AN-J-3

[B-Man2]

They would if it's a test jacket. If they're still trying to figure out what they want in the jacket (which they definitely were with the AN-J-3), then they might as well put together a list of everything they know they want, give that to the company, let them put their best foot forward on a few hundred jackets, and then the military can give the jackets to a few pilots and see what feedback they get.

So then …. would the jackets that have survived over the years be test jackets ?
I only ask the question because there doesn’t seem to be much info about them and unlike the A2 which has design specs in the National Archives, I don’t remember ever seeing or hearing about any documents pertaining to the AN- J3. Another question would be, since there are only very limited numbers of these jackets that survived and there’s very little info in wether this was ever an issued jacket, wouldn’t that support your theory that the ones surviving today had to be test jackets?
Just asking .

 

[Erwin]

One more picture of a genuine jacket, found in relation to auctions from the past.

 

[mulceber]

So then …. would the jackets that have survived over the years be test jackets ?
I only ask the question because there doesn’t seem to be much info about them and unlike the A2 which has design specs in the National Archives, I don’t remember ever seeing or hearing about any documents pertaining to the AN- J3. Another question would be, since there are only very limited numbers of these jackets that survived and there’s very little info in wether this was ever an issued jacket, wouldn’t that support your theory that the ones surviving today had to be test jackets?
Just asking .

Yeah, as you said, it's a difficult question, and there isn't much info here. We know the AN-J-3 shows up in the Class 13 Catalog, and we have the AAF document making the A-2 "limited standard issue" and listing the AN-J-3 as its replacement (see below)...but we almost never see photos of pilots wearing an AN-J-3. Every once in a while we see an odd photo of a pilot wearing one, but it could always be a private purchase jacket - Willis & Geiger, for example, seems to have kept making AN-J-3s after the AAF pulled out of the project and sold the jackets to Abercrombie & Fitch. I think the only reason we're pretty sure the one I posted above was issued to someone, as opposed to being a private purchase jacket, is that it doesn't have a label (either a spec label or a commercial label), which is consistent with other military AN-J-3s that have turned up.

 

[B-Man2]

Jan
Quick question . I remember that yours has a collar snap, was this a private purchase thing or do you see them as well on issued ones?

 

[mulceber]

Actually a snap at the bottom of the zipper box:

But you're right. And I'm not sure what to make of it. Here's what I've got:

• I've never seen another AN-J-3 that had this feature.
• We're pretty sure the Navy was hostile to snaps (at least on the exterior of the jacket), because the damp, salt-water-y air would corrode them (hence why Navy flight jackets have button pockets).
• My AN-J-3 has stitch holes on the epaulets where rank insignia would have gone, so it most likely saw military service
• Mine doesn't have any sort of label, spec or commercial.
• When I bought this jacket, some complete idiot had hacked off the knit cuffs. I had to have them replaced by Dave Sheeley.

The most likely possibility seems to be that the snap wasn't original to the jacket. Maybe the pilot (Air Force, given that it once had rank insignia on the shoulders?) added it, maybe the idiot who hacked off the knit cuffs also wanted a snap. It seems unlikely that it would have been added by the factory given that it seems to be a military jacket (no spec label of any kind), and the Navy would have been grumpy about snaps.

 

[ZuZu]

Mulceber has an excellent working knowledge of these jackets. The only thing that I might offer is that the difference in the two jackets ie wind flap vs no wind flap and epaulettes vs no epaulettes was thought to be a distinction made by the the respective services ordering the jackets .The AN designator was allegedly supposed represent a jacket that was designed as a jacket for both the Army and Navy as a cost saving and inventory reduction effort. If that is true then that could account for the differences in the way jackets were made.

Good point maybe but where did this info come from?

 

[B-Man2]

Good point maybe but where did this info come from?

Prior discussions here . A few years back this topic was discussed and I happened to remember parts of that thread. You might want to do a search on it as it seemed to have some good information.

 

[mulceber]

The AN designator was allegedly supposed represent a jacket that was designed as a jacket for both the Army and Navy as a cost saving and inventory reduction effort.

Good point maybe but where did this info come from?

Sweeting, C. G. (2015). United States Army Aviators' clothing, 1917-1945. McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers: 21-22.

There's your bibliographic entry.

 

[Chandler]

One more picture of a genuine jacket, found in relation to auctions from the past.
View attachment 101779

It's pretty interesting that none of these auction jackets have spec tags.

 

[ZuZu]

Sweeting, C. G. (2015). United States Army Aviators' clothing, 1917-1945. McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers: 21-22.

There's your bibliographic entry.

"The only thing that I might offer is that the difference in the two jackets ie wind flap vs no wind flap and epaulettes vs no epaulettes was thought to be a distinction made by the the respective services ordering the jackets "

This is the part I meant. From the Sweeting book I always thought it was supposed to be the one jacket, not 2 different versions. Where did that come from?

