DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech exam­ines the inter­sec­tion of tech­nol­ogy and defense from every angle and pro­vides analy­sis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • 'Canes
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the "Buzz"
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT's Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar's Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples' Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward'z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Gadgets and Gear » Singing the ACU Blues

Singing the ACU Blues

Below is a response from PEO Soldier to Military.coms story The Army Uniform Doesnt Measure Up — which was posted April 5, 2007.

Program Executive Office (PEO) Soldier wel­comes Soldier feed­back on all its prod­ucts, includ­ing the Army Combat Uniform (ACU). Feedback from Soldiers has already led to sev­eral improve­ments to the uni­form, many of which have been incor­po­rated in ACUs deliv­ered since March 2006.

The ACU is intended to last an aver­age of 180 days in com­bat. It is made of the same 50/​50 nylon/​cotton blend fab­ric as the Enhanced Hot Weather Battle Dress Uniform (EHWBDU) and Desert Camouflage Uniform (DCU) with the addi­tion of a wrinkle-​​free treat­ment. Technical test­ing has shown ACU fab­ric exceeds all of the per­for­mance require­ments, includ­ing tear strength, of the BDU and DCU fab­ric. Soldier feed­back indi­cates they gen­er­ally pre­fer the func­tion­al­ity of ACU over the BDU, espe­cially while wear­ing Interceptor Body Armor.

Operational require­ments call for the abil­ity to quickly strip the ACU of all iden­ti­fy­ing patches. Given the state of todays tech­nol­ogy, that means hook and loop back­ing for cloth patches and pins and clutches for metal badges. The ACU uses hook and loop fas­ten­ers exten­sively. A dura­bil­ity prob­lem with some of the early pro­duc­tion of the fas­ten­ers was iden­ti­fied. Incorporating an improved hook tape with stiffer back­ing, alter­nate meth­ods of seal­ing the edges of the tape, and improved sewing meth­ods sig­nif­i­cantly improved the fas­ten­ers durability.

Soldiers also iden­ti­fied a prob­lem with the clo­sure on the trouser cargo pocket. This issue was traced to the hook tape which is appar­ently caus­ing the loop tape to stretch and lose hold­ing power. PEO Soldier is work­ing with the sup­pli­ers of hook and loop tape to resolve this. Meanwhile, the cargo pocket has an elas­tic draw­cord with a bar­rel lock that acts as a backup closure.

In response to the dura­bil­ity of the crotch, it has been redesigned using a heav­ier thread, more fab­ric in the seam, and stronger stitches. This redesign has more than dou­bled the strength of the crotch. Additionally, PEO-​​Soldier is award­ing con­tracts to incor­po­rate repairs to strengthen the crotch of the ear­lier ACU trousers still in the sup­ply system.

Fire resis­tant (FR) uni­forms are the sub­ject of a recent Operational Need Statement (ONS) to pro­vide addi­tional FR uni­forms. PEO-​​Soldier devel­oped a fire resis­tant ver­sion of the ACU that pro­vides sim­i­lar FR pro­tec­tion to Nomex, but offers improved dura­bil­ity, breatha­bil­ity, mois­ture wick­ing, and com­fort. ACU pro­duc­tion con­tracts have been amended to pro­duce the FR ACU, and deliv­er­ies are expected to begin July 2007.

There has been much dis­cus­sion about the Universal Camouflage Pattern used on the ACU. Extensive lab­o­ra­tory and field tests were con­ducted on 11 can­di­date pat­terns and col­ors dur­ing devel­op­ment. MultiCam, then called Scorpion, was one of the pat­terns sub­jected to a series of lab­o­ra­tory and field eval­u­a­tions, in mul­ti­ple, real­is­tic, oper­a­tional envi­ron­ments under var­ied ter­rain and light­ing con­di­tions in 2003-​​04. The cam­ou­flage pat­tern selected was deter­mined to pro­vide the best over­all effec­tive con­ceal­ment in mul­ti­ple, oper­a­tional envi­ron­ments, includ­ing urban, wood­land, and desert scenarios.

The lighter col­ors required to obtain effec­tive cam­ou­flage in mul­ti­ple envi­ron­ments have posed a chal­lenge for stain removal. Extensive laun­dry tests of the ACUs have been con­ducted to deter­mine if the ACU soils more eas­ily that the darker wood­land BDU. Tests show the ACU and BDU stain sim­i­larly, but the darker color of BDUs hid stains. PEO-​​Soldier has been work­ing with indus­try to incor­po­rate a stain-​​release fin­ish with­out com­pro­mis­ing the per­for­mance of the wrinkle-​​free fin­ish or other treat­ments, such as permethrin.

PEO-​​Soldier remains fully com­mit­ted to incor­po­rat­ing Soldier feed­back in the con­tin­ual improve­ment of the ACU.

