Vietnam era camo m1 helmet?

[anton67]

In all fairness, I believe the poster on USMF was saying that he did not like it as an ARVN helmet.
The consensus on USMF was NOT that the camo was faked.
They believed that it was an OPFOR training helmet.
OPFOR is opposing force training.
They were saying that it was painted for a military training exercise to be used by the opposing force.
Therefore it is not a camo helmet used during any war or in any forward area during war.
It is essentially a training helmet.
A few members believed that they had seen similar helmets.
One member stated:
There were multiple helmets for sale in a ARMY Navy store somewhere near the 15 freeway at least 10 years ago.

There was a bin of them I remember.

All were different but stored outside.

[real steel]

In all fairness, I believe the poster on USMF was saying that he did not like it as an ARVN helmet.
The consensus on USMF was NOT that the camo was faked.
They believed that it was an OPFOR training helmet.
OPFOR is opposing force training.
They were saying that it was painted for a military training exercise to be used by the opposing force.
Therefore it is not a camo helmet used during any war or in any forward area during war.
It is essentially a training helmet.
A few members believed that they had seen similar helmets.
One member stated:
There were multiple helmets for sale in a ARMY Navy store somewhere near the 15 freeway at least 10 years ago.

There was a bin of them I remember.

All were different but stored outside.

Agreed, but there is also someone to have claimed to own a CH SS decal back in the 1960s'. Once again...speculation, no proof

I don't think anyone knows for sure. Training helmet, could be. I can't dispute something I know nothing about.

[anton67]

The consensus on USMF may be speculation however there really is no proof that the helmet is an ARVN or combat used camo helmet either.

To call it an ARVN helmet or combat used camo helmet, I is a matter of proving it.
One way to do that would be to have some photographic evidence of an ARVN soldier wearing a similarly painted helmet.
Or combat photos showing a similarly painted helmet.

I am not putting the helmet down in any way.
I am just saying we cannot call the helmet a combat used camo or ARVN helmet based on the evidence we have at this time.
We have some evidence, albeit hearsay from two members of another forum, that they have seen this type of camo used on OPFOR helmets.
Again, that is not 100% conclusive but I wouldn't call it mere speculation either.

[real steel]

As I have said in the past here a few times..."If an item has little or no documented proof or very limited provenance, then we must accept the opinions of the collecting community on what is deemed original or not. We don't have a choice".

So, with the above being stated...until other documentation or provenance to prove it something different comes our way...for now that is how the helmet stands.

You are correct in what you say Anton, well stated

[Tank Destroyer]

Mark thank you for posting the helmet on the other forum and David for going that extra mile with the helmet.
I know I went a small soap box rant on the forum about one word or sentence answers but when one member applies it is fake with the term "rust wash" and no defense coming forth for the camo as not fake, I do not care because it is my helmet, I care for the lack of concern of others that have an item that is in question as to originality and corrections are not made.
We now have an open dialogue as to the possible origin of the helmet but without photographic evidence it is still open for debate and I will continue looking and learning.
Marty

[Anderson]

Hopefully a photo will turn up one day to throw some light on the puzzle. In the meantime, speculation can be fun! To my eye the colour combinations, sand and green was more suggestive of desert or arid environments rather than tropical. Could the helmet be an experimental desert camo? I recall that the "chocolate chip" uniform camo pattern that was used in the 1st Iraq war, had actually been designed in the 1960's. The thinking apparently that a Middle East deployment in support of Israel necessitated the development at that time. Could something similar been experimented with desert helmet camo? Probably few can answer that question conclusively right now.

[anton67]

"To me, Marty wanted to know if this looked to be period done or painted in a garage in 2005. The opinions I received understood the era involved. Viet Nam war. 1965-early 70s'. By their observations of the patina, wear patterns, overall feel for the helmet without a hands on inspection, nobody cast a doubt that the paint very well may be 45-50 years old. There were no "Red Flags" telling them otherwise."

OK, I understand what you are saying now. Thank you for the clarification.
Again, I really don't know how anyone can say it was painted 50 years ago vs 10 years ago based on the photos.
Just my humble opinion.

[Tank Destroyer]

Philippians 2:3
Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.

Guy's I think we have two bulls fighting between the gate. Both of you have good points and I thank you for going this extra mile but I do not want to see a riff over this subject.
I want to continue this journey in learning and hope to find answers what ever they my be and want anyone on board that enjoys the adventure.
But I respectfully ask for cool down.
Marty

[anton67]

To add something to the actual question at hand, here is what an experienced USMF member stated about the helmet in question:
I am late to this party, and the only thing I can add is that I doubt this is an ARVN pattern. It certainly does not match the pattern seen in the video clip.

We do know for a fact that in US training environments and with deployed units in Europe in the 1960's through the 1980's, self made camouflage was used.

So I agree, most likely a "real helmet", as in used by a US soldier somewhere. Unlikely it was used in a combat situation.

[anton67]

I would like to apologize for my overreaction and negative comments toward real steel on this thread yesterday.
In going back through the thread, I think I took some of his posts (perhaps wrongfully) negatively and then responded in a negative fashion.
Sometimes written word can be misconstrued and maybe that is what happened on my end.
I would like to go through life with more friends than enemies so I hope you will all accept my apology.