# Army dress uniforms?



## David V

Are there any other makers besides Marlow White for Army Service Uniform and the Mess Dress Blues?

This is not for me. It was a question posted by an officer on another forum.


----------



## Anthony660

Othe than the local AAFES, not that I am aware. I had mine made in Korea. Good luck!


----------



## Blueboy1938

*Why . . .*



David V said:


> Are there any other makers besides Marlow White for Army Service Uniform and the Mess Dress Blues?
> 
> This is not for me. It was a question posted by an officer on another forum.


. . . would you want to go with anyone else?


----------



## David Reeves

I am sure any good Bespoke tailor could make you a great dress uniform. My old firm Gieves and Hawkes is a military supplier and tailor in England. I always liked the Guards officers. So nice to report that they are still quite stylish/flamboyant.

I remember having long discussions with a Brigadier about Patrol collars and the polishing of dress George boots. 

Gentleman and ladies often have there suits made for them, so it's natural that officers would have dress uniforms made for themselves Bespoke.


----------



## Acct2000

I guess I'm surprised that the armed forces don't provide the uniforms. 

I would not have thought they would want to risk differing uniforms by letting people get their own made. I've never been in the armed forces, though.

This is a surprise to me.


----------



## Mad Hatter

Brooks Brothers, maybe. I know they offer Air Force dress.


----------



## JibranK

David Reeves said:


> I am sure any good Bespoke tailor could make you a great dress uniform. My old firm Gieves and Hawkes is a military supplier and tailor in England. I always liked the Guards officers. So nice to report that they are still quite stylish/flamboyant.
> 
> I remember having long discussions with a Brigadier about Patrol collars and the polishing of dress George boots.
> 
> Gentleman and ladies often have there suits made for them, so it's natural that officers would have dress uniforms made for themselves Bespoke.


That is the case in Her Majesty's Armed Forces but in the US, officers are forced to wear polyester uniforms with plastic shoes.


----------



## Claybuster

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I guess I'm surprised that the armed forces don't provide the uniforms.
> 
> I would not have thought they would want to risk differing uniforms by letting people get their own made. I've never been in the armed forces, though.
> 
> This is a surprise to me.


The Armed Forces do supply your initial basic set of uniforms when you are first enlisted/commissioned. However, the dress uniforms such as the Mess Uniform or then Dress blues or Dress Whites, you had to buy those either from the PX, Marlow or some place like Super Trooper or any number of places which supply regulation service uniforms. If you wanted to have a bespoke uniform, it would, of course, have to be according to Army Regs.

Danny


----------



## eagle2250

^^
......and if you are/were a commissioned officer they provide you with a (used to be) $300 uniform allowance, with which you are expected to go out and buy your full compliment of uniforms. One might be hard pressed to find a maker of bespoke uniforms, offering their services for that amount. The OP's friend's Base clothing sales store will sell the standard issue items and they will generally have references for sources of better quality garments.


----------



## PJC in NoVa

JibranK said:


> That is the case in Her Majesty's Armed Forces but in the US, officers are forced to wear polyester uniforms with plastic shoes.


Will the planned phase-out of the green "pickle suit" uniform and the adoption of a modified version of the dress-blue uniform (the cool one with those Civil War-style shoulder straps for officers) as service dress mean a shift away from polyester and back to wool? Or are dress blues polyester as well?


----------



## JibranK

A bunch of my friends are army brats and that's how a know of the polyester, but I don't know about the changes to come. I know that UK military cut down on synthetics because of the danger of melting and such so US may do the same.

I don't know why they use polyester for dress uniforms anyway.


----------



## David Reeves

Of course the Bespoke uniforms have to be regulation. Officers are not forced to buy Bespoke in the UK, but they are often still quite moneyed from aristocratic families over here. so paying for there own kit isn't much of a problem.

In fact soldiers have a history of modifying kit or buying there own better quallity "Gucci gear" as the special forces call it. This goes for clothes or equipment.


----------



## PJC in NoVa

JibranK said:


> A bunch of my friends are army brats and that's how a know of the polyester, but I don't know about the changes to come. I know that UK military cut down on synthetics because of the danger of melting and such so US may do the same.
> 
> I don't know why they use polyester for dress uniforms anyway.


Ease of maintenance. Polyester=wrinkle-free. The green "Class A" uni is a service uniform and may sometimes have to be worn on a fairly frequent basis.

The last Army-green service dress uni I saw up close looked to me like it was made out of wool. Could have been a blend, though, I guess.


----------



## Blueboy1938

Both the tropical worsted and premier "Elastique" cloth are 55/45 blends of wool and polyester. Wool alone simply would not have the wearability necessary in a uniform.

As for just any tailor, even really good ones, making U. S. Army uniforms, they would have to be thoroughly conversant with the regs, have access to regulation fabric and other items, such as braid and buttons, and have the technique required to attach all the requisite insignia, etc., in the proper placements with the proper stitching. I seriously doubt they could do that for the $415 charged for the "Premier Army Service Uniform" by Marlow White.

If by "dress uniform" you mean full blue dress mess, I also doubt you'll beat Marlow White's package for $495. You just can't expect to get all the necessary and correct items required from a tailor for that. I got mine from Marlow White, and they couldn't have been more accommodating and respectful.

https://www.marlowwhite.com/army/uniforms/mess-blue/officer-male.html


----------



## JibranK

Why would wool alone not have the required wearability? Heavy sturdy wools don't wrinkle very easily.


----------



## Blueboy1938

JibranK said:


> Why would wool alone not have the required wearability? Heavy sturdy wools don't wrinkle very easily.


First of all, we're not talking about a hunting jacket for the moors. Secondly, the Army Regs say what you're going to use, and those items have been extensively wear-tested. I rest my case.


----------



## David Reeves

I think dress uniforms made of wool would be fine these days in terms of wearability. Think about what the Grenadiers were running around in at Waterloo!

No your tailor wouldn't do all that for $440 I wouldn't do it for less than $3000 plus cost of braiding buttons etc. It would all need to be researched as well as made and put together.



Blueboy1938 said:


> Both the tropical worsted and premier "Elastique" cloth are 55/45 blends of wool and polyester. Wool alone simply would not have the wearability necessary in a uniform.
> 
> As for just any tailor, even really good ones, making U. S. Army uniforms, they would have to be thoroughly conversant with the regs, have access to regulation fabric and other items, such as braid and buttons, and have the technique required to attach all the requisite insignia, etc., in the proper placements with the proper stitching. I seriously doubt they could do that for the $415 charged for the "Premier Army Service Uniform" by Marlow White.
> 
> If by "dress uniform" you mean full blue dress mess, I also doubt you'll beat Marlow White's package for $495. You just can't expect to get all the necessary and correct items required from a tailor for that. I got mine from Marlow White, and they couldn't have been more accommodating and respectful.
> 
> https://www.marlowwhite.com/army/uniforms/mess-blue/officer-male.html


----------



## JibranK

Blueboy1938 said:


> First of all, we're not talking about a hunting jacket for the moors. Secondly, the Army Regs say what you're going to use, and those items have been extensively wear-tested. I rest my case.


I know. All I was saying is that they should extend the regs to allow for wool cloth, as other militaries do.


----------



## PJC in NoVa

David Reeves said:


> Think about what the Grenadiers were running around in at Waterloo!


As you probably know, Civil War reenacting is popular in parts of the States. Civil War uniforms were often made of wool, and pretty scratchy-looking wool at that (judging from the examples on display in the museum at Gettysburg).

On a few occasions I've seen reenactors (who are frequently a good deal older and heftier than the average Civil War soldier would have been) looking somewhat uncomfortable during summertime events near Gettysburg and other popular reenactment sites. The price of authenticity, I suppose.

A local weather buff noted the temp at Gettysburg on July 3, 1863 as 87 degrees Farenheit. Accounts say it was humid, too. Wearing those heavy unis plus gear for many days running while on campaign in heat and dust could not have been much fun. My hunch is that high-tech fabrics might have met with an appreciative audience.

The U.S. Army maintains (or used to?) a sizeable research lab at Natick, MA, which studies matters such as materials durability. If they found that a certain wool blend lasts the longest, I would take that to the bank.

I suspect, additionally, that not only sheer durability concerns but also wrinkle resistance was a factor. Worn in heat and humidity, a uniform of even the best pure wool would start to show rucks and rumples (like those accordion wrinkles you get across your jacket sleeves opposite where your elbows bend) pretty quickly, and that would mean less than the ideal military appearance of being perfectly "squared away." Perhaps a superheavy and densely woven fabric could prevent this, but then you'd have other problems like being excessively hot and uncomfortable to wear.


----------



## JibranK

Yes, but this discussion is about dress uniforms - not combat uniforms.


----------



## David Reeves

JibranK said:


> Yes, but this discussion is about dress uniforms - not combat uniforms.


yes. And I know ibrought up wearing wool uniforms in combat but I was trying to show that If wool Is durable enough to fight in when your wearing what's now considered a dress like uniform it must be perfectly fine for dress purposes.

In any case the Brigadier I was talking about didn't wear polyester. At least in his dress uniform.


----------



## JibranK

I know. I was replying to PJC's post.


----------



## David Reeves

Heavy poleyesters maybe more durable but they aren't always more crease resistant and they don't allow your skin to breath like wool. I don't think durability is the most important thing in a dress uniform and many European Forces have worn wear wool dress uniforms for centuries and still do.


