Studio photos WW1 loaned uniform

[FROGSMILE]

Great photos, thank you for posting.  The Corporal with the Queen's cap badge and his lady has the numerals 23 on his upper arm.  I wonder if that was 23rd Training Reserve.

 

NB.  The hand made, lightweight pace sticks are so different to use.  You can perhaps imagine how robustly made the original issue were that were part of the camp equippage.

Edited 10 July , 2020 by FROGSMILE

[themonsstar]

You could always tell the Sncos who had not done the senior drill course as they would use the issued pace stick (fat fred) 😁.

 

The 23 is the 23rd TR.

[Matlock1418]

5 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

Soldiers were inspected at the guard room when walking-out and their turnout and canes, etc. checked at the same time as they were recorded in the 'walking out book' (this book was so that any failure to return was noticed as soon as possible after tattoo).  They could not walk out if they were incorrectly dressed.

 

3 hours ago, kenf48 said:

So they were 'roughly kitted out' in the uniform of the Somerset Light Infantry.) ......  It is clear therefore they would have had no need to 'borrow' a uniform.

Without wanting to upset anyone ... A couple of questions;

Starting with Kitchener's Blues: Do I correctly understand it that KB were never the correct dress for walking-out [being for training & on camp only I would currently think] and walking-out probably a late in training privilege anyway - and therefore KB could not be a cause of a potential 'problem' if at an external photographic portrait studio ???

And likewise for Hospital Blues: ?? [though I do rather think they were permitted for walking-out / going out from a hospital after wounding/during hospital convalescence - but not after discharge from hospital when it would be back to a proper uniform or into civvies if even more fully discharged].

I understand the potential for multiple cap badges which could be behind the curve and/or potentially no longer recorded for various reasons.

I too think borrowing uniform  /  'dressing up' was a probably a rather rare occurrence for a soldier in the UK - never say never though = unlikely [though possibly not so rare if OS as indicated in post # 17 = possibly for a cleaner / less old / less worn uniform?? - though I guess probably wouldn't have got of camp if out of order [or if in too bad a condition of uniform] - one can see the potential advantage of such if a photographer had a wide ranging stock of uniforms handy for photos]

The evidence is certainly there that servicemen definitely liked to have their photo taken in uniform [little option for many otherwise really - seen more officers than OR in mufti during wartime] - for pretty obvious reasons it would rather naturally seem [and better for his potential family & any lady-friend recipients - and nowadays too - plus ca change!]

Just asking about the above KB & HB really ... Happy to be more widely educated too.

:-) M

[FROGSMILE]

1.  Kitchener Blue was issued because there was insufficient drab SD.  Until it was obtained men wore their civilian clothes for drilling.  Ergo when the KB was issued it was the only uniform that a New Army (Kitchener) Volunteer had until his unit was equipped with SD.  As such it was worn for all purposes. 

 

2.  Hospital Blue was a mandatory uniform for the wounded and just two items of drab SD were permitted, a forage cap with regimental badge, and a greatcoat for wear in cold weather.  The latter was to be worn with a hospital blue arm band so that it was clear even from behind that the wearer was a wounded soldier under treatment.  Only other ranks wore hospital blue, officers wore their own uniform (that unlike soldiers they had purchased - albeit via a kit allowance after 1916).

 

3.  The wearing of both these uniforms was under military discipline.

 

4.  DRESSING UP CONFINED TO WALTER MITTY.

Edited 10 July , 2020 by FROGSMILE

[FROGSMILE]

8 hours ago, kenf48 said:

“I stand to be corrected but I doubt that any of his cohort or any other soldier was allowed to 'walk out' for photographs until after a few weeks basic training.”

 

Nail on the head Ken. 👍

Edited 10 July , 2020 by FROGSMILE

[Matlock1418]

10 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

1.  Kitchener Blue was issued because there was insufficient drab SD.  Until it was obtained men wore their civilian clothes for drilling.  Ergo when the KB was issued it was the only uniform that a New Army (Kitchener) Volunteer had until his unit was equipped with SD.  As such it was worn for all purposes. 

