Talk:U.S. Woodland/Archives/2021/April

Post-Vietnam War in Germany?
"...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?
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 (talk • contribs), 12:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

ENOUGH with the "M81" nonsense!
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 (talk • contribs), 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)


 * Army museums are not reliable sources. They are not run by trained curators but by retirees and non-military volunteers for the most part.  The Fort Devens Museum website, for example, describes itself as "a civilian operated non profit 501 (c)(3) organization" with only a single member of the Board of Directors or Museum Advisors listing any military experience.


 * The Woodland pattern was NEVER --- in a single Army or DoD source --- referred to as "M81." The only people that call it that are kids playing air-soft dress-up games.

Relax, hotshot. Nobody here's saying M81 was the official DoD name. Anyway, even if the name is not official, it's still widely used colloquially in shorthand and thus deserves mention somewhere in the article on those grounds. It's like saying we shouldn't mention that the UK is also known colloquially as "Britain" because it's full official name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Some people may be looking for this camo under that name so it's useful to include it here somewhere on the article, though with a disclaimer that it was never official. By including the name on the article we're not saying that is the name but rather that some people call it that, which they do, otherwise you wouldn't be so angry. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 10:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)