Original USAAF Crusher?

[Ronald]

Of course they did wear B-1's

[manayunkman]

I agree with everything you say Matt I just wonder if there is more to it.

 

And did any other Army unit do this to their dress visor?

 

 

[dmar836]

I have read, ironically in the same misquoted books that explain the "production visor" origins, that the USAAF had a more lax view on uniform regs.

[MattS]

Officially, no. Only by regulation could officers of the AAF wear such a cap (but of course Flighters were worn by staff, infantry, and even chaplains). 

[TheCrustyBosun]

Here’s my service cap by Brooks. Two-ply visor, grommet ring removed, etc. 

[MattS]

Not a single ply visor, but a very crushed cap by Luxenberg. 

[Dave]

I posted up links to multiple threads with literally over two hundred comments rehashing the same information. 

 

Does anyone have anything new to add? Or do we just want to keep talking about the same theories, over and over, that have already been discussed multiple times in multiple threads?

[MattS]

I hope this demonstrates how flexible a Flighter is (Society Brand repro, not an original), folder in half and half again. 

[MattS]

29 minutes ago, Dave said:

I posted up links to multiple threads with literally over two hundred comments rehashing the same information. 

 

Does anyone have anything new to add? Or do we just want to keep talking about the same theories, over and over, that have already been discussed multiple times in multiple threads?

No, now we’re just doing show and tell with different caps. 

[1canpara]

Well, if we’re doing show and tell, here’s a few in my collection....the last one isn’t a crusher to speak of, as many aren’t as we’ve discussed in this thread, but it is interesting because it was theatre-made in Calcutta, India. 
 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[manayunkman]

Both these visors came from the same pilot.

 

He was a POW in Romania for a short time managing to escape in the confusion of the Soviet advance.

 

I totally forgot about the khaki 2 ply!

[MattS]

4 hours ago, manayunkman said:

Both these visors came from the same pilot.

 

He was a POW in Romania for a short time managing to escape in the confusion of the Soviet advance.

 

I totally forgot about the khaki 2 ply!

 

Now there's a coincidence because the Flighter I posted in #38 was from a B-17 navigator shot down over Ploesti in July of 1944 and was also briefly a POW in Romania before escaping during the Soviet advance. Aircraft was B-17G 42-32028 "Mighty Mike" of the 346th BS, 99th BG. 

[ottodog8]

Air Corps officers were, by regulation, allowed to remove the stiffener from their caps to accommodate wearing headphones. I read the actual regulation somewhere years ago, I believe it dates to pre war times. If you watch the movie 12 O’Clock High, you will see Gregory Peck wearing his crusher until the plane reached 10,00 feet altitude and they had to go on oxygen. He removed his crusher and donned his leather helmet, goggles, and O2 mask. I believe the movie to be quite accurate, given the authors personal experience, plus being filmed a few years after the war, there were lots of vets around who would have called bs if it were not so. 
I believe the original crushed caps were just the officer’s service cap with the stiffener removed. The later Flighters, etc were specifically manufactured not only to look rakish, but also to be able to be conveniently stowed in the cockpit. With the single ply soft visor you could literally fold it up and put it in a pocket.

 

Steve

[dmar836]

This Flighter is from an 8th AAF pilot with 14th AF on right shoulder. His name was R.B. Carpenter. Haven't been able to track him down. 

 

 

[manayunkman]

5 hours ago, MattS said:

 

Now there's a coincidence because the Flighter I posted in #38 was from a B-17 navigator shot down over Ploesti in July of 1944 and was also briefly a POW in Romania before escaping during the Soviet advance. Aircraft was B-17G 42-32028 "Mighty Mike" of the 346th BS, 99th BG. 

 

Here is the name of the pilot.

 

And a picture of what looks like his plane.

 

 

[MattS]

17 minutes ago, manayunkman said:

 

Here is the name of the pilot.

 

And a picture of what looks like his plane.

 

 

 

Are you serious?!? SAME PLANE, SAME CREW, my guy was his navigator! I would to see the photos you have, I've been looking for a crew photo since 2013!

https://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/191976-looking-for-info-on-a-usaaf-pow-in-germany/&tab=comments#comment-1488250

 

https://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/244871-15th-air-force-b-17-navigator-grouping-part-2/&tab=comments#comment-1955382

 

 

Navigator Robert H. Glenn of Muncie, IN:

[manayunkman]

Now that is one in a million to make this connection!

 

Doesn't look like that was his regular crew?

 

Well if I add anything further I’ll add it to your thread Matt so this one stays on purpose which is:

 

What the heck is a crusher?

[manayunkman]

I’m going to throw this in the mix.

 

Maybe pilots felt that they were captains of their ship and chose to wear the visor to look the part?

 

Im sure that some form of headgear would have been designed if pilots hadn’t wanted to wear visors into the cockpit. 

 

Did vanity turn to a necessity or did necessity turn to vanity?
 

 

 

[MattS]

20 minutes ago, manayunkman said:

Now that is one in a million to make this connection!

 

Doesn't look like that was his regular crew?

 

Well if I add anything further I’ll add it to your thread Matt so this one stays on purpose which is:

 

What the heck is a crusher?

 

No doubt! I added the one photo I have of him to my thread.

The crew of Mighty Mike, 12 July 1944:

Pilot - 2LT Sidney R. Carr O-1691689

Co-Pilot - 2LT Edgar F. Bell O-1691687

Navigator - 2LT Robert H. Glenn O-707897

Bombardier - 2LT John L. Flynn O-1691688 (lost)

Engineer - T/SGT Harry Strash 32732980

Radio Operator - T/SGT Vernon R. Leming 39198773

Waist Gunners - S/SGT Richard Runyon

S/SGT John C. Neel Jr. 14074507

S/SGT Louis F. Ahr III 32831910 (lost)

Tail Gunner - S/SGT Slovomir D. Nepil 32762877

 

A crusher is a cap (officer or enlisted) which was either a regulation cap that has been intentionally modified by removing the stiffening ring during use or one that was made as a crusher by the manufacturer. Just my opinion. 

[Nack]

6 hours ago, MattS said:

 

A crusher is a cap (officer or enlisted) which was either a regulation cap that has been intentionally modified by removing the stiffening ring during use or one that was made as a crusher by the manufacturer. Just my opinion. 

This is the way.  

[TheCrustyBosun]

38 minutes ago, Nack said:

This is the way.  

This is the way. 

[TheCrustyBosun]

Here’s the reference for the AAF officers’ optional omission of the spring and grommet as per the ninth edition of The Officer’s Guide, 1942. 

[dmar836]

All the discussion of multiple threads summed up in one post.

[manayunkman]

So very early on before 1942 it’s fair to assume that pilots were flying with hard visors with the stiffener removed?

 

So when did the term 50 mission crusher come up?

 

And why did “collectors” attach the term crusher to this specific visor and not all visors with the stiffener removed?

 

Do we need a clarification of terms or do new collectors need to find out on their own?

 

I remember trying to figure out the difference and paratrooper helmets too.

 

Before there was information all over, for me at least, I had to rely on knowing someone who could help me.
 

What needs to change 

 

[dmar836]

Every time this comes up, with some exceptions, I speak up with the same rationale and confirm that they prefer a newer, "collector" term regardless of the historically misleading nature. Unfortunate considering the nature of this hobby. If I may pose Orwellian, words do mean things so commonly accepted though clearly misleading words make it harder and harder to explain the simple history of a crusher each time it arises. Like everything in the new information world, people take extreme sides of something that should have no division. I prefer less information if its only varying opinions.