There are adjustable Utility Straps that fit onto the rear of the Yoke for rolled items such as the NBC suit/ jacket/Smock. Each Utility "Strap" was of 20mm width. Each consisted of TWO straps each with a plastic D ring (as on the Rear Pouch for the Yoke) at the end. The shorter strap terminated in a ladder lock buckle (as on the Utility Pouches). The longer strap fed through this buckle to enable adjustment. (from memory of my collection which is in deep storage) The rucksack for this set is almost identical to the GS Rucksack. The side pockets had those breakable black pronged fasteners (on the Utility Pouches), the sleeve for the frame had weird button holes woven into it and the frame was shallower than the standard frame adopted later. These 1972 dated spine-bashing frames had FLAT shoulder strap rings at the top instead of the round wire ones that came later. The set is utterly hopeless to tab in. I tried that when I was a teenager, training prior to service.
I'll have to keep an eye out for the utility straps, who knows I might turn some up! I've had chance to have a good look over an example of the trial rucksack but alas I think they will remain well outside my price range for the foreseeable unless I manage to find an example being sold by somewhat who doesn't know what it is. Interesting to hear of your experience. It's quite clear from the trial that even higher ups realised it was a rather flawed design!
When I first played about with this set (bought for collection), I initially thought the single mag pouches were SLR magazine pouches - then discounted the idea for several reasons: 1) the second snap socket allows adjustment for something other than a 20rd SLR magazine; 2) there's no provision for SMG and LMG magazines; there's no provision for GPMG link, and; no provision for grenades. I quickly reasoned that the large (utility) side pouches were the actual ammo pouches, the mag pouches being for items such as RCK and/or compasses (prismatic marching compass, from memory, does fit). You've done more research on this set than I have so I'm happy to concede that my original conclusion is likely wrong. It's clear to me that this design was created by non-soldiers as an experiment, a sort of portfolio of new ideas for revising Fighting Order. Put a range of new features into a set, get troops to trial it and see what's worth incorporating into a production set. They also manufactured the ridiculous 30rd/50rd(?) link GPMG bandolier sleeves - which did get adopted for service. Fiddly to fill, with an inadequate amount of link for use in a firefight. It WAS used during the Falklands War. I'm guessing that some GPMG link was only resupplied in these bandoliers, not reused by soldiers. I can only imagine these things being of any use in the Arctic or in incredibly muddy/dusty areas. But it seems to me that the '72/'75 design idea might have been that link should NOT be carried in this CEFO, these bandoliers to be used instead. Just an idea but I'm wondering that the wholly inadequate single mag pouch might have been intended for use primarily during the assault through a position, a bandolier for mags being intended to be carried for the rest of the time. When the SA80 entered service, I vaguely recall a bandolier for magazines being trialled/issued, the Radway Green mags being designer intended to be disposable (as were the original 20rd Colt/Armalite ones when the M16 entered US service - if the rumours were true). I'm pondering this design intention, 'cause a single mag pouch is absurd and the design doctrine with patterns '37, '44 and '58 was that the small pack/kidney pouches were intended to be removed and dropped off prior to an assault on enemy positions. Battle/Fighting Order becoming Assault(?) Order. This set doesn't enable the rear pouch to be dropped off. The doctrine of section attacks was still being taught this way when I was a recruit in the mid-1980s. Instead of dropping kidney pouches, they ALWAYS remained on the belt - it was daysacks/bergens to be dropped off. When we converted to PLCE, it was the side pouch daysacks that would be dropped off with some poor bloke from the supporting fire team having to carry the assaulting fire team's daysacks into the consolidated final position (that soon changed!). I'd be most interested in your feedback, if you might have encountered any evidence or design suggestions that may support this idea. ## I read somewhere that a waistbelt was later produced because of top brass complaints of this set, for use in barracks. Oddly called a Pattern '72 or '73 waistbelt in CQMS parlance - further proof indeed of the erraticly flawed nomenclature of the MoD. Made from dark, bottle green corlene, it was a nasty thing. Stiff with a loose weave, it was uncomfortable to use as a trousers belt. Most commonly seen on barracks dress trousers and No2 Dress (in my time). Worn in place of a stable belt by recruits at Depot PARA and MUCH hated. It was supplied to units in a 50 metre or so roll, cut by the QM C/Sgt for issue. It used the clasp of a '58 waistbelt and matching corlene keepers, something like 15mm width. There was also a matching bayonet frog to this waistbelt - for drill/parades. There were (and remains?) white versions of these - I think the white parade bayonet frog for the SA80 bayonet is made from this material.
I nearly forgot to add that there was a white corlene SLR rifle sling for parades - but I suspect that this was just a commercial item. The "genuine" one I'd bought from a certain army surplus store in London's East End has no markings on the brass fittings...
@@simonsignolet5632 There is an article I have a copy of which shows something of the load to be carried and the main photograph does show a 20 round SLR magazine carried in the small front pouches which is the purpose I went with. The same photograph shows the left hand utility pouch also carrying 4 SLR magazines which raises the question why bother with the single magazine front pouch at all. As regards design I can see what they were going for having read the rationale behind the design but it falls far short of a practical application of the ideas they were mooting I think... I think it did serve the purpose you mention of getting soldiers to comment on the features they did/didn't like but from what I've read it does seem a practical load bearing equipment was the aim of the game not just a trial item to generate feedback from those testing it. I think the idea of the rear pouch not being dropped was exactly as you say in line with thinking at the time, much as the kidney pouches had the quick release tabs on '58 Pattern I've never heard of them being dropped before going into action, not speaking from experience of course just from what I've gleaned from reading and talking to people. As this was the case I suppose they thought there was no need for the 1975 Pattern rear pouch/pack to be easily dropped and I think the almost assault-vest set up of the equipment is meant to make it more comfortable to wear all the time, I imagine it would bounce around less than kidney pouches as it is much more securely held against the body and better supported. I could be wrong but I think that both white nylon slings and a white version of the horrible nylon working belts (worn with a locket buckle), plus white nylon frog were issue items for a time.
