Talk:Army Combat Uniform

message: "Uniforms purchased from commercial websites and surplus stores that sell to the general public do not include the IR squares, which are restricted to military personnel because of their sensitive nature."
BULLSHIT>   How many do you want?  I can have you 20 uniforms with the allegedly "restricted, not available" IR squares within an hour.
False reporting doesn't gain credibility fr WP.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.206.158 (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Hey Greeky, I might be going off topic and on a POV rant, but I just checked AR 670-1 and it does not say that wearing of underwear is mandatory.  I can see some anal retentive commander making it an SOP issue, but other than that, underwear is optional (for both males and females).
As to why somebody would not want to wear underwear?  Just ask any operator or actual shooter and they'll let you know.
1) less things to carry and account for (weight vs. use).  And I know some psychos who in the effort of cutting weight of their loads, would chop their toothbrushes in half.
2) less things to wash.  I know that in today's military they have plenty of units that will wash your clothes for free (or civilian contractors), but when you rely on yourself, you hand was everything (just a thought).
3) Preventive Medicine.  Besides shaving their pubic area, some operator also do not wear underwear to prevent chaffing in sandy and wet environments, preventing crotch rot, chaffing and the infections that come with it.
So there are reasons why people do not wear underwear.  But I am a pogue, so I wear it.  I would hate to get a no-go on my inspection lord forbid.  LOL (^_^).
[user:jerry.mills]
:Underwear can go a long way towards keeping the bugs out in a temperate area.  Believe me, the nether regions are the last place you want a horde of ants.  Sandy environments are a hell upon themselves, and going sans underwear honestly isn't going to help quite as much as some may think.  And about the regulation omission, I'm fairly certain the reason AR 670-1 says nothing about underwear is precisely so that underwear CAN'T be inspected.  I can imagine all sorts of EO problems occuring if that happened.  teh TK 20:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  underwear 

message: What the...?  Since when is it in an encyclopedia's realm to describe how to maintain and care for the clothing being described?  This is not an instruction manual, it is a resource for information about the uniform itself.  Even portions of the section about how to wear the uniform properly is stretching it.  I couldn't find one other instance of "Uniform Care" in any of the other military uniform articles, and there's a reason for that.  If folks are having difficulty knowing how to launder their own uniforms, I suggest they ask the Army, not Wikipedia.  I'm deleting that entire section for this reason.  --ScreaminEagle 21:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uniform Care?  Really? 

message: The article referenced in this section discusses why black was removed and links to a more detailed analysis.  Including an explanation of how it IS found in nature as perceived depth.  The last paragraph is at odds with the information there and seems illogical - if woodland gets darker as it gets wetter then black would blend in better, no? I have removed it.
"Woodland gets darker" refers to a woodland-camouflage uniform becoming darker, not to the actual terrain becoming darker. So no, black would not blend in better, as it would not reflect the appearance of the terrain--in this instance, a wooded are after a rain.
128.123.86.88 22:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for elimination of black 

message: I wonder if someone could give us insight on the colors of officer rank insignia.  I encountered a gentleman in ACU in the airport the other day, wearing a sold black oak leaf.  I didn't know whether to call him "major" or "colonel." This page, as well as the pages for US Army insignia, could stand to be updated to account for this.  Any help?--163.252.124.64 17:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The color of subdued rank insignia haven't changed at all. Silver rank insignia are black when subdued, and gold rank insignia are brown. The officer you saw was a LTC. Nathanm mn 01:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Officer rank insignia 

