Hacker News Reader

Comment by rdl | Hacker News Reader

One of the weirdest things I noticed about the military was the hat fetish -- all the rules about when a hat could or could not be worn (basically, all the times outdoor it was mandatory, except in certain uniforms; indoors, only if you were "under arms", which is distinct from just being armed), the fight over whether an elite (Ranger) black beret would get used by everyone, "no hat" zones outdoors (no hat/no salute areas where officers were in high density, and also in places where hats could be blown off and into critical equipment, like near aircraft), fights over whether an authorized hat (the boonie hat) would be authorized on specific bases, etc.

Outside of occupational hats (hard hats, etc.), the military is probably the last real holdout of hat use in the US.

View on HN

Those rules are not arbitrary. They're based on training soldiers to wear protective headgear without thinking. The hat requirement outdoors is because it's designed to create an innate awareness that will protect you in a combat zone. You never ever leave cover without your Kevlar helmet in a combat zone. The 'hat' is a representation of that protective headgear. The rules are designed to instill discipline that could keep you alive in a war zone. It certainly isn't rooted in fashion. Like nearly all military traditions and procedures, hat rules are there for a reason even though it may appear arbitrary to those who have never served.

Wait, seriously? That sounds like a "just-so" story, and I'm gonna have to call bullshit on it. The tradition of wearing a cover ("hat") as part of one's uniform both predates and extends far beyond any practical necessity to instill helmet discipline.

I mean, sure, it creates a bit of an instinctual reminder to put something on your head when you go outside, so it's helpful, but that doesn't mean that was the original rationale, especially when the same regulations apply to guys who spend their days staring at a radar scope in CIC or something. And let's be honest, lots of military traditions are kind of arbitrary (like the part where if you're walking with someone, the senior ranking person is on the right hand side--what, do you get shot at more often from the left hand side?) Having to adapt to a bunch of arbitrary traditions might have some benefit in discipline or something, but each individual tradition isn't necessarily there for a practical reason. Especially when a bunch of those traditions are actively dropped in combat zones--i.e. you don't salute so they don't know who to shoot at.

It does sound like a just-so story. Whether it is or not I couldn't say. Military thinking is often so complex that it can be hard to derive the rationale behind any particular practice, if indeed there is one. All military edicts are the result of conscious decisions, but the hard part is in determining why that decision was made. Was it arbitrary, was it for a conscious reason, or was it seemingly arbitrary but actually the result of far-reaching, emergent military understanding? I can think of several military practices which seem inane and even internally self-contradictory which are most likely preserved by a large-scale probabilistic understanding of their effects. Sometimes bureaucracy is smarter than individual people.

It is dubious, but I wouldn't absolutely rule out the hat edict as having a purpose. Remembering to wear something on your head is definitely an acquirable muscle memory.

> like the part where if you're walking with someone, the senior ranking person is on the right hand side--what, do you get shot at more often from the left hand side?

This example, on the other hand, probably is the result of conscious, practical decision making. You are better positioned with your sword arm free. It seems reasonable that the senior ranking person would insist on walking on the side that allowed them to have their sword arm (pistol arm) free in case of attack.

You can build a ramp around a tower in two ways. One direction puts your right hand on the side open to the air. The other pins it against the tower wall. Towers were built so that the direction of the ramps encircling them allowed defenders at the top to have their sword arms free to the open air. Attackers coming up with the ramp would have their sword arms inhibited by the face of the tower. You can verify this by inspecting the construction of the towers.

That story is nonsense. The military wears caps outdoors for largely practical purposes - keep the sun out of your eyes. Dress hats are worn because dress hats have always been worn - the same reason that ties, epaulets, collars, brass buttons, and so on are also part of the dress uniforms.

Finnish military has also this kind of weird "no hat while eating", which comes from Finnish civilian tradition. The only exception is below -20 Celsius temperature.

At least in my country it's been tradition to take your hat of inside, because it's disrespectful to the house owner. Like a statement that your roof is leaking. Nowadays this culture has faded, but personally I don't like to wear a hat partly because of this.

Outside of occupational hats (hard hats, etc.), the military is probably the last real holdout of hat use in the US.

I would say the ball cap is pretty common among farmers. Suppliers hand out their branded hats like candy. Not to mention baseball players themselves, who pretty much also wear the style of hat while in a professional setting.

I recall a commentary on a stargate episode where they commented that the USAF was always upset if any of the actors didn't follow the rules about hats to the letter.

This is because all of the uniform regulations become second nature to you when you're in the military. You and everybody that you work with wear the uniform in the same way, so it's incredibly distracting and jarring to see it worn correctly. It's actually hard to focus on the show because you're staring at the guy and thinking, "What an idiot!"

Ask any former Navy officer about what was the most inaccurate part of Crimson Tide. Nine times out of ten, they won't mention the submarine's mutiny that almost leads to nuclear armageddon or the underwater gunplay or the electronics technician soldering together a top secret encrypted VLF radio receiver. They'll instead complain about how Gene Hackman's uniform was so screwed up.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com