PDA

View Full Version : Wear of the Uniform/Appearance Off-Installation



Tom Odom
05-16-2008, 01:09 PM
But then, there was also that story in the papers recently about RAF men in Peterborough (not far from me) being told not to wear their uniforms out in public.

seek Kipling's Tommy (http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/kipling_ind.html) for a historical take on this...


I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o' beer,
The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:
O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play,
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play.

I happened on a discussion on a Brit press web site about a move to finally give RAF Bomber Command veterans a gong for their sacrifices in WWII. Despite the so-called safer night attacks, Bomber Command lost more bombers in the same month that the 8th mounted the Schweinfurt raids. It was amzing to see some of the utterly senseless vituperative posts against the move because the veterans were "war criminals".

We have gone through it here in the States. Ken's experiences I am sure attest to it. As members of the Army in the 70s, we were prohibited from wearing uniforms in the national capitol region under Peanuts Carter. At the same time, we were getting letters about how to apply for food stamps...

Hopefully we will not repeat that.

Tom

Norfolk
05-23-2008, 03:36 PM
I've been here a bit longer, but see things the same way. Hard to have a day go by without seeing a story about slashed military funding or overstretch in the Telegraph. If Brown goes, I think that'll be pretty far down the lists of reasons why. But I also suspect the Tories wouldn't be much better, because they're just basically New Labour Lite now anyway.

Part of the issue may be that, at least as far as I've seen, ordinary squaddies aren't too well regarded. The usual stuff about drinking too much, starting fights, etc. Maybe things are the same if you live in a military town in the States like Fayetteville, I don't know, we don't have too many of those in New England. But then, there was also that story in the papers recently about RAF men in Peterborough (not far from me) being told not to wear their uniforms out in public.

I can remember in the 90's how the Canadian Forces were ordered by the Department of National Defense not to wear their uniforms off-duty or even in public while on-duty when possible. Unless troops are driving between bases (and wearing combat dress), the public practically never sees a uniformed soldier or officer in real life, even now.

ODB
05-23-2008, 08:32 PM
I am a complete fan of not wearing uniforms in public. For a decade now I leave them at work. Ever see the post man walking around the mall after work in uniform? The UPS man? FEDEX? It is what I wear for work some days..... Nothing I hate more than seeing "Joe" in ACUs walking around the mall at 11 a.m. or even at 6 p.m. Then there are those who fly in them, understand returning from deployment, but many have regular clothes with them, you mean to tell me they didn't have 2 minutesto change in all the above cases. My final thought on this is considering today's enemy/threat I am amazed we (service members) have not been actively targeted here at home. This is a lot of my reasoning for my thoughts on this, the less I can make myself and my family a target the better. I even hate the fact I have to have a DOD decal on my vehicle to get on post. Just my .02 cents worth.

Fuchs
05-27-2008, 02:00 PM
German soldiers are told that they can use the uniform whenever they want, but they need to behave properly and shall not mix uniform with visible civilian clothes ("Univil").

I heard about this
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/05/british-to-outl.html
on BFBS yesterday. This is probably a fail safe evidence for significant problems of that army.

MattC86
05-27-2008, 03:33 PM
German soldiers are told that they can use the uniform whenever they want, but they need to behave properly and shall not mix uniform with visible civilian clothes ("Univil").

I heard about this
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/05/british-to-outl.html
on BFBS yesterday. This is probably a fail safe evidence for significant problems of that army.

I was recently at the Koblenz train station, and there were dozens of German soldiers, best as I could figure returning from reservist or conscript duty (do the Germans still have conscription?). . .they were in full uniform, but many had long hair, facial hair, piercings (not even just ears) and even coloured hair. I was waiting for a monocled Prussian in jackboots to come storming in and give them the whip, but it didn't happen.

I know reservists (an all countries) tend to look less stringently military than their active duty comrades, but these guys were still on duty and were sporting personal appearances that didn't just occur for the morning train ride home to their lives. As someone who doesn't particularly like seeing the uniform off post, seeing the uniform (even German) represented so was quite a shock to me.

Getting back to the issue at hand in the UK, I wonder if the difference in public perception is noticeable even in the new TV series "Warship" chronicling life on HMS Illustrious. Whereas in the US, this show would feature heavy metal music and a very serious Lt. Commander explaining the "awesome capabilities" of his warship, the UK series closely examines the Chinese Laundrymen (stunned they still have those) and the RN's football team as it competes with the RAF. More of a "lives of British sailors in the service" rather than a "We're the US Navy, and let me show you how we put the fear of God into people" kind of approach.

I think the British people as a whole are very ambivalent about their military, much as they are ambivalent about their role in the world with the collapse of the Empire. People I've talked to (granted, these are most definitely not military professionals) scoff at the concept of a "long war," which even a considerable segment of the US population takes for granted.

In short, the political disconnect with the UK and its military is, I believe, inseparable from the continued conflict within UK foreign policy about its position in the world order - still caught at the edge of Europe and the Transatlantic relationship. . . I'm not sure you can separate those issues.

Regards,

Matt

Cavguy
05-27-2008, 08:13 PM
I am a complete fan of not wearing uniforms in public. For a decade now I leave them at work. Ever see the post man walking around the mall after work in uniform? The UPS man? FEDEX? It is what I wear for work some days..... Nothing I hate more than seeing "Joe" in ACUs walking around the mall at 11 a.m. or even at 6 p.m. Then there are those who fly in them, understand returning from deployment, but many have regular clothes with them, you mean to tell me they didn't have 2 minutesto change in all the above cases. My final thought on this is considering today's enemy/threat I am amazed we (service members) have not been actively targeted here at home. This is a lot of my reasoning for my thoughts on this, the less I can make myself and my family a target the better. I even hate the fact I have to have a DOD decal on my vehicle to get on post. Just my .02 cents worth.

You'd probably find it interesting that SMA Preston asked all the attendees at the Armor Conference to wear their uniforms when traveling TDY - he felt it was a great chance to get into conversations with civilians about the Army - good recruiting marketing.

I don't buy the "target" argument domestically. Overseas it makes sense, but I think that's overblown fear-mongering.

The one time I traveled in uniformed I was humbled and even embarassed at the amount of positive attention I received, including lots of questions from a curious public. I kind of see SMA Preston's point. Why not allow the uniform (as long as properly worn) off post?

MattC, concur on the Bundeswehr's grooming standards. Goatees, colored hair, and earrings are standard for the conscripts, as far as I can tell. (Yes, they have conscription). I don't see the colored hair among the "regulars" though.

(I'm secretly jealous of the Goatees). ;)

Fuchs
05-27-2008, 09:47 PM
I was recently at the Koblenz train station, and there were dozens of German soldiers, best as I could figure returning from reservist or conscript duty (do the Germans still have conscription?). . .they were in full uniform, but many had long hair, facial hair, piercings (not even just ears) and even coloured hair. I was waiting for a monocled Prussian in jackboots to come storming in and give them the whip, but it didn't happen.

I know reservists (an all countries) tend to look less stringently military than their active duty comrades, but these guys were still on duty and were sporting personal appearances that didn't just occur for the morning train ride home to their lives. As someone who doesn't particularly like seeing the uniform off post, seeing the uniform (even German) represented so was quite a shock to me.

The regulations are not very explicit, they merely ask for a "gepflegte" appearance. That's difficult to translate. Basically it means that the soldier shall care about how he looks.
colored hair - depends on Disziplinarvorgesetzter afaik (CO who's responsible for judging on minor offences, usually a captain)
tattoo - should be hidden afaik
facial hair - no problem if it's no 3-day-beard
long hair - allowed since 70's (we had a court judging on this, afterwards long-haired soldiers had to use a net under the helmet iirc)
I'm out of active duty since several years, though.
monocle officer - a stereotype that was never really representative
Our conscription is just nine months, but many extend it for some months with better pay.

