New Army uniform

[Garibaldi]

Before anyone asks the inevitable, I highly doubt that this will ever, ever, EVER be authorized for CAP for a multitude of reasons.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/17/army-new-camo-pattern-will-mirror-multicam/?intcmp=obnetwork

[Luis R. Ramos]

Since now we have an uniform thread, lets see who / what is derails / is done to derail this topic into a non - uniform thread...

[Eclipse]

That much closer to a single pattern for field uniforms as directed by congress.

It might be different "enough" to withstand an infringement challenge, but as far as those on the outside looking in, it's the same.

With the USAF already wearing multicam in places they are shooting at airman on the ground, it makes all the more sense.

[antdetroitwallyball]

single pattern for field uniforms as directed by congress.

I've heard this before, but I'll see it when I believe it. You won't have sailors who work on the decks of ships wearing Scorpion. And the whole point of the CG using just a plain blue uniform was to make the CG look more Law Enforcement and less military. I've heard that they didn't want the general public feeling uncomfortable because they felt like the "military was boarding their 23' fishing boat." (which is still entirely what exactly was happening).

Furthermore, the CG does not need to ever blend in, so Camo is pointless. What CG members do need is a uniform that is cool temperature-wise to wear. They just switched from a tucked-in uniform to a non-tucked in uniform for this reason. Putting CG members in a camo uniform that can ONLY be worn sleeves-down defeats that purpose....

My whole point: forcing all services to wear the same utility uniform without many and significant exceptions is a bad idea for obvious reasons. Hopefully, someone in charge will see this fact.

[Garibaldi]

single pattern for field uniforms as directed by congress.

I've heard this before, but I'll see it when I believe it. You won't have sailors who work on the decks of ships wearing Scorpion. And the whole point of the CG using just a plain blue uniform was to make the CG look more Law Enforcement and less military. I've heard that they didn't want the general public feeling uncomfortable because they felt like the "military was boarding their 23' fishing boat." (which is still entirely what exactly was happening).

Furthermore, the CG does not need to ever blend in, so Camo is pointless. What CG members do need is a uniform that is cool temperature-wise to wear. They just switched from a tucked-in uniform to a non-tucked in uniform for this reason. Putting CG members in a camo uniform that can ONLY be worn sleeves-down defeats that purpose....

My whole point: forcing all services to wear the same utility uniform without many and significant exceptions is a bad idea for obvious reasons. Hopefully, someone in charge will see this fact.

It worked very well for almost 20 years with the BDUs. And, please don't get started on the Coast Guard. They have an entirely different mission parameter than the rest of the military and are most likely exempt from this.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Furthermore, the CG does not need to ever blend in, so Camo is pointless. What CG members do need is a uniform that is cool temperature-wise to wear. They just switched from a tucked-in uniform to a non-tucked in uniform for this reason. Putting CG members in a camo uniform that can ONLY be worn sleeves-down defeats that purpose....

I think a handful of CG personnel still wear BDU's, like Port Security Units.

I remember when my then-brother-in-law who was in the Army got his first set of BDU's, in something like 1982.  He told me then that the idea behind them was to put all five services in the same utility/duty/combat uniform.

Of course, the Marines decided they wanted their own, then the Army...leading to the multiplicity of uniforms in the Armed Forces today.

I know it is going to sound like I am picking on the Marines, and I am not.  My uncle (by marriage, anyway) is a combat Korean War veteran of the Marines.

However, they have the mindset that their uniforms must somehow be "special," and "different" to the other services, so I doubt they will be content with wearing any style of uniform that they have not designed/chosen.

As for CAP?  If BBDU's ever go out...




(The flight suit is German, but you get the idea).

[Anthony@CAP]

The Coast Guard has nothing to worry about. While congress has mandated a single uniform pattern, they have only mandated that the armed forces have a single combat uniform.

The actual language of the law can be found in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law No: 113-66) section 352:
"It is the policy of the United States that the Secretary of Defense shall eliminate the development and fielding of Armed Force-specific combat and camouflage utility uniforms and families of uniforms in order to adopt and field a common combat and camouflage utility uniform or family of uniforms for specific combat environments to be used by all members of the Armed Forces."

There are a number of additional specific stipulations and exceptions to the law (which are somewhat irreverent to this point). However, the important point is that the law only requires that any future combat or camouflage uniform be the implemented across all the branches of the armed forces. If the Coast Guard (or any other branch, if they had one) wishes to continue to use their non-combat/non-camouflage uniforms they can do so (at least as far as the effect of this law).

[antdetroitwallyball]

I think a handful of CG personnel still wear BDU's, like Port Security Units.

Deployed CG personel wear a varient of desert camo BDU's. But thats a very small percentage of the CG.

