Standard military attire?

[GunnyFreedom]

Face it, all of the branches combined are what win the war.
I'm sure the boots on the ground are much happier that the Air Force has knocked out some of the resistance. Not only that, the boots on the ground are not being fired upon by the enemy from the air.

Boots on the ground need transportation to get where the fighting is. The Air Force and Navy provide that.

Massive shelling and bombing are required to reduce the resistance before the boots on the ground arrive. This shelling and bombing are usually done by the Air Force and Navy. Yes, there are mobile artillery but it is much easier to go in one stage at a time and finally send in the boots on the ground to clean up.

At least that was the way it was 40 years ago.

I couldn't agree more, which is why, as I said, I look at the intraservice rivalry more like a "football competition" than a reality of effectiveness.

 

[Doktor_Jeep]

I have not gone through this entire thread for lack of time.

Right now I am seeing surplus nomex coveralls for sale in various outlets. I recommend these for less rural AOs. Cheap and fireproof (not completely).


For more formal attire, check out the 511 line of clothing.

 

[Dequeant]

Any kid who has played Nintendo can sit back in an air conditioned office and push buttons to designate targets via satellite. It takes a warrior to get on the ground, take fire, endure for weeks or months in dreadful conditions and STILL FIGHT.

And without those boots on the ground, the USAF may as well, ditch their aircraft and go 100% UAV and guided missiles.

1) Indeed, we have people in Nevada that fly combat missions in Iraq, then have lunch with their family at home, and in the afternoon fly another combat mission. How cool is that?

2) It does take a warrior to get on the ground, take fire, endure crappy conditions......couldn't agree more, it's why we keep you guys around

3) Actually we took most of our forward operating bases in Iraq and Afghanistan ourselves with combat controllers and tacp.....and until we flew you guys in, our security forces provided security for the base. Also....I can't immediatly think of any unguided missiles we have in our inventory besides 2.75ers, and i'm an AMMO troop, so that's saying somethin. Why would we go to just UAVs........that's kinda pointless since you guys wouldn't be begging for them all the darn time if you weren't there!

Ah, interservice rivalry is good.....especially while "deployed". It can get pretty vocal and personal when down range....and Air Force guys get it the hardest. If it weren't for our 5 star hotels and spectacular room service, we may even get offended!

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I'll say this about the 'rivalry:' Marines have a history to be proud of (for the most part, of course), I think all branches should have more in depth basic training, and that knuckleheadedness is indeed a virtue in some combat scenarios. To scare the piss out of the enemy even when greatly outnumbered is impressive and a pure asset.

The Army I refer to revolves around only the combat-oriented sections. I have no respect for POGs in the general Army (Rangers, on the other hand, make badasses of even the cooks, as do Marines). I know for a fact that my training was superior to infantry Marines I came across.

I had a rude awakening when I went to an Appleseed shoot last year regarding standards of Rifle Marksmanship. Turns out that Parris Island Boot Camp and San Diego Boot Camp have completely different standards of marksmanship training.

I was taught basic marksmanship at Parris Island, and fortunately for me it was the better of the two. All kinds of concepts that PI Marines knew innately, like Natural Point of Aim and following though on the trigger until the seer resets, are unknown by SD Marines going back to the early 80's.

Why in the frell would the two Marksmanship Units at Parris Island and San Diego have such divergent results? I dunno, but I don't like it.

If I saw that sort of thing WRT marksmanship, you can bet that the Atlantic Commands and the Pacific Commands likewise have divergent standards for infantry tactics training. I know in 1993 when I was in Marine Combat Training (The 'abbreviated' Infantry School for non-infantry MOSs) we went through a good deal of MOUT (Military Operations in Urban Terrain as we called it) training. Now I know if us Intelligence guys got MOUT training, that the grunts HAD to have gotten a hell of a lot more than we did.

I have been in cooperative missions with them, and they seemed to be lost (in the urban setting, mind you). My Air Force friend went to Israel to train Marines on some urban assault tactics (which worries me, because I know Smith doesn't have the same level of urban training as I, either), and when fired upon, he saw an NCO (E-7, I believe) Marine run screaming.

Well, given that this was an Air Force guy with an Army friend, I'd probably take this war story with a grain of salt. Nevertheless, I'll say that regardless of what branch or unit you are in, there will probably be someone out of the thousands who will not react well the first time they take incoming. You probably know that a single anecdote is not evidence of any kind of general reality.

That is worrisome, and is reminiscent of the Iraqi National Guard troops that accompanied my unit on some patrols in Baghdad. They would actually run while shooting AKs backwards over their heads when fired upon. It is in this regard, the modern combat setting, rather than the Vietnam stuff the Marines thrive on, that I believe the Army can lay some claim to tactical superiority.

