WW2 Flak glass's/goggles

[P-59A]

Wow. that is some good detective work. Well done!!!!

[P-59A]

On 10/14/2019 at 5:42 AM, PacificGunner said:

It's nice to see that this age old mystery has finally been solved, but it makes me raise the questions: were these "flak goggles" actually issued to The Mepmphis Belle's navigator, Captain Charles Leighton? Are there any examples of these goggles being issued to flight crews during the war for possible experimentation? I have not come across any photos of aircrews wearing the goggles, and come to think of it, I have not seen any photos of American soldiers wearing these goggles. If anyone has original photos of American military personnel wearing the goggles, could you post them on this thread for reference?

The short answer is NO! to everything you asked. I do not think people selling these are looking to mislead others. They are just parroting the information they found posted by others. On another post I am on  dealing with WW2 USAAF aviation flying helmets and the things that go on them I had read one the modification's to the A-9 O2 mask was a strap that went up between the eyes and secured to the Jolliet strap. Aircrews cut them off because they interfered with vision. If Aircrews would do that to an O2 mask I think its safe to say they would have not worn these for the same reason even if they had them.

[P-59A]

On 10/13/2019 at 11:05 PM, AZPhil said:

Great link P-59 and it shows the same type goggle. I do appreciate the info as these were as mentioned hear say and false information that created this lore.

So neither armored crew or AAF use..

Its great to know the truth.

I just went back to the top to see who the OP was and it was you. So P59A it looks like you found the answer to your own question . Good deal

Semper Fi

Phil

Thanks, just because I'm asking a question does not mean I'm sitting on my butt waiting for an answer. I ask because I really  want to know.

[dmar836]

They obviously aren't the same as the T45. Because there are so many out there I am fairly confident they aren't directly related to them. I could be wrong and they might be the first iteration of "mine detecting goggles" preceding and indicating the need for the improved T45 but that would be no better than any other assumption. There were a lot of them and they were all consistent in manufacture with the cotton back and the consistent slit pattern. The T45 is also consistent with itself with the dust goggle-type back and angled slits.

The few mentions of it out there stated that early on they were rejected due to their impracticality. I can only assume that, whether developed at Wright-Patterson or elsewhere for another branch, they were made en mass and were military in nature.

The apparent lack of use by any branch really doesn't prove if it was or wasn't intended for the USAC/USAAF.

Boy, that was one way to say, "who knows?"

[P-59A]

dmar, What I would suggest for consideration is they do not show up in any USAAF parts Catalog at all. How would supply get them if they are not listed? and they lack any identifying marks. Just about everything the USAAF used had a tag or information on it some place. Even aircraft parts had ink stamps, its not hard to do.

[P-59A]

One other observation was stated by someone else. They do not fit over any US goggle. I tried to put them over my goggles and its true, they don't fit.  One of the functions of goggles at high altitude was to keep your eyeballs from freezing at -30 degrees. If you wore these your eyeballs would in no two ways freeze.

[dmar836]

Not really defending them as AAF but also not suggesting I’ve seen any evidence for what they really are. So I’ll pile on that we finally know that we really don’t yet have much to go on except anecdotal stories from the Memphis Bell, etc. I have never followed such leads so...

[AZPhil]

Well I just ran across someone posting a set of these on the USAAF reenactor collectors on FB and I immediately thought about this thread.

They posted this from the USAF museum, who say these belong to the navigator of the Memphis Belle.

 So I saved a pic of it.

Semper Fi

Phil

[P-59A]

I get ya, Things like this need different ideas to prove or disprove. I wasn't sure for a long time until I bought those. For the reasons I already stated I see no reason to believe they were ever used by the USAAF during WW2. I sold mine to a collector of flak gear with the understanding I now have on these and he was  fine with that. For me this photo says it all.

[P-59A]

13 minutes ago, AZPhil said:

Well I just ran across someone posting a set of these on the USAAF reenactor collectors on FB and I immediately thought about this thread.

They posted this from the USAF museum, who say these belong to the navigator of the Memphis Belle.

 So I saved a pic of it.

Semper Fi

Phil

I saw this too. I was a volunteer at a air museum. I doubt they did due diligence before posting this. Look for this at the Smithsonian Air and Space museum web site.