Yep came across the dark green plastic belt. It was standard on working dress in Royal Signals, worn on lightweights in shirt sleeve order, or over the woolly pully or combat jacket otherwise, e.g. parade before stagging on. We had to respray the brass clasps with British racing green spray paint (simply because olive green exact shade as issued wasn't really available) if they got a bit chipped. Because of the copious amounts of bovine excrement prevalent in most scaley units we weren't allowed to wear a 58 ptn belt (if we had a buckshee one) in place of it. White one was worn by RPs, with brass clasps.
@@simonh6371 That belt you're referring to had nothing to do with 1975 pattern webbing which didn't actually have a belt in the first place. Instead, the pouches clipped together and there was as sort length of strap on the two end ones which buckled together. That nasty and completely superfluous plastic belt that was issued in the mid'70's was actually some experimental strapping they trialed which didn't work out and was just issued in lengths as a belt instead. Mine came with a green anodised buckle similar to the '58 pattern type. Pleased to say that after looking at them with some bemusement for a short time they were "disappeared" en masse by the whole battalion and never seen or heard of again.
@@paddy864 Okay thanks for clarification! Actually it makes sense, as the 75 ptn webbing wasn't so bad by the looks of it, but that nasty plastic belt was. Not surprised that your bn didn't take to them, unfortunately R Signals were more bullshitty so such a thing couldn't have happened.
there was loads of this knocking around when i was in the army cadets in early 1980s, someone in Suffolk must have got a job lot. One of the problems with it was the attachment from ammo to "Butt pack" wasn't sufficient and worked lose when moving about. Another great video buy the way
Somehow my Dad had a set of this which he gave me for Cadets back in like 87 or so. Everyone took the piss and I was encouraged to bin it and get a proper set of 58 pattern! Wish I still had it. I do remember that as a skinny 14 year old, the thing was way too big, even with everything tightened, there is only a certain amount of adjustment with no belt.
I have (had) P58 and PLCE, from the P58 point of view this looks quite advanced and plastic looking, from the PLCE point of view it looks quite ancient~ Interesting on the low magazine capacity on this type~ Very nice presentation there :D
It's an interesting transitional step, I hope to do a video on the nylon version of the 1958 Pattern at some point but I'd like to get the set to a more complete state first, that really is an interesting transitional piece! I'd note here that it's intended that at least one of the utility pouches would carry ammunition and you can fit a good number of magazines in them. The small pouches at the front are I suppose meant to provide a couple of magazines for easy access to be replaced from the supply in the utility pouches once used.
@@RiflemanMoore Any idea of what the MoD called the nylon version of the Patt '58, beyond "Pattern 1958, Mk2"? It isn't half confusing. I've always considered the set in this presentation to be "Trails '72" and the nylon '58 as "Trails '75" or Trials '76" (I can't remember which, my kit being inaccessable to me). (I went by the manufacture dates printed on the trials items.) Might the MoD NOT know what they're doing... ;-)
@@simonsignolet5632 This is certainly officially known as the 1975 Pattern and the nylon 1958 as 1958 Pattern Mk 2. You are correct in that all the trials items of 1975 Pattern are seemingly dated '72 or '73 but that doesn't dictate official nomenclature much like 1990 Pattern PLCE with many components dated 1989.
too be quite honest the only thing on this kit that I really liked is the buckle on the fastening strap, I can the plastic buckles on the large pouches getting broke real quick in a combat situation, kinda glad the troops never really had to put up with this
Very informative and useful video. I appreciate It very much. Thanks for your effort in explaining equipments under both users and collectors point or views. The design of this webbing model is certainly not perfect, but It was an interim and experimenal issue that provided for sure useful informations to many design and development agencies also outside the UK. In fact It seems to me that its original beltless concept and architecture largely influenced the optimum israelian Ephod webbing. Cheers from an italian enthusiast collector of british militaria. Giorgio.
I have a set of this it's a very interesting piece of kit. I was a soldier from 1985-2007 so used 58 , PLCE in green then DPM . My first impression of 72 pattern was it fits together very easily and intuitively with Mags in the left utility pouch seems a reasonable workable piece of kit. it fits well and is comfortable (I didn't load it up or run around the woods so that is my opinion from my experience of other systems). Now the big fault I found was the intended adjustability led to a webbing set that literally disassembles itself as you carry it as the buckle tension is only maintained when you wear it. Now imagine reassembling your webbing every time you put it on and you will see why it got slated in trials. I have not ever run across the rucksack but they appear to have them in one episode of the 70's 80's TV series Spearhead.
Very interesting to hear this assessment, thank you for sharing! I understand the rucksack is essentially a precursor to the GS Rucksack but similarly I've never seen one of the original 1972 Pattern rucksacks.