While congress has mandated a single uniform pattern, they have only mandated that the armed forces have a single combat uniform.

Thank goodness. At least there is a shred of common sense used here...

[GroundHawg]

The USCG no longer wears the BDU in any form. The only uniformed service that still wears the BDU is the USPHS. The USCG switched to the NWU type 2 and 3.

[The14th]

The USCG no longer wears the BDU in any form. The only uniformed service that still wears the BDU is the USPHS. The USCG switched to the NWU type 2 and 3.

The Army Jungle Warfighter School students in Hawaii wear BDUs still.

[Eclipse]

I believe some Seabees are still wearing woodland as well, at least at their initial schools.

[CAPAPRN]

And Navy Costal Riverine Squadrons- but as a former Sailor I don't mind saying it seems to be a Navy tradition to have even more uniforms (far more) and more uniform threads (read any Navy Times) than CAP ever dreamed of. The Navy also has organizational clothing- so a ship, sub etc. can choose to issue coveralls, orange turtlenecks (deck) etc.

[MisterCD]

I believe some Seabees are still wearing woodland as well, at least at their initial schools.

They typically wear the blue NWU I pattern uniform until graduation, where they then switch over to the NWUIII with AOR 2 camouflage.

[Garibaldi]

How long was it that the Marines, Air Force, and Army all wore the OG fatigues? The Navy was always a special case...

[PHall]

How long was it that the Marines, Air Force, and Army all wore the OG fatigues? The Navy was always a special case...

About 40 years. (1930ish to 1970ish)

We were all in BDU's for over 20 years.

[LSThiker]

How long was it that the Marines, Air Force, and Army all wore the OG fatigues? The Navy was always a special case...

About 40 years. (1930ish to 1970ish)

We were all in BDU's for over 20 years.

The OG Shade 107s were introduced in 1952.  The BDUs were introduced October 1981, while the hot weather BDU was 1988.  The ACUs were in Jun 2004.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

The OG Shade 107s were introduced in 1952.  The BDUs were introduced October 1981, while the hot weather BDU was 1988.  The ACUs were in Jun 2004.

I always wondered why the OG's in M*A*S*H* had no nametapes or "U.S. ARMY" tapes.  My dad served not long after the Korean War and he had both, with the "U.S. ARMY" tape being embroidered gold-on-black (or dark green?).  I still have one of his original black-stencilling-on-white background nametapes.

I could see it for Hawkeye Pierce, Trapper John and BJ Hunnicutt, given their lack of respect for the uniform, but even sticklers like Col. Potter, Majors Burns, Winchester and Houlihan didn't have them.

[Garibaldi]

The OG Shade 107s were introduced in 1952.  The BDUs were introduced October 1981, while the hot weather BDU was 1988.  The ACUs were in Jun 2004.

I always wondered why the OG's in M*A*S*H* had no nametapes or "U.S. ARMY" tapes.  My dad served not long after the Korean War and he had both, with the "U.S. ARMY" tape being embroidered gold-on-black (or dark green?).  I still have one of his original black-stencilling-on-white background nametapes.

I could see it for Hawkeye Pierce, Trapper John and BJ Hunnicutt, given their lack of respect for the uniform, but even sticklers like Col. Potter, Majors Burns, Winchester and Houlihan didn't have them.

The odd thing is that they kept changing shirts throughout the series. I even saw once where the patches had been ripped off one, the fading was obvious.

[Luis R. Ramos]

I do not know whether this was covered before in this thread so I apologize if it was. I just found out in response to a search I started for Cyborg the US Army tape was adopted as part of a treaty with the North Koreans. The nametape rose out of local policy thereafter, both in 1953...

I do not know how true it is but I would trust them. It is a survey from the US Army History section on uniforms... See page 103.

http://www.history.army.mil/html/museums/uniforms/survey_uwa.pdf

[Shuman 14]

I always thought it was silly to see people on the same FOB in 5 different uniforms: ACU, ABU, MARPAT-Desert, NAVPAT-Desert, and BDU-Desert. 

There should be Theater specific camouflage and everyone in that Theater should be in it.

As to Garrison work uniforms, solid olive drab works for me and if the Sea Services want to use blue when afloat... no harm, no foul.

[PHall]

I always thought it was silly to see people on the same FOB in 5 different uniforms: ACU, ABU, MARPAT-Desert, NAVPAT-Desert, and BDU-Desert. 

There should be Theater specific camouflage and everyone in that Theater should be in it.

As to Garrison work uniforms, solid olive drab works for me and if the Sea Services want to use blue when afloat... no harm, no foul.

When you become the CG for the AOR you can make that decision. But until then...

