USMC WWII "Frogskin" Covers - Rethinking The Norm

[Theorywolf]

I lean toward the "mix bag" theory. There is some good evidence here.

 

Mike

[doyler]

I lean toward the "mix bag" theory. There is some good evidence here.

 

Mike

 

Me too Mike

 

Im leaning toward Depot made (no slits) to private or commercial contracts(with slits)???

[jkash23686]

I lean toward the "mix bag" theory. There is some good evidence here.

 

Mike

 

I am too. Might be dependent on contractor or even depot level.

[Alec]

March of 1942 Marine Corps Equipment Board (MCEB) Report. Some info about the Camo itself.

[uplandmod]

Thanks everyone this is a fantastic thread. It's threads like this that make me think critical of something when before I haven't noticed or cared.

 

First back in my Mod days I used to convert two button coats to three and four button coat for my suits. The big problem was it took awhile to find somebody who whould sew button holes. It kind of a specialty that not everyone would have the equipment for to do or didn't want to do it because it was time consuming to do. Not every sewing machine has the option to sew button holes and required special equipment. I could see a supplier just not having that equipment to see button holes especially if the supplier or vendor had no reason to sew those holes in peacetime. When it comes down to it nobody really knows what equipment these vendors had or didn't have.

 

Second my Usmc helmet I own had been talked about here, it's obvious that it is a postwar set up as it had a decal of the 4th marine div on the liner, and the cover has a EGA stencil. But looking at it now I see that it had no button holes and no slits. Somebody with a marker had drew a medical Caucasus on it. Overall I now believe its a postwar setup (the helmet itself is a non swivel loop with og 03 straps).

 

Incredible thread that now has made me believe its time to pick up a cover with slits.

 

Leonardo

[GIJive]

Thanks everyone this is a fantastic thread. It's threads like this that make me think critical of something when before I haven't noticed or cared.

 

"The big problem was it took awhile to find somebody who whould sew button holes. It kind of a specialty that not everyone would have the equipment for to do or didn't want to do it because it was time consuming to do. Not every sewing machine has the option to sew button holes and required special equipment. I could see a supplier just not having that equipment to see button holes especially if the supplier or vendor had no reason to sew those holes in peacetime. When it comes down to it nobody really knows what equipment these vendors had or didn't have."

 

 

Leonardo,

 

Any WWII contractor that made clothing or equipment would have had the capability to make buttonholes in cloth. The wouldn't have won the contract if they couldn't demonstrate that they had the equipment to fulfill the requirements. The slits in the helmet covers are merely buttonholes with stitching around the edge of the hole for strength and to prevent unraveling. The slits (or buttonholes) were eliminated or omitted from the non-slit covers for reasons other than the supplier didn't have a buttonhole attachment for their sewing machines. If they had the machines to sew the covers together, they could have added the buttonholes if required. There is some other underlying reason that we haven't discovered yet as to the missing buttonholes on some helemet covers. It may just be that the contract that was awarded for certain runs of covers didn't specify the holes.

[uplandmod]

That's where will just have to disagree, simple button holes aren't just "mearly" made it requires different equipment, equipment that isn't needed in the production of the rest of the cover. I'm just trying to throw out a reason why some covers wouldn't have button holes or slits not saying this is the reason why they don't have button holes. Keep in mind it's just an angle concerning this subject that nobody else had mentioned.

 

But I do understand what you are getting at and it's been noted thank you for the reply!

 

Leonardo

[ww2imp]

Again, coming from a manufacturing perspective...

 

Any contractor who supplied uniforms for the government was NOT a rinky-dink operation. I am 99% confident they all had buttonhole machines to install foliage slits. Companies producing garments either for the private commercial market nor the government would not engage in business without having buttonhole machines on their production floor. All garment companies need them.

 

When you're producing helmet covers in the tens of thousands, little omissions like buttonholes becoming major considerations toward lead time and economy of the completion of the contract.

 

Alec, excellent document about the camo above. I loved reading it.

[uplandmod]

Thanks for the input from a manufactures POV,

 

Leonardo

[pump 150]

I would tend to agree with GIJive and WW2imp on the dropping of the slits. With that exception the two types of covers are identical. An entire step in the manufacture process was omitted in order to save time and or cost.

 

While I think it has been shown that the covers with foliage slits were used on all campaigns where the Frogskin covers were worn, I think my timing is off. Instead of late war, it was an early war modification to the spec by the photos showing up. Which is a good thing in my opinion, happy to be wrong on this one.

[Schnicklfritz]

How many contractors did the USMC Depot deal with on their camo uniforms? I was under the impression that there were maybe 2. I asked a friend in the know about buttonhole stitching and as far as he was aware of, one machine was used for the buttonhole stitch, just the length of the stitch would be set on the machine. It would be the same machine that would be used to make buttonholes on jackets, etc. So, uniforms were made by both the Depot and contractors, therefore they would have the necessary machine to do it.

 

Perhaps the buttonholes on the covers were omitted due to the facility using the buttonhole machinery to fulfill a uniform contract or another contract in a hurry... shortening the time for the contract being fulfilled by not waiting around. As everyone knows, at the time, the Marines were increasing in numbers exponentially, so time was of the essence to supply the troops with basic needs.

 

At any rate, it is all speculation until reference to the reason is found in records though.

