Talk:Combat uniform

Five forms of attire

Hmmm. When I was in school cadets, we had five forms of attire:

• A combat uniform of jungle green cottons, known as "JGs" for obvious reasons. We were issued with two shirts and one pair of trousers, and strongly and well advised to buy a second pair of trousers. These were worn for most parades and for serious military exercises, and to firing ranges.
• A woollen dress uniform consisting of khaki trousers and jacket that buttoned together, worn with braces (issued) a khaki shirt (from our school uniform) and a khaki tie (issued). This was known as Battle Dress or BDs, and was worn for public parades and travelling to and from camp.
• A working set of old JGs or khaki clothing, called working dress or "WDs", issued when in camp and worn whenever JGs or BDs weren't required... work parties, less serious exercises.
• Dress kilt, a kilt worn with a BD jacket, khaki shirt and tie and white webbing for the most serious public parades. Not all cadets were issued with a kilt, it was an honour reserved for the senior platoons, the others just wore their BDs.
• Summer kilt, the same kilt worn with a JG shirt and white dress webbing, in summer whenever orders called for it. I never quite worked out why, perhaps it was to get us used to the kilt! Anyway, it was rather fun.

The kilt was always worn with a beret (not issued and compulsory, it was the price you paid for the honour), WDs with a slouch hat or giggle hat if you owned one (again, not issued and highly recommended), BDs with slouch hat (or beret possible in theory for kilted platoons but that was rare), JGs with whatever headware was ordered, if unspecified your choice of slouch or giggle. And always the same pair of black leather boots, shined for parades and dull for exercises, you either made good friends of them or suffered very badly. Ah, memories!

Anyway, the point of all that is that in the Australian armed services in the late 1960s, Battle Dress meant a dress uniform based on the battle dress of the world wars and of Korea, while what we wore into combat in theory was JGs or in more serious units camos (we didn't rate those).

Which isn't what this article says at all! Not quite sure how to update it. Suggestions? I'll have a go sometime after a bit more thought. Andrewa 17:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, it seems that "battledress" (or "battle dress") means different things in different countries; on the other hand, the name each country uses for the uniform they wear in combat also differ. This seems to me to be a case of trying to find a generic encyclopedia article title that would cover the subject, i.e. the military uniform worn when continuing politics by other means. The article could easily have been called "Combat uniform" or some such. Even though "battle dress" does not fall into the Canadian military lexicon (at least since Korea), it seems to me to be an acceptable compromise, especially when the correct Canadian term is indicated. SigPig 01:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete Garrison Dress (Canadian)

If no one has any objection, I'm going to delete the part about garrison dress. Other than the fact it had a camo pattern, the uniform had nothing to do with battle dress; combats are No. 5 order of dress, garrison was No. 4. Different uniform, different purpose. BTW, I think the official camo pattern of Garrison Dress was "Canadian Tire Duck Hunter Special." SigPig 01:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

No objections observed here in the month, so I'm deleting the reference to garrison dress. SigPig 13:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

merger of articles

OPPOSE - Battle Dress Uniform, just like Battle Dress, is a specific type of battledress, and should be treated as a separate subject. Cornell Rockey 13:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Move to Fatigues

Even in the US, Battledress is an Army term, not a Marine Corps term. Given that the word has different meanings and appears here to be used in the branch specific US Army sense, perhaps this general article should use the universal term "fatigues" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.239.253.2 (talk) 21:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the references to US fatigues should be moved out, but Battle Dress was the official term for No 5 Dress and its equivalents throughout the commonwealth, and from 1938-1970 was a considerably more 'universal' term than fatigues which is basically a US only usage as regards uniform (elsewhere it is a form of duty or task).Blackshod 09:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Who add a definition of "Fatigues" to this article?

In the Battle Dress Uniform article, I read the following sentence:

BDUs may be either plain fatigues or in camouflage colors.