message: I've gone ahead and axed the Field Test Results section.  You figure if the information was accurate there would be a source I could find with a little bit of Googlewhacking.  None, zip, nada, just a lot of jawjacking from armchair warlords whose hardcore Airsoft-playing battle experience makes me take their word as gospel.
It seems like the only people who aren't complaining about the ACU are the soldiers who're actually wearing it into battle.  That's the field test for you.  I'll take one happy soldier over a million happy war-geeks any day. Kensai Max 01:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The criticism is basically valid, ACU camouflage doesn't work very well in a desert or woodland environment. But most operations today don't rely on camouflage, or they happen at night when the pattern doesn't matter. Nathanm mn 17:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: First of all I love the phrase "armchair warlords".  I get so tired of being lectured on tactics and equipment by these airsoft nerds.  Secondly I have to say that I love this cammo.  It's finally a uniform that's practically designed for combat.  No more of the garrison pretty BDU uniform.  I think it does alright overall.  Works great for urban, ok for woodland, ok for snow.  But I hardly see how it works for desert at all.  But I don't really care because the fact is that where I'm at we don't go out into sector with ACU's on we wear tan "Nomex Flight Suits" instead because they offer flame resistance. Ultratone85 12:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Can we add this source: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004issc/wednesday/dugas.ppt It's a test of prospective camo patterns from 2004. Notably, it does not have either AUC or any other digital pattern, and the overall winner was a "brush-pattern" in desert colors. The colors used also include black, which ACU does not have. The winners also tended to be more brown/green than the greyish urban paterns that were tested. Identity0 12:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, here's something about the elimination of black, and from a pretty reliable source: http://www.hyperstealth.com/acupat/ . 83.4.216.240 09:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe so, maybe not. The point is... Well the point is that they have a point there. You'll find the same opinion on kamouflage.net -> http://www.kamouflage.net/en_010402.php . Most sources agree that although black is rare in nature it is seen as depth by our brain. I'm not saying that the ARPAT isn't any good. I'm just stating that well used black makes the eye 'look through you', as it has the impression of a deep shade. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.4.221.150 (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Damn Straight! Ultratone85 11:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Field Test Results removal 

message: Everyone here seems pretty well-versed in care/use and 'operation' of the ACU. Does anyone have information relating to design, construction, testing, manufacture - companies, contracts, testing? If we're talking about uniform care, does its production need to be thought through also?
Danelle Jones 04:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Design and Construction - (Does it belong?) 

message: I put a fact tag on the multicam blurb someone added.  Given the unlikelihood of Future Force Warrior becoming a military reality (Land Warrior's already gotten canned) and the fact that Multicam is generally associated with the FFW program, I find it unlikely that the Army is going to backtrack and adopt Multicam after passing it over for ARPAT once already.  Is there a reliable government source for this, or is this just someone drooling over Multicam for no reason? Kensai Max 18:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You might want to put it back.  SF and LRS units are wearing Multicam, so your "finding it unlikely" is not only original research, it's wrong.Mzmadmike (talk) 03:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multicam 

message: Can anyone explain to me why the ACU has the rank of the soldier placed mid-chest instead of on the shoulders or on the upper arms.
Redsox00002 04:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I can't offer a by the book official explanation for this I think the decision came from couple of things.  Firstly the US Army seems to have moved past wearing rank on the upper arms of combat uniforms (probably because it's not a good idea to advertise your rank to the enemy especially if there's a sniper threat).  In fact the only US military branch that still wear rank on the upper arms of their combat uniform is the Air Force.  Putting rank on the collar would've likely interfered with the design of the Mandarin collar.  As of recently only officers have been able to wear rank on the shoulders of a select few pieces of combat uniform articles (the only of which I can recall are the M-65 Field Jacket and the Nomex Flight Suit).  And I'm not sure that we've ever had enlisted rank on the shoulders of any US Army Combat uniform (and even in the case of the class-A uniform shirt it's only worn by Non-commisioned officers and not lower enlisted soldiers).  I think the placement of the rank on the ACUs was likely inspired by the similar placement of rank on the IBA Vest, Wet Weather Gear Top and Gortex Top.  Not to mention it goes along with the uniforms' overall simplicity trend.  Those are my thoughts so take it or leave it.  Ultratone85 09:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  center chest insignia is NATO standard.  Eventually, everyone will be doing it, including USAF and USMC.Mzmadmike (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In  my view, when it's in the centre, the sniper can see it much more easily.Cibwins2885 (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rank 

