This topic has probably been posted here, however, this may be slightly different than previous one(s). It is an old topic but here goes: I think that changing our traditional "sailor looking outfits" was against our Navy distinguished appearance. I also think that all of our Officers, Chiefs, and enlisted men and women should have kept their uniforms as they should have been sacred! The bell bottom pants and "dixie cup" of the E-1 thru E-6 rates were so identifiable as US NAVY SAILORS when seen! The CPOS were distinguished as were the officers. These "camo" outfits (I think were tested and voted on) and most sailors (as I understand it) like the new working clothes. I think that "spit polishing" my shoes was also part of being a sailor. Bob Dylan sang "The Times They Are A Changin'" and I better get out of the way if I can't lend a hand. Ok.......I am retired and I would have been powerless to have done anything about it anyway. So....I'll have some cheese with my WHINE and be happy about it. Excuse me...there is a JOHN WAYNE movie IN HARMS WAY" on right now and I have to go!!

I Agree...I remember in the early 80's they changed the working uniform to a type of pullover top...they were uncomforable, hot, and looked like crap.....cost a fortune to change to them, and a couple of years later another fortune to change back.....

Leave well enough alone.....or ask the sailors what they think before spending tax dollars to change 200 plus years of tradition.

Oh, and I'll join you at the wine bar!

I agree! I live in Everett, WA, a navy town and see people wearing their uniforms. Yuck!
The Reese's Cups; black pants, khaki shirt just look silly.

Here is a little history from Wikipedia;

In 1973 the most sweeping change in the history of enlisted dress occurred. Based on a survey conducted in 1970 it appeared that there was some fleet desire, principally among the more senior petty officers, for a different, more distinguished garb. Based on these findings, the sailor was removed from his traditional uniform and placed in a suit and tie which corresponded to the officer/CPO style. The intention was to create a single uniform appearance and present enlisted men in a uniform which was thought to reflect the increasing complexity of the modern Navy.

The action to utilize a suit style for all enlisted has been one of the most controversial changes to effect the Navy in its uniform history. From a practical standpoint, the adoption of a different uniform for dress wear was not the result of a requirement. The jumper/bell bottom style had evolved in a work environment where each piece of the garment originally satisfied a need. With the absence of fully rigged sailing ships and the advent of more comfortable work uniforms, what a sailor wears for dress occasions is now a matter of style.

The most obvious impasse to acceptance of the suit and tie outfit to the enlisted and general public is that it breaks with tradition. While the components of the jumper style uniform serve no nautical purpose today and are not related to anything worn in the civilian world, it has served to identify sailors all over the globe for too long a period of time. Most navies of the world have utilized a similar outfit and most still retain it for non-rated personnel. Throughout the course of uniform history there has continued a strong resistance to changing traditional garments. Sailors prefer to be distinctively dressed. It was the same in 1830 as it is in the 1980’s.


Return to Tradition; 1980’s

The break with tradition, when coupled with unforeseen inconveniences of the suit and tie uniform, were unacceptable. Therefore, in 1980, the Navy again began to issue the jumper style uniform as a dress uniform to recruits. Women’s uniforms also underwent a sweeping change to increase their practicality and to make them more parallel to the men’s uniform.

Dick, very timely and pertinent comment! The un-uniformity among military uniforms across the services has become a very hot topic. The other day several members of Congress complained about it and proposed a single (combat) uniform for all branches. And then this today:

http://www.navytimes.com/article/20130613/NEWS07/306130020/SECNAV-We-too-many-camo-uniforms

I was in the Navy from 1984 to 2007 (I went from OTA1 to STS1 in 1996). I saw a few uniform changes, although they were minor, compared to those of the last five years!

When the new dungaree uniform was introduced in the late 90s, that was the first major uniform change I had seen. At first I thought it was great, because the old dungaree uniform (the one with the denim bell-bottoms, super-tight crotch, and weird pockets) was terrible. And it was. But it was also functional, as I discovered a few months into wearing my new NavDung uniform with the dark blue slacks and the un-ironable shirt. The pants faded if regularly washed, the knees had nothing to do with a "working" uniform, and the side pockets were inefficient in carrying various heavy items, like submarine deck bolts. At that time, and probably still, the best bet was the submarine "poopy suit", which the rest of the Navy adopted and called the "coverall".

I thought the idea of a Navy version of the BDU was a great idea, because I've worn them over the years, and I think it's a great uniform, in design. When the Navy applied the weird blue digital camouflage, that was dumb. Completely pointless.

Brett,
I agree with elimination of the camoflage outfit for many of the Navy personnel. In some capacities, the camoflage would make sense. I personally think that the bell bottoms and the complete working uniform (E-1 thru E-6) was cool. A sailor looked very distinguished! Now it is like...ok, it's blue so it must be a sailor! That is because all the services look the same, except for color of the cami's. Also, tying your pant legs and gathering air into "the bells" on the way down to the water was standard training in bootcamp. You could use them as a life preserver for awhile. IF...you did it right! Well, we'll see what they do. At least they are thinking on it.

Very interesting comments here. About 5 years ago, at a Navy retirement ceremony, I made the prediction that by 2050 the military will all be wearing the same uniform for work (dress uniforms being a WHOLE different ball game). The different branches - air, land, water (sea) - would be identified by colored sleeve markers. But you gave me something to think about with different colored cammies, oops! camo's. That too could fit in nicely in identifying by color concept.

Why the changes? Congress would rather spend the money on themselves than service members, is one point of view. the other is economy of scale. It is flat out cheaper to make uniforms all one color, just change the sleeve identifying markers & rank markers.

As for me, when I see a person in khaki top & dark blue pants I think 'marine'. It will take a while for my Tradition Memories to change around, then again maybe it won't happen & I will just be old.

Dick, Thank you for the lively discussion. I have been trying to reach you via email with additional information. Please contact me at Jim_Donovan53@yahoo.com.

- Jim Donovan

Hi,
Having to sign in under Oceansystech1@aol.com due to this virus with the FBI. I have tried to fix it but I guess I have to take it to a local shop to rid my pc of the problem.