Jump to content

Fallschirmwomble

Members
  • Content Count

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About Fallschirmwomble

  • Rank
    Private

Personal Information

  • Location
    London / Somerset
  • Interests
    Militaria, eBay (financial necessity), bushcraft, fitness, photography.
  • Occupation
    Qualified Personal Trainer; Studio Photographer.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Barrel release catch pin spring retaining pin. If memory serves - I haven't a Bren to check. The pin that holds the spring that pushes the pin that enables the catch to click into open/closed position. Told to me when I was a kid by an Indian Army WW2 veteran who worked at the barrier of Wimbledon station. I vaguely remember a pin that the magazine well cover slid over and could depress for disassembly of the barrel release catch - I think. Long name but not the smallest component.
  2. I thought it used the same sling as the 2" mortar - a bit shorter than a rifle sling. If not, then it perhaps should have been...
  3. I know it's an old thread but I think I've an answer... I've been collecting British webbing since the 1970s and I firmly believed the same until lately. That said, I've never understood why mess tins were always stamped yet not '44 waterbottles. Not a single one. I was a Paratrooper reservist in the 1980s and 1990s and I worked in the company QM stores as often as I could. We had both types of '44 w/b and both types of '44 mug. A mix of '44 and '58 waterbottles (as desired, if availability allowed) were still issued right up to 1990, when the S10 respirator cap needed to be fitted to the webbing carried w/b (but not the spare carried in the bergen). By that time, of the w/bs, what remained were knackered: dented to hell, leaky or permanently jammed into mugs - King Arthur may have drawn the Sword In The Stone but he would have struggled drawing the "Waterbottle In The Mug"... On leaving, I handed in a '58 mug instead of my trusty '44 - which I still have. It's unmarked like many of the mugs that were in stores. I thought that that was 'cause it was one of the many items that 5 Airborne Brigade had made by special contract. I know that 5 Ab Bde had '44 waterbottle pouches made (with 1980s ordnance markings) because we were waiting on their issue for many months. When I was issued a '95 mug (aka "Crusader cup") in the late 1990s, I consigned my '44 mug to my van emergency kit box and forgot about it. Digging it out recently, I took it to be an imitation and not the one I was issued in the 1980s. Checking photographs, it turns out to be the one I was issued and identical to the unmarked one on Karkeeweb. I've also a marked '44 mug (MMS dated 1961). Dates seen on mugs so far are 1945, 1961, 1964 and 1965. Perhaps these mugs were made only by one manufacturer (MMS), the unmarked ones by others? I recently acquired a Danish Army M59 waterbottle for bushcraft - unlike the British waterbottles, it's ordnance stamped on the base. It looks identical to a '44 Mk1 but for it's plastic cap. Doesn't fit properly into either of my '44 mugs, though, nor my '95 mug. A pity.
  4. A certain shop in London's East End sold/sells fake kit passed off as genuine and has been doing so for YEARS. Rumour had it (later confirmed by an ex-employee) that the proprieter would buy every size of a new uniform garment and would send them to a copy tailor who'd dismantle the fabric pieces and make up pattern templates. These would be used in sweatshops to make from usually 100% military specification raw materials. The shop charged top dollar for all their kit. If the zip isn't a replacement, I'm CERTAIN that this Smock came from there. Some of their Smock copies had buttons on the chest pockets as well as the plastic zips. I think he wasn't always able to supply all the right materials to the sweatshop. They'd look 100% real and almost always would perform just as well as the real deal. No manufacturer's name on the label, at a time when legitimate manufacturers were printing their name. The contract numbers, etc, on the label might fool most people but probably not the stores bean counters at the MoD. In the late 1980s, there seemed to be a Para Smock and Para Helmet shortage (certainly in 10 PARA stores): storemen were giving out replacement zips for Smocks that were zip damaged. They'd recommend a tailor for fitting. It took a while but I worked out that the reason how the storeman could tell when someone was trying to return a shop bought Smock was because it didn't have the manufacturer's name on the label: "Cookson & Clegg Ltd". I checked as many Smocks as I could when working in the stores, one day: my theory was consistent with my findings except that a good few were also made by "Something-or-other Textiles" (I've forgotten the name. They also made SAS Windproofs.). Except for the original half-zip Denisons, Para Smocks have always had the distinct exposed metal zip. When roping down from a heli or pulling yourself along on a rope, an exposed plastic zip could melt under the friction. A definitely fail, so far as kit goes. It's my opinion that your Smock is a commercial copy. Made from 100% military specification fabric, etc, there's nothing wrong with it, unless you're keeping it as a collectable. Btw, the three buttons for the hood are correct.
