First Backpack used in the Bundeswehr

[MeinhardcFJR2]

Hello,

I was going to post my example however as there are current pictures on this thread i thought I would ask the question here

Would anyone be able to advise me as to the value of a 1956 dated example of the the above backpack?

I do intend to sell my pack through Estand in the near future.

Bar a small wear mark on the lower base plate the frame is in excellent to mint condition.

Thank you in advance,

Mark.

[Gordon Craig]

Mark,

If all the straps are present I would pay between US$20.00 and 25.00 for one of these back pack frames.

Regards,

Gordon

[joshh]

Neat pack thanks for sharing. Its reall interesting to see the similarities between it and ts ww2 predecessor.

[michelwijnand]

If I remember correct Michael Wijnand and Hoover posted pictures of a reconstructed backpack ...

I do have both the smaller and larger backpacks shown in this thread, but I don't have the rack (yet), I have the smaller backpack attached to a mannequin with the single long shoulder strap attacked like backpack-style shoulder straps as shown in some manual I have a picture of somewhere :P
After seeing that smaller pack on a rack with more stuff attached to it on the back of a soldier, I'll be getting a rack too, it looks very nice!

Cheers,
Michel

[Gene T]

The shortness of the shoulder straps on this pack frame always bothered me, because they just don't look right somehow. When they are detached from the frame and used with just the pack alone, they are actually of the right length, so the designers clearly had normal sized human torsos in mind when they drafted the specifications for these. Clearly we must have overlooked something, but what?

When I chanced upon this thread again today during an unrelated search, I noticed that Gordon had posted some pictures from Kunstwadl last year, which I somehow missed. Right there in the first picture was the clue that I had been looking for!

Even if the soldier in the picture had been unusually skinny, those shoulder straps are nowhere near as stumpy and constrictive as what we had been noticing on ours. So what made his so different?

Here is a side by side comparison of how our packs are configured versus the way the one in Kunstwadl's book is done up:




What should be apparent here is that while our shoulder strap (D) is fastened to a short fixed length tab (A), the shoulder strap in Kunstwadl's picture is actually fastened to tab (B), which is itself an extension of the doubled over frame strap (C). Below is the reconfiguration of my straps based on Kunstwadl's illustration:




As tab (B) can be lengthened (green arrows) by pulling (C) through the bottom of the frame, the overall shoulder strap length actually has a lot of room for adjustment in this configuration! Moreover, the lengthening of the shoulder straps would necessarily entail the shortening of the frame straps (C) (red arrows), which would cause the metal brace to arch outward, pushing the pack (or other strapped-on materials) away from the carrier's back (yellow arrows), significantly improving the comfort factor for the carrier.




I don't know whether the "Kunstwadl configuration" is the one originally envisioned by the designers of the pack frame, or if we are looking at an ad hoc adaptation devised by the soldiers themselves to get around the stumpy shoulder strap problem. It does seem rather odd that none of the surplused pack frames we've seen so far had been configured this way, especially if this turns out to be the "proper" layout for the setup to begin with. Regardless, mine looks a lot more "normal" this way.


Gene T

[Gordon Craig]

Gene T,

Thanks for the great pictures and your excellent analysis of the strap arrangement on these back packs. It makes a lot of sense to me. As my pack straps are currently configured I could get it on the mannequin but just barely. It would be very uncomfortable for a soldier to wear it this way. I'll have to reconfigure mine.

Regards,

Gordon