I'm looking for a frog for a No 9 bayonet. Will a Canadian C1 frog fit? One for a No 4 is to small and one for a 1907 is to big. The nomenclature on all these frogs makes my brain hurt.
Printable View
I'm looking for a frog for a No 9 bayonet. Will a Canadian C1 frog fit? One for a No 4 is to small and one for a 1907 is to big. The nomenclature on all these frogs makes my brain hurt.
I believe this postwar type frog is correct for the No.9 bayonet:
British Lee-Enfield No9 bayonet scabbard and frog vgc 1949 dated SOLD
Although any frog designed for use with the No.5 type bayonet scabbard will work.
In real life, when you were issued a patt'37 frog at the start of your basic training it was a bit like being issued with your pouches. You really didn't know or even care what sort you got - nor did the Company Quartermaster. You just got issued a pile of kit and whatever frog or set of pouches came, you used. I didn't realise that there different types until many years after the olkd '37 pattern stuff was taken off us and replaced with '58 pattern stuff or later in Malaya, with the superb lightweight patt '44 stuff. In the real army, any frog that fitted your bayonet was OK. Loose, tight, short, long, unbalanced..........
SO a C1 will fit?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peregrinvs
Same way QM would issue boots, uniforms, and helmets, glad to see them hold standard across the scale of issue.:madsmile:Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
QM standards are consistent in all armed forces.:lol:
Yes, both the Canadian Pattern '64, (green web), and Pattern '82, (green nylon), will fit perfectly.
Army uniform issues....... My first greatcoat issued when I was an apprentice in January 1963 was about size 13 while I was about 5'6" tall so it covered me twice over. Mind you, the winter of 62/63 was xxxxxxx cold. When a few of us told our permanent staff Sgt, Sgt Jones, that they didn't fit properly he told us to swop them around the three billets until we found one that DID fit. Alas, I think everyone got a size 13!
Pre-deployment for Afghanistan, and sent to draw my Arid kit, Got issued two sets of boots, one set a size 12, I'm a size 9, and the second set was the correct size, but consisted of two left boots, each with someone else's name on them.
Supply told me there were no more and "exchange them once I got over there", I pointed to a WOG behind the counter that was about my size, and asked for his, reasoning he wouldn't need Desert boots to walk around in stores, unsurprisingly I was asked to leave.
I deployed with Commercially produced boots purchased out of pocket and was honestly better off for it.
I brought Australian calf high BOOTS, combat back to England when I came home as the poms were still wearing short BOOTS, ankle, DMS. My high combats went unoticed here for years and years. When they wore out, the poms still hadn't got high boots. And when they did they whinged like hell about all sorts of ankle problems being encountered. Several different types were trialled and issued eventually. Do you remember the variables Gil? Tankie? Skippy?
I used to wear a set of Assault Boots Soldier 95, I quite liked them when compared against our Standard Mark III, they had quick lacers and somewhat softer soles compared to our Grebb soled hockey pucks.
I am not sure how they were regarded in UK Soldiering use but I liked them.
As Brian stated yes, the #5 frog was a bit shorter in the belt loop than the C1 frog but only would be noticed by someone that saw bags of each. I have a few C1 frogs if you need one...canvas ones of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calflash
And ill wager, you were told: 'Don't worry lad, you will grow into it'!........:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler