Uniforms

[Fritz_Brown]

Originally posted by Corejob:
A couple of thousand years ago, it made perfect sense to go into battle nude.

Whoa, whoa, whoa.... I don't think it EVER made sense to go into battle completely nude. It was a style that had a certain rationale to it (ever seen 1000 naked, screaming blue-painted Picts?!), but I don't think you can say it made sense. Sheesh!

(Agree with your commentary, though.)

 

[marvo]

Originally posted by MrMorden:

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.

By todays standards, yes. But that's not always been the case. I think the Roman Legions prove the exact opposite.

 

[Todg]

Originally posted by Fritz88:

Whoa, whoa, whoa.... I don't think it EVER made sense to go into battle completely nude. It was a style that had a certain rationale to it (ever seen 1000 naked, screaming blue-painted Picts?!), but I don't think you can say it made sense. Sheesh!

Well, I shouldn't have said completely nude. I was thinking Greek hoplites, armed with helmet, shield greaves and spear. And I guess they were oiled, if that counts.

Blue painted Picts, didn't think of that.

Maybe it doesn't make sense to us, but it did to them.

 

[Todg]

Originally posted by Marvo:

Originally posted by MrMorden:
By todays standards, yes. But that's not always been the case. I think the Roman Legions prove the exact opposite.

Which was exactly my point. Modern uniforms are just that - modern. Look at some of the baddest bad asses of the 19th and prior centuries. Many of them wore rather ornate uniforms.

Of course, there were different rules to war then.

Several thousand years in the future? Who can say.

 

[Todg]

Originally posted by MrMorden:

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.

I only just hit me. There's a big assumption here - the assumption that the Imperium places any value on human (or sophont) life. It's certainly not indicated in canon - and one might argue just the reverse. In fact that attitude is rather unique to Western European society. It's not even a value shared by the rest of the world - and it's not a value that's required to win wars.

This is merely an onservation, and not meant to contradict your assertion. It does bear consideration.

 

[veltyen]

This all depends on the ethos involved.

It may be far more important to stick with rigid thoughts about place in society and the correct way to do things rather then anyones survival. This strikes me as a particularily vilani-esque attitude. It also happens to feel very much like the height of the british empire as well.

What use is winning a war if in doing so you flush all your morals and customs. Would it not be better to stick with what makes your culture your culture to the bitter end. Otherwise you have already lost as what makes you unique is already gone, you become just another savage beating each other for rude survival.

Modern day examples should be obvious, but mentioning them probably should be done elsewhere.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

"Look at some of the baddest bad asses of the 19th and prior centuries. Many of them wore rather ornate uniforms."

You know where the traditional British Army's red uniform came from? When Cromwell formed his New Model Army he bought the cheapest cloth he could find, which just happened to be red.

 

[Todg]

Military traditions often have very intersting origins. Epaulettes started as away to keep straps from falling off your shoulder. Turnback cuffs were originally a cheap substitues for gloves. The gorget was the remains of medieval armor, etc, etc.

I don't think you can explain away the uniforms of, say, the Napoleonics wars to 'cheapness' though.

But that bit of military trivia is now filed away in my brain.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Well, there was a trend towards simplifying kit in all extended wars. The Greek hoplite of the Peloponesian wars started with helmet, shield, breastplate and greaves. By the end of a generation of war they were down to helmet, shield and spear.

Or look at the American Civil War. Both sides started with plumed hats, gold braid, and fancy costumes (like the Zouave Regiments on both sides). By 1865 both sides were down to simple tunic, baggy trousers, and cap or soft hat.

The Victorian British Army wore scarlet tunics and polished leather. Regiments in India, almost constantly on campaign, wore khaki uniforms with cotton webbing belts.

So say rather that veteran troops tend to simplify their uniforms, even be a little shabby. Troops in peacetime tend to wear distinctive and colorful uniforms to promote esprit de corp and as mobile recruiting ads. The latest examples are the blue "camoflage" uniforms adopted by the U.S. Navy and Air Force.

