American Tomahawk

US Army Announces Adoption of ‘Pinks and Greens’ Dress Uniform

Today marks not only Veteran’s Day, but also the 100th anniversary of the end of World War One. Fittingly, at 1100 hours, the Army is quietly celebrating the date by internally announcing that it is adopting the iconic Greens uniform as its new service uniform.

Army Message:

To help sustain the All-Volunteer Force, we must go to the American people and inspire confidence in our Army’s professionalism and readiness. To ensure we present a professional appearance, the Army is adopting the iconic Greens uniform as its new service uniform. This is the uniform worn by America’s Greatest Generation as they won World War II. Now, America’s Next Greatest Generation will wear it as they develop into the smart, thoughtful, and innovative leaders of character outlined in the Army Vision.

102 Responses to “US Army Announces Adoption of ‘Pinks and Greens’ Dress Uniform”

  1. ThatBlueFalcon says:

    “The Next Greatest Generation” – almost as good as.

    Three dress uniform changes in a decade. Astounding, but I’m glad the Army has its priorities straight.

  2. Don says:

    The American People are far more worried about making ends meet and living their lives than caring about what suit the Army wears in garrison.

    • CJ says:

      I totally agree. No one cares about the dress uniform only worn in garrison.
      With 30+ years of service (and still going) I could care less about an archaic uniform.
      Focus on what really matters – the soldiers and their families.

    • Kaos-1 says:

      That’s why they’re civilians and not in the Army

      • Don says:

        One of the big justifications for the uniform change is the impact it will have on civilian opinions towards the Army. I’m saying that civilians neither know nor care what the Army wears to the office.

        • txJM says:

          As a civilian, I find that to be a sad state of affairs.

        • b_rawrd says:

          Oddly enough they do. A services dress uniform says a lot. A lot of people join the marines b/c of the legacy combined with the dress blue recognizable image.

          • Yawnz says:

            It says a lot to low-IQ individuals who give too much of a shit about superficial uniforms. There is zero reason to be concerned about some fuckface’s (be they civilian or military) opinion if they’re going to base it on nothing more than a set of clothes.

            If you want to wear vintage uniforms, go be a cosplayer. If you like the uniform autism in the Corps, go be a Marine.

    • thereasonableman says:

      They should care. It’s their tax money being wasted,,,again.

  3. JM Gavin says:

    So…the ASU doesn’t present a professional appearance? I’m pretty sure I remember the same nonsense being said when the ASU was adopted.

    • xdarrows says:

      The ASU is impractical as a daily-wear “service uniform” … period.

      There are, contrary to popular OPINION, significant portions of the Army where wear of practical Class A and Class B uniforms is either required or a good idea in terms of image and messaging.

      • JM Gavin says:

        I read and re-read my post, and, maybe I’m missing something, but I can’t find the part where I addressed the practicality of any uniforms.

        I’m glad that you are such an authority (after 20 years) that you can pass final judgment…”period.” Some of us have been wearing the uniforms quite a bit longer than 20 years.

      • Yawnz says:

        Why, exactly, is the ASU “impractical as a daily-wear” uniform anymore than the PnG? The only discernible difference is the color scheme.

        Define “significant portions”. Are you referring to generals and Hollywood soldiers? If you want to be so concerned with image, go be a suit-wearing civilian liaison.

        Spend money that helps fulfill the purpose of the Army, which is the prosecution of war.

  4. P.T. McCain says:

    An announcement of yet another waste of tax payer’s money, and on Veterans’ Day, no less. Thanks Big Army.

    • xdarrows says:

      DFAS website says that the FY19 enlisted clothing allowance (Army, Male) is $474.08.

      While there might be a few folks who spend more than that in a year on replacing ACUs (engineers setting up concertina wire, maybe), I really can’t imagine that every dollar of every clothing allowance in the history of the Army has been actually spent on uniforms.

      The SMA indicated that the wear life of the new uniform should be six years … I’m in 20 already and I still have my Blues (ahem, ASUs) from when I started (and they’re still serviceable). I still have my old Greens and they’re serviceable too.

      • xdarrows says:

        Correction, FY18.

      • lcpl1066 says:

        Uniform allowance is also intended to compensate for more quickly replaceable items such as socks and t shirts as well as razorblades and other items. Many service members also spend the money on non standard items such as Crye uniforms.

