AN-J-3

[Erwin]

Hi folks,

Hopefully, I'm not posting too many posts with newbie content. I found information about a very interesting jacket,

the seller might be a member here - looks like he/she was aware of the item. In a description, he quoted Mr. John Chapman, regarding "no evidence of this type of jacket being issued. This jacket type appears to have been made in small numbers by several makers, with very different designs. There are some with epaulets, some without, and some with bi-swing backs, and some without.”

My question for this one is: can we assume that the vertical stitching seam points that this design feature for the lining was made by Monarch MFG?

Bellow an epaulets-free example and question time [I know... again questions], do we have any known dependency that non-epaulets jackets in this pattern don't have a chest pocket? Also based on the pictures below, what manufacturer could produce this jacket, and is this Crown zipper a replacement one?

If you can post any pictures of these jackets - genuine ones, no fakes or replicas, this would be great to see more examples.

Thanks!

 

[mulceber]

That's actually a Willis & Geiger AN-J-3, which seems to be the most common variant. The Monarch version didn't have a storm flap or epaulets, and the collar is much less pronounced. Here's my W&G version for comparison:

And while the AN-J-3 wasn't issued in any real numbers, there IS evidence of this jacket type finding its way into pilots' hands:

 

[B-Man2]

Mulceber has an excellent working knowledge of these jackets. The only thing that I might offer is that the difference in the two jackets ie wind flap vs no wind flap and epaulettes vs no epaulettes was thought to be a distinction made by the the respective services ordering the jackets .The AN designator was allegedly supposed represent a jacket that was designed as a jacket for both the Army and Navy as a cost saving and inventory reduction effort. If that is true then that could account for the differences in the way jackets were made.

 

[Chandler]

Where is the first jacket for sale or auction?

 

[P-47 thunderbolt]

I didn't used to like of 'get' anj-3 jackets but I now think they're really cool. Probably very comfortable too and the more I see vintage goat, the more I think it's the ultimate ww2 hide

 

[Skyhawk]

Mulceber has an excellent working knowledge of these jackets. The only thing that I might offer is that the difference in the two jackets ie wind flap vs no wind flap and epaulettes vs no epaulettes was thought to be a distinction made by the the respective services ordering the jackets .The AN designator was allegedly supposed represent a jacket that was designed as a jacket for both the Army and Navy as a cost saving and inventory reduction effort. If that is true then that could account for the differences in the way jackets were made.

And that really makes the most sense for the difference in designs. Consider the fact that none of the USN flight jackets have epaulets, and the USAAF seemed to like them. The military loves uniformity. Think about a squadron of USN pilots standing in a group and having a random epaulet jacket here and there. That is a big feature and would not look too uniform.

 

[B-Man2]

I had an Aero repro of one and it was much more comfortable to wear and move around in than an A2. If in fact they were made for both services I can’t figure out what caused them not replace the A2. My suspicion is that inter agency rivals probably killed the project as each service wanted to have a jacket unique to that particular service.

 

[Erwin]

Thanks Mulceber and B-man2, very helpful to see that this forum is a rift place to learn about flight jackets. I need to spend more time and review in details old posts. I appreciate your help folks!

Mulceber, does it mean that the jacket with no find flap and epaulets- which I posted [2nd one] was made by Monarch? Thanks a lot for sharing knowledge and experience.

Do you have any information or idea regarding what manufacturers of these jackets had the chest pockets in seeing patterns.

 

[Chandler]

If in fact they were made for both services I can’t figure out what caused them not replace the A2.

I thought we had Hap Arnold to blame for that -- didn't he "cancel" out the A-2 and demand the research into new/modern material flight wear around the same time the ANs were being considered?

 

[B-Man2]

I thought we had Hap Arnold to blame for that -- didn't he "cancel" out the A-2 and demand the research into new/modern material flight wear around the same time the ANs were being considered?

I think you’re right about that. I know we discussed it all in depth a few years back but I had forgotten about that part of it . Good memory buddy .

 

[Chandler]

All credit goes to Acme Depot for all of the times I re-read it 25 years ago!

