29ththerealpimps
Private 1st Class
3rd Armored Division 32nd Armored Regiment 83rd Recon Battalion
Posts: 706
|
Post by 29ththerealpimps on Apr 25, 2007 21:41:14 GMT -5
I was wondering if it would be correct to wear the USMC pack for a 1942 impression. If so should it be the top and bottom pack or just the bottom one?
|
|
|
Post by mauser98k on Apr 25, 2007 21:44:10 GMT -5
You need to do some more research on the topic, like finding a TO&E for marine units, or by looking at pictures. Also decide on a unit, then you can find out. These are easy questions, you can figure them out on your own with a little research.
|
|
TommyGunner
Staff Sgt.
Hackjob Mauro
1st Marine Division, 1942
Posts: 2,265
|
Post by TommyGunner on Apr 25, 2007 22:38:38 GMT -5
For 42 Guadelcannal to mid 43 use the M1928 but past that point use the pack system.
TommyGunner
|
|
twombly
Private
Teufelhunden
Posts: 56
|
Post by twombly on Apr 26, 2007 0:57:22 GMT -5
Well, you can use both of them, the gear was mixed by new and old.
|
|
TommyGunner
Staff Sgt.
Hackjob Mauro
1st Marine Division, 1942
Posts: 2,265
|
Post by TommyGunner on Apr 26, 2007 1:58:54 GMT -5
Its interesting to note that in all the footage I have seen and pictures of Guadelcannal riflemen were issued the Haversack while Thompson and Bar Gunners either didnt wear suspenders or wore a mix between M36 and USMC Suspenders. Its difficult to say really but if you already have a Haversack then spend the money on USMC suspenders and the pack system.
Ill be buying a set of USMC suspenders here shortly to replace my M36 ones on my Thompson gunners imp.
TommyGunner
|
|
29ththerealpimps
Private 1st Class
3rd Armored Division 32nd Armored Regiment 83rd Recon Battalion
Posts: 706
|
Post by 29ththerealpimps on Apr 26, 2007 7:16:09 GMT -5
Yeah I already have a haversack. I am planning on gettin 2 thompson 3 cells with 6 mags. And then a USMC upper pack with the suspenders. I dont see any pictures with the top and lower packs.
|
|
twombly
Private
Teufelhunden
Posts: 56
|
Post by twombly on Apr 26, 2007 11:39:04 GMT -5
That's because haversack and knapsack were used together only during big marshes or when coming ashore. That were the only times when you needed to carry all of your equipment.
|
|
TommyGunner
Staff Sgt.
Hackjob Mauro
1st Marine Division, 1942
Posts: 2,265
|
Post by TommyGunner on Apr 26, 2007 11:44:26 GMT -5
Also dont get 2 3cell pouches, those saw very little use in the pacific or the ETO even, get a single 5cell ammo pouch, that would be way more accurate than a 3cell.
TommyGunner
|
|
Cpl. Hicks
Sergeant
Unofficial Flaggrantly Wrong Weapons Policeman
Posts: 1,425
|
Post by Cpl. Hicks on Apr 26, 2007 13:21:40 GMT -5
He might only have '30rd' magazines.
|
|
YankeeDiv26
Staff Sgt.
Frustrated Mac Owner
BDM<33
Posts: 2,462
|
Post by YankeeDiv26 on Apr 26, 2007 13:52:06 GMT -5
30rd magazines will fit in 5 cell pouches though. you cannot put the flap over them but instead wrap it around the side in order for it to fit. I'm sure any marine wouldn't refuse to use a 3 cell because it didnt cover his magazines completely.
|
|
29ththerealpimps
Private 1st Class
3rd Armored Division 32nd Armored Regiment 83rd Recon Battalion
Posts: 706
|
Post by 29ththerealpimps on Apr 26, 2007 16:19:13 GMT -5
I thought that the 5 cells were more often used in the ETO and the three cell in the PTO also I am still wondering if I should get the top and bottom or just the to for a 1943 tarawa impression
|
|
Cpl. Hicks
Sergeant
Unofficial Flaggrantly Wrong Weapons Policeman
Posts: 1,425
|
Post by Cpl. Hicks on Apr 26, 2007 17:24:56 GMT -5
I think you have it backward, I am under the impression that the 5's were pto and 3's were eto.
|
|
TommyGunner
Staff Sgt.
Hackjob Mauro
1st Marine Division, 1942
Posts: 2,265
|
Post by TommyGunner on Apr 26, 2007 17:29:16 GMT -5
The 5cell ammo pouches were standard infantry issue for all theaters, the guys that were mainly issued the three cells were tankers and it became more common at the end of the war to see some infantry with three cells, but for the norm all theaters used 5cells in huge quantity, also I have yet to see the USMC issued the Thompson ammo bag, I think that was a US army ETO item only.
