Nice looking looking model of a member of the "British" Army.

Sorry guys, but this just doesn't quite work for me; big burly chap that he is, the steel helmet is far too small. The webbing belt looks a bit weedy, and I'm not too sure about the brace attachments on the entrenching tool holder (although there were at least 2 different methods of affixing it). The field dressing pocket looks a little too low, and the boots also a bit on the small side. The Anklets, whilst shown apparently having slipped around to the front of the ankle, this is unlikely in practice; once fastened the Anklets didn't really move that much, after all, that was their job, to facilitate the securing of the trouser over the boot top. lastly, no weapon sling - although that could be explained as a matter of personal choice; it would, of course, be fairly easy to manufacture one. Good effort but a little more polish required I feel. Brian

While I commend your sharp eye Brian, I was pleased with the basic pose offered by the figure. Looked good to me until I read your critique. Darn, now I can't get them out of my head. Still, I could work with this.

Frank, Perhaps I was too damning and something may work, but the size issues bothered me viz the helmet and the feet especially. '37 Pat webbing is more complicated than it looks (I've used the stuff) and is difficult to get right in any scale, but I do feel the belt is too narrow, and I further note that it looks like one end of the haft of the entrenching tool is not secured, so the owner would lose it before he'd gone more than a few yards. Thinking about it (possibly over-thinking it) I suspect that were he about to go into action, the Small Pack - carried by a further set of webbing straps would have been worn - the whole constituting the Fighting Order as we might call it these days. It would have been unlikely I think for a soldier not to be so equipped for combat. Reach for the Milliput I suppose and good luck with the brace attachments for that! I'm not a 75mm figure modeller but perhaps the helmet could be "enlarged" with the addition of a generous amount of scrim, which may help the initial impression of being too small. I'm not too sure what you could do with the feet though, and those anklets I'm sure could be fairly easily modified with the buckles scratched perhaps and relocated. The flaws are a shame as the overall pose does indeed depict a handy looking-professional Infantryman, ready to tackle the Wehrmacht's finest. Brian

Hello Brian, My knowledge of British uniforms is scarce, but I have been intrigued by your comments and researched a bit. Hope you do not mind if I share my thoughts. Seems to me that a second strap for attaching the entrenchment tool is there: Resulting like this (which I think it is original): Just the painter forgot to paint it yellow and left is as part of the tool in black. The helmets as far as I know were one-size so depending on the guy's head it may look bigger or smaller. If according to your experience, it looks wrong when compared with the rest of equipment, I can not argue. And the anklets I have used (not British) do move, but maybe it was because of my thin legs What do you think?

Carlos, I must admit I missed the securing bit of the entrenching tool; I couldn't quite see it on the review pictures. The entrenching tool holder is quite a complex piece of equipment and requires an adaptor strap and buckle otherwise the water bottle cannot be secured. In other words, you can carry a water bottle or the entrenching tool but not both without the adapting strap/buckle combination. Regarding the helmet, even I, with a not inconsiderable vintage never wore the helmet depicted; ours was called, I think a Mk IV (or possibly even Mk V) and was of the type I've seen referred to as a "Tortoise" variant. This type in WW2 was designated as a Mk III. I recall the liner came in different sizes but I may be wrong. Anyway, that doesn't help the argument: it was just that the helmet on the figurine looked to me - rather small. Regarding the Anklets: Even though the WW2 issue type was manufactured with endless shortcuts, the resultant web anklet would still, I feel, be unlikely to move as it secured a fairly heavy and robust serge battledress trouser. In other words there was quite a lot of material to have buckled in, therefore, whilst an Anklet could slip around to the front, I feel it would be extremely unlikely. I wore battledress as an Army Cadet in the 60s, and whilst it was of the better quality (and cut) 1949 pattern as opposed to the wartime variety, I do not recall the anklets ever trespassing to the front as shown on the model. Later of course, it became the (military) fashion for such trousers, and the replacement Combat Dress trousers to be "bloused" using elastics, but that was not the case as far as I am aware during WW2; such blousing in any case would only secure the Anklet further. 'Not too sure if much of this helps at all! Brian

My recollection of the web anklet, not that I ever wore them, is that the lower edge is scalloped rather than straight so that the sides are lower than the front and rear, so it is practically impossible for it to rotate once buckled securely. Considering how easy it is to find 37 pattern webbing (or the dims of it) I’m surprised that a sculptor would get things like the width of a belt wrong.

Carlos, Further to my last, and if it helps at all, I will send you a scan taken from a fairly old copy of Militaria Magazine, covering the British Soldier in Normandy's equipment; this is one of the best articles I've seen on the kit worn and carried. I'll also add an extract from the Osprey Book on British Infantry Equipment clarifying the method of affixing the entrenching tool holder. If you PM me with your private "civilian" email I'll do my best to effect this; probably though not until the end of the week. Brian