|
|
Post by bendanov on May 15, 2007 14:57:10 GMT -5
The funniest thing is that on page 3 and 5 of the Great Patriotic War by Osprey, there are the 39 helmets. Reenactors seem to not even be able to see them. It is the most basic of research and it totally missed.  Martin |
|
|
|
Post by crazydima on May 15, 2007 16:20:59 GMT -5
Tovarischi,
Sadly it happens all the time in all periods.
Too often folks get too comfortable with their level of knowledge and thus feel that they know all that their is to know on a subject. This is a big mistake.
There is always more to learn from information which surfaces as well as from existing sources.
I love it!!!!
Sincerely,
Dima
(never stops learning)
|
|
madboris
Penal Battalion Conscript
Posts: 5
|
Post by madboris on May 19, 2009 21:58:52 GMT -5
What kind of scope is that on th first 91/30? Is that a German scope?
|
|
|
|
Post by vsahdneek on May 20, 2009 15:53:24 GMT -5
Hail Frontoviks!
Upon closer inspection of the pic, (blowing it up with Window pic and fax viewer) it is clear the boots the forward soldat is wearing are leather soled with heel irons. The second soldier of lesser rank is wearing a revolver. Was this common for enlisted no rank snipers? They appear to have just crossed a river which may account for the dark color of their uniforms and chinstraps. Odd that they have no cammo of any kind although they clearly are snipers with later model scopes it seems.
M39 helmets. I would not get too picky on chinstraps. Read the Osprey book on German ww2 helmets.... a good lesson on supply issues relating to ww2 and war in general... supply depots are not run by the book... old helmets get referbed with new chinstraps, new helmets sometimes get supplied with a pile of old chinstraps found in a corner of a depot, paint is what is available and can very from lot to lot, just like fabric color... lotsa variations, esp during wartime during periods of adversity, peacetime can be a pain too if the govt ever looks for a temp 'peace dividend' to fill a gap... the realities of wartime supply trumps all 'by the book' documentation... an 'expert' is someone who has yet to see all the variations, we are all merely 'students'.
Soldat in the rear appears to be wearing puttees (leg wraps) with low boots. both have neck inserts in their tunics.
Just my observations.
Vlad V.
|
|
|
|
Post by horsesoldier176 on May 28, 2009 12:40:09 GMT -5
Also, leather chinstraps on a helmet were solely intended for naval infantry. With all due respect, that information is categorically false! I know for a fact (from testimony by veterans) that Cavalry units often replaced the canvas chinstrap with leather. First off, Cavalry units all had leather workers, and leather available in each troop. The canvas chinstrap did not survive well when trotting, or cantering on a mount, both of which you do frequently in a Cavalry troop. Another interesting fact, the Cav folks replaced the pad suspension system, with unit fabricated German style leather suspension, or by removing the suspension system from captured German helmets, and installing it in their own helmets. This was done, again largely because the pad system may be adequate for most troops, but was seriously inadequate for mounted troops. Field innovation is the mother of future improvements in all soldiers equipment. While I understand the debate over the Czech M-52 series helmet, it is actually very close to what the troops in Cavalry, and Mounted Rifle units made for themselves. Sr. Sgt. Boridin 25th Ukrainian Mounted Rifle Regiment, Bravo Troop |
|
|
|
Post by horsesoldier176 on May 28, 2009 12:48:30 GMT -5
What kind of scope is that on th first 91/30? Is that a German scope? That is the earlier war PE series scope. It is a 4.5 power, variable ranging telescopic sight. The scope was great (for its time), but had a serious problem with gasket leakage, which allowed the nitrogen to leak out, and then moisture seeped in, and clouded the optics. The war time necessity forced the Red Army to go with the PU (the smaller, 2.5 power scope), but in the pre war era of harmony with Germany, the Germans had traded Zeiss technology to the Soviets, and the Soviets were able to make use of that knowledge. By mid 1945 (to late for European theater, but just in time for use on the Japanese) the Soviet engineers had adapted the Zeiss technology to the previous PE series scope. The improvements in the seals allowed the nitrogen gas to stay where it belonged, and improvements in the grinding of the optics generated a 6.5 power scope, which became designated the PEM, or PE (modernized). Leshod |
|
|
|
Post by horsesoldier176 on May 28, 2009 12:53:19 GMT -5
I have looked closer at the picture in question as well.
