View Full Version : Army Camo Phase IV. Dont get attached to Multicam. What a freaking cluster
variablebinary
07-01-10, 07:28
Five billion freaking dollars is what it took to get UCP rolled out, and now the Army wants to dump it for three freaking camo patterns. THREE!!!
Does the army have a personal beef with Crye or something?
http://soldiersystems.net/2010/06/30/army-camo-phase-iv/
Army Camo Phase IV
And so it begins…well actually it began awhile ago but Phase IV of the Army’s camo program is gaining steam and Natick in conjunction with PEO-Soldier released a Sources Sought Notice yesterday for camouflage patterns. SSD was also able to speak with PEO Soldier’s COL William Cole and LTC Mike Sloane about the situation.
The Army is seeking a family of three different camo patterns including woodland, desert and, transitional (sometime called universal), and one pattern for personal equipment (such as body armor, ammo pouches and rucksacks) which works with all three (3) uniform camouflage patterns. The idea behind the family of patterns is to give Army leaders and Combatant Commanders options. The document goes on to describe a family of patterns as “A family is considered to be of the same or similar geometry with coordinating color palettes to cross the global operating environments. Global operating environments are defined by a geographic classification system that subdivides the global landmasses into areas with similar environmental characteristics.” So ultimately, they are seeking three and possibly four patterns that share basic composition. Sharing basic geometries can be used for identification purposes as well to streamline with supply chain with common printing screens. One option for the family of patterns is that the transitional or universal pattern will be issued in the clothing bag to all Soldiers and the woodland desert patterns would be special issue to those operating in those environments.
The Sources Sought Notice goes on to describe how the patterns will be evaluated. This methodology can be used in both a photosimulation study as well live field tests.
“The woodland pattern may be evaluated in forest, full ground cover, cropland and jungle terrain at distances between 35 and 400 meters.
The desert pattern may be evaluated in low sandy desert and high rocky desert terrain at distances between 35 and 500 meters.
The transitional pattern may be evaluated in both woodland and desert terrain types at the distances cited above.
All evaluations will be made with a subject mannequin and/or human wearing a uniform in the evaluated pattern and a body armor vest with ammo pouches in the family personal equipment pattern.
The primary method for evaluating uniform and personal equipment pattern effectiveness will be determining the distance at which observers have a 50% probability of detecting the camouflaged test subject; the shorter the distance the more effective the camouflage.
The secondary method for evaluating pattern effectiveness, to be used in instances where all patterns are detected at the same range, will be the relative time to detection; the longer the time to detection the more effective the camouflage.
Near IR performance will also be evaluated at distances from 35 and 200 meters. The patterns will be evaluated for Near IR performance in the same terrain types as for daylight performance.”
The big issue here is options. The camouflage team which is comprised not only of PEO-Soldier and Natick but also such stake holders as the Maneuver Center of Excellence, Naval Research Labs, USASOC, and the AWG has to brief the Army leadership on their plan of action in July. This plan not only offers choices but also economizes them through a common pattern geometry for uniforms as well as a common OCIE pattern.
COL Cole said that he expected to see a new family of patterns enter service within two years saying “We want to conduct rigorous testing. This is not a fashion contest.” What is clear is that no one wants to rush into a solution but rather, the Army would like to conduct full testing in all terrain environments and all seasons. Additionally, LTC Sloane added, the Army wants to ensure that they conduct a thorough threat analysis placing the correct emphasis on probable areas of operation.
At this point, the Army is trying to ascertain the state of industry to support this requirement and to give everyone a heads up. Offerors have one month to respond and we are looking forward to seeing what industry comes up with once a full blown solicitation is released.
Wasn't the whole point of going to UCP to find one pattern that would "work" well in most situations? If they're wanting to go to three patterns they should have just kept the woodland and desert patterns. Would have saved a lot of money in the long run.
As for whether the Army has a problem with Crye, couldn't tell you. Wouldn't surprise me though.
Littlelebowski
07-01-10, 12:21
Meanwhile, the Corps goes on having made a good buying decision years ago while the Army gets ready to spend millions and take months, if not years making their own camo instead of just adopting multi cam.
CENTCOM_Survivor
07-01-10, 12:38
What a clusterf*ck!
RogerinTPA
07-01-10, 15:36
Once again, this reeks of incompetence.:rolleyes:
CarlosDJackal
07-01-10, 15:37
Once again, this reeks of incompetence.:rolleyes:
More like it reeks of politicians getting their pockets lined. :mad:
variablebinary
07-01-10, 16:25
More like it reeks of politicians getting their pockets lined. :mad:
Believe it. Rolling out ACUPAT cost a whooping $5,000,000,000. Fielding Multicam is sure to be pricey as well. The sheer price tag alone mandates a certain commitment to ACUPAT.
That's a lot of contractors in a lot of congressional districts. .
M81 woodland lasted 25+ years. There is no reason why we cant commit to another pattern for an extended period of time
Meanwhile, the Corps goes on having made a good buying decision...
Actually I blame them for the whole thing. This "every service needs it's own digi camo pattern to look cool" has been a giant money pit with little real improvement in camouflage.
It would have been a much bigger improvement in camouflage if we had simply painted or replaced stocks and rail covers with green or tan.
Nathan_Bell
07-01-10, 16:43
More like it reeks of politicians getting their pockets lined. :mad:
Exactly
GermanSynergy
07-01-10, 20:29
What a goat rope....
Do they get garrison cammies with built-in glow straps?
Apparently incompetence knows no bounds. I agree, we get a bit of the blame for digital patterns becoming the craze, but ours do at least work, and our implementation of FROG gear works if you're a mainstream size. Multicam is a much better solution, and has been for a very long time, I can't see how they can justify a decision this stupid when they're going to be hurting for money so badly this FY.
ICANHITHIMMAN
07-01-10, 21:09
Im sick of it this is costing the men and woman of the army money too. I have a tuff box upstairs that has atleast 30 uniforms in woodland,3 color desert, acu and flightsuits not to mention shit left over from my first 4 years in the navy just pick multicam and be done with it.
Yes, you are absolutely correct, this is all the Corps' fault. The smallest service, with the smallest R&D budget developed digital cammo uniforms an EFF'IN DECADE AGO while the army was dicking around with woodland BDU's and two different desert uniforms. The Corps, who selected Coyote as the universal color for nylon gear because it worked with both their uniforms. The Corps who had two different cammo patterns as far back as 1942 while the Army was still clinging to OD and khaki. The Corps who was wearing ERDL cammo while the army was still wearing Korean War vintage wearing OD sateens with bright colored patches and white t-shirts. Sure, blame the Corps, they seem to have been able to have not only have gotten it right for decades when it comes to uniforms and outfitting their personnel but have done it on a shoestring budget where Big Army will never be able to figure it out.
variablebinary
07-02-10, 02:10
Yes, you are absolutely correct, this is all the Corps' fault. The smallest service, with the smallest R&D budget developed digital cammo uniforms an EFF'IN DECADE AGO while the army was dicking around with woodland BDU's and two different desert uniforms. The Corps, who selected Coyote as the universal color for nylon gear because it worked with both their uniforms. The Corps who had two different cammo patterns as far back as 1942 while the Army was still clinging to OD and khaki. The Corps who was wearing ERDL cammo while the army was still wearing Korean War vintage wearing OD sateens with bright colored patches and white t-shirts. Sure, blame the Corps, they seem to have been able to have not only have gotten it right for decades when it comes to uniforms and outfitting their personnel but have done it on a shoestring budget where Big Army will never be able to figure it out.