[P-59A]

This is the actual display. I hold US M1 helmets to a high standard when they make high claims. When I look at the flak helmet and goggle I do not see the same ware nor has anyone come up with a period photo. That 25th mission had a lot of coverage and you do not see them on anyone.

[dmar836]

Are there any pics of mine detector teams wearing them, the T-25, etc? To me this is all speculation with no end - attempting to prove a null. Not being critical but understand it is no different to me than saying, "I doubt seriously these were worn by submarine crews." I understand that the difference is that many collectors have attributed these to the AAF and nobody said the sub crews wore them. My debate side comes out and I have to wonder why then the collector terms, "True Crusher" and "bomber jacket" seem to have stuck though they are also collector inventions. The variable density goggles also come to mind - just collector-speak.

[jerry_k]

Just a second - "The variable density goggles." are true USN aviation item proved by war time pics:) 

 

Cheers,

Jerry

[dmar836]

Yes but not the ones so commonly exchanged in the collector world.

The CL-28, or whatever, with yellow star also comes to mind. Nobody has ever said what it was except "maybe experimental", then make up different metals and ear flaps, etc with no sources at all. Yet they go for huge bucks. Of course so do M-4s but the ambiguity and lore of some items remains sacred yet seriously flawed.

[pararaftanr2]

Have I ever seen proof that these are flak goggles, or were even used in WW2? No. Has anyone ever found a photo of them being used? No. That being said, let's clear up a few things that have been said here and do some "myth busting". If these goggles were designed to fit over another pair of goggles, they would not need the padded backing. One thing I noticed, when I used to collect this stuff and actually owned a pair, the corduroy fabric on the padding is an exact match to the corduroy used in the lining of the pockets in B-15 jackets. Just an interesting observation, not proof of anything, one way or another, but I just wanted to throw that out there. Ever see the wartime documentary "Memphis Belle"? Shot in 1943, the planes are B-17Fs. The waist windows are open, exposing the gunners to the frigid air. No sign of goggles being worn by the waist gunners, but no frozen eyeballs either. Later production B-17s and B-24s had enclosed waist windows, so no streams of outside air pouring in to freeze your eyes if you didn't wear goggles either. Not to mention that all the other crew positions on the bombers were not subjected to direct outside air flow, so no need to wear a flak goggle, if one ever even existed, over conventional goggles.

 

Kinda' unrelated, but just for the record, the A-9 oxygen mask never had "a strap that went up between the eyes and secured to the Jolliet strap". Its successor, the A-10 Standard, was the one with the central strap that connected to the "Juliet". It was disliked as uncomfortable and was subsequently removed when the improved A-10 Revised and A-10 Converted came into production.

 

As Jerry mentioned, variable density Polaroid goggles were widely issued and used by the U.S. Navy during WW2. They were used by shipboard lookouts and gunners, as well as Naval aviators and aircrewmen. My website is down currently, so I can't link to an article about them that was there, but here's just one example of their use by an Avenger turret gunner, which was very, very common:

 

[pararaftanr2]

40 minutes ago, dmar836 said:

Yes but not the ones so commonly exchanged in the collector world.

The CL-28, or whatever, with yellow star also comes to mind. Nobody has ever said what it was except "maybe experimental", then make up different metals and ear flaps, etc with no sources at all. Yet they go for huge bucks. Of course so do M-4s but the ambiguity and lore of some items remains sacred yet seriously flawed.

Well done. That's a great example of another "unknown" USAAF item. No official documentation or photos of them in use have ever turned up, to my knowledge, but surviving examples are out there.

[dmar836]

I think it's your site that shows the actual USN variable density goggles. They are not very common and not the same as those I was referring to. Yes, well-documented for the USN but I hope we aren't upset about what I said. I thought the context was USAAF not USN.

[pararaftanr2]

No upset here. Indeed, this is a "USAAF" thread. I'm unaware of any document or photo proof that the US Army contracted VD goggles (with the red flip-shield) were ever used by the USAAF, so thought you were referring to the USN VDs. My apologies for misunderstanding your post.

[jerry_k]

Of course I mean USN VD goggle but generally in USN version it is not a myth item. 

 

btw. Paul at your site from what I remember was one photo of USAAF gunner who had a VD goggle AAF version(or my memory is leaky?)

