Wear of the Uniform/Appearance Off-Installation

[Vic Bout]

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]

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. 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]

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]

...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]

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]

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

[120mm]

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]

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]

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.

[RTK]

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]

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.

[Ken White]

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.

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...