A-2 to AN-J-3A Conversion (skips the AN-J-3)

[33-1729]

Am I rehashing what’s known or is this something new?

The A-2 specification documents 94-3040 say the A-2 was replaced by the AN-J-3, drawing AN-6552, per a document date May 24, 1943 with written approval noted as June 2, 1943 (below). Mr Aota of Full Gear fame noted the AN-J-3 specification was published in April 1943 and says the AN-J-3A specification was published in Oct 1943. There is a time lag from when the specification is released to the availability of the item and the U.S. Army Air Forces Illustrated Catalog of April 1, 1944 does not contain the AN-6552 as an available option. Since the first known AN-6552 contracts are dated Feb 1944 this would imply only AN-J-3A jackets were released as standard issue, and not the original AN-J-3 design, based upon the dating sequence.

Wartime AN-6552 contracts per site US Military Uniforms of World War 2 (usww2uniforms.com) are below.

The A-2 specification documents also show the B-15C jacket wasn’t considered an A-2 replacement until 1951 (below).

Mr. Aota Ref.: https://www.usmilitariaforum.com/fo...-j-3a-an-6552/&do=findComment&comment=1647995

 

[B-Man2]

There’s a lot of good research there. I really don’t have anything substantive to add, other than we know the the AN-J-3 jacket was an abysmal failure among the troops as well as the commanders in each branch of the air services ( Army & Navy ) due to inter-service rivalries and identity politics. As a result it had a very short life span. Thus the Army went with the B-10 and later the B-15 while the Navy stayed with the M-422A . Any subsequent derivative of the B-15 such as the B-15A was added to the USAAF inventory late in the war. While the M-422A wasn’t changed over to the G-1 until after the war .

 

[mulceber]

There’s some evidence that a few AN-J-3s were issued to pilots so that they could test them. Mine, for example, has pin holes on the epaulets from where the rank insignia would have gone. But you’re right that they never became standard issue in the AAF. Over in the Navy, the AN-J-3A became standard equipment, probably because it wasn’t much different from the M-422A.

 

[MikeyB-17]

This seems to refute the concept that the AN-J-3 was a private purchase item that was never a military issue garment, as has been purported by some. Why do they never have a label when they turn up? I confess this has fascinated me for years.

 

[mulceber]

This seems to refute the concept that the AN-J-3 was a private purchase item that was never a military issue garment, as has been purported by some. Why do they never have a label when they turn up? I confess this has fascinated me for years.

JC’s of the opinion that the labels were removed when the AAF decided not to pursue the AN-J-3, as a way of defacing them and making it clear they weren’t regulation equipment. No idea if that’s true, but it’s the best explanation I’ve heard.

 

[33-1729]

This seems to refute the concept that the AN-J-3 was a private purchase item that was never a military issue garment, as has been purported by some. Why do they never have a label when they turn up? I confess this has fascinated me for years.

Actually, it makes perfect sense that a private purchase civilian jacket wouldn’t have a military contract label because it isn’t one. Based upon the timeframe documented above there never was an AN-J-3 contract, only for the latter AN-J-3A. Test jackets, at best, would be by a small (less than half a dozen jacket) purchase order and not a [relative large dollar value] military contract number. All of these items would explain why an AN-J-3 label has never been found: The AN-J-3A government contracts replaced it before the AN-J-3 even existed.

 

[mulceber]

Actually, it makes perfect sense that a private purchase civilian jacket wouldn’t have a military contract label because it isn’t one.

What Mikey was saying doesn’t make sense is that a private purchase jacket wouldn’t have any label at all. A private company making them would want to advertise. That’s just capitalism. Meanwhile, we do have some AN-J-3s with private purchase labels, but none of them have mil-spec zippers.

 

[33-1729]

What Mikey was saying doesn’t make sense is that a private purchase jacket wouldn’t have any label at all. A private company making them would want to advertise. That’s just capitalism. Meanwhile, we do have some AN-J-3s with private purchase labels, but none of them have mil-spec zippers.

A civilian private purchase jacket isn’t a military issue. Just because it looks like a real A-2 (or what we believe is an AN-J-3), doesn’t make it one. A jacket that looks like an AN-J-3A with a private purchase label is simply a civilian jacket.

