Perspectives and Opinions

Is it possible to reenact as a WWII German soldier, alone?

If so- what is the minimum that would be needed, what is the minimum it would cost to get started?

Many people live in areas of the Earth where there are no WWII reenactment groups or events. It’s possible that more people will be in this situation in the future, if reenacting as a hobby declines in popularity. Is it still possible for people in that situation to reenact? I think it is. To me, reenacting is an experience-based hobby. Collecting gear items just to have or display them, or assembling kits to take pictures for Instagram, are, for me, not reenacting. I am convinced that the best way (by far) to participate in reenacting, is to be part of a group that does events, as there is a certain scale required for the sake of realism, for many scenarios. Reenacting as part of a group offers tremendous advantages. But joining a local group to do local events simply is not an option for everyone.

There are many types of experiences that may have been typical for wartime soldiers, that one could replicate on some level, alone.
-Marching with a pack
-Sleeping with minimal shelter or comforts
-Living outdoors
-Living with only what you can carry
-Eating/drinking/cooking with issue type equipment
-Making use of issue type uniform and daily use items, and maintaining these

To do this sort of activity, the exact impression being portrayed may not be important. It wasn’t common or typical for a soldier to be alone and not part of a larger group. Participating in a one-man combat reenactment is essentially not possible. Being alone is already a compromise; a person in this setting could perhaps choose a minimal kit geared to experiencing those things which can be experienced, in a realistic way.

-Reproduction Zeltbahn $70
-3 reproduction Zeltbahn stakes $18
-Postwar Romanian surplus German-style mess kit $20
-Reproduction Wehrmacht canteen and cup $45
-Reproduction Wehrmacht issue folding fork and spoon $9
-Current production vintage military style wool blanket $26
-Reproduction small Wehrmacht Rucksack $34
-3 leather equipment straps $19
-Reproduction Wehrmacht entrenching tool $30

I haven’t tried this, but I believe all the gear would fit on or in the pack.

This would represent a set of things that would enable one to do a weekend type event (or even a day hike) alone, with period and issue type supplies; it would be a functional kit for experiencing some of the things a wartime soldier may have endured. Total price for this would be $271 plus shipping. These are not necessarily the best or most correct items but I regard them as usable. Some could be upgraded for more money.

This set of things could be augmented with generic period type items like a pocket knife, hand towel, can opener etc. An Esbit stove would also be a handy addition.

In a previous post I showed what I regard to be the cheapest possible uniform that would be usable and applicable for a variety of settings. The cost for that was just over $300. It is sobering to realize that the very most minimal kit one could assemble would cost someone over $600 and that would not be sufficient to participate in most groups or in battle reenactments.

This uniform setup would be appropriate for July 1942 through the end of the war in many settings. It could be used to represent a soldier in training, in a barracks or garrison, or in many field situations doing various camp tasks such as work details, cleaning weapons, field training etc. A whole group of people attired the same way could be a very convincing and correct appearance that would apply to many types of training and immersion events, or public displays of Wehrmacht camp life, particularly in warm weather. This is probably the cheapest uniform that one could acquire that would be versatile enough to be used in so many situations. A group could mix and match white and green uniform parts as was commonly seen.

Cost breakdown:
M34 field cap $25
Cap insignia $10
Linen Henley shirt $28
M40 HBT jacket $70
Suspenders $20
M33 HBT trousers $56
Low boots $95
Gray wool socks $4

Total price $308 plus shipping costs

Add soutache to the cap and this could represent 1940-42.

One could customize and upgrade these items with name tags, correct size stamps and maker marks, different buttons, etc. One could also upgrade this kit with better boots and/or a better shirt.

Obviously, someone who wants to participate in combat events would have to focus on the (more expensive) wool uniform and field gear, rather than this more daily life oriented setup.

For some years, I evaluated reproduction WWII German wool uniform items, and reenactor claims and opinions about them. In the end, my conclusion was that at the time of writing (2019), the products of any of the major suppliers generally fall within the wide original range of size and manufacturer variation seen on surviving original uniforms. In this sense, it is my opinion that with regard to cut and tailoring, virtually any of these products (generally speaking) are usable for reenactment purposes that require uniforms that are extremely close to the originals. The only currently manufactured uniforms that I regard as completely unusable are those made out of incorrect materials- specifically, those made by a manufacturer or manufacturers in China from a thin, almost shirt weight wool/polyester blend fabric with a noticeable synthetic sheen. To explain how I came to this conclusion, I will elaborate on my methods of evaluation.

