Link to Item
If you have comments or questions please post them here.
Thanks!
Figures
Military figures of all shapes and sizes.
Military figures of all shapes and sizes.
Hosted by Darren Baker, Mario Matijasic
REVIEW
DML Commonwealth Infantry, Italy
wbill76
Joined: May 02, 2006
KitMaker: 5,425 posts
Armorama: 4,659 posts
Posted: Monday, September 08, 2008 - 04:25 AM UTC
Pat McGrath reviews the 1/35 DML Commonwealth Infantry, Italy 1943 6 figure set.
Link to Item
If you have comments or questions please post them here.
Thanks!
Link to Item
If you have comments or questions please post them here.
Thanks!
jimbrae
Joined: April 23, 2003
KitMaker: 12,927 posts
Armorama: 9,486 posts
Posted: Monday, September 08, 2008 - 04:36 AM UTC
Good review Pat. 
I don't have one handy at the moment, but I get the feeling that the weapons included are identical to those issued in their (previously-released) Allied equipment sets... That's NOT a criticism, but it'd be nice if they updated the Allied weapons to the same standard as the German (GenII) sets.
I also wish, and it's NOT just DML, that they would take a closer look at contemporary images and stop issuing every British/Commonwealth figure with gaiters. Also, if one looks at images from the Italian campaign, a hell of a lot of the uniform details deviated a lot from 'Parade Ground' trousers were frequently baggy and worn - not quite 'scarecrow' standard but tending towards the scruffy...
I don't have one handy at the moment, but I get the feeling that the weapons included are identical to those issued in their (previously-released) Allied equipment sets... That's NOT a criticism, but it'd be nice if they updated the Allied weapons to the same standard as the German (GenII) sets.
I also wish, and it's NOT just DML, that they would take a closer look at contemporary images and stop issuing every British/Commonwealth figure with gaiters. Also, if one looks at images from the Italian campaign, a hell of a lot of the uniform details deviated a lot from 'Parade Ground' trousers were frequently baggy and worn - not quite 'scarecrow' standard but tending towards the scruffy...
Drader
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 3,791 posts
Armorama: 2,798 posts
Posted: Monday, September 08, 2008 - 04:41 AM UTC
Figure D seems to have a strap running underneath his webbing braces - on dear!
David
David
CMOT
Editor-in-Chief
Joined: May 14, 2006
KitMaker: 10,954 posts
Armorama: 8,571 posts
Posted: Monday, September 08, 2008 - 04:55 AM UTC
Very disappointing as regards the accuracy issues, but a welcome addition to anyone who can overlook or correct the issues mentioned.
AlanL
Joined: August 12, 2005
KitMaker: 14,499 posts
Armorama: 11,675 posts
Posted: Monday, September 08, 2008 - 04:55 AM UTC
Hi Pat,
Thanks for the review. A mix of good news and bad then. Hard to believe they got the putties wrong again, after the slating they got for the 8th Army set. I can only scratch my head on the 37 pattern webb belts
As you say at least it's something to build on, which is better than nothing, but I understand and share your disappointment.
The 2 extra bodies are bonus then, that's a plus, as is the Thompson, although the 50rd drum magazine would have been appropriate for these chaps. Some SMLE rifles would also have been good.
Still with a bit of work they should build into fairly decent figures and I quite like the poses and mixed order of dress. Good to see some more Commonwealth troops even though they are not spot on.
Cheers
Al
Thanks for the review. A mix of good news and bad then. Hard to believe they got the putties wrong again, after the slating they got for the 8th Army set. I can only scratch my head on the 37 pattern webb belts
As you say at least it's something to build on, which is better than nothing, but I understand and share your disappointment.
The 2 extra bodies are bonus then, that's a plus, as is the Thompson, although the 50rd drum magazine would have been appropriate for these chaps. Some SMLE rifles would also have been good.
Still with a bit of work they should build into fairly decent figures and I quite like the poses and mixed order of dress. Good to see some more Commonwealth troops even though they are not spot on.
Cheers
Al
jimbrae
Joined: April 23, 2003
KitMaker: 12,927 posts
Armorama: 9,486 posts
Posted: Monday, September 08, 2008 - 05:09 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Good to see some more Commonwealth troops even though they are not spot on.
