Protonex Technology Corp

SMA Dailey At Army/Navy Game In Prototype Pinks and Greens

You’re looking at the best leadership team the US Army has had in quite some time.

4B54328F-D7F2-4545-8008-642D663BBD5C

Army Chief of Staff Mark Milley is seen with Sergeant Major of the Army Dan Dailey during Saturday’s Army/Navy Game. SMA Dailey is wearing a prototype ‘Pinks and Greens’ service dress uniform which he was recently fitted for by a team from PEO Soldier.

The uniform is referred to as ‘Pinks and Greens’ because it is inspired by an iconic World War Two-era dress uniform. This modernized version is available in male and female versions. If it is adopted, there’s even talk of an optional wear leather A-2 flight jacket.

E5CFA691-C901-4BEE-80ED-F6A5AA2CF90E

Update: Here are a few more photos from PEO Soldier.

Tags: ,

67 Responses to “SMA Dailey At Army/Navy Game In Prototype Pinks and Greens”

  1. Hubb says:

    Hold your horses there Army. “Optional wear leather A-2 flight jacket”? You guys are starting to tread in Air Force territory there.

  2. Aaron says:

    Wasting your money since 1776…

  3. Jon says:

    I think it looks really good, but I hope they go away from the pin on combat patch to actual patches on the other sleeve. As well, I hope to see more of the officer versions of this (as the Blues was a pain transitioning from OD to LG corp- changing piping and shoulder boards- the Greens were much more adaptive to changing branches). Overall, it’s nice to see something a little more “military” feel than the ASU “business suit” look.

    • SSD says:

      This has FWSSI.

    • Chuck says:

      Re: “officer version” of the proposed pinks and greens. The pinks and greens WERE the officer uniform during and prior to WWII. Enlisted soldiers wore an all brownish/ODish uniform (matching pants and jacket) that was far less interesting than the pinks and greens.

      • Jon says:

        Chuck, yes, I understand the historical accuracy of it being an officer uniform. What I’m referring to though is the pictures of the female officer posted a few weeks ago on SSD. I’m hoping they show a few more variations of the officer uniform that they are proposing.

        Also SSD- Thanks! I think the patch on the sleeve always looked better than the pins on the ASU.

  4. Jared says:

    Waste of money

  5. AbnMedOps says:

    The belt is too reminiscent of the Marine uniform. And it impedes that which should be the next frontier in uniform design: trained and duly-authorized concealed-carry of approved personal-owned or issued sidearms, to meet the challenges of an age of endless terrorism and societal decay. Any soldier from, say, E-6 on up, who can’t be trained and entrusted with a handgun, probably probably shouldn’t be in ANY version of the Army uniform.

    • Siege says:

      Let the marines scream if they want, this is a historically based, modernized version of a legacy Army uniform and it had a belt back then. What the marines think or don’t think of it doesn’t, and shouldn’t, factor into it in any way at all.

    • Chuck says:

      Why would you need to conceal the weapon if you’re in Class A uniform? Bring back the old Sam Browne belt and wear a nice shiny leather holster.

  6. 10thMountainMan says:

    Please expand on the A-2. As a pilot, I’ll try to keep my composure, but there’s a solid chance I’ll start squealing like an adolescent girl at a boy band concert.

    • Maroon Beret says:

      Pilots squeal like a girl anytime they talk about fashion regardless. Matching their make-up to their clothes is very important for them. They think it’s camo.

    • Baldwin says:

      “I’ll start squealing like an adolescent girl at a boy band concert.” Isn’t that what pilots do anyway?

      • 10thMountainMan says:

        Usually only when I’m turning some dirt worshipper to pink mist, but I’ll make an exception for the A2.

  7. I think this is a step up from what we have. I hope they keep it as traditional as possible. One thing our Army lacks is tradition and the current uniforms are absolutely terrible. I’d love to see these come back into play.

    • Will Rodriguez says:

      The Blues actually have a longer tradition than any uniform worn by any service. We (the Army) just suck at teaching ourselves our own history.

      Loving the new uniform but let’s not keep on making the same mistakes of not knowing our own history.

    • Bob says:

      We had a green dress uniform with 60 years of tradition behind it, and the blues have history going back hundreds of years.

      The pinks and greens were worn for less than 20 years.

  8. JSGlock34 says:

    Ike Jacket?

  9. Strike-Hold says:

    Ditch the belt and the A2 jacket and it’ll be all good.

