Japanese Type 90 helmet, history and discussion

[Rabaul]

Here in Rabaul we literately have Type 90 helmets popping out of the ground. As such I have been interested in them for about 16 years. The end of last year I tried putting together an article about them for the Rabaul Historical Society, I found that information is scattered all over the place and is often confused and contradictory. The article I put together is now about 20 pages long! (1.2mb low res. PDF). Before I put it out there and it gets on our web site I’d like some experts to have a look at it, so anything stupid is be picked up. Anybody willing to have a read?

Steve

[Jareth]

Yes. My email is dmarekjholub@netzero.net I suggest you do a board search on the subject as a tremendous amount of info & research has already been posted here

[Nick Komiya]

These should help

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...ht=development
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...ht=development

[Ryukyutunnelrat]

Nick, Always love reading these posts. Not sure why they never got pinned.

Steve, along with Nicks posts, There is another great article written about the Japanese Helmets by Erica Doody (I think), I have a copy and im sure that Jareth may point you to that copy also. I would also love to read the article. You can send to: daviddavenport08@hotmail.com.

Best, David.

[Rabaul]

Type 90

Hi Nick, Jareth and David,

Thanks for the interest.

I've sent the PDF to Jareth and David. As you can see I've sifted what was readily available. Any comments or corrections would be appreciated.

But Nick's links mean I'll be doing another draft! I've got the basics, but this has some fantastic detail.

Regards

Steve

[Rabaul]

Can we confirm that the Navy Model 2 and 3 were both 'Cherry Blossom' types? If so were they identical models?

If the Model 3 was the Type 90 (from 1933) was there any official designation for the Navy helmet when they did away with the metal anchor badge in 1942-43?

[Jareth]

Nicks research aside the designations/ types are up for discussion. I welcome clarification. Many collector groups have their own "pet" classifications. I think your on target as for dating introduction of yellow stencil painted anchor insignias. I might push it to between 1943 - 1945 possibly later than 1943. They are the last insignia variation.

[Rabaul]

Thanks,

Just to clear up the production side, there was the chrome-molybdenum-vanadium-steel alloy they were made from. But Chiang Kai-Shek's order, plus the later Mexican, Peruvian and Mongolian orders had 'untreated steel'. Does this mean they were made of mild steel instead of the alloy, or was there another case hardening process (annealing) which was the 'treatment' they were lacking. I know looking at brushed old rusty helmets there is often a shiny bluey-black surface showing in patches which does look like some form of surface treatment,?

Steve

[Jareth]

Not familiar with the " orders" you mention. I always thought most shells were blued. For a short time some army helmets were primed with an orange color primer

[Rabaul]

The 'orders' are mentioned in Nick's Part Two, last paragraph of 'Other users...' where the 'untreated steel version' is mentioned. Does this mean they were not the special alloy or they simple weren't blued?

I read somewhere that the orange primer was done on Thia army recons and are not original Japanese finishes?

[Nick Komiya]

If you want to have an overview also of the predessessors of the type 90, you need to read these two articles of mine.
M18 helmet http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...erian+incident
M22 helmet http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...erian+incident

The Navy's Type 2 was an army cherry blossom helmet, but not the type 1. There really is no discussion about the identity of the navy type 1, which can only be the British-looking helmet (see post 3 of the M18 helmet thread for a photo). What is up for discussion is the M18 helmet, not the navy designations. The only reason for the navy to distinguish the 3 types was because all three were used concurrently for a time when there was a severe shortage of helmets. By the time the anchor badge came off, they were all using type 90s, so the stenciled model is merely an economy modification and there was no need for a new designation.

The samples given out to foreign countries were made of low carbon steel, what is called soft steel in Japan. That was done to protect the secret of the alloy. After WWI, it was quite common to request samples of new weapons from other countries and when the US requested a sample of the latest Japanese gas mask, the army sent them one with an empty filter (you can read about this in my thread about the history of the gas masks). Anyway, it was standard procedure to satisfy diplomatic needs, but by withholding military secrets.

The discussion Jareth mentioned is about the star-vented helmet. Unfortunately the drawings originally attached to the document officially launching the M22 helmet are today missing from the Self Defense Forces Archives, so whether the M22 started out with the cherry blossom or the star-vent cannot be verified. The difference is so minor that the cherry blossom can be a simple update to the air vent configuration. However, on the other hand, official documents I researched in writing the history of the type 90 helmet suggest that they went to a fair amount of trouble to locate also a M18 for initial testing, which naturally used the cherry blossom as the bench mark. This suggests that the M18 was seen as having sufficiently different ballistic qualities from the M22 to be worth testing, a different beast. Was the Star-vent helmet the M18 or was the navy type 1 the M18, is still an unanswered question to me. Locating official drawings from the M22 intro would go a long way to clarify things. One big factor in favor of the star-vent being the M18 is that it is a matter of historical record that the M18s were made in the Tokyo Arsenal and the star-vents are marked as such.

Here is also an article on the development of the helmet cover.
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...t=helmet+cover

The field cap
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...t=helmet+cover

Gas masks
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...light=gas+mask

[Jareth]

I defer to Nick's excellent research regarding designations. As for orange primer/ undercoat on army type 90s I have examined numerous examples. They were standard Japanese helmets. I can only speculate that it was a trial attempt at rust proofing and only done on a relatively small amount of mid war army helmets

[Rabaul]

Nick and Jareth,

Thanks for the detailed replies.

I’ve been intrigued by the mismatch in the intense research and development that the Japanese undertook on the Type 90 with comparisons and field trials producing a state of the art helmet (for its time).

But then the US WD testing samples and coming up with the word ‘inferior’. I assumed this was because they were testing late war models, when the alloying metals were short. But do you think it possible they were testing these ‘export’ models?

Did the German's follow the Japanese in their choice of alloy development for the M35? I don't think they would admit it if they had and the idea would be an anathema to many now. I notice the Japanese declassified the patent in 1936 at the time of the Japanese-German Pact. Just a thought!

Steve

[Nick Komiya]

The archival material support none of your speculations, so I will refrain from making any comments that would be baseless.

[Rabaul]

Yes of course.

But with a lack of documentation a lot is going to be speculation. It’s whether it is wild speculation or there is some circumstantial evidence that might answer some of the questions. Those of us without access to documents because of geography or linguistics are going to have to ask (annoy?) those who do.

As designed the ‘special’ alloy was not inferior to Hadfield steel (as tests against the Brodie and US M18 showed) so why the US WD states tested samples were inferior (I guess to M1’s which were Hadfield steel) interests me.

As to Germany rearming at the time when the Type 90 was ‘state of the art’ and they just happened to use a similar alloy for the M35, which was completely different from their M16-M18 and then M40 etc alloy, leaves room to speculate that perhaps they were influenced from non-western sources?

What’s important is that what’s documented from original sources and what is speculation is clearly stated. I’ll try and make the distinction in what I write. Unfortunately these days’ things soon get blurred on social media! So we have to be careful.