I did not know the word "fatigues", so I clicked the link on 'fatigues'. Fatigues redirected me to Battledress, but nowhere in this article I found a definition of the word 'fatigues'. What is a fatigues? (and can anyone add that information to the article)? Is a fatigues a special kind of uniform?

The only information I found here is that, "Fatigues" redirects here."
I had already found that out by myself. Johan Lont (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Battledress → Fatigues — Relisted. Need to establish that this is true worldwide. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC) It's the Common name. Fatigues: 1,540,000, Battledress: 57,600. This article was originally created as a misspelling of Battle Dress. Hours later an IP expanded the scope of the article to include all fatigues. Closing admin, can you history merge?--Marcus Qwertyus 09:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support; most people know these as fatigues. Powers ^T 13:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support 7.8 Mghits for fatigues vs 400k ghits for battledress. ^walk victor falk ^talk 14:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support: Fatigues is much more commonly used. –CWenger (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Provisionally oppose -- This is a worldwide article. The nom should only go ahead if "fatigues" is the normal usage in ALL relevant countries; and I suspect it is not. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
• "Fatigues" also means soldiers' work clothes worn to avoid getting uniforms dirty or damaged: see http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-military-fatigues.htm .

  Some Google finds of the word "fatigues" are a verb present tense form of the verb "to fatigue". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• I have made page Fatigues into a disambig page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. This article should focus on battledress, a particular type (or perhaps several types internationally) of military uniform (rarely worn into battle by Australian troops, for whom it is more often a dress uniform!). There's room for separate articles on other military uniforms. Andrewa (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

This topic area, surprisingly considering the interest in military uniforms, is a mess and has historically gone from mess to mess. See Battle Dress for example. We need an overview of modern military uniforms. Andrewa (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sections from the article "Military camouflage"

The article Military camouflage is in the middle of an overhaul. It was almost exclusively about uniform patterns and had a great overlap with this article. Some of the bits from the article might be relevant here, so I copy the whole text here for further reference rather than blanking out the old content.

History

United Kingdom

Main article: British Army uniform

The first regular units to adopt camouflage colours were the 95th Rifle Regiment and the 60th Rifle Regiment, created during the Napoleonic Wars to strengthen the British skirmish line. As they carried more accurate Baker Rifles and engaged at a longer range, they were dressed in a rifle green jacket, in contrast to the Line regiments' scarlet tunics.

British forces during the mutiny of 1857 in India dyed their white drill uniforms to inconspicuous tones (following the practice started by the Corps of Guides in 1846), called khaki (from the Hindi-Urdu word for "dusty"), by immersion in mud, tea, coffee or coloured inks. The resulting hue varied from dark or slate grey through light brown to off-white, or sometimes even lavender. This improvised measure gradually became widespread among the troops stationed in India and North-West Frontier, and sometimes among the troops campaigning on the African continent. Khaki-coloured uniform became standard service dress for both British and British Indian Army troops stationed in British India in 1885, and in 1896 khaki drill uniform was adopted by British Army for the service outside of Europe in general, but not until the Second Boer War, in 1902, did the entire British Army standardise on khaki (officially known as "drab") for Service Dress.

The Lovat Scouts were formed from Scottish gamekeepers for service in the Boer war. They introduced the Ghillie suit for concealment for sniping in World War I.

Winston Churchill (First Lord of the Admiralty in WWI, Prime Minister in WWII) considered deception in war to be an indispensable "element of léger de main, an original and sinister touch, which leaves the enemy puzzled as well as beaten."

Other nations

The United States, who had green-jacketed rifle units in the Civil War, were quick to follow the British, going khaki in the same year. Russia followed, partially, in 1908. The Italian Army used grigio-verde ("grey-green") in the Alps from 1906 and across the army from 1909. The Germans adopted feldgrau ("field grey") in 1910. Portugal, during the Peninsular War, fielded light infantry known as Cacadores who wore brown-jackets which helped conceal them.

