One Sixth Warriors Forum banner

21 - 40 of 71 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,316 Posts
What makes sense to my Enlisted E-5 Leg Infantry Brain is to take MARPAT, change the EGA to a black dot and use it for the other 3 services since the Marines were allowed to procur MARPAT already.
 

·
A Stickler for Accuracy
Joined
·
4,365 Posts
What makes sense to my Enlisted E-5 Leg Infantry Brain is to take MARPAT, change the EGA to a black dot and use it for the other 3 services since the Marines were allowed to procur MARPAT already.
So you don't think it makes sense for the services to have different camoflage uniforms. Cool, I agree.

I wouldn't put a black dot, but just remove the EGA. The color black on a desert camoflage uniorm equals less effective.
 

·
U.S. Marine Corps Veteran
Joined
·
1,141 Posts
There are two different types of EGAs on the uniform. There is 1 that is embroidered to the left breast pocket (easy to change out) and a the second is small pixilated EGAs throughout the design. The easy fix here is to replace the pixilated EGAs with a random pattern with the colors used. Either they can embroider specific branch logos on the left breast pocket or just leave them blank to make it easier for uniform purchase. I believe the Marine Corps was the only branch that had their specific logo on the uniform back in the day, except for maybe the Navy Seabees.

Jeff
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
486 Posts
blackrazor, you left out this post of mine:

Not placing any blame, just stating facts. Here are some more:

Fact: The Corps developed what they considered a superior camoflage pattern and uniform.
Fact: The Corps made the decision to keep their pattern and uniform for their own use.
Fact: The Army has, in the past, developed camoflage patterns and uniforms and shared them with all of the services, to include the Corps.
Fact: A service specific camoflage pattern and uniform for each branch not only adds to the cost outlay by the DOD, and the size and complexity of logistics train across the DOD, it also directly impacts the safety of the entire US Armed Forces. Remember that every armed force in the world uses the type of uniform worn to identify the unit they are observing when making reports to higher. The MC, from the Commandant on down chose to ignore that fact in order to acquire a uniform that made them feel special.
Fact: If the Corps decided to allow the rest of the services to use their camoflage pattern and uniform, the entire US Armed Forces, to include the USMC would be better off.

EDIT: I didn't see Evan's (Punsher 2-2) post before I made this one. I concur with his entire post.


Now, if you want to place blame (your word, not mine) for the current camoflage situation in the DOD, it definitely lies with the USMC. Do you agree that, based on the input in this thread from actual users of the various patterns that a single camoflage patern for US Forces would be preferable to the multiple camoflage patterns used by the various services, and would, in fact make our fighting men and women safer due to the points made about intel gathering ?
You sort of missed the point. All the Marines did was not wait for the Army to pick a pattern. The Army did the research that lead to CADPAT=>MARPAT and decided they didn't want to do anything with it. The Marines didn't just want to look fashionable. They had an objective and a budget, when they made the decision. If the Marines had waited, all the services would have been stuck with UCP (since the Army as the biggest user would have the biggest voice). The DoD would still be in the same boat, but now they'd have to add the Navy and Marines to the cost. Considering every surplus outlet sells unofficial digital desert and woodland uniforms, there is nothing stopping the Army from making a MARPAT-like uniform in ACU cut. Yes, it would be nice if all the services wore the same combat uniform, but the other services are also spending money changing their dress, class A and class B uniforms. The UCP/ABU debacle is just a glaring symptom of a lack of sense in the Army and Air Force uniform selection boards. Why does it take them so long to make bad decisions? Is there something stopping the Army and Air Force from using AOR1 and AOR2? Is there something stopping them from changing the colors in UCP and ABU to make wooland and desert patterns? The fact that UCP was chosen, when it didn't fit the criteria shows a lack of leadership. If the Army had just done its job right the first time, few people would be complaining about the the different uniforms now.
 

·
Proudly Banned by OSS
Joined
·
7,357 Posts
blackrazor1 - This IS the Marines trying to look fashionable though. Short of an order of Congress, they WILL not let the other services use MARPAT. Since General Jones made it an objective to give the Marines a distinctive camo pattern, they've thrown down a gauntlet whenever another service tries to use adopt a similar camo pattern. When the Army was running camo tests using MARPAT as a test pattern, the CSM of the Marine Corps himself objected to the tests (HERE). When the Navy was getting ready to field NWU II (aka AOR 1), the Marine Commandant forced the CNO into negotiations whereby only Naval Special Warfare personnel and their supporting personnel would be able to wear the pattern (HERE, Page 27). MARPAT is their baby and they're not going to let it go.
 

