Part of a M1938 tanker helmet found at B17 crash location

[Bodes]

4 hours ago, P-59A said:

Bodes and I are just running down a list of things to be considered. As he stated earlier in the thread he is playing the Devils Advocate on this exersize. All things must be considered. If this were dug by trained archaeologist the part in question would have been considered in the context in wich it was found. IE: Had it been found 3 feet down intermixed with the remains of the ball turret that would give you context and reason to draw a likley hypothosis or conclusion VS it being found on  the ground 10 feet from the impact zone might lead to another hypothosis or conclusion. As it stands right now we are just establishing the likleyhood or possibility of this part being flown instead of driven to the crash site.

That would be more in line with CSI and/or forensic type excavation and not merely one for retrieving plane parts....Just using heavy equipment alone, it would appear more of the latter situation....IF the piece was indeed introduced to the site at a later time, one would think things were compromised simply by pushing the topsoil downward....Having said this, perhaps this was really the only way to go about(?)....I am also curious as to why the helmet piece has survived remarkably well in comparison to the oxygen mask?....I believe the helmet piece is of a covered metal construction......Bodes

 

[P-59A]

47 minutes ago, Bodes said:

That would be more in line with CSI and/or forensic type excavation and not merely one for retrieving plane parts....Just using heavy equipment alone, it would appear more of the latter situation....IF the piece was indeed introduced to the site at a later time, one would think things were compromised simply by pushing the topsoil downward....Having said this, perhaps this was really the only way to go about(?)....I am also curious as to why the helmet piece has survived remarkably well in comparison to the oxygen mask?....I believe the helmet piece is of a covered metal construction......Bodes

 

Those are valid points. In looking at the parts that were excavated I do not see degradation to the metal or paint. The only way that happens in a wet or damp enviroment is the lack of oxygen contacting the metal in the soil. I have dug many bottles from a creek in my area that were incased in a clay like soil. Bottles over 100 years old still had the paper lables on them only to disentigrate when exposed to air and lack of dampness. I have not seen the video, but it seems to me this was a nose down impact. For items to be pushed so far into the ground indicates this is what happened. Years ago I found the remains of the Navigator at a B-24 crash site in the Mojave Desert. This was a nose straight down impact and everything was consentrated in the fuselage section of the impact. The POW/MIA Accounting Command sent a team from Hawaii to investigate the crash site for furher human remains. They were on site 45 days. I took my two week vacation to observe and participate. They conducted a methodical survey of the site digging by hand the whole crash site. Context is everything. They recovered 100's of bone shards from all 10 crewmen. I think the time frame these guys were allowed access to this crash site dictated how they chose to survey this site. I myself lean towards the detailed approach when  looking at a site I know people have died at. My longest search took about 6 months to do going every weekend. 

[P-59A]

I did find one oddball photo. Not sure of what kind of helmet he is wearing.

[P-59A]

Soooo, This at least confirms the USAAF was at least looking at tanker helmets for pilot use late in the war and early post war. Those picttured are early P-80 pilots. For those who do not know the P-80 was opperational during WW2. It never saw combat........ "On April 19, 1945 Air Corps Maj. Carl Arnold of the TSEAL-5C (Clothing Branch) were requesting tank helmets, ordnance G-9, for PEL. They were an interim measure to be used for developmental work for use as crash helmets for the Air Corps. The development work on crash helmets (modified G-9 tank helmets) for use in the Lockheed XP-80 project was accomplished by the PEL in conjunction with the plastic division of the Continental Can Company, Inc. Chicago, Illinois. On January 8, 1946 a report from the AAF Board did not recommend the modified tank helmet for standardization but it continued in service for a while yet until replacements were available.
Style 1 helmet:
By July 5, 1945 the Chief of Material Division sent another developmental sample protective helmets developed by Captain J.F. Hooper of the PEL to the AAF Board, Orlando, Florida. By October 1945 Mr. Lagrand Daly of the Paramount Rubber Company was sending another new type of helmet mold for evaluation at the PEL. As we can see many helmets were being tested at the same time by the PEL. Meanwhile by Oct. 31, 1945 Col. Haskins was sending a developmental helmet sample to the Chief Test Pilot, Jack Wodams of the Bell Aircraft Corporation in Buffalo, New York, for the XS-1 project. Also Tony LeVier, Chief Test Pilot of the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation in Burbank, California, received one. In a letter of the 29 April 1946 the designation STYLE 1 was coined to the new helmet that the PEL has developed. Seventy-five were forward to Randolph Field Texas for evaluation in the P-80 type aircraft. Individual fitting of these helmets to students and instructors range in head sizes from the smallest required size up to approximately size 7-3/8 may be fitted. It is suggested the following method of fitting be used in order to provide the greatest comfort and protection to each individual. The Bell Company were conducting a series of experiments with the XP-83 aircraft and made a series of recommendations by A.M. Johnston, Chief test pilot, to the Material Command (PEL) in modifying the Style 1 after an accident on Sept 4, 1946 by Mr. C.L. Fay. Among the recommendations were the built –in earphones, insufficient lamination in the helmet shell and a corner of approximately 70 degree angle in the crown and back drop edge. Because the Style B helmets were under development no changes would be done to the Style 1 helmet according to the reply from PEL."
Style B helmet:

