wdbikemad

just to make the old sweats shudder.............

 

Mark

Thanks Mark.......my head has already started to itch.............

"It was when I was attached to the Papachute Regiment that I was issued the classic Steel Jump Helmet. Which was a MUCH better designed & comfortable item of protective headwear to use!"

I always found the steel para helmet had to be worn several sizes larger than your actual head size......my bonce is only a size 7 & 1/8, but I needed a 7 & 1/2 minimum in the para lid to fit........yet with a steel DR helmet I can get away with a size 7.........quite strange, as both lids share the same shell and are both fairly well padded........

I often wonder what happened to the tons of MK5 helmets left after the services went over to the MK6.........I can remember around the late-90s visiting an ordnance depot near London "on business" and seeing a builders skip full to the brim with the things.....some were new and stacked together, others just lobbed in there still with the netting and scrim attached.......and being outside, the skip was half full of water ! Speaking with a surplus dealer a few years later, he told me that he'd bought a load of these for the scrap-metal value but found them impossible to process due to the steel used in manufacture.......I think he just dumped 'em....

ha ha ,reading your post brought back some painful memories especially the bit about the lid cracking you on the conk,

On occasions even 30 years later, my missus won't believe me when I tell her I'm sure I have a narrow indentation in the top of my head caused by that spike that my little finger fits into !!! Mind you, she's only 4'10" and I'm 6'3" so she can't check it out.....:-D

All the recent chat about 70s-80s combat kit reminded me of that bloody awful steel helmet that we had to wear.....

The so-called "GS MK5", a late-50s development of the 1945 MK4 tin hat, itself developed from the "D-Day" MK3.........

The changes mainly concerned the liner and chinstrap......the former now of multi-piece construction and issued in bits for personal assembly, the latter in a thicker green elasticated webbing.......

Seemingly, the MK5 liner was developed during the late-1950s, although the earliest example I've seen was dated 1962.....an article in a '55 edition of Soldier magazine mentions that the new liner with the synthetic stockinette head-cushion was to provide improved comfort and to absorb perspiration.........maybe.....

But my personal recollection is the bloody thing made your head itch after only a few minutes wear to an uncontrollable degree.......I ended up removing the thing altogether just to get some relief....

And everytime you hit the deck wearing it, the thing would slip fowards over your face striking the bridge of the nose, regardless of how tight the chinstrap was..........I actually lost mine completely hitting the deck at the top of a hill to assume a firing position whereby the thing flew off my head and disappeared down the slope like a bouncing bomb........

When running, the damn thing would bounce up and down on your nugget, and your entire focus was concentrated on the lid alone to stop it flying off (hence the oft-used nickname "the boingy").......

And if the liner didn't fit tightly, you'd turn your head quickly only to find the steel shell rotating entirely separately due to the effect of inertia, akin to a chopper's rotor blades on start-up........

And you had to watch your "mates" carefully....some joker would always wallop you on top of the head when your back was turned whilst wearing the lid, usually with a GS shovel or pick-helve....and that perverse spike fitted internally to mount the lining would impact into the top of your cranium with obvious painful results......

Oh the memories.........some troops moan about the fibre GS MK6, but you wouldn't complain if you'd ever experienced the tin lid.......

Hi again if it i only the rank and trade badges on th combat smock which arm would the WO2 badge go on

 

Thanks Jak

Jak, a good point.....again, it's all down to the particular era.....Officers, RAF and RN personnel generally always wore rank on the epaulettes, usually on "slides" in OD or DPM fabric that could be removed for cleaning, etc........

Army NCOs on the other hand (below WO) generally wore rank insignia on the upper sleeves........on the old '60 pattern OD combat smock this was generally the 1960's white-on-khaki embroidered chevrons as used on other forms of dress and on both arms (or in regimental colours in some cases).......after 1970 when DPM clothing was introduced, this practice persisted for some time although by the mid-'70s many favoured stripes on the right arm only........WO's and related rank wore their insignia on the lower forearms of both sleeves (generally)......Para's similarly wore the rank and DZ patches on both sleeves.....