– Christian

Share |

April 9th, 2007 | Gadgets and Gear | 244062 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2007/04/09/singing-the-acu-blues/Singing+the+ACU+Blues2007-04-09+15%3A53%3A59Ward You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « iPod Armor Update | Fire for Effect! » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Mike says:
    April 9, 2007 at 2:39 pm

    This is a non-​​story. The Army intro­duced a new uni­form, and based on feed­back from the Troops, they are improv­ing it. I hardly see this as “singing the ACU Blues” — to the con­trary, it’s nice to see user feed­back being incor­per­ated (rel­a­tively) quickly.
    The Army’s uni­form pol­icy (a desert/​urban focused camo pat­tern, and a sin­gle dress uni­form) makes a lot of sense. Sure, there’s room for improve­ment, but they are work­ing on it. The ACU itself was devel­oped from user feed­back on the BDU/​DCU — the col­lar, remov­ing the uselss lower shirt pock­ets, slant pock­ets on the sleeves, lower leg pock­ets, all came from Soldier input.

    Reply
  2. Jim says:
    April 9, 2007 at 3:10 pm

    History les­son.… Anyone remem­ber the “Wiz kids” under the Kennedy Administration? It was decided back then that all the ser­vices should wear the same uni­form and boots because it would save mil­lions of dol­lars. Now today each ser­vice has their own, or is work­ing on their own uni­forms. In todays dol­lars, that has to be tens of mil­lions of dol­lars wasted in a mil­i­tary that is cash strapt.

    Reply
  3. Wes says:
    April 9, 2007 at 5:00 pm

    Hey, Mike…walk around for a bit in a Woodland envi­ron­ment wear­ing the ACU and tell me how safe from obser­va­tion you think you are.
    ACU = tar­get iden­ti­fy­ing cloth
    Anyone remem­ber such a crescendo of com­plaints when MARPAT was adopted? No.

    Reply
  4. Aaron says:
    April 9, 2007 at 5:11 pm

    All ideas of the ACU’s came from Soldier feed­back huh? How come I wasn’t asked? Any chance we can get rid of that stu­pid balck beret and go back to the patrol cap?

    Reply
  5. Aaron says:
    April 9, 2007 at 5:32 pm

    Uh huh, oper­a­tional require­ments include the need for eas­ily removed patches? Now we’re all SF? If that’s the case why wear patches at all?
    I really want to see this lab and field test­ing where the UCP beat out 10 other can­di­dates, includ­ing Multicam. I sim­ply don’t believe this claim.
    Listening to sol­dier feed­back huh? I don’t know or have heard of ANYONE being asked for a sin­gle opin­ion. If they had, they might get a real idea of the garbage they’ve force fed us.
    Sorry, but it sounds like the same PR bull that’s been sur­round­ing this fail­ure since the beginning.

    Reply
  6. wulf says:
    April 9, 2007 at 5:47 pm

    I remem­ber the days when my father would come home in his BDU, thats a sol­diers uni­form. Today that is no longer the black spit shined boots have been booted the patrol hat has been snapped away. The BDU showed free­dom, pro­tec­tion, relief, lib­erty.
    The ACU just looks like a giant sci­ence scam, they say it works bet­ter from NV and IR but when was the last time the enemy relay had this.
    The uni­form should be agreed upon by the sol­diers not sci­ence facts, the facts only help the sol­dier deter­mine what they need, not want.

    Reply
  7. PFC Dustin says:
    April 9, 2007 at 5:47 pm

    these are hardly uni­ver­sal. you prac­ti­cally glow in the woods. the vel­crow is great, except like the story said on the cargo pock­ets there hoori­ble as far as qual­ity goes unless you just keep them empty.
    per­son­ally id like it if we just kept the same design but used the marine camo pat­terns. those prints are perfect.

    Reply
  8. Tom says:
    April 9, 2007 at 9:28 pm

    Never mind the ACU’s; I can­not fathom the pol­icy of wear­ing the glow in the dark PT belt over field uni­forms in the­atre. Where did we go wrong?
    29 years ser­vice, 9 to go
    Tom

    Reply
  9. Will Wheeler says:
    April 9, 2007 at 11:08 pm

    I was really suprised that the Army chose the “uni­ver­sal” pat­tern over Multicam. I sus­pect that the Army saw the new Marine Corps uni­forms, and wanted in on the party. However since the Marine Corps holds the trade­mark on those pat­terns, the Army was unable to use them.
    No offense to the Army guys out there, but the Marine Corps uni­forms were designed to set the Marine Corps apart from the other ser­vices, and should only ever be worn by a Marine. Get your own uni­forms, and don’t even think about copy­ing us.
    Sgt. William Wheeler
    Hq Bty. 5th Bn., 14th Marines

