Talk:Battle Dress Uniform

message: The olive drab "Jungle" uniform made of cotton ripstop was worn in Vietnam. This uniform continued to be worn by Special Forces units long after the introduction of the cotton/polyester olive drab fatigues in the rest of the army. The women's olive drab cotton ripstop fatigues continued to be issued (this is what I was issued in basic training at Fort McClellan in 1979) until supplies were used up sometime in 1980, at which time all women began to be issued the cotton/polyester olive drab uniform. 
The cotton ripstop fabric was very fragile and knees ripped out all the time. When sent to a commercial laundry service with instructions to starch and press, the pressure exerted by the press was sometimes high enough for the buttons to punch out the fabric of the flaps covering the pockets.
The cotton/polyester olive drab uniform was the Army wide replacement for the old cotton serge uniform. Knife edge creases were made at the time of manufacture so no pressing would need to be done. The intent was to end the need for starching the utility uniform and reduce the laundry overhead costs.
Special Forces units were issued woodland camouflage cotton ripstop uniforms in the "jungle" pattern sometime in the 1970's. Supplies of these ran out about a year before the introduction of the BDU and soldiers swapping out damaged uniforms were sometimes issued the USMC version of the camouflage uniform with a "U.S.Army" patch covering up the USMC insignia stamped above the pocket. It was fairly easy to tell which were from the Marines as these had the breast pocket top level with the horizon while the original jungle pattern pockets slanted down from the armpit to the breastbone.
When the BDU was first introduced many NCOs bitterly resented the frumpy look of the uniforms washed without starching and pressing. This led to the sacrifice of one set of BDUs to the starch gods so that set could be worn at parades.
--Mccainre (talk) 02:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Immediate Predecessors to the BDU

message: Does anybody know why on the label of US made True-Spec BDU trousers it is written that you should not starch them? I have heard a military urban myth that starching your battledress makes it easier to see you using night-vision equipment. Can anybody deny or confirm this claim? Thank you for your time. Mieciu K 13:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yep, it is indeed true. The manufacturers of the uniform treat them with an IR emittance reducer that can be undermined with starch or even regular washing detergents that use brighteners when in the wash. Shadowrun 11:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   Starching a BDU Battledress?  

message: The current photo showing the uniform off isn't that great. I'll find a pic that is in the public domain (one that shows off the patter n better- the one shown just looks like another green uniform) I'll put it in. Shadowrun 11:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better Picture? 

message: In the new image posted (i.e. Airmen at Fort Huachuca, Arizona), the Air Force troops do not comply with uniform standards (i.e. even under field conditions). Note the tape on the helmets and lack of headbands... 
Actually, the Airmen on the mountain in South Korea meet both Air Force and Army uniform standards. Indeed, I find it amazing that the newly inserted photograph of these airmen is the featured image on the Ft. Huachuca installation page (i.e. since it's an Army post).
Additionally, if war broke out tomorrow on the Korean peninsula, the airmen pictured on the South Korea mountain top would be the ones calling in air strikes against advancing North Korean armor. As far as images go, there's a big difference between troops involved in a real world mission and those training in the sandbox called Arizona. On the day I took this photograph, these airmen were directing A-10 pilots on practice targets near the DMZ. 
Granted, it's a group photo...but the place and mission are for real...
Anyhow, instead of getting into a running battle over such a minor point, I've moved this photograph to the relative safety of the discussion page...lol.
Take care and keep smiling!
v/r
Peter Rimar
March 11, 2007
P.S.
The acronym B.D.U. (Battle Dress Uniform) is a term used by U.S. military troops to describe this specific style of camouflague uniform. While other nations may use a woodland pattern design for its uniforms, to the best of my knowledge, the Battle Dress Uniform described in this article is U.S. military specific.
Why? Well, this particular camouflague pattern was first designed, tested and fielded by the U.S. military. It was specifically created for U.S. troops serving in the Europe during the 1980s (i.e. as part NATO).
While some Hezbollah fighters in southern Lebanon wear B.D.U.s, those uniforms are counterfeit copies of the U.S. original. Indeed, Osama bin Laden, in one of his last news conferences before September 11th, 2001, wore a B.D.U. jacket (i.e. U.S.-style woodland pattern) to the event.
Until recently, the U.S. Army primarily used the D.C.U. (Desert Camouflage Uniform) for its troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, both the B.D.U. and D.C.U. are being replaced by the digital pattern A.C.U. (Army Combat Uniform).
To The Gate Keepers of Wikipedia-World:
I suggest changing the name of this article from Battle Dress Uniform to all lower case letters (i.e. battle dress uniform). That way, it'll have a more global focus.
..
Nothing to do with "Global Focus"; as just laziness of those that do not want to press the special keys to shift to capitalize a Word; as "Autocorrect" does not automatically correct for Capitalization.   Battle Dress Uniform capitalized is correct and proper American English, British English, Canadian English, South African English.Nakamuradavid (talk) 11:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of Uniform 