Mid-'70s onward saw rank chevrons for combats replaced by a subdued variety, a smaller "patch" with the rank embroidered in dark-brown on a green nylon base cloth.......these were worn on the right sleeve only and lasted well into the mid-1990's.......WO's and related ranks had similar insignia, again usually only worn on the right forearm......Para's now adopted similar although the DZ patch was still occasionally worn on both sleeves......

Totally correct the case of intermingling became key. Rank slides were used to hide an officer and then tactical flashes became a method to differentiate certain fractions in a very discreet way to prevent imposters or to identify friends from foes tactically. It also aligns with NATO and peace keeping force dress regs

When I left the mob in Dec '85, nothing had changed in our dress reg's for years......that in my unit at least (RAF Plod) were rigidly enforced....I spent 85% of my service in combat dress rather than blue-grey ('cept the beret) and the only permitted insignia on DPM was rank and (in our case) provost flashes worn below the rank-slides....a few individuals started wearing subdued name-tabs but these were uncommon and discouraged by SNCO's.......RAF Regt colleagues were in the the same boat......OD epaulette slides with "RAF Regt" in black......that was it.........

Clothing was '68 pattern combats, green foul-weather suits for inclement weather and DPM parkas for winter.........detachments and postings to colder climates and NI saw the issue of some DPM "crisp-packet" waterproofs and Canadian green parkas.......NI saw DPM arctic windproofs, urban patrol boots and gloves issued..........DPM "crap hats" were issued but hoods rarely seen...........lightweight OD TML's were also issued but not often worn.........

When I left in '85, the DMS high-leg combat boots had only just been issued to RAF Regt, but no one else....I finished my time with DMS ankle boots and puttees after my NI boots fell apart..........

The rubbish new style of DPM combat smocks and trousers (the ones where the pockets fell off) first appeared during '84 'though were instantly unpopular..........shirts were always the green KF hairy type.......

NBC suits were the old MK1 or 2, with very few dark green MK3's to be seen...........

Tin hat was the GS MK5..........mine was actually an even older MK3 (1944 !!!) but fitted with the later lining........

The 'tache was also a common sight !!!! I will post some old piccies when I get round to scanning 'em.....

Happy days......

Ok Thanks again

 

But what insignia would be worn on the Combat Smock/Jacket by the Royal Corps of Transport

Depends on exactly what period, but the general standard for the '70s and '80s was NO insignia, other than rank and certain qualification/trade badges were displayed on combat smocks (eg: rank chevrons, WO and officer insignia, para wings & DZ patches for airborne troops, etc)...........thus the beret and badge were generally the only means of identifying individual units when worn......

It was really only after CS95 clothing came in that the current proliferation of tactical patches and insignia began to appear (late-90s onwards)............rather similar to battledress in the '40s....originally worn with very little insignia but by '43-44 rarely seen without it.........:-)

For the initial period late-'60s up to 71 - 72 in NI......

Olive Drab 1960 pattern combat smocks and trousers up to 1970-'71......occasionally in warm weather either shirt sleeve order (khaki 1950 or '64 pattern KF flannel shirt - the green hairy combat shirt did not appear until '72), possibly with a lightweight green denim '60 pattern "Jackets, Overall" worn instead of the combat smock.......

Pullys, if worn, were often the brown-khaki heavy-duty extreme cold weather jersey with the draw-string neck and sleeve and shoulder patches in light khaki-drill (the ones everyone thinks are "SAS" issue)...........the olive green heavy duty '68 pattern jersey (loose knit, no epaulettes and green denim patches) didn't appear until '69 at the earliest..........

All usually worn under the flak jacket........

Para's wore the '59 pattern denison with either green denim '60 pattern "overall" trousers or the green drill tropical variety........(sometimes with the flak jacket worn underneath the smock....)

Boots were DMS ankle type, worn with either blackened (polished) '37 webbing anklets or short khaki puttees....the former were going out of use by the late-'60s, 'though some troops kept 'em up to the mid-'70s........