    Reply
  10. The Dude says:
    April 10, 2007 at 2:28 am

    Easiest solu­tion: ACU cut multicams

    Reply
  11. Matt says:
    April 10, 2007 at 5:30 am

    This ACU is not built well, all the hook and pile fas­ten­ers are fray­ing and falling off. I hate the rank place­ment. I hate the fact that there is no branch isig­nia on offi­cers uni­forms. All the excess vel­cro looks like crap. (At least allow it to be cov­ered up with the ACU pan­els with patches sewn on them.) And I don’t like not being allowed to wear my skill badges in the­ater. Oh, and the vel­cro is not tac­ti­cal either. Imagine mov­ing tac­ti­cally around the enemy and then try­ing to access some­thing from your pock­ets. I beseech you to do so with out mak­ing that noto­ri­ous rip­ping sound that vel­cro makes.
    The USMC has a FAR bet­ter uni­form. They have two sep­a­rate uni­forms both of which are effec­tive in their respec­tive envi­ron­ments. They kept the but­tons (what was wrong with them any­way?) on their pock­ets. They are actu­ally allowed to wear their skill badges in the­atre. The rank place­ment is on the col­lar where it should be. I feel like I am always being sub­ser­viant as I can’t look some­one in their eyes since I have to read their rank in the mid­dle of their torso.
    Oh, and pa-​​leese get rid of that piece of crap beret. Allow the proper troops to wear it and every­one else to wear the gar­ri­son cap. I have been read­ing that the beret is going to be worn by E4 and below with the new Class A uni­form (AKA dress blues). That will look like such crap on an oth­er­wise nice look­ing uni­form.
    To the pow­ers that be, PLEASE just come out with a gar­ri­son cap to match the blues and get rid of the beret for all non-​​airborne, SF and Ranger troops.

    Reply
  12. Jason says:
    April 10, 2007 at 9:24 am

    While the ACU is by no means per­fect, it’s bet­ter than the wood­land BDU’s with it’s lay­out.
    Like any­thing else, it’s going through changes and the like.
    As far as the beret, it’s a piece of head­gear, noth­ing more.

    Reply
  13. MDW says:
    April 10, 2007 at 10:06 am

    The ACU uni­form, while good inten­tioned is a colos­sal fail­ure. Velcro on the pock­ets is fine, and is actu­ally a wel­come addi­tion in my mind — However, vel­cro patches, ranks and the use of expen­sive pin ons for skill badges looks awful. The mate­r­ial while light, and cool is prone to easy tear­ing and is not rugged enough to be con­sid­ered a viable option for a com­bat uni­form. The con­struc­tion of the uni­form is among the worst I’ve ever seen any­where — The vel­cro pan­els tear off, strings con­stantly come loose, pants split with lit­tle effort. I feel con­fi­dent that I could go get some­thing at K-​​Mart that would last longer under nor­mal con­di­tions, let alone a com­bat envi­ron­ment…
    These cur­rent ver­sions may work well behind the desk for the guy that designed it, but in the field they’re sub-​​par. The new design looks great, but needs a hell of a lot of work to toughen it up. (in short: at the prices we pay for these things, I’d expect a pair of pants and a top to last longer than a cou­ple weeks)
    I’m not naive enough to think that the Army will be rolling out new uni­forms to us any­time in the near future, how­ever they need to take a close look at the cur­rent sit­u­a­tion and make some design and pol­icy changes that will pro­vide a work­able, rugged, use­ful and com­fort­able uni­form going forward.

    Reply
  14. J.R. Tomberlin says:
    April 10, 2007 at 10:29 am

    The old jun­gle fatigues were the most func­tional uni­form the army ever had. The ACU’s and BDU’s don’t even come close. I under­stand that the body armor is an issue in regards to access to the blouse pock­ets. Why not wear the armor under­neath the blouse?

    Reply
  15. james says:
    April 10, 2007 at 10:55 am

    PEO claims that the mate­r­ial is the same as the Enhanced Hot Weather BDU. I don’t see how, as my HW BDUs are much more durable and still hold­ing up whereas my ACUs are shot and never been to the field.
    Why haven’t such neg­a­tive com­ments come from the Marines’ new uni­form? Could it be that they were issued an durable and effec­tive uni­form that actu­ally BLENDS with the envi­ron­ment.
    And since the UCP so obvi­ously fails at any sort of con­ceal­ment, I’m told by ACU defend­ers that cam­ou­flage is over­rated on the mod­ern bat­tle­field and the real pur­pose of UCP is easy sol­dier iden­ti­fi­ca­tion.
    I get wor­ried when my Army trades sol­dier sur­viv­abil­ity for ease of logistics.

    Reply
  16. Sheldon says:
    April 10, 2007 at 11:02 am

    The Army already has a new pat­tern which is most likely going to be the uni­form of the future. You can see the design on tac​ti​cal​tay​lor​.com As far as the wear and build of the uni­form is con­serned they should leave that open to the sol­diers for sug­ges­tions since they are the ones wear­ing it in com­bat. The new pat­tern looks like its going to blend in great but I guess that has yet to be proven. Its just to bad that the Army had to waste all that money in the ACU’s, but I guess you don’t know untill you try. Also lets not for­get the Army was the one who devel­oped the Marines pat­terns and they didn’t want it because they are look­ing at one pat­tern to fit all of their needs, which makes since because you don’t want to need to buy or issue ruck sacks and what have you in two dif­fer­ent pat­terns that just gets expen­sive not say­ing they don’t already over spend money on things they shouldn’t.

    Reply
  17. Sheldon says:
    April 10, 2007 at 11:16 am

    Sorry its tac​ti​cal​tai​lor​.com and its called the Cyre Multicam. Tell me what you guys think about the pattern?

