Jump to content
ireachy

Celebration Europe 2016 Rogue One Stormtrooper Back Pack Build

Recommended Posts

Introduction

This thread will look at the Rogue One Stormtrooper (R1 TK) back pack as seen on display at Celebration Europe 2016 (CE) in London. 

 

Intro01_zps771jhsh2.jpg

 

Intro02_zpsdhsqa7n8.jpg

 

It is recognised that at least 3-4 R1 TKs have been seen wearing the back pack in the trailers, CE sizzle reel, and various promotional material. This build is concerned ONLY with the CE R1 TK pack, as this is the most documented and readily scrutinisable prop; due the vast online reference library generated by attendees at the convention. It is possible that there are variations in the builds of other packs used on screen in the final theatrical cut of Rogue One.

 

We will also mention obvious variations in wearing the pack such as: placement of the pauldron over or under the right shoulder strap, and inclusion or omission of the detonator cylinder.

 

Intro03_zpsvh1xh88p.jpg

 

Pauldron01_zpsqgd0qrau.jpg

 

This build is NOT associated with the R1 TK ‘hard’ back pack – the ‘Jedha Stormtrooper patrol’ pack – available from Hot Toys… 

 

14468574_10153834926722344_1600557855593

 

…and glimpsed in the CE sizzle reel. 

 

New%20backpack_zpsh6od8eio.jpg

 

The investigation behind the thread has been on-going since the pack was first seen in July 2016 at CE, with an increased focus over the last few weeks. The research is primarily a collaboration between four individuals: Paul Prentice (mr paul), Chris Trevas (lonepigeon) of ‘Parts of Star Wars’ (PoSW), Jody Williams (ht7), and myself Ian Reach (ireachy). Other notable contributions regarding certain parts have come from Andy Rodgers of ‘The Shed of Glittering Delights!’ (SoGD) Facebook group, and also the initial thread started by TK Gino here on ‘1st Imperial Stormtrooper Detachment’ (FISD).

 

As well as significant time and effort researching the pack and its components, the team has also purchased found part components, along with numerous samples of ‘close to’ parts and sub-components, in efforts to build the most accurate / authentic pack possible. Many a 'blind alley' has been explored, with a discard pile of ‘not quite correct’ parts steadily building over the last couple of weeks. The build is based Mr Paul’s version 2.0 pack, as he and ireachy broke-down his version 1.0 pack based on the team’s detailed observations.

 

The thread is intended to share the knowledge developed by the team, help others avoid mistakes we have made, and to act as a guide to building the most authentic R1 TK back pack possible. Of course, you can take as much detail, or as little, from this thread as you wish to inform your own builds, but we hope to present a compelling break-down and guide to building the prop.

 

Most of the found parts are still readily available, and certain ‘hard to find’ parts will be available for sale from the team members as we proceed with the thread (it is possible that the team have found original suppliers of certain parts to Lucasfilm Ltd (LFL), although 100% corroboration is difficult to ascertain). This said, it should be noted that three of the four team members live in the UK where the supply of parts may be easier to source directly, than in other parts of the World.

 

The build thread will be broken down into distinct sections, focusing on a discrete component, or sub-assembly, of the pack:

 

1.      Frame;

2.      Soft pack – the Alice Pack;

3.      Ammo box;

4.      Canvas roll;

5.      Antenna; and

6.      Shoulder straps, including the RAF K-Type dinghy quick release greeblie.

 

Picture1_zpsaqe9iwq9.png

 

Each section will be supported by references and evidence, and we will clearly indicate where we feel the evidence is weak and the team has extrapolated our own ideas and interpretations. There are a few limited cases of these extrapolations which could result in deviations from the actual CE R1 TK back prop. Most however are associated with the area of the pack that lies between the TK back and the back of the frame, ammo box and soft pack i.e. parts not seen in reference material, but also hidden from general view on the final pack as worn.

 

The separate sections will describe details about the found parts, where known, and these will also be confirmed / published on the PoSW page as we progress. It will provide in-depth assembly observations, as there are significant specific details that have come to light, and will also cover dyeing methods and weathering techniques.

 

 

As a teaser, here are some details that have come to light which we will be discussing, and have incorporated to the build:

 

Shoulder03_zpsyxkxmaxt.jpg

 

Shoulder02_zpsd8ib7wgr.jpg

 

Alice%20webbing01_zps3uevuoy5.jpg

 

Canvas%20buckles01_zpsapz8leyx.jpg

 

Alice%20buckles01_zpstfabpdno.jpg

 

Antenna01_zpsaetynjb1.jpg

 

The build thread will start very soon with: 1. The Frame.

