The M1 Helmet in Normandy: A Case Study
Date Written: Winter 2009
Author: Chris Guska - 90th IDPG
Research Assistance: Charles McFarlane - 90th LHG, www.90thlhg.tk
or
Conclusions:
1.) The majority (but not all) of US Ground Forces in Normandy wore the chinstrap of their helmet fastened on the rear of the shell. Troops who wore their chinstrap on their chin were squarely in the minority.
Based on the photos 48%, or almost every other Dogface wore their chinstrap up on the back of their helmet during Normandy.
This is significant in that not ALL troops did this, but roughly half did so, with the remainder wearing theirs in some other way. Even if all of the 25% of troops who’s helmet wasn’t observable were wearing their chinstraps up and back – that would only put the number of troops up to 3 out of 4 doing so.
If the trends continued across all observed means of wearing the chinstrap, 2 out of 3 soldiers would have their straps up and back, while the other guy would have an equal chance of having his straps down, up in the net, or buckled under his chin.
The numbers observed in the photo study closely reflect the results of a September 1944 Roper Center survey in which 402 White and African American enlisted men were questioned. The results of the survey were published in various publications during the late 1940's and found to be statistically significant and representative.
The survey in its entirety can be found at:
Roper Center Opinion Survey
The question of “How often do you use your helmet chinstrap” was asked and the results were as follows:
Based on the survey, approximately 4% “almost always” used their chinstrap, with another 4% “usually” using their chinstrap with the remaining 92% almost never using it, not using it very often, or did not respond to the survey. The 2% difference between the “almost always” and “usually” summation falls within a reasonable margin of error based on the sample size of the photo study and variation in unit representation. This is simply yet another primary source indicating trends in usage or lack thereof.
As far as regulations or any General Order advising or disadvising the use of chinstraps outside of unit specific directives has been elusive. On the date of writing of this article, I have only been able to find veterans testimonials regarding chinstraps and no instances of documented orders advising use or disuse.
The disuse of the chinstraps may have been rooted in fear perpetuated by GI lore
“A new replacement suffered a broken neck. He had fastened his helmet strap under his shin, and the force of onrushing air of a near-by explosion created a terrific jerk on his helmet. If he had let the strap hang or had fastened his helmet [strap], and when I came across any doubtful case I showed him mine” (Irgang)
Finally, on the issue of helmets without chinstraps at all, this may have occurred in isolated instances more often than we think, whether it is by damage, defect or deliberate GI removal.
“The strap on my helmet had been cut off completely, and the steel was dented in a few places to keep it from falling of the plastic liner beneath it…” (Irgang)
If the photo study numbers were hard and fast rules (which they aren’t – just a starting point for proportions and discussion):
Looking at a squad of 12 guys in a reenactment unit – going by the numbers:
• 9 of the 12 would have their chinstraps behind the back of the helmet
• 1 of the 12 would have their chinstrap buckled under their chin
• 1 of the 12 would have their chinstrap up in their helmet net
• 1 of the 12 would have their chinstrap dangling down freely
Out of an over strength rifle platoon of 50 of men – going by the numbers
• 1 of the 50 would be missing chinstraps entirely missing
• 1 or 2 of the 50 would have their chinstrap tucked between their helmet and liner
• 36 of the 50 would have their chinstraps behind the back of the helmet
• 4 of the 50 would have their chinstrap buckled under their chin
• 3 or 4 of the 50 would have their chinstrap up in their helmet net
• 4 of the 50 would have their chinstrap dangling down freely
This is just a theoretical guide, something to think about and discuss with your unit. What it does provide is a statistical basis to encourage variation in the way that chinstraps are worn. It’d be really hard to justify and document 25 of 25 guys in a reenactment unit all wearing their chinstraps up in their helmet net, or all sandwiched between the helmet and liner. This is there to show that these variations are historically evident in statistically significant numbers, such that they should be represented within the average reenactment unit as “common”.
2.) Helmet nets were heavily issued for the Normandy Campaign. Two thirds of helmets observed had helmet nets.
Helmet nets are pervasive throughout the photo set studied. Only 1 out of 3 helmets observed did not have some type of helmet netting applied.
Most commonly observed was the “Medium” size (¾” inch), which comprised 57% of the total helmets with nets on them. This is the type most commonly used and sought after by reenactors currently
Second most common was the “Small” size (¼” inch) netting which comprised 39% of the total helmets with nets on them. I was surprised to see such a large number of these “Small” type nets in use as I had previously believed that they were not heavily issued until late 1944 or early 1945.
I believe that certain units received batches of helmet nets, with squads and platoons usually (but not always) having the same type as evidenced through the photos. This explains why the large 2 inch nets appear only in photos of a specific unit, the 79th division and no others from the photo set.
If you were to throw a stone in Normandy, chances are you would have hit a helmet with a net on it. More likely than not it would have been the stereotypical ¾” medium sized net. For the sake of variation, I would highly encourage reenactors to seek out unit specific documentation to prove the use of the small type net in their unit and utilize that net as it is under-represented within the reenactor community.
3.) Only one out of four soldiers were observed to have worn their helmet liner chinstrap over the brim of their steel helmet.
Out of the 247 photos, only 71 of them verifiably showed the helmet liner chinstrap being worn over the brim of the steel helmet. This translates to only 2 out of 7 soldiers where this was apparent or 28.74%.
Of the remaining 71.26% that didn’t verifiably have their helmet liner chinstrap, 29 or 11.74% of the total clearly had their liner chinstrap sandwiched between the steel helmet shell and the brim of the helmet liner.
