KM Two Piece Pebbled Field.

**Lenny Warren** · 03-09-2017, 07:40 PM

I realise both Angolia and Nash contain errors, but the point is you can't say "Buckles weren't worn on parade" when they obviously were. You can't see on these pics whether it was a one or two piece buckle, but the point is, buckles WERE worn at times on parade.

**Espenlaub Militaria** · 03-09-2017 07:40 PM

We also buy and trade your items and full collections!

**Lenny Warren** · 03-09-2017, 07:41 PM

Apologies, I'm on my phone whilst being daddy day care. I read the post as KM didn't wear buckles on parade, rather than walking out. 😉 The point here is the differentiation between parade and walking out. 😉

Two piece buckle were for parade as well as walking out.

**Lenny Warren** · 03-09-2017, 07:55 PM

Checking in Angolia's KM Uniforms & Tradtions, Parade Dress called for:

Junior NCO's and Privates: Belt with pouches and bayo.
Senior NCO's, senior and junior officer candidates: Undress Belt. (No pouches and bayo)

It's SERVICE DRESS that no belt is worn.

**Ben Evans** · 03-09-2017, 08:00 PM

Still does not mean they would wear a two piece buckle with belt pouches and bayo, a possibility yes.

**Lenny Warren** · 03-09-2017, 08:27 PM

But IMHO it's not the main point, and this is where people are making assumptions. We assume that all two piece buckles are for parade/walking out only. That's the generally held belief, and I'd say that maybe it holds true 99% of the time. This is just my thoughts on this, just thinking out aloud. 😉

If you read what Nash says, and he has told me he is basing this on period documentation which he is currently trying to dig out of countless boxes in storage, that this buckle was issued for a very short period between 1939 and 1940. After the die struck single piece aluminium and before the steels. This suggests that it was ordered as an issue buckle, NOT a parade or private purchase buckle. He goes on to say that when the steels were issued in 1940, the two piece buckles MAY have been used as dress buckles. (or possibly parade as we know buckles were worn with parade dress, not walking out dress.) Bear in mind that the KM required a lot less than the other branches, it's not unfeasible this happened.

As for a two piece buckle used as an issue buckle, as a stop gap measure before steels were issued, and for a service that wasn't involved in heavy load carrying, it's not implausible. There's plenty examples of buckles issued that didn't work well in combat.

**Ben Evans** · 03-09-2017, 08:32 PM

I we will wait and see what he comes up with Lenny, I am trying to find out info either way, if they were issued and real great a long myth is busted, if not then we continue

**Lenny Warren** · 03-10-2017, 11:44 AM

by Ben Evans

I we will wait and see what he comes up with Lenny, I am trying to find out info either way, if they were issued and real great a long myth is busted, if not then we continue

Indeed, it's not the first myth that's been busted though...

**Kurt D** · 03-10-2017, 07:50 PM

by Lenny Warren

If you read what Nash says, and he has told me he is basing this on period documentation which he is currently trying to dig out of countless boxes in storage, that this buckle was issued for a very short period between 1939 and 1940. After the die struck single piece aluminium and before the steels. This suggests that it was ordered as an issue buckle, NOT a parade or private purchase buckle. He goes on to say that when the steels were issued in 1940, the two piece buckles MAY have been used as dress buckles. (or possibly parade as we know buckles were worn with parade dress, not walking out dress.) Bear in mind that the KM required a lot less than the other branches, it's not unfeasible this happened.

As for a two piece buckle used as an issue buckle, as a stop gap measure before steels were issued, and for a service that wasn't involved in heavy load carrying, it's not implausible. There's plenty examples of buckles issued that didn't work well in combat.

I'd be most interested to see period documentary evidence for Nash's statements. Personally, I find his theory hard to believe, but I'll happily eat my words in public should such evidence turn up. On the parade/walking out dress questions: German non-commissioned ranks in all services were allowed to wear privately purchased uniforms for walking out dress, and for walking out dress only. ‘Walking out dress’ is appropriate when off duty and outside barracks (but soldiers could of course wear issue items if they didn’t fancy spending on own stuff). For parade dress, issue uniforms and equipment were mandated. There was never any doubt that blue parade dress included the belt and buckle. But blue walking out dress certainly did not! So there was no market for private purchase buckles for blue-clad sailors. There may have been a market for field grey-clad sailors. There is a lengthy passage in the German edition of Angolia/Schlicht’s Navy volume (I don’t have the American edition running to three volumes per service) on which units had blue dress and which had field grey, according to which there were also units which had field grey service dress, but blue dress for parades and ‘walking out’. Anyway, sailors belonging to units that were field grey only would have worn the belt and buckle with walking out dress. The problem here is that, for these guys, the Kriegsmarine dress regulations of 1935 and 1938 prescribe a field-grey buckle (the hard to find field-grey pebbled aluminium buckle with KM acceptance stamp). But Hettler in his 1939/40 book on Wehrmacht uniforms shows a field grey KM figure with a gold-coloured buckle. Hettler, besides being one of the foremost students of German uniforms of his era, was at the time of publication a serving officer (of the Luftwaffe) and – given his reputation and considering that he could not have published his book when he did without official consent - would have had access to all sources regulating Wehrmacht uniforms, published and unpublished, even outside his own service. So I would be loath to call him wrong even on this small detail. There is also a lovely photograph of a field grey KM NCO wearing a gold buckle in Angolia’s first buckle edition (1982).
Bottom line to me, and apologies for rambling on at such length here, is that at some time in 1938/39, field grey KM personnel must have become entitled to the gold buckle, and those who had the field grey uniform for all orders of dress could have felt the need to buy a gold-coloured buckle for their walking out uniform.
That said, I still don’t like the buckles shown here.

**Lenny Warren** · 03-10-2017, 07:55 PM

by Kurt D

Bottom line to me, and apologies for rambling on at such length here, is that at some time in 1938/39, field grey KM personnel must have become entitled to the gold buckle, and those who had the field grey uniform for all orders of dress could have felt the need to buy a gold-coloured buckle for their walking out uniform.
That said, I still don’t like the buckles shown here.

Thanks for that, but can you say WHY you don't like the buckle I posted, not the others? The reason I say that is in hand it is correct, correct wear, and most of all I trust my friend when he says his father in law brought it back from Brest wartime...