A friend recently bought a pair that turned out to be British. The only " true" tanker goggles, in my opinion have clear lenses. I saw another pair recently that had Amber tint lenses. Perhaps they were aviation related? I believe there are photos showing common dust goggles being worn on tanker helmet. Here's my boxed pair
Hey Jareth,That is the first example I have seen with a black strap! Having the box is a Great bonus! As far as the tinted goggles go, as I said earlier, goggles vs.No goggles was likely an encountered situation so my guess is that if there weren't enough to go around you would use what was available.By the way.. Your photography skills are making excellent progress!Regards,Geoff
I never had fear of mixing up British goggles with IJA ones, but if you need detailed specs for authentication, here is how the tanker goggle specs are defined in the Aug 1943 Spec Book.
Spec sheets were issued twice for these goggles. The original specs were defined on 8th December 1930, and a spec change occurred on 9th Sept. 1940. Therefore the specs shown below represent the post Sept. 1940 specs.
The leather used could be goat or chamois. Metal fittings like the buckles were either nickel plated brass or khaki painted steel. The elastic straps were to be 22 mm wide and in khaki color. The glass was always clear and never tinted. The gauze-like cloth used for ventilating against fogging was in flax (the 1925 navy version had this part in pale yellow silk).
I assume your mention of navy relates to aviation goggles? Navy tank equipment especially any headgear used is still a mystery. I'm talking about anything specially designed & not existing & utilized like flight helmets etc
Of course, the navy version from 1925 are the aviation goggles I mentioned earlier.
During WW2 the navy tankers wore army supplied tank helmets and goggles they bought in 1941. The army supplied 640 pieces each.
Interesting information, Nick. Do you know if the IJN modified the helmets after receiving them from the army? Replacing the star with an anchor, or possibly removing the star only?
Tom
Last time you were after army submariners and now navy tankers? Kinky stuff.
The short answer is I do not know what the Navy did with the tanker helmets supplied by the Army, as I only could find Army documents relating to the deal.
The request from the Navy was rather on short notice, so the first batch probably was from existing army stock. The Army would have removed the stars, but whether the Navy added their anchor the way they did with the cherry blossom helmet or followed the example of flight helmets and wore nothing are both equally possible scenarios that documents do not provide a definite answer to.
The deal took the form of the Navy requesting the Army to place an order on behalf of the Navy through the Army Main Clothing Depot to its suppliers. Thus it was not meant to be from Army stock, but newly manufactured. Therefore they could have specified the absence of Army stars, but as the first delivery was tight, the deal had a provision to allow the Army to draw from existing stock, if needed.
The Navy’s request was dated 9th October 1941 and it requested delivery of the first batch of 350 pieces of tanker helmets and goggles to the Yokosuka Depot in a month, by early November.
Another 290 pieces each were to follow as the second batch to be received by March 1942, making it a total of 640 sets altogether.
The Army communicated official acceptance of the Navy’s request to its depot and to the Ministry of the Navy only on 21st October, leaving only 2 weeks for delivering the first 350 pieces. So the first batch was likely from stock.
The Army did not like items with stars getting outside. So even without the Navy asking, the stars would have been removed.
Although I do not know whether the Navy added their insignia, a factor that may have influenced the decision is the fact that items for special services like flight, tankers and NFL could be established without the Emperor's blessing in the form of an edict. Only the mainstream uniforms that determined the overall look of the Army and Navy required the Emperor's signature.
The Army slapped their stars on regardless, but if the lack of insignia on navy flight helmets reflected this distinction, the tanker helmet also would have gone without the anchor. Anyway, it would have been a matter of following some principle rather than taste, as the Navy would not have wanted the flyers to start demanding they wanted an anchor, too. This kind of sentiment foiled the navy's introduction of a sub driver's badge and pilot's badge back in 1915, as I mentioned in the aviation story.
Finally, I attach the documents in question below for your study.
Here the well known Navy photo from Saipan
Good stuff, thanks! When it comes to IJA/IJN units, the stranger the better.
Similar Threads
Posting Permissions
.
Bookmarks