WWII_GI Posted May 4, 2016 Share #1 Posted May 4, 2016 Picked this one up a couple months back, it's a Boyt 1943 haversack that is marked to the 327th Glider infantry regiment. Never seen anything like it so I had to pick it up. The pack is also marked 3 times with the same laundry code (T-7974). I haven't been able to identify a soldier from that laundry code. Just thought I'd share this neat pack! Thanks for looking! -Steven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWII_GI Posted May 4, 2016 Author Share #2 Posted May 4, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Posted May 5, 2016 Share #3 Posted May 5, 2016 Thanks for showing. It is a neat pack! Ronnie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronny67 Posted May 5, 2016 Share #4 Posted May 5, 2016 Steven- Are the markings in ink or paint? Thanks for sharing, you always find cool items. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWII_GI Posted May 5, 2016 Author Share #5 Posted May 5, 2016 Steven- Are the markings in ink or paint? Thanks for sharing, you always find cool items. Thanks for the kind comments guys! The marking appear to be paint and the laundry codes are in ink. -Steven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patches Posted May 5, 2016 Share #6 Posted May 5, 2016 Could or did Glider Troopers use the M1910 pack? Yes they did, though the M1936 Musette Bag was the main issue right? Caption for photo where found. Medical Section attached to 2d Battalion, 327th Glider Infantry Regiment (101st Abn Div), part of the seaborne force, is ready to disembark on Utah Beach. D-Day, France, June 6, 1944. Source: US National Archives. 1y Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronny67 Posted May 5, 2016 Share #7 Posted May 5, 2016 Patches, the glider troops were fitted with the 1910 style haversack. They wore regular infantry kit. Some guys did use musettes, but their equipment was very comparable with regular infantry units. Steven- That is good. Makes me like this pack more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patches Posted May 6, 2016 Share #8 Posted May 6, 2016 Patches, the glider troops were fitted with the 1910 style haversack. They wore regular infantry kit. Some guys did use musettes, but their equipment was very comparable with regular infantry units. Steven- That is good. Makes me like this pack more... Right, here's another one with the M1910, this time Glider Troopers of an Arty unit of either the 82nd or 101 in England pre Overlord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWII_GI Posted May 6, 2016 Author Share #9 Posted May 6, 2016 Right, here's another one with the M1910, this time Glider Troopers of an Arty unit of either the 82nd or 101 in England pre Overlord. Great photos there! If only one of those packs was marked the same way! -Steven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patches Posted May 7, 2016 Share #10 Posted May 7, 2016 And on the other hand, the Musette Bag in use by some, 320th GAR, 82nd. Hmm caption with photo from the book I scanned from says stateside training 1942, not sure, but that flat dusty terrain doesn't look like Louisiana (Claiborne) or North Carolina (Bragg), looks like either Africa, or Sicily, your thoughts Stateside 1942 or The Med 1943? As a question: By the time right before Market Garden, it would appear that all Glider Troops of the 82 and 101 used exclusively the M1936 Musette bag, the December 44 arrived 17th as well, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dijkhuizen Posted May 22, 2016 Share #11 Posted May 22, 2016 As a question: By the time right before Market Garden, it would appear that all Glider Troops of the 82 and 101 used exclusively the M1936 Musette bag, the December 44 arrived 17th as well, correct? As pictures show before and during Market Garden the 327th Glider Infantry Regiment still used the M1928 haversack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Posted May 28, 2016 Share #12 Posted May 28, 2016 I'm with you Patches....I say 43 Africa or Sicily. Ronnie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hbtcoveralls Posted May 29, 2016 Share #13 Posted May 29, 2016 I've been holding off saying this for a while, but I have serious doubts about the markings on this haversack. 1. As a rule, the army in WWII didn't unit mark individual soldier's equipment. I've collected for decades, mainly field gear and never seen anything more than name, laundry number or serial number on individual equipment. Organizational equipment was something else, but a haversack was individual equipment and so unit marking was not practiced. If a soldier did put markings of his unit on his personal equipment, he'd be much more likely to put his company or platoon rather than his regiment, after all the people he'd be in the field with would presumably all be from the same regiment. 2. The markings look recently applied, The haversack shows honest use, the other markings (laundry marks etc) show real fading, but the "327th" markings are bright and fresh 3. The markings aren't stenciled but appear to be marker 4. It's a famous unit, There are many many re-enactors for this unit and this is the kind of thing a farby re-enactor would put on his haversack. 5 there aren't any other known haversacks from this unit marked the same way That's my opinion based on my experience, Not an "expert" just a collector for 35 years and re-enactor for 20 Tom Bowers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David D Posted May 29, 2016 Share #14 Posted May 29, 2016 I hate to say it, but I have to agree with Tom. The only time I have seen a legit unit marked piece of gear was a meat can tin that I owned. It was very well worn and the soldier conveniently put all of his info on it, including co. And regiment. But your haversack looks way too new. Almost like someone added it with a sharpie. Sorry to say it, but I believe the 327th to be recently added. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWII_GI Posted May 29, 2016 Author Share #15 Posted May 29, 2016 Thanks guys, after looking it over and doing some tests with a sharpie and scrap canvas it actually looks to be a fantasy marking done in sharpie. Oh well, still a neat piece and a lesson learned, glad I basically got it for nothing. Thanks all -Steven Here's some more pictures for reference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWII_GI Posted May 29, 2016 Author Share #16 Posted May 29, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Posted May 29, 2016 Share #17 Posted May 29, 2016 Looks like paint to me. No bleed as a sharpie would do. An in hand inspection would be the only way to tell for sure....in the hands of someone who recognizes paint from a sharpie. It may be recent but it does look like paint...to me. Ronnie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWII_GI Posted May 30, 2016 Author Share #18 Posted May 30, 2016 Looks like paint to me. No bleed as a sharpie would do. An in hand inspection would be the only way to tell for sure....in the hands of someone who recognizes paint from a sharpie. It may be recent but it does look like paint...to me. Ronnie It really does look like paint and I'm still Not sure on what exactly it is. Sharpie doesn't really bleed on canvas. Though the pack mating does show some age. -Steven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Flage Guy Posted May 30, 2016 Share #19 Posted May 30, 2016 I think that's paint as well. I wouldn't be hasty about writing it off as fake, though these days it's always a sad possibility. Really cool Pack, though...hoping it passes the test! 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