New test Navy Uniforms are WWII Throwbacks

[carebear]

Think of it this way (at least this is how I do it).

Olden days - Everyday combat uniform worn is heavy, wool and dressy (Red Coat, Marine Blues, Cracker Jacks etc.)

Then, as the benefits of new fabrics, tactics and camoflage (Khaki / olive twill trousers and blouses and jackets) become known (and European war leaves temperate climes), the old day-to-day fancy, heavy uniform becomes the "Dress" uniform and the Khakis become the "working uniform".

Then, as things like the "utility uniform", olive drab then cammies, came into being, because jungles and motorized warfare and such was messier, the new old day-to-day uniform (khakis/greens) was relegated to "semi" Dress status.

As a Marine I prefer to save the cammies for the field and wear greens (Charlies or Alphas) in the office.

If you aren't in an office, wear them to and from work and change into coveralls, flight suit or whatever is appropriate for your work type at the job.

We have to maintain the full suite of uniforms anyway, might as well get some use out of them.

Heck, if it didn't violate regs for a fat longhair like me to wear them out in town, I'd STILL wear Charlies or Alphas. That's a goooood look.

So I wear suits and pretend.

 

[Ecuador Jim]

That's an aviation green uniform. Pretty rare, actually.

Aviation Greens were still authoized as an "optional" uniform until I left the Navy in 1982. One of the greatest uniforms of any service, IMHO.

SDK's would be a great uniform.

 

[Mojave Jack]

Kind of sad that in this "promotional" photo the uniforms are tailored so poorly. The man on the right's trousers are obviously too long, and his coat seems to be as well, also not having been properly taken in at the waist. The coat in general looks cheaply/poorly made, and heavily padded and fused.

I noticed the same thing, Vladimir. It's the same problem facing all the services, though, as Matthew pointed out. I have always been of the mind that the sharper you look in your uniform, the more you will want to wear it. It becomes a case of "which came first;" did the requirement for office wear of working uniforms decline because they were cheap and disliked, or did they become cheap and disliked because they were being worn less and less?

Up until the late 1960s, Marines were not allowed to keep civilian clothes in the wall- or footlockers. Many Marines went into gether on an apartment out in town that served solely as a large closet for their civvies and as a place to change into them for liberty. Sometimes a whole platoon would share a single apartment!

Back more on topic, I really hope the Navy does adopt the khakis service dress, though it'd be nice to see it in a more fitted style. Even the Air Force is trying to get airmen in shape with a new focus on "Fit to Fight." Let's just enforce that and stop making uniforms fit over those potbellies and big thighs!

 

[Fletch]

The best argument against AWGs is that, especially when worn with the cutter and/or G-1, they make Navy fliers look too much like Marines.

I understand now why AWGs have the same status as a flightsuit. What I don't understand is why they should. My civilian mindset, I guess (altho I am the son of not one, but two retired Navy officers).

 

[ltedge]

So the actual definition of "working uniform" is NOT a uniform used for work purposes, but a uniform on which ribbons are not worn?

Boy, am I glad I never went in. I tolerate absurdist bureaucracy very poorly.

BTW, the lieutenant I mentioned made the point that brownshoes used to be granted much wider latitude in wearing the greens. They apparently had the status of a service dress without officially being one. Sometime in the 70s they were made subject to the same rules as flightsuits, apparently by a budget minded committee interested in obsolescing them.

True, there were lots of things that were granted much more latitude in the past. A working uniform isn't defined by no ribbons, but ribbons are not worn on working uniforms. If that makes sense. A working uniform is a uniform that is only worn in the work spaces or while at sea/flying. Up until 5 or 10 years ago, flight suits, coveralls and working khaki weren't even allowed when you were driving to and from work at some bases. You had to drive in civies and change at work. In the Navy we still are not allowed to make any extended stops off base in working uniforms.

 

[carebear]

The best argument against AWGs is that, especially when worn with the cutter and/or G-1, they make Navy fliers look too much like Marines.

