What books for beginning ww2 USN & USMC collectors?

[Dave]

Wow, isn't that a little presumptuous of you? First, you don't know if there's enough interest in these books for a second printing? They have sold over 45,000 copies worldwide and counting. Second, I've made so many horrible mistakes that "we could help with some revisions"? Do you have any idea how condescending and offensive that comment is to me?

 

JW

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow...was trying to be helpful...sorry if you took it the wrong way.

[jerry_k]

Another example of converted AN6510 seat type parachute for Q.A.S. After some changes, riggers introduced new modification: two "D" or "V" rings tacked to the harrness for better comfort of attaching parachute pack straps to the harrness.

The factory made Q.A.S. harrness( with special "O" loop hanger at the chest straps) about you was talking, were introduced in mid 43 or early 44. In this time MKI vest were replaced by USN B-4 vest. Of course we can see the photos from even 45 with MKI vest but it is not typicall for 44 or 45 Navy Aviator look for sure.

[jerry_k]

FYI :

Here you have 1945 shark chaser. You can feel free compare it with one you posted in book. All right sometimes it is hard to see a differences but Shark Chaser were introduced in late 1944 or early 1945. The impression with early war MKI vest, mid war factory made Q.A.S. harrness and late war( in this case: post war) shark chaser and light is a little bit wrong. Of course everything is possible soo you can feel free to posted here orginal photo from war with all of this stuff in one.

[jerry_k]

Wrist compass dated 1945? Where you noticed a date? Here is photos of US NAVY Aviation wrist compass with orginal box. Compass is made under Navy NO(a)s contract( see the box )

The dial is marked: WALTHAM not W.C.C. and at the back he can see the Stock number: R88-C-890. Band is made from green cotton.

Your example with you posted is post war(probably Vietnam) marked W.C.C. with nylon green band(photo in book dont included a handband).

[jerry_k]

Us Navy pilots used a B-5 vest during the war. I would like to see the photos and Im waiting for it. MKI vest was replaced much more earlier than in 1945 we can see a lot of pics from 43 and 44 with US NAVY contraced B-4 vest( I have example in my collection from JUN 43. It would be waste of my time put there examples of US NAVY Aviators with B-4 vest before 45.

[jerry_k]

"Navy flyers wore Army Air Force flying helmets and goggles under the combination A/N supply system. Try reading the catalog numbers and looking at the original pics in the book. You have no idea what you’re talking about and you’re just embarrassing yourself"

WHAT? NAVY AVIATORS used AAF helmets??? WOW. Im waiting for photos as a Paul for it.

Probably you dont know about you are talking.

Navy and AAF have a helmets under AN specification but NAVY have his own contracts and specification: N288 or NXSA and specification: AN6540 Summer, Winter or Intermediate or later version AN6541, 6542 or 6543. AAF have his own helmets with AN prefix but under AAF contract and specification. They are similar but not the same and have a lot of differences in look. Im waiting on the photo becouse in your book I only noticed NAVY models of AN640-S,W or L(leather), or later AN6541, AN6542 and AN6543. Feel free to see a Mick Prodoger book and some closer photos of AN helmets for ARMY AIR FORCE and for NAVY.

[jerry_k]

Im waiting at orginal photos with USN summer gloves with black USN stamps at front... really Im waiting on it. At most of photos we can see silver stamps or even it is very hard becouse this stamps were very fragile and easy to fade... I only see at your book Owen with black stamped gloves where we can see at the back side " all contract stamps with MIL post from contract from 50s, page 208

[jerry_k]

I dont know where you found that: Actually, the U.S. Navy “put that together” The instructions you’re referring to are original Navy, not my writing or pics.

