The sizing issue myth

[les_garten]

People are not bigger because they have bigger bones. Bigger people grow bigger bones. This is not an evolutionary change, it's a physiological response (as muscle attachments on bone can grow, etc).

Nutrition clearly plays a role, more calcium, etc, available, as well as just plain more calories, and less physical labor. It's environmental. Regardless, the people then were simply by and large more fit. The society was still more agrarian than now, and even urban lifestyles required more walking. All this on top of fewer calories available. More movement, fewer calories.

Did you miss this part:

It's Genetic
It's Environmental
It's Behavioral

 

[watchmanjimg]

Looking at movies from the 1940's, old photos, and hearing stories from my father and uncle about conditions growing up in the 1920's-1930's I believe that back then a young man's 44" chest had more to do with their skeletal structure than the muscles hanging off it. Wider rib structure supporting less meat.

That would mean that there was less musculature on he shoulders and upper arms, back and chest.
Aside from a tighter fit when relaxed...flexing larger muscles means more increase in that muscles girth compared to smaller muscle. Think of the classic "body builder" pose where they flex their bicep. It "pops out" as they say. Or...think of putting on an already tight jacket and expanding your chest/reaching forward. Feels like your body is trying to rip out of the jacket.
A skin and bone size 44 airman would not feel that nearly as much...if at all.

I agree completely with the foregoing, which is further illustrated by these photos of typical servicemen of the WW2 period:

While these examples reflect a range of shapes and sizes, it's apparent that back then the average "drop" or difference between the chest and waist measurement was smaller than nowadays (2 1/4" versus the 6-inch drop seen across the common size range of modern suits). The measurements of the WW2 solider are further discussed in the following US Army Quartermaster Corps article. Interestingly, an average chest measurement of 33 1/4" most commonly resulted in the issuance of a size 36 jacket:

http://www.qmmuseum.lee.army.mil/WWII/tailor.htm

The muscular chaps shown below lack the V-tapered torso of modern weight-trained men, but with more shoulder and upper-arm development than most of the others depicted I'd bet they'd be uncomfortable in jackets sized according to their relatively small chests:

 

[damienweaver]

For the record, I wear a size 38S in a suit jacket. I own an original Aero A-2 from WWII. Size is 38R. Fits perfectly.

 

[dmar836]

Johnsons!
In Platon's defense I think this has gotten way off the point that a 40 A-2 jacket is a 40 A-2 jacket whether then or now. I have grown little since college but certainly have "filled out". I may have changed only one jacket size but the shape of a 40 yo is not the shape of an 18yo even with the same chest size. Again, that has nothing to do with he 40 size jacket of an accurate A-2 pattern.
Don't forget also that glamour sizing has fooled many of us for the last 30-40 yrs.
And remember that often"war size" is due to shrinkage from unregulated storage as I have A-2 jackets that are the same as modern size.
One more is that there are a few repros out there with size 46 labels regardless of actual size. Beyond the scope here but don't let that lead you in a decision.
Overall I agree with whatever fits and ask the maker's opinion rather than trying to trick the system.
JMO
Dave

 

[Marv]

Last year I purchased a BK G&F M422a which is a wartime size 46 reg and I usually take size 46 reg in other jackets, the M422a fits just fine so no sizing issues there for me.

 

[Roughwear]

Irrespective of the tagged size of a jacket surely it is best to go by the actual measurements so you get a jacket which should be a decent fit?

 

[watchmanjimg]

Johnsons!

Are you referring to the weapons carried by the Marines in the bottom row? If so, those are actually Reising submachine guns--like the Johnson rifle and LMG they're oddballs among the various small arms in the US WW2 arsenal.

In Platon's defense I think this has gotten way off the point that a 40 A-2 jacket is a 40 A-2 jacket whether then or now.

While this may be true provided there's no shrinkage, what I (and apparently others here) find difficult to accept are remarks like the following:

If your chest measures 40 and you try on a wwii size 40, it should fit, period.

Even if it's 100% true to its original pattern, there's no guarantee that every size 40 A-2 will fit every man with a 40-inch chest comfortably . . . period.

Irrespective of the tagged size of a jacket surely it is best to go by the actual measurements so you get a jacket which should be a decent fit?

Wise words from a guy who unquestionably knows his A-2s . . .

 

[Anonymous]

If your chest measures 40 and you try on a wwii size 40, it should fit, period.

I 'll try to rephrase then.

If your chest measures 40, and you buy off the rack size 40 Regular and fits you correctly, and you try on a wwii size 40, it should fit.