I think the Corps small budget is what lends to them making sound decisions on equipment in general.
When you've got billions of dollars like the Army has, it allows more latitude for questionable decision making when it comes to equipment.
One of the smartest things the Corps did was use coyote nylon. This is a much better use of resources compared to contracting new nylon in different camo patterns every couple of years.
CarlosDJackal
07-02-10, 10:02
Actually I blame them for the whole thing. This "every service needs it's own digi camo pattern to look cool" has been a giant money pit with little real improvement in camouflage...
I somewhat agree. When the USMC adopted their Digital Camo they made sure that nobody else in the DoD can use their pattern. IMHO, they did the whole military a great disservice with this decision.
I Seem to remember that recently there was a big hubbub about how one of the US Navy's digital pattern closely resembles the USMC Woodland digital camo. WTF? Don't the Marines want their Corpsmen to look like the Marines they support? Or do they want these guys to stand out in combat? :confused:
I remember when we all used the same BDU pattern and as far as I remember there wasn't a problem with this. Branches should differentiate themselves from other branches with their Dress Uniforms. As far as field or combat uniforms, we should all use the most effective pattern if nothing else but to prevent fracticide. JM2CW.
Belmont31R
07-02-10, 10:27
At one point I had FOUR different camo patterns of equipment.
ACU's, BDU IBA, DCU pouches and gore-tex, and one mulitcam pouch....
This shit is beyond ridiculous, and a huge waste of money. They can dick around with uniforms left and right changing things every year but I remember not being able to get parts for equipment because we didn't have any unit funds. How many billions of dollars get wasted every year on procurement shit that results in wasted equipment, and just wasted dollars?
Gutshot John
07-02-10, 10:28
I Seem to remember that recently there was a big hubbub about how one of the US Navy's digital pattern closely resembles the USMC Woodland digital camo. WTF? Don't the Marines want their Corpsmen to look like the Marines they support? Or do they want these guys to stand out in combat? :confused:
I don't know about the conflicts between Navy/Marines relevant to their uniforms.
Corpsmen serving with the FMF would be issued USMC camouflage.
I don't know about the conflicts between Navy/Marines relevant to their uniforms.
Corpsmen serving with the FMF would be issued USMC camouflage.The concern was over the new NSW digital camo. The Desert pattern is extremely close to the USMC desert pattern - only the materials of the uniform and the design/placement of the pockets is different. From any appreciable difference, you can't tell the two uniforms apart.
Of course, only NSW personnel are authorized to wear that pattern, so I can't see what the USMC's beef is. Even if the whole universe were to adopt it, I still can't understand why the Corps insists that ONLY they get to wear uniforms in the color pattern they adopted.
WRT to the original point of this posting, I support the idea, personally. Multicam is great, no doubt, but it's entirely too light to use as "woodland" camo in deep forests. The idea of having ANY pattern that's universal is flawed - just as flawed as the concept that led to the ACU debacle, IMHO.
Of course, IMHO the smart answer would have been to authorize use of unit funds to modify the old BDUs and DCUs (top pockets to the sleeves, bottom pockets to the chest, add velcro where appropriate), and just kept on keepin' on...
Regards,
Kevin
Littlelebowski
07-02-10, 11:53
Only on the internet would the Marine Corps be blamed for Army idiocy.
Yes, you are absolutely correct, this is all the Corps' fault. The smallest service, with the smallest R&D budget developed digital cammo uniforms an EFF'IN DECADE AGO while the army was dicking around with woodland BDU's and two different desert uniforms. The Corps, who selected Coyote as the universal color for nylon gear because it worked with both their uniforms. The Corps who had two different cammo patterns as far back as 1942 while the Army was still clinging to OD and khaki. The Corps who was wearing ERDL cammo while the army was still wearing Korean War vintage wearing OD sateens with bright colored patches and white t-shirts. Sure, blame the Corps, they seem to have been able to have not only have gotten it right for decades when it comes to uniforms and outfitting their personnel but have done it on a shoestring budget where Big Army will never be able to figure it out.
First off DOD should not allow service specific ground combat uniforms, PERIOD. So I guess I should have blamed DOD at least as much. Service branch pride and distinctive uniforms should be limited to Dress, not combat. This is a simple and logical (to me) statement that was not made to provoke an emotional response.
Second, what makes you think MARPAT is a significant improvement over Woodland and three color desert? Or even a significant improvement over OD and Khaki? Movement and a black M16 are both bigger target indicators than the difference in camo.
I like the idea for more than one uniform but it should be DOD not just the Army. I don't agree with "universal" camo even though I like multicam. We could go back to the basic colors of woodland (minus the black) and three color (add a bit more coyote or brown) in whatever pattern and have an 80% solution.
Does the army have a personal beef with Crye or something?
Sort answer? Yes.
Years ago, Natick and Crye were joined at the hip. The Crye uniform and CAGE chassis were the presumed future uniform. Natick wanted to buy Crye's intellectual property but Crye insisted that they would only lease it to the Army. The Army does not lease systems. So, things ended badly.
Thomas M-4
07-02-10, 21:39
Only on the internet would the Marine Corps be blamed for Army idiocy.
Army does some stupid shit for sure;) Just the Marine Corp knows how to rube the Army's face in it:D
CarlosDJackal
07-02-10, 23:31
Only on the internet would the Marine Corps be blamed for Army idiocy.
Now isn't that a bit of a stretch? The Marine Corps' decision to keep their digital camo to themselves may have been moronic and may have precipitated this stupid trend of changing uniforms by all the other services; but this whole fiasco is all Army (with a lot of help from Politicians who could care less about the final outcome as long as their "special interest" gets the funding). :D
When I joined the Corps we were wearing distinctive cammo from the Army and the Army was wearing three different field uniforms, sateens, an OD green ripstop field uniform, and a camouflage uniform for SF and Rangers. Later we were all saddled with shitty disco collared BDU's, designed by the Army that served no one well. There is a very good tactical reason for distinguishing the field uniforms of the Army from the Marine Corps, the Army and the Marine Corps have historically fought in different theatres and have different uniform requirements. No one is better able to select uniforms for the Corps than the Corps. It doesn't cost the Corps a billion dollars to design and select a uniform, let them wear what ever the hell they want, they aren't the ones pissing a fortune down the toilet trying to be fashionable.
Only on the internet would the Marine Corps be blamed for Army idiocy.
All services have now wasted various amounts of money on camo to look cool with dubious improvement (MARPAT) to downright worse (UCP) performance over the old standard. All services are to blame for the money each wasted, but ONE service started this whole silliness with a bad decision.
