trajan Posted 2 October , 2014 Author Share Posted 2 October , 2014 And while waiting for karkee, I e-mailed the AWM on this. Their answer from Kerry Neale. Acting Curator, Military Heraldry and Technology, read as follows: "The official name of the equipment to which you are referring is, in fact, the name you have provided - ‘Pattern 1915 Australian Leather Equipment’. It’s originaltitle was ‘Infantry Equipment, Australian Pattern 1915’, but ‘Pattern 1915Australian Leather Equipment’ is what it was officially known as.I have attached pages scanned from ‘Saddle Up: Australian Load Carrying Equipment ofBritish, American and Local Origin’, by Rick Launders (first published 1998), thatwe often use as a reference in the Section. As well as providing information on theequipment, it also gives you the production details which may be of some use andinterest to you. Looks like a book worth getting? Whatever, TTFN, Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Upton Posted 2 October , 2014 Share Posted 2 October , 2014 And while waiting for karkee, I e-mailed the AWM on this. Their answer from Kerry Neale. Acting Curator, Military Heraldry and Technology, read as follows: "The official name of the equipment to which you are referring is, in fact, the name you have provided - ‘Pattern 1915 Australian Leather Equipment’. It’s original title was ‘Infantry Equipment, Australian Pattern 1915’, but ‘Pattern 1915 Australian Leather Equipment’ is what it was officially known as. I have attached pages scanned from ‘Saddle Up: Australian Load Carrying Equipment of British, American and Local Origin’, by Rick Launders (first published 1998), that we often use as a reference in the Section. As well as providing information on the equipment, it also gives you the production details which may be of some use and interest to you. Do the scanned pages actually mention any sort of period reference to the equipment officially being the ‘Pattern 1915 Australian Leather Equipment’ (or any similar variation thereof), or are they simply referring to a designation given to it in the Rick Landers book? It sounds a lot like the latter, in which case it could be simply a collectors designation which, having ended up in print, is now being used as an "official" source without any other justification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 3 October , 2014 Author Share Posted 3 October , 2014 Do the scanned pages actually mention any sort of period reference to the equipment officially being the ‘Pattern 1915 Australian Leather Equipment’ (or any similar variation thereof), or are they simply referring to a designation given to it in the Rick Landers book? It sounds a lot like the latter, in which case it could be simply a collectors designation which, having ended up in print, is now being used as an "official" source without any other justification. I was wondering who would be the first to pick up on that point! I was thinking that Dan or one of the interested Aussie members would have picked up on that... Of course, nothing in the scanned pages... And so I e-mailed back about this - and in particular the matter of it being (as you excellently phrased it) "a collectors designation which, having ended up in print, is now being used as an "official" source without any other justification." That basically was my original question to AWM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Upton Posted 3 October , 2014 Share Posted 3 October , 2014 I was wondering who would be the first to pick up on that point! I was thinking that Dan or one of the interested Aussie members would have picked up on that... Of course, nothing in the scanned pages... And so I e-mailed back about this - and in particular the matter of it being (as you excellently phrased it) "a collectors designation which, having ended up in print, is now being used as an "official" source without any other justification." That basically was my original question to AWM. Thank you - it just struck me that, given the debate on Karkee Web over what the period designation for this equipment should be, how such an obvious source of the correct answer could otherwise have been overlooked by the cumulative wisdom of the entire collecting field... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 3 October , 2014 Author Share Posted 3 October , 2014 Thank you - it just struck me that, given the debate on Karkee Web over what the period designation for this equipment should be, how such an obvious source of the correct answer could otherwise have been overlooked by the cumulative wisdom of the entire collecting field... Ahhh, there's the rub... Karkee have challenged them on this one before, as you presumably know, without a straight answer, as far as I am aware. The crux of the matter is that when it comes to many collectors of what are the new 'antiquities', then 'received wisdom' often trumps the actual evidence - or lack thereof. E.G., Israeli 1949 bayonets: reputedly made from railroad steel - but analysis shows that their metallurgical composition matches that of German industrially-made WW2 kS 98 bayonets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Upton Posted 4 October , 2014 Share Posted 4 October , 2014 Ahhh, there's the rub... Karkee have challenged them on this one before, as you presumably know, without a straight answer, as far as I am aware. Yes - somewhere out there, someone will have possibly the only surviving copy of the original manual for assembling the sets of the Australian leather version of the 1908 webbing, and on the front it will have the answer for the whole world to see. But until that emerges from its hidey hole, the speculation will continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 4 October , 2014 Author Share Posted 4 October , 2014 Just to add that In the PDF's sent to me the relevant section in the 'source'-book is titled PATTERN 1915 AUSTRALIAN LEATHER EQUIPMENT: Researched and written by