M-2 *Not the authorized official designation!* Research

[Force136]

I have started a thread at www.wehrmacht-awards.com regarding the proper designation of the US M-1 Parachutists Helmet.

 

I have always been suspicious of the M-2 designation because it makes absolutely no sense. The changes to the Helmet Steel Body M-1 were tentative and therefore those changes were never designated as a separate model. In order for revisions of a "Model" to be accepted as a completely separate model, it has to go through an approval process.

 

After acquiring drawings from the US Army Quartermaster Museum ( courtesy of curator Luther Hanson) and other contributors, it is becoming evident that no such designation was approved. It was proposed, but NOT approved.

 

When one compares this to other tentative airborne designs ( for example ) the Suit Parachute Jumper ( made up of Jacket and Trousers Parachute Jumper ) it also becomes obvious that collector terminology has replaced official authorized terminology to identify military material culture. With regard to the US jump suit, people refer to it as M1942. Firstly, it was NEVER made into a Model. Secondly, the suit was tentatively approved for trial purposes and manufactured beginning in 1941, NOT 1942. No label refers to the suit as M1942. (There is some documentation that the trousers were to be approved for wear with the M1943 Field Jacket.)

 

While late war drawings exist of an M-2 design of M-1 Parachutists Helmet, this drawing and its revisions were never approved. Instead, the M1C was approved. There has been a major flaw in how these drawings have been interpreted. This includes all of the big books on the subject.

 

A document was located ( shown at Wehrmacht-awards ) which states that although the proposed designation M-2 existed in June/July 1942, the actual drawing designation was to remain M-1 or more likely M-1 Parachutists. The actual designation M-2 not ultimately being approved. This makes perfect sense as a simple revision like the shape of the chin strap loop ( which was only tentative) could not warrant a change in designation.

 

Neither Luther Hanson or anyone else I have contacted could find any mention of M-2 from August 1942 until October 1944 when the designation was dug up again to refer to the changes that led to the approved designation M1C. The attempt to have the revisions in October 1944 approved as M-2 were not accepted and in November the MIC was chosen. Again, it makes no sense to go from M-2 to M1C.

 

Anyway it has just been a pet peeve of mine to make sure the actual history of an artifact is correct before nick names are used to describe an item. A better understanding of the US QM / Ordnance process is required. I am only interested in this topic because Canada bought several of these Helmet, Steel M-1 Parachutist Helmets in the latter part of 1942 and no-where in any of the correspondence and specification documents sent to National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa is the helmet OR liner referred to as M-2. You can see Canadians at Shilo, Manitoba wearing these helmets in all sorts of configurations at my website www.airbornehistorycanada.com

 

Regards

 

Ken

[Force136]

Sorry - I got the date for the M1C confused. They are revised as follows...

 

 

I have started a thread at www.wehrmacht-awards.com regarding the proper designation of the US M-1 Parachutists Helmet.

 

I have always been suspicious of the M-2 designation because it makes absolutely no sense. The changes to the Helmet Steel Body M-1 were tentative and therefore those changes were never designated as a separate model. In order for revisions of a "Model" to be accepted as a completely separate model, it has to go through an approval process.

 

After acquiring drawings from the US Army Quartermaster Museum ( courtesy of curator Luther Hanson) and other contributors, it is becoming evident that no such designation was approved. It was proposed, but NOT approved.

 

When one compares this to other tentative airborne designs ( for example ) the Suit Parachute Jumper ( made up of Jacket and Trousers Parachute Jumper ) it also becomes obvious that collector terminology has replaced official authorized terminology to identify military material culture. With regard to the US jump suit, people refer to it as M1942. Firstly, it was NEVER made into a Model. Secondly, the suit was tentatively approved for trial purposes and manufactured beginning in 1941, NOT 1942. No label refers to the suit as M1942. (There is some documentation that the trousers were to be approved for wear with the M1943 Field Jacket.)

 

While late war drawings exist of an M-2 design of M-1 Parachutists Helmet, this drawing and its revisions were never approved. Instead, the M1C was approved. There has been a major flaw in how these drawings have been interpreted. This includes all of the big books on the subject.

