Bren Vest

I recently purchased this Bren magazine vest which I believe to be an original example. I first became aware of these vests in the late 1970's when a collector friend of the family produced a similar one. When in contact with the vendor of this example it would seem that this one came onto the collector's market in the late 1970's too. I wonder if this was the time period that any remaining Bren vests held in UK military storage were sold/disposed of?

Please feel free to comment on this example although I don't really know much about them other than they were a vest intended to hold Bren mags.

I don't see a size marked...the one I know of here is exactly the same. It's a size of very small stature.

They wouldn't be of much use only holding two though...the #2 had a chest of ten and the men all had one or two. I'll bet they were a flash idea that sat in crates until disposal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

It's a size of very small stature.

---

My example would seem to be designed to fit a slim person.

I wonder if most of the left over examples held in storage after the war were the small sized ones?

Hard to say, there don't seem to be many or not many here have seen them.

Does it have a small broad arrow stamp and 2 numbers like ‘29’?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brit plumber

Does it have a small broad arrow stamp and 2 numbers like ‘29’?

---

Not that I can see, only what is stamped on the label, last pic, post 1.

There are several chalk markings that I can't really make out.

Did you get it from eBay recently?

For what it’s worth, I think it is genuine as quite a few of this variation have turned up with provenance and in experienced collectors articles. It has been suggested that these are the left over unpopular sizes that sat in stores for years. You would have to be a midget to where it over your blouse and everything else and lets face it, even in the 40’s, men always wanted to be taller/bigger. I still tend to go one size bigger for my uniform, gives me lots of erm....wiggle room.

It would fit me, if I went on a strict diet or I wore it without the straps done up.

I had to use my judgement on whether or not it was genuine and as far as I could tell it looked like an original before parting with my cash.

I'm quite sure it's original...the one I know of has been in collection here since the '70s.

I have to say that I never saw or even heard of something like this in my time, from Cadets at my boarding school in 1960 or so onwards. 2 mags wasn't going to make a difference as BAR says. Everyone in the small rifle sections had 12 distributed among them and at platoon level more! In platoon or section in defence each gun would have its full compliment plus some more carried by the platoon Sgts and Commanders - plus bandoliers. 2 extra...... Nope, me neither!

I thought that the example which the family friend had in the 1970's, and showed to me, had more than 2 pockets but I'm trying to remember back 40 or more years ago.

I've not seen a used example, only unused ones, and if they proved impractical to use that may explain why only unissued original examples turn up on the collector's market today.

There’s an early type that has extra pockets and the later without (I think, but I’m far from an expert).

I wish that I had photographed the one which the collector friend produced in the 1970's; he did have a habit of turning up rare and unusual items.

The chap concerned owned a Willys Jeep which was styled on General Patton's.

Despite appearances the vest pockets do actually comfortably hold 2 mags each, i.e. 4 mags per vest. I haven't tried forcing in 3 mags but 2 mags fit just fine.

The skeleton assault jerkin

Still isn't something I would see as useful to a Bren team.

Would a Bren team member have a spike bayonet issued without a No4 rifle or Mk5 Sten. perhaps for mine detecting purposes with the entrenching tool handle?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

Would a Bren team member have a spike bayonet issued

---

Maybe Peter remembers... BUT...when I carried the 1919MG, I didn't have one on issue. Normally not issued to guys that don't need one.

I think they were supposed to be for offensive manoeuvres, whether the name ‘Assault Vest’ is another hype like the Jungle Carbine I don’t know but it kind of makes sense for the gunner to have mags to hand rather than rely on the rest of the team if he’s in an offensive direct attack posture.

So from a Military commonsense standpoint what would the point be to produce these. I must say I have always been surrounded by everything Bren including one of the 2 built as cut through's for the 1938 Exhibition which I sold off two years ago, but never seen these before.

The suggestion of these being actually used...you could take this two ways but, we had one for our FN C2 that carried four(issue five). That wasn't enough mags or ammo and was a horrible thing to wear. This would just be worse. I expect they were just a flash in the pan like the shovel with a hole in it for WW1. Lots produced but never actually accepted or brought into service. That's why so few have seen them.

The 2 Bren mags per pocket, per side, giving a total of 4 mags per vest would give the same Bren mag carrying capacity as Pattern 37 webbing with 2 basic pouches attached, would it not?

These "skeleton Bren mag vests" may not have proved very practical or have been used much but various designs of "assault vests" are still around today and still used.

Like a lot of kit...........produced but rarely worn by a wartime operational gun team, and thereafter not seen in any campaigns or wars that followed

I am just as likely to buy an item for my collection that is of poor design as an item of good design because an item of poor design can be interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

2 basic pouches attached,

---

Yes but the crew carried a case plus. The troops carried one or two each.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

"assault vests"

---

Yes but vastly different. Most of the simple vests like the one we had issued went the way of the others like this one because it only carried four mags. The men procured cummerbund pouches and carried ten plus mags...usually. Our little tac vest was shorthanded. Like this one. That's after we had the C2 bra vest for years...also a failure...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

can be interesting.

