I was wondering if anyone new what type of helmet this is, i thought it was a British WWII helmet but i was told it is either a British MK1 helmet or a US1917 helmet. There is a stamp inside the helmet it has faded and the only thing i could get from it is RUMLN and on the rim inside the helmet there is VB64LN engraved on it. I would also like to know how much it would be worth.
Calling to every helmets experts in here.
It looks like a WWI united states helmet. I could see why LukeJD mistaked for a ww2 british helmet. Very similar to each other.
I had one of those. Perhaps the design is the same for both British and American. The liner is defferent to the one portrayed in the photo of the US soldier posing on one of the other threads.
yes, but that soldier who is wearing the helmet is wearing a helmet that came out of service around when Pearl Harbor was bombed. After Pearl Harbor the very american popular helmet was the M1 helmet. British forces however remained to use the helmet from World War 1. Here is a picture so you can compare the two helmets.
Seen how the British helmet is like the World War 1 allied helmet.
I hear once that the British bought those helmets from the Americans. But I don’t really know.
They used those helmets at Wake Island, too.
The initial British WW2 helmet was identical to the Brodie helmet used in the trenches by the UK/Dominions and the US. Around 1944 the “turtle” helmet came out (a substantially deeper pressing which protected more of the head) and this remained in service until the current Kevlar helmet came in.
Okay. Here’s how I see it. The British adopted the use of the steel helmet due to the amount of casualties they were receiving from shrapnel wounds, once the stalemate of the ‘trenches’ set in during WW1. They opted for the shallow, skirted helmet for two reasons: 1. – it fitted historically with medieval helmets, and therefore they already had a model for it; 2, – its shallow shape enabled the Tommies to remain cooler than a deeper helmet would have.
The Americans had a relatively small standing army as they entered the war (WW1) but that would become huge once mobilisation got under way. With all of the arms, uniforms, etc. that America would have to provide it was easier to adopt the British pattern helmet. As the war ended shortly after American involvement in the European theatre, there was no reason to develop a replacement. Therefore, when America became involved in WW2 they still had the old British pattern helmet. However, it not being the best for clambering up and down netting to board landing craft etc. in the Pacific Theatre of operations, a new helmet was designed.
The British opted to stay with the skirted helmet during WW2 as its lower profile was better suited for camouflage and concealment in the European Theatre and it was cooler than a deeper helmet would have been in the Western Desert. They also happened to have many of them.
Incidentally, this chap in the picture looks awfully like the one at the top in the header at the top of this page!
I’m afraid that’s pretty much all rubbish. By and large a warmer helmet would have been useful on the Western Front due to the weather, and the French Adrian helmet immediately preceded it and provided a far more apt model.
The reason for the shape is purely and simply a manufacturing one - it can be pressed out in a single operation from quite high grade steel with ease. This makes it very strong - by far the strongest helmet used in WW1 - and very cheap to manufacture. Given the situation they faced in 1915 - and the fact that they were dug in so the overwhelming majority of wounds were from above - it was pretty much the ideal design.
not all rubbish then?
No, if only because I suspect some of the medieval helmets were designed in exactly the same way for exactly the same reason - except for use with hammers rather than relatively modern press tooling.
Not just hammers.
I could argue the point about over-heating, but what the heck, it’s Friday.
The development and field usage of helmets and body armor in warfare before World War II has been adequately documented by a number of excellent books and reports. Most of these references have been utilized in the preparation of this chapter, and in many instances they have provided the sole source of available material.
HELMET DEVELOPMENT
During modern times, the helmet has had a rapid rise in general troop acceptability with remarkably little variation in design. The first protection provided for the head in World War I came about in a purely fortuitous manner. General Adrian of the French Army noted that a soldier who had received a head wound due to a rifle bullet explained his escape from death on the fact that he had carried his metal food bowl under his cloth cap. Therefore, following initial experiments in 1914, steel cap liners (“casque Adrian”) were issued to French troops in 1915 and led to the characteristic World War I French helmet in 1916. Many of the other countries soon realized the value of a helmet. The British adopted their own design in 1915; the Germans, in 1915; and the Belgians and Italians, in 1916.
