More strict tattoos, new camo pattern and ....boots? say the army

[Maddog5150]

Bad enough big Army is crying about budget cuts but now wants to waste money for a new pattern when we are supposedly going into "peacetime" mode.
Also singles out Soldiers who want to "stand out" because of tattoos.

http://www.stripes.com/news/army/sol...dvQ_o.facebook

While some soldiers at the meeting asked whether the Army will ever allow more visible tattoos, Chandler said it is a matter of maintaining a uniform look and sacrificing for the sake of the force.

I was unaware that tattooes changed performance and needed to be sacrificed.

On a separate note, Chandler told troops that the new Army combat uniforms will likely be phased in starting eight to nine months from now. The uniform will feature different colors for different environments, but the pattern will be very similar to the mottled “multicam” currently used in Afghanistan under the designation “Operation Enduring Freedom Camouflage Pattern.”

I'm sure there is no one on this forum who thinks UCP is great but whatever right? If someone is getting deployed then they are fitted with multicam but if not, who cares if it looks goofy if they put the money to good use. They are pushing soldiers out because of budget but now will have to spend money refitting the whole Army and every soldier with new gear.
Further more, its not even multicam but a variant so all those soldiers who went to afganistan aren't going to have the same pattern so everything needs to go and be re-bought. I wonder who in the military got a kick back from the camo companies for that

[rero360]

Thats not confirmed yet, I have heard from some that the new transitional pattern is practically the same as the current OCP, thus the Army could if they were smart (not likely normally but they did just enter into a bid to buy the copy rights to OCP in addition to the new variations) they would either allowt he use of OCP with the transitional pattern, or scrap the transitional altogether and use OCP along with the other three (two?) variants.

By going either of these routes, they would save tons of money, industry still gets paid bank and it shortens the time needed to equip the force with the "new" camo. If they did not go one of these routes then there is no way they would be able to meet their predictions of starting to outfit the force in the "new" pattern within 9 months, at least not in any measurable amount anyway.

[Sunday]

This http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcr_J...detailpage#t=4

[brando]

The camo fiasco of the last 10 years has been truly depressing. The tattoo thing is interesting how it's evolved, notably because there has been a societal shift in that regard. Still, I always though the old rule of nothing visible while in full uniform (ie no hands or necks) and no gang or extremist affiliations was sound. On the SOF side, at least back in the early 90s, they were just frowned upon in general because they were Visual Distinguishing Marks that made you easy to identify and hard to explain away. Flash forward to today and you can spot an American soldier in civies in any international airport by his tattoos alone.

[MRX9989]

The best deal for taxpayers and the military is to go with a standardized set of intra-service utility uniforms. Hopefully Secretary Hagel can make this happen.

[18Dmedic]

Check out my avatar...nuff said.

As for camo...we get whatever we want anyway. But yeah, it's a major waste of funds to have switched so many times just to come full circle back to woodland (MARSOC).lol what a waste. Your tax dollars at work.

[The sarge]

The plans that have been in the works for about a year or so now are to adopt the Marine patterns service wide because they work. The acu, navy aquaflage, and Air Force tiger stripe are really useless patterns just to be different after we developed a new one and everyone wanted to be different.

As far as the tattoos go right on. There are alot of army guys that look they came straight out of the hood and that stuff just doesn't have a place in our military. The Marine Corps has had the same standards for years now. Time to get on the bus.

[roll2li]

Welcome to the peacetime military, good grief anything but that.

[19K]

Meh. Tattoos aren't needed anyways. If you aren't in and want to be in you'll get rid of them.

[epilepticninja]

Originally Posted by 18Dmedic

Check out my avatar...nuff said.

As for camo...we get whatever we want anyway. But yeah, it's a major waste of funds to have switched so many times just to come full circle back to woodland (MARSOC).lol what a waste. Your tax dollars at work.

I can remember when all the services wore woodland BDU's.

[19K]

Originally Posted by Maddog5150

I'm sure there is no one on this forum who thinks UCP is great but whatever right? If someone is getting deployed then they are fitted with multicam but if not, who cares if it looks goofy if they put the money to good use. They are pushing soldiers out because of budget but now will have to spend money refitting the whole Army and every soldier with new gear.
Further more, its not even multicam but a variant so all those soldiers who went to afganistan aren't going to have the same pattern so everything needs to go and be re-bought. I wonder who in the military got a kick back from the camo companies for that

http://soldiersystems.net/2013/10/12...edium=facebook


oh check it out, IT IS MULTICAM. OCP is the winner

Recently, we surmised that the US Army was going to abandon the Camouflage Improvement Effort and adopt the current issue Operation Enduring Freedom Camouflage Pattern (OCP) known commercially as MultiCam and worn by troops serving in Afghanistan. According to the Justification and Approval (J&A) published yesterday by the Army Contracting Command on Fed Biz Opps, a contract was in fact awarded to Crye Associates on September 24th, 2013 for a license for OCP. Furthermore, according to details in the J&A, OCP will be the Army’s principle camouflage pattern for the “…” Unfortunately, the PDF left out a few key details like what OCP actually will be used for. But, based on what I am hearing, it’s for all US Army, regardless of unit of assignment or operating location. Meaning…goodbye UCP, hello OCP

[dominic]

I don't have anything to say about the camo patterns. When i was in the Army the chocolate chip pattern was the new thing and we thought it was great. So having dated myself, I can only say having visible tattoos may reflect poor decision making abilities. I mean that if they can't make good long-term decisions then how can they make good short-term decisions? I don't know anybody that got a tatt when they were young, that did'nt regret it at sometime in their life when they were older.

[billmaykafer]

we were wearing jungle fatigues and tranisioning into woodland camo. i could hide in woods better with od green jungle fatigues than i could with woodland. those multi cam look like navy gwakamolie (i can't spell,but it is made from avacados)

[billmaykafer]

Originally Posted by dominic

I don't have anything to say about the camo patterns. When i was in the Army the chocolate chip pattern was the new thing and we thought it was great. So having dated myself, I can only say having visible tattoos may reflect poor decision making abilities. I mean that if they can't make good long-term decisions then how can they make good short-term decisions? I don't know anybody that got a tatt when they were young, that did'nt regret it at sometime in their life when they were older.

i forgot about my tatoos i got while in us navy in 62/63 until you mentioned regreting them by some. i have never been ashamed of mine ever and i am now 70,but maybe in the future i may.

[bombadillo]

I'm ALL for telling people they can't serve our country with a bunch of gang tattoos all over their arms, or swastikas on their arm, leg, or face. If you're too stupid to function in society outside of a gang, get them burned off before you go in. Man up son.

[Germz]

All aboard the no feels train. not to enter into a pissing contest but the Marine Corps' tattoo policy is way stricter than the Army. No pity here.

[Gryff]

Originally Posted by Maddog5150

Also singles out Soldiers who want to "stand out" because of tattoos.

No, but the service wants it's personnel to look professional rather than trendy and trashy.

[Maddog5150]

Originally Posted by Gryff

No, but the service wants it's personnel to look professional rather than trendy and trashy.

Although that would be an acceptable answer it holds no ground on wanting service members looking professional when you have branches who authorized to attend gay rallies in uniform in SD prior to the repeal. Or even a certain branch paying officers (pictures of up to O-5 no less) to attend gay rallies in ACU's recently and even allow civillians to ride and climb all over a moving Humvee during said abortion going on.
Trendy and trashy? I think they got our tattoos beat
*edit* Googled. There was even a full bird in Army ACU's at the rally