# 64 Pattern Web Gear



## Mr_Bund (9 Jan 2006)

Does anyone know anything about the background of the 64 pattern "webgear"? Why it was designed the way it was? I seem to also recall a large soft pack, that had a tumpline (sp?) attached to it. What the heck was that for?


----------



## TCBF (9 Jan 2006)

64 Pattern replace 51 pattern, and 'Cargo Pack, 1964' replaced the 51 pattern large pack.  64 pattern was replaced by 82 pattern and it's large pack.  The rucksack, Universal, C1 and later C2 were developed separately from 1964 pattern, though it is often erroneosly called a "64 pattern rucksack".

Tom.


----------



## medicineman (9 Jan 2006)

I seem to recall that the wacky strap thingy actually went onto your forehead for extra support - my Dad had a similar pack for canoeing - the strap could be used across the forehead or as an anchoring strap/holding strap in the canoe, so that's my guess.

Anyone else got any wild ideas?

MM


----------



## Hunter (9 Jan 2006)

I'm assuming that these different versions of the pack were considered to be upgrades over previous models, so was the 82-pattern ruck considered an equipment upgrade?  A couple of weeks ago I took possession of a 64-pattern frame with a sweet cadpat main bag and compression sack, which I bought off eBay.  I used it for the first time today what a great piece of kit.  It took no time at all to ge the fit dialled in and was much more comfortable than an 82-pattern ruck has ever felt.  Can anyone elaborate on the history of the decision to adopt the 82-pattern ruck over the 64-pattern?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Jan 2006)

medicineman said:
			
		

> I seem to recall that the wacky strap thingy actually went onto your forehead for extra support - my Dad had a similar pack for canoeing - *the strap could be used across the forehead * or as an anchoring strap/holding strap in the canoe, so that's my guess.
> 
> Anyone else got any wild ideas?
> 
> MM



That's exactly what it was used for. It helps realign the centre of gravity to a more stable and central position. It also helps you carry more, while not seeming like it. Mr Bund is correct, kinda, the one on the pack is designed along the lines of a tumpline, and accomplishes the same principle, while not being in fact an actual tumpline.


----------



## TCBF (10 Jan 2006)

It is called a "Tump Line."

What 64 pattern ruck are you refering to?  'Cargo Pack, 1964', or 'Rucksack, Universal, C2' (separate metal frame and bag).

I assume the latter, as just about everyone who was never issued 64 pattern calls the C2 ruck a 64 pattern ruck.

Tom


----------



## Hunter (10 Jan 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> What 64 pattern ruck are you refering to?  'Cargo Pack, 1964', or 'Rucksack, Universal, C2' (separate metal frame and bag).
> 
> I assume the latter, as just about everyone who was never issued 64 pattern calls the C2 ruck a 64 pattern ruck.
> 
> Tom



I suppose it would be the latter, I wasn't aware that there was a difference between the two.  It seems to me that the c2/64-pattern/jump ruck is a far superior system to the 82-pattern, and I'm curious as to why it is not the CF standard


----------



## George Wallace (10 Jan 2006)

Hunter said:
			
		

> I suppose it would be the latter, I wasn't aware that there was a difference between the two.  It seems to me that the c2/64-pattern/jump ruck is a far superior system to the 82-pattern, and I'm curious as to why it is not the CF standard


The C2/64-pattern/"Jump Ruck" as you call it was the CF ruck sack until it was replaced with a new version in 1985.  So the "Jump Ruck" as you call it is the "Old" ruck.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (10 Jan 2006)

It seems that for its time, the 64 pattern stuff was fairly innovative, with the plastic quick release buckle on the belt, use of velcro, etc.
Even the 'soft' 64 cargo pack was an interesting concept, ahead of most things on the market with the integral sleeping bag compartment.  Could have been a decent pack if they'd put in 2 aluminum stays and turned the thing into an internal frame ruck.
Combine the 64 webbing and rucksacks with the newly introduced 'combat cloth' material the CFs were using for clothing during the 60's and your CF soldier was one of the world's best dressed/best equipped forces in regard to personal kit back then.  Kind of funny to see how things turn full circle now.


----------



## Roger (10 Jan 2006)

I used and still have my 64 pattern and use the 82 pattern. I think the reason they use the 64 pattern frame for jumping is because the frame for the 82 pattern is flimsy and will not stand up to parachuting.  Just before you land you drop your equipment bellow you on a tether and the thin steel frame of the 82 will probably come apart. 

Other than that I find nothing wrong with the 82 pattern except it could be a little more waterproof, the old 64 pattern had a rubber coating of some kind on the valise and on the bag, so in the rain your equipment would stay dry, but in weather of –30 or colder it was not very playable.


