The concept of separate uniforms for garrison and combat have been thrown out there several times over the past few years and we are basically already the now with the ACU and distinct ACS and ACP (if it’s ever fielded). I originally wrote this as a letter to the Editor of Infantry magazine in November of 1994. It was posted to the Gear Guru for many years and I shared it here on SSD on February 15, 2012 as “Me and My Good Ideas – Ha!”. I’ve got good reason to share it again now as the concept for a solid colored fatigue uniform has popped back up.
Yeah, it’s pretty tame by today’s standards, and some of the terminology is dated, but the basic concept is there.
At the end, I’ve also included a photo of the reversible camouflage technology demonstrated by Natick back in the 90s.
To: Editor
INFANTRY Magazine
Ft Benning, GA 31995-2005
19 November, 1994
Dear Editor,
I am presently serving in Haiti and feel the Battle Dress Uniform (BDU) is seriously lacking as a field uniform. In fact, during my eight years in the Army I have found the BDU woefully inadequate as both a garrison and combat uniform. Because it is a compromise between these two roles it does neither well. It’s hot, doesn’t stand up to pressing well, doesn’t provide adequate protection from the environment, isn’t compatible with other Clothing and Individual Equipment (CIE) items, as well as a myriad of other problems too numerous to mention here. What’s needed are two separate uniforms. First, a Garrison Dress Uniform (GDU) and second, a Generation II BDU.
The GDU is intended to be worn as a day-to-day uniform in classrooms and offices, while performing details, and during local tactical training such as land navigation. It’s manufactured from a comfortable, durable fabric that can be pressed for daily wear. The GDU’s jacket has two chest pockets and is cut bush style to allow the bottom of the jacket to be worn in or out of the trousers depending on the weather. Tucking the jacket in will show off the belt and provide an incentive to maintain a trim military appearance. The jacket’s long sleeves feature an upper arm pocket for pens and other items. The GDU trousers retain the present design of the BDU trouser while eliminating the leg ties and bug flap. Because the GDU is designed as a garrison uniform, the double elbows, seat, and knees found on the BDU are eliminated. The IR treatment is also not necessary. The simplification of construction allows the GDU to be issued as part of the Soldier’s clothing bag at a great savings. Since it’s designed to be pressed the GDU has a longer service life than the BDU.
The GEN II BDU is configured for wear on the battlefield and issued at the unit as TA-50 to be worn only in a field environment. It will last thirty days under combat conditions. The GEN II BDU must be abrasion resistant, fire retardant, wind proof, hydrophobic (water hating), permeable to allow sweat vapor to escape, treated to retard the growth of odor causing bacteria, and incorporate anti-IR coating. Unlike the present BDU, it’s compatible with insulating underlayers as well as outer layers such as ECWCS. The material features a reversible camouflage pattern so that one uniform is functional in several theaters. Twice in the last four years American Soldiers have deployed to the middle east wearing woodland BDUs which provided no camouflage in that region. Had their uniforms been reversible they would have arrived better prepared to fight. The GEN II BDU jacket is designed to interface with other CIE items. In lieu of the front opening found on the current BDU, the GEN II BDU has covered slide fasteners that begin at the bottom hem and go up under the arm to form pit zips for ventilation. The side zips will interface with the ECWCS parka as well as Ranger Body Armor (RBA). The jacket’s two chest pockets are accessible while in the prone. A lack of lower pockets enables the jacket to be tucked in for rappelling or parachuting. The jacket has waterproof/breathable elbow panels which serve as pockets for removable padding to be used for FIBUA, parachuting, or long periods in the prone. Each sleeve has a forward slanting pocket capable of holding one 30 rd M-16 magazine. These will be the only pockets readily accessible while wearing armor. The jacket’s standup collar incorporates a hide away hood which will protect the wearer’s head and neck from the elements as well as flashburns.
