Posted on Oct 12, 2014
Should the NCO rank be on the sleeve (like USAF) on the combat uniform?
19.6K
361
93
16
16
0
BLUF: Should the NCO rank be on the sleeve (like USAF) on the combat uniform? (and Class B)?
I heard an interesting theory a couple weeks ago. NCOs are the "backbone" of the Army. (and the rest of the services). On the current ACU uniform as well as the Class B, you really have to be "right up on" someone in order to see the rank. The perspective I received (from another service officer) is that the Army is "reducing" the value of the rank by making it harder to distinguish. Take the example of an E8 and E9 rank on the ACU. We have all mis-identified that.
I heard an interesting theory a couple weeks ago. NCOs are the "backbone" of the Army. (and the rest of the services). On the current ACU uniform as well as the Class B, you really have to be "right up on" someone in order to see the rank. The perspective I received (from another service officer) is that the Army is "reducing" the value of the rank by making it harder to distinguish. Take the example of an E8 and E9 rank on the ACU. We have all mis-identified that.
Posted in these groups: 
Uniforms
Uniforms
Edited 11 y ago
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 41
26
26
0
CSM (Join to see),
All sergeants major should be required to have an RFID chip implanted so that my phone vibrates when we're within range of each other. While we're at it, let's make the lieutenant colonels' rank silver instead of black. Don't they know Soldiers salute shiny things by default?
All sergeants major should be required to have an RFID chip implanted so that my phone vibrates when we're within range of each other. While we're at it, let's make the lieutenant colonels' rank silver instead of black. Don't they know Soldiers salute shiny things by default?
(26)
(0)
SGT(P) (Join to see)
SGT (Join to see) and MSG Carl Cunningham for the shiny ranks i agree only in a garrison environment but when in deployed environment have it subdued like how the marines and navy have it
(1)
(0)
CPT Zachary Brooks
SGT (Join to see) you know that making your phone vibrate when a CSM or 1SG is nearby would just have privates and specialists jumping in bushes when their phones buzzed.
What you really need is for that chip to be implanted in LTs (to be removed upon promotion to CPT) that buzzes when they walk near (for anyone) so they can all run and hide.
What you really need is for that chip to be implanted in LTs (to be removed upon promotion to CPT) that buzzes when they walk near (for anyone) so they can all run and hide.
(2)
(0)
CPT Zachary Brooks
SPC David Wolcott so long as its not on their shoulder, I don't see why it should.
(0)
(0)
18
18
0
I really miss the BDU days, so my answer is biased, but I am not in favor of placing chevrons back on the sleeves of utility uniforms.
In my quest to satisfy my hunger for knowledge, I took the time to read the report written by then COL Hal Moore after the Ia Drang Campaign in 1965. (Moore was promoted to COL very shortly after that engagement and assumed command of the brigade his battalion had been in)
The bottom line is that in the report, he put special emphasis on the fact that the NVA targeted NCO's at an alarming rate...and that removing chevrons from the sleeves of the combat uniform would decrease the likelihood of NCO leaders being targeted specifically in an engagement.
I think that reasoning is still valid today, much in the same way that medics no longer run around with only a pistol and a huge red cross armband on their uniform. While it may be easier to see the difference between 1SG Snuffy and SMA Chandler, the utility uniforms are still supposed to be built around the realities of combat.
In my quest to satisfy my hunger for knowledge, I took the time to read the report written by then COL Hal Moore after the Ia Drang Campaign in 1965. (Moore was promoted to COL very shortly after that engagement and assumed command of the brigade his battalion had been in)
The bottom line is that in the report, he put special emphasis on the fact that the NVA targeted NCO's at an alarming rate...and that removing chevrons from the sleeves of the combat uniform would decrease the likelihood of NCO leaders being targeted specifically in an engagement.
I think that reasoning is still valid today, much in the same way that medics no longer run around with only a pistol and a huge red cross armband on their uniform. While it may be easier to see the difference between 1SG Snuffy and SMA Chandler, the utility uniforms are still supposed to be built around the realities of combat.
(18)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
SFC (Join to see), you raise a very good point about the disadvantages of redesigning a field uniform based on garrison needs.
The real solution here is to get away from wearing the field uniform in the garrison. Get back to wearing a Class B uniform in the garrison, tweak it if necessary for rank recognition, etc, and leave the field uniform for the field.
The real solution here is to get away from wearing the field uniform in the garrison. Get back to wearing a Class B uniform in the garrison, tweak it if necessary for rank recognition, etc, and leave the field uniform for the field.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
MAJ (Join to see) that's a very good point. I agree that unless there is something specific on the training schedule that would preclude a Class B uniform being worn, we should return to wearing it in garrison. Not only will it answer a lot of rank identification issues, but it will (SMA Chandler comment coming, be warned) instill a sense of pride in appearance and professionalism that you just don't get with the ACU.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Ronnie Reams
COL Moore's assessment led to subdued stripes, doing away with the black and gold US ARMY and the black and white name tags. Sometime later on and I can't renumber, exactly maybe 1968, or so we went to the pin on chevrons in RVN. That was for RVN only and jungies only, I think, 'cause I remember when I was back in CONUS with the 6th US Cavalry we wore standard fatigues with full color patches, chevrons, name tags and US ARMY in 1968.
(1)
(0)
9
9
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google