P37 Holster brace

It's his pistol ammo pouch.

The shown use of "hanging" a pistol holster off of either a pistol ammo pouch or compass pouch is very farby. The weight of the pistol would soon cause much anoyance due to flapping about and also the likelyhood of it unclipping.

The reason for the extra horizontal clip allowing either an ammo pouch or compass pouch to be added on top of the holster (or bino case, which also has a horizontal clip), was so that the pistol ammo pouch or compass pouch could be mounted upon the strap length of the associated 37patt webbing 'brace attachment' without it sliding up and down it.

Anyone who hangs weighty items like pistols or binoculars off of tiny pouches and then does re-enactment really hasn't a clue about the webbing or the idea of load bearing...

To show how they should be worn;

All pouches/cases/holsters are attached on the belt:

The pouches are attached on to the brace attachments, above the holsters/cases which are attached to the belt:

im not going to be the one to tell him he's got it wong!

Well, you are going to be a little fired up after having just forced the blunt end of a STEN stock into your 'little eye'.....

...or at least that looks like what he's doing in the picture.

And here ends the lesson of using pictures of re-enactors to base impressions on.

Not everyone gets it right.

Is that also a cut down canvas silenced STEN cover on the heatshield of that non-silenced MkII he's holding?
The nice cooling air-flow holes in the heatshield are there for a reason; not to be covered over!

I guess I stick with how I currently have the holster correctly on the belt then. Just exploring the options. Many thanks for the insightfull heads up.

While its an incredibly *questionable* impression (army air corp major with a sten bandolier and para trousers... hmm any more gucci things he can shoehorn in that look cool?) there is pictorial evidence of the 'hanging' method being used a lot and by guys who knew what they were doing.

I've a pic of two SBS chaps in the adriatic. They have nearly all their kit in commado bergans apart from pistol holster on belts... hanging off ammo/compass pouches. Oddly as well both are wearing them on the right hip.

Its not common but its not wrong.

Its not as bad as the 'french sas' brace extender drop leg 'fix' thats been completely overdone by re-enactors.

Edit: with 60 year old webbing there is a risk of it all coming undone... when the stuff is new its far less likely as its a real pig to get on in the first place!

AAC Major with no wings or blanco?
I'll bet he has a 'commando' style pistol grip on that bad boy sten.
Never understood the need for binos in a public battle, never been to one yet where the enemy were out of range for eyeball mk1.

Never understood the need for binos in a public battle, never been to one yet where the enemy were out of range for eyeball mk1.

Ah yes, the good ol' "Ball, Eye, Seeing, Mk1/1"

Just reading Major General Urquhart's book on Arnhem and there are two photos in the plates of him wearing the holster suspended below an ammo/compass pouch on his right hip.

It clearly did happen - I was about to suggest that perhaps only when cross straps were not being worn - in fact it would be the obvious way to wear a pouch and holster together without the braces - but in one of the photos Urquhart is also wearing cross straps. So clearly the CO was a bit "farby" too. But that is the beauty of the British webbing; it can be put together in a variety of ways.

Having said that I agree with Rob's comments about load bearing; one of my pistol ammo pouches is badly frayed around the loop for attachment to the holster, quite possibly because of hanging, and I certainly wouldn't hang a holster with a loaded pistol from it now.

Only just started the book but a quick glance through the photos and they seem to be a re-enactor's dream with the aforementioned holster hanging and what looks like an M1 Carbine being used at Hartenstein.

Charlie

Just reading Major General Urquhart's book on Arnhem and there are two photos in the plates of him wearing the holster suspended below an ammo/compass pouch on his right hip.

Like this?:

in fact it would be the obvious way to wear a pouch and holster together without the braces

Not really, I'd say side-by-side, both on the belt, would be the obvious one.

Only just started the book but a quick glance through the photos and they seem to be a re-enactor's dream with the aforementioned holster hanging and what looks like an M1 Carbine being used at Hartenstein.

Yes, there's quite a few 'specials'/'quirkiness' in those pictures, and keeping in mind that he is a Major General, not regular fighting infantry, and so could get away with quirkiness.

Just reading Major General Urquhart's book on Arnhem and there are two photos in the plates of him wearing the holster suspended below an ammo/compass pouch on his right hip.

Like this?:

Indeed like that.

in fact it would be the obvious way to wear a pouch and holster together without the braces

Not really, I'd say side-by-side, both on the belt, would be the obvious one.

