Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 1/28/2002 4:17:36 PM EDT
I have been informed by my sources in the five sided puzzle palace that the Army has all but decided to introduce a new "digital" uniform. My source hasn't confirmed any details, other other than it's similarity to CADPAT/MARPAT, and lack of embedded trademarks. My friend said several Army Officers that were exceptionally critical of the MARPAT uniform have suddenly become rather quiet on the topic. Introduction should occur within the next 18 months, so wanna-be's and gear geeks alike won't be drooling over MARPAT for long.
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 10:01:43 PM EDT
yet another pathetic attempt by the army to emulate my Corps.
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 11:42:14 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 2:24:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2002 2:25:29 AM EDT by DvlDog]
the Corps is always happy to adopt a piece of gear after the army spent their time and money perfecting it. however on the REALLY important gear they often step out of line with the army. especially in the last 10 years or so. the ICB boot (soon to be picked up by the army) the M16A2 the M4 (if im not mistaken, if i am set me straight) the combat tent MOLLE the LAV the entire concept expeditionary forces now being copied by the army and AF now if only the army would get themselves some high-collar dress blues they'd be in business
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 2:42:13 AM EDT
Tastes great! Less filling! I guess the mCorpse adoption of the MARPAT was just a pathetic attempt to emulate the Russian paratroopers who sported a very similar pattern in the '80's! No, seriously, they've started to make it available to NCO's down here at Camp Lejeune. I'm starting to see more and more Marines wearing it, and it does seem to be effective and liked by the Marines who wear it.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 2:48:55 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DvlDog: the Corps is always happy to adopt a piece of gear after the army spent their time and money perfecting it. however on the REALLY important gear they often step out of line with the army. especially in the last 10 years or so. the ICB boot (soon to be picked up by the army) the M16A2 the M4 (if im not mistaken, if i am set me straight) the combat tent MOLLE the LAV the entire concept expeditionary forces now being copied by the army and AF now if only the army would get themselves some high-collar dress blues they'd be in business
View Quote
Unfotunately, the army research $ always seems focused on the gee whiz stuff - the guy in the mud tends to get ignored a lot. That said, the M40 series masks, earplugs (which I still have not seen and cost too much dangit), Ranger Body Armor, and many things from stoves to tents have improved greatly since I came on Active duty. The only difference is the army is bigger - thus moves slower. We are also not so wrapped up in the image thing that permeates the like of STLRN (it's hard to believe DvlDog admitted to gaining wait - isn't that just for pathetic army dawgs? Surely all marines are high speed, low drag members of an elite warrior culture who always exemplify the finest traditions of Hoorah and would never put on weight or any of those other weaknesses of the rest of human society). The army had high collar dress blues long ago. We gave them up a long time ago - likely because they were uncomfortable. I still have people thinking I am a Marine when they see a picture of me in my blues. This goes to show that most civilians don't notice the collar - they just assaciate the blue uniform with marines and the green with soldiers - go figure. By the way - I do believe the original BDU was an army thing - so just because the USMC refuses to use that acronym doesn't mean its not right and you didn't steal OUR uniform idea - regardless of how you roll your sleeves.[:)] As for standing out in utility uniforms - isn't that funky hat enough? My point is WHO REALLY CARES. Hope your respective service adopts what works best and phases out what doesn't. End of story. Adam
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 3:49:36 AM EDT
Of course I am very concerned about the image of the Marine Corps, we as a service have been proposed by the other services to be dissolved over a dozen times in the last 200 years. There have been many occasions that other services have even said, that they are attempting to take some of the mission we have traditionally done, once the mission is gone the next natural steep is to fold our colors and go away. My actually thoughts on the cammies, is that the design and the cut itself is much better. But the Commandant was wrong in wanting the pattern to be a Marine exclusive one, in a world of jointness it doesn’t make sense to have a separate supply block. Additionally it brings about problems of recognition at distance when working with units from other services. One only has to look at what happen in the early days of Normandy, France when US units that wore cammies quickly traded them from standard color ones when it was discovered at distances the could easily be mistaken for Waffen SS units. But in a way the Marine Corps adaptation of the new pattern will spur the Army to adopt a similar improved uniform, so it may be that future runs of the cammies will be without Marine Corps emblems in the pattern and only the emblem on the breast pocket and the cover will be embroidered for the Marine issue/sales one.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 3:56:43 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DvlDog: the Corps is always happy to adopt a piece of gear after the army spent their time and money perfecting it. however on the REALLY important gear they often step out of line with the army. especially in the last 10 years or so. the M16A2
View Quote
Nope. Designed by the Army (with Marine Corps input).
