Comments by "Evan" (@MrEvanfriend) on "New Army uniforms a nod to World War II" video.

This is just the latest version of the Army trying to look as good as the Marine Corps. It seems to be working better than the last two times, when they ripped off our digital camouflage patterns to come up with that soup sandwich of an ACU pattern, and then when they decided they wanted their own panty-dropping dress blues, so they came up with that mailman outfit that they're getting rid of. Now they're ripping off our service uniforms. I must say, I like it. Looks kinda like Marine Corps service uniforms, but with enough differences that they won't be mistaken for Marines, and thus won't receive the higher levels of respect that only Marines rate.
6
The Army isn't all for looking like the Army. For pretty much all of the 21st century, they've been trying desperately to look like the Marines. They've been failing at it too. Marines look sharp whether we're home in our dress blues picking up your girlfriend, or overseas in our MARPAT FROG suits and coyote brown armor. The Army's just trying to play catch up.
5
They'll always just be chasing after the Marine Corps. We look sharp no matter where we are. The Army finally ditched that ridiculous soup sandwich ACU pattern, and the new multicam or whatever they call it isn't bad. Their dress uniforms have all looked like a bag of unwashed dicks for decades though. Meanwhile, the Marine Corps dress blues have been dropping panties since before WWII.
3
@antonioarcano7989 The blue dress charlies and deltas? Those still look good. Maybe not as good as some of our others, but when I wore my blue dress deltas around on boot leave I still got laid. That was in New York in September 2003, during the second anniversary of 9/11, when people still cared though. I don't think I ever wore the blue deltas or charlies after that.
3
@nunyabiz7021 We do 7 month deployments to Fallujah. You do 12 month deployments to the Green Zone. Not the same thing.
2
@yostupidmama1 Same mission only in the broadest sense imaginable. The Air Force and Navy are barely even combatant branches in modern counterinsurgency warfare. Sure, a few special forces here and there, dropping the odd bomb, but that's about it. The Army....the Army is largely a jobs program. There's a combatant element to it, but it's a small percentage of the overall force. Now the Corps? The Corps is the warfighting branch. Yeah, we have our POGs and WMs and whatnot as well, but we aren't geared around them. They support the actual warfighters. For the Army, the warfighter is something of an embarrassment that they try to pretend doesn't exist.
1
@Grayson63 The Japanese beg to differ.
1
@James-nm6de "Corrected". And then the obligatory crayon joke. Basically, what you're saying is "I didn't pack the gear to join the Corps". You don't gotta lie to kick it.
1
@James-nm6de Cool story, bruh. The reason men join the Corps as opposed to the lesser branches is that we want to fight. My 127 GT and 95 overall ASVAB said I could've been some Air Force POG doing whatever Air Force POGery. But that's not why I signed up. I signed up to get a chance to do bad things to bad people. And the Marine Corps gives you a better opportunity for that than any of the lesser branches.
1
@skinflutey Uh, yeah, we are. Just not a cabinet-level department.
1
@woodrow0007 According to my cousin who's in the Army, yes, but only with dress uniforms. They don't wear it with cammies anymore. I forgot about that monstrosity.
1
@archerj.maggott1372 The invasion was different. That was before deployments were on a schedule anyway. And it was still 1st MarDiv at the tip of the spear.
1
@archerj.maggott1372 I'm not saying that you weren't. I wasn't in the invasion myself, but my seniors were. 1st MarDiv saw the brunt of the fighting and still got to Baghdad first.
1