I wonder why the British have apparently such prestige/reputation troubles.
That's certainly a terrible outlook for long-term recruiting especially of NCOs and officers! It might also affect the budget, which is defined in a democratic political process, after all.

We in Germany have a rather good relationship, the Germans have concluded peace with their own military sometime in the 90's. The left wing isn't any more like in the 70's/80's, not the least because many conditions have changed.
Our SecDefs were in the focus of critique (for really, really good reasons), not the troops themselves. We have about once per year a minor scandal like tasteless photos and about the KSK, that's it.

Old Eagle
05-28-2008, 03:46 PM
A lot of Americans probably don't like to be reminded that a few of you heroes are indeed at war. But we are, even while they're at the proverbial mall. The good news, as CavGuy mentioned is that the response to a uniform in public is almost universally positive. (OK, stay away from the recruiting station in Berkeley).

'Twasn't always so, as Tom mentioned. At times there were directives not to wear uniforms in public, but sometimes it was almost an element of survival. Who wanted the hassle of being spat at and verbally abused? It was easier and safer to travel in mufti.

The turn came during the Reagan presidency, when POTUS supposedly asked why he never saw any uniforms when he was out and about -- memories of WWII and all that. When he learned of policies that discouraged, if not forbade wear in public, he issued guidance encouraging wear of Class As during travel. The Amy went to a policy of Fatigue/BDU auth directly between work and home.

The current Army policy of wearing ACUs is good for all concerned, for soldiers as well for those whom we serve.

Schmedlap
05-28-2008, 04:27 PM
I was never a big fan of wearing the uniform outside of the duty day, simply because it is impractical (specifically, the beret is impractical). I'm sure this is familiar to everyone - try walking out the door of a crowded Starbucks with a coffee and a muffin in one hand, your beret in the other, squeezing your way out the door past the long line of people, and then donning your beret with one hand - or setting your coffee and muffin on the ground or floor - just so that you can walk 15 feet to your vehicle to unlock the door. Or a similar feat with two bags of items from the grocery store on your way home. I found it simpler to just leave my uniform at work and travel in shorts, a t-shirt, and flip flops.

My 2 cents - if you do not meet height/weight standards, then I think that wearing the uniform outside of duty hours (aside from going directly to and from your home) should be forbidden. Those individuals are not meeting the standard and they should not walk around in public giving people the impression that they are meeting the standard. It sends an inaccurate message about the standards that we hold our Soldiers to and reflects poorly upon the military.

Tacitus
05-28-2008, 07:22 PM
I've never understood the hostility of the U.S. armed forces to beards and longer hair. Like Tom says, that wasn't always the case with this, either.

I just spent a few days last week touring the national military parks at Antietam and Gettysburg. It was very interesting. Lots of photos and illustrations there of troops in the field (both dead and alive). Anyone who goes to pieces at the sight of soldiers with a goatee better avoid these two places, that's for sure.

Apparently soldiers sporting a beard and longer hair didn't seem to pose a problem for anyone in the Confederate and Union armies, from the lowly private all the way up to general officers. Maybe the Bundeswehr has simply adopted a similar attitude.

Steve Blair
05-28-2008, 07:32 PM
Always worth remembering that the vast majority of troops on both sides in the Civil War were state volunteer units, not regulars.

That said, mustaches used to be quite the thing (especially with cavalry units). Beards were common in the field, but not so much in garrison. As for reasons...try pest control for one. Back in the day lice were a major problem, and keeping hair short (to include facial hair) was one of the main control options available. I suspect that over time it just became a "symbol of good order."

mmx1
05-28-2008, 07:35 PM
Getting back to the issue at hand in the UK, I wonder if the difference in public perception is noticeable even in the new TV series "Warship" chronicling life on HMS Illustrious. Whereas in the US, this show would feature heavy metal music and a very serious Lt. Commander explaining the "awesome capabilities" of his warship, the UK series closely examines the Chinese Laundrymen (stunned they still have those) and the RN's football team as it competes with the RAF. More of a "lives of British sailors in the service" rather than a "We're the US Navy, and let me show you how we put the fear of God into people" kind of approach.


I don't know if you've been following this from overseas, but that's just like the PBS miniseries "Carrier (http://www.pbs.org/weta/carrier/)" last month.

Entropy
05-28-2008, 08:49 PM
I've never understood the hostility of the U.S. armed forces to beards and longer hair. Like Tom says, that wasn't always the case with this, either.


Until the early 1990's, IIRC, Navy personnel could grow beards and such while aboard ship, but I think that went away in part because of difficulties with gas-masks.

If it were up to me, I would discourage ACU/utility uniforms in public, and actively encourage Class A's/B's. My impression of the Army is they seem to have rid themselves of everything but ACU's and I see them worn way too often, including official functions. The Army has some great uniforms and IMO would be better served by wearing A's and B's instead of ACU's in public.

Cavguy
05-28-2008, 10:38 PM
Rumor control from SMA's Preston's brief I sat in is that current A's/B's begin going away on 14 June and are replaced by a mod of the current dress blue uniform. It's been rumored/staffed for quite awhile but will reportedly be announced then.

No more greens! Of course, there will be a 2-3 year "wear out".

patmc
05-28-2008, 11:04 PM
It is great to see that the Army is not currently gainfully employed and has enough free time to change the uniform... again. The Dress Blues look sharp and have more impact bc you only wear them on special occasions. If they add patches and flare, it will ruin the uniform.

The SMA ran with the 82nd last week (nobody pointed out he is not airborne) when he was here on Bragg. I wonder if he checked any barracks? Clearly a new uniform deserved more attention than taking care of Soldiers or fighting a war these past couple years.

Sir, I really hope this is a rumor/joke.



Rumor control from SMA's Preston's brief I sat in is that current A's/B's begin going away on 14 June and are replaced by a mod of the current dress blue uniform. It's been rumored/staffed for quite awhile but will reportedly be announced then.

No more greens! Of course, there will be a 2-3 year "wear out".

John T. Fishel
05-28-2008, 11:43 PM
a DA and DOD civilian. I well remember when Class A and B were the only authorized uniforms off post and for office wear. I also recall when the army started wearing BDUs in the office and the classroom in the early 90s (perhaps the late 80s). But there were the DACs always in coat and tie. It seemed to me (and still seems the same) that if soldiers wear ACUs to the office the DACs should wear blue jeans, tee shirts, and sneakers - same-o same-o.:rolleyes:

Regarding beards: the old saw about can't get a seal on the protective mask is just that. I mentioned that reason in 1970 to a distant cousin who skippered a nuclear attack sub. He replied that his crew had been the test population and they got seals just fine - thank you very much!:wry:

Cheers

JohnT

slapout9
05-29-2008, 12:04 AM
When I was in the 82nd 72-75 you could not where fatigues (thats what they were called back then) off post except inside your POV to and from work. Two exceptions were flat tire,break down etc., the other was to get gas. The gas exception was added after the first Arab Oil embargo, reason being for a while the whole state of North Carolina was on rationing. Odd number license plates could get gas one day, even numbers the next. So if you were getting gas you were allowed to pump it,pay for and get back in your car. The reason for this was that self serve gas stations were just starting to get going compared to full service ones, so higher HQ thought it was ok for the troops to save some money by being in fatigues for a few minutes. This may seem strange to the younger folks but this was a very big deal back then. Oh yea if got caught violating this you were subject to an Article 15:eek: Never heard of it happening though.

Old Eagle
05-29-2008, 12:47 AM
Soldiers in public should look like civilians or pretty girls in their spiffy As or Bs.

To John T -- I used to love the fact that in the 5-sided nuthouse, we could wear the open collar B when those low life civilians and contractors had to strangle themselves with ties. Even in the winter, we could wear a sweater w/ opened neck shirt. Of course, we all had dress up clothes in case we were called upon to perform in some sort of command function. Not only that, when Max Thurman was the Vice, you had to wear the saucer cap whenever you travelled with him, not the c--t (garrison) cap.

