Please Chime IN!!! [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Please Chime IN!!!


Z1232K
07-06-2008, 21:14
My youngest brother is currently in his 4th or 5th week of BASIC at Fort Knox.

When he first told me of his plans to enlist,(I wanted to do the same thing at his age, only was disqualified due to a slight hearing loss), I tried to talk him out of it, not because I'm not a patriot, I AM, but more because of the fact that he is the baby of the family and if something ever happens to him it would affect EVERY ONE OF US DRASTICALLY. Anyhow, I haven't said much to him about it since and I want him to know that I AM PROUD OF HIM AND SUPPORT HIM.

I had this idea a couple of days ago to present him with a gift to commemorate his training there.

He's at Fort Knox in the 194th Armored Brigade, 2nd Battalion, 81st Armor Regiment.

I'm sure that once he completes his training he will be assigned to a different unit, but this gift will be intended to commemorate his initial training at Fort Knox.

Would you consider this appropriate, Do you think it's even a good idea?:dunno:
How can I go about being certain that get the right patch/insignia put on it?

I'd like to get your guys' opinion on this.
Please feel free to chime in with ANY ideas about the design.
Your input will be greatly appreciated!!!!

He doesn't graduate until October so I have a few months to put this together if I decide to go ahead with it.

here is a link to the thread I started inquiring about services to complete this project, check out post #10 to get an idea what it is I want to do.

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=892321

nothing
07-07-2008, 19:50
If' he's going to be a 19K or 19D I'd get the Armor or Cavalry insignia engraved instead of a basic training unit patch.

Z1232K
07-07-2008, 20:20
If' he's going to be a 19K or 19D I'd get the Armor or Cavalry insignia engraved instead of a basic training unit patch.

What is 19K or 19D??:dunno:

MrMurphy
07-07-2008, 21:24
Armored vehicle crewman (Tanker, etc) or Cavalry Scout.

Z1232K
07-07-2008, 22:23
Armored vehicle crewman (Tanker, etc) or Cavalry Scout.

Tanker, gotcha! So that would be 19K, right?

Biscuitsjam
07-07-2008, 23:37
Here's the armor insignia:
http://academic.udayton.edu/rotc/images/Branch%20Insignia/insignia_armor.gif

I'd recommend that you use the armor symbol or the symbol from his unit after basic training (which he probably won't know until just before graduation).

nothing
07-08-2008, 06:41
Tanker, gotcha! So that would be 19K, right?

That's right

Biscuitsjam
07-08-2008, 08:06
We are Charlie 2/81. Best damn company under the sun. Motivated, dedicated, that's our style. Been that way for a long long while. We are the best. The best by far. Smoke all the others like a cheap cigar. Drive on drill sergeant, drive on. Hooah!


I went through 2/81 for my initial training. Still remember our company motto after all this time...

Z1232K
07-08-2008, 15:15
We are Charlie 2/81. Best damn company under the sun. Motivated, dedicated, that's our style. Been that way for a long long while. We are the best. The best by far. Smoke all the others like a cheap cigar. Drive on drill sergeant, drive on. Hooah!


I went through 2/81 for my initial training. Still remember our company motto after all this time...

When did you serve?

Biscuitsjam
07-08-2008, 20:56
When did you serve?I went through BASIC in 2004 - not really all that long ago, but I'm still surprised that I remember the whole motto still.

I wish my memory was that good for other things.

Bren
07-09-2008, 12:29
If' he's going to be a 19K or 19D I'd get the Armor or Cavalry insignia engraved instead of a basic training unit patch.

Exactly. Don't get his basic training unit engraved on it. Even if he loves basic, that's not a line unit and doesn't carry the same sort of pride he might have in a later assignment. Get the armor branch insignia engraved - not the training unit.

Z1232K
07-09-2008, 17:31
Exactly. Don't get his basic training unit engraved on it. Even if he loves basic, that's not a line unit and doesn't carry the same sort of pride he might have in a later assignment. Get the armor branch insignia engraved - not the training unit.


And the Armor Branch would be........the two swords with the tank in the center???

Would it make sense to do the Armor Branch/Unit on the center of the grip and his 1st assigned unit,(post-BASIC), on the slide?

Too bad I couldn't fit the company motto on there, what about just; Hooah!!! ???


BTW - A Big, Big, Thankyou to those trying to help me, I think this will mean alot to my brother!

Biscuitsjam
07-09-2008, 17:42
No, don't put "hooah."

The rest of it sounds good though.

Z1232K
07-10-2008, 17:03
No, don't put "hooah."

