1943 Tunics

[crazydima]

Tovarischi,

Recently I was reading over on the other forum the debate of pockets on the m-43 tunics. Yep it is a topic that will continue to live on long after our time. LOL!

None the less it made me wonder what would be the result of Dima taking a look at my collection of images and see what I come up with as a result.

Now for those of you who know me very well you know that I surf the web in search of images of the GPW. I have been doing this for years and as a result I have acquired several thousand digital images of every aspect of the Red Army and the GPW from cooking, tankers, VDV, to engineering to pigeon handlers, etc etc.

This does not include the hard copy images I have acquired. However, to be honest I believe I have acquired digital versions of just about every hard copy image so it becomes a wash.

So for giggles I sat down and quickly started to scan through the images to see which images had M-43 tunics in them and of those what was the ratio of pockets to no pockets.

Now of course this method is full of all sorts of inherent flaws with respect to accurately determining an accurate ratio since I did not account for officers vs em vs branch of service date of photo, location of photo, etc. etc. etc.

Many photos I have were taken during cold weather so the tunics are hidden by overcoats. Or the photos are taken of troops with their backs to me so all I can make out are shoulder boards and no idea of pockets or not. Doh!

Plus I have hundreds of photos where there are soldiers wearing M-43 tunics but it is impossible to determine whether they have pockets or not due to other factors such as photo quality, distance from camera, angle of photo, etc, etc.

Sooooooooo...............After examining about 1,500 images I gave up and after doing some ciphering and identifying hundreds of M43 tunics which could be confirmed as either having or not having pockets I came up with the following:

M43s with pockets - 190

M43s without pockets - 130

M43s in photo but unable to determine - Hundreds

So to make a long story short what I was able to glean from my collection is that it is impossible to determine how common one type was over the other based on photographic evidence. It would also be just as inaccurate to try to determine this based on examining surviving examples, discussions with collectors, discussions with veterans or memoirs. All of these sources are subject to a variety of problems with accuracy.

In order to have an accurate representation we need to obtain the Soviet equivalent of their quartermaster records which would reflect what was issued to the troops.

If we don't have that sort of information at hand then we are wasting our time trying to debate which was more common......M43s with pockets or M43s without pockets.

We have more important things to focus on in the hobby than silly pockets!!!!!


Sincerely,

Dima
9th Airborne
VDV

[bef]

Comrade crazydima,
It is hoped the Research Bureau was either awarded Promotion and Medals or was dissolved and the Wreckers of State time and trouble were arrested, otherwise the whole matter would have served little purpose.....

Of course the fact many Soviet Photographic sources can be trusted about as much as a Free Election that does not return a popular People's Revolution for a Progressive Socialist State is only another part of the puzzle... ;D

[Yugoland Armin]

Makes sense to me, though I have found the whole pocket thing to be rather silly. Thanks for sharing your info thus far.

[horsesoldier176]

When it comes to pockets, or not...

...DILLIGAF?

Boridin

[crazydima]

Tovarisch,

Dilligaf?

My Welsh is a bit rusty so can you eloborate?

Sincerely,

Dima

[dbloge]

Mar 7, 2011 13:44:30 GMT -5 horsesoldier176 said:

When it comes to pockets, or not...

...DILLIGAF?

Boridin

Some people do.......not me either


Danill

[horsesoldier176]

DILLIGAF = Do I Look Like I Give A F---

Military slang term.

Boridin

[sasha]

Late to the party here...

I've not seen the original thread and can only imagine I'd rapidly lose the will to live if I checked it out.

Anyhoo.....back when I started doing RKKA the only show in town were the 1950s pocketed gymnastiorki so this simply didn't come up. But with the appearance of halfway decent repros over recent years we started talking idly about this in the group.

This is the documentary stuff I found online.

www.rkka.ru uniform section says that pockets were allowed for personnel other than officers in two changes on 5th August and 18th September 1944. www.rkka.ru/uniform/terms/gymnast_43.htm ending up with everyone being allowed pocketed gymnastiorki.

It doesn't give any references, however...

There's a list of Prikazi here; tashv.nm.ru/ (courtesy of Tovarishch Zayats)

And here's Prikaz 25 of January 1943 introducing the new pattern

ww2doc.pochta.ru/nko/1943/NKO1943_all_0025.html

I looked in 1944 but couldn't find anything like the changes rkka.ru talks about so figure, if they exist, they might be in the annexes/appendices 1 to 4 on Prikaz 25.

Can't prove it either way though.

So, turning to photographs it's a mixed picture and the only thing we could be sure of was that the pocketless type was common amongst enlisted personnel right through to Berlin and Prague. This is assuming the rkka.ru information was correct and the pictures of enlisted personnel wearing pockets are after the dates specified.

To cut a long story short we decided that we'd have pocketless as the unit standard but that you only had to worry about it when you were refreshing your kit. New recruits would be directed to pocketless types straight away.

But I'd be the first to admit you could use exactly the same evidence we found and have everyone wearing the pocketed type. It's just a choice and YMMV.

PS - Google Chrome does an OK job of translation. The Prikazi site is in frames though so you'll have to open each link as a new tab/window to get it to work.

edited for carp spollink!

