"M45" helmets

[Brian Ice]

9

Brian--
I still just have to ask why these helmets were never really seen in collections and weren't even mentioned in any books? It is possible that some Model 1942 helmets were issued without vents.

But any of the "real" period examples are just that...ventless M42s. And your theory about color texture is just a theory. I find it difficult to believe that there would be efforts in 1945 with the Reich burning to paint helmets for particular units.

Peter: That is essentially what we have here, an M42 without vents (M45 collector designation). Why? I believe that vent-less, hole-less "blanks" were finished by hand and not by machine as the M42 was.

Why again? I think 3 possible reasons:

-lack of resources (coal, steel, electricity)
-damaged machinery (due to war)
-a way to increase a helmet factory's output capacity

This back stock of blanks (accumulated over 2 1/2 years) would have been utilized in a late war emergency. This same back stock I believe was utilized post war by "eastern fakers" to produce the "post-work" M45s we see today.

In other words, this was an unexpected, unplanned for event. Therefore I doubt if any documentation ever existed concerning M45.

Prior to 1945, if a semi-ventless helmet existed, it would have been made into a beaded luftschutz helmet (on this website there is a semi-ventless luftschutz helmet photo posted)


Concerning the color/texture, I believe that I have conclusively proven that this (rough/very rough texture dark green) was used wartime (as per the helmet line up photo posted earlier, and later photos) If I were to match this color to a campaign, I would associate it with "The Battle for Germany".

I believe that this color/texture was either an army or generic "armed forces" color to be used by all, and not specifically for HJ flak helpers.


To address your first paragraph, these are simply extremely rare helmets. From the photo date of this brand-new looking helmet, I would say that it was issued (probably manufactured as well) in March 1945. How many helmets could have been issued at that very late date? I am aware of the rare B/II prototype helmet existing in at least 3 private collections. However, these have never appeared in modern photos. They are extremely rare and the owners see no need to publish them in books. Would not the same be true of other rare nazi helmets (M45 included)?

[Brian Ice]

Of course Charlie Vaughn makes some real good points in post #164 that you'll have to over come Brian.

Charlie brought up some excellent points of which I believe I had answered all to a satifactory degree in subsequent posts.

[erikofnorway]

It has been brought up earlier, but if indeed these are period made there is nothing to support anything else that these are anything but ventless M42 helmets/manufacturing flaws at the best.

It has also been said that if these were manufacturing flaws, they would be issued as Luftschutz helmets. This is not necessarily true. While in Norway 2 weeks ago I inspected a single vent M40 with what appears to have had a SS decal. If the ventless M42 is a M45, is the single vent M40 actually a M41? :-p

This helmet can be seen on following thead on other forum:
http://daggers.infopop.cc/groupee/fo...5/m/5910063183

It is also quite suspect that a US dealer (mentioned earlier in the thread) have had several of these for sale. Especially since the same dealer also have had a HUGE inventory of proven fake versions of other ultrarare and expensive helmets. To me this would suggest that this may not be a manufacturing flaw afterall, but simply unfinnished M42 shells outfitted/finnished post war by European fakers.

No matter how many theories and posts any individuals places on this helmet, it remains to most collectors a highly suspect helmet due to the circumstances it suddenly has emerged in the latter years. To some collectors it is a ventless M42, and to a very very few it appears to be the "holy grail" of an undiscovered totally new helmet model.

Erik

[Brian Ice]

Erik: unfortunately the photos seem to be no longer available on that thread. One thing I did realize from your post is that there are many odd pieces out there that remain to be discovered and published in books.

You bought out two important points concerning M45:

1.--Is it original wartime produced?

2.--If it is original, why does it exist? (manufacturing defect, etc..?)

[Peter_Suciu]

Brian--I don't know where the term "M45" comes from, except that a few dealers have called these helmets M45.

-lack of resources (coal, steel, electricity)
-damaged machinery (due to war)
-a way to increase a helmet factory's output capacity

*Lack of resources? That doesn't really make a ton of sense as fighters were still being produced in April of 1945.

*Damaged machinery? Doubtful but possible.

*Output capacity? If this was the case these helmets would be more common, which they are not. Thus this makes the least sense.

