How Historically Accurate? (1 Viewer)

[Lo1863]

Hello all!
I was wondering how historically accurate K&C is with their products (especially WWII)? They seem to be very good from what I can tell from the pictures of their products. Thanks!

 

[uksubs]

Hello all!
I was wondering how historically accurate K&C is with their products (especially WWII)? They seem to be very good from what I can tell from the pictures of their products. Thanks!

I think kc stuff on the whole is very accurate and don't forget kc make a lot of stuff each month as well {bravo}}

 

[PanzerAce1944]

Extremely accurate.Based upon how many new items get produced each month it is an accomplishment in itself. Probably why the majority of my purchases are
King&Country. Surely a few small things have slipped here or there but the vast majority is terrific !!!!! IMO :wink2:

 

[waynepoo]

Very good and that's all I want.....:smile2:
Wayne.

 

[Mitch]

I agree with the comments about the amount of products they produce but, as with all manufacturers they are a bit wishy washy on certain items and do get things wrong on detailing of AFV's and things like markings on AFV's and decals etc on figures.

Don't think they are the worst but, as more traffic comes through this section I am sure its highlighted more or, seems more when it happens. Apart from a handful of blatent faux pars i.e. making things up that did not exist mostly they are little things that should not slip through the early discussion and research procedures.

As the discussion elsewhere has shown on this very issue they should not be doing it as its harder to get something wrong than right from the factual information that is available
Mitch

 

[Cyber Field Marshall]

I've definitely noticed over the years on this forum that as the prices of our collectibles have dramatically increased so too has the debates, arguments, expectations, and rivet counting on what's produced. I'm fine with that. If one pays over $200USD for a piece I think we're entitled to a well made, historically accurate model. As with the others I'd say K&C get its right most of the time as do the other manufacturers.

 

[Lo1863]

Thanks guys. I have been looking at the WWII line for some time now. I have only collected the Britains line of ACW, but have had a huge interest in WWII for a long time because of all the vets in my family. I ordered my first WWII tank and set earlier this week and should be coming soon. I will post pics. VERY EXCITED HERE!!!!!

 

[theBaron]

Boy, is this a loaded question! I expected more fireworks

How accurate? Well, it's a minor point, but they put moustaches on their Hessian officers, which is not accurate. But that probably works out to .0000001% of all of their content, so it's not a big indication of overall accuracy.

Prost!
Brad

 

[Larry Allen]

Boy, is this a loaded question! I expected more fireworks

How accurate? Well, it's a minor point, but they put moustaches on their Hessian officers, which is not accurate. But that probably works out to .0000001% of all of their content, so it's not a big indication of overall accuracy.

Prost!
Brad

You know, I have wondered about that moustache on most of the figures; all except the BR62 officer; Drummer boy and BR71 the Flag Bearer. Many paintings and drawings show maybe a 50% / 50% ratio but I never could find if it was a custom or regulation or what!

However, I think the drummer boy should have one!! {sm3} {sm2}

I have a modest library on the uniforms and dress of the AWI soldiers and I find that 95% of the time K&C matches the reference. Of course there was such as huge mix and match and variety it is hard to tell.

Larry

 

[theBaron]

You know, I have wondered about that moustache on most of the figures; all except the BR62 officer; Drummer boy and BR71 the Flag Bearer. Many paintings and drawings show maybe a 50% / 50% ratio but I never could find if it was a custom or regulation or what!

However, I think the drummer boy should have one!! {sm3} {sm2}

I have a modest library on the uniforms and dress of the AWI soldiers and I find that 95% of the time K&C matches the reference. Of course there was such as huge mix and match and variety it is hard to tell.

Larry

Officers in the 18th century European armies didn't wear facial hair, because they were gentlemen, and it was not fashionable for gentlemen to wear moustaches or beards, from the early part of the century up until the very last years, when fashions changed as a byproduct of the French Revolution.

The only exception was Hungarian officers, and hussar officers in other armies, copying the Hungarian fashion.

In the armies of the German states, as well as the Austrian army, grenadiers were especially encouraged to wear them, and often a unit would supply its rank and file with false moustaches, to maintain a uniform appearance. It was thought that a moustache enhanced a warlike appearance. The hatmen or musketiers were also encouraged to grow them. That also applied to non-commissioned officers.

The Brits were an exception, they tended not to have anyone grow facial hair at that time, but then, they followed their own fashion, separate from the Continent.

In K&C's Hessian series, the mounted officer and the officer carrying a spontoon are both incorrect on this detail. The ensign is correct, as is the officer with a field glass.

The officer with a spontoon is also incorrect, in that he's wearing boots instead of shoes and gaiters. Only officers who were routinely mounted for duty would wear boots, typically from major on up, and sometimes a captain. Otherwise, captains and lieutenants wore shows and gaiters.

Same goes for enlisted personnel, except for Jaegers in some of the armies. Some wore boots, even though they served on foot, because they could be mounted as necessary.

Prost!
Brad

 

[uksubs]

Extremely accurate.Based upon how many new items get produced each month it is an accomplishment in itself. Probably why the majority of my purchases are
King&Country. Surely a few small things have slipped here or there but the vast majority is terrific !!!!! IMO :wink2:

I think saying kc extremely accurate is taking it to far mate , there good but not that good

 

[Bayern]

Hello all!
I was wondering how historically accurate K&C is with their products (especially WWII)? They seem to be very good from what I can tell from the pictures of their products. Thanks!

I think KC is pretty accurate. In my opinion somewhere in the 90% plus area. In WWII I have only noticed a few things. Like wrong gear or wrong color on items.

All in all they do a great job. Sometimes like all makers, things get missed. Probably due to time and resources as well.


Ludwig

In Fact, I have one on a new purchase I will post for discussion.

 

[Larry Allen]

Officers in the 18th century European armies didn't wear facial hair, because they were gentlemen, and it was not fashionable for gentlemen to wear moustaches or beards, from the early part of the century up until the very last years, when fashions changed as a byproduct of the French Revolution.

The only exception was Hungarian officers, and hussar officers in other armies, copying the Hungarian fashion.

In the armies of the German states, as well as the Austrian army, grenadiers were especially encouraged to wear them, and often a unit would supply its rank and file with false moustaches, to maintain a uniform appearance. It was thought that a moustache enhanced a warlike appearance. The hatmen or musketiers were also encouraged to grow them. That also applied to non-commissioned officers.

The Brits were an exception, they tended not to have anyone grow facial hair at that time, but then, they followed their own fashion, separate from the Continent.

In K&C's Hessian series, the mounted officer and the officer carrying a spontoon are both incorrect on this detail. The ensign is correct, as is the officer with a field glass.

The officer with a spontoon is also incorrect, in that he's wearing boots instead of shoes and gaiters. Only officers who were routinely mounted for duty would wear boots, typically from major on up, and sometimes a captain. Otherwise, captains and lieutenants wore shows and gaiters.

Same goes for enlisted personnel, except for Jaegers in some of the armies. Some wore boots, even though they served on foot, because they could be mounted as necessary.

Prost!
Brad

Wow, Thank you, Brad for this "wealth" of great info.
Any good reference material that you could point me to? -- Larry