Improved Combat Uniform

[OldSolduer]

I am playing devil's advocate here... but I have asked around and no one can ever seem to answer my "why?" question with anything except "because we've always done it like that".

And by the way, searching for the term "blouse" in the CFP265 doesn't bring any regulation that instructs soldiers to wear their combat pants bloused.

Why should we not?  It's easier? The Brits don't do it, neither do the Americans do they?

While in garrison the Americans blouse their pants. Not so sure about the Brits...but then again they are Brits. I looked in 265 as well and its outdated.

Note I am only talking garrison here, not the field during a tactical ex. And I am aware that some people seem unable to differentiate between the two.

Devil's advocate is fine....but I need reasons why we should not to see your point of view.

 

[Bzzliteyr]

And I need reasons why we should to see your point of view.

The 265 and in all the revisions I have has absolutely NO section regarding combat uniforms.  The only reference to blousing is the updated section on MP uniforms.

I understand your point on garrison vs field and to that I reply with this:  Wouldn't it be easier to just have it unbloused all the time?  It would make for a more efficient soldier, no?  As for your "field/tactical" ex.. what about deployments in civvie land?  Do we remain at "parade ready" state just in case?

 

[Teflon]

And I need reasons why we should to see your point of view.

The 265 and in all the revisions I have has absolutely NO section regarding combat uniforms.  The only reference to blousing is the updated section on MP uniforms.

I understand your point on garrison vs field and to that I reply with this:  Wouldn't it be easier to just have it unbloused all the time?  It would make for a more efficient soldier, no?  As for your "field/tactical" ex.. what about deployments in civvie land?  Do we remain at "parade ready" state just in case?

While RSMs, and the CofC maintain that at least in garrison cbt pants will be bloused - no "reasons" are required or for anyone to share Jim's point of view besides the reason of "RSMs, and the CofC maintain that at least in garrison cbt pants will be bloused" at least everywhere I have worked. Also I can't say I have often seen a soldier's effectiveness degraded in garrison due to bloused pants but I may have just missed it.

 

[OldSolduer]

I asked you first!!

My reasons for blousing pants in garrison are simple - and I'm not  a blind obedience sort  or "uniformity at the expense of common sense" kind of person - and that reason is that dress and deportment while you are in garrison is important. A bunch of troops trotting - marching- around with pants unbloused looks like crap. Some may tuck their sand traps in, some may not. Its, IMO, unprofessional looking and touches on the slovenly.

While you are in the field on a tac ex is entirely another matter. Ventilation and circulation is important. If we had allowed troops to unblouse in the field in the 70's and 80s maybe I wouldn't have the unsightliest set of varicose veins on earth.
If we are deployed in civvyland on an op or exercise....that depends on the Chain of Command. A tinge of common sense must be used.

A few years ago some of the senior leadership didn't like the pictures coming out of the sandbox, troops in FOBs or on patrol with unbloused pants and sleeves rolled half way up.....the rocket went out to put a stop to it.

 

[McG]

Which begs the question that I have always wondered: will we be forced to blouse the pants on these?  And if so, why?

Because the elastic is built-in.

 

[Wolf117]

The elastic is getting built-in to the newer combats?!  Well sounds like the pocket knives troops carry are going to get a lot of use!

 

[Wolf117]

Also FYI the brits do blouse their boots.  They're just bloused lower than ours.

I don't mind blousing boots.  But field should mean NO bloused boots.  Doing it reduces circulation in your feet and that is the last thing one needs when operating on foot in ex's or ops.

 

[Wolf117]

Oh and another reason blousing shouldn't be allowed in the field is that after performing an attack it gets all screwed up and moves up your calf.  Meaning troops are eFing around fixing it when they should be more worried about hydrating, watching their arcs and re-orging.

 

[ModlrMike]

Also FYI the brits do blouse their boots.  They're just bloused lower than ours.

I don't mind blousing boots.  But field should mean NO bloused boots.  Doing it reduces circulation in your feet and that is the last thing one needs when operating on foot in ex's or ops.

If you're impairing the circulation to your feet, you have your pants bloused way too tight. It takes a good deal of pressure to occlude the blood flow to and from your feet.

 

[dale622]

Back on topic..... I would like the link sent to my DIN email as well. PM me and I will give the address.

and to add.... I support blousing of boots but I don't support having it built in. I like to hang it loose and comfortable in the field as much as the next troop.

 

[Halifax Tar]

If you're impairing the circulation to your feet, you have your pants bloused way too tight. It takes a good deal of pressure to occlude the blood flow to and from your feet.

No an intended derailment here so a reply to my post may be better in a PM.

When blousing my pants I have used the green elastic bands and the black Velcro bands and both leave big dents in my legs. I have done them up as loose as possible. Is there something I am missing or another product out there that would be better ? Thanks in advance for any advice.

 

[vonGarvin]

Jim, what are the (crusty old guy) reasons we SHOULD?

The only reason I think we blouse our pants is to prevent wear and tear of the cuffs.  Ironically, this wear and tear would occur most when in the field. 

If you think back to the wars of the 20th Century, where the Germans had jackboots (with pants tucked in), we had gaiters and puttees.

