"US Camo patterns flawed..." Topic

Interesting and quite disturbing article…I suspected the armed forces were becoming more and more disfunctional but I hadn't realized it had gotten this bad…the worst part is the Marines refusing to allow other branches to adopt their rather successful camo pattern…"intellectual property"…as a taxpayer I own part of that intellectual property.

db

link

The article is also incorrect. Navy may wear MARPAT when assigned to USMC units (in fact, are required to wear it) with appropriately different rank and US NAVY identification without having to be special ops troops.
Navy medical and chaplain troops do so every day.

I had to ask the Marines on base about MARPAT when it first came out. It evidently works exceptionally well, even the green in the desert (the green stands out, but you can't tell what that green thing is).

The NWU is really a 'ragbag' to hide paint-marks.

ACU is too light and doesn't have any red-brown in it. Multicam does, and works VERY well. Brits use Multicam organizational equipment and a modified multicam (either more-green or more-brown) for their new cammies.

And I don't know what's up with the USAF's digital tiger stripes.

Army Times (and the other Times as well) Had several articles on this as well. Bottom line is each service wanted their own pattern. The Army wanted one for every enviorment and that just does not work well. FWIW department for the past 20 years the Army has worked a mix match of uniform items such as LBE body armour etc that all have different patterns. Really not the Army's best day on this one. Bottom line is a soldier with 100lbs of light wt gear sticks out in a country where they have baggy pants, floppy coats and funny hats period.

VR
James Mattes

The other thing that the article is incorrect about: while the Marines have IP on their camo, the Army never asked for it.

I suspect that the article's source is some Army brass who's covering his, er, brass for making an unforced error.

Just more anti-military BS. (If the military is incompetent, you can justify eliminating it – it's the .)

UCP is the ONLY camouflage pattern that works in the vast majority of terrain – and only a total moron (meaning – and unfortunately some military types looking for simplistic answers) would think that any place has only one kind of terrain. In any locale, one 50 meter square area might have 3 or 4 different dominant terrain colors (foliage, building/road, bare earth, grass, etc) – which all look dramatically different at different times of the day and in different weather conditions. The only camouflage pattern designed to work (to some extent) in all of them is UCP.

Take a look at the variety just in Afghanistan.

link

The bigger point is that camouflage is almost irrelevant in the kind of asymmetric warfare that is the future of modern conflict. Much better to have uniforms that inspire esprit de corps and are highly visible and symbolic to locals. In asymmetric warfare, you can't pretend that you're just passing through on your way to the battle. In they eyes of the locals you need to be more a police force than an army.

The most important point, however, is that you can't defeat our enemies overseas until you .

Number6, going by your logic, the next US Army combat uniform will look like this:

I will happily oversee the preliminary studies for a tidy sum of US taxpayer money. ;-)

Proof positive that UCP does work perfectly well in terrain where the fancy multicam patterns favoured by Liberals and tree huggers would stand out like a sore thumb:

Yes, I know the photo is old but I just couldn't resist. ;-)

I miss woodland camo BDUs!

It probably actually goes beyond the military. Just like Congress demanding that a plane be a fighter and an interceptor and a ground attack and a bomber. Each mission has its own profile and one plane cannot successfully fly them all.

Of course, it's no worse than Canada sending troops to Afghanistan in woodland green because Parliament refused to buy desert uniforms for them.

And yes, the Navy and Air Force uniforms are atrocious. At least the ACUs look good if they aren't particularly effective. We always teased the Navy guys – asking if the uniform was designed to conceal a man overboard so they wouldn't have to go back and pick him up.

Really great Afghan pictures from Number 6. But then the usual nonsense about asymmetrical warfare. Warfare is asymmetrical from the start of organized professional one. Now pundits are abusing the term just to look brighter.

