ADS Inc., recently released its entry into the Army’s Camouflage Improvement Program, but it doesn’t seem likely that we will see all the players in the competition until much later in the game. Kit Up!,  Soldier Systems Daily and Army Times  have been beating our heads against the Army’s door for a look at all of the patterns the service selected for further testing as part of the final phase of the camo improvement program. PEO Soldier has decided it doesn’t have the legal authority to release the five patterns.

The Army is letting the individual companies decide whether they want to unveil their patterns. So far, the ADS Transitional A pattern and Kryptek Inc.’s Highlander pattern are the only contenders to come out of the shadows. Crye Precision LLC, the company that created MultiCam, was also selected as a finalist, but the company is keeping its new pattern hidden for now. The one government pattern selected was developed by Army scientists at Natick, but service officials still haven’t released it.

The Army launched the camouflage effort in response to a June-2009 inquiry by Pennsylvania’s Democratic Rep. John Murtha, who was then chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. Before he died in February 2010, Murtha pushed the service to look for a better camouflage pattern after receiving complaints from sergeants about the Army Universal Camouflage Pattern’s poor performance in the warzone. The Army ended up selecting MultiCam to replace the UCP in Afghanistan in early 2010.

The Army is scheduled to evaluate the finalist patterns in field trials that will likely last until spring 2013. But with defense spending on a steep decline,  it seems hard to believe the service will shell out the money for new camouflage uniforms.

{ 104 comments… read them below or add one }

mpower6428 February 23, 2012 at 2:12 am

well…. at least it doesnt look like those field gray confederate army throwback shades they've been wearing for the past 6 years.

im all down for either "olive drab" or 1980's forest. untill predator suits come out.

because who really gives a crap… certainly not the taliban snipers.

Reply

bob February 23, 2012 at 4:41 am

What's the point of camo on the plate carrier? Follow the marines and instead use ranger green.

Reply

WRG01 February 23, 2012 at 5:15 am

Marines use coyote brown. Rangers use green. I agree with your position.

Reply

Doc February 23, 2012 at 9:24 am

Actually Ranger Batt is starting to phase out Ranger Green and are starting to adopt the Eagle MJK (Khaki) just like SF.

Reply

majrod February 23, 2012 at 9:36 am

Doc – they ditched khaki. Note my comment below. That's straight from the force mod office at Reg't. There's also a picture of the latest ranger look on SOCOM's web site.
http://www.socom.mil/News/Documents/USSOCOM_Fact_
p 40

Add a multicam mesh helmet cover.

Reply

majrod February 23, 2012 at 8:34 am

The pattern on the kit is intended to be transitional. The Army wil use the same pattern for kit when wearing arid or temperate camo patterns.

The Rangers went to complete multicam (including kit) late last year.

Reply

xcalbr February 23, 2012 at 11:33 am

hopefully all four branches will adopt the same unif…wait. nevermind :( never going to happen.

Reply

majrod February 23, 2012 at 11:52 am

xcalbr – actually…

"“In another interesting highlight, PEO Soldier took note in their release that they would openly contribute their findings to the other services and they would be open to utilizing the camouflage patterns for their uniforms as well."
http://blog.predatorbdu.com/2012/01/us-army-camou

Note the lack of copyright and "uniqueness" BS.

Reply

xcalbr February 23, 2012 at 1:50 pm

haha thanks for the post majrod; if our current secretary of defense would do his job, then he would make all branches adopt a common uniform. It has always been my belief that multicam should have been standardized in 2005. Of course, it is a transitional, universal camouflage that is optimal in semi-arid deserts and dry grasslands, though people continually whine because it is not invisible in their neck of the woods. Here's a clue: it is a universal camo, which is ideal for a large army.

Leave specialized, climate-based camouflage patterns to special forces units and stop wasting money. The infrastructure and OCIE is already available for multicam.

Reply

majrod February 23, 2012 at 3:33 pm

I'm not a fan of multicam but I'm not wearing it either. I say whatever works, period.

I also don't think specialized camo should be the domain of spec ops only. When it comes right down to it the conventional combat guys spend as much if not more time on the line than their special ops brethren while getting a lot less credit and yet paying the majority of the price in blood. My bottom line is if it's effective, issue it.

Ranger Stack June 6, 2013 at 12:30 pm

Hoo-Ahh! I've been saying that for 5 years! great minds think alike.

Reply

0311 USMC February 23, 2012 at 5:05 am

I see a lot of Navy EOD guys where I live wearing a uniform that looks quite similar to the one above. It almost looks like washed out woodland Marpat cammies, but the pattern is somewhat different. Has the navy adopted this pattern already?

