MattS Posted June 23, 2014 Share #26 Posted June 23, 2014 To expand on the controversy further, what do you call a WW2 service cap that was not 'crushed' until last year when the vet's grandson bent and folded it and took out the spring before selling it on ebay? It is a WW2 officer's cap, it is crushed, but it is not an original crusher, or is it? Here's two WW2 officer's service caps, both worn by USAAF pilots. The left one has a stiff visor, the right one is a Bancroft Flighter. Aren't they both 'crushers'? Or is the left one a 'crushed cap' while the Flighter is a 'true crusher'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrejet Posted June 23, 2014 Share #27 Posted June 23, 2014 That should be crushingly obvious...shouldn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattS Posted June 23, 2014 Share #28 Posted June 23, 2014 That should be crushingly obvious...shouldn't it? Ha, love that British wit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manayunkman Posted June 23, 2014 Share #29 Posted June 23, 2014 Here is a collector's crusher opinion that has evolved over many years. Traditionally collectors have called the single, very thin, pliable visor with the earlier eagle a "crusher". My opinion has changed to also include the double, pliable visor. To give credit where credit is due, my opinion changed after several members came up with photographic evidence of aviators clearly wearing the double visor in a crusher style. At the time that my opinion changed I still had an AAF collection completely from vets or vet families. Of the groupings that included crushers I had 5 thin visor crushers and two double. One of the double visors came from a group commander who was killed in 1943. So I am of the opinion that both types are crushers but I might be one of the few. Many collectors consider only the single thin visor as a crusher which is only sticky wicket when it comes to selling it. Old opinions die hard. What would be great is if someone came up with an official AAF document stating what the definition is but I have not yet seen such an animal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattS Posted June 23, 2014 Share #30 Posted June 23, 2014 Great comment! I would like to point out, just to muddy the waters further, that I have a Bancroft Flighter, a 'real crusher' I think we can all agree, that was owned by a chaplain. Not all 'crushers' originated in the AAF even though the regulation that specifically allows for crushers was written solely for AAF personnel, i.e. "Officers of the Army Air Forces wear a similar cap except front spring stiffening may be omitted and the grommet may be removed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted June 23, 2014 Share #31 Posted June 23, 2014 What would be great is if someone came up with an official AAF document stating what the definition is but I have not yet seen such an animal. Yep...but I doubt it exists. I think the whole "double layer" verses "single layer" is an old-wives tale that some collectors keep perpetuating in order to either drive up the price of their hat or drive down the price of others. If anyone has any....any.....any proof that there's any evidence that there was any sort of differentiation between single and double layer visors during the war as far as what was "really" a crusher and what wasn't, I would LOVE to see it. Because I doubt it exists. In fact, I doubt it exists so much that I'll bet $50 that no one can produce anything of the sort. Just throwing that out there.... It's one of those urban legends that just simply won't die... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattS Posted June 23, 2014 Share #32 Posted June 23, 2014 I think your money is safe Dave, the reg I quoted is the only thing I have ever seen in writing. Here is the US Patent for a 'crushable' visor from 1943 submitted by Edward J. Biel that I believe was bought by Bancroft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted June 23, 2014 Share #33 Posted June 23, 2014 I think your money is safe Dave, the reg I quoted is the only thing I have ever seen in writing. Here is the US Patent for a 'crushable' visor from 1943 submitted by Edward J. Biel that I believe was bought by Bancroft. Matt: Now THAT is cool. I would have never thought about looking at the patents. Very, very nice!!! Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattS Posted June 23, 2014 Share #34 Posted June 23, 2014 Dave, I wish I could take credit for that find, but I came across it accidentally while searching "Bancroft Flighter". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted June 23, 2014 Share #35 Posted June 23, 2014 Dave, I wish I could take credit for that find, but I came across it accidentally while searching "Bancroft Flighter". Must have been two steps ahead of me...I was also doing some google-fu to find an answer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattS Posted June 23, 2014 Share #36 Posted June 23, 2014 Here's a neat period ad, it specifically mentions the "curve control visor": Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manayunkman Posted June 23, 2014 Share #37 Posted June 23, 2014 This is valuable evidence. Great stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nack Posted June 23, 2014 Share #38 Posted June 23, 2014 Justin, here is a photo of the overseas cap with the Warrant Officer pin. taylor1.jpg Technically, that's a Flight Officer rank device (not W/O). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Posted June 23, 2014 Author Share #39 Posted June 23, 2014 Technically, that's a Flight Officer rank device (not W/O). Yes, I figured that out today. His widow said he was a Navigator but memories get dim. Maybe he wasn't a W/O after all. For some reason I had thought that he was. I am working on getting his service related papers from her now or at least get to copy them and then I'll know for sure what he was. Regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattS Posted June 24, 2014 Share #40 Posted June 24, 2014 Yes, I figured that out today. His widow said he was a Navigator but memories get dim. Maybe he wasn't a W/O after all. For some reason I had thought that he was. I am working on getting his service related papers from her now or at least get to copy them and then I'll know for sure what he was. Regards. Not impossible, a B-17 crew I researched had a F/O as their bombardier, and the crew after them had a F/O as their navigator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin B. Posted June 24, 2014 Share #41 