Third Party Press

German helmet lot numbers 1935-1945 ongoing research

I have received my copy of the "Ongoing Research" and am amazed at the amount of work that went into it. I noted that Brian has 2 books on late war helmets. I have searched and cannot find from where these are available. What kicked this off was an AM troll through the WAF helmet section and a discussion of an M-45. In any case if one may still purchase these I am interested.
Cheers,
Mike
 
http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/showthread.php?t=866922

I had his twin.
An M40 ET64 LW lot 17.
Mine had a reinforced alu liner, this feature along with the low number was for me a clear sign of the first producing run of M40 during the swith from M35.
Yours has a zinc liner, but as a nice feature the small number, here "8", we are use to see on M35 ET's.
Even yours is a symbol of the M35-M40 switch.
Both in very nice condition...this is not common, especially if you consider that ET M40 LW are somwhat scarcer than Q, SE and EF (even if not unicorns as NS...)
SO, FOR ME, you did very well buying this one...at a good price.
I know, I talk as an helmet nut....most of the people here see a "normal-common" M40 LW....

My Best
G.




A common misconception about ET M40 lot numbers is that very low numbers (#17 in this case) indicate the very first M40 helmets to be produced by ET.

The very first ET M40s to be produced were in the 4800 lot number range, the point at which the ET M35 ceased production for the most part on or near 26 March 1940.

It is believed that the ET M40 lot# series continued to the 10,000 mark by late 1940 when the restart of the ET M40 lot# sequence occurred. Thus an ET M40 helmet with a lot# of 17 for instance would indicate production in late 1940.
 
http://www.ebay.com/itm/WWII-GERMAN...243551?hash=item58ddcbcedf:g:vxEAAOSwmtJXaXUh

You have an outstanding Luftwaffe M 35 helmet. The paint looks field gray whish would make this a helmet worn in combat. love the toned Luftwaffe decal. You can tell it is a M 35 (pre/early war) because he air vents are made of 2 pieces and mid war helmets (M 40) and the late war M 42's had the air vents stamped right out of the helmet shell I have attached 2 pictures of my M 35 Luftwaffe helmet. Mine has the Luftwaffe dark blue and probably worn on anti air craft guns. To find the maker and size of the helmet shell look on the left side interior of the helmet skirt (under the chinstrap bale) and you will see the stamping (please see picture #2) The stamping will begin with the companies maker stamp Q ET EF NS SE followed by the shell size 62 64 66 68. On the rear interior of the helmet skirt you will find the lot /batch number this number indicates when your shell was made and to which branch of service it was issued too.
best regards


Ebay helmet with description. the lot /batch number this number indicates when your shell was made and to which branch of service it was issued too

Another common misconception is that while the lot# can indicate a general time period of shell production, it cannot by itself indicate to which branch of service the helmet was issued to.
 
Last edited:
http://www.ghw2.com/forum/7-walhalla/

There is a lot# book critique/vote on GHW2. You will see the gambit of opinions from indispensable to don't waste your money. There is also a very strong bias for their own lot# list, which if you have ever seen it is quite unimaginative. No M38s, no notes explaining anything, and quite small at about 2,000 examples. I believe GHW-Frank is hostile toward the book as DougB had been for years.

The story goes like this (IMO):

Way back in about 2004 on WAF I made the suggestion of saving lot#s to find out more information about them. Although lot#s had been discussed at WAF before my arrival, to my knowledge no one had ever seriously began compiling the information at that time. This all apparently got Frank to thinking about creating his own list.

On MCF (Militaria Collector's Forum) (now defunct) I had contributed to a lot# list there, but once the website went under it is my understanding that Frank appropriated that list as the basis of his own on GHW1. After joining GHW1 I began contributing lot# information there as well.

I had scoured the globe for lot# info, including GHW of course. As a daily visitor, I gathered the info directly from the posts; I didn't need to actually take it from their list as I already had it by the time it made it to their list. I felt entirely justified in gatheirng lot# info on GHW1 because A. I was a member there and B. I had contributed to their lot# list and had started interesting threads there.