 

Cheers,

Jerry 

[Brian Keith]

18 hours ago, pararaftanr2 said:

Have I ever seen proof that these are flak goggles, or were even used in WW2? No. Has anyone ever found a photo of them being used? No. That being said, let's clear up a few things that have been said here and do some "myth busting". If these goggles were designed to fit over another pair of goggles, they would not need the padded backing. One thing I noticed, when I used to collect this stuff and actually owned a pair, the corduroy fabric on the padding is an exact match to the corduroy used in the lining of the pockets in B-15 jackets. Just an interesting observation, not proof of anything, one way or another, but I just wanted to throw that out there. Ever see the wartime documentary "Memphis Belle"? Shot in 1943, the planes are B-17Fs. The waist windows are open, exposing the gunners to the frigid air. No sign of goggles being worn by the waist gunners, but no frozen eyeballs either. Later production B-17s and B-24s had enclosed waist windows, so no streams of outside air pouring in to freeze your eyes if you didn't wear goggles either. Not to mention that all the other crew positions on the bombers were not subjected to direct outside air flow, so no need to wear a flak goggle, if one ever even existed, over conventional goggles.

 

Kinda' unrelated, but just for the record, the A-9 oxygen mask never had "a strap that went up between the eyes and secured to the Jolliet strap". Its successor, the A-10 Standard, was the one with the central strap that connected to the "Juliet". It was disliked as uncomfortable and was subsequently removed when the improved A-10 Revised and A-10 Converted came into production.

 

As Jerry mentioned, variable density Polaroid goggles were widely issued and used by the U.S. Navy during WW2. They were used by shipboard lookouts and gunners, as well as Naval aviators and aircrewmen. My website is down currently, so I can't link to an article about them that was there, but here's just one example of their use by an Avenger turret gunner, which was very, very common:

 

This is a truly excellent photograph! I see the “Gunner” living up to his name! He is carrying two S&W “Victory” model revolvers in shoulder holsters that have been modified with bullet loops to hold the .38 caliber cartridges. The pilot is armed with one. The gunner is also carrying what appears to me to be a USN Mark 1 utility knife. Now what puts it over the top for me is that he has a bayonet attached to his back! It is either a US M1905 (16 inch blade) or an M1 (10 inch) blade. It does not appear to be in a scabbard and there is some type of cord draped, possibly attached through the hole that the scabbard catch goes in. I think this guy should have been a Marine!

Great photo! Any info on who/when/where?

Apologies for going off topic!

BKW

[pararaftanr2]

1 hour ago, Brian Keith said:

This is a truly excellent photograph! I see the “Gunner” living up to his name! He is carrying two S&W “Victory” model revolvers in shoulder holsters that have been modified with bullet loops to hold the .38 caliber cartridges. The pilot is armed with one. The gunner is also carrying what appears to me to be a USN Mark 1 utility knife. Now what puts it over the top for me is that he has a bayonet attached to his back! It is either a US M1905 (16 inch blade) or an M1 (10 inch) blade. It does not appear to be in a scabbard and there is some type of cord draped, possibly attached through the hole that the scabbard catch goes in. I think this guy should have been a Marine!

Great photo! Any info on who/when/where?

Apologies for going off topic!

BKW

It is a very interesting image. Although unidentified by name, they are the radioman (left) and turret gunner (right) from a VT-15 Avenger aboard USS Essex in Fall of 1944. Rather than a bayonet, I believe it is actually a 1917 bolo (note the two screws) with a WWI vintage lanyard attached. Not something you see every day, but the bolos were still in the Navy's stock system.

 

Jerry, the photos you reference are of USAAF Brigadier General Robert Travis, CO of the 41st Combat Bomb Wing, taken on March 28, 1944. His VD goggles are the Navy contract, without the red shield.

 

 

[AZPhil]

Great info and love that last photo. That B-17 "Mrs Geezil " is the one my uncle was flying in(Tail Gunner)when shot down.

 I had to pick up a pair of those Navy VD googles just because of that pic.

 

Semper Fi

Phil

 

[jerry_k]

Ahhh okay they were also Navy! Thanks for fast reminder.

 

The best regards,

Jerry

[pararaftanr2]

One more of Travis, with the crew of a well known B-17, then I'll stop. This photo was taken in January 1944. Travis AF base was named for him in 1950, after his death in a nearby B-29 crash.

[P-59A]

Another in house link to stuff posted in the past