The Evolution of the Japanese Army Steel Helmet (1918-1945) Revised and Expanded Version

[Nick Komiya]

There are frequently questions about the Type 90 chin straps, so I will show here an example of an army original with measurements. The ring is really too small to get the strap through and then through the eyelet, so fakes tend to have larger diameters.

[Nick Komiya]

Of Cherry Blossoms and Stars

In post 12 of this thread, I showed a May 1928 photo of an IJA unit exclusively wearing the so-called star-vent helmet (officially the 1922 Provisional Standard Helmet), which showed that the so-called Cherry Blossom versions only appeared very late, slightly before the introduction of the Type 90 helmet.

Here is now an even more conclusive documentary evidence of that fact.

As explained in post 25, helmets were shifted to the uniform item category from the weapons category as of April 1932.

The attached memo dated 19th July 1932 from the Commander of Army Troops stationed in China, addressed to the Minister of the Army refers to this category change and explains why two helmets needed to be excluded from this category shift, due to one having been lost in battle and one having been disposed of due to irreparable damage.

Of particular interest is the report on the damaged helmet, which gives details of the issue date and how it got damaged, as it is further accompanied by a drawing detailing the damage to what is clearly a star-vent helmet.

It says the illustrated helmet was issued in September of 1928 and was irreparably damaged at half past midnight of 9th November 1931, during the First Tientsin Battle of the Manchurian Incident, when a bullet pierced the forehead of the late Private First Class Sawada and exited diagonally leaving a gash of 1 cm x 3 cm to the side of the helmet. This field report on the one helmet is dated 28th December 1931.

So in September 1928, they were still issuing star vent helmets, and in July 1932 the army retired all cherry blossom helmets and replaced them with Type 90s. Thus the army would have consequently worn the cherry blossom only for a short 2 years at most before the Type 90s started to take over.

The letter also shows how even for such trivial actions as disposal of two helmets, formal approval of the Minister of the Army was necessary. This was how tightly the IJA managed its equipment. As I keep saying, no one dared to tinker and customize gear under such tight asset management.

[Nick Komiya]

Management of Type 90 Helmet issuing

Until now, I had thought that after April 1932, when helmets were switched to a uniform item from being a weapon, they were issued to the soldier on a permanent basis as part of his uniform for the duration of his active service. However, here is correspondence that indicates they were still to be returned to depots until further needed, despite this management category change.

First is a memo dated 1st May 1932 from the Ministry of the Army to the Chief of the Main Army Arsenal, saying that relating to the third wave of withdrawal of troops sent to China for the Shanghai Incident, all the steel helmets issued to those troops by the arsenal at the time of their dispatch to the continent were arranged to be dropped off by the returning soldiers at either Ujina Port or at Ninoshima Landing (both in the bay of Hiroshima).
The arsenal was hereby ordered to receive them and store them at the Hiroshima branch of the arsenal. It required the arsenal to report back with the number of helmets recovered.

The left side of the document is the reply from the Chief of the Arsenal to the Minister of the Army dated 25th June 1932. It says 365 Type 90 helmets were returned by the 9th MG battalion, 59th Inft Regt of the 14th Inft Division. A further 1,878 pieces of Type 90s were also returned from the 1st Independent Mountain Gun Regiment.

Now I realize that soldiers may not have had helmets on a permanent basis at least till March 1936, when they declassified the top secret status of the special steel alloy they had patented back in April 1933. At the timing of the letters shown here, the Army was still awaiting the results of their patent application, so they had good reason not to want any helmets going astray.

[Nick Komiya]

There was also a survey done at this time in 1932, asking those who used helmets what needed to be improved. That report is extremely positive about the morale boosting effect the new Type 90 helmets were having in the field. The report also gave many concrete examples of enemy bullet reactions to the helmet from various ranges and the degree of injury incurred by the soldier.

Of particular interest to me were comments on the chin strap and paint finish.

As we all know, the Type 90 helmets first tried chin straps like the German M35 helmets, using a buckle closure and some units in the Manchurian Incident were still equipped with these buckle-down straps, which this report totally rejected as useless in cold weather, when they had to fiddle with a buckle while wearing heavy mittens.

Regarding the paint job, the helmets in those days seemed to have had a glossy finish, which reflected light in a way that made them easy targets for enemy snipers. They requested that a matte paint finish be urgently developed for a better camouflage effect.

