Pattern 1914 Bayonet Frog

[shippingsteel]

Yes, thanks for the info Dan. I do understand the difference in the patterns, which at a distance basically comes down to whether it narrows at the top or not.

I realise that the original Australian type is just straight up and down, and the British type is narrower. Not much in it though if you see the 3rd photo in the OP.

I have seen the Australian pattern in the photos I have been trawling through, but I believe they used both. I thought the photo in post #23 is narrow at the top.?

Have you looked at it under the zoom via the AWM site.? Anyway it has been interesting, and I have been through many 100's of photos looking for clear shots.

Cheers, S>S

[shippingsteel]

Following up on Dan's comments, I have now found a decent photo of the Australian pattern frog from the AWM collection to compare with (listed as REL40236)

So you can see it is of relatively straight forward construction, being straight up and down throughout, and with just the 4 rivets used to secure the lower section.

And I have shown the photo again from post #23 on this page for a comparison. I think you can just make out the reflection of the upper rivets in this photograph.

I do understand that the Patt.14 frog was probably not as commonly used by the Light Horse, as the home grown Pattern was, but I am just looking for ANY use.

And if evidence of use in the trenches at Gallipoli by the 9th Australian Light Horse Regiment is all I can find, than that will certainly be more than enough for me.!

Cheers, S>S

[Fromelles]

Post 16 will both be Aussie pattern and that of post 23 will be the webbing pattern 08 (as issued to the light horse at Gallipoli), though it's not a very clear picture, the 08 frogs had rivets too.

There's no doubt Australians used pattern 14 items from time to time (I can only think of photos from Britain or France), but it would have been replaced with pattern 08 at the first opportunity and I doubt it was mixed with other patterns of equipment (not officially anyway).

With the Sale mark, I'd say it made its way to Australia some time since the end of the war after the Brits had disposed of it.

Dan

[shippingsteel]

Thanks Dan, I appreciate your comments. I have had a crack at clearing up that photo as best I can, it's still not the clearest, but you can definitely see the rivets.

It has the narrower belt loop, and the 2 rivets placed above the level of the scabbard throat, and I think I can make out the buckle, so it is not any P'08 that I know.

I know it is hard when working with period photos, but I will keep searching to see what else turns up. You may be correct about the Sale mark, nothing's certain.!

Cheers, S>S

[trajan]

Apparently the entire 3rd LH Brigade landed as reinforcements on Gallipoli fitted out with these sun helmets, so as not to give away their presence to the Turkish.

Do we again simply have to take your word for this? It would be nice to have a reliable source...

[trajan]

S>S

Unfortunately the frogs pictured aren't one in the same as your example. The Australians were issued their own pattern from well before the start of the war. Though they are almost the same, the main differences are there is no rear strap and it is made without the textured finish to the leather as well as not being narrowed at the top (belt loop).

From memory the earliest of my frogs is dated 1909. I don't have any photos to prove what I say, but if I can, I'll have to dig them out and photograph. Maybe someone else can provide examples in the meantime.

There are a few photos showing Aussies using Pattern 14 equipment, but it was very much the exception than the rule.

Dan

Thanks Dan, for backing up my point in that earlier post 22 about how there were Australian leather frogs that were superficially similar to the P 1914. I do have the book references to these but have never seen an actual example, so it would be nice to see one of yours.

[trajan]

With the Sale mark, I'd say it made its way to Australia some time since the end of the war after the Brits had disposed of it.

Dan

My point entirely Dan. SS's set is a 'marriage' put together post WW1, and quite possibly even within the past few years!

[shippingsteel]

Apparently the entire 3rd LH Brigade landed as reinforcements on Gallipoli fitted out with these sun helmets, so as not to give away their presence to the Turkish.

Here are some more links to pictures of the 9th LH in the trenches. THIS one of a MG position near the Nek, and THIS one of sniping (note bandoliers & helmets)

Taken from the War Diaries immediately before shipping out to Gallipoli. This is supported by AWM commentary on the images linked above.

11-5-1915 (Tuesday) – Reveille at 3 a.m. Bayonet charge practiced in the morning and trench digging after that. All three regiments of the 3rd LH Bgde. were issued with the British Wolseley sun helmet and slouch hats were instructed to be handed in.

13-5-1915 (Thursday) – The 3rd LH Brigade was inspected by Major General Sir Ian Hamilton at 7.30 a.m.

After parade, exercising of horses in the morning and fatigue duties in the afternoon. Orders were issued for the 3rd Brigade to prepare to entrain for Alexandria, from which it would embark for the Dardanelles.

Cheers, S>S

[shippingsteel]

Here is a comparison of some photos showing the different patterns of bayonet frog in use by Australians. Original Australian Leather pattern was often replaced.

