There is much debate/discussion amongst military circles( at least in the army) about the look of the current army uniform. many claim that it is poorly designed, looks ugly, doesn't camoflauge with anything, etc. etc.

They are also many that do not like the new Army service uniform( Blues) verses the old Greens. 

I was wondering what the civillian perspective is. Does a man in uniform still attract with the current uniforms? Do you all think it looks good? does the american/world public care? 

Views: 1228

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I always thought army was green.  I am a bit sad to hear it went blue.  Beyond that I don't deal with the military and mostly see them in camo when I see them around campus.  I don't really have an opinion.  

I'm assuming you're referring to the modern 'digital pattern' fatigues, and the old 'pinks and greens'? 

As for the fatigues: I don't like the look of 'm at all, but I assume scientists have figured out they camouflage really well. Still, I feel they don't look like what you'd expect from a military man somehow. Something is off. 

As for the blues vs. pinks and greens: Pinks and greens have been out a very long time I believe, but I think they looked very 'Army'. The Blues look more generic, making you wonder (as a layman, which I am) if your looking at an Army or an Air Force guy. 

Anyway, i'm a sentimental guy, and I like the way things used to look. 

There are still a few who wear green dress uniforms, I don't know if the date of final phase out is upon us or not but you will see a lot of the older generation NCOs still in them, they think they look snazyer

Yup.......that pretty much covers it.

I'd laugh at that story if it wasn't so wastefully and completely pathetic. What a cock-up.

   As a history buff, I find it kind of endearing that the Army is back in dark blue, which of course was it's original color.  Dress uniforms originally started to change to various greens and tans in the wake of the Spanish American war so as not to offend southerners in the service that would take offense to wearing Yankee blue. But, then again, I'm a yankee.

   Concerning the digital camo patterns, I don't think they work very well in the field. (Disclaimer; all my experience comes from paintball). To me the old 90's era camo blended well into a variety of environments.  The new stuff seems too light in color, and to stick out whether against gravel, forest, or even urban settings. I think it might help blur an outline when in motion, but it's certainly easier to spot when motionless. And it's much easier to spot at night.

   History and silly wargaming aside, I believe people still respect that uniform when they see it on the street.

  The same man standing in front of the same background in both uniforms, that sort of thing?

  

  It's entirely possible my negative experiences with it were due to the peculiarities of the forest terrain up here in the northeast. I'm certainly not trying to armchair general my opinions on fighting tech.

yeah, yours were, not the armies. plus you all have the worst PT uniform

There is an old Army legend that goes like this:  At a command & staff college shortly after Vietnam and when the military was not held in the highest esteem, a batch of promising higher ranking officers were given an "impossible" question where no matter what answer they gave the cadre would shoot them down.  "What was the single most common difference between winning and losing sides in wars?"  The cadre expected answers involving technology, moral, numbers, etc...

What they came up with was: "The side with the best dressed officers always loses."  Think about that a moment.  Nazis, Confederates, tribal chiefs, etc...  based on this they projected that if the whole world jumped into a free for all China would win and the US would pull up a close second.  Shortly after this the Army was issued BDUs. 

Nice!

Very nice.

RSS

Latest Activity

Pale Horse replied to Braeden 2.0's discussion The Horror of Day to Day Life
"@Shane Yeah, Margaret Sanger. She founded it. @Liam, sorry, forgot this isn't a group thread."
9 hours ago
Liam Strain replied to Braeden 2.0's discussion The Horror of Day to Day Life
"Historians don't agree on how involved in the eugenics movement of the time, Sanger actually was. Mostly it seems it was a political vehicle (being quite popular, and supported by much of the scientific community of the time) for her birth…"
9 hours ago
Shane replied to Braeden 2.0's discussion The Horror of Day to Day Life
"Planned Parenthood"
9 hours ago
Shane replied to Dominic's discussion Trump, Flynn, Russians - oh my! in the group The Great Debate
"If it was over that would mean people would need to get to work instead of screaming about nothing."
9 hours ago
Sir replied to Dominic's discussion Trump, Flynn, Russians - oh my! in the group The Great Debate
10 hours ago
Pale Horse replied to Braeden 2.0's discussion The Horror of Day to Day Life
"Sanger?"
11 hours ago
Nick H replied to Braeden 2.0's discussion The Horror of Day to Day Life
"Had a botany prof who used to say that when eating a banana you are eating the aborted foetuses of the plant."
13 hours ago
Nick H replied to Braeden 2.0's discussion The Horror of Day to Day Life
"Saw this sign in a shop recently that said "Ham and eggs. A day's work for a chicken and a life's work for a pig"."
13 hours ago

© 2017   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service