Do you consider an A-2 w/handwarmers to be a "real" A-2?

[Tim P]

We are in a loop. But it is only correct to express your preferences. I for one think that legitimate dress uniform though it is, the current USAF with mirror shine insignia and blazer cut looks less attractive than mall security and way less functional. I personally think they lost it when they relinquished the blue-grey shade of the 50's along with semi matte insignia. Others (not least the clothing procurement comittee) have a completely polarised vew from me and I cant fathom that but I naturally accept it.

The current A-2 is to the ww2 one what the M65 jacket is to the M43....

Handwarmer pockets are not true to original vintage spec and so neither is any current jacket sporting them, however useful that feature is. so its a real Jacket but not a real interpretation of a vintage A2.
The addition of extra pocket space by whatever method is not uncommon but it is a deviation from spec post manufacture. like the extra pockets added to the arms or skirt of patratroop jackets by a few members of the 506th PIR and just about every reenactor.

 

[Jaguar46]

I wonder what people would be arguing about &/or debating if the A2 were originally designed with pockets, and a full cut, and after the jacket was dropped, the A2 was rereleased with a slim cut and not pockets. :?:

 

[HackerF15E]

it's not nonsensical to distinguish between them and the '30s & '40s models.

You're right -- it's not. Isn't that what I suggested in my post with respect to proposing they be referred to in some manner like Versions 1/2/3? What IS nonsensical is to draw a line and state categorically that the only "real A-2s" are the ones made in the 1930s and 40s, or reproductions that follow that same precise design and manufacture specification.

An earlier poster shacked it when they said a 2005 Ford Mustang is still a Mustang, even if it's not the exact same as a 1965 Ford Mustang. Even better, people don't go sticking their nose up at a P-51 at an airshow which has been through a complete rebuild, or one an owner has put in an inaccurate paint scheme, or has modern radios and a GPS up in the cockpit, right? Nobody is arguing that they're precisely the same thing, merely that is IS still an "A-2 Jacket" and deserves to be recognized as such rather than openly scoffed as some profane offspring of the "real thing".

It just still boggles my mind that people will go bonkers over a reproduction of a WW2 jacket (most of which will never even be worn while piloting an aircraft, much less is an authentic piece of history), but not even bother to turn their head to look at a current issue one (which has a distinct possibility of being worn in flight in actual combat operations). I'll bet that my "modern" Avirex A-2 has more time under hostile fire in a combat zone than all of the Eastman, Good Wear, and other repro A-2s owned by people on this site combined. Sure seems like a reason to consider it a "real" A-2.

Handwarmer pockets and all.

Don't get me wrong -- I realize that the name of this forum is "Vintage Leather Jackets", and that the topic of discussion in the "General Flight Jacket Discussion" forum is vintage flight jackets. Yes, I realize that the 'modern' A-2s don't fit into the category of 'vintage'. But when we start throwing around definitions of what's "real" and what is not "real", that's when we need to stop letting snobbery get in the way of reality and step back for some perspective.

Guys, I love the WW2 jackets as much as you do...but keep some perspective.

 

[Tim P]

I don't think anyone here disputes that modern issue A-2's are 'real' and they would be a fool to do so. Do bear in mind that the Ma1 and La2 series as well as nylon B15's, N series Parkas and all the Nomex stuff, none of which are ww2 come under equal scrutiny and people pontificate over their own opinions of these jackets. For the most part quite objectively.
So I will stick to my standpoint that Modern issue A-2s are dissimilar from, but clearly inspired by, ww2 A-2's. The life of the ww2 A-2 was in fact 1931-43, extended beyond classification as limited standard into Korea so say 1953.
The modern issue A-2 has it beat.
Not sure I am a fan of the modern one but I am allowed not to be without causing anyone any offense

 

[watchmanjimg]

it's not nonsensical to distinguish between them and the '30s & '40s models.

