RESEARCH ARTICLE
The Weary Warrior II:
Photo Analysis
Examining Stanley Troutman’s photograph for distinctive details.
This article incorporates content from an earlier series, “Underwood v. Klonis,” first posted to 1stbattalion24thmarines.com in May 2014.
Author’s Note: This is the second section of a three-part series that aims to re-establish the identity of W. Eugene Smith’s “Weary Warrior” as PFC Thomas Ellis Underwood of St. Petersburg, Florida, who served with Company B, First Battalion, 24th Marines in the battle of Saipan. In this installment, we will look at contextual clues in the photograph itself, especially in an alternate view taken by correspondent Stanley Troutman.
The author wishes to thank Eric Wisbith for his assistance.
The two main contenders for the identity of the Weary Warrior – Underwood and Sgt. Angelo S. Klonis, US Army – fought with different branches of the armed forces. A necessary first step in arguing for one or the other is to determine whether the photographs show a Marine or a soldier. While many of the details discussed in this article will appear obvious to historians familiar with World War II-era uniforms and equipment, the differences may not be immediately apparent to those with a passing interest.
For additional reading on this subject, the author recommends “782 Gear” by Harlan Glenn, “Grunt Gear” by Alec S. Tulkoff, and “Marine Corps Uniforms & Equipment 1941 – 1945” by Bruno Alberti and Laurent Pradier. These volumes are beautifully illustrated, exhaustively researched, and authoritative.
Before diving into the minutiae of 1940’s era combat gear, one note for readers unfamiliar with the proper terminology. Members of the United States Army are “soldiers.” Members of the United States Marine Corps are “Marines.” The distinction is an important one, as members of both branches served in the land campaign for Saipan. Thus, in this article “soldier” refers only to Army personnel; “Marine” refers only to Marine Corps personnel. Our subject will be known as “the Warrior.”
Finally, although we will only be looking at Troutman’s photograph in detail, this article reaffirms that the three shots in question depict a single person.
Photographic Details: Soldier or Marine?
There are two primary candidates for the identity of the Warrior. One, Sergeant Angelo Speros Klonis, was a member of the United States Army – and, according to supporters, possibly an operative for the Office of Special Services engaged on a clandestine mission. The other, PFC Thomas Ellis Underwood, was a typical Marine Corps private first class who assumed the role of acting squad leader in a rifle platoon.
First, we’ll look simply at a man in uniform and try to determine if he is a soldier or a Marine. The three-quarter profile shot by Stanley Troutman provides us with the greatest number of visual clues.
The Warrior has many distinctive traits of a veteran Marine in mid-1944. We’ll examine each in turn, while considering potential counterpoints along the way.
The Helmet Cover
The Warrior’s headgear is the standard M1 helmet issued to American troops in every theater. Over 22 million were made between 1941 and 1945, and the design survived with minor adjustments until the 1980s. Anyone who has seen an American World War II movie will recognize the silhouette.
Similar helmet covers were issued to the Navy (particularly the corpsmen attached to Marine combat units) but not, evidently, to the Army. Although Bruno Alberti and Laurent Pradier state that the Army was simultaneously trying out “more sophisticated” helmet covers, they never really caught on with soldiers.[3] An early-war prototype was issued in small numbers but rejected as overly complicated. By 1944, soldiers were overwhelmingly sporting the familiar green-painted “steel pot” or added webbed netting into which they could place strips of burlap or foliage.
Several Army-specific headgear styles are evident in these photographs of the 27th Division on Saipan, taken in June and July 1944. As can be seen, most soldiers who wanted the camouflage effect simply painted their helmets.
The variety of Army helmets is summed up nicely in this photo of the 27th Division’s senior leadership. Brigadier General Redmond Kernan (Division artillery), Major General Ralph C. Smith (Division commander) and Colonel Stubbens (Smith’s chief of staff) head for the beach on Saipan, 17 June 1944.
Compare the examples above with photos of Marines taken on the same battlefield, and at the same time.
