Announcement

**H BABERT** · 10-23-2004, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by Eric Queen

Chris, I cannot imagine that these would ever be permanently sewn on. Tacked on, even buttoned on, for some type of ceremony, parade or other special occasion, but, in my opinion, not machine sewn on for field wear.

Eric,
do you think it's possible they had a second one smock, a "special parade jump smock"? With Ct sewn on? As parade harness exist...??

Herlé

**Gary Cain** · 10-25-2004, 02:52 PM

OK I am back from my long weekend. As for the material, I agree it is wrong for a M38, but.... it is made of Windjacke material. I have an original windjacke (pictured with this response) and unless the historical material I have read is wrong, the first army smocks were made of windjacke material, which they found out was too weak to withstand the stress of a para jump. The next batch was made of the fabric we are more familiar with. As for the other points , all of which are valid, I think you are missing a simple point. This was the beginning(if it is real, which has yet to be determined) of the smock development process, of course it's not built correctly... at this time they did not know what was correct. If my guess is correct I think this was used as a test dummy to figure out what would work and what wouldn't. As for the cufftitle evidence, I don't know. The only thing I could think of was maybe it was used for a parade. They would have added the insignia and then pulled it off after words. So was this a combat smock? No way. Was this used as a test bed for the development of the jump smock? Maybe...that is what I am trying to figure out. So once again dig through the pictures and other reference materials and lets find out.

This is the windjacke I mentioned previously. The color is slightly off but the material is the same. Same weight, weave, feel, etc.
Cheers
Gary

Originally posted by Chris

Eric is exactly right: The base material is wrong. The way the snaps are sewn on is silly. The lining material is wrong. The overall pattern and construction is off. The markings are bogus. This smock is nothing like my M38. I think the eagle is an original eagle, but not sewn on correctly. I would not own this piece.

Attached Files

MVC-054F.JPG (80.2 KB, 276 views)

**Ben** · 10-25-2004, 04:41 PM

Hi Gary,

I have some questions to you if you think the point you are trying to make is valid.
Why wouldn't they use the normal studs, etc.., even in the development fase of the M38 smock?
I personally think this is an unvalid point as there is another smock that pre-dates this version, the double zipped Army smock.
And also, why would they even modify a "test" smock by adding cargo pockets and turning it into a M40 smock if not for combat?

Just my two cents.

Originally posted by Gary Cain

OK I am back from my long weekend. As for the material, I agree it is wrong for a M38, but.... it is made of Windjacke material. I have an original windjacke (pictured with this response) and unless the historical material I have read is wrong, the first army smocks were made of windjacke material, which they found out was too weak to withstand the stress of a para jump. The next batch was made of the fabric we are more familiar with. As for the other points , all of which are valid, I think you are missing a simple point. This was the beginning(if it is real, which has yet to be determined) of the smock development process, of course it's not built correctly... at this time they did not know what was correct. If my guess is correct I think this was used as a test dummy to figure out what would work and what wouldn't. As for the cufftitle evidence, I don't know. The only thing I could think of was maybe it was used for a parade. They would have added the insignia and then pulled it off after words. So was this a combat smock? No way. Was this used as a test bed for the development of the jump smock? Maybe...that is what I am trying to figure out. So once again dig through the pictures and other reference materials and lets find out.

This is the windjacke I mentioned previously. The color is slightly off but the material is the same. Same weight, weave, feel, etc.
Cheers
Gary

**Eric Queen** · 10-25-2004, 04:58 PM

Gary,

Please let me know where you read that the first Army smocks were made of "Windjacke" material. I would be real interested to see the source on that one. Perhaps some are still under the misconception that army para's came first: they did not. The first 25 Luftwaffe volunteers ( from RGG ) were at Stendal a full year before the first army volunteers arrived. The army M38 was not the first attempt at smock development. The M38 was a general design improvement over the previous M36 "double zipper" smock, which was introduced 2 years earlier, and was also made from grünmeliert material.

I would be interested to see any legitimate historical or physical evidence that would suggest that M38 smocks were produced in anything but grünmeliert fabric.

Its always nice to hope, wish, pray, dream that the non-textbook, off the wall pieces are prototypes of some type, but it just does not make any sence in this case ( IMO )

EQ

**Eric Queen** · 10-25-2004, 06:09 PM

I would be interested in hearing John and Willi's thoughts on this piece, as well.

