60s and 70s utility pants buttons or zipper?

[pawtwo]

Hi,

 

I got these NOS OG107 cotton sateen utility trousers yesterday. I think these are from 1977. Well. As I see in 60s there were trousers like these but with zippers, then these have buttons. Later Og507s have usually zipper. Was this random or there were various versions of these? I always thought that last version of cotton sateen uniform was introduced between 1964-1966 and it didn't changed in form until last contracts from 1981.

[flyboy53]

The fatigues issued to me in Air Force back in 1977 had buttons. I don't remember zippers, except for the fatigue jacket.

 

I'm enjoying that the label says don't starch. We AF SPs used to starch these until they resembled cardboard and the uniform looked pretty sharp.

[gomorgan]

I know my issue in 66 were button fly, and think Army issued button fly for years after, zippers could be had in private purchase fatigues as I recall.

[GUDMAR1975]

The issue sateen utilities had a button fly. The ERDL cammies had a zipper.

 

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

 

 

[pawtwo]

Thanks.

 

In 80s some soldiers worn heavyweight BDU's along with green jungle boots. Would it be possible to see a soldier wearing these utility uniforms in the field along with jungle boots just because it's summer?

 

I saw once photo of USAF member wearing OG507 uniform and jungle boots. Probably during exercise bright star in 82. Would it be possible in the Army somewhere in CONUS in 70s?

 

[Edelweisse]

I don't believe these trousers are government issue Defense Supply Center Philadelphia contract. The contract data is incorrect...and label just doesn't look right. Private purchase...maybe...but why fake a contract?

[patches]

I don't believe these trousers are government issue Defense Supply Center Philadelphia contract. The contract data is incorrect...and label just doesn't look right. Private purchase...maybe...but why fake a contract?

What strikes me is it says Don't Starch, huh, these things were starched regularly in the 50s up to my time, even when it was pema press starching was still done, didn't hold starch as well but it was done.

[Martinjmpr]

The perma-press fatigues (would those be OG-507?) that were issued to me in basic training in 1980 had a zipper fly. BDU's always had the button fly, which I preferred.

[Martinjmpr]

Thanks.

 

In 80s some soldiers worn heavyweight BDU's along with green jungle boots. Would it be possible to see a soldier wearing these utility uniforms in the field along with jungle boots just because it's summer?

 

I saw once photo of USAF member wearing OG507 uniform and jungle boots. Probably during exercise bright star in 82. Would it be possible in the Army somewhere in CONUS in 70s?

 

 

The rule on "jungle boots" varied between units and over time. Some units flat out prohibited them for any use. When I was in Germany in 1st Armored Division (1987 - 89) I believe jungle boots were prohibited even in the field.

 

When I was at Fort Lewis in a "leg" (non-airborne) Military Intelligence unit, the rule was that you could purchase and wear the green jungle boots but not in formation. So if you had a pair of green jungle boots you could wear them in the field or in other circumstances where you didn't have to stand in formation with other troops.

 

When I transferred to the 1st Special Forces Group, we were actually issued Jungle boots and we could wear them whenever we wanted, in or out of formation, in or out of the field, whenever.

 

In Korea, again in a "conventional" unit, I believe the rule went back to what we had at Fort Lewis, i.e. not in formation. By the early 1990's, the Army started issuing jungle boots that had the canvas portion in black instead of green. Once black jungle boots were available, those could be worn pretty much any time. The nice thing about the black jungle boots is that they had "speed laces" like the black all leather combat boots which made them quicker to put on and tie.

 

This was Army, can't speak for the USAF, though.

 

Hope that helps!

[louie]

In the Air Force in Korea they were still making jungle boots at the PX/BX with steel toes. You could were them just like any other steel toed boot. Jungle boots were worn without steel toes for quite a while in the nineties still in the A.F.

[pawtwo]

I don't believe these trousers are government issue Defense Supply Center Philadelphia contract. The contract data is incorrect...and label just doesn't look right. Private purchase...maybe...but why fake a contract?

 

Why do you think that contract 7009-77 is wrong?

 

Is there any key how to read these contracts?

[Edelweisse]

Check this info out first...http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/11635-need-help-on-a-contract-date/

 

An example of a Defense Supply Agency (DSA) now Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) would look like

 

DSA0100-77-C-XXXX The "77" is for 1977 "DSA100"...now they are using "SP0100" and "SPE--------"

 

Here is an example I had on a OG-107 jacket/shirt: 1971 contract tag on inside "DSA100-71-C-1193"

 

This just looks off or just not right.....DSA/DLA would have refused these.....for failing to comply with the contract.

[pawtwo]

Well,

For a moment I got really scared that there is something wrong with my trousers

These trousers were made by "DPSC", they always had their own way to write contract numbers and print labels, because, they were in fact factory owned by military and not civilian facility producing for DLA. They started production in begining of 19th century. They made their products under DPSC name beetween 1965 and 1993. I have more examples in my collection. I will try to post something more here.

I'd like to get more info about Defense Personnel Support Center, and how they cooperated with DLA, and why in fact they have their own strange contract numbers.

In DLA databases, their old contracts from 1980s looks like this:
for LC-1 canteen cover: "SCO100-80-X-6041", but they written it their own way: "6041-80".

Till this day if I get something made by DPSC I always know that this can't be "surplus market production".

In 1993 they reorganised, become DSCP and started using normal contract numbers. Today they are known as DLA Troop Support. Before 1965 they were called Philadelphia Quartermasters Depot and you can find that name on many wwII things.

[Edelweisse]

I work for DLA....since 1997 with 45 yrs of logistics experience USAF, US Navy and US Army...now DOD (DLA)

[Longbranch]

The contract number looks fine for something produced by the DPSC. You'll see this style of contact number on other uniform items they made.

[pawtwo]

I work for DLA....since 1997 with 45 yrs of logistics experience USAF, US Navy and US Army...now DOD (DLA)

 

Maybe you can get info, why DSCP written contracts their own way?

 

I'm sure, there is nothing wrong with this label.