1. Challenges of Evaluating Reproduction Uniforms

Firstly, I should note that there exist many challenges to evaluating reproduction uniforms. Foremost among them, when it comes to field blouses, is the matter of sizing. Original field blouses were sized five different ways, so a field blouse with a given chest length could be long or short, with longer or shorter sleeves, a bigger or smaller collar, and the length from the collar to the belt hook holes could vary independently of the total length. Most manufacturers of reproduction field blouses size these based on chest size only. This fact makes it very hard to make exact 1:1 comparisons between any single original field blouse, and a reproduction counterpart. Even if the chest sizes are the same, the collar could be bigger or smaller, the sleeves longer or shorter, and that could still be perfectly OK as it is simply a sizing feature.

Another major challenge is the range of variation seen on original examples with regard not only to materials, but also cut and tailoring. There was a time when I strongly believed that all wartime uniforms were subject to very strict tailoring controls. This is in fact not the case, and I came to this completely wrong conclusion based on reviewing a sample size of originals that was too small, and also on original documentation that indicated how things should have been- though this was not as things actually were. I believe that the wide observable range of variation seen on original uniforms is largely a result of simple manufacturer variation although there may have been other variables as well.

A further challenge to evaluating reproduction uniforms is the fact that most of the larger manufacturers have produced various runs of garments over time and these runs are different from each other. As an example, the maker At the Front started off making their own uniforms, then sold Sturm uniforms with added insignia and size/maker markings, then offered in-house made “Texled” uniforms in both custom and off-the-rack versions, then finally had their own proprietary brand of imported uniforms. So when someone describes an At the Front field blouse, it could be any of a number of garments that differ from each other in very significant ways. Similarly, the manufacturer Sturm/Mil-Tec released many discrete runs of uniforms with different tailoring details, materials, hardware, etc. And smaller makers, who may have made items on a cottage industry or even totally bespoke custom basis, may have made one garment that is dimensionally perfect, and another that I would judge to be short of the mark, based on a number of factors including customer specifications.

2. The Original Range of Variation

It is immediately apparent to even a casual observer with access to even a very small sample of original uniform pieces of the same type, that there exists a tremendous range of variation among them. One can see major differences in the size and shape of pockets, the size and shape of collars and lapels, the waist taper and sleeve shapes. Even small details such as buttonhole size, the size and construction of belt hook holes, or the stitch count of seams, can vary dramatically from one example to the next. I have previously shared some information on these variations, some specific examples:

M43 Tunic Collar and Sleeve Shapes
Pocket Sizes and Stamped versus Actual Measurements

In truth I really can’t say with absolute certainty that these variations are not the result of different patterns being supplied to various manufacturers of the same item. But in any case there can be no doubt that these variations exist, and need to be accounted for when evaluating reproductions.

3. 1:1 Comparisons with Originals, and “What is Best”

As mentioned above, simple 1:1 comparisons between original and reproduction uniform components may be of far less value than one would assume, because a single original example cannot take into account the range of variation. If someone had access to, for example, 10 or 20 original M43 field blouses, he could buy two very different-looking reproductions from different manufacturers, and make the case that one or the other is correct, and the other not, or the other way around, by selecting the original that happened to most closely resemble one or the other- when in fact, both garments could be equally right! The wide range of original variation makes it nearly impossible to say that one maker or another is “the best.” If one maker is offering a near-perfect copy of one style, and another is offering a near-perfect copy of another style of the same garment, there is no way to say which is “best.” In fact, many original photos show men in the same unit wearing a range of subtly different versions of the same stuff. For a reenactment group, it may be regarded as important to reflect these subtle variations in order to appear more realistic. In such a scenario, using items from a range of suppliers will achieve the desired result far more than looking for a “best” which can never really be said to exist, as criteria for evaluation are largely subjective.

