
Duck Hunter & Mitchell Pattern Helmet Covers
#51
Posted 22 April 2007 - 08:43 PM
Cheers!
Marc Shaffer
#52
Posted 23 April 2007 - 05:58 AM
Thanks for the reference. I missed your thread when I was searching. I see that Moran calls it a "sniper cover." Much sexier than a mosquito cover I think.
According to Lt. Robert Woodbury's statement in the historical record of QMC on 11 September 1943, the effort to insect proof uniforms, "...was to give the maximum protection against the forays of insects carrying such diseases as malaria, dengue fever, and scrub typhus." An admirable purpose but just not as sexy.
Thanks for the assistance.
#53
Posted 23 April 2007 - 07:27 AM
Anyone that calls them sniper covers sure has never tried looking through the cover while also looking through a rifle scope. In order to use the scope you need to cut eye holes in the cover. I have looked at many of these covers over the years and have yet to see one with eye holes.
#54
Posted 23 April 2007 - 08:52 AM
I've never seen a photo of one of those in use retaing the netting. It seems to be always cut off
Greg
#55
Posted 23 April 2007 - 08:56 AM
I guess I should start looking around for one of those before they go ballistic like the rest of USMC items. ...GOOD STUFF SNIPPED...
Greg
Greg,
Your right about the prices. I think it was mentioned elsewhere on this forum that Spielberg and Hanks are working on a Pacific version of BoB that will be released soon. If it does for USMC what BoB did for Airborne, I won't be able to afford a HBT shirt!
#56
Posted 23 April 2007 - 06:23 PM
Steve
#57
Posted 23 April 2007 - 06:33 PM
steve
#58
Posted 24 April 2007 - 01:49 AM
#59
Posted 25 April 2007 - 09:45 AM
CB
#60
Posted 02 July 2007 - 10:23 AM

#61
Posted 02 July 2007 - 12:00 PM
#62
Posted 02 July 2007 - 12:34 PM
Chris
#63
Posted 02 July 2007 - 02:23 PM
Tyler
#64
Posted 02 July 2007 - 02:32 PM
This earlier thread on the subject should be of some use.
http://www.usmilitar...?showtopic=3036
Chris
#65
Posted 02 July 2007 - 04:00 PM
Tyler you might want to look here as well:
http://www.usmilitar...p?showtopic=969
#66
Posted 02 July 2007 - 06:48 PM
#67
Posted 03 July 2007 - 11:26 PM
#68
Posted 04 July 2007 - 01:25 AM
craig there are no slits in this one bud..its 100/% repro...not even a blue anchor 1952 marked one..all the post ww11 covers i have had over the past where all second pattern with foliage slits but no slits on the flaps, with E.G.A stamps on both sides and blue anchor 1952 stamping on the brown side only flap..i have had some second pattern without the 1952 blue anchor stamp but still have the E.G.A on both sides , but know for a fact that this is very very easy to remove THE BLUE ANCHOR 1952 stamp..none have every had the slits on the flaps .joe
I own a cover that has the slits in the crown, no slits in each flap, no post war markings, and no stencilled Marine emblems. I believe it to be a wartime cover but perhaps late war. Chris Arnold (Steel Pots) always claimed this was a legit variation but Mark Reynosa omitted it from his WW2 M1 book.
Greg
#69
Posted 04 July 2007 - 10:56 AM
#70
Posted 04 July 2007 - 12:35 PM
My theory is these were late war production and then they used the same pattern when they resumed production in 1953.
#71
Posted 04 July 2007 - 01:01 PM
The 3rd pattern, often seen with the Blue Anchor markings, I believe was put into production after the war the war. The reason being that I don't think it makes sense to produce a pattern that is neither the 1st pattern production "error", nor the corrected 2nd pattern with full compliment of slits. The post war Mitchell pattern covers display the same design of only slits in the crown as the other 3rd pattern. So I believe that the 3rd patterns were produced between the 2nd pattern and the Mitchell pattern during the late 40s and early 50s. I think the 3rd pattern was a change from the 2nd pattern when it was realised that the slits in the ears served little purpose.
I guess in order the prove or disprove the theory we need to see Blue Anchor marked 2nd patterns with slits in the crown and ears or contract or photo evidence of 3rd patterns being used during the war. Greg, maybe your non-marked 3rd pattern is of late '40s production. Before the Blue Anchor 50s contract? No EGA because the cover was made and issued before the fashion for EGAs came to fruition? There seems to be little if any evidence the EGA appearing even during the Korean war, I believe? So could the 3rd patterns be of the same production era as the '47 pattern utilities? Is there much contract evidence of the Blue Anchor or any post war production of camo covers?
Thoughts? http://www.usmilitar...tyle_emoticons/default/think.gif
Chris
#72
Posted 04 July 2007 - 01:03 PM