Money spent on MARPAT was a waste, and the main objective was to look cool. Here is why:
The research showing our black M16 being the biggest problem with our camo has been available for some time. If ANY service was actually concerned with camo the rifle would be the first thing to change.
If you want to get down to it, when fighting a sophisticated enemy cammo and the color of your rifle are immaterial; they all look the same in a FLIR.
Only on the internet would the Marine Corps be blamed for Army idiocy.
Indeed.
When I joined the Corps we were wearing distinctive cammo from the Army and the Army was wearing three different field uniforms, sateens, an OD green ripstop field uniform, and a camouflage uniform for SF and Rangers. Later we were all saddled with shitty disco collared BDU's, designed by the Army that served no one well.
Which is very reminiscent of the Corps having to un**** the Army's camo uniform design in WW2. I think the Army needs to get out of the uniform design business. Their track record is terrible.
Money spent on MARPAT was a waste, and the main objective was to look cool. Here is why:
The research showing our black M16 being the biggest problem with our camo has been available for some time. If ANY service was actually concerned with camo the rifle would be the first thing to change.
I disagree that the MARPAT was a waste of money, but cannot agree more that keeping rifles black was the most asinine way to negate any gains made with that pattern.
If we're able to make a swap to the M16A5 (EMOD/A5 buffer) and use FDE EMODs, and move to Taupe KAC handguards, I'd see that as very adequate short term progress, and then moving to exclusively poop brown type III anodized rifles would be next, and I think this should absolutely be the case (maybe utilize armory level spray on coating treatments for existing rifles), and we'd be there. For far less money than the Army would be spending to outfit a division with a trio of crappy patterns...
...shitty disco collared BDU's...
Do you have any reason other than the collar that makes service specific uniforms better for cost, logistics, joint operations?
I think the money spent on MARPAT would have been better spent on
...swap to the M16A5 (EMOD/A5 buffer) and use FDE EMODs, and move to Taupe KAC handguards...
because braking up the outline of the M16 is a bigger improvement than any digital pattern.
The Corps spent very little money developing MARPAT and the modified utility uniform, MCCUU that went with it with its removal of lower pockets, addition of sleeve pockets, etc (later copied by the army). The Corps does not need acres of velcro for the placement of all the patches, gizmos, and doodads that the Army favors to bedazzle their uniforms, so their uniforms lack them. It took that ass-clown Schwarzkopf to force name tapes on the Corps in the '90's or the new utility uniform would lack them too. A simple eagle globe and anchor iron-on has sufficed to ID Marines on their utilities since WW1, name tapes are silly and redundant as the person wearing the uniform is simply called, "Marine" and not Marine Jones, or Smith or whoever. The development of the MCCUU was more than just the adoption of a new cammo pattern, it was the adoption of a new, better, rough-out suede and low IR boot (again, copied by the Army) and represented a sea change in uniforms compared to the crap that preceded it. When you look at the MCCUU uniform development as a whole it was a bargain for the Corps and a huge leap forward. The development of the ACU and the host of other service uniforms that have followed have been nothing more than the result of other service me too-itis.
Belmont31R
07-03-10, 21:23
Is MARPAT just CADPAT with different color values?
I think the actual pattern should be the same for all branches for combat uniforms but they can change the pocket orientation, material, etc.
Colored guns would be a big improvement, too.
variablebinary
07-03-10, 22:40
We are never going back to a single camo pattern for all branches. The last bill to propose a single camo pattern never even made it out of committee
Woodland is gone. BDU is gone. Polishing boots, done. Starch, finito.
The Cold War is over.
The fact is the Army has spent a shit load of money and time on getting ACUPAT fielded. Five billion dollars is not peanuts, even for the Army.
Belmont31R
07-03-10, 22:45
We are never going back to a single camo pattern for all branches. The last bill to propose a single camo pattern never even made it out of committee
Woodland is gone. BDU is gone. Polishing boots, done. Starch, finito.
The Cold War is over.
The fact is the Army has spent a shit load of money and time on getting ACUPAT fielded. Five billion dollars is not peanuts, even for the Army.
No its not, and we are already looking at a new uniform(s).
variablebinary
07-03-10, 23:01
No its not, and we are already looking at a new uniform(s).
Personally, I'd rather our energies were spent on improvements to body armor, small arms, and ammunition.
Belmont31R
07-03-10, 23:11
Personally, I'd rather our energies were spent on improvements to body armor, small arms, and ammunition.
There are always improvements that can be made but its such a huge machine things run like molasses, and people are resistant to change. I remember doing unit inventories, and we had Korean era wind up head sets still on our unit books. Couldn't get rid of them due to such and such reg. Seriously they were the old ones you had to wind up before you could talk. No one has used those in decades, and they were made before anyone in the unit was even born.
We could use a HMMWV replacement. Better weapons. Better ammo. Better optics. Better radios. The list could on and on but it takes way too long to field new equipment, and they pay way too much for it. In some ways the Europeans have a leg up on us in having much smaller forces they can change, and acquire equipment much faster than us. For instance the LMT MWS is already in Afghanistan, and their AI .338 LM's with SB optics are much better than our Remingtons w/ Leupolds. Instead of adopting the superior system we are just re-barreling ours to 300WM and keeping the marginal optics.
variablebinary
07-04-10, 06:12
Maybe this is what the Army has in mind
http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt104/vor033/US%20Army%20-%202/b86f4d93.jpg
Nathan_Bell
07-04-10, 08:09
Has anyone tracked down the brain surgeon who decided that one pattern would work for all environments? If they still have a career in this field there is no justice.
Get at least two terrain driven, if not three, patterns. Use these things called buttons for the pockets and zippers for the fly(if you want to be hightech) and then issue the things.
The velcro CF had me shaking my head from the word go. Complete idiocy for clothing to be worn for hard use.
kmrtnsn; As the Marines are doing exactly the same job as the Army, and if Gates and co. have their way will only be doing so. What is the reasoning behind not having the same combat uniforms as the other branches?
Marines are doing exactly the same job...What is the reasoning behind not having the same combat uniforms as the other branches?
Or at least the same pattern?
Congress doesn't need to do it, DOD needs to grow a pair.
Littlelebowski
07-04-10, 11:25
I'm not a Manufacturer but when we went to the new Marpats in 1st LAR, we saw the difference in the field right away. Works much better.
Camouflage is always continuous and if the Corps adopts the Army's rule on painting weapons, seems like the Marines will be good to go.
variablebinary
07-04-10, 11:34
Congress doesn't need to do it, DOD needs to grow a pair.
Having Congress appropriate funds specifically for camo is the more enviable position
with dubious improvement (MARPAT)
This is unsupportable.
All you ever have to do is hit 29 Palms and see a Coyote CWO with this sleeves rolled up, having a vigorous conversation (i.e., screaming at some Lt or some such) at the base of a hill, from a distance. You pick out a disembodied face and the bare arms gesticulating madly are the only reason you spied him in the first place. Stuff works pretty damned well.
Through I-square, the difference between either desert or woodland MarPat vs. the old woodlands is staggering. It was a fairly significant step forward, and one that was well past due. Thank Crom that the black boots went away, with the stupid shining nonsense; they stuck out like turds in a punch bowl through I-square.
