Marsh Pattern Helmet Cover/Uniform

[djpool]

These are the pictures used to accompany the text.

[djpool]

2

[djpool]

3

[djpool]

4

[djpool]

5

[djpool]

6

[djpool]

7

[djpool]

8

[djpool]

last pic

[djpool]

Heres a US Army picture of the marsh pattern without hood. This appears to come from another study that I don't have.Maybe the Richardson report.

[djpool]

Heres the color plate from the US Handbook on Military Forces TME 38-450-1 Dated March 45. One of the things I find interesting when I go through US intell stuff is how uncommon the Heer splinter Smock and Cover was. I really haven't found anything to show they evaluated one.All the pictures are of the marsh pattern smocks. To quote from TME 38-450-1
"After considerable improvisation on the part of the field units, particularily in Italy, a standard Army light rayon camoflage jacket (plate III) was issued and put into use in 1943-44...........Headgear camoflage often is improvised since the Army did not provide a standard camoflage helmet cover until the issue of the camoflage jacket." Heres plate III, note the camo scheme on the cover matches the jacket. The camo is Marsh pattern.

[djpool]

Werner,
"covers and smocks are NOT issued together and were NOT intended to be a uniform. They were to be used according to the users needs.
There are NO regulations that I found in the Bundesarchiv about clothing prescriptions of the obligational wear of both."


<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><O< font O<>
Werner I agree that in practice they weren't issued together. My question concerns theory. Was it the developers/designers intent to have them issued in that manner? Was the cover an independent project or was it made to provide full upper body camo along with the smock. I know that the developed pants to go with the Marsh Pattern smocks, winter padded suits and they weren't always issued as sets either. Doesn't mean the designers didn't develop them with that thought in mind. But from what you said theres no documentation on the development of the splinter smock/cover.
<O< font O<>

I was just trying to develop a logic on the need for a Marsh cover. To me it makes more sense that they were made to go with the marsh pattern smock without hood. At least it makes more sense than they wanted to give every soldier a cover. If that were true why not continue producing the splinter version. I t doesn't seem like a cover would take much material or time to produce but the fact remains they are rare. Why?

<O< font O<>
I know I'm throwing out stuff you can't answer since theres no period documentation. I just enjoy discussing something more meaningful then "is this real".

<O< font O<>
By the way I do believe Marsh covers were probably made and issued!

<O< font O<>
<O< font O<>
"2 smocks and covers are NOT made of the same material !! Smocks are in Driliich ( HBT) covers are in Cotton !! "

My mistake. I sold off my covers years ago . Just remembered that the material wasn't zelt and felt like the HBT material.

W/R Jim
</O<></O<></O<></O<></O<></O<>

[Perry Floyd]

Also correct me if I'm wrong but I thought splinter pattern helmet covers were not issued till around mid-late '43?

[Laurent]

Merci Beaucoup

Not too much time!
but enought to say THANK YOU, thank you very much Djpool, I will read slowly this study and write this evening !
Amicalement
Laurent

[djpool]

Also correct me if I'm wrong but I thought splinter pattern helmet covers were not issued till around mid-late '43?

Perry,

The splinter covers were issued sometime in 1941. It appears from reading the US intell reports that they weren't aware of its use.Must have been real scarce on the Western front since theres no reference to it. My friend Bob Hritz had the fortune of meeting a US Army Intell NCO whose job was to evaluate Heer clothing items.Maybe Bob will read this and comment.

W/R jim