Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Posted: 4/12/2006 12:21:06 PM EDT
Under Armour, CoolMax and Nike are now no-no's....

HH

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marines Ban Sports Brands From Battlefield Clothing

POSTED: 11:22 am EDT April 12, 2006
UPDATED: 12:09 pm EDT April 12, 2006

BALTIMORE -- A military news Web site reported that synthetic athletic clothing containing polyester and nylon has been prohibited for Marines conducting missions away from forward operating bases and camps in Iraq.

Under direction of Marine Corps commanders in Iraq, the ban on popular clothing from companies such as Under Armour, CoolMax and Nike comes in the wake of concerns that a substantial burn risk is associated with wearing clothing made with these synthetic materials.

TheWBALChannel.com in Baltimore reported that the site -- Military.com -- says that when the clothing is exposed to extreme heat and flames, some synthetic materials such as polyester will melt and can fuse to the skin.

A military surgeon said this essentially creates a second skin and can lead to horrific, disfiguring burns.

“Burns can kill you and they’re horribly disfiguring. If you’re throwing (a melted synthetic material) on top of a burn, basically you have a bad burn with a bunch of plastic melting into your skin and that’s not how you want to go home to your family,” said Navy Capt. Lynn E. Welling, the 1st Marine Logistics Group head surgeon.

According to Tension Technology International, a company that specializes in synthetic fibers, most man-made fabrics, such as nylon, acrylic or polyester will melt when ignited and produce a hot, sticky, melted substance causing extremely severe burns.

Military.com reported Marines have been limited to wearing clothing made with these materials only while on the relatively safe forward operating bases and camps where encounters with fires and explosions are relatively low.

Baltimore-based Under Armour advertises that the fabric used to make their garments will draw perspiration from the skin to the outer layer of the clothing allowing the person wearing it to remain cool and dry in any condition or climate.

The site said servicemembers with jobs that put them at a high risk of flame exposure, such as pilots and explosive ordnance disposal personnel, were kept from wearing polyester materials because of the extra burn threat. Now, with so many encounters with IED explosions, the Marines are extending this ban to everyone going “outside the wire.”

When working in a low-risk environment where exposure to flames or intense heat is minimal, the military said the high performance apparel can be an optimal option for staying cool in the Iraq heat.
Link Posted: 4/12/2006 12:23:59 PM EDT
I was wondering about that. my son loves the stuff, but back in the day (1981) this was one of the reasons why the army went away from the "Pickle suit" the OD green fatuiges that where replaced by the BDU's.
They had alot of polyester in the mix and would leave horrible burns.
Link Posted: 4/12/2006 12:26:58 PM EDT
Good move and good reminder.
Link Posted: 4/12/2006 12:27:43 PM EDT
Aren't the new uniforms that the services are getting 50/50 nylon?
Link Posted: 4/12/2006 12:30:04 PM EDT
Poor marines cant boost thier ego anymore by wearing underarmor. Guess it isnt worth having clothing fused to your skin.
Link Posted: 4/12/2006 12:32:00 PM EDT
Silk long underwear isn't all that expensive nowadays and would solve the melting problem...
Link Posted: 4/12/2006 12:34:38 PM EDT
Synthetic fabrics melt to the skin when exposed to high temp.s.
All US troops should be wearing Flame retardant clothing, This clothing will save someones skin (Literally) when they are exposed to high heat & Flame.
Link Posted: 4/12/2006 12:39:07 PM EDT
People here don’t think it’s crazy for a man to carry a pistol (legally) all the time since he might be called on to protect innocent life at a moments notice. Fair enough, I tend to agree and carry frequently myself.

But, the way I figure it you have a greater chance of having to respond to a fire emergency than you do a crime emergency. Cotton and wool have excellent reputations for protecting people in a fire. Polyester has a reputation for melting and burning.

That’s why I only wear cotton or wool. (Or some other natural nonflammable materials.)
Link Posted: 4/12/2006 12:39:08 PM EDT
I'd wondered about this very thing.

It would be nice if one of the companies came out with a flame resistant shirt for use in high heat.
Link Posted: 4/12/2006 12:40:34 PM EDT
Look like it's a balance between helping prevent heat injuries and limiting the severity of burn injuries...
Link Posted: 4/12/2006 12:41:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By crurifragium:
Silk long underwear isn't all that expensive nowadays and would solve the melting problem...



Silk burns pretty easily IIRC.
Link Posted: 4/12/2006 12:41:37 PM EDT
When I fought forest fires in college we couldn't wear anything that was synthetic, including insulated boots and polyester long underwear.
Link Posted: 4/12/2006 12:42:45 PM EDT
What about polypropylene?