This back stock of blanks (accumulated over 2 1/2 years) would have been utilized in a late war emergency. This same back stock I believe was utilized post war by "eastern fakers" to produce the "post-work" M45s we see today.

I have never seen a source that says the Germans attempted to increase helmet production in the final months of the war. This is the missing element that makes the M45 as a design/production change unlikely.

Were helmets even in need in the final months of the war? The people's army was being sent out with just an arm band. Why bother with helmets. Production of MP44s makes more sense!

In other words, this was an unexpected, unplanned for event. Therefore I doubt if any documentation ever existed concerning M45.

Then it also makes it unofficial in a country where everything was official more or less.

Concerning the color/texture, I believe that I have conclusively proven that this (rough/very rough texture dark green) was used wartime (as per the helmet line up photo posted earlier, and later photos) If I were to match this color to a campaign, I would associate it with "The Battle for Germany".

No offense but you haven't proven (conclusively or otherwise) anything. You have presented a theory and that's all it will ever be, unless you can produce some documentation. Even a period photo is not proof that these helmets were produced in mass for a reason.

Mind you, it is a good theory, but I still maintain that if anything some factory manager or workers took it upon themselves to rush out a few helmets. This was not planned or authorized. This is just my theory.

To address your first paragraph, these are simply extremely rare helmets. From the photo date of this brand-new looking helmet, I would say that it was issued (probably manufactured as well) in March 1945. How many helmets could have been issued at that very late date?

I don't know if anyone has numbers of the helmets produced and/or issued in the final months of the war. Those would be interesting to see.

One question...of the ventless M42 helmets that you've seen what is the maker mark? If this were across the board then it could give credibility to the theory that this was an order. But if you're only seeing ET helmets without vents than it could be that the factory took it upon themselves or were ordered. But without documentation that remains a theory as well.

I am aware of the rare B/II prototype helmet existing in at least 3 private collections. However, these have never appeared in modern photos. They are extremely rare and the owners see no need to publish them in books. Would not the same be true of other rare nazi helmets (M45 included)?

I am not aware of any in any collection and I know many helmet collectors. I would be curious if these are documented as being real as well? Numerous so-called B/II prototypes have shown up on eBay and elsewhere.

As an owner of some VERY rare helmets I see no reason to keep such items in an ultra secret vault!

Interesting discussion. But I'm going to continue to believe the theory that these are a unique and uncommon M42 variation, and any with decals are likely fakes.

[erikofnorway]

Yes, the photos are there, but you have to log in (register as a member).

Brian, I agree with you that there are still a large amount of undiscovered information about German WWII militaria. While there is a fair chance that a number of M42 helmets left the factory with no ventholes, the chances are probably much greater that some Eastern European fakers and at least one U.S. dealer have made some serious dough on this. And you will never find the evidence you are searching for. If you should find a clear photo showing a ventless helmet, it could very well be a single vent helmet for that sake. Possibly the helmet belonging to my friend in Norway.

I hate to ask you to stop using the M45 designation. It is not a "collectors designation" but simply something that was put together by the entrepreneurial dealer about 5 years ago in order create a lot of "ohhhhh's" and "ahhhhh's" from inexperienced collectors. Instead I suggest that you call a showel a showel and refer to this one as a ventless M42. I think that would be much more acceptable among many collectors.

By the way, you would get a kick out of inspecting the single vent M40....or as some dealers would call it...the M41.

Erik

[Peter_Suciu]

I hate to ask you to stop using the M45 designation. It is not a "collectors designation" but simply something that was put together by the entrepreneurial dealer about 5 years ago in order create a lot of "ohhhhh's" and "ahhhhh's" from inexperienced collectors. Instead I suggest that you call a showel a showel and refer to this one as a ventless M42. I think that would be much more acceptable among many collectors.

I agree...I would add that the designation of M45 gives credibility to the dealer in question, and further causes confusion (which is often the best tool for fakers). The helmet is, at this point anyway, a variation of the M42.

[Brian Ice]

No offense but you haven't proven (conclusively or otherwise) anything. You have presented a theory and that's all it will ever be, unless you can produce some documentation. Even a period photo is not proof that these helmets were produced in mass for a reason.

