Jump to content

Recommended Posts

If (When ;)) the Canadians get added, get ready for a flurry of posts about our uniform situation! I don't think I've ever seen two CADPAT combats the same shade, and that includes tunics and trousers on the same soldier! Add to that the three or four patterns in circulation with different pockets, flags, collars and more and there's quite the kerfuffle. Nobody is even sure if our boots should be black or brown so both are allowed!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

  (1) The combat uniform is prescribed for year-round wear for all Soldiers, unless otherwise directed by the commander. Soldiers may wear the combat uniform off-post, unless prohibited by the commander.   (2) Soldiers may wear the combat uniform for commercial travel per paragraph 3–7b through c.   (3) Soldiers may roll-up the sleeves on the ACU. When Soldiers wear the sleeves of the ACU coat rolled up, the camouflage pattern will remain exposed. Personnel will roll sleeves neatly above the elbow but no more than 3 inches above the elbow. Upon approval of the commander and only during field training exercises, the sleeves may be down and cuffed inside the coat.  

 

Straight out of 670-1

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

So its also heavily enforced in combat AOs? i know it was a completely different army in fact not name but I think about all the pics from Nam of guys shirtless with just flak jackets because the heat which you.d think might be a problem in Iraq too?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sublime said:

So its also heavily enforced in combat AOs? i know it was a completely different army in fact not name but I think about all the pics from Nam of guys shirtless with just flak jackets because the heat which you.d think might be a problem in Iraq too?

Heat was a massive problem, but uniform regulations were heavily enforced in Iraq. Sometimes to the point of silliness. My battalion Sergeant Major was notorious for catching people taking midnight latrine breaks without their eye protection. Having said all that. We were allowed to mostly go around without body armor on our FOBs, and were allowed to strip down to T-shirts when doing heavy work like filling sandbags etc. But outside the wire was ALWAYS full battle rattle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the answer. thats interesting.. is that a chicken$hit issue or is there some reason i.e. " sleeves have flame retardent material etc"?

In your experience was it the same for the Marines as well?

 

Also and yes I know a comic book (though far cry than the likes of Sgt Rock) is a bad sourxe of info but the Terminal Lance book the White Donley about Max Uriartes ( and a marine grunt friend of mine who was in fallujah for all of phantom fury said it was the best book about iraq he ever read) time in country, he makes a few funny comments about African contractors hired to protect the base all carrying AKs. 

Was this common theaterwide?  How responsible were the contractors really? Were they expected to really put up a pitched defense or were they more like a trip wire so American troops could mass to defend if needed?  To me it seems more like a token force that would ve a speedbump and delay any insurgents enough that a QRF or air or arty or all could come in.  Any thoughts or expetiences at all are welcome - I never served

Edited by Sublime
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sublime said:

Thanks for the answer. thats interesting.. is that a chicken$hit issue or is there some reason i.e. " sleeves have flame retardent material etc"?

In your experience was it the same for the Marines as well?

 

Also and yes I know a comic book (though far cry than the likes of Sgt Rock) is a bad sourxe of info but the Terminal Lance book the White Donley about Max Uriartes ( and a marine grunt friend of mine who was in fallujah for all of phantom fury said it was the best book about iraq he ever read) time in country, he makes a few funny comments about African contractors hired to protect the base all carrying AKs. 

Was this common theaterwide?  How responsible were the contractors really? Were they expected to really put up a pitched defense or were they more like a trip wire so American troops could mass to defend if needed?  To me it seems more like a token force that would ve a speedbump and delay any insurgents enough that a QRF or air or arty or all could come in.  Any thoughts or expetiences at all are welcome - I never served

The contractors had basically two roles as I saw them:

1. They'd check your ID and make sure you had your weapon before going into the dining hall/other locations.  This was largely to keep out contractors/local nationals not allowed to use those facilities out.  It made a lot of sense because otherwise there'd be some US guy or two protecting our cantaloupe from pilferage.  Anything that was actually a no joke secure location (command post or something) had US soldiers guarding it.

2. Some FOBs had them in the towers/gate areas.  This was sort of hit or miss, and there was usually a US contingent on hand (so like, there might be a squad sized element of contractors, but there's also a US team on hand to handle anything that needs more detail than verifying your MRAP convoy isn't secretly filled with Iranian terrorists.  

In practice the trip wire is most accurate, they were there to keep from "easy" enemy things from happening (recon, trying to sneak into places they didn't belong) but also force the enemy to commit to a full fledged battle before they'd gotten close to the US (or they had to attack the contractors first, even if the contractors rabbitted, it was still enough warning to go full force protection fast enough to limit causalities.  

My two years overseas they didn't do much but keep people out of uniform from getting into the dining facility. A few of them died manning a tower before my second deployment, but that was basically the insurgents dumped an RPG into one of the towers on a larger FOB and that was all (no follow up attack).  

The contractors also if allowed would utterly destroy bathrooms but that's a different issue.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:


The contractors also if allowed would utterly destroy bathrooms but that's a different issue.  

What their penis graffiti wasn't on point or something? 

ha sorry had to. Thanks for the answer man

Edited by Sublime
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...