Get the upper pack and the suspenders.
TommyGunner
|
|
29ththerealpimps
Private 1st Class
3rd Armored Division 32nd Armored Regiment 83rd Recon Battalion
Posts: 706
|
Post by 29ththerealpimps on Apr 26, 2007 20:24:01 GMT -5
Ok I was looking at a life ww2 book it is like 200 pages of pictures and it showed a marine in Tarawa with his helmet on backwards just thought that was pretty neat. I think I am just getting a highcap mag for my thompson. I dont have enough for the gear. mags and five cell. So I thought that gear was more important. Also I have seen pics of infantry using a wirecutter pouch for their mags and was wonderin if the marines ever did that. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by polak on May 6, 2007 23:35:42 GMT -5
Just get everything, or anything. Schipperfabrik sells some pretty good WW1 stuff, lots of which the Marines still used in the fifties. But really, I'd say get both the Haversack and Knapsack, as it's better to have too much than too little. (SOMETIMES)
|
|
|
Post by troyluginbill on May 18, 2007 1:14:20 GMT -5
There seems to have been a lot of questions about the 5 cell versus the 3 cell. So I took out all of my little picture books and have been going through them for the past month looking at what the deal was with the 3 vs. 5 cell. Here is what I found. 67 pics had thompson gunners with a visible pouch. The pics could immediately be split into 2 groups. 1. pre '43 and post '43. Pre 1943 in the PTO there were only 5 cell pouches. Although it was a 50/50split with thompson gunners carrying 5 cells or using general purpose bags. Post '43 it breaks down into about 25/25/25/25. a quarter still used 5 cells. a quarter used modified 5 cells (flaps extended to cover a 30 rnd mag-I was surprised how many did this.) a quarter still used the general purpose bag or a smg bag and a quarter used the 3 cell. It would be interesting to see how this compares to the ETO. Total photos poured over.....435.
|
|
TommyGunner
Staff Sgt.
Hackjob Mauro
1st Marine Division, 1942
Posts: 2,265
|
Post by TommyGunner on May 18, 2007 14:18:17 GMT -5
Very interesting information it shure does clear up some misconceptions, so it seems that the most accuarte way of representing a USMC Thomspon gunner would be to be equipped with 5cells and GP ammo Bags but if its a late war impression (44ish) you can use three cells and a mag bag. Also from your research it seems too that the USMC was never issued the SMG Mag bag that the army was? I have yet to see the Thompson mag bag being used but I could have mistaken it for a gen purpose bag in the pictures I have seen.
I too would like too see how this compares to the ETO, also did ETO guys extend there 5cell flaps or was this a PTO thing.
TommyGunner
|
|
|
Post by troyluginbill on May 24, 2007 21:52:23 GMT -5
tommygunner, yep I didn't see any smg bags but could also have made a mistake. I would love to find some contract or acquisition records on the SMG bag for the USMC.
|
|
|
Post by CharleyNovember on Aug 16, 2007 11:33:18 GMT -5
Anyone care to explain how you tell the different haversacks apart? I currently have a musset bag and am pretty sure that if it was ever used by marines it would have been rare....so what kinda haversack am I looking for what are the distinguishin charecteristics.
|
|
YankeeDiv26
Staff Sgt.
Frustrated Mac Owner
BDM<33
Posts: 2,462
|
Post by YankeeDiv26 on Aug 16, 2007 12:39:07 GMT -5
what you'd really want is a set of 782 web gear. The full kit was with the upper and lower packs (i believe the upper was loosely called the haversack and the lower was called the knapsack) along with a marine corps shelter half. Almost everything except for the upper pack was dropped off in combat. Both upper and lower packs have very square shapes and are fairly simple. I believe atf has some for sale and a decent description and picture. Or just look at some original photos for examples.
|
|
TommyGunner
Staff Sgt.
Hackjob Mauro
1st Marine Division, 1942
Posts: 2,265
|
Post by TommyGunner on Aug 16, 2007 13:53:21 GMT -5
ah well I have pics with the USMC happily wearing the M1928 US army stamped Haversacks. Almost anything the US Army had the USMC used at some point. This is backed up by written accounts, photographs, and video footage.
But becuase US Marked gear causes such indigestion among the USMC community, kinda like the whole OD is bad to Khaki Nazis I compleated a late 43 riflemens imp for some show. Simply to keep the USMC nazis at bay and say that yes, I do have a kit that uses USMC issued gear, packs, suspenders, belts the whole works. And then I can bust out my (early war) impressions. I will post some pics tonight with the gear set up on my maniquin.
Infact I have a pic of a USMC soldier on Iwo Jima wearing Army issued M1936 suspenders.
