I have combed through M39-1, and I can not find anywhere in there where it discusses authorization for wearing ECWCS clothing.
Since I am from the upper regions of the country where the previous uniform committees would never set foot in after Labor Day, I would like to be able to purchase / use the proper attire and still be in a uniform rather than look like a civilian carrying a "weird looking electronic thingy"(LPER).
Does anyone here have a reg cite they can point me to?
Thank you.
Quote from: 1st Lt M. Sherrod on December 31, 2007, 02:34:21 PM
I have combed through M39-1, and I can not find anywhere in there where it discusses authorization for wearing ECWCS clothing.
Since I am from the upper regions of the country where the previous uniform committees would never set foot in after Labor Day, I would like to be able to purchase / use the proper attire and still be in a uniform rather than look like a civilian carrying a "weird looking electronic thingy"(LPER).
Does anyone here have a reg cite they can point me to?
Thank you.
Check the one of those famous ICL's. It's in there somewhere.
I don't know about the full ECWCS through.
Full-on ECWCS hasn't been approved (or even discussed, that I can recall).
To me, that would be considered more tactical gear than a uniform - used as needed without an issue.
Barring that, I would imagine a local supplement is appropriate.
Eclipse-
That sounds like a SAFETY based not-by-the book (CAPM39-1) response. I agree-I'm just surprised we agree.
We have lots of stuff we carry/wear that fails to appear in 39-1.
Our uniform manual is written for the encampment parade ground in July. By the book-you can't have the radio and your phone both clipped to your waistband. No overshoes or galoshes authorized. Gloves only, no mittens (-20degrees ?). No stocking cap. No hooded parka. Backpacks? NO PONCHO EITHER.
In the green task book, it is 'rainwear, durable'. A web search for that nomenclature failed to yield a NSN.
John Desmarais' response on my question (sp) on whether 'rainwear durable' was a generic description for military and commercial products or a specific NSN'd product was that the description in the taskbook was generic, and vague on purpose.
OK, so are ECWCS and Gore-Tex the same thing, different, or what? I know that there are "Gore-Tex" slides that have been discussed here. With that, what are the wear requirements for Gore-Tex (height / weight) or anyone? Colors?
Quote from: 1st Lt M. Sherrod on December 31, 2007, 03:36:21 PM
OK, so are ECWCS and Gore-Tex the same thing, different, or what? I know that there are "Gore-Tex" slides that have been discussed here. With that, what are the wear requirements for Gore-Tex (height / weight) or anyone? Colors?
The AF-style woodland ECWCS parka (aka: Gor-tex) is authorized for wear with the AF-style BDUs. As such, it has the same guidelines for wear as all of our AF-style uniforms.
As is with corporate uniforms, outerwear is pretty much whatever you want. So if you find an all-blue ECWCS parka or a white with pink polka dots parka and want to wear it over your Blue BDUs, by all means... go right ahead. Just no mixing n' matching: no blue or "other" ECWCS parkas over AF-style BDUs and no wearing the woodland AF-style parka with the corporate digs.
Quote from: tribalelder on December 31, 2007, 03:34:14 PM
Eclipse-
That sounds like a SAFETY based not-by-the book (CAPM39-1) response. I agree-I'm just surprised we agree.
I'm glad we semi-agree, but IMHO there is a difference between tactical equipment and uniform items. The biggest being that nothing "tactical" should be worn to a unit meeting or in any situation which does not require that equipment or gear.
In this case, I seriously doubt anyone would even noticed the difference between the standard and winter parka - if you wear the winter pants, someone might.
As to the radio issue, I believe you are correct, but I agree with that reg anyway, so for me its a moot point. Too many of our members walk around looking like Batman with all the stuff on their belts.
Quote from: Pylon on December 31, 2007, 04:03:16 PM
Quote from: 1st Lt M. Sherrod on December 31, 2007, 03:36:21 PM
OK, so are ECWCS and Gore-Tex the same thing, different, or what? I know that there are "Gore-Tex" slides that have been discussed here. With that, what are the wear requirements for Gore-Tex (height / weight) or anyone? Colors?
The AF-style woodland ECWCS parka (aka: Gor-tex) is authorized for wear with the AF-style BDUs. As such, it has the same guidelines for wear as all of our AF-style uniforms.
