rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic

Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 2:42 pm

Hi There,

I've always wondered what the small black coloured pouch, what seems to be made of leather and hangs just below the standard white coloured ammunition pouch is for? Could anybody tell me what it contained and what its use was?

Regards to you all,

Michael George.

Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 5:18 pm

Michael,

Apparently, the expense pouch held the rounds that had been taken out of their packets for ready use.

Those rounds held in the ammunition pouches, were apparently kept in their packets.

John Y.

Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 7:27 pm

Dear John,

There is model of a soldier in the JHB Military Museum wearing the buff equipment as per the 1879 campaign. I assume that this may not be an original set. However this shows one of the buff pouches with 10 slots - to take the rounds from the opened packet - this is the reason why perhaps the normal compliment was 70 rounds - 40 unopened on one pouch and 30 unopened in other plus 10 opened. However, this does not answer Michael's question - regrettably, I do not have the general instructions for wearing the equipment with me at home.

Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 10:35 pm

Michael,

The 1871 pattern valise equipment expense pouch (the black pouch you refer to) held 30 loose rounds for ready use. The 1871 pattern valise equipment ammunition pouches (buff leather either side of the waistbelt locket) each held two packets (actually termed "bundles") of ten rounds apiece. The 70 rounds per man was therefore four bundles of ten rounds, two bundles per pouch, with 30 rounds in the expense pouch.

The original 1871 pattern ammunition pouches did not have individual cartridge loops to hold individual rounds. These were introduced with the 1888 pattern valise equipment - more frequently known as the "Slade-Wallace" pattern. In several cases Regiments were equipped with the Lee Metford, in .303" claibre, before receiving the 1888 pattern equipment. this meant that they had to use the 1882 pattern equipment they already had. It is conceivable that some earlier 1871 pattern pouches may have been "converted" to take individual 577/45" cartridges following the 1888 concept, or indeed converted to take .303" cartridges. Obviously Martin would need to advise on which cartridge would fit the loops on the example in the museum, if I have correctly understood what he was explaining.

For clarity only the 1871 pattern valise equipment featured the expense pouch as well as two ammunition pouches. Both the 1882 pattern and 1888 pattern valise equipment dispensed with the expense pouch, and thus featured only two waistbelt ammunition pouches.

Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 9:30 am

Adrian

You are far more expert in the weapons and equipment side than I - but 30 rounds would seem a lot to expose to the elements, without the foreknowledge that one was about to go into battle. It was my understanding that customarily only one packet was opened - for picket and general security - because the Boxer cartridge with its loose seal between bullet and cartridge could let in water and had to be kept dry. I dare say the other two would have been opened before the commencement of an action, but presumably on orders rather than as a matter of routine? What do you think?

Regards as ever

Mike

Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:10 pm

The Imperial Mounted Infantry retained their Martini Henry rifles and wore a bandolier instead of pouches. Wouldn't that expose all 50 or so rounds to the elements ?

The bandolier appears to be the 'open' type, as in, no pouches protecting every 5 or more rounds.

Coll

Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 5:49 pm

Surely with a bandolier, all the cartridges would be downward pointing , so that water would be unlikely to enter, unless of course the bandolier was immersed. Also, would not the leather loop cover and protect the junction of case and bullet?

Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 7:55 pm

Ian,

It would be hard to say how much of the round would be covered, as it would depend on who had made the bandolier, as there wasn't a set-pattern in 1879.

The material wasn't always leather, either, in some cases canvas bandoliers were made.

A good image for the variations in bandoliers is the photograph of Wood's personal escort, armed with Swinburne-Henrys which has appeared in a number of books.

John Y.

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 10:02 pm

Mike,

I anticipate that the expense pouch - or "ball bag" in some instructions - contained 30 rounds if all 70 were issued to the soldier. The soldier would only have had the valise in which to carry more than the four bundles that fitted the waistbelt pouches - the concept of using the pockets for loose rounds was introduced with the 1882 pattern valise equipment.

The MkIII cartridge had a double cannelure for crimping, glazed disc and beeswax wad, all of which would assist keepin moisture from the charge. The original long chamber ammunition had proven suceptible to damage in the form of loose rounds, and in fact the bottleneck design of the adopted cartridge was partly accepted to reduce this. I think the round was reasonably robust.

There are seferal reports of loose ammunition being lost from the expense pouch, and I think this would have been a major factor in how many rounds were carried loose. I agree that the rounds were more susceptible to damage once loose, but I think they were far more likely to be lost too.

