Jump to content

Kilroy

Members
  • Content Count

    52
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.goticatoscana.it/html/home_en.html

Profile Information

  • Location
    ITALY
  1. Sorry I saw this topic only now. I attach the measurements from TM 10-265 15 November 1943. Hope this helps
  2. Here is what I know about the evolution of the (standardized) Plywood Packboard (Note: I am listing only their main modifications, there were others during their service life). 1) The shoulder strap billets were riveted up to April 1944; afterwards they were modified by eliminating the rivets and adding a two-bar buckle, which allowed them to be replaced without using tools. At the same time, the billets' hole in the packboard was changed from a round shape to an oblong one to better accommodate the billet. (see images 1 and 2) 2) Rifle Pins were added starting in September 1944. Initially, these took the form of two steel pins riveted to the packboard, which proved easily broken. Hence, the new design was introduced in March 1945 (these are the ones with the spring clip, most usually found nowadays). (see images 3 and 4) 3) shoulder straps: in January 1951 the shoulder strap rivets were eliminated. From then onward the shoulder straps were just rolled on the packboard, passing them through an added small opening in its upper back. Other changes were made during its service life, but these are the most relevant. Note 1: sometimes, the listed changes were not implemented immediately by contractors, and you may find a June 1944-dated packboard having riveted billets, etc. Note 2: the introduction of the quick-release modification to the shoulder straps, AFAIK, dates from the early 1960s. This was often retrofitted to old packboards in storage, concurrent with the addiction of the new type rifle pins (or the replacement of the old type ones). Cheers.
  3. Thank you for the help. I was also ignorant about the "X" variation. I found it mentioned only when I searched the net having got the liner. I had always thought Saint Clair were only marked "SC". Cheers
  4. I happen to own an X-marked low pressure liner. It definitely looks like an early Saint Clair (green painted inside, first-type suspension and chinstrap) and it's surely authentic. I have only found one single mention ever that Saint Clair's may be marked with an X instead of the usual SC, and I am wondering if knowledgeable people here can confirm this. Thanks to all who view and may help. Please see attached photo
  5. Ronny67, apparently you read historical evidence in a very different way than I do. Good, no problem about that. My reading of some of the facts you mention goes in a very different direction of what yoy write, but since I know nothing about how the US Army issued materials at that time, I must be wrong (at least that is your assumption.) For instance, I see in a very different light how the 509th at that time related to the 82nd in terms of priority in issuing replacement materials in theater, how Ridgway looked at them, etc. But since that is just stupid work by postwar historians, why bother. Also, I may have bad eyesight but I don't see any M1 shell in the color photo of the 505th you posted (maybe the helmet worn by the first guy? I don't see that really). And what was issued before the M2 was introduced is not really relevant to this thread in my opinion. According to Reynosa about 148,000 M2 / M1 modified helmets were produced from January 1942 to December 1944. That's not a lot in production percentages, but a lot compared to the numebr of parachutists in the US Army. This in my eyes suggests their scarcity overseas in several occasions was more a problem of shipping than of theoretical availability. And also the fact still stands the 82nd reached the MTO a few months before Sicily which was its first combat operation. Anyway, I don't feel like getting into this for more than just going back to what this thread is about: a request for judging the helmet which was presented (that is what the OP asked us). Based on that, my opinion is the fact it's an M1 instead of an M2 is a very relevant fact: not ruling out its originality (this is the THIRD time I write that, so please read with more attention what I write), but a fact which has to be considered as a very relevant circumstance warranting further proof of originality, since finding an original M2 helmet to be (possibly) faked is in itself more difficult than doing the same with an M1. And this doesn't mean I deem the shown helmet is a fake, as a matter of fact I like it more than most here, so what's the point? Sorry for my sarcasm, but I find your attitude a little bit too much belligerent without e reason, for my taste. cheers over and out
  6. I know well Infantry helmets were used. But I also made clear I referred to the 2/504th in Sicily. The first photo is from much later in Italy, while the second is about 509th troopers (in Sicily during summer 1943 before Avellino) and by then they had months in theaters of operations and - as we all know - were the cinderellas of the A/B forces in the MTO, a completely different situation than the 82nd at the time. So yes, of course M1 were used, but the chance for one to be used in the first combat jump of a unit which had arrived fully equipped from the US only a few months before is very slim. As I said, not impossible, but slim. Provided of course I haven't misunderstood where the helmet comes from. So these are my words on my assumption. cheers
  7. Thanks for the photos. Now the main question becomes: why would a "normal" - albeit early production - M1 helmet be painted like it was used by the 2/504th in Sicily (as opposed to an M2 helmet)? The chances for this to happen in that unit at that time are extremely slim. Not 100% impossible for many reasons, but extremely unlikely. That for me puts the most important doubt on its originality. That said, I cannot go so far as to rule out its originality though, as in my opinion at least the paint doesn't look so bad. Of course it's always difficult to judge from photos, but at least it's not obviously faked. cheers
