"Caps, Winter". How the Army's QM laid down the specifications.

[Sabrejet]

This official US Army Specification, # 6-255A document illustrates the extreme detail the QM went to when laying down the specifications for something as simple as a winter cap. I happen to have just such a cap so I thought it would be interesting to see how the specifications translated into a production example.

 

 

 

[Sabrejet]

Page 2

 

[Sabrejet]

Page 3

 

[Sabrejet]

Page 4...together with the relevant parts of the cap.

 

 

[Sabrejet]

Cont'd....

[Sabrejet]

Cont'd...

[Sabrejet]

Label attached and size stamped as prescribed.

 

 

[Sabrejet]

Other details.

[Sabrejet]

Cont'd....

[Sabrejet]

The finished item....

[Sabrejet]

As worn....

[Sabrejet]

Cont'd...

[Sabrejet]

Seen here worn by ground crewmen of the 8th AF in wintertime, in Britain.

[jgawne]

Having read more specs than I care to think about- some of them are vastly larger and in more detail. Of course every single item mentioned- the buckle, the thread, the materials... all have their own specs which specify how they are to be made. They could off spec at times, but the local area inspector had to approve it. In WW1 there was a lot of problems with the inspectors allowing some really bad replacement materials (some for kickbacks) but they seem to have tightened that up a lot in WW2.

[cutiger83]

Ian,

 

Thanks so much for the write-up and pictures. This is some great information!

 

...Kat

[Sabrejet]

Thanks Kat...glad you found it of interest.

[RustyCanteen]

Very interesting!

 

I was surprised it even detailed the packing of them, and the marking of the crates.

RC

[J_Andrews]

The genesis of this was the distrust of civilian LOW-BID contractors who generally had no experience with military items. As cited, there was -- in the War Dept's recent memory -- the WWI experience with fraud and shoddy goods, When the Army could rely on the JQMD as sole-source for gear (nearly all new-model stuff or modest mods of WWI-patterns, through the 1920s and until 1940), it generally ignored/avoided civil industry. THIS cap MAY have been a) too much/too many wanted for the JQMD to provide, and/or as it was in parallel made for the CCC, a CIVILIAN agency, there was probably a push to turn to the civilians (in particular Congressional districts or labor markets) to make them.

 

IIRC it was not until late 1940 that the War Dept got friendly with the civil side -- at the time, it was more the Air Corps expansion than the ground forces that made it unavoidable, then. How many civilian maker marks on QM gear (web gear or other) dated before 1941?

 

In 1941 by and large the gear was WWI-pattern and extant samples could just be sent to the few reliable mfrs getting contracts. Quantities were based on troop numbers of the RA units brought up to strength, then the activated/activating NG. Based on experience (Stateside and in the overseas depts, plus on reports from the British on what was good and what was bad) in this period, NEW items were created, tested, standardized and sent out for bids.

 

The dam broke in 1942, AFTER Pearl Harbor and when lots more of everything was needed -- yesterday. Overnight, makers of garters and lingerie were DIRECTED to start cranking out gear -- their experience, as well as on-tap labor, raw materials and machinery on little import, to-be-sorted-out. Those labels collectors like to see were not created for hobbyists of the future -- they were a way to track/blamethe quality of the goods once they had left the factories and entered real service. If there was a high rate of failure/probs with an item from a manufacturer, the QM guys made them sorry. Conversely, they rewarded good makers with more work. Consider how many 1942 mfrs' marks are not to be found on 1944 items.

 

Anyway, yea verily, the MILSPEC documentation ever since CAN be ridiculously immense and dense.

[craig_pickrall]

Since it was mentioned here are two for review. First is a military issue made in 1937 by a civilian contractor. Second is a CCC cap in green with a 1940 label from the civilian market. It has CIV on the label spec too.

 

 

[dustin]

Overall an interesting subject indeed with many variables. Ultimately it came down to supply and demand as J_Andrews stated "the dam broke" same difference with the US Navy which who was in large use to making it's own goods. Civilian contractors were being utilized in the pre war years namely for specialty goods. I to have many government specifications and they merely are being specific to the details of items to meet their specific needs not a matter of distrust which would suggest the government has to hold the hands of the commercial industry in fact it can be viewed in many ways the commercial industry held the hand of the government. Most of the manufacturing methods and designs derived from the commercial industry. The commercial industry for the most part have to follow federal guidelines and standards which you see listed under "Federal Specifications" this is not military. The reason for these detailed spec's is due to the fact from past experience the military services were receiving a wide variety of goods in various grades poor to satisfactory. To remedy uniformity and assure competitive bidding detailed spec's were then provided. If I was a contractor and received an invitation to bid these are the spec's I would want to see for bidding and acceptance purposes.

I will have to disagree, on the whole, towards a "reward" scenario. First off there was what could be called a stimulus plan of the era instituted in Washington called the Smaller War Plants Corp. This was to assure that the big contractors did not monopolize government contracts in fact many times larger contractors were cut off regardless if there work was great or poor. The idea was to spread the wealth to small manufacturers across the nation which is why we see odd ball manufacturers. The Treasury Dept. selected these entities which in many cases only received a couple contracts then off to the next small business etc. stimulating local economy. In many cases some companies you may see manufactured goods in 1942&43 but none of that type later. This is sometimes the case, the company declined on invitations due to the fact they were already to capacity making other items or they simply did not make the cut in bidding. An excellent example is Ashaway Line & Twine which was the major contributor in designing fishing kits and did receive a contract in the first series of orders but was the highest bidder in the second round there fore declined as a contractor and not awarded any further contracts. There are many cases where a company designed a product from the ground up and in the end did not receive a contract for manufacture. Overall there was no loyalty and just like today it came down to the almighty buck...some companies which were still in manufacturer of products lost out on contracts because they were merely $.16 higher.

I am glad this spec was posted it gives many here an idea what "specifications" are and what they say or don't say. The term "spec" gets tossed around in many conversations on the forum by individuals which I don't think have ever seen a WWII one before.

[Sabrejet]

Thanks to all for your very interesting comments and additions!