While Marines are occasionally seen without the cover – they could get lost or damaged (see Corporal Jones above) – the specificity of this helmet cover is a strong indication that the Warrior is a Marine. He is used to wearing it as he untucks the back flap to protect his neck from the sun. And he has taken the time to personalize his cover with some markings on the front.
Details from Troutman, Smith's profile shot, and Smith's Weary Warrior
Unfortunately, the angle of the helmet is too high for us to see the marking. We know it can’t be the Eagle Globe and Anchor, as those stencils did not appear until after the war. However, Marines were issued with stenciling kits and instructed to apply their names to every piece of gear that could conceivably “walk away.” Typically, this was first initials and last name – although, by 1944, the Fourth Marine Division was also using the “Unit Numerical Identification System” (UNIS) markings.[4]
Veteran John C. Pope mentioned the use of stencils in his memoir Angel On My Shoulder:
"We were issued a stencil with our name and outfit and told to put our name on each leg, each arm, once across our shoulder, and once across our butt just below the belt loops. That was to enable the burial party to gather up body parts and match them up to go into the proper body bag…. Guys with long names had a time trying to stencil their name anywhere."[5]
Smith’s “Warrior” image provides a slightly better angle. A closeup of the Warrior’s helmet reveals what appears to be letters on his helmet – potentially a letter “T.” A long name like “T. UNDERWOOD” would have wrapped around the helmet and been visible in Smith’s profile shot. It is possible (though admittedly speculative) that this is part of a name stencil, but unfortunately, the images are not clear enough to be sure.
Conclusion: Although no individual markings can be discerned, this distinctive helmet cover is uniquely Marine Corps issue; there is a high probability that the Warrior is a Marine.
Counterpoint: Could the Warrior be a soldier who somehow acquired a Marine helmet?
Very unlikely. If the Warrior were a soldier, he would have been operating under the auspices of the 27th (Army) Division, not the 2nd or 4th Marine Divisions, and would have drawn his gear from Army supplies. The chances of an Army quartermaster on Saipan issuing a helmet with a camouflage cover are next to zero – they were in violation of Army uniform regulations. Furthermore, in almost every campaign, the Army’s supply stores far exceeded those of the Marines: it would have been easier to acquire the helmet from an Army source. He would have had to come by it some other way – picking it up from a casualty, or salvaging it from discarded gear.
Unless the case was one of extremity, Americans were leery of taking gear directly from the dead. Any government equipment possessed by a KIA soldier or Marine was collected by designated salvage personnel. These quartermaster specialists took charge of cleaning, repairing, and re-issuing gear as needed or “surveying” (discarding) items beyond repair. Careful salvage was particularly important to Marine units. In peacetime, they were often at the low end of the supply chain, and the thrifty mindset they learned in the 1930s extended into wartime operations.
Extreme cases did happen. Alva R. Perry (A/1/24) wore out his boondockers on Iwo Jima but couldn’t bring himself to de-shoe a dead buddy. So strong was his aversion that he took a pair of tabi from a dead Japanese soldier and wore those instead. “I used these for three days and finally got up enough nerve to take a pair off a dead Marine,” he recalled. “At the same time, I needed a heavier jacket and found my size on a dead Marine captain. It’s hard to take a jacket off a body with rigor mortis.”[6]
Chuck Tatum (B/1/27) describe an unusual search for socks on Iwo Jima, as well as his feelings about taking equipment from the dead:
"The dead man or casualty pile contained clothing, equipment, and weapons of dead or wounded Marines…. I felt uneasy and a bit guilty about the prospects of being a scavenger. But I had no choice. The demands and horrors of Iwo’s battlefield left no other ready solution to the problem of resupply. I hesitantly picked up a pack, only to drop it instantly. There was a bullet hole straight through it."[7]
Aside from this documented personal aversion, taking gear from a “dead man’s pile” had other potential consequences. Salvage units would frequently mark over stencils or unit markings before reissuing gear. On Iwo, Tatum encountered a Marine wearing a shirt with the name of one of Tatum’s hometown buddies. The shirt had been taken from the “dead man’s pile” – although the original owner was in fact alive. Wearing clothing with another man’s name could potentially lead to a misidentification of remains if the new owner was killed – and, of course, one ran the disquieting risk of running into the friends of the deceased.
