THE MYTH OF GURKHA RIFLEMAN CARRYING PRIVATE

[Tim Simmons]

I have been enjoying this thread but the posting are getting too big for my monitor so could you make them a little smaller in the future please.

[Rick]

No dueling allowed mates .

Maybe you should just agree to disagree .

[sirupate]

Sorry Ted, I'll do my best.

I understand Rick, however I think one has to ask penertrating questions of someone, that has IMHO a highly flawed view of what Gurkha's could or could not carry kukri wise pre-1947, and whose opinions have influenced so many people about kukri.
I would think that it would be very hard indeed to argue against not only Gurkhas, but British Gurkha Officers who were there and done the business. They should know exactly what they are talking about, especially the likes Major General Mike Callan, who not only served with the Gurkhas, but also in the Royal Army Ordnance, etc. and the likes of Lt. Col. JP Cross, renowned Gurkha Officer, and Gurkha author, who is the only non Nepalese to be granted permision to have his own land and property in Nepal, by the Royal Family.
IMHO their view carries far more weight, than someone that has taken articles at face value, like the one by Mr. Hannah’s son of his father’s recollections (Trooper 2884497 William Hannah of the 9th Gordon Highlander’s), and looked at pictures and and comming to conclusions without knowing the circumstances behind those pictures and so on.

Just my two pennies worth Rick, cheers Simon

[Rick]

Understood Simon .

I'd just hate it if ill feelings arose during this discussion .

That's all Mate .

[spiral]

You make me laugh Simon you come out with such a pompos statement yet only A month ago you were claiming the Army Bearer Corps didnt carry kukris! That is Till I prooved you wrong once again. You now say you refer to Corparals & sargents as commisioned Officers{QGO} thats not "loose" its tottaly wrong.

Im done with this Rick, as you basicaly implied its pointlesss.

But just to add to Simons confusion. I always liked this bit published in 1952 in Leutenant-Colonel H.J. Huxfords Official history of the originaly Assam based 8th Gurkha Rifles. {I Think one battalion went to NWF about 1914 the other to France.}

"The men had to pay for there own kukris,though the leather frogs were an ordanance supply."


Spiral

[Gavin Nugent]

Where to now

[Rick]

Anywhere without rancor or ill feelings, Gav .

[sirupate]

Jonathan; only A month ago you were claiming the Army Bearer Corps didnt carry kukris! That is Till I prooved you wrong once again.

That was not the original debate Jonathan, it was originally about Gurkha caste being in the ABC, so far all you have done is shown pictures of Sikhs in the ABC carrying kukri? hardly proof of Gurkhas in the ABC for one, and that they (Gurkhas) are carrying Mk1 and Mk2 kukri in the ABC, is it?

"Once people were enlisted, the British seperated Muslims and Sikhs and Hindus. They separated them from each other. I don't know why, but this was British policy."
Sikhs without beards in WW1, which according to you was a no no in WW1;

Jonathan; I Think one battalion went to NWF about 1914 the other to France.

Certainly one battalion went France, the 2/8th were almost wiped out at Loos, of the 500 men in the attack, only 1 BO, 1 GO, and 49 rifleman were left! The 1/8th GR were involved in Mesopotamia campaign at Kut.

Jonathan; Leutenant-Colonel H.J. Huxfords Official history of the originaly Assam based 8th Gurkha Rifles. "The men had to pay for there own kukris,though the leather frogs were an ordanance supply."