So after I published the lot# book, I had become a "thief" for "stealing" their lot# info without their "permission" to take it. Of course, I doubt Frank had ever gotten permission to take MCF's list (which I had contributed to).


So it has become a long running "GHW bitch" that arises every now and then (such as during DougB's F.U. Farewell speech).
 
I believe your work has probably been the most illuminating and valuable single work in German helmet collecting that I am aware of. It makes no sense not to have it as reference, given the relatively small cost, even if you have but a passing interest in German helmets. I refer to my copy often. It played a major role, equal to the magnification, to exposing the Shampain Ruin fraud.
 
A real asset

I believe your work has probably been the most illuminating and valuable single work in German helmet collecting that I am aware of. It makes no sense not to have it as reference, given the relatively small cost, even if you have but a passing interest in German helmets. I refer to my copy often. It played a major role, equal to the magnification, to exposing the Shampain Ruin fraud.

This took a great amount of effort..people like to badmouth people who actually do something because they are jealous. I know what it takes to put something like this together. That is why I always defend those of us who worked on BBOTW.
Many carp but few step up like Bruce and Mike and M45.:thumbsup:
 
This took a great amount of effort..people like to badmouth people who actually do something because they are jealous. I know what it takes to put something like this together. That is why I always defend those of us who worked on BBOTW.
Many carp but few step up like Bruce and Mike and M45.:thumbsup:

Well, I carp because some of the firearms in those books are humped, I caught a certain someone book author of BBOTW back in the early 90s on three occasions trying to sell a humped bolt elm stock byf 43 to a buddy of mine and trying to sell two humped "Zf.41s" (they were a dou and a dot) as original. There are witnesses to those events. I'm listed as a contributor to BBOTW2.
 
Aha

Well, I carp because some of the firearms in those books are humped, I caught a certain someone book author of BBOTW back in the early 90s on three occasions trying to sell a humped bolt elm stock byf 43 to a buddy of mine and trying to sell two humped "Zf.41s" (they were a dou and a dot) as original. There are witnesses to those events. I'm listed as a contributor to BBOTW2.

You will note that I said "those of us" who worked on it. I will guarantee my work as I was the Washington DC archive researcher..:biggrin1:
 
Lot# book critique

Lot# book critique

Peiper has some negative critiques for the lot# book which I would like to address.

1. Lacks photos. It is not a photo book. Too much information was crammed into it to think about photos. It would have made it even larger as photos take up space. Also, with the format I chose (high page count, type of paper and binding, photos could not be added. I thought photos were unnecessary.

2. Cover is plain white with black text only. You should not judge a book by its cover, as they say. I concentrated creativity within, not without.

3. The layout of the chapters could have been better. How so ? I though I did not do too bad arranging 16,000 lot numbers entries from 6 helmet factories and 4 different helmet models with 6 different decal configurations. You should be able to find what you need fairly quickly since I repeated the M35/M40/M42 designations on each entry to act as "guide words" of a sort.

4. The ET M40 assumption reaching 10,000 before starting over in late 1940. Since Ken N. thinks lot# started over in late 1940 (which I agree with), one must account for ET M40 production from late March to December. 4800 indicates the start of ET M40 production on 26 March 1940. Known lot numbers go up only to about 5200 en masse. (Where is all of the Summer and Fall production ?) Also a few examples of 6000, 7000, 8000 and 9000 examples have been verified proving that those ranges were reached.
 

Attachments

  • LOT NO. CRITIQUE.jpg
    LOT NO. CRITIQUE.jpg
    219.1 KB · Views: 17
Last edited:
My post on GHW2

Hi Brian,

First, I would like to say I enjoy you book. It is invaluable to the collecting community. My critique is primary on the layout side, as I think you could make it more valuable for the collectors if you for example added some pictures.

So basically my negative comments is as you listed:

1. Lack of photos. I think some pictures of lot numbers and lot numbers anomalies would enhance your theories and correlations presented in the book. Pictures would also show the difference in stamping fonts between the makers. It would also give the book more ambience if you also threw in a few period pictures of german helmets worn by the Wehrmacht, but this is a matter of taste.

2. I agree with you that the content within the cover is what matters, but a sexy front cover with a nice german helmet would market the book better. Again, my personal view which I deem would enhance your book. Maybe something to think about if you intend a revision 9.

