Very nice, i like those around 750 range lot numberby emileverbunt
I assume these are stainless steel loops (never seen any other in this range, but i have to ask) and that it does not have a punch mark inside the rim about center of the loops?
Very nice, i like those around 750 range lot number
Firstly i have to say i haven't seen or heard of anyone putting in this detailed information on this scale.it certainly brings many questions and talking points.it's obviously clear that there was much over running of production in otherwise while some shells were having the rim seam placed to the rear front seamed still continued,personally i've never seen front seamed running that high into the 1100 + so a first plus look at the integration from stainless to maganese rims again both running together so my theory has always been they had boxes of rims in both metals mixed and grabbed the first one to hand and wasn't that fussed which way round they installed the rim (oct/nov)1944.i've seen fixed loops up to 780 but don't own one personally,but great job this has taken time and effort to compell and upload.so yes a fantastic job well done.................
I think your theory is correct about the rim metal. A box of rims, constantly being replenished, and they just grabbed one and put it on, regardless if it was stainless or manganese. Using up your stockpile and the real change occurred when the company received new supplies that a one point switch to manganese. Until stockpiles was used up, it would just be a mix.Firstly i have to say i haven't seen or heard of anyone putting in this detailed information on this scale.it certainly brings many questions and talking points.it's obviously clear that there was much over running of production in otherwise while some shells were having the rim seam placed to the rear front seamed still continued,personally i've never seen front seamed running that high into the 1100 + so a first plus look at the integration from stainless to maganese rims again both running together so my theory has always been they had boxes of rims in both metals mixed and grabbed the first one to hand and wasn't that fussed which way round they installed the rim (oct/nov)1944.i've seen fixed loops up to 780 but don't own one personally,but great job this has taken time and effort to compell and upload.so yes a fantastic job well done.................
Theory about Front/Rear seam I too will join. If the machine is capable of handling both ends, and the only deciding factor what the final product becomes, is the man in front of the machine. The change is then really the education/change of way, of the personal. Could very well be like that.
I have mentioned earlier the possibility of the 20 odd discs leftover in the stack that got draw later, thus acquiring later shell characteristics. 20 discs is of course just a number, it might be two discs only or full lot. Who knowns. I think I got such an example.
This shell has second style McCord fixed loops; I call them square loops, which should put it after the 350-450 lot range. Still working on this range, but at least a +300-lot number. There is no indication that it has ever been repaired. It has no dot/punch mark/dimple in the center of the loops; it has the depression on the outside. Putting it after the 550-650 range. However, the lot number is 95D. I have put it under a magnifying glass, and there is absolutely no trace that there is a number in front of 95D. There should be a five or six, like 595D or 695D. It cannot be 795D, as it should not be a fixed loop shell. It cannot be 495D, as there should be a dot. Very strange.
Firstly to put my comments into context I must say that I do not specialise in collecting helmets so I am no expert although I do have around 50 of differing types that have somehow found their way into my collection.
Just to play devils' advocate here I think it important to remember that the whole scenario of changes in manufacturing processes especially in wartime is dynamic to say the least.
Whenever a change is made that amounts to a modification rather than totally new design and the end product is simply an altered version of the original there will be anomalies in the total end result.
At any stage when a change is made there will be items that are already part way through the production line. So, if a change is made from configuration '1' to configuration '2' on a production line with processes A - G for instance, when the change occurs at process 'C' there will be items at process 'A' - 'B' so they will undergo the change at process 'C' whilst items that have passed 'C' and are at processes 'D' - 'G' will not. The volume of this anomally will depend on the number of lines and total throughput etc.
Is it even feasible that the volume having passed the modification point would be withdrawn from the line and re-cycled at a time when production demand was rather high?
So, with helmets like these there will be an unknown number that appear to collectors of the present day as "hybrids" when in reality, at the time of manufacture these minor alteration made little or no difference to the end product depending on whether we are talking about the scientist / designers or the chap who ended up with it on his head.
As for a correlation between changes and lot/heat stamp numbers I think the emerging understanding that stock rotation of the material used to make the shells was less than precise, means that any compilation of data will only produce a rough guide at best.
I know some M1 collectors will howl with outrage at my suggestion but in any automated production line that ever existed this would happen when the only "indicator" in play is a material batch number the only purpose of which is to trace a particular batch of material regardless of when exactly it passed through the production line. When the process involves tens of thousands of "blanks" stacked on pallets in a warehouse the stock / batch control process would need to be absolutely rigid and evidence appears to suggest that it was not.
This cannot be seen as a flaw in the production system as the lot number was of no relevance at all until that batch of steel was found to be defective and that might occur at any stage from the first draw, through ballistic testing of samples even to the possible detection of consistent failure in the field (by which time recall and disposal would be impossible anyway).
As I say, the lot number issue in general seems to be a post internet phenomenon and, correct me if I have misunderstood, the data used so far to compile a timeline is mostly based on observation decades after the event. For my money at least, condition and the old favourite "provenance" are better yardsticks.
