A Few of My Helmets...

[Fortunes Of War]

The steel helmet is a Japanese captured, KMT helmet from the early war years.  The navy flight helmet and goggles are marked with late-war homeland defense flags.  The set-up is named to a pilot named Tada .

[Fortunes Of War]

Here is a sample of my winter camo helmets, black painted camo and miscellaneous others.

[Fortunes Of War]

The army helmet has a "Manchurian" style cover and field made net.  To the right is a winter tanker's helmet that I acquired back in the 1970's right after the big, "warehouse find" in Japan. 

[St.Lukas]

Nice stuff Mike! What the heck is that red/orange helmet !?!? I think net is a known factory net rather than field made

[Fortunes Of War]

Hi Jareth-

     The red helmet with white star literally came out of a barn in Southern California.  Like anything that is found in non-regulation paint, it could easily be passed off as a post-war paint job; and it just might be that.  Over the years, I have seen only a few IJA helmets painted red (seen here in the U.S. and in Japan.  I personally know of one other.)  The only explanation I have heard came from Eric Doody who said that he spoke with someone in Japan who said that some "Range Masters" wore red painted helmets.  If it's true, well then.....If not, then it's a red painted helmet with white star.  By the way, when I got the helmet home, dead spiders and tons of bugs fell out of the liner; they'd been living there for years!  Kind of scary.....  

     As for the other helmet, it could be a factory net, although it looks to me like a piece of body net that was gathered up in the top center and had some string wrapped around it to secure it. 

      

[RAB]

Great collection, love the winter camo ones.

[Airborne-Hunter]

If I could ask what makes the cover a Manchurian style?

Also, the white striped helmet next to the red one is that civil defense?

And the KMT - is that modified for use by the Japanese? Or what signifies captures?

[Fortunes Of War]

Thank you for the kind comments with regard to the helmets; much appreciated.

 

The explanation for the Manchurian style covers seems to be up for some debate (some even going so far as to say that they are reproductions.)  Others have said that even calling them "Manchurian covers" is inaccurate.  While the jury may be out, I tend to go with the Manchurian explanation.  Here is what I know with regard to this cover (see below).  I credit long time helmet collector John Egger with the description. 

As for the white striped helmet, yes, there are some people also calling these helmets "civil defense".  I am not convinced about this either and think that there may be other possible explanations. 

The KMT helmet was acquired in Japan more than 40 years ago from an estate clean out (garage sale).  It was a Japanese, early China War bring-back and has the name of the Japanese soldier written inside it.

 

"The Manchurian Type-90 helmet cover was produced for the army during the latter 1930s; examples of this cover are rare. The cover was formed from six cloth panels.  While some specimens have size and army depot stamps on the unlined interior, others remain unmarked. The absence of markings on some may have come as the result of extensive repairs that removed the original markings. These helmet covers had both a one- and a two-piece army cloth insignia and were secured to the helmet by a drawstring closure. A significant feature of this design was the four stitched, reinforced vent holes that aligned with the vent holes on the Type-90 helmet. The few samples of these covers are all well worn and appear to have remained in use throughout the war."     

[Airborne-Hunter]

Thank you for the explanation. Does your Manchurian have the reinforced vent holes described? I've never seen one in person. Where did yours come from?

The Chinese Nationalist helmets are extremely difficult to find. Yours is only the 3rd real one I have seen. I was fortunate that my father found one in a barn one time along with a covered Japanese type 90. Best ABN

[Fortunes Of War]

Hello ABH-

     Thank you again for sharing your amazing collection with the Forum.  Do you have any photos of your Chinese Nationalist helmet?  I will try and snap a nice close-up image of the re-enforced vent holes for you.  That should also show off the net better as well; St. Lucas should be able to comment better after seeing that.  This particular helmet came with an original wartime photos of the Army Air Corps veteran wearing the same helmet.  He is also shown holding a Nambu pistol in one hand and a samurai sword in the other.  I traded both helmet and photo to another collector years ago, but recently acquired it back.  They are still looking for the photo....  

[Fortunes Of War]

Here are a couple of photos that I took of the army helmet cover.  It shows the re-enforced vent holes and also how the net is tied off at the top with string.

[St.Lukas]

I had one of these covers too. These were designed without interiors. Vent holes on cover top meant to line up with helmet top vents. In my opinion these were the very earliest army helmet covers and a short lived variation 

[Fortunes Of War]

That too is my understanding.  If there is anything under this one, you wouldn't know it, since it feels very thin.  Like ABH, I won't take this one off to look.

[smbr57]

Very nice collection! Love the winter camos! Is the one with the black star a former Eric Doody piece?  I have a couple of snow camos myself. That navy snow camo looks really interesting. Any history on that one? 