4. Objective Measures of Evaluation

There are, of course, ways to create objective criteria for evaluation as well. When measuring original uniforms and comparing them to originals, I have chosen to look at ratios and proportions, as these are what constitute the “cut” of the garment. For example, we can look at breast pocket size as a ratio of the chest size and this will enable us to determine if the proportions of the chest pockets are within the original range no matter what size reproduction tunic is being evaluated. Over time, I made dozens or hundreds of measurements of very many aspects of a range of original uniform items and looked at proportions and ratios of various measurements as compared with reproductions from a variety of suppliers. Even though I could never claim that the small sample of originals that I worked with, was in any way representative of the full and total original range of variation, I could not find any measurements on the reproductions that I studied, that fell outside of the measured original range by more than a tiny percentage that amounted to a small fraction of an inch.

5. Evaluating Reenactor Consensus Opinions, Myth and Lore

I will give an example of an oft-repeated piece of reenactor lore that could not be proven by comparison with originals, and that is the assertion that Sturm/Miltec field blouses have “suit coat shoulders.” I measured very many aspects of the shoulders and arm holes including the shoulder size compared to the chest size, the diameter of the arm holes, the distance across the upper back at the narrowest point, etc., then compared all of these numbers to the other measurements, then compared the resulting ratios to the measurements of a number of Sturm/Miltec reproduction field blouses- and found no measurable difference. There is a lot of reenactor myth and lore about collars and sleeves and other aspects of cut and tailoring and I was not able to verify ANY of these claims. I believe that some of them were rooted in dealer sales pitches and some of them were just things people made up, that sounded believable.

6. Conclusion – A Correct Uniform

So what then is the reenactor to do, if consensus opinions are worthless and no “best reproduction” can be said to exist? The reality is that the fit of a reproduction garment, and the type of insignia and quality and manner of insignia application, in almost all cases will have greater bearing on the realism of a uniform part, than who made the garment. Different makers of off-the-rack uniforms offer different interpretations of the original cut- some are longer, some have more waist taper, etc. Reenactors should either seek out well-fitting uniforms,* or get uniforms that they can have tailored to fit properly. Ordering a custom garment made to your own size specifications is also possible. Insignia application is a large subject of its own but all reproduction insignia are absolutely not created equal, and clumsy or improper application can spoil the look of even perfect reproduction insignia. In the end, it’s my opinion that a hyper-focus on tiny facets of material culture tends to detract from what I feel are more important understandings of the human beings who wore these things, their culture, language, and the history of what they were a part of.

* For information on how these things were supposed to fit the wearer, please refer to Wehrmacht Regulations on the Fit of Uniform and Equipment Items

WWII German reenacting needs a certain number of people worldwide for vendors to be willing to supply products that are mass-produced and economical, and for there to be enough people for there to be large events, and events at certain places. The more participants at an event, the more money an organizer (generally) has to make things happen. Those of us who are reenactors should all want to see the numbers in this hobby grow. Even if you view yourself as a super hardcore guy who scorns more laid-back units, the reality is that most reenactors start in mainstream type groups, and these guys are your pool of potential future recruits for the most part (not to say you should ever actively recruit from other units as this is “poaching” and very bad form). The bottom line is that there is no credible argument that less reenactors is better. The more people there are, the more people will be running events and finding event sites and doing the stuff people need to do for the infrastructure of this hobby to exist. A RISING TIDE FLOATS ALL BOATS.

The number of people involved in reenacting is always changing, it goes up and down. Some people are always going to leave due to moves and career changes, divorces or because they simply lose interest. That’s unavoidable. Recently the reenacting hobby has also had to deal with some additional external political pressure, that has certainly caused some people to leave reenacting. Reenactors should be proactive and do what we can to counteract this.

The best way to increase numbers is probably to beat the bushes and find new members for your unit in your local area. But that’s not the only way. It is my belief that it is possible to broadly promote WWII German reenacting as a hobby, via social media. In today’s world, this does entail some risk. Here are the strategies I have been using to do this. Have they worked? I can’t prove it, but I think so. I certainly don’t think it has hurt. I think if other reenactors would get on board and use the same or similar tactics it would be much more effective.

My strategy has two basic components:

1. Get great photos at events and share them as widely as possible.

 2. Be an ambassador for the hobby and a public face and point of contact on social media even if your real name and identity are concealed.

Part of the reason why I got into this hobby in 2000 was from one single photo that looked so good. This guy looks super real, and looks like he is having fun.

