Buffs and blanco

Discussion in 'British Army Units - Others' started by 5th buffs, Jan 16, 2018.

  1. 5th buffs

    5th buffs Member

    dose anyone know if the Royal East Kent Regiment ( the buffs ) used Blanco no. 61 buff on there webbing ? I have heard they used it because of the buff colour...
  2. chrisgrove

    chrisgrove Senior Member

    Well, I never served with the Buffs, least of all in wartime, but I did join the Queens Own Buffs within a year of amalgamation (of the Buffs with the Queens Own Royal West Kent Regiment). The Queens Own Buffs used Fleet 103 (not Blanco as such, but jellified stuff which came in a tin) which was a pale green in colour. Though I cannot quote a source, it was my understanding that the Buffs had indeed used whatever shade of Blanco was thought by the Regimental Dress Committee to be closest to Buff (which is itself a very movable feast. At one time with the Queens Own Buffs, we tried to equip the Officers mess staff with buff livery, using officer's now redundant old Mess Kit waistcoats. They turned out to be all quite different shades so the idea was dropped). Whether the wartime battalions observed this convention or not, I have no idea. It might well have depended on what was available locally.

  3. 5th buffs

    5th buffs Member

    thank you very much for the information Chris , this isn't on topic but do you know if a infantryman could keep or use captured weapons in World war two ? I know that the Americans weren't that bothered about it .

    5th buffs
  4. ceolredmonger

    ceolredmonger Member

    Regarding captured weapons - yes and no! In the field, expedience can often lead to advantages from using 'found stuff' - adding to firepower, filling a local need or backing up (knives, handguns, etc.). most of this however is temporary. I am not sure where you got the idea US forces were OK with it?

    Three things are against it:
    1/ Combat is an all senses thing - often location of the enemy is done by the distinctive sound of certain weapons. Using 'enemy' firearms could identify you as 'enemy' resulting in retaliation or at least confusion of the tactical situation (eg. Coy commander of an attack apparently going well could call a halt if suddenly made aware of an MG42 firing from within an apparently secure flank).
    2/ Training and supplies. Troops may have had 'In Theater' familiarisation training however this was generally for 1/ not to learn the characteristics for actual use - range, beaten zones, limitations, dealing with stoppages, etc. Lack of training was an issue - I read somewhere (?) that orders went out to US troops to stop using captured pistols after a number of accidental fatalities with Lugers in NW Europe. Also in a tight spot your support formation will get ammunition to you, this will be for the weapons on your scale of issue, the idea that the enemy will conveniently leave ammo around for you is a computer game fallacy.
    3/ Command and control. As an infantryman your tactical use is as you were trained and equipped, your command structure knows the capabilities and limitations for effective tactical use and all their systems are based around this. Local changes MUST be known up the command structure to allow for effective command (eg. British Sections using two bren teams).
  5. 5th buffs

    5th buffs Member

    ceolredmonger , thank for the information! i see where you are coming from especially with point number 1 but i have seen quite a lot of photographs with US airborne with captured weapons in Normandy also in the Ardennes in Belgium .
    someone told me it was a court-martial offence for a British soldier to keep a captured weapon, is that true ?

Share This Page