From research into the photographic evidence that is available, it seems the Infantry were quick to substitute Aust. Leather pattern for the standard P'08 webbing.

But the Light Horse appears to have stuck with the leather frogs for the duration in Gallipoli and Palestine. And British Patt.14 frogs were sometimes substituted.

The photo on the left is taken in France, showing the common Patt.08 webbing frog. While on the right, we see a Patt.14 leather frog in the trenches at Gallipoli.

Cheers, S>S

[trajan]

Taken from the War Diaries immediately before shipping out to Gallipoli. This is supported by AWM commentary on the images linked above.

11-5-1915 (Tuesday) – Reveille at 3 a.m. Bayonet charge practiced in the morning and trench digging after that. All three regiments of the 3rd LH Bgde. were issued with the British Wolseley sun helmet and slouch hats were instructed to be handed in.

13-5-1915 (Thursday) – The 3rd LH Brigade was inspected by Major General Sir Ian Hamilton at 7.30 a.m.

After parade, exercising of horses in the morning and fatigue duties in the afternoon. Orders were issued for the 3rd Brigade to prepare to entrain for Alexandria, from which it would embark for the Dardanelles.

Well done that man! BUT doesn't prove use of solar hats by LHB at Gallipoli...

I personally don't have any problem with the idea that they might have been, for if the the AWM captioned that photograph so then that is pretty good evidence. But there is plenty photographic evidence for slouch hats in use at Gallipoli. All I am trying to do is see is if any firm evidence can be discovered that the LHB did indeed wear them there.

That aside, SS, I'm glad that you have finally accepted, if only because Dan pointed it out, that I was on the ball with suggesting the possibility of an Australian leather frog being shown in post 22. Even so, doesn't take away from the fact that, as Dan also hinted at, your set has a SOS marked frog, would appear to be a 'marriage' and not a 'sleeper' held over intact from WW1.

TTFN,

Trajan

[trajan]

Just for the sake of completeness re: these Australian brown leather frogs (or "FROGS, brown, bayonet, leather" as they were known according to official Australian records), I thought I'd add that makers and dated examples of WW1 period that I have recorded include:

J.J.WEEKS 1910 SYDNEY (this with an A.A.O.D. stamp of 1911);

C.G.H.F. 1912;

HOLDEN & FROST 1915;

C.G.H.F. 1921

I suspect that the Holden Frost and CGHF concerns are the same but haven't been able to check

Trajan

PS: These aside, and at risk of upsetting the purists by going past 1921, I also have records for these frogs being made in 1941 (two makers); 1942 (three makers); and 1943 (one maker). C.G.H.F. 1921; KH 1943.

[trajan]

Lost the internet there...

These Australian "FROGS, brown, bayonet, leather" are courtesy of my colleague Graham in Australia, from his private collection and are shown here for reference purposes, so please don't copy / reproduce without his permission... The first is 1910, the second is - well, you can read it, and yes, I know, it is WW2, which will likely give palpitations to at least one Antipodean GWF purist , but is shown here to make the point that this frog-style was long-lived!

EDIT: I have left these photographs up long enough for GWF members to see but have now taken them down to prevent them from being stumbled upon and possibly copied by non-GWF members. If anyone needs to have a look at them, or see photographs of their backs, or views (front and back) of other examples in Graham's collection, then PM me and I'll pass the details on.

[trajan]

Continuing on from the above, for those who may have missed it I have opened a thread on Leather "Infantry Equipment, Australian Pattern" at: http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=217545&hl=

[Fromelles]

For me the image in post 29 is of such poor quality that it's impossible to make a definite call on, the 'narrow' loop may be caused by being slightly twisted as well as the angle the photo was taken from.

I can think of no photos of Australians mixing 08 with other equipment, I'm sure it did happen just not officially. The only equipment it could be is Pattern 08, Pattern 14 or the Australian Pattern 15. I've never seen Australians using Pattern 14 or 15 at Gallipoli so doubt this is either of those - never say never

You're the only person that needs to be convinced the image shows Pattern 14 being used, so who am I to say you're wrong. If you're convinced then that should be enough.

Bottom line is very occasionally Aussies did use Pattern 14, so your bayonet and frog are correct. The cover of Ross Coulthart's book 'The Lost Diggers' shows a great photo supposedly of Jim Holland, wearing Pattern 14 complete with sheep skin vest and machine gun hat badge on his slouch hat.

Dan

[shippingsteel]

I can think of no photos of Australians mixing 08 with other equipment, I'm sure it did happen just not officially. The only equipment it could be is Pattern 08, Pattern 14 or the Australian Pattern 15.

I've never seen Australians using Pattern 14 or 15 at Gallipoli so doubt this is either of those - never say never.

No worries Dan, and thanks for your thoughts on this. Thats exactly what I love about doing the research. When keeping an open mind you never know what will turn up.!

A lot of interesting subjects can suddenly become actual possibilities, when the accepted knowledge before would certainly never have given it any consideration. It's fun.

When looking through the photos I found this one HERE from the AWM. It's a classic shot of the sniping at Gallipoli, with both the sniper & spotter, complete with periscope.

It is an interesting view of the trench and is surprisingly clear. Note these are Lighthorsemen with the P1903 bandoliers (and P'15 frogs) as well as the Wolseley sun helmet.

By zooming in on the image you can make out great detail of the weaponry and kit (and old mate fagging away in the background). The ALH at Gallipoli used leather pattern.

Cheers, S>S

[trajan]

... or the Australian Pattern 15. I've never seen Australians using Pattern 14 or 15 at Gallipoli so doubt this is either of those - never say never

With all due respect, can we leave the terminology 'Australian pattern 1915' in abeyance until we have proof the term actually existed? I have shown at: http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=217545#entry2154756 post 2 that examples of this equipment were being made before 1915. As far as I can determine it was A.J.Carter who coined the term and the AWM adopted it (see my post 1 there), but there is no official record of it. I could be completely wrong, but I would like to see proof!

[Fromelles]

The link in post 40 doesn't show a Pattern 15 (sorry Julian), it's the same frog as in post 27, from my less than reliable memory, once stated to me as being of the 'Commonwealth Pattern'

I really need to dig through my shed and get my frogs out and take some photos

Dan

[shippingsteel]

Yes Dan that's right, its the Australian leather pattern frog that the Light Horse used which apparently hasn't got a label yet. What have those experts been doing all this time.?

Anyway getting back to Pattern 14 equipment, I came across this photo HERE at the KW site, which illustrates very nicely how the rivet reflection shows up in the period photos.

Cheers, S>S

[shippingsteel]

And the top section of the back of the frog showing a Broad Arrow and some kind of inspection marking. A Sale mark appears to have been overstamped.

The set has colonial links which explains the Sale mark, but I was wondering if anyone has seen this style of inspection mark before on leather equipment.

Just recapping back to this photo of the inspection mark and Sale mark in the OP. No-one has yet made any comments on this inspection marking.

I have been having a look around for some details on this, and it seems this style of Arrow over Number is often found on the period accoutrements.

And while everyone has seemed to assume that the Sale mark is British ... it should be remembered that Australia also used this version of the mark.

People should also remember Rule DK/DK (you don't know what'cha don't know) and it is a principle which I adhere to when asking lots of questions.!

Cheers, S>S

[Fromelles]

Yes Dan that's right, its the Australian leather pattern frog that the Light Horse used which apparently hasn't got a label yet. What have those experts been doing all this time.?

S>S

You've made me ransack my shed looking for my references. I’ve found my copy of AIF Order No. 17, para 84 – Table Showing the Articles of Equipment to be Taken Abroad by a Light Horse Regiment –

Under the heading:-

ACCOUTREMENTS.

Frogs, brown – Bayonet, C.P. 508 1 per sword-bayonet

It is the same for Divisional HQ (56), Infantry Bn (1 - Tpt Sgt), Fld Coy Engineers (157), ASC (LH Bde Train & Div Train) (20) and any other units that were issued bayonets but not issued with Pattern 08.

So my memory isn't as bad as I thought ‘Commonwealth Pattern’ it is.

Dan

[shippingsteel]

ACCOUTREMENTS.

Frogs, brown – Bayonet, C.P.

So my memory isn't as bad as I thought ‘Commonwealth Pattern’ it is.

Excellent work Dan, so 'Commonwealth Pattern' it is (and C.P. for short) Great stuff, that will certainly make it easier when discussing the various frog types.

With the close similarities between the two types of frogs (the Patt.14 and the C.P.) you can easily see why there would have been substitution when needed.

And with the supply difficulties associated with the Light Horse stationed in Egypt, I am sure supply would have been obtained wherever possible & expedient.

The Light Horse was unique in requiring the extra pocket P1903 bandoliers for mounted troops, so much would have been ordered via the British supply chain.

You would also think that the entire Light Horse leather kit (whilst in Egypt/Palestine) may have been provided in quantity through the various British suppliers.

It make sense (to me at least) that the makers of the bandoliers would also make the bayonet frogs, so that entire kitsets could be provided to fit out the troops.

So it is interesting that the maker of my frog, XL-ALL Ltd is also shown to be the maker of the P1903 mounted bandolier located in the NAM musuem (post #4)

Cheers, S>S

[Fromelles]

I can't comment on the supply arrangements between the two countries, but guess it's a possibility.

