# Congressional agreement on common combat uniform



## Ravage (Aug 2, 2013)

http://www.militarytimes.com/articl...Congressional-agreement-common-combat-uniform








> *The days of service-specific combat and camouflage uniforms are clearly numbered as congressional committees have told the services to quit wasting money on their own unique styles. (U.S. Air National Guard / Staff Sgt. Jordan Jones)*



The days of service-specific combat and camouflage uniforms are clearly numbered as the Senate Armed Services Committee has joined its House counterpart in telling the services to quit wasting money on their own unique styles.

The 2014 defense policy bill passed by the Senate committee says that with a few exceptions, the services would be prohibited from adopting new designs for combat and camouflage uniforms as of the day the bill becomes law.

The prohibition would extend to potential new designs using current fabric or camouflage patterns, in the event that the services try to simply move the pockets or change the seams to distinguish their specific uniforms.

The bill establishes as policy the requirement of reducing separate development and fielding of service-specific utility uniforms, saying that to the “maximum extent practicable,” the Defense Department should require the services to collectively adopt and field combat and camouflage uniforms.

This would not apply to special operating forces or to personnel supporting those forces.

Similar restrictions were passed by the House Armed Services Committee in its version of the defense bill, with one key difference.

The House measure, HR 1960, sets a deadline of Oct. 1, 2018, for a joint combat uniform to be in use. The Senate bill had no similar deadline, apparently content to let the services continue using their current unique designs but preventing any new uniforms from being developed unless they are shared across the force.

The Senate bill, S 1197, includes one camouflage uniform provision not mentioned by the House: It would prohibit any service from preventing another service from using their combat or camouflage uniform. That language may have been added with the Marine Corps in mind; the Corps has been highly protective of its distinctive “MarPat” design.

Differences between the House and Senate bills will have to be reconciled before a final bill becomes law.

The Senate committee notes that the services generally wore “the same pattern and family of combat camouflage and utility uniforms” before 2002, but slowly launched their own designs.

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, “found no performance standards for specific combat environments, no criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of camouflage patterns, and no requirements for the services to test interoperability between their uniforms and other tactical gear, despite the DoD establishing a Joint Clothing and Textiles Governance Board,” the Senate report says.

“The committee continues to strongly urge the secretaries of the military departments to explore additional methods for sharing uniform technology across the services as they develop their combat and utility uniform,” the report says.

“The committee continues to believe that combat and utility uniforms should incorporate the most advanced levels of protection and should be available to all men and women in uniform, regardless of the military service in which they serve.”


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 2, 2013)

We needed Congress to tell us it was wasteful and completely unnecessary for every service to have their own combat uniform?  I'm embarrassed for my profession.


----------



## fox1371 (Aug 2, 2013)

Wow.  

Now, on a side tangent, and I don't want to piss anyone off here...But why is SOF excluded from this?  I guess that the effectiveness of the camouflage that a SOF team has while conducting raids/FID etc etc is more important than the effectiveness of the grunt that lives day to day in the environment that they're operating in?  It's just something that confuses me.  I think the camouflage sets we have now are fine though.  Even though there are definitely some new designs that are pretty sweet and highly effective.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 2, 2013)

fox1371 said:


> Wow.
> 
> Now, on a side tangent, and I don't want to piss anyone off here...But why is SOF excluded from this?*  I guess that the effectiveness of the camouflage that a SOF team has while conducting raids/FID etc etc is more important than the effectiveness of the grunt that lives day to day in the environment that they're operating in?*  It's just something that confuses me.  I think the camouflage sets we have now are fine though.  Even though there are definitely some new designs that are pretty sweet and highly effective.


Yes, for certain units.
The only thing I don't agree with is the restriction on modifying current uniforms.  I don't think that was thought through well enough.