DPM clothing wasn't introduced until 1970, the first issues being of the '60 pattern.......the 1968 pattern DPM gear began to be issued from March '71 onwards, supplementing the DPM '60 pattern.........some troops continued wearing the olive drab combat clothing up to '73 in some cases.......:-D

The padded "NI" gloves were intended to protect the knuckles in urban combat areas, the padding (partially) intended to protect the knuckles from prolonged abrasion and impact from carrying the riot shield and baton.....early issues up to the late-'70s had the upper part of the fingers padded too (except for the trigger finger).....later issues lost all the finger padding but kept the knuckle pad.....the gloves didn't appear until around '74-'76.......the NI patrol boots slightly later........

Nylon "crisp packet" waterproof jackets and trousers appeared around the mid '70s....first issue in green, then DPM a couple of years later (zip & press-stud fastened)........DPM PVC from '84 onwards (zip & velcro)........

Anyone wonder how the airborne Denison smock acquired its name ? You search all the reference books and internet and there are a few commonly-held opinions, but I have found nothing conclusive to evidence such..........no official records, nothing.......

Popular rumour states that the smock acquired the title from the designer, a Major Denison working in a camouflage unit under the stage designer Oliver Messell..........and to be realistic, this may well be true as there's nothing to contradict this.......

But my own thoughts are that most purpose-designed airborne kit was developed and tested at the Airborne Forces Experimental Establishment (AFEE) at RAF Ringway (Manchester) from 1941 onwards, and this included everything from helmets, over-smocks, drop and leg-bags, etc..........most of the kit was generally designed by the mixed civvy and military experts working there..........

Cammo clothing (or the fabric itself), on the other hand, was more than likely developed by a separate team, and during WW2 a camouflage development unit was established at Farnham Castle (Surrey) whom equally employed a team of civvy and military experts looking at all forms of cammo for buildings, vehicles, clothing, etc..............in the case of cammo material, this included designs for the windproofs, SOE jump suits, tank suits, tents, gas capes, etc.......

So....the question remains....was "Denison" responsible for the design of the cammo material.........or the design of the smock itself.....? Was he military, or civvy...? The name "Denison" (in WW2 at least) was not all that uncommon.........

Thoughts anyone......?

And on a final note, "official" records (and garment labels) deleted the name "Denison" after 1968......the garment now simply termed "Smock, Camouflage", and remained this way until replaced by the DPM version from 1977 onwards...........still a "Denison" tho' !!!

Sounds like the pre-41 type.......rough blue-grey serge, "false" cuff, KC buttons and blue drill/denim pocket, lining reinforcement, etc (this can be quite "bright" in some examples)......these were made in a multitude of sizes, and most examples usually have a white cloth label somewhere near the front opening, often with a contract number that gives a clue within it to the year of supply (eg "39") plus the "AM" mark and KC..........these were issued with the light-blue on dark shoulder eagles affixed........

As I have no clue AT ALL regarding RAF stuff does anybody please have any info,pics,links etc with regards to what to look out for as from what I can gather with the 4 Pkt OA Tunics that there were Pre WW2,WW2,50s and of course the later/modern patterns?????

 

Many Thanks

Osprey book series Harry....."The Royal Air Force 1939 - 40" title is a good start...the author, who also did two titles in the same series for the RFC/RAF in WW1, is the curator of the uniform & kit stuff at the RAF Museum and knows his stuff......

Also, have a gander at "Khaki Drill & Jungle Green" (Brayley/Ingram) by Crowood Press.......another superb title with bags of photos of original kit including tropical......

If it helps, pre-war RAF OA tunics were high-collared (similar to the Army khaki serge type) and these remained in use during early WW2 with some Free European troops serving with the RAF and into the post-war years with Air Cadets......but the regular RAF OA's went into open-neck tunics, I think, around 1937...? Basically an unlined serge jacket, with attachable matching belt, similar to the army type but open-collar.......pre-41 examples have a false "double cuff", post-41 this was deleted........this remained in service right up to the late-50s......

Around 1958-62 the fabric changed to a far smoother material, 'though the style remained the same.....

Around 72 the material was changed to a smooth mixed-fibre barathea similar to Army No.2's and the attachable belt deleted along with the support hooks and shoulder eagles for ranks below WO.........