 

Here is first correct first page of instruction which is missed in your book. You missed it not me and Navy:

You posted a T.O. number 119-44 not correct for orginal photos showing it : 114-44. The second page which you posted is correct from 114-44. You posted first page of T.O. number 119-44 which is for MULTI-PLACE LIFE RAFTS AND LIFE RAFT EQUIPMENT- DESCRIPTION, INSPECTION AND MAINTENCE OF. not for Q.A.S. If you are big EXPERT please tell me why instruction (correct second page and photos from it showing the Q.A.C parachute pack and raft kit with rigger made container) are described like a : HOW TO ATTACH THE PARARAFT KIT to THE QAS PARACHUTE SYSTEM??? We can see VERY good that this first photos at page 44 showing a Q.A.C. pack not Q.A.S. It is very very hard to omitted.

[jerry_k]

I posted here a hard FACTS, confirmed by photos and failed all of your book theories.

Regards,

Jerry

[Sabrejet]

[cutiger83]

1. Put your own personal social life on hold for 6 years. No trips or vacations, no family events, no wife, no kids.

 

2. Scout and book locations for photo shoots including WWII aircraft museums, ships, submarines and Naval bases. Pay rental fees for 1940’s vintage cars, aircraft and ships (hint, my bill was close to $50,000.00).

 

3. Hire live models to wear the uniforms for the photo shoots who look the part of a WWII Marine or sailor.

 

4. Book lodgings and accommodations in Washington DC so you can spend 4 weeks at the National Archives doing research and pulling photos.

 

5. Seek out all the top collectors in the world and get their help with your research and their permission to photograph their stuff.

 

6. Lastly, assemble your body of work and put it and yourself on the world stage. Even if you are the very best at what you’ve done, there will always be people who will criticize and spit on you for it.

 

JW

 

I have never written a book but I can sure appreciate the time and effort that goes into publishing such a huge endevor.

 

Thank you for your time and effort to help all of us in the collecting world.

 

I hope your wife and kids have forgiven you!

 

....Kat

[cutiger83]

 

It's a shame that such a simple question from a beginning collector turned into a 4 page "pi$$ing contest".

[teufelhunde.ret]

ALL...! I have just read this thread for the very first time, it is a shame I have read what some folks have written. I suggest to those who have wramped up this topic, take a chill pill, or this thread will "toast!!!"

[curio bill]

It's a shame that such a simple question from a beginning collector turned into a 4 page "pi$ing contest".

 

 

As the original poster I agree!!! Kinda sorry I brought it up....

[Bob Hudson]

As the original poster I agree!!! Kinda sorry I brought it up....

 

Nope, no problem there: you did the right thing.

 

The internet facilitates peer review of books, music or any other endeavor known to mankind and creators of content must be prepared for that. What we do not want on this forum is personal attacks or the know-it-alls who insist on belaboring a point apparently in hopes every one else will cry "uncle" and agree that Mr. KIA is totally correct.

[Bugme]

As the original poster I agree!!! Kinda sorry I brought it up....

Bill, you shouldn't be sorry you brought this up, the negativity of just one particular poster just took this down the wrong path. Mr Warner eloquently replied to every question and has the right to respond to accusations of bad information. This thread should have remained an answer to your question and the disagreements with Mr. Warner's book should have gone to another new thread or better yet to Private Messaging.

 

On another note: I am in the process of writing a book myself. I think it will be my only attempt since the research and compiling is exhausting. So, while I've seen a few mistakes in other militaria books, I still applaud those who took the long hours to write them. I won't cast stones.

[jerry_k]

Sorry Guys, I didnt want fight with anyone. Only I wanted to show that Warner book about Navy Aviation instead what author wrote: "Just curious, what errors specifically?? I know there is an errata list posted on Amazon for the USN Aviation book but that's mostly just printing errors.", have a errors and this errors are not small or insignificant.

Peace and regards,

Jerry

p.s. If I hurt someone, my apologies.

[curio bill]

Should I mention I have ordered the aaf "silver & pink wings" book:......

[cutiger83]

Should I mention I have ordered the aaf "silver & pink wings" book:......

 

As others have stated on here, if you want good USMC books, definitely order Alec's! I spend hours flipping thru them.