message: I've removed some criticism of the ACU that's crept into the "Notes" section, specifically the part about the lack of black in the camouflage pattern and the velcro noise issue.  Hyperstealth.com is a commercial site and shouldn't be being used as a reference for the effiacy of camouflage patterns.  I think the US Army has a little more credibility than they do.  I suppose that in theory the noise made by opening velcro fasteners could give away your position, but if you're that close to the enemy I doubt you're going to be diving in your pockets in the first place.  The entire "velcro is noisy" issue also overlooks the major advantage of velcro as opposed to buttons, that velcro is much faster than screwing around trying to button or unbutton something one-handed and thus lets you both have secure pockets and use them tactically.
I can provide a citation for the statement I've inserted if necessary. Kensai Max 00:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed some dubious statements 

message: I'm not really sure where to start on this one, but let me just put it this way.  The weekend patriots who make the kind of allegations that the flag orientation on American combat uniforms is somehow inappropriate are saying that the military of the United States of America does not know how to respect the American flag.  If you think the military is disrespecting the stars and stripes, you are wrong and you are an idiot.  I suppose I could be less blunt, but it's a completely baseless charge. 
Can people stop inserting non-rigorous criticism of the ACU into this article?  Thanks. 128.153.211.154 23:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed the criticism of the flag facing 

message: I believe that some references made to AR 670-1 need to be cleaned up. Specifically, the reference is made that AR 670-1 was amended by the ALARACT Message, but this is not the case. The message specifically says in it that upon publication of a new version of AR 670-1, the message expires. 
Additionally, 
In addition, AR 670-1 does not allow soldiers to cover the exposed velcro on the shoulders, making the uniform look, "unimpressive."
Is simply not located in the current version of AR 670-1, dated February 3, 2005, and I can find no policy memorandum asserting this uniform regulation. Without a source, I'm going to do a significant rewrite of this section to bring it in line with the available sources.Zharmad (talk) 08:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reinstated the controversy section. Because I'm clearly a mall ninja. And there are references. Tmaull (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I admit, they do not prove the camouflage is bad. In fact, I think its pretty good camouflage considering the current deployment. As a matter of fact, I wrote the article about it, Universal Camouflage Pattern. If selling it as "Universal" is what it takes to get the funding for it, then great, call it "Universal". But those references prove that there IS controversy. The fact that PEO Soldier wrote a response to them proves that there is controversy. I'm going to let some other people chime in here before I reinstate it again.  Tmaull (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: That editorial is by the guy who writes the Badgers Forward milblog, which is probably one of the more influential milblogs out there. He's a captain in the US Army, and he recently started his second consecutive tour over there. I think its his third tour, in total. Either way, I think its important enough to note. And he's definitely not a Crye rep. I'm convinced that there are numerous people in the Army who are not huge fans of the new pattern. Like I said earlier, I think its great, especially in Iraq and most of Afghanistan. Tmaull (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't call that scientific testing, but I'll admit it seemed like the best pattern there, especially with the leaves on the ground. But that's not really the point, and I'm NOT trying to prove that the pattern is ineffective. What I am trying to prove is that there is a significant number of US Army soldiers who think that the UCP pattern is not effective, especially as a "universal" pattern. As I've said earlier, my opinion is that it does a great job, and I respect your opinion that everyone should be really pumped up about it. What I don't understand is why its a problem, to state the opinions of others, especially when I've got sources to prove it. I think what I'm going to do is a request for comment thing, and hope other people can weigh in on this and we can get a consensus.Tmaull (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There in fact was a policy letter, AND a Soldier Magazine statement by the SMA that velcro covers in ACU were not authorized.  Obviously I don't have that in front of me at this time.  However, that's why no one makes any--they're prohibited.  It was around 2004-2005.  Point 2:  Sure, we need citation of the criticism.  We also need citation of the fawning fanboism of what is (IMO) the most worthless crap camouflage in history.  If you really believe you can't see this stuff 50 feet away, you either need your eyes fixed, or anti-delusional meds.  Currently, this article reads like an ad.  And if you go on ANY forum with troops in it, pretty much everyone thinks ACU is garbage, and we're talking troops, not wannabes.  I've tagged for cites the grandiose claims of its effectiveness.  If they're true, that's fine--document them. (And since everyone else is slapping it up there: US Army 6 years, USAF 18 years, professional writer and consultant 5 years, and married to a serving soldier 5 years.  Go away now)Mzmadmike (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  AR 670-1 References 

