Paras - Uniform, Kit and other Particulars

You mean yours is just a rectangle of rubberised material? The groundsheet is a groundsheet (that can be used for rudimentary rain protection) but a cape is the other way around - (has collar & buttons) but doubles as a groundsheet.

The one I've been looking at is a cape which doubles as a groundsheet. It was just that in the description it said rain cape/groundsheet and I wasn't sure whether that was the correct piece of kit. That's a no then haha

This: http://www.sofmilitary.co.uk/mkvii-brown-cape-product,10646

Yep. That's what I've been looking at. Is this NOT the piece of kit which Yith stated in the list?

Right. All cleared up. I need a MKVII Groundsheet not the cape.

LOL, you are confusing to follow! The link I gave to is the kit you need - a cape/groundsheet. The alternative is a plain groundsheet which to use for personal weather protection you just drape around you or tuck it into your helmet or pitch up for some personal shelter: http://www.sofmilitary.co.uk/mkvi-brown-groundsheet-product,10647

I don't think either a 'wrong' but the cape version would be more useful, if a silly garment. McVickers will disagree with me on that score though )

Thankyou that makes more sense. Sorry for the confusion. Thankyou again for the help.

As a rule airborne were not issued the cape, only the ground sheet.
The trick is to fold it in such a way that it tucks inside the small pack so it sits against your back with the remainder running under the flap and extending down the face of the pack so it doesn't foul the closing straps and buckles.
This way it (slightly) cushions the back and imparts a water proof layer to much of the pack and its contents.

Comrades,
British Rain protection is sadly rather poor, the Cape gets your wet legs as the rain runs off as it is short and the Groundsheet is an odd shape to wear, you can improve the latter with a couple of pieces of short boot lace to attach to the punched out eyelets so you can at least do it a few times, have a play.

You can only really have fun when it is raining.

As a rule...

Odd fact - so some received wisdom questioning. Since the cape is folded in a similar way to the ground sheet such a method of attachment would be possible with either. And if it did waterproof the contents (seems reasonable) then why didn't everyone do it? And why have a cushioning? The soft articles of a small pack contents are at the back, the hard to the front.

Comrades,
British Rain protection is sadly rather poor,

Not really, it's rather awesome. The wool is almost felted, it is very water resistant. My first open day happened to be in really bad weather conditions. There was a wind coming in violent blasts and fairly heavy, constant rain. Mud everywhere. All the tacticool people were shivering, some with bluish hands They kept coming back to the safe zone for bottles of hot water to stash in the pockets. Throughout the day I was really comfy. I was warm and snug, pretty much in ideal comfort zone. In one of the scenarios I spent some 10-15mins lying in the mud and neither cold nor water penetrated my uniform. As any re-enactor learns in his "career" wool is a magical fabric and rarely need supplementing when fighting adverse conditions.

Sorry but compared to the Soviet Plash almost any other wet weather protection is poor.
I have a thing about ponchos, capes and shelter halves I have about 100 in my collection. The plash stamps it's lend lease boots all over the rest.

As a rule...

Odd fact - so some received wisdom questioning.

I'll find you the equipment listings for 6th Airborne if you like that specifies the 'ground sheet' if you like. I think its on web somewhere.
Everyone did do it? Its the normal, usual, regular way to fold and pack the waterproof into the small pack? It's not an airborne thing its a British army thing.
It helps keep the shape of the pack too, not so important in combat but in depot a square small pack was expected.

Isn't the cape generally referred to as a groundsheet?

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=27870
Specifications for the Sheets, Ground, Mark VII were approved, 28th July, 1917.
Pattern No. 2566.
They were made from dyed cotton, proofed with a rubber compound, "well vulcanized" on one side.

From the specification;

"5. Dimensions.-Each sheet, exclusive of the cape portion, and collar, must be 78 inches long by 36 inches wide. The edge of the sheet including the cape portion, is to be turned over 2 inches all round, and finished off at the corners like the sealed pattern.
Each sheet is to be fitted with a cape portion and collar of the same shape and dimensions as those on the sealed pattern.