 

....Kat

 

PS. As a lover of reference books, I don't believe you can ever have too many. But then, I am a reference-book-a-holic!

[Dave]

Should I mention I have ordered the aaf "silver & pink wings" book:......

 

 

Well, having personally owned many (many) of the uniforms photographed in that series......

 

(Okay, that's a discussion for a different topic.) :thumbsup:

[curio bill]

Well, having personally owned many (many) of the uniforms photographed in that series......

 

(Okay, that's a discussion for a different topic.) :thumbsup:

You just bragging now!!!!

[Jack's Son]

So Far....So Good!!

You're not closed, or gone!! :thumbsup: ( )

[Paul70]

Because of the cost I wanted to preview the books before purchase. I just got two books in by ILL, and can say that I will now order the books because I was impressed. I have written a few books myself and appreciate the amount of work it took to do that.

 

I am a novice to Navy stuff so can not comment on the 100% acuracy issue.

 

I am reading a book called Bluejacket by Hutchinson. In it he talks about the square knots that the "kiss asses" could wear in training. He said he does not remember anyone wearing it after training because others would make fun of them afterwards, but he did say it could be worn.

 

Is that what is being discussed?

 

Paul

[Justin B.]

Apparently all of your experience and reference material hasn’t prevented you from making a fool of yourself on this forum and making totally incorrect, absurd statements that are flat out wrong. I’ve called you out on literally everything you’ve said and I’ve backed it up with references and direct quotes to the regulations.You can’t back up any of your statements at all.

 

"Fool?" Well I never... You might want to read up on the forum's code of conduct about making disagreements personal. But no matter, I've been wrong before and if I'm wrong I'm wrong, I just want the right info to be out there.

 

Ship's Clerk was sometimes referred to in print as "Warrant Yeoman" during WWII. That’s a fact, not my mistake.

"Referred to in print" hardly makes it official, however, and there was never a warrant rank with that title in the US Navy. In several different places where Chief Ship's Clerk and Ship's Clerk insignia are illustrated in the books, the correct title is never used. That could be very misleading to a reader.

 

Warrant officers wearing the same insignia on both sides of the garrison cap was the result of a misinterpretation of vague regulations at the time and was fairly common. The associated captions and text in the book explain all of that, you need to read them.

In the headgear section where garrison caps are addressed, CWO and WO caps are shown with corps devices on both sides. In the caption for one CWO uniform photo it is stated that CWOs wearing a commissioned officer miniature cap device was an "infraction" of the regulations, but in fact it was correct. Chief warrant officers, as commissioned officers, had worn the commissioned officer cap badge since 1901, and the garrison cap followed suit. I agree the wording was vague, though; see this letter to the "Bureau of Personnel Information Bulletin" ("All Hands") from October 1944:

 

Aviation General Utility was a specialty badge and was also a petty officer rating. There are records that clearly indicate ratings in this specialty for 3C, 2C 1C and chief as well as original wartime photographs showing the Aviation General Utility petty officer rating badge being worn, although it was certainly something of a rarity. A collector who printed a guide to rating badges in the 80’s had never seen original pics of this rating so he concluded (with arrogance) that it could never have existed because he had never seen it. Old myths die hard. That’s a fact, not my mistake.

 

Those rating badges were certainly made, and I don't doubt that they were worn. But I have looked for 20 years for official evidence of this as rate. I have not been able to find it in any BuNav/BuPers Manual, advancement or training publication, or any wartime edition of "All Hands." It is not listed in this Naval Historical Center publication on the history of aviation ratings:

http://www.history.navy.mil/download/history/app14.pdf

 

John Stacey, author of a very highly regarded book on rating badges and specialty marks, indicates he has not been able to find any, either. If there is some kind of primary-source documentation on it being an authorized PO rating, I'd love to see it.

 

The ex-apprentice square knot insignia was originally intended for sailors who had been "Apprentice Boys" as kids. The program was originally for 14 to 18 year olds and lasted from 1875 to 1904. That is true. However, this insignia was also worn by former training station apprentice petty officers. Please see page 267 of the uniform regulations. It states the ex-apprentice square knot insignia was to be worn by enlisted men who have held the rating of apprentice in the Navy. Sorry, but the original apprentice boys were not rated.