----------



## AWP (Aug 2, 2013)

I'll believe it when I see it.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 2, 2013)

fox1371 said:


> Wow.
> 
> Now, on a side tangent, and I don't want to piss anyone off here...But why is SOF excluded from this?  I guess that the effectiveness of the camouflage that a SOF team has while conducting raids/FID etc etc is more important than the effectiveness of the grunt that lives day to day in the environment that they're operating in?  It's just something that confuses me.  I think the camouflage sets we have now are fine though.  Even though there are definitely some new designs that are pretty sweet and highly effective.



If you are on a low profile mission in a country whose soldiers wear BDU's, it may be beneficial to have on the same uniform.... There are different reasons to wear different uniforms other than just the camouflage.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 2, 2013)

fox1371 said:


> Wow.
> 
> Now, on a side tangent, and I don't want to piss anyone off here...*But why is SOF excluded from this*?  I guess that the effectiveness of the camouflage that a SOF team has while conducting raids/FID etc etc is more important than the effectiveness of the grunt that lives day to day in the environment that they're operating in?  It's just something that confuses me.  I think the camouflage sets we have now are fine though.  Even though there are definitely some new designs that are pretty sweet and highly effective.



It's partly a question of scale.  If there are "X" number of SOF troops in the military, there are many, many x "X" troops in the general purpose forces.  Also, even inside SOF not everyone wears a non-standard uniform.  I did multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan with three different SOF units, and the enabling job I did in support of those missions never required me to wear anything other than the Army standard.  Finally, SOF units' culture, funding, small size, and organizational agility tend to put them towards the front of research, development, and fielding.  A lot of what you see in SOF eventually trickles out to the GPF.   IMO that's why you saw so many pockets on the ACUs, that came from SOF.


----------



## fox1371 (Aug 2, 2013)

cback0220 said:


> If you are on a low profile mission in a country whose soldiers wear BDU's, it may be beneficial to have on the same uniform.... There are different reasons to wear different uniforms other than just the camouflage.


I completely understand this aspect.  IME though, the uniform that I need in order to blend in is already in place and doesn't require the millions spent on designing, testing, and fielding.  I'm all about guys getting the best stuff that they need to get the job done.  However, I personally feel that the individuals making decisions on who gets what, sets a hierarchy on the value of the life based off of the unit they're in.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 2, 2013)

I think its sad that our elected officials have to tell our armed forces to work together on something like picking an effective combat uniform.

I also think its silly that anything that could possibly be developed with all 4 branches would not be good enough for SOF. Thus SOF gets an out and the conventional forces will be fucked with another bullshit pattern and low service life uniform.

I get tailoring to the environment, that only makes sense. But why would CF not be alowed to do so as well? I'm not saying SOF should not be able to do so, I just don't think CF should be excluded from doing so as well.

That said, man I really hope everyone gets smart and does away with the velcro and eleventeen pockets bullshit. The old BDUs was a GTG uniform,  update the pattern and maybe add some button closer shoulder pockets and call the shit good. 

My$0.02


----------



## AWP (Aug 2, 2013)

I think the SOF exclusion is because the language is an "either/ all" deal. If you allow wiggle room then you're back to the MARPAT/ UCP/ ABU/ etc. fiasco. We've become a nation of outhouse lawyers seeking loopholes and I'll bet a dollar if some CF general had his/ her way UCP 2: Electric Boogaloo would come to a base near you in the next year.

We replaced common sense with the shadow puppet of rules...


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 2, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> I think the SOF exclusion is because the language is an "either/ all" deal. If you allow wiggle room then you're back to the MARPAT/ UCP/ ABU/ etc. fiasco. We've become a nation of outhouse lawyers seeking loopholes and I'll bet a dollar if some CF general had his/ her way UCP 2: Electric Boogaloo would come to a base near you in the next year.
> 
> We replaced common sense with the shadow puppet of rules...





JAB said:


> I think its sad that our elected officials have to tell our armed forces to work together on something like picking an effective combat uniform.
> 
> I also think its silly that anything that could possibly be developed with all 4 branches would not be good enough for SOF. Thus SOF gets an out and the conventional forces will be fucked with another bullshit pattern and low service life uniform.
> 
> ...