File:Camouflaged Indian Army soldiers carrying INSAS Rifle (right) and a Dragunov Sniper rife..jpg

Camouflaged Indian Army soldiers carrying INSAS Rifle (right) and a Dragunov Sniper rife.Both the weapons are also camouflaged to match the desert terrain.

References

20th century wars

World War I

• 
  World War I Stahlhelm with camouflage pattern applied in the field
• 
  WWI soldiers in hand-painted robes, supposed to resemble lichened tree-stumps
• 
  Restored British 8 inch howitzer in WWI pattern
• 
  Howitzers concealed by camouflage netting at Ypres in 1917

In Germany the traditional Prussian blue uniforms were replaced with Feldgrau ("fieldgrey") in 1910. French uniforms in the early stage of the First World War consisted of bright red (garance) trousers and blue Greatcoats as part of the standard uniform. An attempt to introduce a camouflage uniform in France in 1911 faced strong opposition as the red trousers were seen as a symbol of the French military doctrine. A former Minister of War Eugène Étienne voiced typical opposition to camouflage: "Abolish red trousers? Never. Red trousers are France." The red French kepi hats were however soon covered with cloths and the experiences of the modern warfare soon led to the introduction of a new uniform.

Role of artists

The 1918 Buntfarbenmuster, patterns like these were claimed by Picasso to be influenced by Cubism

Further information: List of camoufleurs

An American artist and zoologist, Abbott Thayer published a book Concealing colouration in the Animal Kingdom, which was widely read by military leaders, though his advocacy of countershading (to hide shadows) was less successful.

Gestalt Psychology influenced the development of camouflage as it dealt with questions such as "How is it that we see anything?". Contemporary artistic movements such as cubism, vorticism and impressionism also influenced the development of camouflage as they dealt with disrupting outlines, abstraction and colour theory.

The French established a Section de Camouflage (Camouflage Department) at Amiens in 1915, notably headed by Lucien-Victor Guirand de Scévola. The experts, called camoufleurs, were mostly painters, sculptors and theatre-set artists. De Scévola began by building an observation tree, made of steel with bark camouflage, in May 1915; such trees became popular with the British and French armies in 1916. Painted canvas netting was introduced in 1917, and 7 million square yards were used by the end of the war.

Other countries soon saw the advantage of camouflage, and established their own units of artists, designers and architects:

• the British Camouflage Section in late 1916 at Wimereux,
• the U.S.
  • New York Camouflage Society, April 1917;
  • official Company A, 40th Engineers, January 1918;
  • the Women's Reserve Camouflage Corps;
• Germany, from 1917: for example, lozenge camouflage covering Central Powers aircraft, possibly the earliest printed camouflage. A similarly disruptive splint pattern in earth tones was introduced for tanks 1918, called the Buntfarbenanstrich 1918, and as also used on the Stahlhelm and other body armour, the first use of a standardized camouflage pattern for soldiers.
• Italy, Laboratorio di mascheramento, 1917.

Specialist troops, notably snipers, were supplied with hand-made camouflage, including patterned veils for the head and gun, hand-painted overalls and scrim-covered netting or sacking—an adaptation of the rag camouflage used in Scotland by anti-poaching wardens, gillies, the first ghillie suits, but non-specialist uniforms remained unpatterned throughout WWI. While camouflage has been used by hunters since prehistoric times, and ghillie suits are still worn by Scottish gamekeepers today, camouflage in a military context was considered effeminate and greeted with scorn until the late 19th century.

Interwar period

The 1929 telo mimetico, the first printed camouflage pattern used for general issue.

An Italian mass-produced military camouflage was the telo mimetico ("mimetic cloth") pattern of 1929, used to cover a shelter-half (telo tenda). The colours were influenced by the German Buntfarbenmuster, with a greyish green, brown and yellow or ochre. The pattern was however made in relatively large splotches, rather than the splint type German pattern. The ochre fields were also smaller. In 1931, the telo mimetico was copied and adopted by the German Army.

