Pattern '37 Bren Mag pouches

[Mike K]

MLU seems to have the answers for just about ANYTHING .... I'm impressed

[jeepingpw]

Today I was digging through a pile of "FRONTS" & found this one that is a little different.

It has a rounded bottom

No markings on the inside

On the top strap yolk it has a circle with what looks to be the top half of a 5 point star & under it it looks like
nl 507

Under that is a large "F" (front?)

&

DOM. A. CO
1951

Hard to see markings.



Rounded bottom


Pic for referance of the circle marking, with "ARROW" ?

[Mk1rceme]

Originally Posted by jeepingpw

Today I was digging through a pile of "FRONTS" & found this one that is a little different.

It has a rounded bottom

No markings on the inside

On the top strap yolk it has a circle with what looks to be the top half of a 5 point star & under it it looks like
nl 507

Under that is a large "F" (front?)

&

DOM. A. CO
1951

Hard to see markings.



Rounded bottom


Pic for referance of the circle marking, with "ARROW" ?

Neat pouch! Dom. A. Co. is Dominion Awning Co., and that arrow stamp...I think the correct terminology is the 'Canadian Technical Inspection Services Stamp'. If anyone wants to correct or concur this term, please do.

Dale

[Dave Page]

Hi Guys,
just a few points which seem to have been adding confusion to the pot, hope this clears things up:
1. the pouch set was worn with the FRONT pouch on the LEFT breast, left of or above the P37 pouch , depending on how high one wore their web gear. The REAR pouch was positioned BEHIND the wearer's RIGHT shoulder just to the right of the small pack. All quite comfortable, though with six addition magazines somewhat weighty.

2. a Bren magazine should NEVER be inserted into the magazine well with the firer's left hand, unless in an emergency. The right hand should be removed from the pistol grip and used to insert the magazine. This eliminates any chance that the trigger may be squeezed during loading, which will either send the bolt forward on an empty chamber or the first round in the magazine.

3. with the sling over the shoulder the balance of the Bren gun should be held by the carry handle (locked down and folded outward for assault) or as was often done the left bipod leg.

4. Many military items receive other than official names, not saying I like some of them but I do recall hearing a few for the side cap, which referred to female genitalia. It was common practice, though most likely not within earshot of any officer.

In order that we don't confuse ourselves any more than we are already are, perhaps official nomenclature should be used, when known.
My 'tuppence' worth,
Dave

[Lynn Eades]

Here I am,.....having learnt what the real name of these things is/are. All humbled and with the knowledge that these are utility pouches..... Then along comes Jones...(sorry I meant post No.26), and I see a new name. "Pouch Ammunition, Auxillary".... Well its on a document..... Thats the best evidence I've seen so far on this thread. ......Thats it for me, for now, on that one.
I've got enough of the"saggy man boobs" thing without wearing a bra as well.
More seriously, I think it is important to use the correct designation/ nomenclature, when descibing things, military. If nothing else it saves the time wasted, by the confusion.
Once the mis-nomer has spread, its hard to fix. Example the Bren Carrier.
You Canadians have never had real ones, but from here, it is obvious that you all call your 30,000 "Universals", "Brens"and have done so for sixty years!
It strictly speaking, aint right!....But, it aint gonna change either. ...By the way...No offence intended

[kajn65]

Hi All,

Try Googling: "Perth Regiment"; then click on the Regiment's (Re-Enacted) Handbook.

In there they have some photos of how the Utility Pouch was also worn.

I too have had Vets (Bren Gunners-Infantry & Airborne) come up to me (and any member of my Re-Enactment Unit) and say the Utility Pouch is called a "Bren Pouch", "Bren Gun Pouch"; and when shown that they have been worn (both pouches) on the wearer's chest, refer to them as "Bren Gun Bra" or "Bra". Later on in the war, a sewn canvas version that could only be worn in this manner was also referred to as such; however, mostly just the term "Bra", as mentioned in From D-Day To VE-Day, The Canadian Soldier 1944-1945.

If one goes to various Internet Vendors selling the P-37 Web Equipment, they too often call them (as did the Vets and ex-service men using them) Bren Pouches, Ammo Pouches; and, sometimes mistakenly as "Basic Pouches".