Look at reenactment photos you think are great. Figure out what you love about them and either take photos like that, or identify a guy in your group who can take the photos. When you are out on the battlefield, or inundated with spectators, you are not going to want to pull out a modern camera or phone. Maybe set aside some time before the event, after you are set up. Or after the public goes home. Or at the end of the event. It doesn’t have to take much time to make some great images. Ideally you want to get pictures that showcase not only your group, but the good things about the event site that make it unique and special. If you have a period camera, or if you are in a situation where it won’t destroy the setting if you pull out a digital camera, you can take some in-the-moment candid shots. Most wartime photos, though, were staged or at least posed in some way. A thought out photo is always going to be more impactful than unflattering candid shots of people eating (for example).

Once you’ve got the photos, comb through and select only the best ones. Never post a photo with some modern thing in it and caption it “Apologies for the modern vehicles” or whatever, this is embarrassing and may well end up being shared elsewhere without your explanatory caption. If you can’t crop the farb out, share it with your unit, but not with the world; images should stand on their own merits. Only post around 5 photos maximum on social media at a time. Social media is designed for instant gratification and short attention spans. Most people don’t want to scroll through two dozen pictures of your guys pointing rifles; if you post big sets of photos many people will be overwhelmed or lose interest and the impact is diminished. Sometimes you will only get 3 good pictures from an event. Other times you might get 30. In that case, you need to space out posting these. Post a small batch of around 5 photos each day. Separate them into unique batches that highlight a specific aspect you can talk about. Post the pictures on your reenacting-specific Facebook account if you have one (and you should). There are lots and lots of WWII reenacting and historical discussion groups on Facebook where you can post the photos. Don’t spam these groups, do one post only with a few of the very best photos and a description of the event. Maybe post in one group one day, and make a different post with other photos in a different group a day or two later. You never know where your photos are going to find the one guy on the other side of the world who is going to be so blown away he immediately jumps in with both feet. Your unit should also have a public Facebook page and also maybe a web site. You could also look around and find Internet forums with active memberships where you could post this stuff. Make sure your members are OK with having their photos shared. Some may not be, and that’s understandable. There are ways to show people where they are not going to be recognized. Use some creativity. It is always best if you can share any photos without revealing your actual name/identity.

I will often post event photos on social media in a very specific manner that I believe drives interest. As soon as I am set up at a reenactment event I will post one photo that shows some aspect of how we are set up, or where we are. This makes some people wish that they had attended that event or that they were going to some other reenactment at that time. Right after the event, on Sunday, I will post what I feel is the best digital picture that came out of that event. Then, over the next week, I will post the rest of the digital photos, and eventually the film photos, in small batches.

Instagram: You might want to have a personal reenacting Instagram account and one for your unit. I have come to regard Instagram as evil and insidious. Your phone has some way of figuring out what Google/Facebook/Instagram accounts you have and showing your various Instagram accounts to people you interact with elsewhere. A private Instagram account has no promotional value but a public one entails some risk if there is a chance there could be someone who will use this against you. On our unit Instagram we never show any close-up portraits or any photos in which anyone is easily identifiable at a glance. Lots of group shots, photos of the camp, photos taken from behind a marching column, etc.

Facebook or Instagram could delete any profile or group at any time, just for posting historical content related to WWII Germany. Back up stuff you want to keep.

You want to act as a cheerleader for the hobby, how ever and where ever you can. If you love an event, post on social media about how great it was. Go in the event group page and say what a good time you had. If it’s an annual event, when it is coming around again next year, post a highlight photo from the year before and talk about how great it was. You will be helping to promote the event. Event organizers appreciate this.

If an event sucks, don’t go back. Maybe some other people or groups like it, let them like it. Don’t disparage those events in an attempt to promote the events you do like. It’s a bad look.

Try to find spaces online that are open to reenactment discussion and post about your group. This is not just self-promotion. It promotes the hobby as a whole, everywhere.

Try to keep it professional and positive at all times. Don’t throw shit at other reenactors in public. Potential recruits could see this and get the wrong idea, it could turn them away. Nobody wants to wade into a morass of name-calling. Keep reenactment drama off the Internet at all times. Keep it private and go through the chain of command. Airing dirty laundry in public on social media is NEVER productive.

Find social media accounts for reenactment groups and follow them. Like their posts and comment on them. This makes them visible to a wider audience, it’s how the algorithms work. If you can’t say anything nice, just hold your tongue. But really, even with a total clown group, you should be able to find some little thing to appreciate.