As is with corporate uniforms, outerwear is pretty much whatever you want. So if you find an all-blue ECWCS parka or a white with pink polka dots parka and want to wear it over your Blue BDUs, by all means... go right ahead. Just no mixing n' matching: no blue or "other" ECWCS parkas over AF-style BDUs and no wearing the woodland AF-style parka with the corporate digs.
Source please?
Ref: CAP Knowledge Base: Wear of the Gortex Parka (http://capnhq.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/capnhq.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=782&p_created=1046792797&p_sid=KmmeBBUi&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PWRmbHQmcF9ncmlkc29ydD0mcF9yb3dfY250PTEmcF9wcm9kcz0mcF9jYXRzPTAmcF9wdj0mcF9jdj0mcF9zZWFyY2hfdHlwZT1hbnN3ZXJzLnNlYXJjaF9ubCZwX3BhZ2U9MSZwX3NlYXJjaF90ZXh0PUdvcmUtVGV4&p_li=&p_topview=1)
Here it says you can wear the Gore-tes parka with the bbdu, blue utility uniform, and blue flightsuit.
Quote from: arajca on December 31, 2007, 05:23:36 PM
Source please?
Ref: CAP Knowledge Base: Wear of the Gortex Parka (http://capnhq.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/capnhq.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=782&p_created=1046792797&p_sid=KmmeBBUi&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PWRmbHQmcF9ncmlkc29ydD0mcF9yb3dfY250PTEmcF9wcm9kcz0mcF9jYXRzPTAmcF9wdj0mcF9jdj0mcF9zZWFyY2hfdHlwZT1hbnN3ZXJzLnNlYXJjaF9ubCZwX3BhZ2U9MSZwX3NlYXJjaF90ZXh0PUdvcmUtVGV4&p_li=&p_topview=1)
Here it says you can wear the Gore-tes parka with the bbdu, blue utility uniform, and blue flightsuit.
I know this goes back to a philosophical debate in which the two camps will never agree, but,
in my opinion, information in the CAP Knowledgebase is not regulatory and doesn't constitute an authorization.
The actual Interim Change Letter (http://level2.cap.gov/documents/2006_11_20_Uniforms.pdf) does not authorize the Goretex jacket with the CAP distinctive uniforms. The actual ICL only authorizes it for the BDU uniform (my emphasis added):
QuoteIt gives me great pleasure to announce the Air Force has now authorized the wear of
the Gortex parka for CAP members. This outergarment provides maximum protection from the elements and is now authorized for all members wearing the BDU uniform.
To add to that, AF-style outerwear has never been allowed to be worn with corporate uniforms so I wouldn't see why there'd be a departure from that solid precedent.
To add to that, CAPM 39-1 specifies
civilian outerwear as the only authorized outerwear with corporate uniforms. The Goretex parka
is an AF-style uniform item. It needed AF-approval to wear as stated right in the ICL. CAPM 39-1, Para 1-1, establishes the AF (CAP-USAF) as approving authority for AF-style items and CAP for civilian ("other-than-AF") items. If it wasn't an AF-style item, it wouldn't have gone to CAP-USAF for approval.
CAPM 39-1, Para 4-1 (my emphasis added)
QuoteAppropriate civilian outerwear is authorized with these combinations including the light blue
windbreaker with the CAP seal embroidered on the right breast and the dark blue flight jacket.
SO what about the "gor-tex" pants? All I see is parka??
Quote from: Pylon on December 31, 2007, 04:03:16 PM
Quote from: 1st Lt M. Sherrod on December 31, 2007, 03:36:21 PM
OK, so are ECWCS and Gore-Tex the same thing, different, or what? I know that there are "Gore-Tex" slides that have been discussed here. With that, what are the wear requirements for Gore-Tex (height / weight) or anyone? Colors?
The AF-style woodland ECWCS parka (aka: Gor-tex) is authorized for wear with the AF-style BDUs. As such, it has the same guidelines for wear as all of our AF-style uniforms.
As is with corporate uniforms, outerwear is pretty much whatever you want. So if you find an all-blue ECWCS parka or a white with pink polka dots parka and want to wear it over your Blue BDUs, by all means... go right ahead. Just no mixing n' matching: no blue or "other" ECWCS parkas over AF-style BDUs and no wearing the woodland AF-style parka with the corporate digs.
Ah... but no one authorized the ECWCS pants or approved a liner to be worn with the parka such as black fleece.