Agreed about the rifles, and for that matter, the NVGs themselves. They need paint, too.
I've seen M40A3's with pretty decent S&B optics that would work pretty well in Mk13 configuration, so again the point stands that the smaller organization is better positioned to buy better stuff.
kmrtnsn; As the Marines are doing exactly the same job as the Army, and if Gates and co. have their way will only be doing so. What is the reasoning behind not having the same combat uniforms as the other branches?
I'm not alone in the view that we're doing the same thing as the Army because we're succeeding at it far more than the big army units are, and that we shouldn't have to be doing the Army's job for them; but that's not a dig on soldiers, and that discussion belongs elsewhere.
I do think that a single primary pattern can definitely have its uses, and the Crye pattern if adopted would have shown that it would be feasible to have one primary pattern, but the ACU couch-blend pattern has put a sour taste to the forefront of the issue.
I wouldn't really have a problem with a service-wide three pattern solution (a completely recolored multi-use pattern - Coyote/Tan/Sage/Brown colored), and the two existing MARPAT patterns), let the air force keep using Liger Stripe, and the Navy can do whatever, but I can't see any situation where the Army would adopt MARPAT as a pattern after how much of a service pride issue that has been made of the ACU debacle. Sometimes I appreciate having a different pattern, but it's not like the Afghans we dealt with couldn't readily tell the difference between us and the Army cats out there.
The boots needed a swap, and conversion of all metal components from a non-gloss black (CARC coated OD green would be a better choice, shiite), and the most depressing part of all of this is that we haven't made any significant progress in making truly durable and flexible fireproof patrol uniforms, armor integration is still rough for the most part, and other glaring warfighter issues are still unaddressed (watch any 4'10" jarhead try to use an M16A4), so as evidenced above, I think anybody in this thread is better qualified to be making these decisions than the idiots who actually are, and that all of us can agree that this is money that could be much better spent elsewhere.
wild_wild_wes
07-04-10, 14:27
Hey guys! Pick me!
http://strikehold.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/aorpic1a.jpg
TehLlama,
The Corps and the Army are doing the same thing NOW, in theatre in A-Stan and Iraq but that is not the traditional Corps role. The Corps selected the uniforms they did not for these conflicts specifically but for their traditional, world-wide 911 force role. The Two different MARPATs work for the Corps now and did when selected. Are their better cammos out there now? Certainly. Will one uniform and cammo serve both big army and the Corps? No. No one is better geared to select cammo for the Corps then the Corps. The Corps is small, it does not spend a lot. It doesn't fly the same helicopters as the army, nor does it paint them the same way. The same is true of armored vehicles.
In beachhead operations with mixed forces being able to instantly ID who shoould be moving and who be staying having unique uniforms serves a purpose. Sometimes it is good for the enemy to be able to know who is rolling towards them as there can be a certain shock value in knowing that the 1st MARAMPHIBBDE is knocking at your door instead of the Tennessee National Guard, distinct uniforms and equipment accomplish this.
The Corps isn't whining about their uniforms, big Army is. Making the Corps change clothes because the army's clothes sucks is nothing more than the manifestation of a certain kind of envy.
Semper Fi,
Ken
Wow. I haven't seen a penis-measuring contest like this in a long time. As if any individual Marine or Soldier had anything to do with any of this. Finger-pointing and digital bravado is really worthless and serves no purpose.
:(
variablebinary
07-06-10, 01:14
Hey guys! Pick me!
http://strikehold.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/aorpic1a.jpg
I am generally against retiring ARPAT at this point and time, but I have to admit the AOR 1/2 camo look sound. Even better is the Crye combat uniform. Put the two together and it looks so slick
Though I'm sure the combo is far too cost prohibitive to ever see front line service in the Army. Then again if we didnt waste our time on these stupid camo trials, maybe we could afford Crye Multicam combat uniforms and call it a day, while still maintaining the goal of one camo pattern, which is a concept I personally haven't lost faith in.
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/6853/270724.jpg
VB, you're missing the outrage in all this - having gone with Crye in the first place would have been cheaper, and the new ones they are proposing are even more expensive total cost than having gone to multicam even at this point - that's where the outrage comes from, they're paying more money for an inferiour solution, and individual soldiers are the ones getting screwed, having to go and buy even more uniforms that are less effective and not as durable.
Again, large sums of money are getting spent, with no tangible benefits for the guys on the ground.
variablebinary
07-06-10, 08:36
VB, you're missing the outrage in all this - having gone with Crye in the first place would have been cheaper, and the new ones they are proposing are even more expensive total cost than having gone to multicam even at this point - that's where the outrage comes from, they're paying more money for an inferiour solution, and individual soldiers are the ones getting screwed, having to go and buy even more uniforms that are less effective and not as durable.
Again, large sums of money are getting spent, with no tangible benefits for the guys on the ground.
Oh I get it, but I personally dont advocate abandoning UCP. Not at this time at least. There are far more pressing equipment needs.
In retrospect going with Crye and Multicam would have been the smart thing to do, but that ship has already sailed. No point in revisiting that issue because it wont make a difference.
If UCP cost 5 billion to implement, its going to cost more than 5 billion to field Multicam across the board, and it will be utter rape to field 3 camo patterns. Unless congress is paying for it, the Army should take two scoops of suck it up, and learn to live with their decision.
If high speed group X wants to dip into their budget and spring for Crye AOR combat uniforms, more power to them. Short of that, it's insanity to dump the investment already made into UCP, and pull resources away from more pressing equipment and training needs.
Whenever I see this come up, I just have to mention this.
The ACU uniform is trash - complete garbage. The cut is horrible and suited mostly for your average female or fat ****. The seams are cheap, they blow out and unravel all the time, and are completely unsuited for a combat uniform.
Making the ACU in Multicam is just putting perfume on a pig. It is not just the Multicam pattern that makes the Crye uniform better. The Crye uniform is better thought out, laid out, and has superior construction.
I never said that MARPAT was bad camo. The decision to go it alone was poor for the US Military, not the Marine Corp. I'm still waiting on a good reason that ground combat uniforms/camo patterns in the same AO should be different. How does that advance our ability to destroy the enemies of the United States? Branch pride and specific uniforms should not be a part of combat.
I spent almost a month OPCON to 2/24 in Mahmudiyah '05.
I got to see three color desert, Woodland, and both colors of MARPAT in the field and most with NVG/thermal as well. The black in woodland sticks out with NVGs but so does the black M4/M16. I didn't see much MARPAT woodland with NVG to compare it's black signature. I was not trying to compare camo at the time, just what I can remember. I don't recall MARPAT being anything special in regards to hiding the wearer but I generally liked the colors and it worked well.
wild_wild_wes
07-07-10, 15:20
The Black in MARPAT really needs to go.
Why worry about cost, congress has decided to simply not do a budget this year at all. In any case, anything in the single billions is now a rounding error.
For that matter, we MIGHT go to a single uniform again in the future - that uniform being, "whatever the **** you can find to put on when it's time to shoot at people". We have problems a lot bigger now than who is wearing what.
and one pattern for personal equipment (such as body armor, ammo pouches and rucksacks) which works with all three (3) uniform camouflage patterns.