6. Buttons.-Each sheet is to be provided with 7 buttons equal in quality and make to those on the sealed pattern. Three of the buttons are to be placed on the collar and 4 on the left hand side of the sheet."

Every one did do it? You described a special airborne way of sealing the top of the pack and providing cushioning - didn't everyone fold it up and fix it under the pack flap as there generally isn't space in the pack to allow internal stowage?

You described a special airborne way

No I described what was taught to me as the usual way of folding it.
Yes both were known as ground sheets but it helps if the one shaped like a cape is described as such? We could use MkV and MkVII but cape and groundsheet works better for clarity?

LOL, I think you are being obtuse! Regs for 6th Airborne might very well say 'Cardigan, wool, 1 of' but this doesn't mean British paratroopers were issued with comfy knitted pull-together button-up sleeved garments (as if their training required a particular style of cold weather fashion) - rather than the reality that the stores/regs description defies accuracy and should really be called 'pullover'.

Likewise the 'groundsheet' that changed in WW1 but the reg description appears not to have.

So I contend the

As a rule airborne were not issued the cape, only the ground sheet.

and suggest that the ubiquitous cape 'groundsheet' would have been the normal issue item to everyone (more practical as a wet weather item) rather than the 'groundsheet' groundsheet (more useful as a ... groundsheet). And that cape (groundsheet with collar/buttons) or groundsheet (simple rectangle with grommets) are folded in the same way and can be carried in the same way (and look the same when carried too) - whether partially unfolded to cover the top inside of the pack for rain proofing or simply folded under the flap.

Contend away but there is a document that details that airborne were issued the groundsheet only for operations and not the cape version.
I will find it, as I did the order for not polishing brass or boots for combat.
Interestingly there is a photo of troops digging in around the church at Ranville. At leat one can be seen in the cape version. They are often said to be Airborne. They are not, they are, if you look closely, Commandos.

Was it really so efficiently regimented? I've recently read a big thread on webbing of Polish units. Apparently the mismatch between all kinds of uniform components was huge. Battledresses from different manufacturers, webbing blancoed with different colours (including RAF) or not at all, webbing sets with two left braces or two right ones, different canteen holders and so on. Troops would often draw equipment when needed, from different stores, often quite randomly supplied. For parade there would be frantic activity with soldiers exchanging uniforms to at least have some colour uniformity. So were the capes/sheets, in spite of all this, so tightly controlled?

I'll say it again, the Polish were different especially the airborne. They seldom got the best of anything or anything first.
Colour matching in BD wasnt an unusual problem in any unit. You draw items from stores that are supposed to be in your size. They are almost certainly not from the same maker. If they are from the same maker they could still be from a different batch and thus different colours. Thats not really important to the army. Neither is the type of canteen holder, does it hold the canteen? Thats enough for the army.
Before an operation kit gets sorted and squared away. Missing/damaged items would be replaced. Kit issued would come from unit stores via RASC stores and sent in response to a request/requisition. The forms are quite specific in asking for details of the items required. Army kit has stock numbers.
I'm never going to say no-one ever got the wrong deliver to their stores, I'm not going to say no-one ever got issued kit that didnt fit, it rarely matched. In the most part men went to war with the correct kit. Great Uncle Susan may have been issued two left boots or your half cousin twice removed sister best friend Colin had never seen blanco. Most soldiers of the British command didn't and did.
Riflemen got rifles, mortar men got mortars, Infantry got MkII or MkIII helmets, airborne got 'helmet airborne' of one of the several types. Usually.

Contend away but there is a document that details that airborne were issued the groundsheet only for operations and not the cape version.
I will find it, as I did the order for not polishing brass or boots for combat.

That will be interesting, and would require explanation. Doesn't make sense, does it - hence my query. And for those looking on, Stig and I share enquiring minds (but not the same mind, I quite like mine) so this isn't forum bickering or point scoring
(And yeah, boot polishing not mentioned in regs but dubbing most definitely was a requirement for regulars and HG. But it doesn't say clear or black dubbin - I use black on ammo boot uppers, clear on the soles. )