Cold Weather Uniform Items

[Hawk200]

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.

[mikeylikey]

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!

[JayT]

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.

[afgeo4]

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.

[Hawk200]

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.

[JayT]

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.

[Hawk200]

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".

[afgeo4]

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.

[tjaxe]

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!!

[MIKE]

It isn't

[JayT]

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.

[tjaxe]

So is any cold weather cap authorized with the BDU?

[Pylon]

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.

[SAR-EMT1]

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.

[Hawk200]

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.

"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.

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.

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?

[teesquared]

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.

[afgeo4]

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.

"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.

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.

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.

[Hawk200]

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.

[RiverAux]

So, you don't think CAP regulations tell you what to put in your 24 hour and 72-hour packs? 

[Pylon]

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.