M43 Rigger Modified Jump Pants

[dmar836]

Doyler, Are those cutter tags?

Dave

[doyler]

1 hour ago, dmar836 said:

Doyler, Are those cutter tags?

Dave

 

yes. just as found.

[Beau-Brummel]

On 12/29/2021 at 9:14 PM, doyler said:

trousers from B Co 506th vet. He was a replacement for Holland. Served at the Bulge. Trousers have the added panel for the knees.

 

 

 

Absolutely beautiful old friend 🙏🥰🙂.

[doyler]

THanks Guy.

 

He had a great story about taking a POW during the Bulge

[dmar836]

My thought was always that items with cutter tags were NOS. Likely an incorrect assumption. I guess anything I've ever had with cutter tags has appeared unissued. This brings the question of "rigger-modified" items like this. Were these tagged because the were modified in a factory-type setting?

Dave

[doyler]

3 minutes ago, dmar836 said:

My thought was always that items with cutter tags were NOS. Likely an incorrect assumption. I guess anything I've ever had with cutter tags has appeared unissued. This brings the question of "rigger-modified" items like this. Were these tagged because the were modified in a factory-type setting?

Dave

 

 

I assume these were modified from supply stock that was new. The riggers who modified jackets and trousers wouldnt put on cutters tags that Im aware of. 

 

Knowing the vet he was a replacement for Holland. He took his Airborne training in England after arriving with the 8th Armored Div then volunteering for Airborne. Served in Holland, The Bulge and ended the war with the 506. Looking through his items I noticed none of the things had his laundry number in them and had  others numbers/names. He replied he had gotten in a "little trouble"  as he and a friend had hurt themselves while joy riding in a German motorcycle and side car. There was a "bit" of Alcohol involved and he said those trees in Europe are pretty damn close to the edge of the road.  He ended up with a broken collar bone. His buddy a broken wrist. Some bumps and bruises. He added when he got released from the hospital, they had a come to Jesus meeting with Colonel Sink and were to be court martialed for being in an unauthorized vehicle (and inebriated). As he said the war was over  and there were lots of unnecessary injuries occurring and punishments were being dished out.  He stated in Sinks infinite wisdom he would transfer them out of the 506th to a unit that was heading to the pacific to teach them a lesson. He was told to get ready as he was being sent to another unit. He said while he was in the hospital the medics there stole his uniform, boots and smalls and he had to beg and borrow to get enough clothes to tide him over. He said he was given a set of jump boots from supply but they were a half size smaller than he needed but wasnt going to wear those damn leg boots home. He was sent out of the unit and ended up back in the states with his buddy in tow and the War ended. They ended up being discharged and sent home. He said they had the last laugh on Col. Sink as the 506th was still overseas and waiting to come home. He was discharged as part of the 513th. Looking at his discharge you dont see is service with the 506th mentioned. I often hear "buy the item not the story" but if it wasnt for the story the none of the items in his group made sense as his name wasnt in them. Being the fact he had to get what he could at the time it makes sense

[dmar836]

Awesome story! Thanks for sharing. Doesn't sound like an extremely glamorous ending despite fighting with the 506th in two campaigns.

Dave

[PQD]

On 12/29/2021 at 4:14 PM, doyler said:

trousers from B Co 506th vet. He was a replacement for Holland. Served at the Bulge. Trousers have the added panel for the knees.

 

 

 

 

Always interesting to see such magnificent items, as well as anomalies.  The reinforced knees are typically associated with 17th Airborne trousers, as predicated on photo evidence and what has been found in ownership of these same veterans, but is this understanding totally factual?  Given that your veteran obtained uniform items in a scraped-together fashion late in the war and you do not know when or how he came about these trousers, I am thinking this is what was available through supply channels (or even via the 17th) and not at all reflective of what was initially generated for use by the 101st.  Not that there was a prescribed style for 101st reinforcing, but that the 17th had found adding the knee reinforcements beneficial after the initial batches had not been so modified (we see both in 17th photos, but with knee reinforcements is far more common), and then the 17th reinforced most or all trousers in the knees.  

