Army Unveils New Hot New Fashions For 2013

Wednesday, July 11th, 2012

Pentagon City: There’s no denying that the United States Army holds the military fashion crown, with past designs by Ralph Lauren and Karl Lagerfeld selling out at Barney’s and Neiman Marcus. But the Army has outdone itself this season, by teaming up with Versace!

“Since the days of Saratoga and Germantown, the Army has always been at the forefront of defending America from foreign enemies, and doing so with a flair and chic that would be the envy of any design house in Milan or Paris,” says Uwe Rheinhardt of the New York School of Fashion Arts. “But the Army’s 2013 collection shows a verve and daring that will keep America’s soldiers a step ahead of the competition, whether that’s in the Kandahar desert or on the runways in Miami.”

The new collection’s stunning red coats have already been modelled by Bianca Tauro at last month’s Fabrizzi fashion show in Rome, and the rest of the range is equally show stopping. With lashings of Versace trademarks, from shocking bright colour to tricornered caps, it’s glamorous and cool with a garish twist, sure to attract all eyes on the battlefield in any Middle Eastern hellhole.

General Stanley Abraham of the Army’s Natick, Massachusetts design lab concurred, noting that Versace’s gold-braided waistcoasts, contrasted with the ivory pantaloons that have fashion mavens talking from Berlin to Basra, “give the Army a strong fashion brand sure to ‘shock and awe’ all enemy combatants.”

The Army's new Versace Collection on parade!

“It made me think about why soldiers are so fixated with rules,” says Donatella Versace of her collection. “Armed combat should be more fun. When the American fighting man marches forth on the battlefield, his last worry should be that he’ll be caught dead in the dreary fashions of yesteryear.”

We’re circling  our diary for 2013 – in gold. In the meantime – see our favourite pieces from the collection here.

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

19 Responses to “Army Unveils New Hot New Fashions For 2013”

  1. #1 |  Patrick from Popehat | 

    I take responsibility.

  2. #2 |  Personanongrata | 

    All service people in the US armed forces just take off your uniform and leave the show.

    The government can’t fight war without cannon-fodder.

    If the US government is in need of sacrifical lambs have the traitor scum operating the levers of power send their loved ones off to fight in the wars based wholey upon lies.

  3. #3 |  ron | 

    and one – military fashion show http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O__i1b6GBmQ

  4. #4 |  Aresen | 

    Uh, Patrick, no offense, but didn’t the Red Uniforms belong to the Other Side in 1776?

  5. #5 |  a leap at the wheel | 

    This shouldn’t be a shock to anyone with a passing knowledge in computer vision.

  6. #6 |  Patrick from Popehat | 

    Aresen, no offense taken.

    Let me break down the point of that image. If one reads the link, one will see that the Army spent 5 billion dollars, in a scandalous waste, developing camouflage uniforms that are actually more visible to the naked eye than non-camouflage uniforms. The new uniforms make our soldiers better targets. If you read the link, you’ll see that this tragedy arose because Army brass decided a uniform that looks “cooler” than the Marine uniform was more important than a uniform that actually protects soldiers.

    This post is an attempt to satirize that. I took a piece from a website devoted to high fashion and changed a few words. I threw in the picture because I wanted to show, through an image readily cognizable to informed readers, an example of a uniform that sacrifices the safety of its wearer in favor of fashion value. The image attempts to convey that our army is making a mistake that was made by the first foreign opponent it ever fought.

    Does that help?

  7. #7 |  Charles | 

    Perfect camo for the rivers of the blood of our enemies.

  8. #8 |  LoFlyer | 

    Never seen anything good published on this blog about the military. I understand the issues of this blog with civil rights issues of LE. The last posts have displayed your contributers are anti-military and offer zero evidence for there conclusions. I am calling the blog contibutors out. Just how has the US military oppressed you or the citzens in 50 years?

  9. #9 |  Aresen | 

    I caught the satire, I was just amused by the chosen example.