 

ireachy

Edited by ireachy
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I dont get is why some of the troopers have the strap OVER their pauldron...makes no sense

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I dont get is why some of the troopers have the strap OVER their pauldron...makes no sense

Cause they had the pauldron on first, then put on the pack?  :laugh1:

I didn't notice that until you pointed it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cause they had the pauldron on first, then put on the pack?  :laugh1:

I didn't notice that until you pointed it out.

Yeah lol, cant believe no one on set caught that

Edited by Netliquid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very Interested to know what they used for the canvas roll and types of straps. Also the Antenna. <br>

My guess with the pack top and bottom unseen parts look like the ammo box is just opened fully upside down. So the bottom of the pack behind the Alice pack is the top half of the ammo box. And the top part of tha pack behind the grenade tray is the bottom of the ammo box! Geez that was a mouth full. Just a guess though. <br><br>

I await with great interest to learn more from your research! Thanks!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the alice pack, ammo box and how it all fits to the frame. We will be discussing all these topics and showing the correct or the best way to resolve each of them. The Stormtrooper displayed at Celebration Europe had the straps over the pauldron whereas others wear the strap under the pauldron as seen on set in the reference pictures above and on the new Hot Toys version. We will not be relying on these images for accuracy until the film is released as we do not know if these scenes will remain in the edit. 

Edited by mr paul
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great! I will definitely follow this build. I already have some parts for the pack here but no time to start my build! Good for me. ;) Now I can learn much more! :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have already begun my Rogue One TK Pack build and will follow this thread closely.<br>

Patiently awaiting more info...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its interesting to see they are still wearing the TD pack even with the backpack on.

 

A slightly contentious point as the TK in one shot wears the TD and yet the one at CE did not have the TD on the belt. The new TD mount was present, but the TD was absent. I think we will have to wait until the film is released to see if the shot in our thread with the TD on makes it to final cut. Will always go with screen accurate. 

 

This is the same issue as the pack strap over or under the pauldron. The CE was over, but most trailer and sizzle reel TKs are under pauldron, and yet that shot in our thread shows both over and under in same frame. Will see if that makes the final cut. I thought the CE strap over the pauldron was just a set dresser mistake for CE, but that may not be the case.

Edited by ireachy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. The Frame

 

This first build section of the thread will look at the FRAME used on the Rogue One Stormtrooper (R1 TK) back pack as seen on display at Celebration Europe 2016 (CE) in London.

 

Frame01_zpsmbznqdus.jpg

Frame_zpsteuoqxn2.jpg

 

There has been a lot discussion about the frame since the weekend of CE, and alongside the Ammo Box, it was one of the first parts to be identified. It was rapidly posited that the frame belonged to a 40/45 (or even a 70 litre) Swedish back pack with frame model number LK35 or M75:

 

https://www.facebook.com/PartsofSW/photos/a.936085596514055.1073741860.193037424152213/957124981076783/?type=3&theater

 

Haglofs made a civilian version of the LK75 until the late 1990's, with early models having cotton webbing straps, and later version with nylon ones (Lars E Grimstad, on PoSW).

However, clear pictures of the CE back pack frame, especially detailed ones are very difficult to find. Primarily due to the fact that it is obscured by the trooper and the rest of the actual TK pack itself. However as seen in the pictures above, the frame is mounted outside of the attachments. The frame is not within the Alice pack.

 

The LK35 and the M75 packs are almost identical, and discussions on various forums have shown that suppliers themselves do not appear to realise the distinctions between the two packs. Reading through discussions it has become apparent that LK35s have been sold as M75s, and vice versa. Pictures listed with a supply of LK35s can be M75s, and more worryingly many M75s listed with accurate M75 pictures are turning out to be LK35s. It appears the only way to mitigate this mis-identification will be to visit a surplus store in person and sort through the stock.

 

The pack below is an LK35…

 

lk35_zpsipssgrwe.jpg

 

…and this pack is an M75…

 

Swedish-Backpack-With-Frame-Model-M75_zp

 

…and this pack is sold as an LK35, and yet it is an M75…

 

ana7537-2_zpsqzakpbou.jpg

 

It is relevant to note that the soft part of the pack and the shoulder straps are discarded. They are NOT part of the CE TK back pack, and NONE of the webbing or buckles are used in the build (evidence to support this will be discussed in greater detail in subsequent build sections associated with the Alice pack and the canvas roll).

