The Rifles in Afghanistan

[Bindonblood]

Ok, so I have more of the new Artizan NWF figures than I really should. (Don't tell The Wife) 

It's now time to think about painting them.

I am happy with most of the infantry units uniform details with two main exceptions.

The 2/60 Rifles and the 4th Rifle Brigade.

So, the equipment should be black I think in both cases, but the uniforms…………

I could cop out and just paint them in khaki, but were the trousers and putees black? Indeed, did they wear putees at all?

Any information gratefully received.

Tim

[Will Bailie]

For the Second Anglo-Afghan War, the 2/60th Rifles wore khaki with black equipment, as you noted.  The article that I have (written by Michael Barthop) indicates that they wore black gaiters rather than puttees.  Rank insignia would have been black with red backing.

[Mad Guru]

Whoops --

Will Bailie beat me to the punch, but I'll post this anyway...

Here's a passage about the Regiment's service in the Second Afghan War, taken from Page 22 of  "A brief history of the Kings Royal Rifle Corps, 1755 to 1915", compiled and edited by the Regimental History Committee, published in 1917:

It is worthy of note
that khaki was worn, and that this was the first campaign in
which the Regiment, since it had become Rifles, had fought in
any colour but green.

Needless to say, highlighting the word "khaki" is my own doing.

This may not have been the case with regards to the 4th Battalion of the Rifle Brigade.  Maybe they were still dressed in rifle green, the way a handful of other British Infantry regts. -- such as the 59th -- went to war in Afghanistan wearing their red and blue Service Dress. It's possible but unlikely. Still, those dark green uniforms do look good.

The Rifles definitely had a black version of the standard-issue white leather infantry equipment up to and including the Slade-Wallace pattern, which was not introduced until 1888, well after the Afghan War had ended.

[Atheling]

Ok, so I have more of the new Artizan NWF figures than I really should. (Don't tell The Wife) 

I hear you brother  :Dem.

I am happy with most of the infantry units uniform details with two main exceptions.

The 2/60 Rifles and the 4th Rifle Brigade.

So, the equipment should be black I think in both cases, but the uniforms…………

I could cop out and just paint them in khaki, but were the trousers and putees black? Indeed, did they wear putees at all?

Any information gratefully received.

Tim
[/quote]

For the Second Anglo-Afghan War, the 2/60th Rifles wore khaki with black equipment, as you noted.  The article that I have (written by Michael Barthop) indicates that they wore black gaiters rather than puttees.  Rank insignia would have been black with red backing.

Whoops --

Will Bailie beat me to the punch, but I'll post this anyway...

Here's a passage about the Regiment's service in the Second Afghan War, taken from Page 22 of  "A brief history of the Kings Royal Rifle Corps, 1755 to 1915", compiled and edited by the Regimental History Committee, published in 1917:

It is worthy of note
that khaki was worn, and that this was the first campaign in
which the Regiment, since it had become Rifles, had fought in
any colour but green.

Needless to say, highlighting the word "khaki" is my own doing.

This may not have been the case with regards to the 4th Battalion of the Rifle Brigade.  Maybe they were still dressed in rifle green, the way a handful of other British Infantry regts. -- such as the 59th -- went to war in Afghanistan wearing their red and blue Service Dress. It's possible but unlikely. Still, those dark green uniforms do look good.

The Rifles definitely had a black version of the standard-issue white leather infantry equipment up to and including the Slade-Wallace pattern, which was not introduced until 1888, well after the Afghan War had ended.

Funnily enough they're my next unit. I'm go with Khaki and and black for the leather equipment as was traditional. It is my duty to inform you that I am far from an expert.... but I know someone who is and I'll pop the question to them.

Mad Guru does present a great what if (if indeed they did not!) with the green uniforms. I can see these being replaced with Khaki in reality but as we're going on the scant evidence that exists why not indeed?

Darrell.

[Bindonblood]

Thanks Gents.

So,  Khaki, black equipment and gaiters. Great stuff. Only..sigh... that means the current Artizan figures don't work! So the 2/60 Rifles go to the back of the queue waiting on the appropriate figure to be (hopefully) released along with British with loose trousers.

But, the 4th Rifle Brigade, could have puttees, so they are a possibility. I may paint these then and hope we get some legwear variants for the British. They could then do double duty as 'Rifles' when I need them.

Lol! thinking about that, as if I'll have all the figures I need painted up before the 200th Anniversay of the War.... 

As for the 59th, according to the Osprey (MAA198), it seems that red was not worn in action. 'when troops again took the field, it would appear from the pictorial evidence that some form of khaki was resumed'

[Bindonblood]

Oh, I also meant to add, about the 59th. There is this picture by Simkins of the 59th at Amed Khal

https://www.google.co.uk/url?url=https://www.pinterest.com/pin/374784000215126645/&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ei=AO6LVbmACOm37AaTvIHIBQ&ved=0CBYQ9QEwAA&usg=AFQjCNEgzOB-vR13b6aEsqgt1oArXReHVg

They are in khaki, with darker puttees.

Tim

[Atheling]

As for the 59th, according to the Osprey (MAA198), it seems that red was not worn in action. 'when troops again took the field, it would appear from the pictorial evidence that some form of khaki was resumed'

Can you quote me the source for that sentence? It would help greatly in my enquiries.