I wear air force approved clothing such as black mock-necks and black fleece jackets No one has made any comments to me about it because it looks right with the uniform and because it's a safety issue. I think if someone was to tell me to take off my fleece from under my ECWCS parka, they would end up having the safety issue.
Quote from: afgeo4 on December 31, 2007, 08:03:51 PM
Ah... but no one authorized the ECWCS pants or approved a liner to be worn with the parka such as black fleece.
I wear air force approved clothing such as black mock-necks and black fleece jackets No one has made any comments to me about it because it looks right with the uniform and because it's a safety issue. I think if someone was to tell me to take off my fleece from under my ECWCS parka, they would end up having the safety issue.
The pants are not specifically authorized, no. I will add that to the list of things for the National Uniform Committee, along with clearing up ambiguity from the Knowledgebase on wear of the Gortex parka.
But wearing the
liner for the ECWCS parka would be a given, since it can be a
part of the parka. We didn't have to separately list out as authorized the liners for the lightweight blues jacket or blues overcoat, but it's okay to wear it because the liner is just an internal
part of that uniform article.
Just for my own professional edification, what does ECWCS stand for? I think I can figure it out but I'd rather be right than close.
GC
Extended Cold Weather Clothing System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECWCS)
Quote from: Eclipse on December 31, 2007, 03:14:50 PM
Full-on ECWCS hasn't been approved (or even discussed, that I can recall).
To me, that would be considered more tactical gear than a uniform - used as needed without an issue.
Barring that, I would imagine a local supplement is appropriate.
Show me where 'tactical gear' is mentioned in any regulation?
Quote from: JThemann on January 01, 2008, 03:01:07 AM
Show me where 'tactical gear' is mentioned in any regulation?
Tactical gear are items utilized related to the mission, or used reasonably to ensure the safety of the member.
If you want to argue against it, then you cannot wear LBE, rucksacks, polypro, long sleeve undershirts, or other such items. About the only tactical gear that is mentioned in the manual are CamelBaks (although they call them "Camel Packs" in 39-1).
There is a difference between that stuff and an item of clothing, which a jacket is.
Pylon, the ECWCS parka doesn't have a liner that comes with it. Instead, fleece jackets were authorized as a part of the ECWC System. The fleece can be worn under or over the BDU blouse or as a liner for the parka. Any black collar fleece can be worn as long as the logo doesn't show.
On that note, the US Army made special fleece as part of their new ACU ECWCS which actually has velcro for name and branch tapes along with sections of it being in ACUPAT. Other sand color fleece jackets are authorized as well. I believe the black one is still ok too.
ABU outer-garments include the all-weather coat, ABU improved rain suit (IRS) or All Purpose Environmental Clothing System (APECS), with or without liner, or hooded cold-weather parka.
APECS liner is fleece black or sage green. Mixing camouflaged patterns is only authorized in the AOR until residual stock is depleted.
Mock⁄Turtleneck in desert sand (or similar color) is authorized. Gloves and watch caps may be black, sage green or desert sand. Scarf color must match liner color.
Quote from: afgeo4 on January 02, 2008, 01:32:35 AM
On that note, the US Army made special fleece as part of their new ACU ECWCS which actually has velcro for name and branch tapes along with sections of it being in ACUPAT.
Really.....The ones I see at MCSS have no ACU material on them. They would be perfect for underneath the parka. We already use the Army windbreaker with the Corporates, might as well use the Army fleece.
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 02, 2008, 01:44:06 AM
Quote from: afgeo4 on January 02, 2008, 01:32:35 AM
On that note, the US Army made special fleece as part of their new ACU ECWCS which actually has velcro for name and branch tapes along with sections of it being in ACUPAT.
Really.....The ones I see at MCSS have no ACU material on them. They would be perfect for underneath the parka. We already use the Army windbreaker with the Corporates, might as well use the Army fleece.
I've never seen a fleece with ACUPAT that is permitted with the uniform. I've seen a Foliage Green fleece with Velcro strips for name, rank, and US Army tapes. And the black one is authorized, but doesn't have any Velcro.
The ECWCS thread has evolved somewhat, so I'm shifting the topic title into general cold weather items.
We could evolve it even more.....It seems that boonie hats would fit right into this discussion if we were talking "Extreme weather" instead of just cold.
Quote from: floridacyclist on January 02, 2008, 05:09:28 PM
We could evolve it even more.....It seems that boonie hats would fit right into this discussion if we were talking "Extreme weather" instead of just cold.