  8. Husky, we miss important details to offer opinion here: detail photos of the chinstrap loops areas (even if the loops are gone from the shell) as well as of the steel lot code if visible. cheers
  9. very interesting thread. I have one question and one integration to offer. The question: all late 1930's and WWII era Ordnance publications I have read always refer to the "M1906" bandoleer, never to the "M1909" bandoleer (but I am not familiar with earlier texts). I don't doubt the change took place in 1909, so why is that? The integration: the type of bandoleer introduced in 1909, while staying substantially as originally adopted, was not used as such till the 1950's: the M1909 (or M1906 as the case may be, using the Ordnance nomenclature) was officially replaced by the M1 bandoleer before WWII. The M1 bandoleer is structurally similar to the older model but is dimensionally a bit different and less weighty (the cotton is usually lighter etc.). The differences were deemed important enough that separate Ordnance drawings were issued for the two types of bandoleers (20-2A-2 for the M1906 bandoleer, D43490 for the M1 bandoleer) and different weights were listed if one or the other was used in M1917 ammunition boxes (1500 cal. 30 rounds packed in the M1906 bandoleer weighted 8 pounds more than in M1 bandoleers). The M1 bandoleer was used indifferently with 8-round clips for the M1 rifle or 5-round clips for the M1903 series rifles. Another change in the bandoleers was the stop to printed lot numbers on the outside. I don't recall the exact date this happened but if my memory serves me well it was relatively early in the interwar period. Subsequently only the printed card inserted in one pocket of each bandoleer remained to identify the ammunition contained in the bandoleer. External printed markings were reintroduced in February 1945. Always keep in mind however that stocks of WWI produced M1906 ammunition were so large they practically lasted the US Army and National Guard till the end of the 1930's, so the new bandoleer specifications adopted saw significant use only at the beginning of the next decade. cheers
  10. I just happened on this old topic. I add only as specific information the first documented use of M1 web slings I have seen is by the 16th Infantry regiment in Sicily (July-August, 1943). There are several photos (included several by Robert Capa taken around Troina) showing them in enough quantity that I think either the Big Red One received them in numbers after North Africa or they came with a new issue of rifles fresh from the States at the same time. Here is a link at just one of those photos (in this case at Niscemi at mid-July, 1943) http://16thinfassn.org/?page_id=2878# (scroll down and open photo 6 of 23) It's worth noting I haven't been able to find any other documented use by other units in Sicily (only M1907 slings are seen) and M1 web slings virtually disappear again in Italy till about mid-1944. cheers
  11. Just as added clarification. In the MTO, generalized use of HBT uniforms by Infantry combat elements only happened in two cases: the 1st Infantry Division in Sicily, and the 1st Armored Division from the Anzio breakout up to the end of summer (beginning of the Northern Apennines campaign); and if the photo posted by Patches is captioned correctly (it may, nothing in the picture contradicts that), maybe also during the Po Valley offensive (April, 1945) - but I would need more evidence to draw general conclusions on this last point. By this, I am referencing to the generalized use of HBT uniforms as such, not necessarily over woolen OD's. HBT's were used by all other Infantry units basically the same as in the ETO: by some (few), sometimes (seldom), alone or combined with OD's. Woolen OD's, however, were the almost universal rule with the two above mentioned exceptions, also during the hot Summers in 1943 and 1944. Artillery, Engineers, Armored, QMC, etc., used HBT's much more frequently, as usual. But, again, the 1st Armored Division tankers were almost the only ones to use HBT's on a generalized basis, most independent Tank battalions crews in Italy used OD's much more often than HBT's. Cheers
  12. I understood Douglas Jr lives in Brasil and acquired his BAR there, presumably from Govt stock. He speculated about the FEB connection, and the PBS markings tend to confirm his idea. Or, did I misunderstand something? Cheers
  13. Douglas, really beautiful, I will also admit to being envious! As you may know, the "PBS" marking on the barrel, which as you state was replaced in August 1944, indicates the work was performed by one of the Peninsular Base Section Ordnance shops (the PBS, with HQ at Naples and then in central Italy with the advance along the Italian boot peninsula, was the MTO equivalent of the ETO "advanced base " command in Paris). So I think your hypothesis about the BAR having been originally issued to the FEB is most probably correct. Cheers
  14. In 1945, contracts for producing cal. 30 M2 ball rifle ammo were awarded by Ordnance to Dominion Arsenal, Canada (DAQ) and Verdun Arsenal, Canada (VC). Production at domestic plants had been curtailed and needs were higher than expected at that stage of the war, hence the outsourced contract. Several million rounds were produced for US Army use, and contrary to all US-made military cal. 30 rifle ammo of the same period, these were non-corrosive. Some say DAQ also produced cal. 50 ammo for US Army use, but I have no sources to check at the moment, I am writing out of memory. Of course, here I am referring only to Canadian production for the US, Canada may well have been producing other types of ammo in US military calibers (such as cal. 45 M1911, and so on) for Commonwealth use. cheers
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.