Saying bad things about the hobby as a whole is not being a good ambassador. You want to talk it up and promote it. That’s not to say that you can’t go to a reenactor discussion group on Facebook and comment on stuff that is too heavily represented, or dispel myth and lore. That’s fine and good. But nobody wants to read about how reenactors are too old/fat/drunk/farby/real Nazis. If you feel like you need to vent, call a buddy from your group, or just back away from the computer for a bit and clean your rifle or something, until the urge passes.

Don’t post modern political stuff on reenactor accounts and ESPECIALLY don’t ever post anything that could be construed as “racist” by people trying to make you look bad. Even if it is an obvious joke (to you). They will hang you with this stuff. This makes us all look bad when they inevitably find you and make a stink about it.

At all times: share good information, lead by example, be the change you want to see in the hobby.
If you are not already a WWII German reenactor and you have read all this way, you should get started. It’s a ton of fun and you will make new friends and you won’t regret it.

Over the years, I have done very many interviews for television news broadcasts and other TV programs, newspapers and other print publications, and radio broadcasts. With regard to reenacting specifically, I have been quoted in a number of newspaper and magazine articles. In 2011, I participated in a WWII reenactment at which another reenactor was badly injured, after which I was interviewed for the local CBS television news broadcast- an interview later quoted in national and international news coverage of the accident. The purpose of this post is to share my perspective and to make suggestions based on my experience. I am not a professional in public relations and do not claim to be an expert, but I have noticed, over time, some clear patterns with regard to media coverage, favorable or unfavorable.

Why talk to the media at all? It’s a valid question. Especially in our current political climate in the USA, news reports about WWII reenacting have a better-than-even chance of being negatively slanted. A case can certainly be made that at this point, the less the average man on the street knows about reenacting, the better. My personal opinion is that there are several potential benefits to carefully considered interactions with journalists. Even decidedly negative news coverage may kindle an interest in someone who might otherwise never have considered reenacting. But either way, in the final analysis, refusing to speak to reporters won’t stop them from writing and broadcasting about reenacting. The following tips have served me very well in interactions with reporters.

-Reporters are looking for sound bites. Before the reporter talks to you, they probably already know what their piece is going to look or sound like. They probably already have a fairly solid idea of the exact sound bite or brief quote they want you to provide. Try to speak in short sentences and answer their questions in as concise a way as possible, they will appreciate this and there is also less of a chance for them to get you to say something they can take out of context. Don’t be afraid to repeat your talking points using different wording. You want to give them sound bites that put a positive spin on living history but more importantly, you want to deny them any negative or damaging quotes they may be looking for.

-Reporters will lie. Don’t believe that they are writing a positive piece that will make you look cool, even if they give you every assurance. Definitely do not ever make candid, “off the record” remarks. In every interaction with them, keep your guard up.

-Do your homework. If you are contacted by a journalist, look at their other work, look at the publications or broadcasts they work for. If they work for a news source that leans toward clickbait articles or lurid headlines, there is every reason to assume they will negatively sensationalize you however they can. You are probably better off not working with such an outlet. And regardless of your personal political leanings, news organizations that have a “progressive” slant should be regarded with a maximum of caution. Any news coverage by such a source is likely to be negative.

-Use a fake name. You can’t know how the reporter might twist your words. You might even find that the article uses your photo, but the only reenactor quoted in the text is some ignoramus making statements you want nothing to do with. A lot of news content goes online and could be there forever. You don’t want potential employers or others finding your name in a hit piece about Nazis, if they do a Google search. Don’t give your impression name, it’s too obvious. Just pick a regular, typical, common and believable name. They won’t ask for your ID. They just need someone to provide the sound bites they need.

-Keep it mundane. You don’t want to get caught up in flowery language about higher purposes of reenacting. They can make you look stupid by juxtaposing your words with professional educators and historians, or members of other groups who will contradict you. Try to keep it fact-based and basic. Don’t claim to be an educator if that’s not your profession. You can talk about how reenacting is educational for participants, you can point out that reenactors work with accredited and legitimate historical sites and provide visual props for historic sites. Try to speak in broad terms.