You're right -- it's not. Isn't that what I suggested in my post with respect to proposing they be referred to in some manner like Versions 1/2/3? What IS nonsensical is to draw a line and state categorically that the only "real A-2s" are the ones made in the 1930s and 40s, or reproductions that follow that same precise design and manufacture specification.

An earlier poster shacked it when they said a 2005 Ford Mustang is still a Mustang, even if it's not the exact same as a 1965 Ford Mustang. Even better, people don't go sticking their nose up at a P-51 at an airshow which has been through a complete rebuild, or one an owner has put in an inaccurate paint scheme, or has modern radios and a GPS up in the cockpit, right? Nobody is arguing that they're precisely the same thing, merely that is IS still an "A-2 Jacket" and deserves to be recognized as such rather than openly scoffed as some profane offspring of the "real thing".

It just still boggles my mind that people will go bonkers over a reproduction of a WW2 jacket (most of which will never even be worn while piloting an aircraft, much less is an authentic piece of history), but not even bother to turn their head to look at a current issue one (which has a distinct possibility of being worn in flight in actual combat operations). I'll bet that my "modern" Avirex A-2 has more time under hostile fire in a combat zone than all of the Eastman, Good Wear, and other repro A-2s owned by people on this site combined. Sure seems like a reason to consider it a "real" A-2.

Handwarmer pockets and all.

Don't get me wrong -- I realize that the name of this forum is "Vintage Leather Jackets", and that the topic of discussion in the "General Flight Jacket Discussion" forum is vintage flight jackets. Yes, I realize that the 'modern' A-2s don't fit into the category of 'vintage'. But when we start throwing around definitions of what's "real" and what is not "real", that's when we need to stop letting snobbery get in the way of reality and step back for some perspective.

Guys, I love the WW2 jackets as much as you do...but keep some perspective.

Hacker:

After checking out the fruit salad you've got there, I wouldn't be surprised if your Avirex has more trigger time than all the repro jackets in existence combined. For that you have my deep respect and I'm sure that of most, if not all, of the forum. Per current government specifications, the Avirex and other modern issued jackets are certainly "real" A-2s so from that perspective I can't see much basis for argument. I also like your suggestion of categorizing A-2s based on era of production/issuance.

That said, you're likely to hear a lot of crickets chirping during any attempt to discuss the merits of Versions 2 and 3. Ironically, it's not because they haven't seen real combat. Given the various conflicts over the past two decades, they've had a much longer service life than the original A-2s. However, they lack not only the raw quality of the original version but also the nearly 70 years of romance associated with their use in a war whose outcome shaped modern history. This fact is unavoidable, as much so as the fact that the current-issue jackets with handwarmer pockets are "real" A-2s. Consider your analogy of the 1965 Mustang vs. the 2005. Both Mustangs? Sure, but . . .

Now, how about the 1965 Mustang vs. the 1975? :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[HackerF15E]

After checking out the fruit salad you've got there, I wouldn't be surprised if your Avirex has more trigger time than all the repro jackets in existence combined.

Just for truth in advertising purposes, I haven't worn that jacket on any combat sorties I've flown in the F-15E. So, it actually has no "trigger time" in flight...but it's been on the receiving end of mortar and small arms fire back at the base I was operating from.

The rest of the points of your post is taken and well understood (okay, sort of understood).

I actually didn't intend to open this discussion up again as it's obvious there are significant differences of opinion (that further discussion won't change!), but since there don't seem to be any (many?) advocates of the modern stuff on here, I wanted to make sure that the position was represented, especially for future reference.

In reality, I personally prefer the vintage stuff to the modern jackets, too, by a large margin. As I posted in another thread, I'm seriously considering buying a WW2 repro and having them sew the velcro on it so I can wear it as a uniform jacket.

And maybe, just maybe, I'll wear it on some combat missions in the current conflict next time I get the opportunity!

But, in just the same way that I love P-51s, Corsairs, and Spitfires, I also love the F-15, F-16, and A-10. There's room for both in the discussion.

 

[watchmanjimg]

After checking out the fruit salad you've got there, I wouldn't be surprised if your Avirex has more trigger time than all the repro jackets in existence combined.

