Come on - you’re Air Force. It’s the Army’s job to make sure snipers don’t get within shooting range.
[QUOTE=Alessan]
Come on - you’re Air Force. It’s the Army’s job to make sure snipers don’t get within shooting range.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think snipers around here get quite close enough to read the branch of service on the nametape. But they sure as hell do get close enough to lob RPGs at us occasionally. . . :smack:
Either way, I don’t think they care either way–they just want the body count.
Tripler
Heh. . . morbid humor, ain’t it a kick in the pants?!? 
I’ll take the kick in the pants any day over the RPG… but glad to see y’all are taking it in stride. Please do duck, Tripler, sir.
Maybe the CO should give the example by walking the outer perimeter in that hat every morning 
For those unfamiliar, “subdued” rank is flat matte black/brown pins or embroidery, the idea being to avoid giving away your position by a reflection, and make it harder for snipers to pick off the seniors. But having the entire top of your head bright red makes you several orders of magnitude easier to spot, a long way further, than just a couple of silver pins on beige fabric.
When I was in Air Force JROTC in high school, we were told specifically not to get starch or have creases put in our Blues. The understanding we had was that the creases were so the Army cadets could figure out where to put their ribbons and nametags. 
Of course, that could have easily just been a thing specific to our unit, since I’m not sure how unified AFJROTC tends to be above the Group or Wing level.
To this day, I still think military creases look goofy, but then again, so do a LOT of things associated with military uniforms, when you think about it. I mean, just look at the HATS people in militaries both in the US and around the world wear.
[QUOTE=JRDelirious]
But having the entire top of your head bright red makes you several orders of magnitude easier to spot, a long way further, than just a couple of silver pins on beige fabric.
[/QUOTE]
Sure, red ball caps are bad, but it could be worse. It could be much worse.
[QUOTE=Scruloose]
These are the stays that I use. Best invention since sliced bread I tell ya.
[sub]As long as you don’t mind a good portion of your leg hair getting rubbed off[/sub]
[/QUOTE]
We used to use those. I always thought of it as Army Drag. There was always something slightly kinky and BDSM about wrapping yourself up with all those straps and hiding it under your uniform.
I remember those shirt creases getting popular. First it was two on the front. Then one in the back. Then two in the back. Then three. Then people were trying to out-STRAC each other and I swear to you I’ve seen people walking around with four or five creases on the back of their shirt. At that point, the command stepped in and told people to knock it off.
[QUOTE=levdrakon]
We used to use those. I always thought of it as Army Drag. There was always something slightly kinky and BDSM about wrapping yourself up with all those straps and hiding it under your uniform.
[/QUOTE]
[Crash Davis]
The rose goes in the front, big guy.
[/CD]
[QUOTE=Bear_Nenno]
The Army does not have khaki shirts. Could you have been mistaken as to the branch? Marines, perhaps?
[/QUOTE]
Well, from the back I couldn’t see anything but the creases 
What I saw was similar to the leftmost uniform shown here, but the pants were the same color as the shirt, not darker. There was also no cover.
[QUOTE=CookingWithGas]
Well, from the back I couldn’t see anything but the creases
What I saw was similar to the leftmost uniform shown here, but the pants were the same color as the shirt, not darker. There was also no cover.
[/QUOTE]
IIRC the only US military service using light khaki top + light khaki pants any more is the Navy (for Chief Petty Officer and above).
(OK, so the Public Health Service and NOAA would use them too, but that’s like, what, 0.5% the size of the Navy between the two?)
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
Thank God I wear flight suits. Fliers are so eccentric that we don’t even have to wash the damn things if we don’t want to. Nobody cares. Polished boots? Ha! It is to laugh.
[/QUOTE]
Amen to that. I haven’t polished my boots in a few months. Not because I’m lazy, ok partly so, but because the day after I spend at least an hour polishing them (if I’m going to do it, they’re going to shine) I fly and they get all messed up again.
It’s depressing I tells ya.
[QUOTE=RandMcnally]
Amen to that. I haven’t polished my boots in a few months. Not because I’m lazy, ok partly so, but because the day after I spend at least an hour polishing them (if I’m going to do it, they’re going to shine) I fly and they get all messed up again.
