My c. 1959 para impression

[lew]

The family and I took a hike a few weeks back. I decided my French kit needed to see some sunshine. Pictured is the outfit of a basic fusilier parachutiste. Unfortunately, I didn't think to get a picture of the back side, where there are two Mle. 52 canteens and a US-style medic bag. The MAS Mle. 49-56 is a 1960 production. Snacks, pipe accessories, Opinel pocket knife, and other essentials fit well in the pockets of the veston et pantalon TAP Mle. 47-56 (Doursoux repros- first rate). In the near future, I'll do some longer hikes- possibly and overnight- with the addition of a sac a dos TAP Mle. 55.

The Ray Bans were ditched pretty quickly. While the sunlight from overhead at 1800m is intense, there is little reflection off the ground like there is down in the lower elevations. Non wrap-around sunglasses are terrible.

[Kenneth]

For an alternative image, take a photo in black & white. Practically all the photos and films I've seen from that period and earlier were in black & white. Color photos taken in WWII always have a startling appearance, although part of that is the brightness of the image, probably chrome, like old color photos in National Geographic. Also, since your uniform looks like it's your best dress, you could do up a parade turnout, with medals.

[lew]

Good idea on the black and white. I'll also try my hand at reproducing the grainy color photos of the era.

I have a Windproof jacket with my 11e BPC officers presentation kit. I only have one picture of 11e Choc with Windproofs, and it seems they were very standardized with whatever the newest issue uniform was, given that they were the first to get anything.

As for uniform condition- I'm not trying to be flippant or obtuse, and this is primarily aimed at those newer folks around here- keep in mind, at least in Algeria, that they did laundry regularly and were issued new uniforms periodically or as-needed if they shredded a part. Unless they were on an extended operation where clothing resupply was not a priority, uniforms should be in good condition and relatively clean. Indo was another matter as the logistics situation there was certainly sub-par. All my modern Multicam and Flecktarn uniforms still look new, and I go out in the bush every week or two.

[Kenneth]

I wasn't implying that the uniform looked "too new," but just pointing out that combat dress, especially the camouflage versions, were dressed up with medals, citation lanyards, regimental badges and of course, jump wings, for parades. I gather it was something of a fad at the time. In fact, Osprey Elite No. 6 FFL Paratroops has one original photo of a soldier turned out thusly. But shoulder boards or epaulettes de tradition were not worn with the camouflage uniforms. I don't know if the parachute wings would have been worn all the time or not, as they sometimes are in other armies.

I might note also that none of the photos of troops in the field show uniforms that are noticeably faded or dirty, so you're okay there. Based on my own experience with reproduction uniforms, they were not particularly prone to fading, probably less so than the US Army OG-107 uniforms of the 1960s.

[lew]

I gotcha, and think we're on the same page, then.

As for the era in question, insignia of any type in the field was rare. Officers might have metal or, more commonly, cloth epaulettes. A few troops here and there may have worn their brevet parachutiste and the unit badge in the field, but that would be that. Berets were typically carried, but wear varied considerably. Most units didn't wear any insignia en operation. On parade camos, yes, the full gamut of rank, unit, awards, fourragères et al would be worn.

[lew]

I've been looking at pictures of Kabylie, and I don't think I could have picked a better background. Even better, I have significant North African- specifically Kabyle- ancestry.

Feel free to critique me: your abuse will make me stronger:

[Kenneth]

Another comment: the sunglasses are très chic!

This is about rifles:
I've noticed in several recent movies on YouTube or clips of movies that were set in WWII that soldiers seem to be carrying their rifles in a period incorrect manner. In other words, it's an anachronism, although minor. I'm referring to the practice of holding the rifle to the shoulder as if ready to fire when advancing or patrolling. I've never seen that in older movies or actual wartime footage. It's a small detail and for all I know, it might be correct. It just looks too modern. It's only about rifles, though. I haven't noticed submachine guns handled like that.

I have also noticed, mainly in wartime photographs, that French soldiers and sometimes German, seem to carry rifles in a distinctive cradling manner that I've never seen anyone else do, either in person or in photos. I'm not referring to the shoulder arms, which the French certainly did in a very distinctive manner, even when Frenchmen were serving in the German Army, in totally French units.

[lew]

Oct 27, 2021 18:28:23 GMT -5 Kenneth said:

Another comment: the sunglasses are très chic!

This is about rifles:
I've noticed in several recent movies on YouTube or clips of movies that were set in WWII that soldiers seem to be carrying their rifles in a period incorrect manner. In other words, it's an anachronism, although minor. I'm referring to the practice of holding the rifle to the shoulder as if ready to fire when advancing or patrolling. I've never seen that in older movies or actual wartime footage. It's a small detail and for all I know, it might be correct. It just looks too modern. It's only about rifles, though. I haven't noticed submachine guns handled like that.

I have also noticed, mainly in wartime photographs, that French soldiers and sometimes German, seem to carry rifles in a distinctive cradling manner that I've never seen anyone else do, either in person or in photos. I'm not referring to the shoulder arms, which the French certainly did in a very distinctive manner, even when Frenchmen were serving in the German Army, in totally French units.

Merci, copain!

Good point. Troops back then almost invariably carried long arms at the high ready rather than the currently en vogue and more practical low ready. I postulate that the high ready was a holdover from hunting practices and, in addition, may have had something to do with the atrocious gun safety practices of the period. Low ready can be seen from time-to-time. I've seen more elite units- 11e Choc, for example- carrying at the low ready, but they received far more training than most.

Bolt action rifles and the MAS FSA series lend themselves well to being carried in the crook of the offhand arm.

[Kenneth]

I didn't know what the names were for the different "ready" carry positions. However, I believe that Fairbairn probably would have recommended the low ready (if I understand it correctly). Correct me if I'm wrong (I often am), but the low ready is butt in the shoulder, barrel pointed down. I've never read anything by Fairbairn in which he discussed ready positions for shoulder arms. The ready position for a handgun, however, that he taught, was arm straight, with the arm holding the handgun pointed down. To fire, raise the gun and point it at the target, and that's the way it looks in a lot of movies these days. But I also see in a lot of Chinese WWII films, made recently, the old Mauser military model fired horizontally, gangster style. But there were a lot of Chinese gangsters.

[lew]

You got the low ready correct: muzzle pointed at an angle down, buttstock on or near the shoulder. This is what you would see in modern combat as, in most situations, it blows the pants off of the other methods. I'm sure Fairbairn would have realized and recommended this, but he didn't focus much on long arms (to my knowledge; it's been awhile since I read his work).

Speaking of other methods: Weapons Carry