·
A Stickler for Accuracy
Joined
·
4,365 Posts
You sort of missed the point. All the Marines did was not wait for the Army to pick a pattern. The Army did the research that lead to CADPAT=>MARPAT and decided they didn't want to do anything with it. The Marines didn't just want to look fashionable. They had an objective and a budget, when they made the decision. If the Marines had waited, all the services would have been stuck with UCP (since the Army as the biggest user would have the biggest voice). The DoD would still be in the same boat, but now they'd have to add the Navy and Marines to the cost. Considering every surplus outlet sells unofficial digital desert and woodland uniforms, there is nothing stopping the Army from making a MARPAT-like uniform in ACU cut. Yes, it would be nice if all the services wore the same combat uniform, but the other services are also spending money changing their dress, class A and class B uniforms. The UCP/ABU debacle is just a glaring symptom of a lack of sense in the Army and Air Force uniform selection boards. Why does it take them so long to make bad decisions? Is there something stopping the Army and Air Force from using AOR1 and AOR2? Is there something stopping them from changing the colors in UCP and ABU to make wooland and desert patterns? The fact that UCP was chosen, when it didn't fit the criteria shows a lack of leadership. If the Army had just done its job right the first time, few people would be complaining about the the different uniforms now.
You used one quote of mine, then didn't use another that really made my point, that's why I reposted that one.

I didn't say anything about the Corps wanting to look fashionable, I don't diagree with that, but it's not what I said. Also, it's not a matter of "it would be nice" for all of the services to have the same combat uniform; it's a matter of making it more difficult for the enemy to determine which branch of the US military they are facing. That's the most important reason that it's better to have all of the branches wearing the same combat uniform. Dress uniforms are a completely different matter and not even germaine to this conversation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,493 Posts
blackrazor -
All the Marines did was not wait for the Army to pick a pattern.
You may not know the Army didn't even start the ACU program until after the Marines selected a new pattern. There was no "waiting" for the Army.

The Marines didn't just want to look fashionable.
You really need to go back at look at Gen James Jones' (USMC Commandant) words in stating one of MARPAT's goals was the development of a "unique" pattern to differentiate Marines. Looking different is pretty much being fashionable.

Then there's the quote by Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps Carlton Kent...

The MARPAT design is proprietary, and it's important those designs are reserved for Marines. We just need to make sure each of our designs is unique to each service.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/06/army-marine-corps-clash-over-camouflage-060411w/

there is nothing stopping the Army from making a MARPAT-like uniform in ACU cut.
Again see the above comment made by SGM Kent when the Army was starting the current program for a UCP replacement and there is the documented pressure Gen Conway put on the Navy to change AOR and restrict who it was issued to. http://www.armytimes.com/community/...-corps-needs-to-relax-grip-on-marpat-011011w/
 
G

·
I’d like to weigh in strictly from a civilian outsider point of view, in another word, my personal observation.

I can fully understand and appreciate the need for MC to develop a unique and distinctive identity just to differentiate itself from the overall organization. It is considered as a separate branch in the military leadership structure and the smallest in size in US armed forces in the DoD. But its capability, involvement and contribution throughout history since its formation in 1775 are no less significant than that by the US Army or the Navy. Yet it needs to compete with its big brothers for resources, funding and missions, etc. It’s only natural that a little attention is called for in the form of uniform design, branch image and identity. IMHO, the MC has every right to fight for it and keep itself as distinctive as possible from other larger branches.

The Marines has done a tremendous job so far in establishing its position and sculpting an identity carefully for the good of the organization. Undoubtedly, and not unlike a major commercial brand in the market, having a unique and distinctive identity can really boost the morale and heighten the sense of belonging to everyone involved. It makes a Marine grunt that much more proud simply by putting on the MCCUU with the EGA on it. It is understandably difficult to let it go and have it shared with the entire US Armed Forces. It’d be clearly considered as a lost of identity from the MC’s point of view. It’s not just a fashion statement.

Besides, the US Army has all the capability to develop a unique and tactical worthy cammie pattern that is just as effective as the MARPAT. The current OCP or multicam is pretty impressive. It’s been issued for the past couple years and it serves the Army just fine.

Here is my late Happy B-day to the MC. Semper Fi.
 

·
A Stickler for Accuracy
Joined
·
4,365 Posts
Hi Toys Scout. I understand that you are a civilian, and I'm not trying to dismiss your observations, but you don't have the experience to truly "get" all of the reasons why a single fatigue uniform for a nation's armed forces is much preferable to having a unique batlle dress for each branch. You can re-read my posts, as well as those from other members who have served in the US Military to get an understanding of the reasons why it makes no sense for the USMC to have done what they did.

And in response to your post, all the points that you have raised are addressed by the dress uniforms that are, and should be, unique to each branch.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,493 Posts
Toy Scout - just to piggy back on the Steve's point I'd also bring up history of uniforms and camouflage.

The Army and USMC have shared military uniforms or at least parts of them for centuries. We share nothing today. That is NOT good and has cost, culture and combat consequences.

As to camouflage, since WWII we've shared the same camo patterns. Yep, that WWII camo pattern of Iwo Jima and Tarawa fame was developed (and shared) by the Army. The Army even wore it in Europe where we faced an enemy that routinely used camo uniforms and so decided not to use the pattern to avoid confusion in the middle of a war.

