Talk:Army Combat Uniform

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

Contents 1 Discussion 2 underwear 3 Uniform Care? Really? 4 Yes it belongs 5 Reasons for elimination of black 6 Officer rank insignia 7 What's the IR square? 8 Reversed Flag 9 Field Test Results removal 10 Design and Construction - (Does it belong?) 11 Multicam 12 yes it belongs 13 Rank 14 Removed some dubious statements 15 Removed the criticism of the flag facing 16 AR 670-1 References 17 RfC: Is Controversy section relevant 17.1 Controversy 17.2 Refs 17.3 Comments 18 Proposed Merge with Army Combat Shirt

[edit] Discussion

The web belt is black, however, which does not quite fit with the stated reasons for avoiding black.

I'm deleting this, because it's not important. The belt is not visible on a properly worn uniform. If one really wants to pick out all the black on the ACU, there's still the rank and name tapes to consider.

Besides, both tan and black belts are approved for use with ACUs, and the tan one is now issued with ACUs at Basic Training Greeky 08:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Was this developed with cooperation of the people behind Marpat or Cadpat, or was this independently made? Also, can we get a pic of it from the field? There must be units using it already. Identity0 10:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I am wondering if this statement from the article is true: "[there] is a spot on the uniform for the ribbon and skill decorations (for peacetime use, as they are eye-catching)" Is there really a spot for ribbons on the ACU!? I presume someone is confused. There is a spot for skill badges on the ACU, but I highly doubt there is a spot for ribbons or skill decorations (since skill decorations would include drivers badge and marksman badges). Secondly, I am sure many soldier wear their skill badges even in combat (they would be covered up by body armor anyway, as would rank and nametapes). Atfyfe 06:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The rank and nametape are transferred to the body armor. Skill badges are to be removed during wear of the IBA or during combat. Greeky 08:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

these uniforms are shoddly made the hook and loop tends to not work after a month of use there is no place for the skill badges on the unifom the crotch seam tends to rip causeing indecent exposer do th males not wearing under ware

Actually, these problems have mostly been fixed, specifically crotch and some of the velcro. As to skill badges, there is a place - above the US ARMY nametape. As to 'not wearing underwear' - why would you not wear underwear? Even if you prefer to go 'commando', underwear is a part of the uniform (and CAN be inspected) Greeky 08:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] underwear

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)

[edit] Uniform Care? Really?

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)

[edit] Yes it belongs

The special care of the uniform does belong, the detergent list does not need to be here but has been linked. 19 years Active Army --Ktinga

Your time in service has no bearing on your authority to determine the outcome of this discussion. What do instructions about laundering it on gentle cycle have to do with an encyclopedia? As I said, if you're having difficulty knowing how to properly care for your uniform, read the tag label/three-ring binder instruction manual that came with it. How on earth does laundry care affect or interest the average reader? Wikipedia is not just for the US Army, it's for everybody.

Stating that the fabric that the uniform is crafted from is unique from past fabrics and how it is different is great. Stating why a different fabric is now being used instead is fabulous. Maybe even stating that, "Because this new fabric is made from yada, yada, yada, personnel have been instructed to care for it differently than in the past, such as no starching under any circumstances as it will destroy the coloring of the camouflage design," or whatever the case may be. That is good to know. But spelling out the clothing tag information in the article is silly. It never states why the reader should care that it has to be laundered on gentle cycle and dried on low, etc. The shirt I'm wearing right now says the same darn thing. Do I need to advertise to everyone how I'm supposed to care for my shirt? No, because no one cares. And that's my point. The article is about a new uniform for the Army and why anyone should care. Laundering instructions without a purpose are at best trivial and do not belong.--ScreaminEagle 16:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It's either scary or amusing to think about actual soldiers getting instructions from wikipedia. I wonder if they'd believe it if I wrote "Camel urine is an effective and approved detergent". Imagine some private explaining to his CO at inspection why he stinks of camel urine XD "Sir, I read on wikipedia that-"

That said, it might be worth mentioning if it's somehow different or novel from other camo or fatigues. But IIRC, all modern camoflauge has the caution against improper washing because of IR properties that might be affected. Identity0 23:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for elimination of black

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)

[edit] Officer rank insignia

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)

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)

[edit] What's the IR square?

