“A Better Fighting Garment…” 2.0 - A Revised Guide to the U.S. Navy's Intermediate Leather Flight Jackets

[Lord Flashheart]

This iteration of the guide has been cancelled. Research of U.S. Navy Intermediate Flying Jackets should be made under “A Better Fighting Garment 3.0”.

PREFACE

In December 2021 Jan, Wei and I posted a thread entitled “A Better Fighting Garment…” - A Beginner’s Guide to the US Navy’s WWII-era and later Intermediate Flight Jackets. We wanted to fill a gap in the knowledge base on the forum and the thread was written as a “Beginners Guide”. We were very grateful for the help of a number of Forum members and others in developing the content.

Since our Guide was posted the thread has inspired discussion on all manner of points associated with these jackets. We have recognised that there was more to say, some corrections to make and some references to provide to help others explore this considerable series. This thread is therefore a Revised Guide and we hope it will be even more illuminating than its predecessor.

We have made the decision to retain that original thread, unaltered, as a Discussion thread. We believe that this preserves the transparency of the information as it emerged. We encourage the use of that thread, rather than this resource, as the place for discussion so that this sticky can remain focused and readily searchable.

On a personal level Wei and I would like to give Jan special credit for his diligence and hard work in detailed research and helping to drive these revisions. His energy has kept up our momentum to improve this Guide for the benefit of everyone here.

INTRODUCTION

Various threads on VLJ which have listed the US Navy contracts from the M-422 to G-1 series of leather flying jackets. This version 2.0 of our original thread updates the information we now have to sit alongside the A-2 contract dates thread as a resource on the Forum. The original thread and our acknowledgements have been retained and left open as a discussion thread for members interested in Navy jackets and we hope that it can be both a resource in its own right and space where issues and nuances of this long series of jackets can be debated.

In compiling this guide we have sought advice and opinion from Dave Sheeley and John Chapman at various points of uncertainty or ambiguity. They have, without fail, kindly helped us to understand so what there is to know about the design and evolution of the Navy’s intermediate leather flight jacket. John’s US Flight Jacket CD was also an invaluable source of information, particularly for features distinguishing individual contracts.

Finally, in documenting these contracts, we have been greatly indebted to Aota Mituhiro’s Full Gear (abbreviated when citing sources as FG) and the Civilian Production Administration’s Alphabetic Listing of Major War Supply Contracts (abbreviated when citing sources as WSC).

We’d like to thank all of our fellow Forum members who have helped us by sharing their knowledge and for making our original thread as interesting a discussion as it has become. We hope that continues.

If you have more information please do share that in the original – now Discussion – thread first so that this thread can remain a focused sticky. Thanks !

AN OVERVIEW

Discussion of jacket types in this hobby, among Navy jackets and beyond, frequently boils down to a discussion of hard and fast differences between jacket types: B-15 vs. B-15A, L-2A vs. L2B, etc. This impulse is understandable, but it actually doesn’t get us very far when discussing Navy jackets, especially the early ones.

The reality is, prior to about 1960, manufacturers who won a contract to make an intermediate flight jacket for the Navy were provided with a sketch and a list of specifications that the jacket had to meet. As was the case with the manufacturers of the Air Force’s A-2 jackets, Navy contractors were afforded latitude to make the garments as they saw fit. But whereas on the army side, the practice frequently was to change jacket specifications only when they needed to make a real structural change to the jackets (nobody would ever mistake an A-2 for a B-10), changes to Navy jacket specifications are not necessarily reflected in the appearance of the jackets. Sometimes there were real changes in materials or design, but just as frequently, a change in specification reflected a change as small as an update to the contract language (Chapman, 3 Dec. ‘21). There are many cases like the Willis & Geiger M-422A, which has much less in common with other jackets in that series than it does with W&G’s previous M-422 contract.

In short, when you’re looking at Navy Flight Jackets, it pays to look less for differences between jacket specifications and more for differences between contracts & manufacturers.

STRUCTURE

The evolution of the US Navy’s (USN) primary intermediate flight jacket can be traced through 12 iterations or “specifications.” This guide is structured into 12 specifications split over 3 parts: WW2, the 50s, and the Vietnam era. The specifications in chronological sequence of posts are:

• [2] M-422 [1940]
• [9] M-422A [1940 - 1943]
• [21] AN-J-3 [1943]
• [26] AN-J-3A [1943-1947]
• [41] 55J14 (AER) [1947 - 1952]
• [48] MIL-J-7823 (AER) [1952 - 1960]
• [61] MIL-J-7823A (AER) [1961]
• [65] MIL-J-7823B (WEP) [1961 -1963]
• [74] MIL-J-7823C (WEP) [1964 - 1966]
• [81] MIL-J-7823D (WP) [1967 - 1970]
• [91] MIL-J-7823E (AS) [1971 - Present]
• [97] Navy jackets in the movies - “Top Gun” [1986]
• [98] A Few Concluding Thoughts
• [99] Private purchase, PX or civilian market G-1 jackets

 

[Lord Flashheart]

This iteration of the guide has been cancelled. Research of U.S. Navy Intermediate Flying Jackets should be made under “A Better Fighting Garment 3.0”.

Part 1 - The Second World War - Pre and Early WW2 jackets


1. M-422 [1940]

The M-422 jacket is the great-grandfather and progenitor to the basic formula of the USN intermediate leather flight jacket as we know it today. The design is understood to have originated in Philadelphia Navy Yard in 1938 (FG 120; https://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/15380-wwii-us-navy-flight-jackets-m-422-M-422A-m-421a-m-445a-AN-J-3A-an-6552/page/14/).