 

The photographs below show a comparison between the LK35 and M75 frames…

 

14212105_1778970999054204_14451650485531

 

…and show the key diagnostic features to determine the LK35 from the M75:

 

·        The height of the frame posts at the top of the frame to which the soft part attaches;

o   ~45 mm on the LK35;

o   ~28 mm on the M75; and

 

·        The shape and colour of the frame post end caps;

o   Linear and green on the LK35;

o   Slight inverted cone shape and light grey on the M75 - Note that there are apparent colour variations and some correct shaped end caps have been supplied in black, not the light grey;

 

14265050_1778974452387192_26042902978545

 

·        The shape, angle and welding points of the webbing attach mounting at the bend of the frame’s ‘shelf’;

o   Nearly perpendicular to the frame back and shelf on the LK35, and welded to outside of the frame;

o  More acutely angled in relation to the frame back on the M75, and welded in-line with the frame;

 

 

14265075_1778973812387256_51911543929258

 

·        Slightly larger / deeper shelf on the M75 compared to the LK35;

o   The LK35 shelf depth is ~90 mm; and

o   The M75 shelf depth is ~105-110 mm.

 

14191958_1778971009054203_43603029121427

 

These details are important, as analysis of reference photography for the CE back pack, primarily associated with the posts and end caps and the webbing attachment mount, has allowed identification of the frame type used on the prop. The details seem to indicate that the correct pack frame used on the CE back pack is the M75, NOT the LK35. The M75 ‘feels’ slightly more robust and bulky than the taller LK35 – although this is purely a subjective feeling. This said, do note that certain M75s have been received with the correct shaped end caps but in black, not the light grey seen on the CE prop.

 

The picture below shows the post end cap is grey, not the green seen on the LK35.

 

Frame02_zpskv1xheaq.jpg

 

Also, the frame section tubes are ~14 mm diameter, and the height of the post, from the horizontal top bar of the frame, is approximately twice that measurement i.e. close to the 28 mm of the M75 frame. Certainly not the 45 mm of the LK35.

 

post%20comp_zpsrssmtrsc.jpg

 

We also know that the webbing on the canvas roll is 1” / 25 mm width webbing (this will be examined in greater detail in the canvas roll build section). The distance from the top horizontal bar on the frame is nearly exactly the same height as the webbing width (on the canvas roll). This means that there is little more than 1" / ~25mm left on the frame upright from the upper horizontal bar to the end of the post and top of the end cap = ~28 mm = M75. If the frame was an LK35, then the top of the post (from the top horizontal bar) would be closer to 2 x width of the webbing (on the canvas roll). This appears to validate the hypothesis that the frame is the M75.

 

Frame03_zps9exqne6r.jpg

 

The picture below shows that the weld spot for the webbing attachment mount does not extend all the way across the frame outside as is evident on the LK35. Rather, it is aligned with the frame and is barely discernible.

 

Frame%20weld%20spot_05_zpsihdhusew.jpg

 

It is important to note that the condition of field-issued and unissued frames is highly variable, and on-line pictures show large range of dings, scratches, bangs, chips etc. These are evident on the CE frame (see picture below) and the frame was not repainted for use on the prop. The webbing back supports (that are tied under tension horizontally across the frame in two places) are not dyed black. They are left untouched and original colour – well certainly there is photographic evidence that the lower back support webbing was left as per original frame.

 

13709956_10155122930098009_8820902357411

 

The team does acknowledge that the evidence base to support the identification of the M75 is not over-whelming from analysis of the reference material alone. However, we believe comparison of the two frame types side-by-side supports our identification of the M75 as the pack frame used on the CE prop.

 

The frame appears to be available widely from army surplus stores and online shops across the UK, Europe and in the United States. However, it seem to be a gamble to whether you receive an LK35 or M75, even if the pictures on the site indicate one or the other.

 

Colemans cites LK35 on its website, but the picture is an M75, and received kit appears to be either the LK35 OR the M75:

 

https://colemans.com/shop/pouches-bags/swedish-military-backpack-with-frame/

 

LK35s can be bought cheaply in the UK from Military Mart:

 

http://www.militarymart.co.uk/swedish-army-lk35-rucksack.html

 

More links will be added when sourced but a suitable online search should turn up the pack.

 

If 100% CE prop accuracy is not a concern, and as the differences between the two frames is minimal, then there is an easy mod that can be done to the LK35 to bring it much closer to the M75. The end caps can be removed, and the posts cut down, using an angle grinder or Dremel-type tool, to 28 mm. The end caps can be painted a light grey and then replaced. It is possible that a plastic or rubber end cap with the correct inverted slight cone shape, and the correct M75 colour, could be purchased on-line, although the team has not investigated this possibility.

