Wehrmacht HBT Stug wrap

[djpool]

Richard,

Theres so much going on that its hard to answer everything. Let me try to answer bits and pieces during the day.

6. Jim, did you read everything I wrote about all the US experimental items I have owned? There were hundreds and hundreds of items in these categories from WWII. Did the Germans never make prototypes or experimental garments?

Actually the Germans had a special office for handling experimental clothing. Simple put they took designs and contracted out to have selected items manufactured, which were fielded to selected units for testing. On a time schedule they collated input from the test bed units and incorporated the changes into the final design. After that it was fielded and treated as a normal item of clothing. This procedure stayed in place till the end of the war.

But there needs to be a distinction made between experimental clothing and modifications to existing designs.

-experimental clothing was a radical departure from already existing designs. Examples would be the initial production of the HBT/Denim wraps, M44 tunics, new types of camo etc.

-Modifications are simple changes to existing designs to increase the efficiency of the item, extend the life of an item, increase soldier comfort and most commonly in the German military for economy measures (reduce the amount of material and speed up the sewing process).

I disagree that your wrap is anything more than a standard HBT wrap. The addition of bias material and zig zag stitching on the collar could hardly be considered radical. After all the standard 4 pocket HBT tunics had that feature for years. So from the standpoint of the testing community they had a ready source of information regarding the benefits and downsides of adding bias material and zig zag stitching.


The question becomes was there any need to modify existing HBT/Denim wraps by adding bias material. On the 4 pocket tunics it made sense from the standpoint of soldier comfort and possible collar wear. But these tunics were a stand alone uniform item. The sole purpose of the HBT/Denim wraps was to protect the wool wraps which they were to be worn over. Despite what took place in the field I don't think from the policy standpoint that ever changed. In any case would the extra cost in material and production time out weigh any benefits derived from adding bias material. If you look at the evolution of German uniforms from the 39-45 the trend is clearly in favor of reducing the amount of raw materials and production time on fielded items. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

wr Jim

Jim,

Here are a few facts to try and help clear up some misunderstandings, plus a thought or two of mine...ha ha. I too would like to focus on the merits of the two wraps, with the exception of #1.

2. The subject wrap is NOT depot marked or dated. It does have the tag. Perhaps it never made it to the depot thus no depot stamp or date.



This is obviously not a first or second pattern HBT wrap and has features in common with various other HBT clothing. How can the stamps be in the wrong place when its an entirely different model and even the two known are not stamped the same? Is someone out there now faking experimental or factory sample or prtotypr items? Why? For a one or two time sale? If this was a fake we would see more of them, at least in the numbers that everyone speaks about concerning the obviously faked wraps with zig zag stitching, fake HBT material, etc.

Richard

[Lombardi]

The sole purpose of the HBT/Denim wraps was to protect the wool wraps which they were to be worn over. Despite what took place in the field I don't think from the policy standpoint that ever changed.
wr Jim

Actually, after the HBT/Denim wraps were used also as "stand alone" uniforms in the field (i.e. used not over the wool wrap), the German Bekleidungs Amt recognized this use by appropriate HDV that not only permitted this but officially recognized the use of HBT and Denim wraps as "uniforms" and not simply protective garments donned over the woolen wraps (prescribing also the use of insignia others than the originally sanctioned use of just low vis. sleeve rank insignia). The HDV is cited in Edwards/Pruett's book on Pz unif, JJF publ.

We will never know, but this would make sense on the zig-zag or not:

w/o zig zag: early just protective
w zig zag: late "uniforms"

[djpool]

I stand corrected.

I went back to the Bender series and Pruett/Edwards books to get some clarification. According to Bender the May 41 order authorized the demin suits as working suits, as summer field dress or as a camo dress when the Black uniform was too conspicuous.

According to Pruett/Edwards the May 41 order initially refered to the 1st pattern HBT/Denim wraps. Since most of these only have one row of buttons its logical to assume they were a true stand alone uniform. If thats the case it would follow that they would have the zig zag stitching. However all the 1st pattern HBT/Denim wraps that I've seen prior to 96/97 lacked that feature.