Are they banning that?
Link Posted: 4/12/2006 12:43:14 PM EDT
I was surprised by this, as I didn't know what UnderArmour and similar stuff was made of.

Polyester and nylon suck serious balls in a fire. For some God-awful reason, the Navy still allows CNT khakis (made of the worst polyester ever). It should be banned aboard ship (if it isn't already. It wasn't in my day.), and after the Pentagon attack, I wouldn't wear it anywhere.

Damned Hefty bag waiting for a match.
Link Posted: 4/12/2006 12:44:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By magnum_99:
What about polypropylene?

Are they banning that?



Oh, fuck yeah!
Polypro has been on the restricted list for aviation crews for decades, and the modern stuff isn't much more than glorified polypro.

I still wear it on my feet, but it'd have to be a hell of a fire to burn through my LPCs.
Link Posted: 4/12/2006 12:45:22 PM EDT
dont the new ARMY ACU's issue a underarmor like under shirt?
Link Posted: 4/12/2006 12:46:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By photokirk:

Originally Posted By crurifragium:
Silk long underwear isn't all that expensive nowadays and would solve the melting problem...



Silk burns pretty easily IIRC.



But it doesn't melt to the skin and require a bristle brush to remove from burnt skin.
Link Posted: 4/12/2006 12:48:55 PM EDT
I never liked the underarmour shirts because I wear glasses, and if you try to clean off your specs the synth fiber clothes just smear the crap out of them.
Link Posted: 4/12/2006 12:51:42 PM EDT
Another example that some people may not be aware of is that Mechanix gloves use synthetic materials. They will melt if exposed to high temperatures. Even steam will melt them. I found out the hard painful way.
Link Posted: 4/12/2006 12:52:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By magnum_99:
What about polypropylene?

Are they banning that?



Shit. I got issued a set.
Link Posted: 4/12/2006 12:55:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Interceptor_Knight:
Another example that some people may not be aware of is that Mechanix gloves use synthetic materials. They will melt if exposed to high temperatures. Even steam will melt them. I found out the hard painful way.



That's why I like the BlackHawk!!!!11111!!!111™™™®®® (insert explosion and ratta-tat-tat gunfire sounds here) gloves... they're heat resistant.

I won't buy a pair that isn't.
Link Posted: 4/12/2006 12:59:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/12/2006 1:02:17 PM EDT by Cincinnatus]
So I guess when winter rolls back around, we're going to toss the Gore-Tex parkas, Polarfleece and polypro, and go back to wearing cotton, wool and canvas?

Yay!
I really missed that disgusting sweaty mildew odor.


Underarmor is great.
Heat casualties are much more common than melted Underarmor burns.


This new "rule" will be tossed out.
Especially, once the highers up see the price tag on nomex cold weather parkas for all the grunts.
Link Posted: 4/12/2006 1:06:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
So I guess when winter rolls back around, we're going to toss the Gore-Tex parkas, Polarfleece and polypro, and go back to wearing cotton, wool and canvas?

Yay!
I really missed that disgusting sweaty mildew odor.


Underarmor is great.
Heat casualties are much more common than melted Underarmor burns.


This new "rule" will be tossed out.
Especially, once the highers up see the price tag on nomex cold weather parkas for all the grunts.




My thoughts exactly.

I'm sure there3 are troops who get burned, but much more who suffer heat injury.

I don't think going wholesale back to wool pants and 'Ike' jackets is the way to go here.

Look at the risk, and gear up accordingly. For the average boot on the ground, UnderArmor seems appropriate.

For those in "fire danger" jobs--aircrew, armor, refueling, etc., then flame retardent materials make sense.
Link Posted: 4/12/2006 1:12:48 PM EDT
The problem is, they're saying the grunts on the foot patrols are in a "fire risk" job.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the point of the underarmor, the gore-tex, and the polypro to make life EASIER for these grunts?
Doesn't everyone else simply play dress up?
Does a wrench-turner on the FOB even need camouflage?

This is a silly rule that will be abandonned.
Link Posted: 4/12/2006 1:13:26 PM EDT
Fire is a huge risk in the military. Flash burns from explosives, fuel and electrical fires, etc. I always unroll my fightsuit sleeves and wear my gloves and zip up all the way during take off and landing. It might not look cool for that few minutes but I wont have my skin sloughing off my hands and arms either..
Link Posted: 4/12/2006 1:13:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
The problem is, they're saying the grunts on the foot patrols are in a "fire risk" job.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the point of the underarmor, the gore-tex, and the polypro to make life EASIER for these grunts?
Doesn't everyone else simply play dress up?
Does a wrench-turner on the FOB even need camouflage?

