It is currently Tue Aug 21, 2018 9:32 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

Re: Hat

Unread postby Erskine Calderon » Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:16 pm

James wrote:
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.


Quite true.

However, in the U.S. we BESTOW the MoH upon a RECIPIENT.

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

Re: Hat

Unread postby Necrothesp » Mon Jun 30, 2008 9:33 am

Erskine Calderon wrote:
James wrote:
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.


Quite true.

However, in the U.S. we BESTOW the MoH upon a RECIPIENT.

Cheers,
E.

In the UK, formally, the Queen is graciously pleased to approve (of) the award of the Victoria Cross to... But for most purposes, official and unofficial, someone is said to have WON the VC and to be a VC WINNER (or simply A VC - everyone knows what that means).
Necrothesp
CORRESPONDENT
CORRESPONDENT
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 1:00 am
Location: Kenilworth, England

Unread postby ryanemilia » Sat Aug 16, 2008 7:47 am

Never liked the green Class A uniform. Glad it will be gone.
Any way here is whats left for the US Army of the 21st Century.

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

Unread postby general_tiu » Sun Aug 17, 2008 4:11 am

No corporal or General of the Army, Ryan?

I guess that they should tweak the Blue Dress Uniform a bit. The Civil War epaulets could work at galas, but as a service duty uniform, they would be the laughing stock of the other services and the Navy would comment that they looked some kind of Latin American military dictators.

Otherwise, that's nice.
general_tiu
COMMUNICANT
COMMUNICANT
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:07 am
Location: Philippines

Unread postby Caim_Dubh » Tue Aug 26, 2008 5:08 pm

It's official. The Army put out its definitive guidance on the new uniform on the 19th. The grey shirt will not be used at all. Instead, a white shirt will be used for service, informal, and formal dress uniforms. If you would like to look at the new uniform set up, the U.S. Army website has a special page devoted to the ASU. I think the Class B uniform looks like something an overpaid state militia would wear, but no one asked me. smilies-06
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 » Tue Aug 26, 2008 10:09 pm

Wow. Sorry guys, but that looks DREADFUL...!!

It looks like it was designed by committee, and, in an effort to try to compromise and please everyone, they've compromised the uniform so much that it's lost all it's original integrity. Hmmm, wait a minute...

A shame, as they had the opportunity to do something pretty clever here and come up with a sleek, workable service and dress uniform package that had distinct levels of formality but optimized interchangeable components. Oh well...

See above for my thoughts on what they COULD have done.
Medic_in_Uniform
ADMINISTRATOR
ADMINISTRATOR
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 7:33 pm

Unread postby Martin Mennega » Wed Aug 27, 2008 9:21 pm

I took a good look at US army AU site pictures. Can't help it but for army i like green best.
As for the combination of tucking the blue trousers in the army boots: That's just plain ugly.

A shame, as they had the opportunity to do something pretty clever here and come up with a sleek, workable service and dress uniform


This is the same everywhere. The police force is work for underwent a uniform change to. I think they have it designed by peoples who have to wear it the least.

smilies-02
Who dares wins
User avatar
Martin Mennega
COMMUNICANT
COMMUNICANT
 
Posts: 133
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:54 pm
Location: Slochteren, the Netherlands

Unread postby sketor7558 » Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:34 pm

also the US Air force has a new uniform too
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123061371
sketor7558
ADMINISTRATOR
ADMINISTRATOR
 
Posts: 707
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 8:44 pm
Location: New York

Unread postby general_tiu » Fri Aug 29, 2008 1:16 am

But that's another story, and the AF guys are at least happy enough with it. It's the Army that has a, ehem, put it this way, a "uniform malfunction."
general_tiu
COMMUNICANT
COMMUNICANT
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:07 am
Location: Philippines

Unread postby Nila MadhaVa » Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:52 am

yes i can definately see the 'commitee' effect on these new uniforms. i wonder how long these versions will last...and whats with the NCOs tucking their trousers into their boot...very ugly. imho they have gone from one extreeme to another, as i understood it the outgoing uniforms were confusing and expeinsive, now they are over simplified...what was that comment? "over payed state militia", that seems to sum it up.

