Should the Army do away with Patches and go to one universal Symbol like the Marines EGA?

Call me old school,(I guess you can been out since 1968) but my 4th Division patch was something I wore with pride back in the day,and if I spot one now on a service member it causes me to stand a little straighter a little prouder so I say stay with the patch I really don't care if civilians are impressed with Marines they have their traditions we have ours " steadfast and loyal"

It seems like from a recruiting standpoint civilians asking questions about different patches and parts of uniform (i.e. tanker boots, or combat badges) would be a positive aspect. This not only gives a recruiter a great foot in the door, but also shows pride in their service. I believe this also gives a new recruit an early taste of army traditions and culture.

I don't want to be "that guy", and perhaps I am being overly touchy on this subject, but here goes anyway.

The United States military as a whole is under assault. Military budget cuts with a sustained and increased optempo along with what appears to be constant assaults on the traditions of our military are decreasing morale on a daily basis. Our soldiers and leaders are punished for making split second decisions in life or death situations by politicians with nothing but time whose only tangible sacrifices for this Country, with the exception of a select few, have been having to occasionally stand for long periods of time to philibuster a bill they do not like.

Our Country's leadership seems to desire to seek alliances with historic enemies while simultaneously distancing us from our trusted allies.

Russia is constantly infringing into our airspace via Alaska, and doing it on a very routine basis, and our leaders have done more to promote racism internally (solely my opinion) and violence across the Middle East by destabilizing Arabic governments under the guise of ousting dictators, thereby encouraging violence.

Our troops are asked to go into combat, which is by nature a dirty, gritty and violent animal, by politicians who try to push highly restrictive ROE's and RUF's which only further endanger our troops.

Our Country has left our own high and dry in foreign lands because of "political concern" about a false narrative drummed up to cover the mistakes which were made by those who were entrusted with their lives.

Our Nations colors are being trampled on because some people feel that they have been wronged or who have been "offended" by our leaders, while we lose soldiers in combat fighting for that very flag, along with countless Veterans who commit suicide due to the experiences from defending the very concept that flag represents.

Strong leaders who have been proven in combat either voluntarily or forcibly leave the military, while being replaced by those who seemingly appear to agree with an administration which would rather have a "political consultant" than a military leader.

Our chances of full out winning a war decreases proportionally in regards to how much the politicians want to control said wars, which also places our troops in more danger than necessary.

We are training soldiers in BCT that, should they become too stressed, they need only inform the right people and things will "slack off" a bit. We're more interested in making sure a soldier is not too stressed in training, which only sets that soldier up for failure in combat.

I understand that your question was asked with the best intentions, but are we so concerned with image that we are looking past the content?

If our Army wants to try to bring our image up to that portrayed by the Marines, the patch is the last place we need to look.

How about we stop passing soldiers on their APFT and weight if they do not meet the standards? How about we start trying to make the majority of our force wear their uniforms like the marines, without buttons, Velcro and stitches ripping at the seems?

How about we let drill sergeants do their jobs without talks of stress cards and hurt feelings?

My last tour in Iraq, our ROE's and RUF's were so restrictive, some non-combat soldiers which we provided security for were actually told not to put a mag in their weapons because they were in 915's and they had us, the security escorts, to fight for them, and they did not want to take the chance of a negligent discharge. in the meantime, Marines were told by their chain that any actions done to preserve their lives would be defended by their chain without question. Maybe we should work on getting our chain to start standing up like theirs?

What makes the Marine's image better than ours in the eyes of the public has nothing to do with patches, yet everything to do with content. There is an esprit de cor in the Marines that is often times only seen in the combat arms MOS's of the Army.

The desire for others to seek out a Marine Recruiter instead of an Army, Navy, Air Force or Coast Guard recruiter is based on challenge. The Marines have a battle hardened and tested reputation of being the most difficult challenge of all to endure. That's right, my fellow soldiers, I said it. There were never any talks of stress cards and those who fail standards are actually permitted to fail standards, and forced to improve or make room for the next Marine.