I agree, however, I do have to ask myself, if it wouldn't have been easier for them to get it right the first time?
Quite honestly, welcome though this set undoubtedly is, I get the feeling that DML are coming close to paying lip-service to the whole Allied thing. If mistakes like this were made with a German set, there would be people screaming from the rooftops... A couple of years ago, I was definitely of the opinion that Axis was the logical choice for the manufacturers, now, with the success of Bronco, the announcement of the Churchill from AFV Club, Paras with Welbikes from Tristar etc. etc. (not to mention the rumors of a Katie in plastic) that Allied is a hell of a big part of the market... A few crumbs just ain't gonna do it....
AlanL
Joined: August 12, 2005
KitMaker: 14,499 posts
Armorama: 11,675 posts
Posted: Monday, September 08, 2008 - 05:39 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextGood to see some more Commonwealth troops even though they are not spot on.
I agree, however, I do have to ask myself, if it wouldn't have been easier for them to get it right the first time?
Quite honestly, welcome though this set undoubtedly is, I get the feeling that DML are coming close to paying lip-service to the whole Allied thing. If mistakes like this were made with a German set, there would be people screaming from the rooftops... A couple of years ago, I was definitely of the opinion that Axis was the logical choice for the manufacturers, now, with the success of Bronco, the announcement of the Churchill from AFV Club, Paras with Welbikes from Tristar etc. etc. (not to mention the rumors of a Katie in plastic) that Allied is a hell of a big part of the market... A few crumbs just ain't gonna do it....
Hi Jim,
That about sums it up in a nut shell, I didn't really want to print what I was thinking. They miss a golden opportunity with the 8th Army set to really lift their efforts on the Allied figure side and they have missed it again with this set, . You can't help but get the feeling it's a half hearted effort.
Al
martyncrowther
Joined: September 12, 2007
KitMaker: 1,548 posts
Armorama: 1,407 posts
Posted: Monday, September 08, 2008 - 05:44 AM UTC
so is it worth buying then? ive looked at the parts and they are good im only 16 and hey i dont have much money and i dont want to blow it on a set of figures? 
exer
Joined: November 27, 2004
KitMaker: 6,048 posts
Armorama: 4,619 posts
Posted: Monday, September 08, 2008 - 05:51 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I get the feeling that DML are coming close to paying lip-service to the whole Allied thing. If mistakes like this were made with a German set, there would be people screaming from the rooftops
Well they've done a couple of US Gen 2 sets and now a Russian set so it's only the British/Commonwealth who are the poor relations in terms of Gen 2 and as you say with so many British vehicles coming onto the market it's hard to see why.
Quoted Text
I don't have one handy at the moment, but I get the feeling that the weapons included are identical to those issued in their (previously-released) Allied equipment sets.
They are and the difference in sharpness between the British weapons and the Gen 2 American sprue is noticable.
Quoted Text
This is the strap for the bandolier I think but of course it shouldn't be under the webbing. The Bren Gunner also has that strap which could be for the bren tool wallet. Figure D seems to have a strap running underneath his webbing braces - on dear!
Quoted Text
Very disappointing as regards the accuracy issues, but a welcome addition to anyone who can overlook or correct the issues mentioned.
Well I can't overlook it but with four of these sets in my stash I well figure out a way to correct them.
Quoted Text
Some SMLE rifles would also have been good.
They certainly would You only get one in the 8th Army set and 3? in the ICM British WW1 infantry, AFAIK there are no others in plastic. I've ordered a resin set from Ultracast. Do Hornet still do a set? EDIT:they do a set of 5 in white metal.