Except here's one
big difference. Parts of the ECWCS have already been approved by USAF for CAP wear, and the other parts would likely be approved if asked.
However, CAP already asked for authorization for the boonie hat and was told "No" in no uncertain terms - safety item, uniform item, or otherwise. It's a moot point to discuss it (even though we
have discussed it in depth before on CAPTalk).
Lets get the Army black fleece added to the inventory! It is readily available and is relatively inexpensive. Under $60.00 If worn only under the parka, great, if worn as a stand alone item great too.
Were there any pants, or " accessories " that went along with the M-65?
I have the parka but this weather is leaving the rest of me a bit cold (wind chill today is almost Zero)
*I currently wear a black watch cap with it, along with plain black gloves.
Yes.....there were inserts for the cold weather BDU pants. I believe they either snapped in at the waist or were buttons. It has been years since I have seen them!
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 02, 2008, 08:25:11 PM
Yes.....there were inserts for the cold weather BDU pants. I believe they either snapped in at the waist or were buttons. It has been years since I have seen them!
I have a pair, they have a snap and draw string at the waist, and zipper and velcro down at the bottem.
I also have a fleece that patterned after the parka ('pit zippers')
Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on January 02, 2008, 08:21:22 PM
Were there any pants, or " accessories " that went along with the M-65?
I have the parka but this weather is leaving the rest of me a bit cold (wind chill today is almost Zero)
*I currently wear a black watch cap with it, along with plain black gloves.
M65 trousers with button in quilted liner... You can also attach the M51 hood to it, but I haven't seen that item in woodland... Only OD. Then there are those pile helmet liners you see all the time.
I learned by living in Alaska, you dress for function, not form. The regs be [darn]ed, I'm not risking frostbite or hypothermia on anyone's account. We can sort it out later
Quote from: MIKE on January 02, 2008, 11:21:11 PM
Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on January 02, 2008, 08:21:22 PM
Were there any pants, or " accessories " that went along with the M-65?
I have the parka but this weather is leaving the rest of me a bit cold (wind chill today is almost Zero)
*I currently wear a black watch cap with it, along with plain black gloves.
M65 trousers with button in quilted liner... You can also attach the M51 hood to it, but I haven't seen that item in woodland... Only OD. Then there are those pile helmet liners you see all the time.
Where can you get a pair?
I have only been able to find them in the UK and at that only up to a size 42" waist. Most of them are in W/L Camo. All I typed in was M65 Trousers.
Sportsman's Guide Had some knock offs without the liner not long ago... They look like standard BDU trou but have snap flaps over the hip pockets.
Quote from: MIKE on January 03, 2008, 10:09:57 PM
Sportsman's Guide Had some knock offs without the liner not long ago... They look like standard BDU trou but have snap flaps over the hip pockets.
Actually, they probably weren't knock-offs. The cold weather trouser actually had snaps over the pockets. They were probably selling the last batch ever made.
I have one pair of the inserts but have yet to find pants to suit. I will probably add the needed buttons to a pair of BDU trousers I have already so I can use them.
I googled the M65 pants with no luck. I did see some pants that I guess were part of ECWCS.. cost over one hundred.
I have the M65 will not get ECWCS, and would REALLY like some pants or something. .... grumble
Can I ask why everyone is so hell bent on getting the M-65 Pants. What's wrong with the current Gore-tex ones with the ECWCS?
^ Spot light on you Cadet! You hit it straight on. Why step back 30 years instead of stepping into the 21st century with Gor-Tex pants on??
Basic answer: Cost!
Heck I got the M65 jacket for twenty dollars in "BRAND NEW" condition. Mil-spec, army issue and hadnt been worn ever.
A ECWCS jacket costs several hundred. I feel confidant in assuming that the same could be said of the pants.
Im a guy in my twenties with a college loan and other expenses, and a job that provides only minimum wage despite being in the medical field. At this point in my life cost is everything unfortunately.
Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on January 04, 2008, 06:56:33 AM
Basic answer: Cost!
Try eBay. You wouldn't believe the MOLLE rucksack I just got in the mail today. About a $300 ruck system with a main pack, sleeping bag carrier, two sustainment packs, radio pouch, full frame. Picked it up for $35, plus $14 shipping.
Used, but in real good shape. Might retire my old ALICE ruck. She was dependable, but this new ruck is pretty sweet.
