Jump to content

Middle Eastern Military Helmet


Tonomachi
 Share

Recommended Posts

I picked this up at the flea market and am assuming it is a GI bring back of a Middle Eastern military helmet.  I'm guessing Iraqi but I don't know for sure as it could even be Egyptian.  It has a white label with Arabic printing on the inside.   Any idea which country?

 

 

DSCF0175.JPG

DSCF0174.JPG

DSCF0171.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
vostoktrading

This is what the label says:

 

1st line: Company ( or partnership) of Ibn Fernas al-'Aamat
2nd line: Written sequence (not filled in)
3rd line: Date (not filled in)

 

Doesn't answer the which country question. If there was a way to track down the manufacturer (Ibn Fernas al-'Aamat) then might get the answer.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
  • 4 months later...
Cap Camouflage Pattern I

Iraqi late 90s-2003, so called "M90/03" in collector speak. Dont recall ever seeing one with a label, very cool. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/29/2021 at 5:37 PM, Cap Camouflage Pattern I said:

Iraqi late 90s-2003, so called "M90/03" in collector speak. Dont recall ever seeing one with a label, very cool. 

Thanks for the identification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/29/2021 at 8:37 PM, Cap Camouflage Pattern I said:

Iraqi late 90s-2003, so called "M90/03" in collector speak. Dont recall ever seeing one with a label, very cool. 

     I don't think this is correct, M90/03 are "Thick" and generally have a very bright green webbing though it may be faded. The chinstrap clasp doesn't look right either but it is hard to see. I would lean more towards an actual M90 without the bumper. Without it in hand its difficult to tell though.   Scott

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, ScottG said:

     I don't think this is correct, M90/03 are "Thick" and generally have a very bright green webbing though it may be faded. The chinstrap clasp doesn't look right either but it is hard to see. I would lean more towards an actual M90 without the bumper. Without it in hand its difficult to tell though.   Scott

I believe you are correct as I just checked the Internet and this appears to be the older M80 Iraqi helmet that lacks the thick rubber rim.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cap Camouflage Pattern I
On 7/1/2021 at 2:59 AM, ScottG said:

     I don't think this is correct, M90/03 are "Thick" and generally have a very bright green webbing though it may be faded. The chinstrap clasp doesn't look right either but it is hard to see. I would lean more towards an actual M90 without the bumper. Without it in hand its difficult to tell though.   Scott

Absolutely not.

Every aspect of Tonomachi's helmet is distinctively "M90/03", not "M90", not "M80".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/5/2021 at 10:16 PM, Cap Camouflage Pattern I said:

Absolutely not.

Every aspect of Tonomachi's helmet is distinctively "M90/03", not "M90", not "M80".

    Well, I am the one who wrote the articles on these several years ago after years of research both here and in Iraq, so I will stick to my assertion until I see better pics. As I said, it might be a well used faded version, judging from the liner and the rivets.  M80 would not have a rubber bumper, M90 would, M90/03 would not. All of the helmets and berets are or were in my collection.  Scott

Scan_Pic0001.jpg

Scan_Pic0002.jpg

Scan_Pic0003.jpg

Scan_Pic0004.jpg

Scan_Pic0005.jpg

Scan_Pic0006.jpg

Scan_Pic0007.jpg

Scan_Pic0008.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cap Camouflage Pattern I

First just looking at the shell, it is obviously not an "M80", this is especially apparent on the inside because it is a solid color, while on the "M80" the weave of the ballistic fibers is visible, much like on a US M1 liner, PASGT, or ACH. Also looking at the shell I can tell it's a "M90/03" because as you said, its thicker than the "M90". Plus if it was a "M90" with no rubber I doubt the rim would be in such good shape. But since it is a little harder to tell a "M90/03" shell from a "M90" than a "M80" at a glance, let's look at some more clues.

 

Having ruled out "M80", we are left with only "M90" or "M90/03", look at the webbing and chinstrap, all are distinctively "M90/03" and not "M90".

 

The chinstrap is attached to the shell via a swivel held by a steel plate with 3 rivets, which is how the "M90/03" and "M80" are. The "M90"'s chinstrap is attached with a small triangular plate held by a single rivet.

 

The chinstrap buckle is distinctively "M90/03"; flat square steel plates, the female end has a "D" shaped hole the receive the male end and the male end narrows and is bent into a simple hook. The "M90" has a flap buckle like a US M1 liner chinstrap, and the "M80" has a faithful copy of the US M1 shell T-1 chinstrap buckle.

 

The strap itself is wide, like the "M90/03" and "M80", or a US M1 shell chinstrap, about 3/4", while the "M90" has a narrower chinstrap about 1/2", closer to a US M1 liner chinstrap. The weave is that of the "M90/03" and not the "M80" or "M90"

 

The suspension is held on with circular washers on the rivets, like on the "M90/03" and on the "M80", while all versions of the "M90" are attached with "A" washers like on US M1 liners made in 1942-1972* regardless of if they are variant of the "M90" with suspension that is adjusted with a tie in the middle like US liners from 1941-1963 that seems to me to have been the more common version, or if the suspension crosses in the middle and is adjusted with buckles towards the back like US liners made 1964-1983. 

 

Also regardless of the suspension variations all "M90"s have a nape strap, some adjustable some not, that is made of a constant width of webbing in a sort of triangle shape on the horizontal plane, attached with 3 "A" washers, like US M1 liners made 1941-1963, while both the "M90/03" and the "M80" have one modeled after US M1 liners made from 1964-1983 with a wider pad attached with 3 narrower straps that go out in an upside-down "T" shape to buckles held on with rivets.

 

I am sure there are more differences I am forgetting, but have made my case, it is a "M90/03". 