During the early-mid 90s, the style was changed again to feature "officer" type barathea (better quality and darker blue), attached belt (again) and the shoulder eagles reintroduced for all ranks below WO........this remains current.........when this revised uniform was introduced, the peaked cap was changed to a stiffer version with an embroidered badge and a new double-breasted flasher mac introduced as well......

Steve as far as I know. DVLA will not accept a dating letter from a club to re-date a year of manufacture to a vehicle that is already registered. A copy must come from the original factory ledgers????

 

Ron

Ah yes.....although I should have added that many club dating officials use the factory ledgers to support their verifications (that many clubs hold or have access to)....! I used similar for my Ariel.......

With a 50s date however, even a green log book, I can't see too many issues here as it's pre-60 by registration (NI reg's are classed as UK).....just needs a new-style V5........

The current exemption from MoT test is for vehicles either first registered or manufactured before 1960.......I went to tax the (modern) car recently and the paper reminder notes this on it.......

The only problem I can envisage is for pre-1960 vehicles that were registered after then (eg - ex-WD stuff registered in the late-1960s)......BUT, if your V5 states "declared manufactured (say) 1942" then you are covered by the exemption, 'though I would suggest that if this is the case then take along the V5 to the Post Office when taxing the vehicle to prove this point........

My own bikes were all registered in the 80s and 90s, although the V5 states that they were manufactured during the war years, so effectively covered by the exemption........the risk with some post-60 ex-WD vehicles is that the V5 may also give the date of manufacture (incorrectly) the same as the registration date, thus creating a potential problem.....

The DVLA may be able to sort this out, but I can see a scenario where the owner may have to prove earlier manufacture, possibly involving an approved owners club or DVLA inspection.......

I'm not certain about an initial MoT being required for newly-rebuilt ex-WD pre-60 stuff, as this was a requirement to obtain an age-related or original registration number.....this may still be the case, although once registered and age proven, a subsequent annual MoT may not be necessary......?

And if you get a RAF one, it may have "BG" (blue-grey) and "OA" (other Airmen), plus sometimes (on post-war items) "NP" (new pattern)..............wartime US-manufactured BD, coats, etc, often have "WA" on the label (War Aid)..........

It's funny how things go round in circles....seemingly early on in WW2 many pre-war regulars were bemoaning the loss of serge service dress when BD came in.........and then the same 20-odd years later when BD went out in favour of other garments culminating in the denims, shirt and pully for general barrack dress........then a few decades later CS95..!!

It's a source of some amusement to the other services why the Army insist on turning up to office meetings in full DPM. It doesn't work very well as camouflage at Abbey Wood or Main Building! :-)

 

Andy

I've heard similar grumblings from long (still) serving friends, bemoaning the fact that the Army has since "lost" a smart form of garb for office and general non-operational wear since the pully, worn with lightweights, went out of favour for CS95 to be worn in place......whereas the other services have retained an equivalent to the older style......

So did/do the RAF.......seems there was some changing around of patterns from roughly 84-85 from crew-neck to Vee (in the RAF it least when I received a ribbed blue-grey V-neck to replace my knackered crew-neck).......

Then followed later by plain knits instead of ribbed (in a mixed wool-nylon), but not entirely sure where the forces are now with pullovers....? I think the RAF and Navy still issue them, but the Army seem to have lost/reduced use of the pully since CS95 came in.........

hi Paul, when i was last down at sabre sales there was hundreds of them, but the i brought was dated 1945 and had a lining, i was told this was an officers one, i don`t know wether this is true.

 

regards

I have seen these at Sabre......the stock of O/Rs coats are all post-war '51 pattern or European, the others officers types (some of which were privately-purchased and others made up in WD fabric to the officers pattern for sale at a fixed price)......from memory, many officers coats have a wider "lancer" style front, are longer, have deep turn-back cuffs, are made in a much better quality melton fabric and linings in either cotton, satin or rayon.......WD-made examples will usually have a stamp somewhere, and privately manufactured types a tailors or suppliers label........