I must respectfully disagree with you on this point for starters. I know that alot of theorys have been mixed in this thread, but allow me to stress the points that I believe that I have conclusively proven concerning M45.

1.-The liner systems used in M45 (M31, M44) have been conclusively proven to be wartime produced. (see post#222) Here I have quoted Baer who in turn uses documentation to describe these two liner systems.

2.-Concerning the paint color/textures found on M45, post #209-212 show period examples (M35/M40/M42) sporting this dark green color with good provenance.

Though the internet allows us to do many things, unfortunately does not allow you to inspect these helmets in hand and to see them as I do. The forum has simply not been able to personally inspect any of the helmets in my collection. Or have they?

Note that the M40 helmet (post#211) was for sale on e-stand some weeks ago, being sold by a forums moderator. This helmet was not being sold as a postwar repaint, but as a 100% original piece, overpaint and all. The moderator personally assured me of this. This helmet was personally owned by this moderator and closely inspected by him. For those of you who may question his authentication skills, you may take this matter up with him. For the rest of us who give creedence to our forum's moderator's skills, we will accept as fact that this dark green color was indeed used wartime.

Do I have documentation to prove that this color was used wartime. No.
However, documentation is not the only way to prove something. See the article below:


Circumstantial Evidence: The Scott Peterson Trial
From Charles Montaldo,

When the Facts Cannot Be Proven Directly

The trial of Scott Peterson for the murders of his wife Laci and their unborn child Conner is a classic example of a prosecution based almost solely on circumstantial evidence, rather than direct evidence.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence which may allow a judge or jury to deduce a certain fact from other facts which can be proven. In some cases, there can be some evidence that can not be proven directly, such as with an eye-witness.
In these cases, the prosecution will attempt to provide evidence of the circumstances from which the jury can logically deduct, or reasonably infer, the fact that cannot be proven directly. The prosecutor believes the fact can be proven by the evidence of the circumstances or "circumstantial" evidence.
In other words, in these cases it is up to the prosecutors to show through a set of circumstances that their theory of what took place is the only logical deduction -- that the circumstances can be explained by no other theory.


see:
http://crime.about.com/od/current/a/...ces+(kare+kano)

for the full story.


So then while the liner systems of M45 can be proven by direct evidence (documentation), the paint color/textures of M45 can be proven by circumstatial evidence (i.e. surviving period examples with good provenance sporting this dark green color. One of these, M40, has been examined closely by our forums moderator and has been given his stamp of approval.)

[erikofnorway]

Brian, with all due respect to the tremendous work you are putting into this thread..... I think you are speaking to an audience of 1.....yourself. If you have convinced yourself that there is such a thing as a M45, God Bless You!!!

Please also respect that those of us that bother to come with our own comments here base our opinions on our own experience in this hobby and that we also have the right to our own opinion. It seems that Peter and myself believe that some of these are ventless M42 helmets which is a theory we share with many others, but also that the majority of these helmets originate in places and from people not associated with the Third Reich.

Please also understand that a U.S. Court cannot under any circumstances force an opinion on someone else. The "M45" case will not be heard in court simply because no crime has happened.

You have proven to yourself, and nobody else as far as I can see, that your own theories are correct. If anyone else agrees with you that is also fine with me.

But I also suggest that you respect that the majority of collectors believe you are walking on very thin ice and that your theories are nothing but that...theories.

By the way, did you manage to see the pictures of the "M41" helmet?

Erik

[Peter_Suciu]

Do I have documentation to prove that this color was used wartime. No. However, documentation is not the only way to prove something. See the article below:

You're citing a legal article and comparing it to something entirely different. I give you credit for creativity, but the point remains that you have a theory. You have NOT proven anything. Where I take issue is that you're saying you have "conclusively" proven. As the person with the theory it is not for you to decide whether you've proven this or not. In the scientific community people suggest a theory or hypothesis--and that is all it is ever is; it is up to the rest of the community to pass judgement.

But back to your legal example: 1) you are attempting to be the DA and present evidence, which you've done. That's fine and you have a lot of evidence. 2) you're saying you've "conclusively proven" your case. WRONG. The DA presents the case...the DA does not judge whether the case was proven or not.

