H.Johnson
One Too Many
- Messages
- 1,562
- Location
- Midlands, UK
I have just spent a couple of weeks working in Malaysia, researching the Malayan Emergency of 1948-1960 (or the 'Anti-British Liberation War' depending which side you were on) for a book a guy is writing on the subject.
As the work would involve several expeditions into the Malaysian primary rain forest to visit the sites of sigificant actions between the MNLA and Commonwealth forces, I thought it would be a good opportunity to try out some of the clothing and equipment that was used by the Commonwealth infantry. Basically, I wanted to see if the 1950 Pattern gear really was as unsuitable to jungle service as I have read in contemporary accounts.
I therefore organised a back-to-back test of three sets of clothing meeting the following criteria:
1. The clothing must be original and contemporary - no reproductions or modern equivalents;
2. The clothing should be accurate - as actually worn by serving units at the time and used in the operations I was researching;
3. The whole outfit (jacket, trousers and hat etc.) should cost less than 25 GBP;
4. The load-carrying equipment and footwear were the same in all three trials. The webbing, pouches and pack were contemporary 1944 pattern. As British canvas jungle boots from the period are rare, I used French jungle boots whch are close enough and cheap (<10 Euros) and common enough to wear out.
The pack load was authentic to the time (about 20 kilos) but obviously no weapons and ammunition were carried. I balance this by pointing out that I am more than forty years older than the average Commonwealth soldier* and so can't be expected to carry the same load.
* See Leslie Thomas's series of 'Virgin Soldiers' books.
So, the outfits to be tested were as follows:
1. A 1940s Indian-made British Army drill bush jacket and trousers with felt slouch hat, actually ex-Royal Engineers, but as worn by many infantry units;
2. A 1950 Pattern Aertex bush jacket and cross-over trousers with matching 1950 Pattern bush hat. The jacket was not modified in any way - removing the belt was common, as shown on the dummy in the Somerset Light Infantry Museum at Taunton;
3. A set of Ghurka jungle uniform in JG drill with 1950 Pattern bush hat. Note that the trousers are NOT the cross-over pattern.
The test was to wear the gear while following the type of forest trails* taken by the units being researched in actual actions, covering as much ground as the patrols would have covered. In all, three day long walks covering an average of ten miles each were made in each set of gear. This is reasonable for the jungle, and is probably more than the soldiers would have done in the actual actions, as a lot of time was spent lying in ambush.
* Some areas such as Kuala Langat, which were isolated and almost inaccessible in the 1950s are now developed into vacation resorts, palm oil plantations and even an international airport!
The results were that the 1950 Pattern gear performed very poorly, as was reported at the time. The Aertex soon became sodden and uncomfortable, the trouser buckles ground into my hips and the jacket belt caught up in the equipment belt. The cross-belt feature, which was intended to allow regular adjustment during a patrol as weight is lost through dehydration, did not work in practice. Everything that Mike Chappell says about the uniform (he served in the campaign) proved to be true. I would not recommend this outfit for use even in mild jungle exploration.
Both the 1940s Indian and the Ghurka Regiment uniforms were superior, with (perhaps predictably) little to choose between them, although I preferred the Ghurka shorts, which have no waist buckles to cause discomfort. Also, the Ghurka shirt was better in practice than the 1940s bush jacket. Unfortunately, the insects preferrred the shorts, too. I hope my Dengue fever injections work...The drill material of both did become sodden, but not to the same extent as the Aertex and dried out more quickly. The felt slouch hat looked the part but the leather sweat band became uncomfortable when soaked. I used the old trick of wetting the canvas bush hats to keep my head cool. It works.
The 1944 Pattern load carrying equipment and boots performed well. It would have been instructive to include the previous 1944 Pattern 'Lethbridge' jungle outfit in the test to go with the webbing, but the cost of an original example would rule this out.
