Bravo François!
However, Marc has made one serious mistake. The Germans used "live" ammunition!
Ciao,
old John
However, Marc has made one serious mistake. The Germans used "live" ammunition!
Ciao,
old John
-
Esse Quam Videri -
well, old boy, you are wrong, they wouldn't have lost the war with real amo - time for you to go to bed (no "bad" dreams - be nice)
Comment
-
Francois,
Thanks for illustrating this as this is exactly what I was describing and it obviously works. The tunic I showed was made by Holz & Binkowski but is undated. I also noticed in my own photos a diagonal line of stitching across the two loops that the bottlenecked cartridges went into and this helped hold them in place as it narrowed these loops at the far side like a funnel.
As far as jumping with MG ammo, versus having all MG ammo in containers that were dropped separately -- I thought it was pretty common knowledge that on Crete, one of the disasters that befell the FJ was the fact that in that rough terrain, even finding and then recovering their equipment containers was difficult. It would have made good sense to planners who were considering future operations, to provide some way for individuals to carry MG ammunition with them when they jumped so it would be immediately available. The fact that Hitler quashed more jumps after Crete may account for the fact that the few of these tunics that exist are rare and in unissued condition -- produced but not put to use in combat unless some were used on Sicily.
German paratroopers may well have dropped a lot of their equipment in separate containers but American paratroopers jumped loaded to the gills and we were still doing this 25 years later during Viet Nam. Many A team members carried extra MG ammunition, spare radio batteries, etc. that were for use by the machine gunners and RTOs -- those people simply couldn't carry or jump with everything they'd need. I know from experience as I jumped with a Browning A6 LMG strapped to me that -- along with everything else I was carrying -- was too heavy for me to get into a C47 with it all on. The MG was strapped to me as I "stood in the door" on the airfield before takeoff and I stayed there till we jumped. I came down like a rock regardless of the T10 stearable chute.Comment
-
Gentlemen,
I suggested this exact solution to this mystery in the book on Fallschirmjäger I wrote for Soldat. But I don't believe it.
This is what is called in America a "Rube Goldberg" solution, after a cartoon character in the 1930's who had comically over-complicated solutions to profoundly simple tasks, like boiling an egg or waking up in the morning.
Why would the Germans go to such absurdly complicated, expensive, and non-doctrinal industrial lengths for this purpose? A way to get more ammunition into battle? Why not just link the two ammo belts together and wear them around your neck under your smock? Who needs a special tunic for that??
To keep sand out of the links? Why not just wear the belts between your smock and your tunic, or between your tunic and your Unterhemd? Faster access, more protection.
It doesn't fit doctrine, either. The Germans didn't design integral K-98 bandoleers into jump smocks, or into tropical tunics either, for that matter. Why for MG34/42 ammo and no other? The German solution for carrying more ammo since 1917 was a cloth bandoleer worn around the neck. It would have been far cheaper and easier just to run up simple cloth tubes to wear around the neck and fasten at the belt like a K98 bandoleer, if keeping sand out were the purpose, rather than an elaborate Rube Goldberg internal suspension system and 18 external snaps.
Just because you can put MG ammunition in that way doesn't prove anything. You could probably find a way to suspend stick grenades in there, too, but that doesn't mean that's what they were used for. The MG ammo explanation is just way, way over-complicated when much easier solutions for those problems were obvious. Back to the drawing board on this mystery, guys. ChrisComment
-
Hey Chris....
You wrote:
"This is what is called in America a "Rube Goldberg" solution, after a cartoon character in the 1930's who had comically over-complicated solutions to profoundly simple tasks, like boiling an egg or waking up in the morning.
Why would the Germans go to such absurdly complicated, expensive, and non-doctrinal industrial lengths for this purpose?"
Not meaning to sound argumentative here, but I respond with: Well, we are talking about the Germans here, the masters of over engineering This is practically an obsession for them. Look at the bolt of an MP-5 or a BMW motorcycle engine. If the Americans can build something with 25 parts, the Italians or British can do it with 35, then the Germans will do it with 75 (or something like that) 
My father in law is German and an aerospace defence contractor engineer (rocket scientist), so I can say this. Their whole system of development during WWII was in some ways very inefficient. Hitler's constant playing one group against another resulted in many groups duplicating efforts or in some cases going in totally opposite directions, wasting time and resources and resulting in non cooperation. I've read where they had as many as 30 different competing rocket programs (or was it jet fighters?) going.
Besides, why ask "why" with a lot of stuff they did? Hitler blundered his way through the war and committed so many mistakes that they couldn't help but lose (regardless of their superior technological advances in tanks, plane, small arms, camo, etc. or the superior tactics and fighting spirit demonstrated by their soldiers).
The fact that there aren't very many surviving examples of these particular tunics and photos of them are rare, would indicate that the Germans probably did realize the folly in such a plan and scrapped it.
I still go with my theory (plus it was fun to do that little victory dance ) It's just my humble thinking.
Regretably, I haven't gotten your Soldat book yet, but it's on my list of books to get.