Hey, I got a pattern, its call SHIT BROWN. See what I did there, I just saved them months of work.
The Black in MARPAT really needs to go.
Yeah, agreed, for the above reasons and because it makes trying to identify SgtMajs, MGySgts and similar from a distance even more difficult that it used to be. It was already nigh-impossible to give the proper greeting to those jerks; adding pixellated black to the collar, they have NO reason to yell at anybody that flubs their rank when wearing the woodland MarPat.
They got rid of the black on the nametape portion because it made names difficult to make out....so it seems like a Marine subculture thing: They want to make it hard for Marines to identify upper-rank SNCOs, and they want to make it easy for those SNCOs to note the name of the poor schmo accidentally demoting them.
*heavy sigh*
Hey, I got a pattern, its call SHIT BROWN. See what I did there, I just saved them months of work.
I don't think it would be all that bad to make the three uniforms
khaki
coyote
OD
I just saved them years of work.
Yeah, agreed, for the above reasons and because it makes trying to identify SgtMajs, MGySgts and similar from a distance even more difficult that it used to be. It was already nigh-impossible to give the proper greeting to those jerks; adding pixellated black to the collar, they have NO reason to yell at anybody that flubs their rank when wearing the woodland MarPat.
I am all for distinctive uniforms for SNCO's and Officers in garrison.
SeriousStudent
07-08-10, 17:01
......
I am all for distinctive uniforms for SNCO's and Officers in garrison.
Agreed, it makes it much easier to obtain a faster sight picture.
I keed, I keed! :D
The Army's Program Executive Officer-Soldier; Program Manager for uniforms and camouflage; and civilians at Natick Laboratories all have Colonels, Lieutenant Colonels, and Civil Service GS-15s in PM positions for three years -- board-selected positions that are these guys' equivalent of battalion and brigade command.
If they don't show where they fielded something to the Soldier in Combat they don't get promoted and are pretty much told they should consider retiring.
Which is why you get all kinds of Good Idea Fairy stuff half-ass developed and fielded where you look at them and ask, "What the ****?"
Nathan_Bell
07-08-10, 20:11
The Army's Program Executive Officer-Soldier; Program Manager for uniforms and camouflage; and civilians at Natick Laboratories all have Colonels, Lieutenant Colonels, and Civil Service GS-15s in PM positions for three years -- board-selected positions that are these guys' equivalent of battalion and brigade command.
If they don't show where they fielded something to the Soldier in Combat they don't get promoted and are pretty much told they should consider retiring.
Which is why you get all kinds of Good Idea Fairy stuff half-ass developed and fielded where you look at them and ask, "What the ****?"
Procurement is also a great place to network for post-military gigs.
RogerinTPA
07-08-10, 20:39
The Army's Program Executive Officer-Soldier; Program Manager for uniforms and camouflage; and civilians at Natick Laboratories all have Colonels, Lieutenant Colonels, and Civil Service GS-15s in PM positions for three years -- board-selected positions that are these guys' equivalent of battalion and brigade command.
If they don't show where they fielded something to the Soldier in Combat they don't get promoted and are pretty much told they should consider retiring.
Which is why you get all kinds of Good Idea Fairy stuff half-ass developed and fielded where you look at them and ask, "What the ****?"
That sounds about right...always been that way and it's pretty f--kin sad.
wild_wild_wes
07-09-10, 00:01
I would do the job out of Love.
I love this stuff!
variablebinary
07-10-10, 20:41
UCP and MC together.
UCP actually camos better in the pics IMHO
http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/8242/mc3a.jpg
http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/8720/mc2.jpg
http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt104/vor033/US%20Army%20-%202/b86f4d93.jpg
http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt104/vor033/US%20Army%20-%202/439db11b.jpg
http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt104/vor033/US%20Army%20-%202/0b7922e8.jpg
http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt104/vor033/US%20Army%20-%202/d23eca24.jpg
[QUOTE=variablebinary;703199]UCP and MC together.
UCP actually camos better in the pics [\QUOTE]
Unfortunately, gravel and boulders are the only place I've seen UCP work really well. While I'm a fan of the Crye Multicam/Combat Uniforms, I'd be completely content if we ended up with AOR1/2. I'd end up taking rash of shit from some Marine buddys about how my service copied them, but that's ok because I'd actually be wearing a uniform that I truly feel I look like a Soldier again. The UCP pattern was a back door brother-in-law deal as far as I can tell and wasn't designed by people that wear it in the field IMHO. Then again, maybe I'm a little antiquated in my perceptions since I grew up in the Army when we still had room/locker inspections every morning and you damn well better have a starched uniform and a highly shined pair of boots. I don't neccasarily miss those days, but they did help shape the Soldier I am today and highlights in my mind some of the discipline I've seen lacking in some of today's Soldiers. I just don't see a lot of people taking as much pride I'm themselves, their appearance and their service like I used to. JM2CW.
variablebinary
07-12-10, 03:58
[QUOTE=variablebinary;703199]UCP and MC together.
UCP actually camos better in the pics [\QUOTE]
Unfortunately, gravel and boulders are the only place I've seen UCP work really well. While I'm a fan of the Crye Multicam/Combat Uniforms, I'd be completely content if we ended up with AOR1/2. I'd end up taking rash of shit from some Marine buddys about how my service copied them, but that's ok because I'd actually be wearing a uniform that I truly feel I look like a Soldier again. The UCP pattern was a back door brother-in-law deal as far as I can tell and wasn't designed by people that wear it in the field IMHO. Then again, maybe I'm a little antiquated in my perceptions since I grew up in the Army when we still had room/locker inspections every morning and you damn well better have a starched uniform and a highly shined pair of boots. I don't neccasarily miss those days, but they did help shape the Soldier I am today and highlights in my mind some of the discipline I've seen lacking in some of today's Soldiers. I just don't see a lot of people taking as much pride I'm themselves, their appearance and their service like I used to. JM2CW.
No offense, but that is BS.
Every generation of serviceman is inclined to think they are better than their successors, but that is bunk.
It was bunk when WWII vets looked down on Vietnam vets, and it is bunk now.
The starch and polish era died because we've been at war for 10 years and learned how tedious and meaningless that acumen really is.
Hundreds of hours of training time is lost when soldiers are sitting through silly antiquated inspections and notions of "professionalism" by way of starch.
Bad enough we have to endure death by powerpoint every other day.
Littlelebowski
07-12-10, 06:23
Well said. I transitioned from starching a working uniform (cammies) and polishing boots to the actual sanity that prevails now.
Ever wonder how much more PT and training we could have done rather than pretending that our working uniform was a dress uniform?
Unbelievably stupid shit.
No offense, but that is BS.
Every generation of serviceman is inclined to think they are better than their successors, but that is bunk.
It was bunk when WWII vets looked down on Vietnam vets, and it is bunk now.
The starch and polish era died because we've been at war for 10 years and learned how tedious and meaningless that acumen really is.
