# Korean War Insignia



## 2551 (29 Mar 2009)

Hi:
Is there someone who can identify for me what these two badges were for?  I know that one was worn by my father when he was in Korea.  I believe the second one would have been worn as well, but I do not have any photo that shows this.

Thanks.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Mar 2009)

Commonwealth Patch, 25 Canadian Infantry Brigade Grp Patch.


----------



## Old Sweat (29 Mar 2009)

Further to Recce Guy's posts, the upper one is the patch of the British Commowealth Division in Korea.

I think, and I am not sure, that the seond was a patch used by Canadian troops deployed on UN missions well into the sixties. I think I can recall troops on UNEF and even in Cyprus wearing it. Any assistance would be appreciated. It was used in place of a Canada flash.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (30 Mar 2009)

http://mpmuseum.org/unkorea.html


> 25 Brigade Patch
> The 25 Brigade patch was worn on the right sleeve of the battledress jacket or on the bush dress armlet. Gold wire embroidered versions of this patch and the Commonwealth Division patch were produced in Japan and availible for purchase as souveniers. These were sometimes worn on best "walking out" battledress. *After the end of the Korean war, the 25 Brigade patch was retained and used as a national identifier for Canadians on UN duty.*
> 
> Commonwealth Division Patch
> All members of the Commonwealth Division wore the Divisional patch. It was worn by Canadians on the left arm of the battledress. A number of variations exist most of local Korean or Japanese manufacture. The King's Crown on the original version changed to a Queen's Crown on the accession of Queen Elisabeth II in 1953.



In a couple of books sitting on my shelves, a number of photos provide good examples of the wear as noted above, however the use of the Commonwealth Div patch is only evident in photos showing Brigadier Rockingham, with most others appearing not to have this insignia on their left sleeve.  The continued use of the bde patch as a national identifier possibly lasted until our current distinctive Canadian flag was adopted and started to be used as such on uniforms.  The use of the "patch" as a national identifier is evident in photos of Canadians on UN ops in Gaza/Sinai, Congo and Cyprus.  In this use it may not have been strictly an "army" insignia as I've seen one photo of an RCAF Cpl wearing it in the Congo (in same manner as army types - national identifier on left sleeve with the UN patch on the right sleeve).

(the following edited)
This patch (or Something similar may also have been was worn by Canadian troops of 27 Brigade when they were first shipped over to Germany.  Photos show a patch of similar shape worn on the left sleeve but are not clear enough to provide detail.  A little research provided the details of the patch of the short-lived 27 Brigade.


----------



## 2551 (30 Mar 2009)

Thanks very much for the info.

I recall a story I was told a long time ago that the canadian troops in Korea received US pattern helmets while they were there.  I don't know if that means they were initially using the British ones and then replaced them, or if they didn't have any helmets at all until getting the US ones?

Can anyone help me with this one?

Thanks.


----------



## geo (30 Mar 2009)

2551... The Canadian troops have had steel helmets since WW1... we did not need to wait till the US gave us some of theirs - for us to, at long last wear helmets.

The field helmet in use by the Canadian Armed Forces at the time of Unification was the American designed M1 helmet.  Adopted by Canada as standard in 1960, a limited number had been in Canadian service since the Second World War. The M1 helmet was made in two parts, an outer steel shell and a removable fibreglass liner. 

http://mpmuseum.org/securhelmet.html


----------



## 2551 (30 Mar 2009)

Thanks for that - , but I think I was not very clear as to my question.

I did know we had steel helmets.  However, my understanding was that it was the British pattern helmet.  My father told me that when he was in Korea, they were issued with US pattern helmets.  (I won't say what he thought the reasons were).  So my question is:  did our troops have the British pattern helmet when they were sent to Korea, and were they actually replaced "in theatre", or did they simply not have any helmet until getting the american ones?

Cheers!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Mar 2009)

2551 said:
			
		

> Thanks for that - I think I was clear with my question.



Yes, you were.


----------



## geo (30 Mar 2009)

The American M1 helmet was adopted by Canada as standard in 1960.
A limited number had been in Canadian service since the Second World War... IE - during the Korean war.
(Canadian members of the 1st SSF wore US pattern uniforms once their unit was stood up).