The Specification was issued on 28 March 1940. Sharp mouton collar, action-pleated bi-swing back, patch pockets with a button closure, single-ply rib racked knits, internal wind-flap with USN marked underneath the collar in stencil. The M-422 was most famously worn by the American Volunteer Group, a group of pilots who went to fight on behalf of the Chinese government against Japan before America entered World War II (See Bill Kelso’s write-up for their M-422 repro and John Chapman’s CD > M-422 > Willis & Geiger for examples of the association between the M-422 and the AVG).

Contracts were issued to just three companies: Willis & Geiger, Switlik Parachute Co., and Monarch Mfg. Co. The Switlik was far and away the smallest of the contracts, in terms of the number of jackets produced, and this contract remained unknown until the 21st century (Full Gear, for example, which was published in 2005, does not list it).

The most loose pattern among the three M-422 makers is the Willis & Geiger (W&G) and this is the most boxy of the M-422 jackets. It also has frustratingly short sleeves. The Switlik and Monarch both have longer sleeves. The Switlik is much less boxy than W&G’s jackets, and the Monarch is slightly less loose and boxy again than the Switlik. A few key features of the M-422 include a generally wider collar than later types and an absence of arched horizontal stitching on the collar reverse. The pre-WW2 USN leather flying jackets have also been shown to have been stitched in silk. The pencil holder detail on the left (as worn) pocket varies between makes. The Switlik pencil holder is a sleeve of leather inside the pocket, whereas Monarch and Willis & Geiger have a cut-out slot in the body of the pocket. Monarch changed the pattern of their throat latch in contracts after M-422.

 

[Lord Flashheart]

This iteration of the guide has been cancelled. Research of U.S. Navy Intermediate Flying Jackets should be made under “A Better Fighting Garment 3.0”.

2. M-422A [1940 - 1943]

The immediate question that comes up with the M-422A is what differences there were between this specification and its predecessor. This simple question deceptively conceals two more complicated ones:

1. What changes in design made the Navy’s decision makers think they needed a new specification?
2. How can we tell the two jacket types apart?

Jacket aficionados tend to treat the two questions as the same. This produces all kinds of answers, and most of them are probably wrong. Eastman (https://www.eastmanleather.com/usn-eastman-jackets/181-eastman-M-422A.html), in their write-ups for their Navy jackets, claim that the addition of the pencil pocket, and the resultant widening of the front pocket, led to the new specification. Aota Mituhiro, a bit more cautiously, notes the short sleeves on the M-422 and speculates that lengthening the jacket sleeves caused the Navy to create a new jacket type (FG 120). Neither of these explanations works. Both the Switlik and the Monarch M-422 have sleeve lengths comparable to the later M-422A (see pictures & contract data below), so Aota's explanation cannot be correct, and few of the M-422A's manufacturers widened the pocket to make room for the pencil pocket, so Eastman's explanation must be wrong as well.

More insightfully, Dave Sheeley has observed that all of the M-422s were made with silk thread, and that, with the M-422A, all of the manufacturers except for Monarch switched to cotton: http://www.vintageleatherjackets.org/threads/silk-stitched-usn-M-422A-jackets.24463/

The Specification M-422A dated 1st October 1940 includes reference to both linen and silk thread but we have not, to date, established that the Specification required a specific thread for use on a particular seam or whether thread type was a manufacturer choice. Sheeley’s hypothesis might explain why Monarch used silk thread on their M-422A whilst Willis & Geiger did not.

Barring a complete review of both the M-422 and the M-422A Specifications and Drawings, we're unlikely ever to know what changes triggered the creation of a new specification, and this may well be an example of minute changes in contract wording leading to a new jacket type. Perhaps the strongest argument is that the M-422 was simply a test specification for the Navy to work out what they wanted. Once they had a jacket they were happy with, the design was finalized as the M-422A.

While we can't answer Question 1, the second question (how to tell the jacket types apart) is a lot simpler. The M-422 has corrosion-resistant zippers (brass, blackening), while the A-series almost universally has nickel zippers (except for some Block M-422A jackets that have brass zippers). Could that be the change that led the Navy to create a new jacket specification? Possibly, but silk thread and brown lining were still listed on the jacket specifications, even though these details were ignored in practice. The same could also be true of the corrosion-resistant zippers.

The first M-422A contracts were let to companies starting in late 1940 or early 1941 (likely early 1941, if the finish date for the previous specification means anything) and the Navy continued buying this jacket type through late 1942 or early 1943. Six companies were hired to carry out the work, including two of the three previous M-422 contractors, Willis & Geiger, and Monarch, as well as four new companies: Gordon & Ferguson, Fried, Ostermann & Co., Edmund T. Church Co., and H & L Block.

 

[Lord Flashheart]

This iteration of the guide has been cancelled. Research of U.S. Navy Intermediate Flying Jackets should be made under “A Better Fighting Garment 3.0”.

4. AN-J-3 [1943] - The Flight Jacket that Wasn’t

By 1943, changes were in the works. Early in the war, the Navy and the Army Air Force had come to an agreement to standardize flight clothing and equipment that was of use to both organizations. They hoped to cut development time and costs, and speed up production, a challenge that was already becoming apparent as the United States ramped up wartime production. These combined-use items would be given a specification number starting with AN, for Army-Navy (Sweeting 6).