[ww2imp]

How many contractors did the USMC Depot deal with on their camo uniforms? I was under the impression that there were maybe 2. I asked a friend in the know about buttonhole stitching and as far as he was aware of, one machine was used for the buttonhole stitch, just the length of the stitch would be set on the machine. It would be the same machine that would be used to make buttonholes on jackets, etc. So, uniforms were made by both the Depot and contractors, therefore they would have the necessary machine to do it.

 

Perhaps the buttonholes on the covers were omitted due to the facility using the buttonhole machinery to fulfill a uniform contract or another contract in a hurry... shortening the time for the contract being fulfilled by not waiting around. As everyone knows, at the time, the Marines were increasing in numbers exponentially, so time was of the essence to supply the troops with basic needs.

 

At any rate, it is all speculation until reference to the reason is found in records though.

 

 

 

All very true, but contracts were usually required to be fulfilled by the contractor...completely. Otherwise no ticky-no laundry. If the contract required the buttonholes, the contractor would be required to install them. Or the contract inspector would reject the whole lot and then the contractor would be stuck with 10,000 helmet covers with no buttonholes. And once the two halves are stitched together you can't install the buttonholes. I would be inclined to speculate that if the buttonholes were omitted, it came from high above the contractor level.

[Alec]

Finally found an early dated USMC photo from Tarawa with what looks like non-button helmet covers. Anyone chime in if they see buttonholes. It states on the back of the picture "Marines preparing to advance on west beach."

[Alec]

Closeup

[pump 150]

Hello Alec,

 

That's a tough one, but I think they are there. See what you think here. These are so very hard to tell for sure in anything but crystal clear photos. I have almost posted a few that could have been, only to really look harder and find the slits. There are many that could be, but due to them fading into the camo material so well I won't say either way.

 

I am not trying to prove my theory at this point, instead I'm trying to prove it wrong as best I can. I have researched this just as hard as many of you the last few days and have found a few clues that I use including looking for any matching straight lines on each side, and even as below slight bumps in the edge that sometimes are the actual buttonhole edge stitching. Not saying this one is it, but it has proved a good first step to help look harder.

 

 

[pump 150]

Here is a case in point.

 

This is a good quality photo of three marines on Saipan. None of these covers have foliage slits that "pop" out in order to see easily, the one on the left has the best chance to be seen the best.

 

However all three are slit covers once the photo is seen at full size and enlarged.

[pump 150]

The ones I posted on Iwo and Peleliu are the best quality examples I have found so far. Nothing shows up in the way of foliage slits where they ought to be, and the photos are large and clear. If I'm wrong feel free to say so.

 

If they are seen used there in Sept. 1944, then they should have been made sometime in very early-mid 1943 I would think in order to be produced, make it into the supply system, issued, and then seen used. So their use is very possible and most likely used earlier. May never know for sure when it started, however the use of covers with foliage slits seems to far outweigh those of the non during the war so far. I think the past assumption of that they are not easily seen means they are not there.

 

For as many that are seen used post WWII there had to be large amounts made near the war's end I would think to warrant their heavy use.

 

I have done a complete 180 as far as looking. Instead of trying to find early ones with slits to prove my theory, to trying to confirm early use no slits to disprove it.

 

Just my thoughts, all comments and opinions welcome.

[38Driver]

I was rewatching "The War" and there was some great color film from the PTO. Some ID'd as Pelilieu showed both slits and no slits together and quit clearly. I was surprised how sharp the film was.

[Schnicklfritz]

 

All very true, but contracts were usually required to be fulfilled by the contractor...completely. Otherwise no ticky-no laundry. If the contract required the buttonholes, the contractor would be required to install them. Or the contract inspector would reject the whole lot and then the contractor would be stuck with 10,000 helmet covers with no buttonholes. And once the two halves are stitched together you can't install the buttonholes. I would be inclined to speculate that if the buttonholes were omitted, it came from high above the contractor level.

But if the covers originated from the USMC Depot, would they be held to the same standards. As Alex stated earlier, they did take short cuts on producing items such as the knapsacks and haversacks.

[bbmilitaria]

Most excellent thread. Best read I've had in a long time. From my limited experience, 2nd pattern covers tend to have a slightly more subdued or softer color scheme to the camo. I don't recall who posted above about the regs that called for a more durable color scheme, but I would have to agree that the 2nd pattern cover is most likely the first style manufactured based simply off the softer colors of the camo. We really should post side by side photos for comparison. Anyone have mint examples of all four patterns for comparison?

[Theorywolf]

I agree, I am enjoying the read here!

[Alec]

The P42 camo uniforms would have been made at the same time as the helmet covers so I would assume the patterns should match. We should match mint covers against mint P42 uniforms. This would automatically rule in or out the theiory that late pattern non-buttonhole covers were of a different pattern/shade. I do not have mint examples of either one so... who some examples?

[pump 150]

I have a couple of near mint no foliage slit ones, and a mint one with slits, but I can't post them up till mid week if no one else is able to show some sooner.

 

One of the no slits is a much brighter "minty" green color than all the others if that would be of any help to you guys.

['Flage Guy]

I had a mint "new improved" Cover years ago, but sold it

Below is the only "N.I." Cover I have now (not mint, but very clean, and of Wartime manufacture) at lower left, shown alongside a few typical early Wartime "slitties" in varying conditions. The mellower tones of the "N.I" can be seen here...

 

 

 

[1940Desoto]

I was hoping you would chime in Flage... Thank you 'Johnny on the spot'!

 

Great covers mate, as an aside,how 'rare' are the covers w/out slits in the flaps in your opinion ?

 

Cheers

 

Sean