It may be just me, but seeing the word "tunic" used to describe the US Military's COATS, JACKETS, or UNIFORMS drives me crazy. Anyone else feel the same way?

 

For reference, here is what a TUNIC really is:

 

 

And here is what we refer to as a tunic. I don't think they are the same.

 

 

For reference, here I am wearing a tunic in an OPFOR capacity.

 

 

I am not directing this at any individual in particular, but would like to hear thoughts. As a side note, I used tunic when I first began collecting, until I saw the light and learned that we didn't wear tunics in the US military.

 

That looks like armed Hare Krishna.

 

Tunic has many meanings. Here's one definition from Wikipedia:

 

Modern Tunic

 

In Western culture, its use continues primarily in a religious and uniform context. It is the primary garment worn by the clergy, and members of religious orders. The religious tunic reaches to the feet. It is also the name often given to the coat worn by military and police personnel, usually close-fitting, buttoned up the front, either high-collared or open-necked, and of a variety of lengths (although most commonly with short skirts).

 

(skirts there means the part of the coat below the belt)

 

One dictionary says, " A long, plain, close-fitting jacket, usually having a stiff high collar and worn as part of a uniform."

 

Several others concur with this as one of the modern meanings.

 

I suspect the modern use in connection with uniforms may be British in origin but the uniform connection also dates back to the Romans when the tunic's style, color and stripes (or lack of) denoted the wearer's status and/or mililtary rank.

 

You may not wear tunics in the Army and the Marines may wear covers and not caps, but in common English, those unofficial words communicate sometimes more clearly than the prescribed terms. Now about those blouses....

I as well used to use the word tunic when I started out but have since learned to simply call it a jacket or coat. I had always been under the impression that a dress jacket was a tunic and had always called it that for that reason. Oh by the way, nice Iraqi man-dress. It's more common to see them wearing pants and suit coats/blazers in Iraq than man-dresses anymore.

That costume was a bit of a quickie, I was supposed to be on a partolling lane, but sprained my shoulder at the LRC earlier and had to make a quick costume. I shouldn't have said OPFOR really, as I was a member of a "friendly" village. We never shot at anyone, but freaked the good guys out a few times by firing blanks into the air for celebrations.

 

Thanks for yor input!

Justin

That costume was a bit of a quickie, I was supposed to be on a partolling lane, but sprained my shoulder at the LRC earlier and had to make a quick costume. I shouldn't have said OPFOR really, as I was a member of a "friendly" village. We never shot at anyone, but freaked the good guys out a few times by firing blanks into the air for celebrations.

 

Thanks for yor input!

Justin

 

I too have long disagreed with the term tunic for US uniforms. I have NEVER seen that term used in any regulation or specification for any branch. I suspect it comes to us from either British, or more likely German terminology.

 

I much prefer "coat" for those longer than waist length and "jacket" for waist length. Yes, "blouse" is a common Army term, but I could never figure out how one could wear a blouse and blouse his trousers! Sheesh!

 

I have a problem too with the term "dress". What we usually mean is the "service" uniform as opposed to the formal dress uniform -- this usually means the blues! But that is another story!

 

Let's face it, the real issue is communication. Are we using terminology that everyone understands and accepts as common usage?

 

One of the members complimented me on using Spec. numbers in my descriptions of WW1 EM coats as opposed to using M1912, etc. Well, I actually used both the Spec. and the date. Again, it is an issue of communication!

 

Does a Marine wear an "Ike" or a "Vandegrift"?

 

HELLLLLLP!

OK

 

Since you guys brought it up, I'll bite.

 

I don't have a problem with "tunic" as much as I do with M1917, M1855, etc when referring to uniforms.

 

Equipment has model nomenclature. Uniforms have specifications.

 

I'm just sayin...

....in my descriptions of WW1 EM coats...

 

 

And what, exactly, is an "EM"????

 

In my world, an EM is an Electricians Mate. Our enlisted people are called blueshirts, bluejackets or sailors. Army enlisted are called soldiers, and in the Air Force they're called Airmen. All of the Marines are called Marines - no matter what the rank.

 

Just thought I'd throw that one in there. I used to use that term before I joined the military and found out that we didn't have EMs in the service (save, of course, the Electricians Mates that worked for me...)

 

I too used to use "tunic" to describe a jacket, but have since changed to refer to them as "jackets" or "uniform jacket". A "tunic" is something that I think the Loser collectors coined ages ago... back when I was collecting German stuff in the 80s everyone called every jacket a "tunic"... it was just the norm. Now it grates on me!

 

And the same can be said for the M- numbering of everything. I know this is a US forum, but I'm always most disturbed by the M- classifications of foreign uniforms. An "M1943 parade uniform"??? Did the Soviets call it that??? Are you kidding me???

 

Just my two cents...

 

Dave

...and another thing that makes me cranky:

 

calling anything after 1945: "Post War"

 

Just exactly post what war?!?!?!?!?

 

You do know, there has been more than just one.

 

"Get of my yard you danged kids!!! (throws pinecone).

OK, I know that I am going off of the topic of tunic versus coat, but I have to throw my pet peeve in here.

 

No one has ever "won" a medal for bravery! Bronze Star, Silver Star, DSC, it doesn't matter. They EARNED the medal! You win a medal when you run a race or are involved in some sort of meaningless competion (when compared to combat). The only time you might win a Bronze Star is in a lottery at a military show!

 

OK, enough of my rant!

BEAST,

 

Oooooh I wish you had said Silver Star or one of the higher decorations...

 

Bronze Stars can be and often are given as a "wartime MSM." For example, back during Kosovo, a bunch of people (ahem REMFS ahem) at Molesworth got Bronze Stars for thier "service" in support of the "war". Not one of those guys ever saw the business end of a rifle...

 

If there ever was a case of "winning" a medal, that (IMHO) was it.

 

I know a lot of guys truly earn their Bronze Stars, but there are plenty who just happened to be in the right place, at the right rank...

 

If I had my way I would completely do away with the whole idea of medals for "service." I'm with Teddy Roosevelt; it either needs to be for a participation in a campaign or for valor. I say scrap the rest.

 

My service is the worst too! After 21 years in the USAF, I look like a "Russian General" Take away all the silly-arsed you did a good job medals and stayed in the AF ribbons, and I would have a total of 3 campaign medals, that and my (now defunct) GCM. Bah!

 

(throws another pinecone)

 

Chris

 

 

OK, I know that I am going off of the topic of tunic versus coat, but I have to throw my pet peeve in here.

 

No one has ever "won" a medal for bravery! Bronze Star, Silver Star, DSC, it doesn't matter. They EARNED the medal! You win a medal when you run a race or are involved in some sort of meaningless competion (when compared to combat). The only time you might win a Bronze Star is in a lottery at a military show!

 

OK, enough of my rant!

I have had my time on the "box" regarding using useful nomenclature and terminology to improve communications between interested parties. In my research I have found that in official correspondence the military did not always use the current nomenclature but would use terms that provided clear understanding of what the subject of the communication was about.

 

I have to say that during war time when a great deal more communications were going between often newly formed or reorganized agencies, by people new to the situation, the communications were more practical than by protocol. I have researched military documents at the National Archives covering roughly 1872 to 1918 and 1940 to 1946. The formality of the correspondence is quite interesting. For example in the 1800s correspondence often started with "I have the honor to..." and end with "Your obedient servant ..." and etc. It was obvious that people were very much concerned with setting the proper tone of their correspondence and not give offense.

 

As a consequence I am not impressed by people that are merely collectors, dealers or historians using terms that would have been alien and perhaps even offensive to the people many of you profess to "honor" by preserving their history.

 

In regard to the term "tunic" I have previously commented that this is more prevalent in Europe than in North America. There are many terms used by European armies that have been picked up by people here that were never in wide spread use by American troops. For example I was assigned to the 1st Squadron, 18th Armored Cavalry and we trained to perform reconnaissance that was often shortened to "Recon" but never "Recce." (While doing spell check my computer recognized “Recon” but not “Recce.”)

 

It is a fact that our historian friends and allies in Europe have done a better job of preserving history than we have. Most of the research works on U.S. military equipment is coming out of Europe. There is nothing wrong with this, after all they are preserving the history of their last two monumental wars and the Americans were "there." The last "war" fought here was against the Native Americans and that "war" is now politically incorrect.

 

In any case the fellows across the Atlantic pond (pond? did I say pond? isn't that supposed to be Ocean?) are in the forefront of documenting and preserving the history and the culture of their unpleasantries. In the course of documenting the uniforms and equipment it is only natural for them to use terms that are familiar to them, and that they use to communicate a concept or piece of equipment. I have previously commented that many of you, or "us" if you prefer, are infected by the terminology used by the people writing the reference works. There is nothing inherently wrong with this especially if you are going to have a discussion with those people it is obviously better to use terms that both understand.

 

Somehow I feel that we are in a sense betraying our history by using terminology and nomenclature that is "borrowed" from other people and not common to American military use. I'm not so sure we are honoring our veterans by using terminology that is intended to demonstrate how astute we are to how we think it was.

 

I have commented long but hopefully not too loud about the improper use of the terms "model," "pattern" and "MILSPEC." The use of these terms by the U.S. military is confusing enough without dealer-quasihistorians misinterpreting, purposefully or from ignorance, documents and military usage to enhance sale of materials. It is a fact that in the U.S. Army, prior to establishment of the Defense Supply Agency, the different branches responsible for procurement used different means to identify items. The Ordnance Department was more inclined to use a fairly well established system of "model" nomenclatures. The Quartermaster Department was somewhat less formal in their use of these terms and sometimes items were designated model and sometimes not. With establishment of DSA the use of the term model was greatly diminished and uniforms and equipment had a nomenclature, Federal Stock Numbers, LINs and other system identification that was required to keep track of it all. What is interesting is that some items continued to be identified by quite old designations.

 

What I am driving at here is that we can go a little nutty trying to fit the military terminology, designations, model numbers, nomenclatures and etc. to the field of historical study and collecting material items. I recognize the impulse to substitute for nomenclature terms that are intended to show our sophistication of knowledge of the subject.

 

As I have previously commented I'm not so sure that is truly honoring any one and is confusing to an understanding of what is being discussed. When you speak of "lids," "pots," "tunics," "model" and "pattern" is there a common ground of understanding of what you are trying to communicate?

 

I suppose you know what you're talking about and if your intent is to only communicate with others in your exclusive circle that know the secret words then you are probably doing an adequate job of communicating. If on the other hand you want to communicate with a broader audience, some of whom don't know the secret words or hand shake, you will sometimes have to revert to words that are more descriptive and common to understanding the communication.