[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/session.php on line 214: htmlspecialchars(): charset `)' not supported, assuming utf-8
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/session.php on line 87: htmlspecialchars(): charset `)' not supported, assuming utf-8
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/session.php on line 129: htmlspecialchars(): charset `)' not supported, assuming utf-8
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/session.php on line 130: htmlspecialchars(): charset `)' not supported, assuming utf-8
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/session.php on line 1679: htmlspecialchars(): charset `)' not supported, assuming utf-8
• View topic - US Army Green uniform to be phased out
It is currently Tue Aug 21, 2018 9:35 am
Change font size

AMERICA - MILITARY BRANCH & RANK INSIGNIA

US Army Green uniform to be phased out

Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines

Moderators: Miklós Lovász, kaldi, Chuck Anderson, Pavel Močoch, Erskine Calderon, Lukasz Gaszewski, ChrisWI, Zdzislaw Rudzki

US Army Green uniform to be phased out

Unread postby J.T. Broderick » Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:20 pm

Hi all,

The US Army has confirmed that the Army Green Class A uniform will be eliminated by 2012, and will be replaced by the Army Blue for all "coat and tie" occasions. A white shirt will be used for formal wear, otherwise a light gray shirt will be worn. Some modifications will be made to the blues, but these have not yet been announced. White dress uniforms will also be eliminated.

See
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?sec ... icle=37694

best regards,
Justin
J.T. Broderick
CORRESPONDENT
CORRESPONDENT
 
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 4:33 pm
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah, USA

Unread postby LONDON » Thu Jun 08, 2006 6:43 pm

Good idea to reduce costs.

But won't it be rather hot in tropical climes?
LONDON
COMMUNICANT
COMMUNICANT
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 9:18 pm
Location: england

Unread postby Erskine Calderon » Thu Jun 08, 2006 6:50 pm

It would appear that our armed services are slowly changing to one unified set of clothing for all branches. Bleah.
User avatar
Erskine Calderon
ADMINISTRATOR
ADMINISTRATOR
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2003 2:57 am

Unread postby nelsy58 » Sat Jun 10, 2006 5:51 am

I think the US Army is just jealous of the Navy and Marines in their blues. Want to be just like them too. If the USAF can do it, well so can the US Army!
nelsy58
VISITOR
VISITOR
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 4:30 pm
Location: Kingston, Ont

Unread postby jrichardn » Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:07 pm

Contrary to nelsy58's comments, the blues (as the article says) are more historical than the green uniform of the last 50 years. My only comment (as a foreigner) is that it would've been nice if the "epaulet straps" for officers had been used, rather than conventional shoulder straps.

Do any ex- or present members of the U.S. Army have a comment on the elimination of unit patches? In a funny way that seems the most radical change of all. Uniforms of the British & Commonwealth armies & (to some degree) most other armies have regiment or devices (including, e.g., headgear). It would seem that other than knowing that someone belongs to the Infantry there will be no unit allegiance built into the uniform.

Cheers, Richard Nelson
who should be working in Toronto, Ontario, Canada
jrichardn
VISITOR
VISITOR
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:03 pm
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Unread postby ghbisa » Wed Jul 12, 2006 7:09 am

Here is some more details from the army’s television new broadcast.

The uniform for privates thru specialists will not have the stripe on the pants, and they will wear the beret.

Corporals and above will have the stripe and the service cap.
ghbisa
 

Unread postby OkieRam » Mon Jan 29, 2007 6:54 pm

LONDON wrote:Good idea to reduce costs.

But won't it be rather hot in tropical climes?


I can see why they are consolidating the green class A's and dress blues - two uniforms quite similar in terms of cut and appearance.

However, I fail to see any significant savings for the govnment and an additional expenses for men who are now serving. First, dress blues are an optional uniform for a vast majority of enlisted men - it isn't issued to them and they aren't required to have it. The only exceptions are men in ceremonial units, some salute batteries, drill teams, honor guards and the like and even then it's usually procured by the unit and issued like LBE's and weapons - you turn it in when you change assignments. The gov't issues the green class A service uniform to enlisted men any way, so no difference there except now they'll get blue uniforms instead of green.

Officers procure uniforms at their own expense and are required to have both the dress blues and class A's. So there's a little bit of up front savings for those initially entering the officer's corps. These savings are paltry compared to the expense of making existing stocks of uniforms obsolete and the replacement expense to officers and men who already have the green class A and dress blues.

