Posted on Mar 20, 2018
Do you think that the various branches should have the same uniforms?
58.1K
1.19K
239
171
171
0
Uniforms
OCP
Joint Service
Regulation
Finance
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 93
7
7
0
We did for over 25 years, then Marines came out with MARPAT 2003, and that changed everything.
(7)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
You are correct, when I first joined, pretty much everybody wore some version of the BDU, they when the Marines changed everybody else decided they had to change as well.
(5)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
It also seems like many of our patterns are one war/operation behind in camouflage effectiveness. That may just be me though
(1)
(0)
Cpl Phil Hsueh
It wasn't just the Corps adopting MARPAT, it was the Corps coming up with MARPAT and then copyrighting it and not sharing it with the other branches that caused this madness with all of the branches having their own camo pattern(s). I've always felt that the SecDef really should have ordered the Commandant to make MARPAT available for all branches and that they couldn't make it Marine Corps exclusive.
(1)
(0)
Maj John Bell
Cpl Phil Hsueh - The Marine Corps did not copyright the MarPat. The United States government patented MARPAT, including specifics of its manufacture. By regulation, the pattern and items incorporating it, such as the MCCUU and ILBE backpack, are to be supplied by authorized manufacturers only and are not for general commercial sale, although imitations are available such as "Digital Woodland Camo" or "Digital Desert Camo". As such, any Federal Government agency branch, including each of the uniformed services could have selected it as their field uniform.
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
No. I'm not privy to the reasons for the "push" to a generic uniform, but I suspect it's generally for reasons that have nothing to do with operations.
(6)
(0)
CMSgt (Join to see)
It's not about generic...the best camouflage pattern should be the standard for all. The biggest problem is we now have generations of troops that believe they should have a service distinct utility/combat uniform instead of a functional one. It would save money and prevent duplication of effort and operationally functional for all.
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
The only ones that have any argument against it are the Navy and Coast Guard, but even they have people on the ground, hundreds or thousands of miles from the nearest ocean.
(6)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
The dress uniforms is where the distinction should be. One the battlefield we're all fighting the same fight, most of the time in the same place, so why shouldn't we all look the same? That's why I singled out the sailors. They work in a very different environment so they shouldn't really have that need unless they're in a field that's going to put them in or near the fight.
(7)
(0)
LCpl Shane Couch
SSG (Join to see) - for the most part I agree. But for the Marines to keep up with the camouflage utilities that the Army uses would be to costly for the Coprs. The Army seems to change its camouflage utilities patterns like they change their skivies. I have no clue as to why the AF needs tiger stripes though...
(2)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
The Army didn't go digital until the Marines did though. I think the wear out for the BDUs was like 2007. Then 2 or 3 years later the Army was going Multicam in the Stan because they realized UCP was the dumb.. lol
(3)
(0)
5
5
0
Yes lets stop wasting money on so many different designs. When we had BDU's it worked fine and it didn't cost millions to design several ones.
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
4
4
0
Each service has a distinctive uniform based on their own tradition. Are you ok with a coastie or zoomie wearing a Marine uniform?
(4)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I was more referring to operational uniforms, sir. Think of the cost savings immediately and the unified front to pick the best camo for the current operation
(1)
(0)
MSgt John McGowan
2Lt—- cost saving be damned, no one cares about that any more. You or I might but the top of the pile sure doesn’t.
(2)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
Distinctive uniform, field or dress, is a part of the service. I saw Sailors in Army ACU. Not so good. Especially when Army privates are saluting their e4s.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
Each branch should have their own individual uniforms. The Army needs to go back to soft caps. When they started handing out berets to everyone it took away lots of the pride and integrity and hard work from those whom had the fortitude to earn and and wear the maroon, green, and black beret.
(4)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SGT Rick Myers own uniforms as in all types or specific types (utility, dress, garrison, etc)?
(0)
(0)
SGT Rick Myers
We wore the BDU’s and jungles for everything when I was in. Then we had our class A’s and B’s. Dress blues were for the really special occasions. I believe our mess personnel had whites. But we are talking 30 some years ago. The Air Force had OD’s for work and Dress uniforms for their Occasions. It was easy to tell who was whom then.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
Each of the Services deserve to have their own distinctive uniforms as they define who they are and their part in the defense of our Nation.
Also depicts a good amount of each Services history.
Also depicts a good amount of each Services history.
(4)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
LTC John Griscom are you referring to all uniforms being distinctive or just the ceremonial/dress uniforms?
(1)
(0)
LTC John Griscom
CPT (Join to see) - Good question. Combat uniforms could be the same, but the class A/B and dress uniforms should reflect the Service.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
CPT (Join to see) NO!
I believe each branch is unique & different....therefore, each branch deserves to have their unique and different uniforms. Perhaps in a "wartime" situation while in country, uniforms can be the same, since majority of folks over there are there for combat and may be a good thing to share one unique uniform.
Edit
I believe each branch is unique & different....therefore, each branch deserves to have their unique and different uniforms. Perhaps in a "wartime" situation while in country, uniforms can be the same, since majority of folks over there are there for combat and may be a good thing to share one unique uniform.