The Red Army issued "amoeba" disruptive-pattern suits to snipers from 1937, and all-white ZMK top-garments in 1938. White winter anoraks and over-trousers was also issued to Finish troops, a pattern followed by many nations during the Second World War.

World War II

Finnish machinegunners with winter camouflage

With mass-production of patterned fabrics, camouflage uniforms became more common on individual soldiers in World War II. Initially, patterning was uncommon and used only in elite units: for example, the 'Airborne Smock Denison Camouflage' of 1942 was issued to British paratroops.

Finland

Finland has used snowsuits as winter camouflage for soldiers since its independence. At first, snow-camouflage suits were simple white overalls and they were easy and cheap to produce. When the Winter War began, Finnish forces were already issued with snow camouflage, whereas this was not immediately made available to Soviet forces.

Germany

Platanenmuster, 1937 SS plane-tree pattern, autumn variant

Splittermuster, 1931 splinter pattern for tents

The Germans experimented before the war and some army units used "Splittermuster" ('Splinter pattern') camouflage. Waffen-SS combat units experimented from 1935. The initial Waffen-SS camouflage, like many others, was designed by Prof. Johann Georg Otto Schick.

• Platanenmuster ('plane-tree pattern') (1937–1942): spring/summer and autumn/winter variations
• Rauchtarnmuster ('blurred edge pattern') (1939–1944): spring/summer and autumn/winter variations
• Palmenmuster ('palm pattern') (ca. 1941): summer/autumn variations
• Beringtes Eichenlaubmuster ('ringed oak leaf pattern') (1942-1945)
• Eichenlaubmuster ('oak leaf pattern') (1943–1945): spring/summer and autumn/winter variations
• Erbsenmuster ('pea pattern') (1944–1945): spring/summer and autumn/winter variations
• Leibermuster ('Leiber's pattern') (1945)
• telo mimetico ('mimetic cloth'), using fabric seized from the Italians in 1943 (the Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler often wore this pattern).

Sumpfmuster ('swamp pattern') was a Wehrmacht camouflage first introduced in 1943, with a variation in 1944.

Apart from "Leibermuster", the official names of the wartime German camouflage patterns are not known: the names above are those used by military historians and collectors.

United Kingdom

Developed in the 1930s, khaki Battle Dress was issued widely from 1939. With the return of war, camouflage sections were revived. The British set up the Camouflage Development and Training Centre in 1940 at Farnham Castle, Surrey. Early staff included artists from the Industrial Camouflage Research Unit such as Roland Penrose and Frederick Gore, and the stage magician Jasper Maskelyne (later known for camouflage work in the North African campaign). The British did not use disruptive-pattern uniforms until 1942, with the hand-painted Denison smock for paratroopers, followed in 1943 with a similar style M42 garment.

United States

Herringbone twill (HBT) camouflage of US Marines in Pacific, abandoned in Europe as similar to Fallschirmjäger (German parachute) uniform

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began experiments in 1940. These led to the reversible "frog-skin/leopard spot" design, first as a reversible beach/jungle coverall in 1942, but soon changed to a two-part jacket and pants. It was first issued to the U.S. Marines fighting the Japanese in the Pacific. In 1944, units of the 2nd Armored Division in Normandy were issued with the "frog skin/leopard spot" camouflage, but similarity to the battledress worn by German Fallschirmjäger parachute troops led to friendly fire, and it was withdrawn. Full "leopard spot" uniforms continued to be worn by the USMC Amphibious Reconnaissance Battalion (whose role was reprised by the USMC Force Recon units from 1954) and by Combat Swimmer Reconnaissance Units (later to evolve into the Navy's SEALs).