@@RiflemanMoore taking a closer look the small single pouches appear to be L2 Frag Grenade size. I don't have a drill L2 on hand but a US M2 frag does fit. this would make more sense than a single mag perhaps.
I absolutely agree with that but I did base the idea of the pouches holding magazines on an old article which showed the pouches being used to hold a single magazine. The article does also show them being used to holding something cylindrical with a lip at the bottom which I can only imagine to be smoke grenades.
@@RiflemanMoore I think I have seen the same article. I have so many unanswered questions I fear we will never learn the answers to. Keep up the great channel.
With the ship fires during the Falklands. Its just as well this Nylon gear was not issued. The plastic woven belts caused enough burns as it is. This gear would certainly be easier to decontaminate. A definite problem for the Cotton '58 pattern. The utility pouch closures must be real fun to use with cold or numb fingers. Lots of little fiddly fastenings on this pattern.
What a terrible design. For instance , how are you going to maintain an aggressive fighting force without them enduring the struggle of replacing your waterbottle & mug into a wet '58 pattern pouch.
Not to mention the joy of securing a sleeping bang to the 58 Pattern Large Pack with frozen hands, at 3 in the morning in a dripping wet and bitterly cold forestry block in Brecon, when the straps provided are not only too short but have the metal ends missing. Extra fun-points are awarded for having sleeping-bag that was too short and with a broken zip.
Not too much to be honest, less than £100 in total I think, difficult to say as I bought it with a hacked about rear pouch and replaced it with this complete example some time later.
Thanks for the information, very interesting. Particularly the reasons for its rejection. What were your thoughts on the set? Particularly how kit was carried in it.
That gear is new to me, thanks for the very informative video. One can see that it is based loosely on US M1956/67 and British '44 pattern web gear. Wish I had that gear instead of '58. Wonder why it was never introduced? Additional edit...I had a friend who had the so called '80's "SAS" vest, 2 large pouches on the front with an open wove suspender/harness system attached with a rear pouch, possibly the size of the 2 '58 pattern kidney pouches that sat high on the back like a small pack. He bought this back in '82/83. Was the envy of the other Army Cadets. Can you do a video on this gear please?....it is still quite an unknown bit of field gear.....Ta muchly in advance.
It's an interesting set, definitely an improvement being made of nylon but perhaps not as functional as 1958 Pattern in some aspects. The nylon version of 1958 Pattern is my favourite. I'm afraid I don't have an example of the Pack, Combat, Lightweight to make a video on, as you say it's a very interesting piece of kit.
Bravo Two Zero has photo of the author all geared up. Wearing one of those packs. Also in another pic of belt kit. I read that they were developed in the late 60s. Troops liked the concept, but the closures were difficult to use. Kept coming open.
Lack of belt reduces versatility because the large pouch in the centre / back can't be removed, whereas on the 58 pattern it was possible to wear it without kidney pouches, which was the case I believe in NI on urban patrols, where just ammo pouches and water bottle were carried. The other major drawback of not having a belt is that there is no way to attach the respirator case. Otherwise I like the pouches, except for the ammo pouches being too small and the yoke. I bet these are now like rocking horse shit though so could be difficult to get hold of for bushcrafting purposes.
The issues you have raised were all reported on by troops during trials so very valid criticisms which seem to run completely contrary to the ideas behind desinging this set of equipment. I would temper the comment on the respirator case in that it can be slung around the waist on the integral strap so that is a relatively minor issue. Indeed it was policy to carry the respirator haversack separate from the belt by the time the Gulf War rolled around. These sets are fairly rare now as you say but I believe Silvermans have some components in stock.
@@RiflemanMoore Came back to watch this again 2 years on after reading about this kit on the site ''tales from the supply depot'' which I guess you are familiar with. Anyway to return to our dialogue albeit late, I can say from experience that carrying the respirator around the waist using the integral strap would not have been popular, it would have been a pain in the arse to be honest as the strap was thin and would have cut into the waist and it would have slid around the place, as well as presenting all kinds of opportunities for entanglement and riding up on the wearer. It's too late now but I hope that in a parallel universe this trial webbing was modified after the trials to facilitate carrying the respirator case to the right of the large centre pouch, and a padded nylon roll belt was introduced allowing different configurations. In that alternative timeline, soldiers from 1975 onwards were spared the tribulations of trying to squeeze water bottles into wet, shrunken 58 pattern pouches in the rain in Sennybridge or Vogelsang training areas. Also in that idealised parallel universe, the army took notice of the fact that many soldiers preferred the 44 pattern canteen and cup over the Osprey setup and introduced a stainless cup which the canteen nested into, instead of waiting more than 2 decades (to introduce the Crusader kit) and damning squaddies to spend their hard earned beer money on expensive purchases from Silvermans and Survival Aids.
Carrying the respirator haversack on its own strap looped around the waist was standard procedure in the Gulf in 1990/1991 and from those I've spoken to about their experiences they didn't mention it presenting a problem.