I was recently browsing "images" on Google (no, not that kind !) in relation to particular items.......and found commercial copies of the green 1960 pattern combat smock and WW2-type windproof smock in a sort of green/khaki.....they appear reasonable copies in detail, and were for the civvy fashion market rather than military repros......

Not sure I'd want any personally, and not sure how up to date the images are, but the next time she drags me around TK MAX I might just keep an eye open (rather than both closed)........:-D

Oh right, I was hoping they were the same. Thanks for the reply. Can anyone elaborate on the differences?

Not entirely sure Paul, but there are seemingly two patterns of WW2-era issue Army (Dismounted) greatcoats........announced in "The Times" on 21st April 39, the '39 pattern (no expanding "vent" at the rear) and the '41 pattern that has the vent (seemingly to permit the coat to be worn over the webbing as well !), adjustable belt at the back, slightly shorter in the body by 2 inches, reduced collar width by 3/4 inch, "jigger" (securing) button added to the lower front to hold the skirt together, improved fit at the waist to permit greater movement and an improved (warmer) lining (usually a heavy white-colour wool fabric)..........

Variants include those for mounted troops (far shorter in the body), and US War Aid & Commonwealth manufactured items.......

The next change appears to have occurred with the 1951 pattern........basically appears the same as the 40/41 pattern but has an additional pair of buttonholes (so that when fastened right up, you have a matching "set" of 5 pairs of buttons up the front)....the wartime versions appear to have had 3 pairs of buttons only from waist to chest, then a gap, then another pair at the top to close the coat.........the lining also appears to have changed again to khaki KF shirting flannel......

It's a funny old world though.......sometimes a none-too-special item can go for a staggering sum.......and then something potentially attractive for a pittance........I guess it's the old adage of those that want something at a particular time and have the means to do so will pay what they desire to secure it........

I'm pleased to say I've bought nothing simply due to the supposed value, only because it was either reasonable, I needed it for the book or I just liked it.......:-D

Some of my acquisitions are clearly now rather attractive, but I'm fortunately not in need of the money and would far rather swap than sell (the odd bit goes, but only if unnecessary and I have several of them)...........is this a bad thing....?

==============

 

IMHO , your last statement is that you wish to prove your point by use of the most common term - end of.

 

I am well aware of the fact that so many British Army Combat Jackets have a manufacturers label stating that the material is "Cotton Sateen" , however this is no definative that the correct term for the material used is in fact "Cotton Sateen" , probably it is just a continuation of a "Cotton Gabardine " type material with a slightly different mix / treatment. Probably the real truth is that they did not wish the common soldiers of the day aware of just what the material was. Obviously any subsequent book published after yours will have good scope for further research & revelations.. End Of..

Thanks for your reply Ruxy (had to go, the rice was burning on the cooker !! My turn for dinner...)......Just to be clear, I am not trying to prove any particular point, merely confining my response to that stated in official publications, the entire basis of my research. All too many statements are made without any reference made to where the info came from, and quoting official publications (some very old) at the very least provides a basis, as you correctly mention, for further scope and research (which is my intention by providing a reference point)........

If you wish, I can provide you with the official War Office/MoD specifications for British combat clothing fabric, that includes all details regarding warp/weft/composition/tear resistance, etc......it may assist you in your own research.....

But going by the records, there is nothing to imply any deterioration in the fabric standards of post-war British combat clothing, only improvements for specific reasons (none quoted as financial)......indeed, as early as 1960 the QMG stated that the Denison smock fabric, and the entire garment as a whole, was far cheaper (£3 !!! - those were the days) than the 1960 pattern combat smock, but the material and the design of the latter was far superior in most aspects so regardless of cost (over double that of the Denison) the War Office pressed ahead with this for issue throughout the Army as a whole........and the stated reason for trialing the 50/50 or 70/30 mixed fibre DPM material between 74 and 76 in place of cotton sateen was to improve upon the shrink resistance of (quote) "all-cotton garments"..........

MoD descriptions are prone to inaccuracies, but for a true picture it is essential to obtain the actual material specifications under MSB or DEF STAN publications.............

