Mle. 1950 equipment suspenders review

[Étienne]

After 20+ years of wanting a pair of the French Mle. 1950 equipment suspenders, I finally obtained a pair (a few pairs, actually) from TM.

I did a "mini" camping trip (on my own property) and wore my equipment rig (consisting of an original M-1936 US pistol belt and M-1910 canteen cover, and original French Mle 1950/51 ammo pouches and Mle 1950 suspenders). My original canteen cover's web hanger holder ripped through (it was dry rotted, unbeknownst to me), but other than that everything held up. I ate a can of sardines and a can of beans, in case you were wondering 

Anyway, my point of this thread/posting is to talk about the Mle. 1950 suspenders. First of all, the suspenders I received needed to be reconfigured:

1. The straps (of course) needed to be adjusted (but that's really almost the last thing done within this list)
2. The buckles were upside down, so I reversed them (for ease/speed of adjustment)
3. The straps were configured incorrectly through the buckles
4. The straps (the excess strapping, to be exact) needed to be secured
5. What's up with those ridiculously large and heavy "buckles" between the shoulder straps and connecting straps?

For 1, 2, and 3, see attached photo (there are better versions available, but of course when I needed it most I couldn't find a high-res copy). The Vietnamese para of the 2BEP has secured the excess straps of his Mle 1950 suspenders with string. [Note: Even today, nobody wants excess webbing flapping around in the wind when exiting an aircraft and potentially getting caught on something, so any potentially loose straps are secured. Also, the metal tips of the straps can make noise if/when they hit other metal objects.]

I understand that the "buckles" (see #5) are for attaching TAP specific equipment (what equipment specifically I know not, excepting maybe the first aid/dressing pouch), but couldn't a simple D-ring be utilized like on the US M-1936 and/or M-1936/43 suspenders? The shoulder straps/webbing of the Mle. 1950 suspenders seems rather flimsy, and the buckles would absolutely outlast the webbing itself.

OK, current rant over...but what the heck is up with those "buckles"?!?

Attachments:

[lew]

Beans and sardines? I'm sure you were just downright pleasant to be around.

That's weird that you had to re-route the straps. I have nine pairs of braces and only had to adjust the length. Did you have the braces "upside down"? The snap clips should point outward away from the body and the "buckles" should have the inner curve against the wearer as in the picture above with the little Oriental dude. The excess strapping should be run back up and through the (actual) buckle. There's no need for string or tape unless you're a 5'2" Viet.

As for those ladders/buckles, I have no idea if they had an official purpose. Maybe it was to be an attachment point for the II/48 TAP first aid pouch. Troops in Algeria would commonly clip an extra MAS Mle. 49/49-56 magazine to that ladder to give them six mags total (plus whatever spare ammo was in the pack). This wasn't practiced during Indo/Algérie, but Modern Warfare Magazine's last issue had an article about 2e REP's jump into Kolwezi, Zaire. A picture shows Col. Erulin with the belt and braces. One of the clips on his left is snapped to the buckle on the right side, thereby forming a sternum strap. I've never had a problem with the braces slipping off, and my shoulders have some slope to them, so I don't know if a sternum strap was originally intended or not.

I think the ladder/buckle is only there to provide an interface between the two straps, which, as you can see are riveted back on to themselves, and the bottom strap branches in two. Perhaps this method was found to be more robust than joining the lower two straps to the upper segment with stitching. D-rings on suspenders can be pretty uncomfortable and are hell with pack straps. The ladder/buckle lies flat against the wearer and isn't too uncomfortable under pressure.

As for durability, the French used these up until the '80's. For the modest belt loads they had, any belt would have its grommets pulled out by M1910 wire hangers long before the suspenders gave up the ghost. The thinner material also lies nice and flat around the should, minimizing interference when shouldering a weapon or routing pack straps up and over. As far as canvas suspenders go, I think they were the best made.

I'll snap a pick of one of my rigs if you need a pictorial.

[Kenneth]

Has this been figured out yet? The answer is simple, yet totally obscure if you don't have the complimentary equipment. Just like British P37 and US Alice, etc., the different parts of the equipment go together without regard to whether or not they are compatible with anyone else's equipment, although sometimes allowances are made for older equipment that is being replaced, like the US M1910 equipment, with those wire hangers.

In the case of French webbing Mod. 1950, the double-H buckles (my term) are there to accept the clips on the small packs. They work similar to the so-called "L" straps with British P37 equipment. They don't work with anything else and no one else's equipment is compatible, although the clips on a British P37 L-strap might work. I have seen photos of the two being used together but only from the back and the web braces might not have been French anyway.

I have read comments elsewhere that French web and canvas equipment is flimsy but I'm not sure that it's all that bad. I've also read that Indian manufactured web and canvas equipment was of lesser quality than British produced, for what it's worth.