Following the decision in 1917 to equip the American Expeditionary Forces with a helmet, 400,000 helmets were initially procured through the British Quartermaster’s Department. Subsequently, the same type of helmet was manufactured in the United States under the direction of the Ordnance Department, and approximately 2.7 million helmets, M1917, were produced by Armistice day, 1918. The American helmet was a slightly modified version of the British MkI helmet. The helmet was made of 13 percent pressed manganese steel alloy, 0.035 inch thick, and could be ruptured only by a blow of 1,600 pounds or more. The British helmet had twice the ballistic strength of the French helmet. The helmets of British design produced in the United States had an overall ballistic strength 10 percent greater than that of the original British helmet. The ballistics specifications of the M1917 helmet required it to resist penetration by a 230-grain caliber .45 bullet with a velocity of 600 f.p.s. Numerous experimental models were developed to provide (1) additional protective coverage; (2) improved ballistic properties; (3) adaptability for special functions, such as machinegunner, tank operator, aviator, and so forth; (4) a more adequate suspension lining; and (5) a distinctive patriotic design. Because of the large numbers of helmets of the M1917 design which were produced in the United States, none of the experimental models developed by the U.S. Army Ordnance Department received adoption before the end of World War I.
In the interval between World Wars I and II, the United States continued its research and development program on helmets in an attempt to increase the area coverage, to improve the protection ballistics limit (V50 or that velocity level at which there is 50 percent probability of a complete penetration of the test ballistic material by the projectile), and to facilitate troop acceptance by modification of the suspension system. Changes designed to improve the first two factors required careful consideration in order to be compatible with the weight and comfort limitation imposed by other testing technical services. Concurrent with the changes in weapon design were the demands for modification in the helmet specifications. With the advent of new weapons in the hands of belligerent countries, countermeasures can follow several patterns, such as increasing firepower to overcome the advantages of the new weapon, developing specific antitype weapons, or producing interim personnel protective devices.
Between 1918 and 1934, interest and progress in helmet development were maintained by the Ordnance Department and the Infantry Board. Following a series of experimental models (the model 5A was of pot-shaped design and received extensive testing before it was discontinued in 1932) and tests, it was recommended in 1934 that the M1917 helmet with a modified lining of a hair-filled pad be standardized as Helmet, M1917A1 (fig. 304). The final end item with an adjustable headpad weighed 2 pounds and 6 ounces.
A lull in helmet development occurred in the period from 1934 to 1940 when the first draft call was issued. With the resurge of military life and expenditures, new overtures were made to American industrial firms and to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York in an attempt to improve the protective coverage and ballistic limit of the M1917A1 and to take advantage of recent advances in steel alloy manufacture, liner materials, and mass production methods. In addition, a two-piece helmet was considered desirable to meet the increasing variety and complexity of tactical and climatic conditions.
The following quotation from one of the reports of the Infantry Board reveals the natural evolution of the new helmet from the original M1917 design:
The ideal shaped helmet is one with a dome-shaped top following the full contour of the head and supplying uniform headroom for indentation, extending down the front to cover the forehead without impairing vision and down the sides as far as possible to be compatible with the rifle, etc., and down the back as far as possible without pushing the helmet forward when in a prone position, and with a frontal plate flanged forward as a cap-style visor and the sides and rear flanged outward to deflect rain from the collar opening.
Therefore, the M1917 model was considered suitable for protecting the top of the head and by removing its brim, by adding sidepieces and rearpieces, and by incorporating the suspension system into a separate inner liner, the World War II Army helmet came into being.3 The original test item was known as the TS3, and it received a favorable report from the Infantry Board in February 1941.
The Army M1 helmet (fig. 305) was standardized on 30 April 1941 and was approved on 9 June 1941. It was of two-piece design with an outer Hadfield steel shell and a separate inner liner containing the suspension system. The complete item weighed approximately 3 pounds, with the outer shell accounting for approximately 2.3 pounds and the inner liner, 0.7 pound.
Ballistic protection was afforded only by the Hadfield manganese steel outer shell with the plastic-impregnated fabric liner serving as a light-weight headpiece outside of the frontline area and facilitating the attachment of the suspension system. Various utilitarian functions were also ascribed to the outer steel shell. The ballistics properties of the outer shell had been improved so that it would resist penetration by a 230-grain caliber .45 bullet with a velocity of 800 f.p.s. The Riddell type of suspension (fig. 305C) used in football helmets was modified for the inner liner. The principle of the original Riddell suspension did not contain an adjustable headband, and this feature was developed for the helmet liner. The M1 helmet was a marked improvement over former models (fig. 306) since it furnished increased coverage (fig. 307) over the sides and back of the head and provided a more comfortable fit with the partial elimination of the “rocking” tendency of the older helmets. Following adoption of the M1 helmet, the Ordnance Department retained development and procurement of the outer steel shell and the Quartermaster Department made development and production progress of the inner liner and suspension system.
