-
-
01-07-2018 03:44 PM
# ADS
Circuit advertisement
-
This is the first M42 beaded helmet I've seen Jim. Thanks for showing
"Please", Thank You" and proper manners appreciated
My greatest fear is that one day I will die and my wife will sell my guns for what I told her I paid for them
"Don't tell me these are investments if you never intend to sell anything" (Quote: Wife)
-
by
MAP
This is the first M42 beaded helmet I've seen Jim. Thanks for showing
Yes...rarely see the 42 beaded
-
by
MAP
And that is the question.
Rejects or made on purpose??
With this helmet, that dimple looks like a flaw thus I would lean towards rejected helmets.
In the absence of a definative answer I think we might consider the possibility that it was a combination of both.
Considering that "beading" a reject to mark it as not for combat use might have been the economical way of dealing with rejects rather than recycling something still with a practical use, would there have been enough "rejects" to satisfy the wartime requirements of the Luftschutz etc? From the position of managing an efficient industrial process one would hope not. Therefore it must like have been necessary to make up the shortfall with purpose made items and this use of "rejects" would simply be a case of increasing volume without waste.
I suspect that British home front MkII helmets with the holes drilled in the brim might tell a similar story.
The instructions to take this kind of action would not be complicated, maybe just one letter which in the general state of turmoil especially late and post war may have been lost or at least not yet unearthed. Just a thought!
Regards
Mark
Last edited by Watchdog; 01-07-2018 at 06:28 PM.
Reason: typo
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing he cares more about than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature with no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-
by
Watchdog
In the absence of a definative answer I think we might consider the possibility that it was a combination of both.
Considering that "beading" a reject to mark it as not for combat use might have been the economical way of dealing with rejects rather than recycling something still with a practical use, would there have been enough "rejects" to satisfy the wartime requirements of the Luftschutz etc? From the position of managing an efficient industrial process one would hope not. Therefore it must like have been necessary to make up the shortfall with purpose made items and this use of "rejects" would simply be a case of increasing volume without waste.
I suspect that British home front MkII helmets with the holes drilled in the brim might tell a similar story.
The instructions to take this kind of action would not be complicated, maybe just one letter which in the general state of turmoil especially late and post war may have been lost or at least not yet unearthed. Just a thought!
Regards
Mark
Remember...LS helmets were manufactured & sold by various companies. So were the M34 fire helmets with decals & neck flaps starting pre-war. Possibly the beaded M35's started showing up after bombs started falling in Germany. Then progressed to M40 & 42 beaded examples due to supply & demand ? Would one have seen a beaded M35 pre-war & for what reason ? Believe in what you say...increasing volume without waste wartime
-
by
Watchdog
In the absence of a definative answer I think we might consider the possibility that it was a combination of both.
Considering that "beading" a reject to mark it as not for combat use might have been the economical way of dealing with rejects rather than recycling something still with a practical use, would there have been enough "rejects" to satisfy the wartime requirements of the Luftschutz etc? From the position of managing an efficient industrial process one would hope not. Therefore it must like have been necessary to make up the shortfall with purpose made items and this use of "rejects" would simply be a case of increasing volume without waste.
I suspect that British home front MkII helmets with the holes drilled in the brim might tell a similar story.
The instructions to take this kind of action would not be complicated, maybe just one letter which in the general state of turmoil especially late and post war may have been lost or at least not yet unearthed. Just a thought!
Regards
Mark
Hi Mark, I have thought about that. I agree with Dave. I think the beaded shells were used to supplement the stocks of M34's and gladiator shells specifically manufactured for use by the Luftschutz and rear echelon Police units. Remember, the L/S and Police weren't expected to be in combat and it would have been a waste of precious steel to make combat weight helmets for rear echelon use. As has been stated, beading the rejected shells would be more efficient than melting them down. I guess we will never know, but you know my story on this issue and I'm stickin' to it! Cheer, Jim G.
-
by
helmet2id
Hi Leon, I just did a quick tally of my beaded helmets, consisting of all types , including M35, M40 and M42 shells with standard L/S decals, standard DD Police decals, DD Police reverse decal configuration, DD Police with Austrian decals, DD Police with set back decals, a camo'ed one with three HERR Adler decals, a SD example with a subdued Luft Adler, and several no decal examples. There were 8 EF shells, 2 ET shells, 6 Q shells, 5 NS shells, and 1 SE shell. I don't have any with the CKL maker stamp or the hkp maker mark. I don't know if any such examples exist, but I don't recall ever having seen any. I am one who believes that the beaded shells were those deemed unfit for combat due to manufacturing flaws that compromised the ballistic integrity of the shell. CKL was used by ET later in the War, and hkp was formally SE. The fact that I haven't seen any ckl or hkp beaded shells may suggest that quality control standards at those factories were relaxed towards the end of the War and helmets that may not has passed inspection earlier were accepted for combat use - or maybe that I just haven't crossed paths with any. My results aren't at all scientific, just anecdotal, but I will say that with several out of this sample of 22 examples I can easily discern the manufacturing flaws that would make the piece fail a QC inspection. Jim G.
Thanks for taking the time to do that Jim, very useful, personally I have only ever had one beaded M35 but that was some years ago and I cannot remember the maker. Almost all of the beaded M40's I have seen recently have been Quist, so hence my question! I guess this will be one of those ever debated Stalhelm questions. Thanks for the input fella's and I apologise for taking the original OP's thread "off track". Leon
-
Thanks guys - its a robust discussion and waking up to read it ( early here in Oz ) is what I like about the forum - simple things that after the passage of time have become "arcane" still get us excited....
My ( current ) thought is like Marks ( Watchdog ) in that - as Bayer states - these were initially rejected material batches ( poor quality steel etc ) but then as demand for these 'rear echelon' helmets grew, ( as Jim's TWENTY TWO examples attest ) they were purposely made. Supply would obviously not have met demand otherwise - and NO German factory AIMS for a high reject rate in production.....
Logically from a production standpoint, if a batch of steel was KNOWN to be faulty after a few test pressings, then the whole lot would have been separated out and assigned for beading. We know that within a lot number, decals for ALL branches were applied as needed but it would be interesting to compare lot numbers for beaded examples to see how they grouped??? ...... Jim's would be the best but not readily accessible .
Cheers, Dan
" I'm putting off procrastination until next week "
-
Bookmarks