Hi , not all the seems were or had the edges stitched but heat sealed , they came apart , the ready ammo was to small for 5 mags , so the other pouch , the kidney pouch had to be used for spare mags , this cut down the small kit .. washing and shaving space mess tins , cleaning kit personnel hygiene boots cleaning kit , not a lot of space for a 24 hr rat pak and hexi burner , no place for the s6 respirator, the pick head cut a hole in the went thru the pouch as i ran , the yoke was to thin an not a lot of padding to attributed the weight , in BAOR we needed to carry nbc kit with over boots .. normally kept in the poncho bum roll , it was noisy when movement in scrub or northern European Forrest, , it needed constant adjusting to fit snug the straps slipped a lot , any squarer metal put into it would scrape and cut the sides of the back pack , the unit was issued a heat sealer to make extra pouches or repair to the damaged ones , but it needed a 10kva gen set to heat it up , not a good idea for a feilf force unit to lug about in the cuds , 58 was robust and fitted a lot beater , i thought i had landed in heaven when i got it ... little did i realize , it was a lot of hassle, always getting a blocking for the m noise it made
I can imagine! I wish I'd been of an age to start collecting seriously before I did when some rare kit was more readily available. I'd hate to think of starting from scratch now.
I had some rare and/or highly collectable items which I customised as a squaddie. This was before I got into serious collecting. It hurts to think of that "vandalism" now. A pair of WWI long puttees being cut mid-length to make 2x pairs of short puttees; first issue (canvas) mint condition SR6 respirator pouches converted to replace kidney pouches (and it didn't work well enough to use); mint condition trials kidney pouches being cut apart for use in bushcraft... One of my mates cut a first issue half zip Denison, got it made as full zip (modern zip) and turned it into a ghillie top... I'd better stop at that before I start crying...
@@simonsignolet5632 It's amazing the stuff that got used up that way! Another example is the famous case of a chap buying an original WW2 skeleton battle jerkin from Silvermans and camouflaging it with streaks of paint for use in NI to carry L4 magazines. Amazing really. Beyond that I bet many squaddies would be amazed what many people fork out for relatively mundane kit on the collectors market today!
I bet the nylon was so noisy it would give the soldiers' positions away when you moved with it. Having purchased a waterproof proof nylon combat jacket in the eighties for exercise I soon found it was not a good idea unlike the issue cotton DP combat jacket that was totally silent.
I'm not sure nylon equipment is as bad as nylon clothing for producing noise, not something I can speak with any authority on but I'll ask some of my friends currently serving when I can, all modern British issue load carrying equipment is nylon so I don't imagine it can be too much of a problem. Velcro on the other hand...
More Sandhurst-isms. If you are that close to the enemy that they can hear your nylon jacket or velcro, then it's all gone Pete Tong. And tthe only time you would need to tear open a velcro pouch is during a reload in a firefight, so it's all a bit noisy and the enemy knows you're there.
I'm not sure it's entirely a Sandhurst-ism, I've read several chap's opinions on the early nylon waterproofs in Northern Ireland in the late '70s and early '80s. The general consensus being that they were fine for urban patrols but far too noisy for use in certain rural operations when stealth was warranted. As for the velcro again it's something I've heard differing opinions on. I would point to the fact that the velcro can be blanked off on PLCE pouches (water bottle and utility too, not just ammunition) as evidence for the design being influenced by concerns over the noise of the velcro being undesirable in certain situations.
@@PORRRIDGE_GUN Consider close target recce, regarding the nylon jacket/trousers... We weren't allowed to wear the things unless it was bucketing down, the sound of torrential rain limiting the noise made by these over garments. If you're advancing to contact, you wouldn't want to wear the things because of the noise, you'd want to get as far forward as possible before being contacted. We used to get soaked and stay soaked, most exercises prior to the mid-1990s...
01-May-20: If you want the correct trials backpack for this set: www.ebay.co.uk/itm/274351107053 The frame looks like a newer, standard issue one - but might be a trials variant for all I know. The original trials ones had sheet steel rings for the shoulder straps instead of the thick steel wire rings. My trials backpack has a weird buttonhole affair woven into the strap component of the upper pocket for the frame - unlike this one for sale. There are normally two for the frame rings - but mine goes all along that strap fabric. Just variants in the trials, I'm sure.
Who thought carrying two extra mags would be enough? Always wonder how much input the troops that have to wear this stuff in combat have? Not just in UK but any country. Some designs are just useless. Some general or colonel with nothing to do I guess.
The intention is that you carry more magazines in one or more of the utility pouches but I agree two 'ready' magazines in the individual pockets seems wanting.
There are adjustable Utility Straps that fit onto the rear of the Yoke for rolled items such as the NBC suit/ jacket/Smock. Each Utility "Strap" was of 20mm width. Each consisted of TWO straps each with a plastic D ring (as on the Rear Pouch for the Yoke) at the end. The shorter strap terminated in a ladder lock buckle (as on the Utility Pouches). The longer strap fed through this buckle to enable adjustment. (from memory of my collection which is in deep storage)
The rucksack for this set is almost identical to the GS Rucksack. The side pockets had those breakable black pronged fasteners (on the Utility Pouches), the sleeve for the frame had weird button holes woven into it and the frame was shallower than the standard frame adopted later. These 1972 dated spine-bashing frames had FLAT shoulder strap rings at the top instead of the round wire ones that came later.
The set is utterly hopeless to tab in. I tried that when I was a teenager, training prior to service.
I'll have to keep an eye out for the utility straps, who knows I might turn some up! I've had chance to have a good look over an example of the trial rucksack but alas I think they will remain well outside my price range for the foreseeable unless I manage to find an example being sold by somewhat who doesn't know what it is.
Interesting to hear of your experience. It's quite clear from the trial that even higher ups realised it was a rather flawed design!
Here we go - pics of the fabled Utility Straps and spine-bashing frame:
iacmc.forumotion.com/t11963-1972-pattern-webbing-what-parts-does-it-encompass
The two popper on the ammo pouches are for: SLR mags, and the 30rnd M16 magazines.
