As someone said earlier, both the British and Indian armies retain Gurkha Regiments.
I’ve seen photos on the net of British Gurkhas training for combat with kukris, although of course I doubt if much is needed.
My experience of Gurkhas themselves is limited to a brief chat with one outside the cookhouse; nice polite chaps.
Edit spelling.
I’d like to see Ironman post some evidence that we play “stay behind the darkies” with the Gurkhas - something that I find quite offensive, and slanderous to the honour of not only the Gurkhas themselves, but also the British Army as a whole.
Or is his “opinion” about how we use the gurkahs just as vaid an opinion as the truth about how we actually do use them? He does seem to be of the generation which believes in no such thing as objective truth, and opinions being as valid and truthful as cold, hard facts.
Ironman has failed to substantiate his accusations, probably because they are entirely without foundation.
Perhaps Ironman is confusing the Ghurka situation with the racism which affected black soldiers in the US military in WWII. There were some allegations of the US Army sending these units into situations where they wouldn’t send white soldiers; to quote from one article (at http://www.aawar.net/), “The Americans were sending their black troops straight into the front of the German lines, instead of to the side. And there was no reason for it. So the Americans sent these soldiers to die.” Certainly black soldiers were not awarded the same medals as white soldiers, at least until President Clinton presented the Medal of Honor (sic) to some black veterans a few years ago.
Errr… IIRC at least a dozen black soldiers were awarded the MoH during the US Civil War…
Errr… IIRC at least a dozen black soldiers were awarded the MoH during the US Civil War…[/quote]
Absolutely correct.
African American soldiers had been awarded the MoH in virtually every major conflict up until WW1.
If memory serves, one was recommended for the award in WW1, but it was refused, but awarded later by Clinton (I stand to be corrected on that one), but for WWII the award of 8 medals to black recipients were only made in 1991 by Bill Clinton.
It was deemed that different criteria had been applied to black troops during the conflict.
The US’s use of black units ended a long time ago. We no longer do such. The public would not allow the use of an ethnically aligned group for anything, soldiering included, and the law prevents it. I would not mind discussing the Gurkhas, but only the Grukhas themselves, as anything else causes fights.
I was looking at that picture of the knife that was posted. It looks like a knife used for slashing, almost like a machette. It looked awefully sharp too. IKES!
I am lead to believe that the balance of the blade makes it less effective for “slashing” than you would hope, a gollock of machete would be more effective if you wanted to slice flesh. The Kukri is more likely to crush bone and shatter limbs… Or so the legends surrounding the Brigade would have you believe. The mystique surrounding the Gurkhas is one of their greatest assets Mount William etc, You yourself have said you are convinced they are hard bastards. No doubt this plays into their hands when they take to the field.
Bluffcove.
In all seriousness thankyou for admitting you knew nothing about the Gurkhas prior to reading about them on this website, It was evident to most of us you didnt have a scoobies and it is gracious of you to admit it. Thankyou also for redressing your comments that there were “no foreign nationals, not one, serving in a US uniform” It is a shame tht we had to educate you about recruitment in your own armed forces but you eventually accepted that you were out of your depth and wrong when you made these. Thankyou once again Bluffcove.
In Nepal kukris of various sizes are used for almost everything from cutting wood to eating, so Gurkhas themselves are accustomed to them and consequently very proficient.
I bought a kukri from a car boot sale a few years ago for curiousity’s sake - not a very good example probably a souvenier. It’s actually more like a hatchet than a knife in balance and design (although the shape is similar to early Greek weapons) with most of the weight towards the tip, it’s quite good for splitting sticks for tinder and for “butchery” type applications as Bluffcove suggested.
It does have a very pronounced curve - thus reducing the length of cut and effort needed - and will take quite a sharp edge. However it isn’t at it’s best cutting “dead”, one has to make a “live” cut in which the blade is also moving perpendicular to the direction of cut - like a saw rather than a Stanley knife - Japanese Katana blades have a similar property the blade must be moving across as well as into the target.
During the Indian Mutiny a Gurkha working with the 60th Rifles is reported to have decapitated a mutineer with a single blow of his kukri, saving a Rifleman and allegedly begining the association between the Gurkhas and the Rifles. During WWI Gurkhas gained a reputation for sneaking across no-mans land at night and slitting the throats of unfortunate Germans and Turks (this spawned one of the stories as to why the British lace their boots as they do - so that Gurkhas would recognise their own Lines in the dark). Similar things are supposed to have happened in WWII in Burma.
