Does anyone know anything about a WASP B-16 flight jacket?

[P-59A]

Gee Dmar thanks for chiming in on this. To recap this in a different light the evidence as it stands now in support of the B-16 jacket as being real isn't even circumstantial. Without the original documentation what was presented in Sweeting's book is hearsay evidence. What Sweeting wrote in that book would not be admissable as evidence. He retyped a document for clairity without submitting the original. With out the original document to suport the claim you have nothing. Beyond that, that is only one piece of paper. All sorts of documentation should exist from all kinds of places to establish the burden of proof. It really needs to be more than one sentence from one paper to carry any weight. The section of the WASP list of approved wear doesn't even mention the jacket. I have no idea why he added that. It's not related to his claim and isn't evidence. The preported WASP photo is not a clear and defining photo. The jacket worn has a dark fur collar and all of the B-16's in collections have a light fur collar. Not one dark fur collar B-16 has surfaced. That alone is enough to challenge the claim of it being  a B-16. No one has provided the name of the WASP or when and were that photo was taken. If the B-16 came out after the WASP program ended then it stands to reason that can not be a B-16 jacket. TWU has  been the official WASP depository for decades. To challenge TWU without proof of the claim is beyond the pail. NO documentation at all supporting the claim that jacket was made for them exists in the archives. Not one paper, not one photograph and not one example in thier collection...nothing...they have been the authority on the WASP program for many many decades and not one jacket has come up. It stands to reason if that jacket was intended for them then paperwork would be all over the place. The WASP program was Cochoran's baby from the start and she would of had a say in all of it yet nothing exists in her archives to even suggest she knew about this jacket. What a jacket feels like is not proof. What Sweeting said lacks the original documentation needed to establish proof. Not one piece of paper has surrfaced in 70 years beyond Sweeting's paper to establish proof. The burden of proof lies with those who claim the jacket is authentic. I have provided suffecient evidenced to challenge the claim it is authentic. The burden of proof is on those who claim the jacket is authentic. I suggest to you the burden of proof has not been met and no claim of authinticity can be made. Please follow what Jack Webb always said on Dragnet. "Just the facts, NOTHING but the facts."  And Happy New Year!!!! 

[Steve D.]

Do you read the information in your own post?

 

The Jacket was listed as Standard in May 1944. The Air Force decided to cancel the program in October 1944, and it was terminated in December. Those dates show that it

could have been issued and used.

If you look through my attachments you will see at least one B-16 with a dark collar. ( There are 2 examples if you count the one pictured in the book that starts this post.)

The Wasp Clothing regulations were printed in February 1944, 3 months before the B-16 was listed as standard. How could they have listed a jacket that did not yet exist? 

It seems to me that you are ignoring any and all evidence that does not support your theory. Joe Friday would have looked at all the facts, not just those that supported his case. 

Perry Mason would not go before a judge and argue that only evidence from TWU is admissible, while evidence from the NASM is tainted.  If you tried to serve this meal in Delmonico's,

Matt Dillon would tell you to "Get out of Dodge"!

[P-59A]

The jacket was according to you and the tag on the jacket intended for the WASP program. No record of that exists at TWU. They stated as much. The claim is that it is a WASP jacket. Cochoran's papers do not mention it at all. Cochoran had say over everything in the WASP program "The Jacket was listed as Standard in May 1944. The Air Force decided to cancel the program in October 1944, and it was terminated in December. Those dates show that it

could have been issued and used." No record or document has been found that proves any of that happened. Not one. If your going to say its a WASP flight jacket you have to prove it. I have not seen any documentation that stands up to scrutiny. Not one. Sweetings book has problems. Show me a perponderance of the evidence that proves your point. If TWU can not prove it who can?  You have to prove that TWU was somehow negligent indoing thier due dilligernce. You have to prove TWU wrong, not me.

[kammo-man]

Here’s some details of an original flight jacket.

Plain and simple.

