But then I read the article and it says that this is an "olive" beret (vs. SF's "hunter green") and it's a real thing in this unit?
the SF beret is actually Rifle Green. the branch color is Jungle Green
Army: 6 New Security Force Assistance Brigades
- Thread starter Dienekes
- Start date
the SF beret is actually Rifle Green. the branch color is Jungle Green
Kraut783
SOF Support
"Seen much combat?"
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2008
- Messages
- 1,422
It's as if whoever came up with the idea for the beret colour, naming them "The Legion", giving them a tab etc was a non select at SFAS and is now just saying "Fuck you" to SF troops.
I mean when you look at it, it's genuinely bizarre.
I mean when you look at it, it's genuinely bizarre.
I first heard of that general thought a billion years ago when I enlisted: Someone who couldn't make the cut of (insert unit here) does their absolute best to screw over said unit whenever presented with the opportunity. I thought it was a joke.
Nope. It is real.
And a 5th Group alumni, no less.
So...do non-SF folk get the "Combat Advisor" patch even if they've never been in combat? A little much, don't you think? How about "Military Advisor"? Or ain't that sexy enough?
Last edited:
I think it's like the rest of our unit patches. Most people assigned to the 101st aren't airborne and none are on airborne status - but the airborne tap is a part of the unit patch. There's no airborne tab you wear other than as a part of the unit patch. I think this is like that - combat advisor is a part of the patch, not an independent tab for wear.
The more I've thought about this the less I've cared - maybe a bunch of SF folks are going nuts. To me, uniforms in the Army are about utility, symbolism, and esprit. If the Army thinks giving someone a beret and a patch connects them symbolically to the types of missions they need to do and increases esprit go for it.
TLDR20
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,235
Sorry dude, no.
The Green Beret was awarded by President Kennedy specifically for the USA SF. Green Berets - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum
You don’t take one groups things and give them to someone else to increase esprit de corps. That comes through going through hard training, striving and earning something.
Taking a bunch of cav scouts and giving the green berets doesn’t increase their “utility” and it just makes them symbolic of how lacking in common sense the Army is.
I gotta disagree pretty hard here. The symbolism and esprit associated with certain things, like green berets and long tabs, have been earned by the men who stood up those units and ran the missions that gave, and continue to give, those units their mystique and reputations. If people want the esprit that goes with those items, and the recognition, then they can put themselves in the arena just like all the others who actually earned it. The Army fucked this one up, big time, and appears to be doubling down on its mistakes. There are plenty of things they can do to increase the esprit de corps of a new unit without outright thievery of another units insignia, motto, etc.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 12,819
While I will not even try to pretend earning the title Marine is on the same level of earning a Green Beret, I can tell you that receiving that insignia from my Senior Drill Instructor as he address me as "Marine", was one of the most positively emotional events of my life. I, and most Marines for that matter, would be pretty fucking unamused if The Corps did something to diminish the meaning of that symbolism.
For Green Berets? Jesus, I can only try to imagine the fury they must feel to see the symbols of their years of work, schooling and accomplishment, be literally given out to soldiers who will easily be confused by the uninformed as SF.
As the Navy and The Corps will tell you, it is tradition and lore that contribute to the feeling belonging and uniqueness we feel. You dilute that tradition, you dilute the passion and love/hate for that branch. That is not a good thing.
Florida173
SOF Support
Understandably historic context with regards to 101st. I think 10th Mountain airborne is the only odd situation I've seen, but still just a unit specificity.
I've been thinking about this for a little bit now and as an outsider looking in I can understand where both sides are coming from. It's difficult to adopt something that another group is renown for and make it your own without it seeming like a direct copy, especially when it's a sort of niche objective/product. For example the company I work for recently launched a new product that is extremely similar to one of our local competitors main shtick. Needless to say the comparisons and arguments of whether or not it was a direct copy happened almost immediately. While both products are different yet still occupy the same area, comparisons and arguments happened immediately. Could we have changed the product up some and to differentiate it a little more? Maybe, but it also drew a ton of people in immediately due to the associated knowledge of the competitors product.
However just because you're trying to reinvent the wheel, doesn't mean you can paint it a slightly different shade and call it your own new thing. Symbolism is an strong emotoptional catalyst for people. Colors, symbols, smells, sounds, all have a supreme effect on the human psyche often triggerung strong feeling and emotions in people whether it be pride, nostalgia, happiness, fear, etc.
