Triple creases on back of Army uniforms

[A.R.Cane]

@Raguleader

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).

To the best of my knowledge, all U.S. military personnel remove their headgear when entering a building, as do gentlemen in civilian life. The exception being that if you’re “under arms”, or in some other official duty status, you remain covered. It has little, if anything, to do with the practicality of using a weapon. “Under arms” can be signified by the wearing of a “duty belt” or a duty brassard on your arm, it doesn’t necessarily mean carrying a weapon.
U.S. Navy, Marines and Coast Guard personnel do not salute “uncovered”, but U.S. Army and Air Force personnel do, that often causes confusion about the issue.

I knew a few Marines and maybe a couple of sailors who used shirt tail stays. I always thought it was a little over the top. To me, shirt stays were devices worn to keep the shirt collar smooth and neat. This was before they began using plastic inserts inside collars.

[JRDelirious]

Was reading today about the new Navy “service” uniform (description midway down this page, pictures at the end of the slideshow) – it’s apparently going to include “permanent military creases”.

Oh, and Tripler, I guess you may have found out by now, they’re futzing up with you guys’ uniforms again. And Bear_Nenno has a pit thread about the latest feat of sartorial genius from the Army.

[robby]

@UncleRojelio

Wha? No Poopy Suit garters?

:smack:
OK, that was a stupid example. I started to write “working khakis,” but switched in mid-sentence for some reason.

@JRDelirious

Was reading today about the new Navy “service” uniform (description midway down this page, pictures at the end of the slideshow) – it’s apparently going to include “permanent military creases”.

The poly/wool khaki shirts (and matching trousers) have been an optional uniform item for officers and CPOs since the late 90s (as I mentioned previously). They have sewn-in military creases. Looks like the same shirt now for E-6’s and below (which I’m still trying to digest–khakis for all ranks?!).

The nice thing about the poly/wool khakis was that they were authorized for shore and sea use. The CNT (Certified Navy Twill) uniforms they were designed to replace were not allowed when on board a ship, because they supposedly had a tendency to melt in a fire. :eek: You had to wear a different cotton blend “working” khaki uniform when aboard a ship; unfortunately, it wrinkled up and looked like crap pretty much instantly. Consequently, many shore commands prohibited wearing it.

[robby]

@CookingWithGas

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?

Yes–you get used to it.

@A.R. Cane

I knew a few Marines and maybe a couple of sailors who used shirt tail stays. I always thought it was a little over the top.

Like I mentioned, they were (unofficially) required in NROTC, so I got used to them early on. My unit was essentially run by Marines, and you took all kinds of grief if you didn’t look sharp.

Also, CNT uniforms (khakis and whites) were 100% polyester, which made them a pretty slippery fabric. They had a tendency to come completely untucked just by sitting down and standing up a few times. Shirt stays prevented this from happening.

I haven’t missed them since I got out, BTW. I don’t miss the 100% polyester clothing either.