210cav
Joined: February 05, 2002
KitMaker: 6,149 posts
Armorama: 4,573 posts
Posted: Monday, September 08, 2008 - 06:09 AM UTC
The god, bad and the ugly.....thanks for the review
AlanL
Joined: August 12, 2005
KitMaker: 14,499 posts
Armorama: 11,675 posts
Posted: Monday, September 08, 2008 - 07:04 AM UTC
Hi Pat
"Well I can't overlook it but with four of these sets in my stash I well figure out a way to correct them"
Are we planning a small invasion of Italy perhaps
Al
"Well I can't overlook it but with four of these sets in my stash I well figure out a way to correct them"
Are we planning a small invasion of Italy perhaps
Al
Kinggeorges
Joined: August 31, 2005
KitMaker: 1,380 posts
Armorama: 845 posts
Posted: Monday, September 08, 2008 - 08:51 AM UTC
Hi all,
thanks Pat for this review.
I'm waiting my set from Hobbyeasy. I was impatient, but after reading your review I'm less excited.
Anyway, Iwas not planing them as british infantry, but I was more expecting them as a multipose set, with a lot of spare parts like shorts and shirt with half a arm nude (sorry my very imaged english)
I was panning them more precisely for an illustration of a Indochina war photo I've seen of a mg team in the mud..
Anyway, that's still a good news for me, wich will involve some converting
Best,
Julien
thanks Pat for this review.
I'm waiting my set from Hobbyeasy. I was impatient, but after reading your review I'm less excited.
Anyway, Iwas not planing them as british infantry, but I was more expecting them as a multipose set, with a lot of spare parts like shorts and shirt with half a arm nude (sorry my very imaged english)
I was panning them more precisely for an illustration of a Indochina war photo I've seen of a mg team in the mud..
Anyway, that's still a good news for me, wich will involve some converting
Best,
Julien
Drader
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 3,791 posts
Armorama: 2,798 posts
Posted: Monday, September 08, 2008 - 08:55 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextThis is the strap for the bandolier I think but of course it shouldn't be under the webbing. The Bren Gunner also has that strap which could be for the bren tool wallet.Figure D seems to have a strap running underneath his webbing braces - on dear!
Agree that it's probably part of the bandolier, just had a momentary brain fade about what it called (and how to spell it .
). The strap for the tool wallet doesn't appear to run under the braces, so at least they didn't mess that up. But seriously, how difficult is it to research 37 Pattern webbing? David
exer
Joined: November 27, 2004
KitMaker: 6,048 posts
Armorama: 4,619 posts
Posted: Monday, September 08, 2008 - 09:25 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Hi Pat
"Well I can't overlook it but with four of these sets in my stash I well figure out a way to correct them"
Are we planning a small invasion of Italy perhaps
Al
Well use one set for Italy, backdate one set for Alamein, and one set for the 14th Army in the far east and keep one set for general conversions (Which Generals I haven't decided yet
)
thomokiwi
Joined: January 11, 2006
KitMaker: 438 posts
Armorama: 359 posts
Posted: Monday, September 08, 2008 - 10:11 PM UTC
Thanks for the review and the wealth of constructive comments that has come with it. It does boil down to the "are the worth getting". However in the end I would still be keen on a couple of sets. Are they worth the effort to correct ??
exer
Joined: November 27, 2004
KitMaker: 6,048 posts
Armorama: 4,619 posts
Posted: Monday, September 08, 2008 - 10:26 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Thanks for the review and the wealth of constructive comments that has come with it. It does boil down to the "are the worth getting". However in the end I would still be keen on a couple of sets. Are they worth the effort to correct ??
I would say yes. But it depends on how much of a stickler for detail you are. The only other review I've seen since writing mine didn't note any of the problems I saw with the kit.
The poses are good and a lot of mixing and matching is possible.The rolled groundsheet can be used to cover the back of the belt. I would say buy them, work with them and lets hope Dragon get it right in furure.
montythefirst
Joined: August 04, 2007
KitMaker: 1,055 posts
Armorama: 199 posts
Posted: Monday, September 08, 2008 - 10:56 PM UTC
it is a good set i totally agree that its about time for a weapons update also more british empire kits some paratroopers in normandy would be nice also gurhkas, as well as indian troops ! they would be nice to see
youngc
Joined: June 05, 2007
KitMaker: 2,166 posts
Armorama: 1,080 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 - 01:44 AM UTC
Hi Pat, good review,
Shame about the buckle issue, and the puttee/gaiter mistake is plain embarrassing! I really do think that DML is loosing touch on its figures and MB is taking over.
