WWI Pre-Armistice painted Helmets.

[world war I nerd]

Close up of an 89th Division Doughboy burying the shell from another frame of the Armistice day footage. Note the insignia clearly painted on his helmet.

 

Also, can anybody figure out what he's got in his holster?

[world war I nerd]

Men of the 110th Sanitary Train, 35th Division wearing painted helmets during their stint in the trenches of a quiet sector of northeastern France. The Signal Corps image is dated August of 1918 in it's caption.

[world war I nerd]

Wounded 35th Division officers waiting for an ambulance during the battle for Cheppy in September, 1918. Note the painted helmet worn by the officer in the foreground.

 

In the official history of the 140th Infantry Regiment, "From Doniphan to Verdun," on page 64, there was a reference to the regimental painted helmets that littered the field of battle:

 

"Near Charpentry on this day I saw helmets bearing the device of the 139th, 138th, and a few of the 137th, which was in support of the 138th. But in Charpentry and to the west the loss fell heavily on the 140th."

 

This event likely took place at the close of combat on September 27, 1918, the second of five days in which the 140th Infantry Regiment was involved in the AEF push towards the Argonne forest.

 

By the way, the insignia for the 35th Division was adopted in March of 1918, while still in the United States shortly before the division left Camp Doniphan. The purpose of the insignia at that time was to mark division equipment and baggage.

[Marchville1918]

Many American divisions trained with the British and it stands to reason that some would adopt shoulder and Helmet insignia after the British fashion. One person above mentioned the 26th Division and it is interesting to me that they are the only division to have regimental insignia on their helmets but divisional shoulder patches.

[David D]

Thanks for adding your input WWI Nerd! Interesting to add some more units to my list. It seems like the 35th did it pretty regularly and for most of the war. Which is pretty interesting.

[David D]

Many American divisions trained with the British and it stands to reason that some would adopt shoulder and Helmet insignia after the British fashion. One person above mentioned the 26th Division and it is interesting to me that they are the only division to have regimental insignia on their helmets but divisional shoulder patches.

The 80th also used separate markings for each regiment but used shoulder insignia.

[cmaher55]

Great pics ww1 nerd....! I have a soft spot in my heart for these lids.... A part of my closet...

 

 

[dmar836]

I once owned a helmet shell from the 35th ID/130th MG with the prescribed yellow and black insignia on either side.

Something I never see discussed is that most of the WWI painted helmets I have seen that are confirmed have the insignia on the sides as opposed to the front as in so many WWII helmets. Interesting about the front and back info from the OP.

Dave

[GWS]

Close up of an 89th Division Doughboy burying the shell from another frame of the Armistice day footage. Note the insignia clearly painted on his helmet.

 

Also, can anybody figure out what he's got in his holster?

 

Flare pistol?

[David D]

I thought I would bring up this topic to add a neat discovery I made regarding marked 101st Machine Gun Battalion helmets.

 

Shown are two named British Brodie helmets, both marked to the 101st MGB,(note same company etc)The one on the left has a very clean liner as well as paint job. Looks relatively unused to me. While the one on the right has a very dirty liner as well as being covered in mud and dents on the outside. To me I think this is a very good example of the same helmet that was actually used in the field vs. a helmet most likely painted after the armistice.

 

[GOAmules]

I'd say you can't date when something 100 years old became dirty, without forensics of the dirt. And a clean helmet may have been used in the field, but not for long or the soldier got wounded, left the lines for some other reason and the war ended, etc. It's all speculation.

[David D]

I'd say you can't date when something 100 years old became dirty, without forensics of the dirt. And a clean helmet may have been used in the field, but not for long or the soldier got wounded, left the lines for some other reason and the war ended, etc. It's all speculation.

It hung in the veterans study until he sold it to a collector who then sold it to me. The mud looks very similar to French chalk soil. Speculation, yes I guess I will never be able to prove weather that is actually what is on the helmet and it was used overseas. But to me, all signs point to yes.

[David D]

Here is another division we can add to the list. 33rd Division.