During the course of the North African campaigns in 1943, the rigid hook fastener of the chinstrap was found to be a source of potential danger by remaining intact under the impact of a blast wave resulting from a nearby detonation and thereby jerking the head sharply and violently with the production of fractures or dislocations of the cervical vertebras. Therefore, it was necessary to redesign the helmet strap with a ball-and-clevis release so that it would remain closed during normal combat activities but would allow for. a quick voluntary release or automatic release at pressures considerably below the accepted level of danger. Following extensive tests by ordnance engineers, a new release device was developed which would release at a pull of 15 pounds or more. This device (fig. 308) was standardized in 1944
The M1 helmet was the standard item of issue to ground troops, Army and Marine, during World War II and the Korean War. Before the standardization of the M1 helmet, 904,020 M1917A1 helmet bodies were manufactured from January to August 1941. During the period from August 1941 to August 1945, 22,363,015 M1 helmets were produced. Troop acceptability was fairly high, but a common complaint, was the lack of stability of the helmet. This problem had its origin, in good part, from the type of ballistic test in practice at the time the helmet was being developed. The caliber .45 pistol ball was the major test weapon, and this type of projectile with its soft lead core and thin gliding-metal jacket will deform easily against the Hadfield steel. When the helmet causes the defeat of this missile at service-weapon velocities, it will be deeply indented, and it was deemed necessary to allow a 1-inch offset between the helmet and the head. However, battle casualty survey studies during World Wars I and II and the Korean War have shown that the primary wounding agent among the WIA and the KIA casualties was the fragmentation-type weapon. The World War II experiences are universal except for the surveys of some of the Pacific island campaigns where small arms missiles accounted for a greater proportion of casualties. After World War II, fragment simulators in a range of 5 calibers were widely used in ballistics evaluation tests of prospective ballistic materials for helmets and body armor. The advisability or necessity of the present 1-inch helmet offset requires a thorough investigation and evaluation in the development of any new helmet.
A suitable offset will always be necessary to counteract the denting of a metallic helmet or the transient deformation of a nonmetallic helmet, but the prime objective of any protective military headgear is to prevent the entrance of missiles into the cranial cavity. This entrance might be prevented over a wider range of missile weights and velocities by modification of the present offset concept in helmet design. The missile defeat might result in skull fractures in a number of casualties, but the skull fracture type of injury is amenable to successful treatment by the neurosurgeon.
Despite the widespread use of the M1 helmet by all the U.S. fighting forces during World War II, no definite survey was ever conducted to obtain an accurate evaluation of the value of the helmet. Numerous investigators in various surveys and separate publications in medical journals allude to the undoubted value of the Ml helmet in preventing a. considerable number of deaths and nonfatal wounds in ground troops. However, because of the marked variability of collection methods and evaluation techniques of the investigators, it is most difficult to derive an accurate correlation based on sound statistical methods.
Some aspects of the value of the M1 helmet are discussed by Beebe and DeBakey in their book on battle casualties.4 More recently, Norman Hitchman5 of the Army’s Operations Research Office reviewed some of the World War II casualty statistics and reached some important and timely conclusions regarding the value of wearing a helmet in combat. The following observations resulted from this statistical analysis:
Of all hits upon the helmet, 54 percent were defeated.
For every 100 men wounded while wearing helmets, 9.6 men received wounds in the cranium. Without the helmet, it would be expected that 11.4 men would be wounded in the head.
The M1 helmet prevented a number of incapacitating hits equal to 10 percent of the total hits on the body.
The estimated savings in total battle casualties means that the helmet in World War II probably prevented wounds in more than 70,000 men. A significant proportion of these men would have been killed had the helmet not been worn.
To get the same amount of saving by protecting other regions, body armor weighing more than twice as much as the helmet would have to be provided.
