From the WaPo article today, here, on the cammie revolution and its affiliated wastefull spending:

The Navy spent more than $435,000 on three new designs. One was a blue-and-gray pattern, to be worn aboard ships. Pattern No. 8.

Sailors worried that it would hide them at the one time they would want to be found.

“You fall in the damn water and you’re wearing water-colored camouflage. What the hell is that?” said one active-duty petty officer. . . . “It’s not logical. It’s not logical at all to have water-colored uniforms.”

I am anointing the Navy cammies “MOCs,” Man Overboard Camouflage, though I am sure somebody’s probably already come up with another funnier acronym.  H/t GGH

7 Responses to “Non-MilJus Post: Military Fashion”

  1. Random SWO says:

    Aquaflage (which allows you to name the green variant, Type 3, “guacaflage”) and Smurfberries are already popular nicknames for NWU Type 1. 

  2. Ama Goste says:

    Page 1 of the Post today; slow news day?

  3. Anon says:

    You do know that the whole idea of the Navy blue camo isn’t to hide the wearer, right? The idea is to hide all the grease, dirt, etc. that every sailor gets on his uniform within the first fifty feet down the passageway. It works well for that. Grease from a hatch knife-edge was ubiquitous with khakis. For that, it made sense – not to mention they also are a lot more comfortable.

  4. Mike "No Man" Navarre says:

    Anon–I think that’s post hoc rationalization until someone shows me where the USN considered dirt, grease and stains in designing the pattern.  I am fine to be proven worng, would certainly justify $435,000.  Though they could have just made the NWU a solid color like . . . maybe . . . Navy blue? SInce the NWU reg says they “must be clean and presentable at all times with no stains, grease, dirt or tears,” they didn’t get a lot for $435,000.

  5. N says:

    Actually, that was a rationalization at the time (here: http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=42770 is a 2009 article discussing that very point).
    Understand the uniform regs, but keeping a uniform clean isn’t possible for certain professions over the course of a day.  Unless we force sailors to work naked, which would probably cause some other issues.

  6. N says:

    And from the “Uniform Task Force” page when this was announced in 2006:
    Why the ‘camouflage’ pattern?
    The concept uniforms are not intended to be ‘camouflage’ uniforms as is the case with similarly patterned uniforms of the other services.  We have no need for camouflage.  However, by learning from our past working uniforms as well as the uniforms from other services, the Navy realized that a solid cover uniform shows heavy wear areas much more predominantly than a multicolored pattern.
    The solid color uniforms also show wrinkles in the fabric more predominantly and often a small stain or spot of paint renders a solid colored uniform not wearable. A multicolored uniform alleviates those problems as well.

    The wear test will offer a chance to evaluate a traditional woodland pattern and a modern digital pattern for the working uniform.”

  7. Ama Goste says:

    In other news, the hits keep coming for the beleaguered USAF:
    http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/us/nuclear-launch-officers/index.html?hpt=hp_bn1
    It’s deja vu all over again.