Does not show up in the Stein book

Hey y'all, I've had this for a while but finally got an F4 "Spook" path to go with it. Looks like a panel for a jammer system that was on this particular aircraft. I'm a junkie for ECM systems since I am very familiar with them. Nice to have the green tag and 350 still attached! We still use them today 😄Safety wire could be better though.  Enjoy!

I figured that I would bump this up in order to get some comments.   I will take more photos if requested.   Also, any information on the Captain/Doctor would be appreciated.     Thanks Pat

CCYOOPER. It's appearance is that of the M1910 scabbard of WWI.  Here's a link to "bayonet points".  It will give a good rundown of the 1910 and its changes. https://www.usmilitaryknives.com/bayo_points_43.htm Marv

. Then & Now today Chateau Franquetot aka Collins museum.   I called in the Collins museum today AND put my windscreen UP,  to take a comparison photo of Eisenhower, Bradley and Collins across the courtyard.        Norman D. Landing, Forum Normandy Correspondent, 13  June  2O26.   ..  

That is cool… good way to store loose ammo… enblocs are cheaper than mags..   I did have a feeding issue… I tried polishing the feed ramp

The harness on the left is a B-9, and the one on the right is an A-5. The pack, as marked is an A-4. The B-9 is a back model missing the pack, ripcord, housing and obviously the canopy. The A-5 is a two part system, and the harness itself looks complete.   These are very late war items, and very rarely used. The B-9s were issued late in the war, and pulled from service very quickly. The A-4 was a late war item, and only seen in the last months of the war. The superseding A-5 was used even less. You might see a couple on B-29s in the last month or two of the war in the Pacific, but that's about it. I generally don't recommend the A-4 most displays, and I definitely don't recommend the A-5.    These are somewhat rare late war items. For value though, keep in mind most people collect items widely used during the war. If it was AN-6513 or A-3, buyers would be jumping for them. Rarity and value, in this case, are inversely related.  We do often answer emails with parachute questions on our website, although we can't always get every single one. Also, the term "Fake" is better applied to those selling with intent to deceive. Reproduction is a better term for replica gear. 

Would you be so kind to identify the medal shown in this report.  Am I missing something that is already there?

Some more information and a link to the source. US Army Concept Team in Vietnam (ACTIV), "Evaluation of Improved Fire Resistant Flight Coveralls," 1967 — DTIC report AD0814366. This is the primary document behind the fire-resistance narrative; it explicitly references the 17 February 1967 ACTIV letter on improved fire-resistant flight coveralls and the "Fire Resistant Flight Uniform (ENSURE DA 174)" tasking from March 1967.  https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD0814366.pdf   A part of the text:    The original "NOMEX" flight coveralls tested in Vietnam in 1966 was an altered version of the flame resistant flight coveralls developed by the US Navy. It was determined unsatisfactory for wear in Vietnam because of physical discomfort and irritation caused by the coarsely woven fabric. In addition, the coveralls were made of double layer fabric which was found to be excessively warm. The improved flight coverall is made of a closer, smoother woven NOMEX material designed to be less irritating. Several design changes were made in the coverall to correct deficiencies reported in the previous evaluation. To expedite the procurement of a desirable flame resistant flight coverall for wear in Southeast Asia, an accelerated evaluation was directed by United States Army, Vietnam,