Our very good friend Greg Liska had sent us some more information on the German M-38 Field Cap.
Attached is a pic of my M-38 Field Cap (Einheitsfeldmutze M-38) to clear up the confusion over the use of that side cap for the Ex-Force guys. This ‘side cap’ style head gear was introduced in 1934 (M-34) and was intended to be worn in the field as the name suggests. The literal translation: Unit Field Cap. There was no famous M-43 with the turn down sides until….1943. The M-38 was transitional in that it had no bill, but had turn down sides. Both M-34 and M-38 were used until the end of the war. A lot of units sitting around in France were not issued the very newest stuff because they were not actively engaged since 1940, so there was a lot of this still hanging around in 1944. Later in the war, older stocks were issued to cover shortages, new formations were issued whatever could be found and scratch units could be suited up with anything.
Use of hand held anti-tank weapons- The Panzerfaust came into use in late 1942 and it was issued to any unit in likely need, which by 1944 (since everybody seems to be talking about D-Day to VE Day) was everybody. There were 8 versions of it that I won’t get into. The Panzerschreck (Rpz-43) was developed in 1943 and saw less wide distribution, but certainly could end up in any front line unit, priority going to units like WSS and Fallschirmjaegers. There was no special uniform for its use. The eye protection that was initially developed for its use was discarded after testing.
The German helmet went through 3 versions in production: M-35, M-40, M-42. Only the M-42 would really be discernible in that there was no longer a rolled in edge. It flared outward and gave it a slightly wider look. Early and late in the war, it was possible to encounter WWI stocks of M-16, M-18 and Austrian M-17 helmets. See pics for this. If anybody wants to see the WWI versions of the helmet or the M-34 cap, I’ll take pictures.
Thanks Greg very interesting data. The head gear and weapon versus uniform of course are correct and not doubt your information corroborate it.
In the uniform depicted on the EXF I only noticed a minor detail that look a bit odd to me, it is in the neck collar too high mark tide in the tunic . The WW2 tunic was a close collar but not as high tide as it look there. It appear to look more a typical officer WW1 German imperial Prussian tunic collar more than lower close collar fold wing M34/36 tunic.
But I guess not a big issue either
Erwin
It can get carried away on accuracy. I remember reading about the movie Glory that reencactors were arguing on a shade of green on a uniform. Problem can be the sculptor and his or her source material. I was told by a party that was doing designing for Britains that they had to send a German helmet over because they felt the Chinese would get it wrong.
I don’t see that as over the top. getting the color right (I think you mean blue, not green for ‘Glory’ and helmet shape correct is not that picky. Maybe my version of ‘not so picky’ is still pretty picky.
Greg
It was the shade of green not that it was green. I also remember there was an argument on the train whistle was incorrect as it was from a later period. As to the German helmet it was a concern for Britains as previous sculpts had been wrong.
One set of medieval figures I collected from China had hard hats instead of helmets
Thanks, Erwin. I used to be a serious Militaria collector, but gave it up in the late 1990’s. What I have now is a remnant collection. It really led me to getting into toy soldiers again, as I would see ‘cool stuff’ in fleamarkets in Europe. Mostly, I was seeing Airfix and Matchbox stuff, but I didn’t know that, then. I hope this helps the toy soldier collector out. It’s nice to feel like this stuff I got will serve more of a purpose than dust collection.
I hadn’t looked that close at the Ex-F guys to notice the collar. I can’t be bothered much in the scale debate. True enough, the toy soldiers keep getting bigger. Everybody stresses so much about scale, especially with the armor, but the FOV and 21stC stuff is already not in scale with their figures. Most importantly; they’re toys. As long as it’s semi-proportionate, you can still have fun. My personal ‘rule’ is I’ll use 54mm and 60mm together, I’ll use 45mm and 54mm together, but not all 3 unless kids would likely be present like ACW or with Injuns and yeah, I know the weapons will be technically ‘too small’). We both like to read, hit museums and find out the details. My degree is in History and my military career has put me in the middle of it a lot in the last 33 years. I like to know what the details are, but I don’t stress over figures who are carrying the wrong version of a canteen or entrenching tool. I know what right looks like and I can live with it. I think it was TSSD that did a Little Bighorn set and he noted that he knew the soldiers should not have sabers, but left them on the figures so they could be used for other things. I like that. Flexibility in the figures to use them for more than one time and place. You can ruin it for yourself if you know too much. You just got to find that balance between ‘Accurate’ and ‘Wrong’ to get to a point of ‘Good Enough’. That Zen place for the toy collector.