 

The next instalment of the build thread will be: 2. Soft pack – the Alice Pack.

 

ireachy

Edited by ireachy
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude you need be a DO for the MEPD lol

 

Thanks UKSwrath,

 

this is a real team effort, and the observations are a collective collaboration from mr paul, lonepigeon, and ht7. I'm just the one who can wax lyrical.

 

Hope you enjoy the thread and follow us to the end. We think there are some real unique insights that we hope will enable folks to complete some great authentic builds. Myself, I mostly just enjoy the investigation and digging down to the detail of found parts, and how it comes together in the build as a whole to look exactly like the prop.

 

I could hardly be a DO for MEPD as my TK armour is only about 90% complete at the moment, and is an FX suit (I can here the gasps - lol) - although I am pimping it to meet 501st standards for submission. But I do know this pack :-)

 

Best wishes,

ireachy

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I dont get is why some of the troopers have the strap OVER their pauldron...makes no sense

Easy. The officer isn't going to run into combat ripping his pack off. Strap under. The tanks are going to run into combat ripping their packs off using quick release straps. Strap over.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy. The officer isn't going to run into combat ripping his pack off. Strap under. The tanks are going to run into combat ripping their packs off using quick release straps. Strap over.

Its interesting to note that I have worn the pack in full armour and because of the quick release mechanisms built into the straps, the pack can be removed very easy regardless of whether straps are worn over or under the pauldron. The pauldron does not hinder the removal of the pack so long as the pauldron is put on first.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy. The officer isn't going to run into combat ripping his pack off. Strap under. The tanks are going to run into combat ripping their packs off using quick release straps. Strap over.

 

sylverbard,

 

it would be great if this 'real world' military knowledge was adopted 'in-universe'. I imagine it is just an oversight / consistency error, but the truth may out when we see the final cut of the film, and get to see if these inconsistencies were ironed out in pick-ups / edits. Regardless, I love your application of military knowledge. This pack just feels more military than the other TK / TD back packs - but that is just my feeling.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hate to challenge your findings as I am intently following this thread and eagerly awaiting future updates to this build. It is not my intention to be disruptive or argumentative. Although I do feel obligated to point out something I may have discovered, I could be way off on this but the team working on this build may appreciate me bringing this forward. At least I hope...

 

I agree 100% that the prop at CE used an M75 frame. As you said the evidence is not overwhelming but I feel the light grey end caps on the top of the frame posts are a pretty dead giveaway if you ask me. Here's the M75 frame I bought.

image_zpsjeblhthz.jpeg

 

I purchased this frame from Coleman's Military Surplus. As stated earlier it is advertised as an LK35 on their website, but an M75 is pictured and that is what I received as you can see above.

image_zpsmmqog247.jpeg

 

I have found evidence that suggests not all M75 frames had the lower webbing mounts welded "in line" with the frame but rather more on the outside similar to the LK35, or on the outer edge at the very least. Clearly the frame used on that particular prop at CE had them welded in line, but this proves they may not have all been like that.

image_zpsc3aritux.jpeg

As you can see here, it's kind of welded more on the outer edge/upper corner of the bar, not completely on the "outside" like the LK35. But definitely NOT in line with the frame.

image_zpshq6ize8v.jpeg

Please let me know what you think of this.

 

Also in terms of construction; I may have found another way to distinguish the two different frames apart aside from the Shelf Depth and Frame Height. Unless this was already discussed somewhere and I just missed it.

As you can see below the angle brace meets at the bend on the LK35, and on the M75 it does not.

1bf99dd8-6050-43c8-b1fb-5724d5d473e8_zps

Edited by SlyFox740

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes your last point about where the angle brace meets is correct. That is why I took a picture of this difference. There will be lots of differences between the 2 frames and between themselves as these appear quite "knocked out" and i do not think quality or consistency was the priority when these were made. Where the webbing mounts are welded in the bottom corner is interesting. We suspected once we went public with our findings that we  would receive lots posts pointing out variations the frames that are out there. I think the more important difference in this part of the frame is the angle of the webbing mount compared to that of the LK35. Although yours is welded to the outside it still matches the same angle as the M75 I used.  This is something that so far is consistent with the M75. The LK35 on the other hand is angled differently. Thank you for showing us another variation of the m75. We are expecting many more. There may be inconsistencies with end cap colours and who knows what else.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay I thought that photo was just meant to show the difference in shelf depth and I just happened to notice the different angle braces. I figured you probably already noticed that I just didn't see any mention of it. 

