rob590ert Posted September 8, 2016 Share #26 Posted September 8, 2016 The yellow paint looks really fresh as Ronny said. Even though the picture isn't clear as day it doesn't appear to have much age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Husky1943 Posted September 8, 2016 Author Share #27 Posted September 8, 2016 I begin to understand the cause of so much skepticism , but I have not posted the helmet to do promotion , I inscribed specifically to know the opinion of the American people. I do not know the American militaria because ' I'm getting closer now after this discovery . and I was not aware of the problems coming from Italy . I collection Italian and I see so many false helmets and helmets I have a certain familiarity . Beyond the pendo skepticism that the second group of photos to clarify some doubts ... Then I wanted to know why the frieze was different from those known. ........ One question naturally ... but if those who eventually created his helmet why put a non-canonical frieze ? If anyone knows what could indicate are always interested in knowing it . ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilroy Posted September 8, 2016 Share #28 Posted September 8, 2016 This guy and his "Normal" fixed bail would like a word with you on your assumption Kilroy: Standard M1 shells were used by the 2/504th, as well as every single parachute unit that fought in WWII. The first Airborne guys in 1942 had M1 shells with M2s, and so did the guys jumping in Varsity in 1945. As to this helmet's authenticity I remain officially "sketched" until further notice. I know well Infantry helmets were used. But I also made clear I referred to the 2/504th in Sicily. The first photo is from much later in Italy, while the second is about 509th troopers (in Sicily during summer 1943 before Avellino) and by then they had months in theaters of operations and - as we all know - were the cinderellas of the A/B forces in the MTO, a completely different situation than the 82nd at the time. So yes, of course M1 were used, but the chance for one to be used in the first combat jump of a unit which had arrived fully equipped from the US only a few months before is very slim. As I said, not impossible, but slim. Provided of course I haven't misunderstood where the helmet comes from. So these are my words on my assumption. cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronny67 Posted September 9, 2016 Share #29 Posted September 9, 2016 I know well Infantry helmets were used. But I also made clear I referred to the 2/504th in Sicily. The first photo is from much later in Italy, while the second is about 509th troopers (in Sicily during summer 1943 before Avellino) and by then they had months in theaters of operations and - as we all know - were the cinderellas of the A/B forces in the MTO, a completely different situation than the 82nd at the time. So yes, of course M1 were used, but the chance for one to be used in the first combat jump of a unit which had arrived fully equipped from the US only a few months before is very slim. As I said, not impossible, but slim. Provided of course I haven't misunderstood where the helmet comes from. So these are my words on my assumption. cheers the 2/504 painted this distinctive camo on their helmets in Kairouan, Tunisia before the departure for HUSKEY. The picture of the soldier holding his damaged helmet is perfectly applicable, since that helmet was most certainly issued and worn on Sicily. Your assertion that the 509th were the "cinderellas of the MTO" is completely post-war, post-modern historiographical BS. The 509th was relatively unknown and overshadowed by the 82nd ABN immediately after the division's arrival in the MTO. As a matter of fact, Gen. James Gavin actually took credit for many of the pioneering events of the 509th in Africa, and claimed them to be advents of the 82nd jumping on Sicily in his memoirs" ALL the Way to Berlin". I believe this was not a conscious effort to take credit post-war, but simply BLATANT evidence that the 509th and it's achievements remained relatively unknown and underappreciated even during the war, among the top Airborne personnel in the MTO. You say the 509th and the 82nd were in completely different situations, and therefore not comparable to each other. This is also not true. Your assertion here hinges upon the fact that the 509th was in combat for a month in Tunisia, and this time allowed for M1 helmets to reach the unit. You are not familiar with how the US ARMY re-supplied men with equipment in theatre. There is no way, a shipment of replacement, brand new M1 helmets could have reached the 509th by the Avellino jump. This is because of two reasons: 1) There was not enough time, and 2) such a request was not priority. Col. Edson Raff, and then Col. Yardley spent this valuable time requisitioning medical supplies, ammunition, explosives, and personnel. The 509th fought in Tunisia with roughly 2/3 combat strength. this was due to 1/3 of the Battalion being interned as POWs, or mis-dropped across the Mediterranean. All the replacements to the unit after their Tunisian operations would have been a mixture of these "lost" troopers finding their way back to the unit, and the replacement platoon that was left behind in England. All these men would have retained their issued helmets. New replacements that could have been issued M1 shells did not start arriving until after Sicily, and then after Avellino. M2 helmets were ALWAYS in shortage. My point here is that even at the beginning, M1 helmets were used to subsidize the shortage of M2 shells. Members have provided rock solid proof of this happening. Documented, painted, 2/504 M1 helmets have been found. There is no way M1s could have found their way into these in-theatre combat units, WITHOUT them being the initial issue. Maybe it is that I know too much, so I can go on so long on such a obscure topic. I am going to enclose some photos. The first, is taken either in the US at Ft. Beginning in 1942. This photo pre-dates the issue of M2 shells showing a very early Fibre liner with a M1 shell. This photo proves M1 issue even before the 2/503 (later 2/509) reached England, let alone Africa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronny67 Posted September 9, 2016 Share #30 Posted September 9, 2016 Here is a photo from Robert Capa's photo-essay on the 504th PIR before it's jump