As stated earlier, SOF may need to wear something similar to a host nation unit for personal safety.  This gives them the option, and no, most CF units don't need to dress up like the HN troops.

FF- Agree, but the language is too restrictive.  Changing seam locations should not be considered as making a new uniform.  e.g- If the AF suddenly figured out that shoulder pockets were useful, this bill prevents them from adding pockets to what is essentially an existing uniform.  I don't see that as a common sense approach.


----------



## AWP (Aug 2, 2013)

SOWT said:


> FF- Agree, but the language is too restrictive.  Changing seam locations should not be considered as making a new uniform.  e.g- If the AF suddenly figured out that shoulder pockets were useful, this bill prevents them from adding pockets to what is essentially an existing uniform.  I don't see that as a common sense approach.


 
I agree with you. Maybe we're talking past each other? We can't have a common sense approach because common sense is dead. They have to lawyer it up to stupid levels or else we'll be right back to where we are now. They would have to essentially add additional language to cover pockets or minor alterations and what constitutes "minor" alterations.

Which is why my first post is "I'll believe it when I see it." This will get some press and then it will be quietly revised.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Aug 2, 2013)

They can make any pattern, any pocket config....I'll find a place to put my cope.....

But if they make these things out of the faggot flame retardant material...........what the OCP/ACU's are made from...
I'm gonna be mad....mostly because that's another uniform I have to keep up (they last like 1 month, and they never smell clean)

RECAP!
First 10 yrs in the Army, no changes
Last 7 years:
2 different sets of dress Uniform
2 different types of Combat Uniform
1 new PT Uniform.

WTF is going on here.......:wall::blkeye:


----------



## reed11b (Aug 2, 2013)

IDGAF as long as they kill the God Damn ACU and fast. I'd wear that stupid Aussie mustard stain desert camo over the ACU.
Reed


----------



## pardus (Aug 2, 2013)

> The prohibition would extend to potential new designs using current fabric or camouflage patterns, in the event that the services try to simply move the pockets or change the seams to distinguish their specific uniforms.




So unit/deployment/school patches etc...?


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Aug 2, 2013)

Please baby jesus I hope we can sew that shit on.....
The pin on idea was a Tragedy....


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 3, 2013)

SOWT said:


> As stated earlier, SOF may need to wear something similar to a host nation unit for personal safety.  This gives them the option, and no, most CF units don't need to dress up like the HN troops.



So I guess all those CF guys who were training, advising and leading IA soldiers would be SOL now? What about unit Cdr's being able to say "yeah scout plt, you can modify your uniform to better blend in".

There are a lot of CF soldiers who don't wear a uniform or alter as well.

My point is don't fuck the CF guy with stupid policy, that some stupid guy in charge will always take over board.


----------



## 0699 (Aug 3, 2013)

SOWT said:


> As stated earlier, SOF may need to wear something similar to a host nation unit for personal safety.  This gives them the option, and no, most CF units don't need to dress up like the HN troops.


 
I think allowing SOF units to wear other uniforms to blend in with locals isn't the same as being able to have their own uniform.  IMO, the same rules with the same requirements should extend across the board.  If  anyone in any billet needs to dress to blend in, they should be allowed to do so.

As much as I hate seeing the MARPAT go away (great uniform), I understand and agree with the benefits of one national utility uniform.


----------



## ThatGinger (Jun 30, 2014)

Just get me out of ACU's, they're ugly as fuck and more importantly don't blend in with shit. I'm inly a year in the army and can't stand them. One of my NCOs let me try on an old pair of bdus, and they are far superior, well worth the whole starch thing, they look 100x more professional than the space man suits. One of my other NCOs who is prior service in the Marines insisted that I try in some MARPAT unis and they are also far superior in both feel and functionality.


