rorkesdriftvc.com Forum Index


rorkesdriftvc.com
Discussions related to the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879
Reply to topic
Slade Wallis?..Slade Wallace?..Slade and Wallace?.. or what?
Kiwi Sapper


Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 125
Location: Middle Earth & Home of Narnia; (Auckland, New Zealand)
Reply with quote
Help I have a replica set ( x I.M.A , USA) and despite extensive Googleing have failed to establish the correct name, issue date, (of the original, not my replica) nor the correct assembly method let alone a list off all the attachments. Can any kind, erudite person point me to a suitable web site? A "cherry on the top" would be to find the date they ceased to be used by either British or Colonial troops, ........but that may be asking too much. So Confused , any guidance on any of the above would be greatfully received. Thank you.

_________________
It was a confusion of ideas between him and one of the lions he was hunting in Kenya that had caused A. B. Spottsworth to make the obituary column. He thought the lion was dead, and the lion thought it wasn't.
View user's profileSend private message
Sawubona


Joined: 09 Nov 2005
Posts: 1179
Reply with quote
Kiwi, I'll wing this one without looking at IMA to see exactly what you've got.

During the AZW, the leather equipment issued was called the '71 Valise pattern. The most immediately identifiable part of this equipment was that the shoulder straps do not attach to the back of the belt at all, but rather loop up from the front of the belt and attach to a ring below the armpit , cross on the back and then wrap around each shoulder. It was typically worn with a pair of fairly shallow ammunition pouches on either side of the buckle.

This system of leather gear was replaced in 1882 with the "'82 Valise " kit-- similar enough to the next system so that it is often called the "'82 Slade Wallace'. The pouches were a bit deeper and unlike the '71 Valise, the shoulder straps cross on the back and attach to the back of the belt in a rather less complicated fashion. Keep in mind that at this time the Martini Henry was still the standard issue rifle, but that was to change very soon.

With the issue of the Lee Metford (similar to the Long or Charger Loaded Lee Enfield) magazine rifle, cartridges were now smaller and lighter. This resulted in the adoption of the "88 Slade Wallace" system named after its designers Mssrs. Slade and Wallace, very similar to the '82 pattern, but with different pouches reflecting the use of the new ammunition and rifle. I imagine this is the pattern you have. The actors portraying the redcoats in ZULU are incorrectly wearing this pattern if you are looking for a good representation of the system.

During the Second Anglo Boer War, a new system was informally adopted by some British that eventually was formally adopted *on a limited basis) in 1903 and referred to as the "'03 Bandolier" pattern and this was replaced in turn by the '08 Web Pattern. Meanwhile the stocks of the '88 pattern continued to be worn for "dress" well into the 20th Century, particularly the belt with the three loops in the back. I imagine Colonial troops continued to wear the 88 Slade Wallace for longer.

I can't speak for the Antipodes or even Great Britain, but original leather accouterments are rare Stateside. Belts of the '88 pattern are the most commonly available, probably reflecting their continued wear after the style was replaced, followed by belts of the '82 pattern. Pouches for both are rarer and pricier, although those for the '82 are sometimes available for a good price because they aren't properly IDed. Shoulder straps are both rare and pricey for both systems. Any '71 Valise gear is extremely rare and consequently very valuable.


Last edited by Sawubona on Thu Apr 09, 2009 1:18 pm; edited 2 times in total
View user's profileSend private message
Sawubona


Joined: 09 Nov 2005
Posts: 1179
Reply with quote
Kiwi, just checked out IMA. Obviously, that is the '88 (What was the giveaway, Saw, the date listed?). The snake buckle was less common than the "general service" style and not what you are apt to see at sales of original leather militaria (over here anyway), but still "correct". Check out a web site called "The Thin Red Line" if you can find it. Although difficult to navigate, it has excellent examples of each of the systems and how they were worn. Google "thin red line Victorian reproduction", click on the obvious choice, scroll to the bottom of the "memorial page" to Kieth Parks and hit continue, click on the redcoat and then click on "catalogue" at the top. Voila!
View user's profileSend private message
Slade Wallis?..Slade Wallace?..Slade and Wallace?.. or what?
Kiwi Sapper


Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 125
Location: Middle Earth & Home of Narnia; (Auckland, New Zealand)
Reply with quote
I send Greetings to Sawubona.
Many thanks for "raising the veils from my eyes". I now have , per courtesy of you, a better understanding of what I have hanging up in my QMS. Not period for Rorke's Drift but 19 th Century correct. I did a re-run of Zulu and Zulu Dawn and as a result, I have spent some time pondering as to why the film companies got it so wrong with their costume. Cost, and availabilty I suspect. The flow on effect of that is of course, (as I perceive it), that the average man (or woman, let's not get sexist here) in the street, accepts the silver screen presentation as correct. I have encountered this before and endured the "head banging" scenario of trying to explain that what they saw at the Odeon,De Luxe, Majestic, Tivoli etc. was not correct. Don't want to go there again!
Again, thank you, and the links you so kindly supplied, have been most useful in assisting me to reach a decision as to how I shall be seen "strutting the stage".

_________________
It was a confusion of ideas between him and one of the lions he was hunting in Kenya that had caused A. B. Spottsworth to make the obituary column. He thought the lion was dead, and the lion thought it wasn't.
View user's profileSend private message
Sawubona


Joined: 09 Nov 2005
Posts: 1179
Reply with quote
I agree with your "availability" surmise for the leather accouterments in ZULU. I can't give you chapter and verse, but I believe the total production of the '88 Slade Wallace Equipment was far beyond that of any of the others simply because of the Anglo Boer War needs. You'll recall that the eventual deployment of British troops in South Africa was somewhere in the order of almost half a million and many of their "kits" soldiered on for decades longer.

It probably wasn't a big factor in the choice for filming. but the "proper" '71 Valise Pattern is quite a bit more complicated to put on and take off and not so "universal" in sizing. A soldier of large stature would have difficulty wearing the '71 pattern of a smaller soldier because of the shoulder strap lengths and the typical Victorian soldier was quite diminutive by modern standards.

I'm not certain of this, but I believe the '88 was "one size fits all" whereas the standard issue of the '71 was in the order of 2Xsmall, 6Xaverage, and 2Xtall for every ten men. Again, I'm not sure of the actual numbers. The strap lengths and adjustments were likewise more critical in the latter for comfort and functionality.

If you were to be putting together a kit on a mannequin representing a Victorian uniform and you chose to go with an '88 Slade Wallace, it would be "correct' to arm him with a Lee-Metford and an 88 pattern knife bayonet rather than with a Martini-Henry and it's long '76 pattern socket bayonet. The canteen would like as not be the tin teardrop shaped one in a sling rather than the wooden "Italian" or "Oliver" style although the mess kit wouldn't change for several decades yet (the same style issued to all later Victorian soldiers was used throughout The Great War as well).
View user's profileSend private message
Sawubona


Joined: 09 Nov 2005
Posts: 1179
Reply with quote
"Like a dog returning to some long forgotten spew"! It seems that I got my previous post a just a bit wrong. In 1888, the newly introduced Slade-Wallace pattern kit was tricked out with a pair of pouches designed to accommodate ammunition for the Martini-Henry (similar to the 1882 Valise Pattern pouches) although the Lee-Metford was officially introduced in that same year. It wasn't until 1889 that the archtypical Slade-Wallace Pouches were issued for the new .303 Lee-Metford ammunition.

As I'm putting together a display centered around an 1888 dated Royal Scots tunic, I've learned more about this transitional year gear than most of us would like to know. Rolling Eyes

Don't make the same mistake with the '88 Slade-Wallace braces that IMA and pretty much everyone else makes (including everyone it seems in the VWF forum). That funky brass loop in the middle of the wide portion of the leather brace (the one attached with six copper rivets ) is there to accommodate the strap attached to the valise and it belongs just behind the tunic shoulder strap, NOT in front or worse, at the middle of the chest! The valise straps passe through the two of them and are then attached to the odd double buckles on the braces midway between the shoulders and the waist. And Donald Morris called the '71 Valise pattern kit "complicated" and "difficult to put on correctly"? Surprised
View user's profileSend private message
Kiwi Sapper


Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 125
Location: Middle Earth & Home of Narnia; (Auckland, New Zealand)
Reply with quote
Gosh..............several exclamations spring to my lips, but after some thought, I have decided on the inscrutable oriental phrase; "ahhhhhhhhhh sooooooooo"

I look forward with MUCH interest for pictures of your assembled kit. Surprised

_________________
It was a confusion of ideas between him and one of the lions he was hunting in Kenya that had caused A. B. Spottsworth to make the obituary column. He thought the lion was dead, and the lion thought it wasn't.
View user's profileSend private message
Sawubona


Joined: 09 Nov 2005
Posts: 1179
Reply with quote
Thanks for the interest, Kiwi. It's still a work in progress though, more than a few years in the making. I'm beginning to wonder which will be finished first- me or this kit-up Confused Pierre Turner's book "Soldiers' Accoutrements of the British Army, 1750-1900" has been (and is) an indispensable resource and I'd heartily recommend it to you anyone else interested in such matters. From there it's just a simple matter to figure out what you have, what you need, where you can find what you need, if what you've found is, in fact, what you needed in the first place and how it all goes together Shocked . Then it's just a simple matter to figure out what else it is you need...
View user's profileSend private message
Harold Raugh


Joined: 25 May 2008
Posts: 211
Location: Heidelberg, Germany (U.S. Army)
Reply with quote
Hi Sawubona,
Have you tried Donald Featherstone's Weapons and Equipment of the Victorian Soldier (London: Arms and Armour Press, 1978; reprint, 1996). It contains many detailed line drawings that may be helpful to you.
Cheers,
Harold
View user's profileSend private message
Sawubona


Joined: 09 Nov 2005
Posts: 1179
Reply with quote
Thanks for that Harold I do indeed have the Featherstone book and although I frequently have referred to it in the past as well, I hadn't thought of it recently. I'll try to find it tonight! He sure seems to cover a lot of territory for a rather small volume, doesn't he?
View user's profileSend private message
Harold Raugh


Joined: 25 May 2008
Posts: 211
Location: Heidelberg, Germany (U.S. Army)
Reply with quote
Hi Sawubona,
You're quite welcome! I hope you find it soon, and don't spend a restless night wondering where the book is!
Cheers,
Harold
View user's profileSend private message
Kiwi Sapper


Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 125
Location: Middle Earth & Home of Narnia; (Auckland, New Zealand)
Reply with quote
Sawubona wrote:
....................... Pierre Turner's book "Soldiers' Accoutrements of the British Army, 1750-1900" has been (and is) an indispensable resource and I'd heartily recommend it to you anyone else interested in such matters...................


My thanks for the pointer. I was unaware (as I am of many other things Very Happy ) of this book, but armed with details I located copies on Amazon and as a birthday was pending, "She who must be obeyed " seized on the opportunity of selecting a "wanted " gift . It arrived today and Gosh, what a wealth of information..

_________________
It was a confusion of ideas between him and one of the lions he was hunting in Kenya that had caused A. B. Spottsworth to make the obituary column. He thought the lion was dead, and the lion thought it wasn't.
View user's profileSend private message
Sawubona


Joined: 09 Nov 2005
Posts: 1179
Reply with quote
I'm glad you like it, K.S.! It's not what one would call an inexpensive book, but it's certainly thorough and detailed. On several occasions it's already helped me to score a good bargain on the likes of Ebay or at a show and it's likewise kept me from overpaying for a mislabeled or altered piece I otherwise would have bought.

Turner seems more of a draftsman than an artist. I for one can't imagine how anyone can enjoy the kind of tedious attention to detail he demonstrates in his illustrations.

Edit: I just looked and it is actually quite inexpensive on Amazon. I paid a bit more for my copy Sad Everybody on this site ought to have a copy! And perhaps Pierre might pass on a kickback for that unsolicited testimonial.
View user's profileSend private message
Slade Wallis?..Slade Wallace?..Slade and Wallace?.. or what?
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 1 of 1  

  
  
 Reply to topic