Originals vs Repros and a common misconception?

[Swing]

One thing to also consider is that if your A-2 got too worn, you could just turn it in and get a new one.

Of course A2s were refurbished in USAAF depots and re-issued. As far as turning in your A2 and getting an new one I'm not sure how common this was? Do you have evidence to show this was common practice? A2s were sought after and when they were replaced by cloth jackets from 1943/4 there would not necessarily have been quantities of them in the USAAF stores to do this. The shortage of issued A2s was one reason why servicemen bought A2 varients themselves.

In one of my books the author mentioned that at the end of training he and the rest of the crew turned in all of their gear, and were issued a completely new kit before going over seas. Did he get a brand new A-2 before shipping out? Don't know, but IIRC he mentions getting a new sheepskin jacket (I assume a B-3). I don't think that once you reached the front you would just exchange gear unless it was damaged and needed repaired. Then you'd probably be issued a reconditioned A-2, and your damaged one would be reconditioned to give to the next guy.

~Swing

 

[Anonymous]

During the war, practically all these jackets were worn as work clothing & were abused as you would clothing worn for pretty hard manual labour. Nowadays practically all this type of jacket is worn as a "fashion statement", it stands to reason that modern jackets will take much, much longer to pan in than originals as they are looked after & not abused.

Just my 2 penorth, & I've broken my posting duck too!

Mark F.

Mark, pardon me if I am wrong but I thought that the A-2 was issued to officers. And if the officer was a pilot (rather than an engineer) his job was to fly the plane. Where is the hard manual labour in that?

 

[deeb7]

On being shown to his seat, he took off his A-2 jacket, folded it neatly and stowed it in the overhead locker.

 

[Andrew]

Mark, pardon me if I am wrong but I thought that the A-2 was issued to officers...

All aircrew got 'em Platon.

TSgt John Johnson, front right who painted his noseart and my GW USL

 

[Peter Graham]

And if the officer was a pilot (rather than an engineer) his job was to fly the plane. Where is the hard manual labour in that?

Ask a Liberator pilot.

 

[rich]

Some worn looking Irvins ........... note the very baggy arm on the chap standing left.

 

[Andrew]

Baggy is one thing, but puffy is very different :lol:

 

[mk1mark]

"And if the officer was a pilot (rather than an engineer) his job was to fly the plane. Where is the hard manual labour in that?"

Hey, ho, 8 hours sitting at minus 30°C in a dangerous, cold, sharp, machine, that is constantly subject to the vagaries of the weather, turbulence, flack, fighters, mechanical failure etc. With NO modern flying aids like power assisted control surfaces whatsoever?

No, you are probably right, all the pilot & co-pilot had to do was sit at the pointy end and fly the plane, it must have been just like flying holiday makers to Benidorm on a 737 only you don't have the inconvenience of having to stop at your destination to drop your passengers off, all you have to do is open the bomb bay doors and drop them.

Just another day at the office I guess

 

[Tim P]

Probably a slightly ill-considered comment I suspect.

 

[Anonymous]

Hey, ho, 8 hours sitting at minus 30°C in a dangerous, cold, sharp, machine, that is constantly subject to the vagaries of the weather, turbulence, flack, fighters, mechanical failure etc. With NO modern flying aids like power assisted control surfaces whatsoever?

Mark,
that wasn't what I meant.
I didn't mean that the pilot's job was easy.

I meant that I don't see how sitting for 8 hours at minus 30°C in a dangerous, cold, sharp, machine, that is constantly subject to the vagaries of the weather, turbulence, flack, fighters, mechanical failure etc can affect a leather jacket in a way that it will age more quickly and become a rag like some originals we see today. I still think that those jackets didn't become "rags" during the war but from excessive post war wear.

I served as an officer on a minesweeper that was built in 1964 and was wearing (for 2 years) a jacket which belonged to the ship's inventory since she was built. That jacket was like a N-1 deck jacket only longer and with a hood and was worn by every other officer in my position since the ship was built. The conditions were similar to what you described, extreme cold weather, dangerous, cold, sharp, machine, that is constantly subject to the vagaries of the weather, rough seas, 20mm gun shooting, mine sweeping operations, mechanical failure, fires etc.

Well that jacket, apart from having a few stains and a little wear and tear at the cuffs was in perfect condition.

OK it was war in the 1940s and hard for the airmen but I think that we are exaggerating when we say that the jackets aged like that so quickly. (And some planes had heating in the cockpit)

A MAJOR proof os that is that the A-2 jacket was replaced by cloth jackets. So it seems the intention was to provide protection against cold and not a body armour (like the tough A-2 horsehide jacket) to the pilots. You know that motobike drivers wear leather jackets for protection against cold and from hurting themselves if they fall off their bikes (a sort of armour let's say)

If they meant to protect them from the harsh environment, then I guess it was a mistake to replace leather with cloth since if leather becomes a "rag" so fast I can imagine that a pilot would "destroy" at least 4 cloth jackets at the same time he could "destroy" one leather jacket. So I guess it wouldn't be such a cost effective decision.