Note that both soldiers are wearing the old style rank system (pre 1943 collar rank), and the first soldier is clearly wearing the crossed rifle Infantry/Rifles branch insignia.
|
|
|
|
Post by dixieflyer on Jun 10, 2009 8:35:34 GMT -5
Guess your not to familiar with the 39 model helmet. They are lined like the 36 helmet. Exactly. And that is where reenactors can defarb those awful czech helmets with minimal sewing skills. It only take a little time, a few swear words and zippo crash bang, your czech helmet has the early war liner. Cannibalize a couple of equipment straps for helmet straps and you are set to go. Next project is to get that stupid 3 pad liner out of my M36 and I will be cannibalizing a czech helmet for that. Just need to set down and figure it out. Hehehehehe My sewing skills are atrocious however if I can do it just about anyone can.  Of course now I have a czech shell with no liner. Hmmmm What to do what to do. LOL Let the chaos begin. -dave 416th Of course, therein lies the problem. If I convert my son's Czech helmet, the "know-nothing-know-it-alls" will shout "Crappy impression!" at him, without first checking to see that he or I have converted it to a correct configuration. Warren |
|
|
|
Post by vsahdneek on Jun 13, 2009 1:54:58 GMT -5
I find the stitch commisars to be counter productive in this hobby... they are a bunch of buzz killing ninnies and are bad for recruitment efforts... one of the things we all need to do, esp. in this time of economic privation.
It is fine to be a good historian and researcher, but any one who runs a unit or has been a vendor for any length of time knows there is no way to be 100% in this hobby either in knowledge or having it all 'by the book'... because the book kept getting rewritten as the war progressed and anyone who knows anything about army supply systems will tell you how bizarre it can get.
Most stitch commissars are weenies who take perverse delight in infantile one-up-manship
and attempt to degrade the efforts of others without really providing any worthwhile contribution to this hobby, and also are vain toadies who like to prance around in gear and uniforms they believe are corrrect or that no one else has... strutting peakcock poseur wannabees.... man they make me sick.
If I have learned anything in this hobby it is that the amount of knowledge is endless and that in iteself should make us all humble in our abilities and opinions. The true farbs are the 'know-it-alls' because they portray the least amount of soldierly values and virtues.
Strutters do not survive very well on the battlefield... they are usually the first to get spotted, get fragged by their own, or are tossed or chose to be 'in the rear with the gear'.
I would like to say they are all fags but that would be an insult to the fags! LOL!
The best place for such people is for them to leave tactical reenacting and have them strut around at Ren-faires wearing tights and being singing minstrels.... reminding me of a scene in the 'Holy Grail'
"Brave, brave Sir Robin, when danger reared its ugly head he bravely turned his tail and fled"
LOL!
Vlad
|
|
|
|
Post by horsesoldier176 on Jun 14, 2009 21:22:32 GMT -5
I find the stitch commissars to be counter productive in this hobby... they are a bunch of buzz killing ninnies and are bad for recruitment efforts... one of the things we all need to do, esp. in this time of economic privation. It is fine to be a good historian and researcher, but any one who runs a unit or has been a vendor for any length of time knows there is no way to be 100% in this hobby either in knowledge or having it all 'by the book'... because the book kept getting rewritten as the war progressed and anyone who knows anything about army supply systems will tell you how bizarre it can get. Most stitch commissars are weenies who take perverse delight in infantile one-up-manship and attempt to degrade the efforts of others without really providing any worthwhile contribution to this hobby, and also are vain toadies who like to prance around in gear and uniforms they believe are corrrect or that no one else has... strutting peakcock poseur wannabees.... man they make me sick. If I have learned anything in this hobby it is that the amount of knowledge is endless and that in iteself should make us all humble in our abilities and opinions. The true farbs are the 'know-it-alls' because they portray the least amount of soldierly values and virtues. Strutters do not survive very well on the battlefield... they are usually the first to get spotted, get fragged by their own, or are tossed or chose to be 'in the rear with the gear'. I would like to say they are all fags but that would be an insult to the fags! LOL! The best place for such people is for them to leave tactical reenacting and have them strut around at Ren-faires wearing tights and being singing minstrels.... reminding me of a scene in the 'Holy Grail' "Brave, brave Sir Robin, when danger reared its ugly head he bravely turned his tail and fled" LOL! Vlad So now we are going to start talking about politruks again? |
|
|
|
Post by vsahdneek on Jun 15, 2009 4:12:44 GMT -5
Oh no, I am not talking about the 'politruk' position in a unit or such an impression per se,
but rather am speaking of the kind of attitude in reenacting that is best described by the phrase... " a little knowledge is a dangerous thing ".... you know, the attitude that comes from a person who has enough knowledge of the gear an army had issued to think oneself an expert, but has not seen enough of the variations or have any working knowledge of what soldats actually go through in conditions of adversity in the field and what they do to cope with such conditions.... all of which tend to make soldats look very much unlike the 'textbook' rekruit and his/her uniform and issue equipment... and then of course there are the various supply vagarities that occur in war too.
