Posts: 88
Threads: 3
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
Posts: 88
Threads: 3
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
Posts: 640
Threads: 27
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation:
0
Very nice displays. Do you have them all mounted as shown?
Posts: 88
Threads: 3
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
G'day Jeffrey,
Thanks for your kind compliment. They are all in Riker mounts and stacked, unfortunately. One day, hopefully, I'll be able to display them properly. That is, of course, IF,"SHE who must be obeyed", agrees.....just joking. Are you a Soviet patch collector, as well?
Cheers,
Jim
Posts: 168
Threads: 27
Joined: Sep 2008
Reputation:
0
Argh, I need to get one of those five-stripe blue patches, as well as one of the dark blue sleeve stars.
Jim, have any spares of either?
Posts: 2,449
Threads: 371
Joined: Oct 2004
Reputation:
0
Do you still consider the green airborne patch as genuine Soviet? The crispness of the hammer and sickle in the star look awfully like ones posted here as fakes.
Posts: 88
Threads: 3
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
Yes, I certainly do consider the Border Troops VDV patch genuine. I refer you to page 30, item 2, of Colonel Alexey Stepanov's book, Soviet Arm Badges 1920-91 (I). I believe that Colonel Stepanov is an honourable man and would not include a fake patch in his book. Moreover, he has no reason to do so.The Border Troops VDV patch is the only version for which there is a reputable reference, other than the better known and original sky blue version. The "crispness" of the H & S is not a valid reason for condemming either this, or any other patch, as there are plenty other genuine Soviet patches which share this feature. When this version of the VDV patch, along with practically every other known Soviet patch, was declared a fake here, some time back, there was no proof offered. So, in the absence of any credible evidence to the contrary, I must consider such an allegation as simply an opinion, rather than fact. Thanks for your question. I trust that I have answered it sufficiently. What do you think of bthe rest of my collection? Happy Collecting! :thumbsup
Posts: 2,449
Threads: 371
Joined: Oct 2004
Reputation:
0
Your collection is nice.
Established, respected references and honorable people unintentionally make mistakes too - ;).
Earlier on the forum we did offer evidence, the first being - missions. Airborne forces are used to drop scattered behind enemy lines and cause disruption, fighting until friendly forces arrive. Border guards sit in established outposts or patrol along a very narrow strip of land along a border checking vehicles, documents, etc.
It makes absolutely no sense to put border guards in airplanes, push them out when they will scatter (perhaps even across the border - oops!) to do what - stop an illegal border crosser? Even if you consider them in a military role like on the border with China, it again is absolutely logical to use them as airborne. To repel a major armed border incursion you must use concentrated forces to repel.
Finally, the paucity of such (over?)specialized forces would hardly warrant production of such a patch with again a lack of evidence - no photographic or other documentary evidence.