[lordmonar]

I always thought it was silly to see people on the same FOB in 5 different uniforms: ACU, ABU, MARPAT-Desert, NAVPAT-Desert, and BDU-Desert. 

There should be Theater specific camouflage and everyone in that Theater should be in it.

As to Garrison work uniforms, solid olive drab works for me and if the Sea Services want to use blue when afloat... no harm, no foul.

Sounds good....now here are the unintentional consequences.

Cost.   Someone has got to pay for it......and unit's budgets are pretty tight these days.

Response Time.   Coast Guardsman Johnson gets tagged for a special TDY advising army pukes on how to do drug busts on a river in Ascrackastand....He's got to get the required theater specific uniform, get his name and rank sewn on and get to the airport to make his NLT date.

It sounds simple.....but it is not.....that was the whole idea for the original Army Universal Camouflage Pattern in the first place.   One uniform that works okay in all AORs.   

[antdetroitwallyball]

For the record, blue is a poor uniform color choice for working on the water. It makes you less visible if you fall overboard. Ironic that a service so hell bent on all its personnel wearing $2000 in bright orange survival PPE slathered in reflective tape would also wear a uniform that has a completely opposite effect.

[Eclipse]

I've heard this direct from POs and Chiefs - fall into the water in NWUs without something shiny on and they will never find you.

[SarDragon]

I've heard this direct from POs and Chiefs - fall into the water in NWUs without something shiny on and they will never find you.

Hear this from a PO1 with some sea time - if you fall into the water wearing the olde Navy working uniforms, you are equally difficult to see. The NWU doesn't make a big change in visibility in the water.

People working on the weather decks are generally outfitted in PPE anyway, so it's not as big an issue as everyone is making it out to be.

I think this horse has been beaten long enough, don'tcha think?

[AlphaSigOU]

I think this horse has been beaten long enough, don'tcha think?

It's a uniform thread... that equine cadaver hasn't been pulverized yet!

[blackrain]

Well if they approve Multi-Cam or a close derivative I still have my uniforms available...and I saved the patches/nametapes..... the real advantage if it is selected DOD wide will be the better availability for all. As uniforms go mine was pretty durable.

Right now I loathe paying any more on anything ACU.

[SARDOC]

I've heard this direct from POs and Chiefs - fall into the water in NWUs without something shiny on and they will never find you.

Hear this from a PO1 with some sea time - if you fall into the water wearing the olde Navy working uniforms, you are equally difficult to see. The NWU doesn't make a big change in visibility in the water.

People working on the weather decks are generally outfitted in PPE anyway, so it's not as big an issue as everyone is making it out to be.

I think this horse has been beaten long enough, don'tcha think?

I've spent many a day on the flight decks in a Aircrew survival vest or a float coat.

[Shuman 14]

I always thought it was silly to see people on the same FOB in 5 different uniforms: ACU, ABU, MARPAT-Desert, NAVPAT-Desert, and BDU-Desert. 

There should be Theater specific camouflage and everyone in that Theater should be in it.

As to Garrison work uniforms, solid olive drab works for me and if the Sea Services want to use blue when afloat... no harm, no foul.

When you become the CG for the AOR you can make that decision. But until then...

General Clune does have a nice ring to it... doesn't it?     

[Shuman 14]

I always thought it was silly to see people on the same FOB in 5 different uniforms: ACU, ABU, MARPAT-Desert, NAVPAT-Desert, and BDU-Desert. 

There should be Theater specific camouflage and everyone in that Theater should be in it.

As to Garrison work uniforms, solid olive drab works for me and if the Sea Services want to use blue when afloat... no harm, no foul.

Sounds good....now here are the unintentional consequences.

Cost.   Someone has got to pay for it......and unit's budgets are pretty tight these days.

Response Time.   Coast Guardsman Johnson gets tagged for a special TDY advising army pukes on how to do drug busts on a river in Ascrackastand....He's got to get the required theater specific uniform, get his name and rank sewn on and get to the airport to make his NLT date.

It sounds simple.....but it is not.....that was the whole idea for the original Army Universal Camouflage Pattern in the first place.   One uniform that works okay in all AORs.

But the problem is that "one" pattern really only works in the fertile crescent during the spring time.

You mention cost, I would submit to you that having one olive drab garrison/work uniform and one theater camo uniform will be cheaper in the long run. If you put a reasonable wear-out date on the current uniforms, no ones' clothing allowance is going to be over taxed.

Back in the BDU days, no one had desert BDUs ... until they deployed. It would be much the same. So Shipmate Johnson would go to a MOB site, and as part of his/her pre-deployment certification to go to Ascrackastan (that was funny BTW) would be being issued a theater specific camo uniform.