USSR

The Red Army adopted brownish khaki-coloured uniforms for most troops. Snow-camouflage coveralls were widely issued in the winter. Specialized units often wore one or two-piece hooded camouflage suits, such as long-range scouts, snipers and assault engineers. Initially, one-piece 'amoeba' pattern coveralls were worn over the standard khaki shirt and pants. The most common colour schemes were a light ochre with dark brown blotches, and a light green with dark green blotches. Later, two-piece versions appeared in a variety of colours and patterns, some quite intricate. The sniper suits sometimes had ghillie-type attachments.

References

Postwar uniforms

France

Lizard pattern ( Leopard pattern for the French or TAP47) is a military camouflage used by the French Army on uniforms beginning in the 1950s up to the late 1980s. A Lizard pattern has two overlapping prints, generally green and brown, printed with gaps so that a third dyed colour, such as a lighter green or khaki, makes up a large part of the pattern. In this, it is printed like earlier British patterns used on that country's paratroops' Denison smocks, and descends from those patterns. Lizard patterns have narrower printed areas than the British patterns, and strong horizontal orientation, cutting across the vertical form of a body. Other patterns descend in turn from Lizard patterns, either by imitation such as Cuba's Lizard pattern, or innovation, such as the tigerstripe patterns produced during the Vietnam War.

Germany

early Bundeswehr camouflage uniforms (1958)

The first uniforms of the Bundeswehr in 1955 showed a camouflage similar to the pre-war Splittermuster. These were replaced by a plain dark green in the early 1960s, which was in turn replaced by the modern Flecktarn in 1990. It is the basis for Bundeswehr Wüstentarn, a desert camouflage.

East Germany's forces (Nationale Volksarmee (NVA) and the Ministerium des Inneren (MdI)) used Flächentarnmuster from 1958 until it was replaced 1965 by the Strichtarnmuster camouflage.

That particular pattern was chosen because of the high abundance of conifers in east germany.

Italy

The 1929 telo mimetico pattern was continued by the Italians. The colour selection changed somewhat with time, the post-war army version having a somewhat more red or rust brown, and the green being somewhat less grey. Other colour variants based on the same pattern was used for paratroopers, naval special warfare, and others. The pattern was continued into the 1990s, when it was replaced by pattern based on the US M81 Woodland. This makes the telo mimetico pattern not only one of the first, but also the longest used camouflage pattern in the world. The pattern has also influenced other camouflage patterns, like the Czechoslovakian Vz 60 mlok pattern, Norwegian M75 and Dutch M92 jungle pattern.

United Kingdom

Battledress continued until the late 1950s. In the Korean War (1950–53), troops found the combat uniform inadequate: too hot in summer, and not warm enough in winter. Soldiers were at first issued Jungle Green (JG) uniforms for hot weather, and battledress in winter, but this had to be augmented with warm clothing, as well as caps with ear flaps and fur linings. A solution was pursued, and towards the end of the war a windproof and water-repellent gabardine combat uniform was issued. The trousers followed the battledress design, while the bush jacket had pockets inside and out, closing with zips and buttons, a hip-length skirt with draw-strings to keep out the wind, and a similar arrangement at the waist. The uniform was produced in greyish green (OG), similar to the U.S. Army Olive Drab (OD).

With the end of National Service in 1961, the Army looked for a new uniform: smarter than battledress, but also more comfortable, while still having a military air. Using Korean War clothing as a basis, new items were developed for the 1960-pattern Combat Dress, including the so-called Canadian pattern combat jacket, which was made with a lining above the waist and reinforced elbows. The 1960s was a transition for the Army, reflected in changes in uniform.