 

Did the 101st ever have their trousers reinforced in the knees?  I am not sure, but I am inclined to not think so.  But here we do have trousers belonging to a 101st vet with reinforced knees.  It's all in the how and when they were obtained, which we will never know, and that is where the torture sets in - ha!

 

 

[PQD]

21 hours ago, doyler said:

 

 

I assume these were modified from supply stock that was new. The riggers who modified jackets and trousers wouldnt put on cutters tags that Im aware of. 

 

100% correct!  Cutter tags are only applied by the "cutter" at the time of cutting fabric for assembly into finished goods, the purpose for which was to document consistent matching of shade from the same dye lot in any given bolt(s) of fabric.  The PQD specs. for all of these garments stipulate color matching and attendant marking for consistency to all parts except those not deemed necessary for color uniformity, such as belt loops, adjustment tabs, pocket welting, inner fly, etc.    

[PQD]

On 12/29/2021 at 1:29 PM, Connor Bills said:

These added pockets definitely have the stiff, waxy feel. From what I understand reading threads on here is that the first modified m43s had the same impregnated material as the m42s and the leg straps were the same 3/4” khaki straps and the on the m42s. Am I correct here?
 

This vet also brought home some modified m42 pants which are part of the group. 

Congratulations on scoring these fabulous trousers!  Please do share and enlighten us with more, when your schedule allows.

 

The leg tapes for the 101st and 17th Airborne were the same 3/4” webbing seen with your trousers, which is exactly what was used on the 101st sets reinforced for Normandy, and you can find some 17th Airborne M-43 Trousers with this same webbing tape, but in a decidedly yellowish shade vs. true O. D. 3.  Then there are trousers reinforced well after the war using tape of the same type and measure, but in OD 7 (these will usually have the pocket flaps on the butt pockets).

 

The canvas fabric used for the pockets, if not washed, can be stiff and a little tacky in feel, and it can vary from being very matte in finish and more dark green to a little shiny and extremely dark green.  The origin of this fabric has been the subject of much discussion and debate for at least the 32 years I have been studying it, but what I have ascertained does not point to a fabric of UK origin, which is not to say it was not or some may have been, but textile analysis I have had performed reveals the fabric most associated with the reinforced Normandy suits and Market-Garden trousers is very typical of U. S. canvas employed for tenting and other covers; in fact, it is still made in the USA today, matching 100% in warp, weft, and fill, and just the waterproofing chemicals have changed due to EPA regulations enacted in the 1970’s.

 

There are also reinforced M-43 Trousers contracted for reinforcement in Belgian factories in late 1944, and it is quite possible many worn in the Ardennes and afterward are these very trousers.  I wish I could say with certainty I have seen or handled trousers I knew were of Belgian-contract origin, but as of now, I do not know what, if any differences, they may reveal from those produced earlier in non-factory settings.  The fact that a factory was contracted for this work would add credence to my belief that this was not work that was in the domain of riggers or, at the least, not sustainable by riggers.

 

As for the term “rigger-modified” suits or trousers, I contend this is without any foundation in fact, if the term is meant to convey that parachute riggers solely performed the modifications to clothing.  Please think about the role of the parachute riggers, for a moment.  The riggers were charged with maintaining and making ready parachutes and all equipment for deployment in parachute operations, and when it comes to major operations (D-Day and Market Garden certainly come to mind), there is just no way possible for riggers to have had the manpower, equipment, and wherewithal to ready all the parachutes and equipment bundles needed for the operations and also reinforce the suits for two divisions in just 2-3 weeks time (this is the timeframe accepted from which the paratroopers were instructed to turn in a suit for modification prior to the Normandy drop).  
 