Well I know that there has been a major sea change in focus in about the last 2, 2.5 years into heavy urban warfare training. Of course, the Marine budget cannot afford to build all kinds of mock cities, but we do get to use Army facilities from time to time.

I can also point out that Marines are leaving Iraq (which could be seen as a tapout) of their own volition. LOL, anyway---both branches are still improperly stuck in the 'we'll fight in the woods and mud' mindset, but overall are similar, in infantry terms.

This, I think, is more a question of mission. The Marines have, what, fewer than 1/16th the manpower of the Army? The mission of the Marine Corps is to take ground, and not to hold it. If we were to follow established doctrine, then the Marines should have left Iraq a long, long time ago, sat offshore, and gotten brought in for the occasional need to recapture a city or some such.

As for surplus stuff....as much hatred as I have developed for the military 'thing' since being in, some of the stuff would be quite useful to keep on hand. I wouldn't list a MOPP suit on my priority list, but a gasmask would be good. Too many nightmarish memories of times in MOPP suits. I remember scarring my bleeding face and being totally unable to see and people passing out from dangerous heat/dehydration levels ....blech, no MOPP suit for me, even if the 'Thrax is on the loose.

Well, is it possible that we will have to deal with VX gas? Maybe, but so remote as to deny belief. What else is a MOPP suit good for then? For one it blocks your scent from tracking dogs. All you have left to worry about is hands, feet, and head. Another $20 for scent-blocker socks, gloves and balaclava, and you can walk right in front of a bloodhound and never leave a scent trail.

(If I ever have to bug out - I hope it's in winter...... heh)

My prized surplus possession is my Marine digital pattern woobie. I remember some people in my barracks being jealous, and my Platoon Sergeant complimenting it and wanting to know where the fuck I got it. I also have a very large wooded camo pattern tarp with bungie cords. Sounds like shelter for the upcoming shit hits the fan episodes. Other than that, I still have 2 or 3 duffle bags loaded with the military stuff they don't want when you get out, plus a few extras.

I don't know how, but my local Wal-Mart wound up with a bolt of actual copyrighted MARPAT. I bought 12 yards worth, and have been contemplating making custom LBE out of it.

As far as all my stuff, I had tons of stuff when I got out, but I was an idiot. As a short-timer and a hot headed young-un I let myself go a little, and the SSgt at TMO said he wouldn't ship all my stuff home unless I went and got a haircut. I mean, my hair wasn't THAT long. But I refused. Probably lost $8,000 worth of stuff because it never got shipped home, because I refused to get a haircut so the TMO SSgt would ship my stuff home...

Oh well. Grow older and ya learn stuff.

 

[jason43]

The truth is that there are combat arms, and there are POGs... that goes for every branch. I have much more in common with a Marine grunt than I do for an Army paper pusher and I was in the Army. Your MOS is what matters. Air Force para-rescue guys are pretty badass, but most of the air force is pretty lame as far as 'toughness' goes. Navy Seals are also badass, although most members of the Navy never see combat anymore because we dont have naval battles like WWII anymore.

Having said that, the navy and the air force provide awesome tools for the frontline fighters. I thought the airforce was a bunch of pussies until I saw what they did to Serbia firsthand. I wouldnt want to be on the recieving end, put it that way... (and to put the argument to rest, Kosovo and the yugoslavia missions were bullshit and unconstitutional and I disagreed with them then and now... but either way I was there)

Why is the sky blue?

Because God loves the infantry!!!

 

[maeqFREEDOMfree]

if you are looking to gear up, i would recommend looking to some european mil-spec attire. rumors floating around the militia here from former soldiers say that while the U.S. field tests their gear to stay in the field for up to 18moths; some euro countries test their gear's resilience to last for over 2 years in the field.

before some of you spout out remember this is only a rumor... please take accordingly

also if you're going with us attire, be aware that many companies sell bdu's that aren't exact military issue. for example, many companies out there state they are selling marine digi-cam but in fact it's just a similar print and lacks the marine corps. logo in the design.

 

[Kalifornia]

Just my 2c

Im curious as to why someone would want mil-spec gear anyway... I mean, okay, its been tested, and that is good, but I would think that when considering the possibility of having to defend yourself from some kind of trumped up federal charge in front of a jury, that a bunch of friends who like to go hunting, orienteering, shooting, rapelling, etc. on a regular basis would seek minimize their potential to look like some of those 'crazy anti-government militia' types.

As for me personally, I think that if I ever take up running around the woods it'll be in some commercially available hard to demolish clothing made by Carhart, for example, or some outdoor gear from the guys who supply the private security contractors (so long as it doesnt look like a 'uniform'), or some performance hunting gear I can get for FRNs at Cabellas.

A guy who likes to go hunting with his .308 or .223 rifle is alot harder to sell to the press and public as a wacko than a guy who looks like he likes to play 'rambo', and unfortunately, the 'assault rifle' idea has shown that the average person is really scared of certain sterotypes, but not of others, even when there is no legitimate difference between the stereotypes involved.