Hmm well I wouldn't consider that as them being worn together just both attached to the belt in close proximity. By together I mean attached to one another as intended. If you are attaching and removing your holster and associated pouch it would be a lot quicker and simpler to treat the pouch and holster as one unit and simply only have to deal with one set of loops. With no braces then if worn "together" it would have to be the pouch attached to the belt.

Simpler and quicker but I think we both agree not the most secure method nor the kindest to your webbing.

Only just started the book but a quick glance through the photos and they seem to be a re-enactor's dream with the aforementioned holster hanging and what looks like an M1 Carbine being used at Hartenstein.

Yes, there's quite a few 'specials'/'quirkiness' in those pictures, and keeping in mind that he is a Major General, not regular fighting infantry, and so could get away with quirkiness.

As far as I am aware it is not Urquhart using the M1 Carbine.

I also think that there is a degree of Uniform Correctness amongst re-enactors which to some degree does not reflect the reality of the situation. I can understand the desire for pictorial evidence and the thought that just because one person was doing it doesn't mean all were. But I think that can lead to unnecessary and possibly inaccurate "stitch counting" just for the sake of argument or to propagate/defend self created myth, interpretation or importance. What seems clear to me from looking at photos is that everybody was issued with webbing etc. in the UK but to what degree that was worn or discarded once bullets started flying could be very individual. We all fill up our water bottles but there are many pictures where these are not being worn. And many pictures, particularly of airborne, where all webbing has been discarded.

I'm not sure that I totally hold with the view that someone who has been a regular soldier all his life suddenly becomes quirky at the age of 43 when he becomes a Major General.

I'm not sure that I totally hold with the view that someone who has been a regular soldier all his life suddenly becomes quirky at the age of 43 when he becomes a Major General.

No, but at that rank, no one's going to give him a ticket for having a holster half hanging off his belt, so he can get away with it.

I'm not sure that I totally hold with the view that someone who has been a regular soldier all his life suddenly becomes quirky at the age of 43 when he becomes a Major General.

No, but at that rank, no one's going to give him a ticket for having a holster half hanging off his belt, so he can get away with it.

Exactly what I was trying to get across

A classic example is montgomery with two cap badges on his beret, black tank beret, converted full zip denison, leather jerkin over the denison and corduroy trousers.

You'd be in the guardhouse for a long time if you tried that below a decent field rank....

Obviously there are standing orders for the way to wear webbing depending on your role but the more 'up the line' a unit is the more you see customisation and non standard ways of doing things.

Desert war vets (particularly officers) were an RSMs nightmare when they returned to the UK as many of them were so used to doing things in a comfy and practical way rather than 'by the book'.

In fact there was a whole series of 40s cartoons about the phenomonen called 'two types'.

http://gmic.co.uk/uploads/monthly_10_20 ... 533164.jpg

While you raise good points Universal Gunner about relying on original photographs when determining a impression. I am not convinced that they always indicate an ability for all soldiers to customise their kit and where what you want.
Context is everything. To continue using Op Market as an example. The pictures of the South Staffords on their advance to contact show a pretty consistently equipped force. There is some variation on how kit is worn but the pictures show fully equipped troops with full equipment including small packs, entrenching tools, gas masks, water bottles, bayonets fixed on rifles, helmets with small mesh nets worn. For the troops lucky enough to still be alive by end of the day equipment states change rapidly. Some were told to leave small backs behind before an attack and that is last they saw of them so pictures later show them just in webbing. Later pictures when ammunition was so short there was no point in carrying it webbing is discarded for what could be put in bandolier and pockets. Water supplies were centralised in units once the water supply was cut off so the individual bottles seem to have been discarded once empty or kept in the fox holes that had been dug.
Surrended troops were disarmed and had specific military kit removed. Pictures show some of them with small packs as this would have had food and washing kit. They should have been able to keep their helmets but all the prisoner pictures seem to show bare heads and berets. Troops having crossed the Rhine are seen with incomplete kit. While they were ordered to cross with equipment, this broke down due to the small number of boats available and kit was dumped over the side.
From this you can see that it depends on when in the operation you portray for what equipment is carried. My personal opinion is that having the full equipment of a typical company soldier with as few deviations from regulations as possible lets you demonstrate the many rather than the few. A problem I think the photo at the start of the thread illustrates where the portrayal is of a soldier who would have been present in the tens maximum rather than a rifle section private who were there in the hundreds.

I apologise for the lack of humour in the above broadcast!

The Free French paras could be seen wearing the holster off the belt by the use of brace attachments...may look ally but is quite annoying when diving in and out of cover.