AAC Aerial Gunner AMICO Solo Winged Bullet Badge?

[Gary Cain]

Hi John,

 

First off it is not my theory, it is Allan H's, lets give credit where credit is due. What I am saying is that based on simple logic and the realities of production in the 40's, his theory makes more sense, based on the actual numbers of insignia seen in the present day, than any other theory presented. I was merely working through your's and Patrick's theory based on the existing evidence, and Allans and arriving at the conclusion that I don't believe it to be a simple piece of jewelry. I don't know what it is but I absolutely do not think it is jewelry for the reasons stated above. If you guys have more evidence to support the jewelry theory then by all means please post it.

 

Conversely if you don't, then we can try to work out what this is, which will be fun I think. I have been poring over all of my books and records(I know I have seen one of these before I just don't remember where) and hopefully will be able to come up with some more info soon.

 

Cheers

Gary

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Gary thanks for the reply.

 

I want to correct you about Frank Stout - according to one of the BG historians he did serve in the unit mentioned in the article but flew his first mission in April 45! This fact alone calls into question the position that this was a pre 43 AG award for missions completed as stated in an earlier post.

 

As for your theory about this being the first go round I would have to call your attention to the fact that having a changeable center device to denote a specialty was an amendment to the original Adams design in 1919 i.e. there have been plans ever since to award wings to various aircrew positions.

 

At this juncture all we have are a few stories as to why someone would wear the device in question and nothing concrete to prove this was an official award which is my major point.

 

Regards,

John

[pfrost]

Howdy,

 

Not sure I understand you point here? I suspect that AMICO marked all their items. Either as part of the die or after they stamped them out. I have never taken an AMICO 2 piece gunner wing apart, but I wouldnt be that shocked if both pieces were marked, for sure with the sterling mark. I know, for example that the AECo flight surgeon wing frequently has AECo on the caduseus part.

 

In any case, its easy to add the AMICO and sterling mark once the piece has been stamped out, they would likely have used a die and stamp tool using a heavy rubber mat (with a little "V" cut out to hold the piece steady) as backing. I once watched a jeweler do that with some silver jewelery he made at a state fair.

 

Hi Patrick,

 

Yes AMICO did have the die to make them but they would not have had the fixture to hold the winged bullet so that the makers mark and STERLING mark could be struck. That would have had to have been done seperately(if we are assuming that these are leftovers), but your argument doesn't answer my very basic question. Where are all the others?

 

As for why their arent more, I have no idea. Maybe they werent popular, or that they only made a few, I have no idea or proof. However, I would turn that argument back on you and ask if they were intended at qualification badges, why more werent made if that were true?

 

Finally, its all moot without documentation one way or the other.

 

P Frost

[John Cooper]

Gary,

 

You are correct this was first mentioned by Allan and with that in mind I would like to stick to my main point about this not being an offical award. I think I have offered enough information to refute the point made by Allan and in part based on the ASMIC article.

 

Now all we need to discover is if this was simply an award given at the school level or maybe a specific school. As for the sweetheart idea I think it is entirely possible but yet to be proved. There is also the possibility that it is all of the above and the story of it being an early thus rare award would support someone selling this for $$$. Not like this has not happen before in collecting.

 

John

[Gary Cain]

Hi Patrick,

 

A good friend of mine is a jeweler who makes fantastic items(I once worked on a scepter with him that cost the client 250,000 bucks so I do know how things work in the jeweler field. When they do what you decribe it is for one off items for the most part and you can clearly see afterwards that they are hand struck. This piece is clearly machine struck. This is a second die that strikes at the same time as the obverse die.

 

Your point on flight surgeon wing is not germain to this subject because they use the officers collar insignia device to make the wing to save money.

 

As far as why there weren't more made I refer once again to Allans supposition. If it is the first design they wouldn't have very many because the design wasn't approved, but like I have said before this is merely a theory I just think the evidence supports Allans theory more than yours.

 

 

Cheers

Gary

Howdy,

 

Not sure I understand you point here? I suspect that AMICO marked all their items. Either as part of the die or after they stamped them out. I have never taken an AMICO 2 piece gunner wing apart, but I wouldnt be that shocked if both pieces were marked, for sure with the sterling mark. I know, for example that the AECo flight surgeon wing frequently has AECo on the caduseus part.

