received on 27^th inst. That D.O.S. has ordered up 5000 from base to start the re-arming with. On 29^th this first consignment arrived & it was found that the S.L.E. bayonet would not fit into the Oliver Equipt. Frog. Instructed D.A.D.O.S. & asked for instructions. The question of the re-equipping of 4^th Cdn.. Div. with web equipment is still under consideration. Sent Larkin on 29^th to 4^th Can. Div. to help the ordnance staff there, to take charge, instruct and put things straight. 4^th Can. Div. devised a means with wire to adapt the S.L.E. bayonet for use with Oliver Equipment Frog - & rearming proceeded.

NOTE: The 4th Division is still using the Canadian pattern Oliver equipment well into 1916. Issues of Ross Rifles continue as "back" up rifles within some battalions:

09/24/1916-09/27/1916 – Salvage Co’s to hang on to all salv’d Web Equipment for issue to 4^th Canadian Division.

01/01/1917-01/07/1917 - 4^th Can. Div. still requires 359 sets web equipment to complete.

07/12/1918 – The 400 Ross Rifles which the Corps has been expecting have arrived and have been allotted 100 to each Division. These will be issued 8 per Infantry Battalion and this issue will allow 4 being kept in each Divisional Armourers Shop to replace casualties.

Furthermore, all of the armies were re-cycling fanatics (they were "green" before green was en vogue....) The Canadian Corp were real pro's at this. To a significant extent, they were resupplying themselves on salvage. I recently completed a brief on the Canadian Corp Salvage Company and the extent of the operations were huge - I calculated it out to be about $91 Million dollars in 2011 USD currency. (Really)

[Chasemuseum]

Hello Iain

There were a combination of issues; national pride, economics, a desire for domestic industrial capacity and differing national requirements within the British Commonwealth.

Prior to WW1 the Australian Army was equiped with Pattern 1908 Web for infantry and P1903 bandolier equipment (mounted & dismounted) for other troops. The navy was equiped with Pattern 1891 Naval leather equipment and Pattern 1901 Naval leather equipment. Due to the vast expansion of the Australian military forces, the P08/15 leather in a number of different minor variations was manufactured but only saw very limited combat service in France/Belgium in 1916.

New Zealand as a financial measure had elected to adopt a shortened version of the Long Lee Enfield rifle (cutting down existing rifles not buying new rifles) rather than the SMLE No 1 Mk III adopted by Britain and Australia. As such they needed equipment for a non-charger loading rifle. As an infantry equipment they purchased a modified version of P1908 web which was delivered in 1911. The pouches are shaped to take ammunition in paper packets. Arranged one pocket up and three down. For mounted infantry, NZ adopted a domestic design of leather equipment based on P1903 Bandolier mounted. There are pockets on the bandolier similar to P1903 but the bandolier includes cross straps and all of these buckle to brass loops on the belt. The bayonet frog is very similar to P1901 Naval.

Canada had adopted in 1899 a domestic design field equipment designed by Doctor Oliver. This equipment was used in the Boer War. Following the Boer War some parts of the equipment were redesigned or dispensed with, in particular the water bottle and carrier was replaced with the british MkVI bottle in a leather carrier (P1903 bandolier equipment design) and the valise was done away with. With the adoption of the Ross Rifle, using a bayonet with an integral bayonet frog permantly fixed to the scabbard the rather odd P1899 frog was discarded. Half of the 1st Div CEF was equipped with this when it arrived in the UK in 1914. It was roundly condemned as an aweful equipment and saw no combat service. It remained in limited use in Canada for training. Canada also purchased some P08 web before the war and most of the other half of 1st Div was equiped with this. Like New Zealand the Canadian Ross rifle was not a charger loading rifle so the pouches were designed to hold ammunition in paper packets. 1 pocket up, 3 down, but a different design to New Zealand. The Mills equipment company had produced a new equipment for trials in 1913 to compete with P1903 Bandolier mounted. Canada also purchased some P1913 (surplus from the trials or new made? no idea). At least 1 battalion of 1Div CEF had P1913 and used this when they deployed in France in late 1914 (Princess Patricia's Light Infantry, the first CEF battalion to see action). The problems with P1899 Oliver (officially called Candian Infantry Equipment Pattern 1899) led to a redesign, as a combination of conversion of existing equipment and the manufacture of new equipment. This is Canadian Infantry Equipment Pattern 1915. This was also pretty aweful. Although it continued in use in Canada throughout the war, troops going to the UK were requiped either with P1908 web or British P1914 equipments. The Canadians then adopted another design in 1916, Called the Pattern 1916 Dismounted Equipment. The 4th Div CEF took this to Britain in 1916 and some of this equipment saw service in France but it was rapidly replaced with P1908 Web and P1914. In 1916 the Canadians also produced their own design of leather bandolier for mounted rifles and a modified version of the dismounted troops haversack. It was used with the same waist belt and bayonet frog as dismounted troops. I am unsure whether it used the dismounted pattern waterbottle or continued with the P1903 bandolier equipment waterbottle carrier.

