Army Ends Beret for combat uniform, adpts utility cover (patrol cap in Army lingo)

[MikeG]

Army Ends Beret Requirement - ABC News

They are replacing it with a utility cover, err, I mean "patrol cap."

I don't know if Marines are chuckling at this new development. I'm surprised the press hasn't labeled it "Marine Corps style patrol caps" just to needle them both.

Next up, rolled sleeves and blousing.

Were patrol caps phased out for army units or were they always authorized head gear?

[JoetheGI]

Were patrol caps phased out for army units or were they always authorized head gear?

The only organizations that actually had "patrol caps" were LRS units, S.O.F. elements, and a select few conventional organizations. When doing the "explosivey" / "shooty" / "rapid aircraft Infil" type of things, kevlar would be worn to protect the melon, however, upon completion, the PC ruled the day as head gear of choice.

The beret was generally treated as a piece of formal head gear for the most part, and would only be worn during admin / garrison duties or formal unit functions. When performing field duties, details, or anything "dirty", the PC would be worn for comfort and utility.

Adopting a beret for the entire force was a mistake. Unlike jump units and SOF elements, the beret has little meaning to the conventional / "leg" force. It's just another piece of issued kit to them. Joe doesn't get a whole lot for busting his hump the way he does, and stealing his distinguished head gear was a slap in the face he never deserved.

[retdetsgt]

Adopting a beret for the entire force was a mistake. Unlike jump units and SOF elements, the beret has little meaning to the conventional / "leg" force.

That's what I thought at the time. I was just a leg, but it was nice to be able to recognize Army (and AF) SOF's from a distance by the beret. What particularly burned my @ss at the time was that the initial contract for making them went to a Chinese company rather than a company in Arizona that bid on them.

No pun intended, but my hat's off to that Sergeant Major of the Army who had the cahones to care and actually do something about it. He did what his job description says, he looked out for the enlisted folks!

[bluelightzgrl]

I was active duty at Bragg when they adopted the beret Army wide. Those of us who actually earned the right to wear one, were pissed. Then to watch them ('desecrate' was a commonly used term) attempt to wear our garrison headgear, well it was beyond comical. I'm sure the Airborne, SF and Rangers are happy to see the beret returned to something you have to earn.

...and Mike. Ten years ago when I was in, we rolled our sleeves (except while deployed or in the field), we bloused our pants -Class As (and Bs) too; Airborne doesn't (or didn't then) wear the low-quarter dress shoes.

[retdetsgt]

Does anyone at all wear low quarters anymore? One of the active duty Army guys here was talking about them doing away with the class A's altogether. It still irks me to see people traveling in BDU's. I know I'm old and cranky, but to me it's kind of a respect thing to dress up a little when you go out and represent your service branch.

I remember coming back from Vietnam, we wore our class A's because we were all going to connect with regular civilian air carriers to go home. It was such a nice feeling to transition from fatigues to something more formal. It was reentering the real world or something. And I still think a class A looks sharp with all the ribbons and such. Being a grunt, I didn't wear mine often so it was sort of a special thing to put it on.

I know younger people are adverse to formal wear of any kind. Before I left work, they'd reduced the dress code for detectives and a lot looked like they were going to a ball game when they came to work. I found I got a lot more initial respect from the public, even bad guys when I was wearing a coat and tie. But that's for another thread.

[Joeyd6]

Just heard 40 minutes on the radio here about the beret issue. Supposedly it all started with a female enlistee who was a cook who had such long hair, it did not fit under the beret. She was the person who "forced" the change due to a claim the beret was not female friendly.

[MikeG]

Just heard 40 minutes on the radio here about the beret issue. Supposedly it all started with a female enlistee who was a cook who had such long hair, it did not fit under the beret. She was the person who "forced" the change due to a claim the beret was not female friendly.

Don't ruin a good thing by making it the fault of political correctness.

What are they going to do with the other things that aren't female friendly like "maps?"

[retdetsgt]

What are they going to do with the other things that aren't female friendly like "maps?"

Oh Good Lord, don't start that. My wife, who has a couple of masters degrees and is a lot smarter than me can't read a map. We were in Washington DC and rented a car. I handed her the map and told her to direct me to PA, we wanted to go to Gettysburg. After circling DC about three times, I pulled over and asked, "You can't read a map, can you?" By the fact she didn't react, I knew I was right. That answered a lot of questions about experiences in past trips. Now she has a car with GPS and once she figured out how to put in an address, it verbally directs her.

I had a similar experience with one of my ex's who could install a carburetor kit, cook from scratch and even sewed me a dress suit. Very bright and intelligent woman, but I had her reading the map once when we were in the Mt Hood Nat'l Forest looking for a particular lake to go fishing. I'm surprised we didn't end up in Canada.

[JoetheGI]

Does anyone at all wear low quarters anymore? One of the active duty Army guys here was talking about them doing away with the class A's altogether.

Leg units still sport the low quarters.

