The Evolution of Army Uniform Marking Regulations (1886-1945)

[Kohima]

For those unfamiliar with the ‘Eastman Cutter’ (the machines used for cutting multiple lays of fabric), it is essentially a samurai sword strapped to an outboard motor.
Bloody terrifying.
The slightest misjudgment and it will have your fingers off in an instant.
The speed at which those ladies were throwing them around made me cringe!

As for the fabric runner... Style indeed!

[luise]

Finally, here are 1943 marking requirements, showing also how the various depot names were to be abbreviated in the A stamp.

hi Nick, I have been trying to find by myself that document from 1943. I wrote the date 23rd May 1943 in Advance research at the Japan Center for Asian Historical Records.. but I find only text documents. Could you give me please some Keyword or the link to that document?
thanks

[Nick Komiya]

The document itself is not dated 23rd May 1943, as it is merely a page out of the army spec book and that was the issue date of the particular spec. If you want to see a lot of pictures instead 陸軍被服品仕様 will give you access to most volumes of the Army spec book.　

[Nick Komiya]

Out of security precautions, unit information like the company number was recommended to be left out of the B stamping as of August 5th 1940, which was about a month before the introduction of Tsushogo unit codes as used on dog tags.

[Nick Komiya]

Secret of the 6-Size System for Uniforms

The Magic Seven

In October 1943, with the introduction of the army’s Type 3 uniform, uniform sizes got sadly reduced to only 3 choices of "small", "medium" and "large". This was a wartime throwback to how things used to be as far back as in 1900, when the Type 33 uniform adopted the 3-size system.

But those 3 sizes soon got increased to 4 sizes from the Type 38 uniform of 1905 and further to 6 sizes from the Type 42 uniform of 1909.

So between 1909 and October 1943, army uniforms came traditionally in 6 sizes. Thus markings on tunics and coats showed numbers ranging from “ichi-gou 一號” to “roku-gou 六號”.

These 6 sizes can be quite confusing to modern collectors, as you cannot immediately tell whether size 1 was the largest or the smallest size. However, this sizing system was actually cleverly designed to make it a no-brainer to get you the right size of uniform off the shelf.

Imagine someone measuring 5’ 1” in height. This man got issued a size 6 uniform. On the other hand, someone 5’ 6” tall got a size 1 uniform. And for good measure, let’s take 5’ 3” as a middle ground example. What size uniform to issue? Of course, the correct answer is Size 4. -----Have I lost you?


It’s a simple trick. "Sun 寸" height and jacket size should add up to 7 (1”+Size 6 in the case of someone 5’ 1” tall). Thus for a 5’ 3” fellow, the arithmetic was 7-3=Size 4. So a 5’ 1” guy wore a size 6 and a 5’ 6” guy got a size 1, that’s how simple it was.

So far, to keep things simple, I’ve made it look like the Japanese were using the imperial feet/inch measurement, but actually the 5’ 1” should be reinterpreted as 5 Shaku 1 Sun or simply 5.1 Shaku, where 1 Shaku=30 centimeters.

So the relationship between height and uniform size in metric was actually as below.

Size 1 was for----5.6 Shaku =168 cm in height
Size 2 was for----5.5 Shaku =165 cm
Size 3 was for----5.4 Shaku =162 cm
Size 4 was for----5.3 Shaku =159 cm
Size 5 was for----5.2 Shaku =156 cm
Size 6 was for----5.1 Shaku =153 cm

Back in 1945, the average height of a Japanese male in his 30s used to be 160 cm (now 172 cm as of 2015), so the above range of 6 sizes was spot on for the pre-war generation.

Until WW2, the army only accepted men taller than 152 cm, but they could no longer afford to be so choosey during the Pacific War, so smaller sizes became more important as the war progressed.

During its 34-year existence, the beauty of the no-brainer 6 size system got spoiled somewhat since the army converted to metric measures, but most of the prewar generation still reckoned in Shaku for daily life, so “7” continued to be the magic number to remember for size fitting.

Even during the 6-size system, measurements like chest size and sleeve length tended to be made gradually more generous at the time of periodic uniform updates, but the key yardstick remained ones height until the end of WW2.

[zook]

Very informative - thank you for posting this! Dan

[Nick Komiya]

Rediscovering the Missing History of Army Uniforms for 1943

Prologue

It took me more than 10 years, but I finally found the missing piece to the jigsaw puzzle that explains an unknown story of what happened in 1943 to steel helmets, field caps and visor caps. It is primarily about streamlining size choices to ease supply logistics, so I chose to add this new discovery to the story about the 6 sizes and continue from where I left off above.