As to beards, long hair, etc., it doesn't matter what the standard is, just that it is enforced. If the standard is 5" hair, better not be 6. If the sideburns can extend to the tragus (look it up), then they better not be longer. If moustaches can't extend below the lower lip, so be it. After the shirts vs skins ball game for PT, everybody gets back in uniform for the run back to the company area. Just set a standard and then enforce it. In this world, discipline rules.

Of course, a whole bunch of you better be enjoying the popularity of shaved heads. :D

John T. Fishel
05-29-2008, 02:00 AM
Old Eagle. Reminds me that the last time I looked at the haircut reg (long ago and far away) it prohibited "extreme" styles!:rolleyes:o

Cheers

JohnT

Cavguy
05-29-2008, 04:25 AM
It is great to see that the Army is not currently gainfully employed and has enough free time to change the uniform... again. The Dress Blues look sharp and have more impact bc you only wear them on special occasions. If they add patches and flare, it will ruin the uniform.

I don't think they're adding much flair. There was a survey sent out via AKO awhile ago seeking opinions about how to replicate the SSI and FWTS patches on the uniforms. I think they're going for pin on crests.


The SMA ran with the 82nd last week (nobody pointed out he is not airborne) when he was here on Bragg. I wonder if he checked any barracks? Clearly a new uniform deserved more attention than taking care of Soldiers or fighting a war these past couple years.


I assume you're being sly here. Just because he wasn't offered the opportunity as a 19K to throw himself out of an airplane 5 times makes him ineligible as SMA to run with the 82d? If he's not air assault, can he not run with the 101st?

I always base my opinions on people by the tabs they wear and not by who they are. :rolleyes: He wasn't selected as SMA for being an idiot.


Sir, I really hope this is a rumor/joke.

I doubt it, this move started under Shoomaker. The general argument is that in the long run it will be cheaper for the soldiers. Only two uniforms to maintain (ACU and Dress), unless you opt for mess dress (chicks dig it).

I personally hate green A's/B's. Blues will be much better as long as they don't kill it with flair, as you said.

The pant will change from a suspender to a belted version. A grey shirt will be fielded which will be the "Class B" shirt for the uniform.

Also this (http://www.marlowwhite.com/army/uniforms/service-dress-blue/officer-male.html)from Marlow White's website:


Dress Blue Uniform Change Update (6 Mar 08): GEN Casey has commented recently that an announcement concerning the Dress Blue Uniform Change is likely to occur early this summer. Our guess is that such an announcement would be on June 14 (Army's Birthday) as previous major uniform changes have been announced on that date. Currently, the "Class A" version of the Dress Blue is not implemented and the Class A Green Uniform is still in effect. Marlow White is NOT a member of the Army Uniform Board; however, the industry's expectations are that the Army's Dress uniform will become a variation of the current Dress Blue Uniform.

Also This (http://www.army.com/news/item/2053) from the Army's own news release (dated):


WASHINGTON (Army News Service - June 6, 2006) -- Army service uniforms will be streamlined to one blue Army Service Uniform, the Army announced today.

“World-class Soldiers deserve a simplified, quality uniform. The blue Army Service Uniform is a traditional uniform that is consistent with the Army’s most honored traditions,” said Sgt. Maj. Of the Army Kenneth O. Preston.

“We have all of these variations of uniforms – green, blue and white,” said Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker. “It makes sense for us to go to one traditional uniform that is really sharp and high quality and which Soldiers will be very proud to wear. And that’s what we’ve done by adopting this blue Army Service Uniform that reflects simplicity, quality, utility and tradition.”

Many Soldiers already own an Army blue uniform (now to be called the Army Service Uniform) and may continue to wear it. Improvements will be made to the fabric and fit. Reduction of the number of uniforms will reduce the burden on Soldiers for purchases and alteration cost.

Introduction in the Army Military Clothing Sales Stores should begin in fourth quarter of fiscal year 2007. Introduction in the Clothing Bag should begin first quarter 2009. The Mandatory Possession Date is expected to be fourth quarter fiscal year 2011.

A wear-out date for the Army Green Class A and White dress uniforms will be determined at a later date.

The consolidation of Army service uniforms is part of a streamlining process. In 2004, the Army reduced the number of battle dress uniforms from three to one when it adopted the Army Combat Uniform in place of the Woodland Green Battle Dress Uniform (winter and summer versions) and the Desert Combat Uniform. That uniform consolidation has been a resounding success in terms of Soldier acceptance and reducing the variety of combat uniforms with which they must deal.

Uboat509
05-29-2008, 08:56 AM
The SMA ran with the 82nd last week (nobody pointed out he is not airborne) when he was here on Bragg.

So he wasn't infantry, so what? We can't all be rock stars. SOMEBODY has to cook the food, fix the trucks, drive the tanks, etc. I, for one, don't see any reason why one of the infantry support MOSs can't be SMA. :D

SFC W

patmc
05-29-2008, 10:27 AM
I'm not infantry. Most guys at Bragg are not infantry, but most are airborne. I love the support guys; they work harder than most of the combat arms. No complaints there.

The Fayetteville Observer (all the news that's fit to print) and the Paraglide (Bragg's paper) were plastered with photos of the Division Run. Everyone at work pointed out SMA was wearing an Airborne shirt. Was my comment stupid? Of course it was, but this is Fort Bragg. And definately no offense to any 19 series guys. They protected my ass when I needed it.

Regardless, I still think there are more pressing issues at hand than changing the dress uniform. Fix housing, training, dwell time, medical care, etc. then worry about a uniform you wear once a month.


So he wasn't infantry, so what? We can't all be rock stars. SOMEBODY has to cook the food, fix the trucks, drive the tanks, etc. I, for one, don't see any reason why one of the infantry support MOSs can't be SMA. :D

SFC W

RTK
05-29-2008, 11:38 AM
I'm not infantry. Most guys at Bragg are not infantry, but most are airborne. I love the support guys; they work harder than most of the combat arms. No complaints there.

The Fayetteville Observer (all the news that's fit to print) and the Paraglide (Bragg's paper) were plastered with photos of the Division Run. Everyone at work pointed out SMA was wearing an Airborne shirt. Was my comment stupid? Of course it was, but this is Fort Bragg. And definately no offense to any 19 series guys. They protected my ass when I needed it.


I've never had anyone, to include those with long or short tabs, deny themselves an opportunity to one of my Bradleys or Abrams. Maybe it was because I'm airborne qualified....

Who gives two S*&ts if SMA Preston was wearing an Airborne shirt or not? I guarentee SMA Preston did not go to the main PX at Bragg after he got of the C-12 and bought the shirt himself. Did he earn the parachutist badge? No. Did he earn the right to wear a shirt gifted to him by the post commander and run with his Soldiers? Yes - because he's the Sergeant Major of the Army.

The armor community didn't bitch when SMA Hall came and shot off a tank at Knox, even though he didn't go through TCGST. So I ask the larger question; who has more time - the powers that be for changing the uniform or the dirt darts arguing in the company supply and admin area over whether or not the SMA can run with their unit, even though he's not "qualified?"

By the way, 3 of the last 4 Sergeants Major of the Armor have been either Scouts or Tankers.

TheCurmudgeon
05-29-2008, 11:43 AM
The pant will change from a suspender to a belted version. A grey shirt will be fielded which will be the "Class B" shirt for the uniform.

:

Last I heard the grey shirt was out. No patches. A combat unit affiliation pin could be worn on the left side above the unit awards.

Also rumor control had it that the new "B" uniform would be the ACUs with colored rather than subdued patches, so there may be no need to alter the pants.

120mm
05-29-2008, 11:56 AM
I HATE Class "As" First and foremost, they are designed for fat people.

Kind of like a Maternity Mini-skirt for men....

