Jump to content


Photo

Rigger airborne pouch


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#26 Easy502

Easy502

    Sponsor

  • SPONSOR
    • Member ID: 5,164
  • 287 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Carentan, Normandy

Posted 22 February 2011 - 03:28 AM

Hello,

I think Rigger Made pouches were ONLY manufactured ON DEMAND (by parachutist) by Riggers, except the ones made by and for USAAF personnel.

I have found, seen and touched in nearly 23 years of collection ONLY a few rigger made pouches found on battlefield in Normandy, pouches with NO doubt about authenticity. They were all made with same manner, with same details, and I'm sorry to tell you they were all differents of the ones pictures in this topic.

Easy502

Edited by Easy502, 22 February 2011 - 03:30 AM.


#27 Fixbayonets!

Fixbayonets!
  • Members
    • Member ID: 168
  • 1,959 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York

Posted 22 February 2011 - 03:47 AM

Hello,

I think Rigger Made pouches were ONLY manufactured ON DEMAND (by parachutist) by Riggers, except the ones made by and for USAAF personnel.

I have found, seen and touched in nearly 23 years of collection ONLY a few rigger made pouches found on battlefield in Normandy, pouches with NO doubt about authenticity. They were all made with same manner, with same details, and I'm sorry to tell you they were all differents of the ones pictures in this topic.

Easy502


Thanks for the confirmation. I have never touched an original example of one of these pouches and did not have anything in detail to compare it by. I found this pouch at a swap meet and noticed it was made in a different manner from the pouches I have seen on the reenactor market. It was worth the $30 to find out it is a reproduction.

Rob

#28 Sabrejet

Sabrejet
  • Members
    • Member ID: 8,022
  • 37,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wales, U.K.

Posted 22 February 2011 - 04:03 AM

Here's a British-made repro I referred to in a previous post. You'll notice the '44 date stamp...however the "HT&C" logo is spurious and did not exist in WW2. All of this manufacturer's products are similarly marked.

2011_0222mag0003.JPG 2011_0222mag0001.JPG

#29 Sabrejet

Sabrejet
  • Members
    • Member ID: 8,022
  • 37,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wales, U.K.

Posted 22 February 2011 - 04:04 AM

2011_0222mag0002.JPG 2011_0222mag0004.JPG


Sabrejet

#30 glenm

glenm
  • Members
    • Member ID: 353
  • 1,641 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NW England

Posted 22 February 2011 - 05:39 AM

Two more for your perusal. One repro (on left), made from bed canvas and original suspension line (and washed in a washing machine), and one believed original (on right), with press-stud fastening.

Posted Image

Cheers,
Glen.

#31 Easy502

Easy502

    Sponsor

  • SPONSOR
    • Member ID: 5,164
  • 287 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Carentan, Normandy

Posted 22 February 2011 - 08:30 AM

Hi Glen,

your rigger pouch on right looks like an original USAAF pouch. Will it be possible to have a picture of the back please ?

Thanks,

Easy502

#32 glenm

glenm
  • Members
    • Member ID: 353
  • 1,641 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NW England

Posted 22 February 2011 - 08:55 AM

Hi Manu, will have to dig it out from the storage boxes. It has a nasty bloodstain on the back, and imprints from two grenades inside..

Cheers,
Glen.

#33 APO472

APO472

    INACTIVE

  • Inactive
    • Member ID: 261
  • 2,027 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 February 2011 - 08:56 AM

Here's a British-made repro I referred to in a previous post. You'll notice the '44 date stamp...however the "HT&C" logo is spurious and did not exist in WW2. All of this manufacturer's products are similarly marked.

2011_0222mag0003.JPG 2011_0222mag0001.JPG

Ahhh...you mean the manufacturer/repro providor did not did not get banished from the collecting world when they put the repro markings on the repro pouch?!?!?! :) Must just be a helmet thing?

#34 Sabrejet

Sabrejet
  • Members
    • Member ID: 8,022
  • 37,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wales, U.K.

Posted 22 February 2011 - 09:14 AM

Ahhh...you mean the manufacturer/repro providor did not did not get banished from the collecting world when they put the repro markings on the repro pouch?!?!?! :) Must just be a helmet thing?



He openly and honestly trades as a seller of reproduction web gear. His products are awesomely good! But...like all good repros...at some point down the line used ones could easily be mistaken for originals. It's a fact of life in our hobby now and isn't going to go away. So, we have to accept and embrace it (after all, it exists primarily to service the re-enacting community) and adopt a caveat emptor mentality.


Sabrejet

Edited by Sabrejet, 22 February 2011 - 09:15 AM.


#35 J_Andrews

J_Andrews
  • Members
    • Member ID: 2,689
  • 2,881 posts

Posted 22 February 2011 - 01:44 PM

I have had two "rigger pouches" since the early 1980s. I do not know if they are repros or originals -- for sure.

But whereas I found them in heap of mostly-USAAF/USAF gear at a gun show with the vendor making no effort to identify them or make any claims for them, AND because they were CHEAP ($[email protected]), I tend to think they are -- lucky break -- original. They are dark green in color and the type of canvas used in duffle bags and maybe parachute packs, etc. Their condition is, other than scuffing and shelf wear, VG.