 

A document was located ( shown at Wehrmacht-awards ) which states that although the proposed designation M-2 existed in June/July 1942, the actual drawing designation was to remain M-1 or more likely M-1 Parachutists. The actual designation M-2 not ultimately being approved. This makes perfect sense as a simple revision like the shape of the chin strap loop ( which was only tentative) could not warrant a change in designation.

 

Neither Luther Hanson or anyone else I have contacted could find any mention of M-2 from August 1942 until October 1944 when the designation was dug up again to refer to the changes that led to the approved designation M1C. The attempt to have the revisions in November 1944 (hinged loop and OD 7 straps etc.) approved as M-2 were not accepted and in December 1944 the MIC designation was chosen. Again, it makes no sense to go from M-2 to M1C.

 

Anyway it has just been a pet peeve of mine to make sure the actual history of an artifact is correct before nick names are used to describe an item. A better understanding of the US QM / Ordnance process is required. I am only interested in this topic because Canada bought several of these Helmet, Steel M-1 Parachutist Helmets in the latter part of 1942 and no-where in any of the correspondence and specification documents sent to National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa is the helmet OR liner referred to as M-2. You can see Canadians at Shilo, Manitoba wearing these helmets in all sorts of configurations at my website www.airbornehistorycanada.com

 

Regards

 

Ken

 

[Cap Camouflage Pattern I]

Link to the post on the wehrmacht-awards forum? Sounds interesting.

[aef1917]

Here's a link to the discussion on WAF.

 

http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/showthread.php?t=850138

 

And here's the document I found where it is referred to as the m2.

 

[dustin]

 

 

A document was located ( shown at Wehrmacht-awards ) which states that although the proposed designation M-2 existed in June/July 1942, the actual drawing designation was to remain M-1 or more likely M-1 Parachutists. The actual designation M-2 not ultimately being approved. This makes perfect sense as a simple revision like the shape of the chin strap loop ( which was only tentative) could not warrant a change in designation.

 

 

 

There is difference between a Drawing and Specification, you state drawing designation. The document in question states that the SPECIFICATION for Helmet, Steel, M-1 will be used for procurement meaning it is a Procurement Specification. However a drawing revision would have occurred for contractors to conform to, essentially the C loop.

Drawing revisions would have been approved by the procuring agency before release of funds for the Helmet, Steel, Parachutists, M-2. whether tentative or not. There are many items that were procured and remained tentative thru the duration of manufacture of large quantities.

This document is telling me that contractors will manufacture the steel helmet as per details specified in Specifications for Helmet, Steel, M-1 to be revised as per Drawing Helmet, Steel, Parachutists, M-2.

Alternately there would be a set of standard Drawings for the Helmet, Steel, M-1 which at this time would be for the fixed loop.

[Bob Hudson]

Documents on WAF are pretty much useless since they do not allow non-members to view uploaded photos in posts. We do not want US Militaria Forum members to have to join a German forum in order to make sense of posts on this forum.

[aef1917]

Here are the drawings Ken located.

[jkash23686]

Here are the drawings Ken located.

IMG_6861.jpg

IMG_6859.jpg

 

Dang that would be cool to have framed up on my wall!

[Ronny67]

 

Dang that would be cool to have framed up on my wall!

 

Could the owner take scans for the digital record? I would like a copy for my archives.

 

Interesting thread.

[aef1917]

 

Dang that would be cool to have framed up on my wall!

 

The original is right down the road from you in Petersburg.

[dustin]

I can appreciate the effort to question main stream thinking and erroneous designation of items. In part of the argument presented the OP was led to question the designation due to not finding any such correlation in documents and correspondences to Canada.

However, I believe that that enough substantial evidence just from the two documents presented substantiate the use of the designation of M-2. In my eyes there are still missing pieces to the puzzle, in correspondence of July 1942 it clearly states the M-2 nomenclature and revised drawing of M-1. The Ordnance drawing you helmet nuts are drooling over was drafted in June of 1942 but revised November 1944....question, where is the original draft of D44084 before the November revision? Note how M-2 has be crossed off. This is the smoking gun really, we have the helmet in question on an Ordnance drawing with M-2. This tells me that the original drawings designated it as the M-2 and when revisions occurred in 1944 they eventually re-designated as the M-1C. Again for production of the C loop parachutists helmet these drawings would have had to been approved or accepted. In conclusion this is not a nickname and that it is a valid designation. As you had mentioned "A better understanding of the US QM / Ordnance process is required" further it helps to have an understanding of procurement agencies and approval boards.

