Jea, joskus on oikeasti huvittavaa kuinka tärkeäksi ihmiset ottavat nimenomaan sotilasvarusteissa varusteiden samansävyisyyden.
Ollaan kuitenkin onnellisia, että Sturm tekee edes jotenkin samansävyisiä varusteita teille
Sota-aikana takit tulivat niin monessa värisävyssä, että ihan itkettää katsoa vanhoja värikuvia
Tässä vielä toinen, A D ja J ovat kopioita, muut aitoja takkeja. *this is sävyeroaaaaaaargh*
Is it khaki? (What is "khaki"?)
This is the single most persistent and maddening question in the entire business. No other even comes close.
There is no "khaki" that will satisfy them all. Basically, many individuals have decided that everything worn by GI's during WWII was beige. We even get squalls for khaki HBT's. (Those were all green. Never "khaki".) I cannot even begin to count the hours spent on the phone with yo-yos wanted to know "what kind of khaki are your jackets?" rephrased 547 different ways. No matter what we do, it's not khaki enough. The color of dozens of originals is irrelevant. They want THEIR khaki. Well, here's the deal on "real", "it was there" khaki.
You're not nice! Oh, it's about to get worse. I'm a sadistic one and I like to hear the numbnuts squall when they are told "no." Especially when we're right. Nice doesn't cut it. We learned some years ago that terse and crude hammers the point in and quells dissent far better than "how can we better serve you sir?" I get my rocks off by creating reproductions that are as painfully close to the "real" thing as possible, and I'm not inclined to change my ways. If originals were matching beige, then we do it. But they aren't and we won't so quit asking. We make the best stuff out there and that's that.
Khaki 101
1. What most novices refer to as "khaki" is not "khaki" . It is "OD (olive drab) no. 3". The catalog from the US Army Quartermaster, Armed Service Forces Catalog QM 3-1, 1943, refers to items in this color as being simply "od". Later products that were the darker "od green" (in collector jargon) are referred to as "od no7". This is FACT. Not fantasy or conjecture. I have an original copy of said catalog on my lap as I type.
2. OD no. 3 is indeed a green. Let me repeat that. Olive Drab no.3 is a shade of green. Not tan. It's brown + green = olive drab. Go buy some water based paints and play around. You'll see quickly.
3. What about "khaki"? There a couple of "khaki" items in the QM catalog. They are the khaki cotton shirt, cotton trousers and cotton service coat, worn as a summer dress uniform. This uniform is truly khaki. That's it.
3. Why does everyone call it khaki then? Used and faded OD no3 gear and uniforms often appear beige. The keyword is used. That's where the fantasy/ stupidity gets started. When new, they range from grass-stain green, to light brown, to gold, khaki-gray, to a brownish beige. To fuss about our products (or anyone else's) they must be compared to new condition (unissued) original samples. Not Grandpa's M41 that he wore at Kasserine Pass.
In practice, dying wasn't (and isn't) a perfect science. WWII uniforms and gear come in countless shades of OD no3. This was not due to some elfin impulse to torment collectors in the future, but rather as a result of dozens of different fabric mills finishing millions of yards of fabric in a hurry. Anyone who tells you that all US uniforms are the exact same color is a blithering idiot. Or colorblind. More likely the former.
4. Gold gear: To add a bit more to the muddle, some US gear is distinctly golden brown in color. Most of this is WWI era gear (most often Haversacks, Cartridge and BAR belts) that was reissued in WWII. British Made gear is sometimes this color as well as a rather ugly pea green.
5. Why don't we just make the "correct" color khaki and satisfy our customers? Simple. Beige is not correct, plus I'm a sadistic bastard who likes to torment special types. When OD no. 3 fades, it will eventually look beige. If we make beige, it will fade to white. Then you'll stand out like a wigger at the million Man March and get shot by the SS snipers the moment you jump out of your Toyota Tundra..
6. Shade Tags: Think I'm making all of this up to explain away our substandard quality? Fine. What are "cutter's tags"? (They are actually known as "shade tags".) Dyed fabric always "shades". Meaning, as the roll of cloth is run through the dye vats, the concentration of the dye and the rate of absorption varies. This causes slight color changes in the cloth. The result is that the first 3 yards of the roll will be somewhat different in shade or tint from the last 3 yards. The same fabric, the same dye batch, same day. A 100 yard roll of cloth may have 2-3 noticeable tint variations. The need for the tags arises when factories cut out garments. The fabric is stacked up to 100 layers deep and cut with a power knife. (Jackets and trousers are rarely cut from the same roll. A 100 yard roll makes about 30 of each., and cotton twill can be cut up to 100 layers deep. Thus, 3-4 rolls per cut. In that cut, perhaps as many as 10 minor shade variations. Even for garments made by the same company, you must factor in them being made weeks or months apart, different fabric shipments, multiple fabric suppliers and the possibilities are nearly endless.)