  10. Kirk says:

    This will not end in the state that all the advocates and cheerleaders think it will.

    We heard the same cockamamie lines of bullshit about the ASU. And, we were promised then that the ASU was the final, ultimate and penultimate Army dress uniform for at least a generation.

    Aaaand, now what do we see? The ADD-addled mob is now screaming “Squirrel!!!”, and in hot pursuit of yet another major dress uniform change.

    You generally only see this sort of delusional inability to recognize and set sane priorities in failing institutions, which I am afraid we must now recognize the US Army as being. Given what they have allowed even West Point to turn into, an institution that takes a former enlisted Ranger, turns him into an avowed Communist agitator, grants him a commission, and then inflicts him on an unsuspecting platoon out in a 10th Mountain line unit…

    Yeah, file this under “Deck Chairs, Re-arranging of”, and work it into a chapter for whatever historian eventually eulogizes our era and nation. Hell, Gibbons would probably have gotten a full volume out this bullshit, and I don’t doubt but that Vegetius would have had a few vicious asides, were he writing about our Army instead of the Legions.

    • Weaver says:

      To be fair, most of those applauding this proposed change were likely the ones who championed it during the proposal of the ASU, only to be ignored by the higher-ups intent on making us all look like bus drivers even though most of us hated it.

      Enlisted personnel have been championing a return to the Pinks and Greens since I first joined in the late ’80s – and likely far before that.

    • d says:

      “Penultimate” means second to last so…

      • Jeremy says:

        Pesky english.

      • Kirk says:

        You caught that, and missed that I was doing it for effect, then?

        I don’t remember where I picked up that construction, but I’m pretty sure it was a particularly sarcastic staff officer I worked around, and you’d be amazed at how few of his peers ever picked up on it. Breezed past me about the first five times I heard him use it, and then I’m going “Hey, waitaminute…”.

    • 10thMountainMan says:

      Just because uniforms are not your pet rock, doesn’t mean they’re the cause of all that is wrong in the Army. Get this, the SMA and his staff had nothing to do with that NCO’s selection for the academy, his comission, or his assignment. Nor are they tasked with the plethora of other complaints offered by the crybabies on every article that doesn’t address their favorite gripe. Furthermore, is it your opinion that staying with the blues will suddenly solve or even improve those problems? I only ask because you seem absurdly certain slowly changing uniforms over what will likely be a 5 year period will exacerbate them.

      As SMA he’s in charge of things like training standards, NCO professional development, physicial fitness etc. There are plenty of initiatives on those things going through the pipe. You can read about them in the same place you probably heard about the uniforms, so just turn the page, take a valium, and calm the hell down.

  11. Ranger Rick says:

    The SMA should be in the correct enlisted brown wool uniform with the black or khaki tie and brown leather garrison belt.

    • Siege says:

      Why? The current enlisted ASU isn’t made of thick wool or even close to the same material as what it was based upon historically, why should the new pinks and greens be the same?
      Yeah, I know “because thats what enlisted wore back then!!!!!!!”
      Just consider this an updated, repurposed version on a historic uniform Army and you’ll be alright…

    • Che Guevara's Open Chest Wound says:

      Remember, the uniform is reminiscent of the WWII uniform, not an exact copy. He’s the SMA, not a WW2 reenactor.

  12. Joe says:

    I think it looks good.

    I also thought Dress Blues looked good, but instead of just making them general issue they were redesigned and ruined.

    We’ll see.

    • Maroon Beret says:

      Joe, they didn’t just ruin the Blues, they trashed it in a misguided effort to think that if the Army dressed like Marines, they would act like Marines.

      It’s the same with Shinsekis stupid black beret idea. There have been more scandals under the black beret than anyone could imagine which is further proof that playing dress up doesn’t make you anymore or less of a warrior. Shinseki couldn’t see that. Epic fail. Time for that to go along with whoever rubber stamped all of the uniform decisions made at that time. Got about as much taste as Elmer’s glue.

  13. Maroon Beret says:

    I would wear a loin cloth if it meant getting rid of that dumbass black beret. Stupidest idea since they got rid of pinks and greens to begin with. John Wayne is still rolling in his grave since they turned the Blues into a replica of the uniform worn by the Admiral of the Paraguayan Navy. The black beret and the desecration of the Blues was another diversity effort. Someone brought in Ru Paul to be the head of the uniform board.