It’s depressing I tells ya.
[/QUOTE]
You really should polish them every now and then. It’s just basic maintenance - it keeps the leather supple and, on the off-chnce you’ll encounter a damp environment, waterproof. Just a 2-minute workover should do the job.
[QUOTE=Alessan]
You really should polish them every now and then. It’s just basic maintenance - it keeps the leather supple and, on the off-chnce you’ll encounter a damp environment, waterproof. Just a 2-minute workover should do the job.
[/QUOTE]
Really now? Huh, I’ll give them a quick shine tomorrow then.
[QUOTE=CookingWithGas]
Well, from the back I couldn’t see anything but the creases
What I saw was similar to the leftmost uniform shown here, but the pants were the same color as the shirt, not darker. There was also no cover.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=JRDelirious]
IIRC the only US military service using light khaki top + light khaki pants any more is the Navy (for Chief Petty Officer and above).
[/QUOTE]
Here is the Navy khaki uniform for male officers, which is what I suspect you saw. However, it’s usually worn with a khaki garrison cap rather than the combination cover shown in the photo.
Note that Navy personnel do not wear covers indoors.
[QUOTE=Scruloose]
I should add, Rick, the stays in robby’s link attach to the bottom of your shirt and the top of your socks. I tried them briefly until I discovered the stirrup type. The stirrup type are much easier to deal with.
[/QUOTE]
I never tried the stirrup type.
From Scruloose’s link, here is the type I used, and here is the classic illustration of why they are used.
I used a set of four. Two were attached at the bottom of the shirt creases in front and around to the back of each sock. Two more were attached at back of the shirt at the location of the outer creases and around to the front of each sock. Excess shirt material was tucked in at the rear creases.
This method served to keep the shirt firmly in place. Crossing the shirt stays from front to back (and vice versa) not only kept the shirt firmly tucked in, but kept the shirt material taut at the waist.
Note that I only wore shirt stays with service uniforms. I never wore them with working uniforms, such as the submarine coveralls we wore at sea.
[QUOTE=Scruloose]
These are the stays that I use. Best invention since sliced bread I tell ya.
[sub]As long as you don’t mind a good portion of your leg hair getting rubbed off[/sub]
[/QUOTE]
Sortof like an inverted garter belt for shirt tails instead of hosiery?
[QUOTE=robby]
Note that I only wore shirt stays with service uniforms. I never wore them with working uniforms, such as the submarine coveralls we wore at sea.
[/QUOTE]
Wha? No Poopy Suit garters?
[QUOTE=UncleRojelio]
Wha? No Poopy Suit garters?
[/QUOTE]
Don’t let robby fool you, UR he was a nuke O-ganger, ewwww…
[QUOTE=robby]
Note that I only wore shirt stays with service uniforms. I never wore them with working uniforms, such as the submarine coveralls we wore at sea.
[/QUOTE]
(emphasis mine)
Those are the ones with a zipper in front and one in back, right?
<D&R>
[QUOTE=robby]
I used a set of four. Two were attached at the bottom of the shirt creases in front and around to the back of each sock. Two more were attached at back of the shirt at the location of the outer creases and around to the front of each sock. Excess shirt material was tucked in at the rear creases.
[/QUOTE]
I am trying to picture this. You have four elastic bands that stretch from shirttail to sock. I’m picturing what happens when you sit down. The elastic, following its natural physical properties, will attempt to stay straight, while your legs follow their natural physical properties to bend at the knee. Doesn’t this create an artifact underneath and on the back side of the pant leg, pulling the pant leg taut to the rear, like the top of a pup tent?
Seems like it would be more effective to design a shirt that is integrated with underwear to be all one piece. Sort of a military leotard.
[QUOTE=robby]
Here is the Navy khaki uniform for male officers, which is what I suspect you saw. However, it’s usually worn with a khaki garrison cap rather than the combination cover shown in the photo.
Note that Navy personnel do not wear covers indoors.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think most military personel do, unless they’re armed, in which case I understand they’re required to (one theory I’ve heard for this is so they won’t have to fumble with a hat in their hand if they ever need to USE the gun).