Jump to content

USMC WWII "Frogskin" Covers - Rethinking The Norm


pump 150
 Share

Recommended Posts

Interesting, but a Great thread!

The EGA stenciled on the USMC camo helmet cover during WWII and Korea. Although off topic on this thread,  it's another decades long debate without any documents or photographic evidence. My interviews with Marine veterans of both wars began in the 70's. Every Veteran I talked to was adamant they never existed. 

To buttonhole/slit, or not to buttonhole/slit has never been a topic of discussion until I found this thread. Hopefully, you'll find what you're looking for.

I can assure you that Marines who served in either war never gave a hoot about either.

S/F,

Chuck

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Stony said:

Not to "rain on the parade" so to speak, but if both types were used during WWII, that's all I need to know. 

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hello, this thread is a great reference. I acquired this helmet in a large 3 generation military family grouping. This helmet with Rita Hayworth was part of it. The Grandfather was in WW1, his son in WW2 and Korea and the grandson in the VN war. There are no markings on the Camo. One of the best pinup girls of all time. Best, Bill

EAF6A663-A143-4591-9D0D-9812C1FD665E.jpeg

A237125D-C6A4-4224-9123-13851C7958FF.jpeg

8C81DEE9-B804-4CB0-8580-74629BCD870F.jpeg

B7035A34-B98D-42DB-9A3B-03C7303B6F27.jpeg

911E1679-4BD9-4049-99B4-C287F8876A01.jpeg

202D965A-CF6E-4036-A0C7-77DFD869B061.jpeg

2AE28E4F-7751-4B38-A418-2E6E0F256244.jpeg

37DC6211-6288-4BDF-9765-8EE3788A145F.jpeg

7B012F4A-8533-4F73-8AD9-E309473E6CD6.jpeg

03F39ADF-3C36-47D8-B61E-39530480EABC.jpeg

57044A9B-CD1E-459D-974A-7105C54C57A6.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...

Got a "interesting" picture here again: 

 

Iwo Jima 1945

Seems that the Marine in the front and on his left is wearing a non slitted cover? 

 

What do you think? 

 

image.png.cae8df93baab334493b6314f7cfc5979.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice unis marking on the back of the Marine in the foreground. Looks to be 4th MarDiv Sergeant, 531, which should be HQ/3/25. I could try and ID him, but can't read all of his name. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, interesting pic Blueprint, thanks for adding.  IMO we'd have to find the original high resolution copy to tell for sure though as I've described in the past in order to say either way. 

 

I get how many feel on the subject by what was written and discussed.  I also fully believed that theory as well until really digging into it much further years ago which has changed my mind only because of what consistently just keeps showing up when you are able to find the clear original frames.  

 

I hear many on this forum keep saying there are plenty of photos from WWII showing without a doubt the so called "1st Model" in use, but that has been found not to be the case on a large scale in almost every instance here when the actual true original photo is shown and further examined.  No matter when the photo was taken during WWII.  Are there possibilities, you bet.  But so far the "1st Model" theory just doesn't hold water any more with the documents found and early photos showing how described in the 9-42 spec. IMHO.  Let alone the sheer number of the no-slit covers being seen used post WWII.   

 

How the slits appear as per open/closed, how the cover is worn on the helmet dictating where to actually look to find them, true clarity of the available photos due to lighting, other environmental effects, or just plain multiple copies over time of the same photo all affect what is being seen in each photo....even in pretty darn good looking pictures. 

 

Does that mean the so called "1st Model" wasn't worn in WWII?  Nope, However every single original clear high res picture so far available from WWII shows a helmet cover with foliage slits in place as per the 9-42 specification.  Why is that?  There's been all kinds of good theories as to why.  Used only early on, photography not as good back then, etc., etc., etc..... 

 

Believe me, I'd love to find a quality photo from WWII clearly showing the so called "1st Model" in use at any time so that we could at least find a definitive starting point to work further back in time searching until hopefully some sort of documents show up for us to fully clarify.  Once again...Photo quality is everything! 