In 1942 according to Pruett/Edwards was when the second model was introduced. The major changes were the addition of the large breast pocket, adding the oblong slit for the belt, second row of buttons added. The second row allowed it to be worn over the wool uniform as well as a stand alone uniform. I consider these as modifications to the basic pattern probably based on recommendations from the field. It makes sense since the modifications all appear to make the uniform more functional. A soldier could care less about zig zag stitching.

So it appears that the designers envisioned these uniforms to be worn as a stand alone uniform from the start. So my mistake. So if there was a requirement for zig zag stiching to the collar what would have triggered that decision. If the field had a complaint with the way the collars were made, it would probably have been corrected in 42 along with alll the other modifications incorporated in the 2d pattern. To zig zag or not to zig zag was obviousily a technical decision. But it appears that the clothing administration along with the manufacturers had studied the options when designing the 1st model wraps and saw no problems with leaving out the bias material.

So the question is why fix it if it isn't broke?

Again all the 2d pattern HBT/Denim wraps (dated 1943 and 1944) that I've seen prior to 96/97 lacked the zig zag feature.

Jim

Actually, after the HBT/Denim wraps were used also as "stand alone" uniforms in the field (i.e. used not over the wool wrap), the German Bekleidungs Amt recognized this use by appropriate HDV that not only permitted this but officially recognized the use of HBT and Denim wraps as "uniforms" and not simply protective garments donned over the woolen wraps (prescribing also the use of insignia others than the originally sanctioned use of just low vis. sleeve rank insignia). The HDV is cited in Edwards/Pruett's book on Pz unif, JJF publ.

We will never know, but this would make sense on the zig-zag or not:

w/o zig zag: early just protective
w zig zag: late "uniforms"

[BDE]

1. QUOTE

Perhaps the one Richard owns was a factory sample to illustrate their production skills?
Perhaps a test run of some prototypes?
Perhaps an experimental garment like the many thousands produced by all sides in WWII?
Perhaps a salesman's sample?

Perhaps, One would think it would be marked this way?
QUOTE

Many had collar tabs, just not from the factory like this one (see above for why). The wrong ones? Scott Pritchett said the green backed panzer tabs were extremely rare but produced and used. Maybe they were removed because they are so rare and worth so much by themselves. A much more plausible explanation than yours considering it is very clear that tabs were removed from the other example.

They were not issued with tabs, If it is a proto type why use the already discontinued the very early dark green tabs? What about the skulls themselves?

QUOTE
You are the one that informed me that there were two. It took me months to find someone else who would let me use the photos. I kept my word and did not use yours in the thread. See above about the many thousands of experimental and prototypes.

Why two proto types with different markings? The pictures are not mine to use.

QUOTE

Perhaps because it gets routinely trashed and kicked to the curb because no one can figure out what it is? I don't collect HBT, but this wrap is very attractive from an aesthetic point of view to me. I based my decision on the materials and the skill with which it was put together. I have a non zig zag repro, which is you should worry about, it was sold as original by Wade K., so you know it was a decent repro. It is but a weak, poor mirror image of the subject wrap and should be the object of your fears concerning your original properly sewn non zig zag wraps.

It keeps getting kicked to the curb because people are not comfortable with it. Just because Wade sold it does not mean it is a good copy.

QUOTE
I absolutely disagree, why waste good original HBT cloth on some unknown quantity when real money can be made by copying the true patterns. Since it is original HBT you can eliminate 99.9% of the fakes on the market.

I think they tried to copy an original they just some of the details wrong.

QUOTE
Dude...you seriously need to look over your wraps. The only things this has in common with wool wraps is the fact that it is a wrap, and the placement of full insignia.

I was referring to the collar stitching and stamp locations.

Richard if your happy with it that's all that matters, Does that mean i have to like it? I hope not because i have seen both in the flesh and passed on them for whatever that's worth.

Brian

[derka]

hello,

Richard's wrap is, imo, closer from a first model wrap design than a second model,
because of its internal breast pocket.
the big difference with "classical" first models is second row of buttons, something i have never seen on a first model.
ans as far i know, both models were produced together untill the end of the conflict; the second model was not a substitute wich would have stop the production of the first model and replaced it
derka

[djpool]

Derka,

I went back and edited my response to reflect HBT wrap. Point is there isn't anything so radical about it that it would be considered a prototype. In a change to to the pruett/edwards book they also state that 1st model wraps were made with the oblong slits.