    • Kirk says:

      The “pinks and greens” were gotten rid of for a good set of reasons, which we’re apparently going to have to rediscover.

      All y’all who are so hot after this uniform really need to find someone who actually, y’know, wore the damn things back in the day, and get their input on what purchasing, wearing, and maintaining this uniform was really like. You might find out why the officers generally were very happy to move to what became our old Class “A” uniform. It wasn’t just costs, either–Shade variances in the pants, as well as keeping the lighter-colored part of the uniform clean were major issues.

      It’s maddening that nobody seems to really ever look at the historical experience with these things, and then try to work out whether or not going back to them is a good idea. We tried this before, and chose not to adopt the “pinks and greens” as a standard uniform for various and sundry reasons, many of which I think still apply.

      It might be wise to revisit the reasons we settled on the green Class “A” uniform, in the first place:

      https://www.qmfound.com/article/the-army-green-uniform/

      Couple of stand-out sentences in that report, which refer to why we didn’t go with the “pinks and greens” back then:

      “Between the World Wars, the Army’s lack of uniform tradition and firm uniform policy became even more apparent. Army officers began wearing a semidress winter uniform which they referred to as their “pinks and greens” – a combination of either a dark yellow-green coat and “pink” (light taupe) trousers, or less often, the same coat and matching green trousers. Military tailors and uniform houses competing for uniform sales catered to the desire of local commanders and individual officers to have a uniform that was slightly different, and the color of the green coat became progressively darker. By World War II Army officers appeared in an unpleasing diversity of shades and combinations of the “pinks” and greens.”

      ” Also, the light “pink” trousers were not really practical for general wear by enlisted men and would require more frequent dry cleaning than the gray-green uniform.”

      That’s straight out of the Quartermaster Technical Report on the Army Green Uniform. I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts that none of the people who are currently espousing this whole “pinks and greens” BS even know that such a thing exists, let
      alone bothered to actually seek it out and read it.

      And, the idea that one might read, comprehend, and then make use of that information in a tangible way? LOL… Reading is for dumbasses.

      • SSD says:

        Welcome to the 21st century and modern materials science.

        • Kirk says:

          Well, we’ll see, won’t we?

          Tell ya what–Let’s revisit this issue again, in about ten years, and see who is sitting here going “Told ya…”, and who is decrying the continuing craptastic state of US Army dress uniforms.

          Whole damn issue is ridiculous, and an absolute waste of time/effort/money. The average soldier doesn’t wear the uniform that often, it doesn’t factor into any decisions they make, and we could probably eliminate the entire category of “dress uniform” and suffer no ill effects whatsoever. The only people who would feel the loss are a group of people whose natural bent might better be satisfied by working in the fashion industry, or designing outfits for high school marching bands.

          The really amazing thing to me, with all this, is the incredibly insane way people are attached to this shit, and keep telling me it’s all “tradition”. For the love of God, people–WE DID NOT HAVE FORMAL DRESS UNIFORMS FOR ALL TROOPS UNTIL WELL INTO THE 20th CENTURY. The whole idea is an historical aberration, and were you to go back to the 19th Century and suggest that such a thing was either a.) desirable, or b.) traditional, you’d be laughed out of the barracks.

          Take the time to read the history on this issue, and you’ll find that the whole idea of a “dress uniform” even being a thing didn’t happen until around 1902. Before that? No such animal, aside from fancied-up field service uniforms for bands and other ceremonial troops. Everyone else made do with the regular seasonal “service uniforms”, which were what they wore in combat and in daily garrison life. Hell, for the most part, the “special uniform” was limited to a set of work clothes that you used for doing things like caring for the horses and cleaning–A sensible concept I think we might do well to go back to, instead of wearing specialized and expensive combat camouflage for daily duties in garrison.

          There’s another bit of reading one ought to take a look at, which is a general survey of Army uniforms from the founding of the Republic forward. The careful reader will note that the “dress uniform” is something that was not prevalent until the 20th Century, and the interesting fact that what it takes for a dress uniform to be considered such is for it to be the combat/duty uniform of at least two generations prior…

          Wouldn’t surprise me a bit to come back in a hundred years, and find some variant of the ACU as the “latest and greatest” sartorial outfit for dress-up splendor in the ranks–And, it will probably be as insanely impractical as the ASU is, compared to whatever the then-current state of the art will be.