This is a silly rule that will be abandonned. totally ignored by the grunts



Fixed.
Link Posted: 4/12/2006 1:32:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
The problem is, they're saying the grunts on the foot patrols are in a "fire risk" job.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the point of the underarmor, the gore-tex, and the polypro to make life EASIER for these grunts?
Doesn't everyone else simply play dress up?
Does a wrench-turner on the FOB even need camouflage?

This is a silly rule that will be abandonned.





AAAAaaaa!! Common sense!!!!!

/runs screaming
Link Posted: 4/12/2006 1:57:04 PM EDT
I've worried about that too. I've been trying to tell some of the asshats here that love those damn synthetic works gloves about the potenital flame risks.

Good thing I've been buying more wool, although it's damn hard to get it any more. I'll have to have someones granny knit me a set of wollen long johns. That should be comfortable:
Link Posted: 4/12/2006 3:03:39 PM EDT
Almost nothing currently issued by the Army is considered officially safe for wear in tanks because of the fire risk.

NTM
Link Posted: 4/12/2006 7:11:44 PM EDT
CNT still lives???? gaaah

Back in first active duty period I got several pair of the Trop Khaki. They were poly-cotton twill and approved for shipboard wear because cotton-poly falls away when burning. And they were much easier to care for, iron and starch and looked better than the double knits, which nobody in their right minds liked. And about 3 months later the Double-knit guaranteed not to pill or snag khakis were mandated, and the trop khakis were banned. I don't know about you but, all the double knits I ever had pilled, pulled and snagged like crazy. The CNT were an improvement but still were 100% poly. Remember the doubleknit trop whites? I don't think there was anything good about them.

Took a long time for our Navy to get smart about flash burns and decent shipboard clothing materials. The old dungarees might not be particularly popular anymore but they sure were damn parctical and safe.
Link Posted: 4/12/2006 8:07:05 PM EDT
As far as flame resistant clothing, there is Nomex. If you have ever worn Nomex you know it is hot and itchy in summer, and cold and itchy in winter. I would not want to be issued Nomex in the Iraqi climate.

I know of some guys that were lit up while wearing polyester coveralls. Melted to their skin, and the skin came with it when they removed it. They might have lived if not for the polyester.

Cotton is far preferable. Yes, cotton may char and burn, but it won't melt on your skin.
Link Posted: 4/12/2006 9:18:29 PM EDT
Nomex is what is used for flight suits for a damn good reason.
Link Posted: 4/12/2006 9:22:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NVGdude:
Nomex is what is used for flight suits for a damn good reason.

And BFV coveralls/ jacket, theres a reason so many Mech crews still have wool sweaters.
Link Posted: 4/12/2006 9:31:50 PM EDT
I, for one, think that it is about time that this is addressed. A ban seems extreme, unless there is a substitute (sure. . .), but it should definitely be made public. We told all our people that if they wore it they were basically screwed if they got burned. Man, being burned is bad enough, but being burned and having that crap melt to your skin . . . not for me.

As for getting away from sythentics . . .good luck, the polypro, fleece, gore-tex - it all melts.
Link Posted: 4/12/2006 11:41:06 PM EDT
It doesn't take much to get synthetics going...my son happened to let his jacket touch the top of the Coleman lantern while reaching across the picnic table -- fortunately I was right there when it happened.

It looked just like the old film strip melting when the projector jammed, and it happened in an instant -- not even with an open flame. I can only imagine what hot shrapnel or WP wpuld do.

Link Posted: 4/13/2006 12:21:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By prk:
It doesn't take much to get synthetics going...my son happened to let his jacket touch the top of the Coleman lantern while reaching across the picnic table -- fortunately I was right there when it happened.

It looked just like the old film strip melting when the projector jammed, and it happened in an instant -- not even with an open flame. I can only imagine what hot shrapnel or WP wpuld do.




Um, dude, that happens with normal blends too.


I had a 50/50 cotton/poly t-shirt that caught on fire when I was handling fireworks 2 years back on the 4th of July.

Same thing happened.


Poly mix is not to blame. It will happen to ANY non-100% cotton/wool material.
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 2:59:31 AM EDT
I remember, years ago, the experts recommended for women airlines passengers, avoid wearing nylon hoisery because it would melt on to their skin in event of a fire. The experts recommended cotton instead.
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 3:13:14 AM EDT
Yes they do (ACU underarmour type) I had gotten a few for my son. you have to wonder what natick is thinking. (army test unit) our guys are in explosions alot over there.
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 3:20:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By warlord:
I remember, years ago, the experts recommended for women airlines passengers, avoid wearing nylon hoisery because it would melt on to their skin in event of a fire. The experts recommended cotton instead.