[Bodes]

3 hours ago, P-59A said:

I did find one oddball photo. Not sure of what kind of helmet he is wearing.

He's wearing an A-2 jacket and if he weren't strapped in, I would have said it was a posed photo....Bodes

[Bodes]

2 hours ago, P-59A said:

Soooo, This at least confirms the USAAF was at least looking at tanker helmets for pilot use late in the war and early post war. Those picttured are early P-80 pilots. For those who do not know the P-80 was opperational during WW2. It never saw combat........ "On April 19, 1945 Air Corps Maj. Carl Arnold of the TSEAL-5C (Clothing Branch) were requesting tank helmets, ordnance G-9, for PEL. They were an interim measure to be used for developmental work for use as crash helmets for the Air Corps. The development work on crash helmets (modified G-9 tank helmets) for use in the Lockheed XP-80 project was accomplished by the PEL in conjunction with the plastic division of the Continental Can Company, Inc. Chicago, Illinois. On January 8, 1946 a report from the AAF Board did not recommend the modified tank helmet for standardization but it continued in service for a while yet until replacements were available.
Style 1 helmet:
By July 5, 1945 the Chief of Material Division sent another developmental sample protective helmets developed by Captain J.F. Hooper of the PEL to the AAF Board, Orlando, Florida. By October 1945 Mr. Lagrand Daly of the Paramount Rubber Company was sending another new type of helmet mold for evaluation at the PEL. As we can see many helmets were being tested at the same time by the PEL. Meanwhile by Oct. 31, 1945 Col. Haskins was sending a developmental helmet sample to the Chief Test Pilot, Jack Wodams of the Bell Aircraft Corporation in Buffalo, New York, for the XS-1 project. Also Tony LeVier, Chief Test Pilot of the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation in Burbank, California, received one. In a letter of the 29 April 1946 the designation STYLE 1 was coined to the new helmet that the PEL has developed. Seventy-five were forward to Randolph Field Texas for evaluation in the P-80 type aircraft. Individual fitting of these helmets to students and instructors range in head sizes from the smallest required size up to approximately size 7-3/8 may be fitted. It is suggested the following method of fitting be used in order to provide the greatest comfort and protection to each individual. The Bell Company were conducting a series of experiments with the XP-83 aircraft and made a series of recommendations by A.M. Johnston, Chief test pilot, to the Material Command (PEL) in modifying the Style 1 after an accident on Sept 4, 1946 by Mr. C.L. Fay. Among the recommendations were the built –in earphones, insufficient lamination in the helmet shell and a corner of approximately 70 degree angle in the crown and back drop edge. Because the Style B helmets were under development no changes would be done to the Style 1 helmet according to the reply from PEL."
Style B helmet:

 

One of the problems I have is people's misconception in that the M38 was some sort of upgrade to the other options the aircrews had....The body of the tanker helmet was made of a pressed cardboard material that was not impregnable to flak shrapnel or projectiles.....A steel flak or M-1 helmet would have afforded more protection.....

