Article about: Powered up my cam and back with some photos! Tunic is the later pattern one, as said before, with less pleats and no external lower pockets, dated 1945. The trousers are the ones that came f
Tunic is the later pattern one, as said before, with less pleats and no external lower pockets, dated 1945. The trousers are the ones that came from the grouping, 1943 dated, size 7.
Rene, the Sacred Squadron was a Greek Special Forces unit formed in N. Africa, which saw action in the desert, the Aegean, Italy and the Battle of Athens. Being quite a small, elite force, its items are quite rare and... accordingly priced. The dealer, being a collector himself, knew that this was a hell of a bargain, so he didn't even think about selling the grouping...
Tunic is the later pattern one, as said before, with less pleats and no external lower pockets, dated 1945. The trousers are the ones that came from the grouping, 1943 dated, size 7.
Rene, the Sacred Squadron was a Greek Special Forces unit formed in N. Africa, which saw action in the desert, the Aegean, Italy and the Battle of Athens. Being quite a small, elite force, its items are quite rare and... accordingly priced. The dealer, being a collector himself, knew that this was a hell of a bargain, so he didn't even think about selling the grouping...
Off with the photos!
Regards, Giorgos
G'day Giorgos
Very unusual trousers as they are of the British pattern, Aussie trousers wool have only the two internal hip pockets going by my dated ones 40 through to 45 & are for the four pocket jackets
I'm thinking these are for Armored units as I have photo reference of crews wearing khaki BD's but not wool. Or these could be made for the British, even the size labeling is not normal for Australian issue.
Thanks for the pictures and info - I have not seen these before
just a note - The jacket is South Australian & trousers are Victorian made
Last edited by reneblacky; 06-19-2010 at 10:22 PM.
Reason: added note
I was right on the 1963 jacket, here it is. A mate visited today and wanted photos of his son dressed up in garb and I accidentally found it in a pile of my post war junk
Slight difference to the 2nd patt as the lower pockets have a button hole.
These are outright not common.
Thanks for the feedback on the trousers! I actually wanted to ask about the different size markings, since I noticed that the tunic's size is 64 and the trousers' one 7. Maybe the Australian made for the British theory is the case, but I 'll have a look about armoured corps, too!
Made a search and found some photos and illustrations of Australian soldiers wearing british-pattern BD trousers, but can't be sure if these were British or Australian made... Judging by the size marking and the fact that it was used by a Greek officer though, I think that it appears to be really possible that this pair was manufactured in Australia for the British...
Hi Giorgos, the trousers you have there are Australian made for Australian Armoured units in ww2 and worn with the battledress jacket they werent very popular and most wore the kakhi drill version and later on a jungle green version was even produced, they definately dont go with your service dress jacket the trousers worn with these are very similar minus the leg pockets, its strange that these trousers ended up where they did. If you are interested in trading these let me know as I actually have the BD jacket to these but no trousers
Hi Giorgos, the trousers you have there are Australian made for Australian Armoured units in ww2 and worn with the battledress jacket they werent very popular and most wore the kakhi drill version and later on a jungle green version was even produced, they definately dont go with your service dress jacket the trousers worn with these are very similar minus the leg pockets, its strange that these trousers ended up where they did. If you are interested in trading these let me know as I actually have the BD jacket to these but no trousers
Hi!
It's interesting to know that these were issued to armoured units! I have recently seen a uniform set for sale, though, belonging to a 14th Punjab Rgt. Captain, with the blouse and trousers made in Australia and marke the same way. Maybe these were also exported as aid, parallel to their primary use, due to the similarity with the British pattern? That could also explain why these ended up being used by a Greek officer!
Thaks for the helpful reply Rene! Really appreciate it!
As far as I knew, "Australia" shoulder badges and grey background colour on patches were distinctive for overseas service. Were collar badges though placed on all tunics or was that not always the case? Are there examples of unbadged VDC tunics?
I do have that feel that mine was never actually issued. No badge holes, plus... I have it on display with a pair of 43 dated, Aussie made trousers, coming from the grouping of a Sacred Squadron 2nd Lt. and I am just feeling "it's not right" every time I see them together!
