rorkesdriftvc.com Forum Index


rorkesdriftvc.com
Discussions related to the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879
Reply to topic
Ball bag question
Bill Harris


Joined: 04 Sep 2005
Posts: 4
Location: Ontario, Canada
Reply with quote
I was just reading a very interesting discussion in this forum about the infantry's black leather "ball bag" or "expense pouch". This prompted me to get out my replica 1871 Valise gear and give this item another look.

I own two reproduction sets of 1871 Valise, from two separate manufacturers, and I noticed that both ball bags had a small loop sewn onto the back of them. Consulting the books I had to hand, photos of original 1871 Valise sets showed that they too had the loop.

My question is: does anyone know what that loop is for? I immediately thought that it might be to hold the oil bottle. The bottle I have in my collection does indeed fit into the loop, but this seems a rather odd place to keep such an important item; while it is a tight fit, it wouldn't be impossible for it to fall out, and the indent it makes in the pouch would seem to restrict the number of rounds one could keep stored in it. But if it's not for the oil bottle, what is it for then?

Any thoughts?

Best regards,

Bill H.
View user's profileSend private message
Adrian Whiting


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

Although my own Expense Pouch is not to hand - I'll have to check it tomorrow! I think what you are referring to is a loop for feeding the suspension strap through to steady the pouch when it is worn on the soldier's back, suspended from the crossover point of the rear of the braces. It was steadied by the waistbelt. There is an illustration of this in Osprey MAA 107, page 18.

I will check tomorrow in case I am way out in terms of the loop I remember!

On a related point, in that last discussion thread there was discussion on the number of rounds carried in the pouch. I mentioned the potential for some rounds to be carried in the Valise, which on its face would appear a pretty impractical option given the time needed to gain access if the soldier were in a hurry. Since then i had turned up my reference, which is Wolseley's "The Soldier's Pocket Book for Field Service" in the case of my copy (reprint through DP & G - available via this site) page 27, where it reads - "each soldier carries 70 rds (40 in pouch, 10 in expense bag, and 20 in valise)". Even though the date given for publication is 1886, which would post date the introduction of the 1882 Valise Equipment, the reference is very clearly to the 1871 pattern equipment.

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


Joined: 04 Sep 2005
Posts: 4
Location: Ontario, Canada
Reply with quote
Hi Adrian,

Thanks for your reply. The thought that the loop was to retain the ball bag strap had occurred to me, but given the length of the strap (rather short) I couldn't envision how or why it would be used. Your explanation, however, makes perfect sense - obviously a soldier wouldn't want the ball bag to be flapping around wildly behind him, especially when it was jammed with cartridges!

Best regards,

Bill H.
View user's profileSend private message
Michael Boyle


Joined: 12 Dec 2005
Posts: 595
Location: Bucks County,PA,US
Reply with quote
I came across a re-print of GO62 of 1878 which includes all the valise equipment, how to properly pack it and the variations on how it's worn (and how to rip out stitches to adjust it for particularly small men) (an interesting document for later vets as it seems to show that no matter how much things have changed the element of OCB has remained the same!) -

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~thinred/regimental/page8.htm

It doesn't list an expense pouch but rather " 1 bag, ammunition" which I assume is the ball bag. As well it lists " 2 pouches ammunition, 20 rounds each". It doesn't specify how many rounds the ammunition bag is to hold but in the text refers to "When the two pouches and the ammunition bag are worn, it is necessary that the braces should be worn to support the waist belt, as the weight of 60 or 70 rounds of ammunition is too great for the waist belt alone." which seems to indicate the ball bag could hold either 20 or 30 rounds depending on some unstated condition (perhaps the size of the individual). It goes on to state "The shirt will be tightly rolled and placed on the top of the holdall. 20 rounds of ammunition may be placed in the pockets." indicating that a full load would be 80 to 90 rounds when in full kit.

At any rate the prescribed method of wearing the ball bag is "The ammunition bag, if required, is carried from the ring on the right side, the bag being brought up inside the waist belt as far as it will go to keep it steady." Am I right in assuming a certain amount of leeway was given to troops in the field to "modify" the regulations?

Best

Michael
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Neil Aspinshaw


Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Posts: 290
Location: Loughborough
Reply with quote
I tried to fit 30 loaded rounds in an expense pouch, it is practically impossible. OK is was using .577/.450 Kynock modern rounds, loaded with Paper pathced .464 bullets. Then results were very interesting.10-15 is OK, 20 you need to be very careful in the way you insert them. 30 no way, it is brimming over the top.

20 rounds makes it uncomfortable to wear, even with braces, as it swings and hits you in the n**kers. The only way to make it comfortable is to wear it over your right hip.

My guess is the haversack became the place for spare packets, ten rounds at a time can be opened single handed in the expense pouch, but certainly not if 10-15 are already in.

When we do volley firing displays in the 80th, it is a serious fiddle to extract the case from the pouch, load and fire in rapid fire without dropping half on the floor.

