Officer Army Dress Blue Uniform

[Primax]

Hi, i hope you can help me .

My reenactment Club plans an event with the Topic Victory Ball 1945. The Event is in Germany.

For this event i bought a Dress Blue.

A friend told me that i can by any Dress Blue and that fits for all years after 1938.

So i can wear the Uniform for the year 1945.

Another guy said that the Army Dress Blues are not worn in WW2. Only Khaki and Brown Olive.

He told me that is better to get a Dress Uniform in Khaki or Brown Olive.

So now i'm confused what's right or wrong .

Can i use my Uniform for an Event in 1945 or it is better to get the similar Uniform in Brown Olive?

[VMI88]

You'd be better with an OD uniform. Dress blue uniforms existed prior to the war but were suspended as an economy measure. Most officers during World War 2 would not have owned a set. There are also differences in construction and trim between a pre-war set and a modern set like yours, but that's a more lengthy topic!

[GIl Sanow]

Few people would know it today, but the blue uniform you show was adopted in 1956. The 1938 pattern would be what you want, though it was no longer required for officers after 1942. The pattern differs primarily in the breast pockets which then were concealed with only the flaps showing. These were reauthorized in '48 and this style was worn until '56. There is a difference in the trouser stripes too -- the '38 regs called for branch colored -- white for Infantry. All of the gold trim on the '38 would have been real metallic 'bullion', not the synthetic on the uniform shown.

 

You realize the ribbons are all wrong for WW2, right? And the aguillettes were only authorized for GO aides or military attaches.

 

Personally, I would go for the chocolate or khaki -- I think white shirts and black ties would have been authorized for 'formal' occasions, but I am not sure.

 

G

[Lee Ragan]

Wearing a currently used uniform when you are NOT in the Army opens you up to prosecution for impersonating an Army officer. Wearing that uniform when you are not entitiled to it or any part of it puts you on some pretty thin ice.

[mvmhm]

Wearing a currently used uniform when you are NOT in the Army opens you up to prosecution for impersonating an Army officer. Wearing that uniform when you are not entitiled to it or any part of it puts you on some pretty thin ice.

 

 

No it doesn't. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld a persons right to wear a military uniform as part of a performance or even a protest as protected speech under the 1st Amendment. It only becomes a crime when you wear a uniform, or claim awards and decorations you never earned in an attempt at personal gain - money, hiring preference, VA health benefits etc.

I've been through this several times both in helping a reenactment group and as a VFW Service Officer; think about it, how many reenactors would go to jail if it were illegal??? Besides, the originator clearly said the event is in Germany where US laws wouldn't apply, even if this were against the law - which it's not.

 

 

Mark sends

[wolfman]

So why are the top three ribbons whited out?

[mvmhm]

Here is my last response to a "You can't wear that" issue:

 

 

"Regarding the wear of military uniforms by non-military personnel, please allow me to clarify the applicable regulations, to wit:

 

Army Regulation 670-1, Air Force Instruction 36-2903, as well as the applicable United States Navy Uniform Regulations and Marine Corps MCO P1020.34, Marine Corps Uniform Regulations specifically mention when the wear of military uniforms is prohibited. However, there are two points to consider:

 

1) Military regulations do not apply to civilians, who are not subject to military authority (unless this country were to be under martial law).

 

2) These regulations were written with the specific intent to keep people from using a military uniform as "proof" used to obtain benefits to which they are not entitled; for example, access to base exchange and commissary facilities, claiming awards and decorations etc. i.e. "imposters".

 

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions that the wording in these military regulations is unconstitutional.

 

The Stolen Valor Act (SVA) further reinforces that goal of preventing people from illegally obtaining benefits by wearing awards and decorations they never earned or are otherwise not entitled to (such as the Medal of Honor and other valor awards, as well as the Purple Heart)

 

Title 10 USC, Section 772(f) makes specific allowance/exceptions for the use of military uniforms in a theatrical production. The Supreme Court used a very liberal interpretation of "theatrical production" in SCHACHT v. UNITED STATES. In this case, the court said:

 

...But the general prohibition of 18 U.S.C. 702 cannot always stand alone in view of 10 U.S.C. 772, which authorizes the wearing of military uniforms under certain conditions and circumstances including the circumstance of an actor portraying a member of the armed services in a "theatrical production." Certainly theatrical productions need not always be performed in buildings or even on a defined area such as a conventional stage. Nor need they be performed by professional actors or be heavily financed or elaborately produced. Since time immemorial, outdoor theatrical performances, often performed by amateurs, have played an important part in the entertainment and the education of the people of the world.