Posted June 24, 2014 Yes, I figured that out today. His widow said he was a Navigator but memories get dim. Maybe he wasn't a W/O after all. For some reason I had thought that he was. I am working on getting his service related papers from her now or at least get to copy them and then I'll know for sure what he was. Regards. A Flight Officer was a warrant officer, in the same way a 2nd Lieutenant is a commissioned officer. The equivalent non-flying rank was Warrant Officer Junior Grade. Pilot, bombardier and navigator graduates could all be appointed as flight officers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Posted June 24, 2014 Author Share #42 Posted June 24, 2014 A Flight Officer was a warrant officer, in the same way a 2nd Lieutenant is a commissioned officer. The equivalent non-flying rank was Warrant Officer Junior Grade. Pilot, bombardier and navigator graduates could all be appointed as flight officers. Thank you for the clarification....I know so liltle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin B. Posted June 24, 2014 Share #43 Posted June 24, 2014 Thank you for the clarification....I know so liltle. It has confused many! Here is a pretty good article about the origins of the flight officer rank: http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/1990/March 1990/0390third.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doyler Posted June 24, 2014 Share #44 Posted June 24, 2014 There are "chrushed "hats and then chrusher or packable caps.Here are two I have. The first is a typical officers that through wear was crushed and formed.The caps with gabridine or worsted wool tops were more easily formed.The wool felt wre much stffer.Note the rear strap which a lot of people deem as "Air Corps" but in reality was more so for Cavalry an Arnored and carried over and seen in use by Air Corps and other branches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doyler Posted June 24, 2014 Share #45 Posted June 24, 2014 Here is an example from a state side Colonel.I have his uniform and winter service cap as well.This summer/tropical issue is a true chrusher/packable cap with thin single layer visor with trimmed edge.Also note he elected to wear his with the form bands in the top giving it the typical saucer shape an not worn floppy as a "chrusher".Just a case where all "chrushers" were not worn as such.I should mention he was an older officer and a WW1 vet as well.He was based in Washington and after the war was sent to inspect POW Camps that our troopes were held in and was tasked with reprting back the conditions.I was told by his daughter he also visited the Concentration Camps as well.He was head of the group to the ETO and another Group went to the PTO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doyler Posted June 24, 2014 Share #46 Posted June 24, 2014 Interior and visor views Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Posted June 27, 2014 Author Share #47 Posted June 27, 2014 Regarding the initial post on the two caps that belonged to a Warrant Officer. I have his "papers" and this is what I see: Enlisted 4/21/1943. Ordered to Chicago and then to Shepard Field, Wichita for "pre-aviation cadet basic training". Did not receive a uniform until arriving at Shepard Field, Discharged to accept commission 4/20/1945. He was at discharge an Aviation Cadet with the 2530th AAF Base Unit, Navigation School. Selman Field, Monroe, Louisiana. Qualified with "MKM Pistol" while at Selman. Commissioned 4/21/1945 to 12/6/1945 with last rank of Flight Officer. Occupational Specialty and No. "Navigator 1034". He was discharged from Chanute Field, Illinois. "Lapel Button Issued". His service number has a "T" prefix. No Battles or Campaigns. His wife said he was slated for a B-29 Squadron when the War ended. Awarded the WW2 Victory Medal and the American Campaign Medal. That's all Folks. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B229 Posted June 27, 2014 Share #48 Posted June 27, 2014 What would be great is if someone came up with an official AAF document stating what the definition is but I have not yet seen such an animal. Why would there be a regulation covering something that is inherently non-regulation? And why would the AAF bother to define a term that some now unknown airman made up to describe the way he altered his cap? That's like looking for the Army regulation that defines what a Jeep is (of course, somebody will now do that). Airmen pulled the stiffener out of their caps and crushed the crown so that headphones would fit better. They liked the look. It caught on and showed the mark of an experienced airman. One of them called the altered cap a "crusher" to describe it. Commercial manufacturers caught on to the fad and started making caps that could more easily be "crushed" and some started using the trade name "crusher". That's pretty much it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B229 Posted June 27, 2014 Share #49 Posted June 27, 2014 Note the rear strap which a lot of people deem as "Air Corps" but in reality was more so for Cavalry an Arnored and carried over and seen in use by Air Corps and other branches. The back strap actually originally had a practical purpose in mounted units. It was used as a real chinstrap to keep the cap on when mounted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted June 27, 2014 Share #50 Posted June 27, 2014 Why would there be a regulation covering something that is inherently non-regulation? And why would the AAF bother to define a term that some now unknown airman made up to describe the way he altered his cap? That's like looking for the Army regulation that defines what a Jeep is (of course, somebody will now do that). Airmen pulled the stiffener out of their caps and crushed the crown so that headphones would fit better. They liked the look. It caught on and showed the mark of an experienced airman. One of them called the altered cap a "crusher" to describe it. Commercial manufacturers caught on to the fad and started making caps that could more easily be "crushed" and some started using the trade name "crusher". That's pretty much it. Yup...but there are people who insist that only a single-layer leather visor is a "crusher" and a double-layer visor isn't a "crusher". As we've seen from the advertisement and patent application on here, that's simply not true. But people will continue to insist that unless a hat has only that single layer visor, it's not a "real crusher". Urban legends die hard.... 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