----------



## Blueboy1938

JibranK said:


> I know. All I was saying is that they should extend the regs to allow for wool cloth, as other militaries do.


Perhaps that would be a nice alternative for those who go into the military but don't want to leave fashionability behind:icon_smile_wink:

However, realistically speaking, that is not going to happen and any discussion of where to get a uniform will have to consider the current reality. That's two choices: tropical worsted (TW) 55/45 wool/polyester blend or Teflon-coated yarn Elastique 55/45 wool/polyester blend. The Teflon may be proprietary to Marlow White and adds water repellence and stain resistance.

Another consideration is uniformity in ranks. When the service uniform is worn in ranks, everyone should have the same fabric or it won't look uniform. That's why they call them "uniforms" I guess:icon_smile_big:

Just a note about combat versus dress uniform: During the Civil War, line soldiers, NCOs, and probably up as far as company grade officers fought and paraded and socialized in the same uniform. I only wear my blue dress mess uniform six times a year, at most. If the service uniform, made of the same fabrics, is the normal "uniform of the day" in a particular assignment, that uniform is going to get a lot of wear unless the soldier gets another to alternate. Even so, switching off two uniforms still subjects each to much more wear than the typical business suit gets. It's not combat, but the fabric still has to stand up to that and continue to look presentable.


----------



## PJC in NoVa

JibranK said:


> Yes, but this discussion is about dress uniforms - not combat uniforms.


I know. I was talking about dress-uniform fabrics, not combat fatigues (or in current Army acronym, the ACU). Point is: I would bet that the Class A fabrics (whether green or blue) have been tested as well.

I'm sure the British Guards units wear all-wool uniforms. I would hate to think that there's any polyester in those tunics! As for the bearskins they first won off Bonaparte's boys, they are real too, at least for now:


----------



## NU81

David V said:


> Are there any other makers besides Marlow White for Army Service Uniform and the Mess Dress Blues?
> 
> This is not for me. It was a question posted by an officer on another forum.


I retired from the Army two years ago after 25 plus years of service. During that time I had dress uniforms from Army Issue, AAFES, Super Trooper, and Marlow White. Marlow White was the best of the bunch by far.


----------



## raydg

*Dress Army Uniform*



Claybuster said:


> The Armed Forces do supply your initial basic set of uniforms when you are first enlisted/commissioned. However, the dress uniforms such as the Mess Uniform or then Dress blues or Dress Whites, you had to buy those either from the PX, Marlow or some place like Super Trooper or any number of places which supply regulation service uniforms. If you wanted to have a bespoke uniform, it would, of course, have to be according to Army Regs.
> 
> Danny


The Army Regulation would be AR 670-1. The regulation would have all the authorized uniforms and how to wear them and when would be the occasion to wear them. There are even restritions of what us retirees can wear. You can google it and download a PDF file.


----------



## digby_snaffles

Why would your friend want to go with another supplier? He's given a uniform allowance isn't he? Surely he should use it?


----------



## Scoundrel

JibranK said:


> A bunch of my friends are army brats and that's how a know of the polyester, but I don't know about the changes to come.


The new dress uniforms will indeed be a wool/poly blend. In fact, I read the story somewhere on here (AAAC).


----------



## JibranK

I was at the Smithsonian yesterday and saw a US Army uniform *that actually looked good* from some time in the 20th century (from the 9th Cavalry I think)

When did they adopt the ugly green plastic thing?


----------



## Steve_C

JibranK said:


> I was at the Smithsonian yesterday and saw a US Army uniform *that actually looked good* from some time in the 20th century (from the 9th Cavalry I think)


Was this a blue uniform or one of the various green/brown service uniforms of the first half of the 1900s?



JibranK said:


> When did they adopt the ugly green plastic thing?


In the mid 1950s ( https://www.qmfound.com/Army_Green_Uniform.htm#Adoption of the Army Green Uniform ), though it wasn't plastic then. It was standardized as the winter service uniform by 1958.

Shelby Stanton has produced several informative books on the topic of US Army uniforms throughout the 20th century.


----------



## JibranK

Steve_C said:


> Was this a blue uniform or one of the various green/brown service uniforms of the first half of the 1900s?


It was blue. I really like the brown ones too; heck, even green ones look good, but only when made of wool. In polyester, they just look tacky.

I'll definitely check out that author.


----------



## hockeyinsider

David V said:


> Are there any other makers besides Marlow White for Army Service Uniform and the Mess Dress Blues?
> 
> This is not for me. It was a question posted by an officer on another forum.


Ugh ... I really wish the Pentagon would do something about the service uniforms. Only the Marines have a decent dress uniform. Those bloody nametags, polyester shirts and polyester ties ruin the other outfits.


----------



## hockeyinsider

PJC in NoVa said:


> As you probably know, Civil War reenacting is popular in parts of the States. Civil War uniforms were often made of wool, and pretty scratchy-looking wool at that (judging from the examples on display in the museum at Gettysburg).
> 
> On a few occasions I've seen reenactors (who are frequently a good deal older and heftier than the average Civil War soldier would have been) looking somewhat uncomfortable during summertime events near Gettysburg and other popular reenactment sites. The price of authenticity, I suppose.
> 
> A local weather buff noted the temp at Gettysburg on July 3, 1863 as 87 degrees Farenheit. Accounts say it was humid, too. Wearing those heavy unis plus gear for many days running while on campaign in heat and dust could not have been much fun. My hunch is that high-tech fabrics might have met with an appreciative audience.
> 
> The U.S. Army maintains (or used to?) a sizeable research lab at Natick, MA, which studies matters such as materials durability. If they found that a certain wool blend lasts the longest, I would take that to the bank.
> 
> I suspect, additionally, that not only sheer durability concerns but also wrinkle resistance was a factor. Worn in heat and humidity, a uniform of even the best pure wool would start to show rucks and rumples (like those accordion wrinkles you get across your jacket sleeves opposite where your elbows bend) pretty quickly, and that would mean less than the ideal military appearance of being perfectly "squared away." Perhaps a superheavy and densely woven fabric could prevent this, but then you'd have other problems like being excessively hot and uncomfortable to wear.


U.S. Civil War uniforms were rather plain and dull, especially towards the end of the war when money was an issue for both sides.

I would rather point to the American Revolution, Napoleonic Wars, or the Crimean as examples of stunning uniforms in 100 percent natural fabrics that made you wonder how they wore them in warm weather.


----------



## hockeyinsider

JibranK said:


> I was at the Smithsonian yesterday and saw a US Army uniform *that actually looked good* from some time in the 20th century (from the 9th Cavalry I think)
> 
> When did they adopt the ugly green plastic thing?


I believe after World War II. The World War II uniforms are hideous.


----------



## PJC in NoVa

hockeyinsider said:


> U.S. Civil War uniforms were rather plain and dull.


Don't try telling that to the Zouaves:


----------



## JibranK

Incredible. I had no idea that there were US Zouaves.

Why does US military not allow people to bespeak uniforms to spec. as one can in the Commonwealth?


----------



## PJC in NoVa

JibranK said:


> Incredible. I had no idea that there were US Zouaves.
> 
> Why does US military not allow people to bespeak uniforms to spec. as one can in the Commonwealth?


There were nearly a hundred Zouave regiments, if you add blue and gray together. That look was considered the height of military fashion at the time. The French Army was the trendsetter in military unis of the mid-19th C (the American forage cap is a sort of kepi, etc.).

I think those reenactors in the second pic are portraying one of the NY Zouave units, I think the 5th NY, known as Duryee's Zouaves after their colonel:

https://www.geocities.com/zouavedatabase/newyork/5thny.html

That unit and another Zouave outfit bought it pretty hard at 2nd Manassas, as they happened to wind up taking the first shock when Lee and Longstreet sprang their trap and launched a massive assault against the Union left on the afternoon of 30 Aug 1862.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duryee%27s_Zouaves

Next time you drive down Rte. 29 past the old stone house at Rte. 234, look to your left a little ways after the intersection and you'll be looking at the rolling bit of hill and dale where the Zouaves died.


----------



## JibranK

I'll definitely check that out now that school's more-or-less done. Thanks!


----------



## comrade

"Of course the Bespoke uniforms have to be regulation.
Officers are not forced to buy Bespoke in the UK, 
but they are often still quite moneyed from aristocratic families 
over here. so paying for there own kit isn't much of a problem."

Isn't this the key point? In the US, if I am not mistaken, the Officer Corps, 
is largely drawn from the middle, and even lower middle classes, and is 
disproportionately of rural/Southern origin. Not classes nor regions 
known for their style-consciousness. Furthermore, Britiain is a small 
country with a focus on London, a world center for bespoke clothing. 
The only city in the US that comes remotely close is New York. 
I would be very surprised if a young officer, even a West Pointer,
from Alabama, or Nebraska would go to New York for a bespoke uniform.


----------



## mjraica

The military sets a regulation as to what material can be utilized to create a uniform, what the exact coloring must be, and, of course, sizing. If an independent tailor wanted to be certified to bespeak military uniforms, they could apply for a certification through the specific military branch. As long as met the requirements, he could become an authorized retailer. The old camouflage uniform worked like that, there were dozens of companies that made them. Right now the Marine Corps has (last time I heard) 3 different companies producing the new digital pattern cammies. Brooks Brothers used to be popular as a source for outfitting military uniforms. But companies don't want to spend the money to offer this service.

