Talk:Uniforms of the United States Marine Corps

Backwards stars and stripes on U.S military uniforms

this has been bugging me. The U.S army and marines have the american flag on their sleeves, however the flag is backwards. ie. the stars are at the top right corner, instead of the top left. WHY? Willy turner 18:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• The Marines don't wear the US flag on ANY uniforms. The Army has the flag on thier right shoulder, so the stars face the wearer's front: the idea that the blue field facing the wearer's rear makes it look like it is retreating, and we can't have that. Bahamut0013 17:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Under most circumstances, this would be true. However, Marines will wear the American Flag when attached to a MEU in some cases. Gelston (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Marines do not wear American Flag patches, devices or insignia on the MEU. You may have seen some patches on body armor. 138.163.160.41 (talk) 05:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

--Service Uniforms--

• I removed a part of this section that stated the serivce uniforms is the most common uniform worn. Marines such as the Commandant, SgtMajMC, JCS Chairman or other high profile Marines will often be seen in one of the service uniforms. In the fleet we wear our service uniforms once or twice a month, but that varies according to individual commands. The rest of the time as a daily uniform 90% of the time we are in our cammies.Bunns USMC 21:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

--Dress Uniforms--

• I switched the dates around regarding the Mess Dress and Dress Whites because they were reversed.Bunns USMC 22:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

As long as it is relevent info and not the cut and paste job you did last time it should be good to go. We do not need 20 paragraphs on Civil War uniforms. --Looper5920 04:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No idea what you are talking about there sizzlechest! Bunns USMC (talk)

From the article:

Both officers and enlisted wear rank insignia on each collar, which is affixed like a pin and not sewn on as in the Army/Air Force.

Soldiers actually have velcro rank insignia in their cammies. (Yes, seriously.) Also, it's technically two pins...

In the past, when Marines wore the same utilities as the Army and Air Force, this served to distinguish them from the others, who folded the sleeves with the camo facing out.

I've been told the Army no longer folds their sleeves; I was stationed at APG for three months for my MOS school, and I never saw a soldier with folded sleeves, just us and the Air Force detachment. Also, we go sleeves-down in the winter months: back up in April, I hear. --76.212.160.216 06:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC) (It's me, I'll re-sign later.)

Two problems: 1)"In the field, the Marine utility cover is an 8-pointed creased and peaked cover, the army field cover is the Army Combat Helmet--the replacement to the kevlar helmet or "k-pot". Unlike the Army, Marines do not wear rank insignia on the cover, instead there is an Eagle, Globe, and Anchor in the middle of the cap."

The problem is they switch from talking about utility cover to kelvar helmets. The Army uses a formless/creaseless cap (or beret) in utility uniform while Marine Corps uses the 8-pointed cover or boonie hat (in the field) if not wearing a helmet (Lightweight Helmet).

2)"Marines now wear predominantly dark green or tan camouflage, while the Army ACU is a light green/gray uniform intended for all climates."

The Army ACU is gray and white, no "light green".

--131.122.63.45 04:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the Army allowed to salute out of uniform? I've seen it in the media a few times, but I'm not sure. I know they can salute without wearing a cover. Bahamut0013 19:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

In an appropriate military situation where a given soldier would happen to be wearing civvies for whatever reason, yes. And the ACU is gray, tan and sage green, just to set things straight on that one.Kensai Max 02:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Army/Air Force where 'camo' aka BDUs while Navy/USMC where 'utilities'.

Vietnam era and previous saw differences in the services field uniform. Post Vietnam, Pre-DigiCam, the camo/utilities where identical except for insignia, patches, etc. (i.e. Navy/USMC impressed service insignia on left breast pocket).