[lew]

I'm not sure that assertion is correct. Maybe, in some bureaucrat's mind that was the intention. Technically, it would work as the pack straps are adjustable, but there are practical issues with which to contend: 1) the pack attached thusly would pull the belt equipment upward in the front, 2) the lower part of the pack would not be attached at all (unless the lower straps are attached over the suspender "H" buckle, but the clips don't look like they have enough room to allow that), and 3) the pack could not jettisoned quickly (1st line, 2nd line, 3rd line equipment issue; 1st line always stays on when in the field).

As for French web gear being flimsy, I don't think that is particularly true. It's a little bit lighter in weight than US and Aussie M1956 gear, but not substantially so. Also, much of it that we will see will have been well broken in. The NOS gear I have is as robust as American web gear of the preceding and following periods. Since they used it well into the '80's, any complaints were likely minimal.

[Kenneth]

You may be correct, since I've never experimented with any of that gear nor read any manuals. However, the British system, both P37 and p44) and the US haversack (M1936?) and even the WWII German system are all based on that method of attachment for the pack. The weight of the ammunition is supposed to counterbalance the weight in the pack, which I can assure you sounds better than it works. But the attachment points at the bottom of the small pack suggest that it was not intended to be attached to the webbing at all. It's not easy to tell in photos, which is all the fault of the photographers. Most photos actually show no pack or the large rucksack instead anyway.

[lew]

As one can see from period photos, French belt loads were pretty light and spartan (which is great when yer toolin' about the tropics or the desert). Spare water and ammo was carried in the pack to keep the belt light and uncluttered. If they were in the field and the unit made contact or was about to (ambush), packs were dropped at a "rear" area and left guarded so the rest of the unit could maneuver unencumbered.

I just checked all my packs- Mle. 50 TTA's, pre-war mountain pack, and Mle. 55 TAP (same strap arrangement as the 50 and 51 TAP)- buckling to the suspenders would not be feasible. I suspect the "H" buckle was a modification of the D-ring on the US suspenders, with the "H" buckle being able to lay flatter.

[Kenneth]

I just did a not particularly thorough review of photos I could find and saw nothing more than a first aid pouch or grenade attached to the buckle. So if it was designed for anything else, nobody ever used it that way. I also noted that the frameless packs seem to be just as large as the ones with frames. And I also saw a fair number of things that weren't supposed to be, like leather equipment being worn with camo jackets (might have been non-airborne) and every possible combination of uniform being worn in the field on operations. Many striking contrasts in camouflage "intensity" with different shades and variations in patterns.

[lew]

Definitely a hodgepodge of equipment, which is partly what makes the genre so appealing for many of us. I just did a mock-up of the photos I'm going to do tomorrow if the weathers's nice: Denison Smock, Windproof pants, red wool and "frogskin" camo berets, French bush shoes, French belt and braces, and US M1 Carbine pouches (of which I also have some French copies). Definitely a mess with equipment from three countries, but a fun mess.

Leather holsters were common across all units. The canvas TAP holsters- étuis Mles. 50 et 50/54- and the French leather holsters will only fit French pistols, like the MAC Mle. 50, MAS Mle. 1935 A/S. If the individual had another, slightly larger pistol- Hi Power, P38, or 1911- those would not suffice, so their original service holsters or a locally-produced version was required.

As for the packs, the frame-less canvas TAP packs- Mles. 50, 51, and 55- are about the same internal volume, but, although the don't seem much larger externally, the "Bergam" packs are quite a bit larger internally and were typically favored and used by everyone under the sun.

[pigghedd]

Ok, I know it's an old thread, but..

The large "ladder" buckles fitted to TAP 50 suspenders are for the attachment of various pouches for magazines, gasmask, and others. The auxiliary pouches are made with short straps that can be buckled to the suspenders, leaving the pouch hanging at the front. Typically the pouches also include a strap that can be fitted to the short straps to carry over the shoulder when not hung in front.

[rullow]

Hey guys.....
I ve been thinking more of its intented use as a primary paratroopers equipment - should be there any connection with a parachute webbing? intended to be tightened together?
Maby intended to be used together with some feature on a french parachute that didnt make its way into final production?
like the pressbutton shoulder straps on US LBV....

anyway - I ve tried to hang a grenade there and it does not work well either.... spoon on OF37 is too big to fit in correctly...



Jakub

[lew]

I can't see any benefit to tethering the parachute harness to the LBE. If anything, that would make it more difficult to doff the chute harness and risk tangling everything together.

[rullow]

Hello, I found finally the meaning of the buckles.

Very simply - Kenneth was right..... it is intended for small TAP equipment like musettes TAP50 either or mag pouches- those have both the large spring hook.
Attached the photo of the musette TAP50 attached to those buckles.....
with this system you can add two things the same time - for example musette and and mag pouch for the MG and to lose anything during the jump....





the idea is not from my head, but the recently found info from one of the magazines I currently received and started to read....

[lew]

Neat. Still a less-than-ideal situation to have one's LBE and pack fastened together for a variety of reasons, but thanks for the demonstration. I think we can lay that argument to rest. Děkuji!