wdbikemad

Another rare item shown in the photos is the 80's "issue" 'tache....!! There were a lot of 'em around then........I cringe when I look at my old photos nowadays with myself wearing a very long, bushy affair akin to that commonly favoured by German porn stars of the time (so I heard).......:red:

Try finding one nowadays.......!!!!!

OK.....

1960 Pattern OD Sateen Combat Trouser Sizing......

Size 1 to 3......Height 5'3" to 5'6".....waist 28-30", 31-33" and 34-37", Inside leg 30"

Size 4 to 6...............5'7" to 5'10"............28-30", 31-33" and 34-37", Inside leg 32.5"

Size 7 to 9...............5'11" to 6'2"............30-32", 33-36" and 37-40", Inside leg 34.5"

There is additional info on seat, outside leg seam, zip length, pocket sizes, etc...........

Sizes for '68 pattern DPM gear should be identical........(size chart from '62 dated 60 pattern trouser manufacturing specifications)........:-D

PS - remember that the 68 pattern gear was cut more generously, although intended to fit as above.....

As mentioned, I have the old Denison sizing that the later DPM para smock followed........let me know if this is required....

I think I have the War Department sizing chart somewhere for the old sizing....and I definitely have one for the 1960 pattern OD combat trousers (and smock, plus the sizing chart for the 59 pattern Denison !)....bear with me, and I will dig it out.......

Nice condition (and size !) Martyn........as you can see, the modified fly but otherwise very much as the earlier pattern in other respects.....

A first class job ! Sadly, most original pannier bags today will have deterioration to the leather corner sections, even nos examples.....there was an excellent section on the Dutch BSA WM20 Website detailing exactly how to make replacements.....

I made my own copies long before this article was available, using grained boot leather from a cobbler and replacement copper saddlery rivets, following the rotted corners as a pattern.......10 years later they are still as good as new....:-D

I am still intrigued by this garment.......

Jason has suggested possible "parka"........but I remain undecided......it is cut almost the same as a 59 pattern Denison, but with the addition of poplin lining, hood and waist drawcord.......yet no "para" features such as rear crutch-flap or lower hem tightening tabs........but in appearance it looks a para smock, complete with the woolen cuffs....!

The very faded label appears to read "(Smock or Jacket)" followed by "Combat" with no indication of the word "Parka" or "Parachutist"........and I am certain that this smock can be seen in the recent post showing the short but wonderful Army Clothing Trials news reel......

Years ago now, I had a similar smock that was near-identical but lined throughout with a non-detachable synthetic fleece lining, identical to that found in British middle parkas...........this garment was dated mid-60s and SCRDE labelled......the designation on the label was simply "Smock"......

Parka ? Para Smock or Combat Smock....?? Either way, a rare item and as dated "1966" clearly one of the earliest trial DPM garments encountered. A study of the very light shade cammo print shows the "black" element of the print to be very crudely applied/printed.......

This one has got me stumped, and I can't find any reference to such a trial garment anywhere........I did once see a photo on the rear cover of an old copy of Soldier Magazine showing a tester at the APRE Farnborough wearing a very similar garment around 1969-70 whilst supervising a trial........but nothing else since....

Alas I had to miss Detling this year - the first time in about ten years.:-(

 

Whilst we're on the subject of 52/53 Pattern gear, what is the difference between the 52 and 53 Pattern smocks?

 

Cheers,

Mark

Mark, there isn't a 53 pattern smock, only trousers.....

Original 1st issue smock (1951) in gabardine (fully lined).....

2nd issue smock (1952) in sateen (fully lined in gabardine).......this smock is often referred to as the "52 pattern" but officially, it was known as the "Smock, Combat, Sateen", the earlier 1st issue simply being known as "Smock, Combat".....I know of no sateen smocks bearing the designation (on the label) "1952 pattern" although some trousers (and middle parkas) do feature this.......

The sateen smock remained in service, unaltered, until the 60 pattern appeared during 1961.........however, trials of the latter commenced as early as 1958 when the entire sateen combat suit was subject to extensive testing and trials during the late 1950's......this included modifications to the length of garments, fasteners, fabric and the design and cut of the sleeve of the smock (the latter not actually entering production until 1962 at the earliest).......the military also carried out tests of a combat suit manufactured in both olive AND navy blue made from heavy rubberised "Gannex" fabric......needless to say, it was a hot, sweaty failure...!

The War Office had over 100 modified "trial" suits manufactured by 1959 that were used as a basis for the 60 pattern, officially described as a development of the original Korean War era garments.......I have many of the trial reports in my archive that I hope to incorporate in the book........:-D

Wow, thanks for your help - just what I was looking for!

 

So in fact the 1952 pattern (with botton over fly) and 1960 pattern trousers look reasonably similar - they certainly match the colour of my 1960 pattern jacket pretty well!

