User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/28/2002 1:57:30 AM EDT
[#1]
The cammies have a Marine Corps Emblem on them and in their pattern, permanently! Why would a non-Marine want them?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2002 10:51:35 AM EDT
[#2]
STRLN:
There are a couple of reasons non-Marines might like examples of the new MARPAT cammo. The first is to see what choices the Marines made and how they did it. Does this pattern really work better than ERDL or Woodland? How similar is it to CADPAT? Second, it doesn't matter if the cat is black or white so long as it catches mice. If the pattern really works better, maybe that's what to use in the woods. That is NOT meant as ANY disrespect to the Marines. They work very hard. A great number of the people I see in military cammo were never in the service or are long since out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2002 11:18:01 AM EDT
[#3]
I am ex-Army and think they look pretty sharp though. I would not wear them with the Globe and Anchor but I could see people would want them. There actually collectors who will buy sets for instance. I hate the woodland camo anymore because almost every foreign third world nation wears those. If there was a limited supply of woodlands I think that they would look better to me.
Unfortunately I predict there will be Chicom knock-offs within a few months. Good luck to you Marines. I hope this works I like the look. The Army still gets to share with the Air Force. -Velveeta |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2002 12:22:33 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: The cammies have a Marine Corps Emblem on them and in their pattern, permanently! Why would a non-Marine want them? The AR15/M16 type rifle was designed for battle use and was initially meant for the military only! Why would someone not in the military want one? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2002 12:33:35 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: Quoted: The cammies have a Marine Corps Emblem on them and in their pattern, permanently! Why would a non-Marine want them? The AR15/M16 type rifle was designed for battle use and was initially meant for the military only! Why would someone not in the military want one? Neither the M16 nor the AR15 contain a Marine Corps Emblem. I don't have a problem with some wearing cammies in the pattern of our new uniform or owning any weapons. I have a problem with someone who doesn't rate a Eagle, Globe and Anchor wearing one. Outside of Corpsmen that have served with the FMF, I take great umbrage to someone wearing that emblem. It is the same problem I have with someone who doesn't rate a Budweiser or a Ranger tab wearing one, those are all symbols of sacrifice that men have gone through to earn them. If someone doesn't rate them, don't wear them! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2002 12:47:03 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The cammies have a Marine Corps Emblem on them and in their pattern, permanently! Why would a non-Marine want them? The AR15/M16 type rifle was designed for battle use and was initially meant for the military only! Why would someone not in the military want one? Neither the M16 nor the AR15 contain a Marine Corps Emblem. I don't have a problem with some wearing cammies in the pattern of our new uniform or owning any weapons. I have a problem with someone who doesn't rate a Eagle, Globe and Anchor wearing one. Outside of Corpsmen that have served with the FMF, I take great umbrage to someone wearing that emblem. It is the same problem I have with someone who doesn't rate a Budweiser or a Ranger tab wearing one, those are all symbols of sacrifice that men have gone through to earn them. If someone doesn't rate them, don't wear them! I have a very good feeling that you know exactly why people are going to want it. 1. Because it's new 2. Because it will work better than woodland in many enviroments 3. Because obviously, a lot of people just think it looks cool If the marines feel so strongly about a non-marine wearing their emblem then they shouldn't have integrated the symbol into their camo. They know damn well that it's going to end up on the surplus market and non-marines are going to be wearing it by the truckload. I guess that pretty soon you are going to have 'trouble' with a lot of people out there buying this stuff that's been surplused. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2002 12:52:28 PM EDT
[#7]