Also, servicemembers do have some options for better uniforms. Marines are issued the cheap polycotton shirts (affectionately referred to as paper shirts), but have the option to purchase creightons as an upgrade. The Marine Service dress uniform is a wool gabardine, and the Dress Blue uniform is 100% wool. So its not as bad as one would think. However, yes you are forced to wear the Corafram dress shoes; leather shoes are no longer an authorized uniform. They want everyone to always have perfectly shiny shoes.


----------



## PJC in NoVa

mjraica said:


> Brooks Brothers used to be popular as a source for outfitting military uniforms.


TR used The Brothers to make his Rough Riders uni.

BB is still a source of US Navy officers' kit:

https://www.navy-nex.com/command/about_us/premier-uniforms.html


----------



## hockeyinsider

PJC in NoVa said:


> There were nearly a hundred Zouave regiments, if you add blue and gray together. That look was considered the height of military fashion at the time. The French Army was the trendsetter in military unis of the mid-19th C (the American forage cap is a sort of kepi, etc.).
> .


I thought the Prussians were on the forefront.


----------



## PJC in NoVa

hockeyinsider said:


> I thought the Prussians were on the forefront.


A bit later they would be, after the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71, which was the military equivalent of what in sports is called a "stunning upset" and gave the Prussians mucho prestige. After the Civil War, the US Army uniform for a time included a pickelhaube.

It's often obscured by the long shadow of 1940, but from the Battle of Rocroi in 1643 up to the F-P War, it was France that was considered the premier European landpower (through most of the early-modern period, France was the region's most populous country, and Germany of course existed only as a linguistic zone rather than a unified polity).

When Churchill wrote about his great ancestor, the Duke of Marlborough, this was one of the things that lent great drama to the account, namely, Churchill's sense that the Duke was taking on enormous odds in fighting Louis XIV's France on the continent of Europe.


----------



## hockeyinsider

PJC in NoVa said:


> A bit later they would be, after the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71, which was the military equivalent of what in sports is called a "stunning upset" and gave the Prussians mucho prestige. After the Civil War, the US Army uniform for a time included a pickelhaube.
> 
> It's often obscured by the long shadow of 1940, but from the Battle of Rocroi in 1643 up to the F-P War, it was France that was considered the premier European landpower (through most of the early-modern period, France was the region's most populous country, and Germany of course existed only as a linguistic zone rather than a unified polity).
> 
> When Churchill wrote about his great ancestor, the Duke of Marlborough, this was one of the things that lent great drama to the account, namely, Churchill's sense that the Duke was taking on enormous odds in fighting Louis XIV's France on the continent of Europe.


Well, my focus in history has always been the period between the Seven Years War and the Napoleonic era. I will agree that France certainly was dominant, however, I would argue that France was no match for Prussia. In fact, France lost more wars than it one since the mid-eighteenth century.

I do believe the U.S. military uniforms were certainly at its best after the Civil War until modern warfare was ushered in at the turn of the last century.


----------



## mjraica

PJC in NoVa said:


> TR used The Brothers to make his Rough Riders uni.
> 
> BB is still a source of US Navy officers' kit:
> 
> https://www.navy-nex.com/command/about_us/premier-uniforms.html


Very true. and if they do a Navy kit, it would be a simple matter to do Army and Air Force. The Marines are the only difficult ones in the group, we prefer to have a completely different cut to our uniforms. We just want to be different :icon_smile_big:


----------



## PJC in NoVa

Nothing looks sharper than USMC dress blues.


----------



## JibranK

PJC in NoVa said:


> Nothing looks sharper than USMC dress blues.


Well, I think as far as standard uniforms go, the British Army

and the Royal Navy/Royal Marines

give it a run for its money.


----------



## PJC in NoVa

You are conflating the British Army and the Royal Navy.


----------



## JibranK

PJC in NoVa said:


> You are conflating the British Army and the Royal Navy.


How so? The first photo is from Sandhurst; the second from Dartmouth.


----------



## PJC in NoVa

JibranK said:


> How so? The first photo is from Sandhurst; the second from Dartmouth.


Sorry, I did not see the line of text about the Royal Navy/Royal Marines.

Everyone needs to go back to the _pickelhaube._ Now that would look really "sharp" (in more ways than one). According to wikipedia, Chilean military cadets still wear them. To intimidate the Bolivians from trying to reclaim their seacoast, no doubt.


----------



## hockeyinsider

PJC in NoVa said:


> You are conflating the British Army and the Royal Navy.


The British Army certainly has the best dress uniforms with the Marine Corp a close second. Nobody beats the Household Division.

The problem with the U.S. Army uniforms lay with the shirt, tie, nametag and all the clutter on the chests. The other uniforms are much cleaner.


----------



## mjraica

hockeyinsider said:


> The British Army certainly has the best dress uniforms with the Marine Corp a close second. Nobody beats the Household Division.


I will give you that they have some pretty spiffy uniforms. But I will never agree that they are better than the United States Marines! (recently retired Marine here....:icon_smile_wink


----------



## Frog in Suit

Has any of you ever seen the Garde Républicaine on ceremonial duty? 

Frog in Suit :devil:


----------



## eagle2250

hockeyinsider said:


> ...
> 
> The problem with the U.S. Army uniforms lay with the shirt, tie, nametag and all the clutter on the chests...


Ouch, that's gonna leave a mark! "The clutter" which is displayed on the soldiers tunic, allows such an incredible glimpse into where that soldier has been, what he/she has done and indeed, even insight into the core of their character. If we take the time to understand what we are looking at, "all the clutter on the chest" doesn't look so bad...indeed, it looks pretty good, to my eyes!


----------



## digby_snaffles

PJC in NoVa said:


> A bit later they would be, after the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71, which was the military equivalent of what in sports is called a "stunning upset" and gave the Prussians mucho prestige. After the Civil War, the US Army uniform for a time included a pickelhaube.


Excuse me but I don't believe that is a Pickelhaube. It's certainly evolved from it, though indirectly. You'll find it is much more in line with the British Home Service Helmet, which is a Pith Helm (though not a true one) modelled on the Pickelhaube, yet distinctly different. The British adopted it in 1878 and the Yanks not long after in 1881, there's being particularly elaborate and worn by mounted troops I believe. The British Home Service Helmet was worn by line iInfantry, engineers and artillery and indeed is still worn by their respective Corps of Drums and regimental bands. You'll find it is also closely related to the Custodian Helmet, as worn by the British constabulary.


----------



## GBR

JibranK said:


> I was at the Smithsonian yesterday and saw a US Army uniform *that actually looked good* from some time in the 20th century (from the 9th Cavalry I think)
> 
> When did they adopt the ugly green plastic thing?


That is a rare treat US Army/Other service Officers appear at formal UK functions and rarely match their British counterparts - in fact they frequently look 'cheap' by their side. I doubt that is for want of trying or pride merely reality.


----------



## digby_snaffles

GBR said:


> That is a rare treat US Army/Other service Officers appear at formal UK functions and rarely match their British counterparts - in fact they frequently look 'cheap' by their side. I doubt that is for want of trying or pride merely reality.


In the United States Army does Mess Dress vary depending on one's Corps?

For example, in this simplistic diagram, the far left figure is wearing a Cavalry jacket (so it's not just colour but cut), the green jacket is Intelligence Corps I believe (if they were in the Rifles, which is an infatry regiment descended from the Light Infantry/Royal Green Jackets who were historically skirmishers then dark green) and then the obvious trews for Scottish regiments.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

US Army Enlisted 1979



When I got out of OCS I got into an Armored Cav Unit. Some had slouch hats, riding boots with dress blues, sabres and the whole shootin' match.

That stuff looked good!!


----------



## sltimmer

digby_snaffles said:


> In the United States Army does Mess Dress vary depending on one's Corps?
> 
> For example, in this simplistic diagram, the far left figure is wearing a Cavalry jacket (so it's not just colour but cut), the green jacket is Intelligence Corps I believe (if they were in the Rifles, which is an infatry regiment descended from the Light Infantry/Royal Green Jackets who were historically skirmishers then dark green) and then the obvious trews for Scottish regiments.


IIRC, the only difference in US Army Mess Dress uniforms is a band of colored ribbon around the cuffs (I was a US Marine, not in the Army, so my recollection may be off a bit). I believe Infantry wore blue ribbons, Calvery wore yellow/gold, ect. Again I may be wrong about the colors, but I am sure the only difference in the uniform are these colored ribbons.


----------



## Orsini

digby_snaffles said:


> In the United States Army does Mess Dress vary depending on one's Corps?
> 
> For example, in this simplistic diagram, the far left figure is wearing a Cavalry jacket (so it's not just colour but cut), the green jacket is Intelligence Corps I believe (if they were in the Rifles, which is an infatry regiment descended from the Light Infantry/Royal Green Jackets who were historically skirmishers then dark green) and then the obvious trews for Scottish regiments.


I want the one on the end...


----------



## JibranK

Orsini said:


> I want the one on the end...


Which end?


----------



## JAGMAJ

digby_snaffles said:


> In the United States Army does Mess Dress vary depending on one's Corps?


On the Army Dress Mess uniform, the color of the lapels signifies branch. On the Dress Blues, it's the color on the inside of the gold stripe on the sleeves.


----------



## NU81

hockeyinsider said:


> The problem with the U.S. Army uniforms lay with the shirt, tie, nametag and all the clutter on the chests. The other uniforms are much cleaner.


hockeyinsider: Sorry to learn that you feel that a soldier's decorations are "clutter". All of that "clutter" is earned through at a minimum hard work and sweat, often earned by extreme sacrifice in life-threatening conditions, and many times by shedding their blood for their country. Most active and retired members of the U.S. Army (myself included) are very proud of their "clutter".