That photo posted by Francois of those paras: I could be wrong here, but it almost looks like they are POW's. Do we know the setting?
"Are you suggesting the coconuts migrate?"Last edited by Steve in Florida; 09-21-2002, 12:25 PM.Comment
-
Hi Chris,
It was a test, it wasn't practical. That is why, as Willi stated, so few are found. A failed test....
My regards François for being the first to mention that these are standard tunics that have been altered.
You want impractical, relieve yourself wearing an M-38 jumpsmock.
Best,
JohnLast edited by John Hodgin; 03-26-2018, 09:28 AM.Esse Quam VideriComment
-
John,
Pictures AND comments were from "Marc", not from me - I only helped to post them and like everybody I am learning from this interesting thread.Comment
-
In 1917, the Germans decide that to carry more K-98 ammo, they will design and issue a bandoleer to wear around the neck. In the 1930's, for paras to carry more K-98 ammo, they revive the bandoleer and issue it to paratroops for wear around the neck. To carry grenades, both hand and rifle, they design bandoleer-like bags to wear around the neck. When the FG42 is designed, to carry the ammo they design and issue a bandoleer to wear around the neck. For MG34/42 ammo, the same designers design....a special experimental tunic ten times more expensive and complicated than a simple cloth tube to wear around the neck? This just doesn't pass the common sense test.Comment
-
Hi Chris,
It wasn't for 98k ammo, as the simple bandoleer was, and you can not fit grenades in there. The answer is simple, and is illustrated clearly in Rick's photo that Eric posted of jager embarking from Greece. A method was needed to have MG ammo immediately at hand upon landing. This was not a universal Fj solution, and may not be Fj specific, though the one period photo I have seen shows a para wearing the tunic.
For the record, in 1987 Dal McGuirk stated all we have discussed, and what Marc and François have illustrated, in his book 'Rommel's Army in Africa.'
Best,
JohnLast edited by John Hodgin; 11-20-2007, 04:41 PM.Esse Quam VideriComment
-
More from "Marc" (pics & comments)
For a better understanding of the exact function of the bandoleers we have to examine every detail closely :
1° As Ralph rightly observed, the stitching across the two loops are diagonal to form a funnel in which a cartridge-head (or bullet) fits perfectly. See picture of the upper loop and picture of the second loop underneath.Last edited by François SAEZ; 08-31-2008, 05:19 AM.Comment
-
-
2° The long side loop closing with a 'Prym' snap helps to keep the rear ends of the upper cartridges in place.
As I initially had doubts concerning the resistance of this precise snap, I checked this fastening system by testing it : so I fastened a 50-round MG ammunition belt in each bandoleer and shaked the whole tunic. Well, to my surprise, despite the supposed weakness of the 'Prym' snaps for this use, both ammunition belts remained perfectly in place !Last edited by François SAEZ; 08-31-2008, 05:19 AM.Comment
-
3° Moreover, the shape of the bandoleers gives us a good clue as to its use for carrying MG ammunition belts :
Let's compare the width of the sides of the bandoleers : the inner side ( = where the heads of the bullets are pointing to) measures about 2 cm, while the outer side (= end of the cartrigde case) is about 4 cm . Doesn't this shape of the bandoleer match the exact shape of a folded MG ammunition belt ?
What's more, the total vertical length of the bandoleer matches the length of a folded 50-round MG ammunition belt.
Maybe a "strange additional coincidence" ?Last edited by François SAEZ; 08-31-2008, 05:19 AM.Comment
-
-
This apparently complicated device wasn't as inefficient as some collectors could believe. Of course I never went to combat with such a tunic but I can assure that the ammunition belts are very easy to extract from the bandoleers : the nine snaps can be opened in a twinkling of an eye and, after releasing the loop with the snap (that keeps the belt in place), the ammunition can be easily pulled out.
The suggested wearing of ammunition "under the tunic or smock" would certainly not provide "faster access and more protection" than this 'complicated' device.
Chris wrote "Why would the Germans go to such absurdly complicated, expensive, and non-doctrinal industrial lengths for this purpose?" . Maybe it would be interesting to ask the germans why the wartime Fallschirmjäger smocks had a nearly useless "absurdly complicated, expensive" flare pistol holster sewn on the hip, and why this was done till the end of the war ?
But please, no misunderstanding : I take advantage of this email to assure Chris that I really appreciate the high quality information contained in his book about the Fallschirmjäger.
As long as we haven't had the opportunity to handle an uniform of equipment, we can have doubts about why it was constructed like this, what it was designed for or how it worked. Before I had the opportunity to get one of these tunics, I was also sceptical about its use as 'MG-ammunition belt carrier', with all its snaps, its strange inside loops, its odd look. But once you have the tunic in your hands and examine it, its function becomes suddently very clear, and you don't even have to ask why the very organised germans didn't write on the bandoleers "Achtung, nur für MG-Patronengurt !".
Hope all this helped,
"Marc"Comment
Comment