Divisional signs on helmets--their purpose.

[20th Division]

Good Morning. I have a raw edge Brodie helmet sporting a painted and very- very faded but well-executed 20th division sign on it.  I have NO doubts that the sign is contemporary with the helmet's original age. My questions are:-

 What purpose did these signs on helmet serve? Wasn't this a security risk if the soldier was captured by the enemy? Given the seeming rarity of these divisionally marked helmets, Is it more likely that the divisional sign was painted on by the soldier soon after the war ended--when the helmet was taken as a souvenir? If so, were the soldiers allowed to take home their own tin hat when demobbed? --Or on leave? 

    I hope to get a picture of the helmet on this post, but I'm not very good with modern technology. I'll ask my 5 year old grandson to give me a hand when he comes over next, there could therefore be a delay.  Many Thanks to anyone who can help. Dave.

[FROGSMILE]

14 hours ago, 20th Division said:

Good Morning. I have a raw edge Brodie helmet sporting a painted and very- very faded but well-executed 20th division sign on it.  I have NO doubts that the sign is contemporary with the helmet's original age. My questions are:-

 What purpose did these signs on helmet serve? Wasn't this a security risk if the soldier was captured by the enemy? Given the seeming rarity of these divisionally marked helmets, Is it more likely that the divisional sign was painted on by the soldier soon after the war ended--when the helmet was taken as a souvenir? If so, were the soldiers allowed to take home their own tin hat when demobbed? --Or on leave? 

    I hope to get a picture of the helmet on this post, but I'm not very good with modern technology. I'll ask my 5 year old grandson to give me a hand when he comes over next, there could therefore be a delay.  Many Thanks to anyone who can help. Dave.

They were for tactical recognition on the battlefield.  The explanation given in Wikipedia is a reasonably accurate one:

“Formation signs at the division level were first introduced in the British Army in the First World War. They were intended (initially) as a security measure to avoid displaying the division's designation in the clear. They were used on vehicles, sign posts and notice boards and were increasingly, but not universally, worn on uniform** as the War progressed. Discontinued by the regular army after 1918, only a few Territorial divisions continued to wear them before 1939.”

** this would include steel helmets.

They would have been especially expedient for those support elements controlled directly by divisional headquarters and known collectively as ‘Divisional Troops’.  The legendary artist and illustrator Mike Chappell who was also a published author on WW1 subjects including, e.g. the Battle of the Somme and an Osprey booklet on battle insignia, illustrated one such soldier from divisional artillery on the front cover of the latter. 

Edited 25 January by FROGSMILE

[20th Division]

Good evening Frogsmile.

                                         Thank you for this info. I'm pleased to learn that helmets etc showing these formation sign were used in the field and probably not added afterward. When I acquired this example I was told it was originally owned by a "wagon driver in the artillery". I have ordered a copy of the book you suggested and look forward to learning more. Again---many thanks . Dave.

[Petroc]

Morning, Dave

Thought you might be interested in image Q6536 from the Imperial War Museums archive, showing a member of 51st (Highland) Division with the famous 'HD' sign on his helmet in April 1918; the IWM caption refers to the soldier as the generic Tommy Atkins, but other sources have identified him as a member of the divisional artillery

Andy

 

[Andrew Upton]

4 hours ago, Petroc said:

...Thought you might be interested in image Q6536 from the Imperial War Museums archive...

A nice clear shot showing the use of a bullet to stop the leather rifle sling uncontrollably sliding about as well. Edit - and the piling swivel on the nosecap being used as a sling swivel instead of the actual sling swivel!

Edited 16 March by Andrew Upton

[20th Division]

Good afternoon Andrew. Thanks for this picture. Yep---see what you mean about the clever us of the bullet . Amazing the detail you can see from these photos. Love to know the story behind this particular  picture though. Interesting that the soldier has been identified as 'artillery'. From Frogsmile's post and from Mike Chappell's excellent book (which I now have) the insignia was used on helmets ( and elsewhere of course) for '--tactical recognition on the battlefield'. I guess that a RA driver would have his div' sign displayed  if he needed to be identified amongst drivers from other divisions -e.g. at railheads whilst collecting supplies or ammunition?????.  Mike Chappell's book is very informative. Cheers. Dave. 

[Casques of WW1]

Dave, 

As for your questions about taking home helmets I am aware that the French were gifted Adrian helmets after the war, so possibly the British allowed their men to take home helmets? (I am much less knowledgeable on British brodies). I know officers traditionally have more sway in keeping gear and customization, so maybe most of the helmets taken home were officers helmets? This is all just conjecture and if anyone has more I’d love to know! As for the helmet insignias, it’s all been pretty thouroghly answered but that sort of thing was quite common and persisted into ww2, specifically in Normandy where identification was everything. 
 

cheers,

chuck

Edited 27 March by Casques of WW1

[20th Division]

Thanks Chuck. Interesting that the French did this. I don't think this was done by the Brits but like you, I'd be interested to know if this option was available? They were of course needed 20 years later---so a good decision. Dave. 

[FROGSMILE]

On 27/03/2024 at 22:08, Casques of WW1 said:

Dave, 

As for your questions about taking home helmets I am aware that the French were gifted Adrian helmets after the war, so possibly the British allowed their men to take home helmets? (I am much less knowledgeable on British brodies). I know officers traditionally have more sway in keeping gear and customization, so maybe most of the helmets taken home were officers helmets? This is all just conjecture and if anyone has more I’d love to know! As for the helmet insignias, it’s all been pretty thouroghly answered but that sort of thing was quite common and persisted into ww2, specifically in Normandy where identification was everything. 
 

cheers,

chuck

Apparently many infantry officers early on (late 1915 into 1916) purchased their own helmets via private sources** and they could be obtained from gentleman’s outfitters throughout the war thereafter for the certain type of officer (common prewar) for whom paying a premium was no problem#.  These helmets were personal possessions just like all his other equipment and so yes he could take it home.  I’m sure that some from that group probably did.