I'm guessing that the IR square has some pattern (a US flag?) that is visible in the infrared spectrum (and is thus used to aid in identification at night). Can someone who knows follow the link (that I just added) and provide some detail (or a pic?). Thanks... Jhfrontz 13:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The IR square is an IFF aid used to identify soldiers, the tabs apper black but reflect IR and can be seen clearly using night vision. However, knockoff ACU's do not have the tabs (copyright and security), pictures may be hard to come by but I'll try to get some. Lyta79 07:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why they'd be hard to come by, anyone can buy ACUs. Here's one of the IR squares, the pockets on both sleeves are identical:

Nathanm mn 18:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

While "anyone" can buy "ACU"'s, real Army combat Uniforms come with the IR tab sew in with grey thread. Knock off's have to have the tabs added by the seller. Most pics did not show the tabs. Thank Nathanm. Can I put your pic in the article to show the IR tabs? Lyta79 05:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Sure, no problem. Nathanm mn 14:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The second picture is slightly incorrect. The flap that covers the IFF should fold onto the underside of the pocket flap and then secure to a small bit of velcro. 86.10.84.96 17:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reversed Flag

Everytime I see the flag backwards on a solders shoulder it makes me cringe. Does anyone have a history on this? I would also like to know which President approved this. (Comment added by 72.228.90.129, 00:36, 6 February 2007)

I don't know if any president was even involved. The reason is that the union (the blue part) is always supposed to face the front. Since it's worn on the right sleeve, it appears backwards, but is actually facing the proper direction. Nathanm mn 01:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the army and the explanation I've always been given (granted I can't yet cite it as a fact) is that it gives the appearance of a physical flag being carried into battle as seen from the right side of the assault. To show it the normal way (star field on the left) on the right shoulder would give the appearance of the flag retreating. And we just can't have that now can we. Ultratone85 11:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Some soldiers may offer that as an explanation, but it's just an urban myth. In reality, it's just the proper way to display the flag according to protocol. For more info, see section 28-19, para. c, sub-para. 2, in AR 670-1. (I'm also in the Army.) Nathanm mn 07:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes you can say that it's proper protocol, but that's only half of an answer. Yes it is in the regulations, but there is a reason that the leaders who wrote this regulation chose to make the flag reversed. The official explanation being, "When worn in this manner, the flag is facing to the observer’s right, and gives the effect of the flag flying in the breeze as the wearer moves forward." [1] I've cited this source in the article. Never settle for half of an answer, Wikipedia wouldn't be where it is today if it only gave out half answers. Ultratone85 07:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

During WWII the Flag patch was worn on the right shoulder (by 82nd Airborne and Rangers) and the blue field is to the rear (like it was on a wall, take a look a John Wayn in The Longest Day). Gam3 I never realized John Wayne was actually in World War II, and that The Longest Day was a documentary. 141.153.160.132 08:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

^ The blue is in the back on a soldier in Band of Brothers, which IS historically accurate. The blue forward flag is a reletively new uniform feature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.20.5 (talk) 05:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Field Test Results removal

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)

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)

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)

Is it? Most of the people making that judgement seem to have made up their minds well before they ever laid eyes on it IRL that the pattern doesn't work and then slanted their subsequent experiences with it (if any) to "prove" that conclusion. Never mind that these are all Airsoft players and their idea of a test is to stand in a field or forest somewhere and see how well the pattern matches the background color, or people peddling other camo patterns who have a proprietary interest in the matter. It doesn't help that the propaganda photos the Army has put out on it are all pretty brightly lit, the bane of all camo. I have not seen -one single- rigorous test or analysis of the pattern.

Judging from what little personal experience I have, I'd say it works pretty well. You wouldn't want to be whacking through Vietnamese jungle in it (what the Woodland BDU pattern was really designed for), but I'd take ACUPAT any day if I wasn't expecting to fight in a dark forest or jungle. The pattern seems particularly suited to urban environments and doesn't blur out to a black smudge when a lot of other patterns do. Point being that if someone wants to claim that this or that camo pattern doesn't work they'd damn well better be able to reference an acceptable source. Kensai Max 23:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

The people at Hyperstealth are hawking rival camo patterns. They stand to make money by stirring up negative impressions about ARPAT. Of course PCs suck if you ask someone at Apple, eh? This is what I meant earlier by "people selling other camo patterns". It's corporate propaganda. Kensai Max 18:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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).

Just wanted to add a blurb in here from www.military.com, discussion the good and bad points of the ACU. Apparently, it's shoddily constructed, and the pattern "stands out against anything except a concrete wall." http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,131103,00.html (Sekiryu 03:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC))

The military.com editorial is both factually wrong on durability issues at the least (those have been fixed) and some random guy's opinion like every single other ACU-bashing source I've ever seen. He does not even provide anecdotal evidence. The people at Hyperstealth do not have any kind of a point - you'd think if they could decisively prove their stuff is better they would have run a test that wasn't a crock, as five seconds of common sense usage show this one to be (think about the guy laying down in that nice sunny field like he would be if he was advancing across it IRL - what would stand out then?). Kamouflage.net again provides no objective analysis in what is an -opinion- piece.

