Leaf Pattern Covers Sighting May 1970 National Guard Troops.

[patches]

Found these photos of the Leaf Pattern Cover being worn by a National Guard unit as a whole, these were not used by the NG or the Reserves except in very rare cases, the 40th Armored Division California NG in example appears to have had some of it's units with these early in the 60s, like 64-65, the others, not, even in 1970s photograph evidence points to them not being worn to any real extent, as in the Kent St incident, here one sees them scattered around being worn, but the overwhelming majority of the Ohio National Guardsmen have no covers.

 

The unit here in these photos is of the 26th Infantry Division at Yale University Connecticut  during a May Day  demonstration (involving the black panthers), see how they all are wearing the cover, not like say their Ohio counterparts at the very same time, must of been a mass purchase via unit funds? Any way see too how they're still armed with M1 Rifles and M2 Carbines, as they're in Connecticut, bet they're of the Connecticut elmt of the 26th Inf Div, the 43rd Brigade 26th Infantry Division.

[Cap Camouflage Pattern I]

 

I have this one, 169th Infantry, 26th ID. Front Seam Swivel Loop shell,  DSPC unknown long flap, FY71 or later sweatband.

[The Rooster]

I think you are correct that most Guard units did not wear covers.At least until the late 70's....

In 1982 my Guard unit all wore covers. A mixture of erdl covers with some Mitchells too. By the mid 80's they were all BDU cammo covers and by 1986 we had to turn in the M1's for the God Awfull K pots. The first Kevlars.. Terrible things.

Not the best moment for a guard unit but here are some pictures of the troops at Kent State University.

You can see that some troops wear the mitchell cover and the majority have no covers.

 

[The Rooster]

The guard back in the 1960's was in my opinion somewhat ate up.

Not up to standards. When a unit has mixed equipment and when everyones equipment is not the same and not worn the same way, and when the troops look sloppy and over weight, it is a sign that they are poorly trained and poorly led.

The National guard unit I belonged to in the 80's and 90's did not have overweight troops and we were all on the same page.

You could not be fat and out of shape and be in the guard when I was in.

And we were well trained. That was the result of Ronald Reagans program of rebuilding the military.

And it really did need rebuilding.

I think the caliber of National Guard troops today has to be on a higher level than back in the 1990's........

Due to how often the National guard has been and continues to be deployed since then.

[The Rooster]

[patches]

Here's a few of your Chicago Boys Rooster, in 1968 .

[patches]

12 hours ago, The Rooster said:

The guard back in the 1960's was in my opinion somewhat ate up.

Not up to standards. When a unit has mixed equipment and when everyones equipment is not the same and not worn the same way, and when the troops look sloppy and over weight, it is a sign that they are poorly trained and poorly led.

The National guard unit I belonged to in the 80's and 90's did not have overweight troops and we were all on the same page.

You could not be fat and out of shape and be in the guard when I was in.

And we were well trained. That was the result of Ronald Reagans program of rebuilding the military.

And it really did need rebuilding.

I think the caliber of National Guard troops today has to be on a higher level than back in the 1990's........

Due to how often the National guard has been and continues to be deployed since then.

To Paraphae

 

Sloppy and Overweight is No Way To Go Through Life Son!

[The Rooster]

To quote one of the old timers that were still around in the 80's....

"We got are A__es Kicked"

I think he was talking abut the DNC 68 convention riots.

By the time I was in, they had PT tests you had to pass 2 times a year and you could not be overweight.

Unless you could move the bulk around to standards, which some guys could.

They were just big. Otherwise to be overweight and sloppy was a definite no go.

Not a helmet cover on those guys. I think that was the 1-131st and the 1-178th maybe the 129th infantry. ?

Those were all Chicago area Regiments.

Yes they are the 1-131 infantry. See the unit crest on the pocket. We wore it subdued on our BDU's/.

That is my old unit before my time. We were equipped much better than they were.

Looks like they are lined up on Michigan ave at Grant Park.

[rob214]

There are some Lean, Mean Fighting Machines in those pics! Lol....

[Salvage Sailor]

Grenada 1983

 

 

[patches]

3 hours ago, Salvage Sailor said:

Grenada 1983

 

 

Believe those are Marines, note the Inner tube bands, though by then a lot of Marines stat to be issued the standard camo Band the army is using.