----------



## JibranK

NU81 said:


> hockeyinsider: Sorry to learn that you feel that a soldier's decorations are "clutter". All of that "clutter" is earned through at a minimum hard work and sweat, often earned by extreme sacrifice in life-threatening conditions, and many times by shedding their blood for their country. Most active and retired members of the U.S. Army (myself included) are very proud of their "clutter".


No need to get all offended. 'Clutter' does not refer to the decorations - it refers to the actual clutter like the "U.S" badge and such because the "other uniforms" that he mentions all have decorations.

For example, look at this








It has decorations but no clutter.


----------



## Scoundrel

Our dress uniforms aren't bad at all, especially when worn with the hat. It is equivalent, in formality, to the standard tuxedo, and is worn with a black bow tie in the evening. It is worn with a black neck tie in the daytime. I believe there are five different wool/synthetic blends to choose from. I also believe the Army has an all-white dress uniform, mainly worn by officers in tropical weather.


----------



## comrade

hockeyinsider said:


> The British Army certainly has the best dress uniforms with the Marine Corp a close second. Nobody beats the Household Division.
> 
> The problem with the U.S. Army uniforms lay with the shirt, tie, nametag and all the clutter on the chests. The other uniforms are much cleaner.


I completely agree. Current US Army garb looks like it was derived from the Postal Service.
The Marine Corps greenish uniforms are, to me, the best of US services. The Italians.
not surprisingly, wear very elegant uniforms. When I landed at the Airport in Rome
a few years ago I noticed that the Airport Police wore better cut uniforms than most
US military officers.


----------



## PJC in NoVa

JibranK said:


> No need to get all offended. 'Clutter' does not refer to the decorations - it refers to the actual clutter like the "U.S" badge and such because the "other uniforms" that he mentions all have decorations.
> 
> For example, look at this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has decorations but no clutter.


No disrespect to this fine soldier, but what is the deal with the overly long trousers? All that extra fabric bunching around the ankles does not create a crisp appearance. The Sam Browne belt is very sharp, though.

I believe the US Army is phasing out the white uni, and also the green. Soon the standard "Class A" will be a version of the current dress-blue uniform (dark-blue tunic and lighter-blue trousers hark back to the Civil War and even earlier if you consider the dark-blue coats of some Continental Army personnel to be a forerunner):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Service_Uniform


----------



## eagle2250

comrade said:


> I completely agree. Current US Army garb looks like it was derived from the Postal Service.
> The Marine Corps greenish uniforms are, to me, the best of US services. The Italians.
> not surprisingly, wear very elegant uniforms. When I landed at the Airport in Rome
> a few years ago I noticed that the Airport Police wore better cut uniforms than most
> US military officers.


Simply as a matter of interest, might I ask, in which Branch of the armed services did you serve? Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps or (dare I include) the Coast Guard (I realize, in times of peace, the USCG is part of the Dept of Transportation)? I know it presumptuous on my part but, it is my guess that those who have not earned the right to wear the uniform, are frequently the first to denigrate it!


----------



## Orsini

PJC in NoVa said:


> No disrespect to this fine soldier, but what is the deal with the overly long trousers? All that extra fabric bunching around the ankles does not create a crisp appearance. The Sam Browne belt is very sharp, though.
> 
> I believe the US Army is phasing out the white uni, and also the green. Soon the standard "Class A" will be a version of the current dress-blue uniform (dark-blue tunic and lighter-blue trousers hark back to the Civil War and even earlier if you consider the dark-blue coats of some Continental Army personnel to be a forerunner):
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Service_Uniform


Old uniforms make interesting reading to fuss over.

It is reassuring to know that the service branches are so organized. This makes a big difference in their capability.


----------



## David Reeves

PJC in NoVa said:


> No disrespect to this fine soldier, but what is the deal with the overly long trousers? All that extra fabric bunching around the ankles does not create a crisp appearance. The Sam Browne belt is very sharp, though.
> 
> I believe the US Army is phasing out the white uni, and also the green. Soon the standard "Class A" will be a version of the current dress-blue uniform (dark-blue tunic and lighter-blue trousers hark back to the Civil War and even earlier if you consider the dark-blue coats of some Continental Army personnel to be a forerunner):
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Service_Uniform


Quite right. They do look rather long for a British soldier. Whenever I see slimmer trousers with no break on people with a George or Chelsea boot I usually think fashionista or ex/current military.


----------



## kernelgt

As to the original question, Marlow White is good/decent, but I always remember that there was one other brand that was the best available. When I was about to graduate from West Point, not all that long ago, we had to choose a maker for our dress blues, and the options ranged from the Px brand (cheapest) through Marlow White (good materials, good price) to the other one that I can't think of now (sorry), which was highly regarded as the best of the best (and certainly most expensive by far). The tailoring and individual fitting (semi-MTM, I suppose) was better. I think it started with an H. 

Sorry, can't remember the name of the maker, but maybe that will help someone else think of it. And, many friends of mine who were stationed in Korea had Korean tailors make theirs, The uniform just has to meet regulations...it matters not who makes it. (but, some of the "hand-tailored" Korean uniforms looked really horrible. Some looked outstanding)

Also, like anything off the rack, it's best to get a good tailor and get it fitted appropriately, so I don't think one could really do wrong by buying Marlow White and getting it fitted well by a reputable tailor.

Again, it's not really as strict as one might think. Dress blues, for example, requires a plain white dress shirt. One can buy a thin shirt at walmart for $10 or one can buy Robert Talbott, etc.,...Obviously, one looks better than the other. 

Indeed, for the bowtie, I used a Brooks Brothers satin black tie-yourself bowtie, whereas, invariably, all other officers at events requiring dress blues or mess dress wore the $10 px clip-on.


----------



## PJC in NoVa

kernelgt said:


> As to the original question, Marlow White is good/decent, but I always remember that there was one other brand that was the best available. When I was about to graduate from West Point, not all that long ago, we had to choose a maker for our dress blues, and the options ranged from the Px brand (cheapest) through Marlow White (good materials, good price) to the other one that I can't think of now (sorry), which was highly regarded as the best of the best (and certainly most expensive by far). The tailoring and individual fitting (semi-MTM, I suppose) was better. I think it started with an H.
> 
> Sorry, can't remember the name of the maker, but maybe that will help someone else think of it. And, many friends of mine who were stationed in Korea had Korean tailors make theirs, The uniform just has to meet regulations...it matters not who makes it. (but, some of the "hand-tailored" Korean uniforms looked really horrible. Some looked outstanding)
> 
> Also, like anything off the rack, it's best to get a good tailor and get it fitted appropriately, so I don't think one could really do wrong by buying Marlow White and getting it fitted well by a reputable tailor.
> 
> Again, it's not really as strict as one might think. Dress blues, for example, requires a plain white dress shirt. One can buy a thin shirt at walmart for $10 or one can buy Robert Talbott, etc.,...Obviously, one looks better than the other.
> 
> Indeed, for the bowtie, I used a Brooks Brothers satin black tie-yourself bowtie, whereas, invariably, all other officers at events requiring dress blues or mess dress wore the $10 px clip-on.


At one time, Army officers could wear pinned collars, or at least collar-bars of the sort that clip to the collar leaves. Too bad that's no longer allowed. It was back in the khaki-shirt era. Here's a pic of Ike as a major sporting the look:










Tom Selleck adopted it as part of his characterization of Ike for a pretty fair made-for-cable movie a few years ago:

https://horsesoldier.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/enhs1019majoreisenhower1935.jpg


----------



## kernelgt

sltimmer said:


> IIRC, the only difference in US Army Mess Dress uniforms is a band of colored ribbon around the cuffs (I was a US Marine, not in the Army, so my recollection may be off a bit). I believe Infantry wore blue ribbons, Calvery wore yellow/gold, ect. Again I may be wrong about the colors, but I am sure the only difference in the uniform are these colored ribbons.


almost. In mess dress uniforms for officers, the difference also lies in the lapel colors. For dress blues, you are right, just that band around the wrist (and on the shoulder rank insignia for officers). But on mess dress, the satin lapels (unfortunately) match the "branch" color. By branch, I mean branch in the army, not military branch. So, Armor is yellow, infantry is light blue, artillery is red, signal (commo) is orange, and so on, for all of the branches.

e.g., an artillery officer's jacket:


----------



## kernelgt

PJC in NoVa said:


> At one time, Army officers could wear pinned collars, or at least collar-bars of the sort that clip to the collar leaves. Too bad that's no longer allowed. It was back in the khaki-shirt era.


Yes, unfortunately, the army seems to have really loved the '70s, and they adopted pea green and polyester for service uniforms and never looked back...until recently, as I think they are trying to slowly get away from that.


----------



## kernelgt

kernelgt said:


> As to the original question, Marlow White is good/decent, but I always remember that there was one other brand that was the best available. When I was about to graduate from West Point, not all that long ago, we had to choose a maker for our dress blues, and the options ranged from the Px brand (cheapest) through Marlow White (good materials, good price) to the other one that I can't think of now (sorry), which was highly regarded as the best of the best (and certainly most expensive by far). The tailoring and individual fitting (semi-MTM, I suppose) was better. I think it started with an H.