Quote from: CASH172 on January 04, 2008, 05:22:34 AM
Can I ask why everyone is so hell bent on getting the M-65 Pants. What's wrong with the current Gore-tex ones with the ECWCS?
Maybe............Just maybe................I own them, and I am unsatishfied with them. Maybe........I'm looking for an alternative..........
You approve, I hope?
Quote from: JThemann on January 04, 2008, 01:30:06 PM
Quote from: CASH172 on January 04, 2008, 05:22:34 AM
Can I ask why everyone is so hell bent on getting the M-65 Pants. What's wrong with the current Gore-tex ones with the ECWCS?
Maybe............Just maybe................I own them, and I am unsatishfied with them. Maybe........I'm looking for an alternative..........
You approve, I hope?
You probably won't be able to fit in your alternative in the future. There may be gear that you don't like, but it may be your only option.
BTW, pants like those would be considered "tactical gear". I seem to recall that you didn't care for that option since it wasn't mentioned in the publications.
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 04, 2008, 06:12:31 PM
Quote from: JThemann on January 04, 2008, 01:30:06 PM
Quote from: CASH172 on January 04, 2008, 05:22:34 AM
Can I ask why everyone is so hell bent on getting the M-65 Pants. What's wrong with the current Gore-tex ones with the ECWCS?
Maybe............Just maybe................I own them, and I am unsatishfied with them. Maybe........I'm looking for an alternative..........
You approve, I hope?
You probably won't be able to fit in your alternative in the future. There may be gear that you don't like, but it may be your only option.
BTW, pants like those would be considered "tactical gear". I seem to recall that you didn't care for that option since it wasn't mentioned in the publications.
OUCH!
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 04, 2008, 06:12:31 PM
Quote from: JThemann on January 04, 2008, 01:30:06 PM
Quote from: CASH172 on January 04, 2008, 05:22:34 AM
Can I ask why everyone is so hell bent on getting the M-65 Pants. What's wrong with the current Gore-tex ones with the ECWCS?
Maybe............Just maybe................I own them, and I am unsatishfied with them. Maybe........I'm looking for an alternative..........
You approve, I hope?
You probably won't be able to fit in your alternative in the future. There may be gear that you don't like, but it may be your only option.
BTW, pants like those would be considered "tactical gear". I seem to recall that you didn't care for that option since it wasn't mentioned in the publications.
Oh, please, don't misunderstand me. I wear the gortex parka and over pants, and poly, wolly pullies, wool caps, nomex gloves, etc etc. I also used to wear 'web' gear until I got my camelbak.
But, I also know that the stuff is not in 39-1, and I admit it. However, my black long sleeve poly shirt is a better option then my University hoodie, and my gortex trousers are great in cold/rainy weather.
However, I also don't normally wear them 'in garrison,' and futhermore, I teach the same.
I don't label them 'tactical gear' and say I have the right to wear them because they are such. What you consider 'tactial gear' and what I consider 'tactical gear' is/are completely different things. To guard house lawyer my way into saying I can wear the ECWCS because it's 'tactical gear' is distastful to me.
Using that logic, I could rock a beret because it's 'tactical gear' (keeps my head warm) or I could wear etc etc etc.
Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on January 04, 2008, 06:56:33 AM
Basic answer: Cost!
Heck I got the M65 jacket for twenty dollars in "BRAND NEW" condition. Mil-spec, army issue and hadnt been worn ever.
A ECWCS jacket costs several hundred. I feel confidant in assuming that the same could be said of the pants.
Im a guy in my twenties with a college loan and other expenses, and a job that provides only minimum wage despite being in the medical field. At this point in my life cost is everything unfortunately.
I purchased a pair of ECWCS slightly used pants for $11 on Ebay... many sizes are always available. Parkas are available as well. Some for as little as $50. As Soldiers and Airmen are switching to new ACU and ABU patterns (Army is still authorized to mix and match Goretex with ACU), you'll see more and more Gen 1 and Gen 2 woodland Goretex parkas on Ebay.
Quote from: JThemann on January 04, 2008, 10:16:40 PM
Oh, please, don't misunderstand me. I wear the gortex parka and over pants, and poly, wolly pullies, wool caps, nomex gloves, etc etc. I also used to wear 'web' gear until I got my camelbak.
But, I also know that the stuff is not in 39-1, and I admit it. However, my black long sleeve poly shirt is a better option then my University hoodie, and my gortex trousers are great in cold/rainy weather.