----------



## Bloodline (Jun 30, 2014)

I expect that SOF elements would be given the leeway to improvise and adapt beyond the CF. I'll trust a team guy to dress himself for work before I trust a general officer to pick another uniform. I don't care if a SOF guy stands in the chow line wearing 3 different uniforms at the same time as long as I get 1 good uniform that does what it is supposed to do.

I hope we all end up one uniform that works and end the multimillion dollar inter-service dick measuring.


----------



## x SF med (Jun 30, 2014)

OG107's and the lightweight BDUs...  why did they change?  Congress said so...  No prob finding great boots for ground pounders...  feet are something that need to be taken care of...  but the actual combat uniform...  it's got to work for combat, be tough, be comfortable, and have access to the areas you need without binding...  load bearing gear should handle the brunt of heavy lifting in your kit and should be able to fit easily over the combat uniform... it's not that difficult.

eta...  male and female combat/utility uniforms need to be cut differently...  take a look at the mannequin designs...


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 30, 2014)

x SF med said:


> OG107's and the lightweight BDUs...  why did they change?  Congress said so...  No prob finding great boots for ground pounders...  feet are something that need to be taken care of...  but the actual combat uniform...  it's got to work for combat, be tough, be comfortable, and have access to the areas you need without binding...  load bearing gear should handle the brunt of heavy lifting in your kit and should be able to fit easily over the combat uniform... it's not that difficult.
> 
> eta...  male and female combat/utility uniforms need to be cut differently...  take a look at the mannequin designs...



Mens and women's uniforms are different I thought.


----------



## AWP (Jun 30, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> Mens and women's uniforms are different I thought.


 
Maybe the ACU's are, but I don't think BDU's were.


----------



## 104TN (Jun 30, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> Maybe the ACU's are, but I don't think BDU's were.



IDK, I'm pretty sure I saw some fat dudes in maternity BDUs back in the day...


----------



## AWP (Jun 30, 2014)

rick said:


> IDK, I'm pretty sure I saw some fat dudes in maternity BDUs back in the day...


 
I forgot about those, but I mean specific models for women who were without child....which probably rules out most of COSCOM at Bragg.


----------



## racing_kitty (Jun 30, 2014)

There never was a "female cut" set of BDU's, with the exception of maternity BDU's.  ACU's were phased in while I was on my second deployment, and they were of a unisex cut then, as well.  Around about the 2008-09 time frame, there was discussion about possibly making a female cut, which did come to fruition in 2010 with what is called the ACU-A.  That was when the ACU-A began to be issued in the clothing bag at basic training.  According to this Army Times article, the ACU-A went on sale for all soldiers at clothing and sales in 2013.


----------



## HE_OFFICER (Jul 28, 2014)

ThatGinger said:


> Just get me out of ACU's, they're ugly as fuck and more importantly don't blend in with shit. I'm inly a year in the army and can't stand them. One of my NCOs let me try on an old pair of bdus, and they are far superior, well worth the whole starch thing, they look 100x more professional than the space man suits. One of my other NCOs who is prior service in the Marines insisted that I try in some MARPAT unis and they are also far superior in both feel and functionality.


 
Hold your tongue until you've had to starch cammies for a couple years  .  Starching BDU's was a titanic waste of time.  I even like the AF ACU's better than having to starch BDU's.  If I haven't been clear, it's moronic to starch a combat uniform.

Cheers!


----------



## pardus (Jul 28, 2014)

HE_OFFICER said:


> Hold your tongue until you've had to starch cammies for a couple years  .  Starching BDU's was a titanic waste of time.  I even like the AF ACU's better than having to starch BDU's.  *If I haven't been clear, it's moronic to starch a combat uniform.*
> 
> Cheers!



Absolutely correct!

That said, the 50/50 poly cotton blend must go, ripstop cotton is the way to go and fuck the ACU cammo pattern, it's as retarded as a Dwarf Giraffe.


