BRODIE BATCH NUMBERS

[Krithia]

No No.1 but I have early helmets with low numbering; "D /05" and the other "?? 3", the lettering being covered by paint (early apple green). I would like to see a bit more research to state if the lower number can be correlated to date of manufacture, something I have never thought about in the past, but an interesting concept that may ring true.

so, is there a "1" or "2" out there?

[GRANVILLE]

No No.1 but I have early helmets with low numbering; "D /05" and the other "?? 3", the lettering being covered by paint (early apple green). I would like to see a bit more research to state if the lower number can be correlated to date of manufacture, something I have never thought about in the past, but an interesting concept that may ring true.

so, is there a "1" or "2" out there?

I've no doubt you’re not alone in wondering how the stampings can be interpreted. Joe Sweeney has put forward the information that the numbers refer to furnace firings otherwise known as Heat Codes, and indeed I have now spent some time trying to validate this myself, as unusually Joe seems unable to support the information. I have found one or two similar references to Heat Codes on the Net, but again the information seems unsupported and on the other hand there are various other references to them being understood to be Batch Codes. Whether they be Batch or Heat Codes, one can only presume that the lower the number the earlier the date of the event. I find it significant that the very low numbers which are now being mentioned on this thread, seem to have a genuine and early Apple Green shade of paint on them; precisely what you would expect of an unmolested early example.

Dave

PS Joe, I don't know if you've not noticed but I did email you on this subject the other day, but got no reply.

[Joe Sweeney]

Dave,

The manufacturing instructions still in part exist for brodie manufacture--they were supplied to US manufacturers. They were partially reprinted in a US Quartermaster/Ordnance History. I will post the title when I dig the book out--I'm in process of moving. Mention might also be in the book "Body Armor in Modern Warfare' published by the Metropolitan Museum of Art after the war--but I'm not sure on that source.

Heat coding is still used. I interned at Rock Island Arsenal which manufactured Artillery trunnions and 155mm Breeches. The Temperature of the furnace is all important on the quality of the metal that comes out of it--that is why it is called a "Heat". Heat codes allow you to backtrack quality of items to a specific point and time and also forward track defeciencies if a particular furnace turned out problem items (which in the case of furnaces might be a multitude of end items--though in the case of Brodies the metal pretty much went to Helmet rolling). The codes and numbers on US helmets are also metal foundry heat numbers.

The lower the number the earlier the heat so you can make a correlation on that.

As far as why no broad arrow. I can only guess--Helmets were first procured by the Ministry of Munitions--Trench Warfare Department. This organization operated outside of normal WO supply procurement channels and few of their items were marked by acceptance stamps. in April in 1917 supply of the Helmets was turned over to the RACD. Why no marking started after that I do not know as RACD marked everything. In 1918/19 responsibility for the Helmets went from RACD to Stores and recieved a LoC numbers.

Joe Sweeney

[GRANVILLE]

Good to hear from you Joe, I thought it strange there had been no further response – all the best with the move.

I think there will be quite a few enthusiasts & collectors who, having had their curiosity aroused by this thread, will want to get a better grasp of just what the various codes found on helmets are telling us, and at last I feel, I for one am getting close to doing just that, however I’d appreciate it if you can clarify this one point: is it right to assume (for example) that HS 28 has been produced after HS 15, and if not why not?

In respect of US manufactured ‘Brodies’, whilst I’ve struggled to locate a suitable picture for the purpose of this posting, in the past I’ve noticed they seem to have more coded information stamped on them? This being the case, I can imagine some of that information could well relate to foundry production, as well as possibly a particular batch code maybe? Once I locate the sort of thing I’m referring to I’ll post it up for consideration.

Dave

[Joe Sweeney]

Dave et al.,

The source on heat numbers comes from Bashford Deans "Helmets and Body Armor in Modern Warfare" (published 1919) page 131 where he is specifically describing the British Helmet per the specifications issued in 1917 (RACD pattern 9527/1917 approved 16/6/17 (the one that includes the rubber donut)

Dean does not supply actual specs only paraphrases in quite some detail to include oddities like the British spec's actually do not stipulate that only manganese steel shall be used etc..

He states per the manufactering specs of the British Helmet they were to bear the initial of manufacture and heat number of the steel.