We should have their M16s (<-- I agree) but not their latest camo. Gimme a break!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2002 1:25:28 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: If the marines feel so strongly about a non-marine wearing their emblem then they shouldn't have integrated the symbol into their camo. They know damn well that it's going to end up on the surplus market and non-marines are going to be wearing it by the truckload. BS |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2002 1:46:57 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The cammies have a Marine Corps Emblem on them and in their pattern, permanently! Why would a non-Marine want them? The AR15/M16 type rifle was designed for battle use and was initially meant for the military only! Why would someone not in the military want one? Neither the M16 nor the AR15 contain a Marine Corps Emblem. I don't have a problem with some wearing cammies in the pattern of our new uniform or owning any weapons. I have a problem with someone who doesn't rate a Eagle, Globe and Anchor wearing one. Outside of Corpsmen that have served with the FMF, I take great umbrage to someone wearing that emblem. It is the same problem I have with someone who doesn't rate a Budweiser or a Ranger tab wearing one, those are all symbols of sacrifice that men have gone through to earn them. If someone doesn't rate them, don't wear them! While I understand your point, and agree somewhat, other-than-Marines [i]will[/i] eventually wear the new cammies. Count on it. Maybe some will just cover the Globe and Anchor with a camo US flag or something. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2002 1:54:59 PM EDT
[#10]
Isn't the Globe and Anchor sort of part of the pattern? Sort of like a fractal image throughout the camo pattern? I don't think you'll be able to cover all of that up.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2002 1:57:31 PM EDT
[#11]
I doubt the computer geek who generated this pattern was a marine. Or cared if anyone wore it. It was a design base for the purpose of breaking up the human form and regardless of what emblem one applies it's primary purpose is why others are interested. Though I spent 10 yrs as a firefighter I am not concerned if you decide to wear a FDNY shirt/hat/emblem. I am honored.
[8D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2002 1:57:42 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: Isn't the Globe and Anchor sort of part of the pattern? Sort of like a fractal image throughout the camo pattern? I don't think you'll be able to cover all of that up. That is the way I understand it to be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2002 2:32:45 PM EDT
[#13]
There are small green Marine Corps emblems with USMC underneath them in the pattern, they are however small and cannot be seen at a distance or have an effect on the disruptive pattern. On the cover and the left breast pocket their are embroidered Marine Emblems.
If you want a similar pattern, the Canadian CADPAT, which the MarPat was based on is out there, additionally some Japanese company is selling the pattern without the Marine Corps Emblem. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2002 2:42:23 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: There are small green Marine Corps emblems with USMC underneath them in the pattern, they are however small and cannot be seen at a distance or have an effect on the disruptive pattern. On the cover and the left breast pocket their are embroidered Marine Emblems. If you want a similar pattern, the Canadian CADPAT, which the MarPat was based on is out there, additionally some Japanese company is selling the pattern without the Marine Corps Emblem. [b]Below is a pic of the new Canadian BDU's currently on auction at Ebay with the bidding up to $305 for the shirt and pants. I still don't see how the Marines are going to keep anyone else from wearing the new camo once it starts being issued to everyone.[/b] [img]http://www.milarm.com/auction/canpat.jpg[/img] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2002 3:00:32 PM EDT
[#15]
[b]Quoted: I still don't see how the Marines are going to keep anyone else from wearing the new camo once it starts being issued to everyone. [/b] Members of other services cannot wear them, with the acceptation of religious and medical personnel serving with FMF units, since it not a approved uniform for them. Most in the US don't wear cammies and look upon those that do for no reason with a bit of suspicion, so the chances of the general public running around with them is slim. If however, I see a civilian is wearing it, nothing will happen or should happen to them, just most of us in the Marine Corps will shake our heads with a little bit of disgust. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2002 3:09:27 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: Members of other services cannot wear them, with the acceptation of religious and medical personnel serving with FMF units, since it not a approved uniform for them. Most in the US don't wear cammies and look upon those that do for no reason with a bit of suspicion, so the chances of the general public running around with them is slim. If however, I see a civilian is wearing it, nothing will happen or should happen to them, just most of us in the Marine Corps will shake our heads with a little bit of disgust. Right, I understand that the other services can't wear them although I heard the Army was talking about adopting a similar pattern. But once these things are 'out' they are going to be all over Ebay and every gunshow in the country. I also understand the Marine mentality regarding a non-marine wearing the emblem which is why I don't really understand the reasoning of them integrating it into the pattern itself. I'm not saying that it's wrong or right either way, but it's going to end up on the civilian market with non-marines wearing it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2002 3:22:23 PM EDT