**Gary Cain** · 10-25-2004, 06:45 PM

Hello Eric,

You are absolutely correct on the time frame for the luftwaffe development. I have to find the docs for the windjacke material reference(that is still buried in the boxes), I was not trying to imply that the army M38 was the first attempt. The fact that there was simultaneous development of luftwaffe and army equipment and weapons is well documented, each group had their own ideas and suppliers and wanted to protect their bailiwick as it were. I have not said that this is a legitimate piece either! It was posted to do exactly what we are doing, namely pick it apart and try to determine if it could possibly be real because as you say it would be nice to have a rare item. I will be finding more info as soon as I can and passing it along.

Originally posted by Eric Queen

Gary,

Please let me know where you read that the first Army smocks were made of "Windjacke" material. I would be real interested to see the source on that one. Perhaps some are still under the misconception that army para's came first: they did not. The first 25 Luftwaffe volunteers ( from RGG ) were at Stendal a full year before the first army volunteers arrived. The army M38 was not the first attempt at smock development. The M38 was a general design improvement over the previous M36 "double zipper" smock, which was introduced 2 years earlier, and was also made from grünmeliert material.

I would be interested to see any legitimate historical or physical evidence that would suggest that M38 smocks were produced in anything but grünmeliert fabric.

Its always nice to hope, wish, pray, dream that the non-textbook, off the wall pieces are prototypes of some type, but it just does not make any sence in this case ( IMO )

EQ

**Chris** · 10-25-2004, 08:01 PM

Gary, it is not "yet to be determined" if it is a fake. That has been determined. It is an egregious fake. Nothing about it is correct, with the exception of the eagle. I have one of the first smocks of the M38 type ever made, so early in the production run that cloth Karl Heisler labels were still being sewn in, instead of ink stamps. Windbreaker material was never used. You're in a state of serious denial here. Send it back.

Attached Files

File1762.jpg (16.9 KB, 237 views)

**Willi Z.** · 10-25-2004, 10:02 PM

Gary, I think we know each other from years ago.

This smock has nothing in it's favor. Chris and I were sharing information at the Max regarding the features that M38 smocks had in 1938. The smock (M38) was only authorized in April of 1938, and the first ones had the textbook features we like to see in M38 smocks. Could go on in tremendous detail. it just won't change anything. That smock has serious issues, no justification can make those go away. Pyrm 6H snaps were used on Heer/Luft M36 smocks...same for M38 ones.

I still have no idea what the smock you presented really is. I just know it is not a FJ issue piece. I have handled smocks that were dated 2 months after they were introduced by regulation. They had no need for transitional pieces such as what you may be trying to justify this as.

Regards,

Willi

**Gary Cain** · 10-27-2004, 08:06 PM

Thanks Willi,

I was hoping you would weigh in on this as I know you have extensive experience with the smocks. Very good info and I was wrong on the windjacke material as well, I had misread a report and remembered it wrong to boot! Back she go's!

Thanks to all who participated!

Gary

Originally posted by Willi Zahn

Gary, I think we know each other from years ago.

This smock has nothing in it's favor. Chris and I were sharing information at the Max regarding the features that M38 smocks had in 1938. The smock (M38) was only authorized in April of 1938, and the first ones had the textbook features we like to see in M38 smocks. Could go on in tremendous detail. it just won't change anything. That smock has serious issues, no justification can make those go away. Pyrm 6H snaps were used on Heer/Luft M36 smocks...same for M38 ones.

I still have no idea what the smock you presented really is. I just know it is not a FJ issue piece. I have handled smocks that were dated 2 months after they were introduced by regulation. They had no need for transitional pieces such as what you may be trying to justify this as.

Regards,

Willi

**Gary Cain** · 10-27-2004, 08:08 PM

Hey Chris,
Can you give us a close up of that label?

Cheers
Gary

Originally posted by Chris

Gary, it is not "yet to be determined" if it is a fake. That has been determined. It is an egregious fake. Nothing about it is correct, with the exception of the eagle. I have one of the first smocks of the M38 type ever made, so early in the production run that cloth Karl Heisler labels were still being sewn in, instead of ink stamps. Windbreaker material was never used. You're in a state of serious denial here. Send it back.

Announcement

Army Jump Smock

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread