To my surprise, I have become embroiled in a rather acrimonious public dispute about German tunics. My opponent claims that certain units wore a Bluse or Waffenrock with breast pockets - specifically the Prussian Fusilier Guards, 1st Bavarian Ski Battalion, and the Wurttemburg Mountain Rifle Battalion. He says there is ample photographic evidence, but I've never seen any. I know the Freikorps got hold of some tunics with breast pockets, but I know of no others issued. Please confirm or deny my humiliation on this one.
He also maintains that some British troops wore WWII-style netting on their steel helmets, but I think that was limited to a few snipers who improvised some.
All info gratefully received.
__________________
"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.
If there's 'ample photographic evidence' then he should be able to point you towards it (if it exists). Got to quote your sources, not just make dogmatic statements
If there's 'ample photographic evidence' then he should be able to point you towards it (if it exists). Got to quote your sources, not just make dogmatic statements
David
Would that people did - I can remember a long drawn out argument on this forum (on the LK II etc) where various contributers claimed to have photographic or archival evidence but were not prepared to post it. One standard cop out is "I'm about to publish an article/paper/book on it " which never materialises.
I enclose an illustration taken from The Imperial German Army Handbook 1914 -1918 written by D.B Nash and published by Ian Allen in 1980. It shows a Wurttemburg Mountain Rifle Battalion soldier in the pocketed Waffenrock. However I can find absolutely no photographic evidence to support it. You might want to suggest that your adversary puts up or shuts up - ie presents some of that "ample photographic evidence"
Gentlemen; thank you for your support. To cut a long story short, this dispute is being conducted in a publication. I wrote in what I thought was obviously mock indignation and they printed a really snotty reply from some bloke. I'm not in contact with him, and I suspect that the publisher will have had quite enough correspondence on this obscure matter. This will give the other bloke the last word, something no true pedant can tolerate. I shall, however, do my best.
In the meantime, does anyone wish to comment on the original cause of my disgruntlement? What is wrong with this picture?
"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.
Humiliation unfortunately confirmed! Here's a photo of a private of the Wurttemburg Mtn. Bn. wearing the "ski litewka". Breast pockets were also a feature on the M1915 general-rank officer's field uniform.
The breast pockets on the M1915 general-rank officer's field uniform were internal (the pocket pouch was inside the jacket with only the opening slit visible) was rather than external as on the Wurttemburg example. Some Fliegertrupen officers' waffenrocks had a similar arrangement to the Generals' uniform. I think in this case it was intended to allow the flier to keep a handy note pad and pencil but given that they usually went aloft encased in leather and fur it probably wasn't that accessable.
Verdammt! Und D'oh! Rhomboid, you're right. But I might be able to wriggle out of this one.
The football in the cartoon places it in 1914 - no football in the small number of 1915 truces. So no Brodie helmets, and definitely no Stahlhelme, with or without a Pikelhaube spike.
The Wurttembergers weren't formed until 1915 and didn't operate on the Western Front. The Bavarians fought in the later stages at Verdun, but not against British troops - not a lot of call for mountain troops in Belgium. That just leaves the Prussian Fusilier Guards. So if I can place them somewhere else at Xmas 1914 and establish that the tunic with breast pockets was called a litewka, I might be able to get off on a technicality.
Anyone got any details of netting on Brodie helmets? If I had a reputation, it would be at stake here.
-- Edited by James H at 13:47, 2007-01-07
__________________
"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.
In the meantime, does anyone wish to comment on the original cause of my disgruntlement? What is wrong with this picture?
Well apart from the things already mentioned the first British soldier appears to be wearing the webbing for a WW2 Bren gunner with the two pouches for the magasine.
JH, was your argumentative 'friend' claiming that the cartoon is of WW1 vintage, and thus somehow constitutes evidence? If so, he's dead wrong, as it's by a present-day cartoonist - I recognise the style, he does stuff for Private Eye and the like. Look at the signature - Haldane. David Haldane, born in 1954.
