Just like Pete Blaber said in his book "The Mission, The Men, and Me" (http://www.amazon.com/The-Mission-Men-Me-Commander/dp/0425223728), trust the guy with boots on the ground. Apparently no one asked the soldier with boots on the ground if ACUs provided adequate camouflage, because the resounding answer would have been "HELL NO".
From the article..."Brand identity trumped camouflage utility," Graves said. "That's what this really comes down to: 'We can't allow the Marine Corps to look more cool than the Army.' "
Click here for the article --> $5B CAMO SNAFU (http://"http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/06/24/062412-news-camouflage-fiasco-1-5/")
(http://www.moillusions.com/wp-content/uploads/2.bp.blogspot.com/_cxmptAPYR-s/Ri5oc7aat-I/AAAAAAAAAtk/_VLydEBs3Co/s400/camojncouch.jpg)
(Clearly, AF Green Boots would have completed this cammo illusion)
Stand by to see how the AF Uniform Board deals with the backsplash from this pissing contest.
Fixed Link - Take a pick:http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/06/24/062412-news-camouflage-fiasco-1-5 (http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/06/24/062412-news-camouflage-fiasco-1-5)
Or
$5B CAMO SNAFU (http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/06/24/062412-news-camouflage-fiasco-1-5)
So we can retire the whole "When will CAP get ABU's?" question, since ABU's clearly dead. Not only are they hated, if not universally, then certainly "widely".
It's not a process that can occur overnight, but the services will be in a combined field variant again inside ten years, with the new one
approved inside 5.
This writing's been on the wall since day-1, and has been highlighted in ANSI-Yellow for about the last 3-4 (ish).
I'd say "I told you so...", but I only told CT & CS, so the scope is more limited then others on the ITYS front.
I'd say the NWU is on life support as well. I've spoken to more than a couple Navy guys who have pointed out that at sea, the boats they are
on stand out pretty well (vs. the camo'ed sailors), but when someone in the NWU falls in the water, they effectively disappear.
Quote from: a2capt on June 25, 2012, 03:48:36 PM
Fixed Link - Take a pick:http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/06/24/062412-news-camouflage-fiasco-1-5 (http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/06/24/062412-news-camouflage-fiasco-1-5)
Or
$5B CAMO SNAFU (http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/06/24/062412-news-camouflage-fiasco-1-5)
Sorry, got called away before I could check my link...
Quote from: Eclipse on June 25, 2012, 04:49:17 PM
So we can retire the whole "When will CAP get ABU's?" question, since ABU's clearly dead. Not only are they hated, if not universally, then certainly "widely".
It's not a process that can occur overnight, but the services will be in a combined field variant again inside ten years, with the new one
approved inside 5.
This writing's been on the wall since day-1, and has been highlighted in ANSI-Yellow for about the last 3-4 (ish).
I'd say "I told you so...", but I only told CT & CS, so the scope is more limited then others on the ITYS front.
I'd say the NWU is on life support as well. I've spoken to more than a couple Navy guys who have pointed out that at sea, the boats they are
on stand out pretty well (vs. the camo'ed sailors), but when someone in the NWU falls in the water, they effectively disappear.
So, do you have a cite for your "infomation" or is this your personal opinion?
If it is an opinion it should be labeled as such to prevent confusion.
There's a number of conversations here and on the old CS that cited news articles and personal conversations in this regard.
Quote from: Eclipse on June 25, 2012, 05:37:16 PM
There's a number of conversations here and on the old CS that cited news articles and personal conversations in this regard.
I don't see the services going back to one pattern again. The issues are only with certain service branches. Just because the Army and the Air Force didn't field uniforms liked by their boots on the ground doesn't mean that applies to other branches. We're pretty happy with our cammies in the Marine Corps. And while we've extended (with limitations) MARPAT to the green-side Navy, who also uses the same digital pattern for the blue utilities, I don't see the Marine Corps giving that pattern up to the other services. And I don't think the other services are looking into picking MARPAT as an option anyway. I don't buy the argument of the central pattern for all uniformed services. Why make a branch which has a pattern that works just fine change to a better or worse option at GREAT expense simply because
other services couldn't make good decisions?
To clarify this article was about the Army Combat Uniform not the Airman Battle Uniform. A solid citation from either the CSAF or the CMSAF preferred and not a news story from a times publication or a personal convo. Sorry as of May 2011 per the CSAF and the CMSAF the ABU was here to stay.
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 25, 2012, 05:59:30 PM
Sorry as of May 2011 per the CSAF and the CMSAF the ABU was here to stay.
Seconded, and heard by me in person from CMSAF at wing all call.
To Pylon, who says the Marine uniform wouldn't be the choice for all?
What's more important, marketing or force protection? If the Marines have come up with a good pattern, give to everyone.
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 25, 2012, 05:59:30 PM
Sorry as of May 2011 per the CSAF and the CMSAF the ABU was here to stay.
The Army would have likely said the same thing last May as well...
Can't say for the Army. I have heard verbatem from the CSMAF and news releases as well the ABU is here to stay for the time being. And with the amount congress wants cut uniforms are not going to change anytime soon
Isn't it all done with appropriated funds anyway?
What's to say the DoD doesn't just use the same pattern and substitute colors for the working environment?
That's the part I really don't get, why should the cut and materials be different between the services, even if the color has to be?
Quote from: Pylon on June 25, 2012, 05:57:12 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on June 25, 2012, 05:37:16 PM
There's a number of conversations here and on the old CS that cited news articles and personal conversations in this regard.
I don't see the services going back to one pattern again. The issues are only with certain service branches. Just because the Army and the Air Force didn't field uniforms liked by their boots on the ground doesn't mean that applies to other branches. We're pretty happy with our cammies in the Marine Corps. And while we've extended (with limitations) MARPAT to the green-side Navy, who also uses the same digital pattern for the blue utilities, I don't see the Marine Corps giving that pattern up to the other services. And I don't think the other services are looking into picking MARPAT as an option anyway. I don't buy the argument of the central pattern for all uniformed services. Why make a branch which has a pattern that works just fine change to a better or worse option at GREAT expense simply because other services couldn't make good decisions?
My one problem with this is the fact if the USMC is so selfish as not to offer an effective pattern to their brothers and sisters in other services, why the hell are they even in the military? That pattern is extremely effective, and the uniform design is nice. It's not like anyone is asking for them to share their dress blues.
It is also patented to the Corp. The reason the AF went to the ABU was because the BDU was an Army gig we picked up.
If every service can have all sorts of distinct varieties of service, dress & mess, flight, and special uniforms (like food service), why should the field uniforms be the sole banner cry for everything being made the same in the interest of "cost savings" (if there really are any to be had). Everyone has different requirements for field/utility uniforms as it is. Same-ness doesn't make sense. For example: The Navy uses their blue digital utilities because, for one, it hides stains from working aboard the ship really well; most sailors don't need to blend in with their terrain and the operators who do have usually done their own thing anyway. Desert MARPAT for example wouldn't serve that function as well for most Navy personnel.
Quote from: Eclipse on June 25, 2012, 06:12:02 PM
To Pylon, who says the Marine uniform wouldn't be the choice for all?
The stories I've read about the various patterns under review/testing by different research labs or departments have not mentioned MARPAT as one of the patterns they were looking into.
Quote from: AngelWings on June 25, 2012, 06:42:07 PM
My one problem with this is the fact if the USMC is so selfish as not to offer an effective pattern to their brothers and sisters in other services, why the hell are they even in the military? That pattern is extremely effective, and the uniform design is nice. It's not like anyone is asking for them to share their dress blues.
Why are we even in the military? Really? There are a few current and former Marines on this board, myself included, (as well as probably most other Marines not on this board) who would take particular exception to your words. I'd be careful making those kinds of comments going forward.