 

There's been multiple quick "screen shots" taken from online WWII videos posted recently stating as "No doubt 1st Model".   That would be a "possible at best" IMO at this point from what has been researched so far.  None of those films have clearly shown what is really being seen as we've already found in the past when looking at different frames or the technology of the day for showing true clarity in motion pictures.  Just look back here how hard it is to find the truth in still photos many times.  But, it can be said that still photography (as shown here) can be outstanding during the WWII period when originals are found.

 

Here's a video example.  A quick grab while playing I took (admit not the best out there, but a good shot showing some guy on a telephone wearing the green side out which looks to have maybe slits, along with a guy wearing the brown side out with good overall shapes shown but no visible foliage slits possibly being a so called "1st Model".

 

908249340_usmciwogeneralnames2-Copy.PNG.2dc59770dcf27ca5d3e6b7606737d129.PNG

 

 

As with many times, the photographers traveled in pools.  And within seconds of this video frame being caught the following still picture is taken in the exact same location.  5th Marine Division on Iwo Jima.  Brig. Gen Hermle and Maj. Gen. Rockey.  The difference in what is shown about everything here is very dramatic in the original high res still shot compared to the good overall color film, even when viewing at full speed.

 

1212220925_usmciwojimageneral-Copy(2)-Copy.jpg.37d68b7df673867edd08278fd98d1019.jpg

 

 

Once again, the earliest known photo to date of a WWII USMC Frogskin helmet cover being worn. Official USMC photo dated November 1942 provided here by a USMF contributor to this thread

 

314028292_USMC1942COVER2.jpg.f4bdb6ad12738f68111c35a653b6fe21.jpg

 

Inbound to Tarawa in 1943.  All these Marines wear helmet covers with foliage slits as specified per 9-42 document.  Photo quality at full resolution is outstanding.

 

930683836_TARAWA2063754-Copy.jpg.5e540ffa218c81d1da28c1f0d26e4f43.jpg

 

Any photos out there of this quality showing the so called "1st Model" in use during any period of WWII for us all to look over and study are most welcome!  I'm always happy to be proved wrong if the truth can be found for all interested (myself included)  :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, aef1917 said:

Trying to nail it down from photos is a fruitless exercise.  It's in a document in the National Archives... somewhere.

Couldn’t agree with you more in regards to specifics of timing however it turns out in the end. But they can help tell some of the story until found, and so far at least with better photos becoming available it seems to continue showing the progression being pretty much opposite than previously thought. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Love that third picture. To see those faces before while they head into hell. So stunning. 

 

I wonder, aren't there any private photo albums from Marines who took pictures for themselves during the war? 

 

Would be interesting to see if some owns a album from his grandfather e.g. 

 

Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

This no slit "First Model" cover just showed up on ebay with a Cutters Tag which is very uncommon to see.  Have read here that the fiscal year date of manufacture can be determined at times by what's printed on these tags.  Anyone able to fully decipher this one for us all??

USMC CUTTER TAG 3.jpg

USMC CUTTER TAG.jpg

USMC CUTTER TAG 2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know.  As per this past thread from 2013 on shovel covers it was mentioned that the cutter tag shown below denotes fiscal year 1952.  Was hoping more info may have been learned since then to help out.

 

 

 

USMC CUTTER TAG DEMO 1952.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not being familiar with these tags myself, I did a little searching here and found these nice examples to compare.  What is very noticeable is the full year printing during the WWII period.  If this cover was produced during this time frame I'd think the Cutter Tag would look similar.  As shown above, and with the "50" shown below it seems post WWII it shows only the last two numbers.  Just more to look over and explore. 

USMC CUTTER TAG 1942.jpg

USMC CUTTER TAG 1942 2.jpg

USMC CUTTER TAG 1944.jpg

USMC CUTTER TAG 1945.PNG

USMC CUTTER TAG 1950 - M50 FIELD JACKET.PNG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll add this one I found from another source.  A pair of P56 pants with tags made in a very similar layout to the one shown on the helmet cover.  If this is correct then it would seem to indicate a good chance the "55" here may be the fiscal year. 

 

If that's the case, and the tag on the helmet cover is legit then it would seem to read fiscal year 1954 (July 1953-June 1954).  The cover tag does seem to show size markings like the pants.  So, could this be an add on tag to the cover after for embellishment, or do those familiar with post WWII USMC items see this same type of layout on other equipment items besides uniforms?   