----------



## HE_OFFICER (Jul 28, 2014)

pardus said:


> Absolutely correct!
> 
> That said, the 50/50 poly cotton blend must go, ripstop cotton is the way to go and fuck the ACU cammo pattern, it's as retarded as a Dwarf Giraffe.



Rip stop cotton is the way to go, but I did prefer the older heavy weight ones during cold weather.  That rips stop material is like wearing nothing at all when the temps go below freezing.  If you think the ACU pattern is bad you must not have seen the new Navy combat uniforms, haha, they're a hoot!


----------



## pardus (Jul 28, 2014)

HE_OFFICER said:


> Rip stop cotton is the way to go, but I did prefer the older heavy weight ones during cold weather.  That rips stop material is like wearing nothing at all when the temps go below freezing.  If you think the ACU pattern is bad you must not have seen the new Navy combat uniforms, haha, they're a hoot!



The uniforms must be made for hot weather. Cold weather layers can always be added when needed. I've seen all the new uniforms, they all suck.


----------



## Muppet (Jul 28, 2014)

HE_OFFICER said:


> Hold your tongue until you've had to starch cammies for a couple years  .  Starching BDU's was a titanic waste of time.  I even like the AF ACU's better than having to starch BDU's.  If I haven't been clear, it's moronic to starch a combat uniform.
> 
> Cheers!



Starching BDU's was the "thing to do" at Bragg in the 90's. If we did not starch them, we were considered shit birds. Hell. I went to Saudi with the 325 (Bco senior medic) and we were told to have a pair of starched DCU's along with the standard fluff and buff for everyday bullshit. I even saw some 3/4 ADA dudes (we were the security / QRF) for them on our little compound. Those cats were starching the boonie hates (brims).....Not to mention raking sand when some big wig from Bragg and some Saudi general stopped to say hi.

F.M.


----------



## pardus (Jul 29, 2014)

Firemedic said:


> Starching BDU's was the "thing to do" at Bragg in the 90's. If we did not starch them, we were considered shit birds. Hell. I went to Saudi with the 325 (Bco senior medic) and we were told to have a pair of starched DCU's along with the standard fluff and buff for everyday bullshit. I even saw some 3/4 ADA dudes (we were the security / QRF) for them on our little compound. *Those cats were starching the boonie hates (brims).....Not to mention raking sand when some big wig from Bragg and some Saudi general stopped to say hi.*
> 
> F.M.



That is some fucking retarded shit right there!

We never starched but we ironed and polished boots, two things I never minded as during basic training it was the only time you could be still and calm without getting your ass chewed by an NCO. 
I'd still like to have an all leather pair of boots.


----------



## 0699 (Jul 29, 2014)

pardus said:


> That is some fucking retarded shit right there!
> 
> We never starched but we ironed and polished boots, two things I never minded as during basic training *it was the only time you could be still and calm without getting your ass chewed* by an NCO.
> I'd still like to have an all leather pair of boots.


 
Recently, I found my old inspection ready, junk-on-the-bunk, all leather, still spit-shined, old style black boots (like the picture below...) in a footlocker in our basement.  I thought I'd got rid of that stuff years ago.  Believe it or not, they brought back a lot of memories... :-/


----------



## LogDog0402 (Aug 6, 2014)

0699 said:


> Recently, I found my old inspection ready, junk-on-the-bunk, all leather, still spit-shined, old style black boots (like the picture below...) in a footlocker in our basement.  I thought I'd got rid of that stuff years ago.  Believe it or not, they brought back a lot of memories... :-/
> 
> View attachment 11281


 
I think I had that same style of boots, or something very similar.  They kept a great shine and rarely needed polishing.  They were so comfy that I wore them up until the day the USMC made it that we could only wear the desert tan boots.


----------



## ThatGinger (Aug 12, 2014)

Some specialist in my troop just told me that were going to go to our dress blues as a garrison uniform. I hope to God this isn't true, just a rumor though. This of course would require us to change for the motor pool, etc. but would be for sitting at troop doing nothing until 1800, which seems to be the norm in 4/3cr.


