eparges Posted 21 February , 2006 Share Posted 21 February , 2006 I recently acquired a bag for the PH-hood (photos 3,4&5), but comparing it to the one I allready have in my collection (purchased long ago with a hood and inner wallet, photos 1 & 2), it differs in not having a 2 part (inner) compartment. I have (or better, had) no reason to suspect it to be a copy (threat is ok, as are button holes, looks aged (not artificially), buttons to strap are oxydised brass, marked 'B'ham button' to the back etc). My question is: was there ever produced such a thing as a 'simplified bag', or have the frauds done a really good job here, but left out the inner compartment? any other way to tell if it's original or not? Thanx! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delta Posted 21 February , 2006 Share Posted 21 February , 2006 Pardon my ignorance - what is a PH hood? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eparges Posted 21 February , 2006 Author Share Posted 21 February , 2006 ok: PH gas helmet? ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delta Posted 21 February , 2006 Share Posted 21 February , 2006 as in Phosgene? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john in minnesota Posted 21 February , 2006 Share Posted 21 February , 2006 I recently acquired a bag for the PH-hood (photos 3,4&5), but comparing it to the one I allready have in my collection (purchased long ago with a hood and inner wallet, photos 1 & 2), it differs in not having a 2 part (inner) compartment. I have (or better, had) no reason to suspect it to be a copy (threat is ok, as are button holes, looks aged (not artificially), buttons to strap are oxydised brass, marked 'B'ham button' to the back etc). My question is: was there ever produced such a thing as a 'simplified bag', or have the frauds done a really good job here, but left out the inner compartment? any other way to tell if it's original or not? Thanx! I've looked at mine (which I have no reason to believe is a fake) and it has only one internal compartment - no sign of modification. I have examined a couple of the repros that are out there and they are fairly accurate but clearly inferior - buttons are wrong, thread is polyester and cloth feels new. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eparges Posted 21 February , 2006 Author Share Posted 21 February , 2006 [As in Phenate Hexamine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sweeney Posted 21 February , 2006 Share Posted 21 February , 2006 Eparges, PH haversacks were manufactured with and without an interior divider. I'm not 100% sure but I believe that the one without the interior divider is the older version. I'll have to check. Joe Sweeney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eparges Posted 21 February , 2006 Author Share Posted 21 February , 2006 [Thanx Joe! we're not P and PH helmet distributed with a separate pair of ('gaz') goggles, as opposed to the PHG which had integrated goggles? Would this explain the 2 compartments? I have/can find hardly any info.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Henschke Posted 21 February , 2006 Share Posted 21 February , 2006 The satchel without divider is the early version and the type with divider was often referred to as the 'new pattern'. Here is an extract from a Second Army signal regarding the 'return of surplus P.H.G. or P.H. helmets when the small box respirator is issued'. 'It is found that the old pattern satchel is not large enough to contain a helmet and a pair of rubber sponge goggles whereas the new pattern has two compartments and is specially made to contain both appliances. Will you therefore please arrange that when units return P.H.G. or P.H. helmets on receipt of the small box respirators, they should as far as possible retain the new type of satchel and return the old pattern..." The signal is dated 17/10/16. Chris Henschke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eparges Posted 21 February , 2006 Author Share Posted 21 February , 2006 Thanx for this great answer! One thing puzzles me: were the goggles then also distributed with the PHG, which (allready) had internal goggles??? and would I be correct in supposin that a PH-helmet could thus be carried either in an 'old' or 'new' type bag? The (inner, separate) wallet with my PH helmet is dated 12/10/16, so would the later type be more correct (was with it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sweeney Posted 22 February , 2006 Share Posted 22 February , 2006 Eparges, The first Helmet case (haversack) dates to Aug 1915. This is the one with no divider. The second with divider dates to approx. May 1916. The PH helmet could and would