Army Community - Army Discussions - Army Times

Letters

COPY MARINE CAMO

Personally, I believe that the Army needs to adopt something similar to the Marine Corps’ camouflage patterns. The Marine Pattern is the way we need to go. Having two uniforms and two-different colored body armor vests, rucksacks, etc., will be a costly thing. But right now we need to worry about our brothers and sisters surviving tours and coming home to their families safe. The Army shouldn’t put a price on a person’s life because it is too cheap for new and better camo.

Pvt. 1st Class Dustin Farrell

Columbus, Ohio

I have been following your articles on the Army Combat Uniform [“Camo consensus,” Aug. 17; “Get new camo, Congress says,” June 29]. Having a husband in the Army, I hear about and understand how the uniform doesn’t cut it in all terrains.

I understand that failures of the ACU’s Universal Camouflage Pattern could cost a lot of money to reuniform soldiers, but we know that the Marine uniform works.

I understand that even though we are the armed forces, we like to show that we are different, so we show that with our uniform differences. We still can adopt the Marine Corps’ patterns [but retain the ACU’s unique design]. This would stop the worry of whether the pattern was going to fail.

Kristine Breshears

Fort Stewart, Ga.

rifle-defeating HEAD GEAR

This letter is in response to the new plastic helmets replacing the Kevlar ones currently being used [“Kevlar to be shelved,” Aug. 31]. As a former soldier, I am very happy to hear the Army is adopting a lighter, yet safer helmet system.

The one concern I have is that the article stated, “Army officials acknowledged that wearing a helmet capable of preventing penetration by rifle rounds could save lives, but would also mean increased risk of head and neck trauma because of the force of a bullet hitting the headgear.”

How utterly absurd is this statement? I don’t mean to speak for all soldiers, but given the choice of neck trauma or a bullet penetrating the helmet, I think soldiers would choose the trauma.

Maybe the Army official who made that statement should be put out on the front line in a place like Afghanistan and given a helmet that stops a bullet and one that doesn’t. Then we can see which one they would prefer.

Former Sgt. Matt Shuler

Concord, N.C.

NO-NONSENSE DOCTOR VISIT

A hospital visit memory:

After my year in Vietnam, I was sent to Fort Hood, Texas, for the 19 months remaining in my first tour. In a few weeks I began noticing a painful lump in my thumb joint — a fragment from a gunshot wound had worked its way to the surface of the skin. The dispensary sent me to the base hospital to have the particle removed.

Waiting in the procedure room, I remembered my buddies back at the detachment saying that Texas doctors were harsh and no-nonsense, but I took it as barracks BS.

Soon the doctor appeared with the assistant nurse. They greeted me and had me place my hand flat on the table. Then the doctor pulled a straight-edge razor out of a drawer.

I got a little fidgety and asked, “Aren’t you going to use anesthesia first?” They looked at each other and then chuckled.

The doctor said, “Well yeah, son. But first we gotta shave the hair off that hand of yours”.

Former Spec. Theodore F. Meyer, III

Santa Cruz, Calif.

WHY THE WAIT?

Mandatory testing [through the Comprehensive Soldier Fitness program] will start in October 2009 [“Program seeks to boost soldiers’ emotional fitness,” Aug. 31]. Go figure.

After eight years of war, the Army hierarchy comes up with mandatory stress testing. Failure to implement plans like this from the start is another example of betrayal at the highest level. This is just as serious a blunder as not properly training and equipping our troops, failing to get Iraqi ammo dumps under control, sexual assaults, lack of support for our wounded warriors, and on and on and on.

Lt. Col. Dennis L. Adams (ret.)

Austin, Texas