The Army was also extremely efficient at recovering, repairing, and reissuing items – their quartermaster department was well-established in the years before the war. The 27th Division repair shop shown at right was up and running on Saipan by 28 June 1944.
Even if circumstances forced a soldier into picking up a field discard or stripping a casualty for a helmet, it is far more likely that Army equipment would be available in his immediate surroundings. And even if he happened to find a Marine helmet, he almost certainly would have discarded the distinctive cover right away. His buddies all wore bare or painted steel pots. A cardinal rule of combat is not to draw attention; to do so is to invite snipers.
We can also rule out the notion that a soldier might have picked up a cover for tactical purposes such as its camouflage pattern. While the cover did serve a practical purpose, the Army alternatives previously illustrated would have been easier to implement. If the Warrior is a scout, sniper, or (as the Klonis argument goes) an OSS specialist, his training in the use of camouflage would have rendered an unadorned camo cover extraneous.
Finally, the Warrior is not the only fellow in the vicinity wearing a camouflage cover. Wider crops of both Smith’s and Troutman’s photos show a number of other men similarly attired. For the reasons listed above, these must undoubtedly be Marine personnel – and if we in the 21st century are flummoxed about the Warrior’s branch of service, the Marines of 1944 would not have been. The animosity between soldiers and Marines was running high on Saipan, especially after Marine general Holland M. Smith relieved Army general Ralph C. Smith for a perceived lack of aggressiveness. Any “dogface” wearing Marine gear was asking for trouble – even more so if the “Gyrenes” believed he’d stolen from one of their own, living or dead.
Conclusion: Given the ready availability of Army equipment versus the potential issues arising from wearing salvaged, conspicuous gear from a different branch of the service, it is extremely unlikely that the individual is a soldier wearing a Marine helmet.
The Utility Jacket
The Warrior is wearing a herringbone twill (HBT) utility jacket, the rugged, lightweight fatigue outfit for Marines in the Pacific for most of the war. Specifically, he has the P41 pattern, which the Corps adopted as standard issue in November 1941.[8] This pattern is distinguished by the single left breast pocket, with no pocket flap. This pocket was marked with the letters USMC and an Eagle, Globe, and Anchor.
Even though equipment straps obscure the Warrior’s pocket in the Troutman photograph, there is enough additional evidence to identify his dungarees as Marine issue. The four-button front is unique to Marine equipment, as are the telltale “donut” buttons. Army HBTs featured a seven-button front with a different button design.
(This article from At The Front has an excellent selection of Army HBT examples, while this article from M1 Pencil illustrates the Marine Corps P41.)
The purpose of the strap crossing the Warrior’s pocket isn’t known for sure. Veteran Marine and WW2 collector Eric Wisbith postulates that “the mystery strap is likely a standard-issue gas mask bag, with the mask discarded, carrying chow, rifle cleaning gear, or whatever else. The width of the strap fits that analysis.”[9]
Note that the hilt of a Japanese sword is peeking out from beneath the Warrior’s arm. (It is known that Underwood captured a similar sword on Saipan. For more details, see Part III.) Also worthy of note is the bleaching effect of salty sweat, bright sun, and frequent nighttime rains. This article of clothing is well-worn – probably for weeks straight at this point. (The M1 Pencil article linked above also includes examples of bleaching and wear on the P41 HBTs.)
Conclusion: Again, although no individual distinguishing marks are visible, we can see enough details of the Warrior’s jacket to conclude that it is a Marine’s P41 style HBT garment. Like the helmet cover, this is a very distinct piece of clothing – a type issued exclusively to the United States Marine Corps and their attached Naval personnel.
Counterpoint: Could the Warrior be a soldier who somehow acquired a Marine combat uniform?
