Jump to content

pump 150

Members
  • Content Count

    587
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Well, so far there still has not been one confirmed photo to date in order to properly verify and prove that the "No Buttonhole/No Slit" model of the Frogskin helmet cover was worn during any combat operations in WWII.
  2. DiGilio, That is great information and some really nicely done research, thanks for taking the time to present it! If the 1964 contract date does ring true, then going by the norm it would actually represent July 1963 - June 1964 I would think. This would potentially push back production a bit earlier into 1963 as well, which could have meant discussion on producing, and writing up the specs during the 61-63 period with the then issued contract. Who they were made for, either ramping up supplies for USMC or friendly nations still needs to be determined. But your info does help
  3. I agree that finding documents are the key, and hopefully they will emerge at some point. How many photos have been posted absolutely proclaiming either specific proof added within this thread or "already well documented pictures in use" of the "First Model" in widespread use during WWII? These foliage slits can be extremely hard to see, even in good quality photos. You just can't take a quick look and judge. Photo quality and fully understanding how the cover is placed on the helmet needs to be considered before making any decision in either direction. I made mention of Mark Reynosa'
  4. Where the no foliage slit model of the USMC frogskin helmet cover can be readily seen as a primary helmet cover in field worn combat use, from the USMC Archive... Korea 1953
  5. Continuing to study these photos whenever new or better ones arrive, I still have yet to see a fully confirmed photo of a no foliage slit "First Model" in use during WWII or found any documentation. Certainly doesn't mean that they weren’t worn, but with the sheer number of higher quality pics becoming available, especially of the early war period you'd think it would be seen by now possibly. Still looking though! I believe, as mentioned here in the past that while being able to actually see all three models in hand with existing examples and what was confirmed produced post WWII, the p
  6. Buckwampum, I really appreciate you adding that photo to my post, thank you! It certainly does bare a very close resemblance at this point with the heavy cropping, and warrants further investigation in order to confirm with the full size image. Without a doubt a D Troop 1/9 marked vehicle with the yellow Diamond. That information on the V100's in use with the Troop is great info in itself as well. Look for a PM from me....Thanks! Martinmpr, At this point I do believe that he most likely was one of those accelerated NCO's or "shake-and-bake"
  7. A very special helmet. Thankfully this Marine made it home safely. Thank you for sharing it.
  8. As I said with the last example sold off a few months back. Being a 9-42 spec in the golden Frogskin and still in the original factory folds....this is a Mint+. These are almost in a sub-category of their own within the USMC Frogskin covers IMO. Very nice!
  9. Mike, Believe the photo you refer too was a selection obtained by member General Apathy. He commented, along with adding this picture currently at the top of Page 9 of the pinned "Rethinking The Norm" thread. The sold cover appears to be an example of the "golden Frogskin" color along with being the so called "third model" as per the 9-42 specs. With those attributes and still in the original factory folds, IMO this would be considered a "Mint +" WWII USMC Frogskin cover.
  10. One thing to consider on this particular cover is that it appears to present never to have been on a shell, still in the original factory folded condition as ready to ship directly after manufacture. Just a thought.
  11. You're right Justin, I completley forgot about those images. Thanks for reminding me! Another mystrey to solve for sure. Here are a couple screen shots which show a close up and the easily determined difference between the two together. These are both listed as July 1958 in Lebanon.
  12. That's where I was going as well. While the "Leaf/Mitchell" can be seen used by ARVN forces as early as 1962, I have not seen them with the earlier issue frogskin either so far. It could be said these 1964 contract were made for the Korean forces who wore a similar type looking Frogskin in Vietnam, but by where I got mine it would seem they were issued to U.S. Marines pre 1965. And these "Frogskin" helmet covers were still worn on a limited basis throughout the Vietnam War period by Marines. Below is the latest photo I have seen of a Marine wearing the WWII era "Frogskin" helmet cove
  13. While the theory of this contract being primarily intended for South Vietnamese forces is certainly worth exploring further as helmet covers were being sent to them. By 1962 the brand new issue "Leaf/Mitchell" camouflage covers were already documented in use by ARVN forces in combat operations on an ever growing scale. The photo below is a famous one from Larry Burrows taken in the Mekong Delta in 1962. That would have to make these either the 1959 or 1962 contracts only. Just some more things to look into....
  14. I’m with Mike...very nice! And to spur the conversation for those who may not have seen it before, the one I showed (which was a cover alone not on a helmet) came directly from an estate grouping of a marine who had served in Korea in the past, but also was assigned to MAAG in Vietnam during 1964-1965.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.