----------



## goon175 (Aug 13, 2014)

I think GPF's should be able to modify their uniforms in the same instances that SOF can. The problem is that GPF leaders wouldn't dare relinquish control to small unit leaders like that.


----------



## Brill (Aug 13, 2014)

goon175 said:


> I think GPF's should be able to modify their uniforms in the same instances that SOF can. The problem is that GPF leaders wouldn't dare relinquish control to small unit leaders like that.



Joe would have a field day with that...or may just walk off.  Total toss up.  Either way, "must promote!" Even if he's wearing Doc Martins with his ACUs or Scorpion 2s or whatever.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 14, 2014)

Meanwhile what are the thoughts on ripping of multicam with the new pattern.


Shady as shady gets IMHO...


----------



## goon175 (Aug 14, 2014)

lindy said:


> Joe would have a field day with that...or may just walk off.  Total toss up.  Either way, "must promote!" Even if he's wearing Doc Martins with his ACUs or Scorpion 2s or whatever.



Joe still is under the guise of his spec-4's and TL's. If properly empowered to do so, NCO's will enforce a strict "use common sense" rule. 

By the time I left 1/75, you had a ton of leeway to make your uniform work for you and the job you were doing. The only caveat was that if someone (higher ranking) asked you why you had something a certain way, and all you had to say was, "it looks cool" - then you would more than likely be getting back in line pretty quickly. But if you tore apart and re-sewed things, or modified equipment, whatever - and you could demonstrate why what you are doing is better - you were left alone at the minimum, or told to show everyone else so they could implement it at the maximum. 

I don't see why the rest of combat arms can't have the same responsibility. The guys at the platoon level and lower know what they need better than those that are instituting asinine rules at the battalion and higher levels. 

I'll even take it a step farther. If a PSG knows he will be doing an extended movement through the mountains in Afghanistan, he should have the leeway to say, "hey, drop the plate carrier and helmets, we are using racks and PC's" so that his men can negotiate the terrain with out injury or unnecessary exhaustion, as well as fight and maneuver against the enemy effectively. 

What I am getting at is the Army doesn't trust it's small unit leaders, and I firmly believe that lives have been lost because of it.


----------



## Totentanz (Aug 14, 2014)

goon175 said:


> I don't see why the rest of combat arms can't have the same responsibility. The guys at the platoon level and lower know what they need better than those that are instituting asinine rules at the battalion and higher levels.
> 
> I'll even take it a step farther. *If a PSG knows he will be doing an extended movement through the mountains in Afghanistan, he should have the leeway* to say, "hey, drop the plate carrier and helmets, we are using racks and PC's" so that his men can negotiate the terrain with out injury or unnecessary exhaustion, as well as fight and maneuver against the enemy effectively.



Because having intelligent, empowered subordinates is perceived as a threat to certain senior personnel (i.e. "if I didn't think of it, then the idea sucks").  Seen it happen over almost the exact same issue you described (the bold part) between a PSG and a 1SG, with the suggestions coming from a PSG who had just returned from the area our BDE was deploying into, having performed the exact same mission.  Insecurity and rank won the day...


----------



## Ranger Psych (Aug 15, 2014)

goon175 said:


> Joe still is under the guise of his spec-4's and TL's. If properly empowered to do so, NCO's will enforce a strict "use common sense" rule.
> 
> By the time I left 1/75, you had a ton of leeway to make your uniform work for you and the job you were doing. The only caveat was that if someone (higher ranking) asked you why you had something a certain way, and all you had to say was, "it looks cool" - then you would more than likely be getting back in line pretty quickly. But if you tore apart and re-sewed things, or modified equipment, whatever - and you could demonstrate why what you are doing is better - you were left alone at the minimum, or told to show everyone else so they could implement it at the maximum.
> 
> ...