-Don’t get involved in moral judgments or posturing. Wehrmacht soldiers were men of their time. Do not praise them, do not condemn them. Avoid using words like “bad guys” or “evil.” You want to stay morally neutral. Definitely do not ever bring up Allied war crimes or make any kind of better/worse comparison, you cannot win with this. If the journalist specifically asks about Allied war crimes, try to find a way out of giving any usable answer. You need to be acutely aware of possible attempts to make you look like a revisionist or denier. If the reporter brings up the Holocaust you have to give some kind of very basic response. “The crimes and wartime atrocities of the Nazi regime are well-documented. The enormity of the human tragedy is one of the reasons why it is so important to commemorate and to remember this period of history.”

-Don’t do politics at all. None. You are an amateur historian and not a politician. You cannot overstate this. Simply refuse to answer any questions about modern politics. Keep the names of modern politicians out of your mouth completely.

-Don’t tokenize people. Do not point out that people in your group, or in your life, are ethnic minorities, or Jewish, or gay, to demonstrate that you are not a racist or bigot. It has the opposite effect. Don’t ever do this. But ESPECIALLY don’t do this talking to a reporter.

–-Don’t conflate reenacting with actual WWII service. Never say “we” or “us” when talking about WWII soldiers.

-If you are out in public as a reenactor, you are a public figure. It’s OK to politely decline to speak to a reporter. But if you are going to freak out and hide your face if a reporter is shooting photos or video, you really should not be going to public events. If you are doing something where spectators are there to see you, the potential of being on the news exists. Participating in a public event is a choice that you make. Acting rude or indignant towards reporters makes us look bad.

-Look at the big picture. You are making statements not only for yourself, or as a representative of your unit, but on behalf of all of reenacting. Keep it professional, but try to talk up our hobby and be a cheerleader for it in whatever small way you can. Definitely don’t disparage reenacting in any way. And don’t be afraid to say it is fun.

-Trust your gut. If you don’t feel confident, walk away. Leave it for someone else.

The first WWII reenactors used original and converted postwar items. As originals became more expensive and more scarce, converted postwar uniform items came to dominate the hobby. The first reproductions, made in Germany and the USA, were a huge improvement over converted Swedish wool. The most authentic units soon began to stipulate that their members must wear reproduction uniforms (as opposed to Swedish). It was generally not necessary to stipulate what manufacturer the uniform had to be obtained from, because choices were extremely limited and the available choices were mostly roughly equivalent in quality. Because many sellers had long lead times, a reenactor’s choice usually was determined by availability.

In the late 90s and early 2000s, reenacting was in a period of rapid growth and demand for uniforms was extremely high. The pice for a new field blouse at that time was around $350. Starting around 2004 (give or take a few years) a number of suppliers began to have uniform items made in China, in an attempt to meet the burgeoning demand with a lower price option. Most of the Chinese made stuff was absolutely terrible, Halloween quality. The field blouses appeared to have been made from photos of originals, the details simply were not there, shirt weight wool/poly blend fabric with plastic buttons. For the first time, reenactment units had to specify which reproduction uniforms were and were not acceptable. More and more manufacturers were coming on line and the reenactor for the fist time was faced with a wide array of choices. A new hobby paradigm developed that heavily focused on what gear was acceptable and what was the best.

Even a child could have seen that the first wave of China-made reproductions were not correct for WWII. But the product quickly improved. Sturm and other vendors began to offer cheap imported products that appeared very similar to those made in the USA. The existing sellers suddenly had to make the case that their field blouses were still worth $350 when you could buy a China made copy for $150 or less. In the rush to disparage the cheaper copies, much reenactor myth and lore was born- much of which echoes down to the present day.

Let’s look now at 2017. The Chinese made cheap uniforms have killed off some businesses, and the sellers that remain have had to turn to having their products largely made overseas. Constant improvements to the cheap uniforms over many manufacturing runs are yielding products that are in most cases superior to the high-end products of 2004 and earlier. The quality difference between the uniform items offered by most manufacturers is extremely small. None are exactly identical to originals but most are extremely close. And yet, the paradigm of obsession over “the best” and which manufacturer offers the most prestigious product still stands. It’s an old model of thinking, it’s outdated, and we need to get past it, because it is a pitfall for people.