Oh to have been a fly on the side of Isandlwana
Neil

_________________
Neil
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailVisit poster's website
mike snook 2


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

What is your experience of loading direct from the main left and right pouches?

I have in my mind some idea (and am quite prepared to be corrected on this) that one carried ten loose rounds in the ball bag as a matter of course, (guard duty and the avoidance of surprise), but that the other 60 rounds would have been left sealed in their packets to prevent damp ingress - until such time as the baloon went up, when the company and or section commanders would direct that some or all of the four packets worn left and right were to be broken open (leaving another two still intact in the haversack). How does that sound? Have you ever had 20 loose in the left, 20 loose in the right and 10 loose in the ball bag?

Mike
View user's profileSend private message
Neil Aspinshaw


Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Posts: 290
Location: Loughborough
Reply with quote
Mike,
Fiddly to say the least, I do not know if the rifleman released the rounds from the paper before he inserted them into the belt pouches. Unlikely in my book. As you say, my guess would be that he kept the packs of ten sealed, then, tearing them loose whilst in the expense pouch single handedly and shaking them into the ball bag (very difficult when half full as there is not space to do that), Otherwise he would have to let go of his rifle.

Obviously the later Slade wallace pouches did away with the packs of ten and had individual "bandolier" type loops for the rounds inside.

This leads to another slant, how would the rifleman get on in the prone position?, all his ammo is in his front pouches, he would have to expose himself from cover to actually get at it. On the rear cover of the hill of the Sphinx one of LLoyds paintings show "Paddy Brenan defending his pot," with a small pile of cartridges by his side, what happens if the bugle calls retire? do you leave a pile of precious cartridges on the floor?.

Thses are the type of questions I would like to answer on the range, with a touch of pressure on the firer to engage and hit a target, but with the added handicap of P1871 equipment, loading from his pouches, not sitting comfortable behind a bench lazily blasting away a sunday morning in a cloud of smoke.

My proposed experiment could open a few eyes?

Neil

_________________
Neil
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailVisit poster's website
Mikey29211


Joined: 26 Aug 2006
Posts: 232
Location: Central Nebraska, USA
Reply with quote
Do you reload your brass?
I paid $120.00 for 20 rounds here in the US. (neck formed .577nitro express brass)
I don't shoot very much.. Shocked
View user's profileSend private message
Michael Boyle


Joined: 12 Dec 2005
Posts: 595
Location: Bucks County,PA,US
Reply with quote
In the above cited GO the first illustration indicates that while on sentry duty a single pouch was worn in the middle of the back and the second illustration (2 pouches and ammunition bag) shows the ball bag clearly over the right hip, in which configuration firing from the prone position would make reloading reasonably efficient for those drilled in it ( except for lefties!). However the following paragraph throws a curve -

"...it is proposed to carry only one pouch on ordinary occasions in peace, to use the ammunition bag only during rifle practice, or when required for blank ammunition...

The object is in fact to leave the soldier as unencumbered as possible, except when there is a necessity for weighting him."

Elsewhere in the text it refers to the standard 70 rounds without reference to the 20 rounds that "may" be packed into the valise. Some of the illustrations include wearing the haversack on the left hip which would seem an ideal place for carring extra rounds.

Somewhat confusing perhaps but one should remember that the original 1871 Valise would have been designed for the Snider round which was smaller than the M-H round and the 1878 revision would have incorporated the move to M-H presumably after a period of trials (and errors!). It would also seem that the last CFW was the first large scale deployment of the new system and field experience would have neccessitated 'real world' adjustments. I suppose the best way to judge this would be from viewing period illustrations as most photographs of the time were formally posed. Although it would seem unlikely that the technical specifics under discussion here would have made it into a soldier's letter home perhaps something could be gleaned from old corresponence as well.

It could prove misleading to apply modern intuitive thinking to a percieved 19th century problem that would have been less troublesome for those who were constantly drilled in it's execution at that time. After all we once thought that 14th and 15th century knights in full plate had no more mobility than an early sci-fi film robot!

Mikey, reloading is the only way to go, do a web search for the molds, brass, primers and modern load equivelants.

MAB
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Mike Snook


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 130
Reply with quote
Neil

Yes I agree that by the book they should shake each successive ten rounds loose in the ball bag, but if the bag is as dodgy as you would suggest, might they have shaken them loose in their left and rights as an alternative? Are the rounds any more secure in there? Also is there a leather divider in the left and rights to separate the two packets of ten or is it one big pouch?

How does the ball bag fasten? Is it secure once it is fastened?

I don't see that the problem of loading prone is really any different to this day, except that with mag fed wpns we have to go through the process less often. One has to adjust the position of ammunition pouches on the waist belt so that they are on one's hips rather than too much round the front.

Next question - is it possible to fix the ball bag in one place - or is it loose and free to move around the waistbelt? If there is no way of fixing it in place, how would you achieve that effect? Is there an obvious mod or arrangement of equipment that would meet that end?