the M4 (if im not mistaken, if i am set me straight)
View Quote
Army again, although the very first versions were custom-order weapons for a Middle Eastern country that didn't ship from Colt. The Army already had the concept and wanted to go back to a CAR-sized weapon for Special Ops and some support personnel, as well as replace aging M3A1s. The M4 idea (and even the term M4 Carbine) came up aroun 91 oe so, although it was several years before they started fielding it.
MOLLE
View Quote
Designed at and by Nattick Labs(Army Command) with main guidnace and testing from the Marine Corps. Most of the "Marine Corps" designed (or Army, for that matter) gear out there came from Nattick
the LAV
View Quote
Off the shelf item with no development involved. The Army specifically did not buy them because their survivability compared to the Bradley was very, very low (which isn't saying much about the Bradley, either).
now if only the army would get themselves some high-collar dress blues they'd be in business
View Quote
Had those, left them in the 19th century where they belong. I was in for 8 years, never wore a blue uniform, wore "A"s only about 3 or 4 times, and never for more than a few hours, which is typical. Too busy to play dress up
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 4:15:58 AM EDT
Some of you need to do some research on systems procurement as set out by DOD 5000 and other various defense regulations. It is unusual and discouraged that a service does single service development of a system. The M16A2 was designed mostly by the Corps, it even featured a lot of things not wanted by the army that made the weapon more suited for our KD course of fire. You will notice that the Corps was fully fielded with the A2 prior to most units in the army even seeing them. The M4 or a carbine version of the M16 started at a request of the Marine Corps, the Army however adopted it much before the Corps. The MOLLE system was developed at Natick after the Corps requested a modular system. The LAV was adopted by both the Army and the Marine Corps. The army actually used them in the gulf as an element of the Cav for the 18th Airborne Corps. However, the track mafia said had 2 major criticism of it besides not being tracked, first being they were easily confused for BTRs and they didn't have the cross country mobility necessary as a scout vehicle. However, I knowing a current army officer that used them back then, he said it filled all the requirements that the army wanted for a scout vehicle, however since it was wheeled based it was unacceptable at the time.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 4:33:31 AM EDT
So, who invented the knife, the army or the marines? What about short haircuts, who invented that? Oh, I've got it...whoever invented saluting has to be better, was it an army soldier or a marine who did the first salute? Who invented taps? This is great! Here at ar15.com we are finally going to figure out who is better, the army or the marines, by systematically going through and figuring out who invented the most stuff! This has got to be the absolute best way to decide this matter!!!
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 4:43:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2002 6:06:33 AM EDT by Halfcocked]
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: So, who invented the knife, the army or the marines? What about short haircuts, who invented that? Oh, I've got it...whoever invented saluting has to be better, was it an army soldier or a marine who did the first salute? Who invented taps? This is great! Here at ar15.com we are finally going to figure out who is better, the army or the marines, by systematically going through and figuring out who invented the most stuff! This has got to be the absolute best way to decide this matter!!!
View Quote
I agree! What's even more hilarious is DvlDog's comment on raf's.
. however on the REALLY important gear they often step out of line with the army.
View Quote
Raf had just mentioned the marines adoption of the M1 Garand. Rifles must be some of that NOT REALLY important gear. HAHAHAHAHA!
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 5:28:24 AM EDT
army v. marines. whatever. i think it's been a pretty interesting thread.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 5:50:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2002 5:51:48 AM EDT by lurker]
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: Who invented taps?