What I can say is that I've never see any photographic evidence of light horsemen using P-14 frogs, though I will admit that the quality of some images are often less than ideal and the similarities between the two types of frogs does at times make identification difficult.

If it's an Australian using a P-14 frog (worn as part of the complete P-14 kit) you're after you don't have a problem as there is evidence of it being used in France.

If it's a light horseman using it in Palestine then it's harder to prove, but there must be little doubt that at least one light horseman would have got his hands on a P-14 frog and used it. I just wouldn't say it was done as part of a whole scale issue to Australian Regiments, Reinforcements, etc, not from what the photographic evidence out there would suggest. However, I'm more than happy to be proven wrong.

[trajan]

... I’ve found my copy of AIF Order No. 17, para 84 – Table Showing the Articles of Equipment to be Taken Abroad by a Light Horse Regiment –

Under the heading:-

ACCOUTREMENTS.

Frogs, brown – Bayonet, C.P. 508 1 per sword-bayonet

...So my memory isn't as bad as I thought ‘Commonwealth Pattern’ it is.

Nice and on the ball reference! Thanks for providing that! Any other items that you know of listed as 'C.P.'? Should the infamous leather 'P.15' equipment be classed as 'C.P.' rather than 'Australian'?

[trajan]

... And with the supply difficulties associated with the Light Horse stationed in Egypt, I am sure supply would have been obtained wherever possible & expedient.

The Light Horse was unique in requiring the extra pocket P1903 bandoliers for mounted troops, so much would have been ordered via the British supply chain.

You would also think that the entire Light Horse leather kit (whilst in Egypt/Palestine) may have been provided in quantity through the various British suppliers.

It make sense (to me at least) that the makers of the bandoliers would also make the bayonet frogs, so that entire kitsets could be provided to fit out the troops.

So it is interesting that the maker of my frog, XL-ALL Ltd is also shown to be the maker of the P1903 mounted bandolier located in the NAM musuem (post #4)

Cheers, S>S

On the first point, I agree, no problem there, and makes sense. But we still have to square up things with Dan's post 45, on the ALH being sent out with their own equipment, and so we are talking re-supplies.

The matter of the XL-ALL-supplied equipment is certainly an interesting one. I note that the AWM has various P.03 bandoliers that were UK made, e.g., http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/REL29984/ and http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/REL29985/, for infantry, etc., both dated 1904, and also this one for the ALH, http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/REL30046/, dated 1916, same date as the XL-ALL one you noted in post 4. It would not be surprising if XL-ALL re-supplied ANZAC units with certain types of equipment they were already making - but not necessarily with non-standard GB P.1914 frogs... The fact is that while we cannot deny that the ALH and other ANZAC units may have been issued with these, the evidence is inconclusive.

Much more to the point, though, while we might agree to differ on the nature (and origin!) of the SOS mark on the P.1914 frog that started this thread, let us never forget that frogs are moveable bits of kit. That is why we should be objective here. Given the lack of any conclusive evidence, and the presence of the SOS mark on the frog (in fact only appearing on the frog, it should be added), I would be very cautious in even beginning an attempt at arguing that this bayonet-scabbard-frog set-up the frog belongs to is a 'period' assemblage, never mind suggesting that it may provide proof that the LAH used the P.1914 frog.

Trajan

[trajan]

... In fact it is the obvious sleeper qualities which persuaded me to try and find out some more about the Sold out of Service mark (when found on Patt.14)

In Australia it is a commonly seen mark on British supplied weaponry from the pre-war period, usually found on the Enfield rifles, bayonets & scabbards.

So it is a useful clue when trying to ascertain some of the history behind the various pieces. With the mark indicating it has been shipped to the colonies.

The bayonet and scabbard are certainly both Australian used, and the frog has the SOS mark. So perhaps it all came together sometime during the war.?

While searching for P.1907's with crossguard markings for my dealer acquaintance (see: http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=219406) I found this: http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=142247 - a 1908 Wilkinson HQ unit marked Royal Fusiliers (R.F.) and numbered R1019, with an 1908 scabbard and a P.1914 Frog... The latter is SOS-marked, but the bayonet and scabbard are not, and so yet another marriage - in this case a British fog with a British bayonet and scabbard - at a quite uncertain date, but presumably post GW, when the 1914 frogs were disposed off... As such this set reinforces my point that bayonets, scabbards and frogs are all moveable bits and even if found together in nice sleeperish condition they don't necessarily belong together as original sets! Strange, though, that there seem to be a number of SOS-marked P.1914 frogs around being married to other scabbards and bayonets...???