    Reply
  18. Mustang says:
    April 12, 2007 at 2:46 pm

    How come the highly-​​paid sci­ence wee­nies at Natick can’t get it right? We had a laun­dry list of prob­lems in the ’80’s when the BDU’s were issued… weak seams, tight crotches, but­tons break­ing in the laun­dry, fad­ing prob­lems. It is obvi­ous that, like the orig­i­nal BDU issue, the ACUs sim­ply were not prop­erly tested in a field envi­ron­ment prior to field­ing, and now the troops are stuck yet again. And match­ing LBE is a “no brainer” if the DOD is really look­ing out for the grunts—which they his­tor­i­cally never are—because the Army could buy an entire brigade set of new, terrain-​​matching, LBE for less than the cost of one Tomahawk missile.

    Reply
  19. Chris says:
    April 12, 2007 at 3:29 pm

    my hon­est opinion…and by the way this is com­ing from an infantry Marine…ACU’s is not the best idea that the Army has had and im not tryin to put them down or any­thing, but the excess vel­cro looks like com­plete crap and is not tac­ti­cal as said by Matt. and the rank is in such a retarded place…looks so stu­pid in the cen­ter of your chest…theres just too many flaws with it that make it non-​​tac and look like crap…yes, the new fab­ric blend is lighter and cooler than the old style BDU’s but thats about the only advantage…but why would you wear some­ht­ing that blends in with a rock in the desert or woods?…anyways, i just dont like them

    Reply
  20. Robert says:
    April 12, 2007 at 7:37 pm

    The vel­cro needs to go. At least on the sleeves. If it that impor­tant to remove patches then lets not use them. Everyone thinks they are SF. A lot of money could be savedby elim­i­nat­ing sub­due unit patches. The pen pocket on the lower sleeve is also a waste. Not usable when a jacket is worn. Breast pock­ets could be a lit­tle larger and expand.

    Reply
  21. Marc says:
    April 24, 2007 at 5:33 pm

    Who is the idiot that designed the ACU to not be able to roll up the sleeves. They obvi­u­osly have not stood out in 100 degree heat with 30lbs on their vest for hours on end. Come on move the vel­cro and give us a way to cool down.

    Reply
  22. SPCSantimaw says:
    May 3, 2007 at 2:56 pm

    The ACU pat­tern seems to mostly blend in with rocks and sand… found mainly on FOBs such as Camp Arifjan and SCS Scania. These uni­forms are for the fob­bits. The diesign is good. Pens could go some­where else so you don’t have to take them up to pul lup your sleeves. The ‘fuzzy’ vel­cro cov­ers for the Unit/​Combat patch sec­tions should be autho­rized for vel­cro pro­tec­tion and look, but is NOT. The rank is always cov­ered by a weapon sling. (ie. m4, m16 another thing a fob­bit wouldn’t know) Also, the Black/​Foliage reverse American flag should be autho­rized in Arifjan and other ‘Garrison’ envi­ron­ments for NONFOBBITS! And make the Fobbits wear the Red, White & Blue at all times. We who travel in Iraq, and get in dan­ger­ous sit­u­a­tions should get that to seper­ate us.

    Reply
  23. louis says:
    June 5, 2007 at 9:59 am

    As a for­mer marine and now sol­dier that served with the 101st Airborne in Iraq wear­ing the ACU, I can­not fathom the men­tal­ity of the Army higher ups or civil­ians who makes these deci­sions with the uni­forms. They say there is a con­sen­sus among sol­diers when uni­form poli­cies are made but it never is. The con­sen­sus is always oppo­site of what we get. Anyway, the Army keeps on com­ing out with new ACU pat­tern stuff (new ACU t-​​shirt with army logo) and its piss­ing me off. Every branch of ser­vice had the same uni­form with the BDU and now every branch wants to have a dif­fer­ent one. The Marines had it right with their MARPAT pat­tern and regard­less that it was cho­sen by them to set them apart; the uni­form is the best being used for tac­ti­cal oper­a­tions. The Army should go with that pat­tern or change to Multicam or dig­i­tize the mul­ti­cam. It should only use the beret with the class A uni­form (now going to army blues, jeez), able to roll-​​up the sleeves, remove the vel­cro, move the rank to the col­lar and let the sol­diers truly make the deci­sion. the other day I get an AKO mes­sage about my opin­ions with the Army dress blues. I should get a mes­sage about the army acu and beret. from Staff-​​Sergeant to future Warrant Officer Quinones

    Reply
  24. DaviD says:
    June 17, 2007 at 5:10 pm

    to be blunt the ACU is total crap. when i 1st heard of it com­ming out with zip­pers and vel­cro, i thought there is no way that could ever get approved? well now a few years later here we are.
    it tears way eas­ier than the BDU.
    all that vel­cro just looks silly.
    its sup­posed to be bet­ter agains IR, but now many ter­ror­ists carry IR equip­ment around????
    rank in the mid­dle of the chest? now female sol­diers com­plain we are star­ing at thier chests!!
    the Marine Corps got it right with the MARPAT
    why cant the Army real­ize that no one uni­form is goin to work in the woods and desert/​urban. the DCU was far bet­ter color pat­tern any­ways!
    once again this stu­pid hat we have been wear­ing for years now, belongs in class A at most! the major­ity of them arent shaped or worn cor­rectly. it looks rag-​​tag, NOT pro­fes­sional at all… i say go patrol cap only!
    who are these idiots that make these uni­form rules? they obvi­ously dont have the sol­diers inter­ests in mind, as the major­ity will agree with me on the issues above…