3. The chapters are laid out for each producer, but the text related to each producers lot numbers are not laid out in a structured manner. If you had added an index for each producer, and structured the correlations you make from the lot number research more linear, it would be more easy to read. I found that I went back and forth a lot of times between the various info you provide in addition to the actual lot number list. I enjoy your study and findings based on the lot numbers, but the structure made the text a bit challenging to read. A better layout of the chapters would improve the book. I do enjoy the book very much. I just feel that a bit more structure would help the reader absorb the information better.

4. My view on the M40 ET lot numbers is that there is so few examples from the lots of 6000, 7000, 8000 and 9000 that it seems more an anomaly than that there was a steady production from lot 4800 onward to 10000. This is my personal view, as there would be a higher number of originals present today in these lot numbers if they were produced as lot 4800 - 6000 or 100 - 1500. It seems that the change from M40 to M42 happened somewhere in lot number 1540 to 1550, which the lot number research seems to support. I find the notion that the "missing lots" from 6000 - 10000 somehow got lost on the eastern front is weak, and not supported by your research. I think the few examples in the 6000 - 9000 are anomalies, as so few exists. This is my personal view, as stated in the GHW2 posts and I am open to different views if there are logical theories supported by the lot number research. My view is that the lot number list does not support your claim that there was a steady production from 6000 to 10000. I believe that the restart happened somewhere in the lot number 5000 series, but a few lots continued on the old series.

To sum up, you book is great, and every collector of German helmets should own one. My view is that you could improve your work, which would in my view increase the desirability of the book.

Cheers,
Rune
 
Peiper, thank you for your compliments of the lot# book and thank you as well for your honest, open critique.

I suspect that if 100 different people wrote the lot# book, there would be 100 different ways to order it. Some people would order everything as to factory, maker and model something like this:

ET M35 lot# list
ET M35 notes

ET M40 lot# list
ET M40 notes

ET M42 lot# list
ET M42 notes

CKL M42 lot# list
CKL M42 notes

Or, notes before lot# lists. Is this what you mean by "more linear" ?


I did it like this:

All lot number lists: ET, SE, Q, NS EF
All notes: ET, SE, Q, NS, EF
Each factory listed as per M35, M40, M42 in that order.

I did it this way to be able to rapidly find either lot numbers or notes. I felt that mixing lot# and notes all through the book would have been more confusing in the long run. Besides, there is no going around flipping through pages if you are looking at both lot# lists and notes, no matter how its ordered.



My view on the M40 ET lot numbers is that there is so few examples from the lots of 6000, 7000, 8000 and 9000 that it seems more an anomaly than that there was a steady production from lot 4800 onward to 10000. This is my personal view, as there would be a higher number of originals present today in these lot numbers if they were produced as lot 4800 - 6000 or 100 - 1500.

I made a fair number of judgement calls to explain the incomplete information available to us. I don't go for the anomaly theory as I don't go for it to explain the extra characters found on many M35 and M40 helmets - just factory errors? So everything we don't understand is a factory error ? We know that the vast majority of Wehrmacht strength was expended on the Eastern Front, a theater from which very few helmets have ever returned, so it makes sense that there would be large gaps in the lot# lists representing the millions of helmets issued to entire German armies that never returned from the East. We should expect large gaps to appear and as I have ordered it, there are large gaps.

It makes no sense to me why the Thale steel plant would arbitrarily restart helmet lot numbers at the 5200 point. It does makes sense why they would restart them at the 10,000 range; to maintain a maximum of 4 digit lot numbers. I know that 6000, 7000, 8000 and 9000 range lot# exist with 1940 dated components and reinforced aluminum liner bands indicating to me 1940 production. And those numbers fit in with lots per month estimates of over 500 lots per month production rates. I do not accept the anomaly theory. Collector's in general have the strange notion that if they or their friends have not seen something, it must not exist. I had to conceptualize ET production beyond the limits of collector knowledge.

It seems that the change from M40 to M42 happened somewhere in lot number 1540 to 1550,

I think that is Ken N.'s idea, which I do not believe because it does not explain the numerous ET M42 helmets seen with lot numbers below 1550.

