Jump to content

The US Army Uniform Thread....


Recommended Posts

A few questions.

 

* How many major uniform changes since 911 ?

Seems like a lot to me of course the $bucks$ are flowing and when that is the case needs and wants get greatly distorted.

 

* Are replacement/new uniforms issued or do the troops have to purchase them ?

I understand new recruit gets new issue but what about those already serving ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Actually, the West Point gray uniform is a memorial to the Battle of Chippewa Falls, war of 1812, when US Regulars got their new uniforms, but there'd not been any dye available with which to color them blue. Rather shocked the Brits, as they thought the troops approaching them were ill-disciplined militia (yet again). My, were they surprised that day....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The combat shirt makes sense when wearing body armor. The DCU/ACU shirt is excessive and t-shirts only are out of question.

 

I'm just glad that I retired just before (expensive) ACUs, this (expensive) change and other, upcoming (expensive) changes. :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the West Point gray uniform is a memorial to the Battle of Chippewa Falls, war of 1812, when US Regulars got their new uniforms, but there'd not been any dye available with which to color them blue. Rather shocked the Brits, as they thought the troops approaching them were ill-disciplined militia (yet again). My, were they surprised that day....

 

"These are regulars, by God!" -Sir Phineas Riall, 5 July 1814

Edited by Unreal John
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry guys, but I think Hitler kinda ruined the color grey. Black is also right out. And I think the last thing we need is to give more fodder to the anti-military liberal elite.

 

Tan or khaki? Okay. Not grey.

 

With all due respect extended to West Point Cadets and the US soliders who fought at the Battle of Chippewa Falls.

 

Oh and yes, all the time wasted on these changes is stupid.

 

- John

Edited by Kensuke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never thought I'd conpain about a chest like that... but seriously that logo has to go. I don't care that it would be under armour most of the time, its still there and that's enough. :)

 

I can't believe that made it past muster. Who on earth could have possibly thought that looked military? "Yeah, put that big goofy logo, right there in the middle, where everyone can see it. That is STRACKED right there!" Retards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe that made it past muster. Who on earth could have possibly thought that looked military? "Yeah, put that big goofy logo, right there in the middle, where everyone can see it. That is STRACKED right there!" Retards.

 

The US Army has this marketing addiction that's causing me to wince regularly. There's the placement of cheesy recruiting logos on field wear, and every official communique now says, "America's Army blah blah blah blah, America's Army this, America's Army that..." WTF ever happened to "The United States Army policy on poofery is...." :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just glad that I retired just before (expensive) ACUs, this (expensive) change and other, upcoming (expensive) changes. :blink:

 

 

Hey at least now I have a s%#T load of brown t-shirts to wash my car with. ;)

 

Now what to do with all my BDUs and black boots. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey at least now I have a s%#T load of brown t-shirts to wash my car with. ;)

 

Now what to do with all my BDUs and black boots. <_<

 

There are a lot of homeless folks from the shelter my church works with walking around ready for either downtown deer season or an amphibious landing on Folly Beach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

C'mon guys, it could have been worse. Ad they chosen to go "all street" with it, the trousers would have the word "Doggie" stenciled across the ass region.

 

Or there could have been "airbrush muscles" on the front of the shirt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The '47 War of course. The West Point uniform is a memorial to that war.

 

No, the West Point uniform is of the same grey color that Winfield Scott used for his troops at Chippewa and Lundy's Lane during the War of 1812. Some supplier in New York had an excess of gray cloth which was snapped up by the Army..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just glad that I retired just before (expensive) ACUs, this (expensive) change and other, upcoming (expensive) changes. :blink:

 

I went through two raincoats (taupe and girl scout green), two overcoats (taupe and AG-44), and one black (London Fog) combo between 1961 and 1989. I also went from OD socks to black socks and back to OD socks for my boots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest aevans
Sorry guys, but I think Hitler kinda ruined the color grey. Black is also right out. And I think the last thing we need is to give more fodder to the anti-military liberal elite.

 

Tan or khaki? Okay. Not grey.

 

By that standard the Japanese ruined the color khaki in all of its various green and brown shades.

 

Also, Hitler himself was known to wear brown suits and shirts.

 

If a color fits the image you are trying to evoke, or better yet has a traditional connection, then by all means use it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Sgt. Moises Ayala, 24, from Chico, Calif., of the Iraqi Assistance Group rests between missions while wearing a test model of a fire-retardant shirt in Baghdad, Iraq Thursday May 10, 2007. Sgt. Ayala is among a group of soldiers testing the shirts, which will be significantly cooler under their body armor

 

Falken

Edited by SCFalken
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe that made it past muster. Who on earth could have possibly thought that looked military? "Yeah, put that big goofy logo, right there in the middle, where everyone can see it. That is STRACKED right there!" Retards.

