nicolas75 Posted June 15, 2009 Share #26 Posted June 15, 2009 any news ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Rob P. Posted June 15, 2009 Share #27 Posted June 15, 2009 I don't know about the removable flap. My guess is its an error in that book. But as for jungle packs in the ETO I think this pic is pretty convincing, definatly NOT the Pacific! Semper Fi, Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotlead Posted June 20, 2009 Share #28 Posted June 20, 2009 definatly NOT the Pacific!Semper Fi, Rob Maybe it gets chilly in the Burmese mountains, or on top of Mt. Suribachi.............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Flage Guy Posted June 20, 2009 Share #29 Posted June 20, 2009 Maybe it gets chilly in the Burmese mountains, or on top of Mt. Suribachi.............. Most likely one of the palm groves on Guadalcanal...look at all that white sand I remember getting snagged by the "removable flap" theory...got hold of one of those camo jungle packs which had the flap and harness removed, replaced by parts of M1936 suspenders, making it into kind of a mini duffel bag. After reading the Osprey book, started asking all over the country for anyone who might have the removable flap laying around- to my eventual embarrassment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GI 44 Posted June 20, 2009 Share #30 Posted June 20, 2009 Jungle packs and M43 packs are two different items. They look very similar but differ in constructing and size. The jungle pack was made in camo and OD. You see the M43 pack in the ETO, not the jungle pack. See this thread for the differences: http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/ind...?showtopic=1059 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunbunny Posted June 21, 2009 Share #31 Posted June 21, 2009 I have seen photos of replacements in the ETO right off the boat and all are wearing the M43 field pack. If you watch the film "Battleground" you will notice at the beginning the two replacements are both wearing brand new M43 packs. A nice period detail. The M43 pack had the same deficiencies as the jungle pack (too big and cumbersome) so it didn't catch on and was, of course, replaced by the more practical M44/M45 pack system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig_pickrall Posted June 21, 2009 Share #32 Posted June 21, 2009 There are pics of the packs in landing craft on D-Day. They are usually compressed to almost minimum size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Flage Guy Posted June 21, 2009 Share #33 Posted June 21, 2009 There are pics of the packs in landing craft on D-Day. They are usually compressed to almost minimum size. I'm thinking that's what led Mr. Rottman to think that this pack was 2 piece, seeing photos like this and the one he featured in his book, without having read the instructions in the Field Manual 21-15 on contsricting the pack's size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig_pickrall Posted June 21, 2009 Share #34 Posted June 21, 2009 I hadn't really thought about that but it does make sense now that you mention it. Maybe he had never examined one of those packs and there aren't really that many photos of them in reference books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camp_Kearny Posted June 22, 2009 Share #35 Posted June 22, 2009 Many years ago I recall seeing combat photos of the 71st Inf Div in Germany, with the troops wearing the jungle pack. Whereas the 71st started out as a "Light" or "Jungle" test Div in the ZI, maybe the packs were "standard" in that Div. Anyone have 71st photos? No pics, but recently I spoke to a 71st Infantry Division vet about hand carts and the subject of packs and packboards came up. He stated that they were issued the 1943 packs right around the time of the Camp Roberts/Fort Hunter Liggett Maneuvers between the 71st and 89th Division. He said he considered himself lucky to be issued the pack instead of the M1910/1928 pack. I am curious if the 89th Division was similarly equipped? Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunbunny Posted June 24, 2009 Share #36 Posted June 24, 2009 Here's a closer look at a well known photo of U.S. troops crossing the Rhine South of Mainz. Note the M-1943 packs in use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicolas75 Posted July 8, 2009 Share #37 Posted July 8, 2009 Hi all, Back with some « evidences » Somewhere in ETO (my 2 cents for November – December 1944) 10th Armored Infantry Battalion, 4th Armored Division December 1944 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicolas75 Posted July 8, 2009 Share #38 Posted July 8, 2009 2nd Infantry Division, Schoneseiffen (Bulge/Eiffel) 2 Feb 1945. It’s funny the Gi collapsed the bottom to make the pack less bulky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicolas75 Posted July 8, 2009 Share #39 Posted July 8, 2009 October 1944 fort de Manonviller November 1944 Schirmeck (i took off their propaganda on the wall) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Rob P. Posted July 8, 2009 Share #40 Posted July 8, 2009 2nd Infantry Division, Schoneseiffen (Bulge/Eiffel) 2 Feb 1945. It’s funny the Gi collapsed the bottom to make the pack less bulky Nice pics Nicolas75! I find this one interesting also because the GI looks to have a KA-BAR knife on his belt and tucked into his snow pants. I don't think these were too common in the ETO. Semper Fi, Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
124cav Posted July 11, 2009 Share #41 Posted July 11, 2009 awesome pics thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
69Stinger Posted July 23, 2009 Share #42 Posted July 23, 2009 I agree, the jungle packs were definitely used in the ETO - there is that famous picture of a DUKW crossing the Rhine with the LT. looking back at the camera. All are wearing the jungle pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Flage Guy Posted July 24, 2009 Share #43 Posted July 24, 2009 Below are all 3 Packs (I flattened 'em all out so the difference could be seen): According to Army records ("Clothing and Equipment for Special Forces"- 1944), the '43 Field Pack, still often referred to in the text as the "Jungle Pack", was developed so it could be used in any setting, including areas "where the jungle type of camouflage would be a handicap," and the larger size made it more accommodating to use in cold weather areas. I didn't think there was any difference either at first, until I noticed a difference between the '42 and '43. I took measurements, and sure enough, the '43 was bigger. After that I started digging through the books and found out why. Just my 2 cents... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
69Stinger Posted July 25, 2009 Share #44 Posted July 25, 2009 Last night, I checked to see if I could find a more discernable difference between the M-43 pack and the jungle pack, other than size as you may not always have the convenience of putting the two side by side if your're, say, at a show. Guess what I came up with? My camo jungle pack has 8 grommets around the top of the pack for the tie strings and my two M-43 packs both have 10 grommets, obviously because the compartment is larger. Hope this may be of help to everyone and thanks for a great thread. :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patches Posted August 16, 2019 Share #45 Posted August 16, 2019 One more M43 Pack sighting, here in the Ardennes Forest December 44, an unknown unit, soldiers of either a Infantry Regimental Anti Tank Company or a Towed Tank Destroyer Battalion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patches Posted May 18, 2020 Share #46 Posted May 18, 2020 Found another, the Ardennes again, late December into January. Division unknown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johan Willaert Posted May 18, 2020 Share #47 Posted May 18, 2020 1 hour ago, patches said: Found another, the Ardennes again, late December into January. Division unknown. Jeep belongs to 75th Division, photo taken vicinity St Vith, Belgium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patches Posted May 18, 2020 Share #48 Posted May 18, 2020 12 hours ago, Johan Willaert said: Jeep belongs to 75th Division, photo taken vicinity St Vith, Belgium Is there another photo that shows the jeep where the bumper numbers are seen Johan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johan Willaert Posted May 18, 2020 Share #49 Posted May 18, 2020 2 hours ago, patches said: Is there another photo that shows the jeep where the bumper numbers are seen Johan? Jeep is marked 75 over 290-I so belongs to the 290th Infantry Regiment... Smaller unit codes on right side bumper are not visible in the photo... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johan Willaert Posted May 18, 2020 Share #50 Posted May 18, 2020 I have same photo on vynil print as backdrop for my Bulge mannequins in the war room.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now