In my 26 year career, 6 of which were active, I think I've worn my Class "As" 8 or 9 times. My Mess Dress, though, I'm busily attempting to wear out.

We need ONE dress uniform and ONE basic field uniform, and both need to be adaptible to different situations, imo.

And on the subject of Class B's, Nearly every single time me or one of my guys were truly screwed over by someone, it's usually someone who wore Class B uniform. I say those people could wear something Day-Glo pink with a big "Blue Falcon" stenciled front and back....;)

Schmedlap
05-29-2008, 02:39 PM
I'm glad that the emphasis upon starch and shoe polish disappeared with the change from BDU/DCU to ACU. I hated the rationale that your DUTY/FIELD uniform does not look professional unless it is starched, and your boots are not presentable if you cannot use them to signal an aircraft. Where did that come from? How about neat, clean, and serviceable uniforms and clean, blackened, neat, serviceable boots? Why was that unacceptable? It was a waste of time and money to get uniforms starched and to spit shine boots when just buffing them with a brush was adequate (and met the standards in 670-1). Switching to ACU's almost makes up for the black beret boner (aka, the chef hat, given how many seem to improperly sport it).

Likewise the decision to go to one uniform also makes sense. Given how rarely most Soldiers actually wear the class A and B, replacing them with one makes more sense from both a financal standpoint and one of simplicity in the busy lives of Soldiers and their families.

Next on my wish list: stop wearing helmets and various other field gear at parades. What is that all about? It is not a uniform item (it is equipment), it does not look impressive, and it does not reflect what we wear in battle - so what is the point? When I PCS'd to the DC area, I went to CIF and was issued a old-school kevlar helmet and LCE (in late 2006). Why? In case I needed to participate in a parade or ceremony. I got a separate ACH, Interceptor, and MOLLE gear for more practical purposes. That was so stupid. And did anyone see photos of President Bush pinning the Distinguished Service Cross on two 82nd ABN Soldiers last week? Did you see the officer (could not see his rank) who was also in the photo? He was wearing a stripped down Interceptor (with no SAPI's) and a red beret. What is that all about? Is that supposed to look super disciplined or professional?

Tacitus
05-29-2008, 03:07 PM
I hated the rationale that your DUTY/FIELD uniform does not look professional unless it is starched, and your boots are not presentable if you cannot use them to signal an aircraft. Where did that come from?

I vividly remember standing in formation to hear a battalion commander rail about how he didn't want to see any starched BDUs, that that was in fact, against regulations, and he was going to make life hell for anybody he saw with them on. Then having NCOs make life difficult for us soldiers if our BDUs didn't look like they were starched. What to do?

It was then, at that moment, that I realized that Catch-22 wasn't merely a good novel and work of fiction, but something accurate that I would just have to learn to live with in the military.

That BC had to have seen soldiers walking around all the time with starched BDUs afterwards, but I never heard of anybody getting in trouble for it. The feeling in the ranks was that if (the mysterious "They") had it in for you, this was a sort of selective enforcement of regulations they would get you for, if they wanted to.

wm
05-29-2008, 03:32 PM
I vividly remember standing in formation to hear a battalion commander rail about how he didn't want to see any starched BDUs, that that was in fact, against regulations, and he was going to make life hell for anybody he saw with them on. Then having NCOs make life difficult for us soldiers if our BDUs didn't look like they were starched. What to do?

It was then, at that moment, that I realized that Catch-22 wasn't merely a good novel and work of fiction, but something accurate that I would just have to learn to live with in the military.

That BC had to have seen soldiers walking around all the time with starched BDUs afterwards, but I never heard of anybody getting in trouble for it. The feeling in the ranks was that if (the mysterious "They") had it in for you, this was a sort of selective enforcement of regulations they would get you for, if they wanted to.

Pre-BDUs we had "permanent press" (better know as permanent wrinkle) fatigues that I remember being told to get starched. And, of course, before those bad boys, we had the real starched cotton fatigues that you could stand up in the corner if you had a good QM laundry or a mama san laundry lady who knew what heavy starch meant.

For a real golden oldie, who, besides Ken, remembers, the Louisville cap (AKA the Fidel Castro Cap)? Some hot shot put a cardboard circle in a standard issue fatigue baseball cap and created it. As far as I can recall, it was never an Army clothing bag item, but it was required for wear.

Tom Odom
05-29-2008, 03:43 PM
Pre-BDUs we had "permanent press" (better know as permanent wrinkle) fatigues that I remember being told to get starched. And, of course, before those bad boys, we had the real starched cotton fatigues that you could stand up in the corner if you had a good QM laundry or a mama san laundry lady who knew what heavy starch meant.

For a real golden oldie, who, besides Ken, remembers, the Louisville cap (AKA the Fidel Castro Cap)? Some hot shot put a cardboard circle in a standard issue fatigue baseball cap and created it. As far as I can recall, it was never an Army clothing bag item, but it was required for wear.

Yep and many "broke starch" twice a day.

I believe the cap was called the Ridgeway

Ken White
05-29-2008, 04:08 PM
...For a real golden oldie, who, besides Ken, remembers, the Louisville cap (AKA the Fidel Castro Cap)? Some hot shot put a cardboard circle in a standard issue fatigue baseball cap and created it. As far as I can recall, it was never an Army clothing bag item, but it was required for wear.that were of US origin instead of being adopted from someone else. The cardboard added to the old Field Cap (aka a patrol cap...) by some troublemaker led to the Lousiville Cap Company developing their semi-permanent stiff model.

Both it and the Campaign hat were sort of impractical.

Hmmm. Maybe there's a message in that somewhere... :wry:

Tacitus
05-29-2008, 05:08 PM
A quick Google search yielded no results for The Louisville cap. What y'all are describing sounds something like French gendarmes or the French Foreign Legion wear (kepi blanc). If anybody has a picture of this almost forgotten hat, feel free to post it, or a link.

Tom Odom
05-29-2008, 05:25 PM
A quick Google search yielded no results for The Louisville cap. What y'all are describing sounds something like French gendarmes or the French Foreign Legion wear (kepi blanc). If anybody has a picture of this almost forgotten hat, feel free to post it, or a link.

Ridgeway Cap (http://www.olive-drab.com/od_soldiers_clothing_m1951_cap_ridgeway.php)

Yep looks like a kepi



I wore one at Texas A&M in the Ross Volunteers for drill practice

And wore a campaign hat with cover for rain gear :cool:

Ken White
05-29-2008, 05:42 PM
here's one on a US Army soldat (LINK) (http://www.fdlrez.com/Museum/images/veterans/JamesLoons.jpg) back in the day, apparently in Korea in the late 50s...

Stan
05-29-2008, 05:56 PM
here's one on a US Army soldat (LINK) (http://www.fdlrez.com/Museum/images/veterans/JamesLoons.jpg) back in the day, apparently in Korea in the late 50s...

Holy Moses... That picture of Tom almost scared me :eek:
Jeez he's put on a few Keys since that BCT photo in By-God-Texas A&M :cool:

Ken White
05-29-2008, 06:00 PM
Loons...

:D

wm
05-29-2008, 06:05 PM
Yep and many "broke starch" twice a day.
While stationed on Okinawa, I sometimes "broke starch" (AKA "raped" a set of fatigues) three times a day. High humidity played havoc on the starch, and our SGM was a stickler for looking good when we had to be around the HQ builldings at Fort Buckner. We often broke starch with khakis a couple of times a day too--as a young trooper, I couldn't afford to buy a set of tropical worsted (TWs) with sewn-in military creases, even at Oriental tailoring prices.

Please don't moan about having to maintain modern fibered ACUs and a class A and B uniform with the only difference being the shirt (short sleeve versus long sleeve w/tie under a Blouse). it doesn't really sit well with a guy who had to maintain 4 completely different types of uniforms--fatigues, khakis/TWs, greens, and blues (I managed to avoid an assignment where I needed to get whites), not to mention the OGs and other field uniforms that came in the old TA-50 issue.