----------



## Danjanou (10 Jan 2006)

Ah the 64 pattern if Karma is correct I’ll someday meet the moron who developed that.  ;D

The web gear itself consisted of a belt, Y shaped yoke, and three pouches. On the right hip was a small pouch that I theory could hold 2 grenades. There was a small Velcro closing tube holder underneath it for a T-flash. At the rear there were two pouchs for a water bottle ( right rear) and mess tin carrier on the left. That was almost always used for rain gear.

The Respirator was worn on the left hip and could either be attached to the belt directly or with its own strap, worn under the webbing.

As Matt noted rather innovative with velcro closures for everything. Problem is Velcro often does not work when wet and every now and then we do have to work in the rain. You either taped everything up with gun tape which looked stylish and made it hard to adjust your webbing ( removing/ adding jackets) or prayed you didn’t have all your gear fall off during ATC.

The plastic buckle was also fragile in the arctic IIRC and damn noisy at night when buckling/unbuckling your belt.

You’ll note no ammo pouches. In theory there was no need as the new combat shirt/jacket had the distinctive slash breast pockets to carry 20 rd mags for the FNC1, there were also dividers in the bellows pockets to carry two more mags per pocket.

For the FN C2 gunners there was a chest webbing, or bra that carried 4 30 rd mags.  Standard issue for the C2 was 6 mags, The 5th was on the pn and I never figured out what we were supposed to do with the sixth.

There was no official mag pouch for the SMG. Most were reissued an old 58 pattern bren gun pouch for this. There was aslo a small case for the silva compass, witrh a hard plastic liner ( actualy one of the best little parts of it) Because there was not a lot of pouches to hold up the yoke was rather light weight. Picture a couple of rifle slings stiched together in a Y shape. tehre was a funky little cross piece on the "Y" at the back where you could sew an extra combat nametape.

I seriously doubt whoever designed it was an infanteer. The web gear seemed ok for Arty and Engineer types ho just needed something to hold NBCD kit and say water bottle close to hand while doing their thing and without being too bulky and intrusive. Also because of it’s minimal size it was ok for vehicle crews. For 031s doing what they do best though it really didn’t cut it IMHO.

Like most I loved it when first issued after this Korean/WW2 vintage stuff we’d had, but to be honest I soon missed that and was raiding my old gear for ammo pouches etc. 

Oh yeah Matt that nylon combat uniform was also highly flammable. Great combination with the M-113s if I recall 

BTW, the reason I remember so much about it, is I'm staring at a "I love me" picture taken circa 1982 on my desk at work of my old platoon all kitted out.


----------



## Roger (10 Jan 2006)

Yes when the 64 pattern webbing became available I could not wait to get it, it had Velcro and so forth and we where wearing Korean war 52 pattern at the time. It did not take long to see that it did not hold up like the webbing we returned, the 52 has more in common to the 82 pattern than the 62. Just like Danjanou I started to look for some of the old 52 pattern peaces to upgrade the 64 webbing. You knew right off that it was not designed with a 031 in mind, as soon as you started to run all of the attachment that was on the belt slowly creeped to the back until you had a big bunch of items in the back, the only way to prevent that from happening was to duct tape everything.

I like the new tach vest but I miss the 82 webbing. I think it was fantastic. Except of course when you had your rucksack on.


----------



## TCBF (10 Jan 2006)

"I suppose it would be the latter, I wasn't aware that there was a difference between the two.  It seems to me that the c2/64-pattern/jump ruck is a far superior system to the 82-pattern, and I'm curious as to why it is not the CF standard"

Because we hated it.  Unless you modded the hell out of it, it dug you in all of the wrong places.  It was a better pack to stow and live out of, but the 82 was much better to carry 25 km a day.

"There was a small Velcro closing tube holder underneath it for a T-flash"

That was to hold the FN grenade launcher or cup/adapter.

"For the FN C2 gunners there was a chest webbing, or bra that carried 4 30 rd mags.  Standard issue for the C2 was 6 mags, The 5th was on the pn and I never figured out what we were supposed to do with the sixth."

- Case, Ammo, Mag, 1964.  Or 'C2 Bra'.  I still have one.  The sixth mag in your pants pocket - when full of live rounds - beat the heck out of your leg.  It was the first one used.

"Most were reissued an old 58 pattern bren gun pouch for this."

Not in the CF you were'nt - you were issued a 1951 pattern Basic Pouch (Bren gun pouch).  58 pattern was British. 