We don't have to compare people of the 40s vs people today.
We could compare patterns/measurements of the 40s against patterns of slim fit clothing items of today. I bet the similarities are many.

there's no guarantee that every size 40 A-2 will fit every man with a 40-inch chest comfortably . . . period.

The key word here is "comfortably".
That could apply to modern slim fit clothing. They won't fit everybody.

 

[watchmanjimg]

there's no guarantee that every size 40 A-2 will fit every man with a 40-inch chest comfortably . . . period.

The key word here is "comfortably".
That could apply to modern slim fit clothing. They won't fit everybody.

And this was my point all along. Some individuals within a given chest size will have relatively larger shoulder width, overarm, or upper-arm measurements which require them to wear a larger indicated size for freedom of movement. This would be the case in WW2 or today, whether the wearer is piloting a B-17 or a desk . . .

PS: Please don't take any of my remarks as a criticism of you or BK as the products look to be excellent. I was merely arguing that a standardized notion of fit isn't absolute, and I believe we've established that.

 

[Roughwear]

The actual size of wartime A2s was all over the place. A size 44 Monarch fits like many wartime size 42s or even large size 40s. I have a size 40 chest, but have wide shoulders, long arms and a long upper body. So although I can fit into an original size 40 jacket they are always too short in the body, are tight across the shoulders and short in the arms. Some original size 42s, most original size 44s or even some size 46s provide a comfortable fit. As I said earlier it the actual measurements that are key here.

 

[bords]

Environmental Factors caused those birds beaks to change. It was not a Random mutation. Random mutations are slow evolutionary processes. Environmental pressures are much quicker. Darwin showed that Bird's beaks can change very fast because of the type of food available. And these were Genetic changes with new species being produced very rapidly.

You are misunderstanding Darwin's findings. I don't mean to harp on this to be mean spirited but given your tone I'm assuming you are not the sensitive type

Environmental pressures only select for traits of organisms, they don't alter genetic code. The variation occurs through random mutation of genes by some sort of mutagen (cosmic ray, radiation, etc). That mutation is passed on genetically and results in a different trait in the offspring (longer beak in the case of the birds). In the case of the birds, the environmental pressures "selected" the birds with the longer beaks because they could get to food more easily than the shorter beaked version. The reason the change happened so quickly with Darwin's birds is because a random genetic change produced a mutated variant that vastly outperformed the earlier "version" and quickly overtook it. The environment didn't put any pressure on the genetics to change.

Bringing it back to the topic, I can't see how evolution should even be in this conversation. If you look up evolution in modern humans, even the people who think it is still going on would agree it takes at least centuries to happen at all, not decades, and if you understand the mechanics of it you would have to agree. Changes in body size in the past 100 years are due to better diet, nutrition, medicine and lifestyle (lifestyle including overeating in some cases).

 

[les_garten]

Environmental Factors caused those birds beaks to change. It was not a Random mutation. Random mutations are slow evolutionary processes. Environmental pressures are much quicker. Darwin showed that Bird's beaks can change very fast because of the type of food available. And these were Genetic changes with new species being produced very rapidly.

You are misunderstanding Darwin's findings. I don't mean to harp on this to be mean spirited but given your tone I'm assuming you are not the sensitive type

Environmental pressures only select for traits of organisms, they don't alter genetic code. The variation occurs through random mutation of genes by some sort of mutagen (cosmic ray, radiation, etc). That mutation is passed on genetically and results in a different trait in the offspring (longer beak in the case of the birds). In the case of the birds, the environmental pressures "selected" the birds with the longer beaks because they could get to food more easily than the shorter beaked version. The reason the change happened so quickly with Darwin's birds is because a random genetic change produced a mutated variant that vastly outperformed the earlier "version" and quickly overtook it. The environment didn't put any pressure on the genetics to change.

Bringing it back to the topic, I can't see how evolution should even be in this conversation. If you look up evolution in modern humans, even the people who think it is still going on would agree it takes at least centuries to happen at all, not decades, and if you understand the mechanics of it you would have to agree. Changes in body size in the past 100 years are due to better diet, nutrition, medicine and lifestyle (lifestyle including overeating in some cases).

Genetic code has to change to effect trait expression or repression. Otherwise selecting breeding wouldn't produce a different looking dog reliably.

I don't want to split hairs here, but the POINT I was making, maybe inaccurately was the "trait expression" of 1940's AAC guys is different from today.

