I'm trying to find out what type of uniform a soldier was wearing - from World War II?

Question

Ideally I'd like to be able to trace this soldier - but any information you might be able to give in relation to whether he was a British Soldier / American / Canadian....etc and what type of soldier /regiment / army / navy / airforce...etc he might have been in.

I've uploaded a picture - link is below. Please let me know if you can't access.

http://uk.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/andyfrow/detail?.dir=/4db2re2&.dnm=1978re2.jpg&.src=ph

(apologies, but the photo is at least 60 years old)
thanks.

I believe the picture was taken North of London or thereabouts. I don't have any other information than that Photo.

Answer 1

A WW2 soldier would wear the regulation Army blouse buttoned to the neck, Army regulation Trousers and maybe an Army issue beret. Some Regiments wore a peaked cop or a Forage cap. He would wear a webbing belt, Gaiters and black leather studded boots with leather laces. An Army shirt would be worn underneath his blouse and trousers would be held up with Army braces. The Photo shows an open neck blouse which could be RAF uniform.

Answer 2

The photo is a little sketchy so some of my answer will have to be cojecture.

I would say is definitely british uniform, though the pattern is wrong for an officer (collars etc) though as already anwsered he could be a Canadian or any of a host of commonwealth nationalities or one of the European's who joined the British forces after the german invasions made people into refugees.

On his upper arms each side are badges of rank that could either be a corporal or sargeant going from the width, I'd guess he's a corporal. Which would place him as either RAF Army (Navy use a series of weird anchor / rope based symbols)

There is also the possibility he could be one of the other smaller non fighting organisations such as the air raid wardens or Home guard (which judging by his hair length is possible)

The badges above those (just below the epaulette's) will be either a formation/division badge though they are too sketchy to make out.

If his job in the forces was that of dispatch rider or some other trade that required him to ride the bike, then he may well have been issued the unusual boots he wears in the photo

The picture does not look like a typical army camp, (the buildings / rack thingy on the right of the picture just don't look right) so may well have been taken at this persons home or where ever the bike was stored.

As a side note, if we were to assume that this was indeed taken during WW2 as you suggest, then the bike could even be a 'war find', ie. anything you find that theres no one about / alive to claim ownership. Which could even place it anywhere through Europe.

Answer 3

There are a few things about this motorcycle in particular that will lead you to its origin. You can rule out a few of the major names in this because of two interesting distinguishable things. Number one it is hand shifted. You can see this shifter inside the right knee of the rider. By the onset of WWII British bikes in particular were foot shifted. Number two is the solid cross connector at the top of the fork. This is unusual on a war year bike as well.
I'm leaning toward this being a Triumph. Maybe a Triumph TRW. This would be a good indicator of the man in question being an officer (due to tie) in the British Military since Truimph manufactured British motorcycles for the war effort. Identifying the uniform might be close to impossible. The British military had hundreds of uniform combinations during WWII alone.

Answer 4

As an old soldier of the British Army [1957-1965] I can tell you that the British Army were still wearing uniforms of WW2 right into the 1950s - Battle Dress = BD.

The new style of uniform as worn today, began to be issued to the Army at large from around 1958 onwards. I did not actually get mine until about 1962/3.

Depending on which sort of British Army uniform you are looking at, very much determines it's style and history. For example, when you see the Foot Guards on parade, as in yesterday's Queen's birthday parade, the uniforms worn are not much changed since Victorian times. The bear-skins and scarlet tunics anyway.

Most regiments have a number one dress or blues, which can date back a century or more in style and colour.

What we mostly see now of British squaddies are people wearing what I think is called Battle Fatigues - or maybe that's a bit American but you get my meaning.

I've downloaded a photograph taken at Edinburgh Castle in c1850. It shows a bunch of Scottish soldiers wearing dress uniforms of the period, bandsmen. They do not look any different to what you'll see at the Edinburgh Military Tattoo - the massed pipes and drums etc.

Why change a good style anyway?

One small point, a complaint from my now long dead dad. "Battle dress of c1940+ was total crap. It was made of worsted wool and when it got wet, as it usually did, it weighed a ton and took several days to dry out."
End of complaint.

Answer 5

Once upon a time, and not so very long ago, men's clothing was all sold in sizes in inches. Shirts were sold by collar size/sleeve length. Pants were sold by waist size/inseam length. Coats and jackets were sold by chest size/torso length Hats were sold by a number which was the head circumference divided by three. Shoes and socks were sold by the length in inches. If a young man was old enough to go into the military, he already KNEW what size he was in all these dimensions. So nobody needed to measure the incoming soldiers. Tthe quartermaster's mates would hand out the parts of the uniform, which would be marked with the size. If you got the wrong size, you could turn them back in, or swap around among your buddies for a better fit. This seems amazing to modern young men, who *might* know their shoe size, but otherwise have no idea what their own body measurements are. Prior to c. 1960, everyone knew this stuff. So, get yourself a cloth tape measure and an index card, and write down your own measurements,

Answer 6

Very hard to tell i'm afraid it would help if he had visible rank markings or insignia but i'd hazard a guess and say british from the fact he is wearing a tie either army or RAF i'm leaning more towards RAF because they are big on wearing ties also i just have a feeling.

Edit: just thought he could really be from any commonwealth/empire country as i believe they used similar uniforms. The patch on his right shoulder i think would say his country of origin but i cant zoom in enough to a standard i can read.

Answer 7

I'm going to throw the cat among the pigeons by suggesting that this uniform may be an Irish Army uniform. The rank markings appear to be what is known as a "double chevron". The boots are topped by leather gaiters similar to the canvas ones worn by the British army.

Answer 8

The background looks like England. The bike looks English too. The shoulder applets make it not American, I think. The rank is not discernible. The boots look non-uniform as well. I'm going to guess British. Looks like London to me.

Answer 9

Looks like british army battledress but without more detail it's impossible to say whether it was Regular army , airforce or home guard. Typical British location industrial town or city.

Answer 10

Corporal RAF, riding a BSA despatcher bike, Probably signals branch, The shirt seems white and the RAF wore light blue were the army shirts were khaki the same colour as the battle dress