As real as day and night.

owen 

[P-59A]

Thanks for chiming in Owen. I know you have read this post and understand the issue is documentation. TWU say's nothing in any records shows this jacket  as being made for the WASP program . I'm looking for a little more than looks good feels good. If you have the time PM Steve and find something that counters TWU.

[kammo-man]

There is no issue about documentation.

Thats your addenda alone.

Any advanced flight jacket collector who has owned or handled an original war time WASP flight jacket has no problem with the white label.

 

It’s understandable your lack of flight jacket knowledge is hindered your path forward on this issue but take a deep breath and take some time to actually handle and Learn what they feel like in hand.

 

owen

[dmar836]

I feel this thread should be locked. It is an embarrassment when we now say that others must lack knowledge or be intellectually "hindered" when they have different ideas than our own. When it's an idea of seeking facts and truth - documentation, numbers, dates -  that is criticized, it's a real insult to research and the hobby.

 

*My flak goggles are the real WWII deal! They are old and, in-hand, feel like WWII AAF. They are perfectly in line with the AAF flak helmets I own and have held. I have held many them so I know. Any one who has held as many will agree they are the real deal. In addition they are pictured in many books. I don't need to show the doubters where they are documented as produced and issued to AAF during the war. Rather they must show me all the places where these goggles are NOT documented. That's the only proof I'll accept. I can show you plenty if identical goggles others have found - they are the same construction. If you disagree with me you must not have handled many, or just not as many as me. Show me every rock you have overturned to find the documents that you say aren't there and then I will agree(but probably not because I'm that knowledgeable). "We don't need no stinking document!" I have yet to be shown any period documentation saying these flak goggles were NOT being developed, made, and issued so obviously they were.*

This is the type of absurdity I'm seeing here. No additional documents, letters, pics, never a WASP documented jacket. Just the same evidence of old jackets that exist. Even the contract date is post-WASP program. Nobody wants to know what they really are, who made them, and when. Dates and numbers matter.

These B-16s show official AAF stock and contract numbers so the documentation would be there. Find them!

 

Please lock. This hobby is becoming ruined for me. Swipe left.

[kammo-man]

Here’s a rack of B -15 and a WASP as well as a civilian post war.

Learn the cloth.

Plain and simple.

 

[kammo-man]

And here in Black and White.

 

 

Locking a thread is unnecessary when actual garments are still being produced showing very clearly the existence of actual wartime pieces.

if you want proof of paperwork go find it ……. 
 

The garments exist.

[jerry_k]

48 minutes ago, kammo-man said:

There is no issue about documentation.

Thats your addenda alone.

Any advanced flight jacket collector who has owned or handled an original war time WASP flight jacket has no problem with the white label.

 

It’s understandable your lack of flight jacket knowledge is hindered your path forward on this issue but take a deep breath and take some time to actually handle and Learn what they feel like in hand.

 

owen

Soo arrogant in my opinion...

 

[vintageproductions]

This thread will not be locked.

 

The original poster for some reason decided this subject was going to be his soap box he stands on and proclaims these jackets are not real.

 

It is not up to those of us who feel these jackets are real, to prove our point, it is up to original poster who claims these are not real to prove they are not real.

 

I am sorry but I for one am not going to listen to one person, who we don't their qualifications besides answering emails at an institution to say whether an item is original or not.

 

This is not a dig at the person answering emails it is just what are their qualifications besides them saying that can't find info.

 

That would be the same as someone calling my business and talking to one of my employees who answers the phone as opposed to talking to me directly, as the employee could have only worked here a couple of years while I have done this my entire life. The answers from us would be completely different.

 

The main focus for me is the question I asked previously, those that say these jackets are not real, have you have ever handled one of these jackets or seen on in person, or are you just making your comments because you saw a photo on the internet?

 

It's threads like this that do a disservice to collectors in the future. Down the road someone could be researching a item, and see a thread like this that the original poster has no conclusive evidence for their claims, and these researchers will say " Look at this thread for proof" when there has been nothing proven by the original poster.

