Article about: Hi, have this one up for review. It's what is commonly referred to as the "3rd pattern" among collectors. I understand from reading around on this that this terminology is possibly
It's what is commonly referred to as the "3rd pattern" among collectors. I understand from reading around on this that this terminology is possibly outdated now, and the covers with buttonholes are now deemed the earliest type? I think this is due to a lack of examples of covers without buttonholes in earlier wartime pictures (late 1942 onwards for these covers).
I have read theories that the non-button hole type might have been a speeded up production batch following on shortly after this type due to initial shortages (just speculation of course), and then that they may have reverted back to 'with buttonholes' again, but this time without the buttonholes on the flaps, only on the main body - all in WW2 of course. Please correct me if I'm wrong!
Anyway, hope you like it, it seems to be an unissued example.
Hi Paul very nice frog skin cover Can I ask where you read these theories about the order in which these were made? I am in contact with a few collectors from the US and in particular with one guy who has over 25 of these covers. He helped me to source a 1st pattern cover. But not one of them have mentioned these new theories but I will contact them to ask if they have heard anything about this.
The consensus is that the covers with no button holes at all are the first pattern, the covers with button holes but not on the flaps are the second pattern ( and apparently the rarest to come by ) and then the one with button holes on the flaps are third pattern.
I have 3 USMC covers, a first pattern no button holes, a second pattern which has had a a diamond EGA patch added and used post WW2 and Korean War with EGA ink stamp and marked on flap with blue anchor 1953. Looking forward to a good discussion about these covers
Hi Paul very nice frog skin cover Can I ask where you read these theories about the order in which these were made? I am in contact with a few collectors from the US and in particular with one guy who has over 25 of these covers. He helped me to source a 1st pattern cover. But not one of them have mentioned these new theories but I will contact them to ask if they have heard anything about this.
The consensus is that the covers with no button holes at all are the first pattern, the covers with button holes but not on the flaps are the second pattern ( and apparently the rarest to come by ) and then the one with button holes on the flaps are third pattern.
I have 3 USMC covers, a first pattern no button holes, a second pattern which has had a a diamond EGA patch added and used post WW2 and Korean War with EGA ink stamp and marked on flap with blue anchor 1953. Looking forward to a good discussion about these covers
Hi Redstalker, I'm no expert and am quite new to US helmets. I've collected militaria for decades but only got the bug for M1 helmets last summer. I was helping a friend with his stall and found myself staring at a really nice example of an M1 on his stall for about 2 days solid despite not collecting US WW2. I was just about to pull the trigger when someone bought it. After that I became obsessed with getting a nice one! The USMC cover seemed like a great and iconic WW2 addition for my M1, and I've been talking myself into getting one for months....
Ref the patterns I've been looking at threads on the US Militaria Forum dating back about 5 years (onwards) where the debate seems to have been going on. The gist of it seems to rest on photographic evidence, i.e covers without slits don't seem evident in the earlier pictures. Someone thought they'd found one, but another collector had a much higher definition picture from an archive, and then you could see the slits. Also, there are pattern documents dating from September 1942 showing the helmet design with slits/ button-holes on the crown and on the flaps. I understand that non-slit covers are seen from later on (Iwo Jima Feb/ March 1945), and I read somewhere (can't remember where, read so many threads) that someone speculated that the non-slit covers might have been a requirement to speed up production as according to them there was an initial shortage. I just thought it sounded feasible!
The same threads then talk about production going back to slits, but now only on the crown, but still WW2, just later on. I'll add a few links so that those interested can take a look when you have a spare hour or two! I found Googling the subject matter (e.g "USMC helmet covers") is a good way of searching that forum if you're not a member (I'm not).
I read through all those links took me a while and some very compelling evidence photograph wise. Would be helpful to have documentary evidence as well. I got the sense that a few guys agreed that they were issued at the same time but you see more slitless covers in use later in the PTO and a lot of these were used during the Korean War. All fascinating stuff and thanks for providing the links
I haven't put the shell web chin-strap at the back as I think I read somewhere that this was 'not done' by the USMC, and considered 'Army style'. Checking various wartime pictures I couldn't see much evidence of it being done, so have decided not to put the chin-strap over the back.
Also, the cover seems unissued so I've resisted the temptation to cut the chinstrap holes as the cover can just about go round the straps. I believe that the green 'jungle' side was more commonly used, but quite like the brown 'beach' side so will display it that side out for a while!
Army frog skin weave from a pair of 43 trousers. Never had a helmet cover but my USMC hbt have a chevron weave with out the gap bit as I've shown.
Added a USMC weave, sorry I can only show OD from a 41 pat
Last edited by reneblacky; 02-02-2018 at 06:13 AM.
Reason: added text & pic
My understanding is that the HBT covers first issued in 1942 were of both the plain and foilage slit types,the button holes on the flaps are regarded as the second pattern variant and the mosquito frogskin with drop mesh veil has always been excepted as the third variant.
Haven't played around with my herringbone stuff for a long while! for now I can only say the USMC and Army weave are different
Thanks for looking all.
Hi Rene, I'm new to USMC camouflage but have looked into it. Appears that the consensus on the US Militaria Forum is that USMC cammo (WW2) is all "Army weave", not USMC weave.
USMC "3rd pattern" helmet cover for review
.
Can I ask where you read these theories about the order in which these were made? I am in contact with a few collectors from the US and in particular with one guy who has over 25 of these covers. He helped me to source a 1st pattern cover. But not one of them have mentioned these new theories but I will contact them to ask if they have heard anything about this. 
by Redstalker
Bookmarks