on Sicily. Once again, rock solid proof M1 shells were issued to the 82nd for Sicily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronny67 Posted September 9, 2016 Share #31 Posted September 9, 2016 I mean, you may not yet believe me. So here is an actual surviving named and documented 2/504th M1 posted by a member here: http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/161960-82nd-airborne-504th-pir-ided-to-carl-r-platzer/page-2?hl=504th So, I guess you are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken88 Posted September 9, 2016 Share #32 Posted September 9, 2016 Non-consistent wear + treated with chemicals. Fake helmet IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burning Hazard Posted September 9, 2016 Share #33 Posted September 9, 2016 I kinda like the before cleaning pictures as the dirt and dust are uniform on the shell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Husky1943 Posted September 9, 2016 Author Share #34 Posted September 9, 2016 Non-consistent wear + treated with chemicals. Fake helmet IMO. I did not know it was possible to say that looking at pictures . I can understand the perplexity on camouflage, in my opinion due to cleaning and photo flash , but what you say is absurd . I believe that in any case a helmet used very little and lost during the early stages of the war , consevato until today inside a home can not have the wear of a used helmet throughout the war or lost in the countryside ...... sorry personal opinion .... I did not know it was possible to say that looking at pictures . I can understand the perplexity on camouflage, in my opinion due to cleaning and photo flash , but what you say is absurd . I believe that in any case a helmet used very little and lost during the early stages of the war , consevato until today inside a home can not have the wear of a used helmet throughout the war or lost in the countryside ...... sorry personal opinion .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilroy Posted September 9, 2016 Share #35 Posted September 9, 2016 Ronny67, apparently you read historical evidence in a very different way than I do. Good, no problem about that. My reading of some of the facts you mention goes in a very different direction of what yoy write, but since I know nothing about how the US Army issued materials at that time, I must be wrong (at least that is your assumption.) For instance, I see in a very different light how the 509th at that time related to the 82nd in terms of priority in issuing replacement materials in theater, how Ridgway looked at them, etc. But since that is just stupid work by postwar historians, why bother. Also, I may have bad eyesight but I don't see any M1 shell in the color photo of the 505th you posted (maybe the helmet worn by the first guy? I don't see that really). And what was issued before the M2 was introduced is not really relevant to this thread in my opinion. According to Reynosa about 148,000 M2 / M1 modified helmets were produced from January 1942 to December 1944. That's not a lot in production percentages, but a lot compared to the numebr of parachutists in the US Army. This in my eyes suggests their scarcity overseas in several occasions was more a problem of shipping than of theoretical availability. And also the fact still stands the 82nd reached the MTO a few months before Sicily which was its first combat operation. Anyway, I don't feel like getting into this for more than just going back to what this thread is about: a request for judging the helmet which was presented (that is what the OP asked us). Based on that, my opinion is the fact it's an M1 instead of an M2 is a very relevant fact: not ruling out its originality (this is the THIRD time I write that, so please read with more attention what I write), but a fact which has to be considered as a very relevant circumstance warranting further proof of originality, since finding an original M2 helmet to be (possibly) faked is in itself more difficult than doing the same with an M1. And this doesn't mean I deem the shown helmet is a fake, as a matter of fact I like it more than most here, so what's the point? Sorry for my sarcasm, but I find your attitude a little bit too much belligerent without e reason, for my taste. cheers over and out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap Camouflage Pattern I Posted September 11, 2016 Share #36 Posted September 11, 2016 It doesn't mean anything because I have never handed or even seen a real one in person but based on my gut feeling, I like this one, if I had the chance I'd add it to my collection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
airborne53 Posted September 11, 2016 Share #37 Posted September 11, 2016 It doesn't mean anything because I have never handed or even seen a real one in person but based on my gut feeling, I like this one, if I had the chance I'd add it to my collection. agree with Cap Camouflage look better on last pic before cleaning olivier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken88 Posted September 11, 2016 Share #38 Posted September 11, 2016 I did not know it was possible to say that looking at pictures . I can understand the perplexity on camouflage, in my opinion due to cleaning and photo flash , but what you say is absurd . I believe that in any case a helmet used very little and lost during the early stages of the war , consevato until today inside a home can not have the wear of a used helmet throughout the war or lost in the countryside ...... sorry personal opinion .... I did not know it was possible to say that looking at pictures . I can understand the perplexity on camouflage, in my opinion due to cleaning and photo flash , but what you say is absurd . I believe that in any case a helmet used very little and lost during the early stages of the war , consevato until today inside a home can not have the wear of a used helmet throughout the war or lost in the countryside ...... sorry personal opinion .... Then why are you showing the photos and asking for opinions? If you can't handle criticism you've come to the wrong place, buddy. You are clearly trying to defend the helmet you say you found in the Sicilian countryside which can only be a sign of despair. You also say American militaria is not your main focus, yet you seem to know a lot about the airborne invasion in Sicily. Heck you even know what unit your