WWII GI pants....

[MrBern]

Hi,
I've been thinking about posting on some gear. to make this easier to digest & comment on, I'll break this up into a series of posts.Over the wknd, I hit a militaria show & picked up a `44dated naval flotation belt which were used on Dday...and some 40's pants, so I'm inspired.

I'm sure none of this is new to the old hands on the FedoraLounge, but I'm hoping this will help some newbies. or maybe it will inspire one of you to post on your collection.


I've got a few WWII books. Many them are illustrated, which is interesting but really its nice to see clear photos of gear & period photos of the troops as they actually looked. Sometimes its better to just read a memoir & note the described or referenced gear.

This book isnt bad at all, tho I think some care & patience wouldve produced a better result, specifically better photos of uniforms that arent wrinkled from storage.
http://www.olive-drab.com/od_gi_eto_collectors_guide.php

I've got some issues with the lisiting of the uniforms & their spec labels.

 

[MrBern]

size

OK
I've got a few pair of WWII army trousers.
People ask, what happened to all the big sizes.

Theres a lot of reasons.
Collectors snapped them up.

Those 'devils in baggy pants' were wearing pants on top of pants to stay warm. So larger sizes were beat up as the overpants over your regular pants & longjohns.
Mid 20th century soldiers were a lot slimmer than the current humans collecting militaria.
The Quartermasters did their best to suit their demographic & most of those depression era kids were on the slim side.
Just look at pix of Eisenhower & Patton and compare them to pix of reenactors.
So I've seen a pair of wartime 36x34 wool trousers go for $150 but 32x31 might go for $10

 

[MrBern]

ooops gotta finish this tomorrow.

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

All of the above.

I think especially the part about,... "The Quartermasters did their best to suit their demographic & most of those depression era kids were on the slim side."
Seems most young officers like Lieutenants and Captains were probably no older than about say,...28 or so,....(? educated guess here ? ) And of course most all enlisted men were about 18 to 23 or so. Even younger if they lied about their age to join which sometimes happened. All at the age where we tend to be smaller even to this day. 60 years is really not that long a time in the grand evolutionary, (if one believes in that) scheme of things. Looking around me today, I see plenty of skinny little youngsters.
Most chocolate OD officer's uniforms available today run from size 34 to about 38. About 70%? Then size 40 to 42, about 20 %, and maybe 10% at best for larger sizes.
I have had better luck in procuring the khaki colored summer weight uniforms in larger sizes lately for some odd reason. Less popular with collectors maybe? But it is getting harder and harder to find any thing in good hole-free condition.

 

[MrBern]

maybe even younger
A lot of those pilots were pretty young, maybe 22.

Its always worth noting that Boyington was about 31 or so when his pilots were calling him Gramps & Pappy.

I believe DickWinters was born in January 1918. I'm not sure when he went thru OCS, but he was a Major by Feb`45.

Slim Jim Gavin was a General by his mid 30s.

Incidentally,. this is a good read.
http://www.qmmuseum.lee.army.mil/WWII/tailor.htm
snippet:
Data compiled for millions of inductees shows the following to be the actual measurements of the "average" newcomer to the Army as he appears at the clothing counter of a reception center: 5' 8" tall; 144 pounds in weight; 33 ¼" chest measurement; 31" waist measurement. From the tariff tables showing the frequency of size issues it is found that the sizes most frequently issued are a 7 to 7½ hat, number 9 gloves, a 15 shirt with a 33" sleeve, a 36 regular jacket, a pair of trousers with a 32" waist and a 32" leg length, size 11 socks, and size 9-D shoes. These figures may be taken to indicate the size of the "average American young man.

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

I couldn't imagine squeezing into a size 34 jacket, even when I was 18! The smallest suit size I ever wore was a 38, back when I was a young recruit.
I think we continue to grow somewhat, (no, I don'tjust mean in the mid section) as we get into our 30s. I wear a 44 now and it's due to wider shoulders than could never conceivably fit into a 38 again.
I wonder what the figures for sizes issued to new recruits today look like. Maybe slightly larger than the previous generation after all? Put it down to better nutrition perhaps.

 

[MrBern]

Yes, the depression era kids were smaller most likely because of their diet.
More striking, would be the statistics on the japanese. I've read that since WWII, the japanese diet has been effected as such the average japanese man is 6 inches taller.

