previous post next post  

Do you see what I see?

By The Armorer on April 2, 2011 | | Comments (24)
Hmmmmm.

apocalypse1.jpg

These are two shots from the package art of a WWII documentary (which I got because it was cheap and had footage in it I've not seen before) but I was struck with bemusement as I was opening the 3-DVD package.

So, what's got me bemused here, grognards?

If that pic above isn't sufficient for your aging eyes, click here.

I'm going back to working on the Arms Room and it's environs.  Today is "improve the lighting" day.  Tomorrow will probably be "increase display space" day.

Share This Article:

Share |

Categories:

24 Comments

By wolfwalker on April 2, 2011 1:51 PM
I'm not well-versed enough in such things to spot problems with dress, helmets, etc. (except that I didn't think anybody in WW2 had mesh coverings on their helmets), but I do see two odd things. 

1) in the right panel, the soldier is carrying what looks like a Lee-Enfield, either a No. 4 or a No. 5.  Fine if he's supposed to be a Tommy.  Bad if he's supposed to be anybody else.

2) In the left panel, I don't recognize the aircraft in the upper right corner.  WW2 aircraft is one subject I thought I knew fairly well.  But 'short-legged fixed landing gear' + 'straight wings' is a combination I don't recognize.

 
By John of Argghhh! on April 2, 2011 2:15 PM
You're just having a bad day, WW.  The helmet covers, both the mesh and the cloth, are fine.  As for the spatted-gear aircraft... it screams "Val" to me.

 
By rikkochet on April 2, 2011 2:29 PM
Those cooking pots look the same to me.

Though my eyes may be too aged for even the larger picture.
 
By Neffi on April 2, 2011 2:45 PM
OK,  WW spotted the wierd rifle carried by the Soldat. Buttstock appears Moisin-Nagant-ish, back of the breech Garand-ish... and the sling swivel is grotesque. A shopped amalgam of rifle bits?
 
By Raging Tachikoma on April 2, 2011 2:55 PM
It seems that our german subject on the right is carrying some form of Mosin Nagant Rifle or in Wehrmacht speak a Gewher 253(r). As for the American on the left something about the rifle doesn't seem right, the way the forearm narrows after the band make me think it is an Arisaka of some type or another.
 
By Heartless Libertarian on April 2, 2011 2:57 PM
I think the Soldat's erstwhile Gewehr is what John's chuckling at.  Neffi's right, it's definitely Mosin-ish.  The stock, trigger group/magazine, and dog-collar sling attachment are Mosin all the way.

But Neffi's also right the back of the receiver/bolt don't look quite right.

German troops made frequent use of captured SVT-40s (they actually liked them much more than the Soviets did), but I think they would have only used Mosins if Mausers, and/or ammo for same, were in short supply.
 
By John of Argghhh! on April 2, 2011 3:14 PM
Nah, I think Fritz is carrying a MN rifle, one with the slings attached via loops through the stock.

I think Joe is carrying a photoshopped-in Mauser of some flavor.

What's *missing* in the packaging is Ivan with a Garand, to make this triptych complete!
 
By Neffi on April 2, 2011 3:24 PM
Ooh, yeah- look at that band-retaining latch on the 'Garand' forearm! Tch tch. The MN is still incorrect, however....
 
By wolfwalker on April 2, 2011 3:39 PM
John: As for the spatted-gear aircraft... it screams "Val" to me.

Not to me.  The Val's landing gear was longer than that, and it had a distinctive appearance: thin 'legs' and then big fat fairings for the wheels.  Also underwing dive brakes.  See here for what I mean:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aichi_D3A2.jpg

Oh, they might be supposed to be Vals ... but if they are, the artist has about as good a sense of historical accuracy as the documentary I saw once about the Hunt for the Bismarck, which during a segment about the Battle of the Denmark Straits included a clip of an Iowa class battleship firing a salvo.

 
By John of Argghhh! on April 2, 2011 3:39 PM
The Mauser is some G98 derivative - what you guys can't see well is the hook on the upper barrel band.  Could be one of any number of long-gun (vice the K98s) variants.

Whattaya mean the MN is wrong? 

It matches the profile for the butt, and I've got Mosins with that sling configuration, it was pretty common.  The rear of the bolt looks good to me, with the big flat round cocking piece.