Besides, proprietary uniforms is not a unique behavior to the Marine Corps. The Army "owns" the woodland BDU pattern and when they decided to move away from it, rescinded its permissable use for the other services as well. If ACUPAT had turned out to be really effective, with all of the branding they put behind, I'm willing to bet the Army still wouldn't have shared ACUPAT.
Quote from: Pylon on June 25, 2012, 06:47:32 PM
If every service can have all sorts of distinct varieties of service, dress & mess, flight, and special uniforms (like food service), why should the field uniforms be the sole banner cry for everything being made the same in the interest of "cost savings" (if there really are any to be had). Everyone has different requirements for field/utility uniforms as it is. Same-ness doesn't make sense. For example: The Navy uses their blue digital utilities because, for one, it hides stains from working aboard the ship really well; most sailors don't need to blend in with their terrain and the operators who do have usually done their own thing anyway. Desert MARPAT for example wouldn't serve that function as well for most Navy personnel.
Quote from: Eclipse on June 25, 2012, 06:12:02 PM
To Pylon, who says the Marine uniform wouldn't be the choice for all?
The stories I've read about the various patterns under review/testing by different research labs or departments have not mentioned MARPAT as one of the patterns they were looking into.
I'm saying if it stops anyone from getting shot, then why stop them from using it? I don't care if it saves money or not, or makes us look uniformed. I'm worrying about if it will properly hide those who are heading to combat.
Quote from: AngelWings on June 25, 2012, 06:49:42 PMI'm saying if it stops anyone from getting shot, then why stop them from using it? I don't care if it saves money or not, or makes us look uniformed. I'm worrying about if it will properly hide those who are heading to combat.
Body armor and cover keep you from getting shot. Concealment (which includes worn camoflague) just aids in making you a more difficult target but will never stop you from getting shot.
Quote from: Pylon on June 25, 2012, 06:54:43 PM
Quote from: AngelWings on June 25, 2012, 06:49:42 PMI'm saying if it stops anyone from getting shot, then why stop them from using it? I don't care if it saves money or not, or makes us look uniformed. I'm worrying about if it will properly hide those who are heading to combat.
Body armor and cover keep you from getting shot. Concealment (which includes worn camoflague) just aids in making you a more difficult target but will never stop you from getting shot.
No, body armor stops you from getting hurt as bad. It doesn't deflect them with a force field. ;)
I know what you mean though.
Quote from: Pylon on June 25, 2012, 06:54:43 PM
Quote from: AngelWings on June 25, 2012, 06:49:42 PMI'm saying if it stops anyone from getting shot, then why stop them from using it? I don't care if it saves money or not, or makes us look uniformed. I'm worrying about if it will properly hide those who are heading to combat.
Body armor and cover keep you from getting shot. Concealment (which includes worn camoflague) just aids in making you a more difficult target but will never stop you from getting shot.
You understand what I'm saying though. Maybe not the best choice of words but still.
Quote from: AngelWings on June 25, 2012, 07:21:04 PM
You understand what I'm saying though. Maybe not the best choice of words but still.
No, actually I didn't agree with your point. Especially the choice of words.
Quote from: Pylon on June 25, 2012, 06:47:32 PM
If every service can have all sorts of distinct varieties of service, dress & mess, flight, and special uniforms (like food service), why should the field uniforms be the sole banner cry for everything being made the same in the interest of "cost savings" (if there really are any to be had). Everyone has different requirements for field/utility uniforms as it is. Same-ness doesn't make sense. For example: The Navy uses their blue digital utilities because, for one, it hides stains from working aboard the ship really well; most sailors don't need to blend in with their terrain and the operators who do have usually done their own thing anyway. Desert MARPAT for example wouldn't serve that function as well for most Navy personnel.
I agree you wouldn't want one field uniform for all situations, but why should there be different field uniforms for two different individuals just because they're from different services. I would think if two groups of servicemen were in the same setting, working side by side, they should have the same uniforms.
Quote from: Pylon on June 25, 2012, 07:26:51 PM
Quote from: AngelWings on June 25, 2012, 07:21:04 PM
You understand what I'm saying though. Maybe not the best choice of words but still.
No, actually I didn't agree with your point. Especially the choice of words.
That everyone involved in combat deserves a decent pattern that conceals them from the enemy?
Here's the biggest interesting piece to me... Why would guard so closely the MARPAT if you aren't even going to use it in combat while attached to an Army unit? I was in Iraq with marine dog handlers, and you know what? They didnt wear their MARPATs once, they wore ACUs the whole time. So obviously it's not that awesome of a uniform if you don't wear it around other branches.
I wish they got rid of the ACU WIWAD. It is junk unless you are laying in a gravel pit hiding from someone 600 metered away.
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on June 25, 2012, 07:53:09 PM
...they wore ACUs the whole time. So obviously it's not that awesome of a uniform if you don't wear it around other branches.
Same reason our K9 Airmen working with the Army wear ACUs, so they don't stand out. Navy does this as well. Our EOD techs, Navy MAs, you name it. You wear the uniform of the organization you're working with so you don't stand out among a group. If you're the only hommie wearing MARPATS in a sea of ACUs, well, you must be important so I'm gonna go ahead and target you first.
I am of the (perhaps erroneous) opinion that CAP wil never get ABU's...once the supply of BDU's is exhausted for good (trickling down from the AD, Guard and Reserve), I see us going to all-BBDU's.
I also think it would be better and in keeping with our "pickle suit" heritage to switch to solid green BDU's.
There is precedent for all services having just one camouflage pattern...my ex-brother-in-law was in the Army when they switched from OD's to BDU's, and he told me that the idea was for all the service branches to have a common field uniform to reduce costs. And this was in the big-defence-spending Reagan years.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1a/PPCLI_CADPAT.jpg/800px-PPCLI_CADPAT.jpg)
The three branches of the Canadian Armed Forces all use the CADPAT (the RCN when ashore, but not shipboard)
(http://www.surplusandoutdoors.com/images/product/main/FLECKTARN-COMBAT-JACKET.jpg)
All three branches of the Deutsche Bundeswehr use Flecktarn, which was first used in WWII by the Waffen-SS
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/Lieutenant_%26_Sergeant_of_the_2nd_Battalion_Yorkshire_Regiment_%28RLH%29.JPG/450px-Lieutenant_%26_Sergeant_of_the_2nd_Battalion_Yorkshire_Regiment_%28RLH%29.JPG)
All three (four, if you count the Royal Marines as being separate) branches of the UK armed forces use Disruptive Pattern Material (DPM)
So I don't get what it is with the separate services having separate patterns...especially in these days when the DoD budget is shrinking.
Quote from: Eclipse on June 25, 2012, 04:49:17 PMI'd say the NWU is on life support as well. I've spoken to more than a couple Navy guys who have pointed out that at sea, the boats they are on stand out pretty well (vs. the camo'ed sailors), but when someone in the NWU falls in the water, they effectively disappear.
They aren't much different from the olde dungarees, and replacement working uniforms (whatever they were called). You pretty much disappeared in the water wearing those, too.
Dave, I am for the navy going back to the old Dungarees.
Quote from: CyBorg on June 25, 2012, 07:59:57 PM
I am of the (perhaps erroneous) opinion that CAP wil never get ABU's...once the supply of BDU's is exhausted for good (trickling down from the AD, Guard and Reserve), I see us going to all-BBDU's.
Time will prove us right my friend, and it looks like sooner then expected...
Quote from: AngelWings on June 25, 2012, 07:49:37 PM
That everyone involved in combat deserves a decent pattern that conceals them from the enemy?
No. I disagree with your viewpoint that because the other services haven't tried to adopt MARPAT, that the Marine Corps must be selfish and that they're the only service which doesn't share everything with the other services. I disagree with your (in my view, pretty ridiculous) viewpoint that Marines shouldn't be in the military over the issue of uniforms.
