Talk:American fiber helmet

Combat headgear
There has been some POV issues raised by editors about combat serviceability, so I wanted to reaffirm the sources verifying the American pressed fiber helmet as serviceable combat headgear. While an arcane topic, and in spite of the AGF being required, the subject matter is actually covered by several military helmet historians offline, most notably Peter Suciu, Stuart Bates, and Alec Tulkoff. There is no substitute for their respective books being the best, most comprehensive, and authoritative sources. However, a couple of these authors also maintain blogs that discuss military sun helmets on a short topic basis. To me, these are the best online sources that provide verifiability from a third-party expert source. Links to some of these topics have been linked to various points of the article. But, if anyone is interested, sources can be emailed from a scanned copy of a book page. I do own the works and they have been a very useful resource. Otherwise, I would respectfully ask editors to do their own online research before taking a POV position that doesn't match the existing body of article sources taken as a whole. Belshay (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A emailing or uploading a scanned copy of a book page should not be needed. All that I asked for was one exact quote where one RS calls the fiber helmet a "combat" helmet. If there is not even one that does this then please tell us why think the RSs think that it is a "combat" helmet and not just a pith helmet? tahc chat 01:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please do not claim that I am "uninterested in reading the Talk page". I did not see your post here for a couple hours (I was eating dinner, it seems) but this post still does nothing to establish the fact in question yet. tahc chat 01:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * There are two references at the end of that sentence. Please take the time to verify the source already provided.  I added it for you several hours ago.  It says explicitly what you are looking for.


 * Here is the quote from page 58 of the Suciu Military Sun Helmet (2009) book:


 * "The USMC appeared to use these fiber helmets across all ranks, and these examples feature the Eagle-Globe-Anchor (EGA) cap insignia. In the early part of the Second World War the fiber sun helmets were used as the training helmet at various USMC bases, as steel helmets were not always readily availbalbe to the Corps.  Additionally, it is worth noting that the helmet was known in the Marin Corps as the "fiber helmet" and that the regulations following the issue in 1940 officially and simpler refer to it as "helmet, fiber."  Later in the war a darker version appeared in an olive drab color, and it was originally the United States Navy that used these helmets, including during the Vietnam War and the OD version was used by all services.


 * The sun helmet predated the introduction of the M1 steel helmet, and reminaed in service throught the Vietname War and was used stateside in hot weather locations until the 1980s, also outlasting the steel helmet. This included use by the United States Navy into the Persian Gulf War.  In fact, while among the most under appreciated American helmets, it was the one that served the nation the longest." (page 58, excerpt Military Sun Helmets. (Belshay (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC))


 * It seems the mahiole is sometimes called Hawaiian feather helmet by non-Hawaiians for the ridge, after the morion or galea helmets, but it is really a non-helmet headdress. Likewise it seems the hard hat is called hat but is really a helmet. Let's say the pith helmet and American fiber helmet are both "real" helmets. This does not still make them combat helmets.
 * Peter Suciu compares the American fiber helmet to actual combat helmets and talks how the fiber was sometimes used for training (during wartime) when the steel helmet was unavailable. None-the-less, (1) people do not use a fiber helmet for real combat (2) people, lots of different people, do use the fiber and pith helmet for non-combat purposes and (3) Peter Suciu no-where calls them "combat helmets."


 * So are we done now? tahc chat 02:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your tenacity on this. I sincerely apologize for becoming passionate on this topic with you.  I should have considered and responded tomorrow. I really honestly thought I was presenting the information correctly.  I've mostly focused on gathering the data over the last three years on this topic and trying to establish the actual timeline, manufacturing production, design specifications, model variations, quartermaster records, blueprints, etc.  It honestly never occurred to me that during various wars it would have been issued to soldiers but for non-combat use, especially since so much of the literature emphasizes the wartime service and not the obvious times it would have been worn in peacetime.  But, you know, I've genuinely taken your points to heart and I feel your interpretation more accurately presents and parses the information.  I was concentrating on demonstrating it was a military helmet and should have differentiated your original point at focusing on a more specific but also important issue.  I really do wish to present information accurately so I will make these changes right now to best present the information with the sources.  But I really appreciate you getting this point right.  Belshay (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, I need to do more research into this. I think two separate issues may have gotten conflated in exchange, namely any combat usage for the helmet versus the combat helmet usage extending from 1940 to 1991.  I need to consult the Grunt Gear: USMC Combat Infantry Equipment of World War II book again because I know the helmets are in that book and I think I have indeed read in places that the helmet did have a combat role, specifically during World War II.  But I still take your point concerning the previous discussion.  Belshay (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you and okay. tahc chat 17:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Tach, as promised I have continued doing research into this subject area. I've come across some more research material.  I found an article from 2014 from Peter Suciu, the military helmet author we discussed earlier.  I am including the link and a germane excerpt:


 * "It is well-known, and widely established, that the United States Marine Corp used the International Hat pith helmet as both combat gear, as well as a standard part of the Marine Corps training uniform. In both roles the helmet had one major drawback – it didn’t provide adequate ventilation to the wearer’s head."Vented International Hat Helmet


 * Additionally, I have looked at the Alec Tulkoff book: Grunt Gear: USMC Combat Infantry Equipment of World War II. Tulkoff provides one-and-a-half pages on the helmet type and includes information concerning the combat role of the helmet in the North African campaign, as well as the Pacific theater by the Marines, as well as it's use in non-combat situations, including the Japanese occupation (some apparently had Japanese writing placed on the sides), military police, marksman training, and some other functions.  I think, as this juncture, it's best to be conservative, and take into account your points above, and limit any mention of combat use to World War II then, based on these specific references.  Be interested in your thoughts.  Thanks.  Belshay (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)