Beyond the statistical evidence of impossibility noted above and an understanding of the role of riggers, there is the photo evidence that allows one to deduce that the reinforcing was performed by QMC Service Companies (stacks of reinforced trousers outside of QMC mobile trailers and paratroopers standing at the trailers with freshly reinforced suits), which would also be fully in keeping with the role of the QMC Service Companies.  The QMC Service Companies had the machinery, the know-how, access to fabrics, and the all-important manpower to ready enough suits for two divisions in just a few weeks.  Did riggers ever reinforce any trousers or suits?  Possibly so, but certainly not on any divisional scale in a matter of a few weeks in the lead up to major operations.  I think “reinforced” suit, jacket, trouser are very appropriate, accurate terms for identifying these clothing items, but “rigger-modified” is a term, at best, that is imprecise, largely misleading, and overly general, and, at worse, fully inaccurate.

 

This brings us to the different reinforcing styles we collectors often associate and distinguish between the 17th, 82nd, and 101st Airborne Divisions.  Among the genuine reinforced suits I own, there is a jacket fully ID’d to a 101st D-Day veteran, but the reinforcing style is exactly what we, myself included, would associate with the 82nd.  The simplest understanding for this again points to the QMC Service Companies performing the reinforcing, though absent knowledge as to how and when he obtained this jacket will forever lead to an indeterminate understanding.
 

If divisional riggers created the suits, they would have had a general style repeated on all suits, as would each QMC mobile trailer, but trailers being mobile and QMC Service Companies not being organic to any division, the style of reinforcing coming out of any specific Service Company would have a direct relationship to the unit it was servicing.  If a Service Company moved to the vicinity of a different division, if the division moved in the vicinity of a different Service Company, or if the personnel in the Service Company changed to another such company, then reinforcing styles could be more fluid based on timeframe and such anomalies are much more easily explained, whereas riggers, who were organic to the divisions, would not very likely produce changes to the items they were charged to modify within their units.

 

When we look at trouser pockets and try to compartmentalize them by timeframe vis—a-vis shape, what we are ignoring is the obvious human factor in making these.  It is not as if there was any policy to craft pockets a certain way on certain dates, but varied individuals appearing at certain times would have their own subtle differences in style of cutting and assembly to an overall general concept in execution, and it is this that would more likely lead to the variation we collectors endeavor to associate with timeframe.  
 

M-43 Trousers from the 82nd Airborne possess the most anomalies I have encountered, with what we think of as later 82nd  trousers becoming more like 101st trousers, yet we also find 508 PIR M-43 Trousers for Holland with very crude construction, asymmetric, wonky pocket flaps, carelessly assembled leg tapes, and even pockets full assembled with nylon parachute thread.  Assembly with parachute thread could make a great argument for sewing by riggers or it could be a great argument for using what was immediately available to ready a unit for an operation that was just issued a new clothing set with but a couple of weeks to be fully outfitted.

 

I do not pretend to have all of the answers and I am not saying no parachute rigger ever modified any suits or trousers, but I am taking the time to actually think through what we know to be fact, to employ logic and reason in our understanding of history, and to eschew half-baked conveniences of collector dogma that are largely without foundation and are simply repeated without thought.  It is to this end that I warmly welcome serious, factual evidence that furthers a true understanding of the history behind reinforced items of paratrooper combat clothing in WWII.  If anyone can offer evidence to the contrary of what I have laid out or if they can further a better understanding, then we all gain from hearing this.

 

 

[doyler]

49 minutes ago, PQD said:

 

Always interesting to see such magnificent items, as well as anomalies.  The reinforced knees are typically associated with 17th Airborne trousers, as predicated on photo evidence and what has been found in ownership of these same veterans, but is this understanding totally factual?  Given that your veteran obtained uniform items in a scraped-together fashion late in the war and you do not know when or how he came about these trousers, I am thinking this is what was available through supply channels (or even via the 17th) and not at all reflective of what was initially generated for use by the 101st.  Not that there was a prescribed style for 101st reinforcing, but that the 17th had found adding the knee reinforcements beneficial after the initial batches had not been so modified (we see both in 17th photos, but with knee reinforcements is far more common), and then the 17th reinforced most or all trousers in the knees.  

 

Did the 101st ever have their trousers reinforced in the knees?  I am not sure, but I am inclined to not think so.  But here we do have trousers belonging to a 101st vet with reinforced knees.  It's all in the how and when they were obtained, which we will never know, and that is where the torture sets in - ha!

