M1916 Stahlhelm is this a Square Dip ?

E

Eric

New member
Hello All,I had all ready posted this in general discussion,but removed it due to bad wording and the thought that this should be the place to post it.I have looked at other post and think that it is a 'square dip' could someone tell me if I'm correct or not.The shell is stamped ET62 it is solid but has surface rust and a few specs of drab green/dark grey paint left on it the edges are solid.What is the best thing to do for the preservation of it ?.Thank you Eric.
19032011085.JPG
19032011087.JPG
19032011086.JPG
19032011088.JPG
19032011090.JPG
 
It does look like a square dip, but larger pictures would be nice. Size 62 square dips for some reason don't have quite as sharp of a visor/neck guard transition, especially when compared to size 66 examples.

Hans
 
Hey Ron,
They were the first production run of the German Stahlhelm, it was found that the stamping process produced stress in the helmet brim that would result in cracking, so the design was changed to make a better helmet. The square dip is very rare because only a few thousand were made, and many were recycled because of damage.
Best
Gus
 
Gus pretty much nailed it. The square dip was the first test helmet which was hurriedly put into production by December 1915. Only Eisenhüttenwerke Thale (E.T. code) was involved in their manufacture.

The first batch was field tested that month by Rohr's Pioniere while the bulk (around 35000 helmets were ordered) would be earmarked for further field testing by selected units during the opening battles at Verdun. Questionnaires were also handed out to these troops asking about comfort, ballistic protection effectiveness and so on. Only after results came in would the steel helmet be officially accepted some time in February 1916.

From a manufacturing perspective, the square dip was a serious design flaw. Not only did stress cracks form in the steel along the steep transition, but this area was also too narrow to allow for easy mass production. These flaws resulted in huge numbers of helmets having to be scrapped.

There's an interesting interview which can be found in Ludwig Baer's book with Dr. Friedrich Schwerd, the main personality behind the creation of the Stahlhelm. He put the blame for this design flaw on Juncker's master armourer (Marx) who designed the very first brass alloy prototype. According to Schwerd, Marx's experience with tombak Kürassier helmets didn't prepare him for the complexities of mass producing high grade steel helmets. He apparently based the design too closely on the medieval "Gothic" helmet (Schallern). Schwerd states only that once the flaw was realized it was immediately altered. It's impossible to say if this alteration happened toward the beginning of manufacturing or near the end of the run.
 
This square dip has an old ink or paint mark at the spot where cracks would appear during the progressive stamping process.
110_0249_edited-1-1-1.jpg


Square dip left, production M16 right. Both are E.T. 62. Your helmet is clearly a square dip when compared to these two.
110_0354_edited-1.jpg
 
Hey Hans,
As usual, we can count on you to give a much better history. I always enjoy the lessons that you give us here.
Thanks
Gus
 
Thank you both; very informative as always!

Although the first "modern" steel helmets were introduced by the French army in early 1915--with their famous Adrian model--shortly followed by the British army later that year and finally the Germans, it is the latter's Stahlhelm that turned out to be the best there was in terms of head protection (since it mainly covered the men's left & right temples which the others didn't). The US Army's Kevlar helmet today is based on the same 96-year old design.
 
Hi All,thank you all for your views.I'm trying to upload larger photos but keep getting thumb nails hopefully will get this sorted after a call for help to a friend.Cheers Eric
 
By the way Eric,
Welcome to the forum, it is always great to have some new contributors.
Best
gus
 
Hi All,finally managed to sort picture sizes hope these are better for you.As you can see the helmet is lacking its paint and has surface rust but is still good and solid,what is the best thing to do for its preservation ?,as this is the 1st helmet I have brought and do not really know what is best.Cheers Eric
24032011091.JPG
24032011092.JPG
24032011093.JPG
24032011094.JPG
24032011096-001.JPG
 
Hey Eric,
I must say you are starting at the top of the pile, while this helmet is not in the best condition, the rarety of the helmet is a much better quality. In my opinion, I would do nothing to this helmet, it has survived this long with out special treatment, and probably has spent some time in adverse conditions. Some people oil them to stop rust, this can damage any remaining paint. If it is kept in a dry environment, the corrosion issue should not be a concern.
Best
gus
 
Hi Gus,
Thank you for your input,I think it shall be left in its present condition it has already had a coating of WD40 on it from the person I brought it off on ebay and only a few traces of paint are left on it.For this as my first stahlhelm I now feel quite honoured as I thought it was a normal M1916 when I decided to buy it,have to see what will turn up next.
Eric
 
RON said:
Although the first "modern" steel helmets were introduced by the French army in early 1915--with their famous Adrian model--shortly followed by the British army later that year and finally the Germans, it is the latter's Stahlhelm that turned out to be the best there was in terms of head protection (since it mainly covered the men's left & right temples which the others didn't). The US Army's Kevlar helmet today is based on the same 96-year old design.
Click to expand...