 

I also found information that stated the M38's were issued to the vehicle and not the individual....This would further imply that not just anybody could requisition one without the proper authorization.....Would an aircrew member be reprimanded for having one?....Less likely for air corps member, since they seemed to have a little more leniency that the other branches of the military....Bodes

[phantomfixer]

I think we are implying the M38 was worn as a bump cap inside a turret, not so much as a flak helmet...

[P-59A]

2 hours ago, phantomfixer said:

I think we are implying the M38 was worn as a bump cap inside a turret, not so much as a flak helmet...

Well, we know the M3 flak helmet wasn't being distributed to aircrews untill the month of the crash. The question was did aircrews wear the tanker helmet. I asked if one could wear a M1 pot over the tanker helmet and it seems you can. My first thought early in this thread was if it had been worn by an aircrew member it seemed to me it would have been worn by a turret gunner, sooo be it as a bump cap or with a M1 pot over it was it worn? You are correct, the USAAF was lax in many areas, they did do many Mods on aircraft in the early years to protect aircrews and those Mods look to be one offs made by base ground crews. The tanker helmet would have added more protection as a bump cap in the ball turret than a regular leather cap. I'm not sure on this, but I do not think ball turret gunners wore flak helmets or even full flak vests when they became available. The space just looks to tight...again I'm not sure.

[P-59A]

5 hours ago, Bodes said:

One of the problems I have is people's misconception in that the M38 was some sort of upgrade to the other options the aircrews had....The body of the tanker helmet was made of a pressed cardboard material that was not impregnable to flak shrapnel or projectiles.....A steel flak or M-1 helmet would have afforded more protection.....

 

I also found information that stated the M38's were issued to the vehicle and not the individual....This would further imply that not just anybody could requisition one without the proper authorization.....Would an aircrew member be reprimanded for having one?....Less likely for air corps member, since they seemed to have a little more leniency that the other branches of the military....Bodes

Bodes, what other options did aircrews have? The M3's didn't come out untill that month. This is from the Airforce museum. Note the comment on turret gunners..."

M1 Infantry Helmet

Early bomber crews wore standard M1 infantry helmets but found them uncomfortable since their headphones fit poorly under the helmet.  Also, crewmen in confined spaces, like ball turret gunners, could not wear them.

 

M3 Helmet

The M3 helmet was a modification of the standard M1 infantry helmet.  Pilot Frank Riggs was wearing this helmet when flak fragments hit him over Vienna, Austria, in February 1945.  Fortunately, he was not significantly injured and was back on flight duty a few days later.

 

Grow Helmet

In 1943, the British Wilkinson Sword Company produced the “Grow Helmet,” which was worn over the standard leather flight helmet.  This one was worn by Col (later Maj Gen) Fred Dent, 44th Bomb Group commander, when he led the Eighth Air Force attack against Berlin on March 8, 1944. 

 

M4A2 Helmet

First produced in mid-1944, the M4A2 helmet was an improvement on the Grow Helmet, adding ear protection and replacing the leather covering with cloth.  More than 80,000 M4 series helmets were made during the war.

 

Helmet Armor

The inside of the Grow Helmet and M4 series helmets contained five overlapping strips of manganese steel.  This steel alloy has particularly high impact strength."

 

[P-59A]

https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=465ebebce021a495JmltdHM9MTY4NzM5MjAwMCZpZ3VpZD0xZjJkZDU2Mi1jYmVmLTZmYjktMWQ4My1kYWY5Y2ExNDZlMDUmaW5zaWQ9NTMxNw&ptn=3&hsh=3&fclid=1f2dd562-cbef-6fb9-1d83-daf9ca146e05&psq=m5+flak+helmet&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudXNtaWxpdGFyaWFmb3J1bS5jb20vZm9ydW1zL2luZGV4LnBocD8vdG9waWMvMTU0MjM5LW0tMzgtdGFua2Vycy1oZWxtZXQtdy1tLTMtZmxhay1oZWxtZXQv&ntb=1

[P-59A]

In January 1943 the 306th Bombardment group were the first to start modifying M1 helmets to fit over their communication systems by spreading out the sides. That caught on and soon other groups were doing it as well.