I do believe that service members in combat zones and outside the wire deserve good camouflage. To assert that I don't believe that just because I think the various services can function with their own choices of camo pattern is silly and a bad jump of logic. The Army is looking into options they think work best for their soldiers. There are dozens of great patterns out there and the Army is researching which one they find is best. The Army's original decision to adopt the ACUPAT was their own decision. Don't blame the Marine Corps for the Army selecting a sub-optimal camo pattern.
But hey, what do I know. I'm just an infantry grunt...
Quote from: CyBorg on June 25, 2012, 07:59:57 PM
So I don't get what it is with the separate services having separate patterns...especially in these days when the DoD budget is shrinking.
I have yet to see any credible information that strongly concludes the Armed Forces will save money by switching to a common field uniform pattern. The sheer size of outfitting any one of the services is large enough that I can't imagine economies of scale are going to save any additional money. Plus, if you force the Marine Corps to switch from field uniforms that they're already using and completely okay with just so everyone can look the same then you're actually wasting money and perfectly good unforms and matching equipment and accessories.
I also don't buy the argument that the services cannot decide for themselves what utility uniform works best for their service and for their typical work environment and typical duties. That somehow we know better than the service chiefs of each branch what their service ought to be using.
Can anyone cite an Army Source that they are in fact doing away with the ACUs?
I know the story posted says they are going away....but a google search for army news about them going aways come up empty.
IMHO neither the ABU nor the ACU are going away........the DoD has spend too much money on them already....and if you have not noticed the DoD has got to cut its budget by something like $200B by the end of the (assuming the automatic cuts kick in).....I don't see them spedning the money on developing and fielding a new uniform.....even if they wanted to.......any time soon.
Quote from: Pylon on June 25, 2012, 09:20:43 PM
Quote from: AngelWings on June 25, 2012, 07:49:37 PM
That everyone involved in combat deserves a decent pattern that conceals them from the enemy?
No. I disagree with your viewpoint that because the other services haven't tried to adopt MARPAT, that the Marine Corps must be selfish and that they're the only service which doesn't share everything with the other services. I disagree with your (in my view, pretty ridiculous) viewpoint that Marines shouldn't be in the military over the issue of uniforms.
I do believe that service members in combat zones and outside the wire deserve good camouflage. To assert that I don't believe that just because I think the various services can function with their own choices of camo pattern is silly and a bad jump of logic. The Army is looking into options they think work best for their soldiers. There are dozens of great patterns out there and the Army is researching which one they find is best. The Army's original decision to adopt the ACUPAT was their own decision. Don't blame the Marine Corps for the Army selecting a sub-optimal camo pattern.
But hey, what do I know. I'm just an infantry grunt...
I'm not trying to come off disrespectful here, and if it did, I sincerly apologize. When I say Marine Corps, I am not talking about individual Marines or the huge majority of men. I am talking about one or two people in high position who decide things for the Marine Corps that are sometimes distasteful, not only to the Marines they affect, but sometimes (quite rarely) other services. I'm not trying to say Marines shouldn't be in the Armed Forces family, I am trying to say that if the highest tier of leadership thinks only about themselves, and are not willing to save their brothers and sisters lives by sharing an effective pattern to another service/group of people, than whose side are they on (which their decisions come off as "their own").
I am not blaming the USMC for the Army's mistake, I am saying the USMC could save some Soldiers lives if they allow some of their patterns to be adopted. It's praise to the USMC for getting it right more than anything.
Rereading some of my posts, they do come off really rash and I apologize and wish I could take them back all together. Things came off way different than I intended.
Quote from: saleet on June 25, 2012, 09:18:11 PM
Dave, I am for the navy going back to the old Dungarees.
I've chatted with a variety of people who have worn both, and most prefer the NWU. There are comfort issues, but durability and functionality are much better with the NWU.
Yes....well.....if we want to point fingers.....we have to point them to the USMC.
The USMC unilaterally changed their uniform. The did it in such a way that made it impossible for the other services to follow.
It opened the door for the ACU and ABU and the USN monstrosity we have today.
Beyond that.......there is not a lot anyone can do.
Quote from: AngelWings on June 25, 2012, 09:34:43 PM
I'm not trying to come off disrespectful here, and if it did, I sincerly apologize. When I say Marine Corps, I am not talking about individual Marines or the huge majority of men. I am talking about one or two people in high position who decide things for the Marine Corps that are sometimes distasteful, not only to the Marines they affect, but sometimes (quite rarely) other services. I'm not trying to say Marines shouldn't be in the Armed Forces family, I am trying to say that if the highest tier of leadership thinks only about themselves, and are not willing to save their brothers and sisters lives by sharing an effective pattern to another service/group of people, than whose side are they on (which their decisions come off as "their own").
I happen to agree with that leadership.
On a side note, there
are other completely viable options which do a great job of camouflaging soldiers. According to their own press releases, the Army said they tested 57 patterns last year and found that a version of Multicam (which they're using in country now) was the best camouflage for Afghanistan. (See reference in 5th para of this MilitaryTimes article (http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/02/air-force-replacing-abus-with-army-cammies-022011w/)).
Quote from: lordmonar on June 25, 2012, 09:56:51 PM
Yes....well.....if we want to point fingers.....we have to point them to the USMC.
The USMC unilaterally changed their uniform. The did it in such a way that made it impossible for the other services to follow.
It opened the door for the ACU and ABU and the USN monstrosity we have today.
Beyond that.......there is not a lot anyone can do.
A) The USMC decided that they weren't happy with the BDU and DCU status quo that everyone else was complacent with and spent some of their own budgeted money on R&D for a distinctive Marine pattern that camoflagued better in a variety of environments. Pointing a finger at the USMC is like the record companies blaming Apple for pushing development ahead of the status quo and making music buying more convenient because the record companies were content just selling CD's for eternity.
B) Aside from, yes, putting a patent on the
one pattern (with two color variants) among a literal
infinite number of camouflage patterns possible the Marine Corps had nothing to do with the Army and other services picking camouflage patterns that people generally dislike and/or work poorly.
I think what Pylon is saying is that if the Army, Air Force, and Navy want to use the pattern, they can. The Marines aren't stopping them, and it's not a select few in the Marine leadership positions -stopping- them from using it, but the other services electing not to use it. So calling The Marine Corps out for not sharing isn't an accurate statement.
I find it hard to believe that the smallest of the armed forces would be in a position to dictate to branches, like the Army, what pattern they are allowed to use and what they aren't.
The patenting of the pattern, I think, is a good move. It prevents the pattern from being adopted by parties that would not necessarily be our friends. So, if the pattern is that good, you'd want to limit who was able to manufacture, distribute, etc.
You also have to remember that there is a lot of politiking when it comes to large contracts, like this. There is a lot of money to be made so people lobby, wine and dine, etc. Rarely is the decision made from test results and consulting with E-1 types.
Quote from: Pylon on June 25, 2012, 10:04:45 PM
Quote from: AngelWings on June 25, 2012, 09:34:43 PM
I'm not trying to come off disrespectful here, and if it did, I sincerly apologize. When I say Marine Corps, I am not talking about individual Marines or the huge majority of men. I am talking about one or two people in high position who decide things for the Marine Corps that are sometimes distasteful, not only to the Marines they affect, but sometimes (quite rarely) other services. I'm not trying to say Marines shouldn't be in the Armed Forces family, I am trying to say that if the highest tier of leadership thinks only about themselves, and are not willing to save their brothers and sisters lives by sharing an effective pattern to another service/group of people, than whose side are they on (which their decisions come off as "their own").
I happen to agree with that leadership.
On a side note, there are other completely viable options which do a great job of camouflaging soldiers. According to their own press releases, the Army said they tested 57 patterns last year and found that a version of Multicam (which they're using in country now) was the best camouflage for Afghanistan. (See reference in 5th para of this MilitaryTimes article (http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/02/air-force-replacing-abus-with-army-cammies-022011w/)).