So...what? Well, I think I found that British equipment specification, does not always 'move forward', that you should avoid Aertex in high humidity situations* and that the Ghurkas know best. I hope this information is useful to potential vintage explorers.
* Results in desert conditions may be different.
As the work would involve several expeditions into the Malaysian primary rain forest to visit the sites of sigificant actions between the MNLA and Commonwealth forces, I thought it would be a good opportunity to try out some of the clothing and equipment that was used by the Commonwealth infantry. Basically, I wanted to see if the 1950 Pattern gear really was as unsuitable to jungle service as I have read in contemporary accounts.
I therefore organised a back-to-back test of three sets of clothing meeting the following criteria:
1. The clothing must be original and contemporary - no reproductions or modern equivalents;
2. The clothing should be accurate - as actually worn by serving units at the time and used in the operations I was researching;
3. The whole outfit (jacket, trousers and hat etc.) should cost less than 25 GBP;
4. The load-carrying equipment and footwear were the same in all three trials. The webbing, pouches and pack were contemporary 1944 pattern. As British canvas jungle boots from the period are rare, I used French jungle boots whch are close enough and cheap (<10 Euros) and common enough to wear out.
The pack load was authentic to the time (about 20 kilos) but obviously no weapons and ammunition were carried. I balance this by pointing out that I am more than forty years older than the average Commonwealth soldier* and so can't be expected to carry the same load.
* See Leslie Thomas's series of 'Virgin Soldiers' books.
So, the outfits to be tested were as follows:
1. A 1940s Indian-made British Army drill bush jacket and trousers with felt slouch hat, actually ex-Royal Engineers, but as worn by many infantry units;
2. A 1950 Pattern Aertex bush jacket and cross-over trousers with matching 1950 Pattern bush hat. The jacket was not modified in any way - removing the belt was common, as shown on the dummy in the Somerset Light Infantry Museum at Taunton;
3. A set of Ghurka jungle uniform in JG drill with 1950 Pattern bush hat. Note that the trousers are NOT the cross-over pattern.
The test was to wear the gear while following the type of forest trails* taken by the units being researched in actual actions, covering as much ground as the patrols would have covered. In all, three day long walks covering an average of ten miles each were made in each set of gear. This is reasonable for the jungle, and is probably more than the soldiers would have done in the actual actions, as a lot of time was spent lying in ambush.
* Some areas such as Kuala Langat, which were isolated and almost inaccessible in the 1950s are now developed into vacation resorts, palm oil plantations and even an international airport!
The results were that the 1950 Pattern gear performed very poorly, as was reported at the time. The Aertex soon became sodden and uncomfortable, the trouser buckles ground into my hips and the jacket belt caught up in the equipment belt. The cross-belt feature, which was intended to allow regular adjustment during a patrol as weight is lost through dehydration, did not work in practice. Everything that Mike Chappell says about the uniform (he served in the campaign) proved to be true. I would not recommend this outfit for use even in mild jungle exploration.
Both the 1940s Indian and the Ghurka Regiment uniforms were superior, with (perhaps predictably) little to choose between them, although I preferred the Ghurka shorts, which have no waist buckles to cause discomfort. Also, the Ghurka shirt was better in practice than the 1940s bush jacket. Unfortunately, the insects preferrred the shorts, too. I hope my Dengue fever injections work...The drill material of both did become sodden, but not to the same extent as the Aertex and dried out more quickly. The felt slouch hat looked the part but the leather sweat band became uncomfortable when soaked. I used the old trick of wetting the canvas bush hats to keep my head cool. It works.
The 1944 Pattern load carrying equipment and boots performed well. It would have been instructive to include the previous 1944 Pattern 'Lethbridge' jungle outfit in the test to go with the webbing, but the cost of an original example would rule this out.
So...what? Well, I think I found that British equipment specification, does not always 'move forward', that you should avoid Aertex in high humidity situations* and that the Ghurkas know best. I hope this information is useful to potential vintage explorers.
* Results in desert conditions may be different.