Sigh. Alas, i suppose I am getting older than I think. The name I was thinking of was "Haas" or Haas Tailors of Baltimore, but perhaps it's no longer in business.

I found this article from 1999, describing how the "venerable clothier to presidents and sports stars" had to sell...among its offerings, it "also makes various lines for military customers." https://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/stories/1999/07/12/story1.html

And now that I see it, "Haas" was definitely the name i was thinking of. Maybe try to find one of those used...probably better than what you can get new from Marlow White. Considering that most officers wear their mess dress 2-4 times per year, max, even a 10 year old uniform should be in good shape.


----------



## PJC in NoVa

kernelgt said:


> Yes, unfortunately, the army seems to have really loved the '70s, and they adopted pea green and polyester for service uniforms and never looked back...until recently, as I think they are trying to slowly get away from that.


All is not lost. The shoulder straps on the dress blues (soon to be the Class A's) are straight out of the Civil War era. In fact, they even point back further, since shoulder straps are vestigial anchor points for full-scale epaulets (just as the spike on the Pickelhaube was a vestige of the support system for a helmet plume).

Menswear in general tends to have this "living museum" quality of vestigial details hanging on (like the buttons on the back of an opera conductor's tailcoat that were at one time actually used to button the tails up and away from a sweaty horse and whatever mud or brush it might be moving through). Military unis often excel at this tendency to preserve. I've read that the cadet dress unis (the ones with the shakos) at the USMA, VMI, and the Citadel are essentially infantry uniforms from the War of 1812.


----------



## Beresford

The ceremonial unit of the Hawaii National Guard (the Royal Guard, dating from the period of the Monarchy) still wears _pickelhaube_ helmets.


----------



## PJC in NoVa

I think we can all agree that the world needs more _Pickelhauben_ (or if you like, "pith-helmet inspired 'home-service'-type helmets with pointy bits up top").

I wonder why in the top pic the Guardsmen are wearing black shoes, but their comrades are wearing white in the bottom pic. Is that a winter/summer thing (whatever that means in Hawaii)?


----------



## Zingari

PJC in NoVa said:


> No disrespect to this fine soldier, but what is the deal with the overly long trousers? All that extra fabric bunching around the ankles does not create a crisp appearance. The Sam Browne belt is very sharp, though.
> 
> I believe the US Army is phasing out the white uni, and also the green. Soon the standard "Class A" will be a version of the current dress-blue uniform (dark-blue tunic and lighter-blue trousers hark back to the Civil War and even earlier if you consider the dark-blue coats of some Continental Army personnel to be a forerunner):
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Service_Uniform


Sorry to disappoint guys - but this chap is a 'Walt' (Walter Mitty) character.

RSM of the Parachute Regiment I think not. The RSM is the smartest and most senior Non-commissioned officer in the regiment and is expected to enforce discipline including dress standards etc.

The trouser length is all wrong - and our 'Walter' has even put the Sam Browne belt on the wrong way round - it goes over the right shoulder NOT the left and this is 'Other Ranks' No2 Dress - the RSM is entitled to wear Officer Service Dress - patch pockets etc ic12337:


----------



## PJC in NoVa

Zingari said:


> Sorry to disappoint guys - but this chap is a 'Walt' (Walter Mitty) character.
> 
> RSM of the Parachute Regiment I think not. The RSM is the smartest and most senior Non-commissioned officer in the regiment and is expected to enforce discipline including dress standards etc.
> 
> The trouser length is all wrong - and our 'Walter' has even put the Sam Browne belt on the wrong way round - it goes over the right shoulder NOT the left and this is 'Other Ranks' No2 Dress - the RSM is entitled to wear Officer Service Dress - patch pockets etc ic12337:


I didn't see where anyone ID'd him as the Regimental Sergeant Major of the Parachute Regiment (wouldn't there be some chevrons?), but anyway--you're saying that he appears to be a re-enactor and an inept one at that?

A man of that age in an airborne unit would of course have to be something very senior indeed, and truth to tell, his uni does look suspiciously bare of insignia for that. Plus there is the matter of those sloppy trousers. . .

This page lists links to some groups (mostly in the US, it seems) that "interpret" the Parachute Regiment as it was during the Second World War. I've looked at a few photos on some of the sites, but don't see our man. (As with most reenactor groups I've seen, the impression of authenticity that is meant to be gained by all the details of uniform and kit is ruined for me by the inevitable presence of ahistorically hefty and superannuated reenactors--whenever I take my nephews to a Civil or Revolutionary War battlefield and we run across reenactors, I always remind the boys to listen carefully b/c those guys tend to know a lot, and also to keep in mind that those wars were not actually fought by overweight, middle-aged men, but mainly by skinny young ones.)

https://www.reenactor.net/forums/index.php?page=83


----------



## Zingari

Judging by the poppy behind the beret badge he is at a Remembrance Parade. There is a British forum called ARRSE - Army Rumour Service that has pages dedicated to 'Walts' as we take great delight in outing them as they turn up at these parades both in and out of uniform. They ususally make the mistake of wearing gallantry medals and forget that recipients are listed in the London Gazette.

For instance it is an offence to wear medals to which you have not been awarded them - in this case his medals (N Ireland, Gulf War I, Golden Jubilee and Long service) could be awarded but as a para to have not served in campaigns between 1990 and 2002 (year Jubilee medal awarded) is unusual.

RSM's don't wear chevrons - Royal Cipher on both lower arms. The blue lanyard denotes 2 PARA.

Take a look. https://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Walts


----------



## PJC in NoVa

Zingari said:


> Judging by the poppy behind the beret badge he is at a Remembrance Parade. There is a British forum called ARRSE - Army Rumour Service that has pages dedicated to 'Walts' as we take great delight in outing them as they turn up at these parades both in and out of uniform. They ususally make the mistake of wearing gallantry medals and forget that recipients are listed in the London Gazette.
> 
> For instance it is an offence to wear medals to which you have not been awarded them - in this case his medals (N Ireland, Gulf War I, Golden Jubilee and Long service) could be awarded but as a para to have not served in campaigns between 1990 and 2002 (year Jubilee medal awarded) is unusual.
> 
> RSM's don't wear chevrons - Royal Cipher on both lower arms. The blue lanyard denotes 2 PARA.
> 
> Take a look. https://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Walts


Ah, so not really a legitimate reenactor . . . I see. As for the RSMs, it seems a shame to be a successful sarge all those years and not get to sport stripes, but every service has its customs. A neighbor of mine growing up was a U.S. Army First Sergeant (and later a Sgt Major) who worked at Walter Reed Hospital. He used to joke that he couldn't bend his arm to take a drink when he was in uniform because of all the rank and service stripes on his sleeves.


----------



## hockeyinsider

PJC in NoVa said:


> . I've read that the cadet dress unis (the ones with the shakos) at the USMA, VMI, and the Citadel are essentially infantry uniforms from the War of 1812.


Somewhat correct. They dated to the 1820s or 1830s.


----------



## Blueboy1938

*Points of clarification:*



Scoundrel said:


> Our dress uniforms aren't bad at all, especially when worn with the hat. It is equivalent, in formality, to the standard tuxedo, and is worn with a black bow tie in the evening. It is worn with a black neck tie in the daytime. I believe there are five different wool/synthetic blends to choose from. I also believe the Army has an all-white dress uniform, mainly worn by officers in tropical weather.


The on-going phase-in of the Army Service Uniform that is basically the prior Dress Blues, will be complete by 2014. The white uniform is, or will be, history, unfortunately. It was a great-looking alternative for hot months or assignments. The white dress mess is retained, however, which just takes normal tuxedo trousers and cummerbund.



kernelgt said:


> Yes, unfortunately, the army seems to have really loved the '70s, and they adopted pea green and polyester for service uniforms and never looked back...until recently, as I think they are trying to slowly get away from that.


I believe the color of the U. S. Army service green uniform was called "olive drab", and, although I agree that it was not the greatest, it was decidedly not "pea green," which is more along this line:

As compared to:

The only thing I would agree might be considered "clutter" on these uniforms that have not been earned by arduous training or duty might possibly be the nametags.


----------



## Kurt N

Some decorations are truly hard-earned, but for others the bar is a little lower. The Good Conduct Medal, for instace, is earned through stuff like not smoking pot, getting in fights, or stealing. The Army Service Ribbon is awarded to all soldiers on completion of basic training and MOS training. Those who think the Army goes a little overboard with the decorations wonder why the Army can't trust soldiers to consider the uniform itself a badge of honor.

On the other hand, it's much easier to look a soldier's uniform than a marine's and "read off" the individual's professional history, such as special qualifications and present and prior units. So to that extent many of the badges and decorations are functional, if you will.

EDIT: Perhaps that was a little unclear. I meant not smoking pot, not getting in fights, and not stealing.


----------



## helo-flyer

Obviously all (or most) of the decorations on the soldiers in the above picture were earned, but when you compare that uniform to its equivalent in the Navy and Marine Corps, the army uniform does appear to be a lot more "cluttered." 



























In the Navy, warfare designation (i.e. aviation or surface), rank (service stripes for enlisted), decorations are worn (ribbons for service dress, medals for ceremonial or dinner dress). Navy dress also remains extremely classic with its reliance on using simple blacks and whites for its dress uniforms. The Marine uniform consists simply of rank (service stripes for enlisted), medals/ribbons, and shooting/jump/dive medals as applicable.