Multicam is a great pattern, but it doesn't seem promising that it is designed for Afghanistan because once we leave Afghanistan, it may not blend in well with other regions. I've always wondered why the Army and Air Force don't simply make two uniforms designed for the desert and woodland, or one pattern with a darker version and lighter version, not unlike the old ERDL uniforms. I agree with lordmonar that with the Marines copyrighting the pattern, they created a monstrosity. The Army made a universal version (that is universally horrible) and the Air force made a tigerstripe version that, however sexy (as my friends call it), isn't effective and is basically a knockoff of the ACU. It is a domino effect of some sorts.
Quote from: SarDragon on June 25, 2012, 09:04:08 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on June 25, 2012, 04:49:17 PMI'd say the NWU is on life support as well. I've spoken to more than a couple Navy guys who have pointed out that at sea, the boats they are on stand out pretty well (vs. the camo'ed sailors), but when someone in the NWU falls in the water, they effectively disappear.
They aren't much different from the olde dungarees, and replacement working uniforms (whatever they were called). You pretty much disappeared in the water wearing those, too.
At least the pants from the Old Dungarees, you could use as a flotation device. Does that show my age?
Quote from: jimmydeanno on June 25, 2012, 10:13:59 PM
I find it hard to believe that the smallest of the armed forces would be in a position to dictate to branches, like the Army, what pattern they are allowed to use and what they aren't.
The Coast Guard is the smallest of the Armed Forces.
Quote from: CyBorg on June 25, 2012, 10:19:57 PM
The Coast Guard is the smallest of the Armed Forces.
By weight or volume?
Quote from: CyBorg on June 25, 2012, 10:19:57 PM
Quote from: jimmydeanno on June 25, 2012, 10:13:59 PM
I find it hard to believe that the smallest of the armed forces would be in a position to dictate to branches, like the Army, what pattern they are allowed to use and what they aren't.
The Coast Guard is the smallest of the Armed Forces.
Fine, whatever, the point still stands.
Quote from: Pylon on June 25, 2012, 09:20:43 PM
I have yet to see any credible information that strongly concludes the Armed Forces will save money by switching to a common field uniform pattern. The sheer size of outfitting any one of the services is large enough that I can't imagine economies of scale are going to save any additional money. Plus, if you force the Marine Corps to switch from field uniforms that they're already using and completely okay with just so everyone can look the same then you're actually wasting money and perfectly good unforms and matching equipment and accessories.
It is not just about the uniform, it is the amount of money spent on equipment and accessories as well. When the Air Force adopted the ABU they made the decision to issue Army ACU field gear because of the cost vs. benefit of issuing matching gear in the ABU pattern. Field gear is easily way more expensive than the actual uniform. I say that unless you have a reason to be issued field gear, you shouldn't need anything camo at all. Put those service members in their respective services service dress and drive on.....
Quote from: AngelWings on June 25, 2012, 10:17:14 PM
Multicam is a great pattern, but it doesn't seem promising that it is designed for Afghanistan because once we leave Afghanistan, it may not blend in well with other regions. .....
The Multicam was NOT designed for Afghanistan, it was a commercially available pattern that was part of the camo pattern test that the UCP(Universal camoflage pattern) ended up winning for political reasons. It was a pattern designed for a variety of environments it just happens to work better in that particular theatre of operation than the UCP does.
Quote from: Ground_Pounder on June 25, 2012, 10:42:36 PM
Quote from: AngelWings on June 25, 2012, 10:17:14 PM
Multicam is a great pattern, but it doesn't seem promising that it is designed for Afghanistan because once we leave Afghanistan, it may not blend in well with other regions. .....
The Multicam was NOT designed for Afghanistan, it was a commercially available pattern that was part of the camo pattern test that the UCP(Universal camoflage pattern) ended up winning for political reasons. It was a pattern designed for a variety of environments it just happens to work better in that particular theatre of operation than the UCP does.
Here is the actual study
[attachment deleted by admin]
Quote from: Pylon on June 25, 2012, 10:10:07 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on June 25, 2012, 09:56:51 PM
Yes....well.....if we want to point fingers.....we have to point them to the USMC.
The USMC unilaterally changed their uniform. The did it in such a way that made it impossible for the other services to follow.
It opened the door for the ACU and ABU and the USN monstrosity we have today.
Beyond that.......there is not a lot anyone can do.
A) The USMC decided that they weren't happy with the BDU and DCU status quo that everyone else was complacent with and spent some of their own budgeted money on R&D for a distinctive Marine pattern that camoflagued better in a variety of environments. Pointing a finger at the USMC is like the record companies blaming Apple for pushing development ahead of the status quo and making music buying more convenient because the record companies were content just selling CD's for eternity.
B) Aside from, yes, putting a patent on the one pattern (with two color variants) among a literal infinite number of camouflage patterns possible the Marine Corps had nothing to do with the Army and other services picking camouflage patterns that people generally dislike and/or work poorly.
No......pointing the finger at the USMC is exactly right. The MARPAT is no better the the three color DCU or the BDU. It was started first and formost as a "we want to be distinctive". Then it was carried through with the [darn] globe and anchors embedded in the pattern to make it USMC only!
The services had finally gotten to a single combat uniform......a single logistics train....truely leveraging the large buy option.
When the USMC broke out of the BDU.....they did so...not because they were not happy with the pattern/camo/fabric....but they were not happy with being just like everyone else....(forget that they had a different hat, did not wear patches/badges, rolled their sleves differently).
When they went south....it opened the doors for the Army, Air Force and USN to follow suit.
Your analogy about the record companies does not even come close.
The army's "failure" was that they were looking for a one size fits all camo.......and as with all multi-role solutions.....there will ALWAYS be something that does it better.....in specific situations.
The USAF's failure is that anything the Army Does......we can screw up better!.......just be glad they did not choose to follow the army down their service dress uniform change (egads!)
Quote from: cap235629 on June 25, 2012, 10:48:01 PM
Quote from: Ground_Pounder on June 25, 2012, 10:42:36 PM
Quote from: AngelWings on June 25, 2012, 10:17:14 PM
Multicam is a great pattern, but it doesn't seem promising that it is designed for Afghanistan because once we leave Afghanistan, it may not blend in well with other regions. .....
The Multicam was NOT designed for Afghanistan, it was a commercially available pattern that was part of the camo pattern test that the UCP(Universal camoflage pattern) ended up winning for political reasons. It was a pattern designed for a variety of environments it just happens to work better in that particular theatre of operation than the UCP does.
Here is the actual study
http://www.multicampattern.com/about/ (http://www.multicampattern.com/about/)
Maybe not exactly designed for, but inspired by the area. They designed it so it would overseas in multiple desert environments well, and woodland if need be, or atleast the basis of the pattern was made to help out the camouflage situation in A-Stan and Iraq.
In having studied military uniforming, it would seem that having a "universal" design/cut would be the best option with variation in color or camo available (thus, woodlands for "the wooded," desert patterns for the "desert" and urban grays for that theater. There need not to be a color (some people I have talked to called for olive drab for working out the the field) for "office wear" because service dress is for that purpose.
As CAP people, who scrounge for uniforms for cadets and ourselves, one would think we would all (unless in active duty or reserve/guard positions who would have to wear them and entitled to more of an opinion for that reason) should want a universal uniform from which we could draw for our purposes.
Never the less, things went wrong when incorporating the "company logo" was a more important than its use in the field. This is, in my opinion, reflective of the contemporary preoccupation with style over function. The idea that the "cart is before the horse."
Quote from: SARDOC on June 25, 2012, 10:17:32 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on June 25, 2012, 09:04:08 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on June 25, 2012, 04:49:17 PMI'd say the NWU is on life support as well. I've spoken to more than a couple Navy guys who have pointed out that at sea, the boats they are on stand out pretty well (vs. the camo'ed sailors), but when someone in the NWU falls in the water, they effectively disappear.