That leaves us with 59.51% of the troops, who it wasn’t clear if they had a helmet liner chinstrap or if it was under the brim of their steel pot and we simply couldn’t see it and verify it.
If we simply extrapolate the verified numbers of helmet liner chinstraps worn over, or under, assuming that all soldiers actually had a helmet liner chinstrap it would come out to be:
• 71% or 7 out of 10 soldiers would be wearing their helmet liner chinstrap over the brim of their steel helmet.
• 29% or 3 out of 10 soldiers would be wearing their helmet liner chinstrap under the brim of their steel helmet.
It would be erroneous to assume that ALL soldiers had helmet liner chinstraps, or were wearing them in a visible way, so I would venture to hypothesize that the number of soldiers wearing their helmet liner chinstrap over the brim of their helmet would be significantly lower, more along the lines of:
• 4 or 5 of 10 soldiers wearing their helmet liner chinstrap over the brim of their steel helmet.
• 2 or 3 of 10 soldiers wearing their helmet liner chinstrap under the brim of their steel helmet.
• 2 to 4 soldiers of the 10 would be without a helmet liner chinstrap entirely due to breakage or loss, or wearing their helmet liner chinstrap in an entirely different way not evidenced by the photographs
GI ingenuity never ceases to amaze me with the ways that uniforms and equipment were modified and used in creative ways to better suit their user. In this case a GI has utilized the leather chinstrap in a novel way that would be invisible to our photo study but worth serious mention as it directly touches upon the issue of “non visible” helmet liner chinstrap use.
“The strap on my helmet had been cut off completely, and the steel was dented in a few places to keep it from falling of the plastic liner beneath it. I had adjusted the leather strap of the liner so that it fit just beneath the knowledge bump on the back of my head. This kept it from falling off when I had to hit the ground fast.” (Irgang)
4.) “Hawley” type fibre liners show up in statistically significant numbers.
Based on the photo and the resulting ratios, in an over strength rifle platoon of 45 men, 2 of the 45 would have fibre type liners.
Some units may have had greater numbers of fibre type liners than others because of the date that they were activated, equipped, moved to England and re supplied prior to the invasion. Individual unit specific research should be applied to achieve further granularity in quantities issued and the ratios within the target unit.
I am fully comfortable with the proportion of 2 per 45 utilizing a fibre type liner in reenactment use for Normandy operations. I suspect that the ratio of fibre type liners may be higher overall than observed, due to the difficulty in clearly observing helmet liner details from the photos.
With over 4 million of these liners produced before the end of 1942, there were certainly a large number in circulation, especially with those divisions raised in 1942 or regular army divisions re-equipped in early 1943 prior to their departure to England.
Before anyone screams and panics that I am espousing that “reenactors should use original Hawley liners”, I should mention that there are some fantastic conversions on the market that closely replicate the look and feel of original Hawleys while providing the durability of a later type liner.
5.) Scrim appears on a minority of helmets and is most likely associated with certain units.
Based on the photos, 9% of the total helmets observed had scrim on them. The scrim was pretty evenly mixed between very light scrim, consisting of two to three pieces in the helmet net and heavy scrim of multiple pieces of multiple colors in clumps large enough to break up the shape of the helmet.
If we limit our analysis to only those helmets with nets (165 of 247), the percentage of the helmets with nets and scrim would be 12.12%, or roughly 1 in 8.
I strongly suspect that the application of scrim was unit specific, with some units, such as elements the 29th Division heavily utilizing scrim, while others had very few or no use of scrim.
The usage of scrim and foliage in direct combat use cannot be answered by this study. Prior to applying scrim to your reenactment helmet, I highly recommend seeking out unit specific research to answer the question if scrim was used; if so how much scrim.
The photos can serve as illustrative examples of the variety of methods of scrim application and a reminder to us to not go overboard and make our helmets look to be part of a modern ghillie suit.
Summary:
Once again we have chosen a photo study on Normandy, as WWII ETO reenacting is extremely Normandy centric. It proved to be an interesting process once again, revealing some trends that may change how helmets are worn and the components used.
This study certainly does not replace unit specific research, but strongly indicates some general trends:
1.) Helmet liner chinstraps were not worn over the brim of the helmet or worn at all in the majority of instances. Your M1 helmet is just as complete and accurate without the liner chinstrap as it is with it. Just because you have a liner chinstrap doesn’t mean that you have to wear it over the brim of your helmet.
2.) A significant number of soldiers did not wear the web chinstrap fastened on the nape of the helmet shell. It’s OK to have some variation in your unit.
3.) Finally, ¼” helmet nets and helmet nets in general are under utilized for Normandy impressions. ¾”and ¼” inch were most common, leave the 2” nets for 79th ID impressions or other documented unit specific impressions.
4.) Hawley type helmet liners are correct for limited use in Normandy. It would be appropriate to have one guy in every other squad with one. Once again, the presence of Hawleys may fluctuate based on unit specifics as to when the division was raised, equipped, moved to England and re-equipped. Certain divisions may have had higher ratios than others.
5.) Scrim & Foliage happened – but limit it to documented unit specific occurrences. If you cant document that your unit specifically did this, shy away from it.
Source Photographs used in the Study
Sources:
"Photos Normandie http://www.flickr.com/people/photosnormandie/." Photos Normandie. 2004. Conseil Régional de Basse-Normandie. January. 2009 <http://www.archivesnormandie39-45.org/>.
Roper Center Opinion Survey: The American Soldier in World War II: Equipment and Supplies, September 1944, ETO - Form B
Irgang J. Frank Etched in Purple: One Soldier's War in Europe
Potomac Books 2008 (Originally published in 1949 by The Caxton Printers)