The Class A is being morphed into something that resembles what you would have seen in a low-budget 70's era Sci-Fi flick. Kind of a bastardization of the green class-A and the dress blues.

Don't ruin a good thing by making it the fault of political correctness.

What are they going to do with the other things that aren't female friendly...

Easy. Lower standards, waste cash and resources to accommodate them, pretend there is no negative impact on morale, cohesion, or unit effectiveness, and punish anyone who says otherwise. Basically, the same thing they've been doing for the past 20+ years.

[Joeyd6]

Don't ruin a good thing by making it the fault of political correctness.

I am a firm believer the ends never justify the means. It may be a good thing, but if true, the change is a result of nothing more than one woman who complained she did not like something, then they should go nowhere, and remain until teh change is made for the "right reason."

If true, I think it is disgrace. Where is NOW? Evryone wants equal righst till they can't have what they want. They they become a special interest group and are being discriminated against and demand change.

If true, it is a black eye on the Amry brass who went with the change. I am not against women in the military or doing our job. But if they can't meet "the standard" a new one should not be created.

[pafindr]

Supposedly it all started with a female enlistee who was a cook...

Well, at least she was in the kitchen where she belonged.

[JoetheGI]

But if they can't meet "the standard" a new one should not be created.

That's been national policy for quite some time now. "Diversity" is more important than "standards", and woe be unto those who don't tow the line.

I KNOW you veteran LEO's have seen and experienced standard changes to accommodate "diversity", be they physical or otherwise. Firefighters are probably in the same boat.

Can't pass the written exams? Make it easier to accommodate "diversity".
Can't carry the 200lb "heavy dude" in time? Make it easier to accommodate "diversity".
Can't clear a 6 foot wall? Make it easier to accommodate "diversity".

"Diversity" defeats the point of having standards, weakens the element as a whole, and in some cases, can get people killed.

[retdetsgt]

But if they can't meet "the standard" a new one should not be created.

Heh, obviously you weren't in police work before women were hired, Joe. Both size and physical strength standards had to be lowered. Very few women could have passed the minimum requirements I had when I was hired. Same when I was in the Army infantry. I know some women that could have performed fine in an infantry platoon, but they are in a small minority.

I have no problem with anyone who can do the work. My philosophy has always been if you make the same money, you do the same job. When women first started here in police work it was sad. Dispatch would send three cars with women in them where they would routinely send one or two men on the same call. And unfortunately, many FTO's back then played big brother to them during training and when they were put out on their own, they were worthless. Only a handful of the first 25 - 30 women we initially hired stayed and most of them ran to drone, non uniform jobs ASAP.

The pressure to hire women was so great that my department lowered the physical agility and strength requirements to the point we hired one woman who we found couldn't pull the trigger on a .38 Spl. revolver 6 times in rapid succession. Seriously. It took nearly ten years from 1973 or 74 when we hired our first until they settled on decent standards. We got some good people during that time, but we also got some humdingers too that were nothing but baggage until they finally retired.

[happibun8]

I am not against women in the military or doing our job. But if they can't meet "the standard" a new one should not be created.

I hope I'm not intruding with my two cents I'm a vet, a wife to a vet and a mother of an 11B currently working the sandbox. I agree with you although I am probably one of very few women who would. There are some jobs, both military and civilian, that should *never* compromise physical standards. I have met only two women in my life that could max out the APFT on the men's standard. Furthermore, I know that I personally could not hump 20 miles with armor and a 50 pound ruck (and don't know many females that can). I will leave it at that.

I'm not a big fan of the beret. My husband nearly threw up when he found out they gave everyone the right to wear black. As for the cook that couldn't fit all of her hair into the beret -- are you kidding me? Cut it or braid it. It used to take me 20 extra minutes to get my hair braided and tucked. Got tired of it and chopped it off. The Army isn't the place to express your individuality....or has it changed THAT much?

What are they going to do with the other things that aren't female friendly like "maps?"

Okay, that was funny.

[bluelightzgrl]

Just heard 40 minutes on the radio here about the beret issue. Supposedly it all started with a female enlistee who was a cook who had such long hair, it did not fit under the beret. She was the person who "forced" the change due to a claim the beret was not female friendly.

Lord almighty!! If that is the case, that dumb whiny broad needs to be discharged ASAP!! When I was active, my hair was past my shoulders, about to my shoulder blades. It was kept up with at least 2 if not 3 hair-ties in a bun. The band of my beret sat just above my bun...then again I was Airborne and someone actually taught me how to wear a beret properly instead of looking like a fuzzy pizza on my head... idiots. Either way. I call bs on the dumb cook. Discharge her and let her go stand in her own kitchen, because it's obvious she doesn't belong in the Army if she can not figure out a way to properly wear headgear.

What are they going to do with the other things that aren't female friendly like "maps?"

Hey!! Call it "girlie-friendly" cause I refer to myself as a female and I can read a map and land-nav.