I've always felt that the U.S. Army needed another uniform in between the class A and BDUs for normal garrison duties, maybe bring back the 1950's era khaki's. The army needs to eliminate the absurdity of "field garrison" dress and the slovenliness and abnormally high wear that that goes with it. BDUs simply weren't designed to handle starching, creasing and pressing.

jrichardn,
I agree that the sholder straps look much better than the sholderboards for officers.
OkieRam
VISITOR
VISITOR
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 3:35 pm

More Info

Unread postby Erskine Calderon » Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:21 pm

User avatar
Erskine Calderon
ADMINISTRATOR
ADMINISTRATOR
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2003 2:57 am

Shoulder Straps

Unread postby ryanemilia » Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:09 am

Gen. Schoomaker has been seen in this uniform exclusively as of late while on capitol hill and around the Pentagon. He still has the inverse (Civil War) Straps on so I believe these will be kept a part of the uniform. I damn well hope they will, as I will have to wear this uniform and I like those straps. I sure didn't pick Cavalry branch for the pay!!! I want my yellow Shoulder straps.

I like the change I couldn't stand the Class A uniform. The Green was ugly and the cut was bad. The Blue uniform is more historical.

Ryan
ryanemilia
COMMUNICANT
COMMUNICANT
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 5:22 pm

Unread postby ChrisWI » Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:37 pm

I agree, the blue uniform is much more traditional and IMO its also more professional and dressy looking then the old Green Class A uniform.
ChrisWI
ADMINISTRATOR
ADMINISTRATOR
 
Posts: 1806
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 8:09 pm
Location: West Islip,New York,United States

Re: Shoulder Straps

Unread postby OkieRam » Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:35 am

ryanemilia wrote:Gen. Schoomaker has been seen in this uniform exclusively as of late while on capitol hill and around the Pentagon. He still has the inverse (Civil War) Straps on so I believe these will be kept a part of the uniform. I damn well hope they will, as I will have to wear this uniform and I like those straps. I sure didn't pick Cavalry branch for the pay!!! I want my yellow Shoulder straps.

I like the change I couldn't stand the Class A uniform. The Green was ugly and the cut was bad. The Blue uniform is more historical.

Ryan


That's the word now . . . the Civil War era shoulder straps stay for officers. A good development because the shoulder boards were ugly. Now maybe the lower enlisted will get peaked caps and some sort of stripe for the trousers. Berets aren't going to go well with dress blues I'm afraid.

I do think the something similar to the Class A could be a good replacement for the ACU in garrison dress - if it were made comfortable enough, durable enough and easy to launder. Something like a permanent press cotton blend. But, if one uniform must die, the decision is an easy one.
OkieRam
VISITOR
VISITOR
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 3:35 pm

Re: Shoulder Straps

Unread postby Necrothesp » Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:11 pm

OkieRam wrote:Berets aren't going to go well with dress blues I'm afraid.

Note that in the British Army, the Parachute Regiment, Royal Tank Regiment, Army Air Corps and SAS wear the beret with dress blues, since neither officers nor other ranks of those formations ever wear the peaked cap.
Necrothesp
CORRESPONDENT
CORRESPONDENT
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 1:00 am
Location: Kenilworth, England

Just so we'll remember

Unread postby ryanemilia » Sat Feb 17, 2007 6:37 am

Since these uniforms are soon to be phased out of the American Army I mad this chart of the Class A Dress and Class B undress uniform rank. Since I can not seem to upload images directlty to this site I hope everyone can reach the link to my hosted picture.

Came out kinda big, but hay we wore these for awhile.

http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t128 ... SARMY1.jpg

Ryan M.
ryanemilia
COMMUNICANT
COMMUNICANT
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 5:22 pm

Unread postby ChrisWI » Sat Feb 17, 2007 1:58 pm

I agree Okie, berets will look a tad silly with the uniform. I think everyone should wear the service cap regardless of rank.
ChrisWI
ADMINISTRATOR
ADMINISTRATOR
 
Posts: 1806
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 8:09 pm
Location: West Islip,New York,United States

Unread postby sketor7558 » Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:18 pm

pdf file with photos of the new uniform
https://www.peosoldier.army.mil/factshe ... IE_ASU.pdf
sketor7558
ADMINISTRATOR
ADMINISTRATOR
 
Posts: 707
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 8:44 pm
Location: New York

Unread postby Necrothesp » Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:53 pm

Frankly, any form of headgear would look awful with that uniform. It's one of the most hideous things I've ever seen. I pity anyone in the US Army from the day that's introduced.
Necrothesp
CORRESPONDENT
CORRESPONDENT
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 1:00 am
Location: Kenilworth, England

Unread postby Erskine Calderon » Tue Feb 20, 2007 4:11 pm

James wrote:Frankly, any form of headgear would look awful with that uniform. It's one of the most hideous things I've ever seen. I pity anyone in the US Army from the day that's introduced.