People have jackass, stupid opinions. I have one, you have one. Soldiers especially always complain about new equipment. Then they get used to it and defend it to the bitter end when it gets replaced. The only problem with the ACU that I see is that a whole bunch of new features combined with some teething problems when it started getting circulated initially has led to more complaining than usual. Give it some time. Kensai Max 02:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Damn Straight! Ultratone85 11:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Design and Construction - (Does it belong?)

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)

[edit] Multicam

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)

Y I just removed that garbage statement that didn't have a source in the first place. Deon Steyn 12:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] yes it belongs

jeremy- I think the light and the dark green belong.

[edit] Rank

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)

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)

[edit] Removed some dubious statements

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)

I can attest that new velco is very noisy...but you shouldn't be opening your pockets in the heat of combat or when sneaking up on an enemy position. :) the problem is that the stuff wears out and the army expects your the soldier to repair or replace it. Lyta79 04:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed the criticism of the flag facing

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) (Kensai Max here again, not logged in)

[edit] AR 670-1 References

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)

I removed the controversy section. Again. The ACU has for some reason unknown to me sparked immense outrage in the mall ninja community which requires a pretty stern hand in the article.

I think the issue with camouflage velcro covers and so on really has more to do with the fact that -nobody makes them-. Even if they were available the logistics don't work when you think about skill tabs and differing-size unit patches and so on. In any event I'm totally unsurprised that it's not even mentioned in 670-1. Kensai Max (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I reinstated the controversy section. Because I'm clearly a mall ninja. And there are references. Tmaull (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed again. If you have a single reference that will pass muster, kindly insert it. Oh, wait, there aren't any. Blogs and factually wrong articles do not count. I refuse to allow this mall ninja crap into the article. Kensai Max (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

My problem with the "controversy" is that the vast majority of the people complaining about UCP are anonymous internet people, most of whom do not seem to have seen the pattern in the field or at least have substantial experience with it. Many of them seem to be market reps for Multicam. If we're basing this on internet opinions, here's mine - UCP works great in the forests of the northeastern United States, especially after the leaves come off the trees. It's a huge improvement over the previous Woodland pattern.

That PEO Soldier adressed the issue doesn't mean that it's a legitimate controversy - they have an excellent track record with fixing real problems reported by real soldiers very fast. PEO Soldier's recent press release was about as summary a slapdown as you can get. They effectively dismissed the issue. In short I don't believe an internet controversy fueled by people who aren't in the Army (and many of whom stand to gain commercially by slagging on the new Army uniform, such as Crye, Hyperstealth and all of these other people) should be legitimized further by inclusion into the article. Kensai Max (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

Regardless, it's an editorial, written by one man and expressing his opinion, which may or may not be well-informed, biased, or based on a double standard. Opinions are non-citable. They're like assholes - everyone has one and they all stink. If we allowed random people's unsubstantiated opinions into military articles this place would be a mess in no time flat. Writing a notable milblog doesn't make you well-infomed.

If you can dig up a -substantive- source proving that UCP is less than effective (and that old camouflage testing presentation isn't going to fly, UCP has no resemblance to any of the patterns tested) and that this is disproportionate to its role as a -universal- camouflage I would be happy to allow it. The problem is that to my knowledge there aren't any, because I've looked! In real operations UCP generally looks great and in the few substantive tests I have seen it works very well.

As far as testing available on the internet goes, the tests available at http://www.dustysdepot.com/dustysdepot_003.htm are probably the best I've seen as far as methodology and lack of obvious pro or con bias goes. Notice that the ACUs work excellently.Kensai Max (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

I never said the tests I referenced were scientific (in fact, -good- camouflage tests would be extremely difficult to show over the internet), merely better than most of the, "I'll hang some camo stuff in bright sunlight in front of a treeline" "tests" that you usually see thrown around online. Perhaps we should refer to other pages on equipment that gets trashed on unjustly a lot on the internet for precedent here. Referring to the article on the (in)famous M16 rifle, which had substantial and very well-documented reliability issues shortly after its adoption, I found...