        • Shawn says:

          And these won’t get issued to soldiers until they complete BCT, AIT and arrive at their first duty station. That’s to keep from wasting them on the bolos

        • Bill says:

          I got a sewing kit in boot camp so I spent my uniform allowance on booze.

  5. Bill says:

    Congratulations Army, wear them proudly. Now, May the good idea fairy stay away from your uniform acquisitions for the next 200 years.

  6. 32sbct says:

    “This is the uniform worn by America’s Greatest Generation as they won World War II.”

    Actually that would be the M41 Field jacket, wool shirt and trousers, the HBT cotton uniform, the M43 Field Jacket and trousers, the M42 Paratrooper uniform, and the tanker jacket and coveralls. Those are the uniforms that won the War, not the Officer Pinks and Greens.

    Sorry but I hate this move. The Army has made a lot of history since WW II so why the need to look backwards?

    So the ASU only lasted about a decade. In retrospect, the Army Dress Greens lasted from 1957 to 2015. Probably longer than any other dress uniform.

    I’m glad I’m retired so I don’t have to look like a WW II reenactor.

  7. Bryan says:

    I’m about to deploy but don’t have optics or PEQs for all my weapons. Glad to see we are focused on the priorities. Thank you Big Army.

    • SSD says:

      Since those assets exist within the Army, in droves, what has your chain of command done to remedy the situation?

      • eatadhk says:

        MTOE doesn’t work for all… smart pants

      • Nick M says:

        I’ve been in several units where the MTOE/TDA did not include optics or lasers for many of the weapons (but we had the same expectation for doing night fire as part of qual/RM tables)

        Do you know how we got the optics that weren’t personally owned?

    • Steve says:

      Completely different funding sources; the various colors of money matter.

    • John says:

      Probably won’t need it in the S shop. Never saw someone who actually used their weapon for their job without optics or lasers. Probably going to complain about not having a plate carrier on the fob. Uniforms deal ALOT with recruitment ask the marines. This also comes out of different budgets. When I was an 11b I didn’t complain about not having a mk18 because I need it for clearing rooms.

      • Bryan says:

        No S shop here. This is another example of the emphasis being placed on function over form. Weapons are still out. Work orders are in. Yet the latest higher guidance is “IFAK on the left side”. Because that’s what brigade cares about.
        Give zero shits about a plate carrier.

        If the solution is “tell higher” when you’ve been telling higher for months, and you see the hottest thing is an additional uniform to maintain, hard to keep a smile.

  8. Aaron says:

    Thank you SGM Daly for being like every other SGM…obsessed with uniforms. Remember we went to the ASU to save money…and now we’re costing Soldiers more money.

    • xdarrows says:

      Every enlisted gets a clothing allowance, whether they spend it on uniforms or something else.

      Shall we argue for taking that away, since a large portion of the Army (non-Combat Arms in non-Line units) probably goes years without spending ANY of that allowance on uniforms?

      This doesn’t cost Soldiers a dime, in the long run.

    • b_rawrd says:

      1. How did going to the ASU save money? plz explain.

      2. It’ll honestly be lasting and well received.

      • Will Rodriguez says:

        The saving came for some not having to maintain dress greens and dress blues/ASU’s.

        • Terry Baldwin says:


          As I recall (and you probably remember too), in the years when we wore the Dress Green uniform, outside of the Old Guard, the Dress Blues were NOT an issue item for enlisted soldiers. I went to OCS as a SFC with almost ten years of service and never owned a set of Blues until I got commissioned.

          I am assuming – and anyone who knows better can correct me – that when the P & Gs are issued the current ASUs / Blues will revert back to an optional item for enlisted soldiers. I do not expect that soldiers will be issued both or required to have Blues in addition to P & Gs.


          • SSD says:

            That is my understanding of the intent. Blues will once again become an optional, formal uniform.

          • a loggy says:

            When in command, I had no insignia in common with anyone in my company. The only link was I was in a blue suit, they were in a blue suit. The potential for bringing back SSIs and unit crests is welcome.

          • Will Rodriguez says:

            My memory is the same Terry. That’s why I said “some”. Officers were required as well as some special duty positions like the Old Guard.

            Often senior NCO’s purchased a set. The savings goes primarily to the above mentioned.