Michael

I quite agree on the experience of the 9th CF War - the soldiers could have made any number of unofficial modifications to the kit in order to solve the fiddly problems of real life soldiering. Of course the cow-skin handguards on the rifle are an example of just such a mod. Even if there was a leather divider in the left and right pouches as issued, this could easily have been cut out if it suited. Iguess we would have very little opportunity to identify such mods from photography.


Regards

Mike
View user's profileSend private message
Adrian Whiting


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

The original ammunition pouches for the waistbelt did not have an interior divider, usually the bundles are quite a tight fit alongside each other. The Expense pouch (we discussed the assorted terminology for this on a previous thread!) closes with a small hole in a tab sewn onto the pouch flap being drawn over a brass stud on the front panel of the pouch. When closed it is only reasonably secure and with twenty or so rounds in can fairly easily pull open, the more so the more worn the pouch is.

The reference to a single pouch being worn on the waistbelt in the small of the man's back refers to a waistbelt pouch, and there are several photographs of this. When the Expense pouch was worn to the rear it was suspended from the braces crossover point.

The expense pouch hangs to the front right from the brace ring. Passing the strap between the right side waistbelt pouch and the waistbelt itself limits the extent to which the expense pouch drifts to the left or right.

I believe the intention was that only sealed bundles would be carried in the waistbelt pouches, totalling 40 rounds. 10 rounds would then be carried ready loose in the expense pouch. The remaining 20 rounds, two bundles, would be carried in the valise if this suited the situation. In such a case the bundles once opened would be emptied into the expense pouch rather than into the waistbelt pouches.

I can find no reference to the 20 rounds potentially in the valise being carried in the haversack instead. This seems a sensible approach if the valise was not worn though.


Michael,

I read the reference to the total capaciy of the expense pouch and the matter of bundles in the valise as being an "either or". Various regulations are quite clear that the man's individual ammunition issue was 70 rounds total. Clearly additional ammunition could be issued from the reserve and would then need to be carried, most likely in the valise, which is why it reads "may be carried" I think.

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


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 130
Reply with quote
Adrian,

Roger to all of that. Very useful as always. (Sorry for using that unfortunate b.b. expression!)

It seems to me that there is a question mark over the expense pouch - is it such a duff bit of kit - that in light order one might dispense with it? Bounces about when running, might spill rounds etc etc Or is it not that bad?

What is your view on the practicality of opening a packet in one of the main pouches and loading direct from there? Would the rounds be more secure for example?

Regards

Mike
View user's profileSend private message
GlennWade


Joined: 16 Jan 2006
Posts: 151
Location: Swansea
Reply with quote
Hi Mike,

I'll be straight about this, the expense pouch is the most dislikeable piece of kit I have the misfortune to wear. In August '04 some of us in the 1879 Group fought a Transvaal War skirmish with the lads of the Heilbron Commando in the Sheffield Fayre. It involved us advancing down a slop in close order then getting thrashed and retreating.

Granted, only a display but getting up the slope (Before I was 'clubbed' with a rifle butt and captured) was real enough. I had a Snider round and a Martini round in my expense pouch for 'show and tell' purposes' and I lost them both just doubling up this hill. The stud that closes the pouch is a real blighter, always popping open even when just marching on firm flat ground.

Another factor we all witnessed which is pretty simple to guess but impressive in the flesh was how quickly our lads fired off their rounds. When we fell back and naturally grouped together we kept the Boers at bay with incredibly rapid fire. Until of course we were overwhelmed. Sad

If anyone is interested to see any pictures of what I'm talking about give me a bell.

Cheers,

Glenn

_________________
Tell it in England those that pass us by, Here, faithful to their charge, her soldiers lie.
View user's profileSend private message
Michael Boyle


Joined: 12 Dec 2005
Posts: 595
Location: Bucks County,PA,US
Reply with quote
From the same web site - http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~thinred/index2.html

If you click on Ammo pouch and Ball bag you can see photos of the repros they offer. Interestingly they also have an Early pattern (1870) ammo pouch that would appear a bit more robust but one can see the split leather flap over the brass stud on each. Clearly a simpler and less costly arrangement than a metal snap and less prone to breakage than a button but I have to say that given the inclement weather met while campaigning that the life expectancy of those little leather flaps would seem limited. However they did make the system work for quite a few years!

As they offer 1871, 1882 and 1888 (Slade & Wallace) kits one can follow the 18 year evolution of the ammo pouch and non-evolution of the haversack. (Until the introduction of clip-fed rifles I think I would have opted for loose rounds in the haversack!)

MAB
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Bill Harris


Joined: 04 Sep 2005
Posts: 4
Location: Ontario, Canada
Reply with quote
It's perhaps notable that the 'ball bag' was withdrawn following the introduction of the 1882 Valise equipment, which was simply an improvement of the 1871 equipment, rather than something that was totally redesigned. Given the widespread complaints about it from contemporary sources (I specifically remember one from Redvers Buller but I know there were others), coupled with the notations made here from people who have attempted to use it in modern times, it really isn't hard to see why.

Bill H.
View user's profileSend private message
Ball bag question
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 4  

  
  
 Reply to topic