Jump to content

INFO REQ: How were USMC troops equipped in late 1917?


Haditha07USMCR
 Share

Recommended Posts

Haditha07USMCR

I am currently putting together an early 1st/6th Machine Gun Battalion living history impression for work. I am a park ranger and am getting to help put together a small living history group for public programming as we approach the centennial of US entry into the war. I have never been very well versed with WWI USMC field uniforms and equipment. My goal is to represent a sergeant in either the 12th or 20th companies, circa fall and winter of 1917. As I begin the search to acquire the correct items I have become pretty overwhelmed. As a collector/ historian I am very anal about detail and want to ensure my impression is correct. The questions/ request I have is:

 

1) Is the 1917 USMC field uniform appropriate or had the transition already begun to the modified Army uniforms? Also, what type of undershirt were they being issued?

 

2) What boots would have been worn, i.e. French, Brit, or US?

 

3) Which model holster would they have been using for a 1911, the modified revolver holsters or the true 1911 model holster?

 

4) Does anyone know where I can find USMC/ Army machine gun pubs from the period?

 

5) Any other information on appropriate field gear is also greatly appreciated.

 

6) Lastly, if anyone can dig up pictures of MG battalion Marines in the late 1917 and early 1918 period would be greatly appreciated.

 

I truly appreciate the help and am sure some you guys can answer these questions with ease.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a couple of very knowledgeable gents that I am sure will weigh in an help, but I will try to get it started. The marines wore a forest green P1912 uniform pre WWI, no patches and no collar discs. Pretty plain Jane. It started as a two pocket tunic, but by 1917 had four pockets. Once in France and by the time they were in the fight, they were wearing army uniforms. Not long after the armistice,and some say even the replacements were back to the forest green Marine tunic and now with,ega collar discs. During occupation duty in Germany they started wearing the shoulder patch. 6th 'Arline's machine gun a purple diamond, the 6th machine gun battalion a purple oval shaped patch, both with the star Indian-head inside. They wore the US army boot, I would say most had the 1911 style holster if carrying one, some probably the 1912 USMC swivel mounted style holster. I do not believe there is any photographic evidence of the Marine marked dismounted holster worn in France. Good luck, like I say I am sure others will weigh in with hopefully some pics. Kevin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haditha07USMCR

Thanks for the quick response. So the 1917 USMC field uniform would pretty much be a no go even for Fall of 1917?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

You might want to look at this early post showing a reconstruction of a Marine at Belleau Wood: http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/39439-usmc-corporal-belleau-wood-june-1918/

 

Everything depicted if accurate for a U.S. Marine in France from approximately June 1917 to early 1918, with the following exceptions:

 

The shoes worn by arriving Marines in 1917 would have likely been either a pair of USMC issued Cordovan Service Shoes (of which I've been able to find very little information) or a pair of 1913 U.S. Navy issued tan 'high shoes'. These were worn by Navy and USMC personnel with either the khaki or forest green field uniform. Both shoes featured smooth soles and would have been replaced by a pair of any of the following hobnailed field shoes as soon as they wore out. A small amount of information regarding pre WWI USMC and Navy shoes can be seen here: http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/207798-usmc-issued-boots-reference-needed/

 

1. U.S. Army issued 1916 Heavy Marching Shoes (hobnailed): This shoe was conceived by the Army Quartermaster Department during the Punitive Expedition, because the Army's regulation field shoe, the 1912 Russet Leather Shoe, began to fall apart after as little as one month when subjected to the harsh conditions in Mexico. The remaining stock of the 1916 Heavy Marching Shoes were issued to the first contingent of AEF personnel until all inventory was exhausted. It is not known for sure if these shoes were issued to the Marines of the 2nd Division, but they were certainly among the eligible candidates in the AEF to have drawn this shoe. (This is also the shoe worn in the above mentioned reconstruction.) More information on the 1916 Heavy Marching Shoe can be found here: http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/206439-notes-on-the-1916-heavy-marching-shoe/

 

2. Both British pattern 1916 and 1917 Ankle Boots (hobnailed) and French made Modele 1917 Brodequins (hobnailed) were purchased by the AEF and issued to all of the early arrivals in the AEF until the American made 1917 Field Shoe, which was colloquially known as the 'Trench Shoe' arrived overseas around August of 1917. All three of these hobnailed field shoes were worn by AEF personnel throughout the war and during the occupation of Germany. refer to this thread for additional information on AEF hobnailed field shoes: http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/226082-thin-barracks-shoes-and-great-hobnailed-hulks-part-ii/

 

In respect to the gasmasks carried by the Marine in the above mentioned reconstruction - the French M2 Gasmask was banned at the front by the AEF in May of 1918. Therefore the odds 50-50 as to whether on not it was still carried by combat troops at Belleau Wood. As far as the box respirator worn on the chest, prior to December 1918- January 1918, there was a huge shortage of gasmasks in the AEF, as the first U.S. made gasmask was deemed a failure and the British had not yet supplied the AEF large quantities of their British Small Box Respirator (SBR). AEF records indicate that the first batch of British gasmasks were delivered in late 1917 and early 1918, all of which were issued to the 1st and 42nd Divisions. Therefore a Marine in early 1918 would have been carrying a British SBR (when issued). American made SBRs did not arrive overseas until late spring or early summer of 1918. Additional information on gasmasks as worn by the AEF can be found here: http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/233734-aef-gasmasks-respirators-1917-to-1919/

 

Final notes ... the Eagle, globe & Anchor cap badge worn on the Marine's helmet were definitely worn by some officers at the time of Belleau Wood, therefore it's possible that the enlisted men followed their example.

