Australian “diggers” fighting over in Afghanistan are facing the same problems as US troops on the durability of their trousers.
The Diggers are generally happy with the Multicam clothing. It is more comfortable and more suited to mixed terrain than previous combat clothing, but the pants with stretch sections and built-in knee pads are not up to the job in many cases.
They are tearing along seams where stretch fabric around the crutch meets non-stretch fabric and the rips are then spreading across the cloth itself. Some soldiers can no longer wear them, others have patched them up and some are happy to wear shredded pants.
The Australian media is trying to pump the idea that this is a problem with the “American made” products. As you all know, these ensembles are made by Crye precision.
“It is expected that the Multicam uniforms made in Australia will be made from the fabric used for the standard combat uniform – which is stronger than the fabric used in Multicam at the moment,” the spokesman said.
So we asked Crye for the gouge and a top official there said the problem isn’t how or where they’re made, it’s the material requirement.
The Australian DOD is proactively offering a series of new performance benefits to its operators in terms of personal equipment/apparel. One of those new enhancements is that they have given the user a similar level of FR protection to that which the US Armed Forces currently maintains. Just as the US Forces have learned, providing this protection has come at the cost of some durability. However, because of the concerted efforts of our militaries and industry here and abroad, FR fabrics have significantly improved over the past 5 years since the requirement first came to the forefront. We have tracked along with the materials that have resulted from this effort and incrementally incorporated them into our own products.
Just as we reported here about the Army’s pant problems, so too it seems the Aussies are having the same issues with FR material durability.
{ 25 comments… read them below or add one }
No surprise here. The Crye pants have been working for years for 100′s of operators. However when you ask them to use a different materiel not specified in the original design, they fall apart. Maybe the units using the pants should use them with the original specs and stop thinking they know more than the manufacturer. Or…….buy different pants.
Agreed. This fetish for lightweight is a bit ridiculous.
With all due respect, the Aussies bought the Multicam clothing as-is, where-is, from Crye direct to meet urgent Operational needs. The only thing they specified was availability, as in "we need it now"……….the new (minor-ly modified) Aussie-specific clothing licenced from Crye has been specified to meet local manufacturing requirements and clothing standards……….none of this is currently in Afghanistan and won't be for a year or so.
FormerSFMedic: It's ashame that this happened. I can see our Media or Aussie's media making this into a huge media show….look MADE IN USA, should have had it made in China. I agree if they change the original material specs, there are going to be issues. Sometimes, the cheaper option isn't the best one. You get what you paid for. This move was probably made by a politician who have never been in combat or worn an uniform in the field. And the whole uniform pattern issue is crazy. Back in my day is Woodland BDU and 3 color desert but it was consistent throughout the branches….Army/Airforce rolls up the sleeves differently than Navy/Marines :) And now every branch has their own camo! I think it's a waste of money.
I’m starting to sway toward 1cammo pattern as well. As far as what type of uniform to use. I would pick 3 or so designs that the soldier can then pick from for their specific mission requirements. So many different uniforms different patterns, there is bound to be issues somewhere.
FormerSFMedic: I agree.There should be one type of camo uniform for every branch daily use and general distribution (like the Woodland BDU back in my days). Yes, have spec type of uniform for specific missions. I know the NWT uniform for the Navy is probably very comfortable but digital water camo pattern? Someone is getting rich off of these constant uniform changes and new designs. I bet in a few years Multicam will be the new ACU where we will be switching to something else.
Chase the savage, in a running gunfight at 10,000 ft, and then tell me how the impetus for light gear is ridiculous.
And the issue is with the Fire Resistant (FR) cloth specifically. Not the lightweight non FR fabric originally spec'd by SOF users.
Not saying it isn't needed nor preferred. The issue arises when you sacrifice durability for weight, hence the term fetish.
Now why do the Aussies need a new, Multicam-style uniform again? Because I had to do a triple take to notice the helmet covers were AUSCAM against all that Multicam gear.
Because like most everyone else Multicam is the best camo standard to meet the broadest range of needs.