Hundreds of hours of training time is lost when soldiers are sitting through silly antiquated inspections and notions of "professionalism" by way of starch.
Bad enough we have to endure death by powerpoint every other day.
No offense, but that is BS.
Every generation of serviceman is inclined to think they are better than their successors, but that is bunk.
It was bunk when WWII vets looked down on Vietnam vets, and it is bunk now.
The starch and polish era died because we've been at war for 10 years and learned how tedious and meaningless that acumen really is.
Hundreds of hours of training time is lost when soldiers are sitting through silly antiquated inspections and notions of "professionalism" by way of starch.
Bad enough we have to endure death by powerpoint every other day.
No dog in this fight, really, but I see it both ways. I do not see it as "looking down" on any generation, or any one thinking they're better than another, however.
It all boils down into having pride in the uniform, and Murphy brings up some points that I have observed as well. Military service members should look sharp in every uniform they wear. Does that mean that troops laying out in the moon dust in Iraq should be worrying about how crisp their ACUs look? Absolutely not, so no one put words in my mouth.
But this "throw it on and go" attitude that is beginning to permeate our ranks, is starting to get my Irish up. I am growing tired of the frayed patches, lack of maintenance, and the generally sloven wear of the uniform. It is wrong and disrespectful to the uniform, and to the troops that have gone before us who made the ultimate sacrifice wearing the uniform and defending what the uniform represents. Honestly, the uniform is something to be revered, regardless of which one the Pentagon gives us, or what the rules are pertaining to its wear.
By the way, starch doesn't mean you're "professional." If you're a turd, you're still a turd whether you're wearing starch, or even a spit shine. Doesn't matter.
I don't particularly miss the shining or ironing, but I didn't mind it at the time because that's what the uniform deserved, and that's what the current standard was when I enlisted. Just because we have desert boots and permanent press now doesn't mean the uniform deserves any less respect than it did in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, OJE/OJG, OEF, and OIF.
I guess I just see things a bit differently than some.
variablebinary
07-12-10, 07:17
More UCP and Multicam in the same frame.
A couple of points.
-Mixing UCP and MC is a sin.
-Both versions of MARPAT would perform worse than MC and UCP in that topography pictured
-Transitioning from UCP without congressional appropriations will eat resources to the detriment of more important Solider needs.
-Going with MC would be a better option than going with 3 camo patterns. It's reasonably effective in desert, woodland, and mountainous regions. Even with Crye's royalty fees, it would still be cheaper than fielded 3 uniforms
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v342/kriegsafe/610xpb.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v342/kriegsafe/610xhv.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v342/kriegsafe/610xzv.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v342/kriegsafe/21958as.jpg
http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/3525/267009.jpg
Littlelebowski
07-12-10, 09:56
Before I judged a Marine on his uniform, I'd check out his PT scores. I don't consider cammies a dress uniform. I didn't have to worry about patches because Marines don't wear them.
I've seen plenty of barracks Marines not worth a damn in the field. I'd rather see Marines PTing than doing uniform inspections. Work uniforms for work. You want your soldiers to look good? Hold a dress uniform inspection. Cammies should be serviceable.
Don't even get me started on wearing cammies out in town......
VB... I'm not advocating a return to the time consuming starch an polish, nor am I advocating going back to room and wall locker inspections. You're correct in your assessement of those activities, but they did teach excellent attention to detail. Fortunately there are better and more mission oriented ways of instilling that. I also don't think my generation is better, but I've met many Soldiers from the current generation that I know are lacking and their leadership either didn't care or didn't know the difference. Fortunately they weren't Infantry and I like to think the current generation of Infantry are carrying on as we did being tough, disciplined, well trained and ready to carry the fight to the enemy. I've seen nothing to make me think otherwise. I also agree that this camo boondoggle is a huge waste of resources that could be better spent elsewhere, but believe the the UCP pattern needs to go and that improvements need to be made to the design of the uniform. I think you and I agree more than we disagree, but are just looking at the situation from a little bit different angles.
Littlelebowski
07-12-10, 10:07
You know, when I got in the Corps in 95, I heard all about "the new Marines" not being good enough. Heard the same thing from the instructors at Jump about the new Army kids when I was there in 2000 (as a Marine Sgt).
Tired of hearing "back in my day."
You know, when I got in the Corps in 95, I heard all about "the new Marines" not being good enough. Heard the same thing from the instructors at Jump about the new Army kids when I was there in 2000 (as a Marine Sgt).
Tired of hearing "back in my day."
Heard a lot of the same stuff when I went Active in 90. I had an 8yr break from 97 to 05. Started over as a private E-1 when I came back in. It's a different Army now and I understand that. Some good some bad in my opinion. And that's just it... my opinion.
I also got tired of hearing 'back in my day'.
variablebinary
07-12-10, 10:49
VB... I'm not advocating a return to the time consuming starch an polish, nor am I advocating going back to room and wall locker inspections. You're correct in your assessement of those activities, but they did teach excellent attention to detail. Fortunately there are better and more mission oriented ways of instilling that. I also don't think my generation is better, but I've met many Soldiers from the current generation that I know are lacking and their leadership either didn't care or didn't know the difference. Fortunately they weren't Infantry and I like to think the current generation of Infantry are carrying on as we did being tough, disciplined, well trained and ready to carry the fight to the enemy. I've seen nothing to make me think otherwise. I also agree that this camo boondoggle is a huge waste of resources that could be better spent elsewhere, but believe the the UCP pattern needs to go and that improvements need to be made to the design of the uniform. I think you and I agree more than we disagree, but are just looking at the situation from a little bit different angles.
There will always be Soldiers and Marines that are non-hackers, even when we had starch and polish "traditions"
And I agree, some Soldiers do look like ass, and wear ACU's and boots in varying states of disrepair, which I personally think is inexcusable. However it's not the regs, it's the individual soldier, and certainly not the norm or experiencing increased frequency compared to the 80's. When someone looks especially like ass, First Sergeant should get them in order
The difference now is Soldiers get FAR more time being proficient in their MOS and spend less time and brain power treating ACU's like Class-A's
No dog in this fight, really, but I see it both ways. I do not see it as "looking down" on any generation, or any one thinking they're better than another, however.
It all boils down into having pride in the uniform, and Murphy brings up some points that I have observed as well. Military service members should look sharp in every uniform they wear. Does that mean that troops laying out in the moon dust in Iraq should be worrying about how crisp their ACUs look? Absolutely not, so no one put words in my mouth.
But this "throw it on and go" attitude that is beginning to permeate our ranks, is starting to get my Irish up. I am growing tired of the frayed patches, lack of maintenance, and the generally sloven wear of the uniform. It is wrong and disrespectful to the uniform, and to the troops that have gone before us who made the ultimate sacrifice wearing the uniform and defending what the uniform represents. Honestly, the uniform is something to be revered, regardless of which one the Pentagon gives us, or what the rules are pertaining to its wear.
By the way, starch doesn't mean you're "professional." If you're a turd, you're still a turd whether you're wearing starch, or even a spit shine. Doesn't matter.
