Were Army uniforms practical ?

[major bill]

I am not sure why a sailor would need a camouflaged work uniform. The pattern would be of some help with not being seen by night vision devices, although green and light pattern would work better.

 

[CanadianCanuck]

Considering how long that style of uniform stayed in the army I'd say it was fairly practical, but that they adopted blue as a major color until near the turn of the century also boggles my mind. Then I remember the British were wearing bright red until the Second Boer War...

Though correct me if I'm wrong but during the Spanish American War did the uniform scheme change more to reflect the tropical locale and from there the blue uniforms were steadily phased out?

 

[AUG]

Considering how long that style of uniform stayed in the army I'd say it was fairly practical, but that they adopted blue as a major color until near the turn of the century also boggles my mind. Then I remember the British were wearing bright red until the Second Boer War...

Though correct me if I'm wrong but during the Spanish American War did the uniform scheme change more to reflect the tropical locale and from there the blue uniforms were steadily phased out?

Actually the British began wearing khaki uniforms in the late 19th century. Khaki uniforms became official service dress in India during the Second Anglo-Afghan War throughout the 1880s. Khaki was officially adopted for troops in Africa in 1882, but the last battle in which British troops wore scarlet was the Battle of Gennis in Sudan, 1885. Khaki became general campaign wear after that date, and became official overseas dress in 1897. The white pith helmet was often stained with tea or other improvised dyestuffs on campaign to provide rudimentary camouflage. Later, it was provided with a khaki cloth cover.

For example, the 1st Battalion, Lincolnshire Regiment at Omdurman, 1898.

 

[CanadianCanuck]

Ah I was mistaken, thank you for the correction!

 

[major bill]

Considering how long that style of uniform stayed in the army I'd say it was fairly practical, but that they adopted blue as a major color until near the turn of the century also boggles my mind. Then I remember the British were wearing bright red until the Second Boer War...

Though correct me if I'm wrong but during the Spanish American War did the uniform scheme change more to reflect the tropical locale and from there the blue uniforms were steadily phased out?

Blue was a good color for uniforms because other colors faded strangely depending on the cloth used. Camouflage was not considered important until after the start of the twenty century. One should note that the Germans Italians used gray or field gray for camouflage while the British and Americans used a khaki brown and the French used horizon blue (a mixture of threads in the traditional French uniform colors of blue, red and white) for camouflage.

 

[E_just_E]

Clothing like that is practical. It is not tight in a way that limits your movement.

That cuirass is extremely constricting and probably weighs about 30-45 lbs... Those steel helmets about 15-20 lbs a piece easy. ..

 

[James B White]

Blue was a good color for uniforms because other colors faded strangely depending on the cloth used. Camouflage was not considered important until after the start of the twenty century. One should note that the Germans Italians used gray or field gray for camouflage while the British and Americans used a khaki brown and the French used horizon blue (a mixture of threads in the traditional French uniform colors of blue, red and white) for camouflage.

Okay, I know so little about military strategy that I could empty a book with it, but maybe someone can correct me.

It seems to me there was a shift in mindset from wanting to show the enemy how strong you were, to wanting to disguise how strong you were. In other words, the Napoleonic idea of a long battle line not only allowed a long front of fire, it also made you look impressive and would perhaps cause the enemy to back away, especially with that clank of fixing bayonets that glittered in the sunshine, if the battle progressed that far toward a charge. Brightly colored uniforms ala Zouave even enhanced the idea.

And of course, as noted by Major Bill, blue was a practical color to dye with a basic dye like indigo, similar to how red had been a basic dye with madder for the British. Gray was actually harder to dye, as I understand it, but could be done with logwood with some mordants, or using walnut on plant fibers, or similar attempts.

Then there came the idea that not showing your strength was better, and of course camouflage uniforms worked far better for that because it allowed individual soldiers to conceal themselves and whole regiments to blend into the landscape.

Am I way off base? Surely. But I'm curious about the real reasons.

 

[major bill]

I have been on my feet without sitting down for up to 72 hours or longer at a time while wearing a protective vest and helmet and can feel for those poor men.

 

[major bill]

James part of the reason for bright uniforms was not that the enemy could see you, but for the commander to know where his troops were and how they were advancing. If you can not see how your troops are doing, how can you commit your reserves at the right spot and at the right time?

 

[Pvt.Shattuck]

Kersey is a coarse wool better suited to the cool damp climate of Britain where it was originally woven than the fierce summers of the mid-Atlantic and Southern United States. Add Canton cotton flannel underdrawers and a domet flannel issue shirt to the ensemble and you have one brutally hot, scratchy, and uncomfortable ensemble.
Nothing feels better than removing those stiff and ill fitting and brogans at the end of a long march.