The trousers resemble the present field pants with several modifications. The are no rear pockets and the seat features a waterproof/breathable panel. Waterproof/Breathable panels are also found on the knees which accept removable padding. Trouser legs feature covered overboot zippers presently found on the CPOG to facilitate rapid donning and doffing. The legs will also interface with a waterproof/breathable gaiter to keep water from entering the tops of boots.
Adoption of these two uniforms gives the Soldier an inexpensive uniform for garrison wear which projects a positive military image and a combat uniform optimized for wear on the modern battlefield. The cost savings will be felt immediately as only those Soldiers who need combat uniforms for their duties will receive them. The garrison uniform will be less expensive to manufacture than the current BDU as well as better suited to pressing which will give it a longer service life.
Tags: Infantry
In a way your battle optimized BDU set has has partially come to pass with the Combat shirts and Combat pants now issued to the Army and Marines.
I thought it’s more expensive to have two separate uniforms in the supply chain?
At the present you got 5 different uniforms. You got reg ACUs, Combat shirts, and Combat pants in UCP and of course FRACUs. Then you got the Multicam versions of the FRACUs and Combat shirts/pants. Then of course you the Extreme Cold Weather Gen II UCPs Gen III UCPs and Gen III Multicam. So you were saying two uniforms might be expensive hmmmm!?!?!
Don’t forget about the AACUs….
And coming soon: The jungle uniform. 😛
That will cut down once they go to a single pattern.
Oh I know I just think that comment was funny. I fully agree there should be a work uniform and a field/combat uniform. Utility pants, boots, and a polo or button up shirt for work. Combat pants and combat shirt/jacket for field. It makes no sense for us to wear a “combat” uniform to a clinic or motor pool.
It makes less sense to have multiple uniforms in the warehouse and in the budget sheets.
But you’re going to have multiple uniforms in the system unless we start wearing FR uniforms of whatever pattern in garrison.
The ACU has a bunch of specific features that optimize it for wear with body armor and field use and which increase cost. None of those have any relevance for most of the activities soldiers wearing them in garrison are involved in.
That’s basically the point of the concept.
U gotta remember to throw common sense out the window when you talk about anything Army
PEO Soldier posted a picture of the Multicam Combat pant on their Facebook page and I asked if these are actually being issued now and they said yes.
Those have been around for some time. The 101st showed up with them in ACU pattern back in 2009 if I recall correctly.
Doesn’t do anyone much good with OEF winding down and multi cam going out the window.
Rick
We were issued both the shirt and combat pants for OEF 12-13.
They deleted my comment I posted there, the issued combat pants are cheap rip offs of Crye’s pants, the ones I got issued in Afghanistan last year were not made by Crye Precision. Reminds me off the ammo pack that was perfected by Tyr Tactical and Natick make a cheap copy right afterward. Not the first time its happened
I actually used both down range and prefer the army issued ones.
I’m pretty sure that there already are different garrison uniforms, they’re called greens/blues/whites/khakis. The fact that nobody really wants to wear them anymore is besides the point.
Both the Air Force blues and the (now defunct) Army greens are mostly garrisonized derivatives of the Army’s WWII service uniform. It wouldn’t be that hard to unsuck them and make them usable for actual, you know, service again. In my mind there are really four tiers of uniform: ceremonial, service, fatigue, and special duty (i.e., ground combat, flight duty, vehicle crew, medical, etc). Ceremonial uniforms are kept in the closet and pulled out for retirements and stuff. Service uniforms are for normal garrison/office wear. Fatigues are for digging holes and changing oil. Special duty items are issued as individual equipment as needed.
Note that mess dress isn’t in that list. That’s because no one outside of Edwardian England changes for dinner.
SSD,
Correct me if I’m wrong but the current intend is to issue the ACU in Scorpiom/OCP for garrison duty/training/ and for Humanitarian Assistance operations, Joint Forced Entry Operations and Global Reaction Force missions. With Bookend ACS & ACP issued once units have been
Operating in an established AO.