My view is that the lot number list does not support your claim that there was a steady production from 6000 to 10000.

I used other information as well, such as the November drop date for SS party shields found in Goodapple's books. The last known DD SS M40 helmet has a lot# of 03 which I correlate to near this time. An ET M40 restart at 5200 would put the last DD SS M40 helmet (03) at around late April 1940, well away from the November date.
 
Last edited:
Hi Brian,

Thank you for the reply. The critique is that you did (at least revision 8) where you presented ET and ckl lot numbers, then notes, then SE and hkp lot numbers, then notes, etc. Also, the notes should have been provided with each an index in my view, as you have many interesting headlines in your notes under each manufacturer. It is primarily the notes which are confusing to read, as there is a lot of information all lumped together under each maker. An index on the notes would certainly help navigating the information.

As for the ET M40 lot numbers, there is a great gap from M40 lot numbers from 1500 to 9999 (quoting from page 651). It seems unological that so many lot numbers should have vanished on the East Front, as we now that a great majority of the M35 helmets also participated on the Eastern Front. When Germany invaded Russia in June 1941, the majority of the helmets worn by the 3 million soldiers of the Wehrmacht was M35 helmets, as M40 was being issued to the training battalions back in Germany. The combat divisions did only get replacement helmets. Whole units only got supplied with new helmets when being rebuilt or new units being raised.

The only plausible explanation for a great many M40 ET lot numbers missing, would be the huge numbers of helmets captured by the Russians in Stalingrad. But it is difficult to believe, as one would think that there would be gaps in the other manufacturers lot numbers as well. This theory would hinge on that the majority of the divisions in the 6th army was equipped with M40 ET helmets, which seems a bit unlikely.

Another aspect of the lot numbers which I find puzzling, is the number of total produced WW2 german combat helmets. According to Baer, he states in his book that the surviving records show that 25 million helmets were produced, but he does not refer to any specific document. Based on the fact that the Wehrmacht was at the maximum a total of 10 million men during the war, it seems a very high number of helmets being produced in a nation struggling with raw materials and production output. We know that the germans refurbished a lot of M35 and M40 helmets during the war, basically recycled them as re-issued helmets. They also recycled a lot of WWI helmets, which to me indicate a shortage of helmets to the Wehrmacht throughout the war.

The documents Baer do quote and include in his book, which show the shortfall of helmets prior to the war does indicate that the Wehrmacht was expanding faster than the factories could supply.

Do you know if there is a real documentation of the figure 25 million quoted by Baer, or is this something we only have from him in his rather short explanation in his book? The reason I ask, is that I took the other production figures he provides, both in his book and SS-Steel and put them into a spread sheet. This is quotes where he states the output in specific time frames, which I could put into the spreadsheet.
I put all the months from June 1935 until May 1945 on the Y axis, and the manufacturers on the X axis. Then I entered in all the information provided in the books by Baer, and did some assumptions on production increase for all five factories. The sum I ended up with was far from 25 million. It was around 16 million, which is a figure more logical if you take into account all the recycling of helmets and the overall strength of the Wehrmacht and factoring in the losses it suffered during the war.

It would be good to know some more on where the figure 25 million helmets produced is actually derived from, as I have a hard time believing in it.

Regards,
Rune
 
Last edited:
Peiper, I do not know exactly where L. Baer got his information about helmet production figures, but I believe that figure is quoted in the Goodapple book Vol. II, so others do accept it beyond Baer. There are certain assumptions I was forced to make when writing the book, such as the 25 million production figures. Now if you have updated info on this, I would be happy to hear it. But merely doubting it without strong supportive evidence is not enough for me to abandon that figure.

25 million does sound high, but don't forget all of those Volunteers from most European countries who fought with the Wehrmacht.

I come up with about 15.4 million produced by Thale alone when I take into account all of the "missing" lots.