Chris
#73
Posted 04 July 2007 - 01:22 PM
I have a theory about the different patterns of USMC covers. According to Harlan Glenn's book the original design, adopted 17th September 1942, was to have slits in the in the crown and each of the flaps. It was never intended to not have slits, as per the "1st pattern". There are two versions of the 2nd pattern. One with slits in the crown and flaps (what I call 2nd pattern) and one with slits in only the crown and none in the flaps (what I call 3rd pattern). It is my belief that once the error in the 1st patterns was recognised, production of the 2nd pattern began in 43 with slits in the crown and flaps, as per the original design specification. This is how production continued until the end of the war.
The 3rd pattern, often seen with the Blue Anchor markings, I believe was put into production after the war the war. The reason being that I don't think it makes sense to produce a pattern that is neither the 1st pattern production "error", nor the corrected 2nd pattern with full compliment of slits. The post war Mitchell pattern covers display the same design of only slits in the crown as the other 3rd pattern. So I believe that the 3rd patterns were produced between the 2nd pattern and the Mitchell pattern during the late 40s and early 50s. I think the 3rd pattern was a change from the 2nd pattern when it was realised that the slits in the ears served little purpose.
I guess in order the prove or disprove the theory we need to see Blue Anchor marked 2nd patterns with slits in the crown and ears or contract or photo evidence of 3rd patterns being used during the war. Greg, maybe your non-marked 3rd pattern is of late '40s production. Before the Blue Anchor 50s contract? No EGA because the cover was made and issued before the fashion for EGAs came to fruition? There seems to be little if any evidence the EGA appearing even during the Korean war, I believe? So could the 3rd patterns be of the same production era as the '47 pattern utilities? Is there much contract evidence of the Blue Anchor or any post war production of camo covers?
Thoughts? http://www.usmilitar...tyle_emoticons/default/think.gif
Chris
Chris
You make some good points here. The original spec drawings do show slits in each flap. But this is the first time I've heard the "1st pattern" cover called a "mistake"....it's possible....but they must have made quite a few like that before realizing their "mistake".
As for the "3rd pattern" my theory has always been that it was a pattern designed to simplify production and maybe even reduce the cost a bit. Think about it......the covers were originally designed so that the flaps could be worn hanging loose to break up the outline of the helmet, hence the slits for foliage in each flap. But the cover was seldom worn this way so maybe they later decided the flap slit was unneeded and dropped it during production thereby simplifying production. So maybe production of those superceded the "2nd pattern" but it was still during the war. I don't figure any more covers were needed post WW2 until after the Korean War at which time they resumed production of the "3rd pattern".
The chances of finding a wartime photo that proves or disproves the use of the "3rd pattern" during WW2 are slim and none. Those slits are hard to see in an old photo.
Greg
#74
Posted 04 July 2007 - 01:29 PM
As for the "3rd pattern" my theory has always been that it was a pattern designed to simplify production and maybe even reduce the cost a bit.
I agree. I would guess that if the change took place during the war, it would have been late and maybe none reached the front before hostilities ceased.
The chances of finding a wartime photo that proves or disproves the use of the "3rd pattern" during WW2 are slim and none. Those slits are hard to see in an old photo.
Very true, Greg. I'm sure we'll never know. What we can be sure of is that the 1st and 2nd pattern are definite wartime production. It seems for now the 3rd pattern, marked or not, seem to be selling for pretty good money. As far as my collection goes I've stuck to just 1st and 2nd patterns. I may pick up a 3rd pattern, non marked, if the price is right. http://www.usmilitar...tyle_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif
Chris
Edited by GI 44, 04 July 2007 - 01:32 PM.
#75
Posted 04 July 2007 - 01:39 PM

BTW nice looking cover greg..
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users