Could be worse, James - it could be have a kilt and sporran... smilies-15

E.
User avatar
Erskine Calderon
ADMINISTRATOR
ADMINISTRATOR
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2003 2:57 am

Unread postby Necrothesp » Tue Feb 20, 2007 4:17 pm

Erskine Calderon wrote:Could be worse, James - it could be have a kilt and sporran... smilies-15

E.

At least the Highland uniform is designed to go with a kilt and sporran. Whoever designed this new uniform seems to have just mixed and matched...very badly...the trousers don't go with the shirt doesn't go with the jacket. And as for the women, what exactly are those things they're wearing on their legs? Because they're not like any sort of uniform item I've ever seen.
Necrothesp
CORRESPONDENT
CORRESPONDENT
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 1:00 am
Location: Kenilworth, England

Unread postby Erskine Calderon » Tue Feb 20, 2007 4:54 pm

I will admit that the "prison stripe" on the trousers is appalling.
User avatar
Erskine Calderon
ADMINISTRATOR
ADMINISTRATOR
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2003 2:57 am

Unread postby jrichardn » Tue Feb 20, 2007 5:41 pm

I should let the experts in U.S. Army uniforms reply, but ...

The traditional "blue" U.S. Army uniform used two shades of blue, a darker blue for the tunic, a lighter blue for the trousers.

And officers had a broad gold stripe.

Ugly is in the eye of the beholder but I believe the new uniform to be quite historical.

I am a tad surprised (if I read the PDF correctly) that the service cap is to be worn rather than the beret. This is against the long-term trend in most Western armies. In Canada, as in I believe Britain and elsewhere, the beret is worn, even with service dress, except on the most formal of occasions.

Cheers, Richard Nelson
in warming Toronto
jrichardn
VISITOR
VISITOR
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:03 pm
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Army blues

Unread postby Lee Ragan » Tue Feb 20, 2007 5:47 pm

The blue service cap is the only way to go for headgear with this uniform. Just look how sharp the "Old Guard" looks wearing it at Arlington National Cemetery. The beret looks like crap IMHO with a dress uniform. Only the military would adopt a piece of headgear that doesn't keep the sun out of your eyes and books like a bag on your head. I'm glad I never had to wear one of the ugly things during my time in the US Air Force and US Navy.
Lee Ragan
VISITOR
VISITOR
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 9:27 pm

Unread postby J.T. Broderick » Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:56 pm

The traditional "blue" U.S. Army uniform used two shades of blue, a darker blue for the tunic, a lighter blue for the trousers.

And officers had a broad gold stripe.


Traditionally, in the 1800s, light blue trousers were worn by enlisted men and by officers in the "combat arms." Trouser stripes were branch colored. Corporals wore narrower stripes, musicians double narrow stripes. Generals and "staff officers" (all but infantry, cavalry or artillery) wore dark blue trousers without stripes. I don't think metallic gold trouser stripes came in until the 20th century, for evening dress.

When blue dress uniforms were re-instituted in the 1950s, yellow trim — cavalry, traditionally — was standardized for enlisted uniforms and for officers' trousers. Officers still wear branch color on the sleeve, cap and shoulder straps. When the Army Green uniform was adopted, officers got black trouser stripes and generals got double stripes.

The uniforms without the blouse remind me of the USMC dress blue "C" and "D" (blue trousers with khaki shirt). Uniforms originally designed to be worn with a coat don't look quite right when the coat is left off. And the gray shirt is non-traditional, so it looks out of place in the color scheme. But, I'm used to the Marine uniform now and I'm sure I will get used to the army equivalent. Likewise for the headgear. I would like it personally if the traditional colored trouser stripes were brought back, but I know that's not going to happen.

best regards,
Justin
J.T. Broderick
CORRESPONDENT
CORRESPONDENT
 
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 4:33 pm
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah, USA

Unread postby sketor7558 » Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:05 pm

the beret is only for specialists and below
corporals and up will wear the combination cover
sketor7558
ADMINISTRATOR
ADMINISTRATOR
 
Posts: 707
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 8:44 pm
Location: New York

Unread postby Erskine Calderon » Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:33 pm

sketor7558 wrote:the beret is only for specialists and below
corporals and up will wear the combination cover


And DIs will wear a darling blue bonnet with scottish lace accents... smilies-09
User avatar
Erskine Calderon
ADMINISTRATOR
ADMINISTRATOR
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2003 2:57 am

Unread postby Necrothesp » Wed Feb 21, 2007 10:22 am

J.T. Broderick wrote:
Uniforms originally designed to be worn with a coat don't look quite right when the coat is left off.