In the post above, I explained how the 6 sizes for uniform jackets were cleverly devised in 1909 to yield the magic number of 7, when added to the decimal value of one’s height in the old Shaku measure. Thus someone 5.6 Shaku tall wore a size 1 uniform and size 6 was for someone 5.1 Shaku in height.

However, the beauty of that system got spoiled when the Army switched to metric measures in 1924. Also, as already mentioned, new recruits gradually became larger as prosperity resulted in a better nourished population. As such, though the 6-size system remained in use till 1943, each size number gradually had to be adjusted to be more generous in fit.

By 1941, Size 6 that used to fit short men of 153 cm in height, now had to fit those 157.6 cm tall, and Size 1 that had been right for a man 168 cm tall was now slightly larger to accommodate people above 169.6 cm.

The charts below show how hat, tunic and shoe sizes translated into actual body measurements as of March 1941.

Incidentally, from the same manual for quartermasters, I also show you a page explaining how body measurements were to be taken, how far a tunic of ideal fit should hang, etc. The reason I show you this is to provide documental evidence of what I have mentioned several times in the past, that IJA uniform regulations actually required men to keep their balls in the left pant leg.

[Nick Komiya]

The Secret Memo of Jan. 1943

Now that I have your attention, with balls correctly to the left, let’s get onto the main point of this thread, the drastic cutbacks they introduced to uniform sizes in 1943.

I discovered secret army memos that reveal previously unknown transitional austerity measures that preceded the Type 3 uniforms.

I previously believed that the 3-size system was introduced only on 12th October 1943 upon the introduction of the Type 3 uniform, but now it is revealed that this reduction was already in effect from 13th January 1943, according to army secret memo 186.

This memo introduced a package of initiatives designed to streamline the supply logistics of combat uniform items.

It said that, as of fiscal year 1943 ( this meant from 1st April 1943 ), the supply depots would only order uniform inventory in sizes of Large (Previous Size 1), Medium (Previous Size 3) and Small (Size 5).

As a transitional measure, the 6 sizes already held in stock were to be disposed of in favor of units in Manchuria and in regions outside the realm of Japan. For those units, resupply was to continue in 6 sizes as long as inventory allowed.

In contrast, rear line units within the realm of Japan (Japan, Korea and Taiwan), were to switch to the 3 sizes from fiscal year 1944 (from 1st April 1944) onwards. These were also the areas which had earlier been supplied pressed felt fieldcaps.

Thus the introduction of the Type 3 uniform in October 1943 was set up to meet this April 1944 cutoff for the transition program.

The existence of this transitional program is already a new discovery, but big news was actually hidden in the 4 lines of text that followed.

It said that, as of 1st April 1943, the central army depot will only order new steel helmets in Large size. Shipments to units in Manchuria were to switch to "Large only" also from that point, but units located elsewhere were to be supplied both large and small sizes as long as inventory lasted.

This discovery finally solves the controversy over why army helmets in small sizes are considered very rare by collectors today, despite my research on depot shipments to the field consistently showing approximately 40% of the supply being in small size well into 1944.

I could find no documented explanation why units in Manchuria had to make do with large size helmets, while supply of small sizes continued to the tropics, but what comes to mind is that it would have been more common to wear the woolen fieldcap under the helmet in Manchurian weather, actually making it preferable to wear helmets in the larger size, while that would not have been a popular practice in tropical climates.

This document actually provides another missing link on the question of the demise of visor caps worn by the army. I earlier mentioned that, as of August 1944, uniform wear regulations allowed the fieldcap to replace the visor cap in all events.

But now it has become clear that the visor cap was virtually written off already before this Jan. 1943 document, as after steel helmets, it now discussed a swapping program to replace visor caps with fieldcaps on a one-to-one exchange basis.

Armies and divisions were to report to the depot by end of January 1943 how many visor caps they wanted to swap into fieldcaps and exchange was to be done by end of March 1943.

Another clause in this swap deal offered to modify stocks of too small visor caps to a larger size. But it does not say to a larger size fieldcap, so they had to be talking about enlarging visor caps, which at best made use of dead stock visors too small to be issued. At this time, uniform regulations had not yet been rewritten to allow all visor cap wear to be switched to fieldcaps, so units must have still needed to hang unto a minimum number of visors.

Now, the full fate of uniforms, visor caps, fieldcaps and steel helmets are finally known for the year 1943 and this connects further to the last ditch specs discussed earlier here.

[Alan M]

That is amazing work and information Nick , Many thanks for sharing your research here , it is very much appreciated .