"Military uniforms Expense and too big to camouflage" Topic
10 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please do not use bad language on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Modern Media Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Profile ArticleFor the time being, the last in our series of articles on the gates of Old Jerusalem.
Featured Book Review
Featured Movie Review
|
Tango01 | 10 Apr 2014 3:36 p.m. PST |
""I WEAR camo so I can feel safe," says Sean, a member of the navy reserve. He cannot quite fathom why his combat uniform is different from that of other American servicemen in the field, depending on whether they are members of the army, the air force or the marines. And soon it may be different no longer; for after years of ludicrously expensive design rivalry, the defence appropriation for 2014 prohibits the services from designing new uniforms, unless they will be used by all members of the armed forces. Remarkably, the Department of Defence has no single department dedicated to researching, developing and procuring the best uniforms for all troops. This caused no problems before 2002, when nearly every serviceman had a choice between a greenish camouflage uniform or a "coffee stain" desert pattern. But over the past 12 years the services have each created their own style of camouflage. The effect has been both costly, and occasionally embarrassing. The marines led the way in 2002 with a versatile and effective new combat uniform, which also served to boost corps morale because the marine insignia was embedded in the design. This inspired a cascade of one-upsmanship among the other services. The air force, for instance, spent several years and more than $3 USDm designing a new "tiger-stripe" uniform that proved unsuitable for combat—the camouflage was ineffective, the trousers were uncomfortable and the fabric was too heavy, leading to "heat build-up". The navy spent a lot less money developing the "aquaflage" uniform; but that is a silly blue ensemble that works best where sailors may least wish to blend, in the water
" Full article here. link Amicalement Armand |
John the OFM | 10 Apr 2014 6:24 p.m. PST |
Unless you are a SEAL, why does the Navy need camo? For that matter, why do generals in the office in the Pentagon need camo? |
Renaud S | 10 Apr 2014 7:17 p.m. PST |
Camo is usually ugly, and kills army uniform prestige. IMHO, should only be used by combat infantry. The same for cops. Days when uniforms were nice and sexy are long gone everywhere now. Except for the UK kingly parades, which may be one of the reasons the croud loves them, and the UK soft power is so high. |
T34M1943 | 10 Apr 2014 11:35 p.m. PST |
Yes, ditto on Renaud S. Cammo is for combat. Every army should bring back something from the period when their uniforms served to distinguish wearers from those in business suits. |
Mooseworks8 | 11 Apr 2014 5:35 a.m. PST |
I agree with John. You see several press conferences by flag officers given in BDUs. I also think the "business suit" model of dress uniforms is not keeping with U.S. military tradition. What's wrong with having a uniform that looks like a soldier? |
Legion 4 | 11 Apr 2014 9:14 a.m. PST |
Being a former Grunt officer I preferred to wear jungle fatigues, camo jungle fatigues or lastly BDUs. Much more comfortable and useful in daily duties, in garrison and of course a must on ops. However, I believe even in office jobs like in the Pentagon, camo uniforms generally reminds all the military's function – combat
Yes, at times Class A dress is appropriate. But unless you are going to see the president or congress, etc., BDU/ACU, etc. is fine for daily use. As far as Navy Camo, I think that is just the Squids trying to get a little espirt, elan, panach, etc.
ie.: the cool factor. So let the Squids have their camo. If nothing else it's good for morale
And BTW, the Camo uniform is a business suit
the business of combat and war
And IMO that is a uniform that looks like a soldier
Not to start anything
but I'm guessing none who commented here have served
or at least not in combat arms. No offense, just an observation
|
javelin98 | 11 Apr 2014 2:30 p.m. PST |
I'm with Legion 4. I always preferred BDUs when I was in garrison. Only staff troops who never set foot inside a motor pool should wear Class A's or B's as a regular uniform. As for the business suit comparison
amen! I despised the green "Johnny Carson Suit", and I don't think the Army's blues are much better. The USMC has the best dress and service (i.e., non-combat but non-dress) uniforms in the US. I'd like to see the Army turn to something simpler, like the Ike jacket but with a mandarin collar. Something which says, "I may not be dressed for combat, but It is still my job to KILL YOU!" The whole eye-candy competition over the past decade was just pathetic. The Air Force took it to the extreme of ludicrousnous, honestly. Digital tiger stripe BDUs for guys who never leave a hangar? Whatever. |
Legion 4 | 12 Apr 2014 7:47 a.m. PST |
Just FYI, a link with US Camo uniform patterns from the past to current
link And being Grunt we rarely wore any type of dress uniform, Class-As, B, Blues, etc.
As Javelin can probably agree
My West Point pals even had Dress Whites ! Any type dress uniform was only worn a few times a year
Again, Your "business" dress is camo
|
Zargon | 12 Apr 2014 4:09 p.m. PST |
Ill chip in a US$for Legions BDUs to be tattooed permanently. Make em proud Dad. |
Legion 4 | 13 Apr 2014 8:29 a.m. PST |
Ouch !!! That's could hurt !!! |
|