ODB
05-30-2008, 05:02 AM
Unfortunately my main reasoning for the feelings of not wearing the uniform off-post is that most who do this are not presenting a good image. Too many who do this look as if they haven't pushed themselves away from the table in years or are "too cool". Generally these are the ones who love the APFT uniform the most. I understand given the public a chance to meet and talk with soldiers. Having experienced these conversation many times on flights all over the country, some the stories that come forth from these encounters, I have to ask are they productive or counter productive? I guess this comes down to one of those personal thoughts and preferences and their is no right or wrong answer, other than what is in the regulations at the time.

As far as airborne wings, who cares. I never have and never will wear my badges on BDUs/ACUs or whatever comes next. What a person wears on his chest or shoulder does not make the man/woman. It shows they can pass an Army school. There are too many out there who judge a soldier by this and it tells you absolutely nothing about them. it's no different than judging a book by it's cover. Funny this came up, I had a brother of mine call this morning asking me what he should wear when he reports to his Reserve unit. I told stripped down ACUs, let his new unit members judge him by his performance not his badges.

120mm
05-30-2008, 11:35 AM
While stationed on Okinawa, I sometimes "broke starch" (AKA "raped" a set of fatigues) three times a day. High humidity played havoc on the starch, and our SGM was a stickler for looking good when we had to be around the HQ builldings at Fort Buckner. We often broke starch with khakis a couple of times a day too--as a young trooper, I couldn't afford to buy a set of tropical worsted (TWs) with sewn-in military creases, even at Oriental tailoring prices.

Please don't moan about having to maintain modern fibered ACUs and a class A and B uniform with the only difference being the shirt (short sleeve versus long sleeve w/tie under a Blouse). it doesn't really sit well with a guy who had to maintain 4 completely different types of uniforms--fatigues, khakis/TWs, greens, and blues (I managed to avoid an assignment where I needed to get whites), not to mention the OGs and other field uniforms that came in the old TA-50 issue.

Hey, we can't fix "stupid".:wry:

I transitioned from OG 507s to BDUs to ACUs, and like ACUS the best because you don't have to do anything to them. Except repair them all the time....:rolleyes:

Vic Bout
05-30-2008, 01:41 PM
I think I got it figured out. All those hours I spent as a young joe in 1/75 spit-shining my jungle boots and hand starching my cammies (couldnt afford store bought with my LES showing $350 a month AND that's with $50 a month jump pay!) wasn't so we'd look sharp. It was intended to keep us youngsters out of trouble....(we dint have video games or the internet to keep us occupied)...spent many an hour in the day room rubbing a cotton ball over my JB's, drinking 25 cent vending machine beer and watching Charlies Angels

Norfolk
05-30-2008, 10:36 PM
I'm with those who propose just two sets of uniforms, a formal dress uniform for office and formal occasions, and a battle dress for work, in and out of the field. The Canadians have also gone through a number of just plain wasteful uniform issues and changes. First was in 1968, whent he Army, Navy, and Air Force were officially abolished by act of Parliament, and replaced by a single service, the Canadian Armed Forces. Everyone got a Rifle Green dress uniform, and most had a combat dress uniform, but not all; the Canadian Army actually refused to issue a real battle dress uniform until well into the 1960's, the issue WWII-battle dress being used mostly for work out of the field as well as formal occasions, while troops bought US-surplus to wear in the field.

Then the 60's came along and Canadian troops finally got an issue combat uniform (made partly out of nylon, caught fire and melted real well, and you stank real quick in the field) - but never enough were procured, and as recently as the '90s some recruits were issued black mechanic's coveralls instead. Strange but true. So somebody in the late '80s got the idea of "economizing" on combat uniforms by issuing "Garrison Dress", complete with tan "work" pants and shirt, brass, faux-Corcoran jump boots, camouflage duck-hunt smock, and black leather gloves, also a faux-London Fog black overcoat. Well, by the mid-90's that exercise in waste and futility bought the biscuit, and troops were still short of combat uniforms.:wry: At least in the 80's "Distinctive Environmental Uniforms" DEU's with "Army" greens and tans, Navy blues and whites, and Air Force light blues replaced the single Rifle Greens, still cheap, but at least it was helf a step forward.

The old No.2 Blue's that some other Commonwealth Armies still have are very easy on the eyes, and would go rather nicely with proper battle dress uniforms - I always liked the Brit DPMs (not the cheap Canadian knock-offs that were only issued to SSF units (especially 1RCR and the Airborne Regiment), and only for showing off all the badges and tabs that one had earned).

I think that having troops wear their dress uniforms in public might help remind the civilianry that yes, the Military still exists, and yes, it is still in their midst. That said, as other posters have stated, putting gaggles (or even odd individuals) of frumpy, out-of-shape, and not-so-well-disciplined troops out in public is just looking for trouble. That, however, is a leadership, training, and personnel issue, and if those three factors are taken care of properly, then the citizenry will be treated to the occasional sight of professional-looking troops appearing now and then in public. An alternative to this is to have the public rely on TV ads and shows, movies, and popular media in general to maintain the relationship between the Military and Society.

Fred III
06-01-2008, 11:06 PM
Ah, yes! I remember those so-called "Ridgway" or "Castro" hats. The first year or so I was in the army, we wore them. What a nightmare! Then they were replaced by something sort of like a baseball hat. In Vietnam we bought them locally, as we did our cheap, black insignia with the paper underneath the threading. Two washes in the Saigon River and the paper came through the thread. Great stuff! The hats had a stiff front (I guess that's the crown), then rode up your head in the back. From there they went to that mish-mash hat you guys wear today.

The army has always been "fatigue-cap challenged," especially since the marines don't have the same problem. To me, they should just ditch the whole mess and wear the beret with "fatigues" or "combat dress" or whatever initials you use to describe those uniforms.

I never did like camouflage uniforms in public and I don't much like the battle dress I see walking around the Nut House today or even testifying before Congress. To me, it's just another case of lowering the bar, but maybe that's what a volunteer military needs.

Someone posted on here that you were not allowed off post in the old-style green fatigues except traveling to and from home and with gas stops factored in. That's correct. But also, in those days, you had a Class B uniform of khakis that was as comfortable as can be. Of course there were about 4 variations of that uniform and you could even buy a tropical worsted ("TW's") version that was gorgeous. Each June, there would be a switch-over from Greens to TW's or khakis (for EM), then a switch-back some time in the fall.

The old green fatigues were simply a work uniform and were starched-- heavily, I might add! Combat dress was never worn in public and the jungle fatigues we wore in Vietnam were never starched. Woe betide any of my men who managed to work starch into his combat jungle fatigues!

The advent of the beret-- to me-- was a sartorial nightmare. Leave that to Special Forces. Our uniform gurus try to be all things to all people and incorporate every idea ever invented into what's worn now. The army has more crap on that green uniform; I'm surprised they don't allow you to wear multiple combat patches on the right sleeve... run 'em up and down until they reach the cuff! (Oops! I hope I haven't given anyone an idea!)

I do like the idea of the blue uniform; sort of reminds me of the old Indian fighting army. Different width stripes for officers and NCO's, sergeants and corporals; shoulder boards. And a beret...? Maybe in a parade they make you wear the helmet with it, along with bloused desert, jungle, or combat boots (or whatever they're called today). Wouldn't that look spiffy? But with all the unit pins and all the badges and ribbons, where will they put the name tag?

Wait! Here's another idea! On the back, like the NFL!

As for the German army at the train station... uh-huh! Why not? Hey look... the other day I saw guys with their grimy "baseball" hats on, work boots, cut-off T-shirts, and shorts having dinner in a fine restaurant. Why should the military set its standards any higher than our civilian "bosses"? Pretty soon, the bar won't have any lower to go... then everyone should be happy.