Reply

John February 23, 2012 at 6:30 am

That is the Navy's new "ground side" version of the blue aquaflage Navy Working Uniform that big Navy is wearing. It is used by SEALs, SeaBees, EOD, Riverine, etc. Google images of the "navy green nwu" and you'll see it.

Reply

MississippianX February 23, 2012 at 6:42 am

That sounds like the green AOR2 – the SEAL pattern

Reply

xcalbr February 23, 2012 at 1:52 pm

yeah that NWU III is a cool uniform. Most importantly, it seems to work.

Reply

Sphinx23 April 8, 2014 at 10:19 am

The Navy calls them the guacamoles or "guacs" just like the NWU is called the "blueberries"…. however, Navy also uses ACU and Multicam and Marpat so idk wtf the Navy is doing lol

Reply

SFC YOUNG February 23, 2012 at 5:40 am

I am still trying to figure out why this is taking so long. Come on really Big Army? Are people that affraid to make a decision after the bad call on the ACU design? We have created a system designed to be so fair that they have red taped it into the ground. I like the design by US4CES shown above. I wonder how that one performs.

Reply

majrod February 23, 2012 at 8:39 am

SFC – I'm wondering also but there are several reasons besides the typical bueracracy (UCP took about two years from idea to finalist).

The Army was nailed for not testing/documenting enough last time. The decision to not release the patterns is a pretty good indicator for how gunshy the service is. Secondly, maybe this is all a huge smokescreen to invite congress to get involved and say "what the heck"?

Reply

Thursday February 23, 2012 at 6:07 am

I'm really liking the US4CES offering as well.
http://www.adsinc.com/solutions/clothing-programs

Reply

brandon February 23, 2012 at 6:31 am

Ranger green and coyote brown are both really effective colors and pretty cool looking but the latter only matters in recruiting and to the brass. I still think you sacrifice a lot performance with a big solid color plate carrier though. Camo colors are to blend you in and break up out line but big solid colors scream "Here I am and here is my center mass since my new camo pattern is so effective you cant see anything else. I still wanted you to have a chance." Web gear back in the day was OD Green (probably more universal than ranger green but not new or high speed enough) because you only wore a belt and harness/butt pack on patrol before widespread flackjacket use. The brits covered their alice packs with reversible woodland/desert DPM covers that I believe waterproofed them to a degree. They also werent afraid to wear desert camo pants and woodland blouses or OD green pants in grassy areas with woodland blouses to match with trees and bushes higher off of the ground. They are pretty brilliant for their flexibility in my opinion.

I think the army could ditch the 4th pattern for gear since they are making a transitional pattern. Or ditch the transitional as well and make armor carriers that are reversible like the Marine Corps helmet cover is but in whichever the most effective woodland and desert patterns found in this testing are or the best wood or desert specific patterns that perform ok in transitional use. If its the camo part that makes printing the gear more expensive rather than buying 2 different sets of gear in different patterns, than do reversible coyote brown and ranger green so you still have flexibility for different environments. We already see PALS webbing being removed from the latest carriers to make that a nonissue. Either way, if the Army says the camo is chosen and allowed for soldiers to wear it, companies WILL make it and many will buy it out of their own pocket and big budget units like JSOC and Ranger recon company will buy what they think works best plus police agencies, contractors, other NATO units will as well which will drive down cost some but the bottom line is some big whig will just have to say Soldiers are allowed to wear it and we know how that goes in a lot of cases.

Reply

Lance February 23, 2012 at 8:27 pm

I'd say you can expect even more stark differences between US Army and USMC in uniforms weapons and vehicles. Already the USMC announced they will stay with the M-16A4 and a few years from now a M-16A5, and not go with any carbine the army has. Which will probably be the improved M-4A1/2. Uniforms look like they'll stay very different from the Marines MARPAT. Despite some works on GCV I don't see either M-113 or M-2/3 going away this decade and the Marines use none of them LAV-25 and AAV-7 are there vehicles. Helicopters are a stark contrast. USMC is evolving the AH-1W to the newest AH-1Y Venom which in some ways can outperform the AH-64 in speed and climb. Same for the Huey from the UH-1N to the new two engined UH-1Y. The army did the more expensive approach and went with a new UH-60 Blackhawk and a fleet upgrade for all Apaches to the Longbow D version. Which now the Army is again looking to expensively replace all of them. The USMC so far hasn't even looked at it. Which I doubt anything will happen this decade due to cuts and sequestration happening next year.

