USMC/NAVY WWII combat camera....Tarawa(ish)

[Grenadier2002]

so, here is my idea, see what you think. I've been re enacting for many years as a British redcoat in the war for America. How many times have you wished if I only had my camera?

This brings us to now. I'm putting Together a WWII marine/navy combat camera, Tarawa(ish) impression. The thing is I'm a real professional photographer. I'm going to mix the two. I will be offering my services (as combat camera) to any WWII event for a modist charge to cover travel expenses (depending on distance). Then make prints or anything else available to purchase after the event. I have all the gear to cover as combat camera including gear, uniforms and cameras to blend in with the WWII era. But I have the modern gear to cover things once battle begins.

I have been shooting professionally for more that 40 years. Check out my site iephotosocal.com. I am based in So Cal.

Any thoughts?

Lee

[willysmb44]

Generally, people don't like someone walking around in the middle of a re-enactment event with modern camera gear. I covered a public event in 2009 for a magazine and asked permission to do that, promising that I'd only take photos when I was well under cover while the event itself was going on. I tired not to stand out but I'm not 100% sure that I did well. But I never got anyone griping about it and a couple of people thanked me for not just standing up in the center of things shooting away with my digital camera.

But make sure your impression is very good. War Correspondent is an impression people often take on because:

• They just wanna be different
• They don't have all the expensive stuff to do a grunt impression just yet
• They're a friend, kid or squeeze of someone else at the event and this was the only way they could go, too

Correspondent is rarely done very well. It's all over the map. Even at big events like Indiantown Gap, there's a mix of very well done correspondent impressions to some truly awful ones (usually, the ones who'll say anything to justify bringing post-WW2 stuff).

I don't focus on the photo side but there's a guy here with probably the best impression and collection of war photographer anything in the US. He's on this forum known as fotot8ker. Really good guy, a real-life Navy photographer who might be of a lot of help...

[fotot8ker]

Lee, thanks for showing me this thread. Grenadier2002, I am willing to give advice, but recommend you do your homework first on the impression. I would also recommend to do a War Correspondent impression over a US Navy Photographer's Mate impression since that impression is rarely done. -Plus you would be able to go to many ETO kind of reenactments and blend in with that impression. If there were a lot of "South Pacific" reenactments, then you could do the Navy Photographer's Mate or War Correspondent impression. One thing you may not know is that the US Navy Combat Camera units didn't start organizing until 1950. During WWII, there were Navy "Combat Photo Units", but not "Combat Camera". Hope that helps. If you have any questions please feel free to message me. Thanks!

[Grenadier2002]

Thanks guys for all the advice. I would think if I did Army camera my family would disown me I have landed on USMC sort of in the image of Ollie Newcomb who Was the still photographer with Norm Hatch. I am also putting together a Guadalcanal kit (for USMC) which is escencely Army so the cross over can be done. Also, from everything I have read early on ite Marines had ton of Army gear. When, after Guadalcanal, the 1st returned to Australia the only uniforms to be found were Army. Thus the early 1st and 2nd Marines patch to wear on the Army uniforms to show they were MARINES.

[fotot8ker]

Your welcome for the advice. Sounds like an interesting impression you want to portray. Just study as much original photos as possible to see what they were wearing, which sounds like you have been doing. If you are doing that USMC impression you can use the 4x5 "Combat Camera" made by Graflex or the Anniversary Speed Graphic camera depending on if you are doing an early or late war impression. Early in the war in 42' thru early-mid 44' I have seen most of the Marines carrying the standard 4x5 Anniversary Speed Graphic camera, then later on in the War you can see some using the "Combat Camera" which was more readily available. You are sticking to a still photographer impression right?

[Grenadier2002]

I have a 1941 dated speed graphic. Two Kodak cine magazine 16. One is a "U.S. NAVY" model. Also have a Kodak 35 used by a soldier in Europe. I pretty much have the camera end covered. As far as uniform goes....just like any other marine. Armed with anything from nothing to a bazooka. But also carrying a bunch of film and cameras.

[fotot8ker]

Wow, sounds like a decent array of cameras! Nice! Thanks for telling me what you have! What is the serial number on your Anniversary Speed Graphic? Are you sure it's from 1941? Just curious since I have a long list of Anniversary Speed Graphic serial numbers. Your US Navy Cine Kodak 16mm magazine camera is quite rare. I have one in my display as well, which is a cool piece to my US Navy Photographer's Mate living history display. Well, thank you for the feedback and the communication!

[Grenadier2002]

Speed sn 291441 paid $91 and the Navy 16 I have, picked up on eBay $18. The seller did not know what he had and did and listed as not working. But you wouldn't be working so well if you sat around for 20-30 years. Just stiffness and now it is fully operational.

[fotot8ker]

Thanks for reply back. In going over the serial numbers online and my own serial number list, your Speed Graphic is a late 1941 model. That price is pretty decent for what you paid for it! The Navy Cine Kodak you picked up for $16, is a fantastic price! Wow! Yeah, sounds like the seller didn't know what he had! Glad its fully operational now. Well, have fun and if you have any more questions I would be happy to answer them!

[turmanator]

Gents

Just the conversation I've been lookung for!

Would an early war USMC correspondent/photographer have worn a patch on a khaki Bravo uniform indicating such, and if so what would have been the appropriate patch. Or even civilian or Navy attached to a grunt unit?

Navy photographer, YANK, Stars And Stripes, etc.

[willysmb44]

Most Marines attached to any sort of photo or correspondent duty (even war artists) had to be Marines first. I have very rarely ever seen any of them with patches denoting what they were in that role.

Generally, in the PTO, correspondents didn't want to stand out unless they were in a rear area. Even the civilian ones often went without patches and insignia as such if in the field. It's really more of an ETO thing where the allies thought the Germans would respect a non-combatant by their insignia (which, to a degree, did happen) and even then, it was more commonly seen in the rear echelon.

For example, here's Joe Rosenthal on Iwo in the above photo. Note the lack of any insignia.

For the most part, correspondents/photographers in either theater, both military and civilian, went without insignia for that role more often than with, in the field.

But try telling most re-enactors that...

[turmanator]

That is what I was looking for and the conclusion I was coming to also! Thanks for the info!

[willysmb44]

A portion of my home page has some general info on the subject, along with photos of civilian correspondents in the PTO and ETO here: http://www.freewebs.com/willysmb44/warco.htm

That is what I was looking for and the conclusion I was coming to also! Thanks for the info!

 

Any time. Between Bryan and myself, I think any question you could have on this subject could be covered...

I'm just happy that you're really looking for info, and not just looking for someone to back up what you were already gonna do. I see the latter most of the time and it's so annoying as that's a waste of my time.