Jacket fit.

[jeremiah]

I disagree. I think like today, people care what they look like. Not all people but most. That said there might be some truth to what you say still.

 

[danogun]

I think people today do care how they look, I totally agree with that. My point is, looking at all the pictures of pilots back during the war, they must have been more concerned with comfort given the circumstances they had to face.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[jeremiah]

Maybe both. But I get your point.

 

[Greg Gale]

I agree that one is a bit large.... Anyone who has viewed many, many, (1000's) period pics knows that the trim, fighter-pilot fit is clearly in the minority, compared to the loose 'working fit' like this:


I realize that when forking-out over a thousand dollars for an A-2, one wants a decent fit, but unfortunately, the kind of super-trim fit many seem to go for really didn't exist that much in reality back then.

EDIT: This one, like numerous others seen, illustrates my '8-out-of-10 rule'.... In the majority of crew pics out there, 8 out of 10 A-2's worn are comfortable looking, 'working-fits' (although there are only 9 here, the rule still applies overall):

With all due respect, have you seen the 4th FG picture thread? There are dozens of photos, and about 2 out of 10 can be called "baggy". They're not "Japanese trim fit" either, but they're all on the trim/ short side.

 

[Officer Dibley]

Greg, do you think that different groups had different affectations in dress ?

Also, was there any commonality with heavy a/c which was different to fighters ?
Some escort fighters had to fly higher than the bombers so must have gotten cold if the heating was crap and no room to wear electrically heated suits.

Perhaps there is even variation between the escort fighters duty and ground attack which was perhaps more common after D-Day.

I'd love to tell you but my OCD doesn't go so far as to cross reference photos and general fashions against aircraft type and role

 

[Technonut2112]

With all due respect, have you seen the 4th FG picture thread? There are dozens of photos, and about 2 out of 10 can be called "baggy". They're not "Japanese trim fit" either, but they're all on the trim/ short side.

I've seen it... I'm referring to the most likely 1000's of crew pics I've seen over the past 30 years or so .. The evidence is quite clear that the looser, working-fit is by FAR the most commonly seen in crew pics. Call it 'baggy', call it what you will, but it IS the most prevalent, and therefore, the most authentic 'look' of the WWII American airman. Is it the look that most folks would pop $1,000-1400.00 USD for? Not in the majority of fit-pics I've seen posted over the past 10 years or so for sure. As the famous TV show 'The X-Files' states: The Truth Is Out There... All one needs to do is look..

 

[Flightengineer]

Personally, I like this image... Seems a good look/fit compromise...
View attachment 7982

I love this photo Brett! My ELC Star has the same different leather's facture on left anf right.
As for the first photo discussed in this thread .... What is the fit?
This guy ON THE WAR!
And that's it.
If someone from here present himself took part in combat , he knows that comfort comes first, all the rest is secondary.
I personally had bit war experience in my youth and I can say that what the our field uniform "look" and "stylish fit" was our last concern - it must have been comfortable and thats all.
Of course, today, when usually people pay for A2 repros big crazy money, you can disagree. But I think this is a useless occupation.
There was no fashion and "the right fit". It was what was given from the warehouse and wearing this it was necessary to fight the enemy.
Of course, they certainly tried to stick to the sizes ...but ... to whom as lucky - if you not senior staff officer or general in the capital.

 

[Smithy]

View attachment 7978

Brett or anybody know who this chap is? He's blocking his name out for security reasons.

Seeing as it's a blue Jug is he probably from the 61st or 63rd FSs of the 56th?

 

[Brettafett]

I'm not sure Tim, I sneakily took that pic with my mobile, from an aviation magazine a while back...
looks like a Roughwear... May be wrong.

 

[Greg Gale]

@Technonut2112 , here's a photo of 2 reenactors. The guy in front wears what I call a trim fitting A-2, and the guy in back wears a baggy one. 99% of the photos you'll find will be closer to the guy in front.

 

[Technonut2112]

@Technonut2112 , here's a photo of 2 reenactors. The guy in front wears what I call a trim fitting A-2, and the guy in back wears a baggy one. 99% of the photos you'll find will be closer to the guy in front.

Sorry, that simply just isn't true. Not my opinion, but plain fact backed by the preponderance of photographic evidence of wartime graduation, and crew pics out there.

