epaulets on the (m41) field jacket

[jgawne]

I got talked into doing a little work on this one and I have to say I am slightly baffled. It appears that neither of the two prelinary specs for the field jacket have the durn things, but a 3rd temporary spec was issued JUST on the epaulets, which is quite unusual, with no regular spec ever issued with them.

 

So I have to wonder if anyone actually has one of the field jackets WITH the epaulets on it AND a specification marked label?

 

(also wondering if anyone has a spec marked field jacket for the Spec 20-C)

[Sabrejet]

I just checked my OD field jackets but, not unusually, the labels are all washed-out! I seem to recall there was a change in spec which just related to the addition of box-stitching on the shoulder-straps (epaulettes)?

[Gregory]

The Officer's Guide, 9th Edition, July 1942

 

Jacket, Field. The material is cotton cloth, olive-drab, wind resistant and water repellent. The garment is provided with shoulder loops (Par. 13, AR 600-35).

[craig_pickrall]

This is an M41 in new condition with the shoulder loops but there is nothing specific on the label.

 

[Gregory]

The USN variation of M1941 Field Jacket had no shoulder loops but Army ones had them.

[everforward]

I'll add mine for reference....I didn't even know it had epulates, LOL....

 

 

My jacket is spec 20-B....

 

[Gregory]

And US Navy variant without shoulder loops.

[GIl Sanow]

Jon, I think you also need to research the addition/deletion of pocket flaps on these -- the earliest had them, the later did not. I do have an early one with readable labels with CPT bars sewn to shoulders, but NO epaulets -- has pocket flaps though. Want a pic?

 

G

[craig_pickrall]

Here is one like Gil mentioned in new condition. No shoulder loops but it has the pocket flaps.

 

[GIl Sanow]

Thanx.

 

G

[Johan Willaert]

Spec 20B

[atb]

As most have said, they are shoulder loops, not epaulettes. Do the research. They are two very different things.

[jgawne]

Thank you all. As I say, there are about 20 people in the world that actually care about these nit picky things (and I used to know them all- so when I find more that is really nice). It is quite difficult when working with the original specs, for various reasons, especially the TSPECs done before the standard. As far as I can tell 20-B is the final official spec, although one never knows. Unfortunately my copy of 20-B is near illegible, but the in sorting and comparing I am finding out some interesting things regarding the evolution of this item.

 

I do have proof that the Ft. Lewis jacket was examined (localized private purchase item) by the QMC technical committee as a basis for the design. Of course, no records indicating if it was THE basis, or just a comparison. But I also found there was an "extra" unnumbered T spec for the shoulder loops that were added on afterwards, but I can't find an 'official record' of exactly why. Yeah, one can guess but unless I have a period statement its all conjecture.

 

but jeez, so many photos in one day. This almost makes me want to go back to writing as it makes life so much easier. I just hate to ask people for help like that as I always felt it was part of the job. Still makes me tempted to finish some other work that's been kicking around. Although I am not sure even 'the 20' would care much for a detailed history of the WW2 wool shirt in all its variations!

 

But it looks like the initial Tspec did NOT have shoulder loops (correct term), then the 2nd Tspec had them added on after the fact(!). I am hoping by careful analysis of these that I can find a way to definitely ID the models by some construction technique, so the washed out tags will only be a minor nuisance.

[Sabrejet]

Jon...you'd be surprised at how many of us actually relish reading about why Model x had different buttons to Model y and so forth. Sad isn't it?!

 

Regards,

 

Ian

[jgawne]

Well, that's actually one of my main interests, is the whole development and change thing- and not so much what changes as WHY it changed. Which is really hard to find as the records kept don't always tell you. And when you find it in a weird source it may, or may not, be the truth. And so many collector's myths are stuff fast in the hobby that even when you find the smoking gun in print, in an original period document by the guy dealing with it, few really care. Hence the death of the GI Journal.

 

Back in the day it was all so much easier. There were only three WW2 field jackets M38, M41 and M43. There was one helmet and liner (not a dozen makers and variations), and a patch was a patch, not green backs, white backed, black backed... At one point I started buying GI wool shirts in small sizes with all the different specs, but gave up as there were just too many and I had no space/money/ reason.

 

Anyway, I am back into the jacket specs today and will eventually provide a report on their development.

 

Anyone have one of the private purchase version with a zip in liner?

[Sabrejet]

Re the field jackets, there was a series of very well written articles on the spec changes to the OD and M43 in a long defunct British magazine called "Military Illustrated" dating from the late 80s > 90s. Do you recall that magazine at all? Maybe you already have copies? I have them in a box somewhere up in my roof space. Haven't seen the light of day for years!

[Sabrejet]

Just googled it and this link came up. The quote is taken from the penultimate post. The same author did the M43 article too.

 

http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/lof...php/t21173.html

 

 

 

"Source: the fantastic article by Kevin A. Mahoney titled The US Olive Drab Field Jacket in Military Illustrated number 46 dated March 1992."

[Johan Willaert]

Anyone have one of the private purchase version with a zip in liner?

 

I have a mismatched set with either a jacket provided with buttons and a zip in liner or vice versa....

 

Will have to check...

[doyler]

Anyone have one of the private purchase version with a zip in liner?

 

Jon

 

I have one with a zip-out liner.Came from a Captain and was in his painted clothing bag from Japan.

 

Will try and dig it out for you.

 

RD

[jgawne]

I forgot all about those MI articles. I have every issue (I shot one of the covers) until the original editor sold it and it got gloopy.

 

The plot thickens. I'm getting all the wartime changes down now, however, I am pushing back the curtain of time to 1936 when it seems the Army may have first seriously considered the idea. The weird thing is that everyone credits Parsons (and I can't find much on him), but in 1937 it appears he was pushing the idea of a windbreaker jacket that the army called the "Nicholson" jacket.

 

Now who the heck was Nicholson and how did a Nicholson jacket become a Parsons jacket? One never answers a question without finding more to that need to be answered.

 

Nobody go out of your way for photos (at this point).

[GIl Sanow]

Just to add confusion to the discussion, someone cited a reference to the fact that officers field jackets were to have shoulder loops. It is my understanding that officers commonly wore jackets that were privately purchased, sometimes with zip-out linings as is mentioned above. I used to have one worn by the son of a Cleveland, OH area congressman -- wish I had kept it.

 

Anyhow, here is an example of a commercially made M41 -- note the Bancroft label and the marks where insignia (probably LT's bars) was worn. This is an odd tannish shade, so I suspect it is earlier rather than later.

 

G

[GIl Sanow]

And a closeup.

 

G

[Sabrejet]

Very nice Gil! Same Bancroft who made the visor hats?

[craig_pickrall]

Gil, your Bancroft jacket reminded me of this one. It is from the 1943 - 1944 Sears Catalog. It does not show shoulder loops on the picture but they are described in the text.

 

[jgawne]

I was just thinking I needed to find one of those ads.

 

But as I dig deeper, how's this for the Army? I found out who Nicholson was. An Army Sgt who first develeoped and pushed the jacket for official use.

 

So what happens? after years it finally gets underway, and who gets credit? Parsons: a Corps Commander! Although I still cannot find a definitive answer as to exactly what General Parsons did. He certainly did not design it; he seems to have just pushed for the project to get a move on.

 

As for pocket flaps. I can't find any ref as to a reaosn why, but It strikes me that the removal of the loops/flaps was possibly an austerity thing to cut back on material/time.