Moreover, I was wearing a M-65 jacket during my time in 27,000dwt dry bulk carrier vessels doing manual labour which really can't be compared to that of a pilot, believe me, and the only damage to the jacket was paint and grease stains. I gave the jacket to the ship's bosun when I left.

 

[airfrogusmc]

During the war, practically all these jackets were worn as work clothing & were abused as you would clothing worn for pretty hard manual labour. Nowadays practically all this type of jacket is worn as a "fashion statement", it stands to reason that modern jackets will take much, much longer to pan in than originals as they are looked after & not abused.

Just my 2 penorth, & I've broken my posting duck too!

Mark F.

Mark, pardon me if I am wrong but I thought that the A-2 was issued to officers. And if the officer was a pilot (rather than an engineer) his job was to fly the plane. Where is the hard manual labour in that?

You've never spent any time on a flight line have you? Pre flight inspections can be hard on leather jackets. All kinds of thing to scrape a catch the leather and knits on (carter pins and safety wire) not to mention hydraulic fluid, oil, and fuel. Even laying on your back to check points underneath.

 

[Jake431]

And if the officer was a pilot (rather than an engineer) his job was to fly the plane. Where is the hard manual labour in that?

Ask a Liberator pilot.

Ha! My Grandfather used to talk to me about once having to "stand on a rudder pedal" for HOURS as he flew a damaged B-24 back to base in the Pacific. No hydraulics, just muscle power. He was a big guy (6'2", 190 lbs), but he repeatedly said flying B-24's was exhausting, especially when fueled and loaded with bombs. Baring damage, it was much nicer to fly home.

-Jake

 

[tgd31968]

One thing to also consider is that if your A-2 got too worn, you could just turn it in and get a new one.

Of course A2s were refurbished in USAAF depots and re-issued. As far as turning in your A2 and getting an new one I'm not sure how common this was? Do you have evidence to show this was common practice? A2s were sought after and when they were replaced by cloth jackets from 1943/4 there would not necessarily have been quantities of them in the USAAF stores to do this. The shortage of issued A2s was one reason why servicemen bought A2 varients themselves.

In one of my books the author mentioned that at the end of training he and the rest of the crew turned in all of their gear, and were issued a completely new kit before going over seas. Did he get a brand new A-2 before shipping out? Don't know, but IIRC he mentions getting a new sheepskin jacket (I assume a B-3). I don't think that once you reached the front you would just exchange gear unless it was damaged and needed repaired. Then you'd probably be issued a reconditioned A-2, and your damaged one would be reconditioned to give to the next guy.

~Swing

The other thing I have always wondered is how often the A-2's were worn in the air vs the b-3's. The a-2 being a summer weight jacket, even with a sweater or two would be pretty cold at altitude. Now i know the pilots had some heat, but Probably not that great.
Obviously the waist gunners didn't wear a-2's but you often see crew pics taken in front of the aircraft wearing all a-2's so they got them somewhere. I am reading Jimmy Stewart, Bomber Pilot right now, and there are several pics of him in a b-3 too. This many years later, sometimes it is hard to tell which photos are from crews actually returning from missions, and the ones where someone said "hey lets get a shot in front of the plane in our fllight gear" for mom or the wife or whoever.

 

[MikeyB-17]

I'm fairly sure that A-2's got pretty well hammered pretty quick, no matter what your position in the crew. If nothing else, the straps of Mae Wests and parachute harnesses rubbed against the leather every time you moved (giving a characteristic wear pattern often seen in originals today) plus all the other wear as mentioned. Knits, I'm sure, wouldn't have lasted long. These were issued items of working clothing, and I doubt they were treated with any kind of respect-I wear a uniform at work, and I'm afraid I treat it very badly, stuffing jackets behind seats, getting oil and grease on it, chucking it into corners, because I know when it wears out I can turn it in and get a new one fairly quickly. I'm sure A-2's were regarded the same way, not with the reverence with which we often treat 'em. These guys didn't pay hundreds of pounds/dollars for theirs.
What I like about repros is that they can be treated in this fashion, and only look the better for it. I've given up the idea of owning an original A-2, as it would only get occasional wear, and would spend most of its life sat in a wardrobe. I can't justify spending that sort of cash on a jacket I'm not going to wear-whereas my ELC A-2 is now knocking on for twelve years old, been abused on a regular basis most of that time, and although in line for a reknit and reline, is looking great for it. I do wonder with some modern repros, if the originals they are made to emulate ever looked the way they do. Some, especially repro Navy jackets, are made with gorgeous, thick and sumptuous leather that I think will take forever to wear in, and makes a beautiful, smart jacket, but I'm not sure originals were made like that.

 

[talleyho]

The fact that so many A-2s were so beautifully painted leads me to think that those guys were not of a mind to turn a jacket in for a replacement. Such attention is usually not lavished on anything thought of as temporary.

 

[Roughwear]

The fact that so many A-2s were so beautifully painted leads me to think that those guys were not of a mind to turn a jacket in for a replacement. Such attention is usually not lavished on anything thought of as temporary.

This is very true for many vets. Also many were keen not to hand them back after the War, which helps to explain why the USAAF spec label is removed from many A2s.