M43 by BOYT 43 and Jungle Pack by S.FROEHLICH CO 1942, check the sizes.

I had a camo pack but wasn't happy with it [Johanson], I will be happy with one when its made by S.FROEHLICH.

Out of all the packs made I like the M43 best.

Click to view attachment

I have always been fond of these packs too. I have 8 or 10 of them.

Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment

What exactly were the differences between the 2 packs, just the size?

Was the Jungle Pack, or was it the M1943 Field Pack that got issued to late troops in Europe and Italy during late 1944 or 1945?

As with all gear it was just a Field Pack in the Army's eyes, even if it was a Jungle or M43 Pack.

That is only partially true. If you refer to FM21-15 dated April, 1945 there is a section that covers both packs. They refer to the smaller pack as the Jungle Pack and the larger pack as the Field Pack. The Jungle Pack was shown in earlier QM catalogs as Jungle Pack too.

The Field Pack was an enlarged version of the Jungle Pack with the same design. It was intended for the ETO and there are several pics that confirm it's use there.

Picture I found from a old sale by aaf8 [hope he doesn't mind or the buyer].

Loads of M43 packs.

And check the M44 pack in the centre of the pic.

Click to view attachment

Here are some pics of my jungle pack and 43 pack. 1st the jungle pack, dated 1942:

Now the 43. It's missing some straps on back.

Here's my OD jungle pack made by ATLANTIC PRODUCTS CO and dated 1942. Similar in color shade to the one shown by MattOravik. It's my understanding that this is the jungle pack used by the Marines during the early fighting in the South Pacific.

Note the missing short strap that attaches to the cartridge belt.....it was neatly removed....but why? and why only one side?

I bought the picture, but I dont mind. Extra information about the picture is interesting for me.

That's a similar problem I have with my M43. Someone neatly removed both the straps from the back and also the 2 off the shoulder straps. I suspect someone was using mine as a hiking pack or something. You can find loose straps with the correct hooks if you want to replace them. I think I may do that with mine.

T F SPEC CO 1942.

Isn't that the trial model before they were accepted?

I have no idea.

Notice how mine has the straps sewn on the bottom in an X pattern. Someone had said it may have been altered for carrying heavy loads but I can see no stitching anywhere around the straps that indicate they were sewn in a different position before.

Yes Dave that T F Spec pack is very rare. They are the test and experimental ones used for the field trials.

NICE find Matt. I bid on one on EBay that came up recently but lost out because of the time difference.

Thats a real good quality picture that you have mate, any chance of a close up of the guy with the 44 pack in the middle of the shot?

You mean the guy who has his backpack hanging on one side, in front of the jeep?
I will try to make a close up if I can, I will let you know.

No he has what looks like a horse shoe roll wrapped around the pack [seventh man in].

You mean this guy?

http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/3030/fotoardennen1yp4.png

http://img167.imageshack.us/my.php?image=f...dennen11hy0.jpg

Sorry, I can't post it big because the photo gets fuzzy.

Thats just what I'm after. Check the guy with the complete M44 pack system and rolled shelter half [OD#3]. But also look at the other three guy's, first guy has got a M43 and last as well but is the guy in the middle carring a jungle pack or are my eyes playing tricks on me and it's a M28?

Weren't Jungle Packs just reclassified as M43 Packs for redistribution to the later arriving ETO troops? So the M43 designation could have been used by either "type" of Jungle or Field Pack.

If you refer to FM21-15 dated April, 1945 there is a section that covers both packs. They refer to the smaller pack as the Jungle Pack and the larger pack as the Field Pack. The Jungle Pack was shown in earlier QM catalogs as Jungle Pack too.

They did not use the M43 desigination at that time. In fact I think M43 is a collector term.

What you call the M43 was simply the Field Pack. The M44 was also called the Field Pack. Later after the M45 came out they had to have a way to separate those two system since they weren't interchangable. At that point they named them M44 and M45. That left the title Field Pack used by only the larger version of the jungle pack.

Eric many thanks for giving us some good detailed pictures. Well you have me and Lloyd talking about it.

No problem, glad I could help. So it seems I got kind of rare picture?

Apart from the M43 Field Packs, it proves the M44 Field Pack System was avaliable in JAN / early 45 and possibly as early as NOV 44. Going by the unit you have in the pic, the 79th ID, but this needs more looking into.

It's the 75th ID, here is a picture of the back.

This doesn't look like a M44 Field & Cargo Pack to me, it isn't wide enough, especially the "Cargo Pack". This just looks like a M28 Doughboy to me with a blanket roll tied round it. I know we all want to find M44 packs in use earlier than March, but I don't think that this is it.

