Uniform info needed

[Andrew]

I picked up this uniform (huge size 40 trousers which I swim in and are bunched at the back, perfect large shirt) and a size 46 A-4 flight suit recently.

Can anyone here give me any more detail on the uniform type? I presume it's just standard Army and not an Officers uniform. Also, the light coloured tie is mine and this set came with the darker one. Were there any rules around which colour to wear with which uniform?

The belt is from another similar but smaller set, also, the braces have "Police" on the buckles, (I have a very similar Australian made pair), so I wondered if was common that these were also used by the AAF.

Just for the record i'm not planning turning re-enactor :shock: , just wanted them to possibly display a jacket one day.

 

[watchmanjimg]

Shirt is WW2 US Army EM. Pants and likely the dark tie are US Army from the post-WW2/Korean War era. The belt appears to be USMC, and the braces are civilian and extraneous to the grouping.

 

[Andrew]

Thanks Jim, sounds as if it may not be appropriate for displaying AAF gear then. It was being used by a reenactor to represent the Father of the seller who was an Air Gunner in B-17's.

I do have another set of shirt and trousers- the shirt's the same with gas flap, but the trousers are far more flat fronted but that may just be due to being a smaller size. You wouldn't be able to describe what basic typical uniform would have been worn by any chance (shirt, trousers, belt)?

 

[watchmanjimg]

My pleasure, Andrew. Depending on mission and location, AAF personnel wore the OD wool uniform just like other Army personnel during WW2. As I mentioned, the shirt appears to be the typical enlisted man's type with gas flap. This should be fine for a gunner display. The trousers are cosmetically very similar to those worn during the latter part of WW2, but earlier in the war wool trousers of a lighter shade were used. You may have noticed an apparent shade discrepancy in some original photos where the trousers appear lighter than the 4-pocket tunic or Ike jacket--likely it wasn't your imagination. Additionally, I don't believe the dual pocket flaps were a standard feature of WW2-era wool trousers although they were added by some troops. That said, you could probably get away with these trousers for use in a display if you're not too picky (like some of us).

While I'm aware that there are original photos of WW2-era Army personnel wearing what appear to be dark OD ties, the lighter version was standard during the war and would be the best choice for accuracy in your display. This leaves us with the belt and braces. The brass frame buckle shown in your pics looks like the type used by the USMC and in some cases Navy Seabees. It's clearly distinguishable from the blackened frame buckle worn by Army enlisted personnel. The brass "roller" buckle was intended for officer wear, but EMs also wore them occasionally. The correct belt would be a light shade OD type with blackened tip and frame buckle. As I mentioned in my earlier post, the braces are not military issue and I'm not sure why they would be worn with the uniform--especially with a belt. The OD trousers were supplied with brace buttons as they were intended for wear in the field as well as general service. However, the Army had plenty of regulation braces available for issue. I'd leave them out of your display.

I hope this helps. Feel free to let me know if I can be of further assistance!

 

[Tim P]

For what its worth I concur almost 100%, the suspenders I have seen illustrated as an issue variant I am sure although I may be erroneous on that, I think I had an identical pair which broke at the button holes. I may still have them, I got them as issue from a dealer I trust to know his onions.
I may be talking out of my rear end but it is my current understanding. that said, they have no real place in an A-2/ wool shirt display anyhow so it becomes academic.

 

[Andrew]

Thanks Chaps, fantastic information and it's really appreciated.

I'll go with the smaller sized pair of trousers- they're '42 dated and as you say Jim they are much lighter and a more classic cut than the '45 pattern pair. Plus they are a better fit, just a little short. I noticed that the s40's have actually been let out even further so that expalins the XXL sizing. The pattern is quite different, the '42's have a flatter front, different shaped slit pockets as well as the flaps and colour.

I'll also lose the belt and braces and i'll pick up a more accurate belt when I see one. By the way, I just lost the original knot taking the tie off. I can do a Windsor but how were these tied?

With regards basic insignia, would the shirt have anything other than say a pair of 2" AG wings? It's not really important as it's really just wallpaper for the jacket but just for the record.

The Curator of the MacArthur Museum is looking for loans of kit for 5th AF display. With a bit of work this might work, although I probably couldn't pair it with my original Bancroft Flighter as it'd need an enlisted mans cap.

This is a far more successful look I feel.

Thanks again for all the advice.

 

[CBI]

Andrew - it all looks great. We just had Halloween here yesterday and I typically wear some WWII items but I don't have a complete uniform (almost). The wife suggested I buy what "I need" so I have a good costume every year

I guess I better do what she says, all I need is a service shirt, tie and crusher cap (maybe a flight suit???). I will do repros. Diamond Dave is on myshort list!

Again, neat stuff, too bad this can't be our daily wear - what a CLASSIC look.

J