Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Soldiers Kit and caboodle

Expand Messages
  • R. Feltoe
    Dear All, Seeing the latest about haversacks and canteens being issued as needed and not retained by each man, sent me back to my files to see if there was a
    Message 1 of 5 , Aug 29 4:10 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear All,
      Seeing the latest about haversacks and canteens being issued as needed and not retained by each man, sent me back to my files to see if there was a correlation to this idea and if it had any applications for the IMUC.

      What I found seems to be somewhat variable. If you look at the reference I put up for Dec 1812, the haversacks and canteens are being acquired at the same rate as coats and hats (but that of course did not mean they were issued at the same rate)

      There is also these references that could seem to validate this storage theory:

      Return of Camp equipment in the Commissariat stores in Quebec City: 19 Jan 1813
      (List includes:Tents of various types and sizes, tomahawks, and)
      Blankets 1385
      Canteens and Straps 3958
      Kettles (Old pattern) 915, Flanders 280
      Haversacks 4926
      (RG8 / C3840 / VOL1707 / P152)

      Return of Camp equipage remaining at Kingston: 4 May 1813
      (List includes:Tents of various types and sizes, poles, tent pins, mallets, drumcases,shovels spades, bill hooks and)
      Canteens 955
      Camp Kettles 79
      Haversacks 635
      Blankets 800
      (RG5 / C4543 / VOL 17 / P 7294)

      Official allocations of Camp equipment for 1000 men, being 2 corps of 500 men , each with Regimental staff: May 1813
      (List includes: Flanders tents, Officers tents, Privates tents, Bell tents,bill hooks, iron collars,Drum cases, mallets, powder bags, and)
      Blankets 1085
      Canteens and straps 1085
      Flanders Kettles 200
      Haversacks 1085

      On the other hand, this quote appears to substantiate the premise that haversacks were issued to the soldiers while still in barracks (as this part of the imuc were stationed here for some time after this issuance)

      Return of clothing for the companies of Incorporated Militia, Johnsown and Eastern District: May 1813
      In Stores :
      Jackets:352 Issued to IMUC 352
      Trousers:351 Issued 351
      Caps:352 Issued 352
      Bugles(badges):300 Issued 300
      Haversacks:300 Issued 300

      Plus the previous quote for July 1813 (Issuance's for the IMUC)

      Next E Mail will be for 1814 (Co's there's more here than I originally thought on this issue. I do so love a good dig for info. "Come Watson the game's afoot")

      Regards Richard.











      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Andrew S. Finch
      Richard is it possible that on the haversack issue the men were issued one and then had to turn one in to get one with something in issued to them. Also what
      Message 2 of 5 , Sep 6, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Richard is it possible that on the haversack issue the men were issued one
        and then had to turn one in to get one with something in issued to them.
        Also what did you think of the fatigue jacket issue. To me give the
        different sizes of men I would have thought that anything of the clothing
        type would be kept by the men.
        Seems to me the lads in the Falklands humped 80+ lbs. Packs so why in the
        nap. Period they would be treated any softer escapes me.
      • Scott Jeznach
        ... Everything the men carried in their rucksacks during the Falkland War campaign was of operational necessity. They landed in a foreign country and needed
        Message 3 of 5 , Sep 6, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          >Seems to me the lads in the Falklands humped 80+ lbs. Packs so why in the
          >nap. Period they would be treated any softer escapes me.


          Everything the men carried in their rucksacks during the Falkland War
          campaign was of operational necessity. They landed in a foreign country and
          needed rations, ammunition, and shelter/protection from the harsh
          environment. Ammunition alone is one heavy bitch, if you'll excuse the
          crudeness.

          I doubt you would find mufti clothing in their packs, which is the modern
          equivalent of fatigue jackets of the Napoleonic Period.

          Scott J.
          Royal Marines
        • IX Regiment
          ... cuse me, but it wasn t a foreign country methinks! wasn t that the whole point. P** ... -- IX Regiment
          Message 4 of 5 , Sep 6, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            >
            >>Seems to me the lads in the Falklands humped 80+ lbs. Packs so why in the
            >>nap. Period they would be treated any softer escapes me.
            >
            >
            >Everything the men carried in their rucksacks during the Falkland War
            >campaign was of operational necessity. They landed in a foreign country and
            >needed rations, ammunition, and shelter/protection from the harsh
            >environment. Ammunition alone is one heavy bitch, if you'll excuse the
            >crudeness.
            'cuse me, but it wasn't a foreign country methinks! wasn't that the
            whole point.

            P**
            >
            >I doubt you would find mufti clothing in their packs, which is the modern
            >equivalent of fatigue jackets of the Napoleonic Period.
            >
            >Scott J.
            >Royal Marines
            --
            IX Regiment
          • Bateman, Andrew
            ... and ... Peter wrote: cuse me, but it wasn t a foreign country methinks! wasn t that the whole point. Andrew writes: Scott belongs to the Argentinean
            Message 5 of 5 , Sep 6, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              >Everything the men carried in their rucksacks during the Falkland War
              >campaign was of operational necessity. They landed in a foreign country
              and
              >needed rations, ammunition, and shelter/protection from the harsh
              >environment....

              Peter wrote:

              'cuse me, but it wasn't a foreign country methinks! wasn't that the
              whole point.

              Andrew writes:

              Scott belongs to the Argentinean branch of the Jeznach family...


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.