Troops deploy with a helmet.  Upon arrival in theatre, if command made a decision to replace one helmet by another, then the old ones would be taken back in & the new ones given out.


----------



## Old Sweat (30 Mar 2009)

I have been through a number of books looking for references to steel helmets. To say that the record is spotty would be a huge understatement. It appears that troops deployed with the British pattern helment and that the Commonwealth Division soon stopped wearing helmets. It may indicate something in that the photos I have seen, the troops are wearing soft caps, berets or balaclavas or are bare-headed. The only reference I found to a Canadian wearing a steel helmet was an account of a soldier being killed when a splinter entered his head under the hard rubber head band. The British helmet had a hard rubber head band, unlike the American one.

If I have learned anything, it is that just because something is not in the written record is not conclusive proof that it did not happen. (I hope my multinegatives have not confused the issue.) It is entirely possible that one or more units got steel helmets through the US supply system by formal, legal or other means. 

The purchase of American steel helmets during the Second World War is a bit of a red herring, although the Anglo-Canadian armies considered adopting it before the Normandy invasion.


----------



## Rifleman62 (30 Mar 2009)

A RWpgRif WWII officer, LT "GI" James, MC wore a US Helmet, hence the nickname.

War correspondent Charles Lynch interviews a wounded soldier of the Royal Winnipeg Rifles at the battle for Carpiquet Airport, Normandy, 1944. Canada Post later commissioned the use of this image in 1995 for a stamp to commemorate the 50th annivesary of D-Day.

Sgt Nick Fritzs Pl Sgt C Coy 2 QOR of C, Korea 1954/55. Note patch.

Lt W (Bill) Wilson & Lt (Salty) John Saunders. "Trooping of the Rifle" Ceremony in Korea celebrating our Regimental Birthday in conjuction with the Royal Scots who were also celebrating their Regimental Birthday. Note patch.

Download the pictures and zoom to get a better view of the patches.


----------



## Rifleman62 (30 Mar 2009)

Better copy of Sgt Fritzs


----------



## Blackadder1916 (30 Mar 2009)

Helmets . . . this montage came from the photo gallery at the Korea Veterans Association of Canada website.


----------



## 2551 (30 Mar 2009)

Thanks everyone for the input.  My conclusion is that they were initially issue with the British pattern helmet.  What my father said was that they were issued with or loaned some American helmets.  He went on to say that it was done in an effort to make the Chinese think they were American troops.  To further ensure this deception, they made an effort to make themselves visible to the enemy, in silhouette, (I guess at dawn or dusk), while wearing the American helmets.

This is what he told me - I make no further claim than that - but I do believe him.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Mar 2009)

Here is a RCD photo, circa 1953, and you can make out the "Tommy" helmet on the back of the LCol on the right.


----------



## exspy (30 Mar 2009)

Blackadder,

What you have is the shoulder insignia of the 1st and 2nd Canadian Infantry Battalions, RCIC, which existed from 1951 to 1953.  When the PANDA force was created for NATO service its personnel were recruited through existing militia regiments.  The original force, from which the 27th Canadian Infantry Brigade Group was created, had three infantry rifle battalions; the 1st Canadian Infantry Battalion, the 1st Canadian Rifle Battalion and the 1st Canadian Highland Battalion.  Each battalion drew their personnel from five militia infantry regiments of the same type (line, rifle or highland).  Each militia regiment formed a complete company within that battalion with the headquarters being a composite.  The individual companies wore their parent regiment's uniforms and insignia which required a complete uniform change for an inter-company transfer.

To provide a common insignia for a multi-uniformed battalion each wore a shield device on both arms.  The centre device identified the individual battalion; a bayonet for the infantry, a thistle for the highlanders and a bugle horn for the rifles.  When the second battalions were raised for reinforcements the devices were retained and used.  In 1953 the battalions were redesignated as The Canadian Guards, The Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment) of Canada and the Queen's Own Rifles of Canada, and the devices ceased to be used.

Check out Army Historical Report No. 51 at the DHist website.  It details the history of 27th CIBG and is available online.  It lists the 15 militia infantry regiments that contributed to the brigade group, along with those that created the remainder of the units.

Also, thanks for the photo of helmet use in Korea.  First ones I've ever seen.

Cheers,
Dan.


