Historical Soldier's Kit

[Quixoticgeek]

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.

Agreed.

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.

Was having a chat with some squaddies just back from Afghan, they were trying on our Maile, Helmets, and the like[1]. The conclusion we started to reach is that the weight a soldier carries has stayed pretty much constant over the years. Where once a soldier would carry lots of weight in the form of Maile, todays soldier carries it in the form of batteries...

Julia

[1]Never expected to find a squaddie running away screaming as I chased him with a blunt sæx...

 

[santaman2000]

...Was having a chat with some squaddies just back from Afghan, they were trying on our Maile, Helmets, and the like[1]. The conclusion we started to reach is that the weight a soldier carries has stayed pretty much constant over the years. Where once a soldier would carry lots of weight in the form of Maile, todays soldier carries it in the form of batteries........

Modern body armor weighs upwards from 40 pounds depending on size (that's without a load-out) and a modern Kevlar helmet weighs another 3 pounds or up (again depending on size) That in addition to ammo and water load-out puts his load at about 60 pounds before any sustainment load.

And yep, batteries are a big part of a modern load.

 

[woof]

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

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

I used to follow the shooting at Bisley, & recall a serving member of the Raf, winning numerous competitions including the 1000yd one using an slr with open sights. But not to detract from the mans ability or prowess as a rifleman, that's still a long way from seeing, let alone shooting something in its natural environment at the same distance.

Rob

 

[santaman2000]

I used to follow the shooting at Bisley, & recall a serving member of the Raf, winning numerous competitions including the 1000yd one using an slr with open sights. But not to detract from the mans ability or prowess as a rifleman, that's still a long way from seeing, let alone shooting something in its natural environment at the same distance.

Rob

Very true!

There are also certain things about the distance that could (and I stress could) actually be to the hunter's advantage. For example, the quarry would be unlikely to be especially concerned with a hunter so far away. Meaning if said hunter was on a stand (hide) with a clear view of the trail he knows the quarry to use all he need do is wait for an opportune shot.

Such situation would be unusual in that very few if any hunters would deliberately set up their stand at such a distance. I don't know of any such hunters, but I'm willing to concede the possibility.

 

[woof]

Very true!

There are also certain things about the distance that could (and I stress could) actually be to the hunter's advantage. For example, the quarry would be unlikely to be especially concerned with a hunter so far away. Meaning if said hunter was on a stand (hide) with a clear view of the trail he knows the quarry to use all he need do is wait for an opportune shot.

Such situation would be unusual in that very few if any hunters would deliberately set up their stand at such a distance. I don't know of any such hunters, but I'm willing to concede the possibility.

Wish I was a confident enough shot to try it !

I do remember reading an Elmer Keith article in guns & ammo, about a tremendous shot on an elk with a handgun, at 600yds ?, that's if the old grey matter is still working, but I've been wrong before & no doubt will be again...

Rob

 

[Bowlin]

Last Wednesday we were hitting fig 11 targets with a No.4 at 600 yds, the foresight was almost obscuring the target.
But at 1000 yds with iron sights I think a lot of sighting shots would be necessary (or a lot of luck and a kind wind)!

 

[British Red]

Just lollipop the fig 11 (sitting it on top of the foresight element). If the foresight is obscuring the target, the elevation is wrong IMO

 

[santaman2000]

Wish I was a confident enough shot to try it !

I do remember reading an Elmer Keith article in guns & ammo, about a tremendous shot on an elk with a handgun, at 600yds ?, that's if the old grey matter is still working, but I've been wrong before & no doubt will be again...

Rob

Yeah I wish as well. I have shot out to 600 (with an M1A1) in competition. I'm not a bad shot but I was no where near the level of the regular competitors. 600 yards with a handgun? That's amazing if true. Not just being able to hit, but that it would still have enough energy to penetrate.

 

[santaman2000]

Just lollipop the fig 11 (sitting it on top of the foresight element). If the foresight is obscuring the target, the elevation is wrong IMO

That would be my opinion as well.

 

[tombear]

Just on motorway heading to st. Fagans using the wife's iPhone so can't get a proper look at the oiler . Will look up the L o C reference when the economy blackened steel / iron version was introduced. Was definitely in use in WW2 not sure about Great War . Black, brown and amber plastic deffo 1940s .

ATB

tom

 

[yomperalex]

Nice, thanks for posting.

Alex

 

[Gweedo]

I like the fact that the one item that's been a constant throughout the ages is a spoon.

 

[sargey]

very cool article thanks.

there appears to be no index of the archer's kit. simple enough though it may be. extraordinary to think that what appears to be a kent pattern hatchet has been around for so long. now i just need one......


cheers, and.

 

[shaggystu]

very cool article thanks.

there appears to be no index of the archer's kit. simple enough though it may be. extraordinary to think that what appears to be a kent pattern hatchet has been around for so long. now i just need one......


cheers, and.

Only just got round to reading the article (or looking at the pictures anyway), and had the same thought. I think that it's in the same image that you can see a full tang knife with scales rivetted on.......not convinced by the historical accuracy of either of those items to be honest. I may well be wrong though, we may have had kent patterns for over 500 years, but full tang knives? with holes drilled in the tang to accept rivets? surely not

 

[sargey]

yes that is also a thought that struck me, a very modern styled sheath too.

cheers, and.

 

[Dave]

....extraordinary to think that what appears to be a kent pattern hatchet has been around for so long. now i just need one......
.

I was just gonna post the same thing after looking at the photos. [Slide 4] Be interesting to know if the kent pattern axe was around back then.