Posted on Jun 14, 2018
The US Army is 243 years old — here's what its soldiers have worn into battle in every war since...
490
3
7
3
3
0
Happy birthday, Army.
1SG Javier "Elvis" Martinez welcome back, brother.
1SG Javier "Elvis" Martinez welcome back, brother.
The US Army is 243 years old — here's what its soldiers have worn into battle in every war since...
Posted from businessinsider.comPosted in these groups: 
Military History
Military History
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 2
0
0
0
Other than this line talking about camouflage use in Europe in WW2 " However, the experiment was not a success: Other Allied troops mistook the Soldiers for Nazis. Even in the Pacific, units found that the olive drab uniform offered better concealment."
This has never, ever been proven by first hand accounts, official military documentation, or any other scholarly source ever. It is hearsay that was drummed up after the war. The amount of camo worn in Europe was microscopic in comparison, so the amount of adjacent units that could have even fire on US troops in camo is exponentially smaller. Handfuls of the uniform were issued, and were a wear once, no replacement type of uniform. The true reason they were withdrawn from service is A: They wore out quickly and were not replaced if ripped, torn, destroyed, or whatever. B: They fade to a funny tan purple-ish color when they get overused. C: The rate of the advancing armies was such that they moved out of the Bocage country and into the open country and roads, where the camo was of no use.
This has never, ever been proven by first hand accounts, official military documentation, or any other scholarly source ever. It is hearsay that was drummed up after the war. The amount of camo worn in Europe was microscopic in comparison, so the amount of adjacent units that could have even fire on US troops in camo is exponentially smaller. Handfuls of the uniform were issued, and were a wear once, no replacement type of uniform. The true reason they were withdrawn from service is A: They wore out quickly and were not replaced if ripped, torn, destroyed, or whatever. B: They fade to a funny tan purple-ish color when they get overused. C: The rate of the advancing armies was such that they moved out of the Bocage country and into the open country and roads, where the camo was of no use.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
MAJ (Join to see) continued:
The picture below is of a captured German soldier wearing US camouflage. (‘Waffen SS’, Martin Windrow). Just as our enemies do today, back then our enemy attempted to use our uniforms, regardless of how limited their distribution was, against us.
It’s understandable if a few friendly fires happened.
But again, the intent was simply to say happy birthday to the Army. As business insider is hardly a historical reference, it wasn’t intended as such. (Even though it wasn’t that inaccurate). I appreciate your response though!
The picture below is of a captured German soldier wearing US camouflage. (‘Waffen SS’, Martin Windrow). Just as our enemies do today, back then our enemy attempted to use our uniforms, regardless of how limited their distribution was, against us.
It’s understandable if a few friendly fires happened.
But again, the intent was simply to say happy birthday to the Army. As business insider is hardly a historical reference, it wasn’t intended as such. (Even though it wasn’t that inaccurate). I appreciate your response though!
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
You aren't helping me out (nor are you helping anyone being the anonymous moniker either). 29th ID was not issued the camo, it doesn't come up in any of their quartermaster request or issue records spanning June 7 1944-October 1 1944).
However, as you pointed out, the camo pattern bears a vague resemblance. What doesn't is the equipment, gear, weapons, etc. Again, no true scholarly sources have ever drawn up an accurate account of friendly fire on US troops due to camo. the 30th division was issued it in small numbers, and in talking to the veterans of, researching it with the Camp Blanding museum, as well as the National Archives for several years, nary one of them have come up with a definitive case of mistaken identity due to the camouflage. One of the biggest reasons the Army gave (after the fielding of the uniforms) for not issuing any more was it simply didn't work well/as planned. It actually made soldiers stand out MORE, since a moving pattern draws your eye to it.
In total they were worn for 2-6 weeks by most units before withdrawn from service. All the other anecdotes that are out there just say that friendly fire took place with 0 sources whatsoever.
However, as you pointed out, the camo pattern bears a vague resemblance. What doesn't is the equipment, gear, weapons, etc. Again, no true scholarly sources have ever drawn up an accurate account of friendly fire on US troops due to camo. the 30th division was issued it in small numbers, and in talking to the veterans of, researching it with the Camp Blanding museum, as well as the National Archives for several years, nary one of them have come up with a definitive case of mistaken identity due to the camouflage. One of the biggest reasons the Army gave (after the fielding of the uniforms) for not issuing any more was it simply didn't work well/as planned. It actually made soldiers stand out MORE, since a moving pattern draws your eye to it.
In total they were worn for 2-6 weeks by most units before withdrawn from service. All the other anecdotes that are out there just say that friendly fire took place with 0 sources whatsoever.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
SGT (Join to see) - Actually my friend, the picture here is training with the British army. It is incorrectly cited by amateur historians often as being a captured German sniper. It is a Brit in a prototype ONE piece camo HBT suit. The picture you show is picture 3 in a 3 picture staged series for the British army. It was filmed in country, France, July 27 1944. If you will notice the rifle stock of the Brit in the foreground, he has the adjustable cheek piece made for the No. 4 Enfield sniper's rifle. The Imperial War Museum has these (and several dozen others from this sniper school series) in their online catalogue if you feel implored to go look.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
MAJ (Join to see) - well as you appear to want to make this a downer of a birthday, let’s run with it.
