Vietnam - VC and NVA defeat the decidedly better dressed Americans.
WW1 and WW2 - The Germans sure looked snappy with those black uniforms, spiked helmuts, and gestapo suits but the simpler dressed allies defeated them none the less.
Afghanistan vs USSR - Rag wearing locals kick out well dressed Russkies.
Crusades - The fancy armour didn’t help the crusaders from failing to conquer the holy lands defended by the more simply dressed Muslims. It wasn’t until after WWII that some non-uniform wearing Jews get the job done.
US Civil War - This would seem to be an exception, because the North had more materials and ability to make uniforms. But, the South had some outlandish costumes for many of it’s units.
How 'bout that ostrich plume Rock Hudson wore in his hat in The Undefeated. Can you get more uh… flamboyant? [Seinfeld]Not that there’s anything wrong with that[/Seinfeld]
But just in case you are asking this seriously:
My gut feeling is that the better an army is clothed; the more likely is that their society is elitist. That in turn makes it an army that is not quite ready to die for their unjust country. And also vain: Alexander the great put it well: when confronted by a good looking army, of well to do elite soldiers, he told his men: “Aim for the face” he knew that those kind of soldiers will be more afraid to have scars in their faces than the regular soldiers.
During the civil war it was no secret that poor soldiers were truly upset that well to do slave owners could be exempted from the draft.
And of course nazi Germany was the Zenith of elitism.
Ever seen a Union Zouave? Which points to the (I presume intended) silliness of the OP: in each of the wars mentioned (with the possible exception of Vietnam–although, do you really think fatigues are flashier than pyjamas?), both sides were dressed with equal elaboration and any judgement of “fancier” is dependent on arbitrary claims.
(BTW, the Gestapo was a WWII “police” outfit that frequently went in civilian dress, so the WWI reference is doubly inappropriate.)
hehe, tomndebb, I immediately thought of zouaves upon seeing the title of this OP too. …I mean anyone that would go to battle wearing a fancy kepi…that’s just crazy! (I’ve read somewhere where most Zouaves toned down their uniforms as the war progressed, in part because the bright colors they war made them easy targets).
The standard German field gray battle uniform wasn’t any better looking than the American, British, or Russian uniforms. In fact, it was kind of square and ugly. And their snappy dress uniforms weren’t any nicer than snappy Allied dress uniforms, either. Those U.S. Navy white dress uniforms are as good a uniform as anyone wore.
I’m not sure the Europeans “lost” the Crusades, and in any event the Arab warriors had equally elaborate uniforms.
Oh, I forgot the American Revolution! Everybody saw The Patriot, right? Those dragoons had some odd hats.
The crazy outfits worn by the English probably lead to the fall of the empire.
The WWI reference was meant to not refer the Gestapo, obviously. I was referring to the pointed helmuts of WWI. I kindof combined WW1 and WW2 I guess.
I said “gestapo suits”. Sure, they are civilian clothes, but there is definately a certain style to them. This was mimicked (I thought) on Starship Troopers. They would also carry leather briefcases that could be flipped open and shut in a very fanciful maner. (See The Great Escape)
I was mostly kidding, but there might be some truth to this. GIGObuster makes a good point about an elitist army being at a disadvantage against poor soldiers.
Actually, the heavy armor of the crusaders was a decisive factor ion the first crusade, which did succeed, and held the Holy Land for some years. (And failed due to some truly boneheaded political/military manuvering and a lack of support from European powers.
Basically, if the knights could stand the heat, their armor was far better protection. It was just hell to wear, though, so they could not effectively stay in battle like that in hot weather.
Muslim armor (I forget which Arab faction was then in control of the place) was not so bad as you think. They were wearing more than robes out there, particularly since the Holy Land is not all actually a stark desert, though parts of it are.
I would suggest you compare a picture of a front-line German soldier of WWII with a picture of a Marine Corps Master Sgt. in full dress uniform. That is what your “black uniforms, spiked helmets and gestapo suits” does in reverse. By the way, WWII German Army uniforms were a grayish green. Or a greenish gray. Take your pick.
Just a note on the German WWI spiked helmets - they realized they were impractical as hell, but they were a Prussian tradition at that point, which originated around 1840 with Friedrich Wilhelm IV, apparently simply because he thought they looked cool. Eventually, they issued helmets with removable spikes, so they could continue to look cool when not fighting, but not get hung up when crawling through trenches.
The Boers, and a little earlier, the Zulu’s lost to the decidely over dressed English.
The Americans won in the Philippines.
The Romans rather often kicked the poo out of the ‘barbarians.’ Granted, the barbarians had the last laugh, but it took awhile.
It seems to me, really shooting from the hip here, that we may not be seeing the whole picture. Revolutions, a great source of poorly dressed soldiers, that fail simply aren’t remembered. There were a number of these that failed, IIRC, in Africa in the '60s. Biafra, for example.
It’s generally accepted that armies spend a lot of time ‘looking good’ during peacetime, since it is easier for some IG to note that a unit is well dressed and marching well, then it is to note less-visible traits such as aggressiveness, small-unit tactical skills, weapons proficiency, etc.
So the reasoning is that an army that is concerned with polished boots and proper salutes is going to less concerned with actual combat skills.
Not to mention, learning to right flank, march! is much cheaper, and darned sight safer, then live-fire drills. CO’s don’t want any blemishes on their records during peacetime, so they keep it simple, if not actually usefull.
The word was that the WWII 3[sup]rd[/sup] Army wore their Class A uniforms most of the time because Gen. Patton was convinced that “a well dressed army is a good army and vice versa.”
I’m sceptical of this reasoning. One could as easily say that an army with well-disciplined dress and drill is more disciplined in general, and thus better on the field of battle, while an army that concentrates solely on “warlike” traits such as aggressiveness will degerate into an unruly mob with no unit cohesion.
From my time in the Canadian army, we had plenty of drill, and our dress was expected to be properly maintained (I still spit-shine my shoes, occasionally). I’ve never heard that the Canadian army was all shine and no edge on the blade.
BTW, it was Hugo Boss who designed the SS uniforms.
I think the comparison is more valid with a 2nd/3rd world non-democratic nation, where a given dictator is more concerned with having visually pleasing formations then actually combat effective troops. (Which will probably just be used to crack dissident skulls rather then fight a ‘real war’ anyways…).
Wealthier nations, with volunteer armies, tend to have a higher quality recruit to work with, making it possible to have a soldier that not only can shoot straight, but looks good on the parade ground as well. Of course, even the mighty American Army is not immune to BS ‘look-good’ work, as Strategypage.com and other military-oriented sites note.
The ‘uniform factor’ isn’t an absolute, IMHO, especially when dealing with modern western forces. But it is a neat rule-of-thumb.
I didn’t know that bit about H.Boss. The SS were a nasty bunch, to be sure, but those black dress uniforms looked damned sharp!
