Posted on Dec 17, 2014
Would you support a standard uniform for all branches of service? Why or Why not?
538K
3.26K
1.01K
808
807
1
Responses: 694
I think all the armed forces branches should have their own variations of the camo- type uniforms. Adds to the distinction of each branch.
(8)
(0)
I favor whichever uniform reduces the overall drag (read: volume of the shit) we all have to take with us when we deploy, regardless of the environment. I frankly don't see what was wrong with ripstop BDUs; then the gamechanger of digital camo superseded that uniform, although desert tri-color worked just fine in that setting. (Winter weight camo is good for winter climates, as if anybody here needs to be told that. And if not, you can always layer underneath the ripstops.) The only problem with classic woodland and desert tri-color was the need to iron them after laundering. In a combat zone, though, that should be the least of our worries.
I'm not very fond of the reindeer games that resulted from the various digital patterns within the services throughout these last several years, but I should think multi-cam, probably the direct descendant of woodland, would be the most utilitarian. No, they wouldn't work well at sea, but they could work with a few modifications. (Colored ballcaps and/or t-shirts for specific watchstanders, etc.) Most of those guys wear one-piece coveralls at sea as organizational gear, similar to how mechanics and other wrneches have for working in the motor pool, the pit, etc. But this has cost the taxpayers, which is to say all of us, mightily for these experiments.
In the year 2017 with the above graphics showing essentially a new woodland, it begs the question: why did we ever really mess with this in the first place? The only people it's benefited are the garment and textile manufacturers and retailers. Big Navy is finally coming to its senses and dispensing with NWU Type I (aqua-flage), which is probably about six or seven years overdue. Big Army's largely rid themeselves of ACU, which didn't bother me as much, but nevertheless it didn't last very long or live up to its reputation. Now that multi-cam is the way to go, ACUs are largely superfluous. Big Air Force meant well by trying to implement a variation of the tiger stripes of Vietnam days, but I think they would've been better off going with actual tiger stripes or a close variation instead of what they ended up with.
But I also favor the working uniform that contains the least amount of whizbangs. Name, rank and service branch are, to me, the only things necessary without going to town with however many additional unit patches, combat patches and occupational speciality tabs to sweeten the deal. In that sense, you're a member of the U.S. military first, and everything else should be secondary or simply left at home. If a uniform is truly that, we should probably keep these things in mind and reduce the fighting load that our personnel already have to contend with.
I'm not very fond of the reindeer games that resulted from the various digital patterns within the services throughout these last several years, but I should think multi-cam, probably the direct descendant of woodland, would be the most utilitarian. No, they wouldn't work well at sea, but they could work with a few modifications. (Colored ballcaps and/or t-shirts for specific watchstanders, etc.) Most of those guys wear one-piece coveralls at sea as organizational gear, similar to how mechanics and other wrneches have for working in the motor pool, the pit, etc. But this has cost the taxpayers, which is to say all of us, mightily for these experiments.
In the year 2017 with the above graphics showing essentially a new woodland, it begs the question: why did we ever really mess with this in the first place? The only people it's benefited are the garment and textile manufacturers and retailers. Big Navy is finally coming to its senses and dispensing with NWU Type I (aqua-flage), which is probably about six or seven years overdue. Big Army's largely rid themeselves of ACU, which didn't bother me as much, but nevertheless it didn't last very long or live up to its reputation. Now that multi-cam is the way to go, ACUs are largely superfluous. Big Air Force meant well by trying to implement a variation of the tiger stripes of Vietnam days, but I think they would've been better off going with actual tiger stripes or a close variation instead of what they ended up with.
But I also favor the working uniform that contains the least amount of whizbangs. Name, rank and service branch are, to me, the only things necessary without going to town with however many additional unit patches, combat patches and occupational speciality tabs to sweeten the deal. In that sense, you're a member of the U.S. military first, and everything else should be secondary or simply left at home. If a uniform is truly that, we should probably keep these things in mind and reduce the fighting load that our personnel already have to contend with.
(8)
(0)
Hell yeah! This uniform situation is asinine. There is no justification for different uniforms that have nothing to do with environment. I understand arctic camo, jungle camo, dessert camo etc. if you are in a specific environment but garrison uniform or uniform in theater's without a specific requirement should be standard. Admittedly, it's budget dust in the greater scheme of things but it's still a stupid fight in the end.
(8)
(0)
A uniform uniform. How quaint. I don't suppose it would be any worse than a Joint Forces Fighter Aircraft. That worked out well, didn't it?
Can you imagine the "committee" that would design the uniform uniform? Every branch represented. Every uniform uniform requirement thrown into one pot. Wouldn't you love to be a fly on the wall listening to that debate?
How about the compromises? Every design is a compromise. Imagine compromises between mountain infantrymen, tropical sailors, and SAC ground crewmen.
Nope. I have no objections. I look forward to seeing the results. Just keep in mind that I like bell bottom trousers and camo-suspenders...
Can you imagine the "committee" that would design the uniform uniform? Every branch represented. Every uniform uniform requirement thrown into one pot. Wouldn't you love to be a fly on the wall listening to that debate?