Or is there a chance that well mimick the marines with separate woodland and desert ACUs and OCP kit?
Middle pattern for everything, everytime. If the transitional pattern would be unsuitable for an enviroment, then appropriate bookend uniforms will be issued. Remember, 70% or more of the earth’s land surface falls under semi-arid or transitional. The bookends are basically only for extremely dense woodland or jungle and for barren, featureless or uniformly tan areas. Transitional uniforms are the way to go.
I understand the concept and I think it makes a lot of sense, and give the army a very high degree of flexibility in terms of future camouflage development and implementation.
I guess my question now is are they going to stick with this plan or are they going to deviate in an irrational and chaotic way….
I think they will try their damndest to go through with the family of patterns concept. It is sound, it is the best solution, and they can force congress’ hand by saying “look, this is agood solution, but it would be better if you let us go with plan A. We aren’t making the mistakes we made last time.” Even if that isn’t in the cards, we either end up with scorpion as a de facto universal pattern, which is better than UCP, or we end up with bookends straight out of the sister service’s inventory, which eases DOD level logistics, or we end up with bookends of our previous patterns, which didn’t cease being effective in their intented roles. I see no downsides except maintenence of the current pattern.
M81 woodland and 3 color desert have become ineffective if we consider NIR as a factor, which we absolutely should. Right now we are fighting a technologically disadvantaged enemy but that doesn’t mean that future wars will have the same. We need patterns that not only perform well in the visual, which M81 and 3CD do, but also perform well in NIR which is probably any of the FOP’s from Phase IV. Hopefully scorpion W2 is updated to address NIR. I personally think the best option on the table is to adopt AOR 1 and 2 as bookends.
Updating NIR performance is allowed under NDAA, and I cannot fathom them testing uniforms seriously without up to date treatments or dyes. You are absolutely right, we will not always fight cavemen and m81 & 3cd are not the most advanced as they stood when they were abandoned, however we (and this doesn’t necessarily mean you specifically, more a royal we) tend to forget some of the problems with m81’s effectiveness in NIR stemmed from starching and pressing uniforms, ruining their effectiveness. I am willing to bet modern dyes, modern NIR treatments and fabrics will be used, if only because that is how we make kit now. i could be wrong, they may just crack out uniforms from the local army navy store, I just really hope not.
And what’s with UV? And Guy Cramer’s claim about SWIR performance?
We had this in the 90’s in the CDN Forces. It sucked! “Garratrooper Dress”. Learn from our mistakes. Leave it alone.
The 90’s Canadian Army ‘Garrison Dress’ was poorly conceived. The concept is sound and what SSD has proposed isn’t that far from what the Marine Corps has done with its’ Utilities and FROG ensemble.
Or what the army is already doing with acu’s and fracu’s. Let’s give the devil his due.
reversible uniforms seem like a good idea, but wouldn’t the fabric have to be thicker so the dye wouldn’t bleed through to the other side of each? and would the pockets get super bulky being on both sides? Nothing that couldn’t be overcome but I feel like it would be more complex then most people say.
spot on with the garrison uniform, cheap, practical and more professional looking.
There it is! I remember that ’94 Natick press release on the reversible uniform, but had not been able to find it again…people thought I was making it up.
As i recall, Natick was touting some breakthrough in the two-sided printing process which meant normal, or even light fabrics without dye bleed-through.
I very much think this reversible concept needs to be further developed.
I love the pic of Johnny LP! I knew he went to work at Natick, but I never heard from him after 3/75!
Great pic! Some of Johnny’s original job responsibilities at Natick included “male model”! LOL! Pictures live forever on the Internet!
The entire desire and need for a “Combat uniform” and a different, spiffier looking “garrison uniform” is a cultural thing and it’d be far cheaper and smarter to fix the culture than the uniform.
Exactly, however, that would be the hardest thing to do.
