Uniforms
- Thread starter Brigand
- Start date
A related issue - sidearms. I think that most shipboard crew would carry a sidearm (Gauss or Laser Pistol if TL is 12+) and/or a dagger when on duty, and possibly even if off duty, especially if the ship travels through dangerous space. Such sidearms would, ofcourse, also be part of the dress uniform.
Marines are another thing - I suppose they'll keep their gauss rifles (or ARs or ACRs or Accelerator Rifles) at hand at all times, as combative and semi-combative soldiers in (some?) RL militaries have to (in the Israeli military, if you're issued a personal assault rifle, you must even keep it under your bed when you sleep!). They will also be trained with bayonets (which they'll carry in combat duty, or maybe even on guard duty) and cutlasses (strictly dress-uniform and fitness training IMTU). A Marine in Dress Uniform will carry his Gauss Rifle with bayonet attached as well as a seathed (sp?) cutlass.
Marines are another thing - I suppose they'll keep their gauss rifles (or ARs or ACRs or Accelerator Rifles) at hand at all times, as combative and semi-combative soldiers in (some?) RL militaries have to (in the Israeli military, if you're issued a personal assault rifle, you must even keep it under your bed when you sleep!). They will also be trained with bayonets (which they'll carry in combat duty, or maybe even on guard duty) and cutlasses (strictly dress-uniform and fitness training IMTU). A Marine in Dress Uniform will carry his Gauss Rifle with bayonet attached as well as a seathed (sp?) cutlass.
Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
2-4601 - "sheathed" since you asked. And carrying the bayonet installed would be a bit of a bother onboard a ship, methinks. It adds another 25-50cm to the length of the weapon, and would snag things constantly. Of course, given the distances involved in closing and boarding a spacecraft, I would think all their armaments (except a few guys on duty at any one time) would be in the ship's armory.
Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
Oh, yes, SMGs are a great on-board weapon (IMHO, of course). Shotguns and handguns are good, too. Most of the shipboard security I've seen has carried shotguns or handguns. The only exceptions are some of the guys topside when in port - you want to shoot that terrorist a long way out, you know.
Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
It's hard to mount a .50cal on a carrier deck, though, as you try to minimize the amount of stuff sticking up out of the deck. They're there, just not enough for current levels of paranoia. (Always remember, and never forget - just because you're paranoid doesn't mean nobody's out to get you. 
)
)
Andrew Boulton
The Adminator
Well, there's always Phalanx...
Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
Assuming, of course, you don't mind a little collateral damage around the port....
Why? It's a feudal system, with individual units with monickers like the 'Duke of regina's Own Huscarles.' Certainly, combat uniforms will be similar, but then again, dress may vary as widely as it does in, say, the British Army - or for that matter, any European army before WWII.
I'm very late to this party, but I'd like to add my thoughts on Traveller military (TL12-15) uniforms.
Ground forces and space (Navy) have different requirements, so we have to think about where they all have commonality as well as differences.
For ground pounders, protection and utility are key. Make the whole thing out of a smart fabric with onboard processing. The fabric should breathe under normal conditions, but become "atmosphere opaque" and seal at the wrists, boots, and neck when low pressure or toxins are detected. It should also have some ballistic protection. The overall design should be like a jumpsuit, but with lots of BDU-style pockets and attachment points on it for holsters, pouches, body armor, etc. Ballistic elbow and knee pads should be integrated. The standard helmet should provide good protection against fragments and small arms fire, and integrate communications and night vision gear.
For space based personnel, the requirement is a lot different. Make it out of the same material, but also make it more form-fitting. A couple of pockets and a removable holster for a sidearm are all you need. Starships are cramped, and you don't want a design that can snag on everything you brush against. Form-fitting also means easy to wear under a vacc suit, though at TL14+ the uniform probably IS a vacc suit, and just needs a helmet and gloves to complete the package. Keeping with the minimalist style here, no headgear is worn, except a small head-mounted comms unit integrated with the ship's computer and communications suite. The uniform would also have a standard umbilical connection for shipboard life support in case onboard atmosphere is compromised.
Scouts would probably favor something closer to the ground uniform, without the helmet. A little bulkier for shipboard use, but with a lot of utility and pockets for tools, gizmos, and a weapon. Probably also acts as a vacc suit at TL14+ like the Navy uniform.
Make some sense?
Ground forces and space (Navy) have different requirements, so we have to think about where they all have commonality as well as differences.