 

There are photos of Marines in France wearing the USMC early pattern forest green 1912 Winter Field Coat, which was identical to the 1914 pattern field coat except that it had no pockets below the waist. The wearing of this model of field coat was probably the exception rather than the rule.

 

Army olive drab as worn by USMC personnel did not begin until early 1918. When supplies of USMC forest green uniforms began to run low in late 1917, General Pershing came to the decision that the AEF supply system didn't need to be burdened with two separate service uniforms when just one would suffice. Therefore in January he decreed that the Marines were a part of the AEF and that the AEF uniform was olive drab. After that no more forest green uniforms were shipped to the AEF. However, arriving USMC recruits continued to arrive overseas wearing the 'Corps' distinctive uniform, only to be replaced by Army olive drab as soon as it wore out.

 

I hope this helps - feel free to ask if you have any questions.

 

Brian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haditha07USMCR

Brian- Awesome information. Thank you so much. So replacements even around Belleau Wood are showing up with USMC 1917 uniforms? Were they immediately ditching them or wearing till worn out? Thanks again guys.

 

Josh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

Josh,

 

In early 1918 the AEF was hard up for all types of clothing. Everything from underwear to overcoats was in short supply. In fact, the demand was such that Service of Supply guys were ordered to rifle through the soldiers and Marines barracks/sea bags which were in storage to remove any article of government issued clothing so that it could be reissued. In terms of clothing, it didn't matter whether it was olive drab or forest green, the general policy was that nothing was replaced until it absolutely had to be.

 

In short, there was no regulation in the AEF which stated that Marine forest green could not be worn. Arriving recruits (or anybody else) could wear it, but the AEF after January 1918, just wasn't shipping it over any more. Therefore arriving Marines wore whatever they had been issued in the States until those garments wore out. Only then would the forest green articles be replaced with either forest green for as long as it was available and then Army olive drab. In a WW I Marine diaries, letters and memoirs, their is the occasional reference that the men could tell who the replacements were because they were the only ones wearing forest green.

 

As a frame of reference, Quartermaster statistics during the heaviest six months of combat (June - November 1918) claim that the average Doughboy and presumably Marine's service coat lasted approximately 70 days before it needed to be replaced. Army breeches and USMC trousers lasted only around 30 or so days. I have no photographic evidence to support this, but I suspect that when Marine forest green was running low, in late 1917 or early 1918, that when a Marines trousers wore out they were issued olive drab breeches despite the fact that they were still wearing a forest green field coat. This likely would have given the Marine formations during that time frame a less than homogenous or somewhat mottled appearance.

 

One thing I neglected to mention was that everything in my initial post was geared towards a squared away Marine wearing only USMC issue or USMC issue with the appropriate AEF/Army additions such as wool puttees, hobnailed shoes, gasmasks, etc.

 

Brian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

I just realized that I overlooked your question regarding holsters ...

 

I don't know if this was true in the Marine Corps, but early on the Army shipped soldiers to France with without bayonet scabbards and their bayonet wrapped in newspaper or with pistols and no holster and vice-versa. I've also seen early war photos of Doughboys carrying .45 caliber revolvers in modified automatic holsters. The plan was this would all be sorted out overseas.

 

Anyway, the most common holster issued to Marines authorized to carry a sidearm, was the USMC 1912 'drop' holster. I've also seen USMC marked 1916 automatic holsters, but I think these were probably very rare. If you're aiming for an all Marine display you need one of the above.

 

I suspect that a large number of Marines were issued Army 1916 Automatic Holsters in France, so these would also be technically correct.

 

Depending on the look you're going for either a Marine issued 1912 Pistol magazine Pouch with USMC snaps or an Army style 1912 Pistol Magazine Pouch with lift-the-dot snap fasteners would be correct.

 

From left to right, 1912 USMC 'Drop' Holster, 1916 USMC Automatic Holster, 1917 USMC Revolver Holster

post-5143-0-77729000-1430783705.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

The only equipment specific to a MG that comes to mind are the chainmail and leather gauntlets and shoulder pad for the French Hotchkiss MG. The gauntlets were used for handling a hot MG barrel and the shoulder pad was for when the hot gun was moved. These were apparently issued one set per MG crew.

 

AEF MG crews rarely remained in a fixed position for any length of time, because as soon as the enemy got a fix on their position an artillery barrage could be expected. AEF doctrine dictated that the MGs change positions frequently when practical. This would entail handling a hot MG - hence the gauntlets and shoulder pad.