----------



## Rifleman62 (31 Mar 2009)

Photo A. 25 Canadian Infantry Brigade Battle School Uijongbu Korea 1954. Peter Rothwell, Australian Army, in the rear 3 from left. Assorted Brits, Canadians & Kiwis.

Photo B. Corporal Frank Walsh of the 1st Battalion, Queen's Own Rifles of Canada, preparing for UN peacekeeping duty in the Middle East, November 1956. Note patch.

RCAMC in Korea. Note patch.

Shoulder patch 1st Canadian Highland Battalion.



I know a couple of guys who were in the 1st Canadian Rifle Battalion. I will ask if they still have their shoulder patch. The story of the 27 CIB was published in a recent edition of The Devils' Blast, the regimental magazine of The Royal Winnipeg Rifles. If you want a copy in Word, PM me.


----------



## Rifleman62 (31 Mar 2009)

As stated by exspy: Shoulder patch 1st Canadian Infantry Battalion. 

Reposted to avoid confusion.


1st Canadian Rifle Battalion

27 Canadian Infantry Brigade


----------



## je suis prest (31 Mar 2009)

My father was with I RCHA in Korea.

 I recall a story from him that there was an attempt at some point to make the Chinese believe the Canadian brigade was an American army unit.  His version of events was that this was an attempt to lure the Chinese into an attack, since it was believed they thought the US army troops were of lower quality than the Commonwealth Division (or the US marines).  That may be the incident referred to in which US-pattern helmets were issued.


----------



## 2551 (31 Mar 2009)

Well, that is what my father said as well.  He was in the PPCLI.  If two people in two different units have told the same story, then there is most likely a high degree of truth to it.  He was more than a little bitter that the American army had access to supplies that our fellows could only dream of - but were such poor fighters in spite of it.


----------



## je suis prest (31 Mar 2009)

On the other hand, our troops had access to alcohol, which the Americans didn't.  It made, I gather, for some interesting bartering sessions among the units.


----------



## 2551 (7 Apr 2009)

I have found confirmation that the story about our troops in Korea being issued American helmets is true.  It was part of "Operation Trojan", and truly was an effort to dupe the Chinese into thinking that American troops had moved into position on Hill 355.  It was hoped that this would prompt a Chinese attack, giving our troops an opportunity to capture some of them.

Other than that, it seems that our troops didn't like either the British or American pattern helmets, and usually did not wear a helmet at all.

There have not been any studies done to date to prove/disprove that the use of a helmet reduces head injuries, or which pattern was "better".


----------



## AJFitzpatrick (10 Apr 2009)

2551 said:
			
		

> There have not been any studies done to date to prove/disprove that the use of a helmet reduces head injuries, or which pattern was "better".



Kind of hard to find the volunteers for the control group. However, I thought there was a change in the distribution of fatal wound locations following the wide scale introduction of helmets in WWI. Will try to find a source.


----------



## Michael OLeary (10 Apr 2009)

2551 said:
			
		

> There have not been any studies done to date to prove/disprove that the use of a helmet reduces head injuries, or which pattern was "better".



http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m1-steel-pot.htm



> *During the period from 9 January to 1 March 1953, a study on the battlefield performance of the M1 steel helmet was conducted in Korea.* The study was made by collecting all available helmets hit on the battlefield by enemy fire. The helmets were then forwarded through Graves Registration channels to the Central Identification Unit, Kokura, with information on (1) the type of missile that hit the helmet (grenade, mortar, "burp" gun, and so forth), (2) a complete description of what happened to the individual wearing the helmet, (3) the type of wounds sustained, and (4) the exact location of the wounds. After proper coordination with the Medical and Quartermaster Sections, an order implementing this was published by the Adjutant General, Headquarters, Eighth U.S. Army, Korea, and sent to all division surgeons for their information and coordination with their battalion aid station personnel.
> 
> A total of 45 helmets were received during this period of time. It had been hoped that many more helmets would be recovered and forwarded with the information requested. Personal contact with battalion aid station surgeons at a later date revealed the numerous difficulties involved in recovering the helmets. Soldiers who had sustained hits on their helmets without receiving a wound did not want to give up their helmets and in many instances did not turn them in. There was also added danger in attempting recovery of damaged helmets from exposure to enemy fire during the time required for recovery.
> 
> In 16 of 45 cases were killed as a result of helmet defeat by the missile. In 13 of 45 cases the missile was defeated successfully, although some of these cases resulted in death from wounds elsewhere on the body. *Many of the 16 nonlethal wounds sustained through the helmet were potentially lethal. This was judged from the direction the missile was traveling. Therefore, in assessing the effectiveness of helmet protection, these reductions in wound severity must be considered. In over half the cases studied, possible death resulting from head wounds was prevented by the helmet.*


