Hey all,
Just off the top of anyone's head; what are some of the better figure sets for US Infantry in North Africa (Tunisia) circa 1943? Mostly looking to make sure that the uniforms and equipment are correct.
Thanks for any help you may be able to give.

Cheers,
Rick Cooper

Look for figure sets that give you the figs wearing the canvas leggings,wool pants and short khaki jackets with the steel pot you are used to seeing. The web gear is standard GI issue and the regular small arms were used,IE, Garand rifle,M1 carbine,BAR,M1911 pistol,grease gun for mainly tanker use,30cal MG.
A quick way to check is to Google images of USArmy North Africa and then check the images against the box art.
Plastic is available from MB,Miniart,Tamiya,Italerei, Trumpeteer and there are also resin figs from all kinds of manufacturers.
I noticed no one had jumped in to give you help so here you go. Of course,now that I jumped in,the usual thing to happen will be all kinds of people now posting to tell me how wrong I am. LoL
J

I'd just add that tankers would have worn the standard tankers helmet with the herringbone coveralls. Now don't forget the tie on those troops if they were working for George Patton-- at least according to the movie! Some of the best early 1942 figures are the MB figures. Miniart aren't bad either.
VR, Russ

Thanks Jerry and Russ,

Jerry, let the avalanche begin! Russ, I may need to enlist Jerry to sculpt me some ties, he's got skills I can only dream of.

Thanks both of you for replying, truthfully, I am a lazy modeler and was hoping that someone would point out that 'X' figure set kit from 'Y' manufacturer already makes a set of specific GIs in Tunisia walking uphill in a barren desert (the current plan). I feared I would end up with a figure that someone would point out was wearing the wrong leggings or something of that nature.

Now Jerry has given me license to spend way to much time poking around the internet as if I needed an excuse!

Will keep you posted with progress. Seriously, thanks for your help.

Cheers,
Rick

As far as I know there were only one style of US Army leggings so it shouldn't be too hard. Check out the Tamiya,MB and Miniart sites and look for legging guys. You may have to buy a few sets as there may be only one or two guys you can use in each set. If you don't want to modify anything you are kind of stuck with that.
J

Hi,
The Thompson would have been more likely to be in use in North Africa since the M3 'Grease gun' wasn't accepted by the army until 1943. The fighting there ran from November,1942 to May,1943. Also you would see more use of the Springfield Model'03 rifle along with the M1 Garand if you wanted to add some variety.
Regards,Bob

Actually, the M3 didn't see widespread fielding to the US Army until 1944, so you wouldn't have seen any in N. Africa. A few made it to Europe just before D-Day, but the majority didn't get there until December 1944. I was still armed with one in 1976 though.
VR, Russ

You had a grease gun in 76 ?? I
got out in 72 and never saw one !! I

carried a m16 ! not doubting you , just suprised !

I have you beat...I actually did a familiarization fire with the M3 Grease Gun in 1999/2000, while in the NJANG at Fort Dix.

i remember pulling gaurd duty in California with a unloaded m2 carbine lol

My first duty position in Germany was in a Mech Inf unit and the recovery folks had grease guns issued to them. The tankers in the armored Bn on base also had them. This was in "77.
J

[/quote]
You had a grease gun in 76 ?? I
got out in 72 and never saw one !! I

carried a m16 ! not doubting you , just surprised !

[/quote]

Yep, "familiarized" with the M3A1 at Knox during Armor Officer Basic, then went on to the 11th Cav in 76 where they were still issue items for tankers. My M60A1 had three mounting brackets marked "M3A1" (the commander carried a .45 in a shoulder holster) I say "familiarized with them because there was really no "qualification" course-- they were not accurate enough even at short range for qualification, and would jump all over the place-- they were intended as an "area suppression" rather than a "point" weapon. We were taught how to use them for tank defense against infantry-- you grab the pistol grip with one hand, the magazine with the other held over your head and sticking out of the hatch, then crossing your arms over, all the while--"spraying up" the outside of the tank before dismounting in close combat. That's really all they were good for. I might add that in H Co (the tank company) 2/11 ACR where I was, we never bothered to take them out of the arms room, except to clean them. the CAV preferred to use the .45 for tank defense. Once I transitioned to a pure CAV troop, tankers only had .45s, but all the scouts had M16s. The M3 and M3A1 were really crap as an offensive weapon, that's why Infantry TO&Es never had them as an issue weapon, even during WWII. They were originally developed to equip the OSS and foreign resistance units, and ideally suited to movies starring Lee Marvin. Clint Eastwood preferred a Schmeisser.
VR, Russ