For ground pounders, protection and utility are key. Make the whole thing out of a smart fabric with onboard processing. The fabric should breathe under normal conditions, but become "atmosphere opaque" and seal at the wrists, boots, and neck when low pressure or toxins are detected. It should also have some ballistic protection. The overall design should be like a jumpsuit, but with lots of BDU-style pockets and attachment points on it for holsters, pouches, body armor, etc. Ballistic elbow and knee pads should be integrated. The standard helmet should provide good protection against fragments and small arms fire, and integrate communications and night vision gear.
For space based personnel, the requirement is a lot different. Make it out of the same material, but also make it more form-fitting. A couple of pockets and a removable holster for a sidearm are all you need. Starships are cramped, and you don't want a design that can snag on everything you brush against. Form-fitting also means easy to wear under a vacc suit, though at TL14+ the uniform probably IS a vacc suit, and just needs a helmet and gloves to complete the package. Keeping with the minimalist style here, no headgear is worn, except a small head-mounted comms unit integrated with the ship's computer and communications suite. The uniform would also have a standard umbilical connection for shipboard life support in case onboard atmosphere is compromised.
Scouts would probably favor something closer to the ground uniform, without the helmet. A little bulkier for shipboard use, but with a lot of utility and pockets for tools, gizmos, and a weapon. Probably also acts as a vacc suit at TL14+ like the Navy uniform.
Make some sense?
I would say the Army needs a simpler uniform. After all, they will nearly always be in Combat Armor, or at least a Combat Environment Suit. The utilities worn under the armor will have to be simple, possibly like the U.S. Army's Advanced Combat Uniform. Or maybe Crye Precision's Combat Shirt.
They also need a "Class A" uniform and a dress uniform for when they are not in the field. Marines will be pretty much the same, but we know the non-combat uniform is maroon.
I concur that the Navy will normally wear a lightweight spacesuit. But over it will be a coverall, or more likely a jacket and pants combination to protect the spacesuit from snags. I expect pockets on the arm and lower leg and bellows pockets on the chest and thighs.
Similar garments were worn as far back as the Apollo and Skylab Astronauts. In zero G you can't put things down and need to put things in pockets when moving to keep your hands free for maneuvering.
They need groundside uniforms too.
They also need a "Class A" uniform and a dress uniform for when they are not in the field. Marines will be pretty much the same, but we know the non-combat uniform is maroon.
I concur that the Navy will normally wear a lightweight spacesuit. But over it will be a coverall, or more likely a jacket and pants combination to protect the spacesuit from snags. I expect pockets on the arm and lower leg and bellows pockets on the chest and thighs.
Similar garments were worn as far back as the Apollo and Skylab Astronauts. In zero G you can't put things down and need to put things in pockets when moving to keep your hands free for maneuvering.
They need groundside uniforms too.
Of course, all of the previous is based on the assumption that utility is a primary factor in uniform selection. That may or may not be the case for any umber of reasons.
As has already been pointed out, astronauts on the shuttle do not typically wear their vacc suits. The same may be true of naval personnel. Depending on your TU, it's going to be hard to surprise a naval vessel in space, so vacc suits may only be put on before imminent action, and with plenty of time.
Given the 'old style', hierarchical society (and probably armed service) the crew may wear dunbgarees or some such (slops) while working, and have a regular duty uniform.
Officers, those lofty, high social standing creatures, may wear much more formal uniforms, which not only denote their lofty naval rank, but also their social superiority over the regular rank and file.
Bear in mind that this was the regular order until half way into the 20th century in most of the world's armies and navies, and in a fashion, went back hundres of years.
For that matter, the concept of a separate 'field uiform' and a 'garrison' or 'dress' uniform is a fairly recent concept. Well into the late 19th century, most armies had only one uiform for the rank and file, which served all purposes.
Certanly, in the Navy, there is no reason for special camouflaged uniforms. And while not doing something particularly dirty, there no reason to be too 'casual'. Dressing down- uniform wise - is something that is particularly common in egalitarian societies. Something the Imperium if clearly not.
The utilitarian approach is too easy.
As has already been pointed out, astronauts on the shuttle do not typically wear their vacc suits. The same may be true of naval personnel. Depending on your TU, it's going to be hard to surprise a naval vessel in space, so vacc suits may only be put on before imminent action, and with plenty of time.
Given the 'old style', hierarchical society (and probably armed service) the crew may wear dunbgarees or some such (slops) while working, and have a regular duty uniform.
Officers, those lofty, high social standing creatures, may wear much more formal uniforms, which not only denote their lofty naval rank, but also their social superiority over the regular rank and file.