            Then there are the costs that brought down ASU costs since the whole Army was wearing them (primarily insignia, uniforms tend to cost the same from a manufacturer).

  9. Gill and McGuire says:

    Well a former supply administrator Fort Eustis Virginia. 1963.Army Green always been GREEN, Back to World War One, so what’s the issues 2018 ?????…..PEACE.

  10. john says:

    waste of money for every soldier. nothing wrong with the asu. just more dumb shit that soldiers have to waste their money on.

  11. Brad says:

    I cannot understand the hate. It’s a much better looking uniform than the ASU. At least soldiers won’t look like flight attendants or airline pilots anymore. The appearance of a garrison uniform instills pride, and soldiers with pride instill confidence in the people they serve. To the mocking of the “Next Greatest Generation” comment, it is an all-volunteer force that volunteered to serve during the Forever War and is far more lethal and capable than the apparently “real” Greatest Generation. And to the commenter regarding not deploying with optics/lasers, if you aren’t SOF (which you probably aren’t since you don’t have that stuff), you probably won’t need them, and are perfectly capable of functioning as a soldier without them. Take it up with your chain-of-command. The uniform situation has literally zero to do with your weapon.

  12. Disciplined Soldier says:

    Time and again I have been asked, “Are you a marine? Are you a policeman? Fireman? Pilot?” The American public does not identify with the blues. Period. Furthermore, for normal everyday wear in the office, when you are not in the motor pool, not in the field, not on the range, there is absolutely no reason why my Soldiers cannot wear a class B Service Dress uniform. There are thousands of Soldiers who do not spend all their time on the range or in the field; Military Intel, Cyber, Signal, and Military Police just to name a few. I suspect a lot of the rumblings out there are from in-disciplined Soldiers who are lazy and now pissed off that they may actually be expected to shine their shoes again, polish their brass again, and act like a real Soldier again. A sharp uniform goes a long way towards instilling pride, and good order and discipline for our Army. I have talked with many many Soldiers in my unit about this new uniform, and all of them are 100% FOR the Pinks and Greens. I was actually surprised that most of the lower enlisted Soldiers were behind this uniform as enthusiastically as they were. When we go to the range we will put our sloppy OCP’s (that never hold a crease) and pigskin boots (that you can’t polish, and hardly keep them looking clean) back on. But in garrison, we will dress sharply, act professionally, and spend our uniform allowance on what it was designed for(not video game consoles or flat screens). And if you don’t like it, sign a DEC statement or wait until your ETS and get out. God knows we have enough problems in the Army without everyone pissing and moaning about uniforms.

    • Treva says:


    • paul says:

      You’re out of your goddamn mind. You identified the right problem – soldiers who don’t spend time in the field or at the range actually fucking need to. They don’t need to dress up as an idolized, by-gone era. A sharp uniform is good for funeral details and balls. Our clothing allowance is to replace boots and worn out pieces of the uniform – not to buy the newest fad in dress uniforms.

    • Pigmy says:

      I have no idea where/if you actually serve(d) Disciplined Soldier, but your comments do not reflect the military I knew as an Army Scout.

      HTH are you confused with a policeman or fireman “Time and again”? I’ve see a few SWAT teams with BDUs, but I’ve NEVER seen a fire department were them… That statement alone makes me discredit your comments entirely as BS.

      I regularly destroyed uniforms and boots in the field, and my allowance was used up on either replacing worn out uniforms, or purchasing upgraded/better replacement items (like cold weather boots and gloves which eat through several hundred dollars quickly…). Then there are the uniform items unique to certain branches like Calvary and are not issued but you are expected to have/purchase. God help you if it all hit at once since the 1st shirt didn’t care why you didn’t have on a serviceable uniform…

      Besides, the old and even the current uniform was just fine. There was no real need to change any of it – it’s the Military, not GQ for crying out loud. IMO, this is nothing more than a financial burden to most soldiers and a boon for whoever got the clothing contract…

      • SSD says:

        You mentioned items specific to being in a certain unit. This uniform is specific to being in the Army. You’re either a professional soldier, or you aren’t. If you aren’t, quit. If you are, buy the uniform and wear it when you’re told, like a professional soldier.

        • Will Rodriguez says:

          This ^^^^

        • Kirk says:

          And, that attitude is why so many enlisted ranks soldiers have limited to no respect for their commissioned peers.

