4thGordons Posted 28 April , 2007 Share Posted 28 April , 2007 Hi all, I have a Lithgow No1 MkIII* (1917) and (as of yesterday) a Lithgow p1907 (1918) both of which are stamped "2nd M.D." which I understand is 2nd Military District (New South Wales) My question is, what was the purpose/status of this district? was it an administrative district or something else? It seems odd to me that individual weapons would be marked with the mark of a district rather than the army unit(s) residing in that district. Any information appreciated. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crunchy Posted 29 April , 2007 Share Posted 29 April , 2007 Hi 4th Gordons. Military Districts originally commanded and administered all military units within the district. The MD covered the same area as the State boundary except that 2MD did not include Broken Hill, which was administered from 4MD (South Australia). By the 1970's they were purely administrative commands supporting the units located within the MD, the units being commanded by their respective formation HQ, For example, 1st Task Force which was near Sydney, was commanded by 1 Division, which was in Brisbane, but received its administrative support from 2 MD. They were disbanded in the early 1990's when Defence Centres took over the administrative function for all three services. Regards Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 29 April , 2007 Author Share Posted 29 April , 2007 Thanks Chris. That more or less confirms what I thought So I think I am still a bit puzzled. If the 2nd MD was an administrative division why are "they" putting property marks on rifles and bayonets? I suppose what I am really wondering is when these marks were added. Did the rifles leave Australia (prior to being surplussed?) and then came back to be stamped in the 20s /30s? or should I take the 2 MD stamp as indicative of them residing in Australia for their whole service? This thread is perhaps better suited to the arms/equipment heading. Thanks again Chris Chris PS I was in error the rifle is a No1 Mk III (with cutoff etc) but is 1917 dated 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