Artillery Crusher-Style Schirmmütze

[90th Light]

Keep in mind that as the war progressed, the Germans became increasingly short of leather and hence all sort of Ersatz substitutes start to appear so a visor made of leather is a rarer thing brand new.

Also could this cap not in fact date from the mid war years or even the 1940/ 41 period ?

I mean what other indicators say late war 1944/ 45 ???

Interested, Chris

[phild]

Looked at it again: I can now confirm that there are no holes of other insignia ever attached.

This is an interesting discussion. I wasn't going to even dare describe this piece of headgear as a "real" crusher (more Kreager's approach calling it a late war Schirmmütze with woven insignia, an untreated pasteboard and a pressed paper visor). Now some of you lean towards an "Alter Art". For me, this will still be hard to say for certain. In the end, we should definitely recognize, however, that these were apparently produced even after the official wear out date.

While I can understand that a lot of collectors will refer to this type of "hybrid" form as a Schirmmütze more than a Crusher, I think it makes some sense to look at it with the eyes of the Wehrmacht officer who originally purchased it. I am absolutely certain that the young (I'm guessing) Wehrmacht officer thought he was buying a crusher. Maybe some older officers may have teased him for not having a leather visor (now I'm dreaming) but I doubt that. One thing is absolutely certain: if a superior officer had approached him about this piece of headgear being worn after the official wear out date, this excuse would not have been very effective: "SIR, ZIS IS DJUST A SCHIRMMÜTZE VITH UNTREATET PÄSTBOARD, WOVEN INSIGNIA, NO CHIN KORDS AND A PRESSED PÄPER VISOR!" Think of the consequences...

In other words: people at the time saw this as a crusher. Whoever owned and wore it back then did so thinking this was a crusher. I would go even further: anyone selling or buying this, wants it to be a crusher (even today). Therefore, I have no objections to you referring to this as a crusher. I see the discussion coming if I ever decide I want to sell it though...

Kurt

The above thoughts sum it up nicely. The part about looking at this from the perspective of the buying officer during the period rather than as a collector is very correct....but rarely practiced...unfortuniatly.

I also think that Chris's point/question of why this has to be late war is interesting as well. In the end, I agree with Mike Davis that this one appears to be later war, but I might bend and say 1942/43...it is just hard to say for sure. I would be that this cap is very light weight and really is a whole different animal in terms of reinforcement when compared to a Schirmmutz.

I call them old style, alter art and somtimes crushers....others can call them whatever they want,

[SgtB]

I agree with Kurt's clairvoyant assessment, as well. We, as collectors, like to categorize and pigeonhole these items to a degree that their original owners never, ever would've bothered. While I believe that this cap was definitely considered an alter art by it's original seller and buyer, I as a collector, feel it falls into that grey area known as a 'crusher-type' cap. For me, a "true" Heer crusher must have a leather visor, BEVo badges, and a cloth or buckram frame. Details like sweatshields, ersatz sweatbands, etc. are optional. But in WWII, I don't think the real guys gave a $hit!

A very nice cap!

[90th Light]

What is the visor on this cap made of exactly ? Is it hard pressed paper or fibre like on a regular officer visor cap ?

A true "crusher" can have either a leather visor or a hard pressed paper visor. Both types can be seen used on Imperial German visored field cap which after all is what the so called "crusher" is based upon and the next model in the process of evolution after the 1920's versions.

This peference for a leather visor is purely a collector misnomer. You could get either type during the official period in which this cap was allowed and produced The leather visors may well reflect a manufacturers or users preference at the time but it does not mean that the examples with the hard pressed paper visors are any less an old style officers/ NCO field hat.

Is the visor on this example a true hard pressed paper example ?

Chris

[Kurt]

Again, I'm not at home and cannot say for sure what the visor is made of exactly. I believe, however, it's pressed paper since it doesn't have the "fiber feeling" to it. The body of the cap has more the "feeling of a Schirmmütze" to it (as much as I hate to admit it). I am no authority on dating these either. The biggest hint for me to assume it's a late war production was the untreated pasteboard and the visor. Any enlightenment there?

I own a period painting with a similar visor dated 1943. This is not the same cap, however...