We were working towards that, no thanks to a specific CSM prior to a CSM/RSM/RHOF member now. SOP's SOP for a reason, but you could diverge from it (and have those sensible divergences incorporated INTO the SOP) if it truly made the mission better, or you perform better.

I never had much more to do in terms of uniform or equipment modifications that was necessary, at least in my eyes. I can see ruck tweaking, and I can see (having been there when we went from ALICE pseudo-dress-right-dress to MOLLE/PALS) being able to put shit on your gear where it works for you. The whole "you will have your magazine pouches spaced one pals strip apart centered on the centerline as worn with grenade pouches following onn either side where you will never reach them with an aid pouch emplaced center mass to ensure that not only do you have an overt center point for the enemys sights to rest upon but should you survive enough to try to render self-aid, your bandages will be shot through" bullshit doesn't conform to reality.

Peoples feet are different. Peoples positions they need to mount gear differ duty to duty and person to person. You need latitude to be able to adjust your uniform according to necessity of the soldier, and of the mission.

I've actually got a picture somewhere where an actual patrol mission was boonie, brown tshirt, RACK, SAW, DCU bottoms and boots. That was the uniforrm... Oh, and camelbak plus double 1 quarts/2 quart.  When you're having to rock climb where goats fear to tread, you need to work that shit. Especially when it's fucking 115+ out.

We got it done, nobody died.  Hell, one of our OP's uniforms when outside of the buildings was body armor, helmet, boots. Pt's were the uniform otherwise.  Even one of the QRF missions I rolled on was a hip pocket uniform call... we needed to roll quicker than we needed to get dressed, so here I am in tevas, PT shorts, body armor with no shirt whatsoever, kpot w/ NVG's and my SAW.   Get'er done with what you got.

Normal shit? yeah we wore our DCU's. We would have dropped plates and/or armor depending. I specifically rigged my gear so that my RACK actually interfaced with fastex on my armor, so I could drop my armor as one unit and have everything I wore, in the same positions, retained.

Plus, for all those modifications and various shit that we did, we'd usually end up showing the shit off to the other guys doing the same job..... someone would go "that'll work till" "Oh, you're right.. so what about this?" "ok, that sounds like it'll work better"  "yeah but it's going to ride like ass" "so's your mom but the platoon doesn't bitch" "1ST SQUAD!!!!!!!!!!"

Etc, etc etc.


----------



## 0699 (Aug 18, 2014)

Totentanz said:


> Because having intelligent, empowered subordinates is perceived as a threat to certain senior personnel (i.e. "if I didn't think of it, then the idea sucks").


 
I clicked "agree" after reading just this far.

I hope the rest of your post doesn't talk about gay Marines... :wall:


----------



## Totentanz (Aug 18, 2014)

0699 said:


> I clicked "agree" after reading just this far.
> 
> I hope the rest of your post doesn't talk about gay Marines... :wall:


Don't worry; I'll edit something in there for ya.


----------



## AWP (Aug 18, 2014)

0699 said:


> I clicked "agree" after reading just this far.
> 
> I hope the rest of your post doesn't talk about gay Marines... :wall:


 
Well, if ya'll couldn't read your feelings wouldn't be hurt. See what happens when you learn to read?


----------



## Raksasa Kotor (Aug 18, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> Well, if ya'll couldn't read your feelings wouldn't be hurt. See what happens when you learn to read?



The Corps told me I had to leave when they found out I knew how to read


----------



## Mac_NZ (Aug 20, 2014)

JAB said:


> Meanwhile what are the thoughts on ripping of multicam with the new pattern.
> 
> 
> Shady as shady gets IMHO...



I know JAB's gone but his comment is (in my mind) worth replying to.  Scorpion was developed by NATICK and Crye as a joint venture.  Army owns Scorpion period, Crye then went off and enhanced Scorpion into what became Multicam as a commercial venture (note the Army did not come after them for doing this, key being they enhanced Scorpion, a pattern the Army owned).  The changes made to Scorpion to make it Scorpion W2 for the new ensemble make it look so similar to Multicam in the fact that they both started at the same point with the same pattern.  The differences between W2 and Multicam are there (Multicam has a couple of extra slugs and vertical elements) though which is what makes the whole thing legal.  