    Reply
  25. zerk says:
    July 2, 2007 at 12:05 am

    the so called arm­pat was designed for the urban arid com­bat envi­ro­ment. hence lovely iraq etc. we hear peo­ple say that “Multicam” is the best! maybe for air­soft­ers. cam­ou­flage is not about look­ing cool. any­way. the USAF is going with the ABU. as for the blues. ever notice the tint shades of blue even in the bushes, with shadow. any­way, navy gonna have a new patt? or we should just go back to the good old olive drabs ha! or even browns(WW2) coy­ote brown.

    Reply
  26. dakota68 says:
    July 4, 2007 at 8:50 am

    i am a ssg and think­ing of get­ting out of the ser­vice because I can no longer wear that piece of crap beret any­more. Please for the love of god go back to patrol caps and make us look like solid­ers again.

    Reply
  27. zerk says:
    July 9, 2007 at 8:19 pm

    John wrote “I hear alot of 18 and 19 year olds tell me they could never join the Army because US sol­diers look like idiots in bad paja­mas.” well some cit­i­zens are afraid of change. and dis­crim­i­nate against so called new cam­ou­flage pat­terns. as for your paja­mas com­ment, i’ve heard all kinds of pos and neg fee­back. first time i wore the desert marapt uni­form, i too was the laugh­ing stock. “who’s the guy in PJ’s!” i kept dis­ci­pline, hence accpet change, or quit the ser­vice. i sup­pose in time the ACUpat will grow on us. true that Multi(s)cam is not uni­ver­sal. but even­tu­ally MC and acu will be replaced. any­way, acu­pat good for urban arid com­bat environment(iraq). bless wood­land marpat and coy­ote gear for the BUSHes. is war fought in the jun­gles any­more? SF or sem­per fi. we all get the uncle sam pay.

    Reply
  28. hayden says:
    July 10, 2007 at 3:23 am

    good day! thanks for improv­ing the army com­bat uni­form. i like the acu com­pare to the old ones. keep up the good work.……god bless us all!
    hayden

    Reply
  29. pujolis says:
    July 13, 2007 at 11:23 pm

    When will the com­mon sol­dier of the US Army ever be sat­is­fied with being sol­diers? Marines, who devel­oped MARPAT to stand out, and sub­se­quently adapted a supe­rior cam­ou­flage pat­tern, don’t seem to have the infe­ri­or­ity com­plex that the US Army does on the USMC, who obvi­ously wanted a defin­i­tive pat­tern to set them­selves apart from the more mun­dane ser­vices. Couldn’t the US Army have adopted a more reli­able pat­tern for oper­a­tions in a vari­ety of envi­ron­ments other than the inte­rior of an office cubi­cle? The US Army will not be able to adopt the MARPAT pat­tern solely because the USMC had the fore­sight to patent the MARPAT with the intent on keep­ing it “Marine only”. This is syn­ony­mous with mother nature mark­ing the more dan­ger­ous species with iden­ti­fi­able col­or­ing to make an enemy think twice about attack­ing. Marines have that rep­u­ta­tion — mess with us and die — that they have earned. If the US Army was smart, they would develop a sim­i­lar rep­u­ta­tion that involves engag­ing the hos­tiles with the same feroc­ity as a Marine would, and relin­quish the con­stant “me too” method of fab­ri­cat­ing deter­rents such as the unsat ACU pat­tern cur­rently deployed. Oh, and get rid of the gay berets, they only cre­ate the impres­sion of a fat Frenchman with many more patches on the shoulders.

    Reply
  30. CPT says:
    September 6, 2007 at 7:43 pm

    I have been gravely dis­ap­pointed with ACUs since we started wear­ing them. Other than the fact that they do look like PJs, and the Army’s intent to instill pride in appear­ance is out the win­dow; these new uni­forms shrink at least 2 sizes after wash­ing a cou­ple times and well as lose the dura­bil­ity of the velcro.

    Reply
  31. mack says:
    September 15, 2007 at 6:30 am

    It is my opin­ion that the ACU has good and bad points it is lighter how­ever I would like to see my rank back on my col­lar where it belongs. And the vel­cro has got to go it wears out and you can no longer secure items in pock­ets. The zip­per needs to go away as well. Now as for the unit patches and the beret those need to go away as well if we are truly to be an army of one then why set our­selves apart from each other with unit patches and unit crest on the berets

    Reply
  32. Mike D says:
    September 24, 2007 at 3:46 pm

    I am a 17 Year career Soldier, i cant help but won­der why we took on the ACU ? We look like rag bags and they won’t hold up to daily duty. I dis­liked shin­ing boots as much as the next guy, but tan cow hyde was not the answer. The Army is the comic relief for the armed forces, we look like crap. I want to see the pride and ded­i­ca­tion back in the ranks. I can only hope that the gen­eral offi­cers and senior Nco’s will take the topic back to the table along with the beret, please give us back our dig­nity and moral.