I'm pretty sure this was called Butyl nylon. The GS & Para Bergens were made from the same material.
When I first played about with this set (bought for collection), I initially thought the single mag pouches were SLR magazine pouches - then discounted the idea for several reasons: 1) the second snap socket allows adjustment for something other than a 20rd SLR magazine; 2) there's no provision for SMG and LMG magazines; there's no provision for GPMG link, and; no provision for grenades.
I quickly reasoned that the large (utility) side pouches were the actual ammo pouches, the mag pouches being for items such as RCK and/or compasses (prismatic marching compass, from memory, does fit).
You've done more research on this set than I have so I'm happy to concede that my original conclusion is likely wrong. It's clear to me that this design was created by non-soldiers as an experiment, a sort of portfolio of new ideas for revising Fighting Order. Put a range of new features into a set, get troops to trial it and see what's worth incorporating into a production set.
They also manufactured the ridiculous 30rd/50rd(?) link GPMG bandolier sleeves - which did get adopted for service. Fiddly to fill, with an inadequate amount of link for use in a firefight. It WAS used during the Falklands War. I'm guessing that some GPMG link was only resupplied in these bandoliers, not reused by soldiers. I can only imagine these things being of any use in the Arctic or in incredibly muddy/dusty areas. But it seems to me that the '72/'75 design idea might have been that link should NOT be carried in this CEFO, these bandoliers to be used instead.
Just an idea but I'm wondering that the wholly inadequate single mag pouch might have been intended for use primarily during the assault through a position, a bandolier for mags being intended to be carried for the rest of the time. When the SA80 entered service, I vaguely recall a bandolier for magazines being trialled/issued, the Radway Green mags being designer intended to be disposable (as were the original 20rd Colt/Armalite ones when the M16 entered US service - if the rumours were true).
I'm pondering this design intention, 'cause a single mag pouch is absurd and the design doctrine with patterns '37, '44 and '58 was that the small pack/kidney pouches were intended to be removed and dropped off prior to an assault on enemy positions. Battle/Fighting Order becoming Assault(?) Order. This set doesn't enable the rear pouch to be dropped off.
The doctrine of section attacks was still being taught this way when I was a recruit in the mid-1980s. Instead of dropping kidney pouches, they ALWAYS remained on the belt - it was daysacks/bergens to be dropped off. When we converted to PLCE, it was the side pouch daysacks that would be dropped off with some poor bloke from the supporting fire team having to carry the assaulting fire team's daysacks into the consolidated final position (that soon changed!).
I'd be most interested in your feedback, if you might have encountered any evidence or design suggestions that may support this idea.
##
I read somewhere that a waistbelt was later produced because of top brass complaints of this set, for use in barracks. Oddly called a Pattern '72 or '73 waistbelt in CQMS parlance - further proof indeed of the erraticly flawed nomenclature of the MoD.
Made from dark, bottle green corlene, it was a nasty thing. Stiff with a loose weave, it was uncomfortable to use as a trousers belt. Most commonly seen on barracks dress trousers and No2 Dress (in my time). Worn in place of a stable belt by recruits at Depot PARA and MUCH hated.
It was supplied to units in a 50 metre or so roll, cut by the QM C/Sgt for issue. It used the clasp of a '58 waistbelt and matching corlene keepers, something like 15mm width.
There was also a matching bayonet frog to this waistbelt - for drill/parades. There were (and remains?) white versions of these - I think the white parade bayonet frog for the SA80 bayonet is made from this material.
I nearly forgot to add that there was a white corlene SLR rifle sling for parades - but I suspect that this was just a commercial item. The "genuine" one I'd bought from a certain army surplus store in London's East End has no markings on the brass fittings...
@@simonsignolet5632 There is an article I have a copy of which shows something of the load to be carried and the main photograph does show a 20 round SLR magazine carried in the small front pouches which is the purpose I went with. The same photograph shows the left hand utility pouch also carrying 4 SLR magazines which raises the question why bother with the single magazine front pouch at all.
As regards design I can see what they were going for having read the rationale behind the design but it falls far short of a practical application of the ideas they were mooting I think... I think it did serve the purpose you mention of getting soldiers to comment on the features they did/didn't like but from what I've read it does seem a practical load bearing equipment was the aim of the game not just a trial item to generate feedback from those testing it.
I think the idea of the rear pouch not being dropped was exactly as you say in line with thinking at the time, much as the kidney pouches had the quick release tabs on '58 Pattern I've never heard of them being dropped before going into action, not speaking from experience of course just from what I've gleaned from reading and talking to people. As this was the case I suppose they thought there was no need for the 1975 Pattern rear pouch/pack to be easily dropped and I think the almost assault-vest set up of the equipment is meant to make it more comfortable to wear all the time, I imagine it would bounce around less than kidney pouches as it is much more securely held against the body and better supported.
I could be wrong but I think that both white nylon slings and a white version of the horrible nylon working belts (worn with a locket buckle), plus white nylon frog were issue items for a time.
Yep came across the dark green plastic belt. It was standard on working dress in Royal Signals, worn on lightweights in shirt sleeve order, or over the woolly pully or combat jacket otherwise, e.g. parade before stagging on. We had to respray the brass clasps with British racing green spray paint (simply because olive green exact shade as issued wasn't really available) if they got a bit chipped. Because of the copious amounts of bovine excrement prevalent in most scaley units we weren't allowed to wear a 58 ptn belt (if we had a buckshee one) in place of it.
