Help support TMP


"New Soviets in Winter Gear in 28mm" Topic


12 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the WWII Discussion Message Board



406 hits since 2 Nov 2017
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP03 Nov 2017 8:18 p.m. PST

Warlord Games released new Soviets in winter gear for Bolt Action

picture

picture

picture

picture

picture

picture

Main page
warlordgames.com


Amicalement
Armand

Fred Cartwright04 Nov 2017 8:25 a.m. PST

Very nice. Shame I have finished my winter Soviets.

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP04 Nov 2017 9:50 a.m. PST

Glad you like them my friend!. (smile)


Sorry for you…

Amicalement
Armand

Mark 1 Supporting Member of TMP04 Nov 2017 10:33 a.m. PST

The figures look nice.

But alas, once more a vendor mixes the greatcoats and telegrikas (quilted winter jackets and trousers) without much apparent thought. Sigh…

The greatcoat is essentially the "universal" look for winter Russians. It was present, at least to some extent, throughout the war.

The telegrika, on the other hand, was a mid- to late-war issue. It is the m43 winter uniform. It really only started showing up in any numbers in the winter of 1943/44, and was pretty common by the winter of 1944/45, and although it was well regarded and even preferred by most troops it never fully replaced the greatcoat.

Yet here we see the Maxim MG gunner in a telegrika, meaning this iconic weapon that was used throughout the war is not modeled appropriately for the winters of 1941/42 or 1942/43 (meaning Moscow and Stalingrad!). But the Zis-2 Anti-tank gun, the M43 gun, that started to appear in numbers in the summer of 1943 and therefore would be little limited by telegrikas, has a crew in greatcoats.

Not a big deal. And not my scale anyways. But … sigh … it just isn't that hard to mix the uniforms and weapons in more productive ways.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Fred Cartwright04 Nov 2017 11:20 a.m. PST

Do you mean the Telogreika Mark? If so there was a M41 version as well, according to my reading. So certainly possible for Stalingrad. Looking at the picture of the MG gunner it is difficult to be sure, but it looks like he has the M41version with a normal collar, rather than the rounded collar of the M43.
See this site for pics of the different versions.
PDF link

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP04 Nov 2017 10:07 p.m. PST

Glad you like them boys!. (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Mark 1 Supporting Member of TMP05 Nov 2017 2:56 p.m. PST

… there was a M41 version as well ….
See this site for pics of the different versions.
PDF link

Thanks Fred!

Interesting information. I was not aware of an M41. Learn something new every day (at least, around here)!

Good link, too. Thanks for that.

As to the spelling … well, telegrika, telogrieka, yeah maybe your spelling is better. Certainly generates more hits on google.

The original name for the quilted uniform, as I understand it, was derived from the Russian words: телo грелка, which translate as "body warmer". I have the impression it was slanged-up a bit even in Russian, as if I do a letter-for-letter replacement into English I get "telo grelka", but I have never seen it written that way.

Perhaps one of our Russian speaking members can set this issue to rights as well?

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Rhysius Cambrensis06 Nov 2017 5:08 a.m. PST

Hi Mark/Mark 1/MK 1

How come you sounded like an absolute authority on this in your original post and criticised a manufacturer's approach to release some lovely figures but when challenged it turns out you simply haven't bothered to do your research at all. Its obvious you have not done any reading up on this and yet you were so arrogant in your original post.

I suggest you purchase the following book before Deleted by Moderator!

link

This is an excellent book Deleted by Moderator!

Deleted by Moderator

Mark 1 Supporting Member of TMP06 Nov 2017 3:34 p.m. PST

Rhysius:

It seems I have given offense. If so, my apologies.

Generally, using words like "sigh" and "alas" do not engender such emotional retorts. I shall search for softer words next time.

If you are taking exception to the whole notion that I expressed an opinion on WW2 miniatures, well I might call to your attention that this IS a WW2 discussion forum on The Miniatures Page. I really don't know of anyplace where opinions on WW2 miniatures would be more appropriate. I feel the opinions I offered were certainly more on-topic than the opinions you have offered.

Perhaps you have never expressed an opinion, and then found that there was new information you had been un-aware of? If so, I offer my hearty congratulations. I have never held myself up to be perfect or infallible, and I am impressed to meet someone who is.

I thank you for the link to the book. It looks interesting. However I take exception to the suggestion that I have not bothered to do any research at all. I have more than a few books in my collection. I prefer primary sources, but that does not mean I disregard interesting secondary sources, particularly when the authors are credible.

I have come upon some US Army contemporary docs that assess Red Army uniforms during my research, but freely confess that I have not done any deliberate research in primary sources on Red Army uniforms or other items of kit (beyond their weaponry, which I do claim as a particular interest and topic of research). But having spoken with others who have, including authors of books on Red Army kit, I formed a distinct impression that the Telogreika (using the more correct spelling so graciously provided by Fred above) was a late-war item of kit.

In this thread I have been presented with new information, for which I offered my thanks. If your offense comes from the notion that new information might cause me to change an opinion I have expressed … well in that case I'm not so much impressed. Meeting someone who is perfect would impress me. Meeting someone who objects to those who take delight in learning does not.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

UsmanK06 Nov 2017 10:54 p.m. PST

About the transliteration of the word "телогрейка". Rather, it will be correct telogrei'ka.
About his etymology – телогрейка (тело (body)+греть (warm up), греть change to -грейка). Грелка is a hot water bottle.
In general, it's easier to say a vatnik (ватник). It is the same.

Fred Cartwright07 Nov 2017 2:11 a.m. PST

I think Mark's assertion that the Telogreika/Vatnik is largely a mid/late war garment is correct. From the pictorial evidence it doesn't look like the M41 was widely distributed. Greatcoats are the predominant wear up to 1942. Crusader have gone a different route to Warlord and you can buy mortars and MG's with crews in either greatcoats or Telogreika/Vatnik.

Rhysius Cambrensis07 Nov 2017 4:14 a.m. PST

Hi Mark,

I have absolutely no problem with you commenting on some WW2 miniatures at all. So your first two paragraphs dont apply here.

The book is excellent and will tell you almost all you need to know ab out the Soviet army, its uniforms and equipment for the entirety of world war 2.

It seems that in paragraph 4 of your reply you are quite happy to state that you have conducted very limited research upon the subject. You have spoken with others upon the subject – so have we all but we generally conduct proper research as a follow up. We would certainly do this before making such a confident and sarcastic statement as your original statement.

The new information was available to anyone who actually bothered to look rather than making sweeping sarcastic statements about something you have done no research for!

I am grateful to Warlord Games for making these wonderful miniatures. And before you get all superior once more in a reply I will remind you of your second sentence

"But alas, once more a vendor mixes the greatcoats and telegrikas (quilted winter jackets and trousers) without much apparent thought. Sigh…"

This is a very clear and sarcastic sweeping statement that you are now trying to cover up with tosh and nonsense replies instead of just accepting you were in the wrong in the first place and taking the shame of being an arse.

Learning is conducting independent research off your own back or asking for other peoples help in the form of questions about the subject if you are not sure.

You took a different route and assumed you are right about everything regardless of research or anything else. And further, you don't like it when your bluff is recognised and you are called out.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.