The plan actually compounded production woes, however: the Air Force and Navy used similar flight equipment, but they needed different things out of it:

• For the Air Force, the primary concern was maximizing warmth, which meant that they needed increasingly-specialized production facilities as materials they used became more experimental (Sweeting 6) – witness the fact that the switch away from leather and shearling coincides with many of their tried-and-true contractors gradually being pushed out by new companies (FG 68-71).
• The Navy’s concern, meanwhile, was the proximity of their personnel to salt water, which necessitated corrosion-resistant equipment. This meant raw materials – like brass – that were in high demand (Sweeting 6-7).

Designing and producing gear that met both branches’ needs thus actually taxed American manufacturing more than allowing them to have separate gear. The M-422A, for example, had features that made it 30-40% more expensive to produce than the Army’s A-2 jacket (Sheeley 3/29/23), but none of these features were of much interest to the Air Force, which was confronting what amounted to a pandemic of frostbite among their men (Miller 2, 90-2, 240, 337, 381). The Air Force was the first to become fed up with the agreement and begin phasing out the AN-gear. By the end of the war, the only AN-item of clothing that was still standard issue in the Air Force was the AN-H-16, a winter flying helmet (Sweeting 6).

The doomed plan saw the creation of a light, cotton flight jacket with a drawing number of AN-6551, and a type number of AN-J-2 (a garment the Air Force never used, but that the Navy used until the end of the war), an intermediate flight jacket (drawing number AN-6552, type number AN-J-3) and a winter weight flight jacket (AN-6553, AN-J-4).

Test contracts for the AN-J-3 were sent out to multiple companies, among them Willis & Geiger and Monarch. None of these contracts seem to have been much more detailed than “give us a compromise between the M-422A and the A-2, and give it a leather collar,” because the resulting jackets were all over the map. Some had epaulets, some didn’t. Some had an interior wind flap, while others had an exterior storm flap. Some had interior leather facings along the zipper, on others the liner goes all the way to the zipper.

The Army got as far as signing the documents to close the book on the A-2 (see below), and create the AN-J-3. But before the project could really get off the ground, the Air Force backed out. By the time the updated version of the Class 13 catalog was released at the end of September 1943, the B-9, B-10, and B-11 jackets were already listed, and the AN-J-3 was nowhere to be found, although the A-2, B-3, D-1, B-6 and even the AN-J-4 are all still listed (AAFIC 51-5). Occasional AN-J-3s have been proven to have ended up in the hands of pilots (see below for an example of one), but most of the ones now in the hands of collectors are unprovenanced. And none of these jackets has ever been found with a military spec label.

Willis & Geiger, at least, evidently liked the design, because they kept making jackets after the project was canceled and sold them to Abercrombie & Fitch. The Navy, left without a partner that they needed to placate, steered the AN-6552 AN-J-3 project back toward the established design that they were already happy with.

 

[mulceber]

AN-J-3 - Monarch, photos courtesy of @Maverickson

AN-J-3 - unidentified maker, possibly Monarch - photos posted on eBay by user nostalgia-on-wheels

 

[Lord Flashheart]

This iteration of the guide has been cancelled. Research of U.S. Navy Intermediate Flying Jackets should be made under “A Better Fighting Garment 3.0”.

4. AN6552 / AN-J-3A [1943 - 1947] “ … a better fighting garment ...”?

The quote above, and in the title of this thread, is mischievously drawn from remarks within the 1943 AAF Authority mentioned in the previous section.

“What’s in a Name?”
With the next two jacket types, we’re faced with a big question, and there aren’t any solid answers here: what’s the difference between the AN-6552 and the AN-J-3A? The document in the previous section established that the aborted, leather-collared, AN-J-3 had a drawing number of AN-6552 (cf. Sweeting 132). When the AAF and the Navy split, the Navy kept calling their next, fur-collared, jacket AN-6552. The easy answer then is that, if the AN-J-3 and the AN-6552 are the same jacket on paper, then the AN-J3A is some “next stage” of development.

That rather simple answer is probably wrong:

1. There are no apparent differences between the two specifications. If the one was an improvement on the other, we’d expect to see actual improvements in the design or materials, but we don’t. Ordinarily, we might chalk this up to one of those invisible changes to contract language mentioned in the ‘overview’ section, but…
2. When the Navy started issuing contracts for the AN-J-3A, they didn’t stop issuing contracts for the AN-6552. The contract data below makes this crystal clear. If one specification was a refinement of the other in any way, we would expect that when the second specification was implemented, the first would be largely phased out. This isn’t the case at all. The Navy just appears to have issued contracts for one or the other at random, sometimes even on the same day (several of the contract numbers below are sequential, indicating they were let to companies, one right after the other).

Mituhiro Aota must have been aware of these problems too, because, in Full Gear, he just lists the contract data for the AN-6552 and AN-J-3A together in the same table, and in his write-up he treats them as synonymous (FG 122). We don’t really have any hard evidence to either confirm or disprove Aota’s position, but we tend to agree with him. It’s a credible explanation of a confusing situation. Our best hypothesis was put forward by Wei:

“There are only 2 JACKETS: (1) the AN-J-3; and (2) the AN-J-3A.
The AN6552 is NOT actually a jacket type/specification, but rather only a DRAWING on which both the AN-J-3 and AN-J-3A, two different jackets, are based.” In support of Wei’s argument, we point to the specifications for the M-422A listed above, which mention both “drawing” and “specification” in a context which suggests they are two different things.