Marcus Cotton's articles on the Helmets state Batch of steel but I believe the actual spec said heat number which is slightly different.

I would assume that HS 15 came before 28 for shell manufacture (the sheets anyway.)

Joe Sweeney

[GRANVILLE]

Many thanks Joe, I think this gets anyone with an interest to a much better place that before. Curious just how vague the subject matter still is after all these years. Now who's got the lowest numbers out there?

Dave

[Michael Haselgrove]

Hello All,

Having read the previous posts I note that there was a little confusion as to whether the numbers on helmets were "batch" or "heat" numbers. I have conducted a little research into the subject of helmet marking generally. Here are some references which I hope are of interest:

1. "All helmets, however, were to bear the initial of the manufacturer and the heat number of the steel". Page 131 Helmets and Body Armour in Modern Warfare by Bashford Dean. 1920. The reference is made specifically regarding British helmets.

2. "In order to insure uniformity both in the manufacture of the helmet and in its test, each helmet shell is numbered as a means of showing to which heat of steel it belonged". Page 202 of the same work. The reference is made specifically to the M-1917 American helmet.

3. "With the exception of a few thousand early helmets, all manganese steel helmets were marked with the initials or trade mark of the steel supplier and a numerated code indicating the batch of steel from which the helmet blank was made". British Steel Helmets 1915-1918 by Marcus Cotton. 1989.

4. "Helmets which passed the inspection advanced to stage three, where the excess steel was cut and trimmed from the helmet form. In step four, welders attached the helmet's steel rim and rivetted the helmet chinstrap loops to the underside of the helmet's protective flair. The helmet was then stamped under the helmet flair with a number identifying the heat of the steel". ....." Note 2: The heat of the steel referred to a temperature control number which was assigned to sheets of steel for an entire lot of helmets. This was used to identify helmets in the event the steel used for a lot was discovered to be defective". Page 13 Steel Pots - The History of America's Steel Combat Helmets by Chris Armold. 1997. Again, the comments are made in respect of the M - 1917 American helmet.

5. " The rolling mill is to stamp the initials of the steel mill and the number of the smelting lot (e.g.B.R.93) into the centre of the helmet blank (later to become the inside of the crown of the helmet) immediately after the blank has been cut out of the metal sheet. In addition to this, the drawing mill will stamp its own initials and the size of the helmet into the left, inner side of the apron (e.g.T.64)". Page 437 of The History of the German Steel Helmet 1916 - 1945 by Ludwig Baer. In fact, this reference is to the manufacture of the Austrian M.17 helmet but the German system is said to be identical.

Having considered the above, it seems to me that the purpose of the stamping of the various helmets was to enable the appropriate authority to identify helmets made from the same steel when a problem was found when a small percentage sample of any batch of helmets was tested. I may be wrong, but in those circumstances perhaps the words or expressions "heat", "heat of the steel", "batch", "smelting lot" are synonymous. Thus, a given heat number will be applied to a particular batch of steel and not to a mixture of different batches of steel.

I am uncertain where the above takes us. However, I admire Dave's initiative in attempting to correlate the "heat" numbers as who knows where such a study might lead? For instance, the German M18 cutout is a very expensive helmet that has been re-produced in some numbers. An individual who has great experience (not me!) has noted the smelting numbers from very many German helmets and can say with certainty whether a given helmet falls within the correct bracket(s) for the M18 cutout and is without doubt genuine as they were only used for that helmet, or whether it does not and is therefore highly likely to be a copy. I do not believe that rims were fitted to rimless helmets after they left the factory, but it would be nice to know, because one has details of the "heat" numbers, that a helmet being sold as "rimless" started life with a rim. I agree with the comment made that careful examination is best but that is not always possible in these days of ebay and the more information the collector/researcher has the better.

Regards,

Michael Haselgrove.

[GRANVILLE]

Hi Michael.

I think anyone with an interest will share with me in thanking you for your considered addition to this posting. I do think we need to be careful when it comes to a much wider discussion which begins to take in not only British & American made helmets, but also German, as I suspect the overall picture can quickly become very confused. Personally, I’m only interested in early British made Brodies and in particular those produced by Firth & Hadfield’s of Sheffield.