This scenario is implausible for many of the reasons cited for the helmet cover. A soldier would not be issued marked Marine dungarees, just as a Marine would not be issued Army clothing at this point in the war. (In earlier campaigns, notably Guadalcanal, Marines did receive – or stole – Army clothing and equipment due to the severe handicaps in the USMC supply chain. These issues were mostly resolved by 1944.) The likelihood of a soldier taking a Marine casualty’s jacket is also remote.
The 27th Division did experience supply issues during the battle; their reports mention borrowing rations and ammunition from Marine stores. There is, however, no record that I can find for requisitioning for clothing of any kind. Indeed, this entry from the 27th’s S-4 (Supply) journal indicates that there was still plenty of extra Army clothing to go around on 7-8 July, which is when W. Eugene Smith recalled taking his famous photograph of the Warrior.
The “survivors” were victims of the last Japanese banzai charge on Saipan, which broke through the lines of the 105th Infantry. To escape the onslaught, hundreds of men fled into the ocean and gathered on coral reefs to be picked up by amphibious vehicles.
Aside from a recommendation that Army infantry companies be allowed to carry an extra 10% replacement clothing, none of the extant records suggest a shortage of Army combat uniforms on Saipan. Thus, the likelihood of inter-service clothing issue is close to zero.
However, close to zero is not absolute zero, and in the course of researching for this article, I did find one example of a soldier wearing the Marine HBT jacket on Saipan. In a US Army photograph taken in late July – after the battle ended – Private Manuel Nogueria of Company B, 762nd Tank Battalion, poses with his crewmates (below left). While the rest of the men are appropriately attired, Nogueria is out of uniform in the presence of his platoon leader.
Another Army photograph depicts a mopping-up detail on Saipan in August (above right). While the man on the right is wearing the standard Army-issue jacket, his buddy on the left appears to have a four-button HBT underneath his M1936 Army suspenders. (See section below, “The Harness,” for more discussion on belt suspenders.) The two individuals are identified as “infantrymen” without further detail about their identities, unit, or branch of service.
While it is important to acknowledge these examples, it must be restated that these pictures show exceptions to the overwhelming rule. Wearing the uniform of another branch was not only officially frowned upon as against regulations – but it was also asking for trouble. Marines are fiercely proud of their Eagle, Globe, and Anchor; non-Marines who wear the emblem do so at their own risk. Private Nogueria would have been unwise to wear a Marine jacket around any Private Gyrene from the Second or Fourth Tank Battalion. Perhaps wearing Marine HBTs was a personal affectation; it was not common practice. The 27th Division earned distinction in the Great War; some of its regiments traced their lineage back to the American Civil War. These soldiers were also proud of their emblems and identity; they would not give them up lightly. (We should also note that none of these individuals have adopted the Marine camouflage helmet cover.)
Conclusion: The likelihood that this individual is a soldier wearing such a distinctively Marine uniform is very low, especially when combined with the helmet cover and the fact that the Warrior’s utilities have clearly been worn in the field for quite some time.
The Armament
Aside from his captured sword, there is little that stands out about the Warrior’s weaponry. His primary shoulder arm is the ubiquitous M1 carbine, produced by the millions and issued to service members of all branches. The recipients were often officers, senior NCOs, personnel on crew-serviced weapons, drivers – any individual who needed small arms more for personal defense than primary offense. Carbines were light, versatile weapons that replaced heavy Garands, expensive Thompson SMGs, or short-range M1911 pistols.
In the field, the carbine was not without its problems. The low muzzle velocity of the .30 caliber bullet meant that some enemies couldn’t be stopped by a single hit – or even two or three hits. Troops also noted the weapon had a disturbing tendency to jam, rust, or otherwise refuse to work. Soon, some front-line troops were “losing” their carbines and turning up with non-regulation weaponry. Experienced commanders often turned a blind eye.
The Warrior is in a very late phase of the battle of Saipan and still carries the underpowered carbine; this is not a borrowed weapon, as his web belt carries carbine ammo pouches. He has, however, learned a lesson about the carbine’s abilities.