So, much like how the Type A-2 jacket had a Drawing Number of 30-1415, but was still an A-2, we think the Specification (Navy jargon equivalent to the Air Force’s “Type”) AN-J-3 and the AN-J-3A both had a Drawing Number of AN-6552. So all of the AN-J-3As are also AN-6552s, and vice versa. The only difference is that, on some contracts, the label maker decided to print the Specification Number (AN-J-3A) and on others, he printed the Drawing Number (AN-6552).

Our hypothesis would be consistent with the footnote to the May 21 1943 AAF authority, posted in the previous section, which refers to a Specification AN-J-3 and Dwg. (Drawing) AN-6552. It is also corroborated by a note on John Chapman’s Flight Jacket CD, which points out that the Navy’s summer-weight flight jacket was almost interchangeably listed on the spec label as an AN-J-2 or an AN-6551, or sometimes both (Chapman CD> AN-J-2). It is thus well-established that the Navy during this period was in the habit of putting either the drawing number or the specification number on their labels. We therefore follow Aota’s opinion that the AN-6552 and the AN-J-3A were the same jacket.

Down to Brass Tacks
Whereas the differences between the first two Navy jacket types were murky, the AN-J-3A has some real differences that distinguish it from the Navy’s previous fighting garment, the M-422A:

1. In order to make the hardware more resistant to corrosion (Sweeting 6-7), the AN-6552 was furnished with blackened no. 5 zippers, where nickel had previously been the norm. Much of the blackening agent would wear off after months of use, but traces of it remain on originals. This was a major concern for the Navy (Sweeting 6-7), and the M-422 jackets had all featured blackened or brass zippers, before apparently abandoning this requirement on the M-422A. With the AN-J-3A, this requirement comes roaring back.
2. Likewise, whereas most earlier Navy jackets had been stitched using cotton thread, now, nylon, which was stronger, became the norm. Even here, there were exceptions: Monarch continued using cotton (https://www.vintageleatherjackets.org/threads/monarch-size-46-an-j-3a-restoration.20015/post-344230). Both of these changes had already appeared in the few test jackets that were produced for the AN-J-3, but it was with the AN-6552 / AN-J-3A that they made their way into issued flight jackets.
3. Since this was at least technically a joint service jacket, as Moore points out, the “USN” stencil used on M-422A and later G-1 jackets is replaced with a “US” stencil.
4. Mituhiro Aota has observed that the great majority of these jackets were made in smaller sizes. Evidently, the Navy’s orders in the previous M-series had favored large sizes too much (FG 122). The Air Force was having similar problems at around the same period (Eastman, data plates 37-9, FG 21).

The AN-J-3A began production in 1943, and its production continued all the way into 1947. Contracts were awarded to nine companies: American Sportswear, Arnoff Shoe Co., Bogen & Tenenbaum, Burjac Sportswear, Gordon & Ferguson, H&L Block, L.W. Foster, Monarch, and Willis & Geiger. Moore notes, that “[w]hile H&L Block made a good number of M-422A jackets, it is thought that they made very few AN-6552 jackets”; thus making the H&L Block AN-6552s amongst the rarest of an already scarce group of jackets. Also of note is Dave Sheeley’s recent discovery that one of the last AN-J-3A contracts issued, Willis & Geiger’s 1946 contract, was made at least partly in horsehide. It is unclear whether this was chicanery on the part of the tannery, or a test by the Navy to see if a different hide would meet their needs. If the latter, then the Navy evidently wasn’t as impressed with horsehide as many modern jacket aficionados, because for the next quarter century, all jackets would continue to be made of goatskin.

 

[Lord Flashheart]

This iteration of the guide has been cancelled. Research of U.S. Navy Intermediate Flying Jackets should be made under “A Better Fighting Garment 3.0”.

Part 2 - After the Second World War - Post WW2, the Korean War, and the 1950s.

6. G-1 (55J14) [1947 - 1950]

Many write-ups on the 55J14 (e.g. Eastman’s) can inadvertently leave readers confused about the relationship of the first G-1 to earlier flight jackets. Since the last Navy jacket prior to the 55J14 that most repro makers offer is the M-422A, novices can be forgiven for supposing that the Navy had just not been producing jackets for several years prior to the introduction of the G-1. In fact, if you look at the contract data from the previous section, the last of the AN-J-3A contracts was issued in the same fiscal year as the first of the G-1 jackets. What’s missing here is some context.

In July the same year that the first G-1 contracts went out, U.S. President Harry Truman signed into law the National Security Act of 1947, which established the Air Force as an independent branch of the United States military. While most people in our hobby are familiar with that date, the changes had far more wide-reaching impacts than just what roundel appeared on Air Force jackets. This Act of Congress established the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Council (Britannica: National Security Act). More importantly, for our purposes, it also consolidated the Departments of War and the Navy into a new Department of Defense. A key priority here was to streamline the administration of the U.S. Military and “eliminate the duplication of effort in the DoD” (Britannica: National Security Act).

In this light, it’s really not surprising that the AN-J-3A, which was, on paper, joint service equipment for the Army and Navy, but actually a Navy jacket, was re-classified. Whereas for previous jackets, the Navy had treated “drawing number” as the higher-order category and “type” and “specification” as two names for the same thing (e.g. drawing number AN-6552, type/specification AN-J-3), now, under the Department of Defense, “type” seems to become the umbrella category. Hence, the Navy’s jacket was now listed “Type G-1, Specification 55J14.” This new method of bookkeeping was evidently not confined to the Navy, because Air Force flight jacket labels from this period also list a type and specification number.