---

Yes, I would fully expect. There is ONE here in a collection too.

Is the general consensus here that the "Bren Vest" is of little interest or value to collectors of today?

I intend to keep the one which I have pictured in post one of this thread because it is interesting to me and I was first shown one by a well known Uk collector in the 1970's who is no longer with us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

vastly different

---

but same concept

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

I intend to keep the one which I have pictured

---

I fully would expect one to hold on to it. With it just being the second I've seen in 40 odd years...

Well you had me wondering, so I went through the Parachute Regiment reserve collection today at Colchester to see if such a beast exists, and yes it does and apparently it was produced by the Airborne community for D-DAY.
What is accurate and recorded in the museum archive at Duxford, is that every man in a section was given two Bren mags each, with the actual gunner/user of the weapon carrying five in addition to his other kit, ie spare parts wallet and barrel. I attach a photo of the one we hold from D-Day very slightly different but the same beast.
Thanks for bringing this up on a thread, and as my dad always said "Son there is something to learn about Military equipment everyday" how that rings in my ears daily.
Oh and yes we have a PIAT version where the bombs were carried on the back in pouches too, which is very rare!

Not much different on the same theme of carriage for the soldier of today:thup:

Additional images on the vests we hold and the markings on them if it helps

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gil Boyd

apparently it was produced by the Airborne community for D-DAY.

---

That would make more sense than anything. That's why it was relegated after...

Except...it's not quite the same vest.

Jim,
On a theme by the look of it, close enough I think and clearly for the Bren Mags ;)

Another completely different version but same materials. My understanding is that the standard basic pouches were sown onto the front of this vest for attachment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gil Boyd

close enough

---

Yes...wonder if it's just late V/S early or different makers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

Another completely different version

---

Kind of like the ranger tac vest...except the additions. You don't see many of those either.

It wasnt specific to the Airborne Forces.
The Assault or Battle Jerkin was an experimental design going back to 1943, with the aim of creating a load carrying system which gave a more even weight distribution than the '37 Patt webbing system. After tests it was rejected as a general replacement for the web equipment, but not before some 19,000 had been ordered. Its use during the NW Europe campaign was almost entirely limited to D-Day and a short time immediately afterwards, most having been dumped by the users within a short while afterwards.
I know someone with a mint unissued large size Battle Jerkin in their collection, which they have owned for over 30 years.
The more skeletal Bren Bra as posted by the OP, is not something I've seen before. I suspect again, it was an attempt at providing a means of carrying extra mags over existing equipment for assault purposes, to be discarded as soon as the mags had been expended?

A fairly large number of these emerged in the late '80s/early '90s from some store and they were reasonably common on the market for a while. Always more common & cheaper than the Battle Jerkin which has always been rare (and I used to have one).

They have also been reproduced from tent canvas more recently.

GeeRam,
Can only go by whats written in historic records, but the one I showed is highly likely one of many variants produced throughout the war, and the reason why its not the same pattern as the original one shown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gil Boyd

GeeRam,
Can only go by whats written in historic records, but the one I showed is highly likely one of many variants produced throughout the war, and the reason why its not the same pattern as the original one shown.

---

Given they were a trail item, there were probably quite a number of different variations produced by different makers for the trials and evaluation during 43/44. Its highly likely that the museum example could be one of those, and thus maybe now the only example of that pattern left.
The collector I know with one took it to Normandy in 99 for the 55th Anniversary events, and had it on display with various items of Commando and 6th Airborne equipment - and a Commando veteran saw it and told him that he'd wore one when he came ashore on D-Day.

I have an identical one and have had it since the late 50's or early 60's

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warren

since the late 50's or early 60's

---

That would be about the same as the one I saw here...you know where.

One has just appeared on Ebay UK, BUT, BE AWARE!!!!!!!!!!!!, Seller is VONGOLD, from Stansted Essex, a well known seller of fake badges (especially SAS- Commando) and many, many faked groupings (items put together with a single NAMED item, making a far more 'exiting' proposition to the unwary buyer / collector)
Item 362824647671
Pretty sure these vests have been faked in the past.

These are the vests you need, note whose in front of thr Royal Marines as always lol....Sunday humour apologies :lol:

:clap:

Not WW2 issue vest though ;)

You need one of these buggers........

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...pers1943-1.jpg

String vests.....My God, when I worked at the Army and Navy Dept Stores in the 50's we could not give them away and most went to the dump (tip)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

My example would seem to be designed to fit a slim person.

---

No good for me, then?