Alan Simpson. Simpson begins his account: "The Infantry Equipment, Australian Pattern 1915 (to give it its original title) owes its existence to the same circumstances that led to the introduction of the Pattern 1914 Leather Equipment into the British service, namely the inability of the manufacturers of webbing to provide sufficient sets to equip the growing armies of 1914-1915." He continues: "Production commenced in late 1915 and continued until the end of the war. Approximately 138,999 complete sets were made with 118,999 of these being produced at the C.G.H.F. The remainder were split up between 11 private firms [the author gives a list of these and the numbers of each piece made by each firm]... The production of the equipment was a major undertaking for the G.G.H.F. and for the period June 1915 to June 1919, 44 % of the factory’s output total was taken up by this one item. Total cost of the equipment produced by the G.G.H.T. was in excess of £258,999 while the bill for the overall production including private contractors exceed £ 499,999." The fact that figures are supplied (total number of pieces; total number of types of each piece produced by each firm; and costs) suggests that Alan Simpson had access to official sources for these, but nowhere could I see any footnote or any kind of source reference to where these came from... They may be on another page - in the form of a 'condensed bibliography'? Yes, somewhere lurks the only copy of the official book to go with this equipment with the official designation on the title page... In the meantime, Dan, would you be so kind as to scan the title pages and other relevant pages that you have quoted above so that we can all see what they say? Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amadden1 Posted 18 November , 2014 Share Posted 18 November , 2014 Dan, Rog at Karkee is always interested in and welcomes new stuff as are and do his A/NZ contacts, so do forward any information you have if you think they don't have the same. They are pretty much on-the-ball enthusiasts (as most of us on GWF are!) and I often pass stuff on to them - a small return for the help they have given me with bits and pieces! Now, if you have a 1st pattern "Australian P.15" frog with helve carrier with no holes, wow! Let's see it! Find it! C'mon - get those frogs out and astonish (and please) us all!!! TTFN, Julian I've entered this forum a bit late, but for what it's worth, attached are a photos from my collection of the two frogs mentioned above: the 1st pattern 1915 Leather Equipment, and the Australian variant of the 1903 pattern. The 1915 pattern frog (whatever the official title) is stamped: I. (or perhaps T) W. J. AUSTRALIA SYDNEY 1916. The 1903 pattern frog is stamped: AUSTRALIA C.G.H.F. Some of the various makers already listed also produced the 1903 pattern equipment - I possess pieces including bandoliers, 10- and 15-round pouches and water bottler cradles by Beckers Brisbane, J.J. Weeks Sydney, Holden and Frost, and Bonney Maker Brisbane, all dated 1915 or 1916. From memory, I've only seen Pattern 15 pieces dated between 1915 and 1917. Andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 18 November , 2014 Author Share Posted 18 November , 2014 I've entered this forum a bit late, but for what it's worth, attached are a photos from my collection of the two frogs mentioned above: the 1st pattern 1915 Leather Equipment, and the Australian variant of the 1903 pattern. Andrew, those are really great examples! Thanks for sharing them! I'll alert the Karkee web boys about these. As for the nomenclature, that is to say, is it 'P.1915' or what? Well, the debate is unresolved. AWM did not reply to a second question as to whether this was just a general term made popular by collectors or whether there was any documentation to the effect. On the other hand, as it does seem that with one or two rare exceptions (frogs!) all of the dated material is no earlier than 1915, then 1915 would certainly seem to be the first year of issue. Thanks again, Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GRANVILLE Posted 18 November , 2014 Share Posted 18 November , 2014 I'm not at all familiar with this area but do I take it from what is written above, the upper frog with belt & buckle in post 33 is a pattern 1903 and is somewhat rare? Friends of mine loaned me one the other day for a presentation but I could not tell them much about it. It is identical to the one shown. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amadden1 Posted 20 November , 2014 Share Posted 20 November , 2014 Trajan, you are welcome. David, the frog was an Australian made example issued with the 1903 Pattern equipment to mounted units such as the Light Horse. They are very similar to the 1914 Pattern frog - maybe check yours or perhaps post a photo. Andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fromelles Posted 18 August , 2022 Share Posted 18 August , 2022 Thought I'd resurrect this thread after coming across some more info... The naming of the equipment, as per the this Government Factory is of interest and goes someway to show what it was known as The following are from the Commonwealth Government Harness Factory Reports provided to the government each year. [The columns are divided as follows: Articles / Numbers / Average Price / Total Cost] CGHF Report (year ended 30 June 1915) - CGHF Report (year ended 30 June 1916) - CGHF Report (year ended 30 June 1917) - CGHF Report (year ended 30 June 1918) - CGHF Report (year ended 30 June 1919) - Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chasemuseum Posted 18 August , 2022 Share Posted 18 August , 2022 So the Australian collecting community referring to it since at least the 1970s as Patt" 15 is a pretty reasonable action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fromelles Posted 18 August , 2022 Share Posted 18 August , 2022 1 hour ago, Chasemuseum said: So the Australian collecting community referring to it since at least the 1970s as Patt" 15 is a pretty reasonable action. Yep, they were bang on target Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARTINRF Posted 18 August , 2022 Share Posted 18 August , 2022 Extracts From Routine Orders A.I.F. Depots in United Kingdom from 1st June, 1916. AWM4-1/68/1 No.135, 29th August 1916. Leather Equipment. Officers Commanding are hereby instructed that in future leather equipment is not to be taken when when drafts leave England for France. This is to be kept exclusively for training purposes. Troops proceeding Overseas will invariable be fitted with web equipment. No.