 

Thanks,

 

Scott

[Fortunes Of War]

Hij Scott-

     Yes, the white helmet with black painted star came from Eric Doody's collection.  Eric purchased it many years ago from John Egger, who sold it to him after finding another white camo that he liked better.  Of interest, with regard to the black painted star, John had a number of photographs in his collection that showed black painted stars on helmets being worn in the field.  He had additional photos showing stars in different shades (white paint for sure), as well as bare metal.  These were to be published in his Japanese headgear book(s).  A picture is worth a thousand words.....

     The navy snow camo came from a veteran's estate in, i think, MN (may have been WI, sorry).  It has a late war navy liner.  FYI: the black painted helmet belonged to John Egger as well.  It was a direct veteran purchase (like the white camos above).  He sold it to Oliver Lock at the SOS.  Oliver took it across the pond, and years later, sold it to me....and back it came.  It has heavy brush lines, somewhat typical of what is seen on a number of these black painted examples.

[Tom Kibler]

Late to your post.  Magnificent collection. 

[St.Lukas]

Just to play devils advocate. Black and white photos are real tough to judge! Star paint can be a real leap of faith. No doubt vets brought back black helmets. Just might of been brought back from occupied Japan. I used to believe in the night raid theory. Now I lean more to immediate post war use by police or others

[Fortunes Of War]

Jareth-

     This gets into quite a few lines of thinking and can become quite frustrating trying to discern the truth.  Hearing over and over that "the Japanese military would never do that" and "well, you know the CB's made so many things" can only cover so much reality.  In the old days, when we asked and were told by the veteran standing in front of us that a black helmet that they were holding came from a specific island or from a particular battle, we assumed they remembered where they got the item.  Nowadays, many dismiss those first hand accounts as rubbish.  Actual first hand accounts are where any good historian or anthropologist should begin their research.  It's important to compare the verbal retelling with the overall understanding and try to ascertain where the truth lies.  Sometimes what we think is true is borne out and other times the truth has to be modified, rewritten or asterisked.    

    Taking this away from the black painted helmet for a moment, there was a discussion on another forum that involved a standard type 90 helmet painted in regulation "dead grass" color scheme.  The star was painted in red paint; the star was original and the red paint was vintage.  The owner of the helmet said that the vet brought it back just like that.  Right on time, the naysayers commented that the Japanese would never do that.  Others said that the veteran probably painted the star himself and that is why the paint looked old- because it was.  Others even suggested stripping the paint and repainting to the "correct" khaki color.  Yikes!  I could hardly believe it.

     I posted an article from a Marine Corps intel officer who was a Harvard student at the beginning of the war; this was an intelligent man.  As a battle tested Marine, he was used to the sites and sounds of gunfire and bullets whistling past his head.  His training led him to have keen observational skills.  While on Saipan, he mentioned that he saw dead Japanese soldiers wearing red stars on their helmets.  I posted the direct quote from the book so that everyone reading the thread could read it for themselves and discuss.  What followed the comment?  You could have heard a pin drop...nothing.    

    Anyway, moving along from this, what are we to assume?  Do we determine that the Marine intel officer was wrong in his observation?  Do we assume that CB's confiscated the helmets, painted the stars red and replaced them on the heads of dead Japanese soldiers, so that they could be collected at a later time and sold at a premium by the CB entrepreneurs?  Do we assume that all of these "painted" helmets were altered from their original configuration by the allied soldier in order to sell at some later date?  This should, in fact, make them less valuable than a standard painted helmet; that wouldn't even make sense.  Maybe they just doctored it after the war in their garage at some point when they were bored.  I know this sounds corny, but these are the kinds of explanations I have read.  

     As for photographs, we have all seen images of piles of type 90 helmets in stacks on the beaches following different Pacific battles.  Looking over the aggregate, you could see that the standard, regulation, "dead grass" paint must have been anything other than standard.  Yes, there were many/most helmets that appeared to be similar in paint shade.  On the other hand, there were some helmets that were much, much darker, while others were even lighter.  Were the dark ones black?  I don't know, perhaps.  But the vaunted standard Japanese paint scheme, per the regulations, was not to be seen there in every case.  Another explanation: Maybe these were wet from the ocean, so appeared darker.  Maybe the various shades of stars, also seen here and there, were an illusion. 

     In John's unpublished photos, there is one image where it is pretty easy to see a dozen men wearing helmets and to observe that some of the helmet stars are painted non-standard and perhaps some are even shiny bare metal.  When clear photographs are eventually labeled as "not definitive" and first hand accounts from the 1950's, 1960's and '70's are shrugged off as fairy tales from old men with dementia or veterans now long dead, then we have abandoned the evidence for a different kind of fairy tale. 