----------



## hockeyinsider

Blueboy1938 said:


> The only thing I would agree might be considered "clutter" on these uniforms that have not been earned by arduous training or duty might possibly be the nametags.


I don't mind service medals and decorations, but I'm not a fan of the nametags, shoulder patches and other devices that distract the eye.

I also wish they would adopt tunics similar to the British and U.S. Marines with a standing collar, as the polyester shirts and clip-on ties do not look right.


----------



## petro

Kurt N said:


> Those who think the Army goes a little overboard with the decorations wonder why the Army can't trust soldiers to consider the uniform itself a badge of honor.


A lot of that stuff (at least the medals and awards) are pure "grade inflation". Having dreck like the "Joint Military Commendation Medal" for showing up for work and doing your damn job for 6 months in a war zone (and having a superior write a *slightly* <cough cough> exaggerated tale of your exploits) on your record helps a lot. Especially when everyone else has something like it.



> On the other hand, it's much easier to look a soldier's uniform than a marine's and "read off" the individual's professional history, such as special qualifications and present and prior units. So to that extent many of the badges and decorations are functional, if you will.


When I were a Marine we didn't even put name tags on our uniforms.

Being a Marine was enough.

Having worked with Army and Air Force units I can see why they need the bling. Those who deserve respect wear the bling to differentiate those who want the bling to get respect. Although one would think that once you have the "Special Forces" tab the "Airborne" would sort of be implied. And the "Ranger" would be superseded.


----------



## Kurt N

petro said:


> Although one would think that once you have the "Special Forces" tab the "Airborne" would sort of be implied. And the "Ranger" would be superseded.


Part of the clutter and confusion of the Army uniforms has nothing to do with "earned" vs "unearned." There's a lot of variation, redundancy, and optional stuff. For instance, from what I understand, a unit commander has the option to let troops wear on their right shoulder the patch of the unit they *formerly*served with. Thus one occasionally sees soldiers wearing Marine unit patches.

And yes, elite units aren't immune. That Green Beret in the foreground above has a beret flash AND a unit patch on the shoulder that mean exactly the same thing even though the colors and patterns are completely different: he's serving with US Special Operations Command, Europe.

The Airborne tab is part of the unit patch and thus is worn as part of it rather than being superseded by the Special Forces tab.

In defense of the Ranger tab--from what I understand (not having done any of this stuff myself), the Ranger course is extremely demanding and at times even more intense on the physical side than the SF course, although it is much shorter. It's just a different course, and I wouldn't necessarily expect it to be supersded by the SF tab.


----------



## Blueboy1938

*Quibbling!*



Kurt N said:


> Some decorations are truly hard-earned, but for others the bar is a little lower. The Good Conduct Medal, for instace, is earned through stuff like not smoking pot, getting in fights, or stealing. The Army Service Ribbon is awarded to all soldiers on completion of basic training and MOS training. Those who think the Army goes a little overboard with the decorations wonder why the Army can't trust soldiers to consider the uniform itself a badge of honor.
> 
> On the other hand, it's much easier to look a soldier's uniform than a marine's and "read off" the individual's professional history, such as special qualifications and present and prior units. So to that extent many of the badges and decorations are functional, if you will.
> 
> EDIT: Perhaps that was a little unclear. I meant not smoking pot, not getting in fights, and not stealing.





Kurt N said:


> Part of the clutter and confusion of the Army uniforms has nothing to do with "earned" vs "unearned." There's a lot of variation, redundancy, and optional stuff. For instance, from what I understand, a unit commander has the option to let troops wear on their right shoulder the patch of the unit they *formerly*served with. Thus one occasionally sees soldiers wearing Marine unit patches.
> 
> And yes, elite units aren't immune. That Green Beret in the foreground above has a beret flash AND a unit patch on the shoulder that mean exactly the same thing even though the colors and patterns are completely different: he's serving with US Special Operations Command, Europe.
> 
> The Airborne tab is part of the unit patch and thus is worn as part of it rather than being superseded by the Special Forces tab.
> 
> In defense of the Ranger tab--from what I understand (not having done any of this stuff myself), the Ranger course is extremely demanding and at times even more intense on the physical side than the SF course, although it is much shorter. It's just a different course, and I wouldn't necessarily expect it to be supersded by the SF tab.


First of all, this discussion, and these posts in particular, show a serious disrespect for the sacrifices of the members of our armed services. Whether you think that a particular emblem or decoration is a big deal or not is completely immaterial. It is all part of the evidence of their service and sacrifice for us all. They are not in it to please you *gentlemen* and your fastidious predilections.

Next, I believe that the remark regarding the coloration of the Army Service Ribbon is particularly insulting to both the soldiers that have earned it, whatever your disregard, and the tax paying citizens that are denigrated by the sneering comment about it.

The U. S. Army is in the process of changing over its service uniform. The green, which I wore, wasn't a particularly great one. It will now be historically accurate and pretty close to the Marine uniform, which everyone pretty much agrees to be smart. The Army Service Uniform is the equivalent of a business suit. That's why the tie goes with it, just as for Navy dress uniforms. We're not the British.


----------



## Portly_polar_bear

Blueboy1938 said:


> First of all, this discussion, and these posts in particular, show a serious disrespect for the sacrifices of the members of our armed services.


Well, for the most part they don't. While I see your point with respect to the posts you picked out, people are in the main criticising the uniforms from a smartness point of view. Criticising one aspect of the military isn't a criticism of the services as a whole, the same as criticising government foreign policy doesn't equate to criticising the men on the ground (something there has been a lot of in the past few years). There are a lot of knee-jerk reactions in this area and they do no-one any good.

People aren't suggesting that anyone doesn't deserve their medals or flashes, just that their uniforms might look smarter without. Those are different things.


----------



## JibranK

Portly_polar_bear said:


> Well, for the most part they don't. While I see your point with respect to the posts you picked out, people are in the main criticising the uniforms from a smartness point of view. Criticising one aspect of the military isn't a criticism of the services as a whole, the same as criticising government foreign policy doesn't equate to criticising the men on the ground (something there has been a lot of in the past few years). There are a lot of knee-jerk reactions in this area and they do no-one any good.
> 
> People aren't suggesting that anyone doesn't deserve their medals or flashes, just that their uniforms might look smarter without. Those are different things.


Ditto and we are not even making any mention of military policy besides purely cosmetic uniform stuff.


----------



## Cruiser

One of my jobs is to organize the Memorial Day Program for my community. Here are a couple of pictures of Army and Air Force uniforms from this year's program.



















But enough of this Army talk. I can't help but give a shout out for my personal favorite, modeled here by yours truly some 40+ years ago. :icon_smile:










Cruiser


----------



## helo-flyer

> First of all, this discussion, and these posts in particular, show a serious disrespect for the sacrifices of the members of our armed services. Whether you think that a particular emblem or decoration is a big deal or not is completely immaterial. It is all part of the evidence of their service and sacrifice for us all. They are not in it to please you *gentlemen* and your fastidious predilections.


I disagree. This conversation is not about the cheapening or showing of disrespect to the Army uniform. Instead, much has focused on the fact that the Army, for lack of a better term, "wears its pride on its sleeve"... and chest... and other sleeve as well. This is just something you don't see in other services. For example, a good friend of mine is a Marine Recon officer. Hes been through all the schools, i.e. Army Ranger school, but that evidence is nowhere on his uniform. It is not emblazoned with words like Force Recon, nor does he wear a unit patch. When viewed through the scope of this forum, and when compared to other services that do not have the same practices, some of it can appear to be "clutter."


----------



## PJC in NoVa

FWIW, I think the USMC's "less is more" approach has much to be said for it.

It goes along with a lot of cool and somewhat retro detailing on Marine unis that the other services can't or won't run with, for whatever reason (the cuff shape and decoration, the scarlet piping on EMs' dress-blue tunics, the Mameluke-hilted sword, the embroidered knots on the officers' white dress covers, the belted tunics, and so on).

IMHO, one change that that would make Army and Air Force unis look a lot sharper would be the return of self-belted tunics. The belt draws in the waist and emphasizes the chest, which makes for a very 'military' appearance.

The Army tomb guards at Arlington wear a belt around their dress blues (not a self-belt, but something more like a stable belt, I guess) that contributes to the impression they make. It's hard to picture them looking quite as sharp (and they are sharp indeed) without that belt:










PS: I should add that I realize that the guards at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier are on the young and lean side of the range, and I also think I recall seeing in a documentary that they may enhance the wasp-waisted look by wearing corsets; a self-belt would obviously be a less rigorous (and more comfortable) affair, but if the Marines can do it and the Army and the Air Force (or Air Corps) used to, there would seem to be little reason why they can't do it again.


----------



## PJC in NoVa

On further research, it looks as if the USAF has indeed decided to go with the self-belted look:



PS: Or have they?


----------



## Cruiser

PJC in NoVa said:


> On further research, it looks as if the USAF has indeed decided to go with the self-belted look:
> 
> 
> 
> PS: Or have they?


The enlisted dress uniforms do have a belt; or at least the Air Force color guard that I used in my 2008 Memorial Day Program had belted uniforms.










Even the Navy color guard and parade uniforms use a belt; this picture also from 2008.










Cruiser


----------



## PJC in NoVa

Yes, absolutely--ceremonial duties often seem to call for a belt, no doubt because of the way it promotes a strongly "military" appearance. I noticed this regarding the Navy honor guard when we buried my Dad at Arlington a few years back. They were in whites not blues because it was summertime, but they looked as impressive as the sailors in the pic above.

