high wood Posted 10 July , 2014 Share Posted 10 July , 2014 (edited) Does anyone have any details about the size and construction of British army kitbags issued during the Great War? I have two examples that I know to be genuine which are of the same size but are of slightly different design. I have a third example marked with the name and service number of a Great War British soldier which also has an outline drawing of his cap badge on it. It is a nice item but I have slight concerns about its authenticity due to two distinct factors. Firstly, although the circumference is roughly the same on all three kit bags, one is distinctly shorter than the other two. Were kit bags issued in more than one size or is the smaller bag for storing something different like a tent? Secondly, the eyelets / grommets? are made of aluminium rather than brass. Does anyone know if kit bags were issued with aluminium grommets during the Great War? If yes, can you please post a photograph? Thank you. Simon Edited 7 June , 2023 by high wood Adding pictures Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave1418 Posted 10 July , 2014 Share Posted 10 July , 2014 Hi Simon the one I have is 22 inches in diameter and a depth id 32 inches with one seam along the back, there are 12 brass eyelets. The bag is marked to 200019 Sergt. E. POTT 1/4 Buffs 10 Alexandre Place Dover England. I believe that he was a pre-war territorial. Unfortunately I can't upload te photo but if you pm me I'll send it direct regards Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sweeney Posted 12 July , 2014 Share Posted 12 July , 2014 Simon, There was supposedly only one universal pattern on issue at the outbreak of the war for the regular army, however photographic evidence does deviate from this statement. Especially when talking about the Territorial Force. The kit bag on issue was governed by pattern 6242/1904, 7 December 1904.[1] Its nomenclature was “Kit Bag, black duck, Universal”. It was made of black duck with the opening closed by 12 brass eyelets with a re-enforced bottom. This pattern replaced no fewer than three other patterns of bags; 2237c/1898 “Bag, Kit”, 1712b/1897 “Bag, Waterproof”, and 5827/ 1903 “Bag, Kit Duck (brown) Mounted Services”. By 1915 the Priced Vocabulary was showing that the black duck kit bag was the primary article of issue, however, the brown mounted services kit bag was still in inventory, but obsolete.[2] I have not located any wartime change in the pattern but have not done an exhaustive search. This is an example of what the army intended for Kit bags: [1] WO 359/13 p103 [2] Priced Vocabulary of Clothing and Necessaries, 1915 section 30 [3] Clothing Regulations 1914, app. VIII Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GRANVILLE Posted 12 July , 2014 Share Posted 12 July , 2014 Out of interest, what kit would be expected to be stowed in the kit bag when it was in use? David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sweeney Posted 12 July , 2014 Share Posted 12 July , 2014 David, Per the 1914 Field Service Manual--Infantry Battalion (expeditionary force) Boots, Ankle (or Highland Shoes)--one pair and on top at opening of bag Drawers -- one pair Jacket Service Dress -One Shoes, Canvas (if in possession) one pair Trousers, Service Dress-----One pair Brush, Hair Shirt, Flannel Towel, Hand Hose-tops (for kilted units only) Basically, most of the spare kit IAW the 1914 Clothing Regulation However, particularly in the case of Infantry in France the issue and use of Kit bags ceased in circa 1915. Kit bags were only issued to certain Corps after that date. Joe Sweeney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GRANVILLE Posted 13 July , 2014 Share Posted 13 July , 2014 Thank you Joe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Henschke Posted 13 July , 2014 Share Posted 13 July , 2014 For another example, This is what was left in the kit bag by 3rd Brigade, 1st Australian Division in early 1915. Boots, pair, tied together soles upwards, Reg. No., Name, 3rd Bde, 1st Aust. Div. marked on each sole. Boots to be left on top of bag. Breeches Cord. Brush hair Cap, F.S. Drawers Hat (when cap, S.D. is issued). Hat white Jacket S.D. Shirt Military C.P. Singlet Socks 1 pair Towel Trousers dungaree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khaki Posted 13 July , 2014 Share Posted 13 July , 2014 Were kit bags ever white? khaki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GRANVILLE Posted 13 July , 2014 Share Posted 13 July , 2014 Personally, I always thought they started out white and just became grubby with usage?! David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khaki Posted 13 July , 2014 Share Posted 13 July , 2014 Hello David, That's what I thought, but post # 4 suggests black duck and shows a photo in support. khaki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sweeney Posted 13 July , 2014 Share Posted 13 July , 2014 Official--the issue pattern at the beginning of the war specifically states Black Duck. However, TF being a separate entity commonly used light colored bags and originals in white exits. I have not found any change to white duck in RACD ledgers but I have not really looked hard either. Joe Sweeney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
high wood Posted 7 June , 2023 Author Share Posted 7 June , 2023 Here are another two kit bags from my collection. Hartfield's appears to date from 1912 and was probably issued before proceeding overseas as a pre war regular. He went overseas on the 19th August 1914, serving with the 28th Bde. R.F.A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
high wood Posted 7 June , 2023 Author Share Posted 7 June , 2023 The second one belonged to a soldier of the Honourable Artillery Company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great War Truck Posted 10 June , 2023 Share Posted 10 June , 2023 I saw this bag earlier this year and regret not buying it, but i already had spent all my money and it had a big hole in the bottom. Black bags not very common and the number is too short to be a serial number and wonder if it was the truck census number instead. Any thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matlock1418 Posted 10 June , 2023 Share Posted 10 June , 2023 19 minutes ago, Great War Truck said: the number is too short to be a serial number and wonder if it was the truck census number instead. Any thoughts? 076874 = It is his ASC Army number - short for M2/076874 [a MT number] = James B McCONNOCHIE M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
high wood Posted 10 June , 2023 Author Share Posted 10 June , 2023 Here is his medal index card courtesy of Ancestry. I am not sure that I would have paid £60 for it, but Great War kit bags are scarce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great War Truck Posted 10 June , 2023 Share Posted 10 June , 2023 Thanks for that. So, what do you think would be a fair price to pay for it, bearing in mind it had a 6 inch hole in the bottom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
high wood Posted 11 June , 2023 Author Share Posted 11 June , 2023 I am not sure what the going rate is as I have not seen many Great War kit bags for sale lately. Most of my collection has come from house clearances rather than from militaria dealers. I did find this one at at an outdoor antiques fair just before lockdown and paid a quarter of the asking price of the A.S.C. one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now