Edit
(4)
(0)
Sgt Kelli Mays
CPT (Join to see) - I believe each branch is unique & different....therefore, each branch deserves to have their unique and different uniforms. Perhaps in a "wartime" situation while in country, uniforms can be the same, since majority of folks over there are there for combat and may be a good thing to share one unique uniform.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
Coast Guard wore khakis and dungarees for years, but the CG blue uniform showed the public who the real sailors are. Beside if the Army adopted the CG tropical blue uniform, the enemy will laugh their heads off with all the pasty white legs. Topsiders don't last long on rocky terrain. Air Force pilots would have a hard time picking up girls at the O-Club wearing the CG Sears repairman work uniform. Marines will have to start learning pool. CG actually used their pockets.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
3
3
0
I know we are not Canada but Canada put their forces together in 1968 and now it's just called Canadian Forces and they all wear the same uniform they just have a beret that distinguishes the different branches.
(3)
(0)
LTC Stephen Conway
Great White North: The Space Arm/Snow Routes
Doug wonders if the space arm, made in Canada, can be used to open beers, while Bob has a topic about snow routes. They argue about who had the best topic. B...
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
No... I like the uniqueness of us all having our own identity. Let's face it... sometimes just imagining ourselves in a specific uniform is a selling point for some of us.
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Cpl Justin Goolsby I can definitely see your point there. In your case, are you referring to your Marine Blues and Cammies/Utilities or just your Blues?
(2)
(0)
Cpl Justin Goolsby
Believe it or not, but it was actually the Cammies that got me. I've got family in other services and I just didn't like the general look of their uniforms. The Blues are great, but you don't get to wear those every day. But you do wear cammies every day and every day I put them on I just felt so good because I thought the uniform looked fantastic.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Financially it make a lot of sense to have similar uniforms for Conus and similiar when sent overseas. A lot of funds are wasted with uniforms design, manufacturing, changes, etc.
Flipside, It would probably neg influence branch pride and distinction.
Interesting thread.
Flipside, It would probably neg influence branch pride and distinction.
Interesting thread.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Each branch of the military serve a different purpose. Also with me having a son who's talked about the military since he was 5, different uniforms also help civilians distinguish what branch you're associated with. Say you're standing by a serviceman/woman and your kiddo says can thank that Army soldier for his/her service? Only for that person to hear this and be offended because their actually Marine. And yes the Marines I know get ticked if you say their in the Army. So yes different uniforms for different branches are great.
(2)
(0)
Thanks for all the feedback so far! My initial post was edited by mods to better fit community guidelines, but I was referring to operational uniforms being the same camouflage pattern. I definitely feel that all branches should have their distinctive Ceremonial and Dress uniforms to show the heraldry and history behind them, but the constant and meaningless change of operational uniforms and camouflage patterns has become mind-boggling...and for my officer colleagues, expensive as hell. My personal answer was “yes with slight variants.”
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I would say have everyone use OCPs same as the Army and Air Force personnel do, but civilians will still confuse us if we all wear the same uniform.
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Lots of countries do the same uniform but different branch tapes. I was looking at it as a budgetary thing for soldiers and the services themselves.
(4)
(0)
MSgt Gerald Orvis
Witness the effects of uniform standardization in the Canadian Armed Forces. I was posted up there shortly after Defence HQ decided that there would no longer be an Army, Navy or Air Force, each with its distinctive uniforms (and distinctive regimental uniforms in the Army), but rather a land branch, a naval branch and an air branch, all in the same uniforms with slightly different badges. So, a naval branch sailor on a sub looked just like a land branch soldier at Camp Petawawa - even down to the rank chevrons. Ironically, this change did not affect the reserve (militia) units, who continued to have their distinctive uniforms. From what I heard from CAF members in Ottawa, this move to standardize uniforms, while very good for the budget bean-counters, was very destructive to morale in the regular forces. I have no doubts that the same would happen here if DoD were to do the same thing. While the plumage has grown far more drab than in previous times, it is important that the services each have their own points of reference, of which distinctive uniforms are one.
(1)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
MSgt Gerald Orvis - Interesting, but surprisingly or not, the US Armed Forces have already passed that point of reference (comparing to Canadian uniforms) when they went to the same basic style of working uniform a number of years ago. Prior to that and for almost 3 decades the sailors for the most part wore dungarees made of a type of denim both light and heavy (shirt and trousers respectively), everyone else - Marine, soldier, and airmen wore working uniforms of the same basic pattern and material, the Marines called them 'utilities,' while everyone else called them 'fatigues.' This would be the OG-107 work uniform that was used from 1952 to 1983 when it started to be phased out to be replaced by the BDU (I think the actual final wear date was 1989, but I am sure that most if not everyone was wearing BDUs by then).
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
Read This Next
-
Ask questionGet expert advice and
tips for your questions. -
Post updatePost pictures, personal updates, plans, or anything you like!
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google