[#17]
We don't create gear for consumption on the general market. So we don't look at what may happen on the civilian market place, the Marine Emblem was an attempt to ensure the pattern remain a distinctive Marine one since Gen Jones doesn't like Marines getting confused for memebers of the other services.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2002 3:33:32 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: We don't create gear for consumption on the general market. So we don't look at what may happen on the civilian market place, the Marine Emblem was an attempt to ensure the pattern remain a distinctive Marine one since Gen Jones doesn't like Marines getting confused for memebers of the other services. I understand that as well, but you are acting like you are surprised to hear someone talk about military gear on the surplus market. I'm sure you've been to a pawn shop near a base and seen that they are full of used gear. The designers had to know that civilians would be wearing the camo eventually before putting the emblem in the pattern. While the military may not create gear for the surplus market, they know that is where it is going to end up eventually. Just go to the EE here at ar15.com and check out all of the items of military origin for sale there. Lots of the stuff is still new even. Also, if the camo really works that much better then you can bet the other forces will adopt it or something very similar. Then the marines will just end up looking like everyone else again. Why should the other forces have to wear less effective patterns when something better is available? Is a marines life worth more than someone in the army out on the battlefield? Besides, it not what you wear that makes you a Marine anyways. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2002 3:33:58 PM EDT
[#19]
yes but your the designing of your gear is also funded by the general public. I would not wear them simply because I am not a marine, and would not want to pose as one.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2002 3:55:12 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: yes but your the designing of your gear is also funded by the general public. I would not wear them simply because I am not a marine, and would not want to pose as one. Then there are those that wear BDU's out hunting. I know several people that wear them out in the field because they are cheaper than any of the commercial stuff. They aren't trying to pose as anything, they are using them as camouflage which is what they were designed for. Just because people use military gear doesn't mean they are posing as anything. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2002 4:18:00 PM EDT
[#21]
Can [b]SHE[/b] wear the new pattern? [:D]
[img]http://store3.yimg.com/I/jvalentine_1635_23970186[/img] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2002 4:36:09 PM EDT
[#22]
Now, this is my kind of camo! [b][i]Flecktarn[/i][/b]!
[img]http://www.mcaroy.com/euro%20camo/flecktarn.jpg[/img] Eric The(CollectorOfOddBitsOfCamo)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2002 5:02:50 PM EDT
[#23]
I work in the textile business and I have been in the plant where they print the stuff. 1000's of yards of the stuff. On the machine next to it was the cloth for dockers. During desert Storm that machine was running 24/7 doing desert camo. Paid for itself in less than a year.
Before I took up shooting I went to a plant several times where the weave Kevlar. It was going into Apache helicopters. If I go there again I will see if I can pick up some cloth and fiber. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2002 5:06:22 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: Unfortunately I predict there will be Chicom knock-offs within a few months. -Velveeta You are probably right on that, not a Marine so I guess that will be my only option.[>(] [beer] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2002 7:02:19 PM EDT
[#25]
I can understand the institutional logic behind wanting a distinctive uniform, but isn't carrying that as far as distinctive field uniforms a little much? From an Operational Security standpoint, it is a bad idea. You tape your bumper numbers over on your vehicle and sometimes cover unit patches to deny the enemy any "freebies" about what type of unit you are and where you are from, which can provide them with alot of order-of-battle information. By deliberately seeking a unique field uniform, the Marines not only blow their operational security, but the also screw it up for units from other branches of service. This particular bout of vanity went a little too far.