 

 

 

Thanks for the comments and insight. 

Im sure they is a lot of unknow details. I would ask him certain details but didn't press as it was clear he didn't recall or it had all blended together. Just like his "ike jacket" It's a cut down 4 pocket. He said when he was sent out of the unit he never got the ike jacket. I know from a source the 506th were issued their ikes when in garrison/occupation duty and seem to be from the same maker and contract time frame. He wasnt there when they got the issue of the ikes.He saw them being worn when traveling. He said when he got home he had a few days to visit his mother. He had wanted an ike but couldnt get one and had her cut his jacket down while home. Then left to be reassigned. The war ended and they discharged him and he went back home. Not sure if it was a month ? Got a "good" job at a new packing plant that was built during the war and worked there all his life. I was able to pull his discharge and when I visited the next time I asked him about being discharged with the 513th. He got an odd look on his face. He had forgotten or didn't really know the unit he was discharged from. He never wore a 13th Airborne patch on his cut down jacket or a 17th Airborne. THis said It may be a clue to why he had the modified M43 trousers with the reinforced knees. He may have gotten them when assigned to the 513th. Will never know. I have often said if this group were to be put on ebay it would be shredded as "not right" since there is no items really named personally to him. A mix of odd and non matching items. His discharge stated 513th PIR. Not 506th. THis is where a "story" often will tie the items together. 

[doyler]

Will add I did know a rigger form the 17th who had also been in the 501st. He said when in the 501st they order came down to all members of the Regiment to turn in two suits to be modified with elbow and pocket reinforcements. He still had one of his 42 modified suits but  never got the chance to see it. Did they do this on regimental basis or have help from a QM Company. I dont have the answer. I dont recall when he was assigned to the 17th. I may be able to see if I had any notes from when I spoke to him. I alos knew two riggers from the 17th but never really got much information from them about clothing or equipment modifications.  

 

I do know what you are saying about the canvas. I have a large roll I found that is of similar material and more modern. Seems to be a bit heavier than duffle bag material. Figured someone would want it for making seat covers or something but havent found a home for it and its to heavy to randomly take to a show or sale.

[Spike]

PDQ, is there a way to wash out the waterproof/impregnation chemicals out of canvas and webbing?

 

[doyler]

25 minutes ago, Spike said:

PDQ, is there a way to wash out the waterproof/impregnation chemicals out of canvas and webbing?

 

 

 

Im guessing a degreaser would wash it out or naptha Even acetone but think the chemicals would also take out the color and damage the cloth? I use to use a degreaser called Purple Power to clean at work. it was a butyl base product. Was rough on hands and I wore rubber gloves. The vapor was bad but Im sure not good to breath in the mist  Could spray it on straight or dilute with water. Worked great for motor oil on the floors and cleaning  off grease and tar etc. It also would cut penta that was used to treat utility poles. Hear people use oven cleaner to get cosmoline off old rifle stocks. 

[Allan H.]

My question would be WHY would you want to remove the impregnation from the material? I would think that it would seriously devalue the item.

Allan

[dmar836]

Big time!

[PQD]

9 hours ago, Spike said:

PDQ, is there a way to wash out the waterproof/impregnation chemicals out of canvas and webbing?

 

I think repeated washings will achieve the desired result, but some cleaning solvents may be better than others.  Specific to the reinforced trousers, I have seen more pairs washed out than unwashed and it does not take many washing treatments to render the canvas fabric pale grey in color and bereft of much of its water-repelling qualities.  And some of these trousers can be found so heavily launders that the canvas is more off-white or very, very light grey.  
 

I suspect you are interested in washing canvas other than that found on these trousers and jackets of the paratroops, or I certainly hope you are.  There is no way I can think of to achieve what you want without fading the color of the canvas and, in turn, altering attendant value in both function and collectibility.

[PQD]

21 hours ago, doyler said:

 

Thanks for the comments and insight. 