My thoughts exactly. That's what looks so wrong. That and the women's legwear, which looks scruffy. Personally, I think blues should only be worn complete, as in the British Army.
Necrothesp
CORRESPONDENT
CORRESPONDENT
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 1:00 am
Location: Kenilworth, England

Unread postby Necrothesp » Wed Feb 21, 2007 10:29 am

jrichardn wrote:I am a tad surprised (if I read the PDF correctly) that the service cap is to be worn rather than the beret. This is against the long-term trend in most Western armies. In Canada, as in I believe Britain and elsewhere, the beret is worn, even with service dress, except on the most formal of occasions.

In Britain, the beret is often (but not always by any means) worn by other ranks with service dress (khaki), but rarely with full dress blues. Although some regiments and corps which are very associated with specific coloured berets wear the beret with all orders and never wear the service dress cap (officers included).
Necrothesp
CORRESPONDENT
CORRESPONDENT
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 1:00 am
Location: Kenilworth, England

Unread postby Medic_in_Uniform » Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:09 am

It's a bit of a strange mix, to be honest.

In many ways, I can see the logic in having just one service dress uniform - let's face it, having a green or brown service dress is now irrelevant, no-one in their right mind would wear it into combat so why not stick with the traditional colors for non-operational situations? As Justin has noted above, I very much expected that the gray-shirt variants of the ASU would indeed look much like USMC dress blue C and D.

The currently proposed headwear confuses me a little - in formation, a mix of berets and service caps among the lower ranks will look very strange and decidedly NON-uniform. They *really* need to re-think this part. If I was to suggest an alternative, I would propose the following, which I feel is (a) a more consistent approach and (b) would look much more smart too:

The day-to-day service uniform would be the gray shirt with black neck tie (and black accessory items such as the sweater, windbreaker, overcoat, etc.) and ALL grades would normally wear the beret with the gray shirt but reserving the options of making the service cap (a) a prescribable item for certain occasions or duties and (b) an authorized alternative option for senior officers. By "certain occasions or duties" I mean things like "officer of the day" (or equivalent roles) or other specific roles such as, say, bringing back the white service cap for MPs.

The gray shirt would be worn with the blue coat and ribbons if a more formal service uniform was required and the headwear would then be the appropriate service cap for ALL grades.

For full dress/ceremonial uniform, ALL grades would then wear white shirts and the blue coat with medals (under arms, or not, as ordered) and headwear would also be service caps.

For the sake of argument, the ASU variants could easily be described as follows:
(1) White shirt + Coat + Cap = Army Dress Blue (with full decorations +/- arms, etc.)
(2) Gray shirt + Coat + Cap = Army Service Blue (A) (with ribbons)
(3) Gray shirt + Sweater, etc. + Beret = Army Service Blue (B)

Bottom line: "if you wear the coat, you wear the cap." If you're not wearing the coat then you'd normally wear the beret unless the service cap was specifically prescribed for your duties or you were a senior officer who preferred to wear the cap in place of the beret.

As an aside, I also think it would be great to see the branch colors reappear for the trouser stripes and to have gold (vice yellow) reserved for general officers dark blue trousers. If they're worn on coats and caps, why not put the branch colors on the trousers too? I would also suggest having "non-branch" trouser stripes (e.g. plain dark blue stripes, to match the coat) for junior enlisted grades in place of branch colors; this is a more "basic" uniform but would still be in keeping with the overall look of the trousers worn by more senior grades.

(NB: Edited for typing errors and to make the explanations a bit clearer - content is unchanged!)
Last edited by Medic_in_Uniform on Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:15 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Medic_in_Uniform
ADMINISTRATOR
ADMINISTRATOR
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 7:33 pm

Unread postby Necrothesp » Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:15 am

Medic_in_Uniform wrote:The question over head gear confuses me a little - in formation, a mix of berets and service caps among the lower ranks will look very strange and decidedly NON-uniform!

This is a very good point, especially given the rather high percentage of NCOs in the US forces.
Necrothesp
CORRESPONDENT
CORRESPONDENT
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 1:00 am
Location: Kenilworth, England

Unread postby Caim_Dubh » Thu May 31, 2007 5:59 pm

The ASU has evolved from the post-Civil War Great Plains Cavalry uniform, and regardless of how it looks, there is quite a bit of history about it. Personally I think the most appropriate type of headgear for soldiers to wear with it would be a black Stetson with branch insignia in the middle. But honestly, how many countries have ever looked to the US as a leader in uniform style? Very few, and those few were probably influenced because we had a presence in their country.

I think one of the things the non-US Army types here need to realize about this uniform is that the US Army over the last 20 years has gotten further and further from wearing ANY service or dress uniform for anything but the most special of occasions outside of certain units and positions.