 

[thomas aagaard]

That cuirass is extremely constricting and probably weighs about 30-45 lbs... Those steel helmets about 15-20 lbs a piece easy. ..

You should really stop spreading myth like this. That is just as wrong as saying an enfield musket weight 25kg.

A breastplate usually weight 2½-3½kg... yes by the 17th century there where attempts to make them bulletproof so the got a bit heavier. but nowhere near the numbers you mention.
A full suit of early 16th century plate armor is around 25-30kg

It is the same or less than what a modern NATO soldier carry .

And a properly made suit fits the person so he have no problems moving in it.

Suggest you watch this great documentary about medieval armor:

It was made by the Metropolitan back in 1924. It first look at armor made for the battlefield. and disprove many of the common myths about armor. It is about half an hour, but the first half is the most interesting.

In the late part they do look a bit at armor made for tournament and there you get a helmet that weights 25lbs... but that is not something you would use on a battle field.

And for the record, I have handled original pieces of late medieval armor. I have worn full plate and own some pieces myself. Breastplate and leg armor and some helmets. Since they are not made for full contact fighting, they are a bit thinner than the originals... so 1½mm think instead of 2mm but they are no where near the weights you believe.

 

[thomas aagaard]

Blue was a good color for uniforms because other colors faded strangely depending on the cloth used.

The US army where not the only one who used Darkblue. The Prussians used the same.
The danish army changed from red uniforms with white leather to dark blue uniforms with black leather during the 3 year war in 1848-50.(a civil war with many similarities to the acw) And changed from the short jackets common in the early part of the century to one similar to a frock coat. The trousers where already sky blue.

(for some reason the drawing is mirrored)
By the war of 1864 the "hat" was changed to darkblue and the cartrige box where change to two smaller boxes carried on the front.

 

[7thWisconsin]

Danish uniforms are in the US army uniform family tree, too. The Hardee dress hat was modeled on a hat worn by the Danes which impressed the US ambassador. I don't think the US unform was all that practical. The wool is hot, no two ways about it, and gets torn to shreds in wild terrain like the Wilderness of Virginia or Georgia just south of Chatanooga. The army had an enormous surplus of clothing after the war, and with the cut-back to pre-war strength, they had enough clothing that even when the uniform was redesigned in 1872, the CW surplus was issued until depleted. The postwar army was strapped by huge budget restrictions, too, which limited how much uniform development was going to occur. We were still wearing dark blue wool in such environments as Cuba and the Philippines 30 years later,although not the same uniforms by that time. The color combination of dark blue over light blue was very influential, however; dress uniforms are still those colors. A tip of the hat, I believe, to how foundational the CW was to US military tradition.
Now the Confederate uniform of butternut jean was praised at the time for being long-wearing, comfortable and providing a measure of camoflage. I remember reading descriptions of the dead at South Mountain (I believe) where the author noted how well they blended in with the terrain.
If you really want a comfortable campaign uniform, look no farther than the hunting shirt recommended by Washington during the Revolution: loose-fitting, cheap, long-wearing and easily adapted for insignia, etc.
so: was the US uniform practical? Not in the main. But some parts were pretty good. (We haven't even begun to discuss how poorly designed the backpacks were from an ergonomic standpoint.)

 

[Carronade]

I am not sure why a sailor would need a camouflaged work uniform. The pattern would be of some help with not being seen by night vision devices, although green and light pattern would work better.

I think it's part of the modern-day services' obsession with "jointness".

 

[James B White]

The wool is hot, no two ways about it, and gets torn to shreds in wild terrain like the Wilderness of Virginia or Georgia just south of Chatanooga.

Just curious--what do you think would be the best fiber? Linen? I know that cotton tends to wear out faster than wool, comparing my cotton and wool trousers in similar living history usage, but linen (actually hemp but related) wore about as well as wool.

I like the quick-dry property of cotton and linen and the fact that it doesn't start weighing a ton when wet, but for hot days and cold nights, I'd definitely prefer wool, because even when wet, it feels dryer and transitions better across temperatures. If I could have two sets of clothes, I'd prefer wool and linen, but if I could have only one, the one that I was wearing, I'd pick wool to split the difference.

For what it's worth, I'd also prefer smooth (suit-like) wool as underwear if I only got one or two rarely-washed changes of garments, but if not that, then linen rather than the scratchy wool by far.

I wonder if the preference for linen/cotton undies was due to civilian laundry habits as much as anything, rather than a sense of practicality across temperatures? Linen/cotton could be boiled to death, but not so much wool. Then there was the whole health promotion of wool next to the skin, subtle irritation of the skin being healthful, and so forth, increasing dramatically toward the ubiquitous "union suit" red wool fad of the late 19th century, and I don't know how that health advice impacted it all.

