Blue backing on USAAF wings

[pfrost]

I have a theory about why some USAAF aircrewmen wore blue backings behind their wings. It has been suggested (and some significant amount of evidence in support of this) that 1) blue backing behind the wings indicated combat crews--and a yellow braid around the blue backing indicated a lead crew, or 2) blue backing was to indicate that the individual was authorized to wear wings and wasn't just putting on a pair of wings to get of base and get free beer and English girls.

However, I don't know if there ever was an order to sew the backing on the uniforms, and in any case, this was restricted to the 8th (and maybe the 9th) AAF in England.

While I have no doubt that wings were used to pick up girls (and get free beers at the pub), I think the origin of the blue backing on wings in the 8th is rather more mundane. English manufactured bullion and silk thread wings were sewn on a blue melton felt background (the RAF wings were sewn on a black melton felt background). The wings were usually sewn on a big machine that would produce a number of wings on a single sheet of fabric

Once the wings came off the machine, they were trimmed into squares (with the wing centered in the middle), placed in packages and sold in uniform supply companies. At some point, the airmen would buy the wings. I believe that for some reason, some airmen trimmed the blue felt to give a nice blue border around the wings, wilst others sewed the wings directly on the uniform, WITHOUT first trimming the felt

I also believe, that eventually this evolved into the practice of having the large blue felt background became associated with combat crews (even to the extent of adding a yellow braid) and perhaps, as way to keep wayward non-wing wearing soldiers from scoring free beers and English lasses.

Here is a mint bullion wing that was bought by Lt. John Kennedy. He was shot down before he ever used these patches. You can see that the bullion patch was never trimmed down.

[pfrost]

Next, here is a trimmed down English made aircrewman's wing.

[pfrost]

Of course, not everything fits my theory.

This interesting bullion wing came from a B-24 gunner, although this particular style of wing may have been worn by gliders as well. Interestingly, the bullion wing is SEWN directly onto a blue felt backing, it is NOT integral to the backing. This particular wing was never sewn on a uniform (as best I can tell since the damn moths have been busy on it). So the question remains, was this wing intended to be trimmed down like the previous wing, or sewn on directly and worn as an indicator of a man who was on a combat crew? The original owner of this wing, was a combat veteran, but he died, so we cant ask him...

The best way, IMHO, to solve answere this question would be for some sort of documentation from HQ stating that what exactly the blue backing was to be used for, I guess.

Patrick Frost

[NavyFCO]

I think that's a reasonable theory, but I don't think I agree with it. Of course, there's really no proof to either argument (at least not that I've seen) and it could be one of those "what comes first, the chicken or the egg?" type theories.

The part of the theory submitted that I disagree with is that the wings were originally made on the blue wool, and thus the reason they then ended up with that background. First, there's no reason that the Brits couldn't just as well embroider US wings on black wool. In fact, I'd bet black wool was easier to come by than the "USAAF blue" wool. (And, in fact, I've owned uniforms with Brit made bullion wings on both black wool, officer's gabardene and enlisted od wool.)

Second, the uncut bullion wings that are seen today on blue backings are cut in the same size as the normal combat aircrew backing. If they were just sewn on blue wool, what was to keep the uncut fabric from being 1/4" larger or smaller in size? Since there were numerous people making these wings - from cottage shops to factories - I highly doubt there was a standard "this is how much you leave scrap around the wings." In fact, with the near shortage of everything in England, I'd bet that if the wings were made on the blue wool simply for backing's sake, that they would have tried their darnest to fit as many wings on a piece of fabric that they could, with just barely enough room in between them to cut to have a sufficient border.

Finally, why would the Brits decide that blue would be the backing color for the wings? I doubt that the following conversation ever happened: "Hey there old chap, I think that these wings look bloody nice on the blue backing, I bet those damn Yanks would buy these!" I just don't think it ever happened...

Anyway, just a few thoughts. I could be wrong, but based on my experience, I am much more partial to the backing as a symbol of a combat aircrew vice something that randomly happened because of a lazy tailor who didn't trim the wings.

Just my two cents.

Dave

[Mark S.]

Great looking wings! Is the trimmed down wing hand cut?

The bottom one looks like a modified Observer wing. Very cool!

Time permitting, I will add some pictures of some of my "combat patch" jackets.

[Nic]

Patrick,

A man that lives in my area flew with the 14th Photo Recon Squadron, 7th Photo Group, 8th Air Force (P-38s and Spitfires). He gave me a few photos of him during the war. All of them show the blue backing behind the wings. I asked him about it in a letter I sent thanking him for the photos. He replied:

"You really studied the pictures I sent you, and you are the first one to ever comment on the blue background worn on the uniform during WWII with the pilots wings attached. We did not have an option; we were required to wear this device. It separated us from the support pilots, etc."

I don't know if an actual order was issued making the combat pilots wear this "device" as he calls it, but it sure sounds like there may of been from his description. NIC>

[Gary Cain]

I agree with you on this one Dave. I too have many Brit made bullion wings on different types of material. Interestingly the movie 12 O'clock High shows the use of the blue backing on the wings and that movie was made 3 years after the war with real 8th Airforce guys as crew and advisors.


Gary

I think that's a reasonable theory, but I don't think I agree with it. Of course, there's really no proof to either argument (at least not that I've seen) and it could be one of those "what comes first, the chicken or the egg?" type theories.

The part of the theory submitted that I disagree with is that the wings were originally made on the blue wool, and thus the reason they then ended up with that background. First, there's no reason that the Brits couldn't just as well embroider US wings on black wool. In fact, I'd bet black wool was easier to come by than the "USAAF blue" wool. (And, in fact, I've owned uniforms with Brit made bullion wings on both black wool, officer's gabardene and enlisted od wool.)