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Apr 2009)

2551 said:
			
		

> There have not been any studies done to date to prove/disprove that the use of a helmet reduces head injuries, or which pattern was "better".



He said "Pardon me? WTF kind of statement is that"?

They are called 'lanes'. Stay in them.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## 2551 (10 Apr 2009)

Please note that my comment about the use of helmets was not intended as a criticism of their use.  While tracking down information about Operation Trojan, I came across an article which commented on the fact that an unsuccessful attempt had been made to compare the value of the American versus the British pattern helmet.  Apparently there was so much difference in the injury reporting methods used that such a comparison was impossible.

I am trying to find that source, and will post it here once found.


----------



## Old Sweat (10 Apr 2009)

David Bercuson mentions it in his book on Korea. I think it is titled Blood on the Hills. As I recall the passage, the British Commonwealth Division stopped wearing helmets. An attempt was made to compare head injuries between the Commonwealth and US forces, who wore their helments, but as you stated, the difference in methodology in compiling statistics put an end to it.

My personal comment is that helmets were introduced in the First World War for a reason. It may have been is that before and after statistics in the Commonwealth forces in Korea and/or previous wars might have provided an indication.

Recce Guy, sorry to head down another lane, but the subject of helmets and the policy re wearing them seems to be worthy of dicussion here in the context of dress in korea.


----------



## Michael OLeary (10 Apr 2009)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Recce Guy, sorry to head down another lane, but the subject of helmets and the policy re wearing them seems to be worthy of dicussion here in the context of dress in korea.



It is worthy of discussion, but there's a big difference between saying "there have been no studies" and "I have not found any studies ...".


----------



## XMP (10 Apr 2009)

In his book <i>Tin Lids</i> Roger Lucy quotes a 1952 test:

<b>The Canadian-made Mk.II helmet was made from Hadfields man­ganese steel 0.033" (0.825 mm) thick. With chin-strap and lining it weighed about 1,100 grams (approx. 2 1/4 Ibs). According to the DS&M's official report, the Canadian Mk.II was supposed to resist penetration from a .303 bullet at 12 feet. This seems improbable. Tests carried out in England in October 1942 showed it could resist penetration from a pistol bullet at 1 yard and from a Thompson SMG at 3 yards. Ballistic tests, carried out at the US Army arsenal at Watertown in April, 1952, using a .22 calibre 17 grain fragment sim­ulating projectile and 17 grain USA and Soviet shell fragments showed the WWII Canadian Mk.II had a v50* of about 900 ft/sec (270 m/s). By comparison a US M-1 hel­met had a v50 of 350 m/s and today's new generation of ballistic composite helmets have v50s of up to 700 m/s. A Mk.II variant that does not seem to have reached production is illustrated in the 10 December, 1942 Hamilton Spectator. Reportedly made of a "new type steel", it is shown, relatively unscathed from a burst of Tommy-gun fire (the range is not specified), beside a somewhat perforated regular Mk.II. No other details are known about
this.

* v50 is a common unit for the measure of protection offered by a helmet or body armour it repre­sents the velocity at which the helmet will stop half of all 17 grain steel -or 9 mm bullet- fragments fired at it.</b>

Lucy continues with a number of reports on Canadian trials of metal and composite helmets in the 1950s and 60s.


----------



## Michael OLeary (10 Apr 2009)

But what about protection from blast and shrapnel?  Simply examining the protection provided against point-blank small arms fire doesn't exactly represent wound statistics very well.