But it wasn't comfortable and clearly a helmet was needed. Wilkinson Sword was contracted to make the M4 (which at that time was experimental) in Summer 1943. They simply didn't have the resources to make them fast enough for the Army, so contracts were sent back to the States, at which time the leather was replaced with fabric. About the same time, the M3 was developed and the M4 and M3 were both used in different positions in the airplane. Both the M3 and M4 were standardized in December 1943.

The M4 was liked because it fit close to the head, but earflaps were needed. So the M4A1 was adopted in April 1944, but was almost immediately superseded by the M4A2 in June. There are plenty of M4A2s available to the collecting community, but no one has seen an M4A1 (they were very similar). Then the M5 superseded the M3 in January 1945.

[Bodes]

36 minutes ago, P-59A said:

Bodes, what other options did aircrews have? The M3's didn't come out untill that month. This is from the Airforce museum. Note the comment on turret gunners..."

M1 Infantry Helmet

Early bomber crews wore standard M1 infantry helmets but found them uncomfortable since their headphones fit poorly under the helmet.  Also, crewmen in confined spaces, like ball turret gunners, could not wear them.

 

M3 Helmet

The M3 helmet was a modification of the standard M1 infantry helmet.  Pilot Frank Riggs was wearing this helmet when flak fragments hit him over Vienna, Austria, in February 1945.  Fortunately, he was not significantly injured and was back on flight duty a few days later.

 

Grow Helmet

In 1943, the British Wilkinson Sword Company produced the “Grow Helmet,” which was worn over the standard leather flight helmet.  This one was worn by Col (later Maj Gen) Fred Dent, 44th Bomb Group commander, when he led the Eighth Air Force attack against Berlin on March 8, 1944. 

 

M4A2 Helmet

First produced in mid-1944, the M4A2 helmet was an improvement on the Grow Helmet, adding ear protection and replacing the leather covering with cloth.  More than 80,000 M4 series helmets were made during the war.

 

Helmet Armor

The inside of the Grow Helmet and M4 series helmets contained five overlapping strips of manganese steel.  This steel alloy has particularly high impact strength."

 

Correct me I'm wrong but were not the plane and crew based out of England and was not the Grow helmet being manufactured there prior to the plane's flight?...So perhaps this could have been an alternate option to an M-38?.....Being the mission was six months prior to the Normandy invasion and with the US supplying five of their own tank battalions alone, would the M-38 tanker helmets even be readily available to any US flight crews?....One would think those planning the invasion would have had to take into account potential losses and have some form of reserve backup for such extra equipment.....IF this was indeed the case, again how readily available would they have been?....I don't want to sound glib, but not being privy to such planning I am personally unaware of what technicalities were involved with Overlord....Bodes

[P-59A]

5 hours ago, Bodes said:

Correct me I'm wrong but were not the plane and crew based out of England and was not the Grow helmet being manufactured there prior to the plane's flight?...So perhaps this could have been an alternate option to an M-38?.....Being the mission was six months prior to the Normandy invasion and with the US supplying five of their own tank battalions alone, would the M-38 tanker helmets even be readily available to any US flight crews?....One would think those planning the invasion would have had to take into account potential losses and have some form of reserve backup for such extra equipment.....IF this was indeed the case, again how readily available would they have been?....I don't want to sound glib, but not being privy to such planning I am personally unaware of what technicalities were involved with Overlord....Bodes

I did do some reading on the Grow helmet. The British were making them for the RAF bomber command. The US was interested in trials and liked the idea. The Brits were contracted to make them for the USAAF. Like the Wilkinson flak vest the Brits were limited in what they could make so the US made them here with changes,"

 

M4A2 

 

Type M4A2 flak helmet

The M4A2 was the last in line of a family of flak helmets based on the Grow helmet, originally designed by the surgeon of the 8th Air Force, with the objective to increase the effectiveness of existing standard issue protection clothing for bomber crews.

The result of (at the time) Col. Grows initative under the full support of the Commanding General 8th AF was a design which offered slightly less protection than the M-3, but which was lighter and smaller, thus more suitable for cramped gun turrets. It was odered in an initial batch of 19'000 and produced in England by the Wilkinson Sword Co.