In the pre-industrial era there weren't a lot of stable colors to chose from. IIRC, the New Model Army wore madder red, a darker red than the scarlet of Wellington and Waterloo. That scarlet is a household livery of the British King. French uniforms were white from the livery of the Bourbons, blue for the Prussians.

The Scots from the English Civil War wore a muddy blue-gray. That probably was economics.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

The two-tone US Cavalry uniform (light blue trousers, darker jacket) has an interesting origin. Originally they were the same dark blue, but the jackets were two hot to wear when riding (especially in summer), so they were often stored in the saddlebags. The trousers faded in the sun, while the jackets stayed dark. Eventually, the official uniform was changed to match what the troops were actually wearing.

 

[Uncle Bob]

An entertaining suggestion. But Cavalry and Infantry wore dark blue trousers until 1862. After that they both wore light blue. And everyone's overcoats were always sky blue. I think the choice was esthetic.

I am given to understand, by re-enactors that the wool shell jackets and sack coats are less oppressive then one would think. Even here in Texas.

Confederate gray was originally the color everybody's militia wore (West Point cadets wear gray uniforms to honor an 1812 unit). Since a lot of Union troops were raised in a hurry and clothed in government uniforms they standardized on blue. The only Confederates with uniforms had gray, so the new units chose that also.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Possibly I was misinformed. I'll have to check.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Hmm...the trousers did change colour, but I can't find any reason listed, so it may just be an urban legend.

 

[Todg]

Just to really mess things up, why do future uniforms have to be garments that are worn? Perhaps advances in bioengineering will allow us to merely alter our bodies for the environment at hand.

Let's think outside the box.

In this context, uniforms are merely decorative coverings.

 

[veltyen]

If we were meant to be soldiers, we'd be born with green baggy skin....

 

[Todg]

Exactly. And thanks to geneering, that can be arranged.

 

[far-trader]

Okies corejob, outside the box thinking is good

But uniforms are more than merely decorative. They build troop thinking (never really understood that Army of One slogan your forces have been using) and unit morale. Pride in your unit requires a distinctive patch or colors, pride in your army requires a certain uniformity of, er, uniform.

Naturally in modern war camouflage tends to win out over these, as it has at other times in other fights. I do recall the US being slow to adopt a camo version of the flag for it's field uniforms not that long ago, as well as ill advised choices of camo color on the part of our Canadian troops (though I think that was largely budget, as in we didn't have one).

Anyway back to the out of the box thinking.

You could certainly have biogeneered "uniforms" and armor, even weapons (gotta go post that bit to the ACP thread) but then you will have to be breeding people for that purpose and what do you do when they are no longer good for that purpose? Will they be adaptable to other work or just discarded? (shades of Soldier , the Kurt Russel one)

Would the people stand for it? Not the OTU certainly with the apparent paranoia or distaste for cybernetics. But for a YTU it could be very doable with lots of interesting choices for characters.

 

[veltyen]

What do you do?

You destroy them utterly as some kind of threat. Because they're different, and (by definition) dangerous.

Uniforms do become secondary when each side has a different model of organic military asset.

Ref: Mote in Gods Eye - Sauron Supermen

 

[Todg]

well, in something like the 3I, assuming a small profession (geneered) army, I don't think you'll run out of places to use them. There's probably always one more war.

Of course, you can always stote them (forever war).

And once again, I am off topic.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Originally posted by far-trader:
But uniforms are more than merely decorative. They build troop thinking (never really understood that Army of One slogan your forces have been using) and unit morale. Pride in your unit requires a distinctive patch or colors, pride in your army requires a certain uniformity of, er, uniform.

A lot of guys get unit tatoos. Imagine that with bioengineering - a unit tatoo that shifts colors to camouflage when adrenalin flows, etc.