So the short answer is no, but rather I refer to unhelpful and non-encouraging attitudes of some in the hobby that are based in personal vanity and pathetic attempts at one-up-manship. Of course, we here at the'good' forum NEVER do that! right?! Good!!!
Za Rodinu!
Vlad
|
|
|
|
Post by dixieflyer on Jun 15, 2009 7:44:57 GMT -5
Hey, I figure the unhelpful/discouraging/I have to put someone starting out down to feel better about myself types exist in every era of reenacting. Heck, they exist in every hobby and at every job. (I can think of a teacher, during my first full year of teaching last year, who NEVER had a positive thing to say to me on any day.)
Meh, let them gruel.
Yuri
|
|
bef
Junior Sergeant
In Mother Russian, A Big Man has a Big Hat.
Posts: 93 
|
Post by bef on Jun 15, 2009 10:18:39 GMT -5
Comrades,
If you have to use Czechy Vz 52 Steel helmets as that is all you can source then so be it, I will serve until you can get the Correct Scale of Issue, as long as you are an Activist and Agitator in regard to Improving your Combat Readiness and Political Perception you will not attract the attention of your Regiments Special Department or at higher levels.... SMERCh itself.
It is your Patriotic Duty to Conform to Laid down Norms.
It is our Historic Mission to Smash the Gitlerite, and look better than them as we do it!.
Urrah!.
|
|
|
|
Post by horsesoldier176 on Jun 15, 2009 13:32:33 GMT -5
Oh no, I am not talking about the 'politruk' position in a unit or such an impression per se, but rather am speaking of the kind of attitude in reenacting that is best described by the phrase... " a little knowledge is a dangerous thing ".... you know, the attitude that comes from a person who has enough knowledge of the gear an army had issued to think oneself an expert, but has not seen enough of the variations or have any working knowledge of what soldats actually go through in conditions of adversity in the field and what they do to cope with such conditions.... all of which tend to make soldats look very much unlike the 'textbook' rekruit and his/her uniform and issue equipment... and then of course there are the various supply vagarities that occur in war too. So the short answer is no, but rather I refer to unhelpful and non-encouraging attitudes of some in the hobby that are based in personal vanity and pathetic attempts at one-up-manship. Of course, we here at the'good' forum NEVER do that! right?! Good!!! Za Rodinu! Vlad Sorry, I was being a bit of a wise guy before. Yes, I know the type, all to well. Interestingly, I have also noticed that the folks who fall into that "Stitch Commissar" category, are also the folks who have never been in the REAL military, or were in something like ROTC only. In other words, they have no real military experience, and have never had to deal with what really goes down in the bush. Boridin |
|
|
|
Post by andreev on Jun 15, 2009 13:58:53 GMT -5
Not to derail the topic, but we were sitting at an LH once, and I was showing some pictures of my Iraq tour. We had been ordered to wear Nomex uniforms in our M1117's; since we were a Trans Corps unit, we received hand-me-downs. Some guys were wearing woodland camo flight uniforms, some had old-school OD green tanker coveralls, and some had tan trousers and woodland camo shirts. And we topped it all off with ACU hats. So if you're keeping score, some of us had 3 different patterns on at once...Anyhow, some reenactor I never met walked up, looked at the picture, and declared "that will never happen; the Army doesn't allow mixed uniforms." I didn't say a word. My buddies tried to explain that it was a real picture, taken by an actual soldier. But he insisted it was fake...My point is this: for some reenactors, NO amount of evidence is enough to topple their preconceived notions. Me? I just want to keep improving my impression.
-Matt
|
|