  I thought the weld points on the webbing mounts were interesting too, definitely worth noting which is why I decided to come forward. Although the weld points may vary, I agree that the angle of the webbing mounts is more important and they still match yours. My frame supports the theory this angle was consistent in production of the M75. As opposed to LK35 webbing mounts which were made more perpendicular to the frame posts like you said.

 

Anyways I can't wait for the next update. Very much looking forward it.  :popcorn:

Edited by SlyFox740
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay I thought that photo was just meant to show the difference in shelf depth and I just happened to notice the different angle braces. I figured you probably already noticed that I just didn't see any mention of it. 

  I thought the weld points on the webbing mounts were interesting too, definitely worth noting which is why I decided to come forward. Although the weld points may vary, I agree that the angle of the webbing mounts is more important and they still match yours. My frame supports the theory this angle was consistent in production of the M75. As opposed to LK35 webbing mounts which were made more perpendicular to the frame posts like you said.

 

Anyways I can't wait for the next update. Very much looking forward it.  :popcorn:

 

We are relying on observations like yours to build a more accurate picture of the range of differences in the frames and other parts as we post them. There is a ton of lK35's out there and not many M75's to refer to so all this extra info is most welcome and appreciated and very interesting thank you  :)

Edited by mr paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hate to challenge your findings as I am intently following this thread and eagerly awaiting future updates to this build. It is not my intention to be disruptive or argumentative. Although I do feel obligated to point out something I may have discovered, I could be way off on this but the team working on this build may appreciate me bringing this forward. At least I hope...

 

I agree 100% that the prop at CE used an M75 frame. As you said the evidence is not overwhelming but I feel the light grey end caps on the top of the frame posts are a pretty dead giveaway if you ask me. Here's the M75 frame I bought.

image_zpsjeblhthz.jpeg

 

I purchased this frame from Coleman's Military Surplus. As stated earlier it is advertised as an LK35 on their website, but an M75 is pictured and that is what I received as you can see above.

image_zpsmmqog247.jpeg

 

I have found something that may indicate not all M75 frames had the lower webbing mounts welded "in line" with the frame but rather more on the outside similar to the LK35, or on the outer edge at the very least. Clearly the frame used on that particular prop at CE had them welded in line, but this proves they may not have all been like that.

image_zpsc3aritux.jpeg

As you can see here, it's kind of welded more on the outer edge/upper corner of the bar, not completely on the "outside" like the LK35. But definitely NOT in line with the frame.

image_zpshq6ize8v.jpeg

Please let me know what you think of this.

 

Also in terms of construction; I may have found another way to distinguish the two different frames apart aside from the Shelf Depth and Frame Height. Unless this was already discussed somewhere and I just missed it.

As you can see below the angle brace meets at the bend on the LK35, and on the M75 it does not.

1bf99dd8-6050-43c8-b1fb-5724d5d473e8_zps

 

SlyFox740,

 

thanks for your observations. Any comments or critiques are most welcome as we want this thread to be the best reference possible for the CE pack. I agree that you have identified a variation on your M75 compared to our samples. As you have shown, the webbing angle mount is NOT definitively welded in-line with the frame (contrary to what we stated regarding the M75), but some - yours, and presumably others - are welded at the outside of the frame in a similar manner to the LK35. So that is good to know. The weld position may now NOT be a definitive identification of an LK35 or M75. Thanks. But as you have subsequently stated in discussion with mr paul, the angle that the webbing mount meets the frame does appear to be a diagnostic, with the M75 meeting at more of an angle, and the LK35 being more perpendicular to the frame.

 

Regarding your observation about the angle brace placement. This is a very useful observation, and is an identification point. Mr paul's M75 is the same as yours, and my LK35 has exactly the same placement of angle brace as per the picture above for the LK35.

 

Again, thanks. This thread is not a dictatorial 'done case' / fait accompli, and by publishing on the forum we are hoping to stimulate discussion and further investigations to hopefully corroborate, or refute, our identification of parts - wait until we get to the canvas roll :-). At the end of the process we should hopefully have a reference that can be pinned and act as a definitive build thread.

 

At least we are still on the correct track regarding the positive identification of the frame as being the M75 :-)

 

Best,

ireachy

Edited by ireachy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am already starting to change my Backpack also into Ver.2 . Now with more information and more authentic parts, thanks to Ian ;P Good work you guys did.

 

A.Buschenhofen 6485

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...