Talk:Army Service Uniform

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Blue is lame![edit]

I think it is very awkward to keep blue uniforms in army of 21 century. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.168.163.233 (talk) 11:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Green is too Cold War-ish. Blue is good. 70.137.186.134 (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blue is actually OK. Shame they should have kept the Civil War-style shoulder boards on official occasions and wear the rank insignia plainly on the shoulder straps when in garrison duty. It still sticks out when on official duty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.217.88.168 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 11 June 2008
The Officer Blues will NOT have Shoulder Loops. The ONLY option is the original Shoulder Boards. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CSIB metal pin that replaces the green uniform's SSI patch is a bit much in the accouterments department. They should replace the Wal-Mart style nametags and have the unit insignia in the nametags, like you see in the Navy. Jigen III (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, they might as well consolidate the DUI, coat of arms, and the CSIB/SSI into a single design (to put on the nametag). Because now that we have beret flashes in addition to the aforementioned, we can potentially have 4 distinct and very different designs to symbolize the same unit. That's just ridiculous! Jigen III (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I always hated the useless beret. Need to get rid of the pretty uniforms as obsolete.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it's largely a result of my own history, beginning as a second-generation army brat in the '50s and having seen service in the '60s, but my idea of a "good" uniform design was the old-style Class A's for garrison wear, greens in the winter and khakis in the summer. They looked good and they were comfortable. And I've always hated the beret as all-Army headgear because its origins are non-American. The beret should have been reserved for special units -- Special Forces, etc. The classic visored hat looked fine and was more practical (because of the visor), and the fore-and-aft garrison cap was a perfectly good alternative. The new ASU, frankly, looks terrible. Green over blue?! And gold-striped trousers bloused over combat boots?! Christ. The uniform has been going downhill ever since the '90s, with senior officers at the Pentagon, of all places, wearing starched camo BDUs with the sleeves rolled up. --Michael K SmithTalk 14:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too Many Symbols of Distinction![edit]

So I went over Army Regulations, and I learned the following:

  • Distinctive Unit Insignia, coat of arms given to units of distinction. Worn on your beret and shoulder loops.
  • Regimental Distinctive Insignia, the regiment your unit supposedly descended from (the army no longer uses regiments). The lineage is based on USARS. Worn over your right breast above your name tag and sometimes shoulder loops.
    • Note: The RDI's design for Combat Support, Combat Service Support, and Special Branches are redundant to branch insignia worn on lapels.
  • Combat Service Identification Badge, replaces the SSI-FWT patch, and indicates what command unit controlled your unit during a past operation. Worn low at pocket level.
  • Beret Flash, a patch on the beret. Unique patterns given to units of distinction.
  • Background Trimming, an oval patch given to units with airborne status. Worn under your jump wings.

Good lord, the uniform has become a Christmas tree! The whole point of replacing the assortment of service uniforms with the ASU was to simplify things.

  1. If your unit doesn't merit a DUI, you wear your unit's RDI instead. So why must combat arms units that do merit DUIs still wear their RDIs?
  2. Why must non-combat arms units (CS, CSS, special branches) wear both RDI and army branch insignia when the design is virtually the same?
    you see, found on a ship, not a person
  3. For that matter, why must DUIs and RDIs even be on the uniform? Such things would be better on fixtures (buildings, flags) and letterhead. In the Navy, all coat of arms and seals are attached vessels and buildings, never people!
  4. Why must attachment to a past command unit be a worn decoration? Couldn't something like a challenge coin be issued?
  5. Why do we need both beret flashes and oval trims?

Jigen III (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • DUI and RDI are the same thing. "Units of Distinction" is a misnomer, as all units have them. They are a legacy from the days that regiments were the capstone element of the army. Unit affiliation, the wearing of a DUI of a unit you were once part of, is a practice that allows, but is not limited to, showing which unit one fought with in a particular conflict, or served in for a period of time. They are not identical to branch of service insignia, though some are quite similar, especially in the CS and CSS fields. You state that "combat arms units that do merit DUIs still wear their RDIs," This is not the case, as there is no one Regimental insignia for the Infantry or Cavalry as there is for the Medical branch.
  • The wearing of SSI and FWTS-SSI is a ninety year old tradition that springs forth not only from divisions attempting to form a unique identity in a drastically growing army, but also from the practices of our allies, e.g. the UK. The replacement of this practice by a badge on the pocket is change merely for change's sake, and an ugly one at that, though my opinion on the matter does not belong in an article. The fact of the matter is, Division insignia has been integral to the uniform for nearly a century, and most certainly belongs there.
  • Beret flashes and trim for the jumpwings of airborne units are nothing new. A cursory look at the Institute of Heraldry's webpage will show you that some of them date at least to the Vietnam War. They also commonly match one another, linking the once uncommon beret to the rest of the uniform.
  • The reason these things are on our uniform is a connection to history. Unlike the Navy, the Army is ill served placing insignia on buildings, flags, and letterhead, as we are a Mobile force, flags are not used in battle, and its hard to kill the enemy with papercuts. They Navy has substantial stationary facilities to support its fleet, flags can be displayed aboard ship, its ships themselves are potent symbols. The Army's vehicles are a poor platform for colorful insignia, due to the necessity of camouflage.
  • The wearing of regimental affiliation insignia is not mandatory in the sense you think it is. One must jump through hoops to wear insignia of a former unit, and if a soldier selects not to, they would instead wear their current unit.
  • I hope that cleared things up for you a bit.