          • Will Rodriguez says:

            If “The average soldier doesn’t wear the uniform that often” it won’t get the same wear and tear that doomed the Pinks and Greens. (The case you are making for not adopting P&G’s.) I think you just countered your own argument.

            As for “dress uniforms” being relatively new you can make the same argument for combat uniforms because troops typically fought in their dress uniforms. You just countered your own argument again…

            • Kirk says:

              Oh, by all means, let’s waste a few hundred million dollars on this crap, a good chunk of which is going to come out of pocket for a bunch of the force–Just so you fashionistas can get your dress-up on.

              There is a certain childish immaturity behind all this crap that I’ve always found disturbing in the senior leadership. The prevailing mentality that produces all these damn dress uniform changes in such quick succession, while the force is suffering from other critical problems that are far more damaging to our capability to provide national security. We have a military academy producing avowed communists with the full connivance of academy faculty, a security management system that places the mentally-unbalanced into critical positions of trust, and leaves them there with essentially unmonitored access due to manning issues, and a raft of other problems with regards to training and readiness.

              And, out of all that, our senior leaders have chosen the dress uniform as an issue worth their time and focus. The major problem I have with this whole thing isn’t necessarily the uniform itself, which is fairly fucking stupid in and of itself, but the apparent inability of our senior leaders to identify that we have issues that need to be dealt with before ever getting down to fixing this trivial issue. We just got done doing another major change to this area within the last decade, and they want to take another crack at making their mark by playing dress-up with the troops.

              Enough. Congress should be looking into all this uniform bullshit, going back to the UCP ACU, investigating just why in the hell the Army

              • Kirk says:

                I should not try posting from a phone. Fat-fingered the submit button, there…

                (Cont.)

                has been making these costly “errors in judgement” with regards to uniform procurement. From a fraud, waste, and abuse perspective alone, this idiocy with the whole uniform situation dwarfs a lot of other peculation we’ve put people in prison for, and the really scary thing to contemplate from the bottom looking upwards is that much of it probably stems from sheer incompetence.

            • Chris LaFreniere says:

              I might add that he is incorrect about the dress uniforms being introduced in 1902. The services had dress uniforms dating to at least the Civil War. The Army dress uniforms changed over the period through the Indian Wars and into the SPANAM war. Google it and you will see they indeed had dress uniforms.

          • Chris LaFreniere says:

            WRONG! Formal Dress uniforms were worn during the Civil War, Indian Wars, and SPANAM War. Google it. You will see that you are incorrect.

      • some other joe says:

        And enlisted men will totally be working in Class A Service Uniforms and therefore have to worry about excessive soiling of the trousers. Think of your privates!!!!!! (Oh, I think I’m getting the vapors!)

        The only benefit of going to the two-tone blue uniform is that you don’t have to send in your coat when you only wore Class Bs on your detail to ensure they both wear/fade the same. Otherwise, green trousers got lighter than coats anyway. Other problems (when I was in command, I wore no insignia in common with any of my Soldiers) will be minimized if these go back to the regulations for the green uniform.

        And the uniforms will be standardized in color at AAFES’s supply houses and any commercially made versions will have to conform. None of you fashionista officers tweaking it to your own style.

        • Kirk says:

          Every so often, I read a post from someone on here, and I find myself wondering just how it’s possible they could have served in the same Army that I did. This would be one of those…

          How disconnected were you, from the lives of your enlisted men, that you never once noticed what your First Sergeants and Command Sergeant Majors were tasking them with, in support of the varied military events requiring dress uniforms? Y’know, like waiting tables at dining-ins and Founder’s Day events? The always-unpopular (with the junior enlisted, that is…) military balls so beloved of the upper ranks?

          Not to mention funeral details, and the like–I can just imagine what those light-colored pants are going to look like after walking through some of the muddy-ass graveyards and cemeteries I’ve done those in. The old Army Green uniform would just darken up a bit, when it got wet, but those cute little pink pants? LOL; they’re gonna show it all, and highlight it.

          You may not have ever actually done anything besides stand in formation and work around an office in your dress uniforms, but there are other people whose lives don’t include that level of protection from reality. Designing and procuring a uniform that is going to show every damn bit of dirt and wet ain’t what I’d call an improvement, and that’s what we’re doing with this.

