Yes you are right Mike. The second number (52) means it was change an other time. I have also seen an other Ssh-40 helmet with 3 refurbished numbers. 
Originally posted by Wesley's Dad
-
-
Hello All,
I also question if the refurb date stamped in the star is correct theory.
Several of my helmets exibit the number in the star with three digits. 513 being one number, if I recall correctly.
I think the number may be an inspector's ID number.
Just some of my thoughts.
Best regards.
JimComment
-
Ok, I shall get my collection of Soviet helmets out tonight and post you the results from any of these marks seen on them.
I encourage you all to do this too and then we can try and prove/disprove a theory.
You could well be right Jim!Comment
-
Right here you go, from 3 of my helmets I had to hand here, the stamp like the one in post 12 reveals:
SSh40, 1958 dated has "546"
SSh60 1971 dated has "13"
SSh68 19?? dated has "16"
Sounds like some sort of either quality control number or a subunit of a factory no?Comment
-
I agree!
Won't be home until Sunday night. I will look at my Soviet lids and post what I find. I think it will be in line with your findings.
Best regards.
JimComment
-
Interesting, but careful
This may well be true, but for this to be more conclusive we need some examples of wartime or early postwar produced shells with either three digit numbers or two digits that are not rational for refurb dates like the "13" and "16" here. The oldest helmet shown here is 1958. Surely by then significant new helmet manufacture had started for some time. Therefore the protocol for this stamp might have changed. It could be a refurb date for helmets and componets that survived the war, but something different later on. I think Koslov's helmets really serve to broaden the question more than answer it.Originally posted by Kozlov
All of my helmets that have the star stamps all have dates that are logical for a postwar refurb, inventory or something date. That is all two digits and larger than 45. Still the out of sequence date on the postwar helmet I show in this thread is peculiar. Interesting thread I agree... Lets see what else pops up as folks read this stuff.
MikeComment
-
Oh not conclusive by any means Michael! We need much more data than the stuff I supplied!
Hopefully though people will read this and add their info to it.
I have a couple more to look at over the weekend.
AndyComment
-
OK. I still say it's not a refurb date in the star stamp.
I just went through my WWII Soviet lids. Here's what I found;
Ssh 36 No stamps at all.
Ssh 39 Dated 1940, no star stamp.
Ssh 39 Dated 1941, no star stamp.
Ssh 40 Dated 1941, star stamp 806.
Ssh 40 Dated 1944, star stamp 601.
Ssh 40 Dated 1945, star stamp number unreadable, but appears to be a one digit number. Either that or a three digit number with only part of the middle number showing.
All my post-war Soviet lids are packed. I will unpack them if more people add to this thread and it starts to get interesting as far as the numbers in the star are concerned.
Best regards.
JimComment
-
This is not year of refurbishing, this is just the batch number of LMZ ( Lysvinskiy Metallicheskiy Zavod and not Leningradskiy as the most peoples think)Originally posted by SovietNice Ssh-40 helmet. The star with the number 76, means the helmet was refurbished in 1976. I'm 95% sure it is a post-war helmet.
One thing is for sure, the chinstrap is no way WW-II and for the number in front of the shell, I have no idea.
The helmet is post -war I think, because stamp with year is removedComment
-
Thank you for the information.Originally posted by espenlaub
The refurbish date didn't make sense to me.
Best regards.
JimComment
-
I always thought that the batch number was the one engraved in the helmet. I know the first number is for the size and thought the rest was a factory serial number (or batch number).
Comment
-
LMZ 41 helmets
Hi guys,
I think that this a very interresting thread as I share your interrest in soviet helmets.
Of great interrest would be to find out the meaning of the stampings im WWII
helmets.
I am with Jim as I seriously daubt that the star marking means refurbishment.Comment
-
Very interresting is the information from Espenlaub about the meaning of theLMZ stamp as I always wondered how it would be possible for a factory to crank out millions of helmets if the town the plant is in is under a 900 days siege.
As far as I remember the siege of Leningrad was from September 1941 untill January of 1944.
To start an investigation I examined four LMZ 41r helmets of my collection and noted the following:
I have shell sizes 2 , 2A , 3 and 3A.
First I took measurements on the shells and found out that size 2 and 2A are exact the same size . as are 3 and 3A respectively.
Exact means that the shells of one size only differed by two to four millimeters on lenght and with.
After this I had a look on the size stamp in the sack liner and noticed the following:
Poct 2 Liner 56
Poct 2A Liner 58
Poct 3 Liner 60
Poct 3A Liner 62
Does one of you have a Ssh39 Poct 1 or 1A ?Comment
-
in the next pic you can see the typical arrangement of stamps in the rear
of all 4 helmets.
LMZ Manufacturer
Poct 2A Size
Stamping in the steel is size of helmet shell and batch? number.
859 ? On page 118 in Russian Helmets , Mr.Clawson explains this kind of stamp as "Required liner size in centimeters,stamped on the inner rim of the shell"
If you have the book and take a look on page 119 you as I will serously doubt this.
Any ideas ?????
Best regards
BernhardComment
-
Lmz
Bernhard,
Nice helmets . I think if Espenlaub happens to be incorrect in his definition of LMZ, then your answer regarding all the helmet manufacture given the siege of Leningrad lies in the date... Sept. 1941. Most all the LMZ helmets are either 40 or 41 dated. I have seen a single 42 in all my collecting. After that, LMZ as a factory mark as such, disappears for nearly three years and resurfaces sometime in 1945 with the more stylised "spider" looking mark.
If Espenlaub happened to be incorrect and the L is Leningrad, I still think is plausible that they made all such marked helmets... only before the seige for the most part. Not saying they are, but there seems to be conflicitng opinions here. I'd like to here more about both opinions.
Very good thread.
MikeComment
Comment