View Quote
i believe daniel butterfield (army) stole the tune from the french army during the civil war. the french army was still respectable in those days(though not for long)
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 8:06:20 AM EDT
Tastes great! Less filling! When the Army won the freedom of these United States the mCorpse wasn't even "born". No seriously, can't we all just get along?[:X*] We need to come together in these trying times so that we can get back to the important stuff. You know... ragging on the Chair Farce!
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 8:52:04 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Halfcocked: What's even more hilarious is DvlDog's comment on raf's.
. however on the REALLY important gear they often step out of line with the army.
View Quote
Raf had just mentioned the marines adoption of the M1 Garand. Rifles must be some of that NOT REALLY important gear. HAHAHAHAHA!
View Quote
How about the recent Army-wide adoption of the black beret? The Marines spend the time to develop a utility uniform that has true combat value... While the Army is worried about "feeling good" in their morale boosting headgear. ...And the Marines ARE responsible for the M16A2. STLRN made some damn good points there. Another piece of history for you: The first RIS built by Knight's Armament Company: developed at request of the USMC. havoc
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 8:58:56 AM EDT
Hey don't miss my point. This to me sounds like a couple of teenage girls arguing about who has the prettiest prom dress. I just think a Marine implying a rifle is not REALLY important was just too hilarious to let go by.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 9:13:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2002 12:10:56 PM EDT by STLRN]
Originally Posted By Schnert: When the Army won the freedom of these United States the mCorpse wasn't even "born".
View Quote
The Marine Corps did see action in the revolutionary war. In fact 2 battalions of US Marines were authorized by the continental congress on Nov 10, 1775. Then Capt Samuel Nichols set about recruiting in Tun Tavern, Philadelphia and was only able to field one of the two Battalions. On 3 Mar 1776, before the nation was even truly born, the Marine Corps landed on New Providence Island (Nassau) Captured the British Fort and hoisted the US standard on foreign shores for the first time. Than though out the war, the Marines fought at Trenton, Morristown, Assunpunk, Fort Mifflin and at sea, most notable with John Paul Jones, when he made his famous statement that “I have not yet begun to fight.”
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 9:34:19 AM EDT
Natez, you really should avoid posting when you information is badly researched. This is the 2d time you've post erroneous info on the Corps, the first was your assertion that the Marines couldn't/wouldn't use armor or gunships in Somalia. -M16A2: Designed specifically at the request of the USMC. The Army actually funded a study attacking the A2. Read "The Black Rifle" for details -M4: Program started by HQMC, under Commandant Gray, after Recon Marines asked for more compact weapon. When program funds ran out, the Army who intially didn't want anything to do with the program picked it up. LAV: Evolved from MOWAG "Pirana" 6x6 and 8x8 armored cars. Considerably development in airtransportability issues, armament, and design features. Intially a "joint" program with the USMC to field only ~160 LAV's. Army drops out, Corps ends up with 700+. RIS: First RIS handguards were mounted on USMC M4-CQB models in early 1990's. Nice Havoc, I didn't think too many people knew this. Don't even dispute the adoption of the M240G. That said, the Corps has alot of issues with ramrods clinging to outdated ideas. There is antipathy towards the M4 by senior enlisteds who are more concerned with the manual of arms that fighting. Also, I'm going silently pull what little hair I have out if another 1stSgt/SGTMAJ complains that wearing a cover backwards or modified pocket cammies in the field is "abusing the uniform".
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 11:14:25 PM EDT
hey half-cocked, dont be a tool. i in noway insinuated that a rifle isnt important. just because you're so literal and cannot follow the flow of a conversation dont think you made a profound observation. Adam, youre dead right about those dress blues. as i heard it they were orginally fasioned from tunics delivered to, but rejected by the army for being the wrong color. and im not ashamed to admit i gained weight. it happens. im a different man now after leaving active duty for the nasty reserves. still pass the PFT soundly in the middle of the field. just goes with becoming a pogue i guess. STLRN, youre shit-hot with that procurement info. outstanding.