As for the ET M40 lot numbers, there is a great gap from M40 lot numbers from 1500 to 9999 (quoting from page 651). It seems unological that so many lot numbers should have vanished on the East Front, as we now that a great majority of the M35 helmets also participated on the Eastern Front. When Germany invaded Russia in June 1941, the majority of the helmets worn by the 3 million soldiers of the Wehrmacht was M35 helmets, as M40 was being issued to the training battalions back in Germany. The combat divisions did only get replacement helmets. Whole units only got supplied with new helmets when being rebuilt or new units being raised.



Realize that the lot# lists are made up primarily of helmets captured by the western allied forces on Germany's western front. Many M35 helmet lots are found due to M35s being widely distributed pre war and were in action against the west. The large numbers of M40 helmets with "missing" lots were either shipped east or were issued to units that would be shipped east prior to Barbarossa.
 
Last edited:
A collector emailed me some questions about his hkp M42 SD LUFT lot# 2890 helmet that I thought were relevant to discuss here. No names.


So an M42 SD Luftwaffe helmet goes with the factory/lot marking of hkp62 2890. Thanks for the confirmation. When I could not find that lot number in your research, I began to wonder if a decal had been added post war?

That is not exactly how I read lot numbers. For example, your number 2890 was not yet in the lot number book, and no specific configuration went with it. I look at what the hkp factory was producing in that model and range. It was mostly factory SD Heer and SD Luft with a very few field police and beaded helmets. There are a few ND green-gray (ND RTGG) and ND LUFT blue gray helmets (ND RTBG) as well. Lot# 2890 could theoretically be any of these with shell size 60-68cm (the range of shell sizes that the SE factory produced). Remember, a helmet always has to stand alone as per authenticity. While the llot# book may confirm something as authentic, it does not make it so.



With the 2890 SD Lot number being slotted just above a ND Lot number, is it safe to estimate that this helmet was made during August 1942?

The last known SD LUFT helmet with that and maker, model is 3477, so IMO it is possible that the 2890 Lot# was associated with factory decaled LUFT production. I associate the 3477 lot# with approximately 28AUG43, the official decal drop date. So lot# 2890 would be some time prior to this, about 587 lots prior. I cannot give exact time specifics, just general estimations.

I could do that right now: 3477 lots (highest known decaled range for this maker/model) divided by 13 months (of decaled M42 production 1AUG42 to 28AUG43) 3477/13 = 267.46 lots/month production.
3477 - 2890 = 587 lots. 587/267 = 2.2 months. So lot# 2890 was produced roughly 2.2 months prior to 28AUG43, or sometime late JUNE 1943 (my estimate).



Do you have an opinion on why the letter "C" is in place of the "0" (zero) of 2890? Could it be an example of far-sighted factory worker mistaking a "C" for a "0" and placing it into the stamping jig? If that is the case, there should have been a good number of M42 helmets from the 2890 lot number marked as 289C?

I believe the C stamp to be a broken #0 die. Others could certainly be out there as I have seen the same with Quist M40 helmets, several with the same broken die have been observed.
 
Last edited:
Version 9

Here is a little blurb I prepared for the upcoming Version-9 of the lot number book.
 

Attachments

  • LOT NUMBER RANGE SIMILARITIES I.jpg
    LOT NUMBER RANGE SIMILARITIES I.jpg
    199.7 KB · Views: 31
  • LOT NUMBER RANGE SIMILARITIES II.jpg
    LOT NUMBER RANGE SIMILARITIES II.jpg
    225.3 KB · Views: 26
Lot Number Question

M45,

There is a thread on GHW relating to Lot number 'Twins' or 'Doubles'.

There are two helmets, both M40 from ET in size 66. ET66 with Lot Number #5070

One is a SD Luft and the other one is a DD Heer (Ref your book - the last recorded factory DD from ET)

Underneath the M40 Luft Lot Stamp is the stamped character III and underneath the M40 Heer is the stamped character I

Do you know what these additional stamps indicate?

Thanks in advance,

EF
 

Attachments

  • ET66_M40_SD_LUFT_014.jpg
    ET66_M40_SD_LUFT_014.jpg
    165.5 KB · Views: 14
  • ET66_M40_DD_HEER_014.jpg
    ET66_M40_DD_HEER_014.jpg
    250.1 KB · Views: 15

Military Rifle Journal
Back
Top