The only thing "wrong" about these weapons is who's carrying 'em (and, FWIW, I don't *think* the MN is photoshopped into the pic.  But I'm not going to go looking for the original, either.  I got some paintin' ta do!

Oh, btw, bayonets have been wielded, both yesterday *and* today, without bloodshed.
 
By Jerry on April 2, 2011 3:40 PM
When I first glanced at the pic on the left, I thought I saw an A10 silhouette for the bottom plane (of the upper left quartet). But looking closer, it must be the beer :)
Jerry
 
By John of Argghhh! on April 2, 2011 4:41 PM
I'm still goin' with Vals, WW.  Seen from above and behind.

http://lollitop.blogspot.com/2010/12/pearl-harbor-69-years-ago.html
 
By jerry on April 2, 2011 5:19 PM
Dru Blair did a painting of a Val starting WWII
http://www.drublair.com/pearlharbor.html

 
By RetRsvMike on April 2, 2011 5:34 PM
the vegetation on the right side appears to be distinctly Belgian, and (based on how well it seems to be growing) i would further venture to guess that it had recently been sprayed with crap.
 
By jim b on April 2, 2011 7:17 PM
Peeps who do movie cover designs, and all other kinds of art pertaining to the military usually get it wrong. I am almost numb to looking at it.

That said, there is a mural at the Commissary in Dickie Goober (Richard Gebaur) that is a montage of militery photos that have been run through Photoshop type filters. Funny thing is ...  the photo on the right, second from the top, is clearly a photo of two Soviet soldiers ... carrying SVT-40s and wearing Russian helmets.

And the tank on the left is kinda fuzzy, it may be a T34. 
 
By jim b on April 2, 2011 7:21 PM
And HERE is a shot of a German soldier firing an SVT 40.
 
By jim b on April 2, 2011 7:24 PM
I found it here.

That is all.
 
By Neffi on April 2, 2011 8:44 PM
Oh, btw, bayonets have been wielded, both yesterday *and* today, without bloodshed.
...the blogosphere exhales as one, in relief...

 
By BillT on April 2, 2011 9:06 PM
Okay, on the left, we've got a GI wearing 1944-issue winter-weight gear watching Pearl Harbor get blasted in 1941, and he's carrying his may-or-may-not-be US-made weapon at left-shoulder arms, but appears to be holding it by the trigger guard. And on the right, we have a descendant of Landser Fritz wearing a Romanian-cammied stahlhelm loping toward the Kursk inferno looking *up* at non-existent Il-2s instead of watching for muzzle flashes at ground level..

Who did the graphics, SCA?
 
By AW1 Tim on April 2, 2011 11:28 PM

  Looks to me like the GI is carrying a rifle-musket, I thought at first to be a P-1853 Enfield, but it might be a M-1842, or M1855 with those flat bands. 
 
By Grimmy on April 3, 2011 12:04 PM
What's *missing* in the packaging is Ivan with a Garand, to make this triptych complete!
So, you're looking for an artistic intripletation?
 
By BloodSpite on April 3, 2011 4:41 PM
I'm gonna out on a limb and say material.

The material on the right looks wool, textured, and piled in places as wool clothing sometimes does.

The material on the left reminds me of the poly/mishmash stuff we used to use in our fieldjackets, it's just green versus woodland camo.

Just to be silly I'm also going to say the amount of gear. The guy on the right has weapon, water and probably his pockets full of ammo. The guy on the left if the amount of crap he's carrying is even close to accurate is probably fresh off the boat.

But the material i think is the big no no
 
By Casey on April 3, 2011 5:48 PM
What I see are parallel images; two soliders, both from the back, both with netting on their helmets, both similar-looking "Y" shaped webbing (I suspect that's an illusion for the left-hand photo), dark green battle dress, both looking towards battle.

The difference is that one is an American, and one is a German, but are made to seem similar. Was this an attempt to equate American soldiers to Nazis?

Or am I reaching? :)

 
By John of Argghhh! on April 3, 2011 6:06 PM
I think that's a reach, as the documentary is not a Nazi apologia nor a condemnation of Yankee jingoism.

I was all about the rifles.