In my opinion the Army would have been insane to use Multicam when they had a solution sitting right there and have had for a long time.  If the Army had taken Krypteks or Brockwood's covert entries to the trials and changed them slightly to suit and gone with that I would be singing a different tune.


----------



## pardus (Aug 20, 2014)

Mac_NZ said:


> I know JAB's gone but his comment is (in my mind) worth replying to.  Scorpion was developed by NATICK and Crye as a joint venture.  Army owns Scorpion period, Crye then went off and enhanced Scorpion into what became Multicam as a commercial venture (note the Army did not come after them for doing this, key being they enhanced Scorpion, a pattern the Army owned).  The changes made to Scorpion to make it Scorpion W2 for the new ensemble make it look so similar to Multicam in the fact that they both started at the same point with the same pattern.  The differences between W2 and Multicam are there (Multicam has a couple of extra slugs and vertical elements) though which is what makes the whole thing legal.
> 
> In my opinion the Army would have been insane to use Multicam when they had a solution sitting right there and have had for a long time.  If the Army had taken Krypteks or Brockwood's covert entries to the trials and changed them slightly to suit and gone with that I would be singing a different tune.



Very interesting. Thanks.


----------



## goon175 (Aug 20, 2014)

That is very interesting... is there any sources to back that up by chance? Not calling you out, but would be interested to see more on the matter.


----------



## Mac_NZ (Aug 21, 2014)

There's quite a few but Soldier Systems does the best breakdown of the history of it.

Hyperstealth does a good run down on it as well.  You have to ignore Guy Cramer pimping the fuck out of Pencott in that link though.


----------



## pardus (Dec 2, 2014)

(Army News Service, July 31, 2014) -- The Army has confirmed what Soldiers have been hearing rumors of for months now -- a new camouflage pattern for combat uniforms is on the way with a number of improvements.

Beginning in the fall of 2015, the Army will begin issuing to new Soldiers an Army Combat Uniform that bears the Operational Camouflage Pattern. That same uniform will also become available in military clothing sales stores in the summer of 2015.

Soldiers are expected to retire their current uniform and begin wearing the new pattern by the summer of 2018.


http://www.army.mil/article/131259/Soldiers_to_get_new_camo_uniform_beginning_next_summer/


http://soldiersystems.net/2014/08/0...mouflage-pattern-variant-army-combat-uniform/


----------



## AKkeith (Dec 4, 2014)

Thank God. They dropped the plan to kill service specific uniforms. 

But they do need to stop wasting Billions changing Camis from one pointless pattern to another every other year. 

http://www.military.com/daily-news/...s.html?ESRC=todayinmil.sm#.VIANNnNrGV4.mailto


----------



## pardus (Jun 1, 2015)

*Camo update: New ACUs hit store shelves July 1*


----------



## HOLLiS (Jun 1, 2015)

AKkeith said:


> Thank God. They dropped the plan to kill service specific uniforms.
> 
> But they do need to stop wasting Billions changing Camis from one pointless pattern to another every other year.
> 
> http://www.military.com/daily-news/...s.html?ESRC=todayinmil.sm#.VIANNnNrGV4.mailto




I read the link and the comments. The rusher dude seems like a douche.   One comment depending on one's cleaning service that in time with blood, sweat, mud etc.. the camo pattern is lost.   My trouser would turn to a greasy brown in the legs after a week or so.   Our maid service was slow, sometimes a month to two months for a clean cloths.   Some had holes in them, some need repair but they where clean. 

Other comment, which could be very passable, some one had their hand in the camo jar.   

Probably a good idea to keep it simple.   IIRC,  going into the Korean War Marines still wore leggings.   They where told to not wear them.   Seems the enemy did not want to engage the Marines went there where other targets available.


----------