In the last 9 years I have worn Class A's no more than once a year, and I've worn Dress Blues an average of once every 18 months or so. That is from having been in two tactical assignments and two non-tactical. The exception to this rule used to be soldiers assigned to the Pentagon, other high-vis units inside the Beltway, some hospital staff, Recruiters, and other high-vis positions. Most of these guys wore Class As or Bs, and the hospital staff would wear As, Bs, or the Hospital Uniform, whatever the name is.

Once the ACU came out, all bets were off. Now most soldiers wear the ACU for everything, and since the new wear policy came out, if I was going on vacation to the Florida Keys, I could fly there in ACUs. Top generals wear the ACU to official press conferences and functions.

What was my point in all this? Oh. Even though the ASU is supposed to be a service uniform, the chance of a soldier wearing it more than once a year to any official functions is slim, unless he wants to wear it in his offtime for social reasons. Eventually the US Army might evolve itself out of service and dress uniforms entirely. Wouldn't that be awesome? Could you imagine the EUCOM commander going to a state dinner in Belgium in ACUs while everyone else is decked out in their Mess Dress finery? Okay, maybe that's a bit much.

Okay, so maybe that was a diatribe. smilies-10
SFC, USA
BAMFETS
User avatar
Caim_Dubh
COMMUNICANT
COMMUNICANT
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue May 27, 2003 8:04 pm
Location: Belgium

Unread postby Medic_in_Uniform » Thu May 31, 2007 6:37 pm

Okay, so maybe that was a diatribe. smilies-10


Possibly - but it's a valid and informed opinion! smilies-01

I wonder if there'll be a push to change this situation and make the wear of service dress more commonplace and perhaps a requirement for certain duties once the ASU becomes properly established in a couple of years...?
Medic_in_Uniform
ADMINISTRATOR
ADMINISTRATOR
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 7:33 pm

evolution of walking-out dress

Unread postby jrichardn » Thu May 31, 2007 6:42 pm

Caim makes some good points, and brings us some nice inside-the-army insights.

Since uniforms became established, more or less the 18th century, walking-out and combat dress have usually been much the same, or very similar. Even fairly recently, they've been very alike - the walking-out dress of a Canadian soldier until unification was WWII combat dress!

I recognize this trend, but, yeah, it looks funny sometimes. I gave a presentation on a system I project-managed, that tracked intermodal containers on rail mainlines (technically tricky) to a bunch of guys in the transportation industry. One was a U.S. Army major from the U.S. Transportation Command. He came in full combat dress, including the boots - and it looked weird among all of us in business-casual.

I'm also reminded of Eisenhower's comment that generals (and staff officers?) shouldn't wear combat dress because it demeaned those that needed to.

By the way, Caim, you mentioned the black broad-brimmed hats - what about those little sloped caps - I thought they were the official cap of the Civil War, and the broad-brimmed hat was just tolerated.

Cheers, Richard Nelson
in rainy Toronto
jrichardn
VISITOR
VISITOR
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:03 pm
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Unread postby Caim_Dubh » Thu May 31, 2007 7:18 pm

From Wickipedia -- "The name started to be used after the 1872–1876 regulations which introduced a black felt hat — which could be drab after 1883 — for fatigue use derived from the types popularized during the American Civil War."

My history is shaky on this, but I'll see if I can find the official Army regulation. The slouch hat originally worn during the Civil War was used by most units stationed in the frontier during the late 1800s. It was eventually replaced by the Campaign Hat. The Kepi in a few different designs, and the Jeff Davis hat in a couple of designs were from my understanding the official Army headgear during the Civil War. I'm not very well-versed in this period, though, so if there are any guys here more up on Civil War history please chime in.

This type of hat was sometimes shaped to the personal preference of the soldier, though this was probably tolerated more at frontier posts than it would have been back East. The Campaign Hat fell out of favor in the Army at large. In the US Army it is only worn by graduates of the Drill Sergeant School that are assigned as Drill Sergeants.

Today many US Army Cavalry Squadrons still wear spurs and "Stetsons" for ceremonial and social functions. I use these terms loosely, because though we were never allowed to wear our spurs in country, I saw some units wearing spurs in Iraq. I even saw some guys wearing Stetsons while riding around in Baghdad, but that was squashed pretty quickly. Not very good against stopping small bullets and shrapne.

The practice of wearing Stetsons and spurs is generally frowned on by non-Cav types. I can say that a black Stetson looks very sharp with the Army Blue Uniform, much more so than the beret, anyway. The Stetson and spurs do tend to lend a certain swagger to a soldiers gait, though. And I'm not sure if it would help the US Army's international image if all its soldiers started looking like cowboys.