As with all books however, the question remains how far in depth do I go ? Stick to original, official specs or add other opinion......? Unfortunately, the complaints department at the War Office, Whitehall, London, has long-since closed.....

===========

 

QUOTE.

 

"reversing" the sateen fabric in order that the duller (inside) was on the outer

 

----

 

And this is where you are going wrong , if you are going to write a book - then I suggest you consult with such as a Textile Technician.

 

The "sateen" you mention refers to the surface finish of the cloth , the long strand probably on the outside of the shell and the duller (this is the cord that is on the inside , but may not - I think it is decided on the wicking required ).

 

In my book , from my limited knowledge of cloth - sateen or satin is a totally different fabric , a term given to a relatively common lining material or bedding sheets.

 

Such as Grenfell cloth or Ventile cloth is in fact a expensive long-staple Egyptian cotton , processed and woven for wind-proof quality and a certain amount of water proofing but remaining breathable by natural means when worn.

 

IMHO , the post-WW2 MOD jackets (the subject of this thread) were a similar but inferior and thus cheaper cloth.

 

The last U.S.A. manufactured Alpha Ind. M65 jackets were 65% poly / 35% cotton , I understand the genuine Alpha Ind. M65 jackets are now in fact manuf. in PRC and are from NYCO.

I love a good debate......

In writing a historical book, my primary source will always be official references.....and in balance these do contain occasional inaccuracies, contradictions and mis-descriptions...but to preserve historical fact as stated (as quoted in such original sources) I have no plans to argue what was written down up to 62 years ago by delving into modern scientific analysis of fabrics........it somehow defeats the purpose of transcribing original documentation.......

In mentioning the "reversal" of the combat smock material, I am referring directly to a QMG report of 1961 sitting right next to me detailing such........I am only quoting that report, therefore cannot see exactly where I am "going wrong" ??? I am referring to historical documents, not analysing them..........

The MoD clothing catalogues, and material specifications for combat clothing fabric, list "100%" cotton up to 1976, and thereafter a mixed fabric (semi-synthetic) of either 50/50 or 70/30 mix following trials conducted in BAOR between 1975-76.........

There are no books on the subject of UK combat clothing from 1945 to (almost) the present day, and little available on the internet.........I am trying to make the first reasonably comprehensive history of the various patterns and items produced within that time frame, using the official records as a basis...........and whilst I fully respect your quoted expertise in fabrics, and your feedback, it would be equally appreciated to acknowledge the broader subject that I am attempting to cover.....after all, I don't have to.......but current feedback from Forum members and other parties is overwhelming in pushing me to complete this work, therefore I decline to accept advice on what I should and should not be intending to print.......

I suggest that if anyone else thinks they can do better, at this point at least, then go ahead and produce a better summary....... End of......

======================

 

Gabardine , yes - very possibly . Sateen , I very much doubt it - but I await with keen interest for more technical info. as my knowledge of fabrics is little and stitching - even less so LoL

I am in possession of many of the War Department technical reports from 1950 through to 1962.......together with Army Council, QM General, D/Stores Clothing & Research, etc, correspondence and trial reports..........all state repeatedly that the initial garments made up to 1952 were manufactured in proofed cotton-gabardine, and from 1952 onwards in cotton-sateen (sometimes referred to as "satin") that lasted up to 1976-77.........many of the reports detail the fabric as the same type used by the US military for M.43 and M.51 combat clothing.......and one report from 1962 details the QMG "reversing" the sateen fabric in order that the duller (inside) was on the outer as having been proven to have greater abrasion resistance and less prone to snagging, a similar practice to that adopted by the Americans.........

Interestingly, one technical report from 1950 extensively details trials carried out between cotton-sateen and cotton-Oxford cloth for combat clothing production, although initial production garments were in gabardine, later changing to sateen........

The original gabardine is similar to the wartime windproof fabric, having a very fine "rib" effect to the fabric weave, and is rather lightweight......the sateen is without this, and considerably heavier and thicker......gabardine garments used in the first winter of Korea were found, according to an ECAC report, to be less durable than anticipated, hence the change to the heavier fabric......

My forthcoming book will detail all of the extensive trials that occurred.....