White one was worn by RPs, with brass clasps.
@@simonh6371 That belt you're referring to had nothing to do with 1975 pattern webbing which didn't actually have a belt in the first place. Instead, the pouches clipped together and there was as sort length of strap on the two end ones which buckled together. That nasty and completely superfluous plastic belt that was issued in the mid'70's was actually some experimental strapping they trialed which didn't work out and was just issued in lengths as a belt instead. Mine came with a green anodised buckle similar to the '58 pattern type. Pleased to say that after looking at them with some bemusement for a short time they were "disappeared" en masse by the whole battalion and never seen or heard of again.
@@paddy864 Okay thanks for clarification! Actually it makes sense, as the 75 ptn webbing wasn't so bad by the looks of it, but that nasty plastic belt was. Not surprised that your bn didn't take to them, unfortunately R Signals were more bullshitty so such a thing couldn't have happened.
there was loads of this knocking around when i was in the army cadets in early 1980s, someone in Suffolk must have got a job lot.
One of the problems with it was the attachment from ammo to "Butt pack" wasn't sufficient and worked lose when moving about.
Another great video buy the way
Thanks for the info. I guess the Army sold it all off around that time.
Somehow my Dad had a set of this which he gave me for Cadets back in like 87 or so. Everyone took the piss and I was encouraged to bin it and get a proper set of 58 pattern! Wish I still had it. I do remember that as a skinny 14 year old, the thing was way too big, even with everything tightened, there is only a certain amount of adjustment with no belt.
I have (had) P58 and PLCE, from the P58 point of view this looks quite advanced and plastic looking, from the PLCE point of view it looks quite ancient~ Interesting on the low magazine capacity on this type~
Very nice presentation there :D
It's an interesting transitional step, I hope to do a video on the nylon version of the 1958 Pattern at some point but I'd like to get the set to a more complete state first, that really is an interesting transitional piece!
I'd note here that it's intended that at least one of the utility pouches would carry ammunition and you can fit a good number of magazines in them. The small pouches at the front are I suppose meant to provide a couple of magazines for easy access to be replaced from the supply in the utility pouches once used.
Ah so the concept of having a secure supply but a quick immediate access pool?
That's what I've inferred from the design.
@@RiflemanMoore Any idea of what the MoD called the nylon version of the Patt '58, beyond "Pattern 1958, Mk2"?
It isn't half confusing.
I've always considered the set in this presentation to be "Trails '72" and the nylon '58 as "Trails '75" or Trials '76" (I can't remember which, my kit being inaccessable to me). (I went by the manufacture dates printed on the trials items.)
Might the MoD NOT know what they're doing... ;-)
@@simonsignolet5632 This is certainly officially known as the 1975 Pattern and the nylon 1958 as 1958 Pattern Mk 2. You are correct in that all the trials items of 1975 Pattern are seemingly dated '72 or '73 but that doesn't dictate official nomenclature much like 1990 Pattern PLCE with many components dated 1989.
too be quite honest the only thing on this kit that I really liked is the buckle on the fastening strap, I can the plastic buckles on the large pouches getting broke real quick in a combat situation, kinda glad the troops never really had to put up with this
It does seem inherently flawed, reading the design brief I can see what they were trying to do but it didn't really work.
Very informative and useful video. I appreciate It very much. Thanks for your effort in explaining equipments under both users and collectors point or views.
The design of this webbing model is certainly not perfect, but It was an interim and experimenal issue that provided for sure useful informations to many design and development agencies also outside the UK.
In fact It seems to me that its original beltless concept and architecture largely influenced the optimum israelian Ephod webbing.
Cheers from an italian enthusiast collector of british militaria.
Giorgio.
Many thanks Giorgio, I'm really glad you found the video interesting! Will look into the Ephod webbing, sounds interesting.
Any idea what the buckles under the magazinepouches at the front are for?
Not at present, I shall do some more digging.
@@RiflemanMoore Thanks, that'd be great, I can't find even a single mention of it anywhere and I'm quite curious what to do with it on my set
I have a set of this it's a very interesting piece of kit. I was a soldier from 1985-2007 so used 58 , PLCE in green then DPM . My first impression of 72 pattern was it fits together very easily and intuitively with Mags in the left utility pouch seems a reasonable workable piece of kit. it fits well and is comfortable (I didn't load it up or run around the woods so that is my opinion from my experience of other systems). Now the big fault I found was the intended adjustability led to a webbing set that literally disassembles itself as you carry it as the buckle tension is only maintained when you wear it. Now imagine reassembling your webbing every time you put it on and you will see why it got slated in trials. I have not ever run across the rucksack but they appear to have them in one episode of the 70's 80's TV series Spearhead.
Very interesting to hear this assessment, thank you for sharing! I understand the rucksack is essentially a precursor to the GS Rucksack but similarly I've never seen one of the original 1972 Pattern rucksacks.
@@RiflemanMoore taking a closer look the small single pouches appear to be L2 Frag Grenade size. I don't have a drill L2 on hand but a US M2 frag does fit. this would make more sense than a single mag perhaps.
I absolutely agree with that but I did base the idea of the pouches holding magazines on an old article which showed the pouches being used to hold a single magazine. The article does also show them being used to holding something cylindrical with a lip at the bottom which I can only imagine to be smoke grenades.