I transferred from Army to USMC [late 80s] and after Parris Island removed the patches/name tape from my Army BDUs and ironed on the I insignia,sewed on USMC tape to have extra field utilities through Infantry Training School. Maggard (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Blue-White Dress

The section on the Blue-White Dress is a bit off. While the Silent Drill Platoon (called the Silent Drill Team when I first arrived in '82) is part of the the unit at Marine Barracks Washington D.C. The uniform was worn by all of the "Ceremonial Units" at the barracks prior to the change. This includes the other 5 marching platoons, Color Guard, and Body Bearers. At the time I believe Marines assigned to embassy security details, and on sea duty wore the white trousers as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.125.176.3 (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Blues Alphas

In this article, it is stated that The Dress Alphas can't be worn on liberty. I have never heard of such an order, nor have I seen it enforced...does anyone know which MCO or MARADMIN this was derived from??? Deeter063 01:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

MCO P1020.34, Chapter 2, Section 2003, Paragraph 3:

"3. Blue dress uniforms are designated as follows: a. The blue dress "A" uniform includes the blue dress coat with large medals. This uniform will not be worn for leave or liberty. b. The blue dress "B" uniform consists of the same items as blue dress "A" except that ribbons are worn in lieu of medals."

I think the confusion was Dress A vs Dress B. You can wear you blues out on liberty, but not with your medals. I've rarely seen a Marine choose to wear blues on libo, and never have I seen one try to wear his medals. (ref: http://www.tecom.usmc.mil/mcub/library/MCUR/URCH2.htm#UR2000) bahamut0013♠♣ 14:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Dress Blue Uniform

At the head of the article, it is claimed that the Marine uniform has been in service the longest. First of all, this statement is inspecific as to which of the various Marine uniforms is supposed to have been so long in service. Second, the Marine uniforms have changed with the same regularity as those of the Army and Navy. The current blue dress uniform is not identical to that worn during the second world war, which was not identical that worn in the first. While the marine version of the dress blues did not change to open lapels when the army's did, it never the less underwent comparable stylistic changes such as the addition of pockets to the enlisted uniform, the standardization of headgear to white for officers and enlisted, and addition and subsequent removal of dart seams on the breast. However, barring stylistic changes the Army blue/sky-blue uniform has been in service for longer than the Marines' version. The first marine blue uniforms were blue with white trousers in the style of the Navy's uniform at the time. Later, around the time of the civil war, the Marines donned unforms in the style of the Army with sky blue trousers. The only thing sepparating the army and marine uniforms at that time was the color of stripe on officers trousers and white belts for the Marines. The Marine uniform underwent several variations in trouser and coat color until the turn of the century when they once again adopted the same basic style as the Army. The green dress uniform is descended from the drab field uniforms adopted by the Army and Marines around the time of WW1. Durring the war the only difference between the Army and Marine field uniform was that Marine jackets had two darts on the breast and the Army's had one. Since then, the Marines have removed the darts and the Army changed the shade of their green uniform and shirt. Ultimately the Navy's white uniform is probably closer to it's form at the beginning of the 20th century than either the Marine's or Army's dress blues. --24.151.184.192 (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If no one cares to defend the statement, I'll remove the sentence from the article.--65.6.62.92 (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Comparison with the Army

New comment: I removed the reference to amphibious assaults being the "most complex military maneuver." Granted, they are complex, but this page isn't the place to make an unsubstantiated and controversial claim. I also removed the comment about leaders in the marines. Marine unit leadership and marine training is a subject for another article. -Greg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsperla (talk • contribs) 03:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Couple of points about the above-named section toward the bottom of the article:

--Marines do not wear berets, and wear boots only with the utility uniform, while Army Airborne and Air Assault units wear shined black boots with dress uniforms (This will change with the introduction of the Army Blue Service Uniform later this year (which will be authorized in late 2007 and required in 2011), when boots will no longer be authorized other than with the ACU utility uniform).

    --It should be noted that highly shined, black boots are worn for service dress in the Green Army Uniform.  Boots are not 
      worn with any informal or formal Army uniform, though some ceremonial units do make exceptions.  
    --In this article, the author most likely uses "Airborne" to refer to Special Operations units as well, such as Special 
      Forces and Rangers to name two.  When one refers to "Army Airborne" units, that implies strictly Airborne units such as 
      the 82d Airborne Division, 4th ABCT-25th Infantry Division, and the 173d Airborne.  
    --Also, the ACU is not the only utility uniform in the Army inventory that allows the wearing of boots, i.e. aviation, 
      cold weather, and combat vehicle crewman uniforms.

