Until no officers (or higher ranking ones) were around!
Jesse

Quoted Text

---

Until no officers (or higher ranking ones) were around!
Jesse

---

Years ago I saw a WW2-era book of "Unarmed Defense For The American Soldier" and that is when I first saw the neckties tucked that way in the photographs. I had originally assumed that this was only done for the purposes of the book, e. g. neckties flapping around would make the demonstration pictures confusing.

I routinely tucked my black necktie into my shirt when the green “Class A” uniform was still around, just because I didn’t like it hanging out below my jacket when I sat down. Of course, when the green shirt with the “Class B” uniform came along, you didn’t have to wear a jacket, so the tie was left out and optionally restrained by a tie tack or bar. The tan uniform was still in service when I first joined up, and I recall the “tie-tuck” was still in fashion then, but only informally, like in the “mess hall” when eating. My Father-in-Law was a retired Colonel, who served during WWII, Korea and Vietnam. He still routinely tucked his tie in his shirt whenever he wore a suit, and he used to say “that was the way I learned to do it in the Army”. He retired in 1969, I came in three years later in 1972. During WWII, in ground combat, the tie was discarded for the most part, and only enforced by hard cases like Patton. It was seen more often in the ETO than it ever was in the PTO.
VR, Russ

Quoted Text

---

I routinely tucked my black necktie into my shirt when the green “Class A” uniform was still around, just because I didn’t like it hanging out below my jacket when I sat down. Of course, when the green shirt with the “Class B” uniform came along, you didn’t have to wear a jacket, so the tie was left out and optionally restrained by a tie tack or bar. The tan uniform was still in service when I first joined up, and I recall the “tie-tuck” was still in fashion then, but only informally, like in the “mess hall” when eating. My Father-in-Law was a retired Colonel, who served during WWII, Korea and Vietnam. He still routinely tucked his tie in his shirt whenever he wore a suit, and he used to say “that was the way I learned to do it in the Army”. He retired in 1969, I came in three years later in 1972. During WWII, in ground combat, the tie was discarded for the most part, and only enforced by hard cases like Patton. It was seen more often in the ETO than it ever was in the PTO.
VR, Russ

---

Was that necktie tuck something that you were told to do in the Army, or something that you just did on your own from seeing it beforehand? Just curious. By the time I enlisted and went thru Benning in 1983 it was no longer taught. And being Infantry, I don’t think that we wore our A’s or B’s more than 2-3 times a year.

I'm afraid I do wonder at the motives of the OP; I am not convinced of the value of such input to us, modellers, mainly, of armour-based models.

If one wishes to reminisce or indulge in military historical aspects, then surely there are more appropriate websites?

I appreciate that the occasionally tangent of personal experience within a discussion of a modelling/historical aspect can indeed be useful, but I am beginning to despair of such relatively aimless topics being initiated to this degree.

I always understood this to be a modelling site; hitherto it has proved immensely useful and practically none of my many queries to this site over the years have been unanswered, but this surely is the thin edge of the wedge.

Lately, the inane and the fatuous seem to have prevailed. As I say, I (quietly) despair.

I would strongly suggest, that if you wish to discuss the wearing of neckties then you identify an appropriate militaria website; and "No" - before the easily offended aggressively respond, I am not attempting to curb so-called "free speech" - merely to get us all back on a relevant track - that of military modelling.

Yours - more in hope than much else,

Brian

I'm afraid I do wonder at the motives of the OP; I am not convinced of the value of such input to us, modellers, mainly, of armour-based models.

If one wishes to reminisce or indulge in military historical aspects, then surely there are more appropriate websites?

I appreciate that the occasionally tangent of personal experience within a discussion of a modelling/historical aspect can indeed be useful, but I am beginning to despair of such relatively aimless topics being initiated to this degree.

I always understood this to be a modelling site; hitherto it has proved immensely useful and practically none of my many queries to this site over the years have been unanswered, but this surely is the thin edge of the wedge.

Lately, the inane and the fatuous seem to have prevailed. As I say, I (quietly) despair.

I would strongly suggest, that if you wish to discuss the wearing of neckties then you identify an appropriate militaria website; and "No" - before the easily offended aggressively respond, I am not attempting to curb so-called "free speech" - merely to get us all back on a relevant track - that of military modelling.

