Uniform size and alterations

[MissQueenie]

I'm trying to decide if I should snap up a set of women's HBTs or not -- they're too big, but they're excellently priced. I'm 5'2" and wear a vintage 14. The pants are a 14 so I know the waist and hips will fit, but looking at the length measurement given I assume these must be a 14 L -- they're going to be a good 4 or 5 inches too long for me. The jacket is too big in the chest and waist.

Is it appropriate to wear the jacket as it is? That is to say, is it historically accurate to be swimming in one's clothes? [huh] The pants will have to be shortened. I can manage a too-big jacket, but I need to be able to use my legs properly. Is there a preferred method of shortening field pants? Should I just take them up from the bottom?

 

[Vanessa]

Hiya Queenie - perfectly ok to 'swim' in your jacket - since a lot of the clothes were men's issue originally, it was very common for ladies to be assigned the wrong size & just have to make do with it.

Now, on another note - I have a pair of hbt pants that are too short for me. Want to trade?

 

[MissQueenie]

Heya V!

Phew! I suspected as much, but wanted to verify. I do so hate looking like a muppet, or like I shrunk in the wash...etc etc etc (I've heard them all...). Those tin hats don't help the look, either. All they see is my red lipstick. Okay, not gonna rant.

Yes, I WOULD like to trade, if I end up with this set. I am not sure if I really want to cough up the dough for an enormous jacket though, especially since I've spotted a few separate pieces that are a little smaller and less expensive. I've got another day or two to decide, but if I win em, I will definitely swap out! Boy am I lucky I have leggy girlfriends.

 

[CA Rosie]

You'r simming too?

Hi ya girls,
I personally do not have a pair of hbt pants, but I do own the oh so comfy coveralls. Unfortunately even us tall gals swim in these things, which make them oh not so attractive to wear. I've been 1/2 tempted to take them apart and have them tailored (which the nurses did). If you are wearing your hbts as a wac, they would not have been tailored and only worn out in the field as a motorpool mechanic. There are two books out with nothing but womens uniforms. I call them "the bibles". They have come in handy more than once. If you go under USO in Ebay, they are sold in there. Unfortunately I cant get to my books right now (remoldeing), but there is a picutre of a vintage woman on the cover. They are a bit pricey, but well worth the cost.
Good luck,
Hope to see you out at the battles,
Kirsten

 

[Vanessa]

The coveralls are the best things ever - no matter how un-attractive.

The uniform 'bibles' are Volumes 1 & 2 of Dressed For Duty: America's Women in Uniform by Jill Halcomb Smith.

 

[MissQueenie]

Hi ya girls,
I personally do not have a pair of hbt pants, but I do own the oh so comfy coveralls. Unfortunately even us tall gals swim in these things, which make them oh not so attractive to wear. I've been 1/2 tempted to take them apart and have them tailored (which the nurses did). If you are wearing your hbts as a wac, they would not have been tailored and only worn out in the field as a motorpool mechanic. There are two books out with nothing but womens uniforms. I call them "the bibles". They have come in handy more than once. If you go under USO in Ebay, they are sold in there. Unfortunately I cant get to my books right now (remoldeing), but there is a picutre of a vintage woman on the cover. They are a bit pricey, but well worth the cost.
Good luck,
Hope to see you out at the battles,
Kirsten

Thanks for the head's up! Lauren's got one of your bibles that she's promised to let me take a look at this weekend. I'm trying to put together my WARCO impression, but I'm all turned around on what I need. Most of the photos I've seen of female warco's show them wearing skirts, hats, and tunics. I have to assume these are dress uniforms, and that they'd have worn different clothing to trudge around in the mud and bounce over the countryside in the back of a jeep, etc.

 

[fortworthgal]

I'm a bit late to this thread, but yes - it is completely accurate for your clothing to be too large! Better (and more accurate) for it to be too big than too small.

During WWII, the armed forces were not really equipped to outfit women. Most of the women's branches were entirely new (WAC, WAVES, etc.) and the Quartermasters were used to dealing with only men. The women's branches that did exist prior to WWII generally wore nice white duty dresses or similar uniforms... not a lot of field gear and clothing. So, a lot of the issued items were ill-fitting right out of the gate! Women serving overseas, especially close to combat areas, would not have had access to the newest, best-fitting items. They wore what they could scrounge or trade for. A lot of pictures of women in the field show them wearing men's stuff.

War Correspondents would have been particularly pieced together. They really did not have any dress regulations. They were issued some WAC clothing. Almost all of the photos I have seen of them in the field, they are wearing men's stuff (particularly the wool pants and shirts) with a mixture of other gear and jackets. There is a section on WarCos in Dressed for Duty Vol 2, but it isn't very comprehensive. (I have it sitting here in front of me as I type this.) It looks like the wool pants were popular, along with the women's M43 jackets, and M-1 helmets in the field. There are really only about 2 good photos in the entire section, which is only 14 pages and focuses mostly on the patches.

Try to find the book "The Women Who Wrote the War" by Nancy Caldwell Sorel. It has a lot of excellent photos that I think will help you figure out what you need. It also discusses their choices of clothing, different variations they chose to wear (one correspondent wore the camo paratrooper scarf), and what they carried with them - much more in-depth than Dressed for Duty. If you are doing a female WarCo impression, it is an invaluable resource.

Good luck!