I've ordered this kit but shipping to Australia is slow, so I won't be able to lay eyes on it for a few weeks yet. The kit is very good for me as I'm making a diorama with some Aussies and Brits in Singapore.
Just a little question, why are these called 'puttees' not 'gaiters'? I always thought puttees were the khaki straps wound around the soldiers shins up to the knee. These look more like socks with a cloth gaiter wrapped around. So.. why do we call them puttees?
Bandoliers are a great addition and useful for me as they were a favourite for Aussies in the Pacific.
There are also noticeable crazing lines on DML's 8th Army kit by the way.
Thanks again Pat for the review,
Chas
Shame about the buckle issue, and the puttee/gaiter mistake is plain embarrassing! I really do think that DML is loosing touch on its figures and MB is taking over.
I've ordered this kit but shipping to Australia is slow, so I won't be able to lay eyes on it for a few weeks yet. The kit is very good for me as I'm making a diorama with some Aussies and Brits in Singapore.
Just a little question, why are these called 'puttees' not 'gaiters'? I always thought puttees were the khaki straps wound around the soldiers shins up to the knee. These look more like socks with a cloth gaiter wrapped around. So.. why do we call them puttees?
Bandoliers are a great addition and useful for me as they were a favourite for Aussies in the Pacific.
There are also noticeable crazing lines on DML's 8th Army kit by the way.
Thanks again Pat for the review,
Chas
Drader
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 3,791 posts
Armorama: 2,798 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 - 02:37 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Just a little question, why are these called 'puttees' not 'gaiters'? I always thought puttees were the khaki straps wound around the soldiers shins up to the knee. These look more like socks with a cloth gaiter wrapped around. So.. why do we call them puttees?
Not sure, but they're wrapped around the ankle and tied with a tape, unlike the buckled anklets, web that were used with the serge BD. As a bonus, here's how to put the original puttees on
http://www.hardscrabblefarm.com/80th/putting_on_puttees.htm
David
exer
Joined: November 27, 2004
KitMaker: 6,048 posts
Armorama: 4,619 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 - 05:52 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Just a little question, why are these called 'puttees' not 'gaiters'? I always thought puttees were the khaki straps wound around the soldiers shins up to the knee. These look more like socks with a cloth gaiter wrapped around. So.. why do we call them puttees?
I'm doing this from memory Chas but I think when unwrapped the puttees were about 45 inches long. They were wrapped tight and some troops prefferred them especially in the far east as they were better protection against leeches. I think it is mentioned in the Osprey book of Canadians in WW2 that the Canadians used them in preference to the web anklets in winter as they stopped mud slopping into your boots.
I'm sure Alan McNeilly is more familiar with them as the the British Army still wore them in the 80s.
AlanL
Joined: August 12, 2005
KitMaker: 14,499 posts
Armorama: 11,675 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 - 08:45 AM UTC
Hi Guys,
Anklets is the proper name for what is commonly referred to as gaitors. They came in with the 37 pattern webbing and were meant to help protect your ankles. Worn over the outside of the ammo boot with the trousers tucked in. A totally useles piece of kit, They moved around, bugs, water and just about everything else could easily get in and when your trousers came out of the top they rubbed against you shin bone just to annoy you
I don't know the orign of Putties, but I guess India. They were worn wrapped up to below the knee from the Boar War onwards. Standard issue in WW1 as David's pics shows.
During WW2 the style of wearing them changed. They were worn by the SAS, Commandos and probably those infantry men who could get hold of them and get away with wearing them.
Putties had a distinct advantage, they formed a degree of seal between the boot and the trouser bottom, pretty good actually if you put them on correctly. In emergency they could be used as bandages, slings, rope etc. They also provided much better support and protection for the ankle.
The maner of wearing them was to wrap the puttie around the ankle, by taking the square end and placing it on the inside of the ankle. The puttie was then wrappred around the ankle, over the top of the boot and the trouser bottom, by taking it away from the leg and not around behind it as the DML figs have. The tie was then wrapped around the puttie a couple of times, looped over itself at the V and tucked into the putttie. The V would therefore be facing towards the rear of the ankle. As with all things military it sat just over the ankle bone
On the socks, these were in fact hose (hosiery), socks without feet if you like. We had them in HK in 72. The open bottom end was worn over the top of the boot and secured by a puttie. The top was folded over and secured above the ball of the leg by a regimental tie that hung down an inch or so on the outside of the 'sock' . They were made of thick wool, and again not that comfortable to wear.
