A Few Odd Photos

[EKman]

Greetings all,

I was bored this evening, so I started clicking through some of the computer folders containing my photo collection. There were a few that caught my eye for one reason or another and I wanted to share them with yall.


First up...look at how this guy has his KVK and Ost Front ribbons sewn to his tunic. That strikes me as really sloppy. In fact, what I thought when I ran across this photo is that if this uniform surfaced tomorrow...fresh out of a barn and untouched since 1945...someone would point out the shoddy ribbon application and declare that the tunic has been messed with post-war by someone who had no idea what they were doing and subsequently damaged the value of an otherwise original tunic.

[EKman]

Here's another odd uniform picture. I don't know what the regs stated as far as placement for the DKiG on the tunic, but in the photos I am familiar with, the decoration is worn on the right breast pocket. This guy seems to be wearing a cloth version of the DKiG, but has it way down on his stomach! Again, I think someone would declare that this tunic has been "enhanced" post-war by a novice who misplaced the award.

[EKman]

Now here is one I have a serious question about. At first, I assumed that the decoration on this guys pocket was an IAB. However, when I zoomed in, it didn't really look like one. So, I thought perhaps a Flak badge. However, it also looks as though it could be an Army Paratroop badge.

What do yall think?

[panzer1432]

tunics

Interesting photos !

That is the first photo I have seen with the DKiG lower than the pocket. Does not make sense. I would think the award would likely be damaged by his belt.

MW

[EKman]

Last one for now. This photo is one of those "What the crap?" pictures that seem to pop up from time to time. Everything seems normal until you look at the right side of the picture. Then you have to ask: "Where are your pants and why aren't you wearing them?"

[panzer1432]

Badge

I vote Flak Badge.

MW

[chrischa]

I vote Flak Badge.

MW

Agreed.

I like the general with the Infantry Assult Badge.
Regarding the DKiG, cloth versions were usually worn by men in vehicles, planes, U-Boats, etc where a metal object would be a hinderence. I have seen cloth versions on front line officers clothing.
But even if he is wearing the cloth version because he doesn't want to obstruct a piece of equipment, why have it so low? Very odd.

I think the naked man is probably involved in water engineering but still a double take photo!


Thanks for posting,
Chris.

[Raphael1]

The general with KC, i think its not Fritz-Hubert Graeser. More likely Hans Zorn...

[W Petz]

Army (Heeres) Flak Badge!

Now here is one I have a serious question about. At first, I assumed that the decoration on this guys pocket was an IAB. However, when I zoomed in, it didn't really look like one. So, I thought perhaps a Flak badge. However, it also looks as though it could be an Army Paratroop badge.

What do yall think?

[EKman]

Well, I have to admit it probably is a plain ole Flak badge, but I was really hoping I had stumbled on an Army Para.

Anyway, I'm glad yall enjoyed looking at the other odd ones.

[WEISNER]

Also odd on the DKiG photo is the man wears no EKI? unless it is below the other pocket! Perhaps the top left corner can be seen? Yes Army Flak badge!
Kev

[EKman]

Also odd on the DKiG photo is the man wears no EKI? unless it is below the other pocket! Perhaps the top left corner can be seen? Yes Army Flak badge!
Kev

Yes, that is odd as well. It just goes further toward my point. If this tunic surfaced today and someone tried to sell it as an untouched original that hasn't been messed with at all since 1945, we'd all have a good chuckle. We'd "KNOW" that someone had fooled around with this tunic because of the placement of the DKiG and the lack of an EKI or any other awards for that matter--save a ribbon bar. We'd "KNOW" that the DKiG is post-war applied and that someone obviously removed the other decorations, so there's no way this tunic could be what the seller is claiming--untouched!

Just goes to show how much we "KNOW"

[jmark]

Here's another odd uniform picture. I don't know what the regs stated as far as placement for the DKiG on the tunic, but in the photos I am familiar with, the decoration is worn on the right breast pocket. This guy seems to be wearing a cloth version of the DKiG, but has it way down on his stomach!

I've got this one in my collection, but this time it's the metal version.

Jason

- - -

[johnny_ola2000]

Lanyard? and attachment problem



The second photo: If the officer wore aguillettes or a lanyard - like the markmanship lanyards, it would obscure the DKIG, so he had it placed below the pocket

The last photo: Maybe the DkIG wearer had this tunic made by a tailor who forgot to put attachment loops for decorations on the right side pocket because most German decorations (except the Spanish Cross and some foreign awards) would be worn on the left side pocket. So without the appropiate hooks, the officer attached his DkIG to the tread lining the pocket?

[kaiserwilhelm2]

Nothing wrong with a DKiG placed below or slightly below the right breast pocket. This can be seen in quite a lot of war time pics. I believe someone on this forum told me once that according to regulations it was even supposed to be placed below the center point of the right pocket. I am not sure if that is true but in any case off center/mid point placement is fine. I even have seen a war time pic that displays it above the pocket!

Wearing it in cloth or metal is the wearers choice. Needless to say in cloth is more practical as it is a lot lighter to wear and this way the metal one (which is a lot more expensive than the cloth one - even today) would not get damaged so easily. So the choice would usually have been a cloth one on the field tunic and the metal one on the walking out tunic. Then again DKiG in metal were also worn in the field (an observation also based on war time pics).