Just for truth in advertising purposes, I haven't worn that jacket on any combat sorties I've flown in the F-15E. So, it actually has no "trigger time" in flight...but it's been on the receiving end of mortar and small arms fire back at the base I was operating from.

The rest of the points of your post is taken and well understood (okay, sort of understood).

I actually didn't intend to open this discussion up again as it's obvious there are significant differences of opinion (that further discussion won't change!), but since there don't seem to be any (many?) advocates of the modern stuff on here, I wanted to make sure that the position was represented, especially for future reference.



In reality, I personally prefer the vintage stuff to the modern jackets, too, by a large margin. As I posted in another thread, I'm seriously considering buying a WW2 repro and having them sew the velcro on it so I can wear it as a uniform jacket.

And maybe, just maybe, I'll wear it on some combat missions in the current conflict next time I get the opportunity!

But, in just the same way that I love P-51s, Corsairs, and Spitfires, I also love the F-15, F-16, and A-10. There's room for both in the discussion.

I'd be delighted to clarify any portion of my post that you didn't understand, but essentially I was agreeing with you that the current A-2s are "real" although for many of us that doesn't change our preference for the originals and repros patterned after them. I also agree that there's room for both original (-style) and current A-2s in the discussion, with the understanding that there's considerably less interest in the current versions here.

 

[SuinBruin]

But, in just the same way that I love P-51s, Corsairs, and Spitfires, I also love the F-15, F-16, and A-10. There's room for both in the discussion.

Exactly. And I don't think you'll find anyone on here would consider a modern USAF issued A-2 to be anything less than a "real" flight jacket. But as you point out, people can and do prefer the look of the original vintage models, and I was trying (perhaps clumsily) in my earlier post to explain why this preference isn't arbitrary or simple snobbery.

 

[flightmac]

I don't have pictures of the WWII jacket mods that I mentioned. I have seen pictures showing pockets made of cloth attached to the left sleeve and inside liner of A-2 originals.Some airmen used BLood Chits sewn in the liner with the top open as storage pockets. Also, handwarmer pockets were added to some post war jackets by tailors overseas. Sorry for the confusion.

Ray

I'm surprised that handwarmer pockets weren't more common. Airman are notorious for personalizing things. I've read and seen pictures elsewhere about Service uniforms being modified to emulate British battle jackets, prior to issued Ike jackets I believe. And what about the artwork on the back of flight jackets? Was that actually authorized; or merely tolerated, by some commanders, like noseart?

 

[mazeta]

deleted.

 

[Atticus]

We often forget that the original A-2...the pre-WWII A-2...was different than the WWII A-2. I wonder if the pre-war vets ever asked themselves if the mid-war Perrys were "real" A-2s?

This from earlier in the thead:

Flashback to 1942. Two seasoned old Air Corps pilots are grumbling in the chow line.....

Old Codger #1: Yo Jimmy, have you seen those new A-2s that jus' come out? Do they look lame or what?

Old Codger #2: Ya ain't shittin', Hap. Those new jackets got no silk linings---got some kinda flimsy-assed cotton sh*t, instead. And slow yo' roll, them dam things ain't even got collar stands---look skank as hell. An I hear some of them jackets might even be made of goat! Are we running outa horses or sompthin?

Old Codger #1: That sh*t the Air Corps is dollin' now---that ain't no A-2. Ain't no real one, anyhow.

Old Codger #2: Word up, Bro.

AF

 

[Hamsterbear]

Actually, some of the Avirex jackets are quite good-nice fit, nice leather, the knits are good...etc.
But most important is the cost- very reasonable for what you get...and if purchased used on eBay, and you know which ones to buy and which to avoid, you can score a really nice jacket.
I've worn Avirex jackets and get nice comments from "people on the street" you meet in public, probably more so than any of the "higher end" reproductions by the premium jacket makers.
Add to it, when you tell a "non-jacket junkie" that you paid $400, $500 or even up to $800 for a "leather jacket", they look at you like you're crazy. I've had people offer me $50, $75 and $100 for my "used" jacket, and they have no clue what an Eastman, Aero or even a G&B is worth new. Oh, and they want side entry pockets too!