However, I also don't normally wear them 'in garrison,' and futhermore, I teach the same.
I don't label them 'tactical gear' and say I have the right to wear them because they are such. What you consider 'tactial gear' and what I consider 'tactical gear' is/are completely different things. To guard house lawyer my way into saying I can wear the ECWCS because it's 'tactical gear' is distastful to me.
Using that logic, I could rock a beret because it's 'tactical gear' (keeps my head warm) or I could wear etc etc etc.
Then you lack conviction. You dismissed tactical gear as unauthorized, since it's not in the pubs. But you readily admit to wearing gear that is not mentioned.
You either have to comply with your own belief, or follow the rules to the letter.
What you've done is tell others that they don't have the right to wear certain items, but it's acceptable for you to do so through your admission of the practice.
Basically, "Do as I say, not as I do". This is all ascertained through your own posts.
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 05, 2008, 08:21:58 PM
Quote from: JThemann on January 04, 2008, 10:16:40 PM
Oh, please, don't misunderstand me. I wear the gortex parka and over pants, and poly, wolly pullies, wool caps, nomex gloves, etc etc. I also used to wear 'web' gear until I got my camelbak.
But, I also know that the stuff is not in 39-1, and I admit it. However, my black long sleeve poly shirt is a better option then my University hoodie, and my gortex trousers are great in cold/rainy weather.
However, I also don't normally wear them 'in garrison,' and futhermore, I teach the same.
I don't label them 'tactical gear' and say I have the right to wear them because they are such. What you consider 'tactial gear' and what I consider 'tactical gear' is/are completely different things. To guard house lawyer my way into saying I can wear the ECWCS because it's 'tactical gear' is distasteful to me.
Using that logic, I could rock a beret because it's 'tactical gear' (keeps my head warm) or I could wear etc etc etc.
Then you lack conviction. You dismissed tactical gear as unauthorized, since it's not in the pubs. But you readily admit to wearing gear that is not mentioned.
You either have to comply with your own belief, or follow the rules to the letter.
What you've done is tell others that they don't have the right to wear certain items, but it's acceptable for you to do so through your admission of the practice.
Basically, "Do as I say, not as I do". This is all ascertained through your own posts.
I most certainly did not say tactical gear is unauthorized. I said it doesn't exist. My problem comes from the fact that in no regulation anywhere is tactical gear mentioned. It doesn't exist. To label items of clothing as 'tactical gear' and say we can wear them because 'tactical gear' is authorized is just ridiculous. If I wear unauthorized clothing sometimes, then so be it. But I'm not gonna say it's 'tactical gear' and leave it at that.
Quote from: JThemann on January 05, 2008, 08:31:07 PM
I most certainly did not say tactical gear is unauthorized. I said it doesn't exist. My problem comes from the fact that in no regulation anywhere is tactical gear mentioned. It doesn't exist. To label items of clothing as 'tactical gear' and say we can wear them because 'tactical gear' is authorized is just ridiculous. If I wear unauthorized clothing sometimes, then so be it. But I'm not gonna say it's 'tactical gear' and leave it at that.
Maybe there is a misunderstanding as to what tactical gear is. It's mission utilized equipment and clothing. That's all. Something doesn't have to have a label saying "tactical gear" for it be considered as such, or be used by a SWAT team to be so.
Obviously, a beret is not tactical gear, it's actually a pretty impractical item for a mission. But a watch cap might be considered as such. Load bearing gear is tactical gear. A Gore-Tex is considered tactical gear, and it's also authorized as a uniform item. A ruck is tactical gear as well.
Many things are considered tactical gear, in the military some items are referred to as "snivel gear". Many of the things you carry on a mission are considered "tactical gear".
The watch cap, LBE, Ruck Sacks, goretex parkas and water bladders (camelbaks) are specifically authorized by various regulations.
"Tactical Gear" is not. I would have to support the FO on this. If it isn't mentioned, it isn't authorized no matter how much you interpret it.
The other issue is... Is it wrong to wear something or allow wear of something that hasn't been authorized? Our leadership is unfortunately not a professional one (they are volunteers like ourselves) and often overlook many of the aspects of uniforms.
I would not stop a cadet from wearing equipment that may lead them to complete a mission more effectively or be more safe. You can court marshal me for it if you'd like... oh wait... you can't.
