MYTH OF THE GURKHA PERSONEL KUKRI CARRY PART TWO

sirupate · 23rd June 2010, 10:18 PM

Sorry about this gentlemen, but as a friend pointed out to me that the original thread had become so distorted and hard to follow, with new subjects being introduced by Jonathan, that it might be better to re-start it from before the introduction of the new subjects, so it will be easier to follow.

Sirupate post 28; 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.

Spiral reply, post 30;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."

Sirupate post 33;
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.
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

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?
So Jonathan, how does this fit in with Lt. Col. Huxley's statement?

Link to Mk1 Government Issue kukri to the 2/8th
http://www.ikrhs.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=449

23rd June 2010, 10:18 PM	#1
sirupate Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: England Posts: 373	MYTH OF THE GURKHA PERSONEL KUKRI CARRY PART TWO Sorry about this gentlemen, but as a friend pointed out to me that the original thread had become so distorted and hard to follow, with new subjects being introduced by Jonathan, that it might be better to re-start it from before the introduction of the new subjects, so it will be easier to follow. Sirupate post 28; 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. Spiral reply, post 30;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." Sirupate post 33; 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. 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 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? So Jonathan, how does this fit in with Lt. Col. Huxley's statement? Link to Mk1 Government Issue kukri to the 2/8th http://www.ikrhs.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=449 Last edited by sirupate; 23rd June 2010 at 10:33 PM.