Talk:Uniforms of the United States Army

Military history: North America / United States C‑class

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

I removed the note that the ACU is meant to be worn over body armor, as this is not the case. Fnsnet (talk) 04:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Multicam

So the Army finally picked a new camouflage that works? I do like ACU, but I'm happy that they are switching. Halofanatic333 (talk) 15:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the Army is still wearing the ACU - that is the Army Combat Uniform; the Army is switching camo patterns from UCP (Universal Camouflage Pattern) to whatever their multicam-like version is called. Again - the ACU is staying, the camo pattern is changing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.183.228.196 (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't cover the other special uniforms, like the hospital uniforms, the CVC uniform, the food service uniforms, and even the maternity uniforms. If the article is about "Uniforms of the United States Army" it should at least include a line about each uniform. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.149.10 (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That has nothing to do with my question, but are they even that important?Halofanatic333 (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Including information about each uniform is the least we could do. Each uniform should have its own article as well. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not referring to the other uniforms. I believe that the camouflage is more important than a maternity uniform.Halofanatic333 (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

French Propaganda

There are a lot of French propaganda....but I delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.202.74.28 (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I restored the cited facts you couldn't seem to accept. Get a clue. oknazevad (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

THX! BlueSalix (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kilts

The entry is incorrect in that the wear of kilts with the Army uniform is prohibited by regulation; while kilts are not mentioned by clothing item, there are no specific item-prohibitions. There is actually a difference between something not being mentioned and something being prohibited. For example: Cavalry Stetsons and spurs are not specifically mentioned either, but you will be hard pressed to tell someone who has earned them that they can not wear them. Kilts are one of those formal-event clothing items, like Branch-colored socks / bow ties / suspenders / etc that are worn for unit pride. When stationed in the UK, I had a US Army tartan kilt made up and still wear it with my Blue Mess jacket occasionally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.183.228.196 (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to grasp the simple fact that NOTHING is authorized unless it is authorized. Your kilt is nothing more than a skirt you wore in direct and willful violation of AR 670-1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.248.219 (talk) 11:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History section is absolutely atrocious

Seriously, not only is it in billet points instead of prose, but almost all of those bullet points make no sense. They read like a lecturer's outline notes without the relevant illustrated slides to make them comprehensible. They're so bad I'm tempted just to comment out the whole section until someone with some actual knowledge of what the hell they're supposed to be saying comes along and actually makes sense of the damn things!oknazevad (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]