So long as someone still had the inner parts to their lower trouser legs (tucked into their boots), then the "ventilating" part doesn't make sense. (*If* they still had them, of course).

Anyway....

 

[Bzzliteyr]

On my most recent tour (Nov-Jan 3-10 until I was punted out) the orders came out from the CoC that pants were to be bloused even on remote OPs.  And clean shaven.

 

[Sigs Pig]

So long as someone still had the inner parts to their lower trouser legs (tucked into their boots), then the "ventilating" part doesn't make sense. (*If* they still had them, of course).

I have wondered that point also....

As to the wear and tear, that would look awful if people had a bite taken out of the heel area while on parade, or even off the square.
I feel that the blousing reason may have to do with various shrinkage or excess lengths, that also would look stupid on the parade square.

ME

 

[ballz]

What I don't understand is where the idea that having pants bloused makes your pants more look "clean" and "professional." I understand it is now engrained in some people's minds, but where did it actually come from? What other professional do you know of that blouses anything? I was heading to work one evening and my civie roommate and his civie friends were in the living room and saw me blousing my boots, and they asked what the hell I was doing. The blousing boots thing is completely foreign to anything I know of, so I don't get how it became a symbol of "professional."

If anything, it does the opposite in the grand scheme. It creates yet another opportunity for someone or something to be out of place and unconformed. Just more BS making sure you have boot bands with you and spares kicking around and etc. Or your boot becomes unbloused in the back and you don't realize it, or your sandtrap sticks out a bit.

It also gives some crusty old farts a reason to be stupid about something (sorry, not directed at the crusty old farts in this thread  ). AKA the stories we are now hearing of being told to blouse in the field. I got jacked up this summer by a different platoon's staff because they were making their platoon blouse in the field and I was walking past, unbloused. Sorry budds but come out from under your rock, the rest of the entire Coy including the staff don't have 'em bloused, so you're just right the frig outta 'er.

Now, having them bloused in garrison doesn't bother me, I'm not complaining. If that's the rule, fine, I've got other things I'd like to complain about before I start worrying about changing that rule. Like Jim said, in garrison there's tons of time and tons of sleep the night before to make sure they are bloused properly. However, both "why" and "why not" were asked, and I can see "why not" but I'm not sure I buy the "why."

TV's "why" might make some sense, never thought about that... But my trouser pants dont extend down far enough to get trampled, and I'm not sure we should be in the field worrying about extending the life of our pants. If we are, it's a boring field ex.

Just my 2 cents, you can have a refund if you'd like

 

[Bzzliteyr]

I asked you first!!

Actually, I asked first.  Neener Neener.

Which begs the question that I have always wondered: will we be forced to blouse the pants on these?  And if so, why?

 

[OldSolduer]

Actually, I asked first.  Neener Neener.

Oh Wise guy eh? Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk.....

 

[Michael OLeary]

Which begs the question that I have always wondered: will we be forced to blouse the pants on these?  And if so, why?

For the same reason that men are required to have short hair, we wear ties with DEU and we blacken or polish our footwear - because the powers that be have decided to continue supporting the idea that they present a military appearance. If you can present a solid argument to change any of these things, make your case and get it seen. (Here's one option for that..) Convincing anyone here isn't going to change the system.

 

[OldSolduer]

The puttee question: answer is!!

puttee, also spelled puttie, is the name, adapted from the Hindi patti, bandage (Skr. patta, strip of cloth), for a covering for the lower part of the leg from the ankle to the knee, consisting of a long narrow piece of cloth wound tightly and spirally round the leg, and serving both as a support and protection, worn especially by riders, and taking the place of the leather or cloth gaiter. It was once adopted as part of the uniform of foot and mounted soldiers in several armies, including the United States Army and the armies of the British Commonwealth.

 

[ballz]

For the same reason that men are required to have short hair, we wear ties with DEU and we blacken or polish our footwear - because the powers that be have decided to continue supporting the idea that they present a military appearance.

Based on what our culture considers to be a "professional" appearance. We are far from alone, as professionals, in having short hair, wearing ties, blazers, with shiny shoes. We are rather alone in blousing boots. So your answer doesn't address the "where does the idea that blousing your boots is a characteristic of being a professional?" question I answered. However...

The puttee question: answer is!!

puttee, also spelled puttie, is the name, adapted from the Hindi patti, bandage (Skr. patta, strip of cloth), for a covering for the lower part of the leg from the ankle to the knee, consisting of a long narrow piece of cloth wound tightly and spirally round the leg, and serving both as a support and protection, worn especially by riders, and taking the place of the leather or cloth gaiter. It was once adopted as part of the uniform of foot and mounted soldiers in several armies, including the United States Army and the armies of the British Commonwealth.

Thanks for that one Jim, this answers that question. Clearly it originated with a functional purpose (it was never about a professional image at all). I also enjoyed reading the rest of that wiki link about the Blue Puttees.. I was wondering why the new Marine Atlantic boat from North Sydney - Port Aux Basques was named the "Blue Puttee" and what the hell it meant

If you can present a solid argument to change any of these things, make your case and get it seen. (Here's one option for that..) Convincing anyone here isn't going to change the system.

Personally, like I said, I can't be arsed about something so insignificant.