They aren't much different from the olde dungarees, and replacement working uniforms (whatever they were called). You pretty much disappeared in the water wearing those, too.
At least the pants from the Old Dungarees, you could use as a flotation device. Does that show my age?
Yes, but I think the NWU pants are equally functional. The blousing drawstrings will do the trick just fine, and actually allow a larger amount of air to be trapped.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 25, 2012, 10:49:28 PMThe MARPAT is no better the the three color DCU or the BDU.
Actually, field tests prove they are better.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 25, 2012, 10:49:28 PMIt was started first and formost as a "we want to be distinctive".
They were pretty up front about this. SgtMajMC Kent publicly said that part of the goal was to create a distinctive USMC uniform. But I don't see distinctive as a bad thing. In the entire history of the US Armed Forces, the 3-color BDU/DCU was the only period the services shared a single field uniform. We've been distinctive much longer than we've not been.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 25, 2012, 10:49:28 PMThen it was carried through with the [darn] globe and anchors embedded in the pattern to make it USMC only!
The Marine Corps has been putting the eagle, globe & anchor on its field uniforms since before WWII. This is nothing new. The Navy embeds a naval insignia into its blue digital pattern, too. No big deal.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 25, 2012, 10:49:28 PM......a single logistics train....truely leveraging the large buy option.
Except the services have had separate logistics systems and separate purchasing before, during, and after the BDUs. It didn't change the way DoD supply worked.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 25, 2012, 10:49:28 PM(forget that they had a different hat, did not wear patches/badges, rolled their sleves differently).
Sooo... we wear distinctive headgear and choose not to wear patches and (used to—not even applicable anymore) roll our sleeves with a different technique. I still fail to see how this is a bad thing. The Armed Forces each have distinctive dress, service, and mess uniforms, too. And different ways of wearing them. The Army uses velcro on field uniforms and the Air Force doesn't. Does that make one of those bad, too?
At least they weren't arbitrary decisions to force ourselves to be distinctive. Those choices are rooted in heritage that's older than the Air Force is as a service. The Marines have always eschewed extra doodads and accouterments on their uniforms. We didn't put unit patches on our jungle fatigues or BDUs either. So what?
Heck, the Marine Corps not wearing any patches actually saves money.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 25, 2012, 10:49:28 PMWhen they went south....it opened the doors for the Army, Air Force and USN to follow suit.
Actually, the Army could have kept using the BDU if they wanted. Nobody stopped them from staying with it. The Army owns the woodland BDU pattern.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 25, 2012, 10:49:28 PMYour analogy about the record companies does not even come close.
You're right, it would be more closely related to pointing the finger at Apple for introducing the popular iPod and iTunes to their customers because then Microsoft felt compelled to keep up and introduced the Zune, which was terrible and few people liked.
Your apparent anger over the Marine Corps wanting to be distinctive is silly to me. The services have always found ways to be distinctive and that's part of each service's identity. If I recall correctly, the Air Force has spent a lot of time in its short history trying to make its service and dress uniforms distinctive from its Army roots. I don't see that as a bad thing, either.
If that was really your bone of contention —that distinctiveness is bad and a single uniform for all the services saves money— then why aren't you arguing that the Air Force and everyone else give up their dress uniforms and adopt the Army's new dress uniform? After all, the Army is the biggest service so might as well just wear whatever dress uniform they have and get on it without distinctiveness. Right?
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 25, 2012, 06:46:41 PM
It is also patented to the Corp. The reason the AF went to the ABU was because the BDU was an Army gig we picked up.
Last I heard the Defense Department was established 65 years ago to maintain a working relationship among the three Service departments and four Armed Forces under it. Seems to me that someone in all the services didn't stop to check what others had in the works, or tried to develop a common field uniform. Ego's may have dictated something different from what services A, B, or C were developing. Of course people died from being in a non-camoflage uniform, and many millions of dollars were wasted in the effort. But it was all right because "We look better than the other services.
Look at the millions we have spend....millions of our tax dollars.....affecting this change.
I knew way back when....when the USMC decided to change....that the rest of us would follow suit.....the USAF could have stayed in the ODs!
I am not "angry".....but I can certainly point the finger where it needs to be pointed.
Not that the US Army, USAF or USN leadership was any better. Any one of those organisation could have said...."good enough for us...have fun". But sometimes it just does not work that way.
Where is....Dare I invoke the name >:D.....RADIOMAN? This would seem to be right up his alley. ;D
Combat is not a fashion show.
I got to say I'm suprised any service can patent or "own" a particular pattern. It's all developed and purchased with taxpayer funds by services that fall under the DOD. If I was the SECDEF (maybe Congress too)I would say you can have distinctive insignia(s) of your particular service but if the pattern is effective then anyone can use it.......end of story.
Any decision based on anything other than safety and effectiveness for the troops in the field is the wrong answer.
Uniform changes help support the industrial military complex. Troops do all the sweating, bleeding and dying and fat cats get fatter.
JMHO ;)
If anything, the ACU is a failure because you can't tell what anyone's grade is easily. Collar and sleeve insignia work. Looking at someone's chest doesn't. Failed to salute? Probably because you couldn't figure out what the soldier was easily or readily enough.
I don't care who is to blame. The fact is, ACUs (and ABUs) suck.
Fact: no single camouflage color scheme works for all enviornments
Fact: patches cost money, but to the Army, they are an important part of unit history
Fact: the only true wear test is the environment in which we fight
Fact: when uniform or equipment is used for the first time in combat, expect feedback from the troops
Fact: individual equipment costs a lot more than uniform (IBA, pouches, gore-tex, etc)
Opinion: we need at least 3 camouflage color schemes
Opinion: army units have been around longer than some service branches, let them keep their unit patches
Opinion: you can test uniforms all you want, but when they are sent to combat, expect to have to make changes
Opinion: learn from mistakes, accept them, and fix them...swallow pride...mission first
Opinion: as for individual equipment, go with solid colors (coyote, OD, sand, whatever) so you won't have to create new gear for new camouflage
Quote from: Stonewall on June 26, 2012, 01:05:27 PM
Opinion: as for individual equipment, go with solid colors (coyote, OD, sand, whatever) so you won't have to create new gear for new camouflage
This is what I never understood about the military. What is the point of having concealment anything, if you're just going to cover it up with a solid green/black/brown, etc blob on your chest?
How often do soldiers sneak up on someone without anything BUT the uniform ?
Another interesting thing with a recent ACU change, feedback said they wanted to sew the stuff on, so they changed it to allow tapes, rank, patches to be sewn on.
Right on top of the velcro.
I suspect one of the biggest reasons sewing was desired ..because a velcro sandwich just looks awful.
Pockets sealed with velcro? Can't open 'em without making noise. How did that one get past the review?
Quote from: usafaux2004 on June 26, 2012, 02:57:21 PM
This is what I never understood about the military. What is the point of having concealment anything, if you're just going to cover it up with a solid green/black/brown, etc blob on your chest?
Seems to work for these guys...
(http://i.imgur.com/BhZ5p.jpg)
What "guys"?
All I see are a couple dudes in blue shirts with their hands out and some reporters taking their picture...
(http://www.afblues.com/wordpress/comics/2009-04-06.jpg)
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on June 26, 2012, 06:34:18 AM
If anything, the ACU is a failure because you can't tell what anyone's grade is easily. Collar and sleeve insignia work. Looking at someone's chest doesn't. Failed to salute? Probably because you couldn't figure out what the soldier was easily or readily enough.
Doesn't seem to be a problem. I've never heard of anybody complaining about it.
Everybody in the Army pretty much knows to look at the chest for someone's grade.
And folks in the Air Force know to look at the chest when you're wearing the Gore-Tex parka.
It's simply not a problem. At least for anybody who has served in the past 10 years or so.