SSG Winkler, I understand you are a recruiter and that is what is within your lane, and public image is a very important tool in recruiting. However, trying to make a less stressful and more inviting Army will only steer more of the type soldiers we need to actually restore our image away from us and towards the Marine Recruiters (just an opinion). I also know that some soldiers have been asked not to wear their combat patches because "new soldiers" felt as if they were being singled out by not having one. I dare say that 85% of US Army soldiers would agree with me, but stripping units of the heraldry and history of their patches to improve our image in the eyes of a civilian is not only demeaning, but will further decrease the morale inside the organization.

So the big question is this; are so interested in something as simple as removing a patch to bring in a few extra soldiers that we are willing to land yet another blow to the morale of those who have already sacrificed? When I joined the U.S. Army in 1990, I didn't join because of patches or branding, I joined because I saw an organization that was tough and hard, much as I thought the Marines were, and also saw an opportunity to gain skills with those tough requirements.

I understand that the U.S. Army does studies on branding, but all of my friends and I knew the different patches in the Army denoted certain units before we even got into high school. We also recognized that the U.S.M.C. had no such patches. Our desire to join the Army was not based upon research other than our own research conducted to find which branch was right for us.

When speaking of branding, recruiting and advertising, I am reminded of a mistake made by the Army some years back when failed marketing and branding led them to the motto "An Army Of One." An Army that had been about camaraderie and teamwork was given that jewel by individuals conducting this type research, and they found that it did not have the effect it sought after. Recruiters, drill sergeants, CO's, XO's, and many other acronyms called and complained, as well as potential soldiers who sought teamwork immediately went to other recruiters because of a simple campaign mistake.

They tried to correct it by inserting the tagline, "Composed of Several", but it was too late, the damage was done. Eventually, after millions of dollars funneled into the research and marketing of the new slogan, it was dropped, and the only thing which remained was the logo associated with it.

It's just an opinion, and may be completely off base, but it's just my feeling.

Stay safe brother,

SCOUTS OUT

I don't remember who said it but it stands true that "Comparison is the thief of joy". I love the Corps but they are the Corps and we are the Army.

Change ... for what purpose? To beat the USMC in a branding contest? No, absolutely not! The Army is not the Marine Corps and the Marine Corps is not the Army. Just because we eschew the symbolism, lineage, heraldry of our history does not mean we will be more marketable to new recruits nor should it. As for civilians asking what we do in the Army? I just don't understand the issue. Tell them with pride ... I'm 11B, 91B, 92G, 31B, 18F, 79R, 92Y etc ... and why your MOS is important to the mission of the United States Army.

SSG (Join to see) There is nothing wrong with patches that reflect the long history of the Army. There is also nothing wrong with the Army having a different image than the Marine Corps.

No, each unit in the Army has its own unique history and tells a story. When I was serving we made a point to learn the history of our unit, from the company level up to the Corp we belonged to. Maybe that is where the connection needs to be made again.

You have an issue with overall Army marketing that can't be solved with a patch or rebranding at the small unit level. The Army is too massive to change like that. When it does, it backfires (Shinseki and the beret). The Marine Corps has a distinct advantage in that it is smaller and can hold itself to a higher standard. If you have fewer requirements for recruits, you can be more selective. You can turn people away more often and tell them that the Marine Corps isn't going to slack off. The Army is massive in comparison and is capable of much more than the Marine Corps. The Navy will always appeal to some. The Air Force is a good alternative to service. The Army has a branding problem that can't be solved at the level you are addressing here and it would be horrific if we tried.

The Marines attract those that want to join the toughest service and challenge themselves to the max, in my experience. The Army covers a world of specialties.
It is more than just patches on the uniforms, IMHO.

No I do not, unit patches are a source of pride and esprit de corps. Here is the background of the modern unit patch.

It's 1917 and the 81st Infantry Division is training at Camp Jackson (now Fort Jackson) South Carolina. As the war progressed with the involvement of the United States, recruits from the northern states were pushed south into Virginina and North Carolina to train in milder climates.