Having said that, I have no intention of getting any of these uniforms or wearing any Marine Corps insignia, nor have I ever done so (although I have obtained lots of free surplus gear from the Marine Corps). They have every right to hold their insignia sacred, but they need to balance their need to be "unique" against the overall good. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2002 9:46:52 PM EDT
[#26]
hey STLRN,
have you seen the new cammies yet? if the pattern is printed on the nametapes how hard is it to read someones name? also, i dont think you'll see them at gun shows and surplus stores for a long time. the kind of Marine thats going to run right out and buy them isnt the kind of Marine that will hand them over for a quick buck. although the mere presence of Saigon Sam's is a couter argument in itself. a lot of the newer high speed gear is tough to come by at gun shows/surplus stores. MSS sleeping bags the new combat tents, and MOLLE 2 packs. although i did score a killer deal on a MSS bag. i found a guy at a gunshow who had one with all 4 components. he bought it at an auction of things cleaned out of storage units. anyway, this guy had no idea what it was. said he thought it was a cheap military type commercial bag. he wanted $100. i waved $80 at him and he took it. my GF said "why are you so giddy" i told her i just bought a brand new $400 bag for $80!!!! if anyone can get me a complete MOLLE system in the box, email me |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 1:35:43 AM EDT
[#27]
Dvl Dog
I picked up a set of cammies yesterday. At first the Gen said only Sgt could buy them, but after almost 2 weeks and almost half of the sets still there he changed his mind. It looks like many that don't plan on staying in aren't buying them since they can wear the old style ones until 05. The name tapes are bit harder to read than the old ones |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 2:19:35 AM EDT
[#28]
i am slated to get out right when they become mandatory so im still on the fence with regards to purchasing them. ill give it a year or two i believe. besides... there's a lot more DvlDog around now then there was in his active duty days and i doubt they'll have XXL on the rack during the first few months. no one has emailed me about MOLLE systems and combat tents. shucks
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 4:13:27 AM EDT
[#29]
[regis filban voice]Good God.
Not only do I have the government telling me what parts I can and can't have have on my AR, I have STLRN telling me what I can and can't wear.[/regis filban voice] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 4:21:36 AM EDT
[#30]
So there are going to be Marines wearing two different styles of cammies in the same formation. Hmmmm... That's going to drive certain uniformity-obsessed leaders in the Corps absolutely nuts. [(:)]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 5:54:40 AM EDT
[#31]
Since the Marine Corps is still part of the Dept. of the Navy will Navy Seabees wear the new uniforms. They currently wear the same BDU's and covers as the Marines and in the same manner. As a Naval Reservist in the Seabees it would'nt bother me to wear what the marines wear as we already do.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 6:07:21 AM EDT
[#32]
Hey DvlDog,
For MOLLE gear, try the manufacturer: [URL]www.specialtydefense.com[/URL] For the tents, try these people: [URL]www.us-elitegear.com[/URL] Good luck! --Don |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 11:52:37 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: [regis filban voice]Good God. Not only do I have the government telling me what parts I can and can't have have on my AR, I have STLRN telling me what I can and can't wear.[/regis filban voice] No where have a said you cannot wear them, I said you should not wear them. This is a free country, you are allowed to look as wish. But we also have the right to think to ourselves what an ass when we see you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 12:01:53 PM EDT
[#34]
So is Molle gear and other marine equipment still going to be manufactured in woodland or will those designs be change to the new camo as well? Also, what about the camo on vehicles and other things?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 12:06:49 PM EDT
[#35]
MOLLE gear and Gore-Tex will eventually be replaced with another pattern, but since that type of gears last a long time it will be a while till you see it the new pattern in the FMF. There are currently no plans to change vehicles and weapons to anything other than European 1 or Desert. A few years ago there was a plan to change to Sea-Grey style similar to our helicopters and air craft but that went away also.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 12:52:03 PM EDT
[#36]
Hey, You sure changed my mind.
