mish
History Buff
Kalayaan
Posts: 135
|
Post by mish on Jul 27, 2008 11:36:51 GMT -5
Just a few questions. Some I've already encountered answers/references to and just want further confirmation, some I'm totally in the dark about:
Uniform:
1) Campaign hat: is this essential for a complete EM kit? 2) SSI/Patches: what are the rules, if any? Any photographic evidence of actual field use? 3) Leggings: What's proper for 1941-42? OD#3 or OD#9; 9, 8, or 7 eyelets/hooks? 4) Dress shoes: any pics of standard PS dress shoes; were there PS-specific variations or do we go by what was usual?
Gear:
1) Cartridge vs Pistol belts: which is proper for whom? 2) M1936 suspenders (early/first pattern - OD #9, #3, non-reinforced straps, small D-ring): were they ever issued to PS? or did the M1910 pack render them superfluous? 3) Cartridge belt: to pucker or not to pucker? Is it ok to use versions earlier than the M1923? 4) .45 pouches: same as No. 3 question
Weapons:
M1911s/1911A1s?: NCO/Officer only items? M1917? bayonets/scabbards: Proper?
|
|
|
Post by VeeVee on Jul 27, 2008 20:35:36 GMT -5
Uniform: 1) Campaign hat is not essential but it depends on the variation of the impression you're doing. They wore the campaign hat in non-combat or non-combat training environment. 2) Patches: I haven't seen any photos of the patch in the field, just on jackets in garrison settings. We do wear them at events for the "heritage" value, pride, and educational opportunity in wearing them. But you don't have to. 3) Khaki or OD3 would be the most common, with brass hooks and eyelets. 8 hooks and 17 holes. 4) Not sure exactly but I think they just used a really polished version of their low quarter boots Gear: 1) Cartridge belts would be appropriate for the rifleman. Pistol belts were also used by NCO's, or those manning crew-served weapons (MG, antitank guns, etc). They wouldn't normally have a rifle but may have a side arm. Basically the same guys who would be issued the carbine later in the war. 2) The suspenders were used by officers in conjunction with the mussette bag. The cavalrymen wore them too. 3) What do you mean by pucker? You mean the Mills belts? I'm sure they used the mills as well as the 1923. This guy is not PS but must be 31st Infantry because he has a garand. But look at his belt. 4) Not sure what you mean by pucker. Weapons: Supposedly the .45 is for officers and non-riflemen (the cavalry of course all had them for their foraging pistol charge). I did come across a first hand account where the 31st infantry were issued .45's. Maybe rather than move the stock to Corregidor, they decided to issue what was available. Don't know. The 1917 bayonet would have been issued to the Philippine Commonwealth Army, not the PS. The PS would have had the m1905 bayonet that fit both the 1903 and the garand. The scabbard would have been that canvas with the leather tip. I hope that helps. Hopefully others would put in their 2 cents too.
|
|
hawkins2ndcav
History Student
On the border somewhere near Columbus, New Mexico
Posts: 70
|
Post by hawkins2ndcav on Jul 27, 2008 21:02:15 GMT -5
In answer to your question on cartridge belts, the "pucker" model cartridge belt was basically the first version of the 1917 cartridge (commonly referred to as the "lift the dot" snap version). Later versions of the 1917 web cartridge belt were without the pucker. Basically, prior to 1917 all the US Army's web belts were made by the Mills Company using a patented method to weave the pouches. However, with WWI and rapid expansion of the Army, the pucker feature was dropped to simplify production. Also, going back to the earlier 1910 cartridge belts, there were complaints about the bullets wearing holes in the puckered webbing (if you look at it, it's weaker than the regular canvas pouches). Probably more than you wanted. Hope that helps. The bottom line is that there were a lot of the model 1917s, both puckered and un-puckered, floating around in the supply system so any of them would be correct. The soldier in the picture appears to have one of the earlier 1917 belts.
|
|
mish
History Buff
Kalayaan
Posts: 135
|
Post by mish on Jul 28, 2008 9:52:30 GMT -5
Thanks, guys.
VeeVee: In the pic you posted, the guy's wearing a puckered cartridge belt. Couldn't find another word to describe the folds making up the bottom of the pouches.
|
|
mish
History Buff
Kalayaan
Posts: 135
|
Post by mish on Jul 28, 2008 12:46:40 GMT -5
Hmm... why can't I "exalt" hawkins2ndcav aside from VeeVee?