The 55J14 had six manufacturers: Aviators Clothing Co. (formerly the well-known Air Force contractor, Aero Leather Clothing), L.W. Foster Sportswear, A. Pritzker & Sons, Star Sportswear, Burjac Sportswear (formerly Edmund T. Church Co.), and the (now incredibly rare) B.-G. Inc. (FG 123). Of these, the Aviators Clothing Co. jackets have proven extremely prone to red rot (Sheeley, 27 Sep. '22), and collectors are advised to be careful when buying a jacket of this contract.

A certain number of what appear to be Foster and Star 55J14s have an unusual spec label that reads simply “BUAER - U.S. NAVY G-1 FLIGHT JACKET SPEC. 55J14 (AER)” without any indication of contract number or manufacturer. These jackets also have an unusual, straight-pull Conmar or Talon zipper, instead of the usual bell pull. The Talons can tentatively be dated to the 1950s. As you can see below, Foster and Star both had a contract for the 55J14 in Fiscal Year 1950. It is thus possible (but at this point unverifiable) that these were additional jackets tacked onto Foster N383S-29897 and Star N383Ss-39943, both from Fiscal Year 1950. The fact that the Korean War began that very year provides a plausible reason why the Navy might have needed more jackets.

By contrast, it has also been speculated that these might be early versions of the 55J14 (Chapman CD> 55J14> Foster #3), although the late date of the Talon zippers makes this dubious. We also have doubts about whether there would really have been a need for test jackets, given how much continuity we see in Navy jackets – the 55J14 really does just seem to be the AN-J-3A under a new filing system. Nevertheless, both hypotheses are possible, and we leave it to the readers to make up their own minds, or indeed to remain agnostic.

55J14 jackets have been characterized as shorter than previous specifications, tighter in the gut, and with longer sleeves. This is an accurate description of the Foster contracts, but, Star and B.-G. Inc. had short sleeves, relative to their torsos, and the Aviators Clothing Co. contract is unusually blousy. Given that Foster received just under half of the 55J14 contracts, however, it’s easy to see how the 55J14 got this reputation. There thus aren’t any real consistent trends when it comes to the patterning of the 55J14s, and, as before, it is more productive to look at the differences between individual contractors, rather than different specifications.

The 55J14 nevertheless retains most of the characteristics of earlier intermediate flight jackets, such as the USN stencil under the collar. Most feature a blackened conmar zipper with a bell zipper pull. And as Dave Sheeley notes, it appears that the 55J14s were the last series of jackets to be made of both vegetable- and chromium-tanned goatskin; the last clear use of veg-tanned goatskin (amongst chrome-tanned goatskin) appeared in the 1950 B.-G. Inc. contract. The B.-G. 55J14 is also the last model USN jacket that was constructed using both nylon and cotton thread (https://www.vintageleatherjackets.org/threads/sheeleys-55j14-b-g-inc-g-1.21860/). We therefore follow Sheeley in characterizing the 55J14 as a transitional flight jacket.

 

[Lord Flashheart]

This iteration of the guide has been cancelled. Research of U.S. Navy Intermediate Flying Jackets should be made under “A Better Fighting Garment 3.0”.

7. MIL-J-7823 (AER) [1951 - 1960] “....the specifications were defective…”

The 7823 (AER) is the first iteration of its own series of G-1 jackets, with the first contract of 1951 belonging to Monarch Mfg. Co. Despite subtle differences between different manufacturers, the 7823 (AER) series retained most of the 55J14’s hallmarks, such as the no.5 blackened Conmar zipper. Most noticeably, because the 7823 specification ran from 1951 to 1961 (a 10 year span), there were many formal and informal amendments to the specification over time. An example of an informal amendment is most easily demonstrated by the shape of the pocket flaps as between 7823 (AER)s. Imagine a 1951 Monarch Mfg. (N383s-80667), a 1957 Cagleco Sportswear (N383-39321A), and a 1958 L.W. Foster Sportswear (DA-36-243-QM(CTM)2134). Their pocket shapes range from scalloped, to triangular, to rounded (respectively). Minor evolutions like these exist throughout the 7823 (AER) specification. Although perhaps a quirk between manufacturers, it is commonly agreed that pocket flaps (as with many other features) became plainer in design for easier manufacturing as time went on. An example of a formal amendment is demonstrated with L.W. Foster Sportswear’s 7823 (AER) & AMEND #2 of the N383-22356A contract of 1955, where the amendment is clearly stated on the tagging of the jacket. Perhaps another important change of note is the shift from the USN stencil under the collar of jackets to a USN hole stamp on the wind-flap in the mid-late 50s.

An important change with ramifications for how Navy jackets were made came in 1956, when contracting for military garments passed from the Navy to a completely new agency, the Military Clothing and Textile Supply Agency (MCTSA), which served all branches of the military. While bringing under one roof all the contracting for the clothing used by the different branches made a certain amount of sense, the MCTSA lacked the experience and flexibility of the Navy. The approach of the MCTSA became a source of conflict.

The result was L. W. Foster Sportswear Co., Inc. v. the United States, a court decision handed down on January 24, 1969 https://casetext.com/case/lw-foster-sportswear-co-v-united-states-2 concerning two 1958 contracts for about 54,000 jackets.

From 1949 to 1956, L.W. Foster had successfully manufactured approximately 200,000 flying jackets for BuAer under a series of contracts which contained specifications the same as or very similar to the 1958 contracts. L.W. Foster "envisioned no difference" as to what would constitute an acceptable garment under the contracts now being given out by the MCTSA because, although a new procurement agency was involved, the contract was for same jackets which it had previously made for the Navy. At the peak of these contracts the company was delivering nearly 3000 jackets each week although they were delivered late. L.W. Foster sought an adjustment of the contract price to reimburse additional costs which was rejected by MCTSA.