So the recruits from North and South Carolina were sent to Camp Jackson, created for training the 81st. Division commander MG Charles Bailey went to Europe before the deployment of the 81st to survey the landscape of the war. While there he noticed that many of our ally units wore distinctive unit patches. Besides unit pride the primary reason for having the patches was during all the confusion of the battlefield, the fog of war if you will, especially in the trench warfare, patches made it easier for unit members to link back up with their own unit members after making mass movements.

Bailey returned to Camp Jackson and held a contest for a design of a unit patch. The winning design was that of the wildcat, which had become the nickname of the 81st because of the creek of the same name that ran through Camp Jackson. The longest road on Jackson going out to the training sites was also named Wildcat Road for the same reason.

The original patch had a three legged profile, combining the back leg to save on thread and making it easier to manufacture. So the Soldiers of the 81st sewed the patches on their uniforms, continued training and eventually boarded the train to New York to ship to France. When they reached the port of embarkation the patches were noticed, flagged as unauthorized and the Soldiers were ordered to remove them. So the Soldiers removed the patches and put them in their pockets only to resew them back on during the voyage over.

When they stepped off the the ships in France a photo taken of these American Soldiers with patches ended up on the front page of a magazine. This started commotion among the other American units there and in short order reached General John "Blackjack" Pershing's office. Pershing summoned Bailey to his office to explain why his Soldiers were out of uniform and wearing the unauthorized patch. Bailey, who must have gone to law school, wore Pershing down with his arguments; the fog of war, unit pride, esprit de corps and that his unit had trained under to patch and that it would be a morale breaker to have his Soldiers to remove it. Pershing finally gave in with words somewhat of this nature; Bailey, your unit can keep their damn patch but they better damn well earn it!

When other units saw that the 81st were allowed to keep their patch they of course complained, the which Pershing relented and authorized the other units to create and wear their own patch. So before the Big Red One, the 82nd, the First Cav, 101st Screaming Eagles or any of the other more famous patches, there was the Wildcat, for the 81st Infantry Division.

At the Infantry Museum at Fort Benning there is only one World War I Soldier wearing a patch, that of the 81st. That Soldier in heavy combat called to the rear to bring up more ammunition. When none arrived he made his way back to find out why. The ammo bearers feared the intense combat and had refused to bring the ammo up. To which the Soldier drew his sidearm and threatened the ammo bearers with their lives if they did not move the ammo up, which they did. That Soldier later received a battlefield commission.

How do I know this? I retired in 2014 as the Command Sergeant Major of the 81st Regional Support Command, the legacy unit of the 81st Infantry Division, which has returned to it's original home Fort Jackson, South Carolina. Fort Jackson was named after native son President Andrew Jackson by the way, not LTG (CSA) Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson. Old Hickory was born in the Waxhaws on the border between North and South Carolina.

"Wildcat Pride - Wildcats Never Quit"

No. Since the Civil war it's been a great tridition that builds esprit corps and that is what you should be selling to the recruits. Sell faster promotions which = more money. If you are not happy with the patch you're currently wearing, do something about it. Man up, get some specialty schools and go somewhere that will make you feel better about yourself; but a patch doesn't make the man. Marines also have unit patches, they just don't wear them. Everyone in the army should be feeling pretty good any way after SMA Hall handed berets out to the entire force who failed to earn them: most people still can't wear it correctly. They created the CAB and handed that out to people that didn't earn them also. However, what you will find is that after you retire all of the badges, medals and patches don't mean shit: it's the honorable discharge that matters.
On a side note, don't ever bend your integrity in recruiting for a contract. You can easily compete with the marines for a contract. For example, if a kid wants to play hopscotch across a black and white checkered chessboard slaying dragons and lava monsters, then the marines are the right choice (you're prob too young to remember those commercials). However, if he has a sense of adventure talk to him about exiting an aircraft between 600 and 1200' agl where he will hit max velocity in the four seconds it takes for his chute to open, then he'll be falling at a rate of decent of 18-23 feet per second until he lands. The army has the best trained, most tactically sound troops with better equipment and faster promotions. Just never lie!