          Y’all want to look pretty, and don’t care what it costs. I would submit that the vast majority of the people agitating for this uniform are a.) not likely to see field service in the future, and b.) probably haven’t seen all that much of it in the past, either. If they had, their priorities would be a bit different, and they wouldn’t be so focused on playing live-action dress-up Barbie with the troops they manage. Lead? I won’t soil the word by associating it with them. Careerists, all.

          There is precisely zero need for this uniform, especially after we just got through doing the ASU evolution. Good God, the costs on those things haven’t even amortized, and we’re replacing them? This is like the idiots in Seattle spending millions of dollars to renovate the King Dome, and then almost immediately tearing the thing down to build new stadiums for what are arguably two of the least successful teams in their leagues. Utter and completely irresponsible wastes of resources.

          • Will Rodriguez says:

            I’m considering the source and not offended.

            It’s too bad some forget let alone fail to live up to the NCO creed.

            • Kirk says:

              I’m devastated to learn I haven’t offended you–Because that is something you are obviously in dire need of, if you think this exercise in frivolity isn’t a waste of time and money.

              Priorities. The current leadership obviously doesn’t have the ability to discern what they should be, can’t set them, and is operating in a vacuum of fiscal accountability. We just went through a uniform change to the ASU less than ten years ago, and I’ll wager that there are still people out there with the expense for that hanging around on their DPP accounts. And, you asshats are doing the same damn thing, all over again? Lovely. Ever so fiscally responsible of you all.

              How long, again, has it been since the Pentagon has undergone an audit? Whose responsibility is that, again? Is that an NCO responsibility, directing use of the tax dollars spent for national defense, and ensuring they aren’t spent frivolously? Or, dare I say it out loud, might that properly be a duty and responsibility of the commissioned ranks and their civilian oversight?

              My understanding was, as a senior NCO, that part of my duties included ensuring the proper and prudent use of the nation’s tax dollars which were entrusted to me, and to point out when they were being misspent or misused by my superiors. This is pretty clearly a case of that, in my opinion. Only trouble is, I don’t think the Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline will be taking my calls on this one–Even though they should be.

              The commissioned ranks and their civilian oversight have woefully failed the nation across the financial board. This crapfest of an issue is merely a symptom, and the fact that you’ve got the balls to accuse someone protesting that fact and pointing out that the Emperor is wandering naked through the halls of the Pentagon of having forgotten their duties as an NCO? This is me, pointing at this, and laughing hysterically, because it’s that ‘effing ludicrous.

              Obviously, you’ve never known what your fiscal responsibilities were, which I might remind you, emphatically don’t consist of playing dress-up Barbie dolls with the sons and daughters of this nation. You want to do that, go find a marching band somewhere that’s in need of a drum major. They probably won’t be too happy with your ideas about uniforms, though–Most marching bands have to buy their own.

              There are, in short, a hell of a lot more important things that the field Army could be doing with the money and time that’s going to be devoted to this act of genius.

              Of course, the fact that we’re some twenty fucking trillion dollars in debt as a nation right now apparently means nothing to any of you fine gentlemen that were entrusted with commissions, nor does the fact that our actual training and readiness for a real modern war aren’t anywhere near what they should be. Far more important that the pretty-pretties be looking good in some snazzy dress uniforms they’ll never be wearing for anything other than some idiotic ceremony–Or, more likely, to be buried in. The fact that war ain’t a goddamn beauty contest with an event judging dress uniforms seems to be fucking lost on you lot.

              I seem to remember Lee looking really snazzy at Appomattox, compared to Grant, and how spiffy the various Nazi generals looked in their Hugo Boss finery, when we took their surrenders. Let’s just hope we’re not setting ourselves up for another one of those historical ironies, here in the immediate future.

              There’s something fundamentally flawed with a military culture that is so concerned with the looks of their uniforms, rather than the capability of the men and organizations wearing them. This pinks and greens fiasco is just another expression of Shinseki’s Syndrome, thinking that the issuance of some new uniform item is going to somehow magically fix personnel, training, and organizational deficiencies. It’s also really telling that someone critiquing the poor prioritization demonstrated here gets attacked as being somehow “unprofessional”. Time will tell which one of us is right, and I am pretty sure history’s judgment ain’t gonna be coming down on the side of the splendidly uniformed.