L.W. Foster argued in court that the specification requirements for the type of seams for the joining of the knit to the leather and the rayon lining underneath did not accord with the best practices of the trade, were virtually impossible to perform without causing abrasions and cut leather, which would be scored as defects, and that the operation should be performed by another method. Another problem developed with regard to the method of sewing the pocket flap to the face of the jacket. The company argued that the method prescribed by the specifications was inconsistent with the contract diagram, was "practically impossible" to accomplish and could cause damage to the jacket. On top of this the quality assurance regime revealed scoring as major defects healed scars and healed briar scratches by an Inspector who did not know what these were and with mended knits scored as defects but which did not affect appearance or serviceability. These were not the only issues that led to the lawsuit.

In judgment, the six Judges held “There is no doubt, in the first place, that the specifications were defective. The record clearly reflects instances in which defendant's agents admitted as much. The Government later amended the specifications in question, incorporating many of the changes found necessary in the performance of this contract.” and found that the company knew that it could not produce an acceptable flying jacket under the contract specifications, as written, at the time that it submitted its bid. But it had had five or six previous contracts with the Navy for the same type of jacket, with the same or very similar specifications, and in every case deviations were made and allowed as a matter of course — and had to be made for production to go on. The Judges concluded that the company had acted reasonably in assuming that the formal change from BuAer to MCTSA did not break the working relationship which had already been established.

The circumstances of this lawsuit may well have played a part in the split of Lou and Irvin Foster. Whilst Lou stopped making leather jackets, Irvin nevertheless went on to deliver a number of subsequent 7823 series jackets under Irvin B.Foster & Sons Sportswear Co. We speculate that Irvin may have worked with the Navy to revise the specification and make the design commercially practical. As the government amended the jacket specification after 1960, this would have made the construction more predictable for everyone albeit, from our perspective here, probably less interesting and varied in detailing. From this point forward, the different G-1 contracts become much more uniform in their design and are quite difficult to distinguish without a spec label.

 

[Lord Flashheart]

This iteration of the guide has been cancelled. Research of U.S. Navy Intermediate Flying Jackets should be made under “A Better Fighting Garment 3.0”.

Part 3 - The Vietnam War - The 60s and 70s


8. MIL-J-7823A (AER) [1961]
A noticeable difference from the 7823 to the 7823A is the change from a no.5 blackened Conmar main zipper to a no.10 blackened Talon ‘rectangle’ zipper. From the 7823A onwards, all G-1s would continue to use a no.10 zipper for enhanced durability (later specifications would have either a ‘paperclip’ style Scovill or Conmar No.10). Additionally, following from the trend set by late 50s 7823s, all G-1 jackets from the 7823A onwards will bear rounded pocket flaps (a simplification of the previously (but more ornate) scalloped or triangular pocket flaps). As Roger Moore notes, “n 1961, the A… series jacket was introduced and only two manufacturers had contracts: Ralph Edwards Sportswear [previously Cagleco] and Irvin B. Foster.” Moore, as do many collectors, therefore considers the A series to be one of the scarcest of the 7823 series jackets.

 

[Lord Flashheart]

This iteration of the guide has been cancelled. Research of U.S. Navy Intermediate Flying Jackets should be made under “A Better Fighting Garment 3.0”.

9. MIL-J-7823B (WEP) [1961 - 1963]

From the 7823B onwards, all G-1 flight jackets have a no.10 ‘paperclip’ style zip (blackened for the 7823B and brass for the C onwards). This replaced the rectangular Talon zipper of 7823A. The 7823B is otherwise almost identical to its predecessor. One noteworthy difference, however, is that the zipper tape on the Irvin B. Foster jackets from this series is frequently placed an inch or two (2.5-5 cm) above the bottom of the zipper box, instead of being flush with the bottom of the wind flap (see below for an example).

 

[Lord Flashheart]

This iteration of the guide has been cancelled. Research of U.S. Navy Intermediate Flying Jackets should be made under “A Better Fighting Garment 3.0”.

10. MIL-J-7823C (WEP) [1964 - 1966]

The 7823C specification was introduced in 1964 and lasted till 1966. As Moore notes, “[t]hese are often considered by collectors to be the last of the ‘good’ jackets as they are the last [specification] to universally have the mouton collar…”, goatskin, and single-ply rib-racked knits. The easiest way to identify between a 7823B and a 7823C specification is the zipper. The 7823B has a blackened ‘paperclip’ no.10 zipper whereas from the 7823C specification onwards the ‘paperclip’ no.10 zippers were left in naked brass.

 

[Lord Flashheart]

This iteration of the guide has been cancelled. Research of U.S. Navy Intermediate Flying Jackets should be made under “A Better Fighting Garment 3.0”.

11. MIL-J-7823D (WP) [1967 - 1971]

The 7823D (WP) is a controversial specification. Starting in 1967, it was produced until 1971. For 1967 - mid-1969, the 7823D (WP) specification was made from USN chrome-tanned seal brown goatskin with real mouton fur collars. However, sometime in mid 1969, the 7823D specification was amended to allow for faux mouton collars (80% Dynel, 20% cotton) and cowhide to be used instead. However, all 7823Ds retained double-ply no rib rack 100% wool knits. The possible combinations for 7823D G-1s are thus as follows: goatskin with real mouton, goatskin with Dynel collar, or cowhide with Dynel. Surprisingly, however, no cowhide and real mouton versions have been documented.

