TaiidanTomcat Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 http://kotaku.com/5920930/pixel-uniforms-made-american-soldiers-easier-to-shoot I must say that Marine Digital is highly effective stuff, but the Army digital stands out in ways that are pretty obvious to any one with decently working eyes. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Scooby Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) http://kotaku.com/5920930/pixel-uniforms-made-american-soldiers-easier-to-shoot I must say that Marine Digital is highly effective stuff, but the Army digital stands out in ways that are pretty obvious to any one with decently working eyes. That article is full of BS. The design was not made by politicians and people off the street. A lot of research went into it. CADPAT (Canadian Pattern) was developed in a research lab. The Marines copied it with their MARPAT. I recall the first time I wore CADPAT, I was on a Marine Base in the States and a USMC Colonel came up to me and asked where we got our gear as he thought the Marines were the first to get an all new uniform. He also thought it was designed in the States and stated the Marines actually voted on the options they were given. The company that made our CADPAT, actually stopped shipping it to us for a short period of time so they could fill their USMC orders. Our CADPAT was highly effective in Afghanistan. Our guys were extremely visible in the early uniforms before they switched over to CADPAT. That article doesn't back up any of the accusations or provide any scientific evidence that the new digital cam patterns do not work well. I actually have seen reports that the US Army pattern is much better for urban warfare in the settings they are now being utilized in. That is just another electronic media article that is being pushed and will be soon taken as gospel. Edited June 25, 2012 by Scooby Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted June 25, 2012 Author Share Posted June 25, 2012 That article is full of BS. The design was not made by politicians and people off the street. A lot of research went into it. CADPAT (Canadian Pattern) was developed in a research lab. The Marines copied it with their MARPAT. I recall the first time I wore CADPAT, I was on a Marine Base in the States and a USMC Colonel came up to me and asked where we got our gear as he thought the Marines were the first to get an all new uniform. He also thought it was designed in the States and stated the Marines actually voted on the options they were given. The company that made our CADPAT, actually stopped shipping it to us for a short period of time so they could fill their USMC orders. Our CADPAT was highly effective in Afghanistan. Our guys were extremely visible in the early uniforms before they switched over to CADPAT. That article doesn't back up any of the accusations or provide any scientific evidence that the new digital cam patterns do not work well. I actually have seen reports that the US Army pattern is much better for urban warfare in the settings they are now being utilized in. That is just another electronic media article that is being pushed and will be soon taken as gospel. The problem is not with the pattern, its the color. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChernayaAkula Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Interesting article, but, safe for the update at the article's end, it concentrates on the pattern, while I always thought it was the UCP's colours that made it stand out. Thread title is a hoot! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Exhausted Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 The new army camis are pretty good. I still remember the Army considering adopting our Marine stuff. I think it would have been a good idea, but what would they do to justify their already bloated budget the next year in Congress if they just used Marine stuff? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jay Chladek Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Well, if one is going to wear grayish stuff with a little bit of green in it in a region where the colorings tend to be more sand tones and browner grays, then OF COURSE it is going to stand out! Even if the uniform colors change, if the body armor and helmets still use the old colorings, it will still stick out like a sore thumb. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tony Stark Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) Regarding Multicam, the Brits have recently adopted a variant of it and the Aussies are next. MARPAT and CADPAT still work just fine; the issue with the UCPs wasn't the pattern, but the jack-of-all trades-master-of-none color scheme. Black is no longer useful on the uniform because it is not a color commonly found in nature. The drawback to black is that its color immediately catches the eye” - Sgt. 1st Class Jeff Myhre, the Clothing and Individual Equipment noncommissioned officer in charge. How'd that work out, "Picasso"... Edited June 25, 2012 by Tony Stark Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fulcrum1 Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 That article is full