 

[HackerF15E]

I'd be delighted to clarify any portion of my post that you didn't understand, but essentially I was agreeing with you that the current A-2s are "real" although for many of us that doesn't change our preference for the originals and repros patterned after them.

Naah, it's not that I didn't comprehend what you posted, it's more that I don't "get" the indifference (and sometimes more than that!) many folks show to the current jackets. That's what I was referring to.

 

[watchmanjimg]

I'd be delighted to clarify any portion of my post that you didn't understand, but essentially I was agreeing with you that the current A-2s are "real" although for many of us that doesn't change our preference for the originals and repros patterned after them.

Naah, it's not that I didn't comprehend what you posted, it's more that I don't "get" the indifference (and sometimes more than that!) many folks show to the current jackets. That's what I was referring to.

I'm sure most of us appreciate that the current A-2s have seen action in various conflicts since their introduction and therefore hold a rightful place in military history, but if one's primary objective is to wear their jacket with civilian clothing the analysis is a bit different.

In my opinion the indifference began with the person or persons responsible for the specs of the current jackets. The idea of bringing back the A-2 was fantastic, but in the execution it's too little, too late. The current jackets lack the handsome appearance and character of the original A-2s. Their leather, lining fabric, knits, and zippers are of inferior quality and the tailoring and construction leave much to be desired. The same can be said of G-1s produced since the mid-to-late 1960s, though at least the Navy stayed true to the basic design over the years. In any case many subscribe to the theory that they don't make 'em like they used to, and accordingly are less interested in the current jackets. Moreover, those of us who aren't subject to military orders aren't limited to wearing what we're issued or instructed to purchase. An ill-fitting, plasticky jacket with pilled knits doesn't cut it when worn with nice clothes and a fine watch.

Among collectors, this phenomenon is hardly limited to A-2s. Many nylon enthusiasts dislike the later green-lined and polyester-insulated MA-1s, and CWU lovers pine for the early bi-swing versions. Uncle Sam made the changes to all these jackets for a reason, but that doesn't mean we have to like it.

 

[Weasel_Loader]

I'm sure most of us appreciate that the current A-2s have seen action in various conflicts since their introduction and therefore hold a rightful place in military history, but if one's primary objective is to wear their jacket with civilian clothing the analysis is a bit different.

In my opinion the indifference began with the person or persons responsible for the specs of the current jackets. The idea of bringing back the A-2 was fantastic, but in the execution it's too little, too late. The current jackets lack the handsome appearance and character of the original A-2s. Their leather, lining fabric, knits, and zippers are of inferior quality and the tailoring and construction leave much to be desired. The same can be said of G-1s produced since the mid-to-late 1960s, though at least the Navy stayed true to the basic design over the years. In any case many subscribe to the theory that they don't make 'em like they used to, and accordingly are less interested in the current jackets. Moreover, those of us who aren't subject to military orders aren't limited to wearing what we're issued or instructed to purchase. An ill-fitting, plasticky jacket with pilled knits doesn't cut it when worn with nice clothes and a fine watch.

Among collectors, this phenomenon is hardly limited to A-2s. Many nylon enthusiasts dislike the later green-lined and polyester-insulated MA-1s, and CWU lovers pine for the early bi-swing versions. Uncle Sam made the changes to all these jackets for a reason, but that doesn't mean we have to like it.

That pretty much sums up what I believe. Very well put Jim. Bringing the jacket back was a great idea, I'm just not a fan of the newer design of it. What ticked me off was when the Air Force abandoned the Hap Arnold design in favor of the futuristic design they paid some company loads of money to design. :evil: Always hated the fact that other services keep with their traditions and uniforms while the Air Force always wants to try and reinvent the wheel. Yes, it's a young service, but still has plenty of tradition to keep.

