variant textures on mk2 British Brodie Helmets.

[ruddersrangers44]

Just a question that I simply cannot find an answer too so hopefully one of our more experianced collectors may be able to answer.why or how is it I see some really heavy textured Helmets so thick is the coating the makers marks are completely covered over,was this standard finishing on all Army mk2's or were these field added?also the later mk2's seem to have it more than the earlier types,is this not the case?I dont usually collect these so I only have the web but still havn't found an explanation,maybe its just me or my eyes and in fact there is no differance,thanks for any input in advance.............

[Jerry B]

All I can say is that early lids have the textured finish only on the exterior, while later examples have it on the underside as well. I assume that some have been enhanced in the field, but others can probably give you a fuller and more informed answer Jake.

[ruddersrangers44]

Thanks Jerry obviously wear and tear has to be taken into account like an un-issued model would look much fuller than one thats been to hell and back,but seriously some look as though they have had concrete mixed instead of sand or whatever it was they used.......

[tinlid]

Hi Jake,
The early helmets used by the armed forces was the Mk1* from 1937, then the Mk2 from 38, these & Mk2's up to about 41/42 would have had textured paint on the outside & smooth on the inside. Making reading of dates/maker names easy to read. About 41/42 they started painting them textured paint inside & out, making it hard to read.

[ruddersrangers44]

Cheers once again Aaron,so these later heavy textured mk2's came from production in this way and nothing was added in the field so to speak,I know that collectors seem to like the earlier Army Helmets but im drawn to these later types,thanks again guys you've been most helpful as ever.............

[tinlid]

Just to add to this, any camo painted helmets would most likely only be painted on the outside, or at a stretch maybe on the inside brim. I would never buy a camo that had been done completely on the inside, a soldier just woudn't take the liner out to paint it. That's my rule anyway, even if it looked really good.
Here's a couple of repainted Mk2's done in one colour, most likely done at Div',Regt',or Batt' level?

[ruddersrangers44]

Think your right on that one Aaron but some that are textured on the inside edge covering the makers stamp could still be ok,cheers for the pics.

[cammobunker]

You have to remember that these got used literally world-wide, and many helmets would have been altered by units in the field. The needs of a soldier in North Africa and Burma would be hugely different. I mean, there's little point in attaching a net to a helmet in the desert, but sand mixed into the paint makes perfect sense. In the jungle, it's all foliage and you're certainly going to be using nets, rubber bands, whatever to cover your helmet and hold material, so there's little point in making the texture rougher.
Also, the opinion of one's senior NCOs probably had a profound effect on this sort of thing as well, the Army being the Army. Let's not forget the diligence and attitude of Private Jenkins, detailed off to camouflage the helmet shipment as punishment for lipping off to his section leader, not to mention what materials he might be given to accomplish the task.
I'm quite sure there were all kinds of regulations regarding this, specifying the grit of sand, color of paint, etc., and I'm equally sure Pte. Jenkins had no idea they existed. One sees everything from flour-fine sand to near gravel, all shades of green/brown/tan paints, and I'm nearly certain I have a RAC MkII finished in that non-slip textured paint they use on AFV steps and floors.
It may have been noted by the powers that be that the field treatment was giving uneven results, which could have been the reason for more aggressive treatment at the factory, or perhaps there was simply more time to do such things as the war went on and there was a bit less urgency.