I read that there as at least one saber at the Little Big Horn, De Ruddio supposedly kept his. In addition there was supposedly one with the supply wagons.
I guess if we really wanted to get picky it would appear that the TSSD Little Big Horn series carry cap and ball pistols rather than single action Colts. Again I’m pretty sure he did this so they could be used as Civil War figures. However, it’s close enough for me I take many liberties with my conversions and afterall they are toys.
I have the figures and like them OK. To me, the helmets look like the ones in “Darby’s Rangers” and “Sahara.” The officer in peaked cap and mortar section makes me wonder if these figures weren’t inspired by such movies and maybe “Guns of Navarone”.
I haven’t seen Darby’s Rangers in so long I don’t remember much of it, but Sahara used WWI helmets. I can live with that look. as long as they don’t have helmets as ‘off’ as some of the BMC Germans and some of the DST poses. They looked more like Italian helmets, if anything at all.
Question for Ed: I suppose it’s there to be read someplace, but I’m sure you know; why did the give up their sabers? It didn’t save a lot of weight.
I heard because they rattle and make noise and they didn’t want to give up their position. Sounds like a flimsey reason to me, 600 guys riding horses are going to make noise and raise dust.
Or maybe because they do not use or know how to use it well as the guns; Most cavalry were recruited locally/else and did not have a proper military cavalry school/training(the use of saber while charging required a good train in swordsmanship; while in the other hand they were natural horseman because living in the environment and more adapt to shoot gun on horses.
The rattle sound like when in patrol to no make noise when searching/hunting, or making an ambush, but in large formation as Ed said it won’t make any sense at all.
I read same in other books ,regarding removing sabers before other actions too.
If you Google and look for some pictures, will notice few using the saber while most had none
It was probably a combination of things, with the advent of the single action revolver, they were deemed no longer necessary, they took up space/weight that could be used for extra ammo and they made noise and as Erwin mentioned, most troopers were probably not skilled in their use.
Greg, I agree with you on all points as to accuracy – after all, toy soldiers are supposed to be FUN! I do draw the line at F-14s and M16s in WW2 sets 🙂
As to sabers at the Little Bighorn ALL the above reasons apply as well as the fact that in 11+ years in chasing Indians across the prairies, rarely had Custer actually caught them (one notable exception being the Washita) and he had found sabers to be virtually useless when he did catch them. One of the several reasons he was so eager to attack that day was the fear the Indians would escape, which was usually what they did, the braves would fight delaying actions while their families escaped and then would outrun the cavalry on their light, faster ponies. Sabers were extra weight, extra noise, and virtually useless in that type of fighting.
Yeah what Wayne said which is pretty much what I said. The probably never snuck up on them because the saber’s rattled too much. hee hee hee Actually though the saber may have helped at the Little Big Horn if the Indians actually got close enough to use them. I think they pretty much filled them full of holes and only got close to the wounded though. Other then on Reno’s panicked retreat and then we wouldn’t have done much good anyway.
Funny though no one seems to complain about the Marx GI’s, they are clearly carrying M-14’s and that looks like some odd machine gun they have, perhaps the m-60 or some weird version. I used to think they were M-1 carbines, but upon closer inspections they are M-14’s. There is also trouble with the size of their weapons and at least one grenade when compared side by side with the marines. However, they were much better for fighting than the Marines at least they had shooting poses.