Second, the uncut bullion wings that are seen today on blue backings are cut in the same size as the normal combat aircrew backing. If they were just sewn on blue wool, what was to keep the uncut fabric from being 1/4" larger or smaller in size? Since there were numerous people making these wings - from cottage shops to factories - I highly doubt there was a standard "this is how much you leave scrap around the wings." In fact, with the near shortage of everything in England, I'd bet that if the wings were made on the blue wool simply for backing's sake, that they would have tried their darnest to fit as many wings on a piece of fabric that they could, with just barely enough room in between them to cut to have a sufficient border.

Finally, why would the Brits decide that blue would be the backing color for the wings? I doubt that the following conversation ever happened: "Hey there old chap, I think that these wings look bloody nice on the blue backing, I bet those damn Yanks would buy these!" I just don't think it ever happened...

Anyway, just a few thoughts. I could be wrong, but based on my experience, I am much more partial to the backing as a symbol of a combat aircrew vice something that randomly happened because of a lazy tailor who didn't trim the wings.

Just my two cents.

Dave

[Mark S.]

Here is one of my jackets with the patch, an officers Ike.

[Mark S.]

3/4 view

[Mark S.]

close up of the patch

[Mark S.]

Something special about this jacket is the liner. Though showing signs of wear, it was once a wonderful shade of raspberry red. Some bomber pilots and even some fighter pilots had red liners sewn into their Ike jackets.

You could never have too much flash if you flew in the AAF. Anyone know where I can get a silk scarf?

[Mark S.]

stubby wing 8th AAF patch on felt.

Anyone else have any combat patch jackets? I would love to see them.

[Chris_Werner]

Really nice!

[pfrost]

I think that's a reasonable theory, but I don't think I agree with it. Of course, there's really no proof to either argument (at least not that I've seen) and it could be one of those "what comes first, the chicken or the egg?" type theories.

The part of the theory submitted that I disagree with is that the wings were originally made on the blue wool, and thus the reason they then ended up with that background. First, there's no reason that the Brits couldn't just as well embroider US wings on black wool. In fact, I'd bet black wool was easier to come by than the "USAAF blue" wool. (And, in fact, I've owned uniforms with Brit made bullion wings on both black wool, officer's gabardene and enlisted od wool.)

Second, the uncut bullion wings that are seen today on blue backings are cut in the same size as the normal combat aircrew backing. If they were just sewn on blue wool, what was to keep the uncut fabric from being 1/4" larger or smaller in size? Since there were numerous people making these wings - from cottage shops to factories - I highly doubt there was a standard "this is how much you leave scrap around the wings." In fact, with the near shortage of everything in England, I'd bet that if the wings were made on the blue wool simply for backing's sake, that they would have tried their darnest to fit as many wings on a piece of fabric that they could, with just barely enough room in between them to cut to have a sufficient border.

Finally, why would the Brits decide that blue would be the backing color for the wings? I doubt that the following conversation ever happened: "Hey there old chap, I think that these wings look bloody nice on the blue backing, I bet those damn Yanks would buy these!" I just don't think it ever happened...

Anyway, just a few thoughts. I could be wrong, but based on my experience, I am much more partial to the backing as a symbol of a combat aircrew vice something that randomly happened because of a lazy tailor who didn't trim the wings.

Just my two cents.

Dave

Hi Dave,

Thanks for the imput. I can't agree with you more about the chicken and the egg and who came first! My point is NOT that the blue felt backing wasn't used for other reasons--ONLY that MAYBE the reasons why blue felt was used was because the way the wings were made.

Some other quick points to your post:

1) Would like to point out that the blue felt backing was being used already when the English began to make AAF patches (both thread and bullion). When you look at the felt used for the wings and the patches, they are pretty similar. Of course this is all conjecture, but I would have to imagine that war-time English companies would have used what they had available--i.e. blue felt that was already being used for patches--to serve as backing on wings rather than try to find other material to fill the bill. No doubt other material was used, but that may at least provide a theory WHY blue felt was used (as best I can tell) ONLY on British made wings!

2) At least 2 different, verified (???at least by vets), but some what counter to each other uses for the blue felt backing have been suggested. A) that the felt patches indicated that the crews were combat crews or B) that the backing was to keep non-authorized personell to wear wings. Which is it? Was it one or both or either for different squadrons, wings, airbases, etc?

On a recent post, some of the A/B collectors had a go with a flag collector over the EXACT regulations for unit flags, and at the time, it was well argued by both sides that theater-based units had a lot of latitude to do what they wanted, but that the regulations still existed and that their MUST be some paperwork authorizing things.

So, considering that very clear uniform rules and regulations existed for wearing everything from rank insignia to unti patches (and DIs, wings, medal bars et al), how the heck could a 4 by 3 inch square of blue felt be worn on a class A uniform WITHOUT some sort of official decree! ???

Best

Patrick

[Mark S.]

Where does it say you are supposed to wear a squadron patch on your A-2? Where is the regulations regarding painting nose art on bomber jackets?

The basic uniform insignia placement is printed up in the guide books for officer and enlisted men. Since the combat patch was promoted on a much localized level, it isnt going to show up in the guides every soldier in the US Army used.

Something else to consider is that there were over 500 MOS in the Army Air Forces, and only a small few of those were actually in flight. That means for every guy that had wings, probably 30 didnt.

I dont understand why it so hard to believe that they wouldnt give a little recognition to the guys who knew that tomorrow may be their last day on earth.