[Shuman 14]

Well if they approve Multi-Cam or a close derivative I still have my uniforms available...and I saved the patches/nametapes..... the real advantage if it is selected DOD wide will be the better availability for all. As uniforms go mine was pretty durable.

Right now I loathe paying any more on anything ACU.

I feel you. I had two footlockers full of BDUs (which I donated to a cadet squadron) I now only have the required four pairs of ACUs. They will fall apart before I buy anything else.

Hope they figure this "new" uniform out soon.

[lordmonar]

But the problem is that "one" pattern really only works in the fertile crescent during the spring time.

And then we are back to the whole argument about a UCP.    "Works" is a value laden term.   The ACU's do work.  Just not as good a desert multi-cam.

You mention cost, I would submit to you that having one olive drab garrison/work uniform and one theater camo uniform will be cheaper in the long run. If you put a reasonable wear-out date on the current uniforms, no ones' clothing allowance is going to be over taxed.

ONE theater?   We only going to fight in the desert for now on?   What about woodlands?  Arctic? Jungle?  Savanna?  That is the reason why the Army was so hot for the UCP for the ACUs.    When Desert Storm kicked off they had to buy complete new uniforms and FIELD GEAR....including chemical warfare suits!.....for their woodland BDU wearing solders.  It was the cost of wearhousing all those different equipment loads outs and uniforms that the Army was trying to save with the ACUs.

Back in the BDU days, no one had desert BDUs ... until they deployed. It would be much the same.

Yep....much the same very expensive.

So Shipmate Johnson would go to a MOB site, and as part of his/her pre-deployment certification to go to Ascrackastan (that was funny BTW) would be being issued a theater specific camo uniform.

Again....slowing his deployment....and raising the cost of getting him to the field.

[Panache]

The U.S. Army has altered its government-owned Scorpion camouflage pattern to look almost identical to MultiCam, the trademarked pattern the service has been using in Afghanistan since 2010.

"We don't want to pay for MultiCam, so we're 'altering' our Scorpion pattern in such a way that it looks just like MultiCam.  Pure coincidence.  Honest."

The guys in Army Legal can't honestly expect to get away with that.  It's so blatant.  It's almost as if they crunched the numbers and decided that getting sued, and loosing, is cheaper then just buying the rights.

[PHall]

The U.S. Army has altered its government-owned Scorpion camouflage pattern to look almost identical to MultiCam, the trademarked pattern the service has been using in Afghanistan since 2010.

"We don't want to pay for MultiCam, so we're 'altering' our Scorpion pattern in such a way that it looks just like MultiCam.  Pure coincidence.  Honest."

The guys in Army Legal can't honestly expect to get away with that.  It's so blatant.  It's almost as if they crunched the numbers and decided that getting sued, and loosing, is cheaper then just buying the rights.

But they can't buy the rights because Crye Precision, the developer and owner of the Multicam pattern, isn't selling.
They're willing to sell the government a license to use the pattern, but it won't be cheap.
And they're entirely within their legal rights to do so too.

[Devil Doc]

All I have heard Crye Precison do is CRY CRY CRY about the Scorpion Multicam Issue, New Flash, He created the Scorpion Pattern and sold it the DoD.

[PHall]

All I have heard Crye Precison do is CRY CRY CRY about the Scorpion Multicam Issue, New Flash, He created the Scorpion Pattern and sold it the DoD.

Did he? His lawyers say otherwise.

[Devil Doc]

Crye Created Scorpion for the DoD, when they decided not to use it, He went on and Created MultiCam. I think when it comes to designs/patens as long as one or two things are different is it not infringment. LV Purse or Fake LV Purse, who can tell the Difference?

[lordmonar]

The U.S. Army has altered its government-owned Scorpion camouflage pattern to look almost identical to MultiCam, the trademarked pattern the service has been using in Afghanistan since 2010.

"We don't want to pay for MultiCam, so we're 'altering' our Scorpion pattern in such a way that it looks just like MultiCam.  Pure coincidence.  Honest."

The guys in Army Legal can't honestly expect to get away with that.  It's so blatant.  It's almost as if they crunched the numbers and decided that getting sued, and loosing, is cheaper then just buying the rights.

Or maybe the Army Legal guys know exactly what they are doing.   Like you said....if it were wrong "It's so blatant." who would do such a thing?

[LSThiker]

A decent review of the selection

http://m.military.com/daily-news/2014/05/23/army-selects-new-camouflage-pattern.html

[Garibaldi]

The U.S. Army has altered its government-owned Scorpion camouflage pattern to look almost identical to MultiCam, the trademarked pattern the service has been using in Afghanistan since 2010.