The US Ordnance Department evaluated the Grow helmet in the U.S. And after official approval it was produced in the U.S. and became standard issue as the M-4 anti flak helmet in December 1943.

An improved version designated M4A1 was introduced in April 1944 and replaced the M-4 as standard.

 

Tha last in line of this family is the M4A2 which inherited the overlapping steel plates construction (combining strength and protection while providing some flexibility) from its direct predecessors. It is covered with heavy olive green fabric an lined with nylon. The earflaps, which consist of doomed steel plates inserted into fabric covered pockets, were sewn to the helmet at the top, forming a hinged opening. This arrangement allowed a great range of movement which enabled the helmet to be doomed over a conventional flying helmet fitted with earphones, without compromising protection.

Two snap down goggle straps at the rear and a leather chin strap with with quick release buckle complete the outfit."                                  

       The leather is British and the green cover is US made. 

 

[P-59A]

If this strap came from that helmet, were did it come from. The strap looks green to me, but lets have Centurion1982 make that call.

[earlymb]

21 hours ago, phantomfixer said:

I think we are implying the M38 was worn as a bump cap inside a turret, not so much as a flak helmet...

 

But all you need to do is put an M1 shell over it, and you're good to go... including comms system and, with maybe a slight modification, an oxygen mask. That's the point I have been trying to make the whole time 😋

[Bodes]

21 hours ago, P-59A said:

If this strap came from that helmet, were did it come from. The strap looks green to me, but lets have Centurion1982 make that call.

 

 

 

 

Pictures of the Grow helmet weren't necessary as there are examples in the link I posted of the Air Force museum, and since I posted three photos of them in use I clearly know what an M38 helmet looks like....I'm not inferring in any way the piece shown above is from anything other than that of an M38 tanker helmet....You stated the aircrew were limited in their choices of protecting their heads and I merely pointed out the Grow helmet may have been an alternative....I have also noticed you declined to make any comments concerning the availability of a spare M38 at a time when the US was gearing up for Operation Overlord....Bodes

 

 

 

21 hours ago, P-59A said:

 

 

[Bodes]

11 hours ago, earlymb said:

 

But all you need to do is put an M1 shell over it, and you're good to go... including comms system and, with maybe a slight modification, an oxygen mask. That's the point I have been trying to make the whole time 😋

M1 Infantry Helmet

Early bomber crews wore standard M1 infantry helmets but found them uncomfortable since their headphones fit poorly under the helmet.  Also, crewmen in confined spaces, like ball turret gunners, could not wear them. (M1 Helmet)

 

Curious as to how the above situation suddenly changes when a tanker helmet w/M1 cover is used in lieu of a leather or cloth flight helmet w/M1 cover?

 

Information about M1 helmet provided in posts #32 and #59

[P-59A]

I didn't say the tanker was used with the M1 by aircrews. I just wanted to know if that was a possibility. In reading about the Grow helmet its clear the British could not meet the demands of 8th AAF, so not every crew got them or anything at that place in time. In as far as one guy getting a tanker helmet, I don't think the challenge is as daunting as you may think. All it takes is two bottles of booze. One for the AAF supply SGT and another for the Army supply SGT to make a deal. I do know from injury reports that the turret gunners suffered head injurys in the turrets from being knocked around. If a guy really wanted that xtra protection and was motivated to get it I don't see any real obsticals to getting one. If we knew were that strap was located in relation to the impact site, that would be the smoking gun that would put this to rest. Everything to this date has been conjecture on my part. In keeping with you being the devils advocate and my addressing the issues you raise we are drilling down the likley hood of an aircrewman wearing a tanker in this situation. For me, its hard to say. It seems possible in this case it may have happened. But I can't say for a fact it did. When those guys dug that site with a backhoe they destroyed the continuity and context of the evidence.

[earlymb]

1 hour ago, Bodes said:

M1 Infantry Helmet

Early bomber crews wore standard M1 infantry helmets but found them uncomfortable since their headphones fit poorly under the helmet.  Also, crewmen in confined spaces, like ball turret gunners, could not wear them. (M1 Helmet)

 

Curious as to how the above situation suddenly changes when a tanker helmet w/M1 cover is used in lieu of a leather or cloth flight helmet w/M1 cover?