The point trying to be made here is ... like todays military, and I'm sure this also holds true during WW2, personnel develop their own terminologies (including the instructors) for their equipment; and, also developed modified usage of this equipment, most oftenly during combat, which led to even further new given, generic, pet or made up names. Subsequently, these modifications were passed on back to the manufacturers, recorded in the "List of Changes" (some were not); and newer versions of the equipment were made. Look at the history of the Lee-Enfield No.4Mk1 rifle to name one example of thousands.

So if someone, a Vet and/or an ex-serviceman says that item there is a "Ammo Pouch", "Bren Pouch" or "Bren Gun Pouch"; and when worn in a certain manner, is called a "Bren Gun Bra" or "Bra" we all know its official name ... the Utility Pouch.

One other major point to mention here. Most often than not Vets using this equipment didn't know the propper names. They were tought what their instructors called it. That also applies for how they were to use it as well. In combat, even the lonely soldier wore his kit as it suited him and his needs, contrary to published regulations.

This is just more food to the fodder to chew on the subject.

Rgs...

Keyan

[Dave Page]

Hi,
I took a peek at the Perth Regiment (re-enacted) and saw the image mentioned, however that is not exactly how the set is meant to be worn. The problem is in the design, the rear pouch slides on the girth strap (for want of a better term) which allows it to creep toward the left and tend to slide off the shoulder when the haversack is not carried. I have a manual -somewhere- that shows how it should be worn.
Cheers,
Dave

[Ed Storey]

Here is what the 1937 Pattern Web Equipment manual has to say. At no time is the term 'Bren Bra' used.

[Mike Timoshyk]

Life is far too short......I have kept my thoughts to myself after several different threads....but you know...this whole thing about collecting and restoring and history in my mind is supposed to be fun....I have no time for the rude, the obnoxious and the high and mighty ..... by the way....I don't know about most....but I do know that although an AOR is called a tanker it really isn't is it?



Mike in Windsor

[Ed Storey]

Judging from your previous post, perhaps you should continue to keep your comments to yourself.

[Lang]

I suppose I should keep my mouth shut but can't resist.

The 37 pattern webbing was probably the most uncomfortable, ill-fitting carrying system of any army of the 20th century. Those who have worn it will say without a shadow of a doubt, it could not be carried for any length of time done up like the pictures in the manual.

The buckles were terrible - difficult to adjust, they slipped and anything requiring very tight straps meant you had to work on a loop out of half the buckle. The canvas was too thick and inflexible and had numerous seams which cut into your back and shoulders.

Look at any picture and you will see fellows with them high, low, pouches close at front or almost on their hips all trying to achieve the impossible goal of comfort.

I am quite sure if you trolled through photos of any British Commonwealth soldiers of the 30's-60's period you will see pouches (the Australian Army called them nothing but "basic pouches" or maybe "bren magazine basic pouches") being worn in every conceivable position, front, back, strapped to packs or hung off belts like cowboy six-shooters, some people with only one others with four.

I don't know about the Canadian Army but I spent a bit of time in the Australian Army and NOBODY called equipment by it's "correct" name. In fact the correct stocktake or Q-Store names are a source of endless juvenile jokes in the military ie Cover, Rubber or equiv, 6 inch, protection, penis, soldier for the use of.

Some of these posts remind me of the "experts" who come up during airshows and tell you the 1942 Stearman did not get a brown throttle knob until 3 serial numbers after your aircraft. They know a real lot about aeroplanes but they know Nothing about flying.

Soldiers are people, they don't talk like in the movies with sergeants and officers ordering people around in authoritative tones using military abbreviations and jargon as their main form of speech. As someone noted most soldiers from privates to generals (excluding Ordnance Corps and Q-Store people) would have no idea what the official book name is for half the equipment they use.

Let's lighten up.

Lang

[Alex Blair (RIP)]

Just my two cents worth but Lang is right..serving members call equipment by many names..most unprintable here..
When I first started my manuals business I could never find "Sherman" in any of the original Sherman US tank manuals...or "deuce and a half"....or "Comet"..or "Leopard"....or "Patton"...or "Stuart""..and on and on...
They are not there..
Either is "Grant"....and when you say "Sherman"...you better add a model number or else you won't get a proper answer..
Anyway that is my two cents..
And "Blitz"...you would have to be upside down...drinking beer ..eating Vegemite..and singing "Waltzing Matilda"..and too close to the Barbie and suffering from alcohol poisoning and heat stroke to come up with "Blitz" for a such a t'ing of beauty as a "CMP"...or there I go again...they ain't called that in the manuals either..