I'll get back to you all once (or if) I have an answer.

Darrell.

[Bindonblood]

I'm at work at the moment, that sentence is all I have. I'll look at the Osprey tonight, but suspect that there will be no source mentioned for it. It's a Michael Barthorp book, so should be valid.

I suspect that it actually goes back to the Simkins illustration I linked to, above.

[Atheling]

I'm at work at the moment, that sentence is all I have. I'll look at the Osprey tonight, but suspect that there will be no source mentioned for it. It's a Michael Barthorp book, so should be valid.

I suspect that it actually goes back to the Simkins illustration I linked to, above.

Thanks  . That would be good. They will no doubt want some sort of reference as they're a pretty knowledgeable bunch. Very in fact.

I'll pose the question when I get back from the WG club tonight.

Darrell.

[Bindonblood]

Ok, so I was slightly wrong. The sentence appears to be slightly more generic, but this is the comments referring to the 59th....

Other regiments known to have the old accoutrements were the 1/17th, 63rd and 59th. The latter according to sketches by one of its officers, Lt Irwin, took the field in 1878 without any khaki, wearing scarlet serves, and were still so dressed in Oct 1879. However by Ahmad Khel the following April it was in khaki.

Irwin's sketches are the only eyewitness evidence discovered so far of scarlet actually being worn on operations in this war........

[Atheling]

Just a quick update, I've posed the questions and I'm awaiting a reply on the other forum.

Darrell.

[Atheling]

As promised, I'm reportingback on the info i have just been given on the VWF:

"However, as far as Rifle regiments in  the 2nd Afghan War are concerned, it seems that the 4th Bn  Rifle Brigade  had already taken the field  wearing khaki in early 1878 when they formed part of a punitive expedition sent to the Jowalki district. The clothing of the British regiments involved (51st, 9th,  4 RB) was described thus in a medical report:  "The dusty coloured Khakee over the serge tunic was the daily apparel with a light helmet covered over with the same cotton material."  The serge tunic in question  would have been scarlet frock

The khaki clothing at this date was improvised from white drill uniforms ordered for hot climates. For example, there is anecdotal evidence that on the Jowalki expedition the 9th Regiment  stained their clothing with a solution of camel dung. Dung is mentioned in other anecdotal sources for this period, e.g cow dung allegedly used by the Cheshire Regiment in 1884. Meanwhile, at the start of the Afghan campaign the 17th Regiment were reported using river mud to stain their white drill; the 92nd Highlanders, tea leaves.The 9th Regiment were later photographed wearing drab Norfolk jackets of serge during the winter of 1879-80, which would have been dyed cloth .

The effectiveness of the staining process is indicated by this observation made by  Major Royle,  4th R.B. (Peshawar Field Force), "[the] mens' dyed drill was so soiled "by the perspiration of the men, the blacking from the belts and the bad dye that we looked a very dirty crowd."

The stained khaki drill would have consisted of cotton frock and trousers and generally would have been worn with puttees by marching regiments in the field. There are photographs that show gunners and sappers wearing leather gaiters with khaki drill.
The blue woolen trousers would only have been worn in winter with the scarlet serge frocks. These are generally shown either  worn loose or with khaki puttees.

Whether at this early stage (This was the first campaign that puttees were worn en masse)  the Rifle regiments thought to distinguish their battalions with black puttees, I don't have sources to hand.  There is circumstantial evidence in that Robert's Ghurka orderlies  in 1880 are shown wearing khaki puttees with their Rifle green uniforms. The 72nd Highlanders however, wore natty puttees of regimental tartan.

Were you seeking corroboration of that the 59th took the field in scarlet serge ('serves') ? In an engraving of the 59th in a footbal match  against 'The Garrison' at Kandahar in 1878 (worked up in 1892 from original drafts), he  shows a mix of men in  scarlet frocks with Home Service serge  trousers worn loose,  and officers in what appears to be winter-weight khaki field clothing worn  either with puttees, boots or worn loose. It is not possible, however, to tell which soldiers belong to the 59th and which to 'The Garrison." Judging from Irwin's  watercolour of men of the 59th  fording a river in the Bolan, the men in Home Service serge are likely to be men of the 59th. There are indications that other regiments took their scarlet serge with them  to be worn under their khaki frocks ( as well as Norfolk jackets, poshteens etc).  I hope that helps clear the fog a little."

http://prints.national-army-museum.ac.uk/image/679441/john-frederick-irwin-a-sketch-in-the-bolan-pass-1879-c



Many thanks to Jeff for giving quite a comprehensive answer.

[Bindonblood]

Thanks Darrell, that I'd a comprehensive answer.

Ok,so kharkee for the jackets.

Reading the quote I think the reference to serge tunics being scarlet would be for the 51st and the 9th rather than the rifles although it is academic really.

I think it is implied that the trousers are kharkee too. As per the scarlet jackets I don't think the Rifles would have blue trousers (they would surely be green?)


But effectively it is just the puttees that have have a question mark, but even then it seems likely that it is just kharkee again.

Thanks for this though, it is much appreciated and I'll add this to my notes

Next set of questions will be when the cavalry appear....

Cheers

Tim

[Atheling]

Next set of questions will be when the cavalry appear....

I hear you Tim 

Darrell.