Thanks for you imput glen. The problem with the pic of said guy is its not to clear. I still stand by what I've said, it definatley looks like a 2 pack set up.

I was looking at one of my photos again and realized they were all wearing the camo jungle packs. Its for sure on a Island somewhere. One of the buildings is marked "Nasugau Municipal Building".









Craig

Great photos! That is actually Nasugbu and it a beach town in Batangas, Luzon, Philippines. The troops must have recently landed and are moving out towards the rest of the province and onto Manila. They are probably elements of the 11th Airborne Division which landed at Nasugbu!

CB

Thanks for letting me know the location. I bought it because of the cart picture.

Craig

Watching BoB this afternoon - this looks like a still from the 'bonus disk' the men of Easy Company when they talk about Bastoigne. There's a couple of seconds of footage that shows a similar shot.

I took some new pics of Jungle and Field Packs today in hopes of showing the size difference and some manufacturing details.

First is a front and rear shot for size comparison. The size difference is more apparent in the rear shot.

Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment

JUNGLE PACKS

Normally the Jungle Pack has a smaller placket for the straps and there are no re-enforcing rivets. The third version of the Jungle Pack shown has the small placket but the rivets are there. I am guessing that this is a late production Jungle Pack made just before the change over to the Field Pack.

Manfacturer marks and details:

Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment

FIELD PACKS

Normally the Field Pack has a larger placket for the straps and there are re-enforcing rivets.

On the last maker mark the first couple of letters are scuffed so I can not make out the name. I have not tried to research this so far. If anyone knows the maker please post the name.

Manfacturer marks and details:

Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment

I was asked to provide dimensions on the Jungle Pack and M43 Pack for comparison purposes.

I used a 1942 dated camo version which should be a very early jungle pack and a 1944 dated OD which is a late version of the M43. This is not a perfect measurement because these bags are irregular shaped and I have no exact way to measure them. After looking at both packs I decided where to measure and used the same points on both bags. The width measurement is across the sewn down top flap. The height measurement is from the bottom of the sewn down flap to where the D Rings are attached. The thickness measurement is the big variable. The bottom of the bag is a round shape and varies greatly on both bags. The JP bottom is 9 1/2 inches wide and 10 1/2 inches deep and I used the average of 10 inches. The M43 bottom is 13 1/2 inches wide and 12 1/2 inches deep and I used the average of 13 inches.

JUNGLE PACK
11 1/2 WIDE BY 17 1/2 HIGH BY 10 INCHES THICK = 2013 CUBIC INCHES

M43 PACK
11 1/2 WIDE BY 18 1/2 HIGH BY 13 INCHES THICK = 2766 CUBIC INCHES

The top of the bag is much larger than the bottom giving a cone shape to the bag. If I averaged the size of the bottom with the top opening the CI size would increase quite a bit.

In observing the jungle and M43 packs shown in this thread, it appears that only the larger M43 packs include the feature of the small buckles on the lower back (the side away from the body) which the vertical adjustment straps pass through to adjust the size of the bag. The jungle packs appear to lack these buckles. Also, on the same side of the pack are large trapezoidal pieces of canvas sewn in behind these buckles (as well as the web strap guides) that seem to only appear on the M43 and not on the jungle pack.

Anyone with more information would be gladly appreciated. As we know, there are generally no absolutes with this stuff, so my comments can just be observations.

Hopes this adds value to this post.

Interesting indeed! Russell, I have 4 camo packs: 2 of them (Boyt and G. & R. Co.)have the rear retaining buckles for the closure straps that you speak of, and the other 2 (both Hinsons) don't. Also have 3 of the O.D. '42s, and none of them have these buckles. This seems to be a 1943 mid-year tweak to make the closure straps easier to work with and adjust.

What division is this a picture of?

Those are U.S. 6th ID GI's in the Philippines. I have those pics somewhere on my computer I'll see if I can find them. I think they're members of the U.S. 20th or 63rd Infantry Regiment

Regards,
FRISCAN

That's an outstanding photo- looks like the man on the far right is toting a sawed-off E-tool.

In the U.S. Army "green book" entitled "The War Against Japan: Pictorial Record", there are a lot of good shots of all the Jungle and Field Packs in use; even some One-piece Jungle Suits show up.

Hi Gents,

Also 90th ID had these packs in the ETO. There is nice pic of BAR gunner PVT William J. Birthold of 357th Inf, 90th ID, taken in January 1945 in Luxembourg. He rests in snow but three-fourth of his pack can be clearly seen. It looks like Jungle Pack, i.e. smaller of the packs this topic is about. For better confirmation the Gurus may look into John Colby's "War From The Ground Up" book, page 374, where the pic mentioned is published.

Best regards

Greg