Should I add this?

**Drac** · 13th May 11, 06:55 AM

Originally Posted by davidlpope

That being said, I don't understand the need for sailors to wear any type of camoflage while afloat. I just don't get it....

The SUPPOSED reason for this (or at least what they tell us) is that it is not a camo for hiding on a ship (which is either haze gray, battleship gray or pea green) but a camo for the uniform itself. The colors on it are common colors of paint on a ship. If you are wearing a solid color a single drop of paint jumps out at you and you can't wear that uniform (dugerees or coveralls) to muster or off ship. I've been told that the security forces that need camo on a ship are using solid grey BDUs. Never seen this so it must be working.

Now I like the BDU style of the uniform as it is more comfortable than the dugerees and in your work center you can deblouse. One thing I find funny is that on this uniform we use the Army method of rolling the sleeves verses the Marine that is used on the OUUs. The theory is that is a situation you can pull down the sleeves quickly for battle dress. Why this is funny is that any place you would need to do this, combat or on duty on a ship, you aren't allowed to have you sleeves rolled up anyways.

Jim

**The Thirsty Viking** · 13th May 11, 08:21 AM

Personally speaking, I am a traditionalist. And I do not feel the need for the Navy to look like a Marine who got pushed in a patch of blueberry's. I have always felt that the highpoint of the Navy in recent history was WWII, and Korea. I have always marveled at pictures of my grandpa and his buddies in their dungarees, white caps and boots, sleeves rolled up and gettin Sh!t done. They didnt look like soldiers, they didnt look like Devil Dogs, they looked like sailors. It was a look that was all their own, and set them apart from the lubbers.

</endrant>

That being said.... I understand the practicality of the new uniforms, and understand that my views are purely aesthetic.

Back on Topic: I personally do not see a problem as long as it is worn proudly. If nothing else, ask some the guys in your unit about it.

**Whidbey78** · 13th May 11, 01:38 PM

Unless some things have changed drastically in uniform regs since I left active duty in '07 and the reserves in '09, there shouldn't be any problem with putting the Bee on a kilt.

The Bee on the pocket wasn't truly a prescribed uniform item...it's technically a uniform exception and was such common practice that it was accepted as regulation. All I have left is my BJM, BMR and PO2&3 books, and in the uniform sections it's always referred to as "an accepted practice" or similar wording. In practice though it is often made a required uniform item by order of the unit's CO. Once the old man requires it, it's now the uniform. I can tell you that when I was a reservist drilling with NMCB-17 Det 117 at Ft. Carson that NOT having the Bee on your cammies, despite the lack of such an order, was more damning than showing up in dungarees! It wasn't actually required, but they made it seem like it was...even for me and I was still an AM1. I wasn't really a SeaBee, but the USNR had me go play with them on weekends since they didn't want to fly me cross-country every month. Even though I wasn't a Bee, they still made me sew the pocket on...you know the Navy motto: We can't actually make you do anything, but we can sure as hell make you wish you had done it.

I think it would look good on the lower right (your right) corner of the apron...in about the same position as the patch on a USAK kilt as opposed to on a pocket. Or, get some NWU fabric and make a sporran with it and put the Bee on that! Just an idea Drac.

I'm glad I missed the NWU's though. We always wore woodland or desert camo or flight suits in my squadrons and with the Bees. I think the NWU beats the snot out of utilities, but I just can't fathom why they thought it necessary to develop a new camo pattern, and why they think it just HAS to be blue. Of course they spent the better part of a decade and a ton of money testing the feasability of a BDU type uniform. All they really had to do was ask the fleet. Why they had to spend years developing this from the ground up is beyond me since the better option was already on the shelf at the exchange! If it made sense it wouldn't be the Navy way.

After spending a few months in the army before ending my career with an injury, I can tell you that anything is better than ACU's!!

**Spartan Tartan** · 13th May 11, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by Drac

The SUPPOSED reason for this (or at least what they tell us) is that it is not a camo for hiding on a ship (which is either haze gray, battleship gray or pea green) but a camo for the uniform itself. The colors on it are common colors of paint on a ship. If you are wearing a solid color a single drop of paint jumps out at you and you can't wear that uniform (dugerees or coveralls) to muster or off ship.

Jim

That IS why they did it. MCPON (that is the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy, I.e. the senior enlisted guy in the navy, for those who may not know the acronym ) chaired the uniform board. He said he wanted to reduce the replacement cost for the junior guy that is required to replace his/her u information most often. Since, of course, they get the dirtiest jobs. Also, he and the CNO (Chief of Naval Operations) wanted a single uniform that would be the same for everyone, E1 to O10. As my navy bretheren are aware, senior enlisted and officers have distinctly different uniforms than the junior enlisted. The idea being, if we all wear the same uniform we can focus on a greater sense of esprit de corps.

Again, back on topic. I agree with the placement down on the apron where a kilt pin would be generally located.

**Drac** · 13th May 11, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by Spartan Tartan

That IS why they did it. MCPON (that is the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy, I.e. the senior enlisted guy in the navy, for those who may not know the acronym ) chaired the uniform board. He said he wanted to reduce the replacement cost for the just ior guy that is required to replace his/her u information most often. Since, of course, they get the dirtiest jobs. Also, he and the CNO (Chief of Naval Operations) wanted a single uniform that would be the same for everyone, E1 to O10. As my navy bretheren are aware, senior enlisted and officers have distinctly different uniforms than the junior enlisted. The idea being, if we all wear the same uniform we can focus on a greater sense of esprit de corps.

Again, back on topic. I agree with the placement down on the apron where a kilt pin would be generally located.

There was a lot of talk about getting all the military uniforms under one maker, the eventual getting all the branches into a theater based uniform for all but dress/class As, and other such. In the military they never tell you the whole story but than again they don't have to. Last I checked it was not a democracy.

I will have to say there are very few happy with either the new working or service uniforms. On the service the chiefs are not happy about the shirt, the Marines aren't happy about the over all effect and except those who were issued the uniform very few of the lower ranks were happy about buying a bunch of new ones. Our issue was two. No where near enough to get through a week if you had to wear them. Same with the NWUs. Had to invest heavy into them. Also they have very strict guidelines on boots so you had to through out all your previous sets and many of us had two sets to switch out each day so they could dry. The resentment went pretty far on some ships as the spent their time in coveralls and now those are no longer a uniform item.

Jim

**The Thirsty Viking** · 13th May 11, 03:15 PM

I freakin love my coveralls. I still wear them for doing dirty jobs and working in the forge (when not at faire, of course).

We called them our Pajamas.