Yours - more in hope than much else,

Brian

Quoted Text

---

I'm afraid I do wonder at the motives of the OP; I am not convinced of the value of such input to us, modellers, mainly, of armour-based models.

If one wishes to reminisce or indulge in military historical aspects, then surely there are more appropriate websites?

I appreciate that the occasionally tangent of personal experience within a discussion of a modelling/historical aspect can indeed be useful, but I am beginning to despair of such relatively aimless topics being initiated to this degree.

I always understood this to be a modelling site; hitherto it has proved immensely useful and practically none of my many queries to this site over the years have been unanswered, but this surely is the thin edge of the wedge.

Lately, the inane and the fatuous seem to have prevailed. As I say, I (quietly) despair.

I would strongly suggest, that if you wish to discuss the wearing of neckties then you identify an appropriate militaria website; and "No" - before the easily offended aggressively respond, I am not attempting to curb so-called "free speech" - merely to get us all back on a relevant track - that of military modelling.

Yours - more in hope than much else,

Brian

---

Brian,
Firstly, I do agree with you “somewhat”. However, the original poster did place his question in the military figures forum posting of Armorama (look at the small icon next to the Armorama icon). Subsequently, answers were given in that posting, which probably addressed the original question. It’s not his fault that some of us have reminisced. On the other hand, there is a service related forum on the Kitmaker network— No need to go off to some other site, and there’s a MAFVA re-enactors forum here as well, if folks are interested in that. At its base level, the question is not unreasonable if one is trying to place a figure in a timeframe, so it’s not an “illegitimate” question If it’s posted in the correct forum, which I think it may be. So often many of us just assume there’s only one interest group here at Armorama, but there are many. But I do agree, sometimes we get a bit “off topic”, Perhaps this might have been better placed on the “Historica Forma” side of Kitmaker? In any event, There’s more to Armorama, and Kitmaker than just Military vehicles. And you can always choose to read a post or not. I’m not defending here, and you may have a valid point.
VR, Russ

Quoted Text

---

I'm afraid I do wonder at the motives of the OP; I am not convinced of the value of such input to us, modellers, mainly, of armour-based models.

If one wishes to reminisce or indulge in military historical aspects, then surely there are more appropriate websites?

I appreciate that the occasionally tangent of personal experience within a discussion of a modelling/historical aspect can indeed be useful, but I am beginning to despair of such relatively aimless topics being initiated to this degree.

I always understood this to be a modelling site; hitherto it has proved immensely useful and practically none of my many queries to this site over the years have been unanswered, but this surely is the thin edge of the wedge.

Lately, the inane and the fatuous seem to have prevailed. As I say, I (quietly) despair.

I would strongly suggest, that if you wish to discuss the wearing of neckties then you identify an appropriate militaria website; and "No" - before the easily offended aggressively respond, I am not attempting to curb so-called "free speech" - merely to get us all back on a relevant track - that of military modelling.

Yours - more in hope than much else,

Brian

---

It's just Tom the Timewaster playing his usual game. Take a look at his previous efforts to see this type of thing is typical for him.

Quoted Text

---

Quoted Text

---

I'm afraid I do wonder at the motives of the OP; I am not convinced of the value of such input to us, modellers, mainly, of armour-based models.

If one wishes to reminisce or indulge in military historical aspects, then surely there are more appropriate websites?

I appreciate that the occasionally tangent of personal experience within a discussion of a modelling/historical aspect can indeed be useful, but I am beginning to despair of such relatively aimless topics being initiated to this degree.

I always understood this to be a modelling site; hitherto it has proved immensely useful and practically none of my many queries to this site over the years have been unanswered, but this surely is the thin edge of the wedge.

Lately, the inane and the fatuous seem to have prevailed. As I say, I (quietly) despair.

I would strongly suggest, that if you wish to discuss the wearing of neckties then you identify an appropriate militaria website; and "No" - before the easily offended aggressively respond, I am not attempting to curb so-called "free speech" - merely to get us all back on a relevant track - that of military modelling.

Yours - more in hope than much else,

Brian

---

It's just Tom the Timewaster playing his usual game. Take a look at his previous efforts to see this type of thing is typical for him.

---

Alan,

Aha; thanks; I feel somewhat vindicated now - I do indeed see what you mean.