Well, no. It's worse than that. Oh, dear, this is something else I wish I hadn't started. The story, if you can be bothered, is this:
It is, Roger, all to do with Private Eye. A few years ago they ran a quite amusing cartoon about the Xmas Truce, showing the football match about to kick off. The joke was that the players had sponsored shirts and there were hoardings all round the pitch advertising things like Krupp Armaments, Fray Bentos, Lee-Enfield, and Wills Whiffs. It was actually pretty funny. However, knowing how Private Eye enjoys a bit of pointless attention to detail, I wrote in complaining in apparent outrage that the British were wearing steel helmets and the Germans had only one cockade on the front of the Feldmutze and the same on the front of the Pikelhaube instead of the regimental number. I do know Ian Hislop very slightly, but for whatever reason, they printed it. To my delight, they entitled it The Great Bore, which was exactly the intended effect.
And so to this Christmas and the cartoon in question. Here was a chance to be even more furious, and it was a second offence! In fact, my letter began, "This is the second time in less than a decade . . . " They printed this one as well. Then the next issue carried a reply from a bloke who I thought at first was writing in the same spirit, but, unless I'm mistaken, actually got quite sh*tty about it. It now appears that I may have, indeed, shot myself in the foot (which is a court-martial offence). I'm tempted to reply because I know the Eye enjoys a certain amount of repetitive and predicatable pedantry, but I suspect that that's enough First World War - Ed.
Nonetheless, I am grateful for the help offered and now recognise more fully the futility of my existence.
P.S. Centurion - you're right. It's the 1937 pattern webbing. Oh, I've done it again.
-- Edited by James H at 21:36, 2007-01-07
__________________
"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.
I think whats needed here is the introduction of the General from Monty Python's Flying Circus - the one that keeps appearing saying things like "this is getting too silly and I'm not having any more of it" etc etc
Its nice to hear that the Great British Pedant has not yet gone extinct. It reminds me of an occasion many years ago when I entered a figure of a 1819 Celylonese Rifleman in a BMSS national, two judges had a falling out over the exact shading of his green jacket and failed entirely to notice (as I have to confess I had) that when carving his bare feet I'd given him two right feet and I actually got a silver with it.
I remember the incident well. Manchester City signed him shortly afterwards.
__________________
"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.
Found a couple of drawings of Wurttemberg troops with pockets (e.g. the first book of the recent Osprey series on the WW1 German Army) one of which also called the tunic a Litewka. They also suggest that the ski tropps weren't orgainised until 1915 (I think) so you may be able to get him on the time technicality.
Have to admit that I'd entirely missed the controversy in PE, must read it more carefully.
BTW there's also a PE cartoon of a Great War British soldier checking his helmet for the 'Shell by' date. Grimly ironic.
James H wrote: To my delight, they entitled it The Great Bore, which was exactly the intended effect.
And so to this Christmas and the cartoon in question. Here was a chance to be even more furious, and it was a second offence! In fact, my letter began, "This is the second time in less than a decade . . . " They printed this one as well. Then the next issue carried a reply from a bloke who I thought at first was writing in the same spirit, but, unless I'm mistaken, actually got quite sh*tty about it.
I'm tempted to reply because I know the Eye enjoys a certain amount of repetitive and predicatable pedantry, but I suspect that that's enough First World War - Ed.
Ah ha ha ha...!!! I occasionally write in letters like that, but mine never get printed! Go on and write in again - like you say, they see the joke and they love that kind of thing!
Not like that humourless tw*t who wrote in after you - maybe you should send his reply in to Pseud's Corner?
I'll have another go, and put a joke within the joke. They've probably had enough by now, but you never know. Thanks for all help.
__________________
"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.
Here's a photo of a private of the Wurttemburg Mtn. Bn. wearing the "ski litewka". Breast pockets were also a feature on the M1915 general-rank officer's field uniform.
I occasionally write in letters like that, but mine never get printed! Go on and write in again - like you say, they see the joke and they love that kind of thing!