Can someone tell me where to find the reg where a watch cap is authorized? I'm trying to determine if an orange watch cap is authorized.
Thanks!!
It isn't
Quote from: tjaxe on January 13, 2008, 08:14:16 PM
Can someone tell me where to find the reg where a watch cap is authorized? I'm trying to determine if an orange watch cap is authorized.
Thanks!!
The only place you'll find the words 'watch cap' mentioned is the GTM handbook, and it's not a regulation.
So is any cold weather cap authorized with the BDU?
Quote from: tjaxe on January 13, 2008, 09:04:14 PM
So is any cold weather cap authorized with the BDU?
See CAPM 39-1, Table 2-3, Line 6 for headgear. BDU cap, BDU baseball cap, and CAP baseball cap are the listed authorized headgear for BDU wear. You can, however, get the winter BDU cap with the insulated pull down ear flaps if the situation warrants it - since it is a "BDU cap".
Other cold weather head accessories like scarfs and earmuffs are authorized in lines 9 and 11 of the same table to augment the authorized headgear.
While its not in the regs per se ... every branch of the DoD supports the wear of a plain black watch cap with either the BDU or Class A's when the temp is below freezing.
Back at my ROTC det, they used to pass them out in the winter as door prizes at lead lab.
Quote from: afgeo4 on January 06, 2008, 01:35:27 AM
The watch cap, LBE, Ruck Sacks, goretex parkas and water bladders (camelbaks) are specifically authorized by various regulations.
Can you supply references, please? I would like to see where each is specifically addressed.
Quote from: afgeo4 on January 06, 2008, 01:35:27 AM"Tactical Gear" is not. I would have to support the FO on this. If it isn't mentioned, it isn't authorized no matter how much you interpret it.
The very items you mentioned above are tactical gear. I believe you're both under a misimpression that it has a label saying "Tactical gear", and as such is not authorized. "Tactical gear" is a common generalized term, not an item specifically labeled. Even a poncho is a form of tactical gear. It doesn't have to be called by a specific term in a pub to exist.
"Snivel gear" is a similar concept. It's not labeled as such, but it's generally referred to in that manner.
Quote from: afgeo4 on January 06, 2008, 01:35:27 AMThe other issue is... Is it wrong to wear something or allow wear of something that hasn't been authorized? Our leadership is unfortunately not a professional one (they are volunteers like ourselves) and often overlook many of the aspects of uniforms.
I would not stop a cadet from wearing equipment that may lead them to complete a mission more effectively or be more safe.
That judgement is up to you. Only you can decide as such for yourself. There's a few questions that you must consider. Does it actually contribute to the individuals effectiveness on a mission? Does it present an appropriate professional appearance? Is it actually safe? Is it worth the energy to carry or wear it?
I have another cold weather clothing question. Is the N-2B sage green flight jacket with the hood authorized for wear with the flight suit? It's basically an MA1 with a hood.
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 14, 2008, 06:45:19 PM
Quote from: afgeo4 on January 06, 2008, 01:35:27 AM
The watch cap, LBE, Ruck Sacks, goretex parkas and water bladders (camelbaks) are specifically authorized by various regulations.
Can you supply references, please? I would like to see where each is specifically addressed.
Quote from: afgeo4 on January 06, 2008, 01:35:27 AM"Tactical Gear" is not. I would have to support the FO on this. If it isn't mentioned, it isn't authorized no matter how much you interpret it.
The very items you mentioned above are tactical gear. I believe you're both under a misimpression that it has a label saying "Tactical gear", and as such is not authorized. "Tactical gear" is a common generalized term, not an item specifically labeled. Even a poncho is a form of tactical gear. It doesn't have to be called by a specific term in a pub to exist.
"Snivel gear" is a similar concept. It's not labeled as such, but it's generally referred to in that manner.
Quote from: afgeo4 on January 06, 2008, 01:35:27 AMThe other issue is... Is it wrong to wear something or allow wear of something that hasn't been authorized? Our leadership is unfortunately not a professional one (they are volunteers like ourselves) and often overlook many of the aspects of uniforms.
I would not stop a cadet from wearing equipment that may lead them to complete a mission more effectively or be more safe.
That judgement is up to you. Only you can decide as such for yourself. There's a few questions that you must consider. Does it actually contribute to the individuals effectiveness on a mission? Does it present an appropriate professional appearance? Is it actually safe? Is it worth the energy to carry or wear it?