From the wartime German standpoint there was probably no such thing as 1st model, second model. There are many examples where items continued to be produced without modifications in parallel with the same type of items with modifications if that makes sense. I have a third model tropical tunic dated 44 and Bob Hritz has a second model dated 45, same materials etc. But to the Germans its really just a tropical tunic, not two distinct types of tunics.

But the key point I was trying to make was the designers of the initial HBT/Denim wraps consciously decided to omit the bias/material and zig zag stitching from its production. I can't believe it was an omission. After almost a year of being field tested they added features to make it more functional. Adding bias material wasn't one of the changes. One of the points the supporters of the wrap keep making is the zig zag stitching was needed to keep the bias in place. To me the initial decision to leave out the bias was vindicated by their decision to produce the 2d model without it.

jim

.

hello,

Richard's wrap is, imo, closer from a first model wrap design than a second model,
because of its internal breast pocket.
the big difference with "classical" first models is second row of buttons, something i have never seen on a first model.
ans as far i know, both models were produced together untill the end of the conflict; the second model was not a substitute wich would have stop the production of the first model and replaced it
derka

[Richard P]

Thanks for a great discussion. I know its a pain to read long threads, and some of the same questions are being repeated. I think I will just make some general observations and they can be taken any which way.

This wrap is unique and came later than the other patterns being made in 1944.

It was possibly made as show piece, prototype or what have you, but it is in fact a uniform complete as its makers intended.

BIAS MATERIAL...It has bias material and zig zag stitching because it was designed to have tabs installed, which they were, just like so many other service uniforms. No other HBT wraps were designed to have tabs originally sewn from the factory = no bias material, or the stitching to hold it. The tabs are a unique type with a medium green wool backing (not bottle green) and a corded red piping, unlike any other tab for panzer/arty service, and were most likely made specifically for this jacket.

The boards were also made just for this wrap with matching materials. They are very similar to HBT 4-pocket uniform boards.

Most HBT wraps are detailed and re-enforced inside with like material (green HBT). This one, perhaps to make its unique features stand out, were done in oatmeal colored drillich. Why make the unusual details around the arm openings stand out so much? The neck hanger, closure loops, and sizing tape tunnel are all in oatmeal drillich. They sure stand out...why...good question.

The sewing is reminiscent of a high quality tailor or seamstress.

I find it very difficult and completely illogical for a faker to have stumbled across some real HBT of two types and concoct this thing, for what purpose? He marked them completely different to make more money and confuse everyone over two wraps? It did not sell for a lot of money when it was sold by Tony Gordon. Fake HBT wraps are made in quantity to sell to those who can't distinguish the difference, to fill a need because there are not enough to go around. They make fake HBT material because there is no more and it is not even close to unwashed original. When both have been washed many times, there is a resemblance.

Richard

[djpool]

Thanks for a great discussion. I know its a pain to read long threads, and some of the same questions are being repeated. I think I will just make some general observations and they can be taken any which way.

BIAS MATERIAL...It has bias material and zig zag stitching because it was designed to have tabs installed, which they were, just like so many other service uniforms. No other HBT wraps were designed to have tabs originally sewn from the factory = no bias material, or the stitching to hold it.

Richard

Richard this makes no sense at all. You seem to imply that if a tunic has zig zag stitching it was intended to have collar tabs. Lets see I have a LW Flak Helf jacket, KM S boat leather Wrap, and a set of oatmeal colored HBT coveralls all having zig zag stitching. None of these items were meant to have collar tabs. From wartime pictures the lack of bias material certainly didn't keep any one from adding tabs to their HBT wraps. I also think we need a sewing expert to explain bias. I'm not sure bias is the correct sewing term for the additional cloth. A sewing dictionary definition:

Bias:A diagonal line across the fabric.
Bias Binding: Strips of fabric cut on the bias.

Sure Greek to me.

WR Jim

[Richard P]

Jim,

Yeah...who started calling it bias material, lets go after them. Maybe we should find out what the Germans called it.

I thought I read somewhere in a uniform type book that the material was added inside wraps and collars, or what have you, so that the sewing details, button holes, patches, buttons, etc., would really bind and have something to bite into besides the exterior material. I was just carrying out that thought, perhaps incorrectly concerning the inner collar material.

