Pattern '37 Bren Mag pouches

[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..

[Ed Storey]

I thought this post had finally run its course. What is even more surprising is that after the couple of weeks that this post has been on this forum that we now get some last minute input on how officially recognized 1940s names for Allied armoured vehicles somehow relates to made-up names by 1990s re-enactors for web-equipment.

Sure, the US 1940s maintenance manuals for the various US vehicles do not make reference to 'Sherman', 'Stuart' or 'Lee'; but have a look at the Second World War British vehicle manuals and they do make reference to those names. Just in case anyone is unfamiliar with these various names, the names such as 'Sherman', 'Lee', 'Grant' and 'Staghound' originated from British sources to denote the various armoured vehicles and these names are used in Second World War military documents when reporting vehicle strengths. At no time have I ever read of a unit during the Second World War reporting that it is holding 30 sets of 'Bren-bras'.

As for the age old excuse by those who like to dispute terminology, or anything military for that matter, but have no primary source material to back-up their arguments is, 'I was told by a Veteran'. That is all well and good but that excuse really does not add much to any discussion. Veterans are great people and we as a society owe them more than we can ever repay. I have a huge respect for Veterans, but and this is important, their recallections are just that, memories. What a Veteran remembers from 60 or 70 years ago has been clouded and altered over time. Veterean statements are only just one piece of the puzzle and should be regarded as that. Unfortunately, it is a well-used, all encompasing excuse employed as a smoke screen when no other proof can be provided.

The underlying topic of this discussion is that there are real, official names for much of this kit and equipment, whether it is for vehicles or for clothing. There is no reason to go and invent new names; so please, do not mistake the fanciful terms made up by re-enactors as any official or unofficial terminology, especially when for most, all they can bring to the table to defend their point is 'I was told by a Veteran'.

[Geoff Winnington-Ball (RIP)]

That'll be quite enough, thank you. I will tolerate NO personal attacks on MLU, regardless of whether you're right or wrong. In this case, there's probably an element of truth in what you ALL say - and certainly in Ed's correct identification. The rest is hear-say and is most likely based upon some truth or another, but is totally irrelevant to this conversation.

Jordan, I don't care whether you hate Ed Storey's guts (for whatever reason), but you will NOT bring this onto MLU. Sort this out on your own time. Understood?

Jif

[Jordan Baker]

No problemo Geoff, How could I hate a mans guts with all the knowledge he has stored inside of him for stuff that I love.

As for my previous (now unmentionable) posts they were "just a tad" tounge in cheek. All in good humour my good friend. I thought thats how they would be taken to "relieve" some of the strain and stress that was going on from those dreaded past few weeks.


For the record (if it matters) I too like to use the proper names for things. In the grand scheme of things (life) this stuff is pretty insignificant and this brings me back to my bit up above about being humourous.

But I will try my bestest to tone it down a wee bit if thats ok. (dont' realy get the skipping sheep but its there)

[Ed Storey]

No worries from this end Jordan, I missed the post and I can understand how the heat of the moment may have prevailed.

Knowledge, who said anything about knowledge about this stuff, perhaps it is all BS...

Anyway, I guess as long as we all keep it in perspective that we are discussing old army junk things will be okay.

Cheers,

ED

[servicepub (RIP)]

I love it when everyone kisses and makes up.