(it doesn't have to be an actual Stetson, but the hats are usually simply called Stetsons as opposed to "cowboy hat." Stetsons and spurs sounds better than cowboy hat and spurs.) smilies-15
SFC, USA
BAMFETS
User avatar
Caim_Dubh
COMMUNICANT
COMMUNICANT
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue May 27, 2003 8:04 pm
Location: Belgium

Unread postby J.T. Broderick » Sat Jun 02, 2007 4:43 am

Rearding the broad-brimmed hats... In 1858 the "Hardee" or "Jeff Davis" hat became the dress headgear for the US Army, it was pinned up on one side and had a plume. During the Civil War, this hat or various black commercial types was sometimes worn in the field, usually without the brim turned up.

In 1872 a campaign hat with a floppy brim was introduced, it could be worn turned up on one side, or on both sides like a bicorne. In 1876 a more conventional hat with a stiffer brim was authorized. The color changed from black to tan in 1883. Colored hat cords, which had been worn in the Civil War period, were re-introduced in 1899. In 1911 the simple creased crown was replaced by the "Montana peak." After WW2 began issue of the campaign hat was severely curtailed.

The black hats that became popular with cavalry units in Vietnam were from different manufacturers, but approximated the style of the campaign hat of the 1870s.

Lt. Col. Bruce Crandall, USA (ret.), wore his unofficial black "Stetson" with dress blues recently when he received the Medal of Honor:
Image

Best regards,
Justin
J.T. Broderick
CORRESPONDENT
CORRESPONDENT
 
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 4:33 pm
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah, USA

Unread postby Caim_Dubh » Fri Jun 08, 2007 12:04 am

Well, I think that might be a little too much eye-candy for any one man's Stetson, but if he won the Medal of Honor I doubt anyone would tell him so.

Thanks for the explanation of the evolution of the headgear. I know mine was lacking in anything substantial.
SFC, USA
BAMFETS
User avatar
Caim_Dubh
COMMUNICANT
COMMUNICANT
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue May 27, 2003 8:04 pm
Location: Belgium

Unread postby Caim_Dubh » Fri Jun 08, 2007 12:06 am

Oh, it just dawned on me that that is Bruce Crandall of We Were Soldiers Once, and Young fame. I wasn't aware he won the Medal of Honor. At least he was alive to see it.
SFC, USA
BAMFETS
User avatar
Caim_Dubh
COMMUNICANT
COMMUNICANT
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue May 27, 2003 8:04 pm
Location: Belgium

Unread postby damir fiskal » Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:52 pm

You don't WIN the Medal of Honor.... You are AWARDED one....


Am I right?
User avatar
damir fiskal
VISITOR
VISITOR
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005 6:22 pm
Location: Split

Unread postby Caim_Dubh » Tue Jun 12, 2007 8:15 pm

You are awarded an Army Achievement Medal. You are awarded the Bronze Star. You are awarded pretty much everything you pin on your uniform other than insignia. In my opinion the Congressional Medal of Honor is something special and I prefer to differentiate it from other US Military awards. Bottomline though, is that it's a question of semantics. Say it how you want. Most of us on this website live in mostly free countries.
SFC, USA
BAMFETS
User avatar
Caim_Dubh
COMMUNICANT
COMMUNICANT
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue May 27, 2003 8:04 pm
Location: Belgium

Unread postby sketor7558 » Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:42 am

sketor7558
ADMINISTRATOR
ADMINISTRATOR
 
Posts: 707
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 8:44 pm
Location: New York

Hat

Unread postby 60bill » Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:59 pm

Don’t you WIN an Award?
Win – Awarded it matters not, we know what you meant.
I think there should be a little less nit-picking [if it's still political correct] and let people phrase things in their own way. Everyone’s a critic, no-one’s perfect!!!
As for the hat, Medal of Honour WINNER or not, it belongs in Gilbert and Sullivan.
Fear is the best weapon
60bill
CORRESPONDENT
CORRESPONDENT
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 8:46 pm
Location: UK

Re: Hat

Unread postby Erskine Calderon » Wed Jan 16, 2008 9:42 pm

60bill wrote:Don’t you WIN an Award?
Win – Awarded it matters not, we know what you meant.
I think there should be a little less nit-picking [if it's still political correct] and let people phrase things in their own way. Everyone’s a critic, no-one’s perfect!!!
As for the hat, Medal of Honour WINNER or not, it belongs in Gilbert and Sullivan.


