|
Post by mauser98k on Apr 9, 2006 18:06:53 GMT -5
After looking at many ww2 photographs, I see that the vast majority of american soldiers serving in the ETO do not wear suspenders. I just bought another huge book on ww2 photos and again, no americans had suspenders. It almost seems that they were a useless piece of equipment, and seeing all of these photos just makes me want to not even buy suspenders now.
Anyone's opinion?
-Mauser
|
|
|
Post by spitfire740 on Apr 9, 2006 18:11:54 GMT -5
doesnt the mussette bag attach to the suspenders? I though that that's how the bag stayed on, but I could be wrong. It may attach to the belt.
|
|
Russian
Corporal
Magician
Posts: 923
|
Post by Russian on Apr 9, 2006 18:13:03 GMT -5
I've seen many pictures of men fresh from the States wearing suspenders, but most of the ones of men after about a month, yea, its hard to see a picture of them.
|
|
|
Post by HellRazor on Apr 9, 2006 18:23:57 GMT -5
are we talking about trouser suspenders or the Load bearing Suspenders that your gear hangs from?
|
|
Nimlas
Master sergeant
grumpy
Posts: 1,594
|
Post by Nimlas on Apr 9, 2006 18:29:22 GMT -5
If you're ABN you need them, I've almost never seen a trooper with out M1936 of M1943 suspenders before.
Now leg infantry, they hardly got '36 gear. Most had M1928 haversacks, which suck. They mroe often than not got "lost" ;-)
Jack~
|
|
|
Post by mauser98k on Apr 9, 2006 18:42:06 GMT -5
I have a book that begs to differ, I saw probably 1-3 paratroopers that had them.
|
|
Nimlas
Master sergeant
grumpy
Posts: 1,594
|
Post by Nimlas on Apr 9, 2006 19:18:26 GMT -5
Sometimes books are wrong.
|
|
|
Post by mauser98k on Apr 9, 2006 19:22:04 GMT -5
So should I call the paratroopers in the photos farb?
|
|
|
Post by HellRazor on Apr 9, 2006 19:33:48 GMT -5
Heres the thing....sometimes in photos your not on the front lines....it you look at most combat pictures they do indeed have the suspenders....now if your not on the front line...you take applesauce off you don't need....that could be too.
|
|
Nimlas
Master sergeant
grumpy
Posts: 1,594
|
Post by Nimlas on Apr 9, 2006 19:38:59 GMT -5
Hellrazor raises a good point. I've seen pictures of guys without helmets too ;-) But that doesn't mean they didn't wear them, if yah know what I mean
What book was it anyway mauser?
|
|
Russian
Corporal
Magician
Posts: 923
|
Post by Russian on Apr 9, 2006 19:52:50 GMT -5
I know for a fact that guys at Hurtgen forest and in the Battle of the Bulge didnt wear them all the time, even in combat. The newer guys wore them more often than the more "veteran" troops.
|
|
|
Post by mauser98k on Apr 9, 2006 20:24:10 GMT -5
they were; ww2 a complete photographic history, a photographic ww2 book from the 60's and an encyclopedia from the 60's *29 book* and various book sat the library based on the airborne.
|
|
|
Post by Go4Broke on Apr 10, 2006 5:33:34 GMT -5
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Apr 10, 2006 20:46:12 GMT -5
That's a great point. The folks with the haversack didn't need suspenders as they were included in the abortion known as the M1928 Haversack. Since it was a dreadful item of field gear they no doubt got dumped in place of anything else that might work. Without the haversack you got no suspenders. The folks you're seeing without suspenders probably had long since dumped their haversack as Go For Broke suggests.
I hate the way the haversack works (especially when you set it up the way garrison suggests you should. Very impractical and uncomfortable. With that said I love the period flavor they provide when seen on an impression. Especially with the e-tool under the meat can and the 16" bayonet along the side and a couple garand clips and grenades stuck on the suspenders part.
|
|
|
Post by CPL. Mills 2nd Rangers on Apr 15, 2006 7:01:25 GMT -5
What??? I LOVE the Haversack!!!!! We should still be using it in todays army.
|
|
granfury
Private
Dog Co. 504th PIR. 82nd Airborne
Posts: 58
|
Post by granfury on Apr 20, 2006 3:13:11 GMT -5
Yeah I think the suspenders were issued but were un-comfortable and guys would just not where them...as battles went on they got rid of them..there just a pain to put on with the equipment on them....I use to hate putting mine on when I was in the army I would of rather not of had them I had the Y suspenders with the m-16 30 round pouches with 2 canteen and a bayonet.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Apr 20, 2006 19:31:53 GMT -5
It's easy to say you'd rather not have them but in reality (especially with real weight load outs) The suspenders are neccessary for the field web belt with mag pouches to work. I've tried trouncing around with just a web belt (no suspenders) and invariably there were more problems then using the full designed set up.
The WW2 suspenders are worse then the late Vietnam era Y suspenders in terms of comfort (putting them on especially) but they still work better then a saggy pistol belt unless you just have a few items of kit attached.
For mordern skirmishes I still prefer my 60s set up of canvas webbing with pouches canteen and butt pack even though my son thinks I look wrong compared to the cool tac vest, Moelle systems and simulated flak vests tac gear arrangments you see on the gear whores. For me it's just more familiar and comfortable.
I suspect as noted earlier what you're seeing is folks who are in more relaxed areas and have removed some of the extra unneccessary things from their web gear while in a quite area. Guys also did so when on patrol to minimize items that might snag or make noise. keep in mind this was all part of the design concept behind the hook and hole set ups.
Flexible gear is a good thing. The point is there wasn't a lot of extreme uniformity to the US military (other then garrison parade events) so just about anything goes web gear wise for a field display.
|
|
granfury
Private
Dog Co. 504th PIR. 82nd Airborne
Posts: 58
|
Post by granfury on Apr 23, 2006 6:32:17 GMT -5
2nd bat I see what you mean, it would be awkward with loaded m-16 pouches..I meant the 10 pocket garand belt with a canteen and bayonet would be comfortable without the suspenders than with them..most ww2 movies you see them without the suspenders especially in the south pacific where its very hot..oh well like you said it was`nt strickly enforced only during parades..
|
|
|
Post by 5thrangerinfantry on Apr 24, 2006 5:08:05 GMT -5
The garand belt is a pain in the a$$ without suspenders or a haversack. Without them, your belt will slide all over and you will spend more time adjusting it than anything else. I tried one re-enactment with just the belt and I'm not gonna waste my time on that again........maybe if you weighted the belt evenly with 2 filled canteens? but thats a very thin maybe.......
|
|
savoy6
Private 1st Class
Posts: 428
|
Post by savoy6 on Apr 26, 2006 19:35:03 GMT -5
the reasons for them not being used so much in the PTO had more to with the fact that having them rubbing over a sweat soaked HBT shirt on your shoulders would rash up your skin and,like any sores in a jungle environment, that would lead to skin fugus infections or "Jungle Rot".i usually use mine unless i'm just going with a .45 and my mag pouch.even that light of a load has the belt sagging halfway through the day...lol..
|
|