It was also a pitfall for me. Some USA vendors disparaged Sturm products by saying that they were based on a modern suit jacket and that the shoulders were wrong and the arm holes too big. I repeated this line, I took it as gospel. Only years later did I actually compare Sturm arm holes to originals and discover that they are the same size. It was wrong of me to parrot this bad information. It is still possible to find old posts of mine on the Axis History Forum in which I make statements that are uninformed. My erroneous conclusions were based on study of a tiny number of originals, and dealer propagated myth and lore that I was foolish enough to take as gospel.

The best uniform is the decent copy that you buy and then tweak and break in and wear and make your own. The decent copy is a blank canvas for your effort to make something that looks realistic. Decent copies are available from almost any manufacturer nowadays. There are some specific exceptions to this, of course. But the old style hype about certain sellers and manufacturers is hype that is not based on fact, and I think it is well past time that we as a community acknowledge that. When we look at (for example) a Heer field blouse, the reality is that insignia choice and application method is almost certainly going to have a greater impact on overall realism, than who made the blouse!

Original uniform items are in most cases not rare. Original M43 tunics are widely available and accessible. Lots of collectors are happy to share photos and information about the items they own. Unfortunately we are still stuck in a mindset of disparaging copies based on suppositions and lore. If the arm holes on a tunic are too big this is something that we can actually objectively measure and quantify. We can look at original tunics and determine if arm hole size is scaled and graded based on chest size or tunic length, and we can collect data on arm hole sizes and determine what size the arm hole should be on any given tunic size. Unfortunately nobody has ever collected data like this or really done anything like this at all and most of the assessments posted here or anywhere are based on comparing reproductions to other reproductions, or on repeated myth and lore.

Fact: nobody has ever been able to list an objective reason why ATF tunics or caps are inferior to any other copy. The same can be said for many products made by many other manufacturers. If anyone has given one objective reason backed by data why Hessen field caps are wrong, or Gavin caps, or Sturm caps, or caps from 3_reich on eBay- I haven’t seen it.

I would put my field blouse against any other anywhere in terms of realism. It is made by Sturm. Is it better than an ATF blouse? It is, but only because of the work I have put in. I could have started with an ATF or custom Gavin and the end result would have been the same. In the absence of actual objective quantifiable data points to the contrary, they are all equally good.

In a previous article we discussed artificial “aging” of reproduction items used for reenactment as a way to make them look more like originals. The term “aging” as used here means applying artificial means to create the appearance of something that was extensively worn and used over a period of time. It does not mean trying to replicate the appearance of something that is simply old- in fact, there is no way to achieve that, because the passage of time, alone, does not necessarily leave any trace on an object. Here is a case in point:

Both of these packs were made within a year or two of each other, circa 1943-44. The green one is in brand new factory mint condition. The leather is smooth, straight, unblemished. The stitching and drawstring are bright white. The fabric is pristine. The metal hardware retains all of the original paint. This rucksack was never issued or used. The passage of more than 70 years has not altered the appearance of this object in any way whatsoever. Compare that to the blue pack. The leather is stretched out, the straps have curled up. The paint is worn away from the hardware and the metal has rusted. There are large and small holes and quite a few careful hand-sewn repairs. The fabric is frayed and torn, the bottom is stained. This is a pack that someone used a lot, and it shows. It is not time that makes an item look like this. It is wear and use.

For field soldiers, war was a harsh reality. The rigors of their existence took a toll not only on the fighting men, but on their uniforms and equipment. Items worn and used in these demanding conditions very quickly took on a very obviously used look. This look became a recognizable characteristic of soldiers in the field. It’s why costume designers creating wardrobes for war movies artificially distress items used as props. It’s a visual thing.

There are reenactors who believe that the best way to create an impression of a veteran field soldier is simply to wear the uniform and equipment until it appears visibly worn. Their mantra is, “Just wear it.” Is that reasonable? Reenactments are usually only a weekend long and few hobbyists attend more than one event a month. Some events may include long marching, digging field positions, or other arduous activity, but others may recreate garrison tasks that incur no serious wear on gear. Soldiers in WWII were wearing their uniforms every day, sleeping in them, marching for miles, living in holes in the earth. They were fighting for their lives. Does reenactment put an equivalent amount of wear on gear? Not a chance. But even if it did, a reenactor would have to go to events each month for several years to achieve the look of something continuously worn in the field for just a few weeks. A soldier wanting to present a realistic visual impression of a soldier who has been living in the field for some time may not want to wait years to look believable. That is the purpose of aging. It’s not about making something look old, but it is necessary if new items are to be used as stand-ins for objects that, in reality, were very visibly used.