Your welcome Peter. The button-over fly-flap was deleted by the time the 53 pattern and subsequent 60 pattern came out, probably as an unnecessary addition......you may have noticed that on the 52 (and earlier) pattern the zip fastener is actually sewn into the trousers at an angle.....

As for colour, many variations exist in the green combat dress.....and prior to 1961 many (new) sateen garments will have a slightly "shinier" finish than subsequent versions....this was because the War Office decided to manufacture garments after 1960 with the reverse of the sateen fabric on the external side, because it was felt that the reverse side had better wearing qualities (according to official reports in my records...)

Arguably, the pre-60 pattern combat trousers are far harder to source than the 60 pattern.....so in my humble opinion a fiver very well invested.....

The main difference between the sateen 52 pattern trousers and the later 60 pattern trousers is the former were unlined. This was because the trousers were intended for wear over thick woolen (almost like serge) trouser liners, or serge BD trousers, etc, in extreme cold weather.......the matching 52 pattern smock was lined all the way down to the lower hem to provide insulation over the loins, a feature deleted on the 60 pattern smock when the trousers of the later were lined !

There are actually 3 distinct patterns of Korean War era combat trousers. The original version introduced during 1951 were made in windproof gabardine and were lined in similar fabric, but were discontinued pretty early on, by mid-52 at the latest, as the gabardine was found to be insufficiently durable for extensive field usage. These trousers do not carry any pattern designation on the label.

By (probably) late 1952 the "52" pattern appeared, now made in heavier sateen cloth and identical to the original version in gabardine but no longer featuring any lining.....

By (probably) 1953 - 54 a third version appeared that were identical to the 52 pattern but lacking the button-over flap covering the zip-fly. These were also unlined, the label featuring the designation "1953 pattern".....

The combat trousers in all patterns remained on issue until the lined 60 pattern appeared during 1961, although issue continued whilst stocks remained available. All pre-60 pattern trousers are cut slightly wider in the leg compared to the 60 pattern, to allow for the trouser liner to be worn beneath, and are slightly shorter in the legs in all sizes compared to the subsequent issue....

Additionally, no pre-60 pattern trousers feature the universal instruction label found on 60 pattern trousers (although the earlier smocks do)......

I am still looking for a 1st issue combat smock in gabardine, arguably as rare as the 1st issue trousers.....! I have examples of all the other patterns......

Mrs M and I were at Peter Brown's sunning ourselves on Saturday in the garden.....:angel:.....the Sunday was, sadly, a day of rest and domestic chores.......

I am hoping to make the next VMCC jumble at Shepton in October, plus the Dallas Dig-Out the same month.......we may also make a special guest appearance at the Goodwood Revival........! Life has been busy this year......kids, wedding and work for me........enjoyable but hectic.......hoping life settles down soon !!

There were a number of the (rear) brackets NOS floating around recently Ron.....I think Paul Fevyer had some..?

The front brackets are, I suspect, the same as the post-war TRW and the rear, I'm not sure about........many NOS ex-TRW brackets can be identified by the post-war gloss bronze-green colour........

The clip does indeed fit the PLCE bayonet scabbard/frog (the weapon roughly pre-dating the trial PLCE set by a few years)............I would post some pics but my stash of pouches are currently buried in storage 30 miles away.......in the meantime have you looked at Howlett's book on Post War British Web Equipment....? There may be some good illustrations there....?

I seem to recall that some 1940 G3's were specified as having Lodge H52 / 53s...? (listed in the riders instruction manual)...

Personally, I've always run my M20's and G3s/G3L's on NGK B6HS.......they have performed, and lasted, very well in comparison to Champions......but there again, I know others who have always used Champions with no problems at all.....my W/NG also runs on a B6HS faultlessly......

The old saying used to be soft plugs in oily sidevalves and harder plugs in higher compression OHVs........I have on occasions used NGK B5HS in the M20 but never really noticed any difference when later fitting a harder B6HS......

I still use NGK's in the 16H, but 18mm size peculiar to the model.......

Somewhere in my store I have a couple of NOS wartime Champion L10s in the boxes.......from memory, the plugs are actually WD-marked complete with the arrow mark.......haven't tried 'em out but I'm sure they would still function perfectly......

To the best of my knowledge, although looking similar, the post-war TRW rear stand is not interchangeable with the wartime 3HW (though I may be wrong)....I seem to recall that the TRW used the slightly heavier Triumph twin frame...? I'm sure others can confirm whether I'm right or wrong.....:undecided:

I have got a 1941 g3l,i have the rear rack with lugs for the pannier frames but even with spacers the frames bind on the rear brake rod etc,does anyone have some mounting brackets or pictures showing how the pannier frames were mounted,especially the lower brackets

 

thanks

Have you got the rear tube-type bar fitted...? This wraps around the mudguard and spaces out the frames nicely.....I think Russell Motors had some originals....? From memory.....the rear brake rod is a pretty close distance to the frames, and I'd be tempted to look at other things, such as the operating arm (angle), etc........