              Never has before, likely never will.

              • SSD says:

                Somehow we won World War Two and the Army was wearing this uniform.

                • Kirk says:

                  The officers were wearing this bullshit, not “the Army”. There were reasons now forgotten and ignored by you geniuses that we went from this two-tone unmatchable abortion to the Army Greens of the Cold War era, and thanks to the cosplayer lobby within the Army, we are going to learn, yet again, just why that decision was made by the adults in the room.

                  Let us revisit this issue in ten years, and we will see how it all works out. I remember similar arguments being made when I said the ASU was a waste, and here we are: New dress uniforms. Again. Less than a decade has gone by, and everything I said then about the ASU has proven out. Same thing with the black beret, only that took longer for reality to assert itself.

                  It is just too bad for the taxpayers and the mid-rank enlisted that you people are the purblind spendthrifts making these decisions. Just like with UCP, there is precisely zero accountability for these immature frivolities–At least, until the next war rolls around. And, even then, y’all won’t be the ones actually paying the price. UCP and the ASU should have led to the people making those decisions having their pay and retirement docked until the treasury recouped expenses, especially with the ASU.

                  The point that seems to escape all of you suffering from Shinseki’s Syndrome is that the uniform emphatically does not make the man; the man makes the uniform. The black beret would have remained what it really is, a rather silly and impractical hat, without the long hours, days, weeks, and years of hard work and dedication to professional soldiering put in by the Rangers of the 1970s, ’80s, and ’90s–Which that idiot Shinseki erased with the stroke of a pen, not understanding a damn thing about soldiers or real soldiering. The Janissaries of the Ottoman Empire managed to turn a goddamn soup spoon into the feared and respected symbol of a military elite, and that shit didn’t happen because some perfumed prince in an office ordered it to happen by decree. They built that “unique heraldic item” into what it became through hard work and battlefield prowess, something you lot cannot seem to grasp. You will not build a better Army by dressing it up like one; if you want substantive improvements, you are going to have to build them up the hard way, not like some Third-world generalissimo with his gorgeous designer uniforms for the inevitable surrender ceremonies and funerals.

                  All of you should be embarrassed by this bullshit, and that you aren’t is a telling sign of how fucked we are, in terms of leadership… No; wait a minute–Calling this crap “leadership” is an insult to history: This is classic, MBA-style “management”, and piss-poor management, at that. Whole thing reeks of an attempt at bad corporate re-branding, like New Coke.

                  That’s the reality, and I am morally certain I will be able to rub noses in it, come the ten-year anniversary for this stupid and irresponsible waste of resources.

                  • Will Rodriguez says:


                    You enjoy hearing yourself talk. Your argument is full of logical fallacies and non sequiturs.

                    You display an appalling lack of professionalism while simultaneously saying things on the internet you would never say in person and making character judgements about people you’ve never meant simply because they disagree with you.

                    While you rail about bad judgement, poor character and moral cowardice you’re a poster boy for it. Your the reason SSD has to sometimes close down discussion and/or remind people how to debate.

                    I won’t be reading your future commentary but do us all a favor and at least be brief when you put ignorance on display. It makes it easier to pan down to the worthwhile comments. Thanks!

  13. Maroon Beret says:

    Since we’re going back to an earlier time in Army history does this mean we’re going to stop awarding badges for everything from picking up our laundry to sustaining a twisted ankle anywhere outside CONUS? After all no sense in trying to look better if in the process everyone has more awards than Idi Amin. How about getting rid of that beret that makes everyone look like a Swedish baker drunk on vodka? Despite the best of intentions the Army would be better off working on its ethos instead of thinking that how we look will somehow make us more warrior like. The Marines have essentially the same uniform for the past 100 years. There’s a reason for that. However the Army has spent the past 25 going through more uniforms than Ru Paul does each show. There’s a reason for that also.

    • b_rawrd says:

      Actually false. If we were going back to WWII style we would actually remove everything that wasn’t a campaign or combat award (with the exception of the NDSM since they had an equivalent)

      No AAMs, No ARCOMs, no MSMs, none of that BS. *The way it should be*

    • Agentofwrath says:

      Idi Amin and a Swedish baker drunk on Vodka walk into a bar….

    • Will Rodriguez says:

      About giving medals away…

      I’m not for giving medals away and sadly it happens too much.