 

The pad's strap was worn across the chest with the pad resting on the shoulder, chainmail side up.

post-5143-0-19678300-1430784210.jpg

post-5143-0-02709900-1430784223.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WWI Nerd is as always an amazing wealth if information on this tropic.mthismismthe great post that has been talked about a little here and there in other discussions no it is nice to see it in one place.

 

Reference the holsters, as I had said earlier, there is no photographic evidence to indicate Marines the AEF in France wore the dismounted model. The above pictured (three extremely nice holsters by the way) drop holster is the 1912 dismounted model, that seems to have been used regularly after WWI during the Banana Wars. The mounted swivel USMC marked 1912 holster is the one that shows up in many photographs along with the 1916 probably US marked holster. In fact there is a bit of a debate on the 1916 USMC model depicted above. Some say they never existed! I believe they did of course but are very rare and most Marines simply wore the US marked army one. Kevin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

Warguy is absolutely right about the USMC swivel holster. I completely forgot about that holster while posting! Anyway here's a couple of Marine's wearing the USMC issued 1912 Swivel Holster. The left hand photo was likely taken in the U.S. sometime around September 1918. The right hand image was taken in France in early 1918.

 

Left hand photo courtesy of the John Adam-Graf collection

post-5143-0-10237200-1430873409.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haditha07USMCR

Gentlemen

 

Thanks for all of the information. You guys are a wealth of knowledge. The picture above on the far right, would he be wearing the army 1910 pistol belt or am I off on that. That image of that Marine is very close to what I am trying to replicate.

 

Josh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

Something I should have mentioned yesterday, was that anything goes in regard to equipment and clothing once the Marines became a part of the AEF. At that point they would have been issued whatever was on hand or the most convenient, especially in respect to something like a holster or a pistol magazine pouch.

 

As previously mentioned the Marines likely arrived outfitted with USMC clothing and equipment. However, as time passed and equipment and clothing wore out more and more Army issued gear could be seen in any Marine organization in the AEF.

 

Here are some Marines wearing 1916 Holsters. Both photos were taken in 1919, during the occupation of Germany. Given the rarity of the USMC issued 1916 Holster, the odds are that both Marines have been issued Army holsters like the one shown on the right. Note the difference in shape between the two brass studs used to secure the holster flaps.

post-5143-0-49288900-1430874013.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

Josh,

 

He's probably wearing one of the many styles of 1912 Pistol Belts used between 1912 and 1918. It could be an early Army issued version which features an eagle snap, and was olive drab in color. The snap was used to secure the magazine pouch so that it would not slide laterally on the belt. It could be a USMC issued 1912 Pistol Belt which had a USMC snap, and was forest green in color. He could also be wearing the wartime version of the 1912 Pistol Belt that was adopted by the Army in 1917 that had a plain snap. All of these pistol belts were in use in 1917 and early 1918. As the war progressed the Army eagle snap and USMC snap belts became less common.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

6th MG Battalion officers in Germany, two of whom are wearing 1916 style holsters and the officer in the center looks to be wearing a 1912 Swivel Holster, maybe?

post-5143-0-35100300-1430874612.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

Like the Marines in the photo posted above by Kanemono, this Marine MP is also from the 5th Marine Brigade. He too wears a revolver holster. It's anybody's guess whether it's USMC or Army issued. Here's a comparison of the two holsters which appear to be nearly identical with the exception of stamp on the flap.

post-5143-0-11686000-1430874878.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

Here are a couple of USMC pistol magazine pouch variations. In 1917, the Army had to blow the dust off of all the obsolete equipment it had in order to keep up with the demand created by the flood of volunteers. There's no reason the think that things were any different in the Marine Corps. Though I've never seen this leather USMC issued 1912 Magazine Pouch worn in the AEF, it wouldn't surprise me to se it being worn during the first few months. Here it's worn by Marine officer's in Vera Cruz, Mexico 1914.

post-5143-0-28393200-1430875245.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

Here is the USMC issued leather 1912 Pistol Magazine Pouch that was intended for wear with the leather garrison belt. The Army version of this pouch, with an eagle snap, was frequently worn on Sam Browne belts, and occasionally on web pistol belts by Army officers with the AEF. By extension, the USMC version was also likely worn overseas. Next to the USMC magazine pouch is a commercially made magazine pouch sold in the UK that I've seen worn by AEF officers.

post-5143-0-69118800-1430875540.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

During the war, the USMC issued a great deal of Army field gear, probably to augment their meager inventory of USMC field gear. Most if not all of the Army equipment that was funneled through USMC supply channels was stamped or otherwise marked as such. The majority of it coming from the Philadelphia Depot like this late war pistol magazine pouch.

post-5143-0-19067900-1430875857.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

Returning Marine officers wearing 1916 Holsters and late war similar style pistol magazine pouches.

 

It should be said, that the any equipment issued to Marine Corps personnel through AEF supply channels would not have had any markings indicating that it was intended for the USMC. Everything would have been identical to what was issued to Army troops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...