wdbikemad Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 Just compared my 1951 dated Size 4 British Army Middle Parka (mint) with a similar 1953 dated Size 1 with the attachable hood........ As many will know, the 1st pattern is made in lightweight gabardine, with an attached hood and no upper pockets on the chest...... The second pattern was made in heavier sateen, with a separate, attachable hood (of identical construction to the 1st pattern attached hood) and additional upper chest pockets........ There are a few other differences however.......I've noted that the 1st pattern lacks the inner knitted cuffs to assist insulation and is overall noticeably lighter in weight........ Jason recently illustrated another variant, a mixture of the original model and the later model in that it still had the attached hood but breast pockets added......and designated "1952 pattern" on the label...........is this version in gabardine or sateen, and does it incorporate the inner knitted cuffs.....? These parkas were still being manufactured up to the mid-70s, by then the majority being made by James Smith and Cookson & Clegg........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eaglehurst Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 Bear with me Steve and I will try to dig out the 52 Patt parka and see if it has the features you mention. I was give the 'serious talking to' by wifey recently so most of my collection has been hidden away and I confess I can't remember where I put that parka:red: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wdbikemad Posted December 27, 2012 Author Share Posted December 27, 2012 Bear with me Steve and I will try to dig out the 52 Patt parka and see if it has the features you mention. I was give the 'serious talking to' by wifey recently so most of my collection has been hidden away and I confess I can't remember where I put that parka:red: I can relate to that....:embarrassed:.........my excuse to date has been that it's all "for the book".........I think I've got away with it so far, but it probably won't last.........:-D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxy Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 Just compared my 1951 dated Size 4 British Army Middle Parka (mint) with a similar 1953 dated Size 1 with the attachable hood........ As many will know, the 1st pattern is made in lightweight gabardine, with an attached hood and no upper pockets on the chest...... The second pattern was made in heavier sateen, with a separate, attachable hood (of identical construction to the 1st pattern attached hood) and additional upper chest pockets........ There are a few other differences however.......I've noted that the 1st pattern lacks the inner knitted cuffs to assist insulation and is overall noticeably lighter in weight........ Jason recently illustrated another variant, a mixture of the original model and the later model in that it still had the attached hood but breast pockets added......and designated "1952 pattern" on the label...........is this version in gabardine or sateen, and does it incorporate the inner knitted cuffs.....? These parkas were still being manufactured up to the mid-70s, by then the majority being made by James Smith and Cookson & Clegg........ ====================== 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxy Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 (edited) Having worn such jackets in the TA from 1968 , receiving the "care & use" instructions from a regular staffy. I found when brand new or returned cleaned the claims did not stand up , IIRC this was according to a NATO requirement that body heat should dry the jacket out within abt. 40 min. Instructed by use of body heat alone, no standing around a fire is required , L0L - the lying £wat. Having worn Ventile & Grenfell jackets , I suspect the cloth may have been Grenfell (to a lower standard than the regular stuff) , certainly not Ventile http://www.haythornthwaite.com/GrenfellWeaving.htm Edited December 27, 2012 by ruxy speling Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wdbikemad Posted December 27, 2012 Author Share Posted December 27, 2012 (edited) ====================== 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..... Edited December 27, 2012 by wdbikemad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxy Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 (edited) 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..... =========== 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. Edited December 27, 2012 by ruxy speling Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wdbikemad Posted December 27, 2012 Author Share Posted December 27, 2012 =========== 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...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxy Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 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...... ============== 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.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wdbikemad Posted December 27, 2012 Author Share Posted December 27, 2012 ============== 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxy Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 The point that I was trying to make is that the so often used label marking "Cotton Sateen" is a total nonsence and was probably used to confuse any user (I have never been able to determine just what it is). It never confused me because I would always delve a little deeper. For over forty years I have prefered to use the traditional materials for outer shell jacket and for undergarment. The bottom half , I still believe the matching trousers (cheap Ex-Army) with long-johns in winter was the best option - and with Grenfell or S.A. The jacket - I found water penetration around the shoulders would take a lot of drying by body heat. Over these last 40 years I have had 3 qty. Grenfell (still have two) , also I have a original Survival Aids Artic Ranger (that was more or less the same as the SAS smock of the era) (Ventile). My "Field Trials" indicate that the Ventile & Grenfell "Walker" jacket (that seemed to have a more fine weave) than other Grenfell cloth performed more or less the same, as can be expected performed better than the standard issue MOD Combat jacket. I came to the conclusion that "Cotton sateen" was more or less the same type of cloth but from a cheaper grade of cotton (the remaining 97% - available on the world market). All of them being just a variation of cotton Gabardine. -- What do I wear now LoL , well it is a 2004 era. CragHoppers olive , sort of combat style Outer 70% cotton / 30% polamide with wax finish (the weave is much finer than Barbour) Drop lining 100 Polyester with PU membrane. I liked it so much - I purchased 2 for 1 at the end of season sale , just as well because they have been obsolete for a good while now . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotch Harry Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wdbikemad Posted January 25, 2013 Author Share Posted January 25, 2013 Nice example of the 1st pattern........same as my mint one, size and maker except this is dated '52......I suspect that these were manufactured between mid-1951 and mid-1952 when the fabric, and styling, was changed.....no doubt the result of field experience over the winter of 51-52...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotch Harry Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Was a bit surprised with the sizing to be honest as expected it to be massively oversized in relation to the labelled sizes(as a lot of items tend to be) but isnt. This one just finished on Ebay---- http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/310570620236?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wdbikemad Posted January 26, 2013 Author Share Posted January 26, 2013 Was a bit surprised with the sizing to be honest as expected it to be massively oversized in relation to the labelled sizes(as a lot of items tend to be) but isnt. This one just finished on Ebay---- http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/310570620236?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649 They are indeed on the small side Harry........(I need to check mine against the later pattern to see if the cut was improved upon ?)......and the one on Ebay was even smaller....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eaglehurst Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 They are indeed on the small side Harry........(I need to check mine against the later pattern to see if the cut was improved upon ?)......and the one on Ebay was even smaller....... If it was improved Steve it was not by much! Even the lergest size 9 later examples I have just about fit me at 6'2" and 45" chest (arm length is always a problem with early gear) - and they were supposed to be worn with multiple layers of clothing underneath... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotch Harry Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 I have one of the later Parkas stored away somewhere(cant remember the size now) but from memory remember the sleeves being very short. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wdbikemad Posted January 26, 2013 Author Share Posted January 26, 2013 I think a lot of the 50s kit suffered from fitting issues.....particularly the smock with the poor sleeve attachment design......this was highlighted during 1958-59 during parachute trials, and the smock subsequently modified for the 60 pattern......although as we know, the mod' didn't actually appear in production until 64 at the earliest.......... Other issues: the 50s smock and trousers were both increased in length, the buttons strengthened, etc, as a result of concerns raised about both issues.........I wonder if the sleeve length of the parka was addressed during the 60s...? After all, the garment remained in production into the early 70s.........?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotch Harry Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/271163921501?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649 £35(and still rising) for a hood!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wdbikemad Posted March 7, 2013 Author Share Posted March 7, 2013 http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/271163921501?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649 £35(and still rising) for a hood!!!!! The hoods are not exactly rare - I saw a pile of 'em at a show only last year at a fiver each, although there are never any around in the right size of condition when you are actually looking for one....... The one in the image looks to be new and a nice 52 date (1st year the detachable type appeared).......I wouldn't personally pay £35-odd for such, but for some if you need one, well.........:undecided: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.