--Marines now wear predominantly dark green or tan camouflage (switching between woodlands in winter and desert in summer), while the Army ACU is a light gray uniform intended for all climates.

    --Refer to the point made above in reference to the true color of the ACU.

--Marines never salute without a cover. This precludes the vast majority of Marines from saluting inside, where covers are removed except for those individuals under arms (or wearing a duty belt, a method of symbolically being under arms without a weapon). The Army permits soldiers to salute out of uniform in certain circumstances, but this is never acceptable to a Marine.

    --Soldiers are not permitted to salute out of uniform, and indeed any officer allowing such a practice is wrong for not 
      stopping it.  If the author is referring to soldiers saluting while uncovered, there are very specific instances where 
      a soldier is required to salute while uncovered and indoors, and indeed in certain circumstances is required to salute 
      a noncommissioned officer.  Such an action would not be considered to be saluting out of uniform.  This is required 
      when officially reporting to an officer indoors or to the president of a promotion board or competition board, 
      typically a Command Sergeant Major.  It also used to be required when reporting to a pay officer to receive ones 
      monthly pay, but that custom has fallen out of use in the present age of direct deposit.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.168.107 (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC) 

If you can provide us with the refernce you are quoting, we can incorporate it into the text of the article. bahamut0013♠♣ 12:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

--Forgot the references, good catch. For uniform points, the most current version of Army Regulation 670-1 covers the first and third points I made. Chapters on the Army Green Uniform, the flight uniforms and combat vehicle crewman uniform specifically. Unfortunately, the second point is not a written regulation as such, more of an oral tradition. Soldiers make a distinction between units that are strictly "Airborne" such as the ABCTs, and units that are Airborne but also part of special operations or have some other additional function, such as Special Forces, Rangers, and PSYOPS. SF, Ranger, and PSYOPS Soldiers are all airborne qualified, but generally a soldier would say "I'm a Ranger" or "I'm in an SF Group" before they would say, "I'm in an Airborne unit."

--Information addressing the fifth point can be found in appendix A of Army Field Manual 3-21.5, Drill and Ceremonies. The point about saluting a pay officer is not addressed, and is no longer relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.27.1.3 (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

---Re the paragraph immediately above concerning the "fifth point" - since the "points" in the discussion above are not numbered and the author references "appendix A of Army Field Manual 3-21.5, Drill and Ceremonies", one presumes that the point in question is the assertion above that, "Soldiers are not permitted to salute out of uniform, and indeed any officer allowing such a practice is wrong for not stopping it." From where, pray tell, does one deduce that erroneous opinion? The cited document says (on page A-1, paragraph A-1 b.), "Salutes are not required [bold type added] when— [fourth bullet point] Either the senior or the subordinate is wearing civilian clothes." It clearly says "not required" - it does not say "prohibited." Since the military salute is a sign of courtesy and respect it is rarely "not permitted" although it may not be required and there are circumstances in which it may be deemed "inappropriate or impractical (in public conveyances such as planes and buses, in public places such as inside theaters, or when driving a vehicle)"; or in a situation such as in the cited paragraph, "(Example 1: A person carrying articles with both hands, or being otherwise so occupied as to make saluting impracticable, is not required to salute a senior person or return the salute to a subordinate.)" It is rarely truly inappropriate for military members to exchange salutes. In fact the gentlemanly outdoor greeting for a uniformed male service member to a lady in civilian attire is to render the hand salute since military personnel may not tip, lift, doff, or otherwise raise or remove their headgear outdoors (it, of course, should already be removed indoors unless "under arms") as a sign of respect except during divine services or prayer. (Yes, I know that is very old fashioned guidance, but look it up in an officer's or non-commissioned officer's guide or a military customs and courtesies handbook and you'll see.) I and several of my fellow retired military officer friends routinely exchange salutes as a sign of mutual respect, courtesy, and comradery and I am appalled that some of todays' young warriors apparently believe that we are incorrect in so doing - not so per the "letter of the law" and the long established practices and customs of the Service. CobraDragoon (talk) 03:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Insignia images