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on June 26, 2012, 06:34:18 AM
If anything, the ACU is a failure because you can't tell what anyone's grade is easily. Collar and sleeve insignia work. Looking at someone's chest doesn't. Failed to salute? Probably because you couldn't figure out what the soldier was easily or readily enough.
Yeah...or you could look at their head. Unless they are in a helmet, in which case there's a good chance you aren't going to be worrying about a salute.
The more I read about people worrying about salutes in the Real Military the more my head spins.
I don't know how many salutes I give or receive in a given day, I really have bigger things to worry about. Only if it's missing and its screamingly obvious they were being careless/didn't care will I usually say anything. (Ex: I approached two LTs...and one of them looked right at me, is taller than me...and said 'Hey man, what's up.' He received a bit of a correction on the whole customs and courtesies thing at a missile wing.)
I've had airmen miss a salute because I turned a corner and by the time they could recognize there was suddenly a person there, avoid a collision, and render any kind of greetings we were shoulder to shoulder and passing fast. Usually there is a little bit of a flail and I will return a salute even if they hadn't managed to pop one. They make the effort and it's not a huge deal.
I've approached a Security Forces Lt Col early in the morning. In that level of lighting and where the sun was I couldn't clearly see his insignia until I was within about 3 feet of him. That's kinda the point of low visibility insignia on the uniform. The white on his beret just looked a bit like a blob. That blob was either the bird on their flash, or a Lt Col leaf. I tried to figure out what it was and once I did I saluted and greeted him and added 'Sorry sir, I couldn't quite tell your insignia until I got this close' He laughed and moved on with life.
Salutes are part of our life, but it isn't a ZOMG STOP ALL THE PRESSES WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO issue.
Back on topic...
I think it is a bit silly that all the services aren't in a common utility pattern/cut for field uniforms. On some level I think it's silly we don't have similar service uniforms as well, but hey, that isn't going to change for a very long time if ever. (Personally, I'd use the same cut/style, just change the color)
QuoteThe Marine Corps has been putting the eagle, globe & anchor on its field uniforms since before WWII. This is nothing new. The Navy embeds a naval insignia into its blue digital pattern, too.
FYI, the new Coast Guard ODU has the USCG symbol incorporated into the fabric.
Quote from: LGM30GMCC on June 27, 2012, 05:32:26 AM
Back on topic...
I think it is a bit silly that all the services aren't in a common utility pattern/cut for field uniforms.
Agreed.
Quote from: LGM30GMCC on June 27, 2012, 05:32:26 AM
On some level I think it's silly we don't have similar service uniforms as well, but hey, that isn't going to change for a very long time if ever. (Personally, I'd use the same cut/style, just change the color)
That was tried in Canada in 1968...the Army, RCN and RCAF were folded into the "Canadian Armed Forces," and everyone lost their British-derived uniforms and wore a dark-green uniform. The only way to tell a member's affiliation with "Force Mobile Command," "Maritime Command" or "Air Command" were cap and collar dogs. "Air Command" lost its RAF-derived ranks but the "Maritime Command" stubbornly refused to give up their RN-derived ranks.
It did not go down well, to put it mildly...especially from former RCN and RCAF people.
Finally, the "naval element" and "air element" got distinctive uniforms back in the '80s, and last year they got their titles of RCN and RCAF back.
However, what you say
is different to what they tried...they tried to "green" everyone, but even what you say would be met with a firestorm, especially from the Marines (give up the Dress Blues for a uniform that looks like the OTHER SERVICES?!).
And, of course, for CAP it would have to be grey. ::)
Good for the Army! I am glad one of the branches has finally seen the light in that going "digital" has no function in the field whatsoever. I hope the Air Force follows suit as well. We in CAP have no need or use for the ABU other than to have the perceived "cool factor" of wearing what the AF wears. A set of ABU's can run close to $100 plus boots; a cost I feel is way to high for members.
Quote from: Bullitt on June 27, 2012, 07:01:41 PM
Good for the Army! I am glad one of the branches has finally seen the light in that going "digital" has no function in the field whatsoever. I hope the Air Force follows suit as well. We in CAP have no need or use for the ABU other than to have the perceived "cool factor" of wearing what the AF wears. A set of ABU's can run close to $100 plus boots; a cost I feel is way to high for members.
Phase in period. And it is not about the cool factor, it is about the fact that the BDU's conceal us in our area of work whereas ABU's help us stick out while we get to keep our Air Force routes. If we wanted to look cool, we would all push to be the ABG-S special operations command style ABU's with the Massif ABS and the modified ABU pants, or multicam.
Quote from: LGM30GMCC on June 27, 2012, 05:32:26 AM
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on June 26, 2012, 06:34:18 AM
If anything, the ACU is a failure because you can't tell what anyone's grade is easily. Collar and sleeve insignia work. Looking at someone's chest doesn't. Failed to salute? Probably because you couldn't figure out what the soldier was easily or readily enough.
Yeah...or you could look at their head. Unless they are in a helmet, in which case there's a good chance you aren't going to be worrying about a salute.
Very true. However, in my limited experience being around Army people (and mind you, there's a major Air Force installation that might as well be a joint and international base very close to me, which I often set foot on), they're coverless when they're in the ACU. You think I want to commit a faux pas? Of course not. Is it a huge deal? No, but it doesn't hurt to be conscientious.
I agree, especially in a time when costs are being cut and now we have the administration telling service personnel they need to pay up for health care, that service-specific uniforms are a little much. If there are specialized needs, fine, but to have work uniforms that are service-specific when many times, we're in a joint environment? Doesn't make sense to me. Especially if it means you might be seen because the guy next to you doesn't quite blend in.
Quote from: Bullitt on June 27, 2012, 07:01:41 PM
Good for the Army! I am glad one of the branches has finally seen the light in that going "digital" has no function in the field whatsoever. I hope the Air Force follows suit as well. We in CAP have no need or use for the ABU other than to have the perceived "cool factor" of wearing what the AF wears. A set of ABU's can run close to $100 plus boots; a cost I feel is way to high for members.
I don't know where you priced ABU's at, but it's a lot less if you go to clothing sales on base.
Sounds like you got your prices from one of the internet places that overcharge for inferior quality crap.
I still have not confirmed that the Army is in fact giving up the ACUs.
Well, they've been officially testing new patterns since last Oct.: http://peosoldier.armylive.dodlive.mil/2012/01/10/for-immediate-release-award-of-phase-iv-camouflage-uniform-contracts/ (http://peosoldier.armylive.dodlive.mil/2012/01/10/for-immediate-release-award-of-phase-iv-camouflage-uniform-contracts/)
The Army formally announced it was looking for a replacement last January:
http://www.army.mil/article/71921/Army_one_step_closer_to_replacement_of_ACU_pattern/ (http://www.army.mil/article/71921/Army_one_step_closer_to_replacement_of_ACU_pattern/)
And this article has follow up comments to the same effect:
http://defense.aol.com/2012/06/25/army-drops-universal-camouflage-after-spending-billions/ (http://defense.aol.com/2012/06/25/army-drops-universal-camouflage-after-spending-billions/)
Thanks...
The OP and the one artilce gave the impression that the change was imminant.
They may still be years away before they convert....if they decide to convert at all. At this point they are looking at options.
Quote from: PHall on July 01, 2012, 01:38:39 PM
Quote from: Bullitt on June 27, 2012, 07:01:41 PM
Good for the Army! I am glad one of the branches has finally seen the light in that going "digital" has no function in the field whatsoever. I hope the Air Force follows suit as well. We in CAP have no need or use for the ABU other than to have the perceived "cool factor" of wearing what the AF wears. A set of ABU's can run close to $100 plus boots; a cost I feel is way to high for members.
I don't know where you priced ABU's at, but it's a lot less if you go to clothing sales on base.
Sounds like you got your prices from one of the internet places that overcharge for inferior quality crap.
