ORIGINAL WWII AERO LEATHER CLOTHING 18775P TYPE A-2 (3rd BG)

jeremiah

Well-Known Member
Is there a specific article mentioning the AAF rondel being used exclusively on re-dyes?
I remember reading something about re-issues having them but not all re-issues would have been re-dyed necessarily. If the leather was not badly worn or scuffed or color faded I don’t see why they would have re-dyed for the hell of it.
 

B-Man2

Well-Known Member
Is there a specific article mentioning the AAF rondel being used exclusively on re-dyes?
I remember reading something about re-issues having them but not all re-issues would have been re-dyed necessarily. If the leather was not badly worn or scuffed or color faded I don’t see why they would have re-dyed for the hell of it.
One of the main reasons for the re-dye process was uniformity. The USAAF had so many different colors of Russett in their inventory that when the jackets went back to the depots they were all to be redyed for uniformity purposes, as well as reconditioning them.
 

jeremiah

Well-Known Member
That I get but the fact that this jacket has the AAF rondel makes me wonder why if in fact the decal was “only” used on re-dyes. This one clearly was NOT redyed.
 

mulceber

Well-Known Member
My source for this was Eastman's book. He doesn't specifically say that they only applied decals to re-dyed jackets, but on page 91 he says that "this form of marking (i.e. AAF roundels) was implemented in July 1943. Naturally, garments that were already in use didn't get marked in this way, which is why today we see a variety of marked and unmarked original jackets across all the contracts. However, garments that were still held at the Air Depots; those that came back to the stores for re-issue; and all new deliveries from July '43 onwards, were so marked."

Then, on page 98, he says "by July of '43, it (the A-2 jacket) became a 'Limited Standard Use' item, having been superseded by other designs, so the A-2 was then in line for 're-issue.'" (he then goes on to describe the re-dying process).

So both the order that led them to re-dye jackets and the order to apply roundels came at the same time, and only affected jackets that the quartermaster had in stock. I took that to mean they were applied to the same jackets, but apparently there are some exceptions floating around. Not sure why. It's possible Eastman has his timeline a bit off, that the process of re-dying was a bit longer in the offing than applying the roundels, or that some pilots who had already been issued a jacket thought the roundels looked cool and managed to scrounge one.
 

Nnatalie

Well-Known Member
Thanks for that story about 3rd BG @Grant! Honestly I have found only a Col. Leonard J. Barrow JR, he was Commander of the 349th Troop Carrier Group in 1943 but nothing related to the 3rd BG or Pacific Theater. Could be the same but haven’t found anything else.

View attachment 44243View attachment 44244
I do love a good jacket mystery...I’ll try to poke around tonight and see if I by any chance find anything
 

Nnatalie

Well-Known Member
I found a couple things about the 349th Barrow. He seems to have been a long term military guy, starting in the late 30s. He served in the Pacific post-WWII, but it's unclear if he had any WWII Pacific service. His photo in the second article is especially interesting, as his jacket has a different patch on it.

October 1945:


January 1944:


February 1952:


And lastly, this September 1944 article. In the present day, the 313th Troop Carrier Squadron is associated with the 7th Airlift Squadron (originally 7th Transport Squadron), which was/is part of the 62nd Troop Carrier Group, with which Barrow was previously associated (by September 44 he would have been with the 349th). So this may or may not be the same Barrow as the previous articles. Why he's described as commanding a Pacific Navy group is unclear.:
 

Nnatalie

Well-Known Member
@Grant I found by coincidence this jacket with the very same 3rd BG patch on the left chest, too. Funny, they probably even knew each other lol.View attachment 44332
Now that is interesting! I was initially wondering if maybe the patch had been added by a later owner who was more interested in a “look” than accuracy, but the existence of a second jacket with the same patch in the same place makes that a lot less likely.

Perhaps the better research technique will be to start with the BG and see if any connection to the name can be found, rather than the other way around.
 
Top