Why lead the article with insignia? This is an article about uniforms. I'd rather see the long-running dress blues depicted at the top. Something like this free Library of Congress image. Insignia should be moved down to the bottom and given their own section. Binksternet (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't put a single uniform in the header. If you can find a single image with a montage or sampling of more than just one style of uniform, that would look good in the intro. As it stands, the plates with the insignia are at the top because of thier generic-ness. Marines are famous for thier dress blues, but you wouldn't lead an article like that. bahamut0013♠♣ 19:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not lead with the Dress Blue uniform. Looks good and is very distinct. The insignia charts look terrible and are much to vague to be at the top in my opinion.--Looper5920 (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I would indeed lead the article with a photo of a sharp-looking blue dress uniform. The link above is in the public domain but because the guy isn't ramrod straight and looks a little lost it loses out as a top quality image. If there's a better image of dress blues then I think it would be a good start to the article. It's precisely the generic-ness of the insignia that give this article a weak punch. Binksternet (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, then. I guess I'll take a photo of myself, then, so we can have a public works one. bahamut0013♠♣ 20:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

How does this look? I know that the sword is pulling the belt a bit crooked, and maybe the position of attention is not the best for encyclopedic use. Any ideas on improving the photo? bahamut0013♠♣ 00:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That's the spirit! Good stuff. Technically, the photo's resolution isn't very high and the background color changes sharply down at the knee. A typical heroic photo should be taken with the lens aimed slightly upward from somewhere below the subject's own eye level. Your photo has the camera looking downward. Does your unit have an official photographer you can nab for this mission? Helluva good start, man. :-) Binksternet (talk) 04:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

My wife is six foot four inches, while I am a burly five foot six. That would explain the angle. That, and I cropped out most of my bedroom.

The Air Station has a a combat camera section within public affairs, but they will usually only do photos for boards and official photos and stuff like that. But I will see if I can get the back-door hook up. They can probably put me in with a nicer background anyway. bahamut0013♠♣ 11:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

They might put you in front of a neutral background or they might offer to take the photo outside. They're certain to have a camera with better optics and higher resolution.

Love that gung-ho attitude! Binksternet (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No dice. They figure it'll be like me asking for a personal photo or something, I guess. I'll try to re-shoot it tonight, but it won't be too much better. bahamut0013♠♣ 11:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Harsh. You got "gung ho", they got "CYA". :( ... Binksternet (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"most elaborate uniform"

"The Marine Corps dress uniform is the most elaborate of the United States armed forces, worn for formal or ceremonial occasions." How can this be substantiated? It seems rather subjective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.27.1.3 (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps "The dress uniform is elaborate and worn for formal or ceremonial occasions"?? bahamut0013^words_deeds 05:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I've made a change to make the statement a bit less subjective. Thoughts? QueenofBattle (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. The rest of your copy edits were great too. bahamut0013^words_deeds 19:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Uniform with sweater

The Service Uniform section states

A green crewneck sweater may be worn with the "B" and "C" uniforms, in which case rank insignia will continue to be worn on the collar by officers and all ranks will wear rank insignia on shoulder eppaulets (black for enlisted). The collar is worn on the outside of the sweater in order to display the rated rank insignia of officers.

This is incorrect. Even the accompanying image contradicts that.

Enlisted wear rank on the collar when service "B" or "C" is worn with the sweater, and the collar is worn outside the sweater. The same black insignia as used with utilities. I've never seen any rank on the shoulders of the sweater, and the accompanying photo doesn't show that for the officer either. Also, there are no epaulets on the sweater.

Someone with access to the uniform regs might want to look it up for the reference. While there the blue sweater mentioned in the Blue Dress section should be verified. as I think it would follow a similar pattern (I've never seen the blue sweater in use though). -Thomas 199.209.144.93 (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It is correct. The sweaters without epauletts ("shoulder flaps") were phased out a couple years ago, though I'm sure many Marines still have them in thier seabags because they aren't worn all that frequently by most. Sure as heck, the MCO notes this many times over. The accompanying illustrations are from 1983, and hardly perfect (if you look at the enlisted dress uniform, you'll see the obsolete female blue cover). MCO P1020.34G W/CH 1-5 is available to all. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

So the V-neck is gone too. I see that the old crew neck w/o epaulets is still authorized as an under garment, but not outerwear as of Oct 2006 (start of FY07) so it recent.