It is true that some soldiers were fortunate enough to be issued new items. Others had to make do with reissued uniforms and equipment. But even the new stuff, in those conditions, did not look new for very long at all. The visual aspect of reenacting is crucial, hobbyists strive to prevent a convincing appearance. The “just wear it” approach is great if one is portraying a recruit being trained in a garrison. But to take an impression consisting of all brand-new items, subjected to a year of reenactments, and state that the impression being portrayed is of a guy who has been living in the field for weeks or months? Frankly- I’m not convinced.

How many years of “just wearing it” would it take before a reproduction Rucksack looks like the blue one in the photo above? How many decades?

Our last blog post was about expanding the hobby beyond blank fire battles and the inherent problems with only focusing on “trigger time.” Now, we will go much deeper.

Years ago some friends and I came up with a way to make immersion events more realistic. We devised an idea to create a defined area, a “zone”, in which nothing after 1945 was permitted, including conversation. Discussion topics were limited to things soldiers might have discussed in WWII. If you were “in the zone,” ONLY period-based things were allowed. People who wanted to talk about the hobby, or TV shows, or who wanted to pull out something anachronistic, had to step away. At first, it was challenging. But with time, we were able to hone this skill. It became possible to exist in a simulated wartime atmosphere for hours at a time, within our “zone.”

One thing we quickly learned was that some settings or events were more conducive to our zone than others. It was the same with people. Some were more adept at getting into the necessary mindset, sticking with it, and helping others get there, too. We called these places and people “zoney.”

Over time, we have come to a different understanding of “zone.” We no longer narrowly define it as just a physical area where modern talk and items are barred. We have come to realize that zone happens in the mind. It requires not only a solid foundation in period historical knowledge, but also imagination, including the ability to look at something absurd, or anachronistic, and be able to work it in to a period mindset. Zone, for us, is both the non-tangible, theoretical metaphysics of reenacting, and the hard, existential aspect of things that exist in the world. It is both mental and physical. If he chooses to do so, one person, alone, in nearly any setting, can put himself in the zone. Zoniness is a word we use that describes those intangible aspects of a person, place or thing that make it suitable for creating a feeling of, “this is what it may have been like.” Often zoniness is a subjective evaluation, a quality impossible to measure or quantify. It is entirely separate from the concept of authenticity. A brand-new reproduction bread bag, for example, can be a totally authentic thing from a material culture standpoint. However, a well-used post-war bread bag, showing age and use, with repairs and obvious traces of wear, may be a more zoney thing, even if it is objectively less authentic than a reproduction, due to some minor and easily overlooked construction feature. Zoney items evoke an emotion, a feel. A zoney item, if it could talk, would tell a story about the war. Further, such items allow us to become part of that story. 

 In Sicherungs Regiment 195 we believe that reenacting is mostly a mental and cerebral experience. The uniforms, field gear, food, camp setting, etc. are all simply “props” to aid entering a conceptual realm conducive to a period-based mindset and/or historical-based experience. Zoniness is what we strive for at events. A grassy meadow, a stream at the base of a hill, a dilapidated old barn, an abandoned stretch of railroad track- these are zoney places. Pocket trash, wartime-type rations and carefully-chosen personal items are zoney things. Someone could be wearing all original gear, but if he cannot get in the mindset, and speak and act like the historical character he is portraying- he is zoneless. That is not a zoney dude. His uniform and field gear might be really zoney, but not him. In contrast, 3 people in modern clothes, sitting in a Taco Bell, could have a really zoney period discussion. Rain on the evening before a D-Day event is zoney. Modern conversation topics, period objects used in a non-period manner, and general farb, are not.

Zoniness is the exact reason why all modern items are banned from our unit. It is the reason chairs and camp furniture are banned. It is the reason why every member of the unit is required to have a fully fleshed-out first-person persona. It is the reason we don’t like “trigger time.” It is the reason we are very different type of unit than most living history organizations.

There is more to reenacting than putting on a uniform and shooting blanks at people. This is reenacting 101. It’s how you get introduced to the hobby. It’s the lowest common denominator. Many never grow out of this stage. Others go far beyond it…

See you in the Zone.