How about the compromises? Every design is a compromise. Imagine compromises between mountain infantrymen, tropical sailors, and SAC ground crewmen.
Nope. I have no objections. I look forward to seeing the results. Just keep in mind that I like bell bottom trousers and camo-suspenders...
(7)
(0)
Folks, I for one think the Department of Defense should cease wasting money on uniforms and use that money for better training. Congress, lobbied by various manufacturers as well as the senior leadership feel compelled to change the uniform. This nonsense needs to stop. I agree that one utility uniform is all we need in two weights, summer and winter.
(6)
(0)
To be honest I am confused with the amount of cammie uniforms the Army has and that AF and Navy cammie pattern ???????? Not to long ago we all wore the same pattern. The Marines branched out with a new pattern and everyone else followed with something completely different. I think it would make sense to come up with 2 patterns that all use. Tan and green. No Army or Marine emblems buried in the design. Just allow the individual service to wear patches,chevrons and the covers they want.
The Marines used snipers to develop the colors and pattern for the MARPAT uniform. I'm sure if the military involved special forces from all branches, they could come up with a color and pattern that works.
The Marines used snipers to develop the colors and pattern for the MARPAT uniform. I'm sure if the military involved special forces from all branches, they could come up with a color and pattern that works.
(6)
(0)
Lt Col Fred Marheine, PMP
F*#@ Yeah!
[perhaps the funniest movie ever, in a totally twisted, disgusting puppet-sex sort of way]
[perhaps the funniest movie ever, in a totally twisted, disgusting puppet-sex sort of way]
(3)
(0)
To my line of thinking I agree with having a common field uniform. Regardless of esprit-de-corps, think about it logistically. We are spending so much money making uniforms in lessee here 7 different patterns. I pretty sure I'd rather have few extra rounds to train with that have a uniform the announces to everybody that I am in the Army... then again I am infantry gimme 30 secs of conversation and I'll tell'em.
(6)
(0)
SFC Michael Jackson, MBA
It interesting you mentioned having the rounds. It may come down to a decision of holding on to pride and distinction Vs having proper equipment or maintaining personnel strengths.
With budget cuts consistently coming down, few cost saving ideas are off the table
With budget cuts consistently coming down, few cost saving ideas are off the table
(2)
(0)
I'd just be scared of what group of morons would decide the pattern. We might end up all wearing that pink and purple camo.
(6)
(0)
SFC Michael Jackson, MBA
I was a recruiter myself. They were preparing you for your future sales position. One of the lessons of sales is to know that's not the product that sales, it's how you present it. I heard the top 10% line myself. what they really mean is they have slots for 10% of your MOS to fill. After they fill deploying units, operational units, and cut out the unqualified personnel (medical, moral, legal, etc. problems), and count off the ones already on special duty, you may be the top 10% of who's left. Your classmates may even make the cut
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
It always gave me a laugh. Especially looking at other branches. The Air Force competes for the job while we get dragged there kicking and screaming.
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Pink and purple! Well, ya never know. There may be a battle in a funhouse or something one day.
:-)
:-)
(0)
(0)
Supposed to be one team one fight right?
CW3 (Join to see) MSG Andrew White PO2 Rick Fox SFC Pete Kain MSG Tom Earley SSG William Jones Capt Tom Brown CSM Richard StCyr SPC Kenny Watson LTC Greg Henning MAJ Ken Landgren SPC Jovani Daviu SFC Stephen Atchley MSG Frederick Otero SGT Rick Colburn LCpl Shane Couch Sgt Randy Wilber PO3 Steven Sherrill Cpl Scott McCarroll TSgt David L.
CW3 (Join to see) MSG Andrew White PO2 Rick Fox SFC Pete Kain MSG Tom Earley SSG William Jones Capt Tom Brown CSM Richard StCyr SPC Kenny Watson LTC Greg Henning MAJ Ken Landgren SPC Jovani Daviu SFC Stephen Atchley MSG Frederick Otero SGT Rick Colburn LCpl Shane Couch Sgt Randy Wilber PO3 Steven Sherrill Cpl Scott McCarroll TSgt David L.
(4)
(0)
SFC Michael Jackson, MBA If this happened, then what would the military industrial complex (uniform makers) do? they'd go broke, the U.S. Military could save tons of money or put it to better use. How dare you bring up something so sensible!! I almost down voted you for making such a statement!!
(4)
(0)
SGM Mikel Dawson
SFC Michael Jackson, MBA - Lol, Yes SFC, what was you thinking!! Get down and give me 20!! Oh by the way, Have a fantastic Thanks Giving!!
(0)
(0)
I like the idea of a common combat/field uniform with branch specific rank etc. Each branch, by all means, should keep their unique dress uniforms.
Seems like a common combat/field uniform would simplify the procurement process and possibly reduce DoD budget since they would not have to rely on multiple vendors for several different uniforms. I like either the ACU or MARPAT, from what I have read the AF goes to ACU's when deployed anyway.
Seems like a common combat/field uniform would simplify the procurement process and possibly reduce DoD budget since they would not have to rely on multiple vendors for several different uniforms. I like either the ACU or MARPAT, from what I have read the AF goes to ACU's when deployed anyway.