The rest of it sounds good though.
:embarassed::dunno:

Z1232K
07-10-2008, 17:04
I guess "hooah" would look a little stupid, huh?

nothing
07-10-2008, 21:28
I guess "hooah" would look a little stupid, huh?


I refuse to use that word. I think most will agree it's annoying and very over used.

GreenBeret1631
07-14-2008, 19:22
I refuse to use that word. I think most will agree it's annoying and very over used.

I agree, especially since it's a an Airborne Ranger word! IMO Legs shouldn't use the word! :tongueout::rofl:

Biscuitsjam
07-14-2008, 19:58
I agree, especially since it's a an Airborne Ranger word! IMO Legs shouldn't use the word! :tongueout::rofl:Err, fine. You can keep it...

You want the hat back too?

fourdeuce2
07-14-2008, 22:36
I'm glad I got out before everybody started wearing berets.:wavey:

nothing
07-14-2008, 23:46
I'm glad I got out before everybody started wearing berets.:wavey:


I'm glad I'm in the National Guard and can get away with only wearing it at active duty posts.

Biscuitsjam
07-15-2008, 09:21
I'm glad I'm in the National Guard and can get away with only wearing it at active duty posts.Last time I spent time at an active-duty post, they wouldn't let us wear the beret. We had to wear the patrol caps so that we wouldn't be confused with "real" soldiers.

GreenBeret1631
07-15-2008, 16:12
Err, fine. You can keep it...

You want the hat back too?


Why not! I had to earn mine and I'm sure the Ranger Bns would love to have their Black berets back too.

Earned not Issued! :

http://www.75thrangers.com/

http://www.thesylvaherald.com/B-Coy041201.htm

Biscuitsjam
07-15-2008, 17:05
Tankers had the black beret before the rangers took it away. It wasn't that big of a loss.

GreenBeret1631
07-15-2008, 19:02
Tankers had the black beret before the rangers took it away. It wasn't that big of a loss.


They didn't Earn it either. Nor did the Department of the Army ever authorize the Tankers to wear a Black beret. The Army did authorize the 75th Ranger Regiment to wear the Black Beret once they were qualified and EARNED it!

I was one of the first Airborne Ranger to wear a black beret in 1951. Ranger's that I know consider the loss of the Black Beret to the 'leg' Army as a great loss.

GreenBeret1631
07-15-2008, 19:59
I'm glad I got out before everybody started wearing berets.:wavey:


We started in the US Army Special Forces, wearing an authorized Green Beret in 1962, thanks to President JFK. When did you get out? Many wore it prior to when it was authorized in the field and/or on base.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I wore, along with other Airborne Rangers in a few of our Companies (Korean War Era) an unauthorized black beret. It was authorized at the Company level in a few of the 15 numbered companies.

I can see why some here take no pride in wearing their distinctive head gear, since they were issued the beret and didn't have to do anything special to actually EARN this distinctive mark of excellence as a soldier, in a Special unit.

I'll grant you this it's a lousy field hat; however, I always was proud to wear mine on both active and reserve duty and still do as a member of the Special Forces Association (Life member.) on the those special occasions that call for it's wearing.

The only Berets that are EARNED not just Issued are:

1.) Green Beret — Special Forces 18x MOS
2.) Tan Beret — Ranger (75th Ranger Regiment)

I'd like to include the Maroon beret for paratroopers, in the list above; however, it is my understanding that people who are not jump qualified are allowed to wear the maroon beret because they are assigned to an Airborne unit. I don't think this is right. It should be worn by only 'jump' qualified paratroopers!

Biscuitsjam
07-16-2008, 10:07
I'd like to include the Maroon beret for paratroopers, in the list above; however, it is my understanding that people who are not jump qualified are allowed to wear the maroon beret because they are assigned to an Airborne unit. I don't think this is right. It should be worn by only 'jump' qualified paratroopers!The tan beret for rangers has the same kind of rule, at least officially. It's to be worn by soldiers ASSIGNED TO 75th Rangers or Ranger Training Brigade.... Are there any non-RIP guys that actually wear that beret though? I knew a non-RIP guy assigned to the Rangers (as an Armor Liason), but I don't know if he wore the beret.

There are other traditions in other units. For instance, Tanker Boots are officially authorized for anybody in the army, but only gunnery-qualified or combat-veteran tankers aren't going to get their arses kicked for wearing them. They're "earned." Cavalry has the spur and stetsons, though there are additional requirements for their wear other than just being in the unit. They're "earned" also.

But, you're right so far as the beret - I have no pride in that headgear. Why would I? They tried to make it a big ceremony once we became MOS-Q, but how elite can anything be if everyone is wearing it? I'd rather wear the patrol cap or boonie cap.

Anything that sets a unit apart can instill a sense of pride. At NTC this year, our unit was wearing DCU tops with no rank or headgear, and we were told not to shave for the duration. Some of the guys thought that was the coolest thing in the world, though I was ready to start looking and acting like a soldier again by the end.

GreenBeret1631
07-16-2008, 14:47
Biscuitsjam:

"There are other traditions in other units. For instance, Tanker Boots are officially authorized for anybody in the army, but only gunnery-qualified or combat-veteran tankers aren't going to get their arses kicked for wearing them. They're "earned." Cavalry has the spur and stetsons, though there are additional requirements for their wear other than just being in the unit. They're "earned" also."


We're not talking about traditions here! I'm talking about what's authorized by the Army Uniform Regulation - AR 670-1 - Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia.

Link to .AR 670-1 pdf file:

http://usmilitary.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffiles/r670%5F1.pdf

I see no Tanker boots, Spurs or Cavalry Stetsons authorized in the Army's uniform regulations.

I know that the Cavalry has 'traditions' and wear unauthorized stetsons and award 'Spurs' for certain things; however, they are not authorized by the Department of the Army nor Army uniform regulations. They are not part of the official Army uniform. I don't think you will find the award of 'Spurs' in the awards and decorations ARs either.

Actually, I wear a Cavalry stetson on occasion, as the President of NW Chapter of the 1st Cavalry Division Association. (I served in the 1st Calvary Division in the Occupation of Japan in 1947.)

I'm also aware that many Officers and Troopers in the 1st Cavalry Division wear Cavalry stetsons on certain occasions and for certain ceremonies. The only thing anyone did to 'earn' the right to wear a cavalry stetson in that unit or in the association was be assigned to a cavalry unit.

Bren
07-16-2008, 14:52
I'd like to include the Maroon beret for paratroopers, in the list above; however, it is my understanding that people who are not jump qualified are allowed to wear the maroon beret because they are assigned to an Airborne unit. I don't think this is right. It should be worn by only 'jump' qualified paratroopers!

Actually, back in the 80's, maroon was the only one that AR 670-1 said was only for airborne qualified personnel assigned to airborne units, while both green and black were worn by all personnel assigned to SF & Ranger units. Now green is the only one reserved to qualified personnel. Things change.

BTW, tan berets are still authorized for all personnel assigned to ranger units:


(4) Ranger tan beret. Soldiers currently assigned to the following units are authorized wear of the Ranger tan beret. Personnel will wear the approved flash of the unit to which they are assigned.

(a) 75 th Ranger Regiment.

(b) Ranger Training Brigade.

GreenBeret1631
07-16-2008, 15:13
Bren:


You are right on the Green Beret, as during that time period, I observed a 5X5 looking female soldier assigned as a PIO in the 1st SFG(A) (Ft. Lewis, WA) wearing a Green Beret. She wasn't even 'jump' qualified. :upeyes:

Yes, that was changed by Army regulation and now support and other assigned soldiers to a Special Forces Group wear a Maroon beret, if 'Jump qualified and the Black Beret if not. The Green Beret is only worn by Special Forces (tabbed) 18x soldiers.

IMO, nobody assigned to a Ranger BN or the training brigade should wear a Tan beret, unless they have been through RIP and have been tabbed. (Ranger course.)

The GWOT has complicated this process and many people assigned to the BNs have a hard time getting a date for the Ranger course; however, IMO they should at least have completed RIP and be assigned to a Ranger BN or training brigade, before wearing the Tan Beret.

This also, as I said should apply to airborne people as well no maroon beret unless they are 'Jump' qualified.

One of the reason's that I would like to see such regulation, is the mind set that I have seen here and other places with people bad mouthing their 'Black' Beret. They really didn't earn it, it was issued to them and all soldiers wear it. So, it really has no special meaning to them. It's just another headgear to them.

I would like to see people earn the right to wear their distinctive head gear and while we're at it reduce the wearing of the beret to the special units. Rangers, Special Forces and Paratroopers!

Biscuitsjam
07-16-2008, 16:24
We're not talking about traditions here! I'm talking about what's authorized by the Army Uniform Regulation - AR 670-1 - Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia.

Link to .AR 670-1 pdf file:

http://usmilitary.about.com/gi/dynam...s/r670%5F1.pdf

I see no Tanker boots, Spurs or Cavalry Stetsons authorized in the Army's uniform regulations.