These stories are things that have given the Gurkhas their mystique amongst the Queens enemies, even though Gurkhas have been trained and equipped as Riflemen since the Mutiny (and had muskets before) and give rise to the wild stories of knife-wielding berserkers that so frightened the poor half-trained Argentine conscripts on the Falklands and the ludicrus accusattions of under-armed cannon fodder. Of course, if you think about it (which fortunately the conscripts didn’t) a rifle and a bayonet beats a kukri most days in modern war, which is why it’s fortunate the Conscripts didn’t think or they may have stood. This is when they would have discovered why the Gurkhas are accorded the title of Rifleman, because the British don’t ship hundreds of men thousands of miles just to use them as human shields when there men with guns available.
BTW as Rifles the Gurkhas “fix Swords” not bayonets.
To clear up some misconceptions about the Gurkhas:
The Gurkhas originate from the Indian Army (of the British Empire) and formed one of many regiments from the ethnic groups and clans of India. The Sikhs are another ethnic group that had a similar martial tradition and, although they do not have a regiment any longer, there is a distinctive Sikh headdress authorised for wear in the UK Armed Forces.
The British Army and the Indian Army were seperate armies, with the Indian Army notionally headed by the Viceroy of India and formed in 1857 after the Mutiny to replace the armed forces of the East Indian Company.
The regiments of the Indian Army were not conscripted or pressed into service. They were 100% volunteers throughout their history, and the regiments had their origins in forces raised by local rulers who were granted subsidies by the British Empire, and in “native” soldiers employed by the East India Company. For example, there was a Bengal Army, a Madras Army and a Bombay Army.
4a. The command chain of the Indian Army was complex. A battalion of Indian soldiers or sepoys would be headed by a British lieutenant-colonel. He would have a Subadar Major as his right-hand man who was responsible for all matters relating to customs, religion and morale. The Subadar was a platoon commander or company 2ic and below this rank was the Jemadar. All of these ranks were entitled to the salute and the use of the term Sahib. In protocol terms, they fell between second lieutenant and warrant officer. The non-commissioned ranks in descending order of precedence were Havildar Major and Havildar, Naik or Amaldar and lance-Naik.
4b. The command chain above was in addition to the traditional officer ranks of the British Army ie. Majors, Captains, Lieutenants, who held staff and command appointments in the Indian Army. Notably, the officer cadre was composed of “British” officers and “Indian” officers and there was no race distinction. The (excellent) author John Masters (a former Captain/Major in the Indian Army) recalls his time at Sandhurst (officer training academy) and his fellow officer cadet (later Captain) Mohammed Usman.
The issue of racism and imperialism is complex. The British Empire was built on mutually beneficial trade with the princes of the Indian subcontinent, although some hostile rulers were defeated in battle or (generously) pensioned into exile. The relationship between the different peoples of the Indian Army was underpinned by mutual respect. British officers invariably learned the dialects and customs of the sepoys they served alongside and had the deepest respect (some use the term “love”) for their soldiers. The stereotype of the colonial officer was fuelled by the history of the 1857 Mutiny (about which many inaccuracies have arisen, such as the use of animal fat to grease cartridges - false) and Churchill’s anachronistic and racist views on India which dated from his 19th century service and was at odds with the views of officers of the time and of writers such as Kipling, who is often seen as racist and imperialist but whose writings are very much different.
No Indian Army regiments were employed as “cannon fodder” which is not a term readily associated with the British Army in any case. For example, 111 Indian Infantry Brigade’s order of battle (in 1943/1944) was 2nd Bn King’s Own Royal Regiment (Lancaster), 1st Bn Cameronians (Scottish Rifles), 3rd Bn 4th Prince of Wales’s Own Gurkha Rifles and 4th Bn 9th Gurkha Rifles. The split in this formation was 50% “British” and 50% “Indian”.
This is an extract from the modern Indian Army website http://indianarmy.nic.in/arhist1.htm#Command,%20Staff%20and%20Organization detailing the imperial history of the Indian Army. The tone of the extract speaks for itself.
Tradition fights. The Indian Army Sepoy (from the Hindustani word sipahi) and now Jawan (young man) or Sawar (rider) and his leaders formed a cohesive collective. They lived to serve the Unit, they were willing to die for it. Nothing must happen which would tarnish its honour, its izzat. The word in Urdu is a distillation hard to explain, encapsulating in itself the code of ethics given by Dharma (faith) and Namak (literally, salt). Unflinching loyalty was to a concept and not to a transient personality or cause. Always and everywhere, the Unit came first. Everything followed from it - the Regiment, the Flag, and the Country. This was the greatest battle-winning factor bequeathed by history to the Indian Army. The men were there, ready and willing to serve a flag, with honour, glory and mutual respect. Quick to appreciate these traits, successive British governments brought in more regional groupings into the Army. A fierce undying loyalty to the Unit was evinced by the British Officer Corps, and the Indian junior leaders and men reciprocated it. The greatest ambition of a British Officer was to command his Regiment.