Disruptive Pattern

Main article: Disruptive Pattern Material

The new, smaller, all-volunteer Army could now afford to equip every soldier with his own camouflaged uniform, and a pattern, based on the brushstroke of the Denison Smock, was designed in 1960, called Disruptive Pattern (DP). The camouflage is more commonly known by the name given to the cloth printed with the pattern: Disruptive Pattern Material (DPM). By the late sixties it was issued in limited quantities on 1960-pattern jackets and trousers, making Britain the first country to issue regular troops with a standard camouflaged combat uniform. Known as ‘66-Pattern, it was superseded by the ’68-Pattern, which had a slightly revised design on a new uniform, featuring minor changes over the preceding 1960/66-Pattern kit, most notably: a full lining for jacket and trousers. DPM became official army-wide issue only in 1972.

Various redesigns since 1984 changed the size of the pattern and the tone of the colours, but DPM is easily recognisable and remains effective. Many countries use it or a variation.

United States

A U.S. Marine "boonie suit" in the Vietnam War

Many war surplus "leopard spot" uniforms were sold to allied nations reforming their armed forces. Worn by French parachutists in the First Indochina War, the "leopard spot" was marketed to civilian hunters under the name "duck hunter".

The CIA supplied "leopard spot" or “duck hunter” camouflage for Brigade 2506 Cuban exiles in the Bay of Pigs Invasion and South Vietnamese and Montagnard Civilian Irregular Defense Group (CIDG) counter-guerrillas until the pattern was replaced by the tigerstripe pattern in the mid-1960s.

During the Vietnam War, U.S. troops were issued a "boonie suit" in a single dull green for blending into the jungle. From the late 1950s the US Marine Corps had been issued with a variation on their World War II reversible helmet cover and shelter half. This had a tan and brown “brown clouds” side (printed with large identification numbers) and a green jungle side with a jagged “wine leaf” (a.k.a. “Mitchell”) pattern. Rangers and Special Forces units (aka Green Berets) adopted the Vietnamese "Tigerstripe" pattern with its distinctive horizontal slashes of black, green, and tan. Although this style became popular among the troops, it was not an official government issue uniform. It was procured by private purchase from civilian tailors. This is also called the "John Wayne pattern" as the design was featured in Wayne's 1968 film The Green Berets. Also in 1968, the brightly coloured division shoulder patches worn since World War I were gradually replaced with a "subdued" green and black version. Name tags and other insignia patches soon followed.

U.S. Woodland pattern

M81 Woodland

Main article: Woodland (camouflage)

Another, four color U.S. pattern, designed in 1948 by the Engineer Research & Development Laboratory (ERDL) based at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, was later revisited for use in the Vietnam War. Named ERDL Leaf pattern, it was first issued to elite reconnaissance and special operations units in early 1967. It was initially produced in a lime dominant colorway, consisting of large organic shapes in mid green and brown, black ‘branches’, and light green ‘leaf highlights’. Shortly thereafter a brown dominant scheme (with the light green replaced by light tan) was manufactured. The two patterns are also known as ‘Lowland’ and ‘Highland’ ERDL respectively. The brown ‘Highland’ version was adopted as standard issue by the United States Marine Corps (USMC) from 1968, and later introduced on a wide scale in Southeast Asia by the U.S. Army, so that by the end of the Vietnam War American troops wearing camouflage combat dress had become the norm. Following the withdrawal of the U.S. Army from the Southeast Asian Theater in 1973, camouflage clothing was no longer routinely issued in that arm though the 1st Battalion 13th Infantry Regiment in Baumholder, Germany wore the Lowland ERDL in the early 1970s as an experiment. The USMC continued wearing a transitional ‘Delta’ ERDL pattern that was issued in the mid-1970s. It was not until 1981 that the U.S. Quartermaster Dept. approved another camouflaged uniform with the fielding, from September (not officially introduced until 1 October, however), of the battle dress uniform (BDU) in M81 Woodland pattern. Although based on the Vietnam era brown dominant ERDL Leaf camouflage, but enlarged (by 60%), and with the thicker black ‘shadows’ of the ‘Delta’ variant, the pattern was designed primarily for use in Europe. For the next two decades, this was the standard issue BDU for all arms of the U.S. military. Solid olive drab uniforms were rapidly phased out, such that by the time of Operation Urgent Fury in 1983, all participating units were clothed in M81 BDUs. The only exception was the Army Ranger Battalions who wore the olive drab uniforms until 1986.

