Great pics... thanks for posting. So it appears that the earlier style tunics & Parka's had the shoulder flaps, am I right?
pat
pat
-
-
Great pics... thanks for posting. So it appears that the earlier style tunics & Parka's had the shoulder flaps, am I right?
patComment
-
-
Pat - You are correct. From the close-up B&W photo you clearly see the button and cloth attachment to anchor the epaulette.Originally posted by VPpat View Post
TJComment
-
Duty Uniforms
Gents - Side by side pictures of our man in variations of the dress uniform.
Pictures are dated 30 JUN 63.
The "saucer" cap is worn with "low quarters"; the peaked M-43 style hat with kampfstiefel. Otherwise, there are no noticeable differences.
TJComment
-
Not so fast!
Gents - I just noticed that there are two different tunics.
The tunic on the right (with peaked cap) is dark collared; the one on the left is not.
Interesting distinction.
TJComment
-
Color photo of Wachtsdienst Uniform
Gents - This Wachtsdienst uniform was on display at the Panzermuseum in Muenster in 2003.
TJComment
-
NCO in Dress Uniform
Note the multi-colored cord on this senior NCO's hat.Comment
-
BGS on Patrol
The Bee Gees in this photo are wearing the Duty Uniform with peaked cap and are armed with G-1s.
How about that cool Land Rover!
This photo is dated September 1963 and is taken from Shelby Stanton's book, U.S. Army Uniforms of the Cold war 1948-1973..Comment
-
G5
Great photos of the BGS camo in wear. I'd appreciate it if you would post the picture of the chap wearing the BGS camo M43 style cap. Are these individual photos from your collection?
Cheers,
GordonComment
-
Thanks for posting the 'in-use' photos, G5! It's interesting that in the second photo, the camo jacket/smock/blouse shown seems to have the pointier collars of the second pattern (in contrast to the squarish collars of the third pattern), yet there is provision for shoulder board attachment, unlike on my example. I dug up Peterson's book to have another look. Sure enough, it too, shows the second pattern jacket with a shoulder board loop. Perhaps this is something that was added later, either when the recruit had completed his training, or when the regulations changed?
Anyhow, here is a comparative view of the interiors. The one on the left is the third pattern; the one on the right is the second pattern. Note the simpler construction of the ventilation hole in the earlier model, as well as the different waist adjustment setup. Although not very clear in the picture, the collar reinforcement on the third pattern is sewn in the zigzag mode; whereas the one on the right is in the form of parallel lines.
I also have two pairs of pants that go with these. One is well worn (but not tattered like the one shown in Peterson's book), the other came with the '62 jacket (yes, bought online). I can't find any marking that would suggest a date in either of these, but I suspect the worn one is a later model than the intact one, because it has certain 'cost-saving' features, such as sewn-down belt loops instead of buttoned-down ones, a small and round seat reinforcement patch instead of large square one, no lining in the crotch area, and slit button holes under pocket flaps, rather than the more expensive keyhole variety.
It's possible that the differences above came from inconsistent contractor interpretation of production specs, rather than any actual changes in the specs themselves. However, there is one significant characteristic that ties the intact pants to the '62 jacket in my view.
In the side-by-side comparison below, 'A' is the '62 jacket, 'B' is the intact pair of pants, 'C' is the later jacket, and 'D' is the worn pair of pants. While there is no 100% match between any of the four patterns, 'A' and 'B' are both printed in such a way that the 'blotches' and the 'rain drops' are lined up in a very specific way, and repeat at exactly the same interval (presumably using rollers of the same diameter). In contrast, 'C' and 'D' appear to be printed with a 'rain drops' roller that is slightly larger than that of the 'blotches'. As a result, the rain drops repeat at an interval that is a couple of cm longer than that of the blotches; the net effect is that the composite pattern would not repeat itself over a very long distance, theoretically improving the camouflage (although in practice, when this already very effective camo pattern is set against a white shirt and a black tie, I don't see how the subtle 'improvement' in the rain drops would make any real difference when the whole thing is viewed from a normal distance, especially after the colors begin to fade).