When you blatantly rob another groups extremely deep, storied tradition and history to just change the color and the shape and call it this new and improved thing is a slap in the face to those who worked tirelessly to make the original what it is. At best it's short sighted and ignorant.
Not to mention the fact that the patch looks cheap and almost fake in my opinion.
However just because you're trying to reinvent the wheel, doesn't mean you can paint it a slightly different shade and call it your own new thing. Symbolism is an strong emotoptional catalyst for people. Colors, symbols, smells, sounds, all have a supreme effect on the human psyche often triggerung strong feeling and emotions in people whether it be pride, nostalgia, happiness, fear, etc.
When you blatantly rob another groups extremely deep, storied tradition and history to just change the color and the shape and call it this new and improved thing is a slap in the face to those who worked tirelessly to make the original what it is. At best it's short sighted and ignorant.
Not to mention the fact that the patch looks cheap and almost fake in my opinion.
Topkick
Verified Military
I agree with most of what you posted. But, do you really have to do the whole cav scout insult thing here? I mean, from what I've read these units are mostly made up of leg infantry.
Kraut783
SOF Support
1. Take the FID mission and add a larger foot print - Check
2. Use similar patches and head gear, so it looks like you are part of SF to other countries - Check
3. Use the idea for kingdom building and budget - Check
3. Do the mission better than SF - Doubt it.
2. Use similar patches and head gear, so it looks like you are part of SF to other countries - Check
3. Use the idea for kingdom building and budget - Check
3. Do the mission better than SF - Doubt it.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 12,819
Top, I say this with all respect and no sarcasm intended. You are fighting a losing battle on this one...in a thread about tradition, a friendly jab against the longtime Shadow Spear whipping boy is kinda funny.
That said...
All...let's be "one and done" on the Cav thing in this thread. Keep the additional jokes and meme's to yourself...there is good debate happening here, please don't derail into an unnecessary distraction.
I hear you, and I'm not arguing everyone should feel the way I do - but just saying I don't get worked up about this.
There's no argument to me any beret or patch increases utility - and I think that's the case regardless of unit type.
To me this is about symbolism and esprit - which function entirely as a matter of context. It looks to me like the Army feels this is going to send the message to these units that they are elite and part of the FID tradition of SF. Now, as to whether that will make anyone do their jobs better or function in a superior fashion - I think probably not. Then again, I'm not convinced the degree of give-a-shit a unit/Soldier puts into their symbols/uniform vs the training and leadership provided makes a huge amount of different.
Also, how much ass-pain should be felt based on the 'degradation' of a symbol? Ranger Regiment hasn't seemed to turn into a bag of shit by switching out the black beret for the tan? Of course, the Army hasn't turned into a bunch of Rangers by adopting the black beret either. Airborne units in WWII were elite - head and shoulders above normal leg units in terms of the conditioning and training they went through. But, was it really 3 weeks of airborne school that got them that way? Of course not, it was all the training and vetting they went through before and after airborne school.
It's the same argument that gets trotted out whenever standards are changed. Will your globe and anchor, blue chord, Ranger tab, etc. be worth less if a woman earns it, if they change pull-up standards, if they get rid of desert phase, if you have to do additional SHARP training, and on and on.
Again, I'm not saying anyone's argument is wrong. I'm just saying for me and the way I look at these kinds of issues I don't think it matters that much.
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
As the resident horse cavalryman...I've gotten over it.
However, to the point that Il Duce is attempting to make...give them a uniform, they'll have a esprit de corps...no, no they won't.
You can establish a unit with good morale by bringing in good leaders. But Esprit De Corps is built over generations. It's about being in 1-1 CAV, or being in the 501st or being in 1-1IN. Esprit De Corps is separate from morale. And Esprit De Corps is something the Army has been sucking at for a very long time: see uniform reinvention.
Berets...the first folks wearing black ones were tankers, way back in WWII. Then Tanks and Cav units (See GEN Donn Starry) wore them in the early 70s until it became restricted to wear for Rangers in '79. So what's the point here...not much on berets other than that the whole Army shouldn't have gone to black in '01.