Camouflage will always being important for the infantryman. I would say that the suicide bomber walking in civvies in the market street is actually wearing useful camouflage. But this is just one face of warfare. force on force encounters are as common as suicide bombers and IED if not more. The fact that not everyone use mechanized forces does not mean that infantry combat is not force on force. Thanks god now military people is waking up to this. And even the bad guys are professionalizing their infantry and trying to get decent equipment. People forgot that at their start if anaconda the Talibans had a battery of D30 howitzers while the US army heaviest piece was a 120mm mortar with inadequate ammunition supply just because some idiot decided tube artillery was too big for Afghanistan…

back on track… I do nto think Canada is wrong weith green. Afghanistan valleys tend to be green. Italian army was often using temperate camo in Herat for the reason the desert one was looking out of place. It was easy when the dichotomy was between Germany and real Desert, but central Asia is a place of stark contrast, just going with a single camo patter and pretending o be effective is silly. Yet in some areas you change local environment quicker can you can change uniform. the ACU was not perfect in any terrain but appeared to give a good compromise and was quite decent in urban areas. The multi cam is better. To a certain extent even the woodland was not too bad. ACU was a product of intense pressure for something new, and technologically brilliant. I still remember a debate between one of the brightest USN Captain i have ever listened to and the deputy CNO. The top brass was telling everyone how technology would have solved everything and he did not want evolutions but game changer. The Captain (ret) tell the audience game changer usually do not work as intended. Yet there is the idea that proper technology can solve everything and this not only in the military but everywhere. The Marpat is indeed evolutionary. Yes it is digital, but the design is just an evolution of the BDU. ACU pretended to be game changing. Multicam is evolutionary. Saw some red berets in Multicam near russel square earlier this week. It is nice (even if I hate painting it!).

As far the Navy camo is concerned… I have been told it was for two reasons, Navy enlisted were complaining about Marpat being sexier than navy overall, they want something that can hide stains and paint (purpose of the denim dress of WW2…)

Number 6 wrote: Just more anti-military BS. (If the military is incompetent, you can justify eliminating it – it's the .)

UCP is the ONLY camouflage pattern that works in the vast majority of terrain – and only a total moron (meaning – and unfortunately some military types looking for simplistic answers) would think that any place has only one kind of terrain.

…

The most important point, however, is that you can't defeat our enemies overseas until you .

So where did you get your free pass to break TMP rules and not end up in the DH? Calling for the killing of fellow Americans seems pretty extreme.

Back on topic… the vast majority of camo patterns are not very effective at doing what camo is supposed to do: break up outlines.

Patterns like those used for uniforms can allow one to blend in with a background as in the couch photo but they're do dense they don't break up the figures outline when seen against a contrasting background. So, a pattern that's good against a woodland background doesn't work against an urban background.

There are patterns that can destroy a soldier's outline, but no military would adopt them. They look really odd.

Wartopia, as long as no one pushes the little "!" button and the editor doesn't happen to wander through the thread you can get away with just about anything.

That. And lace.

The camo patterns are being copied too much by civilians anyways, so it'd be time for something new.

Star-Trek style spandex uniforms would also be a good option. Especially the red ones.

It's another one of "THOSE DISCUSSIONS." Ick. – Said with 33 years of experience wearing camouflage.

Think we covered this – TMP link Although I agree with number6 about media BS. Based on my Grunt experiences of my youth, no matter what environment, a good/proper camo uniform and field craft works. And a uniform certainly contributes to espirt de corp, etc. …

You may all enjoy this article. link

Can't we just go back to OD No. 4 and live in peace and harmony?

Bring back khaki drill or blue serge for the yanks!

Scarlet is reserved for the British.

LOL!

Didn't US ARMY get rid of the Old Class A green uniform and go to dark blue like the Dress Blues ? Because the US Army's traditional uniform color from the ARW, thru the ACW and to the early 1900's …

I do wonder about the smaller patterns. I thought Camo was meant to break up an outline, not actually try to match in. At range you can't see the pattern, it merges into one colour.