Just as in dog breeding. For instance, I have an English Cocker Spaniel.

During the 1840's to 1850's there were differentiations being bred into the Springer Spaniel to "produce" different Spaiels, like Sussex, Welsh, Cockers, etc.

Around 1885-1900, dog "showing" started in earnest. So now selective breeding pressures starting really refining Spaniel confirmations. Notice the timeframes I am presenting here because they conform to the periods of "Trait Expression" that we are talking about in Humans. And some of the same pressures are at work here. Industrial Revolution, Mobility of Bredding pools, Nutrition, Cultural, Breed mixing, etc.

In the late 19th century, American Cockers and English Cockers were started to be differentiated and bred from the Springers.

In 1946 the US recognized the English Cocker from American Cocker as a separate "Breed".

Here's is where I am really going with this.

The English Cockers of the 1920's -1950's or so, look somewhat different than they do today. They were bigger and stockier, like a Field Spaniel, if you know something about Spaniels.

I would submit that selective breeding of dogs is a means to rapidly effect evolution. And to do it in a controlled direction artificially. Nature and culture pressures do this as well though. As was noted by Darwin.

So to my point, I don't hold myself out as a geneticist. So don't kill the message because the terminology was incorrect.

The original premise of the OP was that Humans chnaging was a "Myth". That's his word, not mine.

I'm saying it's not a myth, just look around you.

I'll come back to my original premise.

1) Genetic/Phenotype changes through Gene Expression/Repression if you like
2) Behavioral/Cultural, how we eat, how we develop our bodies, etc
3) Gene pool changes, through race and demographic mobility and mixing
4) Environmental changes through Contaminants, steroids in the food chain, chemical food additives, resource availability, etc

So let me boil down the Jacket and dog thing.

Jacket manufacturers designed Jackets for 1940's Young males in the US. They didn't design them for Pygmies in New Guinea, even though they might have a 40 chest.

My premise, young males today are not "shaped" the same today for a MYRIAD of reasons. And it's the "shape" I'm talking about here. In dogs it's called confirmation

An English Cocker Spaniel that won dog shows in 1940, couldn't win today. They are shaped different. Their ribcages are shaped differently, their bone structure is different.

Do you think that a guy with a 40 Chest is the same "Shape" in China, Chile, Argentina, Kansas, India, Russia, Norway, Sweden, Iran, Australia, Libya, Ethiopia, The Congo, Germany, Madagascar, Korea, Cambodia, New Guinea, and Japan are all the same? Cut out of a cookie Cutter?

Think about the influx of these gene pools into the US since the late 19th century? In addition to all the "other" factors I mention.

Don't denigrate the message because my terminology is "off" somewhere.

For you UK types, don't kill me because I got my Doggie Danny's history off a little! I'm just tryin'to make a point.

Also, as anyone on this forum pretty much knows, you buy your jacket based on measurements, not the number in the collar which means pretty much nothing.

To keep the discussion Light Hearted, a BONUS!
Video of My puppy when I picked him up at the Breeder. He's 9 mos now.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laCOxIyTLFQ[/video]

 

[grommet]

The actual size of wartime A2s was all over the place. A size 44 Monarch fits like many wartime size 42s or even large size 40s. I have a size 40 chest, but have wide shoulders, long arms and a long upper body. So although I can fit into an original size 40 jacket they are always too short in the body, are tight across the shoulders and short in the arms. Some original size 42s, most original size 44s or even some size 46s provide a comfortable fit. As I said earlier it the actual measurements that are key here.

Given the poor sizing quality control of mass produced modern clothing (try on 3 pairs of "identical" khaki Dockers for example), it is not surprising that it was a greater problem in WWll, when there was less automation and many companies making the A-2 jacket. What I have come to appreciate is that one should not expect an A-2 jacket to feel like a modern jacket. That doesn't mean it should be uncomfortable, but you do have to accept a little bit of tightness in the shoulders and retraction of the sleeves when reaching forward, not to mention the shortened torso. That is the nauture of the beast. I think it is great if the jacket maker tries to work with the customer in accommodating his particular body habitus, but the customer should understand that it will never feel like wearing a mall leather jacket and that, if it did, it would look like one too.