@@RiflemanMoore I think I have seen the same article. I have so many unanswered questions I fear we will never learn the answers to. Keep up the great channel.
I think that's certainly true, unfortunately. Many thanks for the kind words!
With the ship fires during the Falklands. Its just as well this Nylon gear was not issued. The plastic woven belts caused enough burns as it is. This gear would certainly be easier to decontaminate. A definite problem for the Cotton '58 pattern. The utility pouch closures must be real fun to use with cold or numb fingers. Lots of little fiddly fastenings on this pattern.
Some of those fittings and the aesthetic make me think of the American ALICE system.
Indeed, definitely inspired by that line of kit.
What a terrible design. For instance , how are you going to maintain an aggressive fighting force without them enduring the struggle of replacing your waterbottle & mug into a wet '58 pattern pouch.
Agreed, not character building enough.
and trying to secure it with one hand
Please no
Not to mention the joy of securing a sleeping bang to the 58 Pattern Large Pack with frozen hands, at 3 in the morning in a dripping wet and bitterly cold forestry block in Brecon, when the straps provided are not only too short but have the metal ends missing. Extra fun-points are awarded for having sleeping-bag that was too short and with a broken zip.
@@paddy864 sheer luxury.
That actually looks quite good hence why they binned it.
Where was it envisaged that the respirator haversack would go?
I can only assume that the respirator haversack was to be carried on it's own waist strap.
@@RiflemanMoore strictly speaking that would have been in line with doctrine although inconvenient.
That set must have set you back a bit.
Not too much to be honest, less than £100 in total I think, difficult to say as I bought it with a hacked about rear pouch and replaced it with this complete example some time later.
I had this set issued to me in 1972 while serving in 1(BR) CORPS it was entered on my 1157 in red as troop trials , it was deemed to noisy , to flimsy
Thanks for the information, very interesting. Particularly the reasons for its rejection. What were your thoughts on the set? Particularly how kit was carried in it.
That gear is new to me, thanks for the very informative video. One can see that it is based loosely on US M1956/67 and British '44 pattern web gear. Wish I had that gear instead of '58. Wonder why it was never introduced? Additional edit...I had a friend who had the so called '80's "SAS" vest, 2 large pouches on the front with an open wove suspender/harness system attached with a rear pouch, possibly the size of the 2 '58 pattern kidney pouches that sat high on the back like a small pack. He bought this back in '82/83. Was the envy of the other Army Cadets. Can you do a video on this gear please?....it is still quite an unknown bit of field gear.....Ta muchly in advance.
It's an interesting set, definitely an improvement being made of nylon but perhaps not as functional as 1958 Pattern in some aspects. The nylon version of 1958 Pattern is my favourite.
I'm afraid I don't have an example of the Pack, Combat, Lightweight to make a video on, as you say it's a very interesting piece of kit.
Bravo Two Zero has photo of the author all geared up. Wearing one of those packs. Also in another pic of belt kit. I read that they were developed in the late 60s. Troops liked the concept, but the closures were difficult to use. Kept coming open.
great vids. I'd like to see you end the video with some one (or an mannequin) modeling the kit so we can see how it fits etc.
Many thanks! It's certainly something I'm considering for the future.
Lack of belt reduces versatility because the large pouch in the centre / back can't be removed, whereas on the 58 pattern it was possible to wear it without kidney pouches, which was the case I believe in NI on urban patrols, where just ammo pouches and water bottle were carried. The other major drawback of not having a belt is that there is no way to attach the respirator case. Otherwise I like the pouches, except for the ammo pouches being too small and the yoke. I bet these are now like rocking horse shit though so could be difficult to get hold of for bushcrafting purposes.
The issues you have raised were all reported on by troops during trials so very valid criticisms which seem to run completely contrary to the ideas behind desinging this set of equipment. I would temper the comment on the respirator case in that it can be slung around the waist on the integral strap so that is a relatively minor issue. Indeed it was policy to carry the respirator haversack separate from the belt by the time the Gulf War rolled around.
These sets are fairly rare now as you say but I believe Silvermans have some components in stock.
@@RiflemanMoore Came back to watch this again 2 years on after reading about this kit on the site ''tales from the supply depot'' which I guess you are familiar with. Anyway to return to our dialogue albeit late, I can say from experience that carrying the respirator around the waist using the integral strap would not have been popular, it would have been a pain in the arse to be honest as the strap was thin and would have cut into the waist and it would have slid around the place, as well as presenting all kinds of opportunities for entanglement and riding up on the wearer. It's too late now but I hope that in a parallel universe this trial webbing was modified after the trials to facilitate carrying the respirator case to the right of the large centre pouch, and a padded nylon roll belt was introduced allowing different configurations. In that alternative timeline, soldiers from 1975 onwards were spared the tribulations of trying to squeeze water bottles into wet, shrunken 58 pattern pouches in the rain in Sennybridge or Vogelsang training areas. Also in that idealised parallel universe, the army took notice of the fact that many soldiers preferred the 44 pattern canteen and cup over the Osprey setup and introduced a stainless cup which the canteen nested into, instead of waiting more than 2 decades (to introduce the Crusader kit) and damning squaddies to spend their hard earned beer money on expensive purchases from Silvermans and Survival Aids.
Carrying the respirator haversack on its own strap looped around the waist was standard procedure in the Gulf in 1990/1991 and from those I've spoken to about their experiences they didn't mention it presenting a problem.
