-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
The great NWU's
- Thread starter exNavyOffRec
- Start date
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
AWGs are/were flame resistant.
Just sayin.
Just sayin.
Same shit happened in the USAF w/ the ABU's. I think it took almost 5 years for the uniform board to figure out that getting set on fire during an IED blast while wearing ABUs wasn't good for the skin and offered absolutely 0 protection from fire and the uniform would melt to the skin. We wore the Army's flame retardant uniform until the ABU flame retardant uniform was made...............then nobody wore the flame retardant version because everyone started to wear the Multicam instead. Maybe you guys had the same uniform board as us!
Hear hear! Wear them for a week or so and they were ridiculously comfortable...Strange, sure...but distinctive, comfortable and functional. I was frustrated when we went to utilities...
The requirements didn't have a need for flame retardandcy, so the requirements were met. Now should the requirements have had a need for a shipboard environment? It would seem to make sense. Of course there were also a lot of FOD issues with buttons when they first came out.
I'm tempted to do my own experiment.
I have a very old set that's not quite right anyway...I want to see this whole "burn robustly until consumed" thing in action. I'm just worried its too cold and windy right now to get a good burn going.
What's truly embarrassing is that there are a lot of other navies that are much better than the NWU's.
I have a very old set that's not quite right anyway...I want to see this whole "burn robustly until consumed" thing in action. I'm just worried its too cold and windy right now to get a good burn going.
True. But considering people were also getting hassled about wearing UnderArmour undershirts when they first came out because they weren't cotton, you'd think somebody would've had a moment of clarity.
What's truly embarrassing is that there are a lot of other navies that are much better than the NWU's.
But it still should be a surprise that 50/50 melts when it gets hot. Your point about it not being a requirement is a good one though. It just proves the further ridiculousness of the Board, especially when our sister service already had a uniform that would have met the requirements (I'm pretty sure the CG utilities are cotton, but welcome the correction).
Remember it took the USS STARK getting hit by a missile before the Navy figured out that wearing 100% polyester clothes (CNT) and plastic shoes (corframs) was a bad idea. So the fact the Uniform Board didn't worry about this (too focused on SDK and CPO cutlass) that it shouldn't surprise anyone.
I thought it was the ROBERTS before that...or the FORRESTAL before that. Yes, I'm being a smart ass.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
As a devil's advocate theory-to-practice, a ship recently fought a fire for approximately 12 hours and had 0 cases of NWUs melting to their skins. They did, however, have a handful of burn cases from dripping, near boiling water wetting the flash hoods with no fire helmets supplied.
Were they actually wearing NWUs? In the last few years, the DC stations I've seen have Nomex coveralls for parties to change into (if they're not already coming from Engineering).
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
Everyone was wearing NWUs under their FFEs.
The test quoted says that it took a direct flame to each service's fabric for 12 seconds, which melted the NWU and charred the other two.
So I suppose if someone were to stand in the fire without FFEs, the NWUs might have melted, but then you have to ask yourself why someone would do such a silly thing. I doubt that standing 4-6' away and putting a fire extinguisher on a small fire that just started is going to cause the NWU to melt to anyone's skin, and if that fails you send personnel in FFEs to fight the fire.
There is the whole battle-damage possibility, but it's likewise hard to imagine someone who survives a hit to the ship but instantaneously finds himself in the middle of a blaze that melts his uniform to his skin. I'd like to hear the voices of experience to know if that's how it actually happened.
I hate the NWU as much as the next guy. I'm just pointing out that the only real-life scenario that occured doesn't support the study.
The test quoted says that it took a direct flame to each service's fabric for 12 seconds, which melted the NWU and charred the other two.
So I suppose if someone were to stand in the fire without FFEs, the NWUs might have melted, but then you have to ask yourself why someone would do such a silly thing. I doubt that standing 4-6' away and putting a fire extinguisher on a small fire that just started is going to cause the NWU to melt to anyone's skin, and if that fails you send personnel in FFEs to fight the fire.
There is the whole battle-damage possibility, but it's likewise hard to imagine someone who survives a hit to the ship but instantaneously finds himself in the middle of a blaze that melts his uniform to his skin. I'd like to hear the voices of experience to know if that's how it actually happened.
I hate the NWU as much as the next guy. I'm just pointing out that the only real-life scenario that occured doesn't support the study.
And I'm sure everyone will be dressed out in FFE's prior to any actual battle damage occurring.
I appreciate your playing devil's advocate, but I'm not sure your anecdote is so much a vindication for NWU's as an endorsement of the FFE's.