Montizzle (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. DUI and RDI are different. Yes, combat arms don't have a single Corps-wide RDI, but they do have RDIs. For example, the 3rd Infantry Regiment has this DUI, while at the same time have this RDI. Two different designs to identify the same unit.
    1. I've looked over AR670-1 and RDI and DUI *are* different, but according to AR670-1: "units not authorized the DUI wear the RDI". But in this image, soldiers 1 & 2 are wearing both. What's going on?
  2. Okay, CSIB/SSI is for tradition. But such horrible positioning! The identification badges no longer stand out, and on the class B uniform the heavy badge slouches forward. It should on the shoulder loop or exclusive to ACUs.
  3. But still, the oval trim seems like such an awkward accoutrement. Everytime you earn a new badge or gain a new row in your ribbon rack, you have to resew it to a new position. A maroon beret is good enough to identify airborne units, IMHO.
  4. The Marine Corps will disagree. True, you can't kill the enemy with papercuts; but you can't kill them with badges either. The USMC seem to do just fine without excessive on-uniform badging.

Jigen III (talk) 08:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I am sorry, but I do not fully understand your argument. The striked through section you made enumerates the DUI, as worn on the uniform of the 3rd Infantry, as well as the Coat of Arms of the same unit, which is not worn on the uniform. As the COA is not a part of the uniform, it is clearly not the RDI.
    1. I will concede that they are different, though again, not as different as you perceive. As we have already agreed to be the case, there is no branch-wide RDI for the combat arms. This is not the case in rear echelon units and MOSs, were a single regiment is used for historical purposes. Personnel of these regiments will wear the insignia of them on the right breast, and the unit of assignment on the shoulders and beret. Sometimes this is the same insignia, sometimes it is not.
  2. No argument here! the badge is horribly placed, ill thought out, and destroys a century old and iconic tradition of patches on the sleeves. Truly ugly design choice, but the talk page, and the article are not the place for our opinions.
  3. I do not know for sure, but I believe it is not sewn on, but pinned in place. True, things would be simpler with fewer ways to make the airborne stand out, but 3/4 of a century of tradition is difficult to overcome, and once given, men are loath to return such distinctions.
  4. The Marine Corps can disagree all they want, they have their fair share of insignia, badges and unique markings. They are also a fraction the size of the Army, so understandably possess less acoutrements for their uniforms. During the World Wars, they wore division patches just like the Army. Yes, badges don't kill people that well either, though the Army doesn't wear Blues into the field to begin with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montizzle (talk • contribs) 22:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this image again ([1]), why is the 6th soldier from the left wearing a DUI over his right breast when he already has a pair on his shoulder loops? I now understand soldier 1 and 2's reason, but it doesn't make sense for soldier 6 since it's the exact same accoutrement (worn 4x over). Jigen III (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained this. He is a combat arms trooper, so if he is not authorized to wear the insignia of an affiliated unit (one he has served in previously,)then he wears the insignia of his current unit.Montizzle (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, but I still don't understand. It makes no practical sense to me why the exact same pin is worn 4 times (in soldier #6's case). If it's the exact same design, representing the exact same unit, one or two should be enough for an observer to get the point; four is overkill. The rationale as you explained for soldiers #1 and #2 is that they're a from a branch (the RDI on the right breast) serving a regiment (DUI on shoulder loops); justifying the 2 sets of pins. Using that logic, soldier #6's uniform tells me he's 82nd Airborne ([2]) serving 82nd Airborne. To me that's like saying Obama is the president in the presidency; it's a redundant statement. Jigen III (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only explaination is this: its the Army, and therefore doesn't need to make sense. There are 4 pins because there are 4 pins, it would be odd to have one soldier standing there with 4, and the other two, just because the first soldier is from the rear echelon and the second is from the line. Like I said before, alot of this is tied to tradition.152.132.11.17 (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, the 4th one is on the beret. That headgear has the dubious distinction of being worn with the Army Combat Uniform while in garrison. Therefore, unless they want to leave it blank while with the ASU (a blank flash signals someone who is still brand new in the Army), or have people change out the insignia when changing to a different uniform (a pain in the ass), you're going to at least have 3 on the ASU.CatCube (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A question...[edit]

