Historical Soldier's Kit

[The_Taffinch]

Hi All,

Forgive me if this has already been posted, but I noticed the following article and thought it was interesting:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-one/11006139/Inventories-of-war-soldiers-kit-from-1066-to-2014.html?frame=2994148

There's a link to a list of the kit below each pic.

Cheers,
Matt.

 

[British Red]

Quite fascinating

I think the oil bottle is wrong for the Lee Enfield (I'm sure Tombear can confirm) - but I'm a nerd

 

[Goatboy]

Cheers for posting, some interesting things in there. What always worried me as a kid (and still does a bit) is how little ammo men carried in their kit. I know the British army prided itself on marksmanship but in a target rich environment the ability to keep their heads down could be useful.

 

[British Red]

Heavy old stuff though...50 rounds of .303 is weighty enough. I'm sure before an engagement many men would have picked up an extra bandoleer. I doubt many would need more than a hundred.

 

[Dark Horse Dave]

Interesting - thanks for posting

 

[Goatboy]

Oh I know (though when you think how ammo eating "the mad minute" could be) It always just seemed not a lot. Though when you look at the believed rates of troops who actually aimed at the enemy it makes you think again.

I always liked the story about how after the issuing of tin lids during WWI the top brass were worried that the number of head wounds shot up. They were thinking of pulling the helments as they believed that the troops were taking unnecessary risks before a statistician explained that it was due to how wounds were classified back at field hospitals. If you were dead you were dead, but if you were alive where you were hit was recorded. And as more folk were surviving head ounds due to the helmets it showed up in the figures.

 

[The_Taffinch]

Someone has pointed out on another forum that generally, the pack weight across the ages has fallen in the 60-80lb (27-36Kg) range...a fair old load to lug over long distances.

 

[Big Stu 12]

Thats intersting, give a great in sight to waht kit was being used in the "tradtional Years"..

 

[Buckshot]

IIRC my father in law did national service using the 303 and then changed to the SLR
He said rapid fire using the Enfield was 10 rounds a min - remember this is bolt action
Today, again IIRC, talking to an army friend rapid fire is one every 2 or 3 seconds. I think the idea is an 8 man squad all firing means several shots per second which would be enough to keep my head down!

As you say interesting stuff

 

[woof]

I was sat in a pub with my dad many years ago, & a guy on the next table was bragging about shooting a deer at 1000yds using a no4 with iron sights. Dad joined the army in 1942(lied about his age & occupation, his was reserved) had his 18th birthday in action in Italy, so he knew something about the no4.

He turned to this guy & said, "at 500yds a 6ft man is half the size, of your front sight, how the hell did you see a deer in its natural environment, let alone shoot it using open sights at that distance ?"

The guy stopped talking supped up & left.

Rob

 

[rickyamos]

The oil bottle for the No.4 rifle can be stored in the butt, there is a brass door in the brass butt plate.

Sent from my KFSOWI using Tapatalk

 

[British Red]

The oil bottle for the No.4 rifle can be stored in the butt, there is a brass door in the brass butt plate.

Sent from my KFSOWI using Tapatalk

Exactly so - but the one shown is not a proper brass oiler

 

[santaman2000]

I was sat in a pub with my dad many years ago, & a guy on the next table was bragging about shooting a deer at 1000yds using a no4 with iron sights. Dad joined the army in 1942(lied about his age & occupation, his was reserved) had his 18th birthday in action in Italy, so he knew something about the no4.

He turned to this guy & said, "at 500yds a 6ft man is half the size, of your front sight, how the hell did you see a deer in its natural environment, let alone shoot it using open sights at that distance ?"

The guy stopped talking supped up & left.

Rob

Even today, National Match competition still includes open sights at:

Short Range = 300 yards
Medium Range = 600 yards and
Long Range = 1000 yards.

 

[JonathanD]

Great article. Spent a good while comparing those. Wish they were a higher res.

 

[santaman2000]

Especially liked the toggle rope in the kit from the 1944 para.

 

[bushcraftkid2001]

Ha ha I was counting off which bits of kit from the 80s and current kit that I had at home for trips, lol

 

[ozzy1977]

Great article thanks for sharing.

 

[Quixoticgeek]

Interesting. Having gone up against the actual weapons in the images (and associated reenactor) for both 1066 and 1244, it's worth noting that there is a bit of extra license taken in the photo. Where as the picture of 1944 is everything the soldier air dropped in with, the amount of weaponry shown in the 1066 and 1244 pictures are way over the top, showing considerably more than they actually would have carried at one time.

It is also worth noting that those two photos are not representative really in what was carried. Sure some of the nobles may have had a helmet of that quality, a sword, a dagger, and a lance. Your average grunt would not have had anywhere near as much. When you look at the 1181 assize of arms your average freeman only had to have a gamberson (padded jacket), a helmet and a lance. Even a knight would only have a shirt of maille, a helmet, lance and shield.

Personally when I walk onto a battlefield in 1173 I am lucky to be carrying a spear, let alone a shield.

The latter pictures look great, but those two, take with a pinch of salt really.

Julia

 

[Damascus]

Looking at the kit from the eighties brought back memories!!!

 

[Old Bones]

Interesting. Having gone up against the actual weapons in the images (and associated reenactor) for both 1066 and 1244, it's worth noting that there is a bit of extra license taken in the photo. Where as the picture of 1944 is everything the soldier air dropped in with, the amount of weaponry shown in the 1066 and 1244 pictures are way over the top, showing considerably more than they actually would have carried at one time.

It is also worth noting that those two photos are not representative really in what was carried. Sure some of the nobles may have had a helmet of that quality, a sword, a dagger, and a lance. Your average grunt would not have had anywhere near as much. When you look at the 1181 assize of arms your average freeman only had to have a gamberson (padded jacket), a helmet and a lance. Even a knight would only have a shirt of maille, a helmet, lance and shield.

Personally when I walk onto a battlefield in 1173 I am lucky to be carrying a spear, let alone a shield.

The latter pictures look great, but those two, take with a pinch of salt really.

Excellent point - armour was expensive, so its out of context with most of the rest, which tend to show the kit of a standard infantryman, musketeer or foot soldier. And of course someone else would have been carrying it.

What is interesting is that although the kit seems to have increased in number, the basics really have not changed (a Roman soldier would have been much the same), clothing, entrenching kit, personal weapon. A lot of the extra kit is to make the soldier more comfortable (waterproofs, etc) and allow them to eat, etc (a modern soldier is not expected to forage for themselves, unlike much of history). Its a good point to make as well that much of the kit was rather heavy (woollen clothing, for instance) and uncomfortable at times - soldiers have tended to acquire and dump kit as needed, and so this might seem as an ideal, not was always the case.