I don't particularly miss the shining or ironing, but I didn't mind it at the time because that's what the uniform deserved, and that's what the current standard was when I enlisted. Just because we have desert boots and permanent press now doesn't mean the uniform deserves any less respect than it did in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, OJE/OJG, OEF, and OIF.
I guess I just see things a bit differently than some.
IMO you are romanticising something that doesnt need it. If you want to look sharp, then wear Class As or Bs. If you are working, then you wear a work uniform. Yes you need need leaders to ensure that the uniforms are servicable, but that is about that. As you said, starch doesn't make the soldier, neither does a lack of it. Like Littlelebowski said, if you want to judge a soldier or marine, look at their PT scores and their performance in the field. As murphy said, there are better ways of teaching attention to detail.
Oh and as someone who enlisted in 88, yeah I got tired of the "back in my day" stuff too. Again its nothing more than romanticism.
Belmont31R
07-12-10, 11:15
As more of the people who enlisted in the 90's retire the military will get better in regards to the stupid shit. Most of the leadership were lower enlisted in the 90's, there was only GW1, and Kosovo. From what nearly every senior person has told me who served in the 90's there was little money for training, and what happens when soldiers don't have much to do. Leadership finds something for them to do no matter how stupid it is. These people "grew up" in a military doing stupid shit a lot of time, and when they got into leadership positions they transferred the stupid shit onto my generation (joined in 2003 at 19YO).
As more OEF and OIF people start taking over these positions training can be more focused and stupid shit will slowly go away. Im not sure what current mandatory training is but as far back as a couple years ago it was still Cold War Era shit with little to no value in OIF/OEF. All the good training we did was within our platoon or something very recently put in place. My last 1SG was one of the 90's recruits who had never deployed, and guess what we did? Room inspections, uniform inspections, lots of Cold War type training, and he had no clue how to train a unit for desert combat like we fight now. We spent time we could have spent training doing "area beautification", painted everything in sight, etc. I once spent I think it was at least 3 weeks probably 4 weeks straight mowing grass, trimming bushes, etc. Not as a punishment we had nothing else to do. All our so called training was stupid ass check the block training tought by NCO's who'd had to endure the same mundane BS boring ass do no good Cold War era training. The people who dictate the training did the same shit when they were young LT's and privates so they simply don't know any better.
Look at how these people run the FOB's. They were so used to long garrison periods in the 90's they turned Iraq into a garrison envirornment. They spent, what a decade from 92-2003 in a basic garrison environment, and that is their comfort zone because none of them have any clue as to how to run a combat outpost. So they bring in the MP's with their radar guns just like back home, march around just like back home, etc. The only places you don't find that bs is where things are run by people who primarily grew up in the GWOT era, or at least had their 1st major command exposure in the GWOT. Yeah some people still do the whole Cold War era bs but its a lot less than real senior leadership. The old CSM's and Col's (and above).
In GW1 the senior leadership had a lot of Vietnam vets...
And looking "good" should be a lower priority than mission capability, common sense, and logic. Starched uniforms don't allow uniforms to breath, they are uncomfortable, and are a waste peoples time. We always had 9AM inspects every monday, and then immediately after that we went and did PMCS's on vehicles. The uniforms would then procede to get filthy, boot polish rubs off in minutes, etc. So you just wasted 2-3hrs of everyones time, 30 minutes for the inspection, and then make people go do maintenance in filthy vehicles. Doesn't pass mission capability, common sense, or logic tests. Soldiers are not dumb (well not all of them anyways), and instead of instilling pride in people you make them resentful towards daily life, the command, etc.
You can still enforce uniform standards with the ACU type uniforms but at the same time you don't need to attempt to make them look like a quasi dress uniform, either, like the BDU's turned into. We were basically told don't let them look like they just came out of a duffel bag, and no huge stains or loose dirt on boots. Patches had to be on straight, clean, etc.
BTW the only times I ever wore Class-A's in six years was for uniform inspections, and unit photo's a few times. :D
Before I judged a Marine on his uniform, I'd check out his PT scores. I don't consider cammies a dress uniform. I didn't have to worry about patches because Marines don't wear them.
I've seen plenty of barracks Marines not worth a damn in the field. I'd rather see Marines PTing than doing uniform inspections. Work uniforms for work. You want your soldiers to look good? Hold a dress uniform inspection. Cammies should be serviceable.
Don't even get me started on wearing cammies out in town......
Before I get started, I mean this with the utmost respect for anyone who has taken the opportunity to don the uniform and serve our nation. I thank them for their service. I hesitate to write this, as I don't want it to be inflammatory because that is not my intention in the least. Understand that disagreement is not disrespect.
BUT, I agree with what you're saying, but disagree on your premise. PT doesn't make the leader, nor does how they wear their uniform. I've seen PT studs who couldn't lead troops to the chow hall and mediocre PT guys who could lead troops off a bridge. Having said that, I don't believe that you can over emphasize the importance of PT, but it certainly doesn't make the leader either. Like you, I have seen troops who were great in garrison but garbage in the field, but I have also seen troops who were great in the field but garbage in garrison. The military needs neither of those. Nor do I. Being good in one area doesn't give a troop the right to be garbage in the other. Yes there are duds who have SF and Ranger tabs, CIBs, EIBs, Jump and Air Assault wings, and Pathfinder torches, and vice-versa.
The military needs sold-out professionals who do it all, and do it because there are standards to be met, regardless of how they personally feel about it. That's who I want on my team. I have a lot of personal feelings, but I still salute the flag and drive on. If standards change, that's absolutely fine. That's why there is a rank progression and one day, the privates and lieutenants will be in charge.
Further, the statement that implies that "dress" uniforms are the only ones which are supposed to look good is a fallacy, and not based on historical military traditions or values.
You know, when I got in the Corps in 95, I heard all about "the new Marines" not being good enough. Heard the same thing from the instructors at Jump about the new Army kids when I was there in 2000 (as a Marine Sgt).
Tired of hearing "back in my day."
Heard a lot of the same stuff when I went Active in 90. I had an 8yr break from 97 to 05. Started over as a private E-1 when I came back in. It's a different Army now and I understand that. Some good some bad in my opinion. And that's just it... my opinion.
I also got tired of hearing 'back in my day'.
Again, I agree with what's being said, but disagree on the premise. The old timers have so much to offer us. Just like how I love to sit down with my grandparents and listen to their experiences and wisdom, there is also much to be gleaned from those who have gone before us. Will all of what they say be useful? Surely not, but that's where we figure out what we need to stick in our pocket, and what needs to go into the circular file.
Automatically tuning out anyone who says "back in my day" is a little naive and does a great disservice to one's self and their subordinates.
This entire site is based on this premise, that those with the experience and subject matter expertise should be listened to.
IMO you are romanticising something that doesnt need it. Again its nothing more than romanticism.
I appreciate the comment, but opinions vary, and I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Sorry, but "romantisicm" never crossed my mind. Respect did.
Littlelebowski
07-12-10, 11:57
kry226, just because we're tired of hearing people talk shit doesn't mean we automatically tune out everything the old timers have to say. I can't believe I'm responding to such a generalized, simplistic claim but it bears saying apparently.