Best wishes,
Fred.

Ken White
06-01-2008, 11:43 PM
...To me, it's just another case of lowering the bar, but maybe that's what a volunteer military needs. ... Why should the military set its standards any higher than our civilian "bosses"? Pretty soon, the bar won't have any lower to go... then everyone should be happy.denigrating something you apparently aren't familiar with.

Having also played in the SEA war games -- though not in Saigon -- and watching and talking to many serving today, I have no doubt that these kids today, officer and enlisted, are across the board, smarter, better educated, better trained and far more tactically and technically competent than the vast majority of folks who served in Viet Nam.

As was true during Viet Nam, they are not responsible for stupid decisions made by their bosses.

Fred III
06-02-2008, 12:19 AM
First of all, Ken, you read the post wrong. I was not knocking the army or the military of today or of yesterday. I would never even consider doing that.

As for the military being smarter, better educated, better trained, etc., that's like saying baseball players are better today than they were in the 1950's. The argument is specious. If it wasn't for the lessons the army of the 60's taught, today's army would be no different. Sure it's better educated, better trained. Part of that is because the equipment is better and we're smart enough-- some, anyway-- to have learned a few things from Vietnam. It was Vietnam that forced the military-- dragging and screaming-- into the volunteer force. It was able to impose higher education standards because the pool was smaller. It weeded out all the ROTC/USAR officers who had about as much business in the military as my mother.

As for the leadership, I seem to smell the same rat I smelled a number of years ago. The uniform changes, but the culture doesn't. It seems the higher up one goes, the more easy it is to forget the lessons we impart to junior officers... you know, the starry-eyed ones who think they can change the world. The ones who bleed the most.

I'm so sick of the way our soldiers are treated I can't even stand to watch the roll-call of honor on PBS when they flash the KIAs across the screen; been there, done that, my friend.

So please, don't pick a fight with me about our military. You and I are wielding the same stick. It's just that my memory is very, very keen and I don't forgive easily. I also don't forget; and I'll stack the men I had in Vietnam or Europe or the States against anyone you care to put up against them. Just level the field; give them the same training in and with the same equipment... and you know something? They do even better. Why? Because they had to. I didn't have many volunteers.

As for tactics... Iraq is not an example of something I would use to tout modern American tactics, especially in light of "lessons learned"... or not.

Best wishes,
Fred.

Surferbeetle
06-02-2008, 12:25 AM
It weeded out all the ROTC/USAR officers who had about as much business in the military as my mother.



Fred,

Perhaps the above definition is not as precise as intended however, be that as it may, as a ROTC/RA/ARNG/USAR type I respectfully disagree with the above.

Regards,

Steve

RTK
06-02-2008, 12:37 AM
As for tactics... Iraq is not an example of something I would use to tout modern American tactics, especially in light of "lessons learned"... or not

So please, don't pick a fight with me about our military. You and I are wielding the same stick. It's just that my memory is very, very keen and I don't forgive easily. I also don't forget; and I'll stack the men I had in Vietnam or Europe or the States against anyone you care to put up against them. Just level the field; give them the same training in and with the same equipment... and you know something? They do even better. Why? Because they had to. I didn't have many volunteers.

Congratulations. You've successfully pissed off 3 members in good standing with 2 combatative posts. And those are just the ones who have responded.

If that's the case about tactics, then you aren't looking very carefully or you're looking through a broken lens.

You're fond of comparing the comparison of today's Army and the 1960s Army with the comparison of baseball players. Today's Army and yesterday's Army don't even play the same sport so your challenge that your Soldiers from yesteryear would do better than the Soldiers of today holds no water here. There is no comparison. The Spartans were very good in 480 BC. The Army of the 1960s was very good in 1960. The Army of today is very good today. That's it.

Fred III
06-02-2008, 01:11 AM
Steve--

That was a poor choice on my behalf, so I apologize. There were plenty USAR officers who were very good, just like there were plenty RA's who weren't. My deepest apology.

RTK--

As far as the tactics go, my lens is far from broken and I am looking a lot more carefully than you might believe. Also, please apply the term to where it is meant; I am not applying it in the parochial sense, so maybe I haven't made myself clear here, either.

Also, a simple analogy does not indicate "fondness," and I hardly lay down a challenge to anyone. I am simply stating that the soldier of the 1960's, given the same equipment and the same training, would be no worse or no better than the soldier of today. I hardly consider that a challenge. Comparisons of this sort are always dangerous, but it is not above these boards or any other boards to try to analyze these comparisons. It's like putting you and me in a bull ring. I'm now an old man and I'm sure you are considerably younger. What would anything prove?

The fact remains-- and it's awful to even consider-- that we are mired in Iraq in very much the same way we were mired in Vietnam, and if you think that ain't the truth, then your lens is broken or you're reading the wrong stuff and I don't care how many times you've been there or how touchy a subject it is to you. The fact is, my friend, you've been used and one of these days you're going to figure that out. Sometimes that's OK; it's just that at this time I don't feel it is, and if we had pulled our tactical heads out of our tactical butts when we should have, maybe we'd have a lot less than 4,000 KIA, and maybe this whole conversation wouldn't be taking place and you could concentrate on figuring out if your eyes match the blue of your new uniform.

If I have offended you, I apologize; that was not my intent. And that's neither cynical nor sarcastic; that's sincere. It certainly wasn't my intention to antagonize or PO anyone on this board. I don't post much here, but I read a lot of it and I respect too many of you to act like a know-it-all or to antagonize you. Whether you realize it or not, we are on the same team, the same side. My frustration with all this is palpable, just like it was 40 years ago; no difference. Live with that for a while, my friend. You may be on your way to doing so.

Very best wishes,
Fred.

Ken White
06-02-2008, 01:21 AM
First of all, Ken, you read the post wrong. I was not knocking the army or the military of today or of yesterday. I would never even consider doing that.I read it the way you wrote it; that may mean you could better consider your words or it could mean I misinterpreted you.
The argument is specious. If it wasn't for the lessons the army of the 60's taught, today's army would be no different.Actually, I'm incredibly lazy and tend to avoid specious argument. We can disagree on that Army of the 60s -- and, as the saying goes, I was there before you got there and was there after you left.
I'm so sick of the way our soldiers are treated I can't even stand to watch the roll-call of honor on PBS when they flash the KIAs across the screen...Your prerogative. I disagree, they really get treated pretty well -- the important thing, though is not what you or I think and I know the majority of them are generally happy with their treatment and their jobs.
... been there, done that...In a different era with different rules...;)
I'll stack the men I had in Vietnam or Europe or the States against anyone you care to put up against them. Just level the field; give them the same training in and with the same equipment...Thank you for corroborating my point
... and you know something? They do even better. Why? Because they had to. I didn't have many volunteers.Now that might be specious since it isn't going to happen. As for the many volunteers, you should've gone Airborne, then there would have been nothing but volunteers around. :D
As for tactics... Iraq is not an example of something I would use to tout modern American tactics, especially in light of "lessons learned"... or not.Sure it is, look at the bright side -- in Viet Nam it took us seven long years to turn around badly flawed tactics, in Iraq it only took a year and a half. Since you only had a couple of years with the Louisville pop up, I guess if you think the tactics in RVN were good, you were there after 1969, they were pretty fair by then... :wry:

RTK
06-02-2008, 01:23 AM
The fact is, my friend, you've been used and one of these days you're going to figure that out. Sometimes that's OK; it's just that at this time I don't feel it is, and if we had pulled our tactical heads out of our tactical butts when we should have, maybe we'd have a lot less than 4,000 KIA, and maybe this whole conversation wouldn't be taking place and you could concentrate on figuring out if your eyes match the blue of your new uniform.

After 24 months in Iraq, I don't think I've been used. Of course, I keep volunteering to go back. Perhaps I was brainwashed into believing what I and my Soldiers were doing was right.