A wider crop of the Troutman photo reveals a pistol holster hanging on the Warrior’s belt. Many Marines lusted after pistols, whether private purchase or issued, as a light and powerful way to augment their arsenal. PFC George A. Smith (A/1/24) carried a carbine but made sure to keep his pistol. It would save his life on Saipan:
“One day I had a guy running right for me. I put three [carbine] shots into him, and I could see where they were hitting. He was swinging a sword. I’d held on to my .45 somehow, and the sucker not only stopped but backed up when I hit him with that. That carbine was worthless. It’d rust on you, and if you were on a [machine] gun it’d always be swinging around to get in your way.”[10]
PFC Glenn Buzzard (C/1/24) had a similar experience on Saipan; his sidearm was a .38 Smith and Wesson revolver sent from home. “I had to get special permission to carry it,” he recalled. “You peart near had to be in combat because I couldn’t wear it with my uniform in any way, shape, or form. The first time I used it was in Saipan… a Japanese tripped over my machine gun. Somebody killed him. I don’t know whether I did or not. I fired at him with that thirty-eight. I know I had it going at him because it was close quarters. I couldn’t get the machine gun on him.”[11]
This habit was likely prevalent among soldiers as well. In his semi-autobiographical works The Thin Red Line and The Pistol, Army veteran James Jones repeatedly references the lengths to which soldiers would go to secure sidearms early in the war, suggesting this was a common practice.
Conclusion: The Warrior is utilizing a demonstrably Marine method of augmenting his firepower, but any combat veteran could have picked up the same trick. Weaponry alone is not enough to make a distinction.
The Harness
There are no identifying marks on the Warrior’s gear. Soldiers were commonly issued web gear stamped with “U.S.” on their ammo pouches, canteen covers, and belts. While the USMC produced their own versions without exterior stamps, they did occasionally issue from Army surplus stores. Alone, these marks would not suffice to prove one branch over the other.
However, close examination with an experienced eye picks out a critical difference that readily identifies this equipment as Marine “782” gear. The large rings on the Warrior’s straps are distinctively Marine issue – specifically, the M1941 Belt Suspenders.[12] These were “radically different designs” and although Marines sometimes wore the Army suspenders in early campaigns, “this became more of a rarity later in the war.”[13] Compare the closeup of the Warrior’s straps with these examples courtesy of Eric Wisbith.
The shoulder straps hooked onto the webbing, helping to support the weight of ammunition, canteens, and other equipment attached to the belt. On the march or in transit, the various ring loops and buckles helped support the Marine’s pack in any one of seven configurations. However, packs were not carried in combat and the Warrior has clearly discarded his. Instead, he appears to favor the expedience of a Navy-issue gas mask bag, the strap of which crosses over his chest. While many Marines and soldiers discarded their masks soon after landing, some elected to keep the useful bags – they were just the right size for personal effects, as Wisbith notes above, from writing materials and chow to cleaning gear. Some even carried unauthorized cameras in their bags.
Conclusion: Visible distinguishing traits indicate that the Warrior is carrying part of the M1941 pack system, known to the Marine Corps as “782 gear,” as confirmed by the specific design of the belt suspenders.
Summation
Short and sweet: If the Warrior is not a Marine, then he has gone to elaborate, unnecessary, and non-regulation lengths to disguise himself as one. He is carrying Marine 782 gear, wearing a Marine P41 HBT jacket, and sports a camouflage helmet cover. Visible wear and personal modifications indicate significant use and familiarity. It is improbable to the point of impossibility that he belongs to ANY branch of the Army.
How does this knowledge impact the question of Underwood or Klonis?
For the sake of argument, let’s entertain the theory that Angelo Klonis was, somehow, transferred from the ETO to Saipan. He would not have arrived in the middle of an active combat zone without uniform, arms, and equipment – all of which would be drawn from Army supplies. Any replacement uniforms or equipment would be issued by 27th Division quartermasters, NOT from the Marine divisions. There was no shortage of Army supplies on Saipan that would have required him to turn to a Marine unit, nor would dressing exclusively in Marine gear have served any explicable purpose.