looks to me that instead of going back to the historical, they lifted the colors and officer shoulder straps and smacked them on the modern uniforms...great oppotunity gone begging. oh well, at least I dont have to wear it lol

ps at least the male versions look semi-decent...the female uniforms look utterly ugly, imho
We cannot choose the hour of our death. But we can choose what to do with the time we are given.
Nila MadhaVa
VISITOR
VISITOR
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 2:39 pm

Unread postby Caim_Dubh » Thu Sep 11, 2008 4:38 am

Nila MadhaVa wrote:yes i can definately see the 'commitee' effect on these new uniforms. i wonder how long these versions will last...and whats with the NCOs tucking their trousers into their boot...very ugly. imho they have gone from one extreeme to another, as i understood it the outgoing uniforms were confusing and expeinsive, now they are over simplified...what was that comment? "over payed state militia", that seems to sum it up.

looks to me that instead of going back to the historical, they lifted the colors and officer shoulder straps and smacked them on the modern uniforms...great oppotunity gone begging. oh well, at least I dont have to wear it lol

ps at least the male versions look semi-decent...the female uniforms look utterly ugly, imho

The First Sergeant with his boots tucked in is in an Airborne unit, and the boot blousing with service dress was a concession to Airborne units who have been doing this for 60 years or so. Unfortunately, it makes what is a nice Class A uniform look like trash. The Class B uniform looks terrible regardless. The trim is a left over from many of the previous uniforms the US Army used before the diferentiation between service and battle dress. The Army initially used branch color for trim, even up to the khaki uniforms used in the Spanish-American War. When the Blue Uniform was brought back as an informal dress uniform the branch color trim--for enlisted--was changed to gold for all branches.

My personal wish was that the khaki and OD uniforms be revived from WWII. Of course, there would have to be some standardization from the mess that was in use then, but it would still have been a very martial uniform, and hearken back to another great chapter in the world's history. The Blue Uniform could have been kept on for its previous duties--informal dress. Failing that, why not simply truly go with the late-1800s uniform, in 100% wool. That would work. smilies-15 [/b]
SFC, USA
BAMFETS
User avatar
Caim_Dubh
COMMUNICANT
COMMUNICANT
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue May 27, 2003 8:04 pm
Location: Belgium

Why change?

Unread postby roetman06 » Wed Oct 29, 2008 4:54 pm

So basically they are changing to imitate and somewhat unify our forces. I also got that they were trying to cut costs. I think that it is good to differentiate between the branches and have the different uniform insignia.
~Dwight D. Eisenhower~
"Only our individual faith in freedom can keep us free."

Ribbon Rack Builder @ http://www.ezrackbuilder.com/
roetman06
VISITOR
VISITOR
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 8:15 pm

Unread postby Caim_Dubh » Wed Oct 29, 2008 8:20 pm

I'm not sure what you mean by "unify." The blue uniform that has become the ASU has been an optional purchase item for enlisted and required purchase for officers since the '30s if I remember right. I'd have to go back to my reference books. Much like many things in the USMC's history, their dress blue uniform was based off the Army's of the same time period. I don't have anything factual to back that up, but I like saying that to rile up the Marines. smilies-15

Anyway, point is that the Army Service Uniform and previously the Army Blue Uniform in its most recent configuration has been in service for quite some time. This wasn't a step to unify anything, so much as to change the Green Uniform. Any talk about cutting costs is bunk--it would only have affected officers, since they were the only ones required to have the Blue Uniform anyway. And the White Uniform and formal dress uniforms were always personal purchase.
SFC, USA
BAMFETS
User avatar
Caim_Dubh
COMMUNICANT
COMMUNICANT
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue May 27, 2003 8:04 pm
Location: Belgium

Advertisement

Email Converter - our sponsor

Previous

Return to AMERICA - MILITARY BRANCH & RANK INSIGNIA

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

Search

User Menu