Matt - great comment
Not trying to be a troll, but other than the desert AOR camo aren't the other camos service-wide, not unit specific. I only bring this up; because, it appears to this civilian that the Army is the only service with unit specific markings on it's combat uniform. If a Marine convoy gets ambushed, are you attacking cooks or recon? Doesn't the same apply to the Air Force and Navy? Why doesn't the Army stop that practice?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...
If they are integrated, are they then wearing army uniforms?Camouflage uniforms except for SOF are branch specific.
The Army has well over half a dozen separate brigades, a dozen divisions, half a dozen corps. They all work in close proximity to each other especially in comparison to the Navy and USAF. Knowing who is in what unit has an esprit as well as a functional purpose. The Marines have three divisions. The Navy Seabees who have a unit patch consist of about 16k (about the size of an Army division). Depending on the air force unit they do wear unit specific patches often MUCH smaller than other service units.
The Navy and USAF aren't running supply patrols on their own. They are usually integrated in Army runs.
That knowledge is important because it gives the enemy your "order of battle" and the location of your units. A good example is this:If they are integrated, are they then wearing army uniforms?
My personal standpoint is that whenever it is possible to single out one type of troops from another, then you are giving information to the enemy - there is a difference between if the enemy know 'there are Americans behind that hill', and 'there is the USMC 2nd Bn behind that hill'. Which is why patches should be banned from front lines, and uniforms be the same no matter what service.
Of course, I'm just a civilian, so what do I know? :rolleyes
Not a word has been said abut it yet. Might not hear anything for a while depending on what happens to the budget for next year.Any new word on the camo search? A poster on another site tried to sat US4CES was chosen, but the given link didn't back up that claim.
Thank you. Exactly my point.That knowledge is important because it gives the enemy your "order of battle" and the location of your units. A good example is this:
I know there are three enemy units in my area. If I can narrow down which units are which, that gives me an advantage, because I can keep better track where the enemy's troops are concentrated and make sure that he doesn't have any surprises for me.
Additionally, if you know how your enemy fights, uniforms can also provide an advantage. If a Marine unit is attacked, they will fight differently than a Navy CB unit. Knowing your enemy will allow you to adjust your tactics in how you fight him.
After observing members of 3 different services all wearing the same uniform on the FOB in Afghanistan, I agree with your point markdrake. I think that the civilian authority should indeed direct the USMC to adopt the multicam uniform as worn by the other three branches. This would solve MANY problems inherent in the current situation with all four services wearing unique fatigue/battle dress uniforms.Civilian authority could have and should have stepped in like they did in the mid/late 1980's with everyone wearing BDU's, enough said.
How does that solve any problems? The Marines plan to use MARPAT for another 10 yrs. The Army will be using something different within the next two years. So now you're going to have the Marines waste money on Multicam (with the associated licensing fees) when the Army will be changing uniforms in the near future. If the Army gets this camo selection right, then maybe in ten years the Marines may adopt the Army camo selection. The Army still can't tell anyone how UCP was chosen (according to the GAO report). The Army should probably focus on making sure the Air Force is on board with whatever pattern family gets chosen next.After observing members of 3 different services all wearing the same uniform on the FOB in Afghanistan, I agree with your point markdrake. I think that the civilian authority should indeed direct the USMC to adopt the multicam uniform as worn by the other three branches. This would solve MANY problems inherent in the current situation with all four services wearing unique fatigue/battle dress uniforms.
It's not logic. Having the Marines start a new logistics chain to solve a problem that doesn't exist is a waste of funds. Also Multicam can be purchased by anyone from a number of retail outlets. If the Army picks a camo from a commercial developer it will be more expensive in the long run. I have no idea why the Navy doesn't immediately allow desert AOR for all its sailors. The CNO can make that happen with a memo. The Army and Air Force could have adopted the AOR patterns and saved some development money. According to the GAO report, there is nothing stopping the Army from adopting MARPAT(MARPAT is a government owned pattern).To answer your question, this solves all of the questions and concerns raised in earlier posts in this thread. I was agreeing with markdrake's point that civilian authorities should direct all of the services to adopt the same camoflage uniform. Logically, as the other 3 services already wear the multicam uniform in theater, the Corps should be directed to adopt it. As you point out, there is projected to be a new Army camo pattern soon. At that time, in agreement with markdrake's comment, I think that the Corps should be directed to adopt it.
You can keep restating what you think and how you feel the world should be. It doesn't change the facts.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.
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/o...arpat-011011w/
I'm going to provide some additional elaboration here and remind blackrazor1 of a point I made earlier. NWU Type I (the blue/black digicam) is appropriate for the fleet because it's coloration is designed to hide grease/oil stains and similar grime accumulated from working with heavy machinery. However, for most Naval units that would operate in an arid environment (CB's, Riverines, etc...), the use of NWU Type II (aka AOR-1) is forbidden because the Marines threatened action against the Navy unless they restricted the pattern to use only by NSW forces and their support personnel. In other words, because it was too similar to MARPAT, the Corps refused to allow the Navy to generally issue NWU Type 2 to sailors who could've used it.3) All of the Navy's Sailors don't require a fatigue uniform that will blend in with an operational environment, so there's no need to oufit the entire Navy with the AOR uniform.