Henry McKenna #700L Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Well, I can say that MARPAT is in fact a proprietary design. If you look close the the Marine digital uniforms, you will see that there are a whole bunch of Eagle, Globe and Anchors(Marine Corps logo) in the design. It is my opinion that no other service has the right to wear that logo. The "EGA" is sacred to every Marine. Just as I should not have Army jump wings on my uniform, no other service should have my beloved Eagle, Globe and Anchor on theirs. Now, If they want to make a similar camo, omitting the "EGA," I personally would have no problem with that. Bravo! When all the services were making do with the old woodland pattern uniforms, the underfunded USMC budgeted, developed, and implemented the MARPATS to meet needs. Every Marine got both green and desert uniforms to be ready for multiple combat environments. As usual, the Marines met their budget that year and returned a portion of their budget to congress (an old tradition). It was not long until the Army followed suit (with a fine uniform). Then the Air Force (another excellent and practical design). Then to everyone's shock the Navy introduced their ridiculous uniform. Our services ARE different. They have unique missions, special training, distinct identities, and their own uniforms. All as it should be. We get no better return on our tax money that what our armed services give us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah Bob #35998 Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 This is nothing new, but you’d think the military would learned something by now. Say what?? Waaaa Haaaa Haaaaa Haaaa! :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Bravo! When all the services were making do with the old woodland pattern uniforms, the underfunded USMC budgeted, developed, and implemented the MARPATS to meet needs. Every Marine got both green and desert uniforms to be ready for multiple combat environments. As usual, the Marines met their budget that year and returned a portion of their budget to congress (an old tradition). It was not long until the Army followed suit (with a fine uniform). Then the Air Force (another excellent and practical design). Then to everyone's shock the Navy introduced their ridiculous uniform. Our services ARE different. They have unique missions, special training, distinct identities, and their own uniforms. All as it should be. We get no better return on our tax money that what our armed services give us. Amen to that!! GG ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nichols Creek, SASS #77627 Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Just setle on something and quit making me spend so much on replacing uniforms so often. I have worn everything from fatigues and khakis to the current crap we have now. Get rid of the frigging beret, here in Texas it's a health hazard in summer,and who came up with the idea of velcro for gosh sakes, sticks on everything and must be replaced every 4-6 months at a cost of about 60 bucks a set. Not to mention the fact that wearing the ACU looks like a set of pajamas to begin with. With the supposed wash and wear, the wearer looks like a full time dirt bag. It's hard to take pride in one's uniform when it looks like sh(t right off the shelf to start with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Bodfish #91995 Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Geeze, don't get your shorts in such a bunch!! Of course they should take the Eagle, Globe and Anchor emblem off the other services camo gear. Being an Army vet, I wouldn't want to wear the device. And I'm betting my Navy and Air Force brethren feel the same way. My point was to use the same pattern for all services. It will cut costs across the board and provide all services with the best design possible. I think it was Robert McNamara that asked, when he became Secretary of Defense, why each service had a different black shoe. Same idea. Why can't all the branches use the same pattern? The idead that MARPAT is "proprietary" (akin to sacred) is just ridiculous. Shorts aren't in a bunch at all, but not all who are here have served and don't understand the pride that goes with each service. I don't care about all the different styles of uniform, what needs to be used is what works best. I understand that there is excessive spending in government, but when it comes to the military, the "taxpayers" need to lay off. This is a free country because of those who fight for it. If we have to spend a few million dollars to develop something that will save the life of just one soldier, Marine, airman, or sailor, then spend the money, it is well worth it. If people want to gripe about what their tax money is going toward, go after something that isn't one of the very few things in government protecting your freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Smokepole #29248L Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Geeze, don't get your shorts in such a bunch!! Of course they should take the Eagle, Globe and Anchor emblem off the other services camo gear. Being an Army vet, I wouldn't want to wear the device. And I'm betting my Navy and Air Force brethren feel the same way. My point was to use the same pattern for all services. It will cut costs across the board and provide all services with the best design possible. I think it was Robert McNamara that asked, when he became Secretary of Defense, why each service had a different black shoe. Same idea. Why can't all the branches use the same pattern? The idead that MARPAT is "proprietary" (akin to sacred) is just ridiculous. McNamara also decided that the M16's didn't need chrome plated bores and chambers and that they should use the surplus ball powder instead of the stick powder that the rifle was designed to use.... I too want the best for all our guys but the damned bean counters are always the ones making the final decisions, unfortunately........