"We don't want to pay for MultiCam, so we're 'altering' our Scorpion pattern in such a way that it looks just like MultiCam.  Pure coincidence.  Honest."

The guys in Army Legal can't honestly expect to get away with that.  It's so blatant.  It's almost as if they crunched the numbers and decided that getting sued, and loosing, is cheaper then just buying the rights.

But they can't buy the rights because Crye Precision, the developer and owner of the Multicam pattern, isn't selling.
They're willing to sell the government a license to use the pattern, but it won't be cheap.
And they're entirely within their legal rights to do so too.

And this is exactly what is wrong with government spending. It's out of hand, which is why we have serious problems paying our bills. We can't keep spending money we don't have!

*runs off to pay $600 in rent with $300 in the bank*

[PHall]

The U.S. Army has altered its government-owned Scorpion camouflage pattern to look almost identical to MultiCam, the trademarked pattern the service has been using in Afghanistan since 2010.

"We don't want to pay for MultiCam, so we're 'altering' our Scorpion pattern in such a way that it looks just like MultiCam.  Pure coincidence.  Honest."

The guys in Army Legal can't honestly expect to get away with that.  It's so blatant.  It's almost as if they crunched the numbers and decided that getting sued, and loosing, is cheaper then just buying the rights.

But they can't buy the rights because Crye Precision, the developer and owner of the Multicam pattern, isn't selling.
They're willing to sell the government a license to use the pattern, but it won't be cheap.
And they're entirely within their legal rights to do so too.

And this is exactly what is wrong with government spending. It's out of hand, which is why we have serious problems paying our bills. We can't keep spending money we don't have!

*runs off to pay $600 in rent with $300 in the bank*

I have no trouble paying my bills. But I learned how live within my means when I was an A1C on active duty in 1975.
Even living in the dorms and eating on a meal card I was still short at the end of the month.
Until I learned how to make and stick with a budget!

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I have no trouble paying my bills. But I learned how live within my means when I was an A1C on active duty in 1975.
Even living in the dorms and eating on a meal card I was still short at the end of the month.
Until I learned how to make and stick with a budget!

Was an A1C then the same paygrade as A1C now (E-3)?

I ask because when my uncle was in the Air Force the progression went:

Basic Airman (not Airman Basic): E-1, no stripes
Airman Third Class (A3C): E-2, one stripe
Airman Second Class (A2C): E-3, two stripes
Airman First Class (A1C): E-4, three stripes
Staff Sergeant (SSgt): E-5, three stripes, one "rocker"

...and so on.

None of them had the "blue star," they all had the silver star in the centre.  And my uncle said that they informally called an A1C "Sarge" at that time, even though they were not sergeants (and of course I don't know if it was done that way throughout the AF).

I know the Air Force has juggled its enlisted/NCO ranks so many times throughout its history...it finally made more sense with the system I remember: AB, Amn, A1C, SrA, Sgt, SSgt, etc.

To me it's goofy now, going straight from SrA (which is not an NCO) to SSgt (which is) with no lateral promotion to Sgt (which is an NCO).

It's kind of like in the Army, where promotions to Corporal are the exception and not the rule, and the rank of Specialist is not a specialist at all...my dad was one of the earliest Specialists and he said it, at least then, was to be kind of like an enlisted version of warrant officer.

But my reason for asking was...in 1975 I don't know what the pay charts were (I was nine years old!) but depending where A1C stood then (E-3 or E-4), you might have had just a tad more money in your paygrade (not much, but a little!). 

[PHall]

I have no trouble paying my bills. But I learned how live within my means when I was an A1C on active duty in 1975.
Even living in the dorms and eating on a meal card I was still short at the end of the month.
Until I learned how to make and stick with a budget!

Was an A1C then the same paygrade as A1C now (E-3)?

I ask because when my uncle was in the Air Force the progression went:

Basic Airman (not Airman Basic): E-1, no stripes
Airman Third Class (A3C): E-2, one stripe
Airman Second Class (A2C): E-3, two stripes
Airman First Class (A1C): E-4, three stripes
Staff Sergeant (SSgt): E-5, three stripes, one "rocker"

...and so on.

None of them had the "blue star," they all had the silver star in the centre.  And my uncle said that they informally called an A1C "Sarge" at that time, even though they were not sergeants (and of course I don't know if it was done that way throughout the AF).

I know the Air Force has juggled its enlisted/NCO ranks so many times throughout its history...it finally made more sense with the system I remember: AB, Amn, A1C, SrA, Sgt, SSgt, etc.

To me it's goofy now, going straight from SrA (which is not an NCO) to SSgt (which is) with no lateral promotion to Sgt (which is an NCO).