Link Posted: 1/30/2002 3:41:06 AM EDT
Originally Posted By steel_weasel: Natez, you really should avoid posting when you information is badly researched. This is the 2d time you've post erroneous info on the Corps, the first was your assertion that the Marines couldn't/wouldn't use armor or gunships in Somalia.
View Quote
Badly researched. Erroneous info. Really now. First off, I stand by my statement that the Marines could not or would not have been allowed to use armor or airpower in Somalia at the time the Task Force Ranger was operating, for the very simple reason that the Secretary of Defense forbid it. The Army was not allowed to have armor or air power during that phase of the operation. The Marines wouldn't have been allowed to have it, either. Last I checked, the oath included "and obey all lawful orders from the officers appointed..." and you get the picture. Applies to the Marine Corps as well. The Army had tanks in theater within a few days of the "Blackhawk Down" incident, because NCA got its collective head out of its ---.
-M16A2: Designed specifically at the request of the USMC. The Army actually funded a study attacking the A2. Read "The Black Rifle" for details
View Quote
M16A2-designed because of NATO adoption of the SS109 round. We had a couple million M16A1s in stock at the time. It was developed jointly, by Army labs with Marine Corps input. The Marines fielded it first (in 83, if I remember correctly), but that doesn't mean that they are solely responsible for it.
-M4: Program started by HQMC, under Commandant Gray, after Recon Marines asked for more compact weapon. When program funds ran out, the Army who intially didn't want anything to do with the program picked it up.
View Quote
M4-Type classified by the Army in about 1989 and shelved because of budget issues until the mid-1990s. The real designer was Colt, since an off-the-shelf design (made for a middle eastern country) was purchased with minimal modification. The first M4 type weapons in US service were a rush order of M4s (about 10-15,000) purchased by the Army from Bushmaster in 1990 for the Gulf War. The subsequent lawsuit limits purchase of this weapons system from Colt. Subsequent developments and fielding of the SOPMOD variant were through units in the US Special Operations Command. Which Marine units are in SOCCOM?
LAV: Evolved from MOWAG "Pirana" 6x6 and 8x8 armored cars. Considerably development in airtransportability issues, armament, and design features. Intially a "joint" program with the USMC to field only ~160 LAV's. Army drops out, Corps ends up with 700+.
View Quote
LAV-Another off-the-shelf system.
Link Posted: 1/30/2002 3:41:39 AM EDT
continued
Don't even dispute the adoption of the M240G.
View Quote
Heck. Interesting that you bring that up. The M240 was developed by the Belgians as the FN MAG and has been in service around the globe since the 1950s, with no Marine Corps involvement in its development, testing or anything else. The first M240s in US service were the M240, (coax, left hand feed, pull charger) M240C (coax, right hand feed, pull charger) or M240D (spade grips, flex mount). They were mounted on US Army M1 Tanks and BFVs in the early 80s, and later LAV variants. The M240G "kit" to modify M240s, M240C and D models into a ground mount MG was developed by the Belgians, and sold as an aftermarket option for armored vehicle crews. The Marines did not "develop" this, it already existed. In fact, the Marines got their M240s that were converted using the G kits from Army stocks, which became available when the Army inactivated 7 heavy divisions (each of which had more tanks and artillery than than the entire Marine Corps) between 1991 and 1995. The Army doesn't use the M240G. They use new prodcution "B" model weapons. That said, the Corps has alot of issues with ramrods clinging to outdated ideas. There is antipathy towards the M4 by senior enlisteds who are more concerned with the manual of arms that fighting. Also, I'm going silently pull what little hair I have out if another 1stSgt/SGTMAJ complains that wearing a cover backwards or modified pocket cammies in the field is "abusing the uniform".