I know that the Cavalry has 'traditions' and wear unauthorized stetsons and award 'Spurs' for certain things; however, they are not authorized by the Department of the Army nor Army uniform regulations. They are not part of the official Army uniform. I don't think you will find the award of 'Spurs' in the awards and decorations ARs either.

Actually, I wear a Cavalry stetson on occasion, as the President of NW Chapter of the 1st Cavalry Division Association. (I served in the 1st Calvary Division in the Occupation of Japan in 1947.)

I'm also aware that many Officers and Troopers in the 1st Cavalry Division wear Cavalry stetsons on certain occasions and for certain ceremonies. The only thing anyone did to 'earn' the right to wear a cavalry stetson in that unit or in the association was be assigned to a cavalry unit.Tanker Boots ARE specifically authorized for wear in AR 670-1 as of 2005, with the commander's approval. (check the link you just referenced - section 27-3 d-3). I'm not sure if there is a newer version of the regulation out yet, but the tan tanker boots are for sale in Clothing and Sales.

Spurs and Stetsons are not mentioned in AR 670-1, but they are mentioned in the Soldier's Guide as a "unit tradition" that is encouraged (FM 7-21-13, section 4-27). Tanker Boots are also mentioned there.

Spurs and Tanker Boots have fairly standardized requirements for being "earned" (though these standards are not written into official regulations). Requirements for Stetsons vary, and often, the hat itself is eligible for any soldier assigned, but cords, "combat knots," and so on may have requirements attached to them (though it depends on the unit). Some units won't allow those without spurs to wear Stetsons.

Z1232K
07-16-2008, 17:55
:grill: :weirdthread:

GreenBeret1631
07-16-2008, 18:56
Biscuitsjam:

I must admit I didn't look at the AR on the boot; however, in reading it now it looks pretty restrictive. I see they even have a desert version now.

When I enlisted in the Army at 15 years old in 1947, I signed up for the 1st Cavalry Division, which was in Japan on Occupation duty. I was told by the recruiters I would be in Tanks. Guess what! On my arrival to A Troop, 5th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division I got assigned as a BAR man in a 12 man Infantry rifle Sqd. I don't even recall seeing a tank! :upeyes:

Our brass at that time was crossed sabers. In later years they changed to crossed rifles and added in (Inf.) after the 1st Cavalry Division.

During my time in Korea with the 25th ID, 27th Regiment (Wolfhounds) I saw a Tank crew hit and burned alive in their tank, the smell and horrid screams from that crew was enough to convince me that I didn't want to be a tanker.

Excerpt from the AR:

27 (d3) Optional boots are not authorized for wear when the commander issues and prescribes standard organizational footwear for safety or environmental reasons (such as insulated boots or safety shoes).

Personnel may wear specialty boots authorized for wear by specific groups of soldiers, such as the tanker boot, only if the commander authorizes such wear. Soldiers may not wear optional boots in formation when uniformity in appearance is required.

Some general info on Tanker Boots:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanker_boot

BTW: I wear a Cavalry Yellow cord on my stetson, since I was an enlisted man, others wear the Officers Cords for WO's and other Officers.

Biscuitsjam
07-16-2008, 20:32
Damn, 15 years old in Japan, in a line unit. I bet there are some interesting stories there. Were you in one of the first units into Korea?


Having served in a tank company, I'd much rather be in tanks than anywhere else in the army. The dangers of fire, drowning, and being crushed or maimed by the machinery in the tank remain, but I'd rather take those risks over getting blown up by an improvised bomb though. We had 0 wounded in my tank platoon and heavy wounded in all our non-tank platoons (particularly cavalry). I decided that I didn't want to be cavalry about then, but guess what the army told me I had to change to? I'm learning to love it, finally.

As for tanker boots, they are extremely comfortable for sitting or standing, and very practical for a tank, because of all-leather construction and no laces. However, they are absolutely awful for ruckmarching. They're a status symbol mostly, and though they aren't extremely difficult to earn, they are rare and distinctive enough that tankers take great pride in them.

Typically, the tanker boots are only worn inside the tank or in a garrison environment, and even then by only a portion of the unit. It's fairly rare for a tanker to wear tanker boots in a non-tank unit also.

GreenBeret1631
07-17-2008, 14:45
Damn, 15 years old in Japan, in a line unit. I bet there are some interesting stories there. Were you in one of the first units into Korea?


Having served in a tank company, I'd much rather be in tanks than anywhere else in the army. The dangers of fire, drowning, and being crushed or maimed by the machinery in the tank remain, but I'd rather take those risks over getting blown up by an improvised bomb though. We had 0 wounded in my tank platoon and heavy wounded in all our non-tank platoons (particularly cavalry). I decided that I didn't want to be cavalry about then, but guess what the army told me I had to change to? I'm learning to love it, finally.