WD bikes can be funny old things..........my Ariel, fitted with the "Triumph type" double plunger pump is very good and never wet sumps............she does weep a little from the top of the pushrod tubes and the valve lifter, but is otherwise great.......

Never known a 3HW or Matchy to wet-sump.......seems that plunger and worm-drive pumps are pretty damn reliable.....

Yet my 16H and all the M20s I've owned all wet-sump if left for a time......the 16H has a totally new-old-stock pump, pipes, etc, fitted but still does it.............gears - v - plunger/worm drives.......I'd opt for the latter any day...

Guess that confirms a British issue Paul..........I do know that the winter in NW Europe was bloody awful (according to historical accounts and my Grandfather who was with the 51st HD Division in the Seaforths)......

I am wondering if this was either an Army or RAF item introduced for tank crews, drivers (of open cab vehicles) or RAF groundcrews at forward airfields) for cold/wet weather protection...? By 1945, most RAF-manufactured clothing bore the Army "WD" stamp rather than the "AM" (Air Ministry) stamp commonly encountered up to 1942...........

I have had a "Terry" rack on my W/NG for the last 15-odd years.......it was initially difficult to fit, but ONLY because at the time I was using a repro rear mudguard.........when I last rebuilt her, I replaced the copy rear with an original.....and the carrier fitted perfectly..........

To be fair, Terry makes his parts using original items as the master.....and he does go to enormous lengths to ensure accuracy, even driving many miles to measure-up original fittings if he hasn't got them to hand.......but I can quote from personal experience in having had some NOS BSA and Norton original fittings that were a complete bugger to line-up and fit..........

All I can add is that Terry is a reliable and competent craftsman of the "old school".......he won't let you down, but as they say, "Rome wasn't built in a day"..........do give him time, and a gentle reminder, and I can assure you he will sort the matter out from what I know of him (and I've known Terry for over 20 years !!).....

I'm tempted to say Canadian manufacture, for vehicle crews, drivers of open cab vehicles, motorcyclists or RCAF ground crew.....? The Canadian's appear to have produced several unusual patterns of clothing, the purpose of many that has long since been forgotten about today.........the RAF developed a similar looking rubberised suit in green for ground-crew wear in wet/cold weather during the Korean War period, plus similar trousers, etc......

Are there any markings in your suit ? Do the buttons or zipper give any clues...?

Believe it or not, khaki 37 pattern webbing was still being manufactured into the early 1970s.......I have a belt, bayonet frog, khaki anklets and one ammo pouch dated 1971 and 1972....British made and coded.......not sure who for or why these were still being made then as huge stocks from previous years still remained at the time.......

Thanks. I've had a rummage through my OG PLCE box and it seems to be a mark used by the company 'COC' as I've found a near identical mark on some COC made rifle grenade carriers. (Which definitely aren't commercial) Hopefully this suggests it's an issue item, although I'm still puzzled as to why there's a lack of other markings.

It's actually "CQC" (Chelsea Quilt Company)........still going too........makers of webbing and sleeping bags.......:-D

I have never understood why they are so keen with measurements such as the arse anyway as you were generally given a quick look up an down and thrown whatever the QM deemed would fit you so they could have saved a lot of hassle and money by making them in less choice of sizes!!!!

Maybe things have changed, but back in my day you weren't given much (eg - any) opportunity to be measured or to try garments on in the QM store........some complete lazy arse behind the counter, after putting his brew and copy of The Sun down (and his fag), he glanced at you and invariably threw the nearest item at you.......and if it didn't fit.....tough !!! It was even worse if you were rather large, as you usually ended up with the biggest item available that generally swamped you.........we seemed to sort out most of our gear amongst ourselves by swapping in the block (or swapping in the drying room...).........

Strangely, most guys in my unit ended up with size 1 or 2 68 pattern combats.........:undecided:

Hi everyone,

Thanks for your input,I seem to recall also (correct me if I,m wrong) that the very first issue of trousers mens lightweight used the 1 to 23 size method before changing to the now familiar metric. There must have been quite a size range using this method.

 

Thanks.

You are quite correct...........size range changed around 1980-81 ish........I might have the TML list in my papers........

My August 86 dated Section CG (combat clothing) QM catalogue lists the DPM tropical strides in sizes 1 (8415 99 132 3770) to size 23 (NSN ending in 3792, plus "special size" 3793) but infuriatingly does not list any fitting measurements.......

However, it does list the matching tropical jacket in 13 (metric) sizes plus "special" and gives the measurements (heights 150 to 160 in 3 widths, 160 to 170 the same, 170 to 180 the same, and 180 to 190 the same....plus "special".....chest starts at 88cm through to 112cm).......:-D

It should be noted that the "herringbone tape" rank chevrons were available from stock to order in the various ranks......but, could also be assembled locally by unit tailors on material and sizes as required.........I still have a roll somewhere of the khaki herringbone rank braid....(about 30 metres)........plus about 50 of the similar RAF variety of the period.....all ex-WD stock......:-D