ok just want to add quikly, i was going to go SS but when word caught onto my great grandad, i dont think he would ever let me back in the house, he said it was direspectful and wrong ( his views not mine) now obviously being a veteran he would have had those views but i suppose as airsofters we dont see it that way much of the time.
and about the airsofter/reenactor bit, i wouldve thought we were reenactors with airsoft guns, but anyway, lets get back on topic.
Tom.
Now a 'namsofter. I have an M72 L.A.W. for sale for 110 posted, PM if interested.
tom are you sure your only 16
He is a sensible lad, isn't he.
A wise 13yr old - that can't be right!
aaaanyway, i think yank combat uniforms always look scruffy. but then they have two dress uniforms for looking smart. i dont think combats need to be ironed, but i do agree with the uniformity bit, its good to all look the same, it gives that unit identity feel.
yeahh 
thats right.
question ive always forgot to ask, in the ardennes, did the 101st wear m1cs, m2s or m1s?
Tom.
Now a 'namsofter. I have an M72 L.A.W. for sale for 110 posted, PM if interested.
To answer your question Tom, I think there would be such a range of helmets used by that period in the war. That no specific one can be identified.
maybe someone could get a more specific response.
I want to know did US infantry carry on wearing HTB's during the winter of 1944/45 over the top of their wools or did they just ditch them.
I have seen pics of them wearing them, problem was with supply the way it was, it was very hit and miss as to who was issued with what.
Bloody hell... at least we only have to worry about blancoing kit.
I'd hate to have to stress about what colour a strap *inside* a pocket was 
This thread has been quite interesting to read and points put across well by all.
Its obviously personal choice but i personally get a kick out of seeing cohesive looking teams to play alongside or against - certainly adds to my suspension of disbelief.
In fact its the whole reason Hohenstaufen and PBI are having a private battle in march so we can be a bit more accurate with kit and indulge our re-enactment battle fantasy without offending anyone
Maybe all of this could have been side stepped by putting up pics as 'work in progress' and 'stitch not see' like our US sister forum does?
Stuff put up in WIP should only be responded to helpfully while 'SNS' is for ultra critique...
Seems to work well for them
"I think we are in rats' alley - Where the dead men lost their bones."
Thats acutally a very good idea, adding very nicely to the all inclusive aspect of CIA. Well done, I for one would be happy to hold up my kit and have people assist with making it a bit better 
You mean having a kit pic thread and a WIP thread ? that sounds like a good idea to me.
Its incredibly helpful as you have two tier advice.
WIP offers gentle encouragement and constructive advice and folk are encouraged not to post in the SNS section unless they are *sure* everything is almost museum quality. pUtting yourself up in that section basically gives consent to become the subject of and involved in close scrutiny and occasionally have someone say 'that was never done - here is my source' or yes it was 'here's six photos to show it' (one photo can always be found to justify most things : )
Obviously a call for CW mainly but it may satisfy both camps.
On the other hand it *may* open the doors to snobbery... maybe who knows.
"I think we are in rats' alley - Where the dead men lost their bones."
You mean having a kit pic thread and a WIP thread ? that sounds like a good idea to me.
If only it we're my idea, stolen from our continental cousins i'm afraid :~)
"I think we are in rats' alley - Where the dead men lost their bones."
I think that is a very good idea, having a section basically requesting comment. I think that is the nub of the "upsetting people" issue, where people aren't asking for critique, just showing where they have got to so far, but then get critiqued - que flaming session.
Would it be best that only people requesting a critique should post pictures or kit descriptions in that thread to keep it as uncluttered as possible. All other general questions could be in other threads as per now.
Would it work best as separate by side (e.g. Brit, German, US, Russian, etc)or just lump it all together?
I would like to see more assistance on good looking civvy loadouts in this as I am clueless and a SOE, French, Norwegian, German agent, etc kit guide would help?
Peter Rabbit - Tank Killer
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hawk914/2159973655/
along with it, it will need to painfully obvious that pics posted up would subject to the closest scrutiny, so don't post if easily offended. Now I know that that is telling granny how to suck eggs, but guaranteed some many not read it. probably just link it all together, one nice handy reference section.
Plenty of info on M1s here:
http://www.hardscrabblefarm.com/ww2/dating_m1.htm
http://www.m-1helmet.com
http://www.jmurrayinc1944.com/www/m2dbale.htm
http://www.jmurrayinc1944.com/www/M1C.htm
The M2 and the M1C are the ones of interest to the paratrooper. M1s were for regular infantry.
The 101st would first have been issued with the M2, then later, the M1C. As you can see from the dating link the fixed bale M2 helmets went out of production in Sep 1943 with the swivel bale M1C entering production in October of the same year.
It's fair to assume that they were issued with M1Cs upon their return from Normandy when they got their M43s, but we all know that supply lines weren't all that efficient. I think it's fine to wear either if you are portraying Ardennes.
**Usual caveats apply about CiA events being non-selective about such things. Wear a Korean one, we're really not that fussy.**
pictures that i have seen, apart from being grey and not having the A frames, hessian, they look more like the m2 than the m1cs. but as you say, could get away with either, (:
Tom.
Now a 'namsofter. I have an M72 L.A.W. for sale for 110 posted, PM if interested.
'A' frames and chinstrap would be removed or tucked up inside post jump. Very few had then flapping about.
BTW, how on earth can you make out the difference on an old photo? The D bales aren't that prominent, unless they're real close ups.
well, one obviously being the shape difference, m2 looks, not overly sure how to explain it, but a bit bigger? and the curving ( not sure of technical name) at the back is more present on the m2 and on the m1c there isnt much there.
Tom.
Now a 'namsofter. I have an M72 L.A.W. for sale for 110 posted, PM if interested.
well, one obviously being the shape difference, m2 looks, not overly sure how to explain it, but a bit bigger? and the curving ( not sure of technical name) at the back is more present on the m2 and on the m1c there isnt much there.
Tom.
Tom are you describing the helmet shell or the chinstrap bales as all WW2 made shells i believe are of exactly the same profile/size etc.
I believe the size changed slightly post war but to be honest i cannot tell the difference 