The tunic self-belt is a way to go for this kind of impression in a more everyday, wearer-friendly way. The USMC belted green tunic sets the standard.

The USAF 3-button coat with the civilianish lapels left over from the McPeak era really does need changing.


----------



## Kurt N

Blueboy1930, don't get so pissy. As a former Marine, I think I'm entitled to my views about military uniforms. Can I keep you from accusing me of disrespecting "the sacrifices of the members of our armed services"? No, but I can point out that given my personal history your accusation is unlikely to be well-founded. Are my views on uniforms immaterial? Of COURSE they are. This is a civilian discussion thread about military uniforms, for heaven's sake. This whole thread is immaterial--unless someone from Army brass happens to be reading it, in which my comments have as much chance of mattering as anybody's.

I do regret, and apologize for, repeating the nickname about the service ribbon. I meant merely to report it as evidence that the troops (who aren't always careful with the slang they toss around) understand that some of their decorations mean at lot and others are just bling, as another poster put it.


----------



## Peak and Pine

eagle2250 said:


> Simply as a matter of interest, might I ask, in which Branch of the armed services did you serve? I know it presumptuous on my part but, it is my guess that those who have not earned the right to wear the uniform, are frequently the first to denigrate it!


Uh,oh. I smell Interchange.

The above remark is absurd, including the part about _earning the right to wear the uniform_, unless earning is now defined as giving in to store-front recruiters who promise the moon in exchange for a two-year hitch.​


----------



## eagle2250

^^

..............or perhaps wearing the uniform for 31 years (counting both active duty and service in the Reserve components of the USAF). As the Good Book says, sir; "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone."


----------



## Peak and Pine

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> 
> ..............or perhaps wearing the uniform for 31 years (counting both active duty and service in the Reserve components of the USAF). As the Good Book says, sir; "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone."


I bow to those who have worn the uniform on a regular basis, including you, Bird, to have more knowledge of the feel and fit. As to _how it looks,_ my ducking-the-draft eyes work as well as yours.​


----------



## hockeyinsider

The Army dress uniforms at Arlington look great with the belt except for the nametag, shirt and tie. They need a Marine-style standup collar.


----------



## PJC in NoVa

hockeyinsider said:


> The Army dress uniforms at Arlington look great with the belt except for the nametag, shirt and tie. They need a Marine-style standup collar.


Then the Marines would switch to something else.

The USMC is acutely conscious that it is the smallest of the fulltime DOD uniformed services, with potentially the most problematic grip on independence (crazy as it may sound, Andy Jackson, IIRC, at one time wanted to fold the Corps into the US Army field artillery, and the Army and Navy wanted to gobble it up amid the vastly-shrinking-defense-budget years just after WWII).

The distinctive unis are one aspect of a very smart strategy for making sure the Marines are recognized (most fairly, IMO) as unique and not to be subsumed in some organizational reshuffle (as the UK govt recently did to the Black Watch by making it into one of five battalions in what is known as the Royal Regiment of Scotland).

The Marines' greatest coup on this score may have been getting their divisional force structure actually written into the landmark National Security Act of 1947, which also glommed the old War and Navy depts together into the DOD and created the USAF. An earlier success was getting an integral Marine contingent sent to France during WWI to fight as part of the AEF rather far from any seashore (and of course the _Teufelhunden_ on the ground helped immeasurably by peforming very well and making an excellent mark there, at a considerable cost in blood). There was a good military rationale for this (the Marines had a much better trained-cadre ratio than the vastly expanding Army of 1917-18) but the War Dept would have been happy to have shut the Navy Dept out of the ground war in Europe, had not skilled lobbying pushed too hard the other way.


----------



## Peak and Pine

Your knowledge in this area, PJC, is remarkable. And it doesn't sound simply Googled. I've been sincerely enlightened by each of your posts in this thread.​


----------



## cmacey

Peak and Pine said:


> Your knowledge in this area, PJC, is remarkable. And it doesn't sound simply Googled. I've been sincerely enlightened by each of your posts in this thread.​


Oversimplified and not quite on mark. Although there is some truth to what he says, it does not accurately explain our continued existance and our uniform.

As to modifying our uniform because others look similar...we are not the Air Force, changing our uniform with the wind; ours speaks to history (slightly modified from the mid 1800s design) and has meaning to all Marines, past and present. We are proud of who we are and what we represent.


----------



## Peak and Pine

cmacey said:


> Oversimplified and not quite on mark. Although there is some truth to what he says, it does not accurately explain our continued existance and our uniform.
> 
> As to modifying our uniform because others look similar...we are not the Air Force, changing our uniform with the wind; ours speaks to history (slightly modified from the mid 1800s design) and has meaning to all Marines, past and present. *We are proud of who we are and what we represent*.


Yeah, swell, but let's not let that pride get in the way of understanding that PJC's remarks were essentially in praise of you.​


----------



## PJC in NoVa

I admire the Corps a great deal and don't mean any disrespect to it or any Marines.

I don't think it's a ding on the Corps to point out that it's long had the institutional savvy to do things to help maintain itself in a system where there have been dynamics from time to time that have threatened it. 

The fundamental thing (and maybe I should have stressed this more clearly) is that the Corps has performed to the utmost for this country again and again and is doing so even as I write. While lobbying may have had a role in getting the Marines to France, only courage could get them through Belleau Wood and all the other battlefields before and after.


----------



## eagle2250

Indeed, the members of each of the sister military services harbor great and distinct pride in their respective service, it's customs, traditions and yes even uniform designs. Such becomes evident in the acrimonious debates reflected in the on-going minutes of each of Service's respective uniform boards... majorities of soldiers, sailors airman and certainly marines can be depended upon to resist ANY changes to their version of the uniform and certainly to any consolidation of services branches or missions. This institutional intransigence has arguably served to the detriment of the comfort afforded by the design of the uniforms we wear and sadly has frequently added to the cost of carrying out the missions we perform and sadly has reduced the effectiveness of how those missions have been executed. 

While I applaud the pride reflected in other members postings regarding their respective military service affiliations, I also point with pride to the fact that in the course of the first and second Gulf wars, the USAF was able to upload B-52's at Wurtsmith AFB, MI in the first and B-2's at Whiteman AFB, MO, during the second and fly around the globe (non-stop) and put iron on targets in Iraq, supporting ground and navel operations in that theater of operations. None of the other services could have done that but then, there are so many things those services do that the Air Force could not do. Perhaps the noted differences in uniform designs are not so bad after all?


----------



## PJC in NoVa

Another pic on the theme of collar bars/pins with military uniforms. This one is of the late Ensign George "Tex" Gay, the only survivor from the legendary and ill-fated Torpedo Squadron 8 at the Battle of Midway (IIR the movie correctly, he was played by James Caan). He's wearing the uniform of a cadet at Texas A&M in the 30s, which I am guessing was patterned fairly closely on the US Army uniform of the time:



PS: Correction--he was played by an actor named Kevin Dobson.


----------



## digby_snaffles

To go off on a tangent if I may, I scoured the Internet for a picture of an Adjutant's (a senior Captain who acts as second-in-command of the Regiment) Frock Coat, which is a very handsome garment indeed. However I failed to find a satisfactory picture though I did stumble upon a dress guidance pdf for The Rifles, one of, if not the smartest regiment in the forces! I believe they say that "God isn't a Green Jacket - but sometimes he likes to dress up and pretend he is".


----------



## PJC in NoVa

digby_snaffles said:


> To go off on a tangent if I may, I scoured the Internet for a picture of an Adjutant's (a senior Captain who acts as second-in-command of the Regiment) Frock Coat, which is a very handsome garment indeed. However I failed to find a satisfactory picture though I did stumble upon a dress guidance pdf for The Rifles, one of, if not the smartest regiment in the forces! I believe they say that "God isn't a Green Jacket - but sometimes he likes to dress up and pretend he is".


They wear the Back Badge:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alexandria


----------



## JAGMAJ

hockeyinsider said:


> The Army dress uniforms at Arlington look great with the belt except for the nametag, shirt and tie. They need a Marine-style standup collar.


I agree completely. The high collars are just more military looking and are more appropriate, in my opinion, for dress uniforms.


----------



## Cruiser

PJC in NoVa said:


> Then the Marines would switch to something else.


Why would you think that? U.S. Navy officers have always worn this style uniform collar without any reaction by the Marine Corps. In this picture it is worn by the late Vice Adm. James Stockdale, a true American hero.










Cruiser


----------



## helo-flyer

> Why would you think that? U.S. Navy officers have always worn this style uniform collar without any reaction by the Marine Corps. In this picture it is worn by the late Vice Adm. James Stockdale, a true American hero.


And if I am not mistaken... the Army used to wear stand-up collars "Marine" style.


----------



## PJC in NoVa

Cruiser said:


> Why would you think that? U.S. Navy officers have always worn this style uniform collar without any reaction by the Marine Corps. In this picture it is worn by the late Vice Adm. James Stockdale, a true American hero.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cruiser


Just for the record: I don't seriously believe that the Marines would ditch their stand-collar tunics just because the Air Force adopted the style (I understand that the stand-collar USAF prototype uni was seen within that service as perhaps too closely resembling an Imperial uniform from the Star Wars movies, anyway).


----------



## PJC in NoVa

helo-flyer said:


> And if I am not mistaken... the Army used to wear stand-up collars "Marine" style.


Absolutely:


----------



## JibranK

PJC in NoVa said:


> Absolutely:


Now that is dashing.