I am under the impression that die-hard helmet collectors would take a dim view of scouring away the paint to dig out the lot number anyway?
M1 afficionados should feel free to tell me that I am talking out of "the wrong'un" but I enjoy debating such things and am always as happy to be proved wrong as I am to be proved right. After all we are here to explore, investigate and learn are we not?
Regards
Mark
Last edited by Watchdog; 11-27-2020 at 12:17 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."
I not in disagreement with any of it. As you say, there are a 100 ways lots may be drawn out of sequence. I fully expect one or many samples, whole lots, even whole lot ranges, to be out of sequence. However unless the manufacture plant (McCord) received all 1300+ lots of discs in one go, and simply spend 4 years drawing discs, there must be some form of correlation between lots and shell characteristics, as shells evolved.
Something like fixed loops to movable loops must require a manufacturing line machinery change/setup. You now have three weld vs. two weld. At some point, the change must have been made. Now when the change occurred, the plant might have had 200 lots in storage, which then would produce “old” lots with a new shell characteristic. All fine. But new lots coming in, would no more be able to acquire old characteristic. Future generations looking at sufficient number of samples, would spot that a change occurred in this and that lot range (never mind that it happened 200 lots previously). Point is, you can spot it, and thus there is a correlation between lot number and shell characteristics.
Point of little excise of mine, is to find these changes. With enough samples, I think it is possible. So far, I have 109 in the 700-1300 range and 86 in the 0-700 range. I interested in neither when lots 649F was draw, nor if 634K was drawn before that. I will never know. But I will be able (with enough samples) to identify if all samples after 649F has gold rims and all previous have not – and thus extrapolate that pre-649F lots numbers are draw earlier – with one or two odd lots number sticking out wrong.
Yes I agree the the smaller and more frequent the supply of blanks the more likely a noticeable trend or change point would be.
As for the welding set up I don't know enough about the specifics of the machinery involved to make a really accurate judgement but I believe there was much more manual involvement in the welding in the period (it was done on a manually - foot pedal controlled spot welder I think so it would be less reliant on jigs etc. I would be a case of the operator performing a different sequence / number of welds rather than changing the machine set-up (from the only photo / video evidence I seen).
I hope you can indentify the change through compiling a database that shows division in configuration. That would be a useful authentication tool more than anything.
I think it might take a while though, good luck
Regards
Mark
PS The last helmet you showed appears to have a red oxide primer coat. Is that a WWII feature as I thought that only started with KW era refurbishment onwards?
"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."
Sorry did not see this last comment.
Yes, it is indeed red primer. As you, I am also not aware of this being done in WW2, actually not even in Korea! This shell is repainted later.
From around 1970-80 the Danish Army repainted (and purchased new stuff) in this shiny green color, including helmets. We call it SK/80. I guess they used red primer under it.
There exist the possibility that the Danish purchases used Vietnam helmets from the USA (which the US has refurbished), though I am not aware of it. I’m only aware of the 107.000 WW2 helmets purchased from US surplus depots in Germany, in December 1949, plus about 250 from England in June 1948 – this is why the Danes call it M/48.
Now passed 400 samples in my Lot number database, so I thought I would give an update. I have not systematical saved the images of all samples, which I regret now. Therefore, I only have about 250 of them on image, missing roughly the first 150 samples. I guess I will find them again eventually. There is at least 10 times this number of lot number of interest, floating around on the internet, but either they don’t include images at all, not enough, not sharp enough or not the right images, in which cases I have not included them in my database. About 12% of them, I have seen myself.
I record Lot, Lift, Suffix, Loop style, Loop steel, Loop shape, Loop holder steel, Rim steel, Seam place, Punch mark and additional. Loop style being Fixed or Movable, Loop steel being Carbon or Stainless, Loop shape (only fixed) being rounded, square, C-loop, Loop holder steel (only movable) being Carbon or Stainless, and Punch mark being the little dot on the inside of the rim about center of the loops.
The lowest number I have seen is 25A1 and the highest 1287A and 1284F. I have 24 samples below 49B2, and only two of them does not have a suffix number. Suffix numbers are found only on five samples after 49B2, four of these laying in lots 1160-1189, with a suffix of seven. No other of my samples have a suffix of seven, all have either one, two, three or four.
A little note on lowest lot number. I can read that it is a more or less an accepted theory that Mccord, producing the M1917A1 helmet, simply continued the number system directly over to the M1 helmet. It sure looks like it might be true. Reading a little up on M1917A1 lot numbers, I cannot find a M1917A1 Lot number higher than 24. It seems to fit well. It must however be said that according to Watertown Arsenal Lab. report from 1946, the 906.000 M1917A1 was produced from February 1941 to September 1941. The first batches of M1 helmet was produced in March 1941. The Army accepted the M1 in July and I assume that large production started right away, simultaneously with the ongoing production of the M1917A1. As per WAL own words “The production of the M1917 helmets continued until September 1941 after which time only the new M1 helmet was produced.”. Somehow Mccord running production of two helmets simultaneously, using the same lot/lift system for both, managed to separate them completely so not a single Lot was “swapped”. Nevertheless, the numbers do not lie. I have seen no M1 under Lot 25A1 and no M1917A1 over 24.