Even in the astronomically remote chance that he was on some secretive assignment (as the Klonis argument claims), he would not need to swap out Army gear. There was absolutely no reason for a soldier to impersonate an enlisted Marine. Only the wildest speculations – say, infiltrating a Marine unit CID-style for some investigative purposes – would justify this level of deception, and such an operation would have been laughably inefficient in the middle of a major campaign. Even with the perfect disguise, any ETO soldier dropped into a Marine unit would have different mannerisms, different slang, and no acclimatization to the searing heat of a Pacific summer campaign. He would have stuck out like a sore thumb.
Finally, the Japanese knew the difference between Army and Marine uniforms. Given the hatred between Imperial forces and the USMC, wearing a Marine outfit may have worked against the average soldier.
Interestingly, the Warrior’s choice his choice of weaponry might provide a clue to his identity. Thomas Underwood’s service record book reveals that he could handle the M1 Garand rifle, but not well enough to qualify as a marksman (the lowest recognized level of aptitude in the Corps). He did, however, perform well with the M1 carbine. When he landed on Saipan in June of 1944, Underwood was still a PFC but carried the MOS of a squad leader (653). He probably led a smaller fire team of four Marines (three fire teams made up a squad), but he could still express a weapons preference. There is a good chance that he traded a rifle for a carbine upon his promotion, as he shot better with the smaller weapon, and 653s were allowed to carry carbines under the USMC F-Series Table of Organization.
A personal preference for the carbine is reinforced by his Bronze Star citation, which claims he had one “shot from his hands” on Iwo Jima. By that point, Underwood was a four-campaign veteran who had plenty of front-line experience in the shortcomings of the carbine. He had plenty of chances to pick up another weapon on Iwo, yet he stuck with the carbine anyway. Where he got the pistol is not known; it likely wasn’t issued to Underwood and may have been a private purchase civilian model or a “requisitioned” (read: stolen) M1911.
There is no doubt in my mind that the individual pictured here belongs to the United States Marine Corps.
Even if it isn’t Underwood, this is a Marine, not a soldier.
Continue Reading
Introduction
Part III
Footnotes
1. Alec S. Tulkoff, Grunt Gear: USMC Combat Infantry Equipment of World War II (San Jose: R. James Bender Publishing, 2003), 46.
2. Ibid., 46-47.
3. Bruno Alberti and Laurent Pradier, Marine Corps Uniforms and Equipment, 1941-45 trans. Lawrence Brown and Philippe Charbonnier (Paris: Histoire & Collections, 2007), 57.
4. Ibid., 124-125. UNIS markings were eventually adopted by most Marine combat units, as wearing unit insignia in the field was forbidden. The Fourth Marine Division was the first to adopt and use the marking stenciled on the back of HBT jackets, the right rear pocket of HBT trousers, on personal equipment (canteens, helmets, etc) and occasionally above the top front pocket of the HBT blouse. Underwood’s UNIS marking would have been 413 (for 24th Marines, 1st Battalion, 3rd (B) Company) inside a semicircle (4th Marine Division). Unfortunately, none are visible in this photograph.
5. John C. Pope, Angel On My Shoulder (Kindle ed.) 2013
6. Alva R. Perry, Jr. “The Men Of ‘A’ Company,” accessed 25 February 2021.
7. Chuck Tatum, Red Blood, Black Sand: Fighting Alongside John Basilone from Boot Camp to Iwo Jima (New York: The Berkley Publishing Group, 2012), 206-207.
8. Alberti & Pradier, 41.
9. Eric A. Wisbith, conversation with the author, May 3, 2014.
10. George Apple Smith, interview with the author, 2009.
11. Glenn Lee Buzzard in Larry Smith, Iwo Jima, (New York: W. W. Norton, 2008), 84
12. Harlan Glenn, “782 Gear”: United States Marine Corps Field Gear & Equipment of World War II, (Atglen, PA: Schiffer Military History, 2009), 66.
13. Jeff Warner, Sailors In Forest Green: USN Personnel Attached to the USMC, (Atglen, PA: Schiffer Military History, 2006), 255.