However, from 1916 onward (largely after the slaughter on the Somme that summer) the effects of conscription began to be felt and more and more better educated, but lower social class men came into the Army, and some applied for an officer’s commission.  In addition quite a number of the earlier Kitchener volunteers of a similar ilk, now battle hardened, also applied for commissions.

Officer factories like the Inns of Court Regiment, Artist’s Rifles, and the newly reorganised Officer Cadet Battalions churned out more and more of these freshly minted ‘temporary gentlemen’.  However, few of them had the financial wherewithal to kit themselves out and so the government introduced a scheme of grants that would fund the basic kit that an officer required.

This type of officer was less used to luxury and helmets were now universal and sufficiently provisioned so that an officer need not have purchased his own.  No doubt some of these were purloined by officers by sleight of hand (they would have been signed for on an issued equipment ledger, but a quarter-master could ‘write one off’ and render it unserviceable, and for scrap) so there were always ways and means.  Some of these too then would have made it home as souvenirs.  There are many anecdotal accounts of wives banishing them (“ugly things”)to the garden shed!

** there is a famous photo of Lieutenant Bernard Law Montgomery as a junior staff officer wearing one of these early proprietary design helmets that given its shape almost certainly led to the coining of the description “battle bowler”.

# characterised by such luxuries as e.g. finest Roan leather linings, etc.

Edited 30 March by FROGSMILE

[Casques of WW1]

Very interesting! According to 151ril’s website, The French officers  also often bought helmets too, but they were ironically very low quality and ended up getting booted out of allowance for the French military. They were similar to Adrians but since they were domestic, they were a bit of a scam. Like the French, you will often see weaker designs for the British, like the early “Brodies” with interesting  lines in the dome that ended up hurting the helmets integrity. They were sold off to armies like the Portuguese. 

[FROGSMILE]

1 hour ago, Casques of WW1 said:

Very interesting! According to 151ril’s website, The French officers  also often bought helmets too, but they were ironically very low quality and ended up getting booted out of allowance for the French military. They were similar to Adrians but since they were domestic, they were a bit of a scam. Like the French, you will often see weaker designs for the British, like the early “Brodies” with interesting  lines in the dome that ended up hurting the helmets integrity. They were sold off to armies like the Portuguese. 

There is what appears to be a Brodie helmet with authentic divisional markings associated with artillery in this very recent thread: https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/310114-royal-warwickshire-horse-artillery/#comment-3286806

 

Edited 30 March by FROGSMILE

[Casques of WW1]

Very interesting! It is interesting that some helmets had divisional markings on them, yet many didn’t. I’d assume that like said earlier in the thread the high visibility probably deterred markings, and maybe the fact that it was reserved for certain personnel only (whether that be rank or job I still must inquire)

[FROGSMILE]

1 hour ago, Casques of WW1 said:

Very interesting! It is interesting that some helmets had divisional markings on them, yet many didn’t. I’d assume that like said earlier in the thread the high visibility probably deterred markings, and maybe the fact that it was reserved for certain personnel only (whether that be rank or job I still must inquire)

I got the impression it was mostly divisional troops (i.e. those tasked directly by Div HQ) belonging to the Division as a whole, rather than any of its organic brigades.  That would be because the brigades had their own identity and sometimes tactical markings too.  It meant that the Div HQ’s own troops could be readily identified, as was the case in this example for the Warwickshire RHA.

Edited 31 March by FROGSMILE

[Casques of WW1]

That makes sense, would brigades have divisional authorization for tactical markings or would it be left to the brigade officers to decide? 

[FROGSMILE]

16 hours ago, Casques of WW1 said:

That makes sense, would brigades have divisional authorization for tactical markings or would it be left to the brigade officers to decide? 

I think the badges in general were directed by Army [level] Orders (AO) and seem to have evolved as part of the raising of Kitcheners New Armies, the method by which the British Army was increased exponentially in size.  The old regular army took a very dim view of it, seeing undertones of faddish inclinations and Boy Scout attitudes to badges.  The best person to perhaps comment is the forum’s published subject expert @poona guard who might have more in-depth background information to cast light on your query.

Edited 1 April by FROGSMILE

[poona guard]

An interesting question. As Frogsmile said the regulars weren't that keen but after 1916 some were. There appears to be no authorisation for helmet signs, however some divisions had them on every unit helmet and other divisions allowed brigades and battalions to decide what they felt was needed. Having said that it depended on a lot of other factors as some helmet insignia needed a stencil, others were freehand. I think looking at the number of plain helmets that it was not universal.

[Casques of WW1]

Thank you for the information! There are so many regular unmarked helmets that it only makes sense that many would decide not to utilize it

[FROGSMILE]

3 hours ago, Casques of WW1 said:

Thank you for the information! There are so many regular unmarked helmets that it only makes sense that many would decide not to utilize it

I get the impression that they were more popular in the AEF, but that might just be the impression I’ve gained from the enthusiastic interest of collectors such as yourself.

Edited 1 April by FROGSMILE

[poona guard]

The AEF wore badges galore and painted them on helmets. Look on American dealers site and you will see many of them.

[Casques of WW1]

That would check out, I watched a video recently on a Brodie helmet with markings and a name carved on the front and I believe he said it was an American version