Government Issue Posted May 26, 2018 Share #1 Posted May 26, 2018 Hi All! I was surprised this lasted as long as it did on the paratrooper.fr website. This one's interesting for a couple reasons. First off, it's a light shade Harian although most people firmly believe that the OD3 jackets "never" made it to Normandy. Second, it shows some use and has a laundry number on the backpack flap. I did some research on the laundry number and wanted to share it here for reference and in the hopes that the buyer might find it. Here's some pictures of the vest and the laundry number. More detailed photos can be found over on the web store: https://www.paratrooper.fr/en/original/6083-jacket-assault-khaki-harian-1944-3000000062913.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Government Issue Posted May 26, 2018 Author Share #2 Posted May 26, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Government Issue Posted May 26, 2018 Author Share #3 Posted May 26, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Government Issue Posted May 26, 2018 Author Share #4 Posted May 26, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Government Issue Posted May 26, 2018 Author Share #5 Posted May 26, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Government Issue Posted May 26, 2018 Author Share #6 Posted May 26, 2018 I know from reading some of the threads on here about the Assault Jacket's use and there are photos that exist of glider riders and paras using them in Normandy during the early stage of the invasion. The consensus is that they picked up jackets that the 4 ID troops threw away. I'd assume that's the case here. I'm curious on everyone's thoughts on my reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmoore456 Posted May 27, 2018 Share #7 Posted May 27, 2018 I think that is a stretch that this belonged to that soldier. There are 75 listings for that laundry number on the WWII US Army Enlistment Records page. Ray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Government Issue Posted May 27, 2018 Author Share #8 Posted May 27, 2018 Hi Ray. I should have added I went through all 75 individually and cross referenced each name vs the D-Day memorial site and this was the only match in both name, location, and serial number. I'm aware that not all serial numbers are listed on both sites but thought this was too coincidental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doyler Posted May 27, 2018 Share #9 Posted May 27, 2018 The serial number looks a little fresh or bright to me...maybe its just the photo or lighting Just saying people are reproducing dog tags and its not a stretch to write a laundry number or initial etc based on all the information now listed on the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David D Posted May 27, 2018 Share #10 Posted May 27, 2018 Looks like it was written on with a ball point pen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Government Issue Posted May 27, 2018 Author Share #11 Posted May 27, 2018 Doyler, you're absolutely correct. If someone were to fake the number, you'd think that they'd go with an infantryman rather than a trooper. However, as I have come to learn anything goes anymore. I can't speak as to whether the laundry number is legitimate or not as the jacket was not advertised as such, but the jacket is definitely real. David, It does look a bit like ballpoint pen. Reminds me of the MOH attributed jacket that Andy had. The damage on the jacket looks to me as if a rat or some small animal gnawed on bits of it but then there are certain punctures that look like they were done with a blade. It's an interesting piece none the less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArchangelDM Posted May 28, 2018 Share #12 Posted May 28, 2018 Doyler, you're absolutely correct. If someone were to fake the number, you'd think that they'd go with an infantryman rather than a trooper. However, as I have come to learn anything goes anymore. I can't speak as to whether the laundry number is legitimate or not as the jacket was not advertised as such, but the jacket is definitely real. David, It does look a bit like ballpoint pen. Reminds me of the MOH attributed jacket that Andy had. The damage on the jacket looks to me as if a rat or some small animal gnawed on bits of it but then there are certain punctures that look like they were done with a blade. It's an interesting piece none the less. I think your spot on about the Rodent damage which is a shame, Also that ball point pen IMHO is not correct, on Oct. 29, 1945, the Reynolds pen became the first-ever modern ballpoint pen sold in the U.S Im pretty positive this soldier would not have had one on his person. Dean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Government Issue Posted May 28, 2018 Author Share #13 Posted May 28, 2018 I think your spot on about the Rodent damage which is a shame, Also that ball point pen IMHO is not correct, on Oct. 29, 1945, the Reynolds pen became the first-ever modern ballpoint pen sold in the U.S Im pretty positive this soldier would not have had one on his person. Dean Hi Dean! That's true. It's hard to tell without actually having it in hand. I've seen pictures of things that look like they're ballpoint but found out they weren't only when I've handled it in person. Pictures can reveal a whole lot or mislead you just as easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArchangelDM Posted May 28, 2018 Share #14 Posted May 28, 2018 Hi Dean! That's true. It's hard to tell without actually having it in hand. I've seen pictures of things that look like they're ballpoint but found out they weren't only when I've handled it in person. Pictures can reveal a whole lot or mislead you just as easily. I agree G.I photos sometimes dont tell the whole story, would need this one in hand Hope your well buddy Yours Dean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patchcollector Posted May 28, 2018 Share #15 Posted May 28, 2018 Some of the "rodent" damage looks odd to me;too neat IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David D Posted May 28, 2018 Share #16 Posted May 28, 2018 I think your spot on about the Rodent damage which is a shame, Also that ball point pen IMHO is not correct, on Oct. 29, 1945, the Reynolds pen became the first-ever modern ballpoint pen sold in the U.S Im pretty positive this soldier would not have had one on his person. Dean Which is my point. It was added post war IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustin Posted May 28, 2018 Share #17 Posted May 28, 2018 My first reaction in seeing the vest is that the damage is systematic, deliberately applied left-to-right or right-to-left in at least three rows. Needed aging, slice slice slice slice then move on down and repeat until sufficient "field use" look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Survival Posted May 29, 2018 Share #18 Posted May 29, 2018 If you have a good quality black light check and see if the thread glows. Or if the manufacturers stamp glows Just curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaszanka Posted May 30, 2018 Share #19 Posted May 30, 2018 agree with others expressing their doubt... first impression was that this is deliberate aging - just systematic cuts applied and then jacket was run 15 times thru washing machine and dryer. very unnatural aging Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now