rorkesdriftvc.com Forum Index


rorkesdriftvc.com
Discussions related to the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879
Reply to topic
mike snook 2


Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Posts: 920
Reply with quote
Chaps

Of course - 1/24 are sailing from the Med not England which makes it quite impossible, given Neil's dates above, for the rifles to have gone to SA with them.

My source is in fact Carrington but from early 1875 - I wanted to tease this out without predjudicing anybody's position on this in advance. I'll dig it out in detail and pin it down to a precise date, when I've a little time on my hands. Oh and contrary to what I said above, I now recall that some of his early letters are from Gib not SA - my mistake.

But there's a new historical footnote nailed down between us - 1/24 arrived at the Cape with Sniders and converted to MH early in 1875 - I'll have a look at the dates but I guess there's a chance they might have carried Sniders in the Diamond Fields Rebellion. Interesting.

I've never heard of Warley and have no idea where it might be. Should I have done?

Adrian

That makes perfect sense on the 1882 valise - I gather from what I've read that it was not hugely different from 1871 anyway. It seemes eminently possible if not likely that the Guards would have gone (in 1885) with 1871 kit as well - indeed that 1882 might not have made many appearances at all until towards the end of the decade, by which time we're getting into Slade-Wallace territory aren't we? Almost you might say the kit issue that never was!! Look forward to your thoughts on Sudan.

As ever

Mike
View user's profileSend private message
Adrian Whiting


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 76
Location: Dorset, England
Reply with quote
Mike,

Warley, in Essex, was one of the pre-Crimean Infantry Barracks, and the location of the EIC Chapel. Under the Localisation plans it became one of the "double depots".

_________________
Hope this assists,
Adrian
View user's profileSend private message
Adrian Whiting


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 76
Location: Dorset, England
Reply with quote
Mike,

On the 1882 pattern Valise equipment, this was introduced by LoC 3994. It was listed as being a continuation of the list dated 1st March 1882 but was promulgated by being issued with Army Circulars dated 1st April that year. The preface made it clear that issue would be made only in complete replacement for a battalion etc, and when existing equipment had worn out. I would have thought there would be quite a few photographic references to confirm which Regts had which Valise equipment on foreign service for that conflict? I will have a look at the sources I have when I get a moment.

I would thus agree that the previous pattern would be much in abundance and in fact Regts departing from UK were very likely to have it since it would hardly have been put to the most exacting use in a hostile environment.

If the 1/24th were at Gibraltar then they would have suspended their annual musketry practice, and recommenced it when in quarters in SA, when able. This would explain why it is absent at that point in the return.

Neil has given you the details on the Martinis in use, and I entirely agree with him.

In terms of the Snider, the correct designation for the Mark III is; Rifle, Pattern 1853, Snider (Improved Action, 1868) Interchangeable. (Mark III). At least that is how the LoC introduced it. The more common title is Snider-Enfield MkIII Long Rifle. The MkIII was basically newly manufactured, with a steel barrel, as opposed to being a converted arm. It used the .577" Snider-Enfield Service Ball cartridge (and blanks and buckshot in some cases too - the latter used in certain public order situations and on occasion for sentry duties where it was considered more effective if the post was rushed at night).

The Snider carbine in use by Indian cavalry would be a mix of the MkII** or the MkIII, as the MkIII was made up in addition to the earlier pattern and not necessarily in replacement for it, certainly not by this campaign.

I anticipate Cavalry ORs would be issued the 1882 Pattern Cavalry sword, though some from India may still have had the Pattern 1864. I think these are hard to tell apart in photographs as both have a hilt guard pierced with a Maltese cross. The earlier Pattern 1853 (which had unified the swords of Light and Heavy cavalry) had a three bar hilt and was much preferred anyway, but I am not sure if any Regts had managed to retain them to that point. Because of their hilt they would be easy to identify in photographs, and it had been reverted to by the RA in 1876 on the dual grounds that the sword guard damaged the clothing and because it then gave a similar appearance to RA officer's swords.

You are correct that cavalry officers carried different patterns of swords from the ORs. In fact until 1896 officers swords for Light and Heavy cavalry remained different. Officers of Light Cavalry carried a three bar hilted Pattern 1821 in undress, officers of Heavy cavalry carried a sword with a more substantial guard pierced with a honeysuckle design, again dating from 1821, however there were many regimental variations on officer's swords so this is quite a complex one! Household cavalry were different again, but I don't think you needed detail on that?

_________________
Hope this assists,
Adrian
View user's profileSend private message
mike snook 2


Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Posts: 920
Reply with quote
Adrian

You sir are a gentleman. I'm obliged. That's helps me a lot. Thanks also to Neil of course.

As ever

Mike
View user's profileSend private message
Sloshed him with Martinis, but what mark?
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT  
Page 2 of 2  

  
  
 Reply to topic