Definitely need to find an old tailor or someone who can answer the question.

I have contacted Adolph Ahlers Textilwerks, but no response yet. If th erecords were not lost perhaps we can get some answers.

Richard

[Lombardi]

please note that also in actual sewing technique you can stiffen a certain portion of a cloth by an "impuntura" (I don't know the EN term): i.e. a "zig zag" or a serie of lines stitched closely gives stiffeness to the cloth over which the stitiching is done. And there is no need to put "bias" or other material: just the stitching does to the work.

I'ts like the nervatures in the stamped metal of the Jerrycanes: the nervatures (stitching) give more strenght and stiffness to the thin metal.

[derka]

hello,

Richard and Jim, a cool discussion as i like.

Richard, you wrote :
"BIAS MATERIAL...It has bias material and zig zag stitching because it was designed to have tabs installed, which they were, just like so many other service uniforms. No other HBT wraps were designed to have tabs originally sewn from the factory = no bias material, or the stitching to hold it. The tabs are a unique type with a medium green wool backing (not bottle green) and a corded red piping, unlike any other tab for panzer/arty service, and were most likely made specifically for this jacket.
The boards were also made just for this wrap with matching materials. They are very similar to HBT 4-pocket uniform boards."

so if i understand you correctly, wich might be not the case, shoulder boards and colar tabs with tk's shown on your wrap were made specificaly by the manufacturer for this wrap, and factory sewn on it (btw, is it the case for the breast eagle too ?) ?
and this would explain why there is bias matérial and zigzag stiching to the colar ?

we shall remember that, with introduction of special rank insignias, august 22, 1942, those items should have been worn at least without shoulder straps.
of course, it was not realy followed, and "normal" insignias were often worn with post factory applied displays.
and some items, like for instance some mle 43 shirts, continued to be produced witrh loops for shoulder boards in 1943...
but for me, on those pz hbt (i don't iclude denim) wraps, first or second model, but dated 1943, 44 or 45, it is a non sense :
for what i saw on period pics and on those i own or handled, only eagle was always factory seewn.
colar insignias of different models were sometimes applied in factory, always without colar zig-zag stiching or bias material, and sometimes not,
but shoulder straps loops were always added later.

another point,
acording your hypothesis, the second wrap should have the same display factory applied for all insignias, including triangular breast eagle, can you confirm this (pics would help, but your words are enought if it is a problem to get some).

and a last for the moment :
i strongly believe than a BKA marking would not have been stamped on a cloth item without any size indications, wich seems to be the case on this second hbt wrap (no reason to be faded if unworn like yours).

derka

[Richard P]

QUOTE DERKA:
so if i understand you correctly, wich might be not the case, shoulder boards and colar tabs with tk's shown on your wrap were made specificaly by the manufacturer for this wrap, and factory sewn on it (btw, is it the case for the breast eagle too ?) ?
and this would explain why there is bias matérial and zigzag stiching to the colar ?

Hello Derka...Both HBT wraps in this discussion started out with full insignia to include tabs, boards, and breast eagle. Wrap #2 has only had the tabs removed, breast eagle and boards are intact. Loops for straps also factory applied.

I know enough about sewing to be able to tell you that all insignia was attached at the factory and sewn by the same person with considerable skill. The tab sewing is hidden from the front, a technique not often seen.

QUOTE DERKA:
and a last for the moment :
i strongly believe than a BKA marking would not have been stamped on a cloth item without any size indications, wich seems to be the case on this second hbt wrap (no reason to be faded if unworn like yours).

Wrap #2 had all the features of wrap #1 except tabs removed, clearly shown, but pics unavailable. I have not been able to use photos showing the boards on wrap #2. I do have a photo of the breast eagle which I will post. It was not shown in photos, but I think the size stamps may have been in black stamped somewhere on the green HBT as opposed to being stamped on the light drillich material.


This wrap seems to many features in common with a four pocket HBT jacket. Check out photo of inside of an HBT four pocket paying attention to the arm pit details. It also has zig zag behind the collar.

Richard


Wrap #2 breast eagle.

[Richard P]

HBT four pocket jacket, see armpit detail.

[Richard P]

Jim,

Here is another Posen stamp for you in your research.