I have seen no samples over 1300 as of yet. The only source so far of post 1300 shells is Watertown Arsenal Lab., a report from 30 January 1945, listing no less than fourteen 1300 numbers, and the highest being 1379. Of equal interest this report list no less than 60 shells ranging from lot 452 to 1367, received from Mccord, 22 November 1944, all of reduced draw. Meaning they were made for this test. That opens some interesting points. These discs exist in this period, both early and late lots. Mccord dusted off some hidden discs for tests and they already had 1300’s discs ready, in November 1944! Never mind when they were actually made into finished shells.
Beside all the ranges of physical changes, I will describe below, there is two other ranges, so far, which is of interest. No of them because of physical changes. These are lots 94-109 and 953-975. The first range because no less than five samples of all ten in my database, of early lots displaying later shell characteristics, lay right here. It almost seems like Mccord dusted of some forgotten discs, and draw them later. The second range because it contains a series of high lift letters, contra all other ranges, like 975M, 953N, 958O, 963K etc. It may be a simple fluke in the absent of enough samples or it may be that the steel company got more lifts out of each heat in this time. We will find out with more samples. In all I have seen these letters; A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, T, and W.
Some statistic for lift letters I have. In the lot range 25-699, it is 37% A, 36% B, 18% C, 7% D and 3% E-F. In the range 700-1300, it is 35% A, 15% B, 17% C, 10% D, 5% E, 5% F, 4% G, 3% H, and 6% I-W.
Here we go. Current evaluation of Lot numbers in the database.
-Fixed to movable loops is still a sharp transition, but slightly changed. I now say 759. Have a void up to 768, but from then on I have 11 samples to 790, all with movable loops, all with no indication of repair.
-There are three types of fixed loops. Rounded, Square and C-loops (also called D-loops). Rounded loops, the first loops, ends around lot 187, with sporadic lots after that, having them. Only five samples after lot 187 with rounded loops I have recorded in the database. Latest so far being 291. C-loops, lay slam down right after rounded loops. The range being 191-229 so far (read others mention as far as 235, but have not seen one yet). Two of the five samples mentioned earlier in the 100 range, are C-loops. They lay vastly outside any other C-loops lots. They have been look at from experts on other forums, I have looked at them, and they seem to be 100% the real deal. There are a lot a fakes out there, tho. Square loops also begins when rounded ends, earliest being 188. They reside within the C-loops range and continue to currently 759. In addition, yes C-loops and square loops reside on the same lot number, but so far not seen on the same lift (letter).
-The dot/dimple/punch marks. The dot is another sharp transition and it happens around 622. No lot after 623 has dots on the inside of the rim, in between the loops. So fixed loops shells between 623 and 759 do not have this punch mark.
-Repaired fixed loops. A number of fixed loops have been repaired with movable loops. On some, it is easy to see, some it’s more difficult. A trend I have noticed is the placement of this new movable loops. And its only because I have noticed the very same trend on LS (Linnemann Schnetzer) and U.SCH (Heinrich Ulbricht's Witwe, Schwanenstadt) euro-clone shells. LS and U.SCH shells of the 1950s have the movable loop-holder placed right up to the rim, just like WW2 Mccord shells (+/- 1mm). LS and U.SCH shells from around 1962-ish have them moved down, LS usual 2-3mm (later 4-5mm) and U.SCH 4-5mm, just like USA Vietnam produced M1 shells. The same is the case with some of these repaired WW2 fixed loop shells, some of the now attached movable loop, are right up to the rim, while others are 3-5mm down. Possible a pre/post 1960 repair phenomena? Maybe?
-I am moving the introduction of Manganese steel rims up to around lot 980. I am now convinced that those few samples I have of pre-lot 980 of Manganese steel rims are late draw discs. Mccord again dusted off a few forgotten lots and draw them later. Around Lot 1000 manganese steel rims, takes off big time, but stainless steel rims never seize to be used.
-Rear / front seam transition. Transition range lay around lot 1122-1163. I have only two sample of pre-lot 1122 of rear seam, being 975 and 1023. I am convinced they are late draw discs.
-Carbon steel. I used the name Carbon steel for steel parts that, in lack of the better description, is not prototypical stainless steel. I suspect its stainless steel with not enough chromium in it? On the M1 shell, definitely some movable loops and loop-holder are not made of prototypical stainless steel. They stain, rust or oxidize in some form, looking dull and dark, even rusty, looking more like manganese steel rather than stainless steel. So far, I have not seen it on rims and fixed loops, both rounded and square. I have seen it on C-loops; in fact, all the C-loops in my database are of this kind. It is common on movable loops, much less on the loop-holders. Seems to be introduced right after the switch from fixed to movable loops, around lot 774. Used indiscriminately from that time on.
Similar Threads
Posting Permissions
.
Bookmarks