Just found the attached from Canadian 7 Anti-Tank Regiment in Italy 1944 regarding the possible fitting of No.19 sets in place of the No.18 that was fitted as standard. Also the suggestion to use US style helmets, I believe that these were also used by Polish units. Cheers Kevin
Yeah. There is another note on use from them in there as well, in which I think they complain about the lack of room in the vehicle. However... I believe they were assigned 5 men per SP, whether M10 or Archer, and the Archer was only supposed to have four. The "American type water cans" makes sense because the Archer had a fixed water supply tank which was not particularly easy to fill. To be honest I'm not sure how it was supposed to be filled. There were lots of complaints about the 18 sets.
Interesting. The Mk.V helmet is the British improved Mk.IV. both have the skull referred to as 'turtle' by many. This was deemed preferable to the rimmed Mk.III in an AFV if the RAC helmet was not available. As Valentine SP were an RA asset in Infantry Divs. Access to tank crew items may have been restricted. The story goes that Mk.IVs were deemed too similar in profile to Italian helmets so was held back in N Africa/Med. until widespread issue for D Day. I am not familiar with general comments on its similarity with the US style of helmet. Mk.IV had the Mk.lll liner and high strap attachments. Mk.V new detachable liner and lower strap. I was not aware issue was actually made in the 2WW. Both were issued interchangeably post-war until replaced by the plastic Mk.6 in the 1980s.
You are the first person who has been able to make any sense of this comment. I tried to figure out what a Mk V helmet was, without success. Thank you very much for posting about it! What do you mean by high vs lower strap? I suppose the regiment, being a corps unit, might have been issued some or at least had a demonstration. They were trialling the Archer (Valentine SP) at this time.
I suspect wireless fit for the Archer was in part based on it being for use in co-operation with Infantry Battalions. The No.18 set was chosen by the RA, and I think likewise by the RCA, as the set for use by Anti-tank Batteries in Infantry Divisions. That allowed for some netting with Inf Bns who also used the No.18 set. There was a fit for the No.18 in a Universal carrier so it could be used in the Bty/Tp carriers. The fact the No.18 was primarily intended for use as a pack set may have also made it seem more flexible for use with towed anti-tank guns, and when the Archer was introduced into Anti-tank Regiments in 21 Army Group it did displace towed 17-prs. I imagine 7 Atk RCA was in a bit of an odd position, being a Corps unit and having to provide support for either Inf (mostly with the No.18 set) or Armd ((with the No.19 set) units. The standard fit for the M10 was the No.19 set, which was a dedicated AFV set and used by the two SP Btys, while the two towed 17-pr Btys would have had the No.18 set, which was not designed to be an AFV set (carrier use aside). Gary
Trying to summarize my findings about regiments being unsatisfied with the No 18 set. Major Brighty of the RAC noted in late 44/Jan 45 that 8th Army units with Archers were replacing their 18 sets with 19 when they could obtain them. Regiments which weren't happy with the No 18: 20th A/Tk Reg't (3rd Div) 55th A/Tk Reg't (49th Div) 102nd A/Tk Reg't (15th Div) - called them "quite useless" 3rd Canadian A/Tk Reg't (3rd Canadian Infantry Div) 7th Canadian A/Tk Reg't had a more detailed response about the 18 set. "Control can reach the SP with its more powerful 19 set but the station cannot get through to control. Having to use 18 sets also makes it necessary for us to be allotted a high frequency which generally has more interference. The 18 set moreover goes off frequency when the vehicle is moved." It might have been ok with towed guns which were comparatively stationary, but not in an SP.
Paying the price for posting in haste! I should have checked the Royal Signals Pocket Book (Wireless Diagrams 1945) first. That shows the Corps Anti-tank Regiments using the No.19 rather than the No.18 for Tp/Bty links. In the Anti-tank Regiment of an Armoured Division (ostensibly the same layout of guns and SP) the SP Batteries have the No.19 and the towed ones predominantly the No.18. There are also a some No.22 sets in both types of Regt. From memory the No.18 was known for being easy to knock of its set frequency after netting, and that was as a manpack set so I imagine the treatment in a tracked AFV was much rougher. The same criticism was levelled at the No.38 set in tanks. Gary
That makes sense as M10s had the Number 19 set. As I write that I realize I don't know what the process of installation was. Did (Canadian made?) Number 19s get shipped to American factories? Were the Number 19s installed when the vehicles arrived in-theatre? I have no clue.
Was the MkIII not the Turtle shell with the existing liner and the MkIV the improvement with the lift the dot removable liner and lower straps? - the Mk V being a 1950's improvement Mk 5 Helmet – Tales from the Supply Depot
I stand corrected - posted in an early morning doze. You are absolutely right. I have my Mk.III here now. I have seen the RAC helmet mistakenly referred to as Mk.V in a couple of documents - similar to the level of the one quoted however from NW Europe theatre. I would say it still doesn't look 'American' however is probably the best fit.
If there were some US M1 helmets (or the leather/fibre tank crew ones) in the system it could be someone had unofficially named them as MkV but thats just speculation on my part. I must admit with British helmets I'm usually limited to Tommy helmet or Turtle shell - the Brodie v not a Brodie and differences in liner fixings and strap positioning are all a bit lost on me (so I had to have a quick check)
British 2WW helmets - To clarify (and correct my errors). During the 2WW helmets were numbered to Mk.3 (Ill) with Mk.4 in development. The improvement from Mk.2 to Mk.3 was not considered important enough to withdraw the older ones so both stayed in use. Post war Mk.3 to 5 were issued indiscriminately (I have a Mk.3 issued on a Cadet excercise c.1984). There were two specialised helmets based on the same rimless shell - para and DR. That shell was fitted with a standard liner and chinstrap to become the Helmet RAC for wear in AFVs where its lack of rim was appreciated. This was not given an official pattern number and seems to have been called a few different unofficial names including Mk.5. US tank crew fibre helmets were usually stripped from vehicles on importation to the UK however some got through, especially on vehicles going 'straight to theater'. Mk.1 = 1WW period Rimmed type. Mk.2 = 1WW and 2WW same shell, new liner. Mk.3 = 1943+ new 'Turtle' shell, old liner, strap attachment at brim. Mk.4 = 1945+ Modified 'Turtle' shell has detachable 'lift the dot' liner, same style (shiny black cloth cover). Chin strap rivet moved to inside crown. Mk.5 = mid 50s as above, new liner, rubber/foam with stockinette cover. I trust this is useful.