Captioned:

"Soldiers inspecting a battered German bicycle with tyres made of springs due to the rubber shortage in World War I. Photograph taken 14 September 1918 near Metz, France"

 

 

[world war I nerd]

David, that's a great photo!

 

I would say that it's very likely that all of the AEF divisions that either trained with or were under the command of the British are good candidates in respect to painting "distinguishing marks" on to their steel helmets. There were somewhere between 8 and 10 AEF divisions that were at one point under British command (some of them very briefly) … the 33rd Division being one of them.

 

It's interesting that one of the men in the photo is still wearing a poncho (unless he's wearing a British ground sheet/rain cape), as that garment was dropped as an article of equipment by the AEF in late 1917 because it was difficult to carry the gasmask satchel in the "ready" position, high up on the chest, when the poncho was worn. Because of this the 1918 Raincoat was adopted for use by dismounted soldiers.

[Bugme]

I thought I would bring up this topic to add a neat discovery I made regarding marked 101st Machine Gun Battalion helmets.

 

Shown are two named British Brodie helmets, both marked to the 101st MGB,(note same company etc)The one on the left has a very clean liner as well as paint job. Looks relatively unused to me. While the one on the right has a very dirty liner as well as being covered in mud and dents on the outside. To me I think this is a very good example of the same helmet that was actually used in the field vs. a helmet most likely painted after the armistice.

I think this is an incredible stretch and some hopeful thinking. However, this falls short of irrefutable proof.

[David D]

David, that's a great photo!

 

I would say that it's very likely that all of the AEF divisions that either trained with or were under the command of the British are good candidates in respect to painting "distinguishing marks" on to their steel helmets. There were somewhere between 8 and 10 AEF divisions that were at one point under British command (some of them very briefly) … the 33rd Division being one of them.

 

It's interesting that one of the men in the photo is still wearing a poncho (unless he's wearing a British ground sheet/rain cape), as that garment was dropped as an article of equipment by the AEF in late 1917 because it was difficult to carry the gasmask satchel in the "ready" position, high up on the chest, when the poncho was worn. Because of this the 1918 Raincoat was adopted for use by dismounted soldiers.

WWI Nerd, Thanks for the input. To me it looks to be a British rain sheet rather than a US poncho. Regardless still neat to see a poncho being used by the AEF at this period of the war.

[David D]

I think this is an incredible stretch and some hopeful thinking. However, this falls short of irrefutable proof.

Maybe I worded it a little wrong. But let me ask how is it such a stretch for this helmet to be said it was used over there while just about any M1 helmet that has a salty appearance is almost unquestioned when it is stated it was used in theater and posted here?

[Bugme]

Maybe I worded it a little wrong. But let me ask how is it such a stretch for this helmet to be said it was used over there while just about any M1 helmet that has a salty appearance is almost unquestioned when it is stated it was used in theater and posted here?

First, I never said it wasn't used over there. I was referring to it being "marked" over there pre-Armistice.

 

When using the word: salty(a word I personally don't like to use when discussing a helmet) it is generally referring to genuine wear and tear from being used in the field. It is not referring to mud. So, if an M-1 was being discussed here, I would say: salty is for potato chips and mud & dents prove nothing, since a great many of dads helmets were used by children post-WWI in backyard battlefields.

 

I would then ask: is there provenance to back up my assertion? Are there any photo's of my guy wearing the marked helmet before the Armistice? Are there any period photo's of any soldiers in his division or unit wearing a marked helmet before the Armistice? Was his division or unit one of those who are known to have marked their helmet before the Armistice?

 

See, the difference between discussing a marked M-1 from WWII and a marked M-1917 from WWI is that we have a boatload of period photo's of soldiers wearing the marked helmets in actual combat in WWII. As for period photo's of WWI pre-Armistice marked helmets... we have very few. The next thing we have to rely on, is actual documentation(orders) showing that marking the helmets was distributed to the troops pre-Armistice. Again we have very little. However, in WWII we see much documentation in the form of orders stating the specific marking.

 

I collect WWI marked helmets and I would like to think several of them were done before the Armistice. But, without anything to back up my thoughts, they will remain just hopeful thinking.

