Nice period color photo of A-2's, B-10, crush caps

[stubbyeighth]

From the Littlefriends website. 339th Fighter Group. 505th Fighter Squadron. Photo caption reads: Seen here in front of the starboard side of Steve Ananian's "Baby Mine" are (L-R) Capt. George C Rich, Lt. William R MacClarence and Lt. James C Woolery.



Colors look reasonably true. Lt. MacClarence in the middle looks to be wearing a caramel-colored RW 1401, judging by the collar (nicely folded). Contemporary photo's of Jimmy Stewart's 1401 at the Air Force Museum in Dayton show a similar caramel color. No real clue as to what the A-2 on the left is. Aero-style ring snaps and pocket profile--that's as far as I can take it. Dark brown mouton on the B-10. Nice crushers.

_________________________

stubbyeighth

 

[Robman]

The dark A2 looks to have silver snaps....18246P perhaps?

 

[dmar836]

According to the contemporary (young) collectors, only the crusher on the right is real. Tell me the two on the left aren't true crushers!!!!!
Sorry, one of my pet peeves. Great jackets!

Dave

 

[capt71]

According to the contemporary (young) collectors, only the crusher on the right is real. Tell me the two on the left aren't true crushers!!!!!
Sorry, one of my pet peeves. Great jackets! Dave

Sorry Dave, but I don't quite follow the observation that only one of the hats shown is a "real" crusher. I don't think that the AAF issued "crushers"--they were the result of the crewmember removing the grommet from the inside of the hat and fashioning their own version of a crusher. Thus, making them all "real". I'd be curious to know the reasons the "contemporary collectors" think otherwise.

The following is a quote from the book "The Flying Circus -- Pacific War 1943 As Seen Through A Bombsight" by Jim Wright (Ex Texas Congressman and Speaker of the House), who flew as bombardier on a B-24 in the 380th BG:
" As a distinctive badge of our profession, flying officers took unspoken pride in removing the circular grommets from the crowns of what were called our "Garrison" hats. The rationale was practical if using the hat when flying, of course, as we attached earphones over our heads for intercom purposes while on missions. But the sartorial effect of floppy-crowned headgear was intentional in off-duty hours as an expression of professional pride, and tolerated widely even though unauthorized by dress regulations. A flying officer's fondest hope might be to sport a "thousand-hour hat" someday, worn ever-so-casually, back in the USA."

As for the hats being tolerated by the brass, they obviously were since I have an Official AAF photo of my dad, taken in 1944 or 45 by the AAF (these official protrait photos were included in an Officer's record packet), in which he is in full uniform (pinks/greens) wearing his crusher.

Bill

 

[Phantomfixer]

well....IMO a true crusher are/is the tailor made service caps, such as Flighter. I would have to think that in the early part of the war an average service cap with a stiff bill and wider top hat, the stiffener was removed and the look soon started to take shape. the young guns wanting their hats to look just as good as the old guys, well they started buying custom made service hats, or maybe the hat company saw the market for producing a flexible bill style hat for the hot Air Corps guys. Just my opinion but you can see the difference in cut from the three hats....
John

 

[dmar836]

Sorry Bill, that was a rant. Jzist jumped in to make my point better than I could with. "...a true crusher are/is the tailor made service caps, such as Flighter".
Not so much here but on the US Militaria Forum this is a growing opinion. I wasn't intending to start an argument but it is as if "crushers" didn't exist until Bancroft's Flighter, Flightweight, etc. came along. To those who collect them, it is easy to see that many of the earlier cap bills were quite flexible and with the mentioned mods, could easily crush.
Since the Flighter, etc. were the form that followed this common function, how can only those be true crushers? It's a point that apparently few grasp and to me is a sort of revisionist history.
I have several caps that are NOT the "laid back", soft-billed style but that most certainly were crushers during their service use. They are far more valuable and desirable in that form IMO yet the Flighter by Bancroft is sought after by many as one of the only "real" crushers. I am almost becoming irritated with the "crusher" term at all.
I's be so bold as to say I think the names have become reversed. I suggest that "true crusher" be applied only to service caps that were period-modified to be worn under headsets. Not sure what to call those beautiful later caps. "Softies"?

Dave

 

[capt71]

Dave,

Not to worry, no argument here. I think maybe it's just a matter of definition of the term "crusher". To me it simply means a cap with the stiffening reinforcement removed and the top allowed to fold, or "flop" downwards on the sides, not a cap that could be crushed up, or folded up, to fit into a pocket.

Does it really matter whether a cap became a "crusher" because the guy removed the grommet from his original, standard cap, or he wore a later "tailor-made" floppy crusher--weren't they all "real" (as pertains to WW2 usage)? If a collector is so picky or "elitist" as to feel that a vintage WW2 cap is not worth having because it wasn't a Bancroft Flighter, or some other tailor-made crusher cap, then that's their problem I guess. Btw, I totally agree with you about the term "crusher". I wish they would be called what the guys originally called them: 50-Mission caps, or 1,000-Hour caps.

Anyway, that's my story and I'm stickin' to it!

Bill

 

[dmar836]

Ditto! They are all great but some earned the "crush" a bit differently.

Dave

 

[Dr H]

Diamond Dave...where are you in our hour of need?
Is there a hat shaped beacon that we can turn on the clouds :twisted:
Any thoughts?

 

[dmar836]

I would love Dave's opinion on this.
It is the quotes on other forums about how "if it ain't a Bancroft Flighter or so soft it can be rolled into a ball... then it isn't a true crusher...." etc. To me that just shows a lack of understanding of how it started and of how many thousands of early caps were used in combat. As a collector, I feel it also assigns value to the make and not to the function. I think this attitude stems from the collector's inability to determine if an otherwise standard service cap was "crushed" by the current seller to increase value or worn that way in combat 70yrs ago. That 70yo crusher, if substantiated, is far more historically significant and valuable than any of the others IMO.
Just try to find a service cap FS today that hasn't had the spring/grommet removed. Most have received this treatment and I would suggest long after the war ended. OTOH, Bancroft Flighters are not modded to look like anything else so they are easy game to collect.
JMO,
Dave

 

[deeb7]

Just try to find a service cap FS today that hasn't had the spring/grommet removed. Most have received this treatment and I would suggest long after the war ended. OTOH, Bancroft Flighters are not modded to look like anything else so they are easy game to collect.

Perhaps you've answered your own question.

 

[dmar836]

Indeed. Left only with a peeve I use to hijack others threads!

 

[Roughwear]

The dark A2 looks to have silver snaps....18246P perhaps?

I agree. The shiny ring snaps suggest it's from this contract as does the shape of the pockets and the darker finish. Cable Raincoat used similar medium-sized ring snaps but their jackets were generally russet.