Your Most Disturbing Realizations

[Trenchfriend]

If I will ever buy a genuine M65-jacket in my life, I would choose the bright khaki.

 

[Lean'n'mean]

Saving Private Ryan "jacket".
Not sure if the jacket was OD or khaki unless it was the film and time of the day
the scene was shot.

The M65 was introduced in1965, during WW II they wore the M- 1943 field jacket.

 

[2jakes]

I turned most of the basic issue in at discharge but have retained and replaced the black M65 along with black/green commando sweaters initially gotten from the Brits.
The M14 rifle ranks the later M16 though sweet sixteen saved my skin more than once. Did a stint as an adviser with a Greek infantry battalion that used the M1 Garand,
perhaps the finest rifle ever issued, and a weapon that served all global terrain.

M16 .

The M65 was intoduced in1965, during the second WW II they wore the M- 1943 field jacket.

Yes I'm aware of that, thanks.
And to follow up, were they OD or khaki? Both?

 

[EngProf]

M16 .

Yes I'm aware of that, thanks.
And to follow up, were they OD or khaki? Both?

The jacket in the right hand photo of Tom Hanks is an M-1941 jacket.
As for colors, I have a good collection of WWII uniforms, and even the same nominal model of jacket can be noticeably different in exact color due to allowable variations in material.
They changed to the M-1943 in OD #7 mostly in 1944, but a lot of troops kept the M-1941's (khaki/OD#3) for the whole war.
(Personal connection: My mother and one of my aunts made M-1943 jackets in a war plant during WWII.)

 

[EngProf]

Meant to add:
The "jacket" shown in the left hand photo of Tom Hanks is a D-Day "assault vest", a specialized outfit just used for the invasion, worn over the actual field jacket.
GI"s got rid of them right after the landings since they were bulky and heavy and were not sufficiently useful to justify keeping them.

 

[Zombie_61]

I've worn an M-65 for winter ever since being issued my first one in Oct. 1967...I don't like OD and feel silly wearing camo in a civilian context so my M-65s are black or khaki.

I currently have two M-65s, OD and black. They're simply a good, comfortable, practical wet/colder weather jacket.

 

[Lean'n'mean]

That's not an M65 Trenchy,nothing like it.... it's just a basic high street polycotton jacket.

 

[Zombie_61]

^ I think he was simply making a comparison between the two jackets, and not saying his jacket was an M-65 clone.

By the way Trenchfriend, just in case you don't already know, if you buy an M-65 online the liner is usually sold separately. Considering the winter temperatures where you live, I'd say the liner is a must and isn't difficult to install and remove as desired.

 

[Trenchfriend]

^ I think he was simply making a comparison between the two jackets, and not saying his jacket was an M-65 clone.

By the way Trenchfriend, just in case you don't already know, if you buy an M-65 online the liner is usually sold separately. Considering the winter temperatures where you live, I'd say the liner is a must and isn't difficult to install and remove as desired.

Yep, the comparison was just because of the three interesting things.

1.the fixed quilted lining, looking like a relative of the M65's quilted liner
2.the heavy-robust cotton/poly shell, which is unusual for such basic massmarket-winterjackets
3.the unusual, but very convinient wide-fit, similar to the M65's wide-fit

 

[bluesmandan]

Doing family tree stuff and finding out my last name shouldn't be what it is. My paternal great grandfather was illegitimate and his mother took his father's identity to the grave. Supposedly illegitimacy and adultery break every family tree, but still it was disturbing to find out. I wonder what my last name "should" be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LizzieMaine]

Yep, everybody who takes up geneaology ought not to be surprised at the skeletons they'll find rattling around the closet. I doubt there's anyone living who isn't more than two or three generations removed, at most, from some kind of colorful family scandal.

 

[Fading Fast]

Yep, everybody who takes up geneaology ought not to be surprised at the skeletons they'll find rattling around the closet. I doubt there's anyone living who isn't more than two or three generations removed, at most, from some kind of colorful family scandal.

My girlfriend and I were talking about this just yesterday. Go back 40 or more years and so many things existed to "break the line."

-- Did a woman have an affair, not tell her husband and raise the baby "as his."

-- Did a man have an affair and "adopt" the baby into the family (or claim the wife was pregnant and gave birth to it - it happened and many wives played along).

-- Adoption records etc., were spotty and, also, many people didn't want to admit they were adopted or had adopted.

-- Daughter's out-of-wedlock young pregnancies were covered up and the mother raised the child as hers.

-- Since many people died at younger ages than most today, many times nephews, cousins, etc., and even friend's young children were brought into families when their parents passed away and just raised as "one of the new family's own."

And on and on.

I'm a mutt, but in theory, my paternal grandmother's line goes back to the Mayflower. My guess, it doesn't, not because she was lying, but so many things happened in those 300ish years before my grandmother was born that it is hard to believe something didn't adulterate the line.