I did notice that on the sizing wrap #1 had open "4"s on the large numbers.

On the "4"s used in the RBNR number on wraps #1 and #2, they used the much smaller closed "4"s. The exact same "4"s as well as a small "P" was used in wrap #2's "P" 44 depot and date stamp.

[djpool]

Since this thread has gotten so long I thought I'd summarize my thoughts and observations in this one paragraph:<o></o><o></o>

The story was Richards wrap (hereby referred to as the subject wrap) was found in a rag mill in the 1960s: There is no evidence to substantiate this. The history of the wrap can solidly be tracked to the 2003-2004 timeframe. However the flood of fakes with some of the same features hit the market in 1996/1997.<o></o><o></o>

The subject wrap has been referred to as a prototype or experimental wrap to explain away some of the differences between it and wraps that existed in collections prior to 1996: There are no unique features associated with this wrap that would categorize it as an experimental or prototype model. At best the differences would constitute normal modifications.<o></o>
<o></o>
A second example of the subject wrap surfaced: During the discussion a second example of the subject wrap was found. While stamped in different locations it's clear they were done by the same hands. There has been a flood of the HBT/Denim wraps since 1996/1997. Made from different materials they have zig zag stitched collars and are stamped in the same location as wool wraps. Original examples of HBT/Mouse grey and denim wraps prior to 1996 were manufactured and stamped differently. Here is a comparison picture of the stamps on the subject wrap and its clone. While stamped in different locations (odd in itself) it's clearly made by the same folks.<o></o>
<o></o>
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f9...aresizerbn.jpg
<o></o>
The subject wrap has zig zag stitching on the collar because it was made to have factory sewn collar tabs: The decision to use zig zag stitching (to hold "bias" material in place) is purely a technical one that has nothing to do with whether insignia was to be added or not. There are numerous examples of wartime civilian and military clothing that use zig-zag stitching, that were never meant to have collar tabs. <o></o>
<o></o>
When the Germans designed and fielded the 1st model HBT/Mouse Grey/Denim wraps in 1941 they consciously omitted the "bias" material and zig zag stitching.<o></o>
<o></o>
In 1942 after a year of field experience with the 1st model HBT/Mouse Grey/Denim wraps a number of functional changes (probably based on input from the field) were made, which resulted in what collectors call the 2d model HBT/Mouse Grey/Denim wrap. Again the "bias" material and zig zag stitching were omitted.<o></o>
<o></o>
So it's apparent that those responsible to design and manufacture the HBT/Mouse Grey/Denim wraps had studied the best options on how the collar should be designed and after field testing saw no problems with leaving out the "bias" material and consequently the zig zag stitching.<o></o>
<o></o>
The depot stamps do not match known wartime examples from the Posen depot: While the number of examples examined is low, it's clear that the stamping on the subject wrap is clearly different. It's evident that between 1943 and 1944 that the open style number 4 was prevalent and that the size of the P closely matched the number size.<o></o>
<o></o>
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f9...depotstamp.jpg
<o></o>
The size stamps do not match known wartime examples from the Posen depot: While the number of examples examined is low, it's clear that the stamping on the subject wrap is clearly different. Not only are the styles of numbers used different but the spacing of the numbers is off.<o></o>
<o></o>
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f9...sizestamps.jpg

The subject wrap has been described as having been found with factory sewn eagle, collar tabs and shoulder boards: Factory sewn eagles are common with known original HBT/Mouse Grey/Denim wraps. Personally I'm unclear on whether collar tabs were factory applied on wraps dating before 1996. However one thing is certain provisions for shoulder boards were never applied at the factory after 1942. As Derka pointed out the introductory order of August 22, 1942, specified that the Camouflaged Special Rank Insignia was be worn on the HBT/Mouse Grey/Denim wraps. Pruett/Edwards also point this out. <o></o>
<o></o>
So IMHO the subject wrap is a high tech reproduction. There are just too many things that have to be explained away in order to believe it's of original wartime production. I'm certainly no expert and we can agree to disagree. But in the end if Richards comfortable with it that's all that matters. I have enjoyed participating in this discussion. Personally the camaraderie among collectors is more important than the artifacts we collect.<o></o>
<o></o>
WR Jim


PS. Richard I used the Posen stamps you posted in my comparisons.
<o></o>