Some of the 4th FG and a lot of A-2s

[Persimmon]

The colour photo has degraded over time. Using a piece of software to restore the colours
back to their original appearance gives this result;


View attachment 5172

Excellent work.
Apart from the variances in leather jackets it’s also interesting to look at the vast differences in trouser ( pants to you folks in the states ) colour.

 

[Greg Gale]

Yes, some wear pinks, some wear the OD version, but what are those mustard color ones? M1937?

 

[Smithy]

Someone like Andrew will probably confirm or correct me but I have an idea the 1937 pattern trousers were commonly referred to as "mustards" so there's perhaps good odds that your guess is right.

 

[DJS48]

Very cool picture. I noticed two men wearing boots that might be "I have been to Natal" boots also known as "mosquito boots", however the boots appear to be of a longer length compared to what I have seen in other pictures relating to "mosquito boots". Of course there are variations in almost everything during this time.
Regards,
Don

 

[Smithy]

A couple more for today...

2/Lt Tussey with the four leaf clover pendant he wore on the zip puller of his A-2. This lucky charm was given to him by his brother who was a tail gunner on B-17s:

Three members of the 335th not terribly long after they had transitioned from the RAF (as 121 Sqn) to the USAAF's 8th AF. Also note this image has been flipped and should be the other way round:

 

[Smithy]

Fixed!

 

[blackrat2]

Love the colour pics as they really do show the range of different shades of A2

 

[CBI]

notice how many of these jackets blouse at the bottom? How the knits look tucked under the pockets, I notice the majority of repro wearers don't seem to go for this look. I may be wrong.......... for me to get it I had to size UP

Great pics

 

[tibor]

Also, most of the wearers of A-2s during the war were young, trim guys. A LOT of guys buying the premium custom A-2s today are not necessarily either.

 

[CBI]

yes, agreed so maybe going up a size makes sense. Just talking, no agenda.............. I was pretty A-2'd out in re number owned and maybe interest and then, without ME getting larger, I ended up with a few larger jackets and it was like oh, THESE fit like the old WW2 photos. yes, I know, fits all over the map but the blousing was not there on previous jackets that "fit" me.

 

[Smithy]

notice how many of these jackets blouse at the bottom? How the knits look tucked under the pockets, I notice the majority of repro wearers don't seem to go for this look. I may be wrong.......... for me to get it I had to size UP

Great pics

The other thing which I think is usually overlooked is that if we look at period photos, it seems sleeves tended to be shorter than what people generally specify when they order A-2 repros today. Yes, there were long sleeves and short sleeves but the more I look at photos over the years the more I think that sleeves tended to be (what we would regard today as) shorter rather than longer. Even taking this thread's photos as a sample group you can see this.

It's entirely subjective of course but the ideal A-2 fit to my eyes (or rather how I think they look best) is, trim in the shoulders, it blouses slightly at the front over the waist knit and sleeve length is such that there's not the slightest bit of tunnelling and the wrist knit lies fully extended and hits the end of the wrist with the arm by the side. Blakeslee's above is the "it" fit for me.

 

[Greg Gale]

notice how many of these jackets blouse at the bottom? How the knits look tucked under the pockets, I notice the majority of repro wearers don't seem to go for this look. I may be wrong.......... for me to get it I had to size UP

Great pics

I never understood what blousing meant. Do you mean the fact that the jacket kinda folds over the waist knits? If so, that's how every A-2 should fit, isn't it? That's what I see on 99% of the pictures. Mostly the shoulder seams are slightly below the shoulders, not square on them, but most sleeves seem to be shockingly short.

As for the trim build buying an expensive A-2 is a good motivation to keep oneself in shape, at least it is for me

 

[Smithy]

I never understood what blousing meant. Do you mean the fact that the jacket kinda folds over the waist knits? If so, that's how every A-2 should fit, isn't it? That's what I see on 99% of the pictures. Mostly the shoulder seams are slightly below the shoulders, not square on them, but most sleeves seem to be shockingly short.

As for the trim build buying an expensive A-2 is a good motivation to keep oneself in shape, at least it is for me

That's exactly what blousing means Greg.