Resistance to providing Indian leadership for the Indian Army persisted for quite a while. Roberts, a long-standing Commander-in-Chief of the Army was of the view that no Indian officer could have serving under him a British officer, or even a British NCO. The most an Indian could aspire for was an Indian commission, with ‘Subedar Major’ being the highest rank. The first major change came in l919-20, in response to the then Indian political leadership’s strident demands for ‘Indianization’ of the Army, in that ten vacancies were reserved for suitable’ Indians at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst.
Indian political demands also impelled the British to set up the Indian Military Academy (IMA) at Debra Dun on 1 October 1932. The training was for a period of two and a half years. The IMA was formally inaugurated by the Commander-in-Chief in India, FM Sir Philip Chetwode, on 10 December 1932. In his inaugural address to the trainees, he enunciated three principles which were to guide the future officers of the Indian Army:
The safety, honour, and welfare of your country comes first, always and everytime.
The honour, welfare and comfort of the men you command come next.
Your own ease, comfort and safety come last, always and everytime.
The first batch of Gentleman Cadets who passed out of the IMA were commissioned in December 1934. This batch was to produce India’s first Field Marshal, SAM Manekshaw MC of the 8th Gorkha Rifles. On independence, Indian officers, junior in service and experience to their British mentors (the highest rank holders were Brigadiers Cariappa and Thimayya), were able to step into their elevated ranks and responsibilities, with confidence.
The views of the CinC Roberts at the start of the article are without a doubt racist, but must be viewed in the context of the mindset of the time. The Army had only recently abolished the purchase of commissions and flogging, so in many ways it is to the immense credit of the British Empire and Army that Sandhurst vacancies were created as early as 1920. Note also that two “Indian” Brigadiers were in post at the onset of Independence.
Finally, the record of the Indian Army speaks for itself:
The war in Burma sprouted some of our outstanding middle-level and junior leaders such as Brigadier KS Thimayya DSO, Major Srikant Korla DSO, MC, Major NC Rawlley MC and Major Rajwade, to name but a few. The Victoria Cross (VC) - the first award of it’s kind to an Indian Commissioned Officer was awarded to Second Lieutenant Premindra Singh Bhagat of the Bombay Sappers for an act of unparalleled bravery and inspiring leadership, on the night of 31 January/1 February 1941, when commanding a detachment of 21 Field company of the Bombay Sappers on the road to Gondar, in Abyssinia.
“Ayo Gorkhali” (The Gorkhas have come)
The Indian Army by the end of the War was thus rated as among the best in the world whose Officers and men displayed the highest levels of motivation and gallantry on the field of battle.
If anyone is interested in a really good radio documentary on the Indian Army in WW2 go to BBC radio archive an look for Stand East, it’s a thirty min programme. I found it enjoyable and informitive listening.
What´s the difference between nepalese and indian gurkha?
ALL Gurkhas are Nepali, however some serve in the British Army and some in the Indian Army. Before Indian independence in 1948 all Gurkhas were recruited into the Imperial Indian Army which was technicaly independent of the British Army but came under the overall command of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff (CIGS) in London.
After Indian independence (Nepal was always independent) the King of Nepal offered to allow some Gurkhas to be directly recruited into the British Army instead of the Indian to prevent Indian service being seen as too unattractive a tri-partite agreement was worked out to harmonise salaries and pensions for all Gurkhas.
thanks for replying 
If anyone is interested in the different forms the Kukri can take, pay a visit to “the Khukuri House” site :
http://www.khukurihouseonline.com/
They make and supply kukris to the British, Indian and Nepalese Armies according to the site.
It also has pics of the manufacturing process (all by hand/traditional methods).
General Sandworm, it seems the Kukri you posted the pic of was made in the village of Chainpure in Eastern Nepal.
Apparently that’s the only place where the notch is changed to a hole in the blade.
I’ve got one Khukri in my collection, but I don’t know what type it is. It looks like the issue one and is engrave “GORKHA ARMY” and a serial number 2060, but looks of relatively low quality (tool marks on the blade). A colleague of my father brought it once back from a field trip to northern India and Nepal.
Jan
Walther, post or PM me some pics mate, I’ll try to help.
By the spelling I’d say it was an Indian Army Kukri.
I take my liberty to delete few OFF-TOPIC POSTS here.
Stick to WW2, Gents!!!
As did I. I didn’t make my own post to avoid bumping this back up to the top for no reason.
Crab.