After I was done exalting VeeVee and refreshed this thread to check, the Exalt/Smite thingo doesn't appear anymore. I guess just one go per thread?
|
|
|
Post by VeeVee on Jul 28, 2008 21:35:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Trooper on Jul 28, 2008 22:49:53 GMT -5
Hi Vee Vee, Please give us some background information on the trooper in this week's opening picture. He appears to be pretty squared away with his uniform and horse equipment. Can't wait to hear more about him and what unit he is with.
Best regards, Trooper
|
|
|
Post by VeeVee on Jul 29, 2008 5:43:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rickthelibrarian on Jul 29, 2008 17:07:49 GMT -5
The .45 clip pouch - make sure it is a WWI-type, not WWII or after. The correct ones are marked "1918" (there are a zillion of them out there and are still fairly cheap and have two "dot and hole" clasps, not one, like on the later ones.
|
|
|
Post by 26th on Jul 29, 2008 17:15:29 GMT -5
Hi and welcome Trooper: My name is Rudy Cabigas and I go by 26th on the forum. The 26th gives me away for my unit. My dad, uncle and one of their cousins served with the 26th Cavalry Regiment Philippine Scouts. My dad severd during 1922-1926 and my uncle and their cousin from 1940 until the war ended. The cousin went MIA in 5-42 and my uncle survived to live until 1998. My dad passed away years ago in 1984 and it is his outfit that you see me wearing in the photo. All equipment and uniforms are original period except the horse and campaign hat. My dad was in when they still used the saber and did not wear the lace up boots. He used the 03 springfield which you can not see, my uncle used the M1 Garand and no saber. The saddle is a 1904 and my uncle used the 1928 saddle. So the only things that really changed were, saddle, rifle, saber, lace up boots instead of canvas and leather leggings and my dad used the campaign hat all the time, verses the 1917a helmet from 1938 or so on. The snaffle bit is about the only thing missing. She does not like it. You will always see 2 reins on a cavalry mount with a harness and rope. Go to Cabigas Heritage under veterans and you can see other side of the horse. Attached are some photo's of the 1928 equipment and the short boots for the dress uniform. These photo's are from a private collection of a cavalry man that served before the war. Rudy/26thCav/Blood of Troopers
|
|
|
Post by Trooper on Aug 1, 2008 20:39:58 GMT -5
Thanks so much for the information about your Dad's and Uncles's service. The Photo's were really great too. It is really amazing that you still have the saddle and tack. I bet it is an interesting story about how the equipment finally wound up in your posession, after all these years. Can't wait to hear about how it happened!
Best regards,
Trooper
|
|
mish
History Buff
Kalayaan
Posts: 135
|
Post by mish on Sept 17, 2008 19:36:53 GMT -5
About unit/rank patches:
If I were to go to a local patchmaker with photos of the PS carabao and the Phil Division sealion, what more would I have to instruct him/her to do/use, specially materials-wise? I know next to nothing about patches and realize it's a whole wide world of independent study by itself, so any info would be appreciated.
Same goes for rank patches.
Thanks!