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

    Not sure what "case" needed to be made? From the beginning I said it might be... That said, a simple glance at the articles/examples above will show you that many of the assertions you have made are incorrect. I guarantee you that the leather liner has no A washers holding it in. The M90 shown above has a chinstrap that adjusts like a US liner strap though it is permanently attached. Which brings me to the one consistent thing about Iraqi helmets which is they are not consistent yet these variations shown above are found in large numbers or what might be referred to as common. Once again, you are likely correct, but I would want to see it in hand or better pics. I could go on but no reason to, the op is happy. Finally, too many people wish to compare these to M-1s, they are not US made, they are not M-1s so the comparison doesn't hold any water. Iraq was a nation under extreme sanctions for a long time, this accounts for so many variables in their manufacturing process that you cannot say that "all" of anything will be one way, you can only look for similarities. I quit posting on the Iraq forums that I was administrator on because of some of this nonsense. Too many kids who never left Mommy's basement telling me how the Fedayeen were the Iraqi version of the SS... What a joke. Not to say you are doing this, just pointing out why I made my observation and why I do think that you may be correct, but I would want to see it to make that call. As a polite aside, the term M90/03 was coined by yours truly as a way to denote the differences between these and the M90 for the purposes of the article, I find it ironic that now I am debating it😀. Once again, if one were to make any comparison to US items, I feel it should be the fact that in Iraq just as in the US, soldiers wore items in a variety of ways and from a variety of makers, with Iraq some of these makers would be "ersatz" or "cottage industry" due to the lack of availability of materials or sanctions. Take care.  Scott

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cap Camouflage Pattern I

I have read your article and maintain everything I have said is true at least in regards to all examples I am aware of.

 

I am not trying to ascribe US timelines to Iraqi helmets, however they very clearly copy many features from US helmets and when trying to describe these features I figure it is better to reference US versions which I think most people are familiar with rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.

 

To me the comparison of Fedayeen to SS seems apt in the sense that both were paramiltitaries loyal to the ruling political party and were more fanatical than skilled. But I have to admit I know next to nothing about the history of Iraq or the Iraqi Army, I just picked up a good amount of helmets and web gear back when they were still cheap. Now prices seem to have risen significantly and I am considering trying to trade some for Vietnam war artifacts which is where my real historical passion lies. 

 

I am using the term "M90/03" in the abcense of any offical term (if one even exists, very likely does not) because it beats saying "the helmet that seems to have shown up some time after Operation Desert Storm and sometime before OIF" 

 

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK no worries, but to be clear the Fedayeen are basically a paramilitary loosely trained group of thugs dressed in black that terrorized those not loyal to the Baath Party and Saddam Hussein. The SS were both paramilitary in the police sense (Allgemeine, Gestapo etc...) and military in the Waffen SS which accounted for combat divisions and brigades. They were also highly trained as well as politically motivated/indoctrinated and in a general sense were not the average street thug in a fiber Star Wars helmet. No comparison as far as history is concerned. 

No problem on he helmet terms, I put them in the article for that purpose, as I said, I just find it ironic that I am now debating what I basically "invented". All is good, and once again there is a very real likelihood you are correct, I just prefer better pics or the item in hand.    Scott

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

This helmet is an Iraqi M80/03. Scott, I remember looking at the article you wrote, but since then, collectors most commonly call it an M80/03 due to its closer similarity to the M80 rather than the M90. These were made only after Desert Storm when Iraq has sanctions placed on the country. It does resembles an Iraqi M80, however its of worse quality, the chinstraps have no metal clips attaching them to the bails, the entire helmet is factory painted tan, and the webbing is of a coarse, bright green color. The green color easily fades which is the case of this helmet. It is true that many remaining stocks of these helmets were worn by the post 2003 Iraqi Civil Defense Corps, but plenty actually saw use before 2003 with the iraqi army under Saddam. A former Republican Guard friend of mine remembers first seeing these helmets around the year 1999. 

 

Russ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, trenchfoot said:

This helmet is an Iraqi M80/03. Scott, I remember looking at the article you wrote, but since then, collectors most commonly call it an M80/03 due to its closer similarity to the M80 rather than the M90. These were made only after Desert Storm when Iraq has sanctions placed on the country. It does resembles an Iraqi M80, however its of worse quality, the chinstraps have no metal clips attaching them to the bails, the entire helmet is factory painted tan, and the webbing is of a coarse, bright green color. The green color easily fades which is the case of this helmet. It is true that many remaining stocks of these helmets were worn by the post 2003 Iraqi Civil Defense Corps, but plenty actually saw use before 2003 with the iraqi army under Saddam. A former Republican Guard friend of mine remembers first seeing these helmets around the year 1999. 

 

Russ

          OK, once again I will try to be clear here. I said repeatedly that it may well be an M90/03. I also repeatedly said I would like to see it in hand before making a call. I also posted the articles showing several variants and giving them names. I also clearly stated that I gave them these names for such clarity. So, how did the names come about? M80, a copy of the South Korean M76 seen in the 1980 war with Iran, M90, seen in 1990 invasion of Kuwait, M90/03 seen in OIF 2003.... and so it goes. So, not to be rude, but I could care less what people are calling them these days. They can call them what they want, but until someone actually finds a way to get the proper Iraqi nomenclature, if it even exists, I am happy with the terms I applied to them. All of this has gone way off topic from the original post and for no reason than some want to be right about a made up name, why? It makes no sense and adds no value.    Scott

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When there's no true names of the helmet that exist, people are going to create ones, which you and others have done. There's nothing wrong with that. The reason for me mentioning it in the comment was to say that the term "M90/03" is rarely used anymore. If the owner of the helmet tries looking that term up to find similar helmets to compare his too, none will show up. If they search "M80/03", they will show up. I wasn't trying to call you out here, and I apologize if it seemed like that.

 

Russ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...