South Africa - I do not know enough about the South African forces in WW1. I have a copy of a recruiting poster showing a drawing of South African infantry in a leather equipment set which is entirely different from every other British and Commonwealth pattern.

If you would like to see photos of much of this equipement go to the "Karkeeweb" web site and the book "Tangled Web" by Jack Summers for details of Canadian equipments.

Going into other fields - Artillery. None of the dominions had the capacity to manufacture artillery, everything had been British made prior to the war. The supply was always a problem, all the Commonwealth Forces always had shortages of modern patterns of artillery. In campaigns other than than western front various obsolete field artillery was used (but there is archeological evidence that has proven that the BEF did use BL 15pdrs (not 15pdr QF) on the western front). On the Western Front and pretty much for the 1917/8 Palestine campaigns Dominion troops only used the standard patterns of British Artillery (18prs MkI & 2, 4.5in Howitzers, 60pr Field guns MkI on carriages Mk I, II II* & III, 6in 26cwt howitzers, various "Siege" guns and howitzers and various wartime patterns of AA guns. Mountain guns do not appear to have seen much use on the Western Front.

Limbers and wagons - all available evidence is that the various Commonweath forces manufactured to British patterns. Virtually all surviving WW1 limbers and wagons in Australia were made in Britain.

Stoves and cooking equipment. Information is sparse but available information is that field kitchen wagons were to British pattern. Certainly for Austalia, there were complaints about the British field kitchen designs which led the Australian Army to develop "Australian" designs after WW1 which were used throughout WW2 and were frankly a much better design that what we used here when I wore green over 30 years ago.

I hope this is of assistance.

Regards

Ross T

PS The Naval 1891 and Canadian Oliver equipments (1899, 1915 & 1916) are a personal interest of mine. Anyone who can provide assistance with the designs of these, I would be most grateful. In particular I am looking for photos of:

Naval 1891 - cross straps, expense ammunition pouch, haversack, water bottle & carrier, blanket carrier

1899 Oliver - yoke, cape brace straps,

1915 Oliver - yoke, haversack

1916 Dismounted - yoke

[MARTINRF]

...here are images of a full set of P08/15 leather dismounted personal equipment, manufactured in order to be able to fit out the ever growing numbers of those joining the A.I.F. once the first contingent had departed for overseas service in December 1914...this leather equipment was certainly used in the field with many reinforcements sent from Australia continued to be issued and to wear it...however by 1917 it was ordered to be withdrawn, being relegated for use in the A.I.F. training battalions stationed on the Salisbury Plain, only - those troops being sent on to France/Belgium were ordered to draw the British web variant beforehand...

 

[Alexander McLean]

Hello, Iain - Dominique at Le Tommy in Pozieres once showed me two relic leather and brass sections of Australian P-15 gear that were found in the village of Pozieres during road repair.  Prior to seeing those relics, I had questioned whether P-15 equipment actually was used on the Western Front.  Regards, Torrey

[Pete_C]

1 hour ago, Alexander McLean said:

Hello, Iain - Dominique at Le Tommy in Pozieres once showed me two relic leather and brass sections of Australian P-15 gear that were found in the village of Pozieres during road repair.  Prior to seeing those relics, I had questioned whether P-15 equipment actually was used on the Western Front.  Regards, Torrey

This well known photograph is the only front line image of Australian Pattern 1915 Leather Equipment I’m aware of. Men from the Australian 2nd Division returning from the trenches, Contalmaison, September 1916 - only one member of the section appears to be wearing the leather equipment, the rest have Pattern 1908 Web Equipment. 
 

Pete

 

[MARTINRF]

...found the entry in "Supplement No. 1 to extracts from Routine Orders - AIF Depots in the  United Kingdom up to 30 September, 1917 - relating to 'Q' matters"

135. 29th August 1916. Leather Equipment

Officers Commanding are hereby instructed that in future leather equipment is not to be taken when drafts leave England for the Front. This is to be kept exclusively for training purposes. Troops proceeding Overseas will invariably be fitted with web equipment.