 

Information about M1 helmet provided in posts #32 and #59

 

The M38 would replace the standard M1 helmet liner, as it already has a suspension of its own. You wouldn't need to wear the flight helmet anymore as the M38 has the same receivers. Not all crewmen would have used them, although I guess most could if they wanted to.

[P-59A]

In as far as Centurion1982 goes, I have PMed him on the details on how and why he has this stuff. He bought a big box from the guys who dug it and that strap was in the box. When Centurion1982 contacted those guys about that strap after he figured out what it was they were surprised by it too. I think Centurion1982 is being an honest broker. He starts out the thread asking the same question we are debaiting. I think the guys who dug the site had no idea that strap was anything other than aircraft crash relics. I just wish they had taken the time to be methodical in the dig. All of this strikes me as an honest attemp to figure this out. In all honesty I like the fact you are the devils advocate in this. From our past conversations I know you will challenge everything. That is how it should be!

[P-59A]

This link claims that tankers wore the M-3 flak helmet during the war. If things went this way, why not the other way. If tankers could get flak helmets then why not the  other way around?  

 

[P-59A]

This is one I had not heard of before.........One of the hardest items of WWII US Army Air Corps equipment to find - and missing from many otherwise great USAAF headgear collections! The G-1 Auxiliary protective helmet for air gunners was designed for wearing in the tight confines of an aircraft gun turret in the B-17, B-24, etc. It was supposed to be attached, by means of the leather tabs and "Lift-the-dot" fasteners, to the B-5, B-6 or A-9 flight helmet and offer protection against being buffeted against the perspex / plexiglas of the turret. Most gunners found them a nuisance and soon stopped using them so production was stopped after a limited operational trial period. Being made of pressed fibreboard, few have survived. This example is in very good condition, showing light scuffing to the leather edge but no damage. It has retained its shape well (many are warped from heat or damp but this one is perfect). Good label, indicating medium size.    https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=127e6a53f11de353JmltdHM9MTY4NzY1MTIwMCZpZ3VpZD0xZjJkZDU2Mi1jYmVmLTZmYjktMWQ4My1kYWY5Y2ExNDZlMDUmaW5zaWQ9NTE5NQ&ptn=3&hsh=3&fclid=1f2dd562-cbef-6fb9-1d83-daf9ca146e05&psq=+Auxiliary+Air+gunner's+helmet%2c+type+G-1.+&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudXNtaWxpdGFyaWFmb3J1bS5jb20vZm9ydW1zL2luZGV4LnBocD8vdG9waWMvMTE0MDg3LXR5cGUtZy0xLWF1eGlsaWFyeS1ndW5uZXItaGVsbWV0Lw&ntb=1

[Bodes]

10 hours ago, P-59A said:

This link claims that tankers wore the M-3 flak helmet during the war. If things went this way, why not the other way. If tankers could get flak helmets then why not the  other way around?  

 

 You do realize the photo provided of the tank crew was taken during the Korean war?....It's my understanding this was an expediency due to the M38 being in short supply following WW2...This is what a fellow member wrote and the link to the thread

 

 It was anticipated that the T19-E2 helmet and liner would replace the Rawlings Pattern tank helmet but that did not happen.

 

"The Army ceased production of this helmet in 1944 and after the war many were sold surplus or went with armored vehicles that were given as miltary assistance to countries around the world. By the beginning of the Korean War the were less than 4,000 left in inventory and many armored vehicles left for Europe and Asia equiped with the M4A2 Flak Helmet."

 

[P-59A]

I went back and read that post and no one in that thread stated Korean war era in that post, not even the guy who posted that pic, but then again no one stated WW2 era either. I don't know were to go beyond that other than to say tanks and tank crews are not in my wheelhouse. Now that I look at that photo again I will say I know those are Korean war era paratroopers and that photo is very early in the war. Those guys came with that mark on thier helmets straight out of Japan and quickly got rid of those marks. I have a para helmet from that group with no marks.

[P-59A]