Thanks!

Brian

Quoted Text

---

Quoted Text

---

Until no officers (or higher ranking ones) were around!
Jesse

---

Years ago I saw a WW2-era book of "Unarmed Defense For The American Soldier" and that is when I first saw the neckties tucked that way in the photographs. I had originally assumed that this was only done for the purposes of the book, e. g. neckties flapping around would make the demonstration pictures confusing.

---

I inherited that manual from my dad. It was issued to him in 1953.

It looks like that reg was still around in the 50’s with Pvt Presley

Folks,
Several years ago, I vowed I wouldn’t say bad things about folks or their intentions here on Kitmaker. I decided I’d temper my comments constructively, rather than negatively, and not go looking for trouble. That’s the beauty of this site, you can pick and choose topics that interest you. If a topic doesn’t interest you, you can pass. I sometimes click on a title just because it sounds interesting, if I find it isn’t, I just move on.

Tom, it may be better to lead off with “full disclosure” when you ask a question, rather than fragmenting your intent and waiting for someone to “pounce”. Unless of course you are purposely trying to bait someone. If that’s the case, expect the type of response you’re getting above. I sense there’s a reason you ask questions this way. Do you in fact build models? Even if you don’t, there’s nothing wrong with asking questions, but more clarity for the reason behind the question would be better. For all, let’s try and be civil in how we address each other.
VR, Russ

Quoted Text

---

Quoted Text

---

Quoted Text

---

Until no officers (or higher ranking ones) were around!
Jesse

---

Years ago I saw a WW2-era book of "Unarmed Defense For The American Soldier" and that is when I first saw the neckties tucked that way in the photographs. I had originally assumed that this was only done for the purposes of the book, e. g. neckties flapping around would make the demonstration pictures confusing.

---

I inherited that manual from my dad. It was issued to him in 1953.

It looks like that reg was still around in the 50’s with Pvt Presley

---

I did see the movie "G. I. Blues" years ago. Is the still from that movie or Presley's real-life Army service?

I'm afraid I do wonder at the motives of the OP; I am not convinced of the value of such input to us, modellers, mainly, of armour-based models.

If one wishes to reminisce or indulge in military historical aspects, then surely there are more appropriate websites?

I appreciate that the occasionally tangent of personal experience within a discussion of a modelling/historical aspect can indeed be useful, but I am beginning to despair of such relatively aimless topics being initiated to this degree.

I always understood this to be a modelling site; hitherto it has proved immensely useful and practically none of my many queries to this site over the years have been unanswered, but this surely is the thin edge of the wedge.

Lately, the inane and the fatuous seem to have prevailed. As I say, I (quietly) despair.

I would strongly suggest, that if you wish to discuss the wearing of neckties then you identify an appropriate militaria website; and "No" - before the easily offended aggressively respond, I am not attempting to curb so-called "free speech" - merely to get us all back on a relevant track - that of military modelling.

Yours - more in hope than much else,

Brian

Ah, if only somebody made a 1/35 scale Elvis army figure...

Quoted Text

---

Ah, if only somebody made a 1/35 scale Elvis army figure...

---

Hell, I’d be happy with more 1/35 50’s/60’s/70’s Cold War US Army figures, grunts and tankers. Most of the AFVs have been kitted, it’d be nice to have more figures for them. In summer and winter uniforms.

Quoted Text

---

Quoted Text

---

Ah, if only somebody made a 1/35 scale Elvis army figure...

---

Hell, I’d be happy with more 1/35 50’s/60’s/70’s Cold War US Army figures, grunts and tankers. Most of the AFVs have been kitted, it’d be nice to have more figures for them. In summer and winter uniforms.

---

This might help: http://hobbyfan.com.tw/index.php/Home/Product/index/tid/5/mid/13/p/2.html?&lang=en

Quoted Text

---

Quoted Text

---

Ah, if only somebody made a 1/35 scale Elvis army figure...

---

Hell, I’d be happy with more 1/35 50’s/60’s/70’s Cold War US Army figures, grunts and tankers. Most of the AFVs have been kitted, it’d be nice to have more figures for them. In summer and winter uniforms.

---

This might help: http://hobbyfan.com.tw/index.php/Home/Product/index/tid/5/mid/13/p/2.html?&lang=en