We repeated that process in Vietname with ERDL camo and again in the Cold War with BDUs/Woodland Pattern. The ONLY difference between these shared camo usage was an Eagle Globe Anchor emblem printed on the left chest pocket. I would think if that was good enough for the Old Breed it should suffice for the latest.

But its capability, involvement and contribution throughout history since its formation in 1775 are no less significant than that by the US Army or the Navy.
There is no doubt that the Marine Corps is the equivalent of all its brother branches. I would still disagree with your statement. If you want to go back to 1775 the Marines did not play key roles in every conflict (e.g. the Revolution, War of 1812, Mexican American War, Civil War, Indian Wars, Spanish American War or even WWII). Yes, they particpated in many of them but that particpation was always "less significant" than other branches. That brings no "shame" on the proud Corps. There have been several battles where the Army provided key forces to Marine units to accomplish their mission and been largely ignored for it (e.g. Chosin, Tiger BDE in Desert Storm and Faluja).

The Marines have an illustrious and proud history. Being the smallest, doesn't equate to having a need to be identified "more" or differently than any other service. We are one and anytime we try and elevate any above others no good can come of it. There is a cost there when it comes to working together on the battlefield and in the Pentagon.

Finally I'd return to Steve's very salient operational consideration. The enemy should never know if he is fighting a Soldier Sailor, Airmen or Marine. It provides him intel for free on his advesary's capabilities and we should always endeavor to make the enemy pat for everything he gets. We've so outclassed our enemies man for man for so long that we've forgotten that. There will be a day where we may be more equal on the battlefield. We shouldn't be giving away intel.
 
G

·
Thanks Will and Steve for your very constructive and educational comments.

I’m very interested in the design and development of modern camouflage patterns and combat uniforms. It’s great chatting with you guys, real grunts and experts of the field. I get to learn something new, though I’m very aware of my limitation on background information and full understanding of certain issues. My previous comment was strictly my personal observation and opinion. I don’t mean to defend or disagree with any particular view. I’m certainly not in the position to debate with anyone. It was more for participation and a chance to learn more on this fascinating subject.

I do understand Steve’s operational and logistic considerations and the cost benefit of having a single united camo pattern across all branches. Will’s concern on giving enemy free intel by having distinctive uniforms is certainly valid. Perhaps, bearing different insignias in the field is enough for branch identification.

Will, I do agree with you that the USAF has so overwhelmingly outclassed the enemies in recent conflicts that having distinctive camo patterns isn’t really considered a major compromise in combat. Just the quality and effectiveness of the camo pattern seem to be the issue.

Steve, Will, thanks again for sharing.
 

·
A Stickler for Accuracy
Joined
·
4,365 Posts
So, I was walking around the FOB the other day, looking at all of the Soldiers walking around in their multicam uniforms. I then noticed several Airmen and Sailors walking by. Of course, I didn't know that they were USAF or USN until I got right up to them and saw their rank insignia, and their branch embroidered on their chests, because they were also wearing multicam. What a concept, eh? Various branches of a nation's military wearing the same combat uniform. It just reinforces the point that several of us have made about making it more difficult for the enemy to know which branch of the military they're facing when the branches can't be readily identified from a distance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,442 Posts
Interesting. I had a conversation the other day with a [civilian] that said exactly this to me:

"it's a great thing that each branch has their own cammie pattern so they can differentiate between one another"

to which I responded:

"It's actually really stupid."

Which of course he didn't understand and after I attempted to explain why we need to all 'look' the same so specific units aren't targeted I stopped the conversation, because no matter how hard we try they will never get it.

Sad, because we could save a lot of lives doing something so simple.

From a Marine to the rest of the community, if it were up to me, we would all be wearing the same cammies. You want differences and spiffiness, that's what dress uniforms are for...
 

·
wave man TDY staff
Joined
·
41,776 Posts
Having followed this thread with great interest, I'd like to ask your opinions on what you consider the most effective available pattern for the situation - i.e., Arid or Temperate.

For discussion's sake, patterns would be available to all services.

Thanks,
Mike
 

·
U.S. Marine Corps Veteran
Joined
·
1,141 Posts
Interesting. I had a conversation the other day with a [civilian] that said exactly this to me:

"it's a great thing that each branch has their own cammie pattern so they can differentiate between one another"

to which I responded:

"It's actually really stupid."

Which of course he didn't understand and after I attempted to explain why we need to all 'look' the same so specific units aren't targeted I stopped the conversation, because no matter how hard we try they will never get it.

Sad, because we could save a lot of lives doing something so simple.

From a Marine to the rest of the community, if it were up to me, we would all be wearing the same cammies. You want differences and spiffiness, that's what dress uniforms are for...
Where is the "Like" button?

Well said Matt. I am in the same mindset and agree 100%

Jeff
 
21 - 40 of 71 Posts
Top