It's kind of like in the Army, where promotions to Corporal are the exception and not the rule, and the rank of Specialist is not a specialist at all...my dad was one of the earliest Specialists and he said it, at least then, was to be kind of like an enlisted version of warrant officer.

But my reason for asking was...in 1975 I don't know what the pay charts were (I was nine years old!) but depending where A1C stood then (E-3 or E-4), you might have had just a tad more money in your paygrade (not much, but a little!). 

In 1975 it was:     E-1  Airman Basic - AB - (no stripes),
                             E-2  Airman - Amn - (one stripe),
                             E-3  Airman First Class - A1C - (two stripes)
                           

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Same as it was for me, then.

[Panache]

The U.S. Army has altered its government-owned Scorpion camouflage pattern to look almost identical to MultiCam, the trademarked pattern the service has been using in Afghanistan since 2010.

"We don't want to pay for MultiCam, so we're 'altering' our Scorpion pattern in such a way that it looks just like MultiCam.  Pure coincidence.  Honest."

The guys in Army Legal can't honestly expect to get away with that.  It's so blatant.  It's almost as if they crunched the numbers and decided that getting sued, and loosing, is cheaper then just buying the rights.

Or maybe the Army Legal guys know exactly what they are doing.   Like you said....if it were wrong "It's so blatant." who would do such a thing?

You have a lot more faith in our government lawyers than I do.

[AlphaSigOU]

Back WIWOAD (1985) in Ma Blue:


E-1 Airman Basic
E-2 Airman (6 months to 'mosquito wings')
E-3 Airman First Class (3 AFSC and 12 months to 'dragonfly wings')
E-4 Senior Airman (26 months and a 5 AFSC)
E-4 Sergeant (1 year as a SrA and completion of the NCO Preparatory Course, aka 'maggot school'.

[Shuman 14]

And then we are back to the whole argument about a UCP.    "Works" is a value laden term.   The ACU's do work.  Just not as good a desert multi-cam.

Well, in that case, Olive Drab "works" too... better than ACU and, also, just not as good as desert multi-cam.

ONE theater?   We only going to fight in the desert for now on?   What about woodlands?  Arctic? Jungle?  Savanna?  That is the reason why the Army was so hot for the UCP for the ACUs.    When Desert Storm kicked off they had to buy complete new uniforms and FIELD GEAR....including chemical warfare suits!.....for their woodland BDU wearing solders.  It was the cost of wearhousing all those different equipment loads outs and uniforms that the Army was trying to save with the ACUs.

Yes, you would have to have multiple types of camo patterns on hand and ready at MOB Stations to equip deploying personnel. I guess I wasn't clear one pattern for each Theater. So one Arctic camo for all... one Jungle camo for all... etc.

Yep....much the same very expensive.

I think the benefits outweight the costs. We are talking about equipment that could potentially save a Servicemember's life.

Again....slowing his deployment....and raising the cost of getting him to the field.

I would submit to you that every Servicemember, as part of his pre-deployment, already goes thru a Theater CIF equipment issue. To add four sets of Camo, two patrol caps, and a feild jacket to that issue will add minimum extra time at CIF. I don't see that slowing his deployment... maybe shorting his lunch hour that day at most.

[Shuman 14]

Back WIWOAD (1985) in Ma Blue:


E-1 Airman Basic
E-2 Airman (6 months to 'mosquito wings')
E-3 Airman First Class (3 AFSC and 12 months to 'dragonfly wings')
E-4 Senior Airman (26 months and a 5 AFSC)
E-4 Sergeant (1 year as a SrA and completion of the NCO Preparatory Course, aka 'maggot school'.

Silly question, but how is it that Corporal never made it into the Air Force rank structure and Sergeant ended up as the E-4 NCO grade? 

[lordmonar]

Back WIWOAD (1985) in Ma Blue:


E-1 Airman Basic
E-2 Airman (6 months to 'mosquito wings')
E-3 Airman First Class (3 AFSC and 12 months to 'dragonfly wings')
E-4 Senior Airman (26 months and a 5 AFSC)
E-4 Sergeant (1 year as a SrA and completion of the NCO Preparatory Course, aka 'maggot school'.

Silly question, but how is it that Corporal never made it into the Air Force rank structure and Sergeant ended up as the E-4 NCO grade? 

Because in 1947 the USAF was so busy seperating themselves from the Army they made some big changes.

[Tim Medeiros]

Back WIWOAD (1985) in Ma Blue:


E-1 Airman Basic
E-2 Airman (6 months to 'mosquito wings')
E-3 Airman First Class (3 AFSC and 12 months to 'dragonfly wings')
E-4 Senior Airman (26 months and a 5 AFSC)
E-4 Sergeant (1 year as a SrA and completion of the NCO Preparatory Course, aka 'maggot school'.