|
|
mish
History Buff
Kalayaan
Posts: 135
|
Post by mish on Sept 17, 2008 21:48:35 GMT -5
In answer to your question on cartridge belts, the "pucker" model cartridge belt was basically the first version of the 1917 cartridge (commonly referred to as the "lift the dot" snap version). Later versions of the 1917 web cartridge belt were without the pucker. Basically, prior to 1917 all the US Army's web belts were made by the Mills Company using a patented method to weave the pouches. However, with WWI and rapid expansion of the Army, the pucker feature was dropped to simplify production. Also, going back to the earlier 1910 cartridge belts, there were complaints about the bullets wearing holes in the puckered webbing (if you look at it, it's weaker than the regular canvas pouches). Probably more than you wanted. Hope that helps. The bottom line is that there were a lot of the model 1917s, both puckered and un-puckered, floating around in the supply system so any of them would be correct. The soldier in the picture appears to have one of the earlier 1917 belts. More is helpful in this case, thanks. Following-up, why are the M1923 cartridge belts almost invariably dated '41-'43 and later? When I was building my PS '41-'42 kit I initially started looking for M1923's, thinking that there was sufficient time from the belt's approval/initial manufacture to reach the Scouts by the time war broke out. But then I encountered that problem; the M1923s I found in militaria shops online and on eBay were all made in 1941 or 1942 or 1943. Applying the history, I thought it would be quite a stretch (not impossible though?) for 1941-made belts to have made it to PS units before all supplies were cut off. But there it is - a stretch, given the "if it was made <year here>, give it another year before it lands on some soldier's lap." quasi-rule. Unusable: M1923, maker markings unreadable, 1943 Despite the pic, this belt is a deep OD #7/dark green color: Usable?: M1923, S. Froelich Co., 1942 The belt is transitional, predominantly OD #3 light pea-green with some pouch covers in OD #9 tan/sand, but it's incorrect date-wise: I finally gave up on stretch theorizing and just opted to look for a M1917 belt, whether early/pre WW1 or WW1/wartime production, and eliminate all the mental justifying. It helped that the belts displayed in PSHS reunions look to be Mills or Russell M1917s. But is this the correct approach, eliminating the possible presence/use of the M1923s? Usable: M1917, Plant Brothers and Co., 9-1918 This belt currently anchors my EM Scout's M1910 rig, after going through one heck of a wash job hahah (JOY dishwashing liquid works well with old canvas, I found out): In the end, the vets will have the final say on this; or Dorsey, a copy of which I still have to get. Edit: Added pics
|
|
|
Post by indiosbravos on Sept 18, 2008 11:46:49 GMT -5
Mish have you read At The Front's article on "Khaki"... I found this very helpful when I was starting. www.atthefront.com/lawrence P.S. Re: Exalt: you can only exalt/smite one per log in, if you want log out then do it again and again.....
|
|
|
Post by VeeVee on Sept 18, 2008 20:49:45 GMT -5
The 1923 cartridge belts were already available at that time. I've seen some pictures. However I'm sure there were plenty of WW1 puckered 1910's left to go around so those were issued too. The reason why you see a lot of late war 1923's in OD7 is probably because that's when they ramped up production and surplus survive to this day. These look like 1923 cartridge belts. Notice how much darker they are compared to the khaki uniforms. The guy on the upper left has a khaki belt though. The same goes for the double-snap 1910 first aid pouch and the pointed flap 1924.
|
|
hawkins2ndcav
History Student
On the border somewhere near Columbus, New Mexico
Posts: 70
|
Post by hawkins2ndcav on Sept 19, 2008 0:09:49 GMT -5
Following-up, why are the M1923 cartridge belts almost invariably dated '41-'43 and later? When I was building my PS '41-'42 kit I initially started looking for M1923's, thinking that there was sufficient time from the belt's approval/initial manufacture to reach the Scouts by the time war broke out. But then I encountered that problem; the M1923s I found in militaria shops online and on eBay were all made in 1941 or 1942 or 1943. Applying the history, I thought it would be quite a stretch (not impossible though?) for 1941-made belts to have made it to PS units before all supplies were cut off. But there it is - a stretch, given the "if it was made <year here>, give it another year before it lands on some soldier's lap." quasi-rule.
At the risk of stating the obvious... The US Army between the wars was incredibly under-funded and while new uniforms and equipment were developed, it was done on a limited basis, especially since there was so much left over from the First World War. Often, a piece of equipment may have been developed and some limited production done but often this is as far as it went- in some cases, limited contracts were let as a sort of "make work" program, especially during the 1930s. Also, much of the contracted wartime equipment wasn't completed and delivered until after the war had ended (I have one web ammo belt with a maker mark of "Long 1/1919"). A lot of this stuff can be found fairly cheaply on ebay in the First World military section in pretty good condition since the collectors are mostly interested in the earlier stuff (.45 ammo pouches seem to be almost a dime a dozen). For our puposes, this is perfect and for an impression, it's OK to have a mix unless it can be substantiated from pictures that a particular instance that's not the case. IMHO, it's not worth sweating over. Finally for a lot of items, PI was pretty much last on the list until the big build-up begins in 1940/41. If it's one thing I learned in the Army, they don't get rid of anything unless they absolutely have to- just because something is designated "Model 19xx" doesn't mean that they throw out the old model overnight- there's a changeover period, sometimes a lengthy one and expaecially in peacetime. I still remember my first uniform issue in basic training (c. 1981) being a mix of the old OG and BDU clothing items- basically whatever was available in my size.
