Airborne Helmet HSAT - unit identity "43/HQ" and "CCL" dating?

[DougSA]

Would anyone have insights on the probable unit of the original owner, namely a L/Cpl Dalton of "43/HQ"; as painted inside the rim and indicated in tag attached inside. In other words, what was "43/HQ" likely to have been?

Also, the helmet liner is marked "C.C.L." for makers Christy & Co. Ltd of London. Unfortunately, some enterprising individual tampered with the date, to make it look like "1944". However, it is not 1944. On closer inspection the last digit is almost certainly a "5", and looks like it could be "..45". I have read elsewhere that C.C.L. was only making HSAT's in the 1950s and 1960s, which would contradict 1945. If anyone has information on when C.C.L. were making these helmets, or further insights into dating this one, it would be appreciated!

I should mention that I tested the helmet with a magnet, as I have read that wartime helmets were made of non-magnetic manganese steel. It passes this test as non-magnetic. However, I should mention that I have a 1956 dated C.C.L. helmet which also passes that test. Unless my magnet is somehow defective!!!

[leigh kitchen]

Are you sure that the third digit hasn't been altered to a "4"?

[DougSA]

Originally Posted by leigh kitchen

Are you sure that the third digit hasn't been altered to a "4"?

I am looking to the left and above the larger "4" which was 'doctored' in at some point. So in between the original smaller "19" and the new larger "4". There seems to be the impression of a "4" similar in style to the one used in the size of the helmet (which is 7 1/4 inches). However, if C.C.L. were definitely not yet making HSATs in the 1940s, then I shall need to somehow examine it even more closely.

[JerryBB]

1950's & 1970's for CCL made liners, I have a 1956.

[Frank Kelley]

Quite frankly Jerry, 1956 is a nice date to have, I think that when looking to buy this sort of thing, you need text book examples that are beyond all possible doubt.
It is a shame to see these being messed around with in order to deceive.

Originally Posted by JBBOND

1950's & 1970's for CCL made liners, I have a 1956.

[NEMO]

My first reaction when I looked was 1964 ?? the downward stroke of the first no.4 is slightly convex curve like a no.6 compared it to the downward stroke of the 2nd no.4 just my thoughts

[NEMO]

Originally Posted by leigh kitchen

Are you sure that the third digit hasn't been altered to a "4"?

am certain its a no.6

[leigh kitchen]

I'm not sure - but the third digit could be a "7".

[JerryBB]

I assumed it is197....something

[DougSA]

Thanks guys for your observations!

The last digit is certainly a "5". Please see attached (the first photo), where I have traced on top what I can discern on the photo.

I do not think that the third digit is a "6", as it would surely be an upside down "9" in style, whereas the impressions that are there do not seem to reflect this. I will take more photos in different light, etc., to see if anything else is revealed regarding the third digit. It actually seems easier to discern with photos in the right light, than by the naked eye!

Frank, I certainly agree that it is ideal to look for "text book examples" when buying. Unfortunately, I acquired this one about 30 years ago, when I didn't have a text book yet and my eyes had not been opened to tricks of unscrupulous individuals. Also, I am 100% convinced that the helmet itself is a genuine HSAT.

Also, I am happy with the markings of the original wearer inside the rim, and would really like to find out more about what formation/unit is "43/HQ".

[leigh kitchen]

If the 4th digit was a "5" whatever the third digit was I feel it's unlikely to have been a "4" as I don't think a 1945 would be altered to a 1944 when it's already wartime dated (not of course that a wartime dated item was necessarily issued in a rush).
I've seen a 194? dated helmet with the 4th digit scuffed on a clean, good condition liner and with what I took to be a faked up RA flash of some kind painted on the side.
I didn't bother with it because it seemed obvious that it was a messed around with 1946-49 dated lid.
It was some time ago but perhaps I shouldve spent the £25 asked.

[DougSA]

Originally Posted by leigh kitchen

If the 4th digit was a "5" whatever the third digit was I feel it's unlikely to have been a "4" as I don't think a 1945 would be altered to a 1944 when it's already wartime dated (not of course that a wartime dated item was necessarily issued in a rush).

Of course, "1944" would bring the possibility of being worn at Normandy or Arnhem, whereas "1945" would not.

In the end, it would be great to pin the actual year down, whether this is "1945", "1955" or "1965".

Beyond the year, it shall be really interesting to know what the unit - presumably 43rd … - was?

[Belly]

Bearing in mind the obvious deceptive tampering with the helmet, why would anyone choose to believe that the white markings and label are not just as sellers attempt to make the helmet more marketable/valuable? Looks to me like somebody wrote it last week! Sorry I don’t mean to cause any offence it’s just got red flags for me

[leigh kitchen]

I'd considered the possible "Arnhem" aspect to the dating, what's only just occurred to me is the (remote) possibility of the 43 being a misguided reference to the Oxf & Bucks LI (43rd and 52nd), although the glider borne battalion was the 2nd, not the 1st.

[DougSA]

One possibility that I am now considering is that the "43" in "43/HQ" relates to the man and not the unit.

I am drawing a blank so far on possible units. Initially, I thought 16th Airborne Division (TA) might provide an answer, but it's brigades and a number of supporting units were - from 1950 - numbered 44th, 45th and 46th, so no 43rd.

I was also wondering if the tag with "Dalton, HQ" would suggest that the helmet was worn by a member of the TA, in case helmets would then be stored at the barracks and not retained by the soldier?