As an ex infantry man I had a vested interest in all things connected with ones feet
Putties were phased out in the 80s, when we finally got half decent boots mainly as a result of the experience in N Ireland and the Falklands war.
BTW did you know the old DMS boots were made from cardboard!!!!!
Failing to look after you feet was, and probably still is, a serious military offence, which given they are you main mode of transport is understandable I supppose.
Please refer all other 'foot questions' to the author
Al
Anklets is the proper name for what is commonly referred to as gaitors. They came in with the 37 pattern webbing and were meant to help protect your ankles. Worn over the outside of the ammo boot with the trousers tucked in. A totally useles piece of kit, They moved around, bugs, water and just about everything else could easily get in and when your trousers came out of the top they rubbed against you shin bone just to annoy you
I don't know the orign of Putties, but I guess India. They were worn wrapped up to below the knee from the Boar War onwards. Standard issue in WW1 as David's pics shows.
During WW2 the style of wearing them changed. They were worn by the SAS, Commandos and probably those infantry men who could get hold of them and get away with wearing them.
Putties had a distinct advantage, they formed a degree of seal between the boot and the trouser bottom, pretty good actually if you put them on correctly. In emergency they could be used as bandages, slings, rope etc. They also provided much better support and protection for the ankle.
The maner of wearing them was to wrap the puttie around the ankle, by taking the square end and placing it on the inside of the ankle. The puttie was then wrappred around the ankle, over the top of the boot and the trouser bottom, by taking it away from the leg and not around behind it as the DML figs have. The tie was then wrapped around the puttie a couple of times, looped over itself at the V and tucked into the putttie. The V would therefore be facing towards the rear of the ankle. As with all things military it sat just over the ankle bone
On the socks, these were in fact hose (hosiery), socks without feet if you like. We had them in HK in 72. The open bottom end was worn over the top of the boot and secured by a puttie. The top was folded over and secured above the ball of the leg by a regimental tie that hung down an inch or so on the outside of the 'sock' . They were made of thick wool, and again not that comfortable to wear.
As an ex infantry man I had a vested interest in all things connected with ones feet
Putties were phased out in the 80s, when we finally got half decent boots mainly as a result of the experience in N Ireland and the Falklands war.
BTW did you know the old DMS boots were made from cardboard!!!!!
Failing to look after you feet was, and probably still is, a serious military offence, which given they are you main mode of transport is understandable I supppose.
Please refer all other 'foot questions' to the author
Al
exer
Joined: November 27, 2004
KitMaker: 6,048 posts
Armorama: 4,619 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 - 09:05 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Please refer all other 'foot questions' to the author
I knew you'd know Alan.
AlanL
Joined: August 12, 2005
KitMaker: 14,499 posts
Armorama: 11,675 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 - 09:11 AM UTC
Hi Pat,
You're welcome.
Al
You're welcome.
Al
Drader
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 3,791 posts
Armorama: 2,798 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 - 09:01 PM UTC
Had a look at Brayley and Ingram's book on KD last night and they refer to them as short puttees (definitely another British Army loan word from India BTW). It's also obvious from photos like this one
that anklets, web and short puttees were both worn within the same unit.
David
that anklets, web and short puttees were both worn within the same unit.
David
AlanL
Joined: August 12, 2005
KitMaker: 14,499 posts
Armorama: 11,675 posts
Posted: Sunday, September 14, 2008 - 03:07 AM UTC
Hi David,
Thinking about kit issue, anyone stationed in the Med would have had putties issued as part of their tropical/desert gear and the anklets would have formed part of the UK kit they would have brought with them so both would be perfectly possible.
Al
Thinking about kit issue, anyone stationed in the Med would have had putties issued as part of their tropical/desert gear and the anklets would have formed part of the UK kit they would have brought with them so both would be perfectly possible.
Al
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.