[dixieflyer]

Dima,
Forgive me, but your flippant discarding of the pocketed versus pocketless gym discussion as something that does not matter disappoints me, especially from you of all people. Of course it matters. I know how you feel about documenting your other impressions, and I am surprised at you.

Now, that being said, I think if one is to examine photos, it is important to place those photos into some kind of context since the discussion revolves around a "when did this happen". Most of what I have gleaned on the subject I have gotten from reenactors in Russia, Eastern Europe, and collectors in the UK, Europe, etc. They have been very forthcoming with information. Most of what they told me jives with what Sasha posted, i.e.: pocketed gyms for EM start to show up in late '44.

Now, when I get to the point where I get to attend an Eastern Front event that has an honest to God scenario with a date and a place assigned, I'll actually try to put this to good use. However, my limited experience in doing RKKA these past two and a half years has told me that 99% of event sponsors and other reenactors are just glad if you show up looking the part, much less applying authenticity regs in regard to time, place, etc.

Yuri S.

[crazydima]

Yuri,

Sadly your assessment of my take on the pocket issue is incorrect.

With all due respect I am very serious when I refer to the pocket issue as silly especially when placed in its proper context of the overall issues facing re-enactors portraying the RKKA of today.

I show up at an event portraying a 1941-42 time period and I take the time to make sure I am in my M-35 carrying my PPSH-41 while others are in M43s with PPS 43s.

Like I said.......we have bigger issues to deal with now then pockets on 43s.

Perhaps such documentation as the Soviet version of Quartermaster reports would be far more helpful than conjecture based upon photos, militaria collections and orders issued by HQ.

Time will tell.

Sincerely,

Dima
9th Airborne Brigade

[dixieflyer]

Dima,
OK, let me get this straight: because a unit decides to show up at a 41/42 event all farbed up, that makes it ok to not try and improve our '43-'45 impressions?
Photos, when placed in context (time and place), are a valuable research tool, and you know that. Am I to believe that your work on your VDV impression was based entirely upon quartermaster records, and that you eschewed photographic evidence, or original items that have some kind of provenance?

Yuri
Owner and wearer of a pocketed gym.

[horsesoldier176]

Tovarisch Yuri;

I think that what Dima is saying is we need to fight, and win the bigger battles, before we start fighting the smaller skirmishes.

With so much inaccuracy in the Red Army impression area, to get all exercised over the percentages of pocketed, vs non-pocketed gyms in 1943, 1944, or 1945 seems small to me.

Should it be ignored? No, but isn't it more important to get rid of the 1980 uniforms, and at least get our NUGs into a more period correct uniform, than it is to worry about whether a Novichok is wearing a proper M-1943 gym for his rank?

The biggest problem that I face with NUGs is that they show up in their most recent E-Bay win, that was sold to them as a GPW style uniform, but is in fact a 1980 full front buttoned field tunic, and I have to break the bad news to them, that their $60.00 uniform is fine for the Afghan war, but a no go for GPW.

My point, and not to speak for Dima, as he is quite capable of speaking for himself, but I believe his point also is, lets get the impression into what are ACTUALLY period correct uniforms, and equipment, before we start tearing into the issue of pockets.

Now, if your unit is already past the totally wrong uniform issue, great, and go for it on the pockets, but if you are that far along, you are far ahead of most units.

Boridin

[horsesoldier176]

BTW: My M-1943 gym, dated 44 is pocketed, with subdued buttons.

Boridin

[sasha]

Apr 4, 2011 13:17:53 GMT -5 horsesoldier176 said:

The biggest problem that I face with NUGs is that they show up in their most recent E-Bay win, that was sold to them as a GPW style uniform, but is in fact a 1980 full front buttoned field tunic, and I have to break the bad news to them, that their $60.00 uniform is fine for the Afghan war, but a no go for GPW.

Ain't that the truth.

Our unit doesn't, currently, have a website so it's difficult to guide people before they get to you. Though, even if we had that I think we'd still get people turning up in their ULTRA RARE WW2 SOVIET UNIFORM!

Luckily we also reenact Cold War (WGF, CGF and Afghantsy) so they haven't completely wasted their money.

The approach we're taking is to set a direction. e.g. in 2011 all the unit is asking is that you get the BN gas mask bag. For 2012 we'll choose something else (my favourite is the suspension type water bottle cover but we'll discuss that as a unit). If you want to change other bits then more power to your elbow but I wouldn;t ask that anyone spend hundreds of dollars in the next three months to replace everything they have.

[bef]

Comrades,
If you are an Officer Pocketed are to Regulation, Other ranks Pocketless are.... but there was some disobeying of this by both Officers and O/R also 35 Gyms can be worn with Shoulder Boards as late as 45....
If you are an O/R (EM) then better to wear Pocketless.

Simple...... our habit of using available 1960's Garments should be put behind us as better garments are now available, like our Gitlerite Genossen no longer using converted Swedish Uniforms.

It is the advantage of a Centrally Controlled Command Society, we obey the dress regulations, our personal feelings or lack of Political Perception as, "but this is how we have always done it" are but Army Group Centre in the face of the Operation Bagration.

Urrah!.