    Reply
  33. rock508 says:
    December 27, 2007 at 10:52 am

    if the army has half a brain get rid of the acu along with its vel­cro and zip­per and use the mul­ti­cam pat­tern cut to the new marine style uni­form… and for gods sake lose the bar­rette!
    until that hap­pens i will not rejoin the reserves and look like a goof­ball sad­dam area iraqi soldier

    Reply
  34. Roger says:
    January 15, 2008 at 6:53 pm

    Bring back the Class I OG-​​107 jun­gle fatigues. By far the most com­fort­able, most prac­ti­cal, and best field uni­form I’ve ever worn. Plus, it has a zip­per in the fly where it’s sup­posed to be…and vel­cro is nowhere to be seen!

    Reply
  35. A. Smith says:
    February 24, 2008 at 4:59 am

    It is in my pro­fes­sional opin­ion that all the ser­vices should look the same by wear­ing the same uni­form. In addi­tion, I sug­gest all the ser­vices adopt the MARPAT, with mod­i­fi­ca­tions for each branch (no EGA, unit patches for army, dif. under­shirt col­ors) and find the bureau­cratic idiot that lob­bied for these hor­ri­ble ACUs!

    Reply
  36. Sgt Dawkins says:
    March 17, 2008 at 1:52 am

    I can’t believe some of the peo­ple in here are in the mil­i­tary! You all whine and com­plain like lit­tle children,shut up and deal with it. Stop com­plain­ing about every lit­tle things that is wrong. There are sol­diers in com­bat zone who don’t have the equip­ment they need to per­form a job and giv­ing there life for it. You com­plain about hav­ing a zip­per and velcro…(shaking my head) Be a soldier..adapt and over­come and drive on and com­plete the mission!

    Reply
  37. KQQCH says:
    March 29, 2008 at 9:14 pm

    SSS

    Reply
  38. KQQCH says:
    March 29, 2008 at 9:53 pm

    Okay, in my expe­ri­ence, I was in Iraq in 2004 with the DCU uni­form and other than the dura­bil­ity, never heard any com­plaints about the design. I per­son­ally felt safer know­ing the degree of con­ceil­ment they offered.
    We had a national guard unit come to relieve us and all I remem­bered was see­ing hun­dreds of lit­tle blue bod­ies walk­ing around. The ACU com­pletely sil­lou­ettes you mak­ing it eas­ier for snipers to tar­get you.
    The pat­tern idea is great how­ever the decided shades are far from where they need to be. It is fool­ish for any­one to think that one color pat­tern would offer con­ceil­ment in any envi­ron­ment. Unfortunately, these new col­ors offer no con­ceil­ment in wood­land or desert.
    As with every­one, I miss the neatly pressed uni­form, shiny boots, patrol cap, col­lared rank, and quiet reli­able but­tons.
    I haven’t worn the ACU in com­bat yet, how­ever, have gone through three times as many sets in gar­ri­son than my DCU’s I did wear in com­bat.
    I hate stick­ing to the sol­diers next to me in for­ma­tion, or have to look for my patches when­ever switch­ing out uni­forms. Sometimes I lose patches to the guys in for­ma­tion. The wear of patches never match the wear of the uni­forms. The zip­pers don’t ever last and the vel­cro is only good for about 3, maybe 4 washes.
    I have never heard of any­one being ques­tioned for advise or ideas for this uni­form. For those who say this was decided upon the sol­diers is absolute BS.
    Ask some­one from Vietnam if they would have wanted vel­cro pock­ets in the jun­gle or that shade of con­ceil­ment!
    I hate to say it, but the Marines MARPAT by far exceeds the needs of con­ceil­ment and dura­bil­ity. My unit was attached to the 1st marine divi­sion and seen first hand the reli­a­bil­ity of these. I think it is an arro­gant move to deny other branches the right to uti­lize them as well if they offer bet­ter pro­tec­tion for mil­i­tary lives.
    Lose the ego’s if it means bet­ter pro­tec­tion for eachother. We are all on the same ground in the same cities of the same war. Lets work together, find out what works best for every­one to get the job done, and get the F*** out of there.…
    Bottom line, the ACU was a titanic mis­take finan­cially, tac­ti­cally, and moral­is­ti­cally. Give the Army back some pride, boost the moral by ask­ing the guys what we think.…. Get rid of the Berette, and for god sakes… pick one color if any.…..all this mix and match­ing dif­fer­ent uni­forms is just ragged, unpro­fes­sional, and tacky looking.…Cub scouts are look­ing more proffes­sional than us!
    SPC Kooch
    B-​​101 FA

    Reply
  39. PV1 Adams says:
    May 22, 2008 at 6:38 pm

    Despite its fail­ings, I believe the ACU is fix­able. Get rid of the zip­per, or replace it with a brass one that won’t get jacked up in the laun­dry, lose the vel­cro, and change the col­ors. Real greens and browns for wood­land envi­ron­ments, and tans and browns for desert. I don’t know who came up with the idea of a “uni­ver­sal camo”, but they must not know much about the sub­ject because it ain’t uni­ver­sal unless it changes col­ors. The ACU doesn’t, and it illu­mi­nates us like bea­cons, day or night. Very bad for com­bat sit­u­a­tions. Switching to Multicam, how­ever, is not the answer. Multicam is good for civil­ian use, not Army. We want CAMOUFLAGE, not glow in the darks that grab the ene­mies attention.