Actually that sounds about right when you consider the coat, pants, hat, t-shirts, belt, socks and that is not including the awful sage green boots. With the following break down:
ABU Trousers 41.01
ABU Coat 35.85
Hat 5.55
Belt 3.47
T- Shirts* 13.47
Socks* 6.21
Total 105.56
*comes in packs of three.
And these prices are straight from AAFES as you can see ABUS are twice the cost of BDUs and that is not even including boots. ANd it's not even taking into account for foul weather gear either.
The only difference comes in the Trousers and Coat.
BDUs have always run $20-25, but as high as $30 from what I've seen in the last Decade.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on July 01, 2012, 07:46:31 PM
BDUs have always run $20-25, but as high as $30 from what I've seen in the last Decade.
Well the price is going to go up on them as they become more rare.
Quote from: coudano on July 01, 2012, 08:00:55 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on July 01, 2012, 07:46:31 PM
BDUs have always run $20-25, but as high as $30 from what I've seen in the last Decade.
Well the price is going to go up on them as they become more rare.
Granted, but the point is that they aren't that much cheaper than ABUs.
Looks like they're looking to switch fully or partially to MultiCam:
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/06/28/army-to-recommend-multicam-for-entire-force.html?comp=7000023317828&rank=1 (http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/06/28/army-to-recommend-multicam-for-entire-force.html?comp=7000023317828&rank=1)
I've heard these "rumors" and "official rumors" about ABUs since at least 2007, sometimes from National Commanders at WING conferences, however, here I sit in 2012 with BDUs hanging in the closet. 'nuff said!
What about getting rid of the BDUs and going for something more relaxed... say... a polo shirt and maybe a pair of slacks...
How about no...
Slacks don't usually make good for going into mesquite and huisache brush lands. Add that to the fact that I don't like or wear polo shirts, and I have a practical and person reason for rejecting the idea.
Fly in that all you want............
Quote from: Nolan Teel on July 01, 2012, 09:25:20 PM
What about getting rid of the BDUs and going for something more relaxed... say... a polo shirt and maybe a pair of slacks...
No thanks. I like my AF style uniforms. After all, we are the AF Aux. and I would like to keep it that way. Plus my BDUs give a good example for the cadets to follow. Lead by example and lead from the front. I have never heard of "lead in comfy slacks and polo and let your troops iron and polish boots"
Quote from: Nolan Teel on July 01, 2012, 09:25:20 PM
What about getting rid of the BDUs and going for something more relaxed... say... a polo shirt and maybe a pair of slacks...
Never happen, no one in their right mind would try to do missions dressed like that...
But the polo shirts and slacks are awesome.... note sarcasm....
I mean... theres no way that members in CAP can screw up wearing that uniform....
see note above about sarcasm
Quote from: Major Carrales on July 01, 2012, 09:28:58 PM
How about no...
Slacks don't usually make good for going into mesquite and huisache brush lands. Add that to the fact that I don't like or wear polo shirts, and I have a practical and person reason for rejecting the idea.
Fly in that all you want............
+1 I don't see kids in the cadet program wanting to ditch their BDUs or blues for a polo and slacks especially if they have to wear that for school.
Quote from: abdsp51 on July 01, 2012, 09:31:38 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on July 01, 2012, 09:28:58 PM
How about no...
Slacks don't usually make good for going into mesquite and huisache brush lands. Add that to the fact that I don't like or wear polo shirts, and I have a practical and person reason for rejecting the idea.
Fly in that all you want............
+1 I don't see kids in the cadet program wanting to ditch their BDUs or blues for a polo and slacks especially if they have to wear that for school.
+2
All joking aside. We all know CAP has many different options for uniforms. Many members have different view points on when to wear what or what uniforms we should keep.
All I wish is that everyone would try 110% to wear them as properly as possible and not try to squeeze a 285 Frame into a medium AF Uniform.
Either way, an expense way to high for a volunteer organization. I never paid for the crappy things by the way. See one of the posts below for a cost break down.
Quote from: PHall on July 01, 2012, 01:38:39 PM
Quote from: Bullitt on June 27, 2012, 07:01:41 PM
Good for the Army! I am glad one of the branches has finally seen the light in that going "digital" has no function in the field whatsoever. I hope the Air Force follows suit as well. We in CAP have no need or use for the ABU other than to have the perceived "cool factor" of wearing what the AF wears. A set of ABU's can run close to $100 plus boots; a cost I feel is way to high for members.
I don't know where you priced ABU's at, but it's a lot less if you go to clothing sales on base.
Sounds like you got your prices from one of the internet places that overcharge for inferior quality crap.
As you know, CAP is a volunteer organization. I cant justify perspective and present members having to go out and purchase ABU's which can cost up to $100 plus boots just for the sake of looking like the AF. For those of us in colder climates, outerwear is also a big expense. I'm for a uniform that has function and cost effectiveness which the ABU doesn't in my opinion.
Quote from: AngelWings on June 27, 2012, 07:08:27 PM
Quote from: Bullitt on June 27, 2012, 07:01:41 PM
Good for the Army! I am glad one of the branches has finally seen the light in that going "digital" has no function in the field whatsoever. I hope the Air Force follows suit as well. We in CAP have no need or use for the ABU other than to have the perceived "cool factor" of wearing what the AF wears. A set of ABU's can run close to $100 plus boots; a cost I feel is way to high for members.
Phase in period. And it is not about the cool factor, it is about the fact that the BDU's conceal us in our area of work whereas ABU's help us stick out while we get to keep our Air Force routes. If we wanted to look cool, we would all push to be the ABG-S special operations command style ABU's with the Massif ABS and the modified ABU pants, or multicam.
And lets not forget the added expense of jackets.
Quote from: Bullitt on July 03, 2012, 10:05:20 AM
Either way, an expense way to high for a volunteer organization. I never paid for the crappy things by the way. See one of the posts below for a cost break down.
Quote from: PHall on July 01, 2012, 01:38:39 PM
Quote from: Bullitt on June 27, 2012, 07:01:41 PM
Good for the Army! I am glad one of the branches has finally seen the light in that going "digital" has no function in the field whatsoever. I hope the Air Force follows suit as well. We in CAP have no need or use for the ABU other than to have the perceived "cool factor" of wearing what the AF wears. A set of ABU's can run close to $100 plus boots; a cost I feel is way to high for members.
I don't know where you priced ABU's at, but it's a lot less if you go to clothing sales on base.
Sounds like you got your prices from one of the internet places that overcharge for inferior quality crap.
Quote from: Bullitt on July 03, 2012, 10:14:21 AM
As you know, CAP is a volunteer organization. I cant justify perspective and present members having to go out and purchase ABU's which can cost up to $100 plus boots just for the sake of looking like the AF. For those of us in colder climates, outerwear is also a big expense. I'm for a uniform that has function and cost effectiveness which the ABU doesn't in my opinion.
Quote from: AngelWings on June 27, 2012, 07:08:27 PM
Quote from: Bullitt on June 27, 2012, 07:01:41 PM
Good for the Army! I am glad one of the branches has finally seen the light in that going "digital" has no function in the field whatsoever. I hope the Air Force follows suit as well. We in CAP have no need or use for the ABU other than to have the perceived "cool factor" of wearing what the AF wears. A set of ABU's can run close to $100 plus boots; a cost I feel is way to high for members.
Phase in period. And it is not about the cool factor, it is about the fact that the BDU's conceal us in our area of work whereas ABU's help us stick out while we get to keep our Air Force routes. If we wanted to look cool, we would all push to be the ABG-S special operations command style ABU's with the Massif ABS and the modified ABU pants, or multicam.
Many generations were presented with similar problems, and we all ended up looking like the AF anyways. Why is these such a distinct cry to get us away from the AF due to money? The uniforms will get cheaper in time, and if we ask to wear them, then we may very well be able to find a way of procuring them without spending too much money. If you don't ask, you don't find out.
There's a modify post button, you can use it instead of posting three times.