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 be 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. ...the leather infantry equipment did make it across, during the Great War, to Europe for service - some even made it over to France in active service, hence the above Routine Orders...when the body of Russell George Bosisto was discovered in 1998 - by French telecoms workers digging a trench for cable laying parallel alongside the road from the village of Pozieres towards the site of the windmill - he was found to be wearing leather infantry equipment... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chasemuseum Posted 18 August , 2022 Share Posted 18 August , 2022 Volume 11 of the Australian Official History has some discussion of this equipment and makes reference to it being used in France in 1916. Its described as being very unsatisfactory in the wet muddy conditions , becoming slimy and losing shape. So that reference was always readily available confirming that it was used in combat. Part of the problem is the British policy of suppressing photography by individual soldiers on the Western Front and relying on "Official Photographers". This ensured that photos of the Australian P15 and the various unique Canadian equipments were never published. In the same vein I have often wondered whether any of the NZ 1911 web equipment or the NZMR leather equipment ever saw service on the Western Front. I suspect that the answer to both is no, but I do wonder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fromelles Posted 19 August , 2022 Share Posted 19 August , 2022 From the AWM collection, the best know photo of P15 being worn in France - 2 Div machine gunners coming out of Pozieres, 1916 Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chasemuseum Posted 19 August , 2022 Share Posted 19 August , 2022 Thanks Dan, yes the censor effectively slipped up and missed that one. When Rick Landers was writing "Saddle-Up" back in the late 80s, he had been unable to find any photos of P15 in France and had to use a portrait photo (which I supplied.) Cheers Ross Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARTINRF Posted 6 February Share Posted 6 February ...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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chasemuseum Posted 6 February Share Posted 6 February Interesting choice, to put a P07 bayonet in a Mk I scabbard with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARTINRF Posted 6 February Share Posted 6 February ...that's the only bayonets that I own in the collection - P'07 examples...the scabbards are the ones that came with them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chasemuseum Posted 6 February Share Posted 6 February The Mk I scabbards are quite rare. The actual production of the P07 only began in 1908 and the Mk I scabbards were only made in the first year of production 1908. So of the many millions manufactured only a few thousand were the Mk I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 6 February Share Posted 6 February (edited) 15 minutes ago, Chasemuseum said: The Mk I scabbards are quite rare. The actual production of the P07 only began in 1908 and the Mk I scabbards were only made in the first year of production 1908. So of the many millions manufactured only a few thousand were the Mk I. Not as scarce as you might think ... There does seem to be a few around. Nice example turned up here the other day. See thread below ... https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/308748-1907-bayonet-with-quillon-help-please/ Cheers, SS Edited 6 February by shippingsteel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave66 Posted 6 February Share Posted 6 February 2 hours ago, Chasemuseum said: The Mk I scabbards are quite rare. The actual production of the P07 only began in 1908 and the Mk I scabbards were only made in the first year of production 1908. So of the many millions manufactured only a few thousand were the Mk I. The Mk11 scabbard was approved in April 1909, I have aMk1 by Hepburn Gale and Ross from that year. Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fromelles Posted 6 February Share Posted 6 February When starting out (a lifetime ago) I remember the Aussie equipment was something no one was interested in. Collectors were critical of it only being used for training. The vast majority of WW1 equipment collectors were only interested in 08 and 03 (specifictly light horse). Quality pieces of P15, pouches, etool covers, braces etc, would sit in shops for months. Fast forward to today and it's now quite a desirable set, rather difficult to find pieces in good condition and it's fetching quite a price too. Martin, you've got yourself a very nice set. The helve strap looks to be a repro, is this correct? This is easily the rarest piece of Aussie equipment, and eludes just about every collector in this country. On the flip side the water bottle harness is one of the most common pieces, and if spending more than $10 on one you'd feel like you'd been had. You'll also need to track down the correct haversack for the set. Overall, a very nice indeed. Is it known for sure whether any Mk I scabbards made their way into Aussie service prior to the war? Are there any Aussie marked examples? Dan 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