The days of WW2 and the Cold War which Army and USMC used same camo, rifles, and APC/tanks is over and both services will look more and more different as the next two decades pass. Not a bad thing since both have different ways to fight.

Reply

brandon February 23, 2012 at 8:40 pm

If the marines continue saving money going the cheaper route and still being able to perform at equal levels compared to the Army then good for them. I hope the Army gets smarter with money but it always been the service that did the grunt work on spending and other services have befetted from the Armys success and failures. I don't the M16A5 too far out. Talk of that was already going on with the stock from vltor I believe. A hammer forged barrel and maybe a piston are huge changes in the militarys mind. Probably no burst as well. I wish the Army kept the commance development but it had to go I suppose. It would be nice to see it come back but I doubt it will. It is odd seeing all of the joint missles, rockets and bombs, the JSF, JLTV and so on while they try to become more different.

Reply

Greg February 23, 2012 at 8:50 pm

Not if congress has a thing or two to say about it.

Reply

Lance February 23, 2012 at 9:01 pm

@ Greg I doubt congress will do much aof anythingg. Most of new programs will probably not be in service till the early 2020s due to that everything is pushed back years to ovoid getting cancelled.

As for the A5 looks cool in Idea but Ive talked to a few guys who write for the Marines who have interviewed USMC Infantry Systems and said the budget wont allow for a A5 procurement or testing till at least three or four more years if its a priority. That's not the case for this and next year since Gen. Amos made keeping JLTV and a new EFV concept priorities for all funds for the Corps. However they will keep the A5 alive on paper till 2015 or later when they proceed with the project.

Reply

Textanker February 23, 2012 at 6:31 am

If you think that kids looking to join the military don't think about the kind of uniform they will be wearing, then wise up. I have 23 years in the Army, all of it in combat arms. One of the reasons I chose the army over the Marine Corps was I didn't like the Utility Cover. Stupid? Yes.
Like it or not, the services are in competition with each other for kids, and kids think about how they look. It's part of becoming an adult. I hate the ACUs just as much becuase of how poorly they conceal me as the fact that they make me look 20 pounds over weight.

Reply

Josh February 23, 2012 at 8:44 am

Totally agree with you. ACUs came out the middle of my junior year in high school while i was in Korea. While I was thinking about what service to join, I did consider not joining the Army b/c of the ACU pattern. Well I finally looked pasted that…..I just hit six years in the Army not to long ago

Reply

Joe Byden July 25, 2013 at 11:37 am

If you are a tanker, you probably ARE 20 pounds over weight!

Reply

Richard March 13, 2014 at 2:46 pm

When I joined the Army rather than the Marines, at age 18, I did so because the recruiting poster showed the Marine fatigues buttoned at the neck, and the Army showed an unbuttoned neck. I choose the comfort of neck freedom.

Reply

brandon February 23, 2012 at 6:42 am

I hope they make combat shirts that have the "body section" either camo or in coyote brown or ranger green. It drives me nuts to see the Marines FROG gear and multicam combat shirts with all that "sand" (Which really just looks white) almost ruining any effect of the pattern. At leat have it go down the sides of the body like the Massif UCP combat shirt had and on the collor like many already have.

Reply

majrod February 23, 2012 at 9:26 am

Anybody have any info on why ATACS got cut?

Reply

Matt February 23, 2012 at 1:14 pm

-Majrod
I was wondering that myself- I was rooting for ATACS- so it kinda ticked me off. I read somewhere (can't find the article for a link) that it was due to the layering and amount of colors but don't hold me to that. I've got to find that article.

Reply

majrod February 23, 2012 at 3:35 pm

I'd be interested to read anything on the subject or hear from the manufacturers. heard a rumor that the Army wasn't set up to evaluate it properly. I'd like to hear the details and come to my own conclusion.

Reply

Matt February 23, 2012 at 8:45 pm
m hall February 23, 2012 at 10:19 am

where can i buy a set for my father? needs for a wedding. thank you for any help.

Reply

Uncle Chewy February 23, 2012 at 10:23 am

"Two things you can count on in America: Taking a good idea and running it into the ground and taking a bad idea and running it into the ground." George Carlin-

Reply

JEFF February 23, 2012 at 10:58 am

Who thinks the gov't pattern will be an update of the All Over Brush camo from the original UCP trials?

Reply

brandon February 23, 2012 at 11:55 am

Well according to the Army, the desert brush or whatever its called performed pretty good. I don't care as long as it out performs. Looks be damned. Performance is key.