     Anyway, there really isn't much more that I can say on this subject right now.  It must be a rather hot topic again, as I have received numerous emails from people asking me about them.  I own one black helmet with an army star and another black painted, navy anchor helmet.  Both were veteran bring back items.  I'll continue to collect them because of their provenance, not because the the color scheme was non standard.               

[Preppy Picker]

39 minutes ago, Fortunes Of War said:

Jareth-

     This gets into quite a few lines of thinking and can become quite frustrating trying to discern the truth.  Hearing over and over that "the Japanese military would never do that" and "well, you know the CB's made so many things" can only cover so much reality.  In the old days, when we asked and were told by the veteran standing in front of us that a black helmet that they were holding came from a specific island or from a particular battle, we assumed they remembered where they got the item.  Nowadays, many dismiss those first hand accounts as rubbish.  Actual first hand accounts are where any good historian or anthropologist should begin their research.  It's important to compare the verbal retelling with the overall understanding and try to ascertain where the truth lies.  Sometimes what we think is true is borne out and other times the truth has to be modified, rewritten or asterisked.    

    Taking this away from the black painted helmet for a moment, there was a discussion on another forum that involved a standard type 90 helmet painted in regulation "dead grass" color scheme.  The star was painted in red paint; the star was original and the red paint was vintage.  The owner of the helmet said that the vet brought it back just like that.  Right on time, the naysayers commented that the Japanese would never do that.  Others said that the veteran probably painted the star himself and that is why the paint looked old- because it was.  Others even suggested stripping the paint and repainting to the "correct" khaki color.  Yikes!  I could hardly believe it.

     I posted an article from a Marine Corps intel officer who was a Harvard student at the beginning of the war; this was an intelligent man.  As a battle tested Marine, he was used to the sites and sounds of gunfire and bullets whistling past his head.  His training led him to have keen observational skills.  While on Saipan, he mentioned that he saw dead Japanese soldiers wearing red stars on their helmets.  I posted the direct quote from the book so that everyone reading the thread could read it for themselves and discuss.  What followed the comment?  You could have heard a pin drop...nothing.    

    Anyway, moving along from this, what are we to assume?  Do we determine that the Marine intel officer was wrong in his observation?  Do we assume that CB's confiscated the helmets, painted the stars red and replaced them on the heads of dead Japanese soldiers, so that they could be collected at a later time and sold at a premium by the CB entrepreneurs?  Do we assume that all of these "painted" helmets were altered from their original configuration by the allied soldier in order to sell at some later date?  This should, in fact, make them less valuable than a standard painted helmet; that wouldn't even make sense.  Maybe they just doctored it after the war in their garage at some point when they were bored.  I know this sounds corny, but these are the kinds of explanations I have read.  

     As for photographs, we have all seen images of piles of type 90 helmets in stacks on the beaches following different Pacific battles.  Looking over the aggregate, you could see that the standard, regulation, "dead grass" paint must have been anything other than standard.  Yes, there were many/most helmets that appeared to be similar in paint shade.  On the other hand, there were some helmets that were much, much darker, while others were even lighter.  Were the dark ones black?  I don't know, perhaps.  But the vaunted standard Japanese paint scheme, per the regulations, was not to be seen there in every case.  Another explanation: Maybe these were wet from the ocean, so appeared darker.  Maybe the various shades of stars, also seen here and there, were an illusion. 

     In John's unpublished photos, there is one image where it is pretty easy to see a dozen men wearing helmets and to observe that some of the helmet stars are painted non-standard and perhaps some are even shiny bare metal.  When clear photographs are eventually labeled as "not definitive" and first hand accounts from the 1950's, 1960's and '70's are shrugged off as fairy tales from old men with dementia or veterans now long dead, then we have abandoned the evidence for a different kind of fairy tale. 

     Anyway, there really isn't much more that I can say on this subject right now.  It must be a rather hot topic again, as I have received numerous emails from people asking me about them.  I own one black helmet with an army star and another black painted, navy anchor helmet.  Both were veteran bring back items.  I'll continue to collect them because of their provenance, not because the the color scheme was non standard.               

Last I heard the truth is based on facts. It does not need to be rewritten or modified. If something needs changed it wasn’t the truth .