Hi Ron-
Sorry to rock the boat. But I hate the notion/belief that the French Adrian was the first "modern" steel helmet. It was more accurately the first widespread use steel helmet for infantry. The helmet was based on the French fire helmets, which were based on the cavalry helmets. I'm in the belief that steel helmets never really disappeard from the battlefield. The French, German and other cavalry certainly went to war in 1914 with steel helmets on their heads.

As an international helmet collector I think view is over simplified too, and it gives too much credit to General Adrian. It is like the mythical soup bowl story. There is no proof or evidence that General Adrian was influenced by a soldier wearing a soup bowl. In fact, evidence suggests that it was more likely that the skull caps were used to eat with as they were uncomfortable to wear. Besides, did the French actually serve soup in the trenches? So I really hate the teachings that somehow everyone "forgot" about helmets and it was reinvented. Helmets just weren't practical and WWI changed that.

As for the designs, I don't know if it is fair to state the German as the "best." I think it was based in part on tactics. The Germans were looking for an offensive helmet, whereas the British and French were looking for a helmet to protect from low impact artillery shelling. The German helmet is far heavier and thus probably wasn't comfortable to wear for extended periods.

And sorry, but the US Kelvar helmet is not based on the German helmet design. The US PASGT helmet, introduced in the 1980s is the one you mean and has been replaced by the MICH and other helmets. But the PASGT was not based on the German helmet.

You could argue it was influenced, but the German helmet itself was influenced by various medieval helmets. The PASGT was developed from 1971 to 1975, tested from 1976 to 1978, and then officially introduced in 1982. The design considered numerous factors.

Look back to the Model 5, it was similar in shape to the German helmet, and rejected because of it, but Bashford Dean actually based it on medieval helmets.

In other words, with helmets, everyone old is new again!
 
Peter_Suciu said:
As for the designs, I don't know if it is fair to state the German as the "best." I think it was based in part on tactics. The Germans were looking for an offensive helmet, whereas the British and French were looking for a helmet to protect from low impact artillery shelling. The German helmet is far heavier and thus probably wasn't comfortable to wear for extended periods.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand what is meant by the German helmet being an offensive helmet, especially when you contrast it to the French and British goal of producing a helmet to protect against low impact artillery shelling. Are you referring to it's overall head and neck protection vs the British flared out rim design?

As for it's weight, this seems not to have been an issue at all on the whole once the troops became used to it. The main complaint was impaired hearing due to the low neck guard, hence the M18 ear cut-out.
 
Stahlhelm said:
I'm not sure I understand what is meant by the German helmet being an offensive helmet, especially when you contrast it to the French and British goal of producing a helmet to protect against low impact artillery shelling. Are you referring to it's overall head and neck protection vs the British flared out rim design?

As for it's weight, this seems not to have been an issue at all on the whole once the troops became used to it. The main complaint was impaired hearing due to the low neck guard, hence the M18 ear cut-out.
Click to expand...

My understanding from the various sources (Baer, Tubbs, etc.), is that the Germans were thinking more of bullets than artillery. The British and French were thinking of artillery more than bullets.

I don't know if I ever fully accepted the hearing complaint. I know it is mentioned from time to time, but given the loud sounds of a battlefield I'm not sure if merely cutting out spot for the ears is enough.

I know another theory is that it could have been for communications, such as trench phones. That has always struck me as a reasonable consideration. It isn't as if all the helmets were replaced by this new model.

So it seems it could have been a speciality item, like the later US M3, M4 and other helmets (Naval Talker).
 
Peter_Suciu said:
My understanding from the various sources (Baer, Tubbs, etc.), is that the Germans were thinking more of bullets than artillery. The British and French were thinking of artillery more than bullets.
Click to expand...

It’s interesting that you reached this conclusion, especially after having read Baer. The contemporary accounts in his book show that the German helmet was designed specifically to protect against smaller shrapnel pellets, grenade and shell splinters. Because a bullet-proof helmet would have been impossibly heavy, it was known from the start that protection against smaller fragments was all that the helmet would realistically be capable of withstanding. This was acceptable, as the vast majority of head wounds leading to serious brain injury were found to be caused by small splinters and shell fragments. It was not meant to stop heavy splinters or small arms fire.