You've been in the organization long enough to know that ES regs prescribe the proper gear for 24hr packs through 72 hr packs. Those regs prescribe the wear of backpacks, LBE, and water carrying equipment. There's an ICL on the goretex parka. The watch cap is mentioned in 39-1. I'm not hunting all those regs for specific paragraphs. This stuff isn't anything new. If you don't believe me, don't wear them.
Quote from: afgeo4 on January 21, 2008, 04:21:14 PM
You've been in the organization long enough to know that ES regs prescribe the proper gear for 24hr packs through 72 hr packs. Those regs prescribe the wear of backpacks, LBE, and water carrying equipment. There's an ICL on the goretex parka. The watch cap is mentioned in 39-1. I'm not hunting all those regs for specific paragraphs. This stuff isn't anything new. If you don't believe me, don't wear them.
Yeah, I didn't think you'd be able to reference them, and it's pretty obvious to me that you seem to be missing the discussion altogether, instead choosing to argue for the sake of argument.
Then again, makes it easier for me, I know which posts to ignore in the future.
So, you don't think CAP regulations tell you what to put in your 24 hour and 72-hour packs?
Quote from: afgeo4 on January 21, 2008, 04:21:14 PM
The watch cap is mentioned in 39-1.
Maybe it used to be, I don't know. But in the current version, no - it is not mentioned.
Quote from: teesquared on January 21, 2008, 04:09:37 PM
I have another cold weather clothing question. Is the N-2B sage green flight jacket with the hood authorized for wear with the flight suit? It's basically an MA1 with a hood.
No, it's not.
Quote from: CAPM 39-1 Table 2-4The green flight jacket is the only outer garment authorized for wear with
the green AF-style flight suit. Grade insignia, CAP command patch,
American flag and leather name patch are worn. The member has the
option of wearing the same optional patches on the flight jacket as worn
on the flight suit. The Air Force brown leather flight jacket is NOT
authorized with this or any Air Force style uniform. The MA-1
flight jacket or CWU-45/P or CWU-36/P NOMEX flight jackets may
be worn.
emphasis theirs.With that in mind, the UoD usually gets altered like geldings at Freddy Krueger's horse ranch when adverse winter weather hits.
You have a N2B and the wx is harsh? Then put it on and warm up. You have to take care of yourself. I'd find an N3B if I could help it, but there are
worse choices out there than an N2B.
Quote from: tedda on January 22, 2008, 02:01:22 AM
Quote from: CAPM 39-1 Table 2-4The green flight jacket is the only outer garment authorized for wear with
the green AF-style flight suit. Grade insignia, CAP command patch,
American flag and leather name patch are worn. The member has the
option of wearing the same optional patches on the flight jacket as worn
on the flight suit. The Air Force brown leather flight jacket is NOT
authorized with this or any Air Force style uniform. The MA-1
flight jacket or CWU-45/P or CWU-36/P NOMEX flight jackets may
be worn.
emphasis theirs.
With that in mind, the UoD usually gets altered like geldings at Freddy Krueger's horse ranch when adverse winter weather hits.
You have a N2B and the wx is harsh? Then put it on and warm up. You have to take care of yourself. I'd find an N3B if I could help it, but there are worse choices out there than an N2B.
I just would feel a little better flying in CO in the winter with some sort of parka, in case of an "off airport landing". I thought an N-2B would be a little less cumbersome in the cockpit than an N-3B. Maybe if I put a name tag and rank on it people would be a little less apt to get knotted up over it.
Quote from: teesquared on January 22, 2008, 04:45:42 AM
Maybe if I put a name tag and rank on it people would be a little less apt to get knotted up over it.
Don't do that. First, it's not really practical to do. Second, it reduces the insulating ability.
The Air Force doesn't sew anything on N2B or N3B parkas. Any rank insignia that ever shows is on headgear (so only officers really). It's meant for extreme cold, where accoutrements aren't really a concern.
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 22, 2008, 06:56:06 PM
Quote from: teesquared on January 22, 2008, 04:45:42 AM
Maybe if I put a name tag and rank on it people would be a little less apt to get knotted up over it.
Don't do that. First, it's not really practical to do. Second, it reduces the insulating ability.
The Air Force doesn't sew anything on N2B or N3B parkas. Any rank insignia that ever shows is on headgear (so only officers really). It's meant for extreme cold, where accoutrements aren't really a concern.
Good points. Thanks. :)