While I hate the word phrase NEVER USED/ ISSUED when it comes to the USMC I do agree that somethings were rarley seen, or worn by the USMC.
Also allamericandan, the USMC used the musset bags eary in the war (usualy with the GP strap) but latter on it was fully replaced by the USMC version.
TommyGunner
|
|
|
Post by ivymp4 on Aug 16, 2007 17:41:10 GMT -5
I would love to see those pic's!! Just because there is one pic does not mean that we can do it I have a pic of a MP with a colt peacemaker so does that mean I can strap on a hog leg?
Cody
|
|
|
Post by troyluginbill on Aug 17, 2007 0:14:39 GMT -5
I will dig through my books, and scan some images in the next couple of weeks (if I forget remind me via a PM). There are quite a few pics of marines with the 28 haversacks on Guadalcanal and some of the earlier battles. Tommy gunner is right about the mid 43 date. By then you see the 782 gear almost exclusively (unless they were corpsmen in which case they used whatever they could get, especially if waterproof.) although many kept the 1936 suspenders as they are ALOT more comfortable with weight than the USMC suspenders. The musette bag went the way of the dodo pretty early for the marines. Just not big enough although by 43 the army were issued the rubberized version for pacific conditions.
|
|
|
Post by troyluginbill on Aug 17, 2007 21:19:04 GMT -5
good find on pics gyrenegreen. Also intersting to note the discrepancy between divisional equipment. The 2 pics I found already are second division with the '28 haversacks coming ashore. Will keep looking for more but you bring up a good point. I had assumed if the second had haversacks then the first would have also. Also good find on the ww1 grenade vest. I keep finding more evidence of those used especially in the early war (not much but every couple of hundred guys seemed to have one.) and people keep crapping on me for using one in reenacting, even though I am the only guy wearing one and do it only sometimes. Nice link to the USMC history page. Everyone doing marine corps should read the piece about the division blazes and what they constitute as they are entirely different from the US Army.
|
|
azeeze
Private 1st Class
Posts: 622
|
Post by azeeze on Aug 20, 2007 20:19:46 GMT -5
Can you get the ww1 transitional gear pics up too? -Nick
|
|
TommyGunner
Staff Sgt.
Hackjob Mauro
1st Marine Division, 1942
Posts: 2,265
|
Post by TommyGunner on Aug 20, 2007 22:41:20 GMT -5
Ok so I cant find the book I have the US M1928 pack pics in but Im looking, some were from Guaddel and some were from 41, I did find the pics form the book titled Iwo Jima, Portorait of battle. Here is one I thought was cool. Its a riflemen with two Cartridge belts and one of them being held up with (Army) Medic yolks! Here is the other pic, this is of a Sargent on Iwo wearing the Army M1936 Suspenders. Thi guy in the center holding the map. TommyGunner
|
|
|
Post by troyluginbill on Aug 21, 2007 0:45:33 GMT -5
I will post the pics on thursday but the two that are labelled 2nd division with the 1928 pack system are upon closer inspection I believe army in the PTO not USMC. No camo helmet covers, the utilities look like HBTs and summer khakis. I did find, however more use of the M36 Musette bag than I had thought. Will post those also.
Tommy Gunner, your note of the medic belts on the top picture is also interesting as I saw alot of guys that were not corpsmen wearing the medics yoke. My understanding is that the USMC suspenders were really painful with a heavy load, so guys would get 1936 susupenders, medic yokes, folded socks and the pads off of another issue pack to help ease the load. About a quarter of USMC guys seemed to have suspenders that were non-standard or modified-especially the BAR gunners.
As an aside for the army PTO, I did not see any of the 44/45 pack system. It was either Musette or 1928 haversacks. Any one know if the PTO army used the 44/45 pack system?
|
|
|
Post by troyluginbill on Sept 5, 2007 21:59:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by troyluginbill on Sept 6, 2007 19:59:10 GMT -5
gyrene, The musette bag pics are not meant to prove the suspenders comment. They are just for reference and my own surprise that musette bags were used as much as they were, I had always thought they were much rarer than pics suggest. The top pic could certainly be a USMC musette bag, the second pic I can't tell army or USMC. Good eyes to pick out the understrap for the USMC musette. The fourth pic is supposed to be this one: Another US army misidentified as USMC illustrating the 1928 haversack. At this point I gotta say that the USMC was not using the haversack by the time operations took place in the pacific and that the new pack system would have been in full effect on guadalcanal for all marine divisions involved. (IMHO-I would love to see pics proving me wrong.) The only PTO forces using the 1928 haversack would have been army. And if anyone knows I would love to hear if they had the M45 pack system in the PTO for the army.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Sept 7, 2007 1:06:02 GMT -5
Geezus you guys have a lot of time on your hands!
|
|