 

In any case, its easy to add the AMICO and sterling mark once the piece has been stamped out, they would likely have used a die and stamp tool using a heavy rubber mat (with a little "V" cut out to hold the piece steady) as backing. I once watched a jeweler do that with some silver jewelery he made at a state fair.

As for why their arent more, I have no idea. Maybe they werent popular, or that they only made a few, I have no idea or proof. However, I would turn that argument back on you and ask if they were intended at qualification badges, why more werent made if that were true?

 

Finally, its all moot without documentation one way or the other.

 

P Frost

[pfrost]

Gary,

 

You are welcome to your opinion, but there is no "evidence" either way.

 

Patrick

[John Cooper]

Gary,

 

You are welcome to your opinion, but there is no "evidence" either way.

 

Patrick

 

I agree with Patrick on this.

 

If you look at it from just the position as stated earlier that the badge was used prior to the 43 release of the AG wing and post the AC wing and it was awarded based on missions completed we have a complete lack of supporting documentation.

 

Allan- the photos you mentioned you had would be very helpful if at some point you can have them posted... they may shed some light on this interesting topic.

 

Cheers,

John

[Gary Cain]

Patrick,

 

Then you do not understand what evidence is. I say this because the one period photo we have shows it being worn on an official piece of uniform(the mans hat!), there is not a single period photo of them being worn as a piece of jewelry.

 

 

Gary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gary,

 

You are welcome to your opinion, but there is no "evidence" either way.

 

Patrick

[Wailuna]

The "Stout" photograph is evidence of a soldier wearing an unauthorized badge on his uniform. It is useful to us to the extent that it gives context to the unidentifed badge that launced this discussion: We can see this badge being worn in period. The anecdote accompanying the picture in Trading Post somewhat explains the badge but the author does not make any claims as to its origin or authenticity. In fact, the author clearly believes the badge was not authorized. We can go a step further than that based on real evidence: The Army uniform regulation (AR 600-35). This badge is not mentioned anywhere in this regulation covering the period November 1941 through August 1945. Why? Because it was not authorized.

 

Let's see those other period pictures of this badge we've heard about and any other documentary evidence about it that has not been presented. In the meantime what we have here is one sighting of an unauthorized badge being worn in period, accompanied by an interesting anecdote that reasonably explains its identity.

[John Cooper]

Aloha Wailuna!

 

Thanks for helpig bring this thread back to the topic vs. oing down the wrong path. Can you be more specific about the "anecdote that reasonably explains its identy" since there are several points made.

 

John

 

 

 

The "Stout" photograph is evidence of a soldier wearing an unauthorized badge on his uniform. It is useful to us to the extent that it gives context to the unidentifed badge that launced this discussion: We can see this badge being worn in period. The anecdote accompanying the picture in Trading Post somewhat explains the badge but the author does not make any claims as to its origin or authenticity. In fact, the author clearly believes the badge was not authorized. We can go a step further than that based on real evidence: The Army uniform regulation (AR 600-35). This badge is not mentioned anywhere in this regulation covering the period November 1941 through August 1945. Why? Because it was not authorized.

 

Let's see those other period pictures of this badge we've heard about and any other documentary evidence about it that has not been presented. In the meantime what we have here is one sighting of an unauthorized badge being worn in period, accompanied by an interesting anecdote that reasonably explains its identity.

[Wailuna]

...Can you be more specific about the "anecdote that reasonably explains its identy" since there are several points made....

According to the author of the Trading Post piece: (1) Frank Stout was trained as a gunner at Kingman Army Air Field, (2) "...he was awarded a silver flying bullet pin..." (the badge in question) for scoring "...highest marks in his class..." and (3) he subsequently was assigned as a B-17 waist gunner with 336th BS(H), 95th BG(H). No dates given and the author makes no further comment about the badge except the say "Authorized? Probably not!" Stout's photograph, a picture of the badge, and a picture of aerial gunner wings illustrate the piece. There is no indication of the source of the material (i.e., veteran interview, newspaper account, official records).

 

There is recent coverage of Kingman Flexible Gunnery School on the armyairforces.com Forum where someone has been kind enough to copy the entire contents of the Kingman year book for classes 44-12 through 44-19, which may have been about the time Stout was there -- there are about 2,500 student pictures, in case anyone wants to look for Frank Stout (link here).