 

[Lord Flashheart]

This iteration of the guide has been cancelled. Research of U.S. Navy Intermediate Flying Jackets should be made under “A Better Fighting Garment 3.0”.

12. MIL-J-7823E (AS) [1971 - Present]

The 7823E (AS) was introduced in 1971. It adopted the amended features of the late 7823D models; that is, cowhide, dynel collars, and 100% wool, double-ply, no rib-rack knits. The feature that most distinguishes them, however, is the white spec label that made its first appearance here, although the first two contracts still featured a black spec label. These are the most abundant but the least collectible of all G-1 types. Although most find that the cowhide creaks and the Dynel collars do not age as well as mouton (mouton tends to go from brown to golden with wear and exposure to the elements, whereas Dynel goes from black to a clumpy ‘dirty grey’), E series jackets are, nonetheless, genuine USN flight jackets and they make for incredibly durable, “wear-anywhere, do-anything”, daily beaters.

 

[mulceber]

Mil-J-7823E - Star Sportswear DSA100-73-C-0034, unknown source

 

[mulceber]

Mil-J-7823E - Brill Bros. DSA100-75-C-0332, photos courtesy of @Jorgeenriqueaguilera

 

[mulceber]

Mil-J-7823E - Brill Bros. DSA100-75-C-0332, continued, photos courtesy of @Jorgeenriqueaguilera

 

[mulceber]

Mil-J-7823E - IMPERIAL LEATHER & SPORTSWEAR INC., unknown contract, photos courtesy of @B-Man2

 

[mulceber]

Mil-J-7823E - Ralph Edwards Sportswear DSA 100-77-C-1518, photos courtesy of @Jorgeenriqueaguilera

 

[Lord Flashheart]

Navy jackets in the movies - “Top Gun” [1986]

No discussion of Navy flight jackets would be complete without a brief nod to the 1986 film “Top Gun,” which for many is the first point of reference for the G-1 flight jacket. Many of us were first introduced to this hobby through memories of having watched the movie and admired Maverick’s jacket. Reproductions of this film jacket are widely available, but pictures of the original jacket are not available, apart from screenshots, and so the contract (assuming it was not a costume jacket) has not been verified. We suspect that one of the jackets was a Foster 55J14. As Jeff Thurston, among others, has observed, the faint vertical stitch on the pencil pocket and the wide placement of the pockets greatly limits the possibilities. The screen-used jacket appears to be over-sized for Cruise’s frame, and modified with padded shoulders to match ‘80s trends. It would be interesting to hear from anyone who worked on the film or might know more about this so, for now, we will simply speculate, after a conversation with a jacket maker, that Tom may have had more than one jacket in the costume wardrobe and one might’ve been a Foster 55J14.

For the 2022 sequel, “Top Gun: Maverick,” we are on much more solid footing. The film’s costume designer has said that the jacket from the original movie was not in wearable condition anymore, and they decided to create a new jacket. Getting the G-1 jacket right was the most difficult part of creating Cruise’s costumes for the movie, in spite of how little screen time it gets, and the jacket that appears in the sequel film was basically a “Franken-jacket” (her words) put together from about 40 different original G-1s that they had acquired

(

).

 

[mulceber]

This iteration of the guide has been cancelled. Research of U.S. Navy Intermediate Flying Jackets should be made under “A Better Fighting Garment 3.0”.


A FEW CONCLUDING THOUGHTS:

In our introduction, we commented that, when you’re looking at Navy Intermediate Flight Jackets, it pays to look less for differences between jacket specifications and more for differences between contracts & manufacturers. Regularly, when writing this thread, we found that what we thought might be a key point of difference between specifications more often than not wasn’t, and conversely, some critical changes were made across the board without a change in specification.

Production in relatively low volumes did mean that cost of the complex features in this jacket was not a prohibitive factor in the life of the design. That there was a regular need for, and agreement of, deviation from the specifications in manufacture until around 1960 suggests a pragmatism and a practicality, in BuAer, with the manufacturers that recognised the complexity of the jacket design.

What stands out is the endurance of the original principles of a bi-swing back, half belt, design. Features like the internal pocket and pencil slot were present from the start. The mouton collar, a desirable feature in an open cockpit, may have become an affectation in the jet age but they now distinguish USN flight jackets in the public eye like no other leather jacket.

If you own an original Navy leather jacket, regardless of its age, you can be proud that it is a true part of an unbroken line of aviation fighting garments designed to meet the needs of navy fliers from the piston to the jet age. Whilst more modern jackets may lack some of the individuality of earlier jackets they all follow the pre-war M-422 ideas. Modern originals can often be bought for very modest prices and are accessible way into this hobby whilst proving very practical hard wearing and comfortable leather jackets for everyday life.


A NOTE ON NATO STOCK NUMBERS

Every G-1 jacket post-NATO has what is called a NATO stock number. All that a NATO stock number does is allow the reader to know exactly what item they have. The NATO stock number for the G-1 Jacket (of all variations) [and post NATO] is either 8415-268-XXXX (older) or 8415-00-268-XXXX (newer). This is a minute detail which even high-end reproduction manufacturers such as the Real McCoys or Eastman Leather Company get wrong.

The first 4 digits denote the general class of item, the 2 digits following that denote the country, the following 3 digits denote the item itself, and the final 4 digits denote the item to its corresponding size.