message: Is the the following statement relevant to the article and appropriately sourced? 
===Controversy===
Critics in the army say the "universal" scheme concept is not practical, and that with more foliage green than any other color on the uniform; it fails to properly camouflage the user in either desert or woodland areas.http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,131103,00.htmlhttp://www.defensetech.org/archives/003176.htmlhttp://www.defensetech.org/archives/003267.html
===Refs===
===Comments===
I see that this commentary has been removed, but I don't understand why. The Military.com article looks like a bona fide news (editorial) article to me. The defensetech.org posts, although they look more like blog posts, are somewhat expert in this area, and lend credibility to the critique. We've also used these posts all over the project. I think the critique is on-topic. I found it interesting. I think the section should be restored. Cool Hand Luke 07:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it.  Unless the ARMY offers criticism, it's not valid.  We'll assume it's perfect, and anyone claiming otherwise is a "blogger" or a "competitor" or "one man with an opinion."  Tell me, who IS qualified to criticize it?  As I said: Fanboism.Mzmadmike (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: Is Controversy section relevant

message: I see that this commentary has been removed, but I don't understand why. The Military.com article looks like a bona fide news (editorial) article to me. The defensetech.org posts, although they look more like blog posts, are somewhat expert in this area, and lend credibility to the critique. We've also used these posts all over the project. I think the critique is on-topic. I found it interesting. I think the section should be restored. Cool Hand Luke 07:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it.  Unless the ARMY offers criticism, it's not valid.  We'll assume it's perfect, and anyone claiming otherwise is a "blogger" or a "competitor" or "one man with an opinion."  Tell me, who IS qualified to criticize it?  As I said: Fanboism.Mzmadmike (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Someone has proposed a merge with the Army Combat Shirt. I disagree with this proposal, as I think it will make this article too confusing. - Tmaull (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good Point!  Ultratone85 (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Merge with [[Army Combat Shirt]]

message: I've removed this picture from the page because it is redundant.  It offers nothing that the image above it doesn't, and it's caption is filled full of information that's irrelevent to the article.  Ultratone85 (talk) 11:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Image

message: I've seen images that show the unform in use with the Republic of Georgia which uses mostly US Military clothes, so it's not too far fetched they could have it. In this vid, on officers. It thought it could be US observers, but they had on the Georgian Flag!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bbx_ctBHoRU&feature=related  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.1.230 (talk) 03:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Republic of Georgia

message: I've cleaned up the criticism section.  Due to prior editorial consensus I've kept the criticism of the camouflage pattern, which is patently ridiculous but notable enough for inclusion, but removed the non-notable section about some jungle uniform we used for a brief period in WWII (and which was apparently enough of a bad idea that we didn't bring back the idea in Vietnam, instead using uniforms similar to later BDUs and ACUs) and the uncited section about durability issues. 128.153.195.195 (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism Cleanup

message: In this section it simply states that "The use of multiple camouflage patterns within an organization is now seldom seen, as the ACU has been widely fielded"
But I would like this to state something about when the transition between mutiple camo patterns and "now" took place. "Now" is not very precise. Now = April 2009? When was "now" written?
Anyone have any info on when full ACU (including vests and packs, knee pads etc.) all was fielded wide spread? What's the latest one might have seen woodland, 3 tone desert or coyote tan vests/packs etc.?
As this is an encyclopedia, the idea is that in x number of years, the information is the same, meaning even though it's still current, you wouldn't use words like "today" you'd give the actual date. That's my understanding anyway.
Thanks!  (137.45.185.105 (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial fielding

message: Are these authorized for paratroopers?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.231.239.198 (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jump boots. 