 

[LizzieMaine]

My father's father wasn't really his father, so the family lore goes. So while I can trace his "line" back to seventeenth century Scotland, it isn't actually *his* line at all. And I don't know anything for sure about the ancestry of the neighborhood milkman or iceman, other than the fact that my father, with his prominent proboscis and his coarse black hair, doesn't look the least bit Scottish.

 

[Trenchfriend]

Again a little irritating to think about. For example, "todays" kids, born in 1992, will be already 25, this year.

 

[tonyb]

My father's father wasn't really his father, so the family lore goes. So while I can trace his "line" back to seventeenth century Scotland, it isn't actually *his* line at all. And I don't know anything for sure about the ancestry of the neighborhood milkman or iceman, other than the fact that my father, with his prominent proboscis and his coarse black hair, doesn't look the least bit Scottish.

As we've discussed before, people might reconsider before they send off a sample to 23 and Me (TM). Some people, anyway. You know, those whose sense of themselves might take a hit should they discover their ancestry isn't quite what they believed it was.

I strongly suspect that offspring resulting from incestuous unions populate most everybody's family tree -- the actual family tree, not the "official" one. I have to look no further down those branches than to my grandparents' generation to find such people.

 

[kaiser]

My Mom used to say if we looked high enough up our family tree we would find someone hanging there.

Fits the discussion I think.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Doing family tree stuff and finding out my last name shouldn't be what it is. My paternal great grandfather was illegitimate and his mother took his father's identity to the grave. Supposedly illegitimacy and adultery break every family tree, but still it was disturbing to find out. I wonder what my last name "should" be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's what referred to as a "non-paternal event", or "NPE". A child somehow ends up with the last name of a man who is not the biological father. It could be for any number of reasons, adoption, unwed mother, adultery, rape, incest, niece/nephew taken in, hiding from the IRS...lots of reasons. They are universal and fairly regular in any family. It's said that one occurs on average at least ever five generations in any family. So no one is really who they think they are.

If you are interested, specific DNA testing can help you on the path. Analyzing your y chromosome can connect you to other males from which you can start to piece together common surnames (I'm assuming you are male from your username).

 

[HudsonHawk]

As we've discussed before, people might reconsider before they send off a sample to 23 and Me (TM). Some people, anyway. You know, those whose sense of themselves might take a hit should they discover their ancestry isn't quite what they believed it was.

I strongly suspect that offspring resulting from incestuous unions populate most everybody's family tree -- the actual family tree, not the "official" one. I have to look no further down those branches than to my grandparents' generation to find such people.

I learned way more about Grandma than I thought I wanted to. Then I started asking questions. Then people started talking. Then it REALLY got interesting.

But you're right, don't go there unless you are prepared to accept what you'll inevitably find. It is what it is.

 

[Fading Fast]

It's what referred to as a "non-paternal event", or "NPE". A child somehow ends up with the last name of a man who is not the biological father. It could be for any number of reasons, adoption, unwed mother, adultery, rape, incest, niece/nephew taken in, hiding from the IRS...lots of reasons. They are universal and fairly regular in any family. It's said that one occurs on average at least ever five generations in any family. So no one is really who they think they are.

If you are interested, specific DNA testing can help you on the path. Analyzing your y chromosome can connect you to other males from which you can start to piece together common surnames (I'm assuming you are male from your username).

I learned way more about Grandma than I thought I wanted to. Then I started asking questions. Then people started talking. Then it REALLY got interesting.

But you're right, don't go there unless you are prepared to accept what you'll inevitably find. It is what it is.

This is why I've never been very interested in my geology. I doubt I'd get an accurate answer and I'm not sure what I'd learn if I did. Hypothetically, if one great grandparent invented the brilliant formal for X and the other was a mass murderer would that mean I had a predisposition to be a brilliant inventor / murderer?

My guess is almost all of us have some great, some horrible and a lot of average stuff in our ancestors. It just doesn't say a lot to me one way or another. I'm pretty different from my parents, so I only image I'm even more different than my great and great-great grandparents since the link is much weaker.

 

[HudsonHawk]

This is why I've never been very interested in my geology. I doubt I'd get an accurate answer and I'm not sure what I'd learn if I did. Hypothetically, if one great grandparent invented the brilliant formal for X and the other was a mass murderer would that mean I had a predisposition to be a brilliant inventor / murderer?

My guess is almost all of us have some great, some horrible and a lot of average stuff in our ancestors. It just doesn't say a lot to me one way or another. I'm pretty different from my parents, so I only image I'm even more different than my great and great-great grandparents since the link is much weaker.

Genealogy isn't for everyone (though there's never enough geology!!). Personally, I like the "paper" genealogy more than the genetics, as the paper trail is where the stories are. I guess I view it a lot like studying history. I'm interested in the stories of the past, how I/we got to where we are, even if I have no control over it.