      EVERY infantryman in WWII received a Bronze Star. I’m sure many deserved them but I’m also sure not all of them did. Medals are to motivate. It’s satisfying to be recognized but recognition doesn’t always happen. Professionals don’t excel to get a medal.

      Agree on ditching the beret, a decision made to recognize everyone as special.

  14. Davy Crockett says:

    I’m a civilian so have no stake, but these look good. Why are y’all complaining about some badass looking new uniforms?

    • Jeremy says:

      Snowflakes. Snowflakes everywhere.

      Because if the people in charge of uniforms aren’t fixing something that is entirely outside their scope, it’s clearly their fault and the sole cause of all of the Army’s ills.

      • Kirk says:

        It’s an indicator. Instead of making sure the lookouts have binoculars to keep an eye out for icebergs while we’re steaming at full speed, the officers on watch on board our Titanic are more focused on rearranging the deck chairs to make them look good.

        Meanwhile, the lookouts are looking good in their spiffy new uniforms, and still have the binoculars carefully secured in the locker, the key for which is still back in Southhampton…

        Priorities, people: We does not has them.

  15. Dave says:

    I’ll be buying this as fast as possible. I wear any uniform only about 20% of the time but when I do, I prefer to look like a grown up with some dress sense. I wear a dress uniform about once a year, but I’m so thankful I won’t have to look like a banana republican general officer who became a bus driver in retirement.

    • John says:

      I‘m retired and I’ll buy this because retirees are authorized to wear the uniform with the retiree patch, for special occasions. Hell every veteran is allowed to wear the uniform on Veterans Day.

      • Joe says:

        True, but I’m not sure “allowed” is the proper term.
        Authorized maybe.
        It does beat the pickle suit and ASU, so long as the ASU is totally discarded and true Dress Blues return.

  16. Shawn says:

    I like it, years ago they sent out a survey on AKO. This was the popular choice at the time but it was ignored by senior service members.

  17. SGT Heintz says:

    I despise, detest, loathe, and yes, also hate, the current ASU’s so I am optimistic and hopeful in this matter.

    SGT Heintz

  18. Flight-ER-Doc says:

    O, FFS…….

    Glad the Army has all the other issues settled….soldier suicide, ability to accomplish the f’ing mission…..little things..

    • John says:

      How does this have anything to do with h soldier suicide and how exactly does the army fix that. Ever hear of Fall on your sword? Suicide has been with mankind forever. You want to educate the soldiers on Suicide I saw and heard suicide so many times everyday and what do I read when I get home more civilians complaining about suicide how is the army suppose to stop it assign everyone a personal bodyguard because all soldiers know they can get help. Uniforms are something they can easily fix. I miss when ssd was mainly people who gave a shit about the best gear for the warfighter instead of SJWs who came from Army WTF

      • Kirk says:

        Mmhmmm… And, “best gear for the warfighter” is precisely why those of us objecting to this exercise in sartorial splendiferousness are objecting to it. This latest iteration in the Barbie dress-up competition does nothing to provide “the best gear for the warfighter”, and will actually cut into funds that could have gone to provide that “best gear”, both personal and organizational.

        This crap is an exercise in unrestrained ego-boosting by the current set of managers in the Army, and an example that historians will likely pull out as an indicator for why we got our asses handed to us in the next conflict we get into with someone who is an actual threat. The ASU isn’t even done being paid for, by a lot of people, and we’re going to replace it already? LOL… I only laugh because the alternative means raised blood pressure and outright rage at the stupidity of it all.

  19. Mike says:

    Here’s a nugget that hasn’t gotten much airtime:

    “Everyone will also be able to buy a leather bomber jacket as an outerwear option.”

    • Rob says:

      Oh boy. I’m glad I was a woodland and black boot soldier.

      • Joe says:

        M81 Woodland yes, and while I sported Corcoran I’s and II’s, they looked good but sucked for road marches.

    • SSD says:

      It’s not a bomber jacket, it’s an A-2 aviator jacket like AF aircrew wear, and yes, we’ve mentioned it in the past.

    • ArmyAmmoGuy says:

      And you forgot that other lil nugget

      The rest of the Army will have until 2028 to obtain the complete uniform.

