2 Piece HBT Camo

[dustin]

Another likely reason is the fact the camo was designed for jungle environments

 

CB

probably the more reasonable answer! utilities designed for tropical enviroments, light and blends better with foilage of the tropics.Artic regions such as the ETO required clothing able to be layered for warm, the cammies were not adaptable to arctic regions as the tropics require only one layer of clothing.For the cammies to work they would have to be issued in large sizes as an outer for a two-three layer requirement for added warmth.another possible reason it was not adopted for distribution in the ETO would be logistics, the M-43 set-up was already adopted and on the production lines and mass shipments were on thier way to the ETO by june 1944.To actually adopt the cammies at this time was not logistically plausable and not very cost effective, millions were already spent on the M-43 set-up.I may be wrong but cammo utilities during the war were considered experimental on the whole even though they were in the supply lines, too much time,money and research has been spent into the m-43 line to reverse it plus I would like to know the cost of creating a cammo pattern on cloh versus solid color, this might make a difference also! We are talking about supplying millions of soldiers.

my 2 cents

[jgawne]

Oh Johan, how did you know that my article on this very subject it sitting on the Militaria Magazine desk right now.

 

In short, after more than 15 years looking for the answer, I have not found any factual information to indicate the friendly fire aspect was the reason it was stopped. And can show how it continued to be worn into Sept 1944-

 

My best guess theory is that it was issued out when the troops needed their impregnated stuff replaced, and as the large storm on 20 June had backed up unloading, these may have what was on hand, and were issued in place of standard HBT's AFter a while they just wore out and were again eventually replaced with regular HBT's

 

The fratricide story comes from one of the official histories, but many years ago I had the Army history folks look into it, and there was no supporting evidence in the files on that book. There is no mention int he Army cammo history files, no mention in the unit files, or the division QMC files. no orders for their removal, etc.

 

I suspect the friendly fire claims may have been mainly to cover up for times when guys just shot Yanks by accident (which happens a lot more than anyone thinks). It is an easy excuse to make.

 

Bando talks about some of it in his 2nd AD book.

 

now the weird thing is- in 2nd AD photos BEFORE the cammo issue, it shows the men were very careful about helmet scrims- and upon landing in France one of the medical groups hand painted their jackets with black stripes to blend in. So I wonder if someone in the 2nd AD was very cammo concious and maybe pushed it along.

[mireks]

Jonathan, it is interesting theory. Perhaps, it can be supported with fact, I found several well worn camo pants and jackets in area of Czech Republic, which has been liberated by troops of 1st ID in April/May 1945. There have never been any troops of 2nd AD or 30th ID. According to condition of the stuff, I believe, it was heavily used as combat or utility dress during their journey from Normandy to central Europe by some troops of the Big red one.

That means, not only 2nd AD and 30th ID could be issued with these camos, some units in ETO could use them untill VE day and it was not mandatory to get rid of them (at least for some troops).

 

Mirek