I think from my own point of view, you sum things up well when you say: Having considered the above, it seems to me that the purpose of the stamping of the various helmets was to enable the appropriate authority to identify helmets made from the same steel when a problem was found when a small percentage sample of any batch of helmets was tested. I may be wrong, but in those circumstances perhaps the words or expressions "heat", "heat of the steel", "batch", "smelting lot" are synonymous.

I would however have to take issue on what you say concerning rim protectors: I do not believe that rims were fitted to rimless helmets after they left the factory, simply because of my earlier observations on the subject in which I surmise that once the original rims were found to cause their own problems and a solution had to be found, it seems to me highly unlikely that a valuable piece of equipment such as the helmet would be left unmodified if there was an opportunity to improve it. Some clearly were never altered, but I think we should be cautious on assuming none of them will have been, which to my way of thinking merely adds interest to the subject of checking the code numbers found on any given helmet. As I see things, a very early (low) numbered helmet, could in fact appear much older thanks to various modifications along the way, when in fact the actual shell could be very early. We really need someone to find such a helmet to demonstrate the theory.

This apart, I think what you’ve added is very helpful.

Dave

[Joe Sweeney]

Dave/Michael,

Helmets did recieve a rim post fact--here is an example. I don't think common but it did happen.

The below helmet is a War Office model with the apple green paint very much in evidence. Note the added rim which was crimped on. I assume this happened when the helmet was repaired--New MKI chinstrap added and original liner put back inplace.

This helmet bears a Miris Steel heat number of I believe 7 (Helmet in storage at moment and I tried to read the stamp via photo). Miris only started steel production in March 1916.

The steel then went to either Joseph Sankey or Bleriot(only 75000 sheets) for pressing (after Aug 1916 more options opened). Sankey also probably did final assembly at least until Oct 1916 when he sent the shells to others for final assembly.

Another illustration of the complexity of research with helmets--a good portion went to two or three firms prior to issue.

Joe Sweeney

[bu6512]

Tocemma

Thanks for your input on the subject, but lets not get too dismissive of what is actually genuine enquiry into a fuller appreciation of what was vital equipment for those who served, even if it does come across as a bit anorakish. Plenty of other items of kit get discussed in minute detail elsewhere.

The helmet you've illustrated is a superb example and one of its fellows can be viewed here: http://www.warrelics.eu/forum/helmets/ww1-brodie-helmet-16128/ As can be read, FKS seems to stubbornly evade positive identification, whilst Firth is universally recognized by their FS stamp. The fact that the maker may not be absolutely clear is irrelevant in as much as it is obviously a genuine early Brodie, very probably pressed using steel supplied by Firth. If yours bears No 3 and the one in the posting No 8, what does that tell you? Yours must have been produced before No 8. Excited, you may not be, but it is a fairly interesting exercise to try and fully understand its history. Furnace Firings I have to say I've never heard of, but I'm all ears if someone can absolutely claify. If FKS had been a steel producer, I think it stands to reason their moniker would have been properly recognized a long time ago. If on the other hand they (like many others) were pressing shells out of steel supplied by manufacturers such as Firth, then surely if furnace firing applied, it would need to have a code recognised across the board and not just unique to FKS whoever they were?

All the other points you raise about helmets being refurbished along the way, echo the point I made in the beginning of this thread, which has rather become sidelined for the search for the lowest numbers. I'd be just as interested to see some WW2 issued helmets (often to wardens and the emergency services), the shells of which are clearly much earlier Brodies in origin. For all you know No 1 could be lurking amongst them?

Dave

Could this be a real first batch FKS?

[GRANVILLE]

A fascinating find!

One thing is obvious - you won't find a helmet with a lower number stamp - regardless of what it actually refers to. Some more photos of the shell would be good along with it's dimensions for the record. It clearly has no protective rim, but of course may have had one at one time and it may have been removed? On the other hand, if there is absolutely no hint that it ever did have one, it has to be a very early 'raw edge' brodie and in my opinion - due to the number stamp - possibly one of the very first as made by (in this case): Thomas Firth & Sons Ltd of Sheffield, who produced helmet shells between 1916 and 1918. Do you have any known history with the helmet?