helmet was worn in. Your argumentation about the insignia being different also tells us you are very aware of the fact that original helmets have certain details to them. Why is that? You sure seem to know a lot about WWII US GI helmets to not know a lot about them. If you are sure it's real why do you even ask for opinions? Why do you ask for opinions if you can't handle criticism? And yes from the photos I can tell your helmet has been subjected to artificial aging. The paint clearly shows traces of phosphate or whatever what was used to make it appear old. I agree with Ronny on that the wear is very even and superficial, which is never a good thing. I have personally seen and handled fakes this good and I can only tell you that from what I've seen, the wear on this helmet doesn't look natural at all. Hency my conclusion that the helmet can only be fake. Regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogface44 Posted September 14, 2016 Share #39 Posted September 14, 2016 I often dream about the 82nd T5's and camo helmets that might still be lying around in Sicily. It's a shame that we never hear from the Italian collectors who have the good stuff. To get back on topic, it's a shame that there are no close up pictures of the helmet before cleaning. Depending on how one cleans a helmet, it can become very suspicious. Heavy cleaning on an M1 helmet from the woodwork is not a good thing. My only comment is that the picture of the inside of the shell shows some very fresh orange rust which is not a good sign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Husky1943 Posted September 14, 2016 Author Share #40 Posted September 14, 2016 Hello I found a few more photos taken on the day of purchase made without falsh and with the light of day . I did not do a heavy I just sprayed a cleaning oil to remove dirt and surface rust . The oxidation inside depends on the fact that the helmet and was kept resting turning the inside upward and has evidently collected water until a short time ago . We can not know the use to which they have done before . But surely it will have a bit of water content . I remind you that was inside a locked house in a long time ! Regards, Carmelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Husky1943 Posted September 14, 2016 Author Share #41 Posted September 14, 2016 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtdorango Posted September 14, 2016 Share #42 Posted September 14, 2016 Man o man if that is legit original i sure wish you hadnt oiled it, from most hardcore collectors view point it is close to ruined now...im not trying to be a jerk just letting you know what a huge mistake that was and if you ever decide to sell it with a quick wipe of an oily rag you just lost 80% of your future customers....hard lesson to learn and im sure you had good intentions....mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawdog Posted September 14, 2016 Share #43 Posted September 14, 2016 Man o man if that is legit original i sure wish you hadnt oiled it, from most hardcore collectors view point it is close to ruined now...im not trying to be a jerk just letting you know what a huge mistake that was and if you ever decide to sell it with a quick wipe of an oily rag you just lost 80% of your future customers....hard lesson to learn and im sure you had good intentions....mikeI couldn't agree more! Not to mention, "IF" it's original, you've seriously degraded the originality of the helmet. As an aside, I like this helmet for more reasons than I don't, but still remain skeptical. My opinion is that two different paints were used for the camo: the lighter colored paint is just that-yellowish paint. The darker, mustard brown paint is, in all likelihood, vesicant anti-gas detector paint used extensively in the MTO by AB forces at that time, and still available today in original, unopened 1942 dated cans! It goes on a lime green right out of the can, but when exposed to sun and heat (either artificially or over time), turns a dark, mustard brown. Sent from my LG-LS995 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugme Posted September 14, 2016 Share #44 Posted September 14, 2016 Man o man if that is legit original i sure wish you hadnt oiled it... Agreed, here's a whole thread on this subject. http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/45336-oiling-your-helmets-other-helmet-preservation-misconceptions/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aef1917 Posted September 15, 2016 Share #45 Posted September 15, 2016 But it was so dirty! Like it had been through a war or something! And it had surface rust! If it didn't get immediately doused with oil, it would have been merely a pile of iron oxide dust within weeks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USMC-RECON0321 Posted September 15, 2016 Share #46 Posted September 15, 2016 Honestly I like the look of this helmet and think it has a better chance being legit than it does being fake, but as we all know, pictures can be a hard thing to make that decision from. Anyway and as others have said, I sure wish you wouldn't have cleaned it. My opinion of this having a good chance of being legit comes from looking over the "Before cleaning" pictures. I would make sure to hold on to those for future discussions on the helmet. Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the professor Posted September 15, 2016 Share #47 Posted September 15, 2016 Honestly I like the look of this helmet and think it has a better chance being legit than it does being fake, Troy I agree... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkash23686 Posted September 15, 2016 Share #48 Posted September 15, 2016 But it was so dirty! Like it had been through a war or something! And it had surface rust! If it didn't get immediately doused with oil, it would have been merely a pile of iron oxide dust within weeks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Husky1943 Posted September 15, 2016 Author Share #49 Posted September 15, 2016 very funny ! Any news on variantr the frieze ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtdorango Posted September 15, 2016 Share #50 Posted September 15, 2016 My theory on the different colored Ankh is possible HQ or Recon Unit within the 504th....i really like this helmet alot, im just sad it was oiled and cleaned....mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now