 

2.  Hospital Blue was a mandatory uniform for the wounded and just two items of drab SD were permitted, a forage cap with regimental badge, and a greatcoat for wear in cold weather.  The latter was to be worn with a hospital blue arm band so that it was clear even from behind that the wearer was a wounded soldier under treatment.  Only other ranks wore hospital blue, officers wore their own uniform (that unlike soldiers they had purchased - albeit via a kit allowance after 1916).

 

3.  The wearing of both these uniforms was under military discipline.

 

4.  DRESSING UP CONFINED TO WALTER MITTY.

Thank you for your further input and clarification on KB & HB - Knowledgeable and informative as always

:-) M

Edited 11 July , 2020 by Matlock1418

[PhilB]

15 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

  Before WW1 began saluting was standardised to be with the right hand regardless, and in those circumstances the cane, which was normally in the right hand, was swapped smartly to under the left arm in the moment before bringing up the right hand to salute.  

I hesitate to suggest that Frogsmile might be wrong but, in a previous post by Squirrel:-
 

“IIRC and I stand to be corrected, in the Army in WW1 and before, a soldier saluted an officer with the hand nearest the side that the officer was on, or right hand if he was in front of him.

This was changed, mid 1918 I think, by an AO. It is referred to in the book General Jack's Diary edited by John Terraine. One Officer's comment was that if the Germans knew about it they would know that they would lose the war if the British could change such minor details of procedure while engaged in a major war.“

So, when did saluting become only right handed?

[FROGSMILE]

44 minutes ago, PhilB said:

I hesitate to suggest that Frogsmile might be wrong but, in a previous post by Squirrel:-
 

“IIRC and I stand to be corrected, in the Army in WW1 and before, a soldier saluted an officer with the hand nearest the side that the officer was on, or right hand if he was in front of him.

This was changed, mid 1918 I think, by an AO. It is referred to in the book General Jack's Diary edited by John Terraine. One Officer's comment was that if the Germans knew about it they would know that they would lose the war if the British could change such minor details of procedure while engaged in a major war.“

So, when did saluting become only right handed?

Quite happy to be corrected on this Phil.  The change did take place and has almost been forgotten now.  I know it was around the first decades after the turn of the century and several changes to rank badges, and other matters took place in 1918, so it seems quite feasible that the change in saluting was then too.  Personally I don’t have the precise reference to hand, although it’s probably somewhere in the relevant library that I have.   The drill wasn’t a huge change really and only affected saluting with the hand to the side, but it did make a difference to how the saluter handled anything carried in the other hand.

Edited 11 July , 2020 by FROGSMILE

[PhilB]

I was confident that change took place during or after the start of WW1 as I asked several Sept 1914 volunteers about saluting and they confirmed that they used either hand but didn’t say if or when the instruction changed. I was left with the impression that it was either hand right through the war but Squirrel might have it right.

[FROGSMILE]

26 minutes ago, PhilB said:

I was confident that change took place during or after the start of WW1 as I asked several Sept 1914 volunteers about saluting and they confirmed that they used either hand but didn’t say if or when the instruction changed. I was left with the impression that it was either hand right through the war but Squirrel might have it right.

Yes, I think that if Squirrel was able to quote from a contemporary account it is likely correct.  As is implied by the amusing comment that you recounted it wasn’t exactly a change of any great moment given that saluting in most other respects than to a flank remained the same.

Edited 11 July , 2020 by FROGSMILE

[Ron Abbott]

The newspaper archives contain a number of articles from early July 1918 which refer to the left handed salute being abolished except in cases where the right is physically incapacitated.  Mention of it being the subject of a new Army order.

Edited 11 July , 2020 by Ron Abbott

[PhilB]

According to Grumpy, 6/12/11:-
ao 211/1918 refers.

[FROGSMILE]

25 minutes ago, PhilB said:

According to Grumpy, 6/12/11:-
ao 211/1918 refers.

What does the 6/12/11 refer to Phil?

 

Edit:  Cancel that, I realise now that you mean a post of 6th Nov 2011.