 

As said, I'm no expert on these tags or uniforms so looking for some thoughts.  From the current price on the cover though, many do seem to believe this is all legitimate.  

USMC CUTTER TAG 1955 P56 PANTS - Copy.jpg

USMC CUTTER TAG 1955 P56 PANTS 2 - Copy.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with relying on cutter tags to determine dates is that they all vary widely. I think the WW2 era ones with the full 194X are the exception.  I'd have to dig through massive amounts of photos on my phone to find more examples, but this is all I could find within a few mins.

 

There are WW2 cutter tags that don't have any discernible date on the cutter tag itself. I've attached one example from a pair of M43 hbt trousers where the cutter tag has no apparent date that lines up with the QM tag

 

FE50E79E-14C9-4E8F-B5A1-F640B704E49B.JPG.2df89bb1038e02c9506351bb23fc29ad.JPG

 

The other is from a deadstock pair of USMC P53 HBT trousers, which doesn't align with the P58 tag.

p56.jpg.04b1cb80ed2114eeb1165d3c12906c8a.jpg

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the input schk.  So rare is it to see cutter tags on these helmet covers, that we who only collect them have very little knowledge of of the tags themselves compared to those who collect uniforms and equipment items.

 

It's going to take more help and knowledge to progress further for what this determines...is the 33/32 as size or just more info found on other items too...

 

With the helmet cover still "uniform based", it would make sense though that a generic uniform tag could be used just to signify the pertinent info for a specific lot etc. within the Depot compared to other equipment items when used for helmet covers.  Just more to think about...

 

I've only seen one reference here to a cutter tag being falsely applied for embellishment to a cheap repro cover a very long time ago, however no pics were added to the forum for review.  But just from my very limited research of a couple days, this seems very much like a post WWII tag at this point maybe.  A great clue in the search for answers to follow up for these "First Models", and hopefully those with more knowledge will chime in to see what else we can learn for potential timing of this cover's production date.      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess is people are mistakenly thinking the 44 is the year, when based on all the 1930s and later cutter tags I've personally handled, the larger number has nothing to do with the year it was made.

 

As far as clothing goes, the only thing that seems to appear consistently on cutter tags is the size of the garment.  Everything else I assumed is just for quality control/traceability for fabric batch/lots.  Some more WW2 era examples...

 

Size 38 P44 USMC jacket with no contract date

IMG_4496.JPG.1952b618c35d873b976764d08824f2cc.JPG

 

Size 40R US Army 1942 dated hbt jacket

IMG_0880.JPG.52ec89da0e34b00cbd731216916318d3.JPG

 

Size 38R US Army 1943 dated contract

IMG_0885.jpg.67f1748fed157d6023d688b9dda61c27.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I forgot to mention that the cutter tags do occasionally contain portions of the contract number.  My previous example of the M43 jacket has a contract of W41-152-QM-2324, and you can see the cutter tag has "2324" on it

 

The P44 jacket example, with no contract stamped on it I believe the contract would be 38631

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

The above is a colorized photo which though a little more difficult to see in the original B/W, is much more blended in during the colorization process.  Here are two other well known photos of him showing in fact, one of the very few clearly documented WWII photos of the sewn in foliage slits into the flap of the cover also.  Showing all the indicators present of the 9-42 specifications (so called "3rd Model"), including edge stitching. 

 

A good example of what can be hidden depending on resolution quality, angle, sunlight, etc, etc.  🙂

 

1207228827_USMCSAIPANCANTEEN3.png.139c5d442ae6fd804f34d8c7562157c8.png

 

689916894_USMCSAIPANCANTEEN-Copy.jpg.c513de2b704573ffbc25f059f34f7b6a.jpg

 

619435993_USMCSAIPANMARINE-Copy.jpg.d1339cd3c829ca20705543f85b360ec2.jpg 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn.
Knew that there were other pictures from him but couldn’t find him. 

Your right, even though his whole look is pretty battle worn, interestingly that the slits are still not elevated, as they’re usually after a lot of combat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...