Or, the hose will melt to the skin due to the friction of the escape slide. The warning isnt as widely published now, but its still out there.

Kharn
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 2:43:16 PM EDT
Couldn't they wear the underarmor over silk?

Just brainstorming at this point....
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 2:51:46 PM EDT
http://www.quanticoarms.com/asp/itemDetail.asp?dispItemNum=1033&type=M&CMN=Potomac%20Field%20Gear&CMNum=44&CMSNum=209&CMSN=T-Shirts


these guys have flame retardant underwear, I saw the stuff at SHOT it looked pretty nice. I was already planning on buying a shirt and boxers to try out before changing over.
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 2:59:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zaphod:
I was surprised by this, as I didn't know what UnderArmour and similar stuff was made of.

Polyester and nylon suck serious balls in a fire. For some God-awful reason, the Navy still allows CNT khakis (made of the worst polyester ever). It should be banned aboard ship (if it isn't already. It wasn't in my day.), and after the Pentagon attack, I wouldn't wear it anywhere.

Damned Hefty bag waiting for a match.


CNT has always been banned for shipboard use. The same thing for the shiny dress shoes. People tend to ignore the ban, however.
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 3:01:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:

CNT has always been banned for shipboard use. The same thing for the shiny dress shoes. People tend to ignore the ban, however.



I could never figure out how it could be mandated for quarterdeck watches, but banned elsewhere.
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 3:03:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By H46Driver:

Originally Posted By dport:

CNT has always been banned for shipboard use. The same thing for the shiny dress shoes. People tend to ignore the ban, however.



I could never figure out how it could be mandated for quarterdeck watches, but banned elsewhere.




Now there is Poly-wool, which is supposedly ship safe.

Link Posted: 4/13/2006 3:09:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/13/2006 3:11:14 PM EDT by MonkeyGrip]
I'm telling you guys...we just have to look to our past for the technology we need...

the wool knit union suit.

Dammit if it was good enough to Teddy Roosevelt at San Juan Hill, It's good enough for us. Builds character, 'specially in the tropics:

www.swainsinc.com/storeframe.html?store/union_suite_large.html~mainFrame

Link Posted: 4/13/2006 3:11:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:
People tend to ignore the ban, however.



Yep. My XO was one of them. CNT and corframs while underway.

What an idiot.
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 3:12:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Valkyrie:
Fire is a huge risk in the military. Flash burns from explosives, fuel and electrical fires, etc. I always unroll my fightsuit sleeves and wear my gloves and zip up all the way during take off and landing. It might not look cool for that few minutes but I wont have my skin sloughing off my hands and arms either..



+1

I remember the pics from the Flt Surgeon course at Rucker of the arms burned from the hands up to the mid forearm from rolled up sleeves.

In the 90's, flt crews were "prohibited" from wearing synthetic clothing/underwear.

Synthetics melt to the skin and keep on burning.....

Natural fibers will burn away and offer 'some" protection.

Link Posted: 4/13/2006 3:17:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By _RAGNAR_:
http://www.quanticoarms.com/asp/itemDetail.asp?dispItemNum=1033&type=M&CMN=Potomac%20Field%20Gear&CMNum=44&CMSNum=209&CMSN=T-Shirts

these guys have flame retardant underwear, I saw the stuff at SHOT it looked pretty nice. I was already planning on buying a shirt and boxers to try out before changing over.


There you go. Nomex just needs needs some "high tech" fiber technology upgrades to be a viable, if more expensive, solution. Not to mention further development of newer fire resistant materials beyond nomex and kevlar.

This is something that the .mil should have been driving the development of, since there's not much commercial pressure to develop fire resistant materials. With all the development of microfibers and engineered fibers for wicking, etc, these just need to be applied to the fire resistant materials
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 4:20:11 PM EDT
Guys, UnderArmor shirts are nice, but they aren't that nice.

I spent most of my tour in Iraq in a MOPP suit, and all of my time over there wearing cotton shirts and I survived.
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 4:41:57 PM EDT
Isn't "underarmor" worn under their armor? If flames are reaching the skin or clothing under their armored vests, I don't think it will matter if their undershirts are made of synthetic materials. Maybe they will allow them to wear the synthetic clothes which is protected by more durable outer garments.
Top Top