THE MYTH OF GURKHA RIFLEMAN CARRYING PRIVATE

[sirupate]

Now QGO or Queen's Gurkha Officers were only the following 3 ranks Subedar Major, {Major,}Subedar Captain & Jemadar {Leutenant.}

Quite correct Jonathan, I profess to using the term QGO loosley;

Yet after I post a picture that features several varient kukri which includes a Gurkha NCO namly a Havildar {Sergeant] He then states; ‘The Havildar on the left; is not of rifleman rank, and was entitled to carry his own kukri, if he so wished, this did not appear to be the case By WWII’ mmmmm. pause for thought as Haviladars are not QGO and but know Simons state Seargents can carry there own kukri as well.

You do seem to have lost track of the title of the Article and what the article is about, so I will remind you ‘THE MYTH OF GURKHA RIFLEMAN CARRYING PRIVATE’ No where does it say, talk or suggest that we are talking about Lance Naiks, Naiks, Havildars, Subedars and so on, so why you keep bringing them up is beyond me, we are talking about Rifleman!

but know Simons state Seargents can carry there own kukri as well.

You seem to have completely forgetten this statement of mine in a previous post, and a long held belief of mine!
'Before we go into the second kukri this is what I had to say in my précis about this period, which is relevant to this section;
There is a picture of British Gurkha Officers, of 1/1st Gurkha Rifles, in discussion with Nepalese Gurkha Officers in France during WWI. From the picture it would appear that the British Officers are not wearing kukri, but that the Nepalese Gurkha Officers are. In foreground, of the picture, one of the Nepalese Gurkha Officers is wearing a kukri on his left hip, which has what appear to be metal rings going around the handle and a metal butt plate, and another Nepalese Gurkha Officer (a bit further into the photo) is wearing a wooden handled kukri, again on his left hip, rather than the regulation carry of rifleman on the centre back, or the right back. In WW1 Nepalese Gurkha Officers including Naiks and Havildars etc. were allowed to carry personnel kukri.'
But once again this is irrelevant to the original article!

Jonathan; One should also remeber each regiments bandsmen where intitled to wear more exotic kukri though

When you last presented a picture of a Gurkha bandsman wearing a Kothimora kukri as evidence, those kukri turned out to be bought for the band by their CO for his bandsmen to wear. So they came under Battalion issue kukri, not private purchase, and not entitled as such, but a Privilege on the whim of their CO, to make his band a bit brighter in appearance!!

Jonathan; .{Interestingly the 2nd man from left in the photo I posted seems to most likley be wearing a red cross style armband as used by some strecher bearers, although his kukri matches that of the rifleman next to him.}

That’s the trouble with trying to use pictures as evidence Jonathan, it is all supposition, as I said before;
Second picture;
First of all, it does seem strange to me that one would present a picture as evidence, without knowing the circumstances and background behind the picture!!
Before we cover that, it is well known that there were huge supply problems for kukri and equipment in general (ref; 2/10 GR.) during WW1, due to the huge influx of men, which would not have been catered for in the normal run of things. Of course this was the same in WWII, for example the new 8th GR training centre at Quetta, by 1943 suddenly found itself with 6,000 Gurkhas!!
Regarding the problems of obtaining kukri, JP had this to say ‘If Ordnance Branch asked Regimental Depots to help out and held a pool of such to supplement other sources, then yes, If not no’. In other words, other sources were used to obtain what kukri they could get. This of course would lead to variations, but the kukri would still be ‘Sarkari’ issue.
Also one has to take into account that to replace Gurkha casualties in 1914 and 1915, they milked other Gurkha Battalions from India for replacements, therefore Gurkhas from different battalions were often mixed in.
So about this picture you have presented;
1/ The Havildar on the left; is not of rifleman rank, and was entitled to carry his own kukri, if he so wished, this did not appear to be the case By WWII.
2/ The two middle Gurkhas; They may well have been pr-WW1 enlistments, with Battalion regulation or original Sarkari issue kukri, from when they joined.
3/ The Gurkha on the right; He may well have originated from another battalion, so a different style of issue kukri, or it may be a replacement Sarkari sourced issue kukri, but not his own private purchased kukri!

Jonathan; But Heres two regimental or rather battalion style kukri from WW1 era that would have been actualy purchased & paid for by the troopers of the 2/8 th Gurkha Rifles who carried them. One can see variation between the styles although both were clearly at the very least regiment or battalion approved & marked as such by the regiments armourers.

How on earth did you come to the conclusion that they were bought and paid for by Troopers (surely you mean rifleman?) of the 2/8th?
Also if they were privately bought by the Gurkhas, which is completely ignoring what the Gurkha and Gurkha Officers have said previously, the armourer (glad to see you now agree with me about the armourers marking the kukri) would not have stamped the kukri, as they were not issue! Which they obviously were!!
Also the stamp on the bottom one (in the bottom picture) doesn't appear say 2/8th! Picture below;


Also I have one exactly the same as your top one (in your top picture,which I have told you about before), clearly battalion issue Jonathan, picture of Official Armourer stamp on said kukri;

But for all these statements,possiblitys, probabilitys, thoughts & "confusians" in the above posts the real answear of the "official" veiw should at least be obtainable.

Well you would have thought that Major-General Mike Callan would have known, having also served with the Royal Army Ordnance Corps, and that Lt. Col JP Cross, with his vast experience as both a Gurkha Officer and Gurkha historian would know, wouldn’t you?