242 replies to this topic

[Schnicklfritz]

I recently picked up Eric Hammel's new book on the Marines in the Battle of Hue during the Viet Nam war. Interestingly, this mosquito net/helmet cover was still in use at this late time period. Quite a few Marines in pictures in the book are obviously wearing it as a helmet cover. While I haven't read the book yet, the photos in it are quite worth picking it up.
Cheers!
Marc Shaffer

[SARGE]

Craig,

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.

[craig_pickrall]

I have seen them refered to as sniper covers for years. I guess that means the liners of the same material that fit tents or hammocks make them sniper tents or sniper hammocks using that logic.

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.

[Greg Robinson]

I guess I should start looking around for one of those before they go ballistic like the rest of USMC items. For some reason they've never caught on with collectors despite photo evidence of use in the Pacific War and despite their being relatively inexpensive compared to the regular helmet covers. I lagged around back when the camo covers with 1953 dates were cheap and plentiful. Now they're going for big bucks despite not being "WW2". So eventually so will the so called "sniper helmet covers".

I've never seen a photo of one of those in use retaing the netting. It seems to be always cut off

Greg

[BEAST]

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!

[88thcollector]

I have a VN era helmet direct from a vet's estate that has this cover on it. The helmet is dated 68 or 67 I think. His brother said it was exactly as he brought it home.
Steve

[88thcollector]

if you want one, the new Advanced Guard Militaria latest catalogue is online today and they have a nice one for 40 bucks.

steve

[GICOP]

Two on Ebay now

http://cgi.ebay.com/...1QQcmdZViewItem

http://cgi.ebay.com/...1QQcmdZViewItem

[cbuehler]

These are still quite common and I have seen plenty in the 25 to 30 dollar range. They apparently saw very little use and are usually found in ussisued condition. Even though there are a few pics of them being used in ww2, one must not come to the conclusion that this was a common practice however!

CB

[BIGJOE]

advertised as USMC HELMET COVER. WW2 PATTERN. 1950's Post WW2 example of a USMC camouflage helmet cover. Reverses from green to brown tones. NOT WW2 but virtually identical. No printed MC markings. ..really.....think i would rather stick wasps up my arse than be fooled by this one..can you see the fault..

[HelmetGuy]

It looks to be an At The Front cover with the dark stitching.

[GI 44]

I agree, Jared. I'd say this is an At The Front copy. A copy for sure, one of the more accurate ones out there. But still easy enough to spot.

Chris

[wildcat123]

How do you guys tell by the photo that this isn't a WWII period example? I have been thinking about adding a Marine helmet to my M1 collection but have been scared of fakes. What are some of the obvious signs of a fake helmet cover? Thanks so much for your help.

Tyler

[GI 44]

Tyler,

This earlier thread on the subject should be of some use.
http://www.usmilitar...?showtopic=3036

Chris

[craig_pickrall]

BIGJOE are there any foliage slots in that cover? I can't see them if they are.

Tyler you might want to look here as well:

http://www.usmilitar...p?showtopic=969

[wildcat123]

Thanks for the direction guys, I appreciate it.

[BIGJOE]

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

[Greg Robinson]

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

[BIGJOE]

hi greg..have heard of 2nd pattern covers without the slits on the flaps with no ink stamps but have not held one in my hands..show some pictures please bud,would like to see this one.

[Greg Robinson]

I keep this cover displayed on a helmet and I didn't want to have to remove it. But I took some pics to show what it looks like. I was paranoid when I bought it despite this being years ago. That came from almost being scammed by a part time militaria dealer from Florida who tried to hang me with a post war cover which had been treated with ink dissolver to remove the 1953 dated markings. The tip off was when I noticed that the ega on the front was very faint despite the overall condition of the cover was near new. Then I noticed remnants of inkstamp markings on the brown side. So I checked out this cover very thoroughly when I first got it. It came from Military Marketplace back when they regularly had original camo helmet covers for sale.

My theory is these were late war production and then they used the same pattern when they resumed production in 1953.

Attached Images

• 
• 

[GI 44]

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

[GI 44]

I think you and I on on the same page here, Greg!

Chris

[Greg Robinson]

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

[GI 44]

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.

[BIGJOE]

lets hope we can get to the bottom of this one day..the only one we can all say for sure thats not bent/repro/fake /wrong-un/wobbly/hookey/ect ect is the Mosquito Net/Helmet Cover..loads about ,cheap and i dont think this one has been faked .......lets hope not.. ..i will keep up with any more info on the repro covers as they tend to make our lives a pain..
BTW nice looking cover greg..