[jacquesf]

" The biggest hint for me to assume it's a late war production was the untreated pasteboard and the visor. Any enlightenment there?" ..... and the boiled wool cloth of the cap body and erzats leather of the sweatband. IMO the alter art insignia was applied to standard schirmutzen without adding cords, as a fashion of the day, caused by the lack of availability of traditional alter art caps.. Jacques

[90th Light]

To be honest from what I can see in the images posted the visor seems to have a regular schirmmutze shape to it yet no color on the reverse side which can be seen sometimes later in the war. In this case however it has been used to effect to create that "crusher" visor look. Also is there a hint of red showing on the edge of the top side of the visor ? The pressed paper examples do not have such high ridges esp. where the visor meets the cap but also around the edge.

Jacques has mentioned the boiled wool top and the ersatz sweat band which certianly lends itself to war time production although you can encounter these earlier than some collectors think because they were an option affecting price and weight of the cap. Boiled wool is tough for field conditions yet it can be cleaned. They are more economical options from the late 1930's but were seen increasingly at the end because the more up-market options were not so readily avalible.

My feeling is mid war around the time the order to abolish them was issued (ie 1942 (possibly late 1941) and perhaps even 1943). This officer thought he would get in right at the end of what was allowed because he wanted that look and who could blame him.

Interesting cap either way, Chris

[Kurt]

I'm back home now and was able to pull out the cap again. Yes, it's probably "just" a regular Schirmmütze visor. Here for comparison a shot with a (from right to left)

- Crusher-style Schirmmütze with pressed paper visor
- a real Crusher with leather visor
- my new one

[Kurt]

closer:

[Kurt]

here it's pretty obvious:

[phild]

I'm back home now and was able to pull out the cap again. Yes, it's probably "just" a regular Schirmmütze visor. Here for comparison a shot with a (from right to left)

- Crusher-style Schirmmütze with pressed paper visor
- a real Crusher with leather visor
- my new one

I am starting to see that I was wrong and I am now agreeing with you, Chris and the others that this is basically a late war Schirmmutz. I think that the top section of the cap has some padding or at least material between the top cover (sides particularly) and the lining. I also agree that the visor is not really pressed paper.

I will say that I personally do not accept the term "crusher like" for any old style cap. I could accept that the material of the visor could be considered a variation...so say a "type 1" and a "type 2".....but then there are several other features that can differ between the old syle field caps.

I personnaly think that the materials evolved with these old style caps. Some of this may have been driven by expense and wartime material cost and avialability and or by some believed inprovements to "wearability".

There have been a few excellent WAF threads on these caps (both Heer and SS which I also beleive were slightly different) that offer more photo evidence and revelations than all the books published to date addressing these type of caps.

[Kurt]

(...)
There have been a few excellent WAF threads on these caps (both Heer and SS which I also beleive were slightly different) that offer more photo evidence and revelations than all the books published to date addressing these type of caps.

I agree! Gott schütze das WAF!!!

[jacquesf]

Phil, what are your thoughts on the idea that later in the war there was a trend to wear schirmutzen without chincords (never applied to the cap), with either alter art or regular insignia. Something like this or the one shown by Kurt. Jacques

[jacquesf]

Here is a period picture, courtesy of Bill Petz. Jacques

[phild]

Here is a period picture, courtesy of Bill Petz. Jacques

Jacques, There you go again with the killer photos! Yes, I think that you are on to something. I have seen a number, although they are not what would call common, of the boiled wool caps made up as old style field caps both with leather and paper visors...although paper is slightly more common.

Getting to your point, I have also seen these boiled wool caps made up like the one starting this thread...although mostly with chin cords...maybe added by the owner after purchase and maybe not...I don't know. But you right that many have bullion insignia and some have flatwire...maybe owner added or may odd maker applied.

These caps come in both padded crowns and non padded (like most old styles) and with the late black non-paper visors....but a little thiner and different than "regular" vulcan fibre.

These boiled wool caps could really be molded and shaped by the owners and I have seen the material used in a good many officer side caps and even some officer mountain caps. It is sometimes called die-skin or Eskimo but nether term is correct as Boiled wool has no weave as those and all other cap fabrics do. Boiled wool is very much like true felt in that respect.