Hmm…I thought there was some stated reason for the saber removal. True enough, it was on its way to being an outmoded weapon. Confederate cavalry carried 2 pistols with replacement cylinders pre-loaded IF they were equipped as desired). J.E.B. Stewart stated: The Confederate cavalryman prefers the pistol to the saber. John S. Mosby stated: I no longer fear a line of charging cavalry with saber drawn. My boys are outfitted with 2 .36 Caliber pistols courtesy of the US Government. The Confederates preferred the .36 to the .44 claiming I was more accurate. I think it might just have been easier to control. Either way, the cavalry saber charge died sometime during that war. Now, what gets me is the 7th Cav Reg went on campaign WITH the saber and then collected them up. All that space used that could have been used for more ammunition. Pretty stupid.
Sure enough, those Mx GI’s are carrying M-14s. As a kid, I also thought they were M-1 Carbines. The MG is definitely the M-60.
Yup Wayne, an F-16 would exceed my tolerance with my toys, too. I do ‘accept’ the Mx M-26 and Timee M-48 tanks. For me, they are T-26 or BT-7 Soviet light tanks, or British Valentines for the Marx 41 tank, and T-34/76-41s or British Crusader tanks for the Timmee. The Mx 51 tank gets used as a KV-1 or IS-2. All of that stuff from my childhood gets used separate from my CTS stuff, which is as large as I care to go for armor. The nice thing about the generic look of the Mx German tanks is I can use them (with some imagination) as Pzkw III, Pzkw IV or Panthers. Sigh, I love my toys.
Addendum: No M-16 carrying GI’s either. Agreed! I tolerate the Mx GI’s because you got to look rather close t see they aren’t right, plus they are just freakin’ COOL.
Ed, you know you and I pretty much see eye to eye on a LOT of historical incidents (how I know I’m dealing with a great mind (LOL)). Greg, I agree on the accuracy issues, sometimes I figured if “Patton” could use Spanish Army M-60s to stand in for German whatever tanks I can use Timmee’s M-60 as a JS2 or something. Of course, now we can afford to be a bit pickier. I have my share of FoV vehicles, but I was glad when CTS came out with their tanks as they were an improvement of scale on our old Marx and Timmee tanks.
OK, I got a mission now. I’m going to see what I can find out at the Armor Maneuver Center tomorrow at work. They claim the cavalry heritage. Custer was not the only guy out there fighting, nor was the 7th the only unit. There were 10 Cavalry Regiments in the US Army at that time and there must have been some stated policy about the saber use. I thought this was going to be open and shut. Now, I got a task and a purpose.
Greg,
Interested in hearing what you find out.
OK. I bothered the Maneuver Center historian about this and making a long story short, which involved us looking at cool stuff like Upton’s Manual and the Cavalry Tactics Manual of 1874, amongst other things. As early as 1864, Cavalry commanders had begun taking back the saber from the troops based on combat experiences. MG James H. Wilson was a big proponent of modernizing the cavalry equipment and the documents for his authorized private purchase of 14,000 Spencer repeating carbines for his famous deep south raid was there for us to see. Of note was that the infantry received the same rifle, which means they did not have bayonets either. Not only did it not appear on the equipment list, but the Confederate casualty reports from the Battle of Columbus (14-15 Apr 1865, a week after Lee surrendered and on Easter) showed that the battery commander on the 14th St Bridge was ‘battered by rifle butts’. The infantry would surely have used the bayonet and stabbed him if they had them. Wilson stated something to the effect that the saber would be optional equipment and left the decision to the discretion of the regimental commanders. 3/4 of the regiments deployed without sabers. Interesting note: A militiaman named John Pemberton was wounded across the chest by a saber slash. He was a pharmacist and developed what became Coca-Cola to ease him off of Morphine. Good thing some units brought sabers. Other stuff I learned: Custer was not the Regimental Commander and in fact over 150 men of the regiment did not deploy for the campaign in Wyoming. They and the real CO, COL Sam D. Sturgis stayed back, although I didn’t get time to look up where they physically were. Half of the regiment was on ‘Constabulary Duty’ in the deep south, basically making sure the Reconstruction Plan for the South went on without incident. All but these 150 were gathered together for the 1876 campaign. I also got to read some of the testimony defending MAJ Reno against charges of cowardice. Officer’s, NCOs, Privates, the testimony was overwhelming and convincing. Too much and too consistent to be collaboration, especially across the class lines of Privates, NCOs and Officers. Even Indian accounts were taken as evidence (the trial was in 1878, I think. At any rate, quite some time after the battle).