As far as the PT studs, yeah, yeah. I know. I'd still rather have a PT stud than a barracks Marine. And YES, cammies are WORK uniforms. FIELD. They should look presentable. Not to the same anal retentive standard of dress uniforms.
kry226..... I think you misunderstand the 'back in my day' comment, at least on my part. There's guys that would make that comment followed then waxing eloquently about how things were so much better in their day, then there's the ones that would say 'this is how we've done it in the past. It won't work in every situation, but it's something for you to think about and adapt it to your needs'. You quickly learned who was the former and who was the latter. Now that my earlier comments have taken this thread off on a leadership tangent, we can return to the boondoggle of Army uniform procurement.
It's all a moot point. Now that shining and starching has all been done away with, the time saved has been filled by an explosion of "How to Be Even More Risk-Averse Than We Were Before" briefs, instead of real training.
kry226, just because we're tired of hearing people talk shit doesn't mean we automatically tune out everything the old timers have to say. I can't believe I'm responding to such a generalized, simplistic claim but it bears saying apparently.
As far as the PT studs, yeah, yeah. I know. I'd still rather have a PT stud than a barracks Marine. And YES, cammies are WORK uniforms. FIELD. They should look presentable. Not to the same anal retentive standard of dress uniforms.
I think we're both saying the same things to the same extent, just a bit differently. I have never advocated going back to starch and spit shine, nor wasteful inspections (although inspections do have their appointed time and place), and certainly not to inspecting them "to the same anal retentive standard of dress uniforms." That's utterly ridiculous. And we both agree that cammies/utilities/BDUs/ACUs/whatever are for work, and that they must be presentable, and serviceable, BUT not looking like one got hit with a wrinkle grenade.
I am simply getting at the garbage bag, slovenly-dressed, disrespectful "whatever goes" attitude that has infiltrated the Army ranks. Like VB express above, that is inexcusable.
kry226..... I think you misunderstand the 'back in my day' comment, at least on my part. There's guys that would make that comment followed then waxing eloquently about how things were so much better in their day, then there's the ones that would say 'this is how we've done it in the past. It won't work in every situation, but it's something for you to think about and adapt it to your needs'. You quickly learned who was the former and who was the latter. Now that my earlier comments have taken this thread off on a leadership tangent, we can return to the boondoggle of Army uniform procurement.
No, I understood what you were saying, based on everything else you were saying, and where I thought you were coming from. I just didn't articulate the difference very well.
And yes, back to the "jack-wagon" that is Army uniform procurement.
Automatically tuning out anyone who says "back in my day" is a little naive and does a great disservice to one's self and their subordinates.
Using a term/attitude designed to disrespect someone or their generation does a great disservice if there is actually a teachable point to be made, the door swings both ways.
Littlelebowski
07-12-10, 14:54
Using a term/attitude designed to disrespect someone or their generation does a great disservice if there is actually a teachable point to be made, the door swings both ways.
We've all pretty much agreed upon that, Todd.
RogerinTPA
07-12-10, 15:42
Before I judged a Marine on his uniform, I'd check out his PT scores. I don't consider cammies a dress uniform. I didn't have to worry about patches because Marines don't wear them.
I've seen plenty of barracks Marines not worth a damn in the field. I'd rather see Marines PTing than doing uniform inspections. Work uniforms for work. You want your soldiers to look good? Hold a dress uniform inspection. Cammies should be serviceable.
Don't even get me started on wearing cammies out in town......
Agreed. Back in the day, most Soldiers had 2 sets of gear, parade/garrison heavy starch BDUs and boots spit shined to black marble, and Field/Go to War BDUs and boots that were well worn, but serviceable. Insane amount of wasted time & money spent to prep garrison uniforms for inspections, change of command ceremonies and other BS details you were drafted for. I'm glad today's service members don't have to put up with that crap in their current field uniforms.
Agreed. Back in the day, most Soldiers had 2 sets of gear, parade/garrison heavy starch BDUs and boots spit shined to black marble, and Field/Go to War BDUs and boots that were well worn, but serviceable. Insane amount of wasted time & money spent to prep garrison uniforms for inspections, change of command ceremonies and other BS details you were drafted for. I'm glad today's service members don't have to put up with that crap in their current field uniforms.
They never had it so good. ;)
Like someone above mentioned, Monday morning was uniform inspection and then it was a march to the motor hold to do PMCS where the uniforms quite often got thrashed in not time fast. Having your freshly starched uniform and highly polished boots get soaked in cherry juice or coated in grease and then become unusable anywhere but in the field was insane. Plus you then had to buy a new uniform. It got to the point to where I stashed a "work" set of BDUs and boots in my vehicle so that when I got to the motor hold, I would duck inside for a few minutes, change, then get to work. Then I had to get changed again when we were done. That was a colossal waste of my time
variablebinary
07-19-10, 16:36
I think the Brits are really on to something. Solid khaki and sage nylon with Multicam. I posted these pics in another thread
This combo would easily meet the majority of the Army's needs, if we literally have to abandon UCP
http://cdn1.thefirearmsblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/2ni_4mch-tfb.jpg
I think the Brits are really on to something. Solid khaki and sage nylon with Multicam. I posted these pics in another thread
This combo would easily meet the majority of the Army's needs, if we literally have to abandon UCP
http://cdn1.thefirearmsblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/2ni_4mch-tfb.jpg
Foliage green works great over it too, even Coyote Brown if it needs to be GOTS acquired.
RogerinTPA
07-19-10, 18:36
I think the Brits are really on to something. Solid khaki and sage nylon with Multicam. I posted these pics in another thread
This combo would easily meet the majority of the Army's needs, if we literally have to abandon UCP
Agreed, the Khaki looks way better with Multicam. Government warehouses stocked with Khaki and Desert BDU colored kit some where, should have enough to outfit the troops in A-stan.
variablebinary
07-19-10, 23:44
Foliage green works great over it too, even Coyote Brown if it needs to be GOTS acquired.
I was at the PX today getting a replacement ACU shirt and noticed the Camelbak packs have a nice foliage that would work well with UCP and Multicam should we transition outside of OEF
variablebinary
07-28-10, 02:59
Army Multicam promo photos.
Notice the ruck, and boots. Anyone recognize the plate carrier in photo #6. It doesnt look like an IOTV to me
http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt104/vor033/US%20Army%20-%202/03f40959.jpg
http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt104/vor033/US%20Army%20-%202/66e5079e.jpg
http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt104/vor033/US%20Army%20-%202/427eedd1.jpg
http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt104/vor033/US%20Army%20-%202/13733fde.jpg
http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt104/vor033/US%20Army%20-%202/7ca52fa5.jpg
http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt104/vor033/US%20Army%20-%202/b169e0f1.jpg
http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt104/vor033/US%20Army%20-%202/d67bdcda.jpg
http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt104/vor033/US%20Army%20-%202/5e73638b.jpg
Looks like that stupid KDH plate carrier. Those no-coverage gaps where the fastex buckles are is a dead giveaway.
Selected for warfighter use by the same kind of folks trying to bring you the "green" rifle round.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.