As for tanker boots, they are extremely comfortable for sitting or standing, and very practical for a tank, because of all-leather construction and no laces. However, they are absolutely awful for ruckmarching. They're a status symbol mostly, and though they aren't extremely difficult to earn, they are rare and distinctive enough that tankers take great pride in them.

Typically, the tanker boots are only worn inside the tank or in a garrison environment, and even then by only a portion of the unit. It's fairly rare for a tanker to wear tanker boots in a non-tank unit also.

Actually, I was 16 years old by the time I got to Japan. My Basic Training company in ‘47 was 90% underage. The youngest was 13 years old, he was 6’2 though. I also served with the 25th ID in Japan.

No, I wasn't in the 1st units to enter the Korean war. I had came back to the USA and reenlisted. I was stationed at Ft. Lawton, WA in the MP Detachment there.

When it was offered, in 1950, during the Korean War, I volunteered to become an Airborne Ranger. In 1951 when I was accepted, I attended the BAC at Ft. Benning and than was assigned to a Ranger Company for Ranger training. (There wasn't any Ranger course, as we know it now, in those days.)

My Company was disbanded at Camp Carson, CO (Now Fort Carson) after we had both cold weather and mountain training. (To include working with Army pack mules.)

One of the reasons all the Airborne Ranger Companies of the era were deactivated, was that most Division commanders didn’t know how to use them properly. They took heavy casualties, because of this misuse. They should have formed a BN out of the Companies and used them like the Ranger BNs of today. Hindsight ....

Two of the Companies did make a combat jump with the 187th RCT, at Munsan-Ni, Korea. Eight Ranger Companies were in or fought in Korea, they were assigned to Infantry Divisions (2nd ID, 3rd ID, 7 ID, 24 ID, 25 ID, 40 ID, 45 ID and the 1st Cavalry. One Company the 2nd CO, assigned to the 7th ID was all African American. (The Army was still segregated at that time.)

When we were deactivated, we were able to sort of pick where we wanted to go, I asked to be sent to the 27th Regiment of the 25th ID, (They were on the line in Korea.) because I had served with them in Japan. I got my wish.

When they started Special Forces, I wanted to get back on jump status, so I volunteered for SF. I retired from the USAR after 30+ years of service.

As for riding in tanks, etc. Have you seen the video titled ‘Death from Above?’ It shows a new smart CBU hitting tanks and vehicles. Anybody in Armor branch, should look at it. If we have it, others will have it too. Very — Scary!

Link:

http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=170717&ESRC=army-a.nl

Biscuitsjam
07-18-2008, 14:42
As for riding in tanks, etc. Have you seen the video titled ‘Death from Above?’ It shows a new smart CBU hitting tanks and vehicles. Anybody in Armor branch, should look at it. If we have it, others will have it too. Very — Scary!

Link:

http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=170717&ESRC=army-a.nlAir power is the bane of armor, which is why I'm glad that we have such good air power and anti-air defenses.

It's pretty damned hard for ground forces to take out a tank. Essentially, you're only vulnerable to other tanks, certain types of anti-tank missiles, and, if they can hit you, artillery. Tanks also provide some protection from chemical weapons and nuclear fallout. Even when a tank is taken out of action (by an enormous IED, for instance), the crew rarely suffers casualties.

Standing out in the open with nothing but a thin kevlar vest, I can think of a whole lot more scary threats than a tank faces. Driving around in a lightly armored humvee is pretty damned terrifying too.

GreenBeret1631
07-18-2008, 15:28
Air power is the bane of armor, which is why I'm glad that we have such good air power and anti-air defenses.

It's pretty damned hard for ground forces to take out a tank. Essentially, you're only vulnerable to other tanks, certain types of anti-tank missiles, and, if they can hit you, artillery. Tanks also provide some protection from chemical weapons and nuclear fallout. Even when a tank is taken out of action (by an enormous IED, for instance), the crew rarely suffers casualties.

Standing out in the open with nothing but a thin kevlar vest, I can think of a whole lot more scary threats than a tank faces. Driving around in a lightly armored humvee is pretty damned terrifying too.


All true; however, both the Chinese and Mother Russia, have fair Air Forces and China is continuing to steal all our military stuff and plan the the next war on us.

A Tank is like a machine gun, it's a priority target that everybody is trying to take out! I'll take my chances as a lowly Infantryman on the battlefield.