For example, consider the recent increase in use of 'gang' nomenclature in criminal trials. A DA simply has to hint that a defendant even knows a gang member, and you can almost see the guilty verdict form in the jurors' minds. In the age of terrorism, post OKC, how hard would it be for a USAttorney to get a conviction of someone on a BS firearms charge if he can show them a photo of that defendant sitting around with a bunch of guys dressed in US Milspec, and carrying SBRs? I can hear the grand jury indictments getting wound up just thinking about it.

By comparison, itd be hard to say that a bunch of guys with M1A1s, or other non SBRs, not dressed uniformly, but rather like some average joe hunters... Those guys could just be out doing some target practice or hunting. Hell, they look just like your brother in law when he goes turkey hunting. They dont seem to be much of a threat at all.

 

[amy31416]

Im curious as to why someone would want mil-spec gear anyway... I mean, okay, its been tested, and that is good, but I would think that when considering the possibility of having to defend yourself from some kind of trumped up federal charge in front of a jury, that a bunch of friends who like to go hunting, orienteering, shooting, rapelling, etc. on a regular basis would seek minimize their potential to look like some of those 'crazy anti-government militia' types.

As for me personally, I think that if I ever take up running around the woods it'll be in some commercially available hard to demolish clothing made by Carhart, for example, or some outdoor gear from the guys who supply the private security contractors (so long as it doesnt look like a 'uniform'), or some performance hunting gear I can get for FRNs at Cabellas.

A guy who likes to go hunting with his .308 or .223 rifle is alot harder to sell to the press and public as a wacko than a guy who looks like he likes to play 'rambo', and unfortunately, the 'assault rifle' idea has shown that the average person is really scared of certain sterotypes, but not of others, even when there is no legitimate difference between the stereotypes involved.

For example, consider the recent increase in use of 'gang' nomenclature in criminal trials. A DA simply has to hint that a defendant even knows a gang member, and you can almost see the guilty verdict form in the jurors' minds. In the age of terrorism, post OKC, how hard would it be for a USAttorney to get a conviction of someone on a BS firearms charge if he can show them a photo of that defendant sitting around with a bunch of guys dressed in US Milspec, and carrying SBRs? I can hear the grand jury indictments getting wound up just thinking about it.

By comparison, itd be hard to say that a bunch of guys with M1A1s, or other non SBRs, not dressed uniformly, but rather like some average joe hunters... Those guys could just be out doing some target practice or hunting. Hell, they look just like your brother in law when he goes turkey hunting. They dont seem to be much of a threat at all.

That's a really good point. Under the radar is the only way to fly.

Welcome to the forums.

 

[maeqFREEDOMfree]

Im curious as to why someone would want mil-spec gear anyway... I mean, okay, its been tested, and that is good, but I would think that when considering the possibility of having to defend yourself from some kind of trumped up federal charge in front of a jury, that a bunch of friends who like to go hunting, orienteering, shooting, rapelling, etc. on a regular basis would seek minimize their potential to look like some of those 'crazy anti-government militia' types.

As for me personally, I think that if I ever take up running around the woods it'll be in some commercially available hard to demolish clothing made by Carhart, for example, or some outdoor gear from the guys who supply the private security contractors (so long as it doesnt look like a 'uniform'), or some performance hunting gear I can get for FRNs at Cabellas.

A guy who likes to go hunting with his .308 or .223 rifle is alot harder to sell to the press and public as a wacko than a guy who looks like he likes to play 'rambo', and unfortunately, the 'assault rifle' idea has shown that the average person is really scared of certain sterotypes, but not of others, even when there is no legitimate difference between the stereotypes involved.

For example, consider the recent increase in use of 'gang' nomenclature in criminal trials. A DA simply has to hint that a defendant even knows a gang member, and you can almost see the guilty verdict form in the jurors' minds. In the age of terrorism, post OKC, how hard would it be for a USAttorney to get a conviction of someone on a BS firearms charge if he can show them a photo of that defendant sitting around with a bunch of guys dressed in US Milspec, and carrying SBRs? I can hear the grand jury indictments getting wound up just thinking about it.

By comparison, itd be hard to say that a bunch of guys with M1A1s, or other non SBRs, not dressed uniformly, but rather like some average joe hunters... Those guys could just be out doing some target practice or hunting. Hell, they look just like your brother in law when he goes turkey hunting. They dont seem to be much of a threat at all.

very good point... if you are a "crazy" keeping your dress "conservative" (or within the norm) will help you, however, if you plan to engage in illegal activities, looking "normal" probably wont save you from charges.

I like my gear to be tried and true because when i use it, i like the comfort of knowing that if a problem arises, chances are that it wont be from faulty equipment.

just my 2 cents