 

175. 2nd September 1916. Leather Equipment

Attention of Officers Commanding is directed to Routine Order of 29th August 1916, para. 135 and it is to be understood that leather equipment drawn from men who have proceeded to France is to be taken into use for training purposes only. Steps are to taken to hold the necessary web equipment on charge for men who are to proceed Overseas and same is to be worn and fitted to the shape of the body before being reissued to drafts.

 

[Pete_C]

I don’t know what the official position was in terms of Pattern 1914 Leather Equipment and Australian infantry, but based on the lack of photographic evidence I’d conclude it was never a standard issue in any theatre, this photograph - the only one I’m aware of - being the exception that proves the rule, perhaps ?
 

Pete

 

[Chasemuseum]

That photo is one of a large number made by the French portrait photographers Louis and Antionette Thullier on the western front (Vignacourt) with restored photos published in two volumes:

"The lost Diggers" by Ross Coulthart  Harper Collins 2012 ISBN 54321  12131415   and a companion volume "The Lost Tommies"

The P14 only appears in a single republished AIF photo (over a thousand glass plate negatives were recovered in the 2000s.) The question is, did the photographer have a set of P14 for a period of time for use as a prop in photos or was it the equipment used by the soldier ? Then, if it was the equipment used by the soldier, was he issued the equipment or did he "acquire it" ?

There is no background information to any of the photos, just thousands of glass plate negatives taken in the studio or on the village street, as quick portrait photos sold to the soldiers to send back to their families. The photos ultimately being left in wood crates in the attic of the family home and found long after the photographers' deaths.

 

[Fromelles]

On 07/02/2024 at 07:11, Pete_C said:

I don’t know what the official position was in terms of Pattern 1914 Leather Equipment and Australian infantry, but based on the lack of photographic evidence I’d conclude it was never a standard issue in any theatre, this photograph - the only one I’m aware of - being the exception that proves the rule, perhaps ?
 

Pete

 

Pete, this photo is in fact of a soldier of one of the 1st Division's Machine Gun Company soldier, though a little difficult to see here, he's wearing a British MG Corps badge on his slouch hat. I once bid on a group photo of Aussie Machine Gunners all wearing P14, but was unsuccessful. With only a couple of photos as evidence, it's difficult to come to any particular position on why it's being worn. Possibly a lull in the supply of P08 being filled with P14, a bit like photos of Aussies wearing British tunics from time to time.

Unless it's documented somewhere we'll never know for sure.

Dan

[Pete_C]

10 minutes ago, Fromelles said:

Pete, this photo is in fact of a soldier of one of the 1st Division's Machine Gun Company soldier, though a little difficult to see here, he's wearing a British MG Corps badge on his slouch hat. I once bid on a group photo of Aussie Machine Gunners all wearing P14, but was unsuccessful. With only a couple of photos as evidence, it's difficult to come to any particular position on why it's being worn. Possibly a lull in the supply of P08 being filled with P14, a bit like photos of Aussies wearing British tunics from time to time.

Unless it's documented somewhere we'll never know for sure.

Dan

Good spot Dan, now you’ve pointed it out, I can see it. And I think you’re probably right - there may well have been a brief window in 1916 when Pattern 1914 was issued while awaiting supplies of Pattern 1908, so brief that few images survive. Do you recall the context of the group photo ?

Pete

[Chasemuseum]

From when it openned in the 1940s through to the 1980s the Australian War Memorial had a display room on the lower level of mannequins of WW1 uniforms of all the nations in the war. THs included numerous AIF uniforms. One of these was an AIF soldier wearing a British tunic, The card describing the figure stated that it was common practice when conducting trench raids for the raiders to wear British tunics, in case the soldier was a casualty, to conceal that an AIF unit had moved into the line.

[Fromelles]

On 09/02/2024 at 02:47, Pete_C said:

Good spot Dan, now you’ve pointed it out, I can see it. And I think you’re probably right - there may well have been a brief window in 1916 when Pattern 1914 was issued while awaiting supplies of Pattern 1908, so brief that few images survive. Do you recall the context of the group photo ?

Pete

Sorry Pete, I don't recall now if the photo had any notation on its rear.

Looking at this photo again, I've just noticed his laces are criss-cross fashion, not something often seen. 

Dan