 

[mulceber]

Mulceber has an excellent working knowledge of these jackets. The only thing that I might offer is that the difference in the two jackets ie wind flap vs no wind flap and epaulettes vs no epaulettes was thought to be a distinction made by the the respective services ordering the jackets .The AN designator was allegedly supposed represent a jacket that was designed as a jacket for both the Army and Navy as a cost saving and inventory reduction effort. If that is true then that could account for the differences in the way jackets were made.

I used to think that. TBH, at this point I'm not sure I even think the details (epaulettes vs. none, wind flap vs. storm flap) have anything to do with what branch it was slated for - the AAF evidently wasn't hostile to an interior windflap, because their very next few jacket types, (B-10, B-15, B-15A...) had that feature. And they ditched the epaulets pretty quickly as well (B-15). Meanwhile, the AN-J-3 I shared that had been issued has all the supposed "Air Force" details, but it has a Navy patch.

I think the wide variations among AN-J-3s reflect the fact that the Navy and Air Force hadn't figured out what they wanted, and so they told the contractors "give us a compromise between the A-2 and the M-422A," and let them make of that what they wanted. They may have specified a couple things: it had to have a leather collar for sure, they probably insisted on button closure for the pockets, and maybe a bi-swing back as well, but for the rest, they just wanted to see what their contractors would come up with.

Mulceber, does it mean that the jacket with no find flap and epaulets- which I posted [2nd one] was made by Monarch?

Possibly - John Chapman's told me there were several contractors for the AN-J-3, but I've only ever seen ones made by W&G and Monarch, and even the Monarch I've only seen a couple photos of. The photos you shared could be a Monarch...or one of the unknown contractors.

 

[Erwin]

Good point Skyhawk regarding epaulets for USN uniforms. There was short time [1966] where some initial run of m65 jackets were without epaulets- than from contract DSA100-3255 [also all three experimental T Natick test jackets were without epaulets] epaulets we’re added. Sorry for small digression from USN flight jackets - but development of m65 was my main interest, before I started to explore USN flight jackets topic.

Can we assume that jackets which should be delivered to AAF were without chest pockets and had features like wind flap and epaulets?

This is extremely interesting folks, thanks again.

 

[mulceber]

Can we assume that jackets which should be delivered to AAF were without chest pockets and had features like wind flap and epaulets?

Nope. See the issues AN-J-3 above: epaulets, storm flap, and a Navy patch.

 

[Erwin]

Thanks, Mulceber, I asked a question and haven't spotted your detailed explanation regarding design differences.

 

[mulceber]

No worries. Sorry if it came off a bit terse.

 

[B-Man2]

I think the wide variations among AN-J-3s reflect the fact that the Navy and Air Force hadn't figured out what they wanted, and so they told the contractors "give us a compromise between the A-2 and the M-422A," and let them make of that what they wanted. They may have specified a couple things: it had to have a leather collar for sure, they probably insisted on button closure for the pockets, and maybe a bi-swing back as well, but for the rest, they just wanted to see what their contractors would come up with.

Jan I’m not sure that the military would consider giving a contractor a sort of a “cart Blanche” approval to let them make what they wanted. The US Govt had a very specific regulations regarding the purchase and acquisition of materials with approval requirements necessary at each step of the manufacturing process . Specifications had to be designed and approved before any work could be contracted out . You see that frequently with all the jackets we discuss, from the A2 to the B-3. I’m not sure that the government would let this jacket skirt those requirements.

 

[Erwin]

Where is the first jacket for sale or auction?

Sadly both jackets were sold a long time ago.

 

[mulceber]

Jan I’m not sure that the military would consider giving a contractor a sort of a “cart blanch” approval to let them make what they wanted.

Under normal circumstances, yes. They have loads of specifications and drawings to illustrate what they want. But if they're still in the testing phase and are trying to figure out what they want in the jacket (which they definitely were with the AN-J-3), then they might as well put together a list of everything they know they want, give that to the company, let them put their best foot forward on a few hundred jackets (not even really a full "contract" as we normally think of it), and then the military can give the jackets to a few pilots and see what feedback they get.

 

[Erwin]

No problem at all Mulceber, thanks for the help [it is always helpful to be corrected straight-forward in relation to a wrong approach or deduction].