Denison Smock- where best to get one?

I'm average adult height and weight and have had size 3 & 4 1st model Rangercamp denisons. 3 & 4 are exactly the same body and arm length but the 4 is a bit bigger in the chest width. Size 3 fitted OK but was definitely 'fitted' but looked great when its new owner (a skinny ribs ) tried it on. My size 4 is roomier but definitely not oversize. It is a bit of a personal choice whether to go for something that looks and feels comfortable or go for the mahoosive baggy look. I ended up with the former (bought by mail order) but, as Gadge has indicated, you can't go wrong with something too big, indeed looking at SoF's table they would suggest size 5 or 6 for me.

Summary: unless you are very tall and slim and are just slim then a 3 or 4 will be fine.

Buy a large one, it's in SOFs interest to get rid of their surplus of small ones as most para re-enacotors are big lads

When rangercamp did their first run i had the largest size they did as a sample and its a size smaller than my K&C one.

My K&C is about right but ideally should be a size bigger, TBH my rangercamp one while it *fits* like a proper jacket is a bit wrong for wwii, i can just about get away with it as i help run events where i'm usually the OC of allied forces and a major so a tailormade smock makes sense.

Then as now, QM stores tend to throw kit at you *roughly* your size. Your best parade bd would be altered by the unit tailor but most other items of work wear (like the denny) would just be roughly in your size range.

Pop over to pegasus archive, have a look at the pics of the lads on there (also have a look on the sas roll on honour website i put the link up to on the sas thread in this sub forum), most lads look like they are wearing tents tied in the middle with a belt.

If you look at troops at arnhem this is desirable as *every* pocket was crammed with kit and some guys even had extra pockets sewn on to carry more.

I cant recall off hand what sizes both my smocks are but i'm thin and about 6'2" and i usually need the larger sizes for my height alone.

Here's a test - if you can't do up the tail it's too small, if the tail does up but it hangs around your knees it is too big (that would be hopelessly too big to skirmish in, it will annoy you to hell and we don't wear 'em over webbing).

Size 3- height 5ft 6 to 5ft 8, chest 36-38 inch
Size 4- height 5ft 6 to 5ft 8, chest 38-40 inch
Size 5- height 5ft 9 to 5ft 11, chest 38-40 inch
Size 6- height 5ft 9 to 5ft 11, chest 40-42 inch
Size 7- Height 5ft 11 to 6ft 1 chest 44-46 inch

Do try one on if you can - either at a show or try on a friend's - that way you can save the postage sending it back for something smaller/bigger.

Its a month away and you might need one much sooner than that but if you're at Joshs (gunmans) arnhem game I'm'll have both of mine with me that you could try for size

welcome tips on how to age it a bit

Wear it.
They had to be new once.

that would probably include yourself if you have a jeep

The airborne equipment is mainly for my Welbike which would have been dropped in a drop container along with the troops. The para would then find the container, open it and drive away.

Just seen your welbike on the HMVF forum and I must say I am very envious..
I have been thinking about building a replica Mk2 for ages and have been searching religiously for a JDL engine, not to mention a rear drum brake.. I have managed to find the rims though..
Alas like must things it all comes down to money, or rather the lack of it..
Keep up the good work, you seem to be doing a fantastic job on that front end.
Regards Chris.

I put my SOF one on a hot wash and after wearing it to a couple of games it looks awesome.

Yep, dont 'age' stuff it tends to look a bit wrong

(a bit like people wearing 70 year old originals that are faded and falling to bits in re-enactments)

British Airborne forces got camouflage smocks mid 1942, the war ended three years later.

Only four big drops were done and usually with a new smock. The odds of them being faded and beat up are slim.

Look at the guys who survived arnhem after 9 days of fighting solid in them, the smocks are not that messed up.

It was used for training sometimes and for jumps, they just didnt get the ammount of wear folk think they did. Just wear it for a few months airsofting or re-enacting and it will age fine. I draw you again to that smock comparison pic i put up, the K&c one looked like the ranger camp one before it had two seasons of battling done in all weather in it.

Some stuff did deteriorate really quickly like german peadot but denny smocks are pretty hardwearing and keep their colours well (as do windproofs) you see pics of guys in oman in the 70s wearing wwii pattern smocks that look like they are new.

Edit: and officer impressions are a total ballache... you'll need brown boots for a start and they are not cheap....

Heh, I was looking for some pics for something else and it struck me that actually, although there is that famous shot of the chaps captured at Arnhem with the very big denison, by and large they were well fitting and smart attire - sleeve length OK and everything! It was the discarded jump over-smock that went over all kit for the jump - no?
[attachment=2]Poles[4].jpg[/attachment]

[attachment=0]Killick[1].jpg[/attachment]

Roomy for sure but not stupidly massive. The chaps 'on the job' are well padded out with filled pockets and bulk underneath too.