They should be so lucky.

 

[Mojave Jack]

They should be so lucky.

lol

 

[Nashoba]

An inevitable consequence of a more democratic, all-volunteer force, I suspect. They don't spend much more time in ties and coats than civilians do anymore. They have higher priorities than tailoring. Coat construction isn't even on the radar.

I would agree that the uniforms in that particular photo are poorly tailored, in a promotional photo such as that one, better care should have been taken with the details. However, I don't think that this is the case in all the services or with all the uniforms. I will freely admit that the majority of my experience is with Marine Corps uniforms but having taken apart a good number of uniforms over the years I can attest to just how well they are made. Cammies are ridiculously well made. As far as the dress uniforms go, every uniform that my husband has had came with very little tailoring and was tailored to fit him after he purchased it. I've done quite a bit of work on both the dress blues and the service alphas and charlies and they are also quite well made.

Also, while they may not spend time in coats and ties, they are required to wear proper civilian attire. Marines at least are expected to wear properly fitting clothing, shirts with collars, and a belt. Not to say this always happens but it is what they are expected to wear.

I think though that if they refined those uniforms a bit (ie tailoring) it would be nice to see the older styles of the navy uniforms come back.

 

[Mid-fogey]

I don't know...

An inevitable consequence of a more democratic, all-volunteer force, I suspect. They don't spend much more time in ties and coats than civilians do anymore. They have higher priorities than tailoring. Coat construction isn't even on the radar.

...that it has much to do with the volunteer military as it does a general societal deemphasis on on neat dressing. This has moved into the military. My personal (and exceedingly widespread and longterm) experience is that military people are nearly universal in their hatred of dress uniforms. They much prefer utility uniforms and default to them whenever they can.

 

[Mojave Jack]

...that it has much to do with the volunteer military as it does a general societal deemphasis on on neat dressing. This has moved into the military. My personal (and exceedingly widespread and longterm) experience is that military people are nearly universal in their hatred of dress uniforms. They much prefer utility uniforms and default to them whenever they can.

Very true, in practice. The question is, though, why are dress uniforms universally hated? From my experience in the Marine Corps it was primarily because in the Fleet the only time we put them on was when we getting inspected, going on parade, or performing some special duty. Of course we hated them because it meant we were going to be scrutinized, and would get into trouble if they weren't perfect. For those office workers (admin and other pogues, that is) that wore them daily didn't dislike them. You could easily tell who was comfortable in them and who wasn't, too. The guys that turned their whole body to look sideways were clearly the guys that were not comfortable in a tie!

Now my Air Force dress uniform, I hate. Not because it's not comfortable, but because it is ill-fitting, cheap, and I feel like a bag of rags in it. Going back to my earlier point, which came first cheap, ill-fitting uniforms, or a decline in the daily wear of working dress uniforms? I firmly believe that if the uniform is sharp, well made, and fits properly, military members will not resent them. Then enforce some policy of regular wear, so people become accustomed to them, and what will follow will be increased confidence and a desire to look sharp. Looking sharp will foster acting sharp.

Of course the troops are going to default to utilities. They'd also default to pizza for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, beer to wash it down, working two hours a day, and driving at 90 miles an hour. That's just what 18 to twenty-somehting kids do. Just like parenting, though, it's a tough love situation. If the commanders, First Sergeants, and other supervisors expect more, the troops will deliver more. Over time the troops will start to re-enforce the dress code themselves.

That's my theory, anyhoo. lol

 

[Mid-fogey]

Well...

I firmly believe that if the uniform is sharp, well made, and fits properly, military members will not resent them. Then enforce some policy of regular wear, so people become accustomed to them, and what will follow will be increased confidence and a desire to look sharp. Looking sharp will foster acting sharp.

...that's the theory the brass uses every few years when they try to redesign the uniforms. Never works. The troops like to wear what they fight in.