WPG Airtex khaki battledress

Which exactly are you looking at getting and what exactly are you wanting to portray?

The uniforms varied quite a bit during the war and it would be good for you to get the right stuff.

As for quality. I have one of the KD aertex shirts and they're good.

He does this and the matching trousers in a package, there is no photo on the site of the pair, but I spoke with him via email and he clarified that it is this set: [link]http://onlinemilitaria.net/shopexd.asp?id=1304&bc=no[/link]
Useful I figured for Mediterranean and North Africa, where NZ troops were for most of the war.
EDIT: And I would mostly be using it for an LRDG impression, but the NZ battledress I use can just as easily be used for regular infantry; might there be any problem with using this for a line inf loadout as well?

You know what. I'm not sure when the KD battledress blouse was used, if at all. I know that the JG one was used in Burma. It must have been used somewhere, I just can't think of a picture of it being used!

I think you'd be safer with the following KD items.

KD trousers (generally worn only in the evening or at night, but not always limited to that)
KD shorts (one of the patterns)
KD aertex shirt (the pull over type, worn in combat and under the bush jacket.)
KD aertex bush jacket (4 pocket type, worn with belt for walking out or when it's colder.)

Ah, cool, thanks for that
There are a lot of postwar khaki BD blouses around over here, but they are mostly Australian made ones with postwar collar etc, so not much use.

Heh... the next thing to consider is which trousers and shorts to wear. The patterns did change quite a bit through the war though the shirts didn't seem to much.

T THere is actually one solution... Remove the pocket on the Front and Rear, leaving only the shell dressing pocket. This will make them 1941 Pattern.

This sounds like it might be worth doing, cheers for the info

Just after making the above post, I recieved an email from the WPG warehouse with a pic of the trousers; shouldn't be a problem for my local tailor to have those pockets off. Added bonus to have some spare material in case they ever get torn up airsofting anyway, since that's all I'd be using them for.

Jerry's (WPG) Tam, Airtex shirt, 1941 shorts, khaki hose, and short puttees.

Two errors: Hackle is in the wrong position, and boots. (both now corrected).

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theblackwatch_wwii/

Nice one, Dutch. I'll certainly make sure to get one of those shirts at some stage.
I will probably get this set, it seems like a good one to go for on a budget and from what Chief Chinthe suggested, relatively easy to make accurate for at least late war Italy via removal of extra trouser pockets. For early to mid war impressions, I just need a KD shirt to go with my BD and I'm all done (currently using a civvy Khaki shirt under the BD blouse and disguising it with a scrim scarf, but that won't do long term ).
Here's an original of the KD BD blouse which WPG have repro'd; not much info to go with it, but dated May '44, so I suppose it could concievably have been issued before the end of the Italian campaign. [link]http://www.worldwarwonders.co.uk/vmchk/WW2-Militaria/Near-Mint-WW2-Tropical-Issue-Khaki-Airtex-Battledress-Jacket.html[/link]

Ah yes, I might order my Airtex shirt from ebay, then, there's one available that's a dead ringer for period photos. Cheers for the info, again, CC!

As I said, trousers just remove all but the front shell dressing pocket. This makes them 1941 Pattern. If you want earlier trousers (or even the shorts) than that, remove all the pockets, then make a pocket similar to the 1937 Patt BD shell dressing pocket., attach this to the rear right backside. This makes them the most early Pattern (save actual bombay bloomers)

Which begs the question - why on earth would anyone make trousers without pockets. All trousers have pockets 'cos its a handy and natural place to put stuff where your hands fall. A trouser without pockets is a travesty and nothing more than a kilt stitched up between the legs. I jest, but it does sound, well, odd.

All trousers have pockets 'cos its a handy and natural place to put stuff where your hands fall. A trouser without pockets is a travesty and nothing more than a kilt stitched up between the legs. I jest, but it does sound, well, odd.

I guess it upsets all that military neatness, if you have all sorts of crap bulging out all over (ooer!)

I know most of my suits have the pockets sewn up to avoid spoiling the lines.

I can't believe neatness would win over practicality - otherwise they would send men into battle in top hat and tails or velvet smoking jackets.

PS Your meant to cut open the tailor's basting sewn suit pockets to make the garment practical - you must be a very smart chap with an entourage who carry your useful bits and bobs. Either that or a man bag.

PS Your meant to cut open the tailor's basting sewn suit pockets to make the garment practical - you must be a very smart chap with an entourage who carry your useful bits and bobs. Either that or a man bag.

I just have my people carry the money.

Either that or i'm too tight to pay for anything, your choice.

Evo is right.

The army has always favoured neatness and 'britishness' over practicality (a classic example being napoleonic leather stocks... scraped and glued hair and in more modern times the refusal t change the tommy helmet design post wwi to a desgin 38 per cent more effective as 'it looked a bit foreign')

Carrying things in pockets isnt really supposed to happen.

If you look at the war depts guides to how the entire basic issue is carried... none of its in your pockets.

Pockets are for personal effects and comforts but again shouldn't be seen by NCOs.

In general the pocket on the hip are 'hand warming' pockets, not for carriage of items. There are some exceptions but in army nomenclature if a pockets supposed to carry something they tell you so...

i.e FFD pocket, map pocket on BD.

Interestin stuff, that would explain how we won the war then. The pocket policy was our secret weapon.

Buying/specifying policy for the British Army doesn't seem to have changed much over the last 70 years, does it. It still seems to be done by loons...

Until very recently its because it was procured and designed by men who never had to use it in action and bought from the lowest bidder.

Now we have the ITDU and ATDU that test kit in the field to destruction and evaluate it before recommendng a purchase.

In the past stuff tended do be designed on recommendation from previous experience from the last war.. meaning by the time it reached the troops it was already obsolete.

On the pockets side of things, i've just finished reading a book on the Spanish fascist 'Blue Division' fighting in Russia with the Axis. One of the things that used to infuriate even german private soldiers let alone officers was the spanish habit of wlaking around with their hands in their pockets or having unfastened tunics.

It was considered an insult to the uniform to wear it so....

As an asside, Dutch's picture actually shows the flaw in Jerry's shorts perfectly. All trousers should be worn higher. Correctly fitted KDs/JGs should sit at Naval level. That is to say the tob buckle should be able to be placed over the naval.

The issue is not with Jerry's shorts, I am afraid to say. The real problem is about 20 extrea pounds of Dutch. I am also working to reduce that problem.

Anyone ever done that trick with soaking KD gear in tea to make it look grubby? I'm contemplating it as a way of reducing the stunning brightness of my KD kit, but I would prefer not to do so without first ascertaining how much tea per bucket of water, how long to leave it etc