Although the majority of these photos will have been selected and passed by war dept censors to show the army in a good light.

Thats why i hold more by pictures taken by the whermacht of surrendered troops in less well fitting atire to be the antidote... something n between is probably the norm....

Most photos available to us now never saw a censor. Tens of millions of photos were taken in the war period, some for press use but most for internal record keeping, then as now. For sure, contemporaneous newspapers and periodicals would either have images approved and passed by the authorities as fit for PR or be self-censored but all the stuff from archives or albums is beyond censorship. Negatives were shot, prints made and filed/boxed away.

Conversely it would be in the interests of the German PR machine to show scruffy British troops with ill-fitting uniforms looking pathetic, ill-disciplined and poorly kitted out.

I don't think I've ever seen a photo of a British serviceman in stupidly ill-fitting kit - they don't do it now and haven't done it since the beginning of the uniformed services so why would they have done it in WW2?

I don't think I've ever seen a photo of a British serviceman in stupidly ill-fitting kit

I just watched 'The Way Ahead' (again) last night and one of the first things Lt Perry does on platoon inspection is get Sergeant Fletcher to note down all the ill fitting items of uniform to get them corrected. I have no reason to suppose this was unusual.

Cheers
Martin

I've got plenty of pics of lads in ill fitting kit...

I'd also query most pics never saw a censor.

Its common knowledge from written accounts and diaries now available that hardly anyone shaved regularly in the western desert... how many pics of 'desert rats' show bearded or even heavily unshaven soldiers. I can think of *one* famous one of a regualr soldier outside of the LRDG and SAS and thats famous purely because he's got the best part of a beard.

We do obviously have access to more candid and personal shots than ever before but *most* pics are the same ones that have been bandied about of the second world war for as long as i can remember. The same iconic and classic pics tend to similarly grace most internet sites.

I find it hard to believe that the lads from 1st airborne in tent like smocks who ecaped from arnhem with cheery toothy grins were the *only* six guys in poorly fitting smocks in the division in the same way that a few pics of officers and men embarking on horsas in largely staged PR shots doesnt show that everyone went to the tailor.

(note your best BD was generally altered by the unit tailor the other you appear to have swapped about with mates wil you found stuff that fitted)

Its incredibly risky taking a few pics and generalising on them... take CWs last pic. That chaps not even wearing webbing he was issued so if he can source a drop leg tank holster thats been out of service for years having his denny altered is hardly going to be troublesome.

Most photos taken were never for publication in public media (which is the realm of official censors). There are a million other purposes for photography and putting them in a newspaper is but one. There must be millions of photos in public (and not so public) records offices which have never seen the light of day (in the sense of being 'published'). Rather frustratingly even public bodies of archives want to charge for stuff now even though it is public property - oh if they had the attitude of NASA! So yes, most photos never saw a censor's pen.

The thing is going by what you see in books is only a tiny part of the big picture - physically trawl through regimental archives, local museum and public records offices, IWM, governmental achieves etc and there is a massive amount of imagery yet to be published. It's all there, uncensored and not in the least bit 'famous' and awaiting the researcher...

[quote="Gadge"Its incredibly risky taking a few pics and generalising on them...

I'd agree, and taking one series of photos that show massive smocks and making a generalisation is risky...

I think thats semantics there Dave.

I'm saying that most the photos seen to date and commonly available and used in debates like these were passed by a censor.

The first two you show clearly would have been and clearly would have had lads in the best kit possible as its polish airborne being inspected by a polish general and a british field marshall

You can obviously clearly argue that there may well be unearthed archives of candid shots but the fact is those are not being used are they. we're using photos that on the whole are war dept approved and been in circulation since the war itself.

And i'm not making generalisation as you did on three photos.

If you read my post you'll say that i clearly said that in the pics you refer to everyone is in tailored kit. In the pics post arhem they are all in denny tents. As said there is bias each way.... its in both nations interests to show the enemy not to be up to much.

(take for example the classis pics of whermacht supermen being photgrphaed next to the weediest russians they could find and the late war pics of american mps arresting 14 year old HJ boys.)

As i said the answer is probably somewhere in between.

The bottom image is Capt. John Killick FSO with 89FSS.
If you search his name you will find at least one more image of him, outside the aircraft, looking like he is wearing a tent rather than a smock.
The image C-W posted is reputed to be from a training exercise.

Ah the infamous Cpt Killick of Field Security.

A man unknowingly responsible for spawning a myriad dubious airborn impressions

I've only seen the pic of him on the streets of Arnhem with Luger before. It's reassuring to know that pic is him also as for a minute i was worried that there might be some basis for tons of para reenactors looking warry with drop leg holsters...