DAK questions...

[Dougmo]

Thanks for joing our board, Ron. We're grateful for your contributions-

Would it be correct for a circa 1941 DAK tanker to carry a pistol on a lanyard in his pocket instead of a pistol case on his belt? It seems like a good idea, and if so probably a P-38? Also, might a MG 34 gunner carrying the weapon - not an assistant - get by without an e-tool? I just don't want to get too far off base. Thanks!

 

[Ron V]

I very much appreciate all the welcoming comments
and I'll try to help out when I'm able. Certainly my friend Patrick "Heeresbergfuhrer" can certainly answer many of your questions and so can the SAG membership as I've
noticed.

As for your second question, yes, items of equipment went astray from time to time. While any soldier might consider his entrenching tool as second only to his weapon for survival's sake, I have seen photos of machine gunners without the shovel.

As for the pistol being carried in a pocket with a lanyard attached, perhaps it did happen, but most likely with a smaller pistol and no lanyard (that's something that was just looking for a chance to snag when a quick exit might be preferred). Personally, I'd be looking for period photos or narratives that confirmed such a practice. Certainly,
the mass of photographic evidences shows the standard belt and holster were preferred.

Cheers,
Ron V

 

[Unkn0wn]

Since we're talking about the wearing of equipment I have some observations that I could add.


From what I've seen on images of soldiers stationed in France, Belgium, The Netherlands, etc from 1940 - 1944, I noticed that I saw a variety in the stuff same ranking soldiers carried along. They all wore the same basics: Beadbag, water container, ammo pouches.

But I saw a small minority of them not carrying an E-tool.
(mainly gunners indeed but also an occasional regular soldier)
I'm guessing this is because they rarely had to dig in during the Western
Offense & occupation. (aside from the Ardennes Campaign)

And there were also a few not carrying gasmask containers.
This could possibly be explained because of the lack of gasmask usage then? Because frankly I don't understand why they kept those gasmasks for the entire duration of the war when hardly any gas weapons were used.

The only usage of a gasmask on picture that I have seen was from DAK.


Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but this has been the image I received from observing a wide variety of original pictures.

 

[Hammer's Africaners]

DAK

I checked a bunch of my books and found no evidence of a factory made pistol holder pockets in the uniforms, like the Bundeswehr of the 1970's and 1980's had in their tankers coveralls (the pistol was stored in a pocket in the armpit). Most of the tankers just had a belt and pistol holster. I didn't find any pictures either of men carrying the a pistol in their pocket, that doesn't mean it wasn't possible.

As for the entrenching tool, that too looks like both or just one of a MG crew would have one, I guess it was just preferance of equipment or what was available to the soldiers.

Hope this helps...........Hammer

 

[Dougmo]

Thanks so much, guys. I was intrigued by a recent question that featured the tanker from Kelly's Heroes who was sporting a lanyard with his pistol in his front pocket...just something that I'd not seen before.

 

[wolfpaw518]

Because frankly I don't understand why they kept those gasmasks for the entire duration of the war when hardly any gas weapons were used.

A DAK vet once said that gasmask containers were water and dust proof, many troops kept personal stuff in them...


neil