Sure they were. The apprentice ratings can be seen as a sort of "parallel track" to landsman-ordinary seaman-able seaman. U.S. Navy Regulations, 1900:

 

 

Apprentice petty officers at training stations were rated, 3C, 2C, 1C and chief. Each apprentice petty officer rating badge also featured the same square knot as the specialty mark but was smaller in size in relation to a regular petty officer rating badge. Perhaps it was the result of a misunderstanding of the original wording of the regulation for this insignia. Perhaps it was only a localized occurrence, I don’t know. Regardless, the wording of the regulations does lead one to believe that former apprentice petty officers at training stations would be entitled to wear it. I’m sorry but you really can’t argue original photos of 19 year old sailors wearing the insignia on their uniforms in 1942 just below the V neck on their jumper. There are pics of original uniforms with it in the book as well. I’ve talked to veterans who also say yep, they did wear it like that. They even had their original WWII uniforms with it on the jumper. I’m sorry if this is something new to you or it’s too difficult for you to accept. It doesn’t change the facts about it.

 

The Navy's position was that the ex-apprentice distinguishing mark was to be worn by those who had been rated apprentices before 1904. See this letter to the "Bureau of Personnel Information Bulletin," April 1945:

 

 

I agree that the regulations could have been mis-interpreted as outlined above. However, the book does not mention the origin of the ex-apprentice mark nor what it was officially intended to signify anywhere that I could find, which could lead some readers to conclude that the mark was solely for training station apprentice POs.

 

Will continue in another post due to attachment sizes.

[Justin B.]

Ummm, the rating specialty is a bullion stylized propeller with wings on either side. It’s Aviation Machinist Mate. Maybe a clearer pic should have shown it better. I guess maybe I could see how someone would think that.

 

All I can say about that is the stylized propeller looks just like the lightning bolt, waves and arrow of the AX rate that was authorized in the '60s.

 

This is a moot point and not my mistake. Look at the title of the book “U.S. Navy Uniforms and Insignia 1943–1946”. As amazing as it may seem, the book covers uniforms through 1946. The chief Dress Blue D uniform is shown on page 101. That uniform is clearly listed on page 259 of the uniform regulations provided with the book on CD. Pers letter 327-MEB dated May1946 authorized this uniform and it was amended to the 1941 regulations on February 26, 1947. The same book also includes other 1946-1947 uniforms on pages 282 through 288. What is the point of mentioning this?

 

You know, that's right, I was thinking of wartime but that is within the scope of the book. I withdraw that and please excuse me for bringing it up.

 

Sorry, you are dead wrong. You need to read the regulations. On page 5 you will see paragraph 2.2 which clearly lists the “full dress white uniform” and includes the “full dress sword belt”. Additionally, 2.4 also includes the white coat and full dress sword belt for the “dress white” uniform. 2.8 lists the undress white uniform and includes the undress sword belt. The regulations for the full dress sword belt state it is to be worn on the outside of all uniform coats. Only the undress sword belt could be worn under any coat. The full dress white and dress white uniforms both call for the full dress sword belt so it was worn on the outside of the coat. The undress whit uniform calls for the undress sword belt so it was worn under the white coat.

No, sword belts were always worn under the white coat and blue evening tailcoat. The regulations are quite clear on this: Article 1-12 © of the 1941 UR states "When worn without other side arms, the sword belt shall be outside the frock coat and under all others; the sword shall be worn outside of the overcoat."

 

The difference between Dress White and Undress White was visible only by the sling straps hanging outside the coat. Here is a picture scanned from a book of a group of admirals with President Roosevelt in 1939. The uniform is Full Dress White, note full-size medals.

 

 

In the lower right corner you can see the gold-embroidered slings of VAdm Andrews' full dress sword belt.