thedrifter
01-23-04, 07:58 AM
Issue Date: January 26, 2004
Military focus on camouflage is revealing
By Phillip Thompson
When I was on active duty, people always would ask, “Why did you join the Marine Corps?”
I usually gave a standard answer — “to be one of the few, the proud,” et cetera — because I didn’t want to reveal the real reason, which was far too personal for most civilians to understand.
Now, however, I’m prepared to reveal the reason I joined the military.
Camouflage.
That’s right, camouflage, the military’s favorite fetish. Look around you. It’s everywhere (though, ironically, you can see it). The services have camouflage uniforms, tanks, trucks. There are even camouflage nets to cover the camouflaged vehicles. How’s that for good old-fashioned military redundancy?
When I was a second lieutenant, our instructors at The Basic School solemnly would tell us that in the field, “camouflage is continuous.”
It’s also profitable.
You can find camouflage notebooks, camouflage raincoats, even camouflage bikinis (not that there’s anything wrong with that). Military kids go to school with camouflage pencils in their camouflage backpacks. A store in the Pentagon City mall even carries — I’m not making this up — camouflage day-planner binders, I guess so officers can look professional and tactical at the same time.
You even can buy camouflage toilet paper.
The Marine Corps, though, has a particular passion for the stuff. The original, Vietnam-era jungle pattern long since has disappeared. It was replaced by the Cold War-chic “woodland” pattern in the early 1980s, a uniform all the services adopted. Unfortunately, the whiz kids with the slide rules designed the uniform to be too hot in the summer and too bulky to cut a dashing appearance.
At least it was uncomfortable.
Then came the speckled “desert” pattern in the 1980s, the ones known by the silly, decidedly unwarlike name “chocolate chips.” That was the uniform for the 1991 Persian Gulf War, until U.S. Central Command started issuing a newer version that looked even cooler than the “chocolate chips.”
Meanwhile, a new woodland-pattern uniform came out. Same pattern, but a lighter material, with reinforced knees and elbows and a collar that didn’t resemble a leisure suit. But, most important, the blouse had two nifty tabs in the back so you could put a “military tuck” in the blouse and present a neat, military appearance while, say, putting down a civil disturbance in a Third World country.
But the Corps took things one step further: It designed its own special pattern in order to be unique amongst the other camo-clad services. True, Marines now look like a Croatian local militia (with better shaves), but at least they don’t look like soldiers.
The Army, not to be outdone, devised new patterns and polled soldiers as to which one they liked best. High on their list of favorites? The Marine Corps pattern.
Guess they didn’t learn from their beret debacle.
Now, the Air Force has gotten into the game. Uniform gurus are testing — get this — a blue-and-gray tiger stripe pattern.
Words fail me.
All this hubbub over camouflage may sound frivolous to the average, non-cammied-up civilian, but this is serious business for the military. Millions of dollars have gone into research, testing, manufacturing and procuring The Perfect Camouflage Uniform.
Sure, the Marine Corps could have stayed with the same pattern the other services have, rather than lay out the cash for its own special brand of camouflage. The Army didn’t have to spend all that money on research and development to come up with a decent pattern (plus three really nasty ones). And if the Air Force wants to run around in blue jammies, I suppose that’s its right.
Who wants to look like the other guy, especially when there are hundreds of embedded reporters running all over the battlefield, most of whom don’t know the difference between a tank and a fighting hole in the ground. They easily could mistake a Marine for a soldier (which, in the eyes of a Marine, is like mistaking Janeane Garofalo for Miss America) or vice versa.
Besides, looking good in combat is as important as having the best equipment money can buy, right?
Phillip Thompson, a former Marine, is Lifelines editor for Marine Corps Times.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story.php?f=0-MARINEPAPER-2011122.php
Sempers,
Roger
:marine:
Military focus on camouflage is revealing
By Phillip Thompson
When I was on active duty, people always would ask, “Why did you join the Marine Corps?”
I usually gave a standard answer — “to be one of the few, the proud,” et cetera — because I didn’t want to reveal the real reason, which was far too personal for most civilians to understand.
Now, however, I’m prepared to reveal the reason I joined the military.
Camouflage.
That’s right, camouflage, the military’s favorite fetish. Look around you. It’s everywhere (though, ironically, you can see it). The services have camouflage uniforms, tanks, trucks. There are even camouflage nets to cover the camouflaged vehicles. How’s that for good old-fashioned military redundancy?
When I was a second lieutenant, our instructors at The Basic School solemnly would tell us that in the field, “camouflage is continuous.”
It’s also profitable.
You can find camouflage notebooks, camouflage raincoats, even camouflage bikinis (not that there’s anything wrong with that). Military kids go to school with camouflage pencils in their camouflage backpacks. A store in the Pentagon City mall even carries — I’m not making this up — camouflage day-planner binders, I guess so officers can look professional and tactical at the same time.
You even can buy camouflage toilet paper.
The Marine Corps, though, has a particular passion for the stuff. The original, Vietnam-era jungle pattern long since has disappeared. It was replaced by the Cold War-chic “woodland” pattern in the early 1980s, a uniform all the services adopted. Unfortunately, the whiz kids with the slide rules designed the uniform to be too hot in the summer and too bulky to cut a dashing appearance.
At least it was uncomfortable.
Then came the speckled “desert” pattern in the 1980s, the ones known by the silly, decidedly unwarlike name “chocolate chips.” That was the uniform for the 1991 Persian Gulf War, until U.S. Central Command started issuing a newer version that looked even cooler than the “chocolate chips.”
Meanwhile, a new woodland-pattern uniform came out. Same pattern, but a lighter material, with reinforced knees and elbows and a collar that didn’t resemble a leisure suit. But, most important, the blouse had two nifty tabs in the back so you could put a “military tuck” in the blouse and present a neat, military appearance while, say, putting down a civil disturbance in a Third World country.
But the Corps took things one step further: It designed its own special pattern in order to be unique amongst the other camo-clad services. True, Marines now look like a Croatian local militia (with better shaves), but at least they don’t look like soldiers.
The Army, not to be outdone, devised new patterns and polled soldiers as to which one they liked best. High on their list of favorites? The Marine Corps pattern.
Guess they didn’t learn from their beret debacle.
Now, the Air Force has gotten into the game. Uniform gurus are testing — get this — a blue-and-gray tiger stripe pattern.
Words fail me.
All this hubbub over camouflage may sound frivolous to the average, non-cammied-up civilian, but this is serious business for the military. Millions of dollars have gone into research, testing, manufacturing and procuring The Perfect Camouflage Uniform.
Sure, the Marine Corps could have stayed with the same pattern the other services have, rather than lay out the cash for its own special brand of camouflage. The Army didn’t have to spend all that money on research and development to come up with a decent pattern (plus three really nasty ones). And if the Air Force wants to run around in blue jammies, I suppose that’s its right.
Who wants to look like the other guy, especially when there are hundreds of embedded reporters running all over the battlefield, most of whom don’t know the difference between a tank and a fighting hole in the ground. They easily could mistake a Marine for a soldier (which, in the eyes of a Marine, is like mistaking Janeane Garofalo for Miss America) or vice versa.
Besides, looking good in combat is as important as having the best equipment money can buy, right?
Phillip Thompson, a former Marine, is Lifelines editor for Marine Corps Times.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story.php?f=0-MARINEPAPER-2011122.php
Sempers,
Roger
:marine: