Pattern '37 Bren Mag pouches

[Dave Page]

Hi Guys,
just a few points which seem to have been adding confusion to the pot, hope this clears things up:
1. the pouch set was worn with the FRONT pouch on the LEFT breast, left of or above the P37 pouch , depending on how high one wore their web gear. The REAR pouch was positioned BEHIND the wearer's RIGHT shoulder just to the right of the small pack. All quite comfortable, though with six addition magazines somewhat weighty.

2. a Bren magazine should NEVER be inserted into the magazine well with the firer's left hand, unless in an emergency. The right hand should be removed from the pistol grip and used to insert the magazine. This eliminates any chance that the trigger may be squeezed during loading, which will either send the bolt forward on an empty chamber or the first round in the magazine.

3. with the sling over the shoulder the balance of the Bren gun should be held by the carry handle (locked down and folded outward for assault) or as was often done the left bipod leg.

4. Many military items receive other than official names, not saying I like some of them but I do recall hearing a few for the side cap, which referred to female genitalia. It was common practice, though most likely not within earshot of any officer.

In order that we don't confuse ourselves any more than we are already are, perhaps official nomenclature should be used, when known.
My 'tuppence' worth,
Dave

[Lynn Eades]

Here I am,.....having learnt what the real name of these things is/are. All humbled and with the knowledge that these are utility pouches..... Then along comes Jones...(sorry I meant post No.26), and I see a new name. "Pouch Ammunition, Auxillary".... Well its on a document..... Thats the best evidence I've seen so far on this thread. ......Thats it for me, for now, on that one.
I've got enough of the"saggy man boobs" thing without wearing a bra as well.
More seriously, I think it is important to use the correct designation/ nomenclature, when descibing things, military. If nothing else it saves the time wasted, by the confusion.
Once the mis-nomer has spread, its hard to fix. Example the Bren Carrier.
You Canadians have never had real ones, but from here, it is obvious that you all call your 30,000 "Universals", "Brens"and have done so for sixty years!
It strictly speaking, aint right!....But, it aint gonna change either. ...By the way...No offence intended

[kajn65]

Hi All,

Try Googling: "Perth Regiment"; then click on the Regiment's (Re-Enacted) Handbook.

In there they have some photos of how the Utility Pouch was also worn.

I too have had Vets (Bren Gunners-Infantry & Airborne) come up to me (and any member of my Re-Enactment Unit) and say the Utility Pouch is called a "Bren Pouch", "Bren Gun Pouch"; and when shown that they have been worn (both pouches) on the wearer's chest, refer to them as "Bren Gun Bra" or "Bra". Later on in the war, a sewn canvas version that could only be worn in this manner was also referred to as such; however, mostly just the term "Bra", as mentioned in From D-Day To VE-Day, The Canadian Soldier 1944-1945.

If one goes to various Internet Vendors selling the P-37 Web Equipment, they too often call them (as did the Vets and ex-service men using them) Bren Pouches, Ammo Pouches; and, sometimes mistakenly as "Basic Pouches".

The point trying to be made here is ... like todays military, and I'm sure this also holds true during WW2, personnel develop their own terminologies (including the instructors) for their equipment; and, also developed modified usage of this equipment, most oftenly during combat, which led to even further new given, generic, pet or made up names. Subsequently, these modifications were passed on back to the manufacturers, recorded in the "List of Changes" (some were not); and newer versions of the equipment were made. Look at the history of the Lee-Enfield No.4Mk1 rifle to name one example of thousands.

So if someone, a Vet and/or an ex-serviceman says that item there is a "Ammo Pouch", "Bren Pouch" or "Bren Gun Pouch"; and when worn in a certain manner, is called a "Bren Gun Bra" or "Bra" we all know its official name ... the Utility Pouch.

One other major point to mention here. Most often than not Vets using this equipment didn't know the propper names. They were tought what their instructors called it. That also applies for how they were to use it as well. In combat, even the lonely soldier wore his kit as it suited him and his needs, contrary to published regulations.

This is just more food to the fodder to chew on the subject.

Rgs...

Keyan

[Dave Page]

Hi,
I took a peek at the Perth Regiment (re-enacted) and saw the image mentioned, however that is not exactly how the set is meant to be worn. The problem is in the design, the rear pouch slides on the girth strap (for want of a better term) which allows it to creep toward the left and tend to slide off the shoulder when the haversack is not carried. I have a manual -somewhere- that shows how it should be worn.
Cheers,
Dave

[Ed Storey]

Here is what the 1937 Pattern Web Equipment manual has to say. At no time is the term 'Bren Bra' used.

