M-65 Field Jacket

[Preppy Climber]

I put the short (non-prickly) liner on the extra short jacket. The liner extends 1-1 1/2 inches past the bottom of the jacket. Also the bottom button and button hole don't line up, but that's a super easy fix--add a button hole to the liner. However, I will leave as is. It's unlikely I will be wearing the extra short prickly liner with just a t-shirt underneath. And if I happen to come across another extra small/extra short liner for a great deal, I'll consider it--and this time will ask about the material! That size is rare, however, but things do pop up.

The good news is my M-1943 field jacket came in and it looks and fits great! I must admit, it is a much better fit on me than my beloved M-65 jackets. @vintagewool thanks again for alerting me to the jacket. I I love it!

I do have a question. The date on my M-1943 jacket states 19 May 1952. When were those jackets discontinued? Thanks!

 

[vintagewool]

The good new is, my M-1943 field jacket came in and it looks and fits great! I must admit, it is a much better fit on me than my beloved M-65 jackets. @vintagewool thanks again for alerting me to the jacket. I I love it!

I do have a question. The date on my M-1943 jacket states 19 May 1952. When were those jackets discontinued? Thanks!

Congratulations on the better fit of the '43.

From earlier:
"The '43 women's version essentially was still being made in the 1970s at least, in a nylon blend (like the '65 shell is a nylon blend), without "M-1943" on the tag."

I haven't seen exact numbers for dates and total production.

The men's '43 was nominally obsolete with the adoption of the nearly identical M-1950 and then the zippered M-1951 jacket. However, a story about Norwegian-surplus men's '43 jackets is that Norway manufactured their own, although I don't know why they would, nor have I seen any evidence that they did.

Did Norway or any other country make men's '43 jackets?
Did Norway or any other country make women's '43 jackets?

This is a typical lack of actual facts in common "histories."

 

[Preppy Climber]

Congratulations on the better fit of the '43.

From earlier:
"The '43 women's version essentially was still being made in the 1970s at least, in a nylon blend (like the '65 shell is a nylon blend), without "M-1943" on the tag."

I haven't seen exact numbers for dates and total production.

The men's '43 was nominally obsolete with the adoption of the nearly identical M-1950 and then the zippered M-1951 jacket. However, a story about Norwegian-surplus men's '43 jackets is that Norway manufactured their own, although I don't know why they would, nor have I seen any evidence that they did.

Did Norway or any other country make men's '43 jackets?
Did Norway or any other country make women's '43 jackets?

This is a typical lack of actual facts in common "histories."

From earlier:
"The '43 women's version essentially was still being made in the 1970s at least, in a nylon blend (like the '65 shell is a nylon blend), without "M-1943" on the tag."

Oh, that's right. I must pay better attention!

 

[Preppy Climber]

Congratulations on the better fit of the '43.

From earlier:
"The '43 women's version essentially was still being made in the 1970s at least, in a nylon blend (like the '65 shell is a nylon blend), without "M-1943" on the tag."

I haven't seen exact numbers for dates and total production.

The men's '43 was nominally obsolete with the adoption of the nearly identical M-1950 and then the zippered M-1951 jacket. However, a story about Norwegian-surplus men's '43 jackets is that Norway manufactured their own, although I don't know why they would, nor have I seen any evidence that they did.

Did Norway or any other country make men's '43 jackets?
Did Norway or any other country make women's '43 jackets?

This is a typical lack of actual facts in common "histories."

I was wondering when zippers started appearing in U.S. military field jackets.

Although my '43 jacket fits me quite well, the '65 appears to be more heavy duty and practical; for example, the deep pockets. I also thought the '43 had chest pockets, but the flaps appear to be just for looks. Or perhaps the women's jackets were designed differently than the men's? All this being said, I like both jackets.

 

[vintagewool]

I was wondering when zippers started appearing in U.S. military field jackets.

Although my '43 jacket fits me quite well, the '65 appears to be more heavy duty and practical; for example, the deep pockets. I also thought the '43 had chest pockets, but the flaps appear to be just for looks. Or perhaps the women's jackets were designed differently than the men's? All this being said, I like both jackets.

The previous post about the "MINT" '43 jacket mentioned that the women's top pockets were different.

M-65 Field Jacket

Is Helikon a civilian version of the M65? I don't know. It's an authentic M65, according to U.S. Army specification.

www.thefedoralounge.com

The WWII U.S. trend was for women's uniforms to have false breast pockets (see the previous links on WAC/WAVES). One might think that there would have been an exception with the baggier field jacket, but, alas, no. I don't recall ever seeing a '43 men's jacket with shoulders smaller than about 18in (like the 18in '65 shoulders), so you faced the trade-off between 16in shoulders and breast pockets. For wearing history, the "WAC" jacket's false pockets become part of the charm.

M43 Jacket sizing question 34R

Hi there all, just another M43 question. I've heard the originals are oversized, and am in a good position to pick one up ....... a smaller one for a decent price. However, i am unsure if the oversizing will still make a smaller size run too large for my bust. Not necessarily MY bust primarily, b...

www.usmilitariaforum.com

Zippers are controversial in military gear, because of reliability and repair. The '41 field jacket has a zipper, but also has a back-up of a buttoned storm flap. The '65 liner is buttoned, not zipped. The 1980s BDU trousers are buttoned, not zipped.

The '65 jacket has more features than the '43, such as built-in hood and zipper, which add weight.

I don't recall the real mil-spec '65 fabric weight right now but the '43 fabric weight was heavier than the '41 (see previous usww2uniforms.com links).

Differences among '65 jackets:

Alpha Industries M65 Field Jacket

With the built in hood, they are stiff enough to want to stay up. It takes some work to make them fold down. I think we wore them folded down, but that is so long ago, I can't really remember. I just checked mine from 1966, and it is folded down. So, that's the way I wore it then (what little I...

www.thefedoralounge.com

 

[Preppy Climber]

How do you know all this stuff? You're amazing!

The false pockets don't bother me. And I definitely noticed the '43 is much lighter than the '65. Can't wait for cooler weather so that I can rock both field jackets.