Blame my Serbian stubbornness, but it's not that I think we were doing better after our second tour, but we were doing better after our second tour. Not only that, the Iraqis in our area were better off too because they had a significant hand in securing their cities.

I don't need a body count to know the cost of success or failure. I've spent more time at memorials the past 5 years than my students have had in the Army. Memorial Day is not just a 4 day weekend anymore; its the day I remember all my dead friends. Quitting wouldn't do them any justice. I'm reminded of GEN Petraeus' adage "hard isn't hopeless."

Schmedlap
06-02-2008, 01:49 AM
The fact is, my friend, you've been used and one of these days you're going to figure that out.


I don't post much here, but I read a lot of it and I respect too many of you to act like a know-it-all...

I will let those two quotes stand alone and move on to a different point (but one more related to the thread).

I remember, before 9/11, getting a fair amount of training during our preparation for deployment to Bosnia for how to interact with the media. It was surprisingly good training about how to establish ground rules, taking care to ensure the media was not choosing a questionable backdrop for the video, and, most importantly, how to stay in your lane. There was a lot of focus on recognizing when you are not knowledgable about a topic or recognizing when your comment is inappropriate. This seems to be lost on many.

Consider the handful of 82nd ABN Soldiers in Baghdad writing an NY Times editorial that looked at the situation in their unit's sector, in their collective opinion, and then extrapolated this into a country-wide assessment and a critique of strategy. There was the guy in uniform who wrote dispatches of questionable accuracy for the New Republic, before being called out as a liar. I am sure that all of us can think of one or two individuals from every unit that we have been in whom we cringe at the thought of representing the Army by wandering around in uniform and speaking to anyone who cares to listen. They often speak out of their lane and jump at the opportunity to unload all of their gripes about the military upon whatever unsuspecting and well-meaning civilian is willing to listen.

If we want to unleash every Soldier to be a spokesman, then there should be some common-sense instruction that accompanies it. Given the current load of requirements on our force, I don't think that there is much white space in the training schedule for that instruction.

Fred III
06-02-2008, 02:09 AM
Ken--

I would like to believe you misinterpreted me.

The army of the 60's: I have just been told my combative posts have PO'ed 3 members in good standing of this board. You may have been in it before me and you may have been in it after me. But I was in the army from 1962 to 1972, and I was airborne (trained), I was a ranger, and I was even in Special Forces for a very, very brief time. I would stack my brief career up against anyone's and I would stack the ability of many of my soldiers up against anyone, today or yesteryear. If you want to argue training; if you want to argue equipment, I yield. But please, you speak of denigrating; others speak of being PO'ed. I flung the tomatoes back in 1967 when they were flung at me; I wore my uniform proudly, despite the fact I got speeding tickets from every GD cop in sight simply for going 2 mph over the speed limit-- or was it because I was wearing green? I'm only doing the same thing now, Ken. I don't like being told the man who died in my arms was not as smart as the man who died in RTK's arms.

By being treated decently, I mean that they were sent over to fight a war that wasn't ours. Pick your venue.

"Different era...": no question, no argument.

As I said, I did go airborne... circumstances kept me from airborne units.

As for the tactics used in Vietnam, it depends on how you look at it. It isn't that simple, it isn't that cut and dried. We had different forces doing different things. Maybe if we had some of the understanding the men in Iraq are also missing, things would have been different a lot sooner than 1969.

RTK--

I have no doubt you were doing better the second time around. My gripe is not with guys like you, it's not with your soldiers. I'm a believer in the Powell Doctrine. I don't like using American soldiers frivolously, despite the fact that I enjoyed my two years in Vietnam enormously. Well... maybe that's hyperbole, but you get my point. I was a soldier and that's what soldiers do. I also never said what you and your men were doing was not right; it's just that we had no business doing it. That's the whole crux of my point, my argument.

I also have absolutely no doubt that the Iraqis in whatever area you were in were better off for having you there. But why? How about Zimbabwe next; then it's on to Burma, aka, Myanmar; chose one next: Iran or North Korea; after that, it's Lebanon, then Syria, and maybe one or two of the -Stans: Uzbek, Tajik.

Can't you guys get it? I f***in' hate to see you die; I hate memorials to the newly fallen. Like I said before, I'm an old man now, but if I could go in a younger man's place, a man with a family and children, I would go there in a heartbeat (easy to say, right?), not because I believe in it, but because I hate it and because I would do just as you have done. Only do me a favor, will you: don't tell me your men are better men than mine, either today or yesterday.

I hope the air is clear. Like I said, I meant no offense. Every man who wears or who has worn that uniform, blue, green, or pinks-and-greens, is the same to me as my brothers (who never served).

Best wishes,
Fred.

Ken White
06-02-2008, 04:11 AM
Ken--I would like to believe you misinterpreted me.So would I but the venom of your posts makes that difficult. The intent of this Board is to discuss the practices of warfare, obviously there is a political quotient and equally obviously people have beliefs and feelings on the current war and the employment of the force. Fine; we should be able to discuss the whole gamut without vituperation.
You may have been in it before me and you may have been in it after me. But I was in the army from 1962 to 1972, and I was airborne (trained), I was a ranger, and I was even in Special Forces for a very, very brief time.I was.
I would stack my brief career up against anyone's and I would stack the ability of many of my soldiers up against anyone, today or yesteryear. ... I don't like being told the man who died in my arms was not as smart as the man who died in RTK's arms.Not a thing wrong with taking up for the troops you served with -- I dislike using the possessive when discussing Troops, A. Lincoln made that illegal many years ago -- and I suggest re: your latter point that folks who serve today do not like being told that, as you said in your first post today "To me, it's just another case of lowering the bar, but maybe that's what a volunteer military needs. ... Pretty soon, the bar won't have any lower to go." You flung first and you predictably got it back; don't like snark, don't lead with your chin.
By being treated decently, I mean that they were sent over to fight a war that wasn't ours. Pick your venue.That's apparently your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it. Can't speak for others here but I personally strongly disagree with you on that.
As for the tactics used in Vietnam, it depends on how you look at it. It isn't that simple, it isn't that cut and dried. We had different forces doing different things. Maybe if we had some of the understanding the men in Iraq are also missing, things would have been different a lot sooner than 1969.Doubt it; the Army was hooked on fighting land wars in Europe in the paddies from 62 until late 68. In Iraq, the same thing was initially true but that changed as soon as a GO in the wrong place at the wrong time departed; same thing in RVN. The good news is, that as I said, in Iraq it took only about 20% as much time to get smart as it did in RVN.

As an aside, I spent two infantry tours in RVN all in the woods with two pretty good units and also briefly did some advisory work. I have watched the kids today train at Bragg and I have little doubt about the improved quality of the troops overall and their training in particular. Thats why I think your "lowering the bar" comments are quite incorrect. The Bar is higher now than it was in 1965-75. That's a matter of public record.
RTK... I also never said what you and your men were doing was not right; it's just that we had no business doing it. That's the whole crux of my point, my argument.RTK can speak for himself but I will point out that's not what you initially said.
Only do me a favor, will you: don't tell me your men are better men than mine, either today or yesterday.Since RTK did not say anything along that line and I did, I'll point out that I did not say today's men were better than in your day. What I actually said was ""these kids today, officer and enlisted, are across the board, smarter, better educated, better trained and far more tactically and technically competent than the vast majority of folks who served in Viet Nam."" Note that does not address their manhood or say they're better men, just that they're those things I said. I stand by that remark.

120mm
06-02-2008, 07:27 AM
Fred,

Perhaps the above definition is not as precise as intended however, be that as it may, as a ROTC/RA/ARNG/USAR type I respectfully disagree with the above.

Regards,

Steve

Ditto. My experience was the inverse. The ROTC/USAR/ARNG guys were used to replace the Active Duty RA types who had no business being there. And provided that I've been all of the above, I think I can speak with a certain authority on the issue.