[QED4]

The pictures of the trainees are in alphabetical order but there are several classes and I got tired of looking after two. I did notice however that several men have these badges on the overseas hats. There is one on page 124 and 126 and I am sure there are others. I did not look at every page of every class to try to figure out if there was only one per class. It does look like some thing that was used at least at that training center and not something Pvt Stout awarded himself of got later. If they weren't locally authorized I don't think they would have gotten away with wearing them in official pictures.

[John Cooper]

According to the author of the Trading Post piece: (1) Frank Stout was trained as a gunner at Kingman Army Air Field, (2) "...he was awarded a silver flying bullet pin..." (the badge in question) for scoring "...highest marks in his class..." and (3) he subsequently was assigned as a B-17 waist gunner with 336th BS(H), 95th BG(H). No dates given and the author makes no further comment about the badge except the say "Authorized? Probably not!" Stout's photograph, a picture of the badge, and a picture of aerial gunner wings illustrate the piece. There is no indication of the source of the material (i.e., veteran interview, newspaper account, official records).

 

There is recent coverage of Kingman Flexible Gunnery School on the armyairforces.com Forum where someone has been kind enough to copy the entire contents of the Kingman year book for classes 44-12 through 44-19, which may have been about the time Stout was there -- there are about 2,500 student pictures, in case anyone wants to look for Frank Stout (link here).

 

Wailuna - thanks for the reply! You have now got this thread back on topic. I wanted to better unterstand if you were in support of the "award" being for missions completed... or of the line of thought about it being an award from the school which seemed the most logical.

 

When it was stated that this was a badge that pre-dated the AG wing and awarded for missions completed it just did not sit well with me.

 

John

[DutchInfid3l]

Corporal wearing Gunner wings and the "winged bullet" on his garrison cap. Unnamed.

 

[Gary B]

Hi,

 

I read quickly thru the 2 pages here and offer the following observations/facts:

 

1) I believe the bullets themselves, whether manufactured for this stand-alone pin or for affixing to the gunner wing, could have been always manufactured with the Sterling & Makers mark. Like Pfrost, I have never taken one apart so I can not verify this, but I can state that Flight surgeon wings were maker marked and Sterling marked on both pieces. (see my thread on Flight Surgeon wings - LGB wings in particular, AMICO also followed the same procedure). I don't see why the gunner devices would not be the same. So what I am saying is that these, possibly, were not manufactured just for this stand alone pin.

 

2) The device in question have a straight drop in catch which ususally is an indicator of an earlier war time production (not always the case but can be used as a rule of thumb). Then again much jewelry has a straight drop in catch.

 

3) My father was a graduate of the Aerial Gunner course in Nov 43 (first graduating class in FL was Mar 42). He had both types of wings, Aircrew and Gunner but wore Air Crew in his formal portrait. His wings were clutch back but he bought a pair of pin back Gunner wings from a salesman. When he arrived in Italy one if his buddies was a Flight officer gunner (before being busted), something the USAAF did away with early in the war (they continued to reduce the ranks of graduates throughout the war with Gunners eventually graduating as CPLs). Clark Gable was a gunner and was a Major. My dad never mentioned anything about special wings for officers, top graduates etc., and we used to talk about these things alot. In his graudating gunnery class book no one is listed as a top gunner (something the Army does today) although they do show the Champion Skeet shooters.

 

4) We need to be careful when we try to apply today's regulation driven Army against the Army of WWII. We tend to think that they applied the regulations with equal flare like we do today. That, according to my father, was far from the case. Soldiers in my father's outfit did all sorts of things outside the regulations and units did their own thing. In my father's unit if you were shot down you were automatically promoted to SSG. His friend went from CPL to SSG. So a unit awarding a pin for 1st victory is possible or a school awarding a pin for top gun is also possible but not within the regulations.

 

5) My father flew 50 missions and was never awarded a thing besides 2 Air Medals, so again if this were a combat thing it was a local/unit specific practice.

 

6) As to why we do not see alot of these.....who knows; limited production run, locally purchased for that one airfield...). That in itself does not add to the reason that these are a top gun pin or a combat pin. I collect Ruptured Ducks.....13 Million of these were produced and I have some versions which there should be zillions of and yet I only have seen the one I own.

 

IMO these were something that were produced at AMICO (not modified by a jeweler) and were used for a variety of purposes, only limited by what a resourceful GI could come up with. (hat pin, sweetheart pin, award etc). As for hat pins I have several WWI minis including a little MG on a tripod manufactured for wear on the overseas cap...although that is against regs.

 

Gary B