Jump to content


Photo

M43 Jacket With Alteration Tag 32R Ever See This?


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 manayunkman

manayunkman
  • Members
    • Member ID: 51,189
  • 14,096 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Latrine Duty Cleaning My Own Mess

Posted 01 November 2019 - 11:32 AM

I have never seen a tag like this or such a tiny size?

But it fits like a 44R.

Attached Images

  • 108BAFF6-B4B8-408B-9748-F971124B4F22.jpeg


#2 manayunkman

manayunkman
  • Members
    • Member ID: 51,189
  • 14,096 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Latrine Duty Cleaning My Own Mess

Posted 01 November 2019 - 04:00 PM

Does anyone know the date of the contract number?

Or what the alteration refers to?

There doesn’t seem to be any changes.

#3 Ray42

Ray42
  • Members
    • Member ID: 193,671
  • 302 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:WV

Posted 01 November 2019 - 06:27 PM

I am pretty sure the size was altered, if you look the first tag says 36R and the second says 32R.  Maybe it was like other uniforms that had to be resized from where they have shrunk, but I don't know that a M43 would shrink when washed so who knows. 



#4 manayunkman

manayunkman
  • Members
    • Member ID: 51,189
  • 14,096 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Latrine Duty Cleaning My Own Mess

Posted 01 November 2019 - 06:33 PM

This jacket didn’t shrink.

It’s much bigger than 36.

Even the collar tag has 32.

But it’s at least a 42.

It makes no sense.

#5 Wake1941

Wake1941
  • Members
    • Member ID: 151,850
  • 3,044 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 November 2019 - 06:57 PM

Maybe a factory error ? Ive seen plenty of items sized wrong. And the fact that it has the second tag makes me think it might be a reject that was reissued after the war

#6 hbtcoveralls

hbtcoveralls
  • Members
    • Member ID: 2,138
  • 1,777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Anderson SC USA

Posted 01 November 2019 - 07:35 PM

I had one that was re-tagged from smaller to larger

 

Never seen one the other way around

 

When the M-43 first was designed and issued they were part of a layering system and were sized to be very large indeed

 

Later jackets were re-tagged to be closer to the actual size

 

Tom Bowers



#7 QED4

QED4
  • Members
    • Member ID: 55
  • 2,176 posts
  • Location:Orlando, Fla.

Posted 02 November 2019 - 08:14 AM

Size 32 is a very small size, I have never seen an issue jacket smaller than a 34. I would bet this jacket was altered for a solider that could not be fit from regular quartermaster stock. 



#8 Wake1941

Wake1941
  • Members
    • Member ID: 151,850
  • 3,044 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 November 2019 - 08:39 AM

Size 32 is a very small size, I have never seen an issue jacket smaller than a 34. I would bet this jacket was altered for a solider that could not be fit from regular quartermaster stock. 


32 is really not that odd to see in WW2 clothing and Ive seen smaller than that

#9 Allan H.

Allan H.
  • Members
    • Member ID: 151
  • 5,708 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Topeka, Kansas

Posted 03 November 2019 - 08:13 AM

If you take the time to go through the WWII Quartermaster records, you will find that the smallest General Issue uniform jacket was a 34 Short. Soldiers needing smaller uniforms would have had to have the uniforms tailored. The normal label that you find in these small jackets is a plain QM label with no other information. You will find this same lable on uniforms with extra long arm length or inseams. The army just didn't let larger orders for these odd sizes. 
 
Wake, I find it rather interesting that you've ever seen smaller sized uniforns. Outside of female uniforms that go by femal sizes of the time, I can't say that I have ever seen a uniform tagged smaller than 34S. Even pieces issued to and worn by Nisei soldiers were normally regular issued sizes that tailored down  to meet the sizes required by these men. 

 

Some time ago, I posted an Ike jacket to a 442nd veteran and also did a size comparison in the thread. Some of you might find it interesting.
http://www.usmilitar...ct/?hl=ichihara

 

As for the labels that started the thread, I can only imagine that the jacket was tailored as perhaps a size 52 and the wrong label was simply sewn inside.

 

Allan



#10 manayunkman

manayunkman
  • Members
    • Member ID: 51,189
  • 14,096 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Latrine Duty Cleaning My Own Mess

Posted 04 November 2019 - 06:48 AM

Allen,

The wrong label makes the most sense.

In WWII the man who wore this jacket was a platoon leader in the 442nd.

I think he wore this jacket after Korea.

Strange that he wore an M43 at this time?

#11 Allan H.

Allan H.
  • Members
    • Member ID: 151
  • 5,708 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Topeka, Kansas

Posted 04 November 2019 - 12:50 PM

I don't think it is all that strange that he was still wearing this jacket as he was obviously a pretty big guy and I would assume that the supply system wasn't swimming in clothing his size. Also, there was always something about having older "I've been there" type of clothing as opposed to the newest of the new. As far as the field jacket is concerned, they all pretty much look alike. Since he had one that fit, he didn't need another. Also, since he was an officer, he would have had to purchase his clothing, and it was probably an additional expense that he felt that he didn't need to spend money on.

 

Allan



#12 manayunkman

manayunkman
  • Members
    • Member ID: 51,189
  • 14,096 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Latrine Duty Cleaning My Own Mess

Posted 04 November 2019 - 02:24 PM

Thank you Allan.

Here is a picture of M43.

Attached Images

  • 170B1227-9EA2-427D-B373-17AB46A48CEC.jpeg


#13 manayunkman

manayunkman
  • Members
    • Member ID: 51,189
  • 14,096 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Latrine Duty Cleaning My Own Mess

Posted 04 November 2019 - 02:27 PM

The name tag and US Army tape were found in the pocket.

#14 manayunkman

manayunkman
  • Members
    • Member ID: 51,189
  • 14,096 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Latrine Duty Cleaning My Own Mess

Posted 05 November 2019 - 09:43 AM

Lets add this to the mix.

Here is a picture of the man who wore this jacket.

Photo taken in 1937 when Porter was 22.

According to the caption on the back of this photo, the man next to the Captain is Porter.

He appears to be the smallest one in the photo.

Attached Images

  • 0A6A4544-7C60-4184-849B-E17C28BA71D0.jpeg
  • 2627F729-0CD4-452A-A82E-A3AAAC15DFB9.jpeg



1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users