Hi , not all the seems were or had the edges stitched but heat sealed , they came apart , the ready ammo was to small for 5 mags , so the other pouch , the kidney pouch had to be used for spare mags , this cut down the small kit .. washing and shaving space mess tins , cleaning kit personnel hygiene boots cleaning kit , not a lot of space for a 24 hr rat pak and hexi burner , no place for the s6 respirator, the pick head cut a hole in the went thru the pouch as i ran , the yoke was to thin an not a lot of padding to attributed the weight , in BAOR we needed to carry nbc kit with over boots .. normally kept in the poncho bum roll , it was noisy when movement in scrub or northern European Forrest, , it needed constant adjusting to fit snug the straps slipped a lot , any squarer metal put into it would scrape and cut the sides of the back pack , the unit was issued a heat sealer to make extra pouches or repair to the damaged ones , but it needed a 10kva gen set to heat it up , not a good idea for a feilf force unit to lug about in the cuds , 58 was robust and fitted a lot beater , i thought i had landed in heaven when i got it ... little did i realize , it was a lot of hassle, always getting a blocking for the m noise it made
Invaluable information, thank you. It sounds like a complete litany of failure from what you've said.
Oh rare kit. I used to collect webbing myself many yrs ago, sold on the lot. Utterly gutted now.
I can imagine! I wish I'd been of an age to start collecting seriously before I did when some rare kit was more readily available. I'd hate to think of starting from scratch now.
I had some rare and/or highly collectable items which I customised as a squaddie. This was before I got into serious collecting.
It hurts to think of that "vandalism" now. A pair of WWI long puttees being cut mid-length to make 2x pairs of short puttees; first issue (canvas) mint condition SR6 respirator pouches converted to replace kidney pouches (and it didn't work well enough to use); mint condition trials kidney pouches being cut apart for use in bushcraft...
One of my mates cut a first issue half zip Denison, got it made as full zip (modern zip) and turned it into a ghillie top...
I'd better stop at that before I start crying...
@@simonsignolet5632 It's amazing the stuff that got used up that way! Another example is the famous case of a chap buying an original WW2 skeleton battle jerkin from Silvermans and camouflaging it with streaks of paint for use in NI to carry L4 magazines. Amazing really. Beyond that I bet many squaddies would be amazed what many people fork out for relatively mundane kit on the collectors market today!
I bet the nylon was so noisy it would give the soldiers' positions away when you moved with it. Having purchased a waterproof proof nylon combat jacket in the eighties for exercise I soon found it was not a good idea unlike the issue cotton DP combat jacket that was totally silent.
I'm not sure nylon equipment is as bad as nylon clothing for producing noise, not something I can speak with any authority on but I'll ask some of my friends currently serving when I can, all modern British issue load carrying equipment is nylon so I don't imagine it can be too much of a problem. Velcro on the other hand...
More Sandhurst-isms. If you are that close to the enemy that they can hear your nylon jacket or velcro, then it's all gone Pete Tong. And tthe only time you would need to tear open a velcro pouch is during a reload in a firefight, so it's all a bit noisy and the enemy knows you're there.
I'm not sure it's entirely a Sandhurst-ism, I've read several chap's opinions on the early nylon waterproofs in Northern Ireland in the late '70s and early '80s. The general consensus being that they were fine for urban patrols but far too noisy for use in certain rural operations when stealth was warranted.
As for the velcro again it's something I've heard differing opinions on. I would point to the fact that the velcro can be blanked off on PLCE pouches (water bottle and utility too, not just ammunition) as evidence for the design being influenced by concerns over the noise of the velcro being undesirable in certain situations.
@@PORRRIDGE_GUN Consider close target recce, regarding the nylon jacket/trousers...
We weren't allowed to wear the things unless it was bucketing down, the sound of torrential rain limiting the noise made by these over garments. If you're advancing to contact, you wouldn't want to wear the things because of the noise, you'd want to get as far forward as possible before being contacted.
We used to get soaked and stay soaked, most exercises prior to the mid-1990s...
Cool stuff ur a badass bro
Glad you found it interesting!
Much better than the crappy 38 pattern and no Blanco haha! 🥴👍
1937 Pattern? No blanco indeed, that was an advantage of kit from 1944 Pattern onwards, certainly!
Interesting kit, but really is a terrible design. One ready mag really isn't enough.
Well, two in total but I agree it does seem inadequate, even for a semi-automatic rifle.
Rifleman Moore it's rather in practical, and actually taught against to reload from your shooting side aka the right side.
Не знал что у англичан был ,обрезиненый, вариант рпс...Лайк .
01-May-20:
If you want the correct trials backpack for this set:
www.ebay.co.uk/itm/274351107053
The frame looks like a newer, standard issue one - but might be a trials variant for all I know. The original trials ones had sheet steel rings for the shoulder straps instead of the thick steel wire rings.
My trials backpack has a weird buttonhole affair woven into the strap component of the upper pocket for the frame - unlike this one for sale. There are normally two for the frame rings - but mine goes all along that strap fabric. Just variants in the trials, I'm sure.
Thanks for the headsup! I'd not been on the lookout but shall keep an eye on this.
Who thought carrying two extra mags would be enough? Always wonder how much input the troops that have to wear this stuff in combat have? Not just in UK but any country. Some designs are just useless. Some general or colonel with nothing to do I guess.
The intention is that you carry more magazines in one or more of the utility pouches but I agree two 'ready' magazines in the individual pockets seems wanting.