Congress has dropped the requirement of a Common Uniform

Soldat_Américain · 10-31-2009, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Coordination, not sameness, sought in uniforms
By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Saturday Oct 31, 2009 13:45:58 EDT
Lawmakers have dropped the idea of making everyone in combat wear the exact same uniform and camouflage pattern.

But out of concern for safety, function and performance, they want more cooperation between the services over ground combat and utility clothing.

The key concern is that U.S. personnel wearing different uniforms in a combat zone raise the risk of friendly fire.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/1...forms_103109w/

Alpha-17 · 10-31-2009, 10:52 PM

As much as I'd like to see ACUs go bye-bye, I'm glad they dropped that requirement. Different branches do different stuff, let them each have their own uniform; show a little bit of pride in being different (I hate total uniformity, even for uniforms

).

Even with different uniforms in service, I think that people would be hard pressed to confuse a US Marine or Soldier with even an extremely well equipped insurgent.

SilentType · 10-31-2009, 11:03 PM

I feel that is a mistake.

With the coordination now between the various services and having everyone share a common battle space so often I feel it would be better for a common uniform to help assist in IFF.

The Services can and should have their own dress uniforms. However, camo is for combat and not a fashion show or for a recruiting tool.

HollywoodMarine · 10-31-2009, 11:08 PM

I rather not. Back in the day when we all wore woodlands, certain "other" branches looked like "Joe $hit the Rag Man" in their uniforms. As for the field... Hajjee's don't wear any.

Hajjee don't surf!

Skutatos · 10-31-2009, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilentType

I feel that is a mistake.

With the coordination now between the various services and having everyone share a common battle space so often I feel it would be better for a common uniform to help assist in IFF.

The Services can and should have their own dress uniforms. However, camo is for combat and not a fashion show or for a recruiting tool.

There are so many different allied armed forces in the fight these days that you best be relying on a bit more than camo for identification.

Soldat_Américain · 10-31-2009, 11:13 PM

Hollywood...buddy, calm down I understand he resides in a chair but sadly as of right now I wish the Army paid attention to certain things going on in the Department of the Navy in a specific Corps. Because you guys as of late seems to be way more efficient in the benefit per dollar as far as the way you guys spend money.

gaijinsamurai · 10-31-2009, 11:27 PM

^ When you're poor, you've got to make every dollar count!

kodiak22 · 11-01-2009, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaijinsamurai

^ When you're poor, you've got to make every dollar count!

^True that.

I'm glad they dropped it, because last thing i want is to where IC...... erm i mean ACU's, when i sign up for the Corps.

crazyman · 11-01-2009, 07:42 AM

I'd support a common uniform for all, personally. If nothing else it would save the DOD a ton of money on fielding, research, etc.

Critter · 11-01-2009, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soldat_Américain

The key concern is that U.S. personnel wearing different uniforms in a combat zone raise the risk of friendly fire.

hahahaha
like wearing a different uniform will stop this...
Many countries are fighting alonside each other in different operational areas, all wearing different uniforms...not an issue with clothing...

I think one would do it for budget reasons etc...

crazyman · 11-01-2009, 10:32 AM

If nothing else, I'd bet that IR (I.E. the tabs/US Flags the US Army has been using) will become a requirement for the other services, not actual pattern changes being made. I would be very surprised if it went beyond that.

Virus · 11-01-2009, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazyman

If nothing else, I'd bet that IR (I.E. the tabs/US Flags the US Army has been using) will become a requirement for the other services, not actual pattern changes being made. I would be very surprised if it went beyond that.

Well I know the marines utilize IR tabs, and most naval/air force personnel when attached to the army/marines use the uniforms of the army/marines. So it seems that is already happening right?

Ubar · 11-01-2009, 05:54 PM

"But out of concern for safety, function and performance, they want more cooperation between the services over ground combat and utility clothing."

Army to adopt marpat? :P

Soldat_Américain · 11-01-2009, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virus

Well I know the marines utilize IR tabs, and most naval/air force personnel when attached to the army/marines use the uniforms of the army/marines. So it seems that is already happening right?

Yeah Marine have a velcro square to attach the IR tab now.

crazyman · 11-01-2009, 08:41 PM

Marines/attached personnel are starting to utilize IR more, but its by no means SOP as it's become for the army, built into our uniform jackets/helmet covers. At a minimum I could see this being the result of the congressional action, when/if it doesn't go as far as to describe a uniform/pattern standard for the us military.

10-31-2009, 10:52 PM	#2
Alpha-17 Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Ft. Bragg, NC Posts: 378	As much as I'd like to see ACUs go bye-bye, I'm glad they dropped that requirement. Different branches do different stuff, let them each have their own uniform; show a little bit of pride in being different (I hate total uniformity, even for uniforms ). Even with different uniforms in service, I think that people would be hard pressed to confuse a US Marine or Soldier with even an extremely well equipped insurgent.

10-31-2009, 11:03 PM	#3
SilentType Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 989	I feel that is a mistake. With the coordination now between the various services and having everyone share a common battle space so often I feel it would be better for a common uniform to help assist in IFF. The Services can and should have their own dress uniforms. However, camo is for combat and not a fashion show or for a recruiting tool.

10-31-2009, 11:08 PM	#4
HollywoodMarine Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Lurking behind a ACOG sight. Don't become my target. Age: 36 Posts: 1,025	I rather not. Back in the day when we all wore woodlands, certain "other" branches looked like "Joe $hit the Rag Man" in their uniforms. As for the field... Hajjee's don't wear any. Hajjee don't surf!

10-31-2009, 11:13 PM	#6
Soldat_Américain Super Boot. Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Ass End First, Anus End Forward, Anal Enema Flatulent (AEF) Age: 21 Posts: 5,291	Hollywood...buddy, calm down I understand he resides in a chair but sadly as of right now I wish the Army paid attention to certain things going on in the Department of the Navy in a specific Corps. Because you guys as of late seems to be way more efficient in the benefit per dollar as far as the way you guys spend money.

10-31-2009, 11:27 PM	#7
gaijinsamurai Redneck in denial Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Oregon Posts: 11,808	^ When you're poor, you've got to make every dollar count!

11-01-2009, 07:42 AM	#9
crazyman Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Ft. Stewart, GA Age: 27 Posts: 662	I'd support a common uniform for all, personally. If nothing else it would save the DOD a ton of money on fielding, research, etc.

11-01-2009, 10:32 AM	#11
crazyman Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Ft. Stewart, GA Age: 27 Posts: 662	If nothing else, I'd bet that IR (I.E. the tabs/US Flags the US Army has been using) will become a requirement for the other services, not actual pattern changes being made. I would be very surprised if it went beyond that.

11-01-2009, 05:54 PM	#13
Ubar fubar Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Europe Posts: 487	"But out of concern for safety, function and performance, they want more cooperation between the services over ground combat and utility clothing." Army to adopt marpat? :P

11-01-2009, 08:41 PM	#15
crazyman Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Ft. Stewart, GA Age: 27 Posts: 662	Marines/attached personnel are starting to utilize IR more, but its by no means SOP as it's become for the army, built into our uniform jackets/helmet covers. At a minimum I could see this being the result of the congressional action, when/if it doesn't go as far as to describe a uniform/pattern standard for the us military.