be carried in either type bag. The Goggles (Spicer and Sponge) were issued with the PH and SBR. In fact from Aug 1916 to well into 1917 (May) it was required to carry a SBR, PH and pair of goggles. This is called out in SS136 and SS534. The PHG was never as numerous as the PH helmet and never as universally issued as the PH, in fact I believe the PH had a longer life. SS419 W/supplement dated July 1916 discusses the Box respirator, PHG and PH. Goggles are not mentioned with the PHG but are (spicer goggles) with the PH. Not conclusive but I would say that officially no goggles were thought to be needed with a PHG. Somewhere I have instructions on who should actually get a PHG vis a vis a PH helmet, but can't find the instructions. What I can find is the August 1916 instructions (SS125) for the issue of the SBR which states "return to Ordnance the PHG helmet with each officer and Man, or where this has not been issued, one of the two PH helmets". This statement would lead me to believe that the intent was to completely withdraw the PHG from service with the introduction of the SBR. SS136, dated Dec 1916, and SS534, dated Feb 1917, make no mention of the PHG. My feeling is that the PHG was withdrawn from service in the fall of 1916 and the PH allowed to soldier on a bit longer. Nothing happens this cleanly in service but this what I believe. I do have quite a bit of info on these helmets that I did not look at that contains more info. I'll have a look this weekend to see if I can contradict myself. The goggles were not only meant to be worn with the helmet but also without. That is the above documents call-out that in a tear gas environment it was common to only require the goggles and still breath normally. SS184 "monthly gas warfare report of July 1917" states that Goggles were withdrawn from service since the last report. Although I seem to recall photos of men with goggles that easily post date this statement. Hope this helps Joe Sweeney I checked more info I gathered from the NA on the Anti gas department. The PHG was only in production for three months over the summer of 1916. The introduction of the SBR was supposed to have replaced the PHG. The PH helmet stayed in production until Feb 1918. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eparges Posted 22 February , 2006 Author Share Posted 22 February , 2006 Thanx for that! think that's all I (ever) wanted to know Eparges Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grantsmil Posted 23 February , 2006 Share Posted 23 February , 2006 Joe, “The Goggles (Spicer and Sponge) were issued with the PH and SBR. In fact from Aug 1916 to well into 1917 (May) it was required to carry a SBR, PH and pair of goggles. This is called out in SS136 and SS534.” I find it very difficult to get information on these types of goggles issued with the PH helmets, but I have found two different goggles with PH helmets. One was a very well made sponge rubbers set with glass eye pieces, which I suspect that you refer to above as the ‘sponge’. The others are like a ‘throw-away’ type. There are made of white flannel and khaki cotton with the eyepieces made of a celluloid type material. Are these the ‘spicer’ goggles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grovetown Posted 23 February , 2006 Share Posted 23 February , 2006 Grant Herewith a pic of some Spicer goggles. Best wishes, Grovetown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grantsmil Posted 23 February , 2006 Share Posted 23 February , 2006 Grant Herewith a pic of some Spicer goggles. Best wishes, Grovetown. Well done, thanks. They are the ones. Here are the instructions on how to use them: "Apply the Goggles placing the eye pieces as near the centre of the eyes as possible. Then cross the tape at the back of the neck and bring around over the forehead. Tie off over the edge of the material so as to press it firmly. Mould the wire in the lower edge by pressing with fingers so as to make it fit tight round the tip of the nose. Protection against Irritant Gases is improved by smearing Vaseline around between the edges of the Goggles and the skin." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grovetown Posted 23 February , 2006 Share Posted 23 February , 2006 Well done, thanks. They are the ones. Here are the instructions on how to use them: "Apply the Goggles placing the eye pieces as near the centre of the eyes as possible. Then cross the tape at the back of the neck and bring around over the forehead. Tie off over the edge of the material so as to press it firmly. Mould the wire in the lower edge by pressing with fingers so as to make it fit tight round the tip of the nose. Protection against Irritant Gases is improved by smearing Vaseline around between the edges of the Goggles and the skin." As indeed per the packet. Best wishes, Grovtown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sweeney Posted 23 February , 2006 Share Posted 23 February , 2006 Grant, To add some more info. Around 6 million Goggles were procured during the war for anti-gas. Most of that number was evenly divided between the Sponge and Spicer googles. Grovetown posted some nice photo's of the Spicer. The Spicer goggles were alternately known as the "French Type" goggles and both references can be found in period documents. Yes the well made ones you refer to are in fact the "Sponge" goggles. Spicer was a big wig in the anti-gas department and the goggles bear his name--although not in Anti-gas department documents. Joe Sweeney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grantsmil Posted 23 February , 2006 Share Posted 23 February , 2006 We had better show the 'sponge' type as well. It is interesting to hear hat they were both produced in similar numbers. As a matter of interest the sponge goggles came in a twin pocket PH helmet bag, with helmet, while the Spicer ones, I have, came in a single pocket haversack, with helmet. I had wondered if the Spicer goggles were issued, and carried with the PH helmet or if they were issued and carried seperately. I imagine that if you had a single pocket pouch carrying two items it would be unwise. It would be be very likely that the goggles could be easily lost when trying to remove the helmet in a hurry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sweeney Posted 23 February , 2006 Share Posted 23 February , 2006 Grant, Nice goggles. The sponge on my pair has broken apart at the nose. Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grantsmil Posted 23 February , 2006 Share Posted 23 February , 2006 Mine have also broken apart across the nose. The only image I can load showing the front of the goggles is attached, but it is an Image that I have 'played with', and I have covered up the damage. The original goggles can be seen at: http://www.grantsmilitaria.com/militariaph...ges.asp?key=386 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief_Chum Posted 26 February , 2006 Share Posted 26 February , 2006 This label was glued into the diary of Sgt L Morris, 84891, RFA on a page dated 6/12/15. Can anyone say what the label refers to? It is one of the types of goggles or something totally different - a private purchase item maybe? Cheers, Taff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief_Chum Posted 26 February , 2006 Share Posted 26 February , 2006 'P' Type Helmets seem very hard to find. Presumably most were re-stamped with an 'H' and soaked in hexamine to make them into 'PH' Helmets? This 'P' Type was worn by Lt H.G.Frost, 9/Suffolk on 19 December, 1915 during the first German phosgene attack at St Jean near Ypres... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief_Chum Posted 26 February , 2006 Share Posted 26 February , 2006 ...and, while I'm at it, this is the Hypo Helmet of Pte H.Ellis, MM, 11 Fd Amb RAMC (TF)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief_Chum Posted 26 February , 2006 Share Posted 26 February , 2006 ...and front and back views of the haversack/satchel for the Hypo helmets... ...and the back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sweeney Posted 27 February , 2006 Share Posted 27 February , 2006 This label was glued into the diary of Sgt L Morris, 84891, RFA on a page dated 6/12/15. Can anyone say what the label refers to? It is one of the types of goggles or something totally different - a private purchase item maybe? Cheers, Taff Taff, It looks like it might be the instructions to some type of commercial/semi commercial mask such as those produced by Boots, which produce in effective medicated mouth pads, and possibly the Allenbury mask, which had mica eye pieces and a pad mouth piece. There is a famous photo of two men using a vermoral sprayer wearing similar masks. But not 100% sure if those are Allenbury's. Nice photos of mask and satchels. The two hypo helmets, w bags, below belonged to Sjt. B Coates of the RE (Special Bde). The second helmet has the screw on eye pieces that were introduced with Hypo before production switched to the double flannel or flannelette type, i.e. P helmets (third helmet below). Note the slight differences commonly found with these early type carriers, these were never pattern sealed, used with the early respirators such as the black veiling and used with hypo's until replaced by the more familar bags used with P and PH. Joe Sweeney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now