Canadian 1916 Dismounted Pattern

In 1916 Canada came up with yet another pattern of leather webbing approved by Sir Sam Hughes. Sam Hughes was a man of mercurial temperament who could rage and cry if he didn't get his way. He was a thorn in the side of many and had axes to grind with Sir Arthur Currie after the war. He has been described as being mad, but he was nothing if not resolute and his utter commitment to the Canadian Army as a symbol of nationhood has to put him in the roster of national heroes, whatever his shortcomings.

The 1916 Dismounted Pattern was introduced in early 1916, went over to France in August, and by October was ordered replaced by General Haig. It was replaced by the cotton P'08 Mills webbing.

It was considered a variation of the Oliver Pattern and though it is vastly different in many respects it does have something of the same inscrutable excesses. I have to wonder if Sir Sam Hughes had his hands in the design of this equipment. Like the MacAdam shovel some of the details seem "over the top", but to the credit of whoever devised this equipment it has a flair that has not been seen since.

The Belt

The 1916 belt was more elaborate than the Oliver Pattern snake belt by a long shot. It seemed to owe more to an officer's Sam Browne belt than anything else with its double tongued buckle and various brass loops. This seems to be the height of presumption in an infantry soldier's belt, but what a belt!

A What Price Glory reproduction is shown here with an original that has had its tabs and hangers removed.

More so than with the other gear the belt was the foundation of the system. Everything either hung from it or was attached to it. In this way it avoided the makeshift aspects of the Oliver water canteen and haversack, and refined the adaptations of the 1915 pattern.

Canteen

The water canteen should be well recognized by now. It was improved with easy-to-release snap hooks. My own shoulder-hung 1916 bottle is bound by its shrunken leather. To have had a system that could snap off must have been a great boon. There are several variations I've seen of the snaps. I often wonder what freedom there was in production of all these items. Rivet placement and lines of stitching are never consistent.

Haversack

The haversack was made of Mills cotton like the British '08 haversacks, but had a tapered side panel like the Oliver haversack. The use of Mills webbing was almost a prophetic nod to the inevitable winds of change. Really, the rest of the 1916 pattern stands as the last link to the Victorians and their reliance on leather.

This and all the equipment shown here is from What Price Glory. Everything has been copied from artifacts.                              http://onlinemilitaria.net/shopaff.asp?affid=1497

The bayonet frog would have held a Lee Enfield bayonet and scabbard since the Canadian army was giving up their Ross rifles. Whether the frog was ever made in Canada as a leather version I don't know. Such frogs do exist as part of the British 1914 leather gear. The frog could have served as a holder for an entrenching tool handle as well. I have not seen pictures of any such a frog with the 1916 gear, and the only leather entrenching tool head carrier I know of is also of the British 1914 leather equipment. I would welcome information on these matters.