A dress uniform and a field uniform, seems to me as the only things we really need.
my 2 cents
I’d be curious to hear your reasoning behind the “need” for a dress uniform.
Frankly, over my 25 years on active duty, the only time I ever “needed” the damn things was for some inspectional idiocy, or because some ceremony specified wearing it. There was no “need” for it, aside from that of long-standing tradition. Our dress uniforms are an anachronism, a vestigial remnant of that era when our military men were kept like enserfed animals in prison-like barracks. The “dress uniform” was originally termed a “walking-out” uniform, and consisted of prettied-up field uniforms, and was intended to enable the military man to stand out while in public–Not the least to discourage him from successfully deserting. That’s where this legacy “dress uniform” mania comes from, and I honestly think it’s well past the time to abandon the entire concept. Save the money, and spend it on buying better field uniforms. I’d rather have a decent set of all-weather Gore-Tex and quality boots in my wall locker than some BS set of fancy dress I have to spend hundreds of dollars to buy and maintain, and yet never use.
Ask yourself this: When was the last time any junior enlisted person (outside the Marines, that is) looked over at their buddy, and said “Hey, let’s get out our Class A’s, and go downtown…”. That shit went out in the 1950s, and it’s not coming back, either.
If you really need dress uniforms, then by God, do what the civilians do with fancy dress–Rent that shit out as needed, the way they do with tuxedos.
I can see that you have a strong opinion on the matter but I have to say I disagree. There was a piece on this site not too long ago that spoke to the professional appearance afforded men by owning and wearing a well fitted suit.
The military even more than the civilian has need to project a professional appearance that is simply impossible with a pressed set of fatigues / utilities…or with some off the rack rental.
And no, the military didn’t just develop “dress uniforms” to “discourage him (the service member) from…deserting”.
During my 36 years of service I wore my dress uniform (and represented my service) at weddings, formal ceremonies and far too many funerals. I was proud to do so.
A field uniform would have been wildly inappropriate and frankly disrespectful in those situations.
But I do have to agree with you that the Marines do a better job up raising their people not just to own their dress uniform but to respect it and wear it with pride.
For my part, I wish the other services would follow their example instead of doing away with the tradition as you suggest.
+1
It’s not about being spiffied looking … it’s that ground combat uniforms are too expensive to wear for garrison/fatigue duty. I deployed to Afghanistan with well over $2000 worth of FR kit (4 trousers, 4 coats, 4 spiderman shirts, FR undergarments).
Only expensive because it was a limited RFI procurement. If procured like the standard ACU it would be a lot cheaper.
And, at least in my experience, the FR fabric doesn’t have the same durability of less sophisticated (and less expensive) fabric. Going to wearing FR uniforms in garrison would cost more in terms of initial issue as well as ongoing replacements due to shorter service life (of course if that cost is passed on to the service member, maybe that’s not a major consideration for the powers that be).
After reading about the camo debacle for the last few years, we must all agree on one thing. If it makes sense, the Army won’t do it.
Gorka. With some modifications for hot weather, like combat shirt style top. But the design of the gorka has been around since the 70s and is pretty sound seeming to me.
“doesn’t stand up to pressing well”
You wouldn’t want to go back to pressing utilities would you?
I think on how far the Marine Corps has come with no longer worrying about starched cammies, only aviator framed sunglasses allowed in the field, and black leather boots.
I never want to go back anywhere near that sort of silliness.
It was written in 1994…
Hard to believe this was written in 10 years ago.
You were way ahead of time. SSD is clearly a genius vet. Some of these features still fresh and necessity idea in this tacticool days.
I hope any division of US military look into uniform for hot tropic summer environment. For cool down soldiers’ balls in Asia.
Twenty years ago.
Right, my bad.
it would be sweet if they tried it out with the army national gordo… but we always get stuff last 🙁
Bring back khaki’s for garrison wear.