Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1920-06-18
URGES NEW DESIGN
IN ARMY UNIFORM
Ex-Sergeant Says Trousers
Of Infantry Are of Type
for Mounted Soldier.
To the Editor OF The Star:

/ To the Editor of The Star:
| May l comment on the subject dis
cussed in your article in Tuesdays is
sue with regard to the uniform worn
| by the American soldier? AS one who
has worn the uniform and is more or
less acquainted with its defects on
that account. i am probably in some
wise qualified to speak.
! l should suggest that the trouble
| lies more in the wrong design of the
clothing rather than in poor fit, al
/ though the latter is responsible for a
| large per cent of the sloppy" appear
ance of the American soldier in the
| field In the matter of breeches, for
/ instance, our boys in the infantry or
| unmounted branches wear breeches
primarily designed for mounted men,
which are riding breeches. pure and
simple. They have an enormous flare
| beginning abruptly at the knee and
| be!iylng outward. and unless well fit
ted something entirely out of the
question:. and well pressed, they pre-
s.! sent sadly bagged appearance. espe-
cially after short service in the field
When a man does not have the time
| nor the facilities to keep them fiat
They are even reinforced at the knee
and IN some cases in the seat for
service in the saddle. Yet they are
! ISSueu 10 lHI3nIrN. Inp presence
that great patch of cloth as a rein
forcement on the inside of the knee
on breeches issued to infantry was
always puzzle to me, especially in
view of the alleged shortage of wool
en- cloth.
As for the blouse. We affect the
choker' style of collar. 1t is usually
about two sizes too large. even though
the blouse fits otherwise. 1T is also
stlHened with cast iron or some other
equally unbending substance, and will
hehead man if he is not careful,
especially during a long hike with
pack.
And so | think that instead of cast
ing about for 4 method of fitting men
properly. much as that is needed, the
war Department should look to the
design of the uniform first, and adopt
something that will look at least
fairly decent after it has been sub
jected to field service, and will be
more comfortable to the men--the
blouse especially, in that regard. We
could study the English and par
ticularly the Canadian uniform with
benefit. The Engfishman wears long
trousers, but when worn with his
spiral puttees in his peculiar style,
and with blouse and cap equipment.
all of which seem to blend well, he
presents good appearance under
most trying field service. The Cana
tirely different type from ours. and
far more soldierly looking. Instead
of the laces fastening the bottoms,
which usually requires about ten
precious minutes to fx-and those ten
minutes are precious, indeed, at
reveille--he has an elastic band which
requires 10 adjustment and always
fits snug. Neither are his breaches
built in imitation of observation bal
looms, but taper gradually from waist
to knee and do not have to be pressed
every day or SO to preserve their
form.
OF course. l do not expect the War
Department will change it's views in
accordance with mine--not hardly
but to any one who has seen our uni
form in comparison with the ones
mentioned it must seem apparent
that something IS wrong with ours.
and / think that | have pointed out
some defects which, if remedied,
would vastly improve our good old
khaki and give our boys some of the
snap and soldierly appearance that
the Britisher and Canadian largely
owe to his scientifically designed
uniform.
THOS. E. GODFREY,
Formerly sergeant, I'D Infantry.