    Reply
  40. Steven says:
    June 2, 2008 at 10:59 pm

    I’ve done my time in tac­ti­cal set­tings as a Grunt. The ACU is worth­less in the mud hut urban town­ships of Iraq. Even the large cities are browns and tans and not con­crete blues and grays of the Soviet Cold War era. You con­form to the war you are in, not the war you want to be in.
    The ACU use of pock­ets is nice and the leg ones need but­tons. The ACU color pat­tern. Look, I know what works and doesn’t blend. The ACU doesn’t blend in the palm grove oper­a­tions, it doesn’t blend in the tan city streets, it doesn’t blend in the dry light desert. It does blend on the KBR gray gravel roads to the Fob DFAC’s for the fob­bits to ambush you for your ice­cream cone.
    Cammo is designed to hide and blend you to your envi­ron­ment. The ACU pat­tern doesn’t do that in wood­land, desert urban, trop­ics.
    That is just how it is. Multicam works in the desert tans, palm groves, browns. Does it cost more? Yes, but it helps keep you alive in a tac­ti­cal environment.

    Reply
  41. JR Z says:
    July 1, 2008 at 1:16 am

    The Army is improv­ing the ACU based on sol­dier feed­back, you say. The only improve­ments that they have made have had zero impact on the pat­tern itself, which is far and away the main prob­lem with the uni­form. BTW, Army com­mer­cials suck…and this is com­ing from an Army guy. The Navy com­mer­cials look more high speed than ours. What the HELL are the high-​​ups think­ing? First they get rid of “be all you can be”, give out black berets to all the pogues, and now crap uni­forms with a redicu­lous pat­tern that vir­tu­ally nobody likes. Also, I don’t see how the lower pock­ets are “use­less”. Just because they are used less than other pock­ets doesn’t make them use­less. It’s not like they add 5lbs. to the uni­form. So why not keep them? We were bet­ter off with the last uni­forms we had…just cut off the lower pock­ets and had them stitched onto the sleeves and voila. The added pock­ets and the fact that they don’t want you to iron them are the only improvements…and those are improve­ments that I made myself to my BDU/DCU’s before ACU’s were issued. The no-​​ironing direc­tions, if you don’t remem­ber, were actu­ally issued for the BDU’s as well as it dam­ages the anti-​​IR chem­i­cal coat­ing. But old-​​school army was more con­cerned about being shiny than tac­ti­cal so we had to starch our stuff. Those are the only real improve­ments, both of which could have been sup­plied for much cheaper than an entire new uni­form which every­one hates. Peace out.

    Reply
  42. Airman Shotz says:
    November 18, 2008 at 1:08 am

    PLEASE Big Army, KEEP the ACU. For once, the USAF doesn’t get the short stick on get­ting razzed for being the rag bag ser­vice uni­forms. Your Hi-​​Viz camo pat­tern is a laugh-​​a-​​minute relief from the strains of our time inside the wire. Can’t imag­ine going out in the bush with that crap illu­mi­nat­ing my body like a white star clus­ter. At least the Air Force knows what works in the envi­ron­ment we work in, and we nixed the blue Hawaiian tiger stripe for a more sub­dued pat­tern. Can’t see that ours would work in an urban or jun­gle ter­rain either. But we don’t go there…

    Reply
  43. PV2 Radabaugh says:
    December 7, 2008 at 10:32 am

    As a pri­vate set to deploy next year, I get kinda wor­ried when all my NCO’s keep telling me that my uni­form doesn’t blend in with any­thing. And as far as multicam’s con­cerned, from what I’ve seen it does blend in with a hell of a lot more than the ACU pat­tern. Maybe they could make a vari­ant of the Multicam pat­tern, and use it on ACU’s?

    Reply
  44. Warrrant Officer 1 Q says:
    January 3, 2009 at 2:45 pm

    My 2009 wish. Get rid of the ACUs and go to the MARPAT or Multicam. Ridiculous uni­form and the same with the sin­gle dress blue uni­form. OK, Big Army wants to save money and cut costs. But you are cre­ate morale issues and not liv­ing up to cover and concealment.

    Reply
  45. Eric says:
    January 24, 2009 at 12:33 pm

    I’ve heard the old say­ing ” suck it up and drive on ” thou­sands of times in my career. Usualy this phraze is used to moti­vate a sol­dier in peri­ods lack of sleep, food and phys­i­cal hard­ship. However when used in ref­er­ence to equip­ment that bur­dens a sol­dier to the point he is no longer able to shoot, move or look around (D.A.P.‘s, throat guard), or uni­forms dont camoflauge i hardly think this aplies. Being a yes man dosent make you tough, cool or a good leader. look­ing out for sol­diers does.