" the back where you could sew an extra combat nametape"

Never sew or write your name where it can be seen on the OUTSIDE of your webbing (too hard to remove, write it on the inside..)  Because..  when you do prison riots, also the name tapes come off so the pukes on the inside cannot ID you and get the pukes on the outside to rape and kill your family in revenge..

"Like most I loved it when first issued after this Korean/WW2 vintage stuff we’d had, but to be honest I soon missed that and was raiding my old gear for ammo pouches etc."

Yup.  Because 64 was a lot easier than 51 to change when they changed the dress every ten minutes.  "Canteen only on the belt", "no, make that with cross straps too",  "No, put one basic pouch on the left side for the patrol", "wait, take off the basic pouch and cross straps.." 

Velcro was much easier than 'hooks and holes'.

Tom


----------



## Danjanou (10 Jan 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> That was to hold the FN grenade launcher or cup/adapter.



Thanks for the clarification on the little Velcro loop under the grenade pouch. Always though it was for a T-flash. As a poor Mo type in the late 70’s never saw many real actual grenade launchers.



> Case, Ammo, Mag, 1964.  Or 'C2 Bra'.  I still have one.  The sixth mag in your pants pocket - when full of live rounds - beat the heck out of your leg.  It was the first one used.



I knew where the 6th 30 rd mag was supposed to go. I humped one enough in my misspent youth. Mind it’s not where I’d have liked to put it…. >



> Not in the CF you were'nt - you were issued a 1951 pattern Basic Pouch (Bren gun pouch).  58 pattern was British.



You’re right 51 not 58, blame the mess tins on the lapse.



> Never sew or write your name where it can be seen on the OUTSIDE of your webbing (too hard to remove, write it on the inside..)  Because..  when you do prison riots, also the name tapes come off so the pukes on the inside cannot ID you and get the pukes on the outside to rape and kill your family in revenge..



Believe it or not I was actually told at one point to sew a name tape on the back of my webbing, didn’t say it made sense. Kind of like the "ok belt with carriier only, no change that to move this here etc etc......"



> Velcro was much easier than 'hooks and holes'.



I agree. However Velcro and guntape now that was a different matter… :

Judging by the numerous threads on the pros and cons of the Tacvest it seems one thing has remained constant, the soldiers inherent right to want new gucci kit because the present issue is a POS  and then to bitch about it after it's finally issued.


----------



## Kal (11 Jan 2006)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Judging by the numerous threads on the pros and cons of the Tacvest it seems one thing has remained constant, the soldiers inherent right to want new gucci kit because the present issue is a POS  and then to ***** about it after it's finally issued.



I thought that was a job requirement?   ;D


----------



## kyleg (11 Jan 2006)

Kal said:
			
		

> I thought that was a job requirement?   ;D



 ;D

Anyone know where I can find a pic of this "Cargo Pack, 1964" (NOT the Rucksack, Universal, C2 aka "64 Pattern Ruck")?

Cheers,
Pinky


----------



## Danjanou (11 Jan 2006)

Google is your friend.

1964 pattern webbing







rucksack






cargo pack





And kal it is a job requirement or at least it used to be.


----------



## kyleg (12 Jan 2006)

Cool, thanks a lot Danjanou. I tried googling it but since I didn't know what it looked like I couldn't be sure of whether or not what I was  looking at was actually the Cargo Pack, 1964.

Cheers,
Pinky

P.S. That rucksack (the 2nd pic) looks like the 82 pattern to me ???


----------



## TCBF (12 Jan 2006)

"P.S. That rucksack (the 2nd pic) looks like the 82 pattern to me"

Yup.

Tom


----------



## Danjanou (12 Jan 2006)

You're right Tom , uploaded the wrong pic :-[

Damn mess tins


----------



## TCBF (12 Jan 2006)

Credit where credit is due:  Pinky spotted it.



Tom


----------



## Danjanou (12 Jan 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Credit where credit is due:  Pinky spotted it.
> 
> 
> 
> Tom



I repeat messtins  :-[ now where did I leave my.......................


----------



## kyleg (12 Jan 2006)

What's wrong with the mess tins? Made of lead or something?  ;D


----------



## medicineman (12 Jan 2006)

Nope - aluminum.  There is/was some thought that high aluminum concentrations in the brain might lead to Alzheimer's.

MM


----------



## kyleg (12 Jan 2006)

Ah, gotcha, hehehe. I think I've got an old set, we found a bunch of old issue stuff when we moved into our house. But that was quite a few years ago, long before I started thinking about joining up. Now I regret not keeping it all  

Cheers,
Pinky


----------

