US Authentic A-2 fit

[Banzai]

5'7" tall, 38" chest.

So odd. I'm 5'6", 37 chest, and my 36 was way tighter than that. Taking measurements on the flat jacket, it shouldn't have been, but it was. And it's something I haven't figured out. I also haven't figured out why my US-A jacket in 36 was so binding in the arms when another A-2 I have that measures the same fits great. Maybe it's different hides, maybe something peculiar to the pattern. I think it might be rather low armholes though. That will restrict movement, and make chest measures across the pits a bit inaccurate.

What's the pit-to-pit of your 36?

 

[Yesteryear]

What's the pit-to-pit of your 36?

21" pit-to-pit,
measured as shown:

 

[Yesteryear]

The main factor is the sleeve circumference. I measured a 16 inch circumference at the bicep area on my 36 US-A A-2.

How does this compare to a 1940s size 38 A-2?

 

[Seb Lucas]

Hey @Seb Lucas - how about chilling out on the jabs? You're not entertaining and quite rude in fact.

Chill.

The fact is that look is exactly how my friend Phil dressed in 1986. He was my best friend.

 

[Yesteryear]

How does this compare to a 1940s size 38 A-2?

I'm sure somebody here has a war-era size 38 A-2 and some measuring tape.... anybody?

 

[ButteMT61]

Chill.

The fact is that look is exactly how my friend Phil dressed in 1986. He was my best friend.

In combination with this:

It does look like a shapeless mess, but that's the odd, sloping and oversized shoulders.

I find little of value for the OP in your snark. Or Robbie's support of it.

 

[Technonut]

In combination with this: I find little of value for the OP in your snark. Or Robbie's support of it.

I took the remark as referring to the post with the pic from the USAF manual.... (It does look baggy & shapeless IMO)..

 

[Banzai]

21" pit-to-pit,
measured as shown:
View attachment 40181

That's what mine was too. There's something about the pattern that's odd.

I own a different A-2, size 36, with the exact same chest/pit-to-pit measurement - 21" - as yours and my old one. However, in this other A-2 I can actually drive and tie my shoes. The US-A was far too restrictive.

The pattern is a puzzle to me, because the numbers say that it should have worked. I wanted to find out the measurements on your jacket to see if maybe mine had been a fluke, but it seems like mine was right by their pattern.

There's something peculiar, I think, with either the armscye, or the sleeve angle, or the amount of material on the back panel between the shoulder blades. I know there's absolutely nothing to be gained in life by puzzling over it, but since I ended up dropping a lot of money between two jackets, I wonder about it.

In the end, I had to go with a 38, on which I had the body tapered down towards the waist so it wasn't baggy. Works well, if a bit big through the chest. But the arms and shoulders feel like the other 36 I have. If there's a difference that I can find, my other 36 has armholes a little bit higher...maybe almost an inch...and it's goat, which is softer to begin with.

 

[Yesteryear]

That's what mine was too. There's something about the pattern that's odd.

The pattern is a puzzle to me, because the numbers say that it should have worked. I wanted to find out the measurements on your jacket to see if maybe mine had been a fluke, but it seems like mine was right by their pattern.

I 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:


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.

 

[ButteMT61]

I think the secret lies in the upper sleeve circumference.

You may be on to something. I've got a GW Perry A-2 that should NOT fit my chest. But even though it's smaller than my others, it does. I'll have to check the sleeve thing out. If it weren't for the fact that it's probably a good 1.5" short - based on the likes of folks here - it would be perfect. Dunno, maybe I'll just wear the shortie and enjoy it...

 

[Seb Lucas]

I took the remark as referring to the post with the pic from the USAF manual.... (It does look baggy & shapeless IMO)..

You are correct. That 2011 manual photo (not Yesteryear's pics) does no favours to the A2 pattern and Butte is jumping to unwarranted negative conclusions. Yesteryear's jacket fits him very well and his look is sharp. Many of you will probably remember that in the 1980's (following the success of Indiana Jones) guys sourced and wore 1930's clothing. Phil was one of these. That was the reason for my comment.

 

[Banzai]

Measured the same way you've shown, I come up with the exact same sleeve on the 38.

The 36 should have fit. There's something different about the armscye or back from just about every other pattern out there.

 

[Technonut]

Measured the same way you've shown, I come up with the exact same sleeve on the 38.

The 36 should have fit. There's something different about the armscye or back from just about every other pattern out there.

Hmmmm... Are both inner sleeve seams the same? Some run right with the body seam, some are offset. The only other difference I can think of is the shoulder seams.. Most had the the epaulets offset to the seams, while some manufacturers had the epaulets centered over the seam. IIRC, I read somewhere that the inner sleeve seams could cause restricted movement if not offset, compared to the other method.

 

[Smithy]

Well, I'm not too sure about that particular brand, but the original A-2 jacket pattern had low armholes that cause it to ride up when you lift your arms.

I 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.

Those armholes do look very low and this will cause the jacket to ride up your arms if you stick them straight out in front of you (think driving a car) or if you stretch straight down to do up your shoelaces. This is a problem with some modern A-2s.

I'm not an A-2 expert but I do know that some original wartime jackets had much higher armholes - whether this applied to all contracts someone like Andrew Swatland could answer.

For example here's a pic of 331 (Norwegian) Sqn pilot Johan Garben in 1943 wearing his A-2 clearly showing the high armholes (sorry for the quality but I just scanned it quickly from one of my books)...

 

[AdeeC]

I thought the armholes varied from different makers and later jackets were looser fitting in general.

 

[Sloan1874]

+1

 

[Yesteryear]

Those armholes do look very low and this will cause the jacket to ride up your arms if you stick them straight out in front of you (think driving a car) or if you stretch straight down to do up your shoelaces. This is a problem with some modern A-2s.

I'm not an A-2 expert but I do know that some original wartime jackets had much higher armholes - whether this applied to all contracts someone like Andrew Swatland could answer.

I think you're on to something there!
My A-2 measures 10.5" from top seam to bottom seam when laid flat (as shown below).


How does this compare to most war-era A-2s of size 36-38?

 

[Yesteryear]

I found a great solution to make the armholes higher, simply add shoulder pads!
As you can see, the bottom armhole seam is now where it's supposed to be, and the jacket still looks great!

 

[Banzai]

As funny as this pic is (and it's great!), that jacket actually looks very good from the chest down with your, er, modification.

 

[Seb Lucas]

That's a very funny photo Yesteryear. Not sure it's period accurate.

I once had a leather jacket with shoulder pads that wasn't unlike that.