On an unrelated note, I don't think the 'Bee Gee' wearing the 'saucer hat' had a tunic with a light-colored collar. I believe it's an optical illusion caused by the angle of the light incidental to the orientation of the collar. If the Bee Gee had turned the other way, I am quite sure his collar would have looked much darker.
cheers,
Gene TComment
-
Soft Caps
Gordon - In the below photo you can see the soft caps perched on each post of the bunk nearest the wall. Under magnification, you can see what appears to be roundels in the front center mass of the cap.Originally posted by gordon.criag View Post
Later versions of the soft cap (Peterson's 2nd model Sumpf) did not have the roundel sewn on. I believe this was to prevent the loss of water proofing. I have seen these being sold with pin-on eagle insignia at German militaria shows.
In another interesting head gear note, the stahlhelm has an exercise band affixed to it. What's also interesting is our man smoking in bed (perhaps to ward off the smelly sock odor wafting up from below) and the large loaf of bread on the window sill.
With the exception of the patrol picture, all of the other photos are from my personal collection.
Take care - TJComment
-
You are Correct Sir!
Gene T - You are correct. The dark collar is easily seen in this close-up. I really need to stop posting under the influence. Note also the provision of threads on his left pocket (to accomodate a sports badge?).Originally posted by Gene T View PostThanks for posting the 'in-use' photos, G5! It's interesting that in the second photo, the camo jacket/smock/blouse shown seems to have the pointier collars of the second pattern (in contrast to the squarish collars of the third pattern), yet there is provision for shoulder board attachment, unlike on my example. I dug up Peterson's book to have another look. Sure enough, it too, shows the second pattern jacket with a shoulder board loop. Perhaps this is something that was added later, either when the recruit had completed his training, or when the regulations changed?
Anyhow, here is a comparative view of the interiors. The one on the left is the third pattern; the one on the right is the second pattern. Note the simpler construction of the ventilation hole in the earlier model, as well as the different waist adjustment setup. Although not very clear in the picture, the collar reinforcement on the third pattern is sewn in the zigzag mode; whereas the one on the right is in the form of parallel lines.
I also have two pairs of pants that go with these. One is well worn (but not tattered like the one shown in Peterson's book), the other came with the '62 jacket (yes, bought online). I can't find any marking that would suggest a date in either of these, but I suspect the worn one is a later model than the intact one, because it has certain 'cost-saving' features, such as sewn-down belt loops instead of buttoned-down ones, a small and round seat reinforcement patch instead of large square one, no lining in the crotch area, and slit button holes under pocket flaps, rather than the more expensive keyhole variety.
It's possible that the differences above came from inconsistent contractor interpretation of production specs, rather than any actual changes in the specs themselves. However, there is one significant characteristic that ties the intact pants to the '62 jacket in my view.
In the side-by-side comparison below, 'A' is the '62 jacket, 'B' is the intact pair of pants, 'C' is the later jacket, and 'D' is the worn pair of pants. While there is no 100% match between any of the four patterns, 'A' and 'B' are both printed in such a way that the 'blotches' and the 'rain drops' are lined up in a very specific way, and repeat at exactly the same interval (presumably using rollers of the same diameter). In contrast, 'C' and 'D' appear to be printed with a 'rain drops' roller that is slightly larger than that of the 'blotches'. As a result, the rain drops repeat at an interval that is a couple of cm longer than that of the blotches; the net effect is that the composite pattern would not repeat itself over a very long distance, theoretically improving the camouflage (although in practice, when this already very effective camo pattern is set against a white shirt and a black tie, I don't see how the subtle 'improvement' in the rain drops would make any real difference when the whole thing is viewed from a normal distance, especially after the colors begin to fade).
On an unrelated note, I don't think the 'Bee Gee' wearing the 'saucer hat' had a tunic with a light-colored collar. I believe it's an optical illusion caused by the angle of the light incidental to the orientation of the collar. If the Bee Gee had turned the other way, I am quite sure his collar would have looked much darker.
cheers,
Gene T
I for one appreciate your exhaustive analysis of BGS battle dress. I hope to get examples of my kit posted soon.
Thanks - TJComment
-
TJ,
Thanks for the "barracks" pic. That takes me back a few years!!!!!!!!!!! Interesting to see the exercise bands in wear as well. Lots of those have surfaced for sale in the last few years but this the first good picture I have with them on the helmets.
For those of you in Germany, there is an auction coming to an end tomorrow for a BGS smock with a hood. Here are pictures of the smock and hood.
Regards,
GordonComment
-
The hood. Here is the auction URL http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...MEWA:IT&ih=004
Regards,
GordonComment
Comment