The numerous casualty surveys conducted during the Korean War provide more accurate anatomic localization of wounds in the head region covered by the helmet as related to the total head, face, and neck region, but again it was not always possible accurately to determine whether the man was wearing a helmet at the time of wounding. One survey was conducted by Capt. George B. Coe, Cm1C, in an attempt to determine more accurately the relationship between incidence of head wounds and the wearing of the helmet. One interesting observation was related where men wearing the helmet would assume a prone position to escape missiles from a mortar or an artillery shell and upon striking the ground the helmet would be released from the head and they would sustain a head wound from a second group of shells detonating in the same area.
Accurate information regarding the exact value of the helmet as a protective device is of vital importance in the training and indoctrination of troops. If it can be graphically shown that the helmet is a main line of defense against the greater proportion of projectiles commonly encountered on the battlefield, troop acceptability might be higher. Against the cast iron fragmentation projectiles which were commonly used by the North Korean and Chinese Communist Armies during the Korean War, the M1 helmet probably gave a better performance than with the steel fragments which predominated during the World War II fighting. The relatively soft and brittle character of the cast iron fragments would lend itself to low hardness and toughness and to greater ease of refragmentation and defeat upon impact against the helmet. The U.S. high explosive shell fragment has an average Rockwell “C” hardness of 29-31 and the Soviet cast iron shell fragment has a hardness of 8-14.
Research programs following the Korean War have been directed toward an increase in both the ballistic protection limit and the troop acceptability under varied combat conditions. A multiplicity of factors must be reconciled and coordinated in order efficiently to effect significant changes in either of these properties. World War II investigations proved the efficacy of nonmetallic ballistic materials (nylon and doron) alone or in conjunction with metallic outer shells, but satisfactory field tests were not completed before the termination of hostilities in Korea. With the recent success of these plastics in the body armor developed for ground forces during the Korean fighting, increased emphasis has been given to all forms of research bearing upon helmet development and design.
Notwithstanding the respectable performance of the M1 helmet during World War II and the Korean War, continued improvement should be actively supported. The doldrums of peacetime can prove very lethal to worthwhile and unspectacular research programs directed toward the development of items of equipment where the present standard items might appear acceptable. Any new helmet, regardless of its V50 superiority, will have to pass the ultimate test of combat troop acceptance, and this is primarily dependent upon the fit and stability of the helmet. The frontline combatant must be indoctrinated and impressed with the protective integrity and necessity of the helmet and equally with the ease and comfort with which it can be worn. Therefore, this is one field of military design where correct tailoring should be obtained commensurate with the imposed limits of the protective ballistic materials. Certain testing procedures on newer experimental helmets would appear to have been excessively delayed, and active aggressive interest in the problem has frequently dropped to a very low level.
Yes, I imagine hammers were used in the making of the medieval helmets - stands to reason.
The reasons for a skirted helmet were pretty much the same except it wasn’t shrapnel that was falling on them: Arrows, crossbow bolts and all of the paraphernalia which is dumped on troops storming a fortress or redoubt. But… I digress!
That is a Dutch civil defense helmet made by Verblifa(Vereenigde Blikfabrieken). The 64 is the date of manufacture. The LN is probably a batch code. I have one dated 1956. I have been hard pressed to sell it for $10 Canadian so it is now a permanent part of my helmet collection. In the past few years there has been a large number of these hitting the market being passed off as Mk.II’s or M1917A1’s. One indicator is the lack of chinstrap lug rivets that are seen on the previously mentioned helmets…these helmets have spot-welded lugs. Also the red colored fiber liner supports and prong-type chinstrap clip is a dead giveaway. Most will have a circular stamp somewhere inside the shell, i’m thinking that this is some kind of approval stamp for the Dutch Govt. or something to that effect.
have you got more pictures of this helmet
Well we can say what it isn’t. It is not a U.S. Model 1917 or the Kelly transitional Model 1917A1,(the Bataan early WWII helmet). It has a metric size marking 56? It is not a standard British Brodie from either WWI or II, this is due to it’s tack-welded bails and chin strap. What it might be is a Canadian or Australian modified for WWII, possibly even made in America for the Commonwealth and Dominion forces during WWII. I’m thinking Naval forces due to color. It could even be post WWII Danish, (the chinstrap connectors suggest this possiblity), given en-masse to Denmark by Britain AFTER the war, and modified by the Danes.