Edited 11 July , 2020 by FROGSMILE

[PhilB]

 I mean, of course, the member formerly known as Grumpy! Since Deutschified.

[themonsstar]

Army Order 211 July 1918

[trooper23]

Question specifically on swagger sticks:

Having purchased said stick (with unit identification as illustrated) what happened if the soldier was subsequently transferred? - Was the original unit's stick re purchased back, for subsequent re-issue (less damages?) or did they continue with their original stick even though it was 'foreign' to their new unit? 

[FROGSMILE]

14 minutes ago, trooper23 said:

Question specifically on swagger sticks:

Having purchased said stick (with unit identification as illustrated) what happened if the soldier was subsequently transferred? - Was the original unit's stick re purchased back, for subsequent re-issue (less damages?) or did they continue with their original stick even though it was 'foreign' to their new unit? 

 

The stick belonged to the soldier, he could either retain it as a keepsake, or sell it on to a soldier in the unit he was leaving.  As you might imagine the circumstances of the war where men were moved between units undoubtedly diluted the pre-war regular attitude to these things.  I doubt that a great fuss was made if a soldier temporarily used his old stick, and in any case they were only a routine requirement once at home in Britain and Ireland, or a garrison in India.

Edited 14 July , 2020 by FROGSMILE

[trooper23]

Thank you for the reply

[CorporalPunishment]

Regarding the second photo in post 46, could someone explain to me exactly how that side-cap managed to stay on his head. I mean no disrespect to the man himself but that looks absolutely ridiculous to my eyes.  Pete.

[Matlock1418]

 

2 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

The stick belonged to the soldier, he could either retain it as a keepsake, or sell it on to a soldier in the unit he was leaving.  As you might imagine the circumstances of the war where men were moved between units undoubtedly diluted the pre-war regular attitude to these things.  I doubt that a great fuss was made if a soldier temporarily used his old stick, and in any case they were only a routine requirement once at home in Britain and Ireland, or a garrison in India.

The Army = A stickler for the stick, but pragmatic as to style - seems highly likely [Most-times I guess! - I bet some fell foul of a SNCO or WO!! ;-)]

 

As does the likely destination/fate of my man's stick - most probably went the way of cash! - Like probably for most cash-light young men of the time. 

[A small 'buckshee / liberated' or chargeable cap badge as a souvenir is one thing - but a 'valuable' stick is quite another ;-) = Plus ca change]

Though now wish he had kept it and then passed it on [haven't we all/most got such wishes?]

:-) M

 

25 minutes ago, CorporalPunishment said:

Regarding the second photo in post 46, could someone explain to me exactly how that side-cap managed to stay on his head. I mean no disrespect to the man himself but that looks absolutely ridiculous to my eyes.

I too think it looks quite remarkable - and not a 'kirby grip' or hatpin or six-inch nail in sight! = must be double-sided tape or super-glue!

???

;-) M

[FROGSMILE]

59 minutes ago, CorporalPunishment said:

Regarding the second photo in post 46, could someone explain to me exactly how that side-cap managed to stay on his head. I mean no disrespect to the man himself but that looks absolutely ridiculous to my eyes.  Pete.

It’s interesting that it’s often gunners and cavalry that favoured that oblique style.  I believe it’s because of their hitherto very long tradition of wearing a pillbox forage cap in the same manner, although they were generally retained in place with a chin strap.

Edited 14 July , 2020 by FROGSMILE

[CorporalPunishment]

36 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

It’s interesting that it’s often gunners and cavalry that favoured that oblique style.  I believe it’s because of their hitherto very long tradition of wearing a pillbox forage cap in the same manner, although they were generally retained in place with a chin strap.

I think the angle of that cap would have stretched the imagination of Isaac Newton. It must have involved the use of double-sided tape to keep it on his napper.  Pete.

[FROGSMILE]

9 minutes ago, CorporalPunishment said:

I think the angle of that cap would have stretched the imagination of Isaac Newton. It must have involved the use of double-sided tape to keep it on his napper.  Pete.

Not sure that they had double-sided tape back then Pete, but it certainly suggests a degree of originality. 

Edited 14 July , 2020 by FROGSMILE