When the XM16E1 reached Vietnam with U.S. troops in 1966, reports of jamming and malfunctions in combat immediately began to surface. Although the M14 had a chrome-lined barrel and chamber to resist corrosion in combat conditions (a danger learned from WWII Pacific theatre combat experience), the M16/XM16E1 had no chrome-lined bore or chamber. Several documented accounts of troops killed by enemy fire with jammed rifles broken-down for cleaning eventually brought a Congressional investigation. Later investigations also cast doubt on the veracity of the original 1962 reports of the alleged stopping effectiveness of the 5.56 mm bullet, as well as criticism of inadequate penetration (in comparison to the Soviet 7.62x39mm round) when firing at enemy personnel through light cover.

The XM16E1 was soon modified to the M16A1 specification. The revised rifle was finally given a chrome-lined bore and chamber to eliminate corrosion and stuck cartridges, and the rifle's bore and recoil mechanism was re-designed to accommodate Army-issued 5.56 mm ammunition. Rifle cleaning tools and powder solvents/lubricants were issued. The Army ordered 840,000 of this version on 28 February 1967. Intensive training programs in weapons cleaning were instituted, and a comic book style manual was circulated among the troops to demonstrate proper maintenance.[3] The reliability problems of the M16 diminished quickly, although the rifle's reputation continued to suffer.[3] Moreover, complaints about the inadequate penetration and stopping power of the 5.56 mm cartridge persisted throughout the Vietnam conflict.

...as the main "criticism" section. It's highly factual and written based on the results of substantive investigations, not opinion columns, blogs or internet scuttlebutt. I have no problem whatsoever with including the results of serious investigations and official AARs in the article, and in fact if such things can be found I would welcome their addition. As I recall there have been a couple of substantial durability issues that the military has since implemented fixes for which I believe are noteworthy enough for the article.

A lot of people have complained about the ACU -online-, but this is just opinion and the worst kind of opinion at that - unsubstantiated internet talk. I don't believe there's a basis to include it in the article. However I do support your request for comment, because the above is in the end my interpretation of what's notable and what's not. Kensai Max (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC: Is Controversy section relevant

Is the the following statement relevant to the article and appropriately sourced?

[edit] 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.^[1][2][3]

[edit] Refs

[edit] 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.[2] 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)

• It seems to me that these "Critics in the army" should be identified. Ben Standeven (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The references don't really support that short controversy section. However the 1st reference is a very good one, with it you could make a very good, much longer and detailed criticism section (and they're really should be one). Also please don't respond to this opinion, I make a point of not watching or checking back on RFC's in order to avoid wikistress. Ryan4314 (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to emphasize this, as the editor who has cleaned out several non-factual criticism sections on this article. The first source is an editorial by a milblogger in an online publication. Ergo, his opinion. According to my understanding of Wikipedia rules it is completely uncitable and should not be used as a source. The second and third sources are breezy blog postings. Same there. Given the lack of notability or reliability of "criticism" of the ACU I should not even have to drag up the Natick Soldier Center refutation of the claims, as no critical claim that I have seen passes the rules to be included in an encyclopedia. If people are using this stuff elsewhere, they shouldn't be. Kensai Max (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• It looks like an online newspaper, rather than a blog. I believe newspaper editorials are usually considered reliable sources, at least for subjective things such as criticism. But I could be wrong. Also I cannot of course speak to the reliability of that newssite. Ben Standeven (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

To avoid confusion with California based American Apparel Inc--the largest clothing manufacturer in the US with over 180 retail stores worldwide--with Alabama based American Apparel Inc,--the largest manufacturer of military uniforms in the US--I've removed the sentence "Manufacturers include American Apparel, Woolrich, Inc., Bethel Industries, and Propper International." which linked to the wiki for CA American Apparel Inc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.226.93 (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Merge with Army Combat Shirt

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)

I recommended the merge; the Army Combat Shirt is part of the uniform, not a seperate piece of clothing. Highly recommend they be merged. Any confusion can be dealt with by writing clear, accurate articles. MWShort (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm against the merger. The Army Combat Shirt is a supplementary item to the ACU. The ACUs can be worn without the Army Combat Shirt. And the Army Combat Shirt can be worn without the ACUs(they have their own flame retardant pants). This is no more part of the ACU uniform than the M-65 field jacket, IBA, or any other supplemental item. I'm all for mentioning them in the article but I don't feel a merger is the proper thing to do. Ultratone85 (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Hate to say we should wait, but until the new AR 670-1 comes out (expected in June), we should wait on including this as a part of the uniform. Zharmad (talk) 02:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Good Point! Ultratone85 (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)