Now the Confederate uniform of butternut jean was praised at the time for being long-wearing, comfortable and providing a measure of camoflage. I remember reading descriptions of the dead at South Mountain (I believe) where the author noted how well they blended in with the terrain.

Absolutely. Ironically, butternut jean was something that had been field-tested (well, not the camouflage, but the comfort and durability) for years and tweaked until it was the best as far as inexpensive, available, practical and comfortable... on slaves.

If you really want a comfortable campaign uniform, look no farther than the hunting shirt recommended by Washington during the Revolution: loose-fitting, cheap, long-wearing and easily adapted for insignia, etc.

Didn't think of that, but yes! And it clung on for decades on civilian hunters for that very reason, and even morphed into the classic red overshirt where it lingered for decades among workers.

(We haven't even begun to discuss how poorly designed the backpacks were from an ergonomic standpoint.)

Oh no! But the backpack was designed to work as a set with the whole uniform. It seems that blanket rolls took over by the 1890s (based on casually glancing at Spanish American war photos) at least for actual field use, and they seem far more practical for carrying if not actually getting stuff in and out of as needed. I wonder if there was an official adoptation of their use and admission they were better?

 

[7thWisconsin]

Wool jean is an excellent material for fatigue uniforms: strong, light and cheap. And, as you mentioned, already ironically field (hand) tested! Ft Ward has a Federal roundabout in jean cloth in their collection that I got to handle a few years back. Wow - if such a thing had been adopted, it would have been a great improvement on the issue coat.
The horsecollar became a fashionable way for soldiers to carry their overcoats in the 1890s, up to and including the Great War. I can think of seeing British and Russian troops carrying their greatcoats this way. In the case of the Russian infantry, they weren't issued blankets, so they're carrying their bedding when they have their greatcoats. Frederick Remington painted US troops with horsecollar rolls in the 1890s, too. Big bulky ones that look like an 18-wheeler tire thrown over their shoulders. They may have an overcoat wrapped inside a shelter half in them; I don't know what the light marching order requirements were for that time period.
Actually, the red fireman's shirt was a pretty common uniform shirt in 1861. I can think of at least 3 famous units that wore that as an early uniform: 1st Minn. Infantry, 13th PA Reserve Infantry and 11th NY (Fire) Zouaves. It was cheap, readily available, comfortable and snappy. Made you look like the Italian Garibaldini from the late 1850s. Of course, it had no camflage advantage, but no one was looking for that feature in 1861.
We need to remember that there was no real concept of a "combat uniform" as opposed to a "dress uniform" until the 1890s. Combat was a full dress affair and you should look your best. Fatigue uniforms were for work details. British troops were still wearing red and carrying regimental colors when they charged up Majuba in 1881.

 

[Dave Hull]

The wool trousers and sack coat are a fine combination for climates where the weather is cool and damp. If it drops below 45, the issue uniform feels like tissue paper (warmer than cotton in similar temps of course.) In warmer weather it gets right sporty, but having served in the hot Georgia sun in the Army's BDU, you really do not see any appreciable difference. Hot as hell is hot as hell in cotton or wool. The evaporation factor in wool seems to be a bit better than cotton to me, with the benefit of not feeling as wet in wool. When cotton soaks through, you are drenched (unless you are out west where the relative humidity is next to nothing.)

I am one of those freaks of nature that has no adverse reaction to the feel of wool on my skin. I generally only wear modern boxers (I know, heretic) and never even notice the fact the trousers are wool.My arms as well have no sensitivity to wool, I guess the only part of me that even registers wool is my upper chest and neck. I wear my issue shirt around the house with no shirt underneath all the time and could probably go with a sack coat with no shirt underneath as well.

I recently got on to a Crimean War craze. The uniforms, weapons and tactics experimented in the Crimean War found many homes in the Civil War. I believe that not only did the American Civil War act as a proving ground for the uniforms of the day, but the troops in Crimea assisted with that research and development.

In the tough category, wool is tough as nails, in many applications. I must assume that a herringbone twill or worsted wool weave was far too expensive for mass production, but having many woolens made by CC Filson, I can attest to their rugged construction and ability to absorb the most brutal conditions. The only field material I have found tougher than a fine Filson garment or Scottish Hunting suit is a waxed heavy cotton canvas. Think a GP Medium canvas, coated in wax.

 

[Ed McCaul]

Practicality is dependent upon a number of variable with climate and available technology being the most important. What works in Alaska will not work in Iraq's deserts. There is always a trade off with form versus function battling it out. Velco is great until there is a big dust storm and it gets clogged up with dust and no longer works. Dress and field uniforms are always different. I do not think that the Queen's guards would wear their shiny metal breast plates into combat although flak vests are commonly worn in the field. When evaluating uniforms from the past one always needs to ask "What were the other options?"