WW1 Cav gear

[Couvi]

Officers were required to purchase their own equipment but could buy it, at cost, from the Ordnance Department. He was able to take it all home because it was his property.

Was this a "requirement" or was this an option? If a requirement do you have a cite to a regulation or was this a "custom and tradition of the service?" I don't doubt it might have been true. Officers did have to purchase their own uniforms and provide their own subsistence but be required provide their own weapons and equipment?

Thanks, in advance, for any information.

Steffens mentions the requirement that they provide their own tack in several places in his books, and somewhere I've seen a World War One period order that relieved them of that particular requirement, but not before quite a few wartime officers had purchased tack.

I don't have a citation to it, but the requirement that officers provide their own tack is very well established and it had existed for a very long time prior to World War One. As tack was expensive, the custom was to allow officers to draw tack from their units when deploying for actual field service.

U.S. officers were never required, in so far as I know, to buy their own arms, but many did. The first run of M1911s was almost all private purchase, and was to such an extent that Colt actually had a hard time fulfilling their Army and Navy order as the orders from officers were making that difficult.

Added to this topic is the one of privately owned horses. Officers owning horses was common, but I don't think they were required to, however.

Would privately purchased officer’s horses have been geldings or mares?

[Pat Holscher]

Paragraph 42, page 14. 1914 Uniform Regulations.

https://archive.org/stream/regulationsf ... 4/mode/2up

Officers while on duty required to use one of the patterns of saddles provided by the Ordinance Department for sale to officers.

That doesn't say that they must buy a saddle directly, but it implies it. It doesn't say that they must used an Ordinance supplied saddle, but that they must use one of the types that Ordinance has approved for sale to officers.

[Pat Holscher]

Paragraph 42, page 14. 1914 Uniform Regulations.

https://archive.org/stream/regulationsf ... 4/mode/2up

Officers while on duty required to use one of the patterns of saddles provided by the Ordinance Department for sale to officers.

That doesn't say that they must buy a saddle directly, but it implies it. It doesn't say that they must used an Ordinance supplied saddle, but that they must use one of the types that Ordinance has approved for sale to officers.

Same regulation, 1914

https://archive.org/stream/regulationsf ... 3/mode/2up

Note that for non official duties, a flat saddle could be used.

[Pat Holscher]

Paragraph 42, page 14. 1914 Uniform Regulations.

https://archive.org/stream/regulationsf ... 4/mode/2up

Officers while on duty required to use one of the patterns of saddles provided by the Ordinance Department for sale to officers.

That doesn't say that they must buy a saddle directly, but it implies it. It doesn't say that they must used an Ordinance supplied saddle, but that they must use one of the types that Ordinance has approved for sale to officers.

Same regulation, 1914

https://archive.org/stream/regulationsf ... 3/mode/2up

Note that for non official duties, a flat saddle could be used.

And 1917:

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=u ... 1up;seq=28

[wkambic]

Thank you for the references. They seem to answer the question quite well!

As to type of horse, I seem to recall rules that mandated that the horse selected had to meet the general specifications for service horses. I don't know about mares, but Col. Tompkins rode an Arabian stallion during the Punitive Expedition. I seem to recall that he mentioned having a second stallion in a "remuda" associated with the campaign. I'm fuzzy on that last one; it's been a while since I read the book.

[Pat Holscher]

Thank you for the references. They seem to answer the question quite well!

As to type of horse, I seem to recall rules that mandated that the horse selected had to meet the general specifications for service horses. I don't know about mares, but Col. Tompkins rode an Arabian stallion during the Punitive Expedition. I seem to recall that he mentioned having a second stallion in a "remuda" associated with the campaign. I'm fuzzy on that last one; it's been a while since I read the book.

He mentions the Arabian specifically as he was so impressed with it, and how well it did in spite of being a small horse. There's a picture of it in the book carrying his gear. Apparently the general custom was that if an officer had an extra horse at that time, he switched back and forth riding it, much like cowhands do with the horses in their remuda. However, the horse that wasn't being ridden carried gear, like a pack horse.

[JV Puleo]

If you go back to the Civil War, officers were required to purchase all their equipment, including arms. The system was changing around WWI earlier from "required to purchase everything" to the issue (loan is probably a better word) of some items and the option to purchase. Earlier, officers could indent for things like a revolver or perhaps a carbine. I suspect (but have no proof) that this wasn't done all that often as it would have been an admission that you couldn't afford them. Some items, like an officers sword, were always purchased. That changed with the 1913 saber, all of which were made by the government but Cavalry officers were also required to purchase a M1902.

[Pat Holscher]

If you go back to the Civil War, officers were required to purchase all their equipment, including arms. The system was changing around WWI earlier from "required to purchase everything" to the issue (loan is probably a better word) of some items and the option to purchase. Earlier, officers could indent for things like a revolver or perhaps a carbine. I suspect (but have no proof) that this wasn't done all that often as it would have been an admission that you couldn't afford them. Some items, like an officers sword, were always purchased. That changed with the 1913 saber, all of which were made by the government but Cavalry officers were also required to purchase a M1902.

Interesting on the arms, I was not aware of that.

On tack, I know that during the Indian Wars period officers were allowed to check out tack from their units. They didn't always do it by any means, but they could. This allowed them to save wear and tear on purchased items, but it also somewhat defeated the purpose of requiring officers to buy those items.

[Pat Holscher]

One thing I don't know off hand was the situation for Guardsmen.

I suspect, but don't know for sure, than in the 1865 to 1917 period Guard officers had the same requirement, ie., they had to buy their tack. As there was less control of things out at the Guard level, I'd be curious how that expressed itself in terms of what they were actually using. I suppose in some units there may have been a fair amount of departure from standard, and in others next to none. In less affluent areas the tack might have been the enlisted standard.

[wkambic]

Maybe the State stepped in for Guard/Militia units? They would have had the authority to do so but they might not have gotten reimbursed by the Feds for such expenditures. Still, given the way things were from the end of the ACW to WWI I'd not be surprised if that happened.