question about B-10

Discussion in 'Cloth' started by Geeboo, Apr 5, 2018.

  1. Geeboo

    Geeboo Member

    Messages:
    70
    I noted some B-10 are without epaulet , some are with epaulet. Why is that & does it relate to production date ? b.jpg
     

    Attached Files:

    • b1.jpg
      b1.jpg
      File size:
      161.5 KB
      Views:
      37
    • b2.jpg
      b2.jpg
      File size:
      290.4 KB
      Views:
      39
    dujardin and Roughwear like this.
  2. Roughwear

    Roughwear Well-Known Member

    B-10s were first produced in the second half of 1943, the 1944 fiscal year, and commonly issued from 1944. You might imagine that the later contracts would not have had epaulets like the B-15s which were first produced in the 1944 fiscal year, but this does not necessarily follow for the contracts. The Stagg contract AC 972 was the last of 9 B-10 contracts in addition to 9 purchase order numbers and has epaulets as does the Rough Wear AC 964 contract, which was awarded at the same time. Oldin-Denis be 10s from the AC 967 contract also had epaulets. Most of the originals I have seen had epaulets. It is possible that the spec was changed towards the end of production for some of the makers awarded a Materiel Division purchase order. It would be interesting to see more photos of original B-10s to see which ones lack epaulets.

    I should add in "Full Gear" B-10s with epaulets are regarded as Version 1 and those without as Version 2, but frustratingly the versions are not linked to specific contracts and orders. The implication is version 2 B-10s were later produced jackets.
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2018
  3. Geeboo

    Geeboo Member

    Messages:
    70
    This is the label for the 1st pic. Anything can be linked up to provide B-10.jpg more info ?
    Can the 9 contractors ' info be posted with evidences or source of info for further reference ? I count 10 !
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2018
  4. Roughwear

    Roughwear Well-Known Member

    Metro Sportswear was awarded an earlier contract, AC 351 in the 1944 fiscal year. If you have "Full Gear" then you will be familiar with the contractors. there were in fact 15 contractors and 18 contracts or orders awarded by the US Materiel Division. Here is the relevant section from Aota Mituhiro's "Full Gear" book. The books is in Japanese and English and is no longer in print.

    [​IMG]
     
    Geeboo likes this.
  5. Geeboo

    Geeboo Member

    Messages:
    70
    Tks Andrew. The info is very helpful & Professional. :)
    If Metro contract AC 351 was an early contract, then no epaulet's B-10 = 2nd/ later version "assertion" = not true ?
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Apr 6, 2018
  6. Roughwear

    Roughwear Well-Known Member

    Yes indeed it might appear that the author is wrong about the versions. It may be that just Metro Sportswear decided not to add the epaulets on some or all of their jackets. It would be interesting to see if any of their B-10s had epaulets. However, although this was an earlier contract by a few days we do not know the precise dates of their production run after the award of the contract. It may be they actually produced their B-10s a little later as they also had other contracts to fulfil for B-11 jackets and A-10 trousers during the 1944 fiscal year. It would be interesting to know if there was a revised US government Technical order for B-10s in which epaulets were dispensed with.
     
  7. Geeboo

    Geeboo Member

    Messages:
    70
    Being an issued military uniform, item important as epaulet should not be missed at the manufacturer's discretion [by the same logic, is it not reasonable for a manufacturer to omit the pocket flap at its own discretion ?] , IMO. If not, what is the spec for ? what is the order no. for ? I mean with epaulet should be 1 spec & without should be another spec - my wild unprofessional guess.
    Agree with all others you are saying. Again, tks for sharing the info cos the book is almost impossible to find now, & the book is expensive. :>
    P.S. Also wild guess, being the earlier the rarer the collectible for most of the things, & that without epaulet is fewer than with epaulet, I would have guessed without is earlier => got 1 evidence of Metro earlier contract.
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2018
  8. Roughwear

    Roughwear Well-Known Member

    As I said earlier the Technical Order would be crucial in determining whether the epaulets we omitted on government orders or was down to maker interpretation of the specification. I suspect the former as batches of jackets had to pass US inspection.
     
    Geeboo likes this.
  9. Roughwear

    Roughwear Well-Known Member

    Metro Sportswear's contract was the first one awarded for B-10s in September 1943.
     

Share This Page