of BS. The design was not made by politicians and people off the street. A lot of research went into it. CADPAT (Canadian Pattern) was developed in a research lab. The article is actually accurate. It never said it was made by people off the street, rather, politicians and top brass. It has to do more with our current procurement system, as it appears to be the ususal stereotype of what soldiers already know: political interference, or bullet comments on an OER. A ton of money and research go into a lot of stupid projects that do nothing more than make someone rich. Follow the money and the re-election votes and you'll find the answer to most things. CADPAT and MARPAT are patterns that work, but the design from the get go was to be seen with those two patterns as much as it could conceal in a pinch. The testing and evaluation is what sets apart CADPAT/MARPAT and the ACU among digi patterns because the junk was actually field tested by SGT Smith instead of Gen Smith. This is why multicam is so effective as it was field tested by our best long before it was used in theater. I actually have seen reports that the US Army pattern is much better for urban warfare in the settings they are now being utilized in. It isn't, and will be replaced as soon as it can work within our shrinking budgets. My vote is for mulitcam...but the Army won't choose Multicam as the everyday combat uniform for all Soldiers even though we already are issuing it to Soldiers in Afghanistan. Because that makes sense! A pattern that is widely accepted as one of the most effective in the world, has established logisitical support and COTS transferability with after market accessories/pouches....yeah no. Hey, it's only taxpayer dollars! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fulcrum1 Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Even if the uniform colors change, if the body armor and helmets still use the old colorings, it will still stick out like a sore thumb. lol, I loved rocking my BDU and DCU IBA with the ACU's. They're trying not to make that mistake again and I feel sorry for the soldier who dares walk past a CSM wearing a multicam IOTV while wearing ACU's. Some of the TA-50 in TRADOC still uses BDU. Heck, last year during a school I was given a brand new DCU IBA. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Moose135 Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Seems pretty effective to me... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JB2013 Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Seems pretty effective to me... Who could ever forget that? :D Quote Link to post Share on other sites
toadwbg Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 One of the more questionable "official" explanations I've read about ACU and other digital patterns is that "it's a uniform and we want it to be distinctive so the enemy knows its the (insert service branch here) comming for them"..... Sorta defeats the purpose of camo I guess.... I do appreciate Multicam, great stuff for spring Turkey hunting in my parts! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 (edited) Honestly, I am still partial to the old-school Vietnam-era OD jungle fatigues. For the first year I was in, they were still optional wear since there were no lightweight BDU's available. For operations in dense vegetation they worked just fine and they were the most comfortable, quickest drying field uniform I've ever worn. Another highly effective camo uniform was a woodland style that was issued late in the Vietnam war and seemed to linger around in select units for the next decade or so. Pretty close to woodland but the colors were more subtle. Hard to explain w/o pictures, I remember that a good many jarheads were wearing it in the early-mid 80's before they completely transitioned to BDU's. Same lightweight, rip-stop cotton material as the OD jungle fatigues. Looked comfortable and had a high "cool factor" which is so crucial to the grunts :) The Marines did it right this time around. You will never find one camo pattern that works in every environment. Develop an effective pattern for vegetation (multicam seems to be a good one) and a second for arid, desert environments. As much as it sucks for the army to be stuck with ACU's, it could be worse. Those AF and USN camo uniforms are just plain silly. Lastly, I find it somewhat ironic that the special ops guys developed and issued multicam for their troops in Afghanistan It worked so well that the rest of the Army decided to follow. Now I am seeing pictures of Army Green Berets in Afghanistan wearing woodland BDU's! Maybe the regular army will follow their lead and the circle will be complete. Edited June 26, 2012 by 11bee Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Spongebob Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 One of the more questionable "official" explanations I've read about ACU and other digital patterns is that "it's a uniform and we want it to be distinctive so the enemy knows its the (insert service branch here) comming for them"..... Sorta defeats the purpose of camo I guess.... This is crap. One of the reasons EVERYONE in the field in theater wears Multicam now is that they figured out the dudes who weren't in the same camo as everyone else tended to call in the airstrikes/artillary. Personally, there's way more important stuff to spend money on. We should just pick something that works (MARPAT would be an excellent choice) and make everyone run with that. Oh, the Navy blue pattern is the dumbest thing ever. No, wait, I take that back. The Navy PT uniform is the biggest waste of money ever. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Johnopfor Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 The problem is not with the pattern, its the color. Interesting article, but, safe for the update at the article's end, it concentrates on the pattern, while I always thought it was the UCP's colours that made it stand out. Thread title is a hoot! Regarding Multicam, the Brits have recently adopted a variant of it and the Aussies are next. MARPAT and CADPAT still work just fine; the issue with the UCPs wasn't the pattern, but the jack-of-all trades-master-of-none color scheme. How'd that work out, "Picasso"... It's the ghost of McNamerra again (remember the jack of all trades for all services F-111?). meanwhile, we problably have hundreds of thosusands of the old BDU's/DCU's in some warehouse around DC that are much more effective than the current (and soon to be former) uniform. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted June 26, 2012 Author Share Posted June 26, 2012 Initially the USMC wanted a reversible camo like the old WWII type --Brown on one side green on the other, but it turned out to be impractical so the USMC dropped it ( the helmet covers are reversible though). There was a look at urban camo that the USMC decided not to adopt. But the smartest choice the USMC made on the MARPAT Uniform was not trying to do all three at once... It was painfully obvious that the ACU pattern never worked. Had to keep being told I couldn't see that camoed soldier in front of me. Army spent years developing Multicam then went all knee jerk to be like the Marines... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fulcrum1 Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Here's the story! http://www.businessinsider.com/the-army-admits-it-made-a-big-5-billion-mistake-choosing-its-uniforms-2012-6 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 >>> Some History <<< -Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Skyraider Maniac Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 I heard about this earlier today(though this has been around for quite a while - it's not been news that the colors sucked; neither is it "new news" that big army is dumping it in favor for something that actually works - that's been in the grapevine over a year now at least), and figured I'd hop on over here out of curiosity to see if it's been discussed - and it has! Haha, totally not surprised. More or less find it amusing that we're discussing old news. My 2 cents worth: Army should've gone with what the Marines did, save time and development costs; and when it was announced I figured that's what we'd do (cause gee, that makes complete sense, and we both had BDU's that were essentially identical - so it seemed plausible) - needless to say I was much surprised when they rolled out with that junk... Colors sucked off the back - and weren't worth a d*mn. Not to mention if you dared take a knee that you would rip out your poorly constructed crotch.. And the Velcro shot noise discipline out the door... Poor choices all around. Now, on the flip side, last I heard the Marines weren't permitting big Army to utilize MARPAT, as awesome as it was because they wanted it exclusively for marines (I believe they even have it copyrighted if I'm not mistaken); so that puts MARPAT off the table. Long story short, I welcome the multicam. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wayne S Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 One of the more questionable "official" explanations I've read about ACU and other digital patterns is that "it's a uniform and we want it to be distinctive so the enemy knows its the (insert service branch here) comming for them"..... Sorta defeats the purpose of camo I guess.... I do appreciate Multicam, great stuff for spring Turkey hunting in my parts! Never seen a camo/multi green mammal/bird, best camo for hunting seems to be some form of brown/tannish color. People hunt nature yet go against what nature shows to be effective. In ways I guess it goes with your above part, what looks cool to Bubba must be best LOL. As for the Army camo stuff, From my take on the crap in the last years after Desert storm "Nintendo age". Personnel Camo is made to work against visual added tools like night vision etc, not necessarily the naked eye Quote Link to post Share on other sites