Bear in mind that this was the regular order until half way into the 20th century in most of the world's armies and navies, and in a fashion, went back hundres of years.
For that matter, the concept of a separate 'field uiform' and a 'garrison' or 'dress' uniform is a fairly recent concept. Well into the late 19th century, most armies had only one uiform for the rank and file, which served all purposes.
Certanly, in the Navy, there is no reason for special camouflaged uniforms. And while not doing something particularly dirty, there no reason to be too 'casual'. Dressing down- uniform wise - is something that is particularly common in egalitarian societies. Something the Imperium if clearly not.
The utilitarian approach is too easy.
I understand where you are coming from, but I respectfully disagree.
The shuttle program is a civilian program, and there are not enemy shuttles in orbit just looking for an opportunity to put holes in its hull. In the military, readiness and flexibility are the two biggest non-technical assest you have. Having a uniform that can allow you maximum readiness is important. Also, in my post I mentioned that only at TL14+ would the uniform actually BE a vacc suit, since at those TLs a vacc suit doesn't weigh any more than normal clothing. At the lower TLs the uniform would just be designed to become "atmosphere opaque" in low pressure to minimize decompression effects.
Your contention that utilitarian uniforms are a product of "egalitarian societies" is ludicrous. Are the realities of warfare dependent on what type of society you are from? Look at the armies of the old Soviet Union, pre-war Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc, etc... ALL modern armies use a variant
on the same BDU formula the US uses. Not because it reflects their societies, but it reflects the needs of a soldier in the field.
If you want to see ineffective soldiers, look for ones that wear shiny, ornate uniforms. If you want to see effective ones, look for pictures of US special forces in Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc. They look like rag-tag bandits. That's because they have ditched all the fluff and only keep what works.
I don't thing even the Imperium would intentionally get people killed and lose battles (and wars), because they want a pretty uniform that somehow refects Imperial society.
Of course, for dress uniforms it doesn't matter one bit. It is unlikely anybody in a dress uniform will be doing any fighting, and they can be encruster with jewels, sashes, and a pink tutu if that floats your boat. But dress uniforms are for socializing, not for fighting.
I Agree.
I was in the US Military from 1976 to 1988 and our uniforms chnged a lot during these years. They went from Green to BDU. From (IMHO) just being shirts and pants to actually useful for battlefield conditions.
EXACTLY!!!
That is why we have a Class A (Dress) uniform and a Class B (Relaxed standard Dress /Short sleeve) uniform and a Class C (utility) Uniform.
During times of war, our troops toss out the window of opportunity any part of the uniform that does not function in a way that is comfortable or help us to complete our mission.
(if it don't work...fix it or toss it!)
As I said, in combat most Imperial troops will wear body armor. The body armor will have the camoflage pattern, and all the bulky pockets pouches. We are already seeing this in Iraq.
The U.S. Army's ACU recognizes this by simplifying the BDUs, getting rid of bellows pockets where they would be inaccessible and replacing buttons that chafe or dig into you with zippers and velcro that lie flat under armor.
So the field uniform for troops wearing Combat Armor (or CES or battledress) will tend to be close fitting without much in the way of pockets, accessories, or rigid insignia. Since it is always worn under camoflaged armor, it doesn't have to be camoflaged or even drab (maroon, anybody?). This under-armor uniform could be adapted as a working uniform or Class As, or maybe all three.
As for Space crew, the "Air proof" uniform will "starfish" when the outside pressure drops, imobiliing the crew while they suffocate. I was extrapolating the suit for continuous wear from the Space Activity Suit of the 1960s (I have posted on this before). I suppose it makes as much sense as a life preserver in the wet Navy. But you can't put it on in a hurry and it is useful for routine work.
The U.S. Army's ACU recognizes this by simplifying the BDUs, getting rid of bellows pockets where they would be inaccessible and replacing buttons that chafe or dig into you with zippers and velcro that lie flat under armor.
So the field uniform for troops wearing Combat Armor (or CES or battledress) will tend to be close fitting without much in the way of pockets, accessories, or rigid insignia. Since it is always worn under camoflaged armor, it doesn't have to be camoflaged or even drab (maroon, anybody?). This under-armor uniform could be adapted as a working uniform or Class As, or maybe all three.
As for Space crew, the "Air proof" uniform will "starfish" when the outside pressure drops, imobiliing the crew while they suffocate. I was extrapolating the suit for continuous wear from the Space Activity Suit of the 1960s (I have posted on this before). I suppose it makes as much sense as a life preserver in the wet Navy. But you can't put it on in a hurry and it is useful for routine work.