View Quote
Every branch has this kind of person, those who are more concerned about looking pretty than actual effectiveness. There were times when new equipment was fielded solely because a unit was deploying on an exercise, and some moron with stars wanted everyone to look good for the media. It took the Army a couple of decades to convert to the M16A2 (the Marine Corps did it en mass in less than a year). The M16A1s in Basic training were the wierdest collection of cobbled together ARs I have ever seen. There were original AR15s that had been arsenal rebuilt (you can tell by the ANAD stamp) three or four times. Some even had slab sides with no fence. The Army has often focused on big-ticket systems like the M1, Apache and arty (which admittedly does do most of the killing in big wars) at the expense of the stuff that gets use more often in lower-end missions, like body armor and small arms. This has hampered effectiveness and gotten people killed. People I knew died in 91 because the Army only issued some armor crew protection items (which might not have helped them, but who knows) to tank crews and not to folks crewing support vehicles. This changed afterwards, but it was too late for them. Every branch has its problems, every branch has its strength and nothing I said was inaccurate. Neither the Marine Corps or the Army is the sole repository of knowledge about land warfare in the United States military establishment. The MK-19 mostly came from work the stinking NAVY did. BTW, your Radio Recon guys are some of the sickest, most perverted and reprehensible human beings on the face of the earth. It was a real pleasure working with them (seriously, they were real pros).
Link Posted: 1/30/2002 6:18:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/30/2002 6:21:07 AM EDT by Garand_Shooter]
Link Posted: 1/30/2002 6:29:31 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DvlDog: now if only the army would get themselves some high-collar dress blues they'd be in business
View Quote
That's the Army's biggest flaw. They used to have nice "high-collar" dress uniforms, just like the Corps (except not blue). They chose to get rid of them. It shows a lack of respect for tradition, and a lack of Esprit De Corps.
Link Posted: 1/30/2002 6:31:39 AM EDT
ANGLICO doesn't exsist in the active duty Marine Corps anymore, it went away around the summer of 98. Natez Prior to TF Ranger taking over, the Marines did use Armor and Air against the Somolias. I would contend that the MEU (SOC) would have used all the assest avialable to it. TF Ranger did use air and eventually used armor when they got it from the UN. So if they would have had it organic like the MEU (SOC) does it would have been used.
Link Posted: 1/30/2002 6:39:35 AM EDT
The Army requested the armor, and were denied. The Corps did/would not have had to make such a request, because: 1)They had the assets there (T/E MEU). 2)The use of the assets did not violate the ROE.
Link Posted: 1/30/2002 7:15:32 AM EDT
Some points to ponder: The Marine Corps thoroughly tested and wanted to procure the Stoner weapons system in the early 60's. Instead, they had the M-16 crammed down their throat. Very little bought by the military is truly "off the shelf". The LAV decision was based on a head-to-head test of competing vehicles with further modifications of the winning vehicle. I was at the Marine Corps Operational Test and Evaluation Activity (MCOTEA) when we tested the LAV. I recall major problems in the feed chutes for the chain gun, among other issues. Survivability wasn't a big issue because the type of armor required for really good protection would have reduced mobility. I think vehicles with good armor are called tanks. The Marine Corps is not averse to purchasing an Army system when it meets the Corp's requirements. I was at the MSARC II at Headquarters Marine Corps in 1984 that killed the Corp's Artillery Computer System (ACS). The decision was based on the fact that Marine artillery officers were trained by the Army, the Army BCS met the Corp's requirements, and if we had to go to war right then, we would borrow the system from the Army anyway. That was why there were Army personnel killed in the Beirut bombing in 1983. Even when the Corps adopts an Army developed system it is still required to perform additional testing, to include shipboard compatibility. Although the HMMWV was an Army developed system, it was Corps testing that identified seal failures when driven through salt water. The real benefit to Marines of the new MARPAT utilities is not the pattern, it's the design changes in the cut of the uniform and additional features. The fact that only they have the pattern may make them unique, but at a given distance all the camo patterns turn into a blob anyway. In a woodland setting, some of the best camo uniforms I've seen were the tan shirt and green trousers used by the Enlisted aggressor force at Quantico.