 

 

 

 

[St.Lukas]

Provenance /evidence must be ironclad and not hearsay or third, fourth party etc. Facts get watered down like the game of telephone as tales get passed down. I’m not a firm believer in “ they never did that “ but with all due respect to vet stories…they’re stories. Why red stars? Better targets? Where was red paint sourced? Paint applied in 1946 will look just as oxidized and aged as applied wartime. All questions from healthy skeptics. As I mentioned , sure all helmets are vet bring backs but from exactly where? The piece has to stand for itself seperate of stories and be judged accordingly 

Here’s a press photo in my collection . Note painted stars and most likely explanation 

[Fortunes Of War]

Jareth-

     Again, this just makes my point.  By calling provenance a "story" (as if to somehow minimize it), and then adding "second, third and fourth hand hearsay" to attach more disrepute to the original, primary source account, provides nothing to the discussion.  It would carry more weight if we were, in fact, talking about non-primary source evidence.  That is not what I have said previously.  You will note, however, how quickly the thread has turned from that subject to something else.  What this does is take a topic that requires more research and attention, and it gives someone an easy way to not do the work.  Again, I can't really add anything more because I am comfortable with what I have seen and heard.   

     But returning for a moment to the chat: I can't see in the photo's official caption a line that talks about the items being completely doctored.  Because of that, we have to assume (a dangerous word in serious research), that some/part/all of the items shown are messed with.  How do we decide what is altered and what is not?  I feel comfortable saying that the painted canteens are embellished.  To assume that everything we see here has been altered, however, is sort of guilt by association.  What else can I say- some of the helmets appear to have the same flag painted on them, as is seen on the canteens.  The decorator apparently painted those on the helmets as well.  I note that one of the helmets (on the left) has a star that is likely painted white or yellow.  Even in a black and white photo, I think it's safe to say that a red star would appear darker than the one shown here.  (*The red star portion of the earlier thread has, unfortunately, not been addressed, nor has the similar issue with the stacked helmets or the extant B & W photos in collections.*)  The fact is that we really have nothing here for certain, only what the viewer is comfortable with accepting or not and what the caption generalizes.  It really depends upon the side of the subject you choose to take.  

     Back to the stars shown in Jareth's photo, we can't tell if the one on the left has been embellished or not.  I have seen photos of type 90 helmet shells, being worn by Japanese soldiers in the field, that appear to be painted "dead grass", but their stars appear to be white, light color painted or bare metal.  The other helmet (on the right) has what appears to be a hand-painted star that is much larger than the one on the left.  The one on the left appears to be regulation size; while it's difficult to tell if there is even a star affixed to the front of the other helmet.  Its star almost looks like it is directly painted on the front of the helmet, and it is quite a bit larger than what we normally see.  Does it mean it's a fake star?  "No-Maybe-Likely-Yes"; you pick.  We don't have the answer in the photo.  Perhaps the star was lost and another was painted on the front.  That explanation is just as likely as the one that says the decorator painted the stars.  I'm not trying to stretch credulity here, only point out that many, many, assumptions can be made.  Assumptions often serve no serious purpose, especially when we have first hand accounts that are screaming at us.

 

Preppy Picker-

     I would agree with your point.  If something needs to be changed or modified, it means that our earlier understanding may not have been "true" or "fully true" at the time.  New facts from research may give us more evidence/proof of what we already suspect is correct, or they may give us more understanding into what we previously thought we knew and now discover was wrong.  Things are proven and disproven all of the time.  "Truth" is often right until new facts emerge.  I understand what the very nature of the word "truth" means, but we live in a post-truth world where everyone seems to have their own version.  ...And hence, we come back to the crux of this post. 

 

     I will be more than willing to tune into this thread, but for me, I think this one has been played to its final conclusion.  Please feel free to continue the chat, offer up more non-standard helmets, etc.  As a concluding thought, I recall that even some of the biggest naysayers have said that it was likely that non-standard painted helmets were not done by the Japanese in large numbers.  Re-read that statement!  It covers quite some breadth, knowing that there were many millions of helmets produced and painted.  Those helmets were scattered across China, Manchuria, Korea, Japan and into the Pacific.  It also admits that there were helmets painted in non-standard shades.  The numbers of non-standard helmets we tend to see as collectors are not large but are not insignificant either.  Knowing that and combining them to the first hand accounts gives us a reason to not discard those "other-than" helmets.              

[St.Lukas]

Post # 83 https://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/forum/ken-jasper-international-militaria-forums/japanese-militaria-forum/240692-black-painted-combat-helmets/page6 once again, all helmets were brought back by vets. Without ironclad provenance we will never know exactly from where. In closing , always buy the item not the story.

[Gwar]

A few things to ponder....

[shemp h.]

Why paint your helmet black? Woud'nt the issue helmet color of green be enough camo for nighttime ops? Just asking.

 

    Bill

[adachi]

So much talk about these mysterious photos in John Egger's collection and not a single one in sight. If the photos will prove these helmets to be legitimate, let's see them already.