Each and every piece of the garment (sleeves, chest, legs, pockets) is supposed to get a tag. The tags are sequentially numbered with the fabric layer, size, and cut number. (Some plants may have multiple cuts of the same size garment on the same day). This is necessary since the different components are sent to different sewing machine operators during pre-assembly and assembly. They are supposed to insure that the layer numbers on the tags match; this means that each piece on a single garment came from the same sheet (not roll, but continuous 2-3 yard piece) of fabric. If this is not done, there may be a noticeable difference in tint on the different parts of the garment. Such a garment (say when the sleeves are darker than the chest) is called "shaded". In practice, mistakes were made. I have noticed a lot of "shading" on original USMC HBT's for example. One collector I know has a jump jacket with sleeves that are distinctly greener than the body. Such garments should have been "defected" as per government or factory inspector (not drill Sgt.) regulations, but there was a War on...
A few items appear not to have mattered as they are frequently found to be shaded; HBT caps and most field gear for example. (Although I have some M1938 leggings with shade tags. Go figure...)
If all material was the same color, why the hell would they have needed millions of shade tags? Duh.
7. Matching Gear to Uniforms: Uniforms do not match field gear. Uniforms rarely match other uniforms and gear rarely matches itself. People have really blown this out of all proportion and it's insane. Nobody's gear and uniforms are perfect matches. Not ours, not originals, and not other vendors. It's not an error, it's a fact. If this injureds your sensibilities, and is too much for your little mind to handle, find a new hobby.
8. I don't see why you can't make all my gear match. You should listen to your customers. We care about facts, not fantasies. Even if I wanted to be more accomodating, it wouldn't be easy. Field gear is made from canvas and webbing. Specifically, 3 different weights of canvas, and at least a dozen different sizes of webbing. (Cartridge belts alone have 5 different widths of webbing involved.) The canvas and webbing are made in different factories at different times. It's nearly impossible to get perfect matches on every yard within the same run. Moreover, the texture of these materials varies (from fine to coarse) which will make even perfectly matching shades appear different.
9. Gotta have Beige to be happy? Several other companies have made beige gear which makes the ignorant minority's heart flutter. Most of it is made in India or Pakistan and the price is great. So long as you don't use it, it will hold up just fine. Try Sportsman's Guide or IMA.
10. United States Marine Corps? Everything on this page goes double for USMC gear and uniforms. Utilities often did not use shade tags (and they really needed them) and the gear, especially the Depot Made items, looked like patchwork quilts of green, gold and "khaki" components. In other words, many Jarheads in WWII looked like Appaloosas. Want us to re-write hisory and match you up? Dream the hell on...
Mint condition Jump Jackets:
Holy shit Mildred! They don't match! How did real paratroopers stand it?
Unissued Parson's:
My Grandpa wouldn't be seen in action wearing THAT! It's not KHAKI!
Unissued M1941's:
No way dude! That's green. Ewww!
See...it's almost khaki after some time in the sun.
There it goes again....
Unissued vs. used and faded M41. There it is! Now that's khaki!
Mint condition, WWII "Khaki" 10 pocket belts. Which one is the "correct" khaki?
Holy cow Batman! Those aren't right! The parts aren't matching khaki!
Wow. Even paratroopers' gear was crazy colors. Their autheticity officer must have been asleep at the wheel! What a retard.
How did this beige fantasy get started anyway?
Q: Gee whiz, what did they do with the "incorrect" color gear in 1944?
A: Stored it until the end of the century to aggravate reenactors.
Bottom line: Our stuff is the same color(s) as WWII stuff. Your idea of khaki may be otherwise, but our stuff is historically correct. We know what the hell we're talking about.
Do you?
Ja sitten, At the Front on tosiaan re-enacting maailman ehkäpä tärkein vaikuttaja ja valmistaja Lost Batallionsin kanssa, joten "We know what the hell we're talking about."
EDIT: Sama pätee myös moderneihin varusteisiin, joskus painatustekniikat ovat nykyään paremmat kuin värjäystekniikat.
Pätee myös muihin aikalaisvarusteisiin.