  5. There are THREE things that have upset me over this thread: What I thought - for years - were 2x Utility Pouches on the set are actually a Utility Pouch and a Waterbottle Pouch. I need to check exactly what I have and hope that I've not got rid of the wrong "duplicate" pouches. There is another E-Tool Pouch to get (the one without the belt loops). A trials trials bit of kit! All these years of anticipation over the flappy C Hook thing on the belt and it's an anticlimax. Worse, I should have worked it out for myself. I am most displeased with myself. (and the plain E Tool Pouch) :banghead: But I am MOST grateful for the explanation, :thanx:
  6. It's speculation, but I think a lot of earlier production garments are made using earlier templates of clothing. Did the early 95 Patt Windproof have a wire hood and rank tab? Perhaps it was a template oversight and they used the wrong ones. A good few years ago, I picked up a 95 Patt DesDPM Shirt. It had epaulettes AND and rank tab on the chest. I'm still trying to work out how they made that mistake... If you're familiar with the 95 Patt PLCE, have you noticed that the Side Pouches don't fit to the bottom of the Yoke correctly, whereas the 90 Patt did? Someone misread the template plan - and they've never been corrected. In the case of the PLCE, it's more likely that it was someone in the MoD that cocked up the design plan.
  7. CORRECTION: Right tricep! (Pen Pocket on the left arm...)
  8. Aside from variations in shades of DPM, types of snapper studs and the introduction of the field dressing pocket on the left tricep, the DPM Para Smock hasn't changed since it was introduced in the 1970s. There was at least one short run in a different weave of fabric and some were made in the original 1980s 3 or 4 colour (from memory) Desert DPM. The current Smocks in MTP look identical in cut to their DPM predecessors of the late 1980s. There are a few countries that use/used British DPM - outside of the Commonwealth, Holland comes to mind. If you have a jacket you're trying to identify, does it have a label? If you have a 95 Patt GS Jacket with woollen cuffs, it may have been a customised jacket. The cuffs on the original Para Smocks ("Denison Smocks") came about because wartime Paras often sewed the hose part of socks onto their Smock cuffs. Military tailors will often customise clothing/kit to customer specification - and to a high, professional (obviously) standard. Shops like SASS used to make their own versions of Para Smocks and SAS Windproofs. I've seen a few mass-produced copies of Brit kit made with woollen cuffs, etc, with fake Brit labels. Snapper stud sets can be bought. I once fitted some to a customised 95 Patt Shirt: if you get too used to wearing a Para Smock, you might sometimes ping a button or two...
  9. ...This is Paul. My first experience of militaria and/or military vehicles was when my father took me (very "army-barmy" at the time) to a MVCG(?) (Military Vehicle Conservation Group?) meet at Blackbushe Airport sometime in the 1970s - probably '72 or '73. That day was all over far too soon for me... :wow: Wartime militaria was usually dirt-cheap at the time so I started out collecting webbing. Presently almost all boxed up in storage too far away to access. Was army-barmy 'til I joined the Parachute Regiment: they cured me of all that! I have to concede that, being Airborne, I don't have a great deal of experience of military vehicles other than in the back of flying ones. Being in the back of Bedford four tonners and in the back (or on the bonnet) of long wheelbase Landrovers is pretty much it. My only experience of MT on exercises was driving about (passenger) in "Dougals" (stripped down, scrimmed-up LWB Landrovers) in West Germany, 1989. On the run-up to a half century by years, I'm still researching and collecting webbing - it never ends - trials stuff, mainly. Mid-life crisis (I suppose), but I've expanded by researching, collecting and restoring Brit Para jump kit. I one day will take part in a jump from a DC-47... In 2012, attended "Chestnut Sunday" in Bushey Park, Surrey - a few Willys GPs there (as you all know, real Jeeps!). Love everything about them, especially the sound they make! Doubt that I'll ever afford to own one. More likely would reconstruct a "Dougal" (mid-life crisis creeping in again, perhaps). I see membership of this forum as an opportunity to expand my knowledge into mil vehicle restoration - and once I have the cash, perhaps indulge myself. In return, I should be able to offer knowledge on Brit webbing/personal field kit for anyone needing to complete the bits and pieces that would add a tad more authenticity to a display vehicle - should it be required. Over.
×
×
  • Create New...