          There were reasons that this was an officers uniform, and those reasons still exist. The enlisted schmucks still have to “stick it in” during daily life, no matter what they’re wearing, and the CSM don’t give a damn about what cleaning that uniform is going to cost–He wants his goddamn trucks unloaded now, and if the detail bodies in BDUs are still setting up chairs because the assholes running the venue couldn’t be bothered to unlock the storage rooms on time, too bad, too sad–PFC Snuffy had just better be careful not to get his Class “A” uniform dirty.

          And you commissioned folk wonder why a lot of us senior enlisted look at you like you live on another fucking planet, half the time. That’s because you mostly do…

          • some other joe says:

            Been on both sides of the fence and I guess I’ve had considerably better NCOs than you, NCOs who don’t treat Joes like servants and encouraged me to serve the Army at higher levels than they would ever have the opportunity to.

            But nice attempt at an ad hominem attack.

            • Oh really? says:

              I think you missed his point. His argument is that the officers are the ones forcing Joes to work details in their Class-As. And you cannot judge how good his leadership as an NCO is based on his comments above. From what I can tell, Kirk has a Hell of a good point! His commentary shows he cares about his Soldiers. And an NCO who cares that much is likely a da** good one. His comment was against one thing the officer corps did to lower enlisted, whereas your comments were a personal attack. Sir, I would be willing to asses he could claim that he has worked “with better” officers “than you”.

              My point: he is making since, and you wanted to get personal. Ultimately, I agree with Kirk. Details of all types should allow for lower enlisted men/women to wear a dressed-down uniform while catering/administrating/working the event.

        • oldsoldier says:

          I never heard an officer call themself joe. :) The lighter tone of the pants was based on the legend of them getting lighter from the sun while riding horseback. There are versions of Blues in the 19th Century that the pants were the same color as the coat. Remember our GOs today wear the same color ASUs.

          • Chris LaFreniere says:

            That legend isn’t true. I’ve heard that before. First of all, wouldn’t the dark coat get lighter as well? I looked at the uniform regulations from the Mexican war through the Indian War period and it calls for the pants to be Light Blue Kersey.

  14. Stefan S. says:

    Screw it. Why not bring back the M1942 Paratrooper Jumpsuit. Now that was a uniform!

  15. Stu says:

    Maybe we could wrap up the M4/M16 in the current ASU, to help get rid of it quicker.

  16. Attack7 says:

    Hey SMA, if that was Neckgear would you wear it on your head? WTH Golf!

  17. Chief C says:

    I say bring back this iconic uniform and return the ASU to being a uniform for more ‘formal’ occasions.

    I have been at this since 1986. Just once in my career, and before I retire, I would like to see us adopt a uniform that actually has some connection to the past and tradition.

    • Bob says:

      Uniforms became the past and tradition over time. The Green Class A you wore in 1986 had a past and tradition. It had been around for nearly 30 years by that point.

      How long does the Army have to use or do a thing for you to consider it traditional?

      • Chris LaFreniere says:

        Very true, but the problem with that uniform is that most soldiers didn’t like it. Most would agree the post WWI through WWII era uniform was the best looking Army uniform on the planet.

  18. Flanker says:

    First off, SSD I really appreciate you keeping us up to date on such uniform changes. I also came here during the whole Phase I-IV uniform testing for info and it was great. I definitely think the Army moved in the right direction with the OCPs, although they made the trousers too long and they fade VERY fast.

    Secondly, and the main reason I decided to comment here, is I keep seeing all this moaning from people not in the Army or retired from the Army about the Army changing uniforms again and how this is such a burden on soldiers and why aren’t we spending money on training instead of more uniforms-the Army is pissing in the wind and doesn’t understand how to build a fighting force, why is the Army forcing soldiers to spend money on uniforms they won’t wear very often, etc etc. Well thanks for your concern but frankly you are barking up the wrong tree. If you served you should know that uniform money is not the same pot of money as training money. That’s a non-starter. As far as clothing allowance and replacing worn out uniforms, which is it; is this a uniform no one is ever going to wear or is it going to be worn so often soldiers have to buy a new set every year and bankrupt themselves? Make up your minds. And the next time I see a 1SG or PSG assign guys to a random physical detail in a dress uniform will be the first time. Funeral detail excepted of course.