message: Agree, these should be merged.
Tmaull 15:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Desert Camouflage Uniform 

message: This article doesn't seem to have much information about the actual M81 BDU. A lot of info about predecessors and replacements though. - Tmaull (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article focus

message: The BDU uniform is still authorized for use as of spring 2010 in Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps. The same was true until at least 2009 for Navy Option NROTC. I don't have links to back that assertion up, but I have first-hand knowledge as a Virginia Military Institute cadet. 71.171.92.227 (talk) 00:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article also states that the Navy is phasing out BDUs. That is inaccurate. While there is type II and III of the Navy Working Uniform on the way, they are not being issued to all Navy personnel operating in tactical environments. Specifically, CBs and amphibious personnel will not be adopting the NWU. I can definitely guarantee that some Navy personnel wear BDUs and DCUs, as the pairs in my closet can attest.  207.13.62.94 (talk) 06:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate information 

message: "BDU's are printed with infrared-brightened dyes. Near infrared (NIR) Signature Management Technology is used in the uniforms to help prevent detection by NIR Image Converters. These photocathode devices do not detect temperatures, but rather infrared radiation variances. NIR-compliant uniforms use a special fabric that allows soldiers to appear at the same radiation level as the surrounding terrain, thus making them more difficult to detect. It is advised not to use starch when cleaning or ironing BDU's, since starch weakens the fabric and ruins the infrared protective coating. A pair of BDU's that has been starched even once should not be worn in combat."
Odd, all I have to is put a red or IR filter over my IR sensitive digital camera in an enviorment illuminated by the whole spectrum, ie. daytime, or illuminate at night with only IR and the black camo pattern on the USAF BDU  jacket I have stands out.
Same goes for the BDU hat that I have from the US Army..
On the patch that says "US AIR FORCE" on the jacket, the letters are not visable when only illuminated with near IR, the patch just shines.
The problem is the pattern combined with the colours of the uniform. They are not blended in the right manner for near IR.
The blue version of the BDU I have made by Propper however is effective against near IR due to it's colours.
Then I also have the Swiss Liebermuster, that pattern too is effective against near IR.
71.173.20.219 (talk) 00:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Near IR 

message: kamuflirovannoye obmundirovannoye WHAT?
maybe you mean Komplekt kamuflirovannogo obmundirovaniya  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.93.11.222 (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Komplekt kamuflirovannogo obmundirovannogo" 

message: Just a thought here and a bit nitpicky, but in its current state this article doesn't really reflect just how widespread the usage of BDUs are within the United States. The final paragraph of the introduction touches on it, but the wording of "still see widespread usage in other countries" implies that those places would be the exception. The final clause of that sentence does touch on law enforcement but it's kind of understated. One need only look in police supply catalogs to see the extent to which BDUs and derivatives are still sold. Departments all over the US are using BDUs  or derivatives (in colors like black, navy, LAPD and NYPD navy), as well as any number of organizations that hire game wardens and forest/park rangers (tans, khakis, OD pants, in some cases in woodland.) In addition, in the hobbies/sports of paintball and airsoft, BDUs are a big deal. They're also worn as a "fashion statement" with numerous brightly colored and novelty patterns printed and available. Military surplus stores, sporting goods stores, and even Wal-Mart (if you count loose copies) stock and sell BDUs, as they tend to be thought of as cheap, knockaround clothing suitable for outdoorsmen (and women.) or for anyone who just likes the way they look. BDU and derivative uniforms are still a major part of the product lines of big civilian/law enforcement companies like Propper and Tru-Spec just to name a couple. This stuff is widely, widely available to anyone in the United States, or the world due to online sales.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbn620 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civilian usage of these uniforms 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle Dress 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/20090227164508/https://peosoldier.army.mil/factsheets/SEQ_CIE_ACU.pdf to https://peosoldier.army.mil/factsheets/SEQ_CIE_ACU.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081008073313/http://peosoldier.army.mil:80/faqs.asp to https://peosoldier.army.mil/faqs.asp#ACU
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Battledress which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 13:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: Article states USMC wore nametapes to comply with STANAG. Which part of it, specifically? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 08:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  USMC nametapes and the STANAG