      So another dozen or so years of mix-match uniforms in the formation. Pissing off every 1SG & CSM regularly

      • Kirk says:

        LOL… You naively underestimate the amount of pressure that such people can and will apply to those beneath them in the rank structure. Most enlisted will buy the new uniform as quickly as they can, just to keep the CSM happy. The only ones who will get away with not buying the new crap will be the Warrants, who are pretty much a law unto themselves when it comes to mere uniformity.

        Everybody else? They’re gonna have to tighten their belts to pay for this exercise in ego. Wonder whose kids are gonna go without, out in that vast middle ground of mid-rank career soldiers?

  20. Ex11A says:

    The problem with the ASU is, if you take off your coat and go Class B, you look like a waiter. A waiter at a really nice restaurant, but a waiter. And the black beret with blue coat just looks dumb.

    • G3SM says:

      ^ This. ASU’s simply look terrible in that configuration. Everytime I see Soldiers wearing ASU without a coat it looks like they cut armholes in a billowy pillowcase and then hung a bunch of ornaments all over it. This is a good move if they just stick with it for the long run (and hopefully it’ll rub off on the USAF).

  21. Norbis says:

    I’m all about it, I avoid wearing dress uniforms at all costs, I also avoid wearing civilian shirts that require a tuck in or tie at all costs. However; when I do, as someone said above; I prefer to look like an adult that knows how to dress for an occasion. I never liked the green Class-As and I liked the ASU even less (other than for formal events). I also appreciate they brought back the sew on shoulder insignia and tabs, I always felt that was something unique to the Army. I really really hope this stays in place for a very long time. Hopefully the Army will invest in some past heritage and future tradition with these uniforms.

    One question none of the paratroopers have asked so I will:
    Whats the deal with jump boots? I assume they will be the same old brown Corcorans or some variation. I haven’t seen it mentioned anywhere yet…

    • Don says:

      I’m sorry you never had pride in your dress uniforms.

      • Norbis says:

        Haha, I am sorry you feel the need to apologize to me on an internet comments section. Also, I never mentioned pride, just said I didn’t like them.

  22. 32sbct says:

    My biggest problem with the new uniform is this, since I didn’t fight in WW II, let alone the fact that I wasn’t even close to being born yet, why would I want to wear a uniform that was made famous by people who are now in their 90’s? I’d feel like a poser if I had to wear this.

    The beret will look horrible with this uniform. Time to ditch the black beret all together. But no beret should be worn with the new service uniform. That would include green, tan, maroon. They could still be worn with the OCP but not the service uniform. Is everyone ready to go back to the overseas cap with the glider/para patch, just like WW II. I’m guessing not.

    • SSD says:

      Well, it was worn into the late 50s, so get over your odd aversion and get with the program. Many Soldiers wear unit awards on their service dress which were earned a century ago. Being a Soldier is about being part of a heritage of service and giving yourself to something bigger.

      • 32sbct says:

        I appreciate this site and usually view it every day. I also appreciate your views on various subjects. But after thirty years of service, I don’t need a lecture from anyone on what it means to be a Soldier. I also think I’ve earned the right to express my opinion on the new uniform whether or not it goes along with “the program.” Carry on.

        • SSD says:

          Do you feel like a poser when you wear unit awards?

          • 32sbct says:

            No I don’t. Unit awards were first established in WW II and are only worn while you are a member of that unit. The same with shoulder sleeve insignia, and distinctive unit insignia, both of which were introduced at the end of or after WW I depending on when the unit was established. They identify you as a member of the unit and it’s history. The SSI (SSIFWTS) and unit awards are only permanent if you were in the unit at the time they were awarded. After you retire the only items on your uniform are those you were awarded. All unit awards, DUI, and SSI come off as they should since they represent the unit not the individual.

            In this case it’s the entire uniform from head to toe. Yes, the WW II Army was the greatest generation and I wish every Soldier better understood their history. But the Army moved on from WW II. We fought in Korea, Viet Nam, Desert Storm, Afghanistan, Iraq, and numerous smaller operations since then. Why the need to look back 75 years for inspiration? To me it seems incongruous to have a Soldier in OCP with all sorts of high tech gear in the field then wear something out of the 1940’s as a service dress. The WW II and Koran vets made this look famous, we should leave it with them not appropriate it for current use. Just my opinion. Others are free to have theirs.