toadwbg Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 (edited) Never seen a camo/multi green mammal/bird, best camo for hunting seems to be some form of brown/tannish color. People hunt nature yet go against what nature shows to be effective. In ways I guess it goes with your above part, what looks cool to Bubba must be best LOL. Nature has many examples of camoflaged animals actually: Butterflies, frogs, lizards. Yes, natural fur and brown are very effective. Secret: Bubba camo is a big business and fashion industry for men ;) In my many years of deer hunting, I've found traditional plaid to work fantastically! Edited June 26, 2012 by toadwbg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 (edited) How'd that work out, "Picasso"... On a semi-related note, I often wondered why the military still produces weapons that are shiny black (along with NVG's and other gear)? Does it not kind of defeat the point of utilizing good camouflage patterns on your clothing? The plastic bits on an M-4/M-16 are a phenolic resin, you can color them anything you want. The Marine's seem to have settled on coyote brown as an all-around effective color, why not use that instead of gloss black? Many of the metal bits could be coated with the same. Never figured that one out.... As far as the rest of the ensemble above, that is pretty sad. During the early stages of the Iraq / Afghan wars, Army troops deployed with desert patterned DCU's but then added woodland patterned body armor. It's almost as if the army was telling them that camo is important but we don't want to spend the extra money to issue desert-patterned body armor, so you can just suck it up and wear green, black and brown IBA's over your desert uniforms. It might defeat the whole concept of camouflage but it will save us a few $. Edited June 26, 2012 by 11bee Quote Link to post Share on other sites
toadwbg Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 The plastic bits on an M-4/M-16 are a phenolic resin, you As far as the rest of the ensemble above, that is pretty sad. During the early stages of the Iraq / Afghan wars, Army troops deployed with desert patterned DCU's but then added woodland patterned body armor. It's almost as if the army was telling them that camo is important but we don't want to spend the extra money to issue desert-patterned body armor, so you can just suck it up and wear green, black and brown IBA's over your desert uniforms. It might defeat the whole concept of camouflage but it will save us a few $. Agreed on the black but you'll see many personal modifications in the field to add color variation or colored furniture to the M-4/16 platform. Slight disagreement on the mix of camo patterns, but it is environment specific. Some environments work very well to have a mix of patterns to break up your outline even more. Obviously a very light sand desert environment Woodland Camo sucks b@lls :). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted June 26, 2012 Author Share Posted June 26, 2012 I know this topic has been covered a bunch, It just always irked me that I was being told that crap blended in but I have never actually witnessed it. Its even worse at night and in dark backgrounds, and if the moon is it out, its like a white target on a black background. Woodland MARPAT at night reminds me of Tiger Stripe up close, and I've never seen it at a distance at night!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
FM-Whip Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 One of the more questionable "official" explanations I've read about ACU and other digital patterns is that "it's a uniform and we want it to be distinctive so the enemy knows its the (insert service branch here) comming for them"..... Sorta defeats the purpose of camo I guess.... I do appreciate Multicam, great stuff for spring Turkey hunting in my parts! This is an insidious thing creeping over from the world of advertising, known as "branding". It's gotten so bad that the various US armed services now are copyrighting their "identities". Some of the camo designs that have actually been worn have the service ID printed into the design itself, i.e. "USMC" blended into leaf patterns. In my view, when US bullets hit the bad guys, that's branding enough. We don't need to have camo uniforms so distinctive that the enemy can spot us and shiver in fear at our fashion choices... A lot of this kind of stuff smells like certain corporations, specific politicians, PR outfits, and DOD are all in bed together. It has all to do with image and big money, and very little to do with actual operational needs, witness the USAF and Navy cammies, for instance. The latest thing I've read about are DOD changing uniform camo colors to match generic colors put out by the fashion and garment industry, i.e. it's easier to get some manufacturer to make something in "Pantone color #xxx" than in a color that might be more tactically effective. The needs of industry (and their sponsoring politicians) many times seem to drive what DOD buys. But what's new? Speaking of Multicam, I've heard that it is more expensive to produce as the cloth needs more color passes. I personally would leave it to the special ops people to figure out what is the optimal cammo uniform for a specific theater/op. They seem to get it right most of the time. The rest of the Army is always 20 years behind...look how many decades it took them to get away from shiny black boots. John Hairell (tpn18@yahoo.com) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.