Something about "glass houses" and throwing stones doesn't help anyone...

RTK
06-02-2008, 01:52 PM
I also never said what you and your men were doing was not right; it's just that we had no business doing it. That's the whole crux of my point, my argument.

I am an adult and a leader in an all volunteer force who has had multiple opportunities to leave this vocation for something safer. I chose not to. I don't need someone to "stick up for me" because they don't believe in what I'm doing. That's what I can't stand about the war protesters who "hate the war but love the Soldier." It implies I don't know what the hell I'm doing and that I'm, for lack of a better term, too stupid to understand what I'm getting myself into. Please stop.


I also have absolutely no doubt that the Iraqis in whatever area you were in were better off for having you there. But why?

Why? Because it's morally imperative. We went in, we broke things, it's our responsibility to make things better.


Only do me a favor, will you: don't tell me your men are better men than mine, either today or yesterday.


I never did. I will say this, however, that I agree with Ken about the variables. Remember than 500 years ago people thought the world was flat. Given similar upbringing and background to someone today, I doubt the same people would say the world was flat. Evolution doesn't make the newer better, just better equipped given technologies and educational upbringing. That's a scientific fact.

Steve Blair
06-02-2008, 02:09 PM
The Bar is higher now than it was in 1965-75. That's a matter of public record.RTK can speak for himself but I will point out that's not what you initially said.Since RTK did not say anything along that line and I did, I'll point out that I did not say today's men were better than in your day. What I actually said was ""these kids today, officer and enlisted, are across the board, smarter, better educated, better trained and far more tactically and technically competent than the vast majority of folks who served in Viet Nam."" Note that does not address their manhood or say they're better men, just that they're those things I said. I stand by that remark.

And this is historically pretty normal. I could go off on one of my rants about how the volunteer force has actually been the historical NORM for the Army, but I'll spare folks....:D

Education and technology always drive an overall improvement in troop quality. The GI in Vietnam was better educated than his World War II counterpart, who in turn was better educated than his World War I forefathers. And the same statement applies to the population at large. Better than what came before? Possibly in some ways, but not in others. Where the spikes take place is often in the quality of volunteers (something we've seen in the Civil War, Spanish-American, Mexican, and so on). The draft was never really equitable, and tended to be less so as soon as any shooting started or there was a planned drawdown.

This sort of vitriol is also as old as the United States...and in some ways predates it. Traditionally pacifist/isolationist New England states were against just about every major conflict we had prior to 1900 (except when they got all riled up about slavery). Troops on the Frontier were routinely accused of being tools of just about everyone in close proximity. And similar attacks came against troops in the Philippines.

Reassuring? Not really. But it does show that there are some constants in our social history, I suppose....

Cavguy
06-03-2008, 03:21 AM
I have no doubt you were doing better the second time around. My gripe is not with guys like you, it's not with your soldiers. I'm a believer in the Powell Doctrine. I don't like using American soldiers frivolously, despite the fact that I enjoyed my two years in Vietnam enormously. Well... maybe that's hyperbole, but you get my point. I was a soldier and that's what soldiers do. I also never said what you and your men were doing was not right; it's just that we had no business doing it. That's the whole crux of my point, my argument.


Fred,

We welcome your partcipation in the board. However, it took several specious attacks (or which read as such) against the current force and tactical leaders to get to your real argument - that you disagree with the criteria for employing US soldiers, which gets them killed. Sounds like a good start for a discussion on criteria for employment of US military, which is separate from this thread.

However, earlier in the thread you stated:


Sometimes that's OK; it's just that at this time I don't feel it is, and if we had pulled our tactical heads out of our tactical butts when we should have, maybe we'd have a lot less than 4,000 KIA, and maybe this whole conversation wouldn't be taking place and you could concentrate on figuring out if your eyes match the blue of your new uniform.

That isn't an attack on the national leadership or decisions leading to the use of force. It is a clear accusation that somehow the current force has its head in its rear regarding the tactics employed. Like RTK, I have 29 months in Iraq at BCT and below level (most proudly as a company co) and am interested in the basis for this assertion. As an ROTC grad I was also interested in your implied swipe at non-USMA and non-OCS (by implication) officers. This isn't the 1960's Vietnam officer corps. Sure there are duds around, but I also haven't experienced your assertion that our current senior leaders (FG and up) are out of touch and treating the juniors badly. In fact, I would say the war has brought the cream to the top of the officer corps. While the occasional dud is around, I have seen mostly tremendous leadership out of our officer corps, up to the general officer ranks - I'd be happy to name names and places if you like. Even better, most of them are being promoted - fast. Note the CPT attrition isn't currently due to poor leadership, but deployment tempo. I also haven't experienced a leader yet who I felt recklessly or stupidly risked his men in combat for any reason. That, and as I put to Ken in another thread, there are few "helicopter generals" in this war. Every BDE/BN CO I know of walks regular patrols with his men. The ADC of the 101st was a regular in my BN AO and often walked patrols with my guys to get the ground truth.

No one is stating there are better men today, only that the quality of the soldier (moral, educational), training (due to education and resources), and equipment are better than the army has had before in any conflict. No one has argued the character and mettle of today's servicemen is any less or more than those who went before.

Don't drop a Vietnam template of the Army on this one - as you stated, it's a false comparison.

Schmedlap
06-03-2008, 04:11 AM
That, and as I put to Ken in another thread, there are few "helicopter generals" in this war. Every BDE/BN CO I know of walks regular patrols with his men.

Yup. I saw a Colonel (a staff officer, not a commander) manning an M240B in the turret of his HMMWV during a patrol into our city in OIF III. That patrol was hit by two IEDs, about 5 minutes apart. We thought that was pretty badass. That may be going a bit far for an O-6, but it speaks somewhat to the mindset of our officer corps today. They would rather be deep in the action than hovering safely above it. Most prefer to be near the action, not for the glory, but because they are confident that they can lead when the Shiite hits the fan.

Ski
06-09-2008, 04:46 PM
Getting back to the ACU/uniform argument:

I've heard from a few people supposedly "in the know" that the reason why the uniform changes so oftenly is because it's one of the few aspects of quick change associated with being the CSA. Most new initiatives take a good deal of time, changing the uniform is much easier...

I'd just like to stick with a "cross the board" set of unis for about the next 10 years...

Umar Al-Mokhtār
06-09-2008, 11:06 PM
as I remember under Mundy we switched from crew neck Ts to either V neck or no T in our "Charlies" the Army equivilent being the short sleeve shirt with Class A trousers. What a nice expense which lasted exactly four years. This also caused some leadership angst about excessive chest hair. :rolleyes:

I remember the mama sans in Oki would actually add starch to the washers in the last few minutes of the rinse cycle. If you did laundry after them some of your civvies would come out a bit stiffer than they went in. :eek:

For headgear the Corps hasn't changed the utility cover all that much since WWII, other than the fabric.

The funniest thing I saw with the green cotton utilities were boo boos with the USMC/Eagle Globe and Anchor iron-on. When you received a new set you also had to buy the iron-on. The unwary would often fail to note that the iron-on's directions were printed on either side of the emblem but just happened to also be of the same iron-on material. A few young Marines ended up with a new pair of utilities with a nice set of iron-on directions neatly afixed on either side of the port pocket. :D

Crusoe
06-28-2008, 12:33 PM
Agree with Ski up to a point. Prior to 2003 the easiest and quickest way to "leave your mark" was to change the uniform. I went through several variations of this uniform "shell game" from 88-03. Since 2003 the quickest way, at least in the Marine Corps, for the Commandant to leave his mark has been equipment procurement. I did a tour in DC and was out of the operational forces for two years before doing an IA billet in Iraq. In that time frame almost all the gear issued to me had changed. I was shocked that the USMC had developed a methodology to "turn" that quickly on gear.

Not looking forward to going back to v-neck versus crew neck or green versus brown t-shirts changes again.