Talk:U.S. Woodland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:M81 Woodland)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Post-Vietnam War in Germany?[edit]

"...a longer-range battlespace on the fields of Germany." What does this mean? 141.152.251.6 (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Source for "M81" nomenclature?[edit]

The "Woodland" camouflage pattern is not referred to as "M81" in official publications. It is simply "camouflage, woodland pattern" or a variation on that nomenclature.

"M81 Woodland" only seems to show up in air-soft gear suppliers' advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.202.52 (talk) 06:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Official U.S. Army museum display calls it M81. – Illegitimate Barrister (talkcontribs), 12:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

ENOUGH with the "M81" nonsense![edit]

This pattern was NEVER called "M81" in the US military. It was simnply "Woodland." That is how it is referenced in Army Regulations such as AR 670-1 --- the document that aithorized solders to wear specific uniforms. "Woodland" was how it was described on uniform tags --- from 1982 through to the present --- NEVER "M81."

Someone needs to take this "M81" airsoft fan-boy bullshit out back of the barn and beat it to death with a shovel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.126.19 (talk) 09:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Please mind your language. I've moved the article to "US Woodland" which is what we already called it in the template. Note that "Woodland" is also used of quite different camouflage patterns of other nations, including China. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Official U.S. Army museum display calls it M81. – Illegitimate Barrister (talkcontribs), 12:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
That's stating hat the model of the uniform was the M81 Battle Dress Uniform. It doesn't call the pattern "M81". It also contains at least one incredibly obvious error. (UCP was not issued beginning in 1995; the pattern didn't exist yet. 1995 was the issue of the three-color desert pattern which replaced the six-color one in that display and which UCP replaced in turn in 2003.) So it is of questionable value as a reliable source. Even the US Army can get things wrong about itself. oknazevad (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)