message: As of 14 June 2011, name and service tapes, and rank insignia, can now be sewn-on instead of attached using velcro.  Skill and assignment (recruiter, etc) badges can also be sewn-on.  Unit (SSI) badges, tabs and the US flag patch will still be attached by velcro.
The "Universal Camouflage Pattern" ACU has been replaced by the Crye Multicam ACU for service in Afghanistan.  It is likely that the MC pattern will be adopted for Army-wide service as the "interim" pattern while new woodland and desert patterns are developed.
The details of the ACU have been modified, removing some of the velcro and replacing some velcro closures with buttons.  The front zipper remains at present, but is under review.
The standard ACU, made of a nylon-cotton blend, is no longer approved for use in combat operations and has been replace by the "Fire Resistant ACU" (FRACU).
These changes have all been documented at www.army.mil so if someone wants to wrestle with the ACU fanboys again, have at it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.182.39 (talk) 07:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs updating with current developments 

message: I think the main photo for the article should be changed or removed. The photo is of 2 Soldiers, one in Garrison configuration and the other in the modified field configuration. The SFC on the left in Garrison configuration has several deficiencies with his uniform. First, his SSI (unit patch) is wrong. It should be centered between the bottom of the pocket and the bottom of the pocket flap. It is visibly too high. The 2nd (and bigger issue) his skill badges are 100% wrong. Per the initial ALARACT fOr the ACU dated 2004/2005, when 4 badges are worn, they will be in stacks of two, worn side by side, NOT two side by side, then one above and one more above (creating a third row), as how the SFC is wearing them. It is blatantly wrong and will give the wrong impression of how the skill badges should be worn. ~~Current SSG, 11 years TIS~~. --Jeddie frost (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Article Photo 

message: Army policy in both Iraq and Afghanistan has been to prohibit the wear of the ACU due to its fabrication from nylon-cotton blend material which is flammable and causes severe burn injuries in IED attacks.  Soldiers are required to wear the Fire Resistant ACU (FRACU) or FR Combat Shirt when operating "outside the wire"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.195.84 (talk) 08:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no mention that the "Army Combat Uniform" is not authorized for combat? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Army Combat Uniform. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.hqusareur.army.mil/htmlinks/Press_Releases/2004/June2004/15June2004-01.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Army Combat Uniform. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.armyg1.army.mil/hr/Foliage%20Green%20t-shirt%20ALARACT%20message.doc
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It's my understanding that the "a" in "ACU" stands for "advanced." Not "Army." Wikipedia is the only source I've seen that suggests otherwise.  Mikerrr (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  ACU = advanced combat uniform 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Army Combat Uniform. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927111626/https://peosoldier.army.mil/FactSheets/PMSPIE/SPIE_SCIE_ACU.pdf to https://peosoldier.army.mil/FactSheets/PMSPIE/SPIE_SCIE_ACU.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090227164508/https://peosoldier.army.mil/factsheets/SEQ_CIE_ACU.pdf to https://peosoldier.army.mil/factsheets/SEQ_CIE_ACU.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: how do you want to handle that the Air Force calls the uniform in its service the OCP uniform instead of the Army Combat Uniform. I realize the Army doesn’t call it this, but I can foresee terminology becoming a point of contention in the future. (https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1821282/air-force-senior-leaders-update-ocp-uniform-guidance/)Garuda28 (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for also calling it OCP uniform