[aef1917]

The 11/30/44 revision fits in with the change to the m1-c, which was originally requested in mid-August, and recommended for standardization in early January, 1945.

 

If going from m2 to m1-c doesn't make sense, does going from m1 to m1-c make more sense? What happened to m1-a and m1-b?

[Bugme]

Again for production of the C loop parachutists helmet these drawings would have had to been approved or accepted. In conclusion this is not a nickname and that it is a valid designation.

 

If going from m2 to m1-c doesn't make sense, does going from m1 to m1-c make more sense? What happened to m1-a and m1-b?

 

Amen to both! Now if you really want to discuss pet peeves let's discuss: loop, ring, bail, bail. This is really what keeps us "helmet nuts" going.

[TheGrayGhost]

 

Amen to both! Now if you really want to discuss pet peeves let's discuss: loop, ring, bail, bail. This is really what keeps us "helmet nuts" going.

 

Well, the above specification does appear to give it a name. I am having a hard time reading it, but I think it says "Loop" followed by something else.

 

As requested above, some better resolution images of this would be great!

[Bugme]

 

Well, the above specification does appear to give it a name. I am having a hard time reading it, but I think it says "Loop" followed by something else.

 

You are correct, the official designation is loop but, collectors sure do like to make up their own terms.

[URIK]

Courtesy Josh Murray. Sorry, I was not sent the entire drawing.

[glenm]

I once heard that the M1-B was a swivel loop helmet with the loop held on with only two spotwelds...

[Allan H.]

I've interviewed HUNDREDS of WWII paratroopers, and have heard them use the term "M-2 helmet": or variation thereof repeatedly. Even if the designation were not an official one, it is what the paratroopers knew the helmet as. I have encountered plain M1 shells with airborne liners in the hands of vets that they have also referred to as an M-2 helmet, even though they didn't have D bales or retaining straps for snapping the liner into. These guys would not have taken over the term because of collectors. Back in the late 1970's and early 80's, there weren't many collectors who would have cared.

 

I do agree with Ken on the uniform name though- I have NEVER heard a WWII paratrooper call a jump suit an "M1942 suit." They have usually called them "jump suits" or "paratrooper uniforms." Same thing with "GARAND" for the rifle. I don't think I have ever heard a vet refer to his M1 rifle as a Garand. They always called it an M-1.

 

My two cents,

 

Allan

[TheGrayGhost]

You are correct, the official designation is loop but, collectors sure do like to make up their own terms.

 

Let's not let pesky things like facts get in the way of our creativity. I will now go ponder my forward joint, solid hoop, pot collection for inspiration.

[gitana]

Here's another drawing with same 1942 and 1944 dates, but definitely referring to it as an M-2, AND showing it with swivel loops .Wheee.

 

 

[gitana]

[aef1917]

Looks like Parish Pressed Steel followed the blueprint a lot more closely than McCord and Schlueter.

[sgtdorango]

Looks like Parish Pressed Steel followed the blueprint a lot more closely than McCord and Schlueter.

It sure does look that way....great documents.....mike

[Tom Kibler]

I've interviewed HUNDREDS of WWII paratroopers, and have heard them use the term "M-2 helmet": or variation thereof repeatedly. Even if the designation were not an official one, it is what the paratroopers knew the helmet as. I have encountered plain M1 shells with airborne liners in the hands of vets that they have also referred to as an M-2 helmet, even though they didn't have D bales or retaining straps for snapping the liner into. These guys would not have taken over the term because of collectors. Back in the late 1970's and early 80's, there weren't many collectors who would have cared.

 

I do agree with Ken on the uniform name though- I have NEVER heard a WWII paratrooper call a jump suit an "M1942 suit." They have usually called them "jump suits" or "paratrooper uniforms." Same thing with "GARAND" for the rifle. I don't think I have ever heard a vet refer to his M1 rifle as a Garand. They always called it an M-1.

 

My two cents,

 

Allan

 

SPOT ON, Allan! I agree 100%