I doubt HM Treasury was too different then than today, and keeping rounds in bundles may also have had an economic driver !

I tend to think that if the soldier was issued 70 rounds, then he opened three packets and filled his expense pouch. Mixing loose rounds and bundles in that pouch is awkward (trying it nowadays to grab a round in a hurry) but again i have not seen any accounts to say this was not done.

I would have expected the man to have been issued the 70 rounds and then not be expected to keep some of the bundles in his valise, simply because that may not be to hand unless he was in marching order.

Of course, he could be issued 50 of his 70 rounds, thus having only 10 loose in the pouch. On a point such as this I think you are much better placed to offer a "military mind's" opinion than I - do you think that would be likely ?

Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:01 am

Adrian,
Most contemporary reports reflect the usage of the term "Ball Bags." I cannot find a single favourable comment in favour of this method of carrying ammo.
Newdigate stated, " Complaints were made about the ball-bags: The weight of the cartridges made the the bags open, and when the men doubled the cartridges fall out."
Colonel Clarke:( Commanded 57th at Gingindlovu) " But the ball- bag was universally condemned ; after a few days wet it required constant repair."
Major Cardew ( DAQMG to Crealock's Division) " The infantry expense pouch was very unservicable."
Major Woodgate: ( Principle Staff Officer to Wood) " With the ball-bags, much ammunition was lost."
As debated in the old forum, a strong case that, particularly at Isandlwana, the 24th may well have started with 70 rounds, but probably lost a great portion of the thirty carried in the ball-bags when doubling into position. More so Cavaye and Mostyn.

Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:45 am

To get 30 rounds in the expense pouch would be a tight cram, even 20 loose is pushing it, one has to consider the soldiers haversack (breadbag) which is his general purpose carryall for any additional capacity.

Volume 1 of skennertons treatise investigates deformation of the foil Martini round, either by mishandling or damaged cases caused in transit. Tests were carried out by Hythe school of musketery and various other regiments, who found the round to be quite resilient. If it would chamber in the breech 99.9% of the time it would fire.

The resultant explosion would "fire form" the case to the breech and shape the foil to the breech allowing for extraction.

Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 1:24 pm

Apart from ammunition pouches and bandoliers, is it known if anyone (Irregulars, etc.) had bullet loops on their actual tunic/jacket, very much like the big game hunters, therefore always having 10 or so rounds readily available, but secure in the loops rather than loose, even as extra rounds, should their bandolier, etc., be used up ?

Coll

Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:14 pm

Coll,

In the photograph of P.L. Uys, which has appeared in a number of works, one of the group has a waistcoat with his rounds in it. Such a waist seems to have been favoured by a number of Boer Commandants in the 1st Anglo-Boer War, 1880-1.

Interesting to note that in the photograph P.L. Uys is wearing the Bowie-knife bayonet for the Swinburne-Henry. Mistakenly referred to a hunting knife by one Isandlwana survivors.

John Y.

Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 3:06 pm

John

Thanks for your reply.

I've looked at that photograph on several occasions, but somehow managed not to see the bullet-loop waistcoat.

It appears to be carrying quite a few rounds, could it be 30 or so ?

Thanks again.

Coll

Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 5:22 pm

Adrian

I am inclined to agree with Neil. Four packets - two each, in left and right ammo pouches of course - that is certain. One packet loose in the ball bag - one's 'ready to use' rounds, and then the obvious and much more practical (and therefore soldierly) home for the additional two packets, is the canvas utility haversack on the hip, rather than the valise. In fact I would go as far as to say, that no soldier would carry ammuniton in his valise (backpack), unless he had been issued with so many rounds that he simply had nowehere else to put it. But 70 is easily manageable between ammo pouches, ball bag, and haversack. That way, a soldier would always have his ammuntion ready to hand, regardless of whether he was in 'fighting order' or 'marching order' equipment.

I have a good quantity of Martini Cartridges and 30, again as Neil suggests, would seem to be beyond the practical capacity of the ball bag. Such a large quantity is also quite heavy - and would be very uncomfortable to have banging around in a loose slung pouch. Were it to be overfilled I have no doubt rounds would be lost - hence my understanding that the very reason the ball bag was provided, was in order to house 10 carts at a time, as each paper sealed packet was broken open. Or if one was certain to be going into action on a firing line, then I guess you might open a second packet and have 20 in the ball bag. 30 though, does seem an awful lot.

Regards as ever

Mike