[David D]

First, I never said it wasn't used over there. I was referring to it being "marked" over there pre-Armistice.

 

When using the word: salty(a word I personally don't like to use when discussing a helmet) it is generally referring to genuine wear and tear from being used in the field. It is not referring to mud. So, if an M-1 was being discussed here, I would say: salty is for potato chips and mud & dents prove nothing, since a great many of dads helmets were used by children post-WWI in backyard battlefields.

 

I would then ask: is there provenance to back up my assertion? Are there any photo's of my guy wearing the marked helmet before the Armistice? Are there any period photo's of any soldiers in his division or unit wearing a marked helmet before the Armistice? Was his division or unit one of those who are known to have marked their helmet before the Armistice?

 

See, the difference between discussing a marked M-1 from WWII and a marked M-1917 from WWI is that we have a boatload of period photo's of soldiers wearing the marked helmets in actual combat in WWII. As for period photo's of WWI pre-Armistice marked helmets... we have very few. The next thing we have to rely on, is actual documentation(orders) showing that marking the helmets was distributed to the troops pre-Armistice. Again we have very little. However, in WWII we see much documentation in the form of orders stating the specific marking.

 

I collect WWI marked helmets and I would like to think several of them were done before the Armistice. But, without anything to back up my thoughts, they will remain just hopeful thinking.

Please see post #1 for this specific helmet the battalion was ordered to paint them in March 1918.

[Bugme]

Please see post #1 for this specific helmet the battalion was ordered to paint them in March 1918.

I saw that but, how many battalions complied with this order pre-Armistice? It is known that many didn't and even if it was ordered at battalion level, how many soldiers got the notice and then how many complied? Paint was not in abundance in trenches nor would it be a priority for the average doughboy sitting in the mud. So, did everyone in the 101st MGB do theirs pre-Armistice? Maybe they did, more likely not. The chances are at best 25%. What we do know, is that post-Armistice, a great many more were then done.

 

Listen, I want to be clear, I am not telling you that your helmet was not there nor that is wasn't painted pre-Armistice. The point I was trying to make from the very beginning was that dried mud on a helmet does not prove that the helmet was painted, in the trench, covered in mud, before November 11th, brought back and hung on a wall untouched for 100 years. I hope yours was done pre-Armistice, maybe it was and proof of that would be exciting. It's yours, it's a nice 101st MGB, Enjoy it for what it is.

[solcarlus]

Hi.

 

Exhibition "Thiaucourt 1918/2018"

 

 

 

[solcarlus]

[French Sam]

Great ! Thanks for sharing Solcarlus ! ?

 

FS

[David D]

I saw that but, how many battalions complied with this order pre-Armistice? It is known that many didn't and even if it was ordered at battalion level, how many soldiers got the notice and then how many complied? Paint was not in abundance in trenches nor would it be a priority for the average doughboy sitting in the mud. So, did everyone in the 101st MGB do theirs pre-Armistice? Maybe they did, more likely not. The chances are at best 25%. What we do know, is that post-Armistice, a great many more were then done.

 

Listen, I want to be clear, I am not telling you that your helmet was not there nor that is wasn't painted pre-Armistice. The point I was trying to make from the very beginning was that dried mud on a helmet does not prove that the helmet was painted, in the trench, covered in mud, before November 11th, brought back and hung on a wall untouched for 100 years. I hope yours was done pre-Armistice, maybe it was and proof of that would be exciting. It's yours, it's a nice 101st MGB, Enjoy it for what it is.

I see what you're saying. I figured not everyone painted their helmets. The history was written by a dough in the same company etc. my guy was in and he went the whole war unscathed. So at least to me circumstantial evidence points to it being a war time helmet. I will lost likely never know but that is what I believe. You do bring up some good points. And thanks. At the end of the day its still a nice, rare painted helmet.

[David D]

Hi.

 

Exhibition "Thiaucourt 1918/2018"

 

casque1.jpg

 

casque2.jpg

 

casque3.jpg

Great display, I like the 26th MP battalion helmet i see in the mix.