Over at the hat place, it started to become all the rage around about 2010 to 2012 to wear exceedingly trim fitting jackets with some of the members over there. This most likely came about with the Japanese fad with vintage workwear, Americana, etc of having their small statured models wearing crazy tight leather jackets, including A-2s, and because anything coming out of Japan with that scene was hyper cool, lots of fellows over there started wearing their jackets silly tight. We're not talking trimmish like the chaps above from the 4th in their A-2s, we're talking "that jacket is actually the wrong size" trim. There was one bloke over there who had an A-2 (a really nice high end job possibly RMJ if memory serves) but which was about 2 sizes too small. Everybody was yahooing, virtually high-fiving him and saying perfect fit man, when it was obvious he couldn't even comfortably zip the bloody thing up!

 

[Greg Gale]

Haha, I see now. This being said, I have a relatively new size 40 Eastman Star, that's comfy in the torso, but a tad restrictive in the shoulders (square on them), and quite short in the sleeves. I'm not sure if it's "4th FG trim", or "Japanese hipster small", so I ordered a size 42 and will decide which one to keep. Keep an eye out for a comparison thread, and possible a FS one

 

[Smithy]

Haha, I see now. This being said, I have a relatively new size 40 Eastman Star, that's comfy in the torso, but a tad restrictive in the shoulders (square on them), and quite short in the sleeves. I'm not sure if it's "4th FG trim", or "Japanese hipster small", so I ordered a size 42 and will decide which one to keep. Keep an eye out for a comparison thread, and possible a FS one

I think one of the things that throws modern people when they try on a properly WWII patterned A-2 for the first time is how differently they fit and are cut compared to modern jackets. They're just not initially used to the trimness, they're cut trimmer in the chest and shoulders than modern jackets, the sleeves ride up when you reach or turn due to the jacket pulling across the back which was obviously why gussetting was introduced on the navy jackets and ANJ-3.

But I've found once you get used to how a proper A-2 feels and without wanting to sound like a complete prat, there's a reassuring snugness in wearing a proper WWII pattern A-2.

 

[Smithy]

Haha, I see now. This being said, I have a relatively new size 40 Eastman Star, that's comfy in the torso, but a tad restrictive in the shoulders (square on them), and quite short in the sleeves. I'm not sure if it's "4th FG trim", or "Japanese hipster small", so I ordered a size 42 and will decide which one to keep. Keep an eye out for a comparison thread, and possible a FS one

Post some pics wearing the 40 Star Greg if you're not shy. Be interesting to see how it looks.

 

[Persimmon]

I guess it all comes down to personal choice.
With repro jacket costs getting higher and higher, for me I would rather have a jacket that I believe fits me well and more importantly I feel comfortable wearing it. That’s what I paid for.

For me, to be wearing a jacket two sizes to big just because thats how some pictures looked in 1944 is bizarre.

These flyers during the war had no choice - they got the jacket given to them. I wonder how many would have wanted a jacket that actually fitted them.

Look at pictures where the waist band is not visible at all. All you see is the bottom of the leather as he has tucked the waistband underneath. The airman have tried to reduce the length of the jacket because he feels it’s to big on him.

Equally if I was buying a shirt or a coat or even shoes, whether it’s just for modern wear or military repro/ re-enacting etc , I would again not buy them two sizes to big just to get a blousy look, war time look, etc to please other folks.

Clothes are designed to fit the person. That why we have different sizes after all and why we pay money for them.

Just enjoy wearing them.

 

[Greg Gale]

Wo-how, how did we get from "trim" to "2 sizes too big" all of a sudden? Those jackets in the pics are quite trim, check the one of Blakeslee. They wouldn't all have their sleeves too short if they were 2 sizes too big. Don't forget that the pants these guys wore had 2-3 inches higher rise than our modern ones. The pinks reached up to their belly buttons. Try to imagine where the belt line of a pair of modern jeans would be - and the blousing is gone.

 

[Smithy]

Wo-how, how did we get from "trim" to "2 sizes too big" all of a sudden? Those jackets in the pics are quite trim, check the one of Blakeslee. They wouldn't all have their sleeves too short if they were 2 sizes too big. Don't forget that the pants these guys wore had 2-3 inches higher rise than our modern ones. The pinks reached up to their belly buttons. Try to imagine where the belt line of a pair of modern jeans would be - and the blousing is gone.

Well said Greg. Personally to my eyes, Blakeslee's jacket is the optimal fit, absolutely spot on.

 

[Smithy]

There's possibly also another factor here in terms of blousing which we need to bear in mind with the WWII jackets. These original jackets were chrome tanned and the leather had a very soft drape, it's very obvious in these two images posted earlier in this thread:

The very high end, veg tanned repros just won't drape like this, at least not initially.