This made my day. I love stuff like this and having access to primary sources is great. So, the conclusion: The authority rested with Custer since he was acting regimental commander. He left them most likely because, like so many of his contemporaries, he recognized the weapon as outdated. I can see how he would come to that conclusion based on his experiences fighting Mosby’s raiders where the pistol ruled.
Yeah, the making noise reason seemed like bull hockey to me. Good job, I bet that was fun. About all sabers were good for at that time were killing snakes which is why they claimed they had one with the supply wagons. Kind of fitting that De Ruddio brought his with since he was previously convicted of treason and sentenced to death in Europe, he must have had a little defiant streak in him.
Yeah, nearly 700 guys on horses are going to make a lo of noise anyhow, then the dust they would kick up in some places would be visible far beyond hearing range. Both of us considered the weight issue, but could find nothing to that effect. The Cav Manual had about zero on saber. It was all mostly about recon and dismounting to use the rifle. Another thing that came out of this ‘quest’ was the discovery of the almost complete lack of marksmanship training due to budget constraints. One of the changes that came about from the inquiry after the battle was that marksmanship training was re-instituted across the Army.
De Rubio sounds Spanish, but was he French by any chance? Something about plotting treason against Napoleon III ?
yep;his real name is (Charles Camillo DeRudio) He was Italian and he he did plot(with others-included radicals from England) a bomb fail assassin against napoleon III in 1858 that ended killing 8 innocent civilians,included one children and 142 wounded-few escort soldiers, some of which died later. He was found guilty and sent to jail, cape after to British Guiana. From there to Britain and then later to US, he served in civil war, later in the army till after LBH.
Another thing I notice is many toy soldiers when depicting the sabre it look more a more curved hussar type than actually US made for cavalry and in other look like a straight sword. The other thing is the hats, they made most new and all nice done, most time the hats were all bended(Marx did one or may be more!? );because of wind when riding in horse. I had not notice many with them.
Also the cavalry scarf/bandana not wear in face and lack of rain coat or winter clothing/hats(many of the battle were fought if not in winter in very cold fall or spring time and soldiers may/would had wear the proper clothing for this, not typical summer hot uniform represented in most toy figures. Same on Indians. See painting and pictures and will notice this a lot if you Google /search.
I’m OK with them being in summer uniform, but the hats being bent up would make the figure seem so much more real. I mess up brims on my conversions with hot water and pliers. The Confederates especially get a good dose of that.
David Tabner, formerly assistant curator at the Custer Battlefield Museum, comments on this “Armchair General” website as follows:
“….when the 7th Cavalry set out as part of General Alfred H. Terry’s column in the 1876 campaign to clear the northern plains of Indians, they left their sabers behind at Fort Abraham Lincoln to travel lighter; this was in keeping with common post-Civil War U.S. Cavalry procedure.”
This view of the reason for not carrying sabers (the desire to unburden the column of all non-essential accoutrements at the commencement of a hard overland campaign) is the same reason offered by Nathaniel Philbrick in his 2010, “The Last Stand”, by Evan Connell in “Son of the Morning Star”, and by James Donovan in his 2008 “A Terrible Glory: Custer and the Little Bighorn”. All three (3) of these volumes were History Book Club Editor Choice selections.
Certainly it would lighten the load. So would not taking any ammunition, but you know you NEED the ammunition. You DON’T need the sword. That’s the point, you can leave it behind because it’s about useless.
What does a cavalry saber weigh? Can’t be that much , 5 pounds maybe. I guess that’s a box of ammo though, maybe. Let’s see 50 shots or a saber, hmmmmm, I’ll take the bullets.
Once repeating gun come out, the saber for cavalry was just a non cense in battle field, officer used for command purpose ;still way after by late XIX century British colonial troopers and other European used it very well in many battle against Arabs/afghans and many others. So it was a good useful weapon against a standing waiting army underpowered and even cavalry using same tactics. To fight most type of guerrilla tactic war used by indians was of not use at all and against modern cavalry neither.