 

[mulceber]

A civilian private purchase jacket isn’t a military issue.

I never said it was. I think you misunderstood what I was saying in the previous post.

 

[33-1729]

Why have a few removed the label in their jacket? I'm sure there are many reasons, but I recall a great story B-Man2 made about some servicemen removing the label so they could keep the jacket when the left the service (link below). I haven’t been able to find an actual AN-J-3 contract number and the contract numbers some have listed for the AN-J-3 I’ve found to actually be for the AN-J-3A (in post #1 above). Without an AN-J-3 contract paper trail it’s like they never existed, which is my only point. Are the missing label jackets AN-J-3 or AN-J-3A? Given the contracts we can document they all look like AN-J-3A jackets. Could one tell them apart without the label?

Rough Wear 42-1671-P has been found!

Matchbooks. The red one is the inside of the first image. The second image is inside of third image. Hope that’s not confusing

www.vintageleatherjackets.org

 

[mulceber]

I recall a great story B-Man2 made about some servicemen removing the label so they could keep the jacket when the left the service



Yep, and the reason for removing the label was because their government issue A-2 jackets were government property and they would not have been allowed to keep them. If the AN-J-3s were exclusively private purchase jackets, there would have been no reason to remove the label, since it belonged to them. If anything, removing the label would have been a bad idea, since it could lead the government to think the owners were trying to sneak off with government property.


Broadly speaking, AN-J-3s that appear fall into 2 categories: jackets with civilian zippers and a private manufacturer's label, like this one: https://www.goodwearleather.com/pages/sale_anj3_0001.html


And jackets with a mil-spec zipper and no labels at all, like this one: https://www.vintageleatherjackets.org/threads/original-willis-geiger-an-j-3.25151/

The problem I see with comparing the removal of A-2 labels to AN-J-3 labels is that while some A-2s have their labels removed, ALL of the AN-J-3s with mil-spec zippers have theirs removed. That suggests their removal was systematic, and done for a single reason. JC's explanation that the government wanted to deface jackets that they'd decided not to issue would explain this. It's also possible that since they were only test jackets, the companies were instructed not to put labels in them at all.

I haven’t been able to find an actual AN-J-3 contract number and the contract numbers some have listed for the AN-J-3 I’ve found to actually be for the AN-J-3A (in post #1 above). Without an AN-J-3 contract paper trail it’s like they never existed, which is my only point. Are the missing label jackets AN-J-3 or AN-J-3A? Given the contracts we can document they all look like AN-J-3A jackets.

Very possible. I'd point out though that, from our best estimates, at most only a few hundred of the government AN-J-3s were ever made. If so, it would be easy for them to disappear among the AN-J-3As. The fact that most of the AN-J-3 paper trails you've found led to the navy version of the jacket doesn't mean the AAF version never existed, just that they didn't make very many of them, which we already knew.

 

[33-1729]

I appreciate the feedback!

The US Air Force didn’t list the AN-J-3 as a purchase option on April 1, 1944 (months after the AN-J-3A specification was released), so it’s not clear to me how anyone could purchase one. Mr. Aota says he’s searched for decades and has been unable to find an AN-J-3 issued to anyone at any time and doesn’t believe they exist as he hasn’t found any paperwork either.

I suspect many believe an AN-J-3 had a leather collar while the AN-J-3A had a mouton collar, but I’ve never found anything to support that hypothesis. It reminds me of people wanting the silk lined A-2 when they were only issued with cotton linings. A few hundred AN-J-3 jackets made appears wishful thinking.

Yes, it is possible a contractor made a huge error and jackets were dumped on the civilian market, but I think that’s a stretch given typical [explicit] contract expectations. I’d prefer a leather collar and would get a civilian jacket over a mouton military version, if able, so maybe some did. It's just speculation and I won't read any more into it.

Zipper supplies for civilian jackets during the war weren’t a given, so you’d use what you could get (the military had fits getting them sometimes). I don’t think zipper differences are significant differences during war rationing.

 

[mulceber]

so it’s not clear to me how anyone could purchase one.