I definitely won't be buying any now because I really do care what you think. No, really I do. The only time I wear camo jammies is when bow hunting and if I think something will give me an advantage in concealment then I'll wear it. I don't give a rat's ass who thinks I should or shouldn't. BTW the only camo I own is commercial stuff like Advantage Real Tree and I can't recall the other stuff. I do have a set of Rhodesian BDUs that I wear parts of around the house. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 12:53:08 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: Quoted: [regis filban voice]Good God. Not only do I have the government telling me what parts I can and can't have have on my AR, I have STLRN telling me what I can and can't wear.[/regis filban voice] No where have a said you cannot wear them, I said you should not wear them. This is a free country, you are allowed to look as wish. But we also have the right to think to ourselves what an ass when we see you. Since it's still a free country, I'll feel free to think you're a jackass on this stlrn. Marines ain't shit anyway. If being a Marine to you is all about what cammo you wear...you've missed the point entirely. No one in the other services gives a shit if you're a Marine or not anyway. I've known many of them in my day and believe me gents, they're not all that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 1:01:01 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: I can understand the institutional logic behind wanting a distinctive uniform, but isn't carrying that as far as distinctive field uniforms a little much? From an Operational Security standpoint, it is a bad idea. You tape your bumper numbers over on your vehicle and sometimes cover unit patches to deny the enemy any "freebies" about what type of unit you are and where you are from, which can provide them with alot of order-of-battle information. By deliberately seeking a unique field uniform, the Marines not only blow their operational security, but the also screw it up for units from other branches of service. This particular bout of vanity went a little too far. They have every right to hold their insignia sacred, but they need to balance their need to be "unique" against the overall good. That's just damned silly. Should the Marines slouch, chew gum, get fat, wear bushy mustaches and earrings, grow sideburns and acne, too? ...Just so that they are indistinguishable from the Army? [;)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 1:08:46 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: Since it's still a free country, I'll feel free to think you're a jackass on this stlrn. Marines ain't shit anyway. If being a Marine to you is all about what cammo you wear...you've missed the point entirely. No one in the other services gives a shit if you're a Marine or not anyway. I've known many of them in my day and believe me gents, they're not all that. You have a right to you opinion of me it is your option. Really don't care one way or the other, but sense you also have a low opinion of the Marine Corps also, it speaks about how much your opinions is really worth or how much in touch you are with reality. It is not about wearing the cammies, it is about the fact that the cammies contain the Marine Corps emblem, something even many of those that enlist into the Marine Corps don't earn the right to wear. It is symbol that men have earned the right to wear, and is obvious those that have never earned those types of symbols would never understand why we care. I'm sure after you had put your time in, you would get it also, but since you never have you never will. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 1:11:39 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: That's just damned silly. Should the Marines slouch, wear bushy mustaches and earings, grow sideburns and acne, too? ...Just so that they are indistinguishable from the Army? [;)] huhuhuhuhuhuh. Take a step closer to me when you say that. [B)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 1:33:55 PM EDT
[#41]
Heh, heh...[:)]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 1:37:41 PM EDT
[#42]
I acn see both sides of thsi arguement.
As a soldier, I would never wear the EGA, I'm not a Marine. Nor would I expect to see a Marine wearing Army insignia. That said, integrating the EGA into the pattern was just childish. If you make a better product, you are gonna have others wanting to use it. If a set comes my way and they work better in the bush I may wear em there, with the EGA on the pocket covered up. But I won't give a damm about the small EGAs integrated into the design. If you want to blame someone when you see someone wearing them, blame the guys who made a product they knew was gonna be desired for its functionality then integrated a nun-funtional EGA into the pattern strictly out of vanity. And before you say they don't concern themselves with what folks on the outside are gonna do, I remember early on when they were discussing it and they were talking about copyrighting it, so they knew it was gonna be a popular item. They put the EGA in anyway knowing what would happen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 1:43:23 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted: I remember early on when they were discussing it and they were talking about copyrighting it, so they knew it was gonna be a popular item. This also confused me when I first heard it. Since the citizens of the United States actually paid for the research, designing and for each individual uniform itself how would they copyright it? In the name of the United States of America? Since I helped pay for it would I be a co-owner of the copyright? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 1:45:00 PM EDT
[#44]
Hey, c'mon now.