Silly question, but how is it that Corporal never made it into the Air Force rank structure and Sergeant ended up as the E-4 NCO grade? 

http://www.afhra.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090611-103.pdf shows that at one point (until 24 April 1952) the AF DID have Corporal as a rank.

[LSThiker]

The History of Air Force Enlisted Rank:

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/airforce/a/afenrankhistory.htm

[Shuman 14]

Gentlemen, Thank you both for some interesting reading.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Gentlemen, Thank you both for some interesting reading.

It is.  I learnt some things I did not know.

The "Fig. 3" is what my uncle served under.  He joined the AF not long after it became an independent service.  I think he had some part in the Berlin Airlift (not as aircrew), but I am not sure what.

I still do not think that the current structure makes sense, especially when placed alongside other services.  The Army (from whence our history and ranks were derived) and Marines both have Corporal/Specialist (another rank that makes no sense in its current connotation, opposed to its original intent as "enlisted warrant officers") at E-4, but at one time we had Sergeant at E-4.

I also think we have too many Sergeant ranks in all the services that use them, compared to other countries.  For example, Canada has only one rank of Sergeant



and from there goes into Warrant Officers (though theirs are more like SNCO's than our Warrants).  Britain just has Sergeant and Flight Sergeant for the RAF, as well as Sergeant and Staff Sergeant for the Army and Royal Marines.  Australia, New Zealand, India etc. follow suit, except that (inexplicably) the Australian Army is phasing out SSgt.

If I had my way about things (and I do not), we would have a much-simplified enlisted/NCO grade structure.

Airman Recruit - E-1 (no insignia)

Airman - E-2

Airman First Class - E-3

Corporal - E-4

Sergeant - E-5

Staff Sergeant - E-6

Flight Sergeant - E-7

Master Sergeant - E-8

First Sergeant (appointed position) -

Sergeant Major - E-9

Command Sergeant Major (appointed position) - E-9

CMSAF - no change

I reconfigured the upper-level NCO's to match our Army origins.

I also replaced the Technical Sergeant with Flight Sergeant.  Other than having some origin in the "Technician" ranks of the USAAF, I never understood the name of this rank - it sounds to me like "technically a sergeant."  The RAF title sounds much more aviation-orientated.

I would also have all enlisted/NCO grades on shoulder marks, as most of our allies do.  It would save a lot of expense on sewing and wear-and-tear on shirts.  Save the full-size stripes for service dress.

Just a flight of fancy, not to be taken seriously.

[LSThiker]

I also replaced the Technical Sergeant with Flight Sergeant.  Other than having some origin in the "Technician" ranks of the USAAF, I never understood the name of this rank - it sounds to me like "technically a sergeant."

Using flight sergeant for E-7 would cause confusion as not all E-7s are flight sergeants. 

[Shuman 14]

I also replaced the Technical Sergeant with Flight Sergeant.  Other than having some origin in the "Technician" ranks of the USAAF, I never understood the name of this rank - it sounds to me like "technically a sergeant."

Using flight sergeant for E-7 would cause confusion as not all E-7s are flight sergeants.

And not all Gunnery Sergeants are in the Artillery. 

Seriously I like the term Technical Sergeant and Flight Sergeant, maybe there could be a way to use them both:

E-1 Airman
E-2  Senior Airman
E-3 Airman First Class
E-4 Corporal
E-5 Sergeant
E-6 Staff Sergeant
E-7 Technical Sergeant / First Sergeant
E-8 Master Sergeant / Flight Sergeant
E-9 Chief Master Sergeant / Command Chief Master Sergeant
Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force

Or maybe flip the First Sergeant and the Flight Sergeant... don't know enough about USAF line vs. staff NCOs billets to say which way is more appropriate. 

[CAP_truth]

The chevrons shown for E-7 are incorrect, they are the current E-8 Master Sergeant chevrons. E-8 are Senior Master Sergeant chevrons, and E-9 are Chief Master Sergeant chevrons.

[LSThiker]

Or maybe flip the First Sergeant and the Flight Sergeant... don't know enough about USAF line vs. staff NCOs billets to say which way is more appropriate. 

That would be like saying first sergeant and PSG need to be reversed.

[Shuman 14]

Or maybe flip the First Sergeant and the Flight Sergeant... don't know enough about USAF line vs. staff NCOs billets to say which way is more appropriate. 

That would be like saying first sergeant and PSG need to be reversed.

Roger that, tracking now.

[Brit_in_CAP]

Gentlemen, Thank you both for some interesting reading.

It is.  I learnt some things I did not know.

