TommyGunner
Staff Sgt.
Hackjob Mauro
1st Marine Division, 1942
Posts: 2,265
|
Post by TommyGunner on Jun 6, 2006 22:38:50 GMT -5
Today I was finnally able to get out to reese house and pick up the repro Kahki M1936 Suspenders (to replace the original ones damaged in the Paintball incident ) and an Original 1942 dated Kahki Haversack. Now I have a question about the Haversack, do the straps attached to the Haversack attach in place of the Suspenders when worn. Or is there some way both the Suspenders and the Haversack straps are put on. I have been messing around and it seems to me that the suspenders are taken off when you want to put on the Haversack. Also would this be the correct shovel cover for early PTO, I know the shovel is right. But I dont know about the cover. i73.photobucket.com/albums/i227/jpreese101/IMG_2078.jpgI was talking to reese about it but I was not shure it was correct for a USMC, But some photos are showing it is. TommyGunner
|
|
|
Post by mauser98k on Jun 6, 2006 22:43:59 GMT -5
Yes the haversack was used without the suspenders, and that shovel is correct. *Just put it in the haversack*
|
|
TommyGunner
Staff Sgt.
Hackjob Mauro
1st Marine Division, 1942
Posts: 2,265
|
Post by TommyGunner on Jun 6, 2006 22:55:20 GMT -5
Well gosh darn it, I hope reese would not mind me making another trip to his house, I think I would like a shovel now ;D.
Also what do you do with the suspenders when you are wearing the Haversack (what compartment are they put in). Oh and how does the shovel fit inside?
TommyGunner
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Jun 7, 2006 0:09:00 GMT -5
For soldiers using the Haversack the suspenders would be redundant hence a soldier would not have both. We had a lengthy discusssion on this in another thread about why you often see soldiers in photos in the ETO with a web belt and no suspenders. We speculated that these were probably soldiers who had a haversack, conveniently lost it (it was not a popular piece of kit) and thus had to go without suspenders altogether. If you're doing USMC you wouldn't typically be using the haversack anyway as the Marines had a different field pack (better design IMO) With the marine pack there were two hooks on a flap on the main flap that you would attach the shovel cover to. There was also a strap low in the pack front that would secure the handle from the shovel On the Marine Corp pack there were also straps along the sides and on top that you would use to secure the bedroll and camo shelter half two as a kind of roll around the pack. In the case of the haversack the shovel cover was attached similarly with the meat can pouch over the top of it and often the bayonet along the side.
|
|
TommyGunner
Staff Sgt.
Hackjob Mauro
1st Marine Division, 1942
Posts: 2,265
|
Post by TommyGunner on Jun 7, 2006 14:31:15 GMT -5
That is very true about the Marines not typically useing the Haversack. I have seen the backpack system developed for the Mairnes on Atthefront.com, but the problem is that the impression I am going with is a very early war impression (Mix of USMC and Army gear in 1942) and one of the points in me useing the Army gear was to portray the need for gear and the use of any gear available, to show the dire need for anything available, and hoepfully when I am done with my impression I will have shown that. Also I like a bit of controversy when having the USMC gear and Arym gear in the same impression. Plus my ww2 USMC friend Joe Levato was when he first went into combate issued an Army Haversack. TommyGunner
|
|
|
Post by Capt. Zak on Jun 12, 2006 22:32:03 GMT -5
Is Reese leaving the hobby? Seems as though he is selling all his gear.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Jun 13, 2006 0:31:27 GMT -5
Yes apparently he is. Don't get him confused as I did with reece. Two different guys.
|
|