 

[Monsoon]

Holy Necro-thread, Batman!!

Anyways, my father was down visiting me, HH6 and Peanut. I showed him my new G&B Civil A-2 and my military issue A-2.

He was issued a A-2 on Okinawa during Korea and a B-15. He liked the B-15 better; kept him warmer and he said he just liked the fit.

Well, he liked the current issue A-2s better. Even tho he wouldn't put his hands in the hand-warmer pockets, he said they were nice to put things in, like gloves (which is what I use mine for).

As Hacker said, no matter how much hooping and hollering people do, what the AF is giving out now is an issue A-2. Handwarmers and all.

If you're looking for a "WW2 A-2", hand warmer pockets are a no-go.

 

[269sqnhudson]

it's not nonsensical to distinguish between them and the '30s & '40s models.

You're right -- it's not. Isn't that what I suggested in my post with respect to proposing they be referred to in some manner like Versions 1/2/3? What IS nonsensical is to draw a line and state categorically that the only "real A-2s" are the ones made in the 1930s and 40s, or reproductions that follow that same precise design and manufacture specification.

An earlier poster shacked it when they said a 2005 Ford Mustang is still a Mustang, even if it's not the exact same as a 1965 Ford Mustang. Even better, people don't go sticking their nose up at a P-51 at an airshow which has been through a complete rebuild, or one an owner has put in an inaccurate paint scheme, or has modern radios and a GPS up in the cockpit, right? Nobody is arguing that they're precisely the same thing, merely that is IS still an "A-2 Jacket" and deserves to be recognized as such rather than openly scoffed as some profane offspring of the "real thing".

It just still boggles my mind that people will go bonkers over a reproduction of a WW2 jacket (most of which will never even be worn while piloting an aircraft, much less is an authentic piece of history), but not even bother to turn their head to look at a current issue one (which has a distinct possibility of being worn in flight in actual combat operations). I'll bet that my "modern" Avirex A-2 has more time under hostile fire in a combat zone than all of the Eastman, Good Wear, and other repro A-2s owned by people on this site combined. Sure seems like a reason to consider it a "real" A-2.

Handwarmer pockets and all.

Don't get me wrong -- I realize that the name of this forum is "Vintage Leather Jackets", and that the topic of discussion in the "General Flight Jacket Discussion" forum is vintage flight jackets. Yes, I realize that the 'modern' A-2s don't fit into the category of 'vintage'. But when we start throwing around definitions of what's "real" and what is not "real", that's when we need to stop letting snobbery get in the way of reality and step back for some perspective.

Guys, I love the WW2 jackets as much as you do...but keep some perspective.

Do you often take photos of your medals?

 

[HackerF15E]

Do you often take photos of your medals?

It was a staged photo for the purposes of that particular post.

So, no.

It's pretty standard fare to take photos of toys surrounded by militaria to make interesting composition. Let's see...they do that on the watch forums, the gun forums, etc...all for the same effect.

If I really wanted to stroke myself and show off (which is what I assume you are implying by posting that), there are a lot better ways I could do it.

 

[Atticus]

...He was issued a A-2 on Okinawa during Korea and a B-15. He liked the B-15 better; kept him warmer and he said he just liked the fit...

My father said almost exactly the same thing. He didn't like the A-2 because it was "stiff and cold". He told me that you had to "wear a sweater under an A-2 or you'd freeze your ass off in it". He liked his "green, cloth jacket" much better. I've never known if "green cloth jacket" meant B-10 or B-15.

Yes, he's wearing an A-2 in my avatar, but I'm pretty sure it was just for the photo. I doubt that it was even his jacket.

AF

 

[Monsoon]

I've never known if "green cloth jacket" meant B-10 or B-15.

The only reason I know what he had was that he said, "I had one of those" when I showed him my A-2. I said, "An A-2?" and he said, "Whatever they're called."

And for the B-15, I saw a picture of him wearing one in the back of his helicopter. Like your father, it was just a cloth flight jacket.