 

This same thread is over on WAF and for anyone who visits WAF you know when someone claims something is bad they prove it ( Champagne SS helmets), they just don't claim the piece is bag because they think so.

 

 

[dmar836]

Owen, insults are not necessary. I don't care to prove anyone wrong, or inferior to me. I just want the truth and thought we would all go in on the search. Nobody doubts the physical existence of the jackets shown.

The B-16s shown ALL have an order date of 1945. The WASP program ended Dec 20, 1944.

We simply want to know what that means - not more pics of what you have handled and more of what has already been shown.

It's a pretty simple request. Can you or anyone explain that discrepancy?

 

[kammo-man]

11 minutes ago, dmar836 said:

Owen, insults are not necessary. I don't care to prove anyone wrong, or inferior to me. I just want the truth and thought we would all go in on the search. Nobody doubts the physical existence of the jackets shown.

The B-16s shown ALL have an order date of 1945. The WASP program ended Dec 20, 1944.

We simply want to know what that means - not more pics of what you have handled and more of what has already been shown.

It's a pretty simple request. Can you or anyone explain that discrepancy?

 

If I was going to insult you….

You would know about it.

 

 

That thin skinned comment aside let’s talk about the actual jackets themselves…

It’s now obvious that you know nothing about Vintage Flight jacket manufacturing.

Take some time and learn just as I have done and clearly shown above.

 

owen 

[kammo-man]

25 minutes ago, jerry_k said:

Soo arrogant in my opinion...

 

How so ?

[dmar836]

1945>1944

This is not about others. Let's keep this to the B-16.

If a customer enters your shop and, looking at a B-16, asks, "I thought the WASP program ended at the end of 1944. Any idea why this label has an order date of 1945?"

Would you just say, "You haven't handled enough of these. If you don't know what you are looking at, get out of my shop!"

There is an answer. I don't understand this hostility towards others wanting to know the details. The OP is asking for a lot but I don't perceive hostility at all. Just the search for truth. That should not offend anyone and saying it is up to others to "prove nil" is, well, unfortunate. 

 

To me, before anything else, can anyone explain the B-16 order date?

[Steve D.]

If  the contract for the jackets was made with the Sovereign Mfg. Co  in late 1944,  Sovereign may have given them a 1945 date. It might depend on how a company dated their items. Another possibility is that Sovereign received  the contract in late 1944, but didn't actually produce them until January 1945. The fact that these jackets were produced so close to the end of the WASP program, could explain why TWU did not have any donations of these jackets by WASP pilots. 

[dmar836]

Remember, this is a AAF 1945 order date, not a manufacture assigned date. The paper order itself from the AAF was after the program ended.

Has anyone seen an AAF contract item that was a 1945 order that was then labeled as a 1946 order but was actually used in 1945? Would be an interesting bird.

 

This one post clarifies my position since an item AAF order-dated 45 could not have been manufactured and issued in 1944. These jackets, while clearly approved on paper, were not created in time to be issued to WASPs during the WASP program so did not see operational use. Nobody ever claimed these were not real jackets "in-hand". Made during the war, likely tested(as evidenced by the one Wright Field photo), but not WASP-period issued.

Few have given their timeline views to the actual disposition of the B-16. Steve's corresponds with my view.

 

This is the only solution that makes sense to me.

 

 

[Nack]

I have no dog in this fight, and don’t really care which direction it ends at.  But but the date issue reminded me of a story a friend told me.  Their business paints all their stuff a particular color and I asked why.  The answer was that they once bought and paid for x gallons of a particular color of paint from a big company.  When the paint arrived, it was something like 100x of paint.  They called the supplier to arrange for a return of the erroneously delivered paint, and the company said to just keep it all - it’s too much work to take it back, account for the return, there will be questions, etc.  

 

Could it be that an order for these jackets was already too far down the pipeline to be pulled back when the WASP program ended? 