You only win an award when you compete for it. Does one win a purple heart?
User avatar
Erskine Calderon
ADMINISTRATOR
ADMINISTRATOR
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2003 2:57 am

To Win or not to Win

Unread postby 60bill » Thu Jan 17, 2008 1:26 am

You can apparently win an award.
Many people win awards for their outstanding commitment to community service.
They do not compete for these awards, they are selected on merit from a list of nominees, they also may not be aware of the impending award until just before the announcement.
Unless The Washington Post, New York Times and most major media organizations have it wrong!

2007 AFA Air Force civilian employee award winners honored
5/22/2007 - RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE, Texas -- The Air Force announced four civilian Airmen as 2007 Air Force Association Outstanding Air Force Civilian Employees of the Year awards recipients.

Three Michigan State University students will receive awards from the Michigan Campus Compact (MCC) for their outstanding commitment to community service throughout their college years.

From the New York Times:
President and Nancy Reagan greeting winners of the Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian award. As the caption reported, there were seven winners, including former Ambassador Walter H. Annenberg, but Mr. Annenberg was not pictured.
I believe the above WINNERS won from a selection of nominees?
I don’t think you can compete for the Medal of Freedom.
Or do you disagree with the Times also?

I do concede however that in general you do compete to win, but not always.
As for the purple hart, it’s an award but I have heard people, right or wrong, refer to winning it.

So as Caim Dubh said, It’s a question of semantics and if the New York Times say’s winners, then winners it is, or agree to disagree and complain to the Times.
Fear is the best weapon
60bill
CORRESPONDENT
CORRESPONDENT
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 8:46 pm
Location: UK

Re: To Win or not to Win

Unread postby Erskine Calderon » Sat Jan 19, 2008 1:23 am

60bill wrote:You can apparently win an award.
Many people win awards for their outstanding commitment to community service.
They do not compete for these awards, they are selected on merit from a list of nominees, they also may not be aware of the impending award until just before the announcement.
Unless The Washington Post, New York Times and most major media organizations have it wrong!

2007 AFA Air Force civilian employee award winners honored
5/22/2007 - RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE, Texas -- The Air Force announced four civilian Airmen as 2007 Air Force Association Outstanding Air Force Civilian Employees of the Year awards recipients.

Three Michigan State University students will receive awards from the Michigan Campus Compact (MCC) for their outstanding commitment to community service throughout their college years.

From the New York Times:
President and Nancy Reagan greeting winners of the Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian award. As the caption reported, there were seven winners, including former Ambassador Walter H. Annenberg, but Mr. Annenberg was not pictured.
I believe the above WINNERS won from a selection of nominees?
I don’t think you can compete for the Medal of Freedom.
Or do you disagree with the Times also?

I do concede however that in general you do compete to win, but not always.
As for the purple hart, it’s an award but I have heard people, right or wrong, refer to winning it.

So as Caim Dubh said, It’s a question of semantics and if the New York Times say’s winners, then winners it is, or agree to disagree and complain to the Times.


We disagree.

And we were talking about the Medal of Honor, not Freedom, which is a civilian award.
User avatar
Erskine Calderon
ADMINISTRATOR
ADMINISTRATOR
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2003 2:57 am

Unread postby sketor7558 » Sat Jan 19, 2008 4:09 am

i bumped the topic
b/c the US Army Chief of Staff General Casey is considering combat patches in the new service uniform.
sketor7558
ADMINISTRATOR
ADMINISTRATOR
 
Posts: 707
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 8:44 pm
Location: New York

Unread postby Erskine Calderon » Sat Jan 19, 2008 5:06 am

sketor7558 wrote:i bumped the topic
b/c the US Army Chief of Staff General Casey is considering combat patches in the new service uniform.


Good idea on his part.
User avatar
Erskine Calderon
ADMINISTRATOR
ADMINISTRATOR
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2003 2:57 am

Unread postby Caim_Dubh » Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:44 am

Figured I'd weigh in a little on this one since I hadn't contributed in a while. The only guy that knows for sure what will happen with the ASU is GEN Casey, and he might not even know what he wants.

I had the privilege to sit in during an address by the Sergeant Major of the Army a few weeks ago, and he only had a couple of things to say about the ASU. The major bone of contention as was mentioned is the display of combat deployments. The SMA said they were looking at either putting patches on the ASU or putting a special "combat" crest that represents combat service with a particular unit much as one represents regimental affiliation--with a pin placed above the right pocket of the jacket. No specifics as to how a soldier would determine what pin to use. The other option was to leave it alone and let campaign medals do the talking, while keeping the SSI/FWTS on the ACU. I prefer this set-up myself.