U.S. Desert pattern

The "chocolate-chip" desert camouflage pattern.

The formation of the Rapid Deployment Force (RDF) in 1979, with its remit to operate in the Middle East, and protect U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf region, saw the issue of the first U.S. desert camouflage clothing, a six colour Desert Battle Dress Uniform (DBDU), originally designed in 1962. With a base pattern of light tan overlaid with broad swathes of pale olive green and wide two-tone bands of brown, the clusters of white-on-black spots scattered over it earned it the nickname "chocolate chip" pattern. It was worn by U.S. troops taking part in the biennial Bright Star exercises in Egypt during the 1980s, and by FORSCOM peacekeepers in the Egyptian Sinai, but the design contrasted too much with the terrain, and the six-colour pattern was expensive to manufacture, so the U.S. Army Natick Soldier Center researched a substitute. Samples of sand and earth from the Middle East were measured for optical and infrared reflectance, and seven trial patterns were evaluated. The resulting "Desert Camouflage Pattern: Combat" was standardized in 1990, but was not used in the Gulf War of 1990-1991. Nicknamed the “Coffee Stain” pattern and officially issued with the new Desert Camouflage Uniform (DCU) in 1993, it consisted of a subtle blend of large pastel green and light tan shapes, with sparsely placed, narrow, reddish brown patches.

I hope you guys can use some of this. Thimbleweed (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

References

What is this called?

File:USO Show Vietnam Terrie and Jennie Frankel with guitar entertaining troops with USO 02.pdf

USO Show Vietnam Terrie and Jennie Frankel with guitar entertaining troops with USO 02

casual wear, is this fatigues, or what? im obviously not military. shouldnt this have a category at the commons, and an article here?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 8 July 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to combat uniform. Cúchullain ^t/c 13:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

---

Battledress → Battle dress uniform – WP:PRECISION, WP:CONSISTENCY with service dress uniform, full dress uniform, but also to some part WP:NATURALDIS. Compare Battle Dress Uniform, though wich also then needs to be attended to (possibly in the same disambiguating fashion as British Battledress). Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 18:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• Can you explain your argument in a little more detail? I’m not entirely sure why this is nessesary.Garuda28 (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

  Sure. Done. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CONSISTENCY, WP:PRECISE, and WP:RECOGNIZABLE. "Battledress" doesn't mean anything specific (definitely not this) to a non-military person, and is apt to be misinterpreted as something like a combat cheongsam in a video game. Adding "uniform" makes it clear this is about uniforms, not dresses. It's also more "official"; the GI abbreviation of this is "BDU" not "BD". Use the space because the spaced spelling leads in published sources by miles [3].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

  "GI" is an espression for US ground forces, sometimes restricted to the US Army. In that context, "BDU" means only the utility uniform that flourished from the mid 1960s to c. 2005. Other US camouflage utilities have their own abbreviations, such as ACU, ABU, and OCP. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as written but not opposed to a page move. The Battle Dress Uniform typically refers to the American uniform itself, so I’m concern about potentially similar page names. What does everyone think about renaming it to “combat uniform”? It’s already a redirect, in common usage, and is different enough from BDU. Garuda28 (talk) 03:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as written. The article title "Battle Dress Uniform" is taken. So long as "Battle Dress Uniform" is an article about the US uniform that flourished from the mid 1960s to c. 2005, we will expect titles close to that, such as "Battle dress uniform" and "BDU" to redirect to that article. I consider a piecemeal proposal unacceptable. There should be a comprehensive proposal that lists each affected principal article, and all the redirects, and identify the new titles of the principal articles, and where the redirects will point after the change. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
• Relisting to determine support for an alternative option such as Combat uniform as suggested by Garuda28. Dekimasuよ! 18:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the Relisted Proposal, per my rational above. Garuda28 (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support relisted proposal as a secondary best option. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Utility Uniform redirects here, why?

