TOPIC:

SWB wrote: Super! Very many thanks Paul.

One can clearly see the bandoliers Ian was describing - with tubes for the rounds and not pockets for a clip of rounds. Could the sailor have been rejected for wearing the wrong bandolier??

"The figure of an armed sailor on the building by the entrance was given c. 1905 by Robert Bridgeman, after it had been rejected by York city council which had commissioned it for a Boer War memorial." (Information from Mr. C. W. Bridgeman of Lichfield)

From: 'Lichfield: Social and cultural activities', A History of the County of Stafford: Volume 14: Lichfield (1990), pp. 159-170.

---

"I believe that Bodley and Bridgemans also collaborated on the South African war monument in Duncombe Place, York, which is where the sailor on the wall of Lichfield Registry Office was originally destined for but was apparently rejected for being too warlike."
lichfieldlore.co.uk/tag/beacon-place/

Bridgeman's of Lichfield were sculptors which explains why the sailor is in Lichfield. www.ukniwm.org.uk/server/show/conMemoria...3/fromUkniwmSearch/1

I am not sure about the figure being rejected for appearing too "war like" - after all other statues hold rifles. The memorial in Darlington is far more war like - a soldier charging with bayonet. The locals Quakers complained about that pose.

BereniceUK wrote:

SWB wrote: Super! Very many thanks Paul.

One can clearly see the bandoliers Ian was describing - with tubes for the rounds and not pockets for a clip of rounds. Could the sailor have been rejected for wearing the wrong bandolier??

"The figure of an armed sailor on the building by the entrance was given c. 1905 by Robert Bridgeman, after it had been rejected by York city council which had commissioned it for a Boer War memorial." (Information from Mr. C. W. Bridgeman of Lichfield)

From: 'Lichfield: Social and cultural activities', A History of the County of Stafford: Volume 14: Lichfield (1990), pp. 159-170.

---

"I believe that Bodley and Bridgemans also collaborated on the South African war monument in Duncombe Place, York, which is where the sailor on the wall of Lichfield Registry Office was originally destined for but was apparently rejected for being too warlike."
lichfieldlore.co.uk/tag/beacon-place/

Bridgeman's of Lichfield were sculptors which explains why the sailor is in Lichfield. www.ukniwm.org.uk/server/show/conMemoria...3/fromUkniwmSearch/1

Hello Ian,
They are, to the best of my knowledge Mills waist belts, they predated the 60 round Naval Mark 1 which was all an all leather thing with pockets for rounds in chargers, interestingly, these were issued to the Royal Navy before the first charger loaded Enfields came into service by a good year and a half.
For me at least, it all depends on when exactly the figure of the jack tar was made.
Regards Frank

LinneyI wrote: Everybody
they are really excellent pics of lifelike subjects.
Frank, I am not certain just what sort of ammo carrier your tar is sporting. Sort of looks like a modified Mills Co. webbing bandolier. Whilst the Mills Co bandolier commonly gets a bad press, the idea was really quite good; they were issued pre-packed and were to be thrown away after use. Unfortunately, and probably to save money, they were reused, etc etc and got slack and doubtless were responsible for the litter of live rounds left behind columns in the latter part of the war.
In OZ, very occasionally are seen Mills bandoliers modified with a series of flaps covering the bases of the individual rounds. Much in the manner of the leather 50 round MI bandoliers introduced in 1889 for the .303". Off topic, I know, but here in OZ those MI bandoliers were used to death because they were so durable and so handy.
As a matter of interest, South Australian troops in the ABW were supplied with both the leather MI bandolier and a Mills webbing waist bandolier.
Regards to all
IL.

Meurig,

You must mean this one, sadly part of his rifle is missing





Paul

SWB wrote: I am not sure about the figure being rejected for appearing too "war like" - after all other statues hold rifles. The memorial in Darlington is far more war like - a soldier charging with bayonet. The locals Quakers complained about that pose.

BereniceUK wrote:

SWB wrote: Super! Very many thanks Paul.

One can clearly see the bandoliers Ian was describing - with tubes for the rounds and not pockets for a clip of rounds. Could the sailor have been rejected for wearing the wrong bandolier??

"The figure of an armed sailor on the building by the entrance was given c. 1905 by Robert Bridgeman, after it had been rejected by York city council which had commissioned it for a Boer War memorial." (Information from Mr. C. W. Bridgeman of Lichfield)

From: 'Lichfield: Social and cultural activities', A History of the County of Stafford: Volume 14: Lichfield (1990), pp. 159-170.

---

"I believe that Bodley and Bridgemans also collaborated on the South African war monument in Duncombe Place, York, which is where the sailor on the wall of Lichfield Registry Office was originally destined for but was apparently rejected for being too warlike."
lichfieldlore.co.uk/tag/beacon-place/

Bridgeman's of Lichfield were sculptors which explains why the sailor is in Lichfield. www.ukniwm.org.uk/server/show/conMemoria...3/fromUkniwmSearch/1

Frank
Your 20041: An interesting reply. This is again off-topic; so I will be brief so as not to cause others exasperation! Apparently, the Naval issue "cartridge carriers" could be buckled together for wearing like a bandolier. Or else worn as you illustrated. It is even more interesting to look at the later Naval leather bandolier Patt. 1901 and ponder the reason for charger pouches when no such system was in place. Perhaps not so surprising. The Army was looking at a prototype of a charger loaded "short rifle" in January of 1901 and documents seen reveal that the general format of the charger design itself was then pretty much set. Clearly, charger loading was going to be the way to go and the Navy was ahead of the Army in designing accoutrements.
Kind regards
IL.

Hello Ian,
I don't think it is off topic the bandolier was being discussed and it has been suggested that the one on the figure is "wrong" but as I said, it all depends on when the figure was made, the Naval Brigade certainly wore Mills waist belts in 1899, many examples do exist here, in collections, both public and private, moreover, a lot of photographic evidence which shows that they landed at Durban armed to the teeth, they were there to stay!
Kind regards Frank