[Mike Timoshyk]

Life is far too short......I have kept my thoughts to myself after several different threads....but you know...this whole thing about collecting and restoring and history in my mind is supposed to be fun....I have no time for the rude, the obnoxious and the high and mighty ..... by the way....I don't know about most....but I do know that although an AOR is called a tanker it really isn't is it?



Mike in Windsor

[Ed Storey]

Judging from your previous post, perhaps you should continue to keep your comments to yourself.

[Jordan Baker]

Mike, I'll have fun with you too. Just think how much fun we can have with making up more names for common equipment. Maybe I'll start calling my Bren Gun Mk1 a "Bren sniper machine gun" cause Ive heard somewhere (possibly the net, (thats internet, for those those that get hung up on such formalities) that they were really acurate and could could possibly or perhaps or even just maybe have been used to snipe with. Wow think how cool we will be when we show up at an event in uniform with our Bren sniper machine gun and Bren sniper machine gun bras.

Im not sure I can fully trust that latest set of pictures since they weren't written by a certain person. Oh wait, im also an author(Metal Craft Mag)(don't remember what pages or month cause I don't tell people with every chance I have but I do think you can still BUY SOME FROM ME IF YOU ARE INTERESTED) so let me climb up on my soap box. Actualy I'll use my Bren Gun Carrier (oh yah forgot, we are calling things by thier real name now, Universal Carrier Mk1*, just a sec forgot im now calling it "Bren sniper machine gun carrier) Now everyone will know what im talking about cause I said so (repeat part about being an author), still have some MetalCraft Mags to sell with my article in it by the way.

WOW I sure said alot with out being rude or high and mighty, obnoxious im still pondering that one. Mike, If I could High Five you over the internet I'd be doing it right now.

Ed, G.F.Y, in regards to your ability to continualy post pictures and quote line for line in verbatim from the manuals., Its oh so hopeful to eveyone out there. I don't really no what I'd do with out you. Oh wait a sec, I know, spend more time on other forums that I used to go to but for some reason that I can't quite put my finger on no longer do. If you're wondering about the G.F.Y. no I didn't mean that one, I ment the other one... but heck everyone can decide on their own since its a democracy


For everyone else out there, I'll continue to do my best at helping to answer your questions on anything carrier/CMP or whatever else and quite happily too. Let me do the googling or looking up in my books. So ask away I seem to have time since Im no longer writing books. But I did write one article for a magazine in case anyone cares.

Before I finish I do want to appologize for adding yet another post that has nothing to do with Utility Pouches, aka Bren Gun Bra's or the one I really like, Bren sniper machine gun Bren bra (I made that last one up by my loansome)

Happy hunting

PFC Baker, published author (in case your wondering about the PFC, it is my rank that I have earned (Private F (normal 4 letter word + ing) Civilian))

[kajn65]

Hi Dave, Ed and Others,

You made a valid point, Dave.

That is how the Sewn Canvas Version of the "Bren Gun Bra" (or,"Bra" as it was mostly referred to by the Vets using it) came about later on in the War. This new Sewn Canvas Version can only be worn with the pouches on the wearer's chest; and is referenced in the book, "The Canadian Soldier, D-Day to VE-Day 1944-1945". See Page 26?

As I said earlier, and have this backed up by the Vets (Bren Gunners-Infantry and Airborne) using this equipment and by War Museum Curators, ... the Uitlity Puches, when both worn on the wearer's chest, were called (although nicked-named such) the Bren Gun Bra. This nick-name and this manner worn of these pouches were not published in the manual that Ed is referencing. These were developed by the Instructors and/or Personnel using the Utility Pouches from Battalion to Battalion, Regiment to Regiment; and Unit to Unit. Most often than not, the proper terminology or usage of this equipment was not even taught to the common soldier. Again, this has been back up by the same method as described earlier.

So when the Utility Pouch is worn in the desribed manner above, the "Bren Gun Bra" and the "Utility Pouch" are the same thing. Again, according to the Vets ... "That's a no brainer."

Ed, would you be able to tell me where one could obtain a copy of the manual you mentioned earlier; and what they normally run for? I would love to have a copy.

Rgs...

Keyan

[Lang]

I suppose I should keep my mouth shut but can't resist.

The 37 pattern webbing was probably the most uncomfortable, ill-fitting carrying system of any army of the 20th century. Those who have worn it will say without a shadow of a doubt, it could not be carried for any length of time done up like the pictures in the manual.

The buckles were terrible - difficult to adjust, they slipped and anything requiring very tight straps meant you had to work on a loop out of half the buckle. The canvas was too thick and inflexible and had numerous seams which cut into your back and shoulders.

Look at any picture and you will see fellows with them high, low, pouches close at front or almost on their hips all trying to achieve the impossible goal of comfort.