Maybe they could sell advertizing and put company logos there for cash. :unsure:

 

"Pepsi, Army Strong"

"Ford trucks, built Army Strong"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My take on the whole issue of the new Army Service Uniform is quite simple. Do away with the whole idea.

 

From what I've gleaned reading history, the entire concept of the "dress" uniform being a general-issue item is an artifact of the late nineteenth-century, and an attempt to "upgrade" the soldier's image. Back then, most enlisted didn't own civilian clothes, and they needed something "nice" to go out in, off-duty. Thus, the "dress" uniform, as a boost to morale. Prior to this, everyone pretty much wore what they fought in as a daily uniform, with the exception of some of the officers. Most armed forces would have laughed you out of the budget office, had you suggested issuing a second, prettier uniform for wear only on social occasions. Until modern times, it just couldn't be afforded, unless by a relative few units like the royal guards of various monarchies. They did have "fatigue" uniforms, for things like stable duty, but that wasn't what they wore in combat.

 

This sort of mentality lasted up until about the 1950's, in the US, and died out in the 1960's-1970's. Now? Sheesh... I cannot ever recall having said, once, in my 25 years, whilst looking through my wall locker or closet for something to wear off-duty, "Gee, I haven't worn my Class A's in awhile, going downtown, let's wear those...". Aside from a few weddings, and the usual inspections and funeral details, most US Soldiers will never wear their expensive Class A uniforms, ever. The era where we had our office workers and admin types wearing Class Bs is dead and gone, as well.

 

Frankly, the dress uniforms are a waste of money, effort, and time. Do away with them, for general issue, and use the money saved for more practical things, like making sure the troops all have decent Gore-tex and winter boots.

 

The original purpose of the "walking-out" uniform was to enhance morale. Is anyone's morale enhanced by these things, these days? Frankly, I'm just darn tired of spending money on non-sensical changes to things. Case in point--I have had to buy, over the years, two different replacements for the issue dress uniform. Granted, one was due to the fact that a commander I had thought everyone needed to be in polyester, but, still. The change to the farking *shade* of Army Green was one of the stupidest things I've ever heard of. Hell, I have to check the damn labels to differentiate between the two, when I'm doing inspections. I had a CSM who claimed he could, but we proved him wrong a half-dozen times, by using the label. And, let's not even get into the changes to the dress shirt--I've never, ever worn one of those things out, yet I still have three complete issues of them, due to minor changes made in coloration and design. All purchased, mind you, out of pocket. The clothing allowance won't even come close to reimbursing you for what you wind up spending.

 

The general-issue dress uniform is an anachronism. Do away with it. If we really need to dress the troops up like tin soldiers for something, well, that's what civilians have tuxedo rental stores for, isn't it? Why not do something similar? For as often as we wear the things, we should just contract with one of the tuxedo chains, come up with something half-way historically appropriate, and have them stock it for us. Then, when you really need it, like for a wedding or funeral, you go down and either rent it, (for personal use, like at your wedding, if you so desire), or use a voucher from the unit to get a dress uniform drawn out for however long you need it to perform your duties calling for it.

 

Call me a heretic, but I really hate wasting money on something that sees so little use for the average soldier. Since 2000, I've had my Class A's on exactly six times. Three times for a dining in, and three times for inspections. Ninety-plus percent of my fellow Soldiers could probably say the same thing. In that same time frame, I've probably spent three-four hundred bucks, maintaining the damn things, between cleaning, sewing on service stripes, sewing on patches, and buying new accoutrements. And, that's a conservative estimate, mind you.

 

Stop the insanity, I say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the lack of use of the Class A due to us not wanting to wear a Service Dress, or not wanting to wear the Class A, in particular.

 

The Marines, Navy and Air Force wear their Service uniforms (and the Navy/Marines wear their Dress Uniforms) much more than Army personnel do.

 

Chicken or Egg?

 

I'd say that a good-looking Service Uniform is vital to a Soldier's self-image (doesn't hurt recruiting, either). Secondly, there are many environments where wearing ACUs is inappropriate. That it is worn in those environments speaks more to distaste for the current Class A than abhorrence of Service Dress.

 

Falken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was talk recently in circles in Ireland of stopping the general issue of the Service Dress No1 uniform (Class A equivalent), down to the level of even doing guards of honour in DPMs, but that never took off anywhere. Proved rather unpopular with the troops. They didn't wear them often, but on occasions where they thought it appropriate, they really didn't want to go with DPMs.

 

NTM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...