            • SSD says:

              The point is that both the Army and the unit are bigger than you. What’s the point of organizational pride if “someone else earned it?” You might as well get rid of all forms of heraldry.

              Consider the ASU. Soldiers earned that 150 years ago.

      • Don says:

        I’d rather wear my old AG44 uniform, which was the uniform during my service in the Global War on Terror and my father and uncle’s service in Vietnam.

        When my grandfather served in WWII, he wore an enlisted man’s uniform.

        The pinks and greens hold no heritage for me.

      • John says:

        Dress greens were also made to look less militant, and modern Business professional, during late 1950s draw down of grounds troops and focus on technology, where our nukes were suppose to be enough

  23. Israel Hoffman says:

    Man oh man. I never would have thought people would get so worked up over a uniform. The dudes that are out are bitching for no reason and the dudes that are in know deep down they will end up wearing it regardless of their feelings on the matter. The big green weenie always gets what it wants from it’s victims. Willingly or otherwise. I’m going to buy it, and I’m going to wear it properly when the situation calls for it. The world keeps on spinning, it is what it is.

  24. Will Rodriguez says:

    Congrats to the Army selecting a dress uniform that will be recognized as belonging to a Soldier. When I wore Blues I had every service thrown at me except the Army and some wouldn’t believe it when I told them.

    I hope the Army gets use out of them though. There was a time one was required to wear this uniform at least monthly as well as any time one was going to be in public off post.

    While the Army is at it, it would be advisable to inculcate pride in wearing that uniform similar to what the Corps does. I’ve R A R E L Y seen a shabby looking Marine and it does a lot for the public’s perception of the service.

    Good luck guys and a belated Happy Veteran’s Day.

  25. Lose_Game says:

    Damn, lots of hate here. I’m a civvy, but I think it looks much better, and what the Army spends on this program will be a drop in the bucket compared to all the other stupid shit they waste money on. A small price to pay for a uniform that actually looks good.

    I can attest to what the other commenter said about public recognition. From the people I asked, no one could identify the ASU as the Army dress uniform, though a few identified the green class A. Everyone can identify USMC blues, and everyone can identify WWII pinks and greens. Why? Because they’re iconic, and look sharp. Everyone liked the CANSOF dress uniform, what’s wrong with this one?

    • Kirk says:

      The expense, and essential lack of need for it.

      Dress uniforms are an anachronism already. The purpose they serve is no longer in effect, and the only people concerned with wearing them are people who are, I am afraid, also lacking in an ability to effectively prioritize or identify issues of real relevance or importance.

      Dress uniforms are trivialities, obsolete ones at that. Were one to examine their historical role, one would find that they really only existed for a short period of time coinciding with the end of the 19th Century to the middle of the 20th. Concerns about operational security and terrorism mean that we’ll never wear these things in public as individuals again, and that they will be relegated to ceremonial functions inside protected military bases alone. Even then, we’re probably not going to be wearing them very much.

      There are vastly more important things to be worried about, and spending money on than this anachronistic and entirely atavistic exercise in vanity. It’s unfortunate that our leadership hasn’t and apparently cannot identify this set of facts, and prioritize accordingly.

  26. Kirk says:

    Let’s revisit this crap in ten years, and see what everyone thinks. I remember that the conventional wisdom and consensus was that the ASU was super-keen, and never going to need replacing, back when. I decried the expense then, said it was a waste of money and mindspace, and here we are before a lot of people are even done paying the ‘effing things off on their DPP accounts, replacing them.

    I hereby predict that within the decade, people will be saying how hard it is to look good with the P&G uniform, and that it was a huge mistake and waste of money.

    I wish I could go back and find all the commentary about the ASU adoption on the various sites they were posted on–The objections then were shouted down, just as the ones to this latest and greatest are. We told you then that the ASU was a huge waste of resources, but noooooo… All y’all had to have your pretty-pretty frivolities. And, here we are yet again…

  27. Krogh says:


    Needed to be said. This isn’t an either/or, black-and-white, Manichean issue.

    Frankly, in message boards like this, I hear the same thing over and over: Priorities are wrong. How does this help Soldiers in the field? My unit can’t fund X, but we can fund this. Etc. These complaints, honestly, show a shallow understanding of the institution of the Army as a whole. Get out of the fox hole, and see the world around you.