Regards, Giorgos
Hi Giorgos, Just had a read back through the thread and thought I would answer a few of your questions, the curved "Australia" titles were only worn by members of the 2ndAIF these were men who had volunteered for service overseas in the Australian Army, during ww2 we had the AIF and the AMF known as the militia who had volunteered for service on Australian soil, everybody wore the rising sun collar badges even the VDC, now the colour patches are one of the most complex and confusing systems ever invented with over 800 different patches used in ww2, so much so that by 1944-45 they decided to simplify it by introducing the arm of service patches, you are correct about the grey backgrounds on the patches they signified that the soldier was a member of the 2nd AIF, although there were exceptions to the rule, If a soldier who was serving in the AIF was posted to a militia battalion he was allowed to wear his Australia titles and a grey background on the militia patch (even though everyone else wasnt) and if he served overseas in his previous unit he was allowed to wear a minature version of his old patch above the new one, but towards the end of the war with loses in unit strength and with men being transfered to different units an AMF unit could become an AIF unit if the strength of the unit was made up of 70 or 75% AIF soldiers, then even the soldiers who werent AIF could wear the grey background on there patch as the unit would come under AIF control, see what I mean about confusing? and thats just scratching the surface, anyway you mentioned the 2nd patt tunic you have might be good for a North Africa impression, the Australians were all sent home by 1942 to stop the threat of a Japanese invasion on the mainland, and that style of jacket although made as early as 1942 wasnt really worn at all during the war, although you see the occasional pic of them being worn Ive only ever seen them worn in any sort of numbers by returning POWs in 1945 and it wasnt until the occupation of Japan that these became standard issue and were worn right through until the Korean war until we changed over to the battle dress uniform, sorry If that got a bit long winded
In the next week or so I will get some of my original uniforms and patches out and post them up.
Regards Luke
Hi Giorgos, Just had a read back through the thread and thought I would answer a few of your questions, the curved "Australia" titles were only worn by members of the 2ndAIF these were men who had volunteered for service overseas in the Australian Army, during ww2 we had the AIF and the AMF known as the militia who had volunteered for service on Australian soil, everybody wore the rising sun collar badges even the VDC, now the colour patches are one of the most complex and confusing systems ever invented with over 800 different patches used in ww2, so much so that by 1944-45 they decided to simplify it by introducing the arm of service patches, you are correct about the grey backgrounds on the patches they signified that the soldier was a member of the 2nd AIF, although there were exceptions to the rule, If a soldier who was serving in the AIF was posted to a militia battalion he was allowed to wear his Australia titles and a grey background on the militia patch (even though everyone else wasnt) and if he served overseas in his previous unit he was allowed to wear a minature version of his old patch above the new one, but towards the end of the war with loses in unit strength and with men being transfered to different units an AMF unit could become an AIF unit if the strength of the unit was made up of 70 or 75% AIF soldiers, then even the soldiers who werent AIF could wear the grey background on there patch as the unit would come under AIF control, see what I mean about confusing? and thats just scratching the surface, anyway you mentioned the 2nd patt tunic you have might be good for a North Africa impression, the Australians were all sent home by 1942 to stop the threat of a Japanese invasion on the mainland, and that style of jacket although made as early as 1942 wasnt really worn at all during the war, although you see the occasional pic of them being worn Ive only ever seen them worn in any sort of numbers by returning POWs in 1945 and it wasnt until the occupation of Japan that these became standard issue and were worn right through until the Korean war until we changed over to the battle dress uniform, sorry If that got a bit long winded
In the next week or so I will get some of my original uniforms and patches out and post them up.
Regards Luke
Hello-to clarify AIF's post, the 2nd AIF were all volunteers for overseas service-the militia were mostly conscripts required to serve in Australia for home defence initially but this was extended to the islands to the north of Australia after the Japanese entered the war-doing so was controversial at the time as there was a long and bitter struggle from WW1 onwards about not conscripting troops for overseas service- the Volunteer Defence Corps (VDC) was the Australian equivalent of the British Home guard-part time, made up of those not eligible for regular service.
Re: Aussie Wool Service Jacket
.
by gi0rgos p
Bookmarks