    Which brings me to my next point. Never at any time have I seen any soldier have to buy 4 uniforms a year to replace worn out ACUs. Guys blow out their pants on occasion, get a new set of boots every two years, buy rank and badges when necessary, and that’s about it. Don’t tell me Joe is going to get screwed buying a dress uniform once (that he will be issued) when that same Joe blows $800 on cool guy gear like Oakley gloves, plate carriers off the market, cool Mag pouches, battle belts, rucks, Rambo knives, and other gear that he is not authorized but tries to get away with anyways. I don’t have a lot of sympathy if he somehow ran out of money to put 4 ribbons on a free dress uniform and can’t pay the sewing shop outside the gate to shine his boots.

    As for officers, yeah it sucks a little more. I spent $700 for the ASUs, not including badges and insignia. I imagine a set of this new uniform would be around the same price. And yeah I’ve worn my ASUs for two payday activities, a DA photo, and a ball in the several years that I have owned them. I imagine I will wear the new uniform about as frequently unless there are some official policy changes. Who cares. We are in the Military, we wear uniforms. Might as well be a uniform you feel sharp in.

    The ASUs tried to combine two types of uniform and 3-4 levels of dress into one uniform. I like that the blues connect back to the civil war and the Indian Wars, but it honestly just feels like someone decided to slap civil war shoulder boards one a blue business suit with lots of badges pinned on it. It isn’t bad looking, but it’s just kind of what we’ve got. And only in the Army would you replace a tie with a bow tie and call it a tuxedo. Then once you take the jacket off it gets more awkward. A white shirt with a name tag and blue trousers. It doesn’t feel Military, it feels like an odd hotel uniform, or maybe a police uniform. Feels even odder with jump boots. These new prototype uniforms however look pretty sharp and a heck of a lot more martial. I like the added waistbelt. It looks like they’ve decided to cut down on the bling. Sure, the WWII uniforms don’t have the longevity that the greens had, but they were the uniforms worn by the Army when this country established itself as the world’s premier military power. It’s also probably a given that the “Bs” will bring back the all-khakis worn from the 30s through the 80s and look much more Military and put together than a white shirt and blue pants, which just looks like you left your jacket somewhere. Especially with jump boots.

    While it is a bit of a fallacy, every soldier I have heard talk about these uniforms, whether enlisted or comissioned, really likes them and hopes the Army adopts them to fill that semi-formal uniform role. Sure there are some things I think might need tweaking. The cap looks cool but does look a bit reenactor-ish. I think they are trying a bit hard to make it a unisex uniform with females wearing ties and identical service caps, but it sounds like they had a focus group vote on that so what do I know. Long story short, I don’t mind paying for and upkeeping a new uniform if I think it is moving in the right direction, just as I was glad to get out of the UCPs and into the OCPs as fast as possible. The majority of the soldiers I’ve talked to feel the same way.

    Next question is, do they bring back campaign hats, riding pants and riding boots for CAV units. 😉

    Also, I am pretty pumped for the new LBE-looking, airborne friendly load carrier, as the TAPS is junk for distributing load and bounces all over the place no matter how you adjust the straps if you are doing anything more than a ruck march. New rig looks a bit more robust and load friendly.

    • Chris LaFreniere says:

      Yeah, I have to agree on the cap. It looks like they were trying to half way make it into a crush cap like the aviators wore. What they did was pull out the frame so that they could place their headphones over their cap. I hope they go to a standard service cap look instead.

    • Chris LaFreniere says:

      Spot on with your analysis! I couldn’t agree more. Yes, the taxpayers will foot the bill, but the enlisted folks will get their uniforms at no cost. Officers like myself will have to pay, but guess what, I’m one of those soldiers who likes gear and spends a lot of money on the very same stuff you mentioned. So, hey, if this uniform is approved, I will be the first in line to purchase it on my Military Star Card, lol. It is my humble belief that this uniform, if designed correctly will last many years because it is the default class A uniform of the U.S. Army.

    • 10thMountainMan says:

      The people decrying this were the same ones pissing and moaning that we were transitioning from UCP to OCP. It’s as though any change that wasn’t concieved of by them or at the top of their priority list is an inexcusable travesty. Nevermind that the soldiers who will actually be wearing it are overwhelmingly for it and speaking positively about it. 75% of soldiers polled can’t decide what beer to buy, but they can agree they like this uniform.

  19. Bob says:

    It’ll look sharp if the person wearing it has it tailored and is in shape.

    The Green Class A looked good if you were a Ranger:

    https://imgur.com/1vg85sH

    Not so much if you were a PVT who just graduated BCT:

    https://imgur.com/gImS4Ht

    The pinks and greens will be the same.

Leave a Reply