Does anyone know whether paratroopers will continue to blouse their jump boots, as they currently do with the Class A's/B's? I don't have any experience with the dress blues, nor have I seen anyone wearing them here on Bragg. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy 20:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I served in the 82d Airborne and we did not wear the beret or bloused jump boots with our dress blues.--69.139.30.50 14:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, thanks. So we'd wear the low quarters with this new uniform, even when it's worn in less formal situations (i.e., when you'd wear Class A's, not dress blues)? Parsecboy 14:16, 10 June 2007 (UT


General Casey is looking at letting SF, Ranger, Airborne and Air Assault units wear the jump boots. I really don't care for the grey shirt. It shoud have been dark blue (dirty shirt blue)for historical reasons. The blue trousers look John Wayne Indian fighter bad ass!

Paratroopers may wear jump boots with the new ASU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.141.100 (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marine Uniforms?[edit]

Isn't the mention of Marine uniforms a bit superfluous in this article? 155.219.241.10 03:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable, I think, to point out that other branches of the service have a trouser alternative for women. --Mukk 23:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is also pertinent to indicate one of the incentives for returning to their uniform roots (Blue).

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answers to All Questions[edit]

I replaced the speculative information on the new uniform with information straight from the new AR 670‐1, WEAR AND APPEARANCE OF ARMY UNIFORMS AND INSIGNIA.

For those unaware, the Grey Shirt is history, and Black Jump Boots are back for those authorized to wear them with Greens.

Likewise, we have a replacement for the Right Sleeve SSI in the form of a Badge worn on the right side of the Jacket and the Class "B" Shirt. There is no replacement yet for the Left Sleeve SSI, so the SSI will now only appear on the Army Combat Uniform.

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Layout[edit]

Is the layout up top really the best layout we can come up with? The text in the middle looks ridiculous...The freddinator (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is ths uniform practical?[edit]

Any US army people out there, the uniform looks good for those working in offices and similar "clean" environment but it strikes me that any time a group of ordinary soldiers will have to do anything grubby (even remove equipment from a dusty storage room) then they will be in and out of overalls whereas the previous in the more casual wear they needn't do this so much and could just get on with it. Any thoughs or comments? Dainamo (talk) 08:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
This uniform will never be worn by soldiers that would be doing any kind of physical labor. They would be wearing the ACU, or one of the other work uniforms. I would doubt that you would even see this uniform on many of the office personnel. This uniform will probably be similar to the Class A's and Dress Blues in that it will be worn only during ceremonial occasions, inspections, or by recruiters.Flyboymb (talk) 19:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course this uniform isn't practical, no dress uniform is. The military needs one uniform for its service dress and one for its work dress and possibly some type of cammies for field/war dress. All need to be as spartan as possible with, maybe, allowing for the tarting up of only the dress uniform for Honor Guards and Bands. Period. When I was in the army we had Dress blues/whites, Winter green and Summer greens, khakis, fatigues then BDUs, then ACUs. Too much crap. Get all rid of all those stupid pins and badges and other BS. I served on a Joint Uniform Board in the mid 90s and we conducted several studies to replace all the uniforms with a standard grey service dress military wide. It would have saved us lots of time and effort. --Degen Earthfast (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Background Trimming and Beret Flashes[edit]

Is the beret flash suppose to replace the oval trimmings behind jump wings? Jigen III (talk) 18:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General cleanup[edit]

I have simplified a few things and of course continued my fight against capitalism. I note the passage on the origin of unit patches is simply wrong. Corps-level badges made their appearance in the Army of the Potomac (and later int he West) during the ACW. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 10:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Headgear[edit]

I notice that the section on headgear in the article says that the black beret is no longer used with the ASU. This seems to contradict both the photos included in the article and the ALARACT (202/2008) announcing the change, which says: 13. HEADGEAR AUTHORIZED FOR WEAR WITH THE ASU:

  • BERET (BLACK, MAROON, GREEN AND TAN)
  • SERVICE CAP (MALE/FEMALE; CORPORALS AND ABOVE)

14. THE BERET IS THE PRIMARY HEADGEAR WORN WITH THE ASU BY ALL SOLDIERS UNLESS THE COMMANDER DIRECTS WEAR OF THE SERVICE CAP (FOR CPLS AND ABOVE).