Im sure they is a lot of unknow details. I would ask him certain details but didn't press as it was clear he didn't recall or it had all blended together. Just like his "ike jacket" It's a cut down 4 pocket. He said when he was sent out of the unit he never got the ike jacket. I know from a source the 506th were issued their ikes when in garrison/occupation duty and seem to be from the same maker and contract time frame. He wasnt there when they got the issue of the ikes.He saw them being worn when traveling. He said when he got home he had a few days to visit his mother. He had wanted an ike but couldnt get one and had her cut his jacket down while home. Then left to be reassigned. The war ended and they discharged him and he went back home. Not sure if it was a month ? Got a "good" job at a new packing plant that was built during the war and worked there all his life. I was able to pull his discharge and when I visited the next time I asked him about being discharged with the 513th. He got an odd look on his face. He had forgotten or didn't really know the unit he was discharged from. He never wore a 13th Airborne patch on his cut down jacket or a 17th Airborne. THis said It may be a clue to why he had the modified M43 trousers with the reinforced knees. He may have gotten them when assigned to the 513th. Will never know. I have often said if this group were to be put on ebay it would be shredded as "not right" since there is no items really named personally to him. A mix of odd and non matching items. His discharge stated 513th PIR. Not 506th. THis is where a "story" often will tie the items together. 

Very interesting story and insight into how scrambled the histories can get and how veteran recall can be faulty and imprecise.  I, too, have experienced this sort of thing many times, even when I was a kid and the vets were very much lucid and in their 50’s and into their 60’s.  You often have to coach them a bit when asking or phrasing questions, or at least have some idea of what the answer may be; however, some recalled the finest details, as if yesterday.

 

I think you have likely called it correctly, that he got these trousers while briefly with the 513th PIR:  a new unit such as this would be more likely to adopt the practices of the 17th Airborne, and possibly even have been supplied from the same sources.

 

The stories related here and the trousers are pretty interesting and totally credible, so if you ever want to sell the trousers, please consider me a very viable buyer.

[PQD]

21 hours ago, doyler said:

Will add I did know a rigger form the 17th who had also been in the 501st. He said when in the 501st they order came down to all members of the Regiment to turn in two suits to be modified with elbow and pocket reinforcements. He still had one of his 42 modified suits but  never got the chance to see it. Did they do this on regimental basis or have help from a QM Company. I dont have the answer. I dont recall when he was assigned to the 17th. I may be able to see if I had any notes from when I spoke to him. I alos knew two riggers from the 17th but never really got much information from them about clothing or equipment modifications.  

 

I do know what you are saying about the canvas. I have a large roll I found that is of similar material and more modern. Seems to be a bit heavier than duffle bag material. Figured someone would want it for making seat covers or something but havent found a home for it and its to heavy to randomly take to a show or sale.

It would be interesting to see what your notes may reveal for the 501st vet who ended up in the 17th Airborne.  
 

Unfortunately, out of my many, many visits to NARA, I have yet to spend any time in the records of the airborne units specifically looking for orders that would pertain to reinforcing uniforms.  There is some chance that such records were saved, and if complete, it is almost certain there would be reference as to which party/parties were charged with this work.

 

It is easier for me to accept that the early reinforcing we see employed for the 504th and 505th PIRs *could* have been performed by riggers, fully or in part, as it is far more simple in execution, thus requiring far less time per suit to execute, and it is present on suits worn in their early training photos while in N. Africa, which suggests there was far more time to complete the work before Husky and it was likely not ordered within a couple of weeks of Operation Husky; it may have even been something that just slowly evolved over time, with, perhaps or perhaps not, more of an immediacy as Husky loomed closer.  Whatever be the case, paratroopers who participated in Husky display nothing like the numbers of reinforced suits seen for Normandy, which *could* suggest an absence of a unit-wide order, or, at least, the inability to fully execute on the order.

[Spike]

PDQ, Thank for the info. I was just talking about canvas and webbing in general. I don't collect the items in this topic but I do run across items that have water proof/impregnation in/on it and there is that smell me all know and love which is fine in a surplus store but NOT in a small apartment.