    Reply
  46. WOC_MIKE says:
    July 5, 2009 at 12:25 pm

    I have never seen so much whin­ing in my life. Supposedly your Soldiers but you sound more like my tod­dler twins. The USMC MARPAT has pos­i­tives but it also has neg­a­tives too. THERE IS NO PERFECT UNIFORM so suck it up and drive on.

    Reply
  47. ARMY PRCESS says:
    July 31, 2009 at 12:43 pm

    ive been in 3 wars and been in the army for 31 years. You soilders need to suck it up and drive on. Complain to some­one who cares. You are in the mil­i­tary u have no option on what you wear or what you do. DRIVE ON

    Reply
  48. Will says:
    September 4, 2009 at 11:11 am

    The lif­ers, fob­bits, and var­i­ous other turd eaters that think the army can do no wrong should put down the crack pipe and face real­ity. The uni­form isn’t all that bad, I’m not too keen on all the vel­cro. The AUC, yeah a u c, army uni­ver­sal pat­tern, sucks, at it’s best. Unless the uni­form is grungy, and a lit­tle faded, a squad looks like a col­lec­tion of man­gled gal­va­nized trash cans, that’s in Iraq. In wooded areas, it’s worse. It’s not uni­ver­sal, and it wouldn’t sell in the pri­vate sec­tor, because it has to work to sell. It’d take some chair­borne colonel, or gen­eral to sign on for this. I’m just glad that I don’t have to be con­cerned with this POS uni­form any­more. Oh yeah, and the silly ass beret should be shit canned as well, give it back to the frogs.

    Reply
  49. abushnell says:
    September 23, 2009 at 11:39 am

    Here’s all i have to say about the ACU. I haven’t been wear­ing this uni­form as long as oth­ers, and I don’t really have a choice on what I say. But hon­estly though, I don’t under­stand why the ACU was cho­sen. It just doesn’t blend, that’s all. I’m fine with the bar­rette, fine with vel­cro, yeah it gets dirty easy, just the one thing that I hate is the pat­tern.
    The most this pat­tern will do is blend with a pile of rocks. What is really needed is some­thing that will blend with any envi­ron­ment. I don’t mean to say that Multi-​​Cam is the best camo around, since there is no “one best camo”, but it sig­nif­i­cantly out per­forms any other camo. It’s been tested, proven it works, so why not use it?

    Reply
  50. Darren O'Connor says:
    October 24, 2009 at 8:10 pm

    I for one am glad they didn’t have this bloody awful ACU camo when I was in the army just a few years ago. I can’t com­ment on all the other sup­posed defi­cien­cies of the ACU, such as dura­bil­ity, or the prob­lems with the zip­pers or the vel­cro, but the first time I saw that camo pat­tern I thought “you’ve GOT to be kid­ding me!” The idea of cam­ou­flage is, you know, to blend in. This doesn’t. At all. It stands out. The ACUPAT prob­a­bly func­tions accept­ably enough in Iraq and Afghanistan, because even if the grays of the uni­form don’t match the browns and tans of the ter­rain, there is fairly lit­tle con­trast between the ACUPAT and the ter­rain. But it’s still far from the best camo for this ter­rain, and if we ever have to send troops to fight in trop­i­cal or wood­land ter­rain again, this pat­tern is NOT going to work.
    And to all those “suck it up and drive on” com­ments… Grow up. Being a good sol­dier doesn’t mean being a yes man who says noth­ing when given unac­cept­able, sub­stan­dard equip­ment. Sure you’ve got to wear it until some­thing bet­ter replaces it. But the only way it will ever get replaced is if the army gets enough neg­a­tive feed­back to let them know how poorly it’s work­ing, and how dis­sat­is­fied the troops are with it.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

    Most Popular Posts
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • Starship Troopers Meets G.I. Joe
    • Dowd's Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
    • Adapting Women to Subs
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Mystery Drone Revealed
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    Recent Comments
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      For someone who trashes all the readers of the blog you sure do...
      a1189
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
      These devices vibrate tissue and bone not just...
      WJS
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      So are you saying the grenade launcher is a hoax or the M-16?...
      WJS
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Dear Cannon Fodder; Only politically correct patriots should be accepted...
      Zandor
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
      LOL Still all this pissing an moaning about the editorial...
      Philo
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      I'd say go read some history on fascist ideology and then compare that...
      Philo
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Islame isn't a race, genius……
      Philo
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      I sure as hell don't need to have someone take pictures of me...
      Zandor
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "Now please tell me where in the Bible Jesus or his disciples...
      DualityOfMan
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      No, I am not a muslim. And no, the Koran does not say anything about...
      DualityOfMan
    Recent Articles
    • Semi-​​auto Grenade Thrower
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Airbag Defense
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Did Someone Move the Furniture Around?
    • Lockheed Says Sbirs Still on Track For 2010
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Adapting Women to Subs
  • Channels: Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty | Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money | Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network: Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz | SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps | Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program | Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | © 2009 Military Advantage