|
|
mish
History Buff
Kalayaan
Posts: 135
|
Post by mish on Sept 28, 2008 2:11:36 GMT -5
The 1923 cartridge belts were already available at that time. I've seen some pictures. However I'm sure there were plenty of WW1 puckered 1910's left to go around so those were issued too. The reason why you see a lot of late war 1923's in OD7 is probably because that's when they ramped up production and surplus survive to this day. These look like 1923 cartridge belts. Notice how much darker they are compared to the khaki uniforms. The guy on the upper left has a khaki belt though. The same goes for the double-snap 1910 first aid pouch and the pointed flap 1924. Useful reference as always, Vic. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by RayAdillO on Sept 28, 2008 6:27:48 GMT -5
The Philippine Scouts was a special unit of the U.S. Army. I don't think there was any similar formation made up of Hawaiians, Puertoricans or Alaskans. There was nothing like the P.S. prior to WW2.
The closest U.S. Army regular unit to the P.S. I can think of would be the U.S. Army "Colored" Troop (of the Indian Wars- WW1 fame) made up of African-Americans, but the circumstances of how and why the U.S.C.T. came into being were entirely different.
Being the only regular outfit made up of "indigenous" troops recruited exclusively from America's only Asiatic territorial posession, they would have been treated in much the same way as the British Army would its own complement of Gurkha regiments.
The Philippine Scouts was something of a U.S. Army "showpiece".....it was a "U.S. Army baby'', it even had a prominent role of being an honor guard during the 1904 exposition.
Two points:
1) However to rationalise their existence, they cannot be as costly as a stateside regular unit. That means their barrack accomodations won't be as nice nor will their mess be as well stocked, and they would have to be paid less than the American soldier. They would have to have represented a considerable savings to the federal budget. (take note, we are speaking here of early 20th century attitudes).
2) But at the same time, the P.S. would have been expected to perform at par with the best among any regular stateside unit. It would not have made sense for the U.S. Army to keep a division of native Filipinos under its wing and expect that it would only perform tasks which any native constabulary can do.
So this means, the P.S. would have the best training and will have had a high priority when it comes to the latest and best the U.S. army could give in terms of weapons, and personal equipment provided they could ship these fast enough to the islands.
I mean, who had garands in Bataan?...not the Marines, not the New Mexico Guard, not even the other stateside U.S. Army units, especially when considering that the lion's share of the shipping was going by way of Britain in 1940 and 41.
|
|
|
Post by oklahoma on Sept 28, 2008 11:18:53 GMT -5
speaking of shoulder patches...i have a question that has puzzled me for a long time. i know that the philippine division sported the attractive red and gold carabao head insignia. some time ago i saw a shoulder patch that belonged to my niece in laws grandfather. he sent it back to oklahoma to the "home folks" along with the regular divisional patch as souvenirs in the summer of 1941. he was newly arrived in the PI and proud to be in the elite Philippine division. this patch consisted of the familiar carabao head, but was red on blue instead of the familiar red and gold. it also was circular. i was wondering if it might have been the 31st infantry regimental shoulder patch (if regimental patches were authorized for wear). i realize that there was a 31st infantry regimental polar bear pin that could be displayed on the overseas and campaign hat. this emblem i am perplexed about is a fabric shoulder insignia. any thoughts or answers out there? ?
|
|
|
Post by insurrectomad on May 8, 2009 21:28:49 GMT -5
I need some help identifying a khaki cotton tunic I got at the Kent Fair Reenactment event. It has a slight green tint to the khaki colour and has a thin royal blue strip-line around the edge of the shoulder straps/epulettes. the sleeves have a short V cuff like cavalry ones & has 2 square breast pockets with straight edged flaps. the pockets have a 1" wide center pleat. It is designed to fit, so has V shaped darts dropping to the pockets from the collar & 1 running from the bottom outside edge of the pockets to the hip. Under each arm pit to the waist there is a 1"' wide double thickness strip with a hole at each side of the waist. 2 metal hooks at the throat with a drop collar. the bottom corners of the pockets are cut at an angle. The Only markings are 2 small pink tapes of 1/4" X 1'' with BE14- & TD201 on the other, sewn inside R/H back. It would have had metal buttons as it had holes for removable ones. I think it is WW1 Cav. or 1900 issue? Any ideas anyone? --David
|
|