I suspect the confusion may be the authorization to use the service cap, and the illustration of the service cap in the male officer "Dress Blue" configuration (which also shows the bow tie rather than the four-in-hand). I would simply correct the article, but am too far from the way the uniform is actually worn these days to be sure I have the current information.173.13.221.59 (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Uniforms[edit]

What, if any, content should be on this article regarding previous Khaki and Brown Army Service Uniforms that existed prior to the Dress Greens? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

rename to US Army Service Uniform?[edit]

I'm just wondering why the title is "Army Service Uniform"? Shouldn't it be "US Army Service Uniform" or "Army Service Uniform (US)"? I'm not looking for a flame war about this, but wouldn't it be better to be more specific? I mean surely there is more than "Army Service Uniform" globally? Cheers :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.148.79 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 19 February 2012

"Army Service Uniform" is the official term used by the US army for this class of uniform. It's not a non-specific string of words, i.e. "service uniform of the army" or "US Army's service uniform; it's the actual unalterable label (think of it like a brand). They want it to abbreviate as "ASU" to coincide with "ACU", the Army Combat Uniform. For other militaries, "dress uniform" or "full dress" seems to be the more common for non-combat uniforms. Jigen III (talk) 04:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
British, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand armies all maintain the designation "service dress" for the (usually khaki) uniform equating to the civilian business suit and worn for semi-formal occasions. "Dress" or "full dress" uniforms are usually more colourful or at least have additional trimmings. However the term "Army Service Uniform" does seem to be exclusive to the US Army and is accordingly probably an appropriate title for this article. Buistr (talk) 07:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too many cooks[edit]

This article suffers from too many editors. Mistakes are corrected only to be made again. Every single bit of the uniform seems to be discussed at least twice in different locations. There is little unified style in the writing. It violated the Wiki Manual of Style all to heck.

Sadder still is there is no obvious way to fix the problem. Everyone in the army is an expert and perfectly willing to chip in their two cents' worth.

I think I will give up on this article. Like the World War II article, this suffers from too many cooks. By leaving, I am doing my part to solve the problem. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 10:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Army Service Uniform. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Army Service Uniform. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Heart and Other Medals and Badges -- Why?[edit]

Why is there an entire paragraph on the Purple Heart in an article on the Army Service Uniform? The only way it could even remotely be linked is if the author indicated WHERE such awards on worn on the Army Service Uniform, or if the regulations regarding how they were on worn on the uniform have been modified.

I think that entire paragraph and the subsequent one (regarding Infantryman badges) should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrStiv (talk • contribs) 18:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's in a color?[edit]

A suggestion for this article: Add, where available, the actual color scheme number of the clothing. Example: “Uniform, Trousers, US Army Service, Class-A, Blue (AMS STANDARD 595A COLOR: Federal Standard 15056)”. Somewhere on some design document that information will be available. Why might this be a valuable piece of information? The answer is 99.99% of the people won’t care but encyclopedias are about the 0.01% so we don’t forget what we did and how we did it and so companies know how to mirror colors they wish to implement in their own organization. And...that's a thing the army would do. Worldneedsplastic (talk) 07:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Uniform[edit]

I just found this picture of General John Shalikashvili in 1997, it appears that he is wearing the Army Service Uniform. Is there any relationship to the current uniform? If so why isn't it mentioned in the article? Skjoldbro (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's the old formal dress blues, which the current service uniforms are based on. When the new (pink and) green service uniforms are phased in, the blue service uniform will be relegated to the same sort of more formal occasions that the blues were used for in the past. It's covered in the second paragraph of the history section, but I do agree that it needs to be reworked. The fact is the 2008 move to blue was less a new uniform being introduced as a modified version of an existing uniform (the dress blues) taking over functions previously handled by a separate uniform (the day-to-Day service functions of the greens). Instead of phrasing it as though the ASU was a new uniform, the continuity with the dress blues needs to be emphasized. oknazevad (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A quick headsup/question[edit]

From the third paragraph of the History chapter

Since the blue ASU is now standard, the only green service uniform remaining in the U.S. military are the Marine Corps's olive green service uniform. I believe this no longer holds true now that the new green uniforms are being introduced. Perhaps the word 'currently' or an 'as of year x' before the sentence would be correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.244.138 (talk) 00:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Army_Service_Uniform&oldid=1205351806"