One thing that has long puzzled me about "rigger pouches" is why have none survived and reached collecdtordom that are FACTORY-MADE and MARKED, with the USAAF PART NUMBERS? Per USAAF supply catalog for Class 13, the "HOLDER -- Rifle Clip (Short)" ought to be marked 42B15006. If made in 1943, then 43B.... Were there none made by factories after 1942, all being fabricated locally??? Surely Griswold bags ("HOLSTER ASSEMBLY -- Parachutist's Rifle") continued to be procured through supply channels, made by contractors and marked. Or did the USAAF give up paying civilian industry to make such simple things, once USAAF riggers showed they could make any and all required? And then GROUND FORCES riggers followed suit, "rolling their own"?

#36 Easy502

Easy502

    Sponsor

  • SPONSOR
    • Member ID: 5,164
  • 287 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Carentan, Normandy

Posted 24 February 2011 - 07:57 AM

Are you talking about this kind of pouch (42B15007) ??

Posted Image

Posted Image

Cheers,

Easy502

#37 J_Andrews

J_Andrews
  • Members
    • Member ID: 2,689
  • 2,881 posts

Posted 24 February 2011 - 02:17 PM

RE Post #36:

Merci beaucoup, Easy! Thjis is the first I have seen of a USAAF MARKED "rigger" pouch. Can you make out the the first numbers (year) of the part number?

I forgot to say in my earlier post that the speciment that started this thread would seem to be of factory-made quality and materials -- rather than something whipped up by a rigger with salvaged makings -- YET HAS NO MARKINGS.

#38 Easy502

Easy502

    Sponsor

  • SPONSOR
    • Member ID: 5,164
  • 287 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Carentan, Normandy

Posted 25 February 2011 - 01:22 AM

This one is marked 42B15007. The smaller one is marked 42B15006. Actually, this is the only marking on it.

On this one pictured, a US was added after war by a young guy who use this pouch at school... :thumbdown: This pouch was found here in Normandy on the battlefield many years ago, used by a schoolboy who kept it until recently when I got it.

Cheers,

Easy502

Edited by Easy502, 25 February 2011 - 01:24 AM.


#39 Bruce Gunn

Bruce Gunn
  • Members
    • Member ID: 308
  • 76 posts

Posted 26 February 2011 - 02:14 AM

Hi All,

I have been reading this post with interest...
I do agree in whole what has been said on this topic although I do think that there are more than one type.

The first as Manu posted is the AAF type of pouch which as we know came in two sizes, small (garand size and the larger thompson 20rnd mag size) I also beleive that there are AAF manufactured versions that had the lift a dot.

Here is a picture of an unissued aaf pouch, larger size (exactly the same as Manu's)
http://i694.photobucket.com/albums/vv309/502man/001.jpg
http://i694.photobucket.com/albums/vv309/502man/002.jpg

#40 Bruce Gunn

Bruce Gunn
  • Members
    • Member ID: 308
  • 76 posts

Posted 26 February 2011 - 02:16 AM

here is the smaller AAF pouch;
http://i694.photobucket.com/albums/vv309/502man/smallaaf1.jpg
http://i694.photobucket.com/albums/vv309/502man/smallaaf2.jpg

#41 Bruce Gunn

Bruce Gunn
  • Members
    • Member ID: 308
  • 76 posts

Posted 26 February 2011 - 02:21 AM

Now, I do beleive that there is the rigger version, but do think that there are more than one version. OK, I know that there is the 82nd Normandy type with parachute cord closure, BUT you have to remember that there are pouches that the 82nd used in Italy etc that you see with either black and silver coloured lift a dot's. Then there are the type that the 101st used in Normandy. There is no way in the world that these two types are the same considering the time difference, different units and different people that would have made them. Unfortunately as these items are rigger made and also made to order in different sizes, and they were never marked we will never know for sure what are original and what are not unless we find them from the battlefield !!!

Regards Bruce

#42 J_Andrews

J_Andrews
  • Members
    • Member ID: 2,689
  • 2,881 posts

Posted 26 February 2011 - 06:24 AM

To add:as I have said before on an earlier thread, a 17th Para Maint Co rigger told me that the pouches were being made as late as the run-up to VARSITY in March 1945. This would open the possibility of a FOURTH "style" or "configuration". He went on to say that they were not as "popular" by then, because of the advent of the GP ammo bag and some others items, and few were in use.

Also, another rigger from the 504th (from Italy to Holland) told me that the TIED version was not made for lack of LTD fasteners but to hold (and retain) GRENADES. The LTDs often popped open with the opening shock of the parachute, the tied version did not. He also opined that the LTDs maybe caught on equipment while seated in the aircraft, and a loose grenade or two rolling around could disturb the passengers...

I asked about the markings because I SUSPECT the USAAF may have ended procurement of these items (small and large pouches) by 1943, as THEY did not need MORE and perhaps had, after early-war equipment viccisitudes and duplication of effort, established a line of supply for the GROUND Forces' (QM) item web gear. Given the drying up of their accustomed supply, the riggers of the 82nd, overseas by March 1943, said "Golly, we can make those easy".

#43 ken88

ken88
  • Members
    • Member ID: 48,105
  • 2,326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ETO

Posted 26 April 2014 - 05:01 AM

Another original rigger made pouch from Normandy

This is the type with a black LTD. It may have been used by the 82nd airborne for the Sicily jump. 

 

98dl5z.jpg




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users