I don't think anyone did purchase one: I'm saying the AAF hand-picked some pilots, gave them AN-J-3s so that they could put them through their paces, but then ultimately decided that they didn't want to pursue the AN-J-3. They then went with the B-10 instead, and the companies that had produced the AN-J-3 were left with a bunch of leftover leather, which they turned into jackets and sold to companies like Abercrombie & Fitch, as you can see in the first link I added to my previous post. The mil-spec AN-J-3s weren't ever "issued" jackets in the traditional sense - just jackets the government was testing and ultimately decided to forego.

 

[MikeyB-17]

Again, fascinating stuff. I have very little understanding of the US Government procurement process (which 33-1729 obviously does, and I’m grateful to him for all his hard work), but how come we have the official AAF document in the original post, stating that the A-2 was to be replaced by the AN-J-3 (that’s a pain in the arse to type, BTW ), if such a contract never existed? Also, Jan isn’t quite correct, I didn’t mean why didn’t they ever have a label at all, because I believe at least some did-if I’m right in saying, I recall Grant once owning an AN-J-3 with marks on the lining where a label had been, and also an AAF inspectors stamp? Perhaps he’ll chime in and confirm that, it was aeons ago. I have also read that Charles DiSipio has said he has seen one with a label, but no more information appears to be available AFAIK. Also, from whence comes the pic in Sweeting’s ‘Combat Flying Clothing’ of a bloke in AAF uniform (I can’t find it online) demonstrating the AN-J-3? It appears to be from a catalogue, my understanding of this stuff is minimal, but it looks official?

 

[foster]

The first document is basically changing the A-2 from "Standard" issue to "Limited Standard" issue. What this means is that the item was being phased out, and existing stocks were to be issued out, but were limited. It references the AN-J-3 as the replacement, but evidence of its existence beyond the design / specification phase is not really backed up by documentation discovered thus far. We have evidence of A-2 contracts for even small numbers (Goldsmith, Rough Wear 1671-P as examples), but nothing seems to indicate any confirmed contracts for the AN-J-3 specification.

Since we are primarily speculating about this, my two cents contribution is that the AN-J-3 never officially made it past a limited prototype phase. The documentation reflects the A-2 being phased out in favor of the AN-J-3, but the B-10 is what really superseded it in actuality.

 

[mulceber]

Since we are primarily speculating about this, my two cents contribution is that the AN-J-3 never officially made it past a limited prototype phase. The documentation reflects the A-2 being phased out in favor of the AN-J-3, but the B-10 is what really superseded it in actuality.

Succinctly put. That's about where I'm at as well.

 

[Chandler]

Also, from whence comes the pic in Sweeting’s ‘Combat Flying Clothing’ of a bloke in AAF uniform (I can’t find it online) demonstrating the AN-J-3? It appears to be from a catalogue, my understanding of this stuff is minimal, but it looks official?

This is what I was going to bring up, but my copy of CFC must be buried in my Raiders-like storage unit.

IIRC that image of the jacket more resembles a mouton-less M-422a than an A-2, but I haven't seen it in a long while.

Is there an AN-J in Suit Up! ? I can't recall.

 

[Chandler]

Interesting old thread on this subject.

Original Issued ANJ-3

This is a repost from the old forum...... I was cruising around the airfield at work today at LAX and decided to stop into our little museum we have on the south side of the airport. I haven’t been in there in a while. The first thing I noticed was a Flying Tiger’s A-2! I asked the volunteers...

www.vintageleatherjackets.org

Is @sealbeachbum still around?

 

[33-1729]

After carefully reading all the comments and putting the thoughts together there is a concept that fits. . .

Making a leather replacement for the A-2 is one item, but if General Arnold wanted the military to go to “something better”, aka cloth jackets, then you may want a new leather AN-J-3 but you’re getting a cloth jacket. That would explain the news stories of cloth B-10’s being widely distributed before D-Day and why many chose private purchase leather jackets instead. It kills the idea of test jackets, but then the military rarely makes more than a single handful and there are too many “leather collar civilian AN-J-3 wannabes” in circulation for that as a reason.

 

[Nickb123]

I apologize for not reading this closely in the event there are holes in my logic...could the contract of AN-J-3s have been ordered and made and then not issued because of the cloth replacements? (and instead, distributed informally tag less or sold via private purchase?) maybe on-base?

Do we have ideas as to who made the tagless AN-J-3s? Perhaps trying to find some archived documents via the private companies that made them would yield some additional info?