David

[bu6512]

[SommeTrenches]

Hello, fantastic timing!

I have seen a Brodies which also bore the 'FKS 1' stamping. Now, whilst looking for further information, I find this topic.

Quite an interesting problem we have!

[hink441]

I recently acquired this helmet. It is stamped FS 1.

[hink441]

Here is an overall shot of the helmet. No liner.

[hink441]

The inside.

[GRANVILLE]

I recon that is quite a find and a good example of a Brodie as well. I note it has an early steel rim protector - anyone's guess when fitted. Curious it turns up in the States rather than Britain.

David

[Grovetown]

Curious it turns up in the States rather than Britain.

Not when you consider our supplying something in the region of 400,000 Brodies to the AEF - this one sporting the insignia of its 29th Division.

Cheers,

GT.

[hink441]

I was very pleased to get this helmet. I purchased the helmet, not even knowing the heat/lot number, from a seller in New Mexico. The seller said he acquired the helmet years ago from an antique store in Georgia, USA. I was looking for a nice example of a 29th Div. helmet. When it arrived I was shocked to see the FS 1 stamp. I thought this helmet was relevant to this thread, and might be of interest.

I do have two questions though. What are the signs of an early rim protector, and was this rim protector fitted after manufacture?

Thank you for looking.

Chris

[Kath]

In case of interest:

http://www.treasurebunker.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1514

http://thebrodiehelmet.weebly.com/mki.html

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/archive/index.php/t-844124.html

Kath.

[Paddy 60th]

In case of interest:

http://www.treasurebunker.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1514

http://thebrodiehelmet.weebly.com/mki.html

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/archive/index.php/t-844124.html

Kath.

Thanks for the links Kath.

On the Treasure Bunker site there is a link to a brilliant 5 minute video of helmets being made in a USA factory in Jan 1918. A must watch !

Roger

[Kath]

On the Treasure Bunker site, if you go back by pressing 'Previous Video' arrow from:

http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675048431_Artillery_Various-artillery-pieces-firing

there are more WW1 videos.

Kath.

[GRANVILLE]

Not when you consider our supplying something in the region of 400,000 Brodies to the AEF - this one sporting the insignia of its 29th Division.

Cheers,

GT.

Hi GT. I agree with your observation, but I was thinking more along the lines of the FS 1 number and what this is, or is not, actually telling us? If you work on the theory that FS 1 was surely produced before, for example FS 30, then the shell must presumably be an early one? Assuming it is, is this not telling us that it was originally produced for the British army and at some point refurbished, no doubt given a rim protector and supplied to the AEF as you rightly point out.

David

[Grovetown]

If you work on the theory that FS 1 was surely produced before, for example FS 30, then the shell must presumably be an early one? Assuming it is, is this not telling us that it was originally produced for the British army and at some point refurbished, no doubt given a rim protector and supplied to the AEF as you rightly point out.

What was produced after FS 99 or FS 999 or FS 9999?

I think you're tackling it from too narrow a perspective.

Everything about that shell is later - the body (really early ones have a corrugated effect), chinstrap and chinstrap bales; and paintwork.

Think: what's the highest number you've ever seen? 687? While the steel makers would have produced shells (7,500,000) over 1000s of heats, I'll wager you can't show a heat number over 999.

You yourself say you have a raw edge FS 227, and a rimmed with later liner FS 47. Are you saying that the latter was made first too then?

I'm sure somebody here once said that once they got to the end of a sequence (999? 9999?), it just started again.

So to my eye/ mind, it more likely would have been produced after the highest heat number you've ever seen.

I wonder if Mike Haselgrove could shed more light?

Cheers,

GT.

[scottmarchand]

I agree with Grovetown - these are production control numbers at a steel supplier for a MASS production war material process for millions of helmets and not serial numbers. And this Helmet has no other features that would suggest a production any earlier than mid to late 1917. Yes some of the early batches of helmets were reworked but there were never that many in the first place! They simply cannot exist in the quantities that collectors wanting to romanticize the early helmets want them to be. I agree that the batch clock must have reset at some point for all the manufacturers as there are no number exceeding 3 digits that I am aware off. This in no way diminishes the lovely aspects of this helmet or its history, but rocking horse dung it is not.