I am wondering why Utility uniform redirects here. Meanwhile, an example of a U.S. Army utility uniform is found under the name of a fabric color (OG-107). It would seem that there is a need to restructure the articles on various types of uniforms. --Lasse Hillerøe Petersen (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Photographs

Regarding section 2.10 United Kingdom, the current photograph showing DPM uniform is not one the clearest that is available at wiki commons. It shows body armour covers which are not DPM. The proportion of actual DPM shown is not great. That image could be replaced by another from commons. --Dreddmoto (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Canada

Regarding section 2.2 Canada, it no longer has a photograph of CADPAT AR. There was one recently and it was helpful because it included a close view of the matching hat. It can be seen here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Afghan_Air_Force_Colonel_Faizuddin_holds_a_certificate_during_a_ceremony_at_on_the_base_in_Kabu.jpg It is one of only two images in the category here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:CADPAT_(AR) that includes a view of the hat. It should be possible to include one of those images. --Dreddmoto (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I've readded an AR image in a multi-image template to prevent section overflow. With regards to having an image with the hat, if I'm being honest, I'm not much of a fan of using that photo as the pattern isn't the focal point of the image (which could be confusing for the reader), but I swapped out the prior TW image with one that included the hat. If you find a better one though, feel free to swap it out. Leventio (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Introduction photograph

Regarding the current photograph in the introduction which is titled File:75Parad 01.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:75Parad_01.jpg

One day commons might have a good photograph of multiple kinds of combat uniforms, including a plain green or plain khaki example alongside camouflaged uniforms. In that case, should such an image go with or replace the current image in the introduction? --Dreddmoto (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Possible photographs for that include this https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20131114_WB_N1026341_0004.jpg_-_Flickr_-_NZ_Defence_Force.jpg and this https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_U.S._Soldier,_third_from_left,_stands_for_a_photo_with_soldiers_from_seven_other_nations_during_training_in_Yavoriv,_Ukraine,_July_10,_2013,_as_part_of_Rapid_Trident_2013_130710-O-ZZ999-005-UA.jpg --Dreddmoto (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Either or is fine, but between the two, I'm more partial to File:20131114 WB N1026341 0004.jpg - Flickr - NZ Defence Force.jpg (as the people in the image are facing the camera slightly more than the other). Leventio (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I can replace the current lead photograph with that image. --Dreddmoto (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

In addition to the suggestion above, it could be useful to add photographs showing plain green or plain khaki examples, or combat uniforms worn by non-military personnel such as police officers. Police combat uniforms would be useful and could be added alongside the first photograph which is a group shot showing multiple types of uniform. --Dreddmoto (talk) 00:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

In theory, I'm all for more pictoral examples. That said, the size of the current lede/article doesn't really permit having multiple lead images without creating an image overflow in subsequent sections.

That said, I don't think there needs to be an example of police "combat uniforms" in the lead, seeing as how as far as I know, police services that wear militarized fatigues are largely wearing variants of their national military's fatigues. So for the most part, its not a difference that I think needs to be illustrated immediately in the article's lead. The only real thing we need to keep in mind with lead images (at least MoS wise) is that it is the "most natural and appropriate representations", which mostly is the use of fatigues with military services.

I think an image like that would be more suitable for a section that discussed the use of military fatigues/combat uniforms in a civilian setting. Unfortunately, contents on civilian applications still needs expansion in this article (sort of a reflection of the "natural representation" of the word). Leventio (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Leventio, that's helpful. You're right, such an image should go in another section of the article. I'll search for images of combat uniforms in civilian settings and suggest them in a new a subsection of this page. If you find any you could also suggest them here. Thanks. --Dreddmoto (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)