For example, see this chart (Source):

TABLE 9. - Percentage distribution of wounding agents, and deaths therefrom, in 71,000 casualties admitted to Fifth U.S. Army hospitals, 9 September 1943-31 May 1945

And for Korea (Source):



> Two important elements relating to fatality of hits and the lethality of weapons are the causative agent and the nature of traumatism. When comparison is made between the various agents causing wounds and deaths in World War II and in the Korean War (table 40), lower proportions were caused by explosive projectile shells (artillery, mortar, and bazooka), rockets and bombs, and boobytraps in the Korean War than in World War II. Conversely, relatively higher proportions in Korea were caused by small arms, grenades, land mines, and other fragments and explosions. The differences are more pronounced among the wounded than among the deaths. In Korea, 27 percent of the nonfatal wounds were from small arms (bullets) compared to 20 percent for all of World War II. The proportion from explosive projectiles (51 percent) was lower in Korea than the 58 percent for World War II, while the proportion from grenades (9 percent) was markedly higher than the World War II figure.



See source page for a table of wound stats by cause.


----------



## XMP (10 Apr 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> But what about protection from blast and shrapnel?  Simply examining the protection provided against point-blank small arms fire doesn't exactly represent wound statistics very well.


Absolutely. But the report Lucy cites does indicate that the tests were a simple comparison of the ballistic protection provided by Cdn Mk II and US M1 helmets.

There <i>was</i> an attempt to simulate Soviet shell fragments.



			
				XMP said:
			
		

> Ballistic tests, carried out at the US Army arsenal at Watertown in April, 1952, using a .22 calibre 17 grain fragment sim­ulating projectile and 17 grain USA and Soviet shell fragments showed the WWII Canadian Mk.II had a v50* of about 900 ft/sec (270 m/s).


My post wasn't intended as a in depth study of the ballistic protection offered by either helmet, but a reference to a known Korean War period comparison of the two.
In any event, Canada ceased production of the MkII in 1953 and adopted the M1 as standard in 1960.


----------



## 1feral1 (10 Apr 2009)

2551 said:
			
		

> He was more than a little bitter that the American army had access to supplies that our fellows could only dream of - but were such poor fighters in spite of it.



US soldiers in Korea poor fighters eh?

How posting a reference to that link!

I find this accusation in very poor taste, an insult to all who served, fought, wounded and were killed.

OWDU


----------



## 1feral1 (10 Apr 2009)

2551 said:
			
		

> and truly was an effort to dupe the Chinese into thinking that American troops had moved into position on Hill 355.  It was hoped that this would prompt a Chinese attack, giving our troops an opportunity to capture some of them.



Sir, kindly provide a link to back this up, its the first time I have heard of such a statement.

OWDU


----------



## 2551 (10 Apr 2009)

Sir:

With regard to the first issue you have raised:  the statement was made by my father.   

Even with some verification of its accuracy, as provided by another poster, I decided to see if this event was actually done "officially", or otherwise.

I have found two references to "Operation Trojan":

The Official History of the Canadian Army - Strange Battleground  (pages 225 and 226), by LCol H.F. Wood of the Army Historical Section, 1966

The other is found in Deadlock in Korea, 1999, by Ted Barris, (pages 197-198)


----------



## geo (11 Apr 2009)

“Trojan” was a deception scheme aimed at giving the enemy the impression that American troops had replaced Commonwealth units about Hill 355. It was hoped that the Chinese would be tempted to investigate this curious occurrence and that casualties could be inflicted and prisoners taken as a result. U.S. Army steel helmets had been temporarily issued to the Canadian infantry prior to their movement into the line, and, in the early morning hours of 9 August, all brigade wireless stations began to transmit on new frequencies, using U.S. Army wireless procedure. The subterfuge apparently met with some success, for a week after it began Chinese voices were heard on one of the brigade’s wireless sets, calling “Hello American, hello American”. The deception was maintained until 24 August when normal procedure was resumed,15 but no enemy raids occurred.

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-dhp/his/oh-ho/detail-eng.asp?BfBookLang=1&BfId=35


----------



## Cuffs (15 Mar 2013)

I had this uniform for a while and thought I would share it This is missing one pice and its the shoulder strap for the belt.Enjoy


----------



## Cuffs (15 Mar 2013)

Heres a picture of the left sleeve This is a corporals uniform but what is the single on the bottem of the sleeve


----------



## Old Sweat (15 Mar 2013)

It is the good conduct badge awarded for 18 months crime free service.


----------