The "Fig. 3" is what my uncle served under.  He joined the AF not long after it became an independent service.  I think he had some part in the Berlin Airlift (not as aircrew), but I am not sure what.

I still do not think that the current structure makes sense, especially when placed alongside other services.  The Army (from whence our history and ranks were derived) and Marines both have Corporal/Specialist (another rank that makes no sense in its current connotation, opposed to its original intent as "enlisted warrant officers") at E-4, but at one time we had Sergeant at E-4.

I also think we have too many Sergeant ranks in all the services that use them, compared to other countries.  For example, Canada has only one rank of Sergeant


and from there goes into Warrant Officers (though theirs are more like SNCO's than our Warrants).  Britain just has Sergeant and Flight Sergeant for the RAF, as well as Sergeant and Staff Sergeant for the Army and Royal Marines.  Australia, New Zealand, India etc. follow suit, except that (inexplicably) the Australian Army is phasing out SSgt.

One slight correction, if I may.  The RAF also has the SNCO rank of Chief Technician.    Chief Technician (Chf Tech or formerly C/T) is a non-commissioned rank which is only held by airmen in technical trades and by musicians. It is between sergeant and flight sergeant and, like the latter has a NATO code of OR-7. Airmen in non-technical trades progress directly from sergeant to flight sergeant. Along with Junior Technician this is a survivor of a separate ranking system for technicians introduced in 1950 and abolished in 1964. During that period it was equivalent to flight sergeant, but was made junior to that rank in 1964. Chief technicians are usually addressed as "Chief".

Originally, Chief Technicians were those who preferred to stay with their trade whereas a person willing to serve at OR7 outside their main trade (usually in 'management' posts) became a Flight Sergeant.  Today, the rank is junior to the FS although they have the same NATO code.  In reality, it takes as long for a technician to go from Sgt to FS via Chief as it does for a non-tech to progress from Sgt to FS directly (apparently...)

Chief Technician is the last vestige of the technician rank system, as the Junior Technician rank was abolished in 2005 and replaced by Senior Aircraftman (Technician) which distinguishes airmen trained to work unsupervised from those who were not (Senior Aircraftman).  Perhaps my old Junior Tech badges are worth a few bucks now..?   

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I know about the Chief Technician and Senior Aircraftman grades - interesting that the other Commonwealth air forces did not adopt them. 

Interesting also that the RAF (and RNZAF) have special designators for NCO aircrew:

http://www.uniforminsignia.org/?option=com_insigniasearch&Itemid=53&result=1216

Except for Canada, which retains the Army-style ranks they inherited from their "unification" experiment in 1968 (http://www.uniforminsignia.org/?option=com_insigniasearch&Itemid=53&result=3582), the RAAF, RNZAF, etc. all go directly from Aircraftman to Leading Aircraftman (the RAAF uses a Lance-Corporal type chevron rather than the traditional two-bladed prop; interestingly, the RNZAF retain the British, rather than New Zealand, Royal Coat of Arms.).

http://www.uniforminsignia.org/?option=com_insigniasearch&Itemid=53&result=90

http://www.uniforminsignia.org/?option=com_insigniasearch&Itemid=53&result=92

The "Technicians" sound a lot like what U.S. Army Specialists were intended to be.  As i have said previously, my dad was one of the first Specialists.  Back then they went all the way from Specialist 4 (E-4) to Specialist 9 (E-9), yet they carried no authority as NCO's.  An SP9 was subordinate to an E-4 Corporal.

http://www.uniforminsignia.org/?option=com_insigniasearch&Itemid=53&result=2151

This is the earliest depiction I could find of post-USAAF Air Force ranks, dated 1948-1952:

http://www.uniforminsignia.org/?option=com_insigniasearch&Itemid=53&result=2145

[Brit_in_CAP]

I know about the Chief Technician and Senior Aircraftman grades - interesting that the other Commonwealth air forces did not adopt them. 

Never doubted that you would know!  I always considered that the Commonwealth stayed away from what became a nightmare to administer; there was always a real irritation about Chief Tech whereas the Jnr Tech sat nicely in the system.

Interesting also that the RAF (and RNZAF) have special designators for NCO aircrew:

Yes - sadly necessary to explain the extreme youth of many aircrew Sergeants when compared to their non-flying colleagues.  That said, if you were aircrew you might take a different view!  Honestly, now that aircrew brevets can be worn on the jackets and the uniform pullovers, that argument is harder to make.

Final comment is that the Lance Corporal has made a return in the RAF Regiment only, where they found that senior SAC Gunners were leading fire teams and larger formations in the field, and re-introduced the rank to make them visually compatible with their colleagues of other services and nations, as well as acknowledging what they actually did.  Long overdue recognition in my view.