It’s true that helmets from each smelting lot # were tested at the in-plant rifle range during production, but this was done with 11mm lead bullets and a 1.5 gram black powder charge. The armoured brow plate was their sole attempt to add some protection against small arms fire.
 
Peter_Suciu said:
I don't know if I ever fully accepted the hearing complaint. I know it is mentioned from time to time, but given the loud sounds of a battlefield I'm not sure if merely cutting out spot for the ears is enough.

I know another theory is that it could have been for communications, such as trench phones. That has always struck me as a reasonable consideration. It isn't as if all the helmets were replaced by this new model.

So it seems it could have been a speciality item, like the later US M3, M4 and other helmets (Naval Talker).
Click to expand...

As for the ear cut-out model, I’ve seen it described as both a telephone-operator and cavalry helmet in various sources. The cavalry designation likely comes from the Reichswehr’s stated intention of earmarking this model for mounted troops. The telephone-operator label may also have post-war connections or could just as easily be speculation. Neither term seems to have any bearing on its WW1 role.

The role that the ear cut-out did play in the last months of the war was that of experimental helmet. It is described as a Versuchshelm in the official account. The war ended before any decision was made as to whether it would replace the regular model helmet. It was introduced alongside the regular M18 in the summer of 1918. The stated goal was an attempt to solve the 3 major drawbacks of the M16: the impractical chinstrap; the strong glare of the helmet in sunshine, moonlight and rain; on-going complaints of impaired hearing due to the low neck guard. This experimental model featured a two-piece chinstrap (as used on the regular M18), a wool dust (flocking) felt finish and a half-moon shaped cut-out on both sides of the neck guard.

The helmet was issued to selected units with a questionnaire asking, in part, if the chinstrap was satisfactory, and whether the experimental wool dust surface reduced glare. Regarding the third point, the questions asked were: did the ear cut-out feature improved the wearer’s hearing, did this feature result in any drawbacks, and would it be recommended that it replace the current model helmet. These questionnaires were to be collected by November 25 1918.

An earlier account of the cut-out is mentioned in Baer’s newest German language edition. It describes what appears to be a series of field tests conducted with the aim of resolving issues ranging from the shock absorbing capabilities of experimental pads to improving the wearer’s hearing. It actually states that a helmet with cut-outs around the ears would be ideal for listening posts, those on watch duty (Feldwachen) and observers, the very duties where most of the complaints of hearing impairment had originated.
One of the ideas tossed around in this account was that these helmets could be used only for these roles, and rotated in these duties while the regular helmet would be used for normal frontline service. It was not deemed necessary for assault troops by the commentator.
The use of a field telephone handset may or may not have been made easier, but that would seem to be incidental, as only the improved hearing of the wearer is discussed. Cut-outs, it was stated, also markedly reduced the whistling caused by wind blowing against the rim of the helmet, while lining that area with felt showed no positive results.
 
Stahlhelm said:
Peter_Suciu said:
An earlier account of the cut-out is mentioned in Baer’s newest German language edition. It describes what appears to be a series of field tests conducted with the aim of resolving issues ranging from the shock absorbing capabilities of experimental pads to improving the wearer’s hearing. It actually states that a helmet with cut-outs around the ears would be ideal for listening posts, those on watch duty (Feldwachen) and observers, the very duties where most of the complaints of hearing impairment had originated.
One of the ideas tossed around in this account was that these helmets could be used only for these roles, and rotated in these duties while the regular helmet would be used for normal frontline service. It was not deemed necessary for assault troops by the commentator.
The use of a field telephone handset may or may not have been made easier, but that would seem to be incidental, as only the improved hearing of the wearer is discussed. Cut-outs, it was stated, also markedly reduced the whistling caused by wind blowing against the rim of the helmet, while lining that area with felt showed no positive results.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I do recall reading some of that in Baer's books. And many of the issues I believe were addressed when the M35 was designed.

But back to my original point, I don't believe the designers of the PASGT actually looked at the M16 or M35 but came to similar conclusions.

BTW... have you seen Baer's latest book? I haven't been able to find a copy. It is confusing Vol. 4 on Austrian helmets, to complete the five book series since he already had published Vol. 5. I know it is for sale in Germany, but I didn't obtain a copy yet.
 
Yeah, I'm hoping to get the Austrian volume soon. I've read at least two great commentaries on it. I'm also not quite sure how many volumes are in that set - I only bought the first two when they came out in the 90s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top