A rare book Jonathan, and if that is the quote it is wrong indeed;
1. A question to Lt. Col, JP Cross (noted Gurkha Officer, Gurkha Historian and author) on 3/12/2008; With the issued kukri in WWII, would you say the kukri was produced as weapon first and a utility blade second?
Answer from JP; Weapon every time but also I think you will find that the Tripartite treaty lays it down, or if it doesn't the Maharaja did, that the kukri being a national weapon it HAD to be carried by every soldier. Otherwise the Indian Army then and the British Army later would not have bothered to arrange for their production or issue.
JP also siad in further correspondence, that the quality of the Battalion/Regimental kukri depended what the battalion was prepared to spend on each kukri for issue.
2. They would already have had Battalion issue kukri
3. A quote from You (Jonathan) on 10/11/2008 on IKRHS;
'Its definatly a mk.1 issue kukri blade, is the end of the tang still threaded?
I would say the numbers mean that it belonged to soldier number 108 in the 2nd battalion of the 8th regiment of the Gurkha rifles in WW1. Spiral'
Since when have Gurkhas or any other members of the Indian or British army had to to pay for their own Government Issue kit?
4.The statement not only breaks the agreement with Nepal about the supply and carry of kukri, I can't imagine Gurkhas being suddenley told that they had to pay for their entitled kukri, being to chuffed, especialy after what happened to them at Loos!
5. It fly's in the the face of what every single Gurkha, and serving WW2 Gurkha Officer, and every other book says about kukri and issue, even in the Gurkha Museums own book about the Kukri in WW1!!
6. Below are three issued 8th GR kukri of mine;
WW2 top
2/8 GR WW1 middle (Plus of course the 2/8th GR WW1 Government issue Mk1 picture on IKRHS)
Pr-WW1 bottom

[sirupate]

Regarding your quote Jonathan from Leutenant-Colonel H.J. Huxford, I can't imagine he would spell there instead of their?
Also it is even harder to imagine some 500 odd Gurkhas running around trying to buy kukri (Which we know were in short supply), that would fit ordanance frogs for kukri, which were made to fit and come with a certain type of sarkari issue kukri anyway! So these poor Gurkhas had to go and find kukri from somewhere that fitted these particular frog types, that also complied with regimental/battalion regulations on type of kukri carried? It is a very bizare statement indeed!
Can you imagine British soldiers being given frogs for their bayonets, and being told they have to pay for them (when like the Gurkhas with kukri, it is issued kit, as is the bayonet), and then go and find bayonets that fit with carry regulations, and also fit in the frogs supplied!

[spiral]

Ok if the ABC part distracts you to much Simon, {even though you posted a small postcard photo & 1990 quote about 1941 rather than WW1 on this thread yourself for some reason?} then ignore that & lets keep on topic on this thread. I think you can manage that rather than just selecting the bits you wish to use & pretending your presenting a sound case, while ignoring the bits you dont wish to answear about private purchase kukri.

I missed your "questian" in post 33 my apogies it was hidden amongst such a rant I just passsed over it. A link would have helped.

Originally Posted by sirupate

A rare book Jonathan, and if that is the quote it is wrong indeed;

3. A quote from You (Jonathan) on 10/11/2008 on IKRHS;
'Its definatly a mk.1 issue kukri blade, is the end of the tang still threaded?
I would say the numbers mean that it belonged to soldier number 108 in the 2nd battalion of the 8th regiment of the Gurkha rifles in WW1. Spiral'
Since when have Gurkhas or any other members of the Indian or British army had to to pay for their own Government Issue kit?

{The above quote by myself is from. linky... There thats not difficult is it Simon?

My Quote from Leutenant-Colonel H.J. Huxfords Official Regimenal history
"The men had to pay for there own kukris,though the leather frogs were an ordnance supply."

Is an accurate quote, its not a blanket statement meaning evry kukri at evry time & evry place was always payed for by the inlisted men!

What makes you think its a blanket statement? After all I mentioned them making kukris out of found scrap in 1944, obviously they wernt paying for those either!

Originally Posted by sirupate

"when have Gurkhas or any other members of the Indian or British army had to to pay for their own Government Issue kit?"

You want more free kukri knowledge from me Simon?

O Well just this time.. kukri were first offcialy autherised for the 8th GR in 1881, before then they were always private purchase & carried unofficialy but obviosly sanctioned & allowed.

spiral

[tom hyle]

Well, I will read this whole thread, but my initial thought is that what official sources or leaders say about what soldiers actually do in any army in any time is close to useless/meaningless information Do you know soldiers? Their slaviness is over-rated. If their leaders are competent their interest in their soldiers' slaviness and standardization are more for outer show and inner unity and efficiency than for interfering with what works.
In other words, what would you expect the officials to say? The official line.

[sirupate]

Answered