 

This brings us to petitioner's complaint that giving force and effect to the last clause of 772 (f) would impose an unconstitutional restraint on his right of free speech. We agree. This clause on its face simply restricts 772 (f)'s authorization to those dramatic portrayals that do not "tend to discredit" the military, but, when this restriction is read together with 18 U.S.C. 702, it becomes clear that Congress has in effect made it a crime for an actor wearing a military uniform to say things during his performance critical of the conduct or [398 U.S. 58, 63] policies of the Armed Forces. An actor, like everyone else in our country, enjoys a constitutional right to freedom of speech, including the right openly to criticize the Government during a dramatic performance.

 

The last clause of 772 (f) denies this constitutional right to an actor who is wearing a military uniform by making it a crime for him to say things that tend to bring the military into discredit and disrepute. In the present case Schacht was free to participate in any skit at the demonstration that praised the Army, but under the final clause of 772 (f) he could be convicted of a federal offense if his portrayal attacked the Army instead of praising it. In light of our earlier finding that the skit in which Schacht participated was a "theatrical production" within the meaning of 772 (f), it follows that his conviction can be sustained only if he can be punished for speaking out against the role of our Army and our country in Vietnam. Clearly punishment for this reason would be an unconstitutional abridgment of freedom of speech. The final clause of 772 (f), which leaves Americans free to praise the war in Vietnam but can send persons like Schacht to prison for opposing it, cannot survive in a country which has the First Amendment. To preserve the constitutionality of 772 (f) that final clause must be stricken from the section.

 

Renactment groups and living historians across the nation (and around the world for that matter) simply could not function if there was a prohibition against wearing a military uniform - many reeneactors have never served a single day in the Armed Forces of this great Nation. Additionally, you can drive through any populated area and observe pedestrians wearing military hats, field jackets, etc.

 

I have personally observed the (XXXGroup name redactedXX) perform - and their performances are universally popular, especially among veterans in the audience. And they are certainly NOT "service discrediting". I have spoken with the team leader regarding the wear of awards/ribbons; veterans DO sometimes take offense at seeing someone with a ribbon or badge that they didn't earn, so just to be on the safe side I recommended they refrain from wearing such items. However, wearing a military uniform in the performance of a patriotic routine is in NO WAY illegal. It is protected free speech under the First Amendment and clearly permitted by Section 772(f).

 

If you have any questions regarding this matter, I would be more than happy to discuss them with you.

 

Sincerely,

 

Mark Conrad"

 

 

Mark sends

[mvmhm]

So why are the top three ribbons whited out?

 

I can't tell if the picture was modified to white out some ribbons, or if they're on a backing of cardboard, or who knows??? . But the point is moot, he's in Germany so even if there was a Medal of Honor ribbon, he's not doing anything wrong. Although if I was going to wear a uniform, I wouldn;t wear any valor decorations.

 

 

Mark sends

[KurtA]

I can understand some wanting to wear a vintage (i.e., WW2) uniform, but wearing something current like this, is...just a bit "weird." (In my opinion.)

But, aside from that, to your original question, it's totally incorrect for recreating a 1945 event (especially with those Vietnam ribbons on there!)

[Primax]

Thank you for fast response.

 

So why are the top three ribbons whited out?

You realize the ribbons are all wrong for WW2, right? And the aguillettes were only authorized for GO aides or military attaches.

G

 

I know that the ribbons are wrong for an 1945 event. I'm looking for WW2 ribbons.

 

So why are the top three ribbons whited out?

 

The picture is from ebay.

The Buyer keep the ribbons so i don't know why the top three ribbons whited out.

 

You'd be better with an OD uniform. Dress blue uniforms existed prior to the war but were suspended as an economy measure. Most officers during World War 2 would not have owned a set. There are also differences in construction and trim between a pre-war set and a modern set like yours, but that's a more lengthy topic!

 

What is an OD uniform? OD is short cut for "Olive Dress"?

Which year after WW2 the Dress Blue are regular again?

[mvmhm]

OD is "Olive Drab"...or, you could go as an officer and wear the "Pinks and Greens".

 

 

Mark sends

[GIl Sanow]

As stated above, the blue uniform was reauthorized in 1948

 

OD refers to 'olive drab' -- not really proper term for 'pinks and greens' or 'chocolate either' -- proper term would be shade 55.

 

I am assuming the blanked out ribbons were valor awards which Ebay nixes.

 

G

[Primax]

How about the other branches? Marines or Navy? Did they wear Dress Blue during WW2?

[Dakota]

How about the other branches? Marines or Navy? Did they wear Dress Blue during WW2?

 

The USMC has their own set of Dress Blues in WWII. Im not quite sure when the adopted the uniform for the Marines, someone else will have to answer that. They had other Uniforms, such as the Service Uniform with was a Khaki Dress Shirt under a ODish Colored Tunic. They had a few others along with the Khaki Dress Shirt, but I dont know the rest, someone might be able to help there.

 

 

 

D