 

[Anonymous]

Given the poor sizing quality control of mass produced modern clothing (try on 3 pairs of "identical" khaki Dockers for example), it is not surprising that it was a greater problem in WWll, when there was less automation and many companies making the A-2 jacket. What I have come to appreciate is that one should not expect an A-2 jacket to feel like a modern jacket. That doesn't mean it should be uncomfortable, but you do have to accept a little bit of tightness in the shoulders and retraction of the sleeves when reaching forward, not to mention the shortened torso. That is the nauture of the beast. I think it is great if the jacket maker tries to work with the customer in accommodating his particular body habitus, but the customer should understand that it will never feel like wearing a mall leather jacket and that, if it did, it would look like one too.

Fully agree.

That doesn't mean it should be uncomfortable, but you do have to accept a little bit of tightness in the shoulders and retraction of the sleeves when reaching forward,

This is true and I 've noticed something else too.
The hide also makes a difference. I tried on a 42 size BK repro and feel what you desribe above, and then tried on another one in size 40 made from a softer hide (same thickness like the previous). Although a smaller jacket, the effects above were reduced dramatically.

 

[herk115]

I believe that bodies have not changed much. I believe that the statistics changed, I mean the distribution of the population.

If anything changed, it's who is wearing the jackets. In WWII, most A-2s were worn by military personnel, whom, I pointed out in a different thread, are in shape and conform to certain height and weight standards. But in modern times, anyone with the money can wear a highly accurate reproduction, regardless of their body type. No manufacturer today puts height/weight stipulations on a buyer the way the military would. So we have a greater distribution of body types being stuffed into the A-2s than we did in WWII. Me, I could probably get along fine in a 42 or 44; but at age 55 my body gets wider as it moves downward, so any jacket I wear must accommodate my belly. Back in the day when I was a trim 20-something I didn't have the fit issue, because my body was shaped very differently. And that, I think, is where the sizing difficulties are coming from.

 

[Jeff M]

Watching a great "Teaching Company" series on the history of WW2. 30 episode from Hitler coming to power thru the dropping of the bomb.
The lecturer, professor of history Thomas Chiilders from University of Pennsylvania, was talking about the rapid development of the US "Citizen Army" ...talking a bit about what it was like to go from the life of a private citizen to a GI.
Noted that a common refrain among military personnel was "why does nothing ever fit?"

Folks can recreate that experience today if they care to.....and in many cases pay a pretty penny for the honor.
Or, if they prefer, they can get something that actually fits. :lol:

 

[Jeff M]

.... What I have come to appreciate is that one should not expect an A-2 jacket to feel like a modern jacket. That doesn't mean it should be uncomfortable, but you do have to accept a little bit of tightness in the shoulders and retraction of the sleeves when reaching forward, not to mention the shortened torso. That is the nauture of the beast. I think it is great if the jacket maker tries to work with the customer in accommodating his particular body habitus, but the customer should understand that it will never feel like wearing a mall leather jacket and that, if it did, it would look like one too.

True.
But there can be a HUGE difference between contracts, manufacturers and individual jackets.
It's taken a while, but I've found some manufactures whose jackets combine quality with fit that is comfortable for me.

 

[Hobbstc]

Here my take as a current Army aviator. If its not functional i won't wear it. Technically a size L CWU fits me best and looks best. However flying, I spend most of my time with my arms extended. Therefore I wear an XL because its the most functional in the cockpit. Nothing worse than having sleeves pulling on your arms. I feel this is the same thinking that a lot of WW2 guys had as well and why you'll see them baggy, some tunneling, etc. Just my $0.02.

 

[herk115]

Here my take as a current Army aviator. If its not functional i won't wear it. Technically a size L CWU fits me best and looks best. However flying, I spend most of my time with my arms extended. Therefore I wear an XL because its the most functional in the cockpit. Nothing worse than having sleeves pulling on your arms. I feel this is the same thinking that a lot of WW2 guys had as well and why you'll see them baggy, some tunneling, etc. Just my $0.02.

And unknown to them it was an investment in their future, for if they went with baggy and oversized, the jacket would fit them farther into middle age. Who got the last laugh? But I doubt they were thinking that far ahead.

 

[zoomer]

To keep the discussion Light Hearted, a BONUS!
Video of My puppy when I picked him up at the Breeder. He's 9 mos now.

Hey, what a good doggie!

You're right about standards changing. WW2 soldiers wouldn't look very military today with those cocked hats and pompadours and scrawny physiques. There is a highly disciplined mind set that carries over to your speech and body language. This all stems from post WW2 research showing that the average GI never fired a weapon in combat - and the psychological conditioning that went into training because of that.

BTW, here's what a Persian show cat looked like in the 1930s.

It's got a nose. Totally unacceptable today - they have to look like they've been hit with golf balls.