The "$100" argument that keeps being thrown in all this is kinda funny, too. When the ACU's first showed up, and the whole "they are more expensive" thing came with it, I seem to recall the price difference at MCS/AAFES nearby being about $16 more, out the door for the three pieces. One vendor I just looked at was $39.95 per piece, shirt/pants. BDU.com is $59.95, of course, selling Propper. A broad search is showing me prices anywhere from $22.95 (eBay average), $28~ non-auction, and such.
As another thread states, if $16 is gonna bust you..
Looking at Vanguard right now, shirt and pants, $32 each, BDU.com .. $29 each, for ripstop.
Where's all this huge expense? It's practically negligible. Not everyone gets free uniforms from their supply, and even then, once we could start using whatever it is, that wouldn't be an issue either I'm sure. Several places I've been, I've already seen CAP units with stacks of ABU cast offs, of course, we can't use 'em, but if you start telling the Air Force units that, we don't get the BDUs that come in with them because they'll just give the whole thing to someone else.
Sir, how many of these finds are the proper spec for ABUs and not a cheap knock off? Outside of donations the initial cost to outfit a member not including boots is over a hundred bucks. Throw ik a good quality boot and it has now doubled and thats not including foul weather gear. Now times that by however many members family may have and well thats a good chunk of change.
I personally would not mind a switch to ABUs but then again I have sets I can convert if we were to receive them.
Quote from: abdsp51 on July 03, 2012, 02:52:02 PM
Sir, how many of these finds are the proper spec for ABUs and not a cheap knock off? Outside of donations the initial cost to outfit a member not including boots is over a hundred bucks. Throw ik a good quality boot and it has now doubled and thats not including foul weather gear. Now times that by however many members family may have and well thats a good chunk of change.
I personally would not mind a switch to ABUs but then again I have sets I can convert if we were to receive them.
A search of evilBay comes up with only real military brands, like Propper and DSPC. I don't think they've made rip offs of ABU's just yet.
Quote from: AngelWings on July 03, 2012, 03:09:31 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on July 03, 2012, 02:52:02 PM
Sir, how many of these finds are the proper spec for ABUs and not a cheap knock off? Outside of donations the initial cost to outfit a member not including boots is over a hundred bucks. Throw ik a good quality boot and it has now doubled and thats not including foul weather gear. Now times that by however many members family may have and well thats a good chunk of change.
I personally would not mind a switch to ABUs but then again I have sets I can convert if we were to receive them.
A search of evilBay comes up with only real military brands, like Propper and DSPC. I don't think they've made rip offs of ABU's just yet.
I can assure you they have. Since the ABU became official there were companies advertising a summer weight ABU when at the time none existed. A lighter weight fire resistant one was introduced for select career fields ajd it was only this year that a lightweight rip stop became authorized. And unless the seller is willing to provide proof its the real deal I would be wary of buying ABUs or any "official" uniform item from Ebay.
I was citing "official" stuff, Propper and DSCP/issue finds, and my visuals have all been inside AAFES stores. I remember what I paid for BDU's from March ARB, and when I saw ABU's on sale side by side, the price difference wasn't that great, as I said. $16 bucks between two items. The cover was the same price.
The "cotton" stuff is knock off, as I cited, it was cheaper, but the other isn't. With the exception of BDU.com selling Propper branded items at MSRP of $59.95 each half, that's the most expensive I've ever seen it, and thats similar to buying the DSCP vs. Poly Wool variety of service dress shirt from the exchange, and the only option Vanguard has. You choose to pay more.
Seems this whole discussion centers, when it all boils down, not to whether we want to get our hands on the ABU, but rather that we see uncertainty in our supply of the woodland BDU. Looks like we're going to be hashing this one out among the barracks lawyers for some time to come.
Apparently, it's a popular question with "Ask The National Commander" -- so much so, in fact, that Florida Wing's commander put out an e-mail today telling his members to can it on the ABU question, it's been asked so much.
Frankly, considering the boondoggle the Army's work uniform has become, and the notion that maybe we don't need service-specific camouflage patterns, it's easier and less stressful to just say "just go with it" and let it roll however it goes. If cadets can't get their hands on the authorized uniform, we'll then have a problem to address and CAP-USAF will handle it. Either way, we'll wind up with the DRMO hand-me-downs and like it, just as we have for decades.
Just to throw some gasoline on the fire, saw on Military.Com today that the Army has decided to go to Multicam of some sort. Got the impression that it hadn't been officially announced, but that the decision had been made.
Now watch the AF chase that one.
Quote from: bosshawk on July 12, 2012, 05:59:38 AM
Just to throw some gasoline on the fire, saw on Military.Com today that the Army has decided to go to Multicam of some sort. Got the impression that it hadn't been officially announced, but that the decision had been made.
Now watch the AF chase that one.
No the ABU will be around for awhile.
Quote from: abdsp51 on July 12, 2012, 06:27:30 AM
Quote from: bosshawk on July 12, 2012, 05:59:38 AM
Just to throw some gasoline on the fire, saw on Military.Com today that the Army has decided to go to Multicam of some sort. Got the impression that it hadn't been officially announced, but that the decision had been made.
Now watch the AF chase that one.
No the ABU will be around for awhile.
It better...because when/if we get them, I am completely ready to make the transition with no delay. Kinda strange that way.
Quote from: bosshawk on July 12, 2012, 05:59:38 AM
Just to throw some gasoline on the fire, saw on Military.Com today that the Army has decided to go to Multicam of some sort. Got the impression that it hadn't been officially announced, but that the decision had been made.
Now watch the AF chase that one.
You know that can't be true.....if it were then those loosing proposals....will sue the heck out of the Army! I just went through a DoD contract rebid......this ain't no joke.
Quote from: abdsp51 on July 12, 2012, 06:27:30 AM
No the ABU will be around for a little while longer.
FTFY
Quote from: Eclipse on July 12, 2012, 06:36:12 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on July 12, 2012, 06:27:30 AM
No the ABU will be around for a little while longer.
FTFY
There is no little while about it. Unless someone has a solid source saying otherwise outside of meer gossip or speculation there is no little while about it.
Quote from: abdsp51 on July 12, 2012, 06:58:51 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 12, 2012, 06:36:12 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on July 12, 2012, 06:27:30 AM
No the ABU will be around for a little while longer.
FTFY
There is no little while about it. Unless someone has a solid source saying otherwise outside of meer gossip or speculation there is no little while about it.
Everything in the human condition is a "little while" when considered in the scale of geologic time, so (http://smileys.emoticonsonly.com/emoticons/t/tongue_out-916.gif)
I'm just repeating what I read on a valid website that usually is correct in their reporting. Go to Military.Com and read it for yourself.
Out.
Been there they are not affiliated with the DOD in any capacity and per senior AF leadership the ABU is not going anywhere anytime soon. Any uniform changes per CSAF has been put on hold until other things are dealt with. So please show me an official memo saying the ABU is being canned.
Don't some of you guys ever read a post before you jump to conclusions? I simply repeated what I read on the Internet about the ACUs, not ever mentioning the ABUs. Now the thread is jumping over to the AF uniforms.
Next time, I'll simply keep it to myself. We have nearly as many experts on CT as we have members.
Quote from: bosshawk on July 12, 2012, 05:59:38 AM
Now watch the AF chase that one.
Your words at the end of the military.com post. You alluded the AF is going to follow suit, all I asked for was a solid, reliable but above all official source.
Paul, you know was well as I do that Military.com is not exactly a "trusted source".
That's like telling your Commander he's wrong about something because the Army Times said something different.
I simply made the comment because I was getting tired of hearing all the stuff about the ABU and the ACU. I read it in an unofficial website that is usually spot on and I quoted the site: I didn't make up a [darn]ed thing, except my comment about the AF jumping on the rumor and that was tongue in cheek. I will now go back to my contented retirement and watch some of the nonsense that is posted on CT.