We don't try to wear your polyester, forest green jackets with the brass buttons, minty green shirts, rainbow-boot-camp badges, or your fancy berets... ...so don't please wear our new cammies! [:)] You Army fellas used to have real nice uniforms, but you couldn't leave well enough alone, could you? You had to keep changing them. Now look at you. [:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 1:49:30 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted: I acn see both sides of thsi arguement. As a soldier, I would never wear the EGA, I'm not a Marine. Nor would I expect to see a Marine wearing Army insignia. That said, integrating the EGA into the pattern was just childish. If you make a better product, you are gonna have others wanting to use it. If a set comes my way and they work better in the bush I may wear em there, with the EGA on the pocket covered up. But I won't give a damm about the small EGAs integrated into the design. If you want to blame someone when you see someone wearing them, blame the guys who made a product they knew was gonna be desired for its functionality then integrated a nun-funtional EGA into the pattern strictly out of vanity. And before you say they don't concern themselves with what folks on the outside are gonna do, I remember early on when they were discussing it and they were talking about copyrighting it, so they knew it was gonna be a popular item. They put the EGA in anyway knowing what would happen. The intent of patenting the pattern had nothing to do with what civilians would or would not do, it was Gen Jones desire to not look like the army. I personally don't agree with it the commandant for the following reasons; 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. However it was the commandant's desire, and as the head of the Marine Corps, he issued a legal order, and our only response should be, aye, aye sir. However, in a way the Marine Corps adaptation of the new pattern has spurred 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 ones. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 1:50:42 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: Hey, c'mon now. We don't try to wear your polyester, forest green jackets with the brass buttons, minty green shirts, rainbow-boot-camp badges, or your fancy berets... ...so don't please wear our new cammies! [:)] You Army fellas used to have real nice uniforms, but you couldn't leave well enough alone, could you? You had to keep changing them. Now look at you. [:D] Actually, one of the few things our current ACS is actually considering doing right is going back to a WWII style brown/tan uniform. Interestingly enough the whole reason for the switch in the 50's to the current green uniform was the fact that too many WWII surplus uniforms were being worn by the general public. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 2:09:49 PM EDT
[#47]
Marines ain't shit anyway. If being a Marine to you is all about what cammo you wear...you've missed the point entirely. No one in the other services gives a shit if you're a Marine or not anyway. I've known many of them in my day and believe me gents, they're not all that. That goes a long way to telling what the hell you know... besides, you're from BF Nebraska. What the fuck do you know about Marines? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 2:12:28 PM EDT
[#48]
[b]"Actually, one of the few things our current ACS is actually considering doing right is going back to a WWII style brown/tan uniform"[/b]
That would be cool. My father was in the Army, and his uniforms looked sharp. Standards and traditions shouldn't change. Tactics, and field uniforms should. Dress uniforms, however, should look the same as they did in 1910. I always thought that Army Tankers should wear riding boots, just like they were in the cavalry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 2:20:46 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: I can understand the institutional logic behind wanting a distinctive uniform, but isn't carrying that as far as distinctive field uniforms a little much? From an Operational Security standpoint, it is a bad idea. You tape your bumper numbers over on your vehicle and sometimes cover unit patches to deny the enemy any "freebies" about what type of unit you are and where you are from, which can provide them with alot of order-of-battle information. By deliberately seeking a unique field uniform, the Marines not only blow their operational security, but the also screw it up for units from other branches of service. This particular bout of vanity went a little too far. Natez- Throughout conflicts going to the RW, through Desert Storm, Marines have been identified by one particular characteristic or another, AND AVOIDED by most of their adversaries as being an especially formidable enemy. My favorite legend was the one circulating among Iraqi conscripts that went along the lines of, "upon completion of their murderous training, Marines would then kill a family member before being allowed full acceptance in the Corps." As to giving a tactical edge to an enemy by wearing a particular item that distinguishes it from it's allies, let's not forget that the topic is on camouflage. Camouflage. Get it? Camouflage = Can't see it. As in "hidin' in the bushes, sneak up on ya, kill ya cuz ya didn't see me". Not some foppish beret, or yet another piece of metal Cracker Jack-prize pin-on dealy on the Army uniforms. Tactical is as tactical does. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 2:23:53 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted: My favorite legend was the one circulating among Iraqi conscripts that went along the lines of, "upon completion of their murderous training, Marines would then kill a family member before being allowed full acceptance in the Corps." I heard that story in boot camp, but we were told that it was the Russians who had said it! [:)] |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