Link Posted: 1/30/2002 7:25:00 AM EDT
One other point: Landing U.S. Marines is NOT considered an act of war, sending in the U.S. Army is.
Link Posted: 1/30/2002 7:56:24 AM EDT
The Marine Corps has balls...every year they sell tickets The Army doesnt have any balls...so they dont sell tickets
Link Posted: 1/30/2002 8:02:07 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 9divdoc: The Marine Corps has balls...every year they sell tickets The Army doesnt have any balls...so they dont sell tickets
View Quote
OHHHHHHHHHHHHSSSSCCCCHIIIIT [:D]
Link Posted: 1/30/2002 8:06:08 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: Who invented tap?
View Quote
That may have been Fred Astaire ? (not certain though.) [:D]
Link Posted: 1/30/2002 9:06:04 AM EDT
Originally Posted By natez: First off, I stand by my statement that the Marines could not or would not have been allowed to use armor or airpower in Somalia at the time the Task Force Ranger was operating, for the very simple reason that the Secretary of Defense forbid it. The Army was not allowed to have armor or air power during that phase of the operation. The Marines wouldn't have been allowed to have it, either. Last I checked, the oath included "and obey all lawful orders from the officers appointed..." and you get the picture. Applies to the Marine Corps as well. The Army had tanks in theater within a few days of the "Blackhawk Down" incident, because NCA got its collective head out of its ---.
View Quote
This doesn't need to belabored any longer, enough Marines have disputed your "theory" which is based on thinking like a political solider. The Corps butted heads often enough with the Clinton Administration that it's obvious that Marine Armor would have been present and used at the time TF-Ranger ran into trouble.
M16A2-designed because of NATO adoption of the SS109 round. We had a couple million M16A1s in stock at the time. It was developed jointly, by Army labs with Marine Corps input. The Marines fielded it first (in 83, if I remember correctly), but that doesn't mean that they are solely responsible for it.
View Quote
Again, read "The Black Rifle" by C. Edward Ezell and repeat this again with a straight face, unless your going to assert that Ezell doesn't know what he's talking about.
M4-Type classified by the Army in about 1989 and shelved because of budget issues until the mid-1990s. The real designer was Colt, since an off-the-shelf design (made for a middle eastern country) was purchased with minimal modification. The first M4 type weapons in US service were a rush order of M4s (about 10-15,000) purchased by the Army from Bushmaster in 1990 for the Gulf War. The subsequent lawsuit limits purchase of this weapons system from Colt. Subsequent developments and fielding of the SOPMOD variant were through units in the US Special Operations Command. Which Marine units are in SOCCOM?
View Quote
Never said the Army didn't type classify the M4 earlier. The Corps started the M4 program ~1987 under Commandant Gray. I was in Desert Shield/Storm and I saw non-bushmaster pre-M4's in use, particularly by Radio Recon units, that were part of the 1987 program. It was the Corps that determined the 14.5 barrel was optimal.
LAV-Another off-the-shelf system.
View Quote
You must have missed what I posted. If the LAV was an off the shelf system you must beleive in Santa. While it wasn't designed from scratch, again it a development of the MOWAG series, the Corps certainly didn't grab them off GM's production line and issue them out. You assume too much if you think I need a history lesson on the Mag58/M240, but the fact is that the Corps discarded that POS M60 and adopted the M240 much earlier than the Army. Except for the 75th Infantry who saw the Corps wisdom and did likewise just afterwards. Its interesting to see the heat shield on the M240B, I guess to many soldiers were getting their hands burned when they grabbed the barrel.
Link Posted: 1/30/2002 9:10:17 AM EDT
Steel it is not just soldiers that have been burnt by the M240 barrel. I know quote a few Marines that have also
Link Posted: 1/30/2002 9:18:48 AM EDT
Originally Posted By STLRN: Steel it is not just soldiers that have been burnt by the M240 barrel. I know quote a few Marines that have also
View Quote
Then they got what they deserved and won't do it again. I don't see the Corps rushing to field a heat shield.
Top Top