I am quite sure if you trolled through photos of any British Commonwealth soldiers of the 30's-60's period you will see pouches (the Australian Army called them nothing but "basic pouches" or maybe "bren magazine basic pouches") being worn in every conceivable position, front, back, strapped to packs or hung off belts like cowboy six-shooters, some people with only one others with four.

I don't know about the Canadian Army but I spent a bit of time in the Australian Army and NOBODY called equipment by it's "correct" name. In fact the correct stocktake or Q-Store names are a source of endless juvenile jokes in the military ie Cover, Rubber or equiv, 6 inch, protection, penis, soldier for the use of.

Some of these posts remind me of the "experts" who come up during airshows and tell you the 1942 Stearman did not get a brown throttle knob until 3 serial numbers after your aircraft. They know a real lot about aeroplanes but they know Nothing about flying.

Soldiers are people, they don't talk like in the movies with sergeants and officers ordering people around in authoritative tones using military abbreviations and jargon as their main form of speech. As someone noted most soldiers from privates to generals (excluding Ordnance Corps and Q-Store people) would have no idea what the official book name is for half the equipment they use.

Let's lighten up.

Lang

[Alex Blair (RIP)]

Just my two cents worth but Lang is right..serving members call equipment by many names..most unprintable here..
When I first started my manuals business I could never find "Sherman" in any of the original Sherman US tank manuals...or "deuce and a half"....or "Comet"..or "Leopard"....or "Patton"...or "Stuart""..and on and on...
They are not there..
Either is "Grant"....and when you say "Sherman"...you better add a model number or else you won't get a proper answer..
Anyway that is my two cents..
And "Blitz"...you would have to be upside down...drinking beer ..eating Vegemite..and singing "Waltzing Matilda"..and too close to the Barbie and suffering from alcohol poisoning and heat stroke to come up with "Blitz" for a such a t'ing of beauty as a "CMP"...or there I go again...they ain't called that in the manuals either..

[Ed Storey]

I thought this post had finally run its course. What is even more surprising is that after the couple of weeks that this post has been on this forum that we now get some last minute input on how officially recognized 1940s names for Allied armoured vehicles somehow relates to made-up names by 1990s re-enactors for web-equipment.

Sure, the US 1940s maintenance manuals for the various US vehicles do not make reference to 'Sherman', 'Stuart' or 'Lee'; but have a look at the Second World War British vehicle manuals and they do make reference to those names. Just in case anyone is unfamiliar with these various names, the names such as 'Sherman', 'Lee', 'Grant' and 'Staghound' originated from British sources to denote the various armoured vehicles and these names are used in Second World War military documents when reporting vehicle strengths. At no time have I ever read of a unit during the Second World War reporting that it is holding 30 sets of 'Bren-bras'.

As for the age old excuse by those who like to dispute terminology, or anything military for that matter, but have no primary source material to back-up their arguments is, 'I was told by a Veteran'. That is all well and good but that excuse really does not add much to any discussion. Veterans are great people and we as a society owe them more than we can ever repay. I have a huge respect for Veterans, but and this is important, their recallections are just that, memories. What a Veteran remembers from 60 or 70 years ago has been clouded and altered over time. Veterean statements are only just one piece of the puzzle and should be regarded as that. Unfortunately, it is a well-used, all encompasing excuse employed as a smoke screen when no other proof can be provided.

The underlying topic of this discussion is that there are real, official names for much of this kit and equipment, whether it is for vehicles or for clothing. There is no reason to go and invent new names; so please, do not mistake the fanciful terms made up by re-enactors as any official or unofficial terminology, especially when for most, all they can bring to the table to defend their point is 'I was told by a Veteran'.

[Geoff Winnington-Ball (RIP)]

That'll be quite enough, thank you. I will tolerate NO personal attacks on MLU, regardless of whether you're right or wrong. In this case, there's probably an element of truth in what you ALL say - and certainly in Ed's correct identification. The rest is hear-say and is most likely based upon some truth or another, but is totally irrelevant to this conversation.

Jordan, I don't care whether you hate Ed Storey's guts (for whatever reason), but you will NOT bring this onto MLU. Sort this out on your own time. Understood?

Jif

[Jordan Baker]

No problemo Geoff, How could I hate a mans guts with all the knowledge he has stored inside of him for stuff that I love.

As for my previous (now unmentionable) posts they were "just a tad" tounge in cheek. All in good humour my good friend. I thought thats how they would be taken to "relieve" some of the strain and stress that was going on from those dreaded past few weeks.


For the record (if it matters) I too like to use the proper names for things. In the grand scheme of things (life) this stuff is pretty insignificant and this brings me back to my bit up above about being humourous.

But I will try my bestest to tone it down a wee bit if thats ok. (dont' realy get the skipping sheep but its there)