----------



## PJC in NoVa

"Black Jack" was a bit of a stud. He was a widower in France (wife and 3 of 4 kids died tragically in 1915 housefire). According to Joseph Persico's recent book _Eleventh Day, Eleventh Month, Eleventh Hour,_ while there, well into his 50s, Pershing took up with the twenty-something woman who was painting his portrait, Micheline Resco. He would marry her on his deathbed at Walter Reed during WWII. One of his grandsons (from the first marriage) died in Vietnam.

I posted earlier about how the Marines overcame hurdles to get to France as an integral force; well, Pershing had to constantly fend off British and French attempts to break up the AEF into bits and feed US troops into the Western Front as infantry replacements for French and British units. Their manpower situation was that desperate, plus the French had had army mutinies in 1917 after the catastrophic Nivelle Offensive along the Chemin des Dames, and the British had a serious recruit-depot mutiny at Etaples in Normandy in the spring of 1918 (it was successfully hushed up for decades).

When you look at US casualties in WWI they don't look all that bad compared to what the other countries lost (and of course they are indeed much smaller), but when you consider that just about all the US casualties (including ca. 117K military deaths) happened between May and early November 1918--a period of less than six months--you realize how intense the fighting really was for the Marines, soldiers, and airmen of the AEF.


----------



## afjag

*Low blow*



PJC in NoVa said:


> Just for the record: I don't seriously believe that the Marines would ditch their stand-collar tunics just because the Air Force adopted the style (I understand that the stand-collar USAF prototype uni was seen within that service as perhaps too closely resembling an Imperial uniform from the Star Wars movies, anyway).


Oh no you didn't . . . . 

At least we have the new F-22 and F-35 fighters. Unfortunately, there have been some budget cuts:

I must admit, the Marines are dedicated:


----------



## PJC in NoVa

I find that lady sergeant rather attractive. She could interrogate me about my knowledge of the Death Star's defenses any time. If I offered to fix her gig line, I wonder if she'd get rough with me. Yow.

I _thought _it was odd that at the Andrews AFB air show this spring the F-35 was up on blocks. . . .

PS: Nice video. It's good to see that at least one of the guys from Devo has found a second career as a military barber.


----------



## VincentC

Do people think Cord Jeans are worn by military types on a casual day?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

The Air Force.


----------



## PJC in NoVa

VincentC said:


> Do people think Cord Jeans are worn by military types on a casual day?


WTF?

Howard?


----------



## eagle2250

PJC in NoVa said:


> Just for the record: I don't seriously believe that the Marines would ditch their stand-collar tunics just because the Air Force adopted the style (I understand that the stand-collar USAF prototype uni was seen within that service as perhaps too closely resembling an Imperial uniform from the Star Wars movies, anyway).


LOL! Many of the affected USAF members made those same sort of comparisons to personages from the silver screen, in the early years of this decade,when the Air Force began awarding the new "Space Wings" for it's space and missile operations personnel. The comparison at that time was to Buzz Lightyear from Disney's Toy Story. A hot rumor at the time was that Disney had filed a lawsuit against the Air Force for patent infringement! The outcry was so extreme, the old missile operations badge was reinstated, I believe, three years later, for the 'capsule jocks'.


----------



## PJC in NoVa

More in the "military officers wearing pinned collars or collar bars" vein. This is a photo of Major Lofton Henderson, USMC, a Marine aviator who gave his life in the Battle of Midway and after whom Henderson Field on Guadalcanal was named:


----------



## 675sam

*Like this....*



helo-flyer said:


> And if I am not mistaken... the Army used to wear stand-up collars "Marine" style.


----------



## digby_snaffles

Not the best pictures I'm afraid but I thought I'd share them anyway. This is the uniform of a Regimental Adjutant, a rather distinctive Frock Coat, in this case, of the Irish Guards.


----------



## PJC in NoVa

Very informative. Last time I was in London I spotted some officers whom I assumed were Guardsmen crossing Green Park on what appeared to be some sort of duty round while dressed in longish dark-blue coats, blue peaked caps, and blue trousers. They were wearing swords. I recall wondering what their roles and units were.


----------



## digby_snaffles

PJC in NoVa said:


> Very informative. Last time I was in London I spotted some officers whom I assumed were Guardsmen crossing Green Park on what appeared to be some sort of duty round while dressed in longish dark-blue coats, blue peaked caps, and blue trousers. They were wearing swords. I recall wondering what their roles and units were.


If by "longish coats" you mean the frock coat then you were correct in your assumption.

The Adjutant is the Staff Officer of the Battalion (each of the five Guard battalions now only having one battalion each) and is responsible to the Commanding Officer _"for the efficient transaction of all business and duties for which the Commanding Officer is responsible to a higher authority"_, as well as being directly responsible for new officers joining the Regiment, ensuring they obtain the correct uniform and the fitting of clothing for other ranks. Officers go bespoke, other ranks are fitted by the Regimental Tailor.

He is also responsible for the Corps of Drums. In my first picture you will notice the drummer has white lacing across his breast. This denotes that he is part of the Corps of Drums or a Pipe Band (the Irish Guards and the Scots Guards have both a Corps of Drums and Pipe Band, in this case the Pipe Band as indicated by the black drum). The Corps of Drums and Pipe Bands are not actually part of the Regimental Bands at all but a separate entity, who have a ceremonial role, that is, as a traditional "fife and drum" band if you will, as well as an operational role, which is as a machine-gun or pioneer platoon, which is in juxtaposition to the regimental bands which are, for all intents and purposes, full-time professional musicians.









_The Regimental Adjutant and Corps of Drums of the Coldstream Guards_

The Adjutant is a senior Captain, so it is an oppurtunity for an officer to have a lot of responsibility at a relatively early stage in his career. Only he, the Commanding Officer and the Second-in-Command are entitled to wear a frock coat with their No. 1 Dress (also known as Blues), which is the highest order of dress for most of the Army, only issued to those in the Household Division or in Regimental Bands, though even this dress can vary from regiment to regiment. For example in the below photograph the tunic and trousers are a dark rifle green rather than a midnight blue, which is the case for all Rifle regiments (this dates back to their founding as skirmishers during the American Revolutionary War).









_Men and Officers of the Royal Gurkha Rifles_ in No. 1 Dress.

There are also variations of head-dress as well. In this case the Officers wear peaked caps where as all other ranks wear a "pill box" hat. In their Khaki No. 2 Service Dress all ranks wear a slouch hat. Other regiments may wear berets, glengarys, tam o'shanters, bonnets or caubeens.

Anyhow, I digress, though speaking of No. 2 Service Dress the Commanding Officer, Second-in-Command and Adjutant may wear riding boots and breeches with No. 2 Service Dress.









_Commanding Officer of the Coldstream Guards in Service Dress_


----------



## PJC in NoVa

In your very first photo, why is the officer in the scarlet tunic wearing a peaked cap instead of a bearskin like the drummer?


----------



## digby_snaffles

PJC in NoVa said:


> In your very first photo, why is the officer in the scarlet tunic wearing a peaked cap instead of a bearskin like the drummer?


The Sergeant is wearing Home Service Dress, in which the Bearskin cap may be replaced by the peaked forage cap.






In this video the Irish Guards are returning to Victoria Barracks from Windsor Castle, where to celebrate St. Patrick's Day they have all been presented with a shamrock laurel, the majority of the regiment wearing Home Service Dress.

The procession is led by the Regimental Mascot (the Irish Guards being the only regiment in the Household Division to have a mascot) who is part of the Corps of Drums, hence the uniform of his handler.

The Regimental Band is led by the Drum Major who is actually the senior non-commissioned officer of the Corps of Drums and is not part of the band (see my group photo of the Corps of Drums in Home Service Dress, the Drum Major is next to the Adjutant in a gold-laced tunic). On State Occasions (days of significance) or when a senior Royal is present Drum Majors wear Full State Dress (as do the Mounted Bands of the Household Cavalry, albeit with riding boots).









_Drum Majors of the five regiments of Foot Guards in their gold embroidered Full State Dress._

The band is followed by the Corps of Drums and then the Pipe Band.

At the rear of the procession you'll notice the Quartermaster and the Technical Quartermaster who wear cocked hats when in Home Service Dress. I'm assuming the third man is the Master Tailor but I cannot be sure. When in London District the Master Tailor may wear a dark suit with a trilby or homburg in place of a uniform.

When the Scots Guards are on duty at the Queen's Balmoral estate they mount in Home Service Dress rather than Full.









_Scots Guards in Home Service Dress at Balmoral Castle._


----------



## Zingari

I find it nice to have a bit or 'presence' when one is the adj:


----------



## digby_snaffles

Brilliant image Zingari. I used to have a few images of the detail on those frock coats. Sadly after clumsily cocking up my computer I lost it. What I did manage to find doesn't really do it justice. 

I can't really discern the cap-badge but I am going to guess Irish Guards?


----------



## PJC in NoVa

digby_snaffles said:


> Brilliant image Zingari. I used to have a few images of the detail on those frock coats. Sadly after clumsily cocking up my computer I lost it. What I did manage to find doesn't really do it justice.
> 
> I can't really discern the cap-badge but I am going to guess Irish Guards?


Can't be the Coldstreams b/c then it would be a "cap star," no?


----------



## digby_snaffles

_Irish Guards_









_Coldstream Guards (or the 2nd of Foot )_

Bets are on gentlemen.


----------

