Why do all military uniforms look similar?

Question

Why do all military uniforms look similar in design with same types of accoutraments, medals, and cords? Did all countries come to the same conclusion or did they copy someone's? If so, whose? And why do they have the same ranks?

Well I mean between different nations. I noticed there seems to be similar styles between them except their color schemes are different. Plus I'm talking more about the class As and class Bs.

Answer 1

The Marine Corps service Alphas were taken from the German military. The Dress Blues are based on what it looked like when American colonials who had formerly served in the British army turned their coats (red coats) inside out so that the blue showed they were fighting for America. This is why the Blues coat has red piping today.

The sailor's uniforms have that flap in the back. This is a throwback to sailors from centuries ago who had long hair, which they greased and kept in ponytails. The flap was meant to catch the grease from their hair.

I don't know about the cords and whatnot, but I suggest you check out Wikipedia. They have very thorough articles about military uniforms.

Answer 2

I don't know where you are getting your information, but the US military uniforms are not similiar at all.

Each service has different rank insignia and they also have many of their own medals and ribbons - thus the Air Force Cross, Navy Cross, good conduct, etc. Now the service do share a lot of the medals because they are US Military medals.

USAF retired

Answer 3

you should purchase them yet donning them is yet yet another tale. It additionally bear in techniques on which uniforms some are harder to get than diverse: Technically, it particularly is against the regulation to placed on military uniforms, with badges and ribbons/medals which you probable did no longer earned on an comparable time as in service. in case you get caught donning those products you'll be able to get arrested. Exceptions: in case you're in a action picture that demands a uniform. try against Utilities might desire to have comparable policies as uniforms assuming that they are even nevertheless utilized in a undeniable branch. even nevertheless, optimal people, military people, and Vets do no longer techniques some toddler donning a uniform or a sequence of airsofters/paintballers donning ACUs, MARPAT utilities, etc to their video games and that's it. regardless of if it is not suggested then those civilians donning try against application Uniforms isn't prosecuted. Tactical Tailor has some reliable try against Utilities as top as military Surplus shops, and places that sell airsoft or paintball weapons, factors, kit and clothing.

Answer 4

The uniforms may look similar only to the non-military eyes. Depending on which military branch and military country you are, you would readily distinguish what branch of the military the uniform belong to. As far as rank is concern, it is benefitial to have ranks the same in all branches for the purpose if identification to showing of proper respect in cases of officers. Only the US Navy have different name for its ranks, such as Admirals instead of Generals, etc.

Answer 5

Very simple, from the word "uniform", or uniforme in French, meaning having the same form. Hence all national military uniforms will tend to many uniform features, namely within the same service. Accross services, you will basically see an almost identical use of jackets and pants, only superficial differences, colors and insignia will differ (this obviously saves money and designer hassle). Further, uniforme comes from the latin word uniformis, meaning same form (so the guy below's got **** for brains). Modern army fatigues, ie the stuff you actually wear when fighting, are a development from American Indian camouflage, which originates from the French term, which means "dissimulation", the infinitve verb is camoufler. Hell, even "fatigue" is a French term meaning weariness, since you that's the stuff you're supposed to get all tired and sweaty in.

Basically, it's all based on the concept of uniformity, ie if you're going to field 150 000 apes to deffend your country, you want them to be uniform in thought and appearance. You don't need individual character, you don't need some personnal attachment. You want uniform obedience from all.

That's why basic training is termed by many who've been there (such my two step sister fools) and by anyone intelligent enough to observe, without actually joining, the yelling and subtler form of dehumanization as basically depersonalization.

As for the ranks, I'm sure it's all conventionalist convenience, most generals would be drinking buddies if it were'nt for political leader's whims, so who needs a bunch of confusing titles that change from state to state. If they did, it would be a complete nightmare and we'd all pretty much get wiped-out in seconds, or at least we'd see military commanders insult other nation's military strucutre, which would lead to the death of all anyhow.

As for the nation of origin, I'd have to say France as taken ancient Rome, for the following reasons:
1)all important military rank terms are French following the Napoleonic wars and Frech is latin-based, hence of Roman origin:
general, lieutenant, admiral, capitaine (lat. capitum == head), commander from Fr. commendant, lat. commendare, corporal from Fr. caporal, from lat. corporalis, ie incorporated into the body that is the army, which is the arm of the satate, and so on. So more uniormity, the individual soldier is therefore seen as nothiing more than an individual cell. Ad nauseam.

2)most miltary strategy and thought for large continental land armies and navies, until the development of camouflage and stealth, was taken from the conquered, or sacked, romans by barbarian invaders, which includes Slavic/Gothic , Germanic/Galic-Celtic(Fench), Asian/Middle-Eastern and African tribes who were no more than Rome's soldiers and slaves, i.e Romans never actually did any of the fighting, unless they were poor. Being an elitist organization, you had to pay for the privilege of joining the Roman army, hence all commandment positions were bought-out by rich guys, namely Romans, and eveyrone else was either an immigrant, conquered slave or dispossessed Roman farmers and other low-ranking citizens.

3)Camouflage and stealth in uniforms is a reaction to unconventional warfare faught by the American Indians. Instead of having technologically advanced continental armies which would just stand there and shoot dung-covered slugs at eachother, Indians would use their surroundings to whatever advantage they could find to outflank and generally engage in ambush warfare.

They'd come out right beside colonialists at the last minute, or from behind, which was unheard of and considered "un-manly" by the British troops until they realized they were getting getting mini-wiped-out. This generated a sort of interest to develop some form of camouflage, like drab uniforms, which would allow some elite elements to penetrate forests and beat Indians at their game, we know the rest.

So, as I've stated, the uniform and military organization is fundamentally a Franco-Roman concept of enforced uniformity. Camouflage is of American Indian origin.

Ta dah!

Answer 6

No, it's custom, for example most Naval uniforms are based on the British navy. But it's more than that, they are functional (camouflage) and they must (by Geneva Conventions) be distinguishable from civilians. So they sort of need to look alike and with regard to camouflage, it is technology driven.