Take for example the code: 8415-00-268-7797 or (the older variation) 8415-268-7797.
8415: means Clothing, special purpose (as opposed to Clothing, general purpose [8405])
00: is the country code for the USA (UK is 99)
268: is the specific code for G-1 jackets
7797: means a G-1 in the corresponding size of 36.
For G-1s, the final 4 digits increase by 1 for every size up and decrease by 1 for every size down.

So, for example:
A G-1 in size 36 will have a NATO code of: either 8415-268-7797 or 8415-00-268-7797
A G-1 in size 38 will have a NATO code of: either 8415-268-7798 or 8415-00-268-7798
A G-1 in size 40 will have a NATO code of: either 8415-268-7799 or 8415-00-268-7799
A G-1 in size 42 will have a NATO code of: either 8415-268-7800 or 8415-00-268-7800
A G-1 in size 44 will have a NATO code of: either 8415-268-7801 or 8415-00-268-7801
A G-1 in size 46 will have a NATO code of: either 8415-268-7802 or 8415-00-268-7802

The point is that in most commercial jackets or even high-end reproductions like Eastman Leather Company (Elite Units VF-143 Pukin Dogs 7823D (WP) G-1 Jacket) or the Real McCoy’s 7823C (WEP) “Steve McQueen Jacket” do not account for the change in the last 4 digits as they correspond to size. For example, an Eastman Elite Units VF-143 Pukin Dogs 7823D (WP) G-1’s label will always say 8415-268-7800 regardless of changes in size. Thus, indicating that Eastman copied the jacket from a size 42 7823D (WP) G-1 jacket.



A BRIEF NOTE ON BuAer

The Bureau of Aeronautics (BuAer) of the US Navy existed from 1921 to 1959. The first Chief of BuAer was Rear Admiral (RA) William A. Moffett from 1921 to 1933. He ensured naval aviation remained independent in the 1920’s when Army Brigadier General Billy Mitchell and others sought to merge US military aviation into a single independent air force.

Notable Chiefs of BuAer include John H. Towers (June 1939 - October 1942) who was the first naval aviator to achieve flag rank and was a leading advocate of Naval Aviation at a time when there was little or no support for it within or outside the Navy. His tenure in the period when war was becoming likely saw considerable expansion of the naval aircraft establishment and a rigorous pilot training programme. He was among the staff who had, in 1932, planned a “successful” attack on Pearl Harbor during a joint Army-Navy exercise in the Hawaiian Islands.

Towers was succeeded by RA John S. McCain Sr who was Chief between October 1942 and August 1943. He has been described as “preferring contentious conflict to cozy compromise”. At the time the AN-J-3 was developed, BuAer could well have considered an Intermediate flight jacket, shared with other branches of military aviation, to undermine the independence of Naval Aviation. Much as the Chief of AAF Hap Arnold had his own reasons to be sanguine about the failure of the shared AN-J-3 project it would be surprising if BuAer were any less relieved.

In 1956 the Military Clothing and Textile Supply Agency (MCTSA), an agency created under the Department of the Army, assumed responsibility for procurement of flying jackets of this type. Until entering into the L.W. Foster Sportswear contracts litigated in the 1968 case mentioned above the MCTSA had never contracted for any such flying jackets. Prior to letting the bids, the MCTSA prepared Interim Quality Assurance Provisions (IQAP) relating to inspections of the flying jackets. These were then approved by the Navy and incorporated in the contracts. The provisions of the IQAP were substantially the same as those which had governed inspections under L.W. Foster’s earlier contracts. The litigation reveals that in the process of resolving some of the inspection problems at the heart of the case, L.W. Foster contacted personnel of the Bureau of Aeronautics of the Navy who expressed views to the MCTSA. We can only guess what they may have been.


Works Cited and a Few Useful Links:
This thread borrows heavily from an original thread named, “How to date US Military Clothing and G-1 jackets from the label” by our fellow members Dinomartino1 and Mr. Dave Sheeley ( @Maverickson ): http://www.vintageleatherjackets.or...lothing-and-g-1-jackets-from-the-label.26620/
We remain indebted to Mr. Roger Moore’s original resource. His website is now defunct, but see this link for screenshots and online archives of his website.

• AAFIC = U.S. Army Air Forces Illustrated Catalog Class 13: Clothing, Parachutes, Equipment and Supplies. (30 Sep. 1943)
• FG = Aota, M. (2005). Full Gear: Collector's Guide on Us Military Flying clothing from 1920s thru 1970s (1st ed., Vol. 1). Kazi Co Ltd.
• Miller, D. L. (2006). Masters of the air: The bomber boys who fought the air war against Nazi germany. Simon & Schuster.
• Sweeting, C. G. (1984). Combat Flying Clothing: Army Air Forces Clothing through World War II. Smithsonian Institution Press.
• WSC = Civilian production administration, Industrial statistics division. (1946). Alphabetic listing of Major War Supply Contracts. cumulative June 1940 through September 1945.

• https://www.vintageleatherjackets.org/threads/main-differences-M-422-vs-g1.21748/
• https://www.vintageleatherjackets.org/threads/duplicated-fathers-original-g-1-flight-jacket.20658/
• https://www.vintageleatherjackets.o...lothing-and-g-1-jackets-from-the-label.26620/
• https://www.vintageleatherjackets.org/threads/silk-stitched-usn-M-422A-jackets.24463/
• https://www.vintageleatherjackets.org/threads/contract-date-versus-production-date-an-6552.8286/
• https://www.vintageleatherjackets.o...-us-govt-over-g-1-contract-from-1958-9.26621/
• https://www.vintageleatherjackets.org/threads/a-2-to-AN-J-3A-conversion-skips-the-an-j-3.26210/