Much like every military service in every country from the beginning of time to the end, rumors abound in the US Army. Some of the points brought forth by the Soldiers include lack of distinguishing Airborne and SOF traditions (no maroon/tan/green beret and no bloused boots with the ASU), and the fact that the pants themselves are too flashy for a service dress uniform, i.e. gold NCO/WO/CO stripe on the pants. Time will tell what the final result will be. Maybe they'll scrap this nonsense and just tweak the Green Uniform to make it more likeable by the average Soldier--the original version of the Green Uniform featured a darker shade of green with a tan shirt and that would seem to be good enough. Even if the USMC would cry foul. smilies-15
SFC, USA
BAMFETS
User avatar
Caim_Dubh
COMMUNICANT
COMMUNICANT
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue May 27, 2003 8:04 pm
Location: Belgium

Unread postby Fatguy_in_alittlecoat » Thu Jun 12, 2008 6:40 pm

I'm sure the Army will have to drop the current sleeve insignia for enlisted folks once the ASU is adopted, since it has a green background. My guess is they'll just use the insignia from the blue uniform instead.

What I'd like to see is the Army do the same thing as the Marines: bring back enlisted rank insignia to the sleeves on the shirt, not just the jacket. I think only officer rank should be on the collars.

But has the Army decided what color the shirt will be?
Fatguy_in_alittlecoat
VISITOR
VISITOR
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 1:41 pm

Unread postby Caim_Dubh » Wed Jun 18, 2008 7:48 pm

Well, the ASU is just a redressing of the current Army Blue uniform, so there is already a set of sleeve insignia in use with gold on a blue background. With the demise of the BDU, Army officers do not wear collar rank anymore, with the exception of certain hospital uniforms for medical personnel. All other uniforms see Army officers using bullion or regular pin-on rank on the sleeve of the mess uniforms, shoulder straps for the coat of the ASU with soft slide-on rank epaulets for the shirt, velcro rank square for the ACU, and normal pin-on rank for the all-weather coat and the officer windbreaker.

The only time noncommissioned officers wear pin-on collar rank insignia is on the all-weather coat and the enlisted windbreaker. Junior enlisted wear collar rank insignia on the AW coat, the enlisted windbreaker, and the green shirt for the Army Green Uniform.

I am of the same mindset, though. I would rather enlisted personnel wear rank insignia on the sleeves. The Army keeps going on about how they are trying to save people money with such measures, but I'd rather pay a few extra bucks and wear the stripes on the sleeves.

Oh, and GEN Casey still hasn't put out the official notice, so I'm not exactly sure what the final word on the will be.
SFC, USA
BAMFETS
User avatar
Caim_Dubh
COMMUNICANT
COMMUNICANT
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue May 27, 2003 8:04 pm
Location: Belgium

Unread postby general_tiu » Fri Jun 20, 2008 2:36 pm

My 10 cents for this.

I think simplicity is needed, but with the Civil War epaulets...

Maybe they should keep the Civil War epaulets at ceremonial occasions only, and when in service, this is replaced by the shoulder straps and pin-on insignia the US Service green has today.

I think the "revived" US army uniform needs tweaking and the trusty shoulder straps, after all.... smilies-05
general_tiu
COMMUNICANT
COMMUNICANT
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:07 am
Location: Philippines

Unread postby ChrisWI » Sat Jun 21, 2008 11:40 am

Thats exactly what I was thinking, split it into two uniforms; Army Dress Uniform and Army Service Uniform. The differences:

ASU - maybe have the ribbons worn instead of medals and just a plain blue version of the current green uniform.

ADU - a more ornate version with full size medals authorized and the ACW style shoulder straps - though I think the insignia worn shoulder knots would be even more impressive looking.

Enlisted men would wear gold chevrons on dark blue or black background on both uniforms.

Both uniforms would have peaked caps.
ChrisWI
ADMINISTRATOR
ADMINISTRATOR
 
Posts: 1806
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 8:09 pm
Location: West Islip,New York,United States

Re: Hat

Unread postby Necrothesp » Thu Jun 26, 2008 2:56 pm

Erskine Calderon wrote:
60bill wrote:Don’t you WIN an Award?
Win – Awarded it matters not, we know what you meant.
I think there should be a little less nit-picking [if it's still political correct] and let people phrase things in their own way. Everyone’s a critic, no-one’s perfect!!!
As for the hat, Medal of Honour WINNER or not, it belongs in Gilbert and Sullivan.


You only win an award when you compete for it. Does one win a purple heart?

Actually, that appears to vary according to which country you come from. In the British Armed Forces you most certainly win gallantry awards - this is the terminology used by the Ministry of Defence and the terminology that has always been used.
Necrothesp
CORRESPONDENT
CORRESPONDENT
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 1:00 am
Location: Kenilworth, England

Advertisement

Email Converter - our sponsor

Next

Return to AMERICA - MILITARY BRANCH & RANK INSIGNIA

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron

Search

User Menu