[Nick Komiya]

Here is another mystery file I kept. It is a drawing of what seems to be a Type 90 helmet shell drawn by Kobe Steel in 1952. For what reason, I do not know.

It is titled "Army Steel Helmet Reference Drawing", so it may have been used as reference in designing the new helmet for the Ground Self Defense Forces.

[Razorback76]

Thanks as always for the new info my friend. I have only seen one example of the Japanese helmet w/ German style chinstrap for sale. Bill Shea had one on his site many many years ago. Seems like it was around 1997-98. I did not know what to make of it then it was gone. Someone knew what it was back then as his description was spot on. The use of high gloss paint is interesting as well. I have an early Navy helmet with extreme high gloss paint. I have also seen them in period pics. Some collectors have said that these were given a treatment of shellac. That is simply not the case with period untouched examples. Some may have had that treatment after the war but extreme high gloss paint was period used.

[Nick Komiya]

In addition to the 1933 prototype I showed earlier of what was to become the Type 98 bullet-proof helmet for assault engineers, here are photos of the version similar to the German helmet, which underwent testing between December 1937 and February 1938 at the infantry and engineer schools.

As a result of this test, this prototype was dropped and they settled for a design with the same shape as the Type 90 and introduced it as the Type 98 helmet. Note the army star painted on in front.

[Nick Komiya]

Markings on Helmet Donations

As earlier explained in post 25, from the beginning of 1932, many army helmets were produced from money donated by the public.

This applied not only to helmets, but to guns and uniform items as well. Such donation-funded items were uniquely marked by the army to show its gratitude to the population by painting on the words 愛国 (Aikoku) meaning "patriot/love of country".

However, by 1942, there were such donations pouring in from outside Japan as well. So in order to distinguish between contributions from within Japan and from outside, they established a new painted marking of 興亜 (Kou-A), meaning "Asian Prosperity" on 23rd April 1942 for items sponsored by foreign donations.

So when you see these words inside helmets, on rifle stocks and on uniform markings, those are not slogans, but meant "brought to you by the kind donations from the Japanese/Foreigners". These characters were followed by the donation case file number, which was a consecutive serial number regardless of whether it was a Japanese or foreign donation.

Here the Army Ordinance 2672, which established the Asian Prosperity donation marking.

[Alan M]

Amazing information ..many thanks for posting Nick

[Nick Komiya]

Mark of a 2nd Grade Flunky, Really?

Continuing with helmet markings, Russ wrote to ask whether I knew something about helmets marked with the kanji character for 2 in a circle, and at the same time made me aware of the American old wives' tale that explain items marked as such as failing the quality test and thus being marked as factory seconds.

In Japan, the army did not take such items. They either passed or got rejected. Besides, in Japanese industry, there was no practice of associating numbers like 1,2 and 3 with quality ratings. That only came post war from the USA. Normally in Japan, 1 is the worst grade you can get and 5 is the best. So in Japan a "straight A" student is called an "All-5er" instead. The Japanese mind relates to numbers in a way different from the American or German mind, where "less tends to be more". Japanese rating is based on total score, like in the Olympics, not how front you stand within a lineup.

The numbers thus marked on weapons instead have to do with the army's weapon category classifications, which ranged from 1 to 3. One being a primary weapon like a sword or gun, two being a secondary weapon category such as the sword belt, sword knot, ammo pouch or holster. And three was for tertiary items such as metal fittings, D-rings associated with that weapon. These classifications were defined in the army weapons handling regulations (兵器取扱規則).

Unfortunately, I do not know yet exactly what specific circumstances sometimes required a helmet to be stamped as weapons category 2, but I am familiar with the regulations defining this type of marking system. Shown below is Army Ordinance 4682 issued on 14th July 1942 that required a stamping of 3 in a circle for weapons of category 1 or 2 ready for scrapping that should, however, be spared as samples, etc for training. Those items were to be stamped as well as prominently marked with the same symbol in paint.

Anyway, the helmet markings follow the exact same system, the difference being that they are getting marked as category 2 instead of 3.

The world can be a much better place when people stop spreading fake information and admit that they simply don't know or at least they should present hard facts that support their claim, so readers can separate fact from fiction.

Marking photo courtesy of Russ.