Tanker Helmet/Cap Questions?

macvsog · Post by **macvsog** » Thu Aug 10, 2006 9:03 pm

Regarding U.S. Tanker helmets/caps...

First: What is the proper name for these helmets/caps?

Second: How often did tankers not wear these helmets/caps when in the tank? When in combat? Did they always wear them, or did people often not? I know this question may not be able to be answered.

Third: Were these only worn by U.S. Tank crews? Were they worn by any other crews in other vehicles? I am unfamiliar with the crew of a vehicle like the M3 halftrack... would this crew wear this? Any other vehicle? If so, what vehicles?

Thanks,

mike

chunks · Post by **chunks** » Thu Aug 10, 2006 9:13 pm

Well I can give you some idea for the Viet Nam era, it may well apply for post WWII also if not even then. The helmet was called a CVC for Crewed Vehicle Communications. It was only worn when actually in the tank or when working outside it for a short time. It was very uncomfortable. The standard "steel pot" was also issued for extended periods away from the AFV. Think about how anyone would wear something they don't actually want too, and the result would be only when required or when you think it's a VERY good idea.

Regards

chunks · Post by **chunks** » Thu Aug 10, 2006 9:16 pm

Just read my response and thought I should add that the CVC was for the vehicle crew only, IE passangers (also known as grunts) whose main mission was not operating the vehicle would not be wearing them, they'd have thier normal combat helmet.

macvsog · Post by **macvsog** » Thu Aug 10, 2006 9:41 pm

Yeah, I assumed only the crew would wear them.

I'm really wondering about WWII specifically.

But perhaps your response applies in the same way.

Anyone know on that?

mike

krieglok · Post by **krieglok** » Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:13 am

As with almost all US G.I.s, tankers were issued steel helmets. As tankers, they were also issued "leather tank helmets" for use on board. Usually, only tankers wore the leather helmets. The idea of them was that when inside a moving tank, you needed a "crash or bump" helmet since you were usualy moving around inside and the vehicle was moving and tossing you around to some degree. The leather helmets didn`t offer any ballistic protection though.

There was also a insulated leather helmet that almost looked like a flyer`s helmet. I have a 21st Century 1:32 figure with one of these helmets. It came with the Stuart or M41.

Tankers, in most photo documentation I have seen, kept these helmets on even outside the tank. To switch helmets was probably not worth the effort. You have to consider that their intra-tank communications were also contained in these helmets. I have seen these helmets worn by self propelled tank destroyer crews but not by halftrack guys on any great scale. You will find photos of early training and North Africa action where some halftrack guys are wearing a similar helmet, but not later in the war. Even the M7 type vehicle crewmen(SP Artillery units) seemed not to have them as they were considered artillery, not armor.

Later in the war, you will see more tankers wearing steel pots in the tank. It may have to do with their tactics of being on the offensive. They were unbuttoned more often, so they were considering more protection. I believe there were intercom headsets being issued later in the war, that were designed to be used with steel pots, so they ended up having some choice as to which headwear to use. As with most questions about equipment and usage, if you can find evidence that it was so, it would be correct. Some early half track guys used the tanker`s type leather helmets, but that would have been pre-war or very early action. They were not prevalent in other-than-tank vehicles later on in the war.

If you are particularly interested in this topic, there is a book called "Weapons of the Tankers" by Mr. Harry Yeide. I bought it off Amazon. It cover many subject about the birth of US armor and it`s development through out the war. Many good photos to work with. Hope this helps.

TJ

Threetoughtrucks · Post by **Threetoughtrucks** » Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:41 am

As Krieglok says, the WW2 helmet was for tank interior head protection. Steel pots were worn in the tank usually by the commander, who usually had his head out of the tank. The pots were for protection against shrapnel, they knew the steel pot would not stop a sniper's bullet. It would only help in a glancing hit.

Steel pots were not worn inside the tanks. It would be another very hard object to hit other crewmewn's head against.

The tankers leather hekmet was basically a football helmet. Early football helmets were leather.

Early half-track crews used the "tanker helmet" for the driver and commander (front seat guys) usually only when the half-track was equiped with the "skate" rail running around the open section on which machine guns slid around as needed. These skate rails extented over the front doors and were very easy to smash against your head getting in or out, or driving over rough terrain. Pics of those tracks will show varius material wrapped around the skate rail, again to protect your head. As the war progressed, the "skate rails" were eliminated, As were the "tankers' helmets on half-tracks.

As was usual, individual tastes dictated what was worn, some guys wore what they wanted..

TTT

macvsog · Post by **macvsog** » Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:42 am

Hey thanks, that was exactly what I was wondering.

I think I'll try and check on that book. It's not my main field of interest, but good pictures are good pictures all the same.

Thanks,

mike

macvsog · Post by **macvsog** » Fri Aug 11, 2006 10:40 am

Oh, one more semi-related question:

How often would a Sherman crew weld metal plates to their tank? Did they do this at all? I can't seem to find any pictures of this, obviously other soldiers do it today in Iraq, but in WWII did they ever add extra armor in this manor?

Thanks,

mike

krieglok · Post by **krieglok** » Fri Aug 11, 2006 11:48 am

There is probably a more qualified answer to this, but added armor plate on Shermans (on the sides of the lower hull) were added by the factories or added by rear echelon maintenence forces as opposed to being field expedients (a fancy word for making alterations to your tank in the field) such as sandbags, track and concrete which were often added by the crews themselves.

One thing to consider is that despite the appearance, the army is structured in a way that added armor(or other field mods) is applied by TM order and subject to inspection. If they do something that is not regulation, it may have to be removed-but not always. Most welding tools are in the hands of maintenance units and not readily available to regular combat units...Hope this helps too.

TJ

PS, TTT, thanks for the football helmet/tanker helmet analogy. It was right on...

grockwood · Post by **grockwood** » Fri Aug 11, 2006 7:35 pm

As was stated most additions to vehicles had to be approved. One officer who forbid some additions was Gen. Patton himself. He didn't want his tankers to place sandbags on their vehicles. Don't know if it was because he felt it made them look to rag tag, or was a morale issue.

Threetoughtrucks · Post by **Threetoughtrucks** » Fri Aug 11, 2006 8:56 pm

Patton's idea of good soldier, even in combat was clean and sharp. He ordered all but those in direct combat to wear ties and shined boots.
It's odd, that he also felt that way about vehicles in this units. That applied to all vehicles but his personal vehicles. For his use, he had a Jeep, a Command Car, a White Scout Car and a White Half-track.

All his vehicles were customized by him personally. His Jeep had curved fenders and air horns. His Command Car had air horns, the rear luggage rack, an armored radiator cover and the fender mounted .50 cal. His Scout Car had an armored roof, etc.,etc.

There is at least one pic of a Stuart (not in Patton's units) that had so many sandbags on it, you find it hard to identify it as a Stuart. Quite a few vehicles adapted anything that was handy as additional protection.

TTT