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckshot Frank Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 I read an article (in Shotgun News, I think) last year about camoflauge. Apparently, Multicam was determined to be the most effective when the Army was looking to change. Unfortunately Multicam was a proprietary design, and the Army didn't want to pay royalties to use it so they chose the ACU pattern instead. They are reconsidering this now. I think that a couple of extra bucks is worth it for camo that actually works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah Bob #35998 Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 They have been trying to find the perfect aircraft since 1909. An intercepting, close air support, tank busting, ship sinking, dog fighting, long range, attack bombing, supersonic, stealthy, high altitude, rip snorter. They ain't found one yet. They won't find the perfect camouflage either until somebody develops a: Device, cloaking, ground troops, individual. 1 each. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colonel Dan, SASS #24025 Posted June 10, 2011 Author Share Posted June 10, 2011 My original point with all this was that common sense tells me the determination of the best camo adopted for anyone (Army, Navy, Air Force or Marines)should be based on the terrain or environment in which those troops are operating and not proprietary design considerations. After all isn't the purpose of camo to help conceal our troops and thus save lives regardless of the branch of service? What am I missing if that's not the case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S. Quentin Quale, Esq. SASS 9953 Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 They have been trying to find the perfect aircraft since 1909. An intercepting, close air support, tank busting, ship sinking, dog fighting, long range, attack bombing, supersonic, stealthy, high altitude, rip snorter. They ain't found one yet. They won't find the perfect camouflage either until somebody develops a: Device, cloaking, ground troops, individual. 1 each. Subcontract the whole thing to the Romulans? SQQ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holden A. Grudge Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 They won't find the perfect camouflage either until somebody develops a: Device, cloaking, ground troops, individual. 1 each. And it will probably weigh 55 lbs and have a 2 minute battery life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nichols Creek, SASS #77627 Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 They have been trying to find the perfect aircraft since 1909. An intercepting, close air support, tank busting, ship sinking, dog fighting, long range, attack bombing, supersonic, stealthy, high altitude, rip snorter. They ain't found one yet. They won't find the perfect camouflage either until somebody develops a: Device, cloaking, ground troops, individual. 1 each. Ain't that the truth! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Lee Bishop Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 I read an article (in Shotgun News, I think) last year about camoflauge. Apparently, Multicam was determined to be the most effective when the Army was looking to change. Unfortunately Multicam was a proprietary design, and the Army didn't want to pay royalties to use it so they chose the ACU pattern instead. They are reconsidering this now.I think that a couple of extra bucks is worth it for camo that actually works. You are correct. It was looked at and they more decided that it wouldn’t look good for the Army to use commercial design as opposed to not wanting to pay licensing fees. There was a real push to get a pattern done “in house” like the Marines did. And of course, the Navy and Air Force couldn’t be left out in the “my own camo pattern” race, so they had to have their own. They won't find the perfect camouflage either until somebody develops a: Device, cloaking, ground troops, individual. 1 each. They did, actually. I’ve seen it, but I can’t talk about the details. Suffice to say, it was way too big and bulky to be used on a battlefield. But I wouldn’t be shocked if in a generation or two, soldiers will be using just that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Hooker Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 They have been trying to find the perfect aircraft since 1909. An intercepting, close air support, tank busting, ship sinking, dog fighting, long range, attack bombing, supersonic, stealthy, high altitude, rip snorter. They ain't found one yet..... Sgt Smokepole: "McNamara also decided that the M16's didn't need chrome plated bores and chambers and that they should use the surplus ball powder instead of the stick powder that the rifle was designed to use.... I too want the best for all our guys but the damned bean counters are always the ones making the final decisions, unfortunately.........." Speaking of bean-counters and MacNamara, this is how we got the F-111B. Supposed to be both a fighter and a bomber. Not a fighter-bomber, which is usually a fighter fitted out to carry a couple of smaller bombs in the battlefield, tactical role; but a real, strategic-type bomber. To be big enough to carry a useful load as a bomber, it was too heavy to be even a mediocre fighter. As one Admiral said, "All the thrust in Christendom couldn't make a fighter out of that plane". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nichols Creek, SASS #77627 Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 ACU changes make Velcro optional, patrol cap default headgear This just in from the Army website...at least some things are changing. Go to www.army.mil to read the whole story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stump Water Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 Well, the Army ditched the beret today. "I hate wearing a wet sock on my head" ETA: I guess that's what NC said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah Bob #35998 Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 They just reported the change on CNN. Wolf Blitzer asked, "But what about the green one?". What an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiley Desperado, SASS # 49558 Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 I can’t help it being an old jarhead I’ve got to jump in on this just too much fun to pass up. If the Army is going to wear the Marine camouflage then wear it without all those unit patches just like the Marines do. As for taxpayers… last time I checked military folks pay taxes too. Frankly, I don’t care how much it costs, if wearing camouflage makes a military service member feel better no matter their service or job, bring on the camouflage and use my share of tax money to help pay for it…no problem, it’s a much better use of tax money than paying for the congressional gym. God bless all our military service members. Semper Fi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuteTheMall Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 They won't find the perfect camouflage either until somebody develops a: Device, cloaking, ground troops, individual. 1 each. Yeah, I had me one of them. I hanged it in my closet and haven't seen it since. Works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairshake Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 They will always have a pride thing between the Army and Marines. If you are under fire and needing help, it does not matter what branch shows up to extract your butt. If you are a Marine and a squad of Army SF shows up you will not turn them away. I was Army 4th ID and have a very close friend who was a SF Captain that was doing recruitment duty. His commander ordered him to wear the standard black beret instead of his green SF beret. I told him that his commander was just feeling inadequate with that stupid order. He is now on his third tour of duty in a combat zone.( LOCATION CLASSIFIED)I am happy to see that they are allowing the SF and Air Borne and Rangers are getting to keep the beret of their units. The camo thing should be what is best for the man in the field. With today's machines I don't why it would be so hard to give the Army and Marines different types that work as well as the other with the same cost. The Navy and regular Air Force should stay with what has worked in the past. If your ship is hit and you have to go in, what camo works against sharks? If you are Air Force and you bail out, what terrain are you landing in? What camo is needed for fueling planes or being a powder monkey on 16 inch guns? Mcnamara has the deaths of many Americans on his chart to deal with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Smokepole #29248L Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 The Inter Service Rivalry is just a good natured way of having fun. We all have done it. marines all zing Army Pukes, Squids, Airdales, Coasties but will hazard themselves in a blink of an eye to help one another, regardless of Service... All Branches have been called names... Jarheads is the one I use as an excuse to rip someone a new one.......lol Hell, I never needed any excuses.............LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocDisaster # 45431 Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 A known fact Squids sh*t on Marine life!!!! I saw it on Jacque Cousteau once. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Smokepole #29248L Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 A known fact Squids sh*t on Marine life!!!! I saw it on Jacque Cousteau once. :-) Doc, IMHO, Corpsmen and SeaBee's are the only Navy personnel that are worth more than a bucket of warm spit............ That was said in friendly jest... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocDisaster # 45431 Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 Doc, IMHO, Corpsmen and SeaBee's are the only Navy personnel that are worth more than a bucket of warm spit............ That was said in friendly jest... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustang Gregg Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 Branchwater Jack is correct. Our ARNG unit is on the way to Afghanistan. The digital pattern ACU's are getting put away and we are being issued Mlicam ACU's. Mustang Gregg, SFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solo_Sam Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 I personally don't care who came up with it, I just want the best. I'm broadcasting from Afghanistan and we're switching to Multicams now, which is a huge improvement over the ACU as far as I'm concerned. My problem is that I see a lot of Airmen and Sailors walking around in ACUs or Multicam OCPs. I have to ask what was the point of giving them proprietary uniforms if they are just going to switch to the Army patterns when they deploy? -Solo Sam #91319 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.