(4)
(0)
As long as the Marines and the Navy get to keep an eight-pointed utility cover, I'd be fine if the rest was the same for field uniforms. I was never a fan of the Army/Air force version.
(4)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
When issued, Navy wore the same BDU's as everybody else back in the 80's & 90's. I agree that we need to keep the eight point hat though.
(2)
(0)
CSM Charles Hayden
In 1953, a Cap, HBT, Utility: 8 pointed cover was issued to me by the USA @ Ft Ord. I soon learned to 'block' it by hacking a piece of cardboard into the 8 points as a
block/ stiffener.
block/ stiffener.
(3)
(0)
From a economic, logistic and functional standpoint, yes having a common field uniform is the way to go. Service individuality/pride is adequately expressed by service and dress uniforms.
(4)
(0)
Wow our memories are short, or we've really just turned over that many personnel! The BDU and DCU were common uniforms, and I don't think the basic flight suit varies between services either except for rank insignia and patches. This isn't a far out concept here. For in garrison work I get it - personally I think it's silly to wear anything camo'd up in an office, always have, but unless we're willing to go even further back and put everyone in olive drab fatigues (the old pickle suit), let's just pick something and stay with it for utilities. Dress uniforms, let's just stop obsessing over this already.
(4)
(0)
While over the years they have been many efforts at cross service standardization most of those efforts fail. Why? Because each branch of the service has its own unique culture and prioritization of values. The bottom line each branch is going to wear what it wants to wear. The Marines are never going to adopt a uniform from the Army because they want to look like Marines and not Soldiers. (Whom they consider an lower order of being.) The Air Force wants their own look so that's why they wear green boots when Army boots (for now) are tan or "coyote brown" (whatever that is).
Is the Navy going to abandon its white uniforms because none of the other services have them? No. Robert Redford made sure that the service dress "choker" whites for Navy officers would be around for another 100 years in the movie "The Way We Were" in 1973. (How many fashions which were cool in 1973 are still cool today? Plaid men's shirts? PLEAASSSEE!) The Marine Corps dress blues are probably the closest thing to fashion perfection ever invented and will NEVER change.
Sure, there's some room for standardization in the area of utility/combat uniforms. But, again, the problem is that one service doesn't want to be like the other.
Sooo.... After they spend 6 trillion dollars on the F-35 and have built only 100 of them before the cancel the program. They will realize that trying to build a "one size fits all" jet fighter doesn't work.
Let each service handle its own procurement and it will cost less in the long run.
Is the Navy going to abandon its white uniforms because none of the other services have them? No. Robert Redford made sure that the service dress "choker" whites for Navy officers would be around for another 100 years in the movie "The Way We Were" in 1973. (How many fashions which were cool in 1973 are still cool today? Plaid men's shirts? PLEAASSSEE!) The Marine Corps dress blues are probably the closest thing to fashion perfection ever invented and will NEVER change.
Sure, there's some room for standardization in the area of utility/combat uniforms. But, again, the problem is that one service doesn't want to be like the other.
Sooo.... After they spend 6 trillion dollars on the F-35 and have built only 100 of them before the cancel the program. They will realize that trying to build a "one size fits all" jet fighter doesn't work.
Let each service handle its own procurement and it will cost less in the long run.
(3)
(0)
I for one have worn the pickle suit, the woodland camo, at that time the utility uniform was universal across the services. Then the 5 services went insane and each service developed their service specific utility uniforms. What a WASTE!!!!! We are short of money for almost everything, weapons, vehicles, maintenance, pay, bonuses, to name a few! But we allocate money for a committee to develop a service specific utility uniform and field gear. I was in the Air Guard for a time, I picked up a surplus Air Force Arctic Parka, My brother joined the Navy and became a submariner. He was in New London pulling deck watch,and freezing. We were talking on the phone and he asked about my parka. I told him I still had it, he asked me to send it to him. I did and the deck watch used it to keep warm. He was talking with me later and said I wish I had the stock number for that parka, I told him it was on the label inside the collar. He attempted to order some parkas for the sub deck watch, the requisition got to base supply, and was turned back, Air Force item not authorized for the Navy. The Navy has a similar item for Navy use. It was not the same nor as warm. I would recommend a joint service committee to develop utility and field equipment. I would make sure all specifications were necessary. Case in point I was aware of a butcher's apron, duck cloth with RED STITCHING. These were used to cut meat for cooking, they are used to protect the cooks uniform from getting bloodied up. The stitching is only a means to assure that a certain provider gets the contract! The Army 2 piece rain suit specified a SILK label to assure the correct contractor was awarded the contract! All specifications should be checked for necessity, and make sure that it does not circumvent the Competitive Bid process!
(3)
(0)
This is a terrible, being a Marine, we like the fact that we are different. You can tell a Marine by the care of his/her uniform and telling us to wear the same uniform as another branch doesn't do us any justice. Enemies see marpat green/desert and know that hell is coming. We don't want to be associated with another branch
(3)
(0)
Read This Next