It also suits a huge number of terrain/landscape scenarios within Australia and surrounding nations
True, and it has got plenty of design features Auscam didn't. I'm not saying Multicam's not worth having, by any means! More that the Aussies might have been ahead of their time.
jus wondering, do all aussies get those tricked out crye uniforms?
just*
Im Pretty sure its just Commandos and SASR that get the MULTICAM. If any one else they would have to be in afghanistan i know that much
The current issue is for personnel in-country only
Why doesn't the military just issue "disposable" combat uniforms? Something that could be worn once or twice and then thrown away, burned/destroyed?
My favorite field uniform of all time was the OG-107 Jungle Fatigues. Lightweight, no reinforcements to soak-up water/perspiration and add extra weight/cost, already had slanted chest pockets. A basic, no frills uniform in OD that was basically "disposable" as they didn't last too long in the field anyways. Add a little spray paint that is in the predominant color of your AO and you are GTG. The military should do the same thing these days; issue the Multicam, oops I mean "OCP", combat shirt as is (maybe get rid of the velcro on the sleeves), and then issue a very basic set of FR pants based on the old OG-107 design. Two buttoned-closed cargo pockets, the basic front slash pockets are fine but get rid of the rear "wallet" pockets. Does anyone put anything in the back pockets on their trousers in combat anyways? I never knew anyone who did. Finally, add one of those "gusseted" crotch panels so Troops aren't ripping their pants out in the field. All my civilian outdoor adventure pants have had these for years, why can't gov't contractors do the same?
There has got to be a way to make and issue a better uniform.
Multicam is issued to SASR, Commando’s, and to any member of the Task Force who is outside the wire. ie the Mentors in the ANA Bn’s or riflemen in combat teams supporting the Mentors. As far as I know the CSS elements aren’t being issued Multicam. But I maybe wrong concerning the CSS.
Crye's facing some serious quality problems. Maybe they USMC and Aussies should goto Propper or True Spec for new uniforms.
We had the same problems in Viet Nam. I had a Marine infantry platoon and within a week the seats were worn through. We really were the raggety a** Marines. The alternative was heavier weight uniforms which didn't hold up much longer. When we came bact to the firebase from the bush, they issued us new cammies. The only thing we held onto was our boots.
:D :D :D
Get the SOD "100% made in Italy" top notch combat trouser and you won't be disappointed , so easy
Every Australian soldier (general Army or special forces) who operates outside the wire in Afghanistan is issued with two sets of Crye MultiCam G3 combat uniform. If they rip/tear or wear out an item it is replaced – and quickly.
The failure rate of the Crye MultiCam pants being worn by the dismounted combatants outside the wire in Mentoring Task Force 3 is less that half of that experienced by the soldiers in Mentoring Task Force 2 who had the old AUSCAM cotton/polyester uniforms.
Soldiers rip their pants! That's what happens, people need to get over it.
Can we get back to work now?
I don't know if the Multicam uniforms that are failing are necessarily made by Crye. I know for a fact that Plat-a-tac are making Multicam uniforms for the ADF (their tags are visible on some of the latest KIA pics unfortunately). The material itself may be Crye but the workmanship would be Plat-a-tac in that case. These Plat-a-tac made uniforms are observed to be issued to at least 2 CDO Regt and IRR in addition to the current Australian Army rotation. Original Crye manufactured uniforms *might* still be issued to SASR but that's only speculation.
1) "They are tearing along seams where stretch fabric around the crutch meets stretch fabric…" No kidding? Le'me see, thin-dynamic fabric, stitched to heavier non-stretch fabric, gee where's the failure going to happen?
2) Did the Aussie's request a change in material that wasn't matched to the thread-type or, stitching used?
3) G3's are very expensive pants to be used as general-use pants, perhaps inappropriate choice there.
4) FR treatments changes the fabric durability significantly; acquisitions needs to weigh the results.
Can I just say what a aid to find someone who really knows what theyre talking about on the internet. You definitely know how you can deliver a difficulty to mild and make it important. More individuals have to read this and understand this facet of the story. I cant consider youre not more standard because you undoubtedly have the gift.