What I'm trying to say, and again I mean no offense, is that you're trying to be the DA, judge and jury. You're presenting the evidence (DA), ruling what should be accepted or dismissed (judge) and deciding the verdict (jury). Sorry, you can't have it all. The types of people who try to be all are those with conspiracy theories. They don't care about other theories, or even the truth, because to them their belief is the only one that matters!

You have a theory but it is just a theory. I've presented my own theory. These were incomplete (i.e. ventless) helmets produced late in the war for no reason other than they were rushed out the door. These helmets are a variation, should be considered rare and most likely those with decals should be closely examined as it is seems unlikely that decals would be put on an otherwise "rushed" helmet.

[Brian Ice]

I hate to ask you to stop using the M45 designation. It is not a "collectors designation" but simply something that was put together by the entrepreneurial dealer about 5 years ago in order create a lot of "ohhhhh's" and "ahhhhh's" from inexperienced collectors. Instead I suggest that you call a showel a showel and refer to this one as a ventless M42. I think that would be much more acceptable among many collectors.
Erik

Stop saying M45?? (you might as well ask me to forget my mother's name !)

Now lets seriously consider the pros and cons of using the term "M45":

Cons: (devil's advocate)

-This helmet is technically a ventless M42 and therefore this term is the most accurate and should be the term used. It is only a variation of M42 and does not deserve it's own desigation.

-"M45" is a term coined by eastern fakers to describe their bastard helmet design which they invented post-war using unfinished M42 shells as the base.

-The term "M45" causes confusion among collectors in that it gives an heir of legitimacy to a forged design.


Pros:

First of all, the terms M35, M40, and M42 are not official WWII german designations. All of these helmet models (M35/M40/M42) are technically all "stahlhelm 35" and variations of it, as per the documentation. Should we ask the collecting community to stop using these terms because they are not technically correct? Of course not. They are just "collector speak" so that we as collectors know what we are referring to.

-Along those same lines, "M45" has now become a collector term to describe the ventless M42. Of course not technically correct (like the others), but a term that certainly fits concerning the model designator "M" and and approximate year that these things are said to have first appeared (1945).

-The term "M45" is now becoming well known as referring to the ventless helmet through common usage.

-This term is unique among german helmets and cannot be confused with any other helmet model or liner system.

-Shorter is usually better, and "M45" is much shorter and to the point than "ventless M42".

-Regardless of where the term originated and why, it is a short, unique, and accurate (IMO) description that cannot be confused with some other helmet or liner. It is also becoming known and accepted through common usage.


Anyone is certainly free to use whatever term they wish concerning this helmet, however I will continue to primarily use term "M45" for the above reasons. The term "Holy Grail of German Helmets" is certainly a close second.

[erikofnorway]

I guess that would seriously qualify my friends single vent M40 as a M41......

Brian, you don't get what we are trying to tell you, do you?

Erik

[Brian Ice]

You have a theory but it is just a theory. I've presented my own theory. These were incomplete (i.e. ventless) helmets produced late in the war for no reason other than they were rushed out the door. These helmets are a variation, should be considered rare and most likely those with decals should be closely examined as it is seems unlikely that decals would be put on an otherwise "rushed" helmet.

I think that our theorys are actually very similar. I really do not have any problem with your theory. It seems quite plausible.

O.K. I'm the DA. I have presented my evidence to the jury (the forum/collecting community) The opposition who disagree would be the prosecuting attorney. The moderators are the judges to make sure that things do not get out of hand.

The accused is M45 (ventless M42)

O.K. I may have been hasty in making premature declarations, and I respectfully accept the judge's reprimand.

I guess I more or less rest my case. Now it is time to see how good of a job that I have done. I now need to see if my evidence will "stand up in court".

[Peter_Suciu]

I think we're in agreement. It is up to the community to decide.

One point. DA and prosecuting attorney would be the same. The opposition would the defense attorney, at least in a criminal case. Civil would be plaintiff and defendant and that might be more apt for this time of "case."

[erikofnorway]

Brian, you remind me of Jackie Chiles (the lawyer from Seinfeld).