You had a grease gun in 76 ?? I
got out in 72 and never saw one !! I

carried a m16 ! not doubting you , just surprised !

[/quote]

Yep, "familiarized" with the M3A1 at Knox during Armor Officer Basic, then went on to the 11th Cav in 76 where they were still issue items for tankers. My M60A1 had three mounting brackets marked "M3A1" (the commander carried a .45 in a shoulder holster) I say "familiarized with them because there was really no "qualification" course-- they were not accurate enough even at short range for qualification, and would jump all over the place-- they were intended as an "area suppression" rather than a "point" weapon. We were taught how to use them for tank defense against infantry-- you grab the pistol grip with one hand, the magazine with the other held over your head and sticking out of the hatch, then crossing your arms over, all the while--"spraying up" the outside of the tank before dismounting in close combat. That's really all they were good for. I might add that in H Co (the tank company) 2/11 ACR where I was, we never bothered to take them out of the arms room, except to clean them. the CAV preferred to use the .45 for tank defense. Once I transitioned to a pure CAV troop, tankers only had .45s, but all the scouts had M16s. The M3 and M3A1 were really crap as an offensive weapon, that's why Infantry TO&Es never had them as an issue weapon, even during WWII. They were originally developed to equip the OSS and foreign resistance units, and ideally suited to movies starring Lee Marvin. Clint Eastwood preferred a Schmeisser.
VR, Russ [/quote]

Perfect assessment of the M3 and I totally agree. The reason it is so inaccurate is the body (reciever) is made from stamped metal parts and so is pretty lightweight while the bolt is a heavy solid steel machined one piece part. It is spring recoiled and so when fired the heavy bolt slides back and forth in the light receiver and has a pronounced rocking action from front to rear as it slides. During my stint as the unit arms room guy in an infantry company we had the M16A1 as the standard weapon but the mech recovery guys had the M3 (3 of them) so I had to maintain them and got to familiarize with them once. The trick was to always extend the stock and get a very good stock weld going and learn to compensate for the heavy rocking of that bolt. I got to where I could cut a target in half with those heavy impact 45 rounds. This would be a good weapon for clearing rooms in MOUT ops.
J

Folks-- my little joke at the end of the my statement about the M3 and M3A1 being used by Hollywood stars was meant to reinforce the fact that Hollywood has often shaped our perception of what went on during WWII. In this case the M3 was nowhere near as widespread in use during WWII as Hollywood likes to depict. The two movies I was referring to were of course "The Dirty Dozen" staring Lee Marvin, where the penitentiary rehabs are all equipped with M3A1s-- perhaps they couldn't be trusted with anything else? The Clint Eastwood referral is to "Where Eagles Dare", although he might have carried a grease gun in "Kelly's Heroes", I don't really remember. If you really want to know what American Infantry or Armored troops looked like or carried in N. Africa, pick up a copy of any book about Operation Torch--or look on line. The Osprey books are a good start.
VR, Russ

Thought I had you all beat, but Scott familiarized with the M3 in '99/00...lol...was gonna say I went to an armorer course in Germany in 1986 while with 2/6 infantry and received instruction on them...WOW !

Russ,
I think that's pretty much what I meant,but I've learned to hedge my bets when posting on these sites. As soon as you say that absolutely no 'grease guns' were used in N.A. some joker will post a picture of some general's aide packing around a test model. Also I said accepted by the army,not fielded by the army which we all know are two entirely different things! Anyway thanks for your insights on the subject.
Regards,Bob