Jump to content

"field uniform"


Recommended Posts

Moderator Note: I was not sure what a "fleld uniform" was so I fixed the spelling in the topic title. :)

 

(Of course, I missed that the first 5 times or so that I read this topic, I guess I saw an i with a dot, just realized it wasn't one.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 47
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

So far as I can tell, BSA was the only group to call a shade of green "khaki."  "Khaki," as many here know, was a Hindustani word for dirt-colored.  Khaki replaced red in the UK military uniform when

"Khaki" became more than one color: tan shirt + green pants/shorts.   Flashy indeed, in that mundane, muted sort of way. Epaulets! And from the start we were all baffled why Explorers weren't also t

Thank you so much,   Turns out I can't find my copy.  0___0   Your info led me to this:   "The artwork and photos in this Handbook are interesting also because the full Scout uniform ("field uni

Read Eagle 94-A1's post.

 

I gave the source of the reference to a "field uniform."  It says what it says.  

 

What meaning do you assign to a single reference that conflicts with all other official literature and the official uniform website?

 

(Thanks for the correction.  I kant tipe a lic.)

Edited by TAHAWK
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was a scout saving dimes for Jambo when the redesigned uniform appeared.  Oh, ODL uni, how thou didst thou "flash"? Let me count the ways:

  • "Khaki" became more than one color: tan shirt + green pants/shorts.
  • Epaulets! And from the start we were all baffled why Explorers weren't also tan, but with green Eps.
  • Collars ... they came back!
  • Those red berets.
  • The quaint red stripe "pretend garter" at the top of your socks.
  • Yes, more colorful council and lodge patches seemed to appear.
Interestingly, the majorettes started sewing more sequins on their outfits at about this time. ;)

I'll admit that I was quite pleased with it all, but I was one for gaudiness. I think other boys were less enthused. I don't recall if I uniformed any less. Always wore it to school on February 8ths. Never would any of us wear it to service projects, or on weekend trips.

 

It's interesting that the Centennial uniforms constituted muted tones (epaulets that matched pants, socks without the red stripe, single color hat, etc ...).

 

1, I'm not sure how two muted colors is "flashier" than one muted color.

 

2, When I started wearing the epaulets, mine were dark blue, not very flashy. True, the red ones (which I still wear on my still-ODL uniform shirt) are more colorful, though I am not adverse to red on a uniform, as some other people seem to be. Until about a month ago our troop wore red neckerchiefs anyway.

 

3, I'm not sure how collars are flashier than no collars.

 

4, Red berets certainly are flashy but they did not come in with the ODL uniform. I believe they were issued in 1972, originally just for the Leadership Corps and then about a year later for troop-wide wear. It was optional anyway, so I guess you could say that a troop could customize its degree of flashiness. (As they can now: About 30 red neckerchiefs available, best offer. :) )

 

5, I would say the ACTUAL garter (which I wore in my youth) is considerably MORE flashy than a little red stripe. Maybe flashy is not the right word. I am not sure what the right word is. I suspect non-Scouts who saw me in my summer uniform may have had some words for it. :)

 

6, Give you that one, but I don't think they have become less flashy now that the "red" in the uniform itself has been reduced. I saw a set of special-edition CSP's that one of our kids got when he went to the last national jamboree, and they were pretty flashy.

Edited by NJCubScouter
Fixed the numbering in the quote; not sure how that happened
Link to post
Share on other sites
  1. "Khaki" became more than one color: tan shirt + green pants/shorts.   Flashy indeed, in that mundane, muted sort of way.
  2. Epaulets! And from the start we were all baffled why Explorers weren't also tan, but with green Eps.  For the same reason that Cub Scouts didn't start wearing the tan - different program.  But we Explorer's were wondering why the Boy Scouts didn't switch to the much neater and flashier dark green instead of that ugly tan.  I'm telling you - those red loops would have looked fantastic against the green.
  3. Collars ... they came back!  I remember them coming back before DLR (ODL??  Doesn't make any sense)
  4. Those red berets.  Pre DLR - got my first one in 1973 - it wasn't until I got the dark green Leadership Corps/Explorer's shirt that it looked really cool - and the Dark Green shirt with the "khaki" pants outflashes even the DLR's.
  5. The quaint red stripe "pretend garter" at the top of your socks.  Is that what that was?  I was an Explorer by that time - we wore blue jeans
  6. Yes, more colorful council and lodge patches seemed to appear.  Malibu Lodge (OA) had a very flashy lodge patch in 1974 or so - I'm pretty sure the old CSPs starting going away about 1972 or so - also pre-DLR

I think the flashiest thing about the whole DLR uniform was the epaulets - made me want to burst out in song:  In The (French) Air Force (sung to the Village People song In The Navy)

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was a Scout and Scouter in the 1950's and 1960,'s, collarless shirts were an option.