Just remember , we're talking averages.
I believe the current average US male height is 5foot9inches.
Actually if you get sports statistics, it might be interestign to comparethose stats to the `40s. The basketball players sure got taller.

Regardless,
the records give us a good indication why you generally find tons of WWII uniforms in what we now consider as slim sizes.
PLUS, if you look at pix, they preferred uniforms tailored slim.
You often see a dress jkt where the buttons are pulling a bit.
I've read that this was a concern to the Quartermaster as well.
To stay warm, the layering effect had to be in order.
If clothes were too tight. it would be harder to layer an Ike jkt under a field jkt not to mention wear a sweater under it.
So that neutralizes the Ike jkt as a field item.
And you end up with guys wearing two sweaters. If there are enuff of them to go around.

 

[Feraud]

This is a fine thread. I am reading it with great interest!

 

[scotrace]

I've read that since WWII, the japanese diet has been effected as such the average japanese man is 6 inches taller.

A friend currently serving in the State Dept in Hong Kong (and who is a career diplomat with all his service in Asia) says this is true throughout the region - mainly due to the more readily available fresh dairy products.

Items like Ike jackets and A2's certainly look better, I think, on a small-framed man.

How recent is the incresed interest in WWII "collectables?" Since the 50th anniversary of D-Day, perhaps? In my area there is now a WWII Round Table, where they are hosting vets to come and tell their stories. It brings out even more attendees than the rabid Civil War Roundtable folk.

There still has to be a lot of this stuff out there. Remember the story of my co-worker who brought me her dad's A2 and full "green" uniform to see one day, out of the blue.

OK MrBern, let's see the goods!

 

[MrBern]

CramertonCloth

Well a few years ago, Dockers put out their K-1Khakis w/ the buzz that warehouse of vintage army cloth had been uncovered. I recall that there was even some talk tht they had used the original molds for the vintage style buttons.

heres a CNN article on the MYSTIQUE of KHAKIS.

http://www.cnn.com/STYLE/9910/15/khakis/index.html

theres a photo timeline of khakis from WWII to KateMoss in the `90s.

 

[MrBern]

impressions

ok, a lot of your impressions of WWII uniforms are skewed.
More than likely youre really more familiar w/ COSTUMES.
The uniforms you see in movies are usually costumes doctored up to look cool. Sometimes the helmets arent even real steel pots.
And if you ask a veteran about it, he may even tell you that whatever you see on screen, picture it twice as grungey & dirty. After all, those boys were constantly in muddy foxholes. War is a sweaty business.

Some of the gear is surprisingly unsubstantial, some of it was quite hardy.
The WWII uniform evolved out of necessity. The results might look cool to us now, but back then it was a concern.

Actually, one of our members had posted pix of himself in WWII trousers.
http://www.thefedoralounge.com/showthread.php?t=5574

they are IIRC `37 pattern wool field trousers issued in '42.
The early wool pants are a funny brown shade. Some collectors refer to it as 'mustard'. At the time, menswear makers regarded this color as unappealing. And that the USsoldiers would never really like their uniforms.
If you look at various survivng spec tags, the pants thoughout the era are labeled things like OD, lightshade, drab, light, dark OD...
Kurt Vonnegut once referred to it as dog@#$%brown.
And I think its a great color.
note that those early Field Trousers were used in the field as well as with the dress uniform.
the front pockets arent angled, they run down along the sideseam of the trousers. The back pockets are not flapped.
Its a classic high waisted cut, just like a pair of khakis.
But its the textile that makes them fabulous. Its an 18 ounce serge wool. Serge is a twill weave.
Actually , I'm not even sure if this fabric is made anymore. FOr sure the repros arent 18oz. Get an original if you can.

I'll jump ahead & point out these two pics.

obviously these pix are from the same ceremony in March `45.
The General on the left, in one pic his jkt & pants are different shades, in another they match. The kid is 1st lt AudieMurphy receiving a fistful of medals. In one pic his jkt & trou seem to match, in the other the trousers are way darker.
and thats in B&W.
Items register differently from photo to photo in B&W as well as color. Even if youre wearing the uniform, you may notice it looks way different in daylight than indoors.

And incidentally, the Ike jkt wasnt designed til 1944. And most troops didnt get them til the war was in its final days.
Its a great jacket & you should go to the source to read about it
http://www.eisenhower.utexas.edu/ikejack.htm

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

I heard somewhere that the average person in the forties was about 5' 8" tall. So we have collectively grown an inch or so overall. This is actually very apparent to me when trying many of the reproduction A2 jackets from various manufacturers and from comparing measurements of jackets. I wish manufacturer's would adjust for the slight increase in stature and stop obsessing over making their jackets exactly to original specs. An A2 can fit perfectly everywhere, but if the length is too short, it just looks too small. Like the wearer is wearing a little kids jacket!

 

[MrBern]

Yes the quartermaster reports have the average WWII recruit at 5"8', 144lbs.

theres a good entry on human height in wikipedia, basically saying that improvements in nutrition have positively impacted many regions. Americans are by no means the tallest people in the world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height


Incidentally, John Wayne is listed on Yahoo as being 6"4' and wearing size 11 boots.

 

[MrBern]

I wish manufacturer's would adjust for the slight increase in stature and stop obsessing over making their jackets exactly to original specs. An A2 can fit perfectly everywhere, but if the length is too short, it just looks too small. Like the wearer is wearing a little kids jacket! [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

I would think a lot of those jkts are short as they were meant to be worn with very high waisted pants. This doesnt always feel comfortable to us nowadays. I know some of the paratrooper reenactors will even order LONG sizes and then have their jumpjkts trimmed, so they dont feel like the jkt is swimming up on them.

 

[MrBern]

PANTS!

OK Feraud, you wanted some pants, I'll give you one pair.
Heres a pair of army 1941 pattern wool ski trousers. Actually, I have two pair & the spec tag doesnt say what they are. Usually theres a description like Trousers, Field, Wool, Serge, 18oz.
But these just have the size & contract numbers & dates.
These have an order date of April7,1942.

You dont see them very often as they were used in training by Mountain troops & the FirstSpecialServiceForce. It was deemed that the wool might not be suitable for longterm combat so its was redesigned in cotton to be worn over longjohns & standard wooltrousers. The cotton version also added big cargo pockets.

3button closure
pleats
zips for the fly & pockets.
pant legs tapered a bit & not hemmed, but bound w/ some light green bias tape & the stirrups.
You wont see that on any other wool army pants.

For whatever reason, these trousers dont have suspender buttons. The belt loops are far more substantial than any other issued trouser. Just check out the rear belt loop. Also note that both rear pockets are flapped.

 

[scotrace]

Wow wow wow

Those have to be a rarity. The thing that always surprises me if the quality of materials, as in those buttons and the buttonhole stitching. What would be worn up top? Or overall? A wool overcoat? Sweater?

This is one of the few places such a thing can be seen. Thanks for posting those!

 

[Feraud]

Ski trousers! The perfect pair of pants to post today. I could have used them during my work commute.
The quality of the pants are outstanding.

 

[Vladimir Berkov]

I wish manufacturer's would adjust for the slight increase in stature and stop obsessing over making their jackets exactly to original specs. An A2 can fit perfectly everywhere, but if the length is too short, it just looks too small. Like the wearer is wearing a little kids jacket!

I actually see the opposite problem. Too many manufacturers are adjusting things to fit "modern" reenactors/customers and it screws it all up for me. I am only 5' 9", 145 pounds. One inch taller and one pound heavier than the "average recruit" apparently.

Most of the times I wear a reproduction jacket the waist is way to large, often because a manufacture decided not to reproduce the 1940s nipped-in waist effect because of customer complaints. The other thing you see a lot are collars being oversized, 16, 17 18 inches or so to accomodate large people, or sleeves being 34, 35 inches to accomodate tall people.

It really makes the "mini-me" people such as myself frustrated!

 

[MrBern]

Those have to be a rarity. The thing that always surprises me if the quality of materials, as in those buttons and the buttonhole stitching. What would be worn up top? Or overall? A wool overcoat? Sweater?

This is one of the few places such a thing can be seen. Thanks for posting those!

theyre not too common but they do turn up on ebay from time to time.
There is a photo of a pair in the GI Collectors Guide book mentioned at the beginning of the thread.

I'll tell you a horror story. I spotted a pair on ebay a few years ago. 32waist. Some guy had begun some tailoringsurgery on them & given up & sold the parts.... The waistband was slit to unravel the pleats. The large rectangular rear belt loop was removed & cut in half. The buttons were missing. It seemed he was going to use that material to patch the waistband to make it a bigger size.

 

[scotrace]

Geez, and had the nerve to sell off the hatcheted mess???