For starters, does anyone’s name matter? No one on RP cares any more or less about the esteemed 1LT Noble than the esteemed SGT nobody. I certainly don’t care. I’m not looking for friend requests, and at the end of the day, the information and the manner in which it’s presented speaks for itself. Would my name somehow make anything I write more or less relevant? Anyway, thanks for providing your name. I think it’s cool.
And I stand corrected on the captured German photo. A quick 10 minutes of research apparently led me astray. Imagine my internal chagrin.
But while the German issue and US issue may have a “vague resemblance” to you, usually, that’s all it takes, especially in combat situations. (Also, look past the black and white). When Taliban fighters wear ACUs or Multicams, they don’t generally adhere to 670-1. Feel free to look up some pictures. The post-Bastion attack pics are a good example.
Apparently I need to help you, because I never wrote that 29th ID was issued the uniform. “There indeed, were, incidents of mistaken identity and friendly fire due to misidentified camouflage. Incidents with 2nd Armored, 29 ID, notably” is what I wrote.
So, if in a friendly fire incident, 29 ID wasn’t issued the pattern... well LTs and maps and compasses right? (Even with all the tools...). I guess I’ll still give you the benefit of the doubt. Figure it out.
“Again, no true scholarly sources have ever drawn up an accurate account of friendly fire on US troops due to camo”. I agree. But please acknowledge that that is an impossible number to account, especially from that era.
“SGT, did you just smoke friendlies?”
“Yes sir, 16 of them. ”
“Why?”
“They looked like SS, but just vaguely upon closer inspection, sir. Damn these new one piece jumpers”
“I’ll note it for the AAR. Carry on”.
-SAID NO ONE EVER.
Additionally, please acknowledge that 30th division and its museum (and the national archives, for that matter), aren’t the end all, be all. There will never be an accurate accounting of the matter, specifically for the hypothetical conversation above. The only people that could provide the accurate numbers would have committed fratricide, or are dead.
Also, please stop citing quartermaster records of who got what. Other units besides the 30th got the camp pattern. As you so aptly pointed out, the Brits were using it for training purposes. Have you gone through U.K. national archives? Canadian national archives? Have you gone through individual unit museums or gone through oral histories from soldiers there?
Unfortunately, there are passed down stories since the war of friendly fire involving these patterns that were similar to German camo. It was a different time. No CNN, no internet, no embedded reporters. Sometimes, ‘unverified’, oral accounts are all there is.
And out of curiosity? if moving patterns draw the eye to them, why are camouflage patterns still issued?
But anyway, happy Army birthday. There always has to be a drunk uncle, I guess.
For starters, does anyone’s name matter? No one on RP cares any more or less about the esteemed 1LT Noble than the esteemed SGT nobody. I certainly don’t care. I’m not looking for friend requests, and at the end of the day, the information and the manner in which it’s presented speaks for itself. Would my name somehow make anything I write more or less relevant? Anyway, thanks for providing your name. I think it’s cool.
And I stand corrected on the captured German photo. A quick 10 minutes of research apparently led me astray. Imagine my internal chagrin.
But while the German issue and US issue may have a “vague resemblance” to you, usually, that’s all it takes, especially in combat situations. (Also, look past the black and white). When Taliban fighters wear ACUs or Multicams, they don’t generally adhere to 670-1. Feel free to look up some pictures. The post-Bastion attack pics are a good example.
Apparently I need to help you, because I never wrote that 29th ID was issued the uniform. “There indeed, were, incidents of mistaken identity and friendly fire due to misidentified camouflage. Incidents with 2nd Armored, 29 ID, notably” is what I wrote.
So, if in a friendly fire incident, 29 ID wasn’t issued the pattern... well LTs and maps and compasses right? (Even with all the tools...). I guess I’ll still give you the benefit of the doubt. Figure it out.
“Again, no true scholarly sources have ever drawn up an accurate account of friendly fire on US troops due to camo”. I agree. But please acknowledge that that is an impossible number to account, especially from that era.
“SGT, did you just smoke friendlies?”
“Yes sir, 16 of them. ”
“Why?”
“They looked like SS, but just vaguely upon closer inspection, sir. Damn these new one piece jumpers”
“I’ll note it for the AAR. Carry on”.
-SAID NO ONE EVER.
Additionally, please acknowledge that 30th division and its museum (and the national archives, for that matter), aren’t the end all, be all. There will never be an accurate accounting of the matter, specifically for the hypothetical conversation above. The only people that could provide the accurate numbers would have committed fratricide, or are dead.
Also, please stop citing quartermaster records of who got what. Other units besides the 30th got the camp pattern. As you so aptly pointed out, the Brits were using it for training purposes. Have you gone through U.K. national archives? Canadian national archives? Have you gone through individual unit museums or gone through oral histories from soldiers there?
Unfortunately, there are passed down stories since the war of friendly fire involving these patterns that were similar to German camo. It was a different time. No CNN, no internet, no embedded reporters. Sometimes, ‘unverified’, oral accounts are all there is.
And out of curiosity? if moving patterns draw the eye to them, why are camouflage patterns still issued?
But anyway, happy Army birthday. There always has to be a drunk uncle, I guess.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google