    OTOH, in the era of the Drone War, I don’t think uniforms (or the lack thereof) make any difference.

  10. #10 |  Personanongrata | 

    #8 | LoFlyer | July 11th, 2012 at 4:48 pm
    Never seen anything good published on this blog about the military. I understand the issues of this blog with civil rights issues of LE. The last posts have displayed your contributers are anti-military and offer zero evidence for there conclusions. I am calling the blog contibutors out. Just how has the US military oppressed you or the citzens in 50 years?

    The US military has been used for the past 150 some-odd years as mercenaries in order to bring “stability/security” to certain strategic geographical regions of the globe so that corporations may have access to cheap minerals/resources and slave labor.

    Reading the books and video linked below would be an important first step in understanding the role the US military has played in bringing “stability/security” to the lands of the unwashed.

    War is a Racket written by two time Medal of Honor earner Major General Smedely D Butler USMC

    Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket

    Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq written by Stephen Kinzer

    Link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1606408720/theagitator-20/

    Why We Fight the video Director: Eugene Jarecki

    Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_VD0pE37vo

    PS I served 1989-1997 in the USN and lived the lies first hand. Which is why I took off my costume and left the show.

  11. #11 |  Patrick from Popehat | 

    LoFlyer, how exactly is it “anti-military” to point out that desk generals endangered front line soldiers by forcing them to dress in camouflage that wouldn’t pass muster on a deer hunt?

    It seems that when you think of the military, the first thing that comes to mind isn’t the troops, but the Pentagon. If that’s the case, you’re not “pro-military” at all. You’re pro-politician.

  12. #12 |  Adrian Ratnapala | 


    an example of a uniform that sacrifices the safety of its wearer in favor of fashion value. The image attempts to convey that our army is making a mistake that was made by the first foreign opponent it ever fought.

    I am not sure it was much of a mistake.

    Once upon a time, uniforms were *meant* to be visible so that soldiers could find their mates. Thus the English red-and-white is slightly French opponents. Perhaps a rethink was in order by the time of the American revolution, but I doubt it — armies are pragmatic about this kind of stuff.

    It was more than a century before a big western army decided to switch to desert-shite-green. And that was the British army.

  13. #13 |  CharlesWT | 

    Also, visible uniforms made it more difficult soldiers to hold back or defect in the heat of battle.

  14. #14 |  Patrick from Popehat | 

    It was a mistake here.

    A certain volunteer in what became known as the French and Indian War complained mightily about British couteur, which made soldiers stick out like sore thumbs against opponents who wore buckskins and valued stealth. That was George Washington.

    In the next war on this continent, General Nathaniel Greene praised the British uniforms highly. Greene wasn’t fighting for the British.

  15. #15 |  Other Sean | 

    CharlesWT,

    You make a very good point. Between the advent of gunpowder and the development of the rifle, you’ve got a long period where infantry was mostly useful firing volleys in big concentrations. Those long files were already so clumsy and conspicuous that camouflage could have done little for them.

    Dressing so as to make troops visible to the Fredericks and the Napoleons on the hilltops, was probably a much more important priority for those in charge of the dress code.

    No doubt the red look did backfire against the American insurgents, but the main problem for Britain was that the Americans did everything they could to avoid actually showing up on any battlefields.

    The real colonial uniform was the most fashionable outfit of all: absence.

  16. #16 |  croaker | 

    @14 And lest we forget: UN Blue makes a lovely aimpoint.

  17. #17 |  jmcross | 

    Aren’t retired generals subject to recall? Bring him back on active duty and court martial his sorry ass.

  18. #18 |  Matt | 

    You guys are wrong, check out the ACU in action here:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=acu+couch

    TOTALLY INVISIBRE

  19. #19 |  el coronado | 

    Oh, c’mon, on a silly post about military fashion, nobody’s gonna mention that Hugo Boss (possibly) designed and (definitely) made the dress uniforms for the SS?

Leave a Reply