[dmar836]

The order from the AAF was 1945, not anything the contractor had printed. That anecdote, though not unheard of, has no relevance, unfortunately. This was not a pre-purchased amount of anything. This was the order date from the AAF.

If this logic stands, I will concede. I would then also concede that the dates found in Wright Field's Specification Type list could easily have been made std without ever really becoming procured or issued. There is one in there documented as such.  

This isn't that hard but the internal struggle is real.

I don't want to win. I want the truth.

I cannot understand the reaching explanations for why the dates don't line up. So a previously unmentioned and undocumented clerical mistake may now be the missing link as to why the AAF released an order dated 1945? Especially for a program that had been cancelled?

So the question remains to those who know more about Materials Command acquisitions than we do here...

The B-16s shown ALL have an order date of 1945. The WASP program ended Dec 20, 1944.

 

[jerry_k]

Dave I wouldn't count on any research materials from Rose Bowl team... 

 

take care,

Jerry

 

 

[kammo-man]

54 minutes ago, jerry_k said:

Dave I wouldn't count on any research materials from Rose Bowl team... 

 

take care,

Jerry

 

 

Now that’s passive aggressive Jerry.

I don’t see you actually adding anything to this subject at all.

Stay under your bridge.

It’s clearly where you belong and it’s good to see you play your hand on exactly where you stand.

Well done.

[jerry_k]

Im on the militaria collector side, nothing more!

 

For sure this jacket is 1940s vintage, made by true company who made a B-15 jackets, no doubt about it. 

 

But I would hold the breath before called it 100% genuie WASP jacket super rare and fancy due to some mistery contract data, WASP program end date etc. and think more about it. Without some more reserched informations (if any are possible to find for example in Natoonal Archives?) it is just a marketing for better selling by a vintage sellers...

 

Im just collector not dealer...

 

Take care,

Jerry

 

 

[kammo-man]

Clearly you have an axe to grind against vintage dealers correctly reading what is printed on the WASP flight jacket label and use oh it as a marketing tool.

[dmar836]

Yes. What's printed on the label?  ALL have an AAF order that was dated 1945. Not a mfg option to print what they want(Sovereign likely didn't print their own contract labels). Sovereign had contracts before so this wasn't some unfamiliar, off the book thing.

All labels have an AAF order date of 1945. The WASP program was cancelled 1 Oct, 1944 and closed completely Dec 20, 1944. Why the 1945 order?

 

Discuss.

[doyler]

12 minutes ago, dmar836 said:

Yes. What's printed on the label?  ALL have an AAF order that was dated 1945. Not a mfg option to print what they want(Sovereign likely didn't print their own contract labels). Sovereign had contracts before so this wasn't some unfamiliar, off the book thing.

All labels have an AAF order date of 1945. The WASP program was cancelled 1 Oct, 1944 and closed completely Dec 20, 1944. Why the 1945 order?

 

Discuss.

 

 

only thing I can think of was the contract/order done on the fiscal year system the military is so attached to. Many times, a contract runs from June to Jun, October to October. Just wondering if thats the case here. If a contract was initiated for delivery or issue in 1945 or procured for the fiscal year of 1945 is it possible this was made in 1944 but the number / order date/ spec number etc would be for the fiscal year opposed to the actual year of 1945? The program being cancelled may have happened after these went into production. Possibly then the contract was cancelled, and items delivered or was the company allowed to finish the contract? Maybe someone with a higher pay grade than I can answer.

 

A bit off topic but similar to the USMC Raider and Para Marine uniforms. Both units were dissolved during the war. Members were floated to other units. For example, many ended up with the 5th Marine division but we see so many uniforms with the Raider or Paramarine  patch. I realize there were KIA and also WIA and the WIA were possibly discharged so the patches would have been worn but we see men wearing the patches at wars end going home etc for units that no longer existed. Always found it an interesting anomaly that many chose to wear the prior or initial unit patch and not the unit patch they were discharged as.