 

I was a scout in the 50's and 60's and there were no collarless shirts, I thought they came out in the mid to late 60's.  We always were taught to tuck our collars in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My first Scout shirt was purchased in July, 1954, and it had no collar.  That's what everyone else in the Panther Patrol was wearing, and you know how that goes.  "Official Shirt  Sanforized.  Still has the 1955 Camporee patch on the pocket.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Our supplier was the local J. C. Penney's.  None of the boys had the collarless shirts so it probably was't anything that was going to be readily available.  Must have had to special order it if you wanted it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  1. "Khaki" became more than one color: tan shirt + green pants/shorts.   Flashy indeed, in that mundane, muted sort of way.
  2. Epaulets! And from the start we were all baffled why Explorers weren't also tan, but with green Eps.  For the same reason that Cub Scouts didn't start wearing the tan - different program.  But we Explorer's were wondering why the Boy Scouts didn't switch to the much neater and flashier dark green instead of that ugly tan.  I'm telling you - those red loops would have looked fantastic against the green.
  3. Collars ... they came back!  I remember them coming back before DLR (ODL??  Doesn't make any sense)
  4. Those red berets.  Pre DLR - got my first one in 1973 - it wasn't until I got the dark green Leadership Corps/Explorer's shirt that it looked really cool - and the Dark Green shirt with the "khaki" pants outflashes even the DLR's.
  5. The quaint red stripe "pretend garter" at the top of your socks.  Is that what that was?  I was an Explorer by that time - we wore blue jeans
  6. Yes, more colorful council and lodge patches seemed to appear.  Malibu Lodge (OA) had a very flashy lodge patch in 1974 or so - I'm pretty sure the old CSPs starting going away about 1972 or so - also pre-DLR

I think the flashiest thing about the whole DLR uniform was the epaulets - made me want to burst out in song:  In The (French) Air Force (sung to the Village People song In The Navy)

 

our CO's troop some time ago voted to keep the Red pack numbers and red epaulets.

 

I think the red numbers were likely out of laziness.  A former scouter made the red epaulet loops.

 

although in my last few connections with the troop, I've seen a mix with some boys and leaders with the standard green numbers and loops..... so I'm not sure where they stand today

 

Personally, I'd prefer the standard and available green.... but they put the decision to the boys.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On collars vs. no collars, I have a vague recollection that the first uniform shirt that I wore as a Boy Scout (1969 to roughly 1973) had a collar. That shirt is lost to the mists of time, perhaps it is in a box in my mother's attic, so it (or its remnants) may surface one day. The uniform shirt that I did retrieve from my parents' house has no collar. It has "Scout BSA" on the strip above the collar rather than "Boy Scouts of America" which is why I believe it is from the 70's rather than the 60's. Interestingly, it does not have an American flag on the shoulder (and my Leadership Corps patch is in that spot), I'm not sure why that is. Evidently I was not perfectly uniformed in the latter part of my youth membership, because on the sleeve is my JASM patch so I guess I should have removed the Leadership Corps patch. Not to mention that I continued to be active for about 8 months after turning 18 as an ASM, so I don't know why I apparently never wore an ASM patch. Oh well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my troop, in the early 80's we were expected to turn the collar under if we were wearing the neckerchief (which was generally what was expected), and leave it out if we did not have a neckerchief.  I'm not sure when that changed, I'll have to look at old pictures when I get home, but I think that before I aged out, wearing the collars over the neckerchiefs became the norm.

 

(Maybe parents got tired of ring around both sides of the collar)

Edited by gumbymaster
Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, repeatedly used by Scouting.

 

But your list is not all  "is used."  Many are "were used.

And if you click on the first link drawn by your search, it's the BSA uniform site that nowhere mentions a "field uniform."

 

And in the Boy Scout Handbook or Handbook for Scoutmasters?

And on official inspection sheets?

 

Don't forget Hanlon's Razor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

 

(And none of this is significant compared to Scouter running an article supporting the notion that the patrol Method is optional or a mere aspiration.)

Edited by TAHAWK
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...