 

[mulceber]

This is the part I meant. From the Sweeting book I always thought it was supposed to be the one jacket, not 2 different versions. Where did that come from?

That part (as I argued above) I also disagree with. There's not really any reason to think that the different features in the AN-J-3 jackets have anything to do with which branch was going to use them.

 

[Skyhawk]

So then …. would the jackets that have survived over the years be test jackets ?
I only ask the question because there doesn’t seem to be much info about them and unlike the A2 which has design specs in the National Archives, I don’t remember ever seeing or hearing about any documents pertaining to the AN- J3. Another question would be, since there are only very limited numbers of these jackets that survived and there’s very little info in wether this was ever an issued jacket, wouldn’t that support your theory that the ones surviving today had to be test jackets?
Just asking .

Perhaps this would shed some light:

 

[ZuZu]

Sweeting, C. G. (2015). United States Army Aviators' clothing, 1917-1945. McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers: 21-22.

There's your bibliographic entry.

In my Sweeting book pgs. 21-22 are about the establishment of the testing labs. Page 59 has a curt paragraph on the ANJ3 but only to say it was "Quite similar to the A-2 jacket."
Where did the stuff about epaulettes and windflaps come from? In the Sweeting book the ANJ3 shown in official testing labaratory phots unambiguously shows an M422a without a fur collar.

 

[mulceber]

I wasn't citing Sweeting for that part, I was citing it for the part about AN-J-3 being joint service, Army Navy, yada yada yada.

 

[ZuZu]

Actually a snap at the bottom of the zipper box:
View attachment 101783
But you're right. And I'm not sure what to make of it. Here's what I've got:

• I've never seen another AN-J-3 that had this feature.
• We're pretty sure the Navy was hostile to snaps (at least on the exterior of the jacket), because the damp, salt-water-y air would corrode them (hence why Navy flight jackets have button pockets).
• My AN-J-3 has stitch holes on the epaulets where rank insignia would have gone, so it most likely saw military service
• Mine doesn't have any sort of label, spec or commercial.
• When I bought this jacket, some complete idiot had hacked off the knit cuffs. I had to have them replaced by Dave Sheeley.

The most likely possibility seems to be that the snap wasn't original to the jacket. Maybe the pilot (Air Force, given that it once had rank insignia on the shoulders?) added it, maybe the idiot who hacked off the knit cuffs also wanted a snap. It seems unlikely that it would have been added by the factory given that it seems to be a military jacket (no spec label of any kind), and the Navy would have been grumpy about snaps.

• "We're pretty sure the Navy was hostile to snaps (at least on the exterior of the jacket), because the damp, salt-water-y air would corrode them (hence why Navy flight jackets have button pockets)."

Where do you come up with this stuff? Why would a snap made of brass corrode any more than a zipper? We need books, paperwork references...

 

[Chandler]

That ANJ pic in the Sweeting book always looked just like the ersatz AN I had Flight Suits make for me back in the early 2000s. Right down to the baggy sleeves and tunneling cuffs.

 

[ZuZu]

Sweeting didn't eveb recognize the ANJ3- he calls it an A2 here...

 

[mulceber]

• "We're pretty sure the Navy was hostile to snaps (at least on the exterior of the jacket), because the damp, salt-water-y air would corrode them (hence why Navy flight jackets have button pockets)."

Where do you come up with this stuff? Why would a snap made of brass corrode any more than a zipper? We need books, paperwork references...

The snap's not made of brass, it's nickel. Look at the photo. And as for corrosion being a problem, again CHECK SWEETING. You and I evidently have different editions. But it should be in the first two pages of "chapter 2: The Manufacture and Supply of Flying Clothing."

View attachment 101795

Sweeting didn't eveb recognize the ANJ3- he calls it an A2 here...

Sweeting evidently isn't a jacket aficionado. Doesn't mean his knowledge of military production is lacking.

 

[mulceber]

I quote, page 22 (my edition) of Sweeting:

 

[ZuZu]

The snap's not made of brass, it's nickel. Look at the photo. And as for corrosion being a problem, again CHECK SWEETING. You and I evidently have different editions. But it should be in the first two pages of "chapter 2: The Manufacture and Supply of Flying Clothing."


Sweeting evidently isn't a jacket aficionado. Doesn't mean his knowledge of military production is lacking.

Yes yes. A very interesting chapter. Actually the corrosion he talks about is in refernce to zippers and those made out of substitute (for brass) materials. No Army/Navy differences and no mention of snaps. Sweeting is actually very informative and in the back of the book you can find REFERENCES to all the information in the chapters. We really need to do that here