 

[Greg Gale]

I'm still not convinced at all. Maybe I've seen the wrong 1000+ wartime pictures As I've said, just open the 4th FG picture thread. Just because you call your opinion "fact" doesn't necessarily make it so. Brett's picture in post #17 is what I'd call a fair average of every fit I've seen.

 

[silvio76]

I’m sure as hell sure these pilots did not care how they looked in a jacket when they risked getting their asses blown out of the sky!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Agree with you.

 

[zoomer]

What is the fit?
This guy ON THE WAR!
And that's it.

Is wartime fit really any more legitimate than prewar fit? Those pilots tended to be older - but not heavy! - in jackets that were slack around the middle but otherwise fit fairly well.

Yes, they were essentially REMFs because there was no front and no fighting. But their pioneering involved bravery and danger. And it was their usage and experience that made the A-2. After the war was on it didn't change much. What did change was the conditions of making and distributing it.

There was no fashion and "the right fit". It was what was given from the warehouse and wearing this it was necessary to fight the enemy.

Surely there was trading around to get a better fit. That's not fashion*. Even buck privates with their HBTs did that.

*Fashion and style are different things too. Style can be comfortable. Fashion can't give a damn.

 

[Officer Dibley]

@Technonut2112 , here's a photo of 2 reenactors. The guy in front wears what I call a trim fitting A-2, and the guy in back wears a baggy one. 99% of the photos you'll find will be closer to the guy in front.

With all due respect, i don't think using a modern photo of middle aged reenactors helps you make your case. They have modern misconceptions of what was worn.
There is no way an A-2 that is going to be worn over a shirt (possibly sweater) and flying coveralls is going to look "trim" when only worn with a shirt. And "warm" weather when most of these photos were taken was but a few weeks in the UK year. What about the months of winter in a quansett hut with the pot belly stove ? A-2's are not warm of themselves . A sweater was a necessity.
Though it seems pointless arguing over something that the original vets didn't care about. We all love the jackets and what they represent: the young lads of the Golden Generation who fought tyranny and many of whom paid the ultimate price. As a Brit i am glad the US entered the war- eventually lol
I wonder what they would think of our debating over the jacket more than over what they did....

 

[Greg Gale]

Yet fighter pilots wore them over a regulation shirt mostly, or a C-1 sweater maximum. For colder weathers they had B-3s I guess. I didn't post the pic to "judge proper fit" by it. I posted it to demonstrate the 2 different fits that I'm talking about. Mine is what I consider a trim fitting A-2 ,but I can comfortably wear it over a shirt+flight suit or a shirt + a medium sweater. My point is that thinking that wearing a jacket a size too large was not the most common occurrence, and certainly not 9 out of 10 as stated before.

Nor did I say that wartime pilots cared about a perfect fit. Of course they didn't. This being said in some of the memoirs I've read it was explicitly stated that their A-2s were their most cherished piece of garment, because it made them look cool. Even when the B-15 replaced it they were looking at getting their hands on an A-2 because it looked cooler. So they did care a little after all

 

[Technonut2112]

Maybe I've seen the wrong 1000+ wartime pictures

Not so far-fetched, considering that leather flight jackets have been a hobby of mine for around 40 years now... I have well over 1000 wartime A-2-related pics on my drive ATM, and over 1600 various leather flight jacket pics on Pinterest (linked in my sig below). I was a member here for awhile starting before the server crash around 06 or so, as well as the FL. I know what I've seen, and have the pics to back it up.. BTW, it was an average of 8 out of 10, not 9... and I stand on that..

 

[Greg Gale]

Nice pinterest collection, but I still don't see the 8 out of 10. Maybe we have a different definition of baggy/ trim. Do you consider your GW RW 27752 on the looser side? Because to me it doesn't seem baggy at all, on a scale to 1 to 10 where 1 is trim and 10 is the fist photo in this thread, I'd give it a 5-6. Can you post a picture that in your opinion is one of the 2 out of 10 that's "trim"? just so that I can calibrate

 

[2BM2K]

It's not the jacket it's the wearer.

Slim or baggy it does not matter so long as it is comfortable to wear.

Here are a couple of my favourite jacket photo's;

 

[Greg Gale]

Nice! I found a great Pinterest collection, and most are very unlike the one in the first post here. There are some baggy ones, but mostly on bomber crew (for more layering?)
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/cwassociates/a2-jackets/?lp=true

Only rarely do the shoulder seams fall below the shoulder by more than 1/2 inch. Check the grain on this one: