IMO the jacket shoulders should be on the shoulders, maybe a little bit over (like Yesteryear pic, and mine A2 too), but not like that.Why?
Last edited:
IMO the jacket shoulders should be on the shoulders, maybe a little bit over (like Yesteryear pic, and mine A2 too), but not like that.Why?
My 42R has 8'' tooI think the secret lies in the upper sleeve circumference. I measure only 8 inches on the size 36 A-2, what is it on your size 38 A-2?
Measured like this:
View attachment 40252
That's why I also wonder how baggy the sleeves were on the original war-era jackets of same size, since if it is the same then they probably had the same limitations- which at least means it's a historical fit even if not ideal.
The '40s period A2s did have snug-fitting sleeves so excess material wouldn't get caught in things inside the narrow confines of a cockpit or ball-turret, leaving you trapped in a burning aircraft hurling toward the ground at 400 MPH!There was recently a thread on this, but I wanted to re-attack the topic.
In searching this board, US Authentic has a rep for being a trim, "WW2" fit. However, a handful of posts have come up saying that their US-A jackets are a fuller fit, and they would have sized down.
My own experience:
I started with a size 36. The measurements seemed right all around, and it looked good. Yet, there was something about the cut/pattern that made it tightly constricting around my upper arms when moving them forward. Difficult to drive or tie my shoes. I could never figure it out, because the chest and shoulder measurements seemed like they should work. I've owned smaller jackets that were fine.
Went with a 38. Jacket measures 22" across for a 44" circumference. So, I would say kind of big for a 38. At least not a "wartime" cut. But the upper arms feel about like a 36 should. I had the body trimmed down so it's not so blousy.
I don't know enough about the finer points of a pattern to know why this would be. Perhaps the pattern itself is odd?
Given this, does this mean they fit slim, or full? Technically, i suppose both slim (to the point of constricting), while also full?
The '40s period A2s did have snug-fitting sleeves so excess material wouldn't get caught in things inside the narrow confines of a cockpit or ball-turret, leaving you trapped in a burning aircraft hurling toward the ground at 400 MPH!
I never said the original intent was as a fashion statement--please don't miss-quote me. What I meant was, perhaps some are complaining about the fit of their A2s because they expect them to fit the way we wear our clothes today, as apposed to the way they wore their clothes in the past. You may have already known all of this, but perhaps there are some out there who didn't know; and it was intended for them.View attachment 67850 A-2's were mass produced and issued for wartime use, and the original intent was not a fashion statement. I'm sure some Romeos had their A-2's tailored along with every other item of uniform, but they were primarily for protection such as it was in open cockpit aircraft. I've owned a Lambskin A-2 by Flight Suits, still velvet soft A-2 custom made for me by them decades ago and it is still in perfect condition. I had a small accident with mine and all I had to do was mail it to them and they repaired it at no charge. I've found that almost all WW2 US equipment varied widely with so many different manufacturers producing them. In a wartime context it is almost impossible to get it wrong.