Lots of changes I see reading through that. The Marine AWC is gone, using some generic DoD version instead? I cannot find a picture/description of this new coat though. -Thomas 199.209.144.93 (talk) 16:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems like you're well behind the times. The best info would be at the MCUB website.

The AWC instituted in '99 is prettymuch identical to the old coat seen in File:DutyDressOfficer.jpg excepting that it is now double-breasted over the shoulder material as well. I hadn't even noticed that the 1983 plate was different until you drew this to my attention. The V-necks have been gone since '02 as well. I first saw a blue sweater on my recruiter in that year... it does look a 'lil silly with blue trusers. bahamut0013^words_deeds 19:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't kept up since I got out in '96 other than the changed in the utilities. I just read through the link you gave earlier and was amazed there were so many changes. I do like the new female frame caps. Most of the other changes to the non-combat uniforms don't make much sense though.

It would be nice if they recreated the plates showing the current specs. Not real useful if they are inaccurate.

Also, it'd be nice if they'd make up their mind as to whether the dress uniform will be issued/required or not. That link showed it going away, then coming back within a few years. They did the same thing in the 90s. Back and forth. As the most distinctive and recognized US military uniform, and a great source of pride for the Corps I think it should just stay issued. Take away/reduce the Service uniform first (though I like it too). I'd rather just have the MCU and blues. -Thomas 199.209.144.93 (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

History

I might suggest that this article be reorganized a bit to make it consistent with other Wikipedia articles by moving the "History" section forward and placing it just after the introduction. Thoughts? QueenofBattle (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Normally, I'm a big advocate of consistancy within and between articles. However, I think in this case, it makes more sense to describe the current uniforms first, then note the changes over the years. If we moved the history section up to the fore, then it would be necessary to explain and elaborate on many uniform items for reader comprehension and clarity, thus duplicating content from the other sections. bahamut0013^words_deeds 00:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

As a Marine... I have a few comments.

First, and only due to my usage of links to Wiki-pages, I wanted to clarify that the Marine Corps Dress Blues should not be compared to a Tuxedo. Though it might seem similar, there is no comparison.

Some re-organization of the topic is always a perspective of the reader. Don't worry, Those that it is about (Marines), don't mind. What is first, the order of facts, doesn't matter as much as the content.

As long as it's true, say what you think, and, we'll listen.

One final comment, about the topic in general, the inclusion of WMs is [not obvious but] well done. If you have to ask, that's Women Marines.

(Jambay (talk) 01:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC))

I think the comparison to a tuxedo is in the formality level, that is, a Marine would wear dress blues to the same sort of function (dinner, wedding, etc) as a civilian male would wear black tie, while mess dress would be for white tie situations.oknazevad (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

"Pumps Instead Of Shoes"

So, according to the article, it would seem that so-called, "pumps", aren't just another type of, "shoe"! (News to me!) If they aren't just another type of, "shoe", would that mean that the rest of us, rather than using "shoe" and "shoes", should be using, "footwear", as a general term, when not being specific to type? Otherwise, that line seems out of place, not just off-putting, in such an article. Is there a practical way to rewrite the article, with something better than, "pumps instead of shoes"?

Also, the abbreviation for "inch" and/or "inches", shouldn't it include a, Period? LeoStarDragon1 (talk) 14:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Improving article

@Oknazevad: I've noticed your feedback on my attempts to improve this article. I've slightly tweaked it a bit more and submitted it. I hope it is more to your liking. In particular, I have removed the bolded inclusion of the title because it doesn't fit naturally with the section, and anyway it is unnecessary. Introducing the subject is important but defining the article title itself is not required - see MOS:FIRST. Also, I've consolidated the various types of uniform into a single section because they are united by a common theme (being different patterns of uniform), and to make matters worse a single section for each type of uniform makes it hard for the average reader to understand at a glance which section is referring to a unique pattern of uniform and which is discussing other topics relevant to uniform. I'd be keen to hear if you have any other ideas on how to further improve this article. Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 12:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)