Reply

xcalbr February 23, 2012 at 1:59 pm

I remember seeing that pattern at fort benning in 2004 i believe. I was dumbfounded. It reminded me of the brush camo my dad wears when we shoot pigs in texas. I hope the fugliest, gnarliest uniform that is the most effective becomes standard. I hope its uglier than that Latvian huge digital camo.

Reply

Otis Hatfield February 23, 2012 at 11:04 am

We have learned that universal patterns don't work entirely, I think that 3 or 4 different patterns for different environments would be acceptable for example; Woodland, Desert, Snow/Winter (an over-suit could be acceptable) and Urban camouflage variants are needed. I personally collect camouflage and I do not think ACU is suitable for any of those environments, however Multicam is suitable for semi-arid environments, this is much more adaptable but still of no use in urban or winter settings.

Reply

brandon February 23, 2012 at 12:03 pm

Yea it kills me that everyones rockin multicam now but half of Afhanistan is covered in snow and there isn't an overwhite to be found anywhere. Not even for helmets when you might be prone peaking around that snow covered rock. You won't see it on Marines either but perhaps it isn't snowing in helmand. I do find it funny the marines don't need a special boot just for Afghanistan and allow their leaders to pick woodland or desert camo for whatever location their going to. At least that's the story.

Reply

majrod February 23, 2012 at 3:13 pm

Brandon – don't know about the Marines not "needing" a specific mountain boot but I find it funny they "need" a marine specific bayonet, helmet, boot, uniform, body armor, trauma kit, rifle, Individual Automatic Rifle, M32 grenade launcher & pouches.

Reply

brandon February 23, 2012 at 4:59 pm

That's a good point. I was corrected on the marines needing a boot for Afghanistan. I suppose it wasn't a big story because Danner made so many Marine specific or marine certified boots to begin with. The marine corps is probably the worst offender of letting troops use the footwear they find the best for situation in the name of looking prim and proper. On the the bayonet I think it was meant to be both a knife and bayonet vs bayonet alone. Don't ask me what the difference is. The helmet I believe they chose their design because it didn't sacrifice coverage where the Army wanted less bulk at the expense of coverage. I think the army had it right. The M32 is an off the shelf weapon I believe which made a lot of sense if theyre using it heavily. I bet there are more m32s being used effectively than the Army airburst deal that costs so much. I like both but the Marines wanted something different sooner I guess. On the IAR I haven't a clue where to go there. Some say it was a sneaky way to get around a big carbine procurement contract but who knows. If they can use it the same way they used the saw but achieve better results good for them. That was a good list of things the Marines wanted to on their own. If I forgot I didn't mean to. I'm getting ready to go to work but their sniper rifle program is another but in their defense ask any 2 snipers their opinion on anything sniper related and you set off an old fashioned greek style philosphy debate.

Reply

xcalbr February 23, 2012 at 6:54 pm

majrod, if you put a EGA on it, it will bless the wearer with a magic aurea of awesome. If its not marine specific, its substandard (LOL)…

Reply

brandon February 23, 2012 at 7:09 pm

Ha ha that's priceless. I wonder if it costs more money to print the EGA on the cammies. Or the Navys ACE. I think the obvious EGA on the pocket was pretty sufficent to make them stand out as marines.

xcalbr February 23, 2012 at 2:06 pm

Universal patterns are feasible, and multicam, for the most part, is very effective. They are very useful for larger military elements. Keep seperate patterns for special forces soldiers.

No camo besides white works well in winter. There is a easy solution for that. Part of my experience in afghanistan was freezing my *** in snow, though are still plenty of rocks in the terrain that make multicam (OEF pattern-whatever) effective.

And marines do have a special mountain boot from Danner. Of course, they are more "uniform" than the Army Danners (which are commercial hiking boots), but both designs are interim solutions. Wearing the Danner hiking boots over there, they are a blessing…far more suitable than the desert storm boots we wore in the same place in 2002.

Reply

gwb February 23, 2012 at 8:01 pm

Brandon, I think the embedded EGA wasn't to make them stand-out — it was to give the Marines control over it.

Reply

brandon February 23, 2012 at 8:18 pm

You may be right but I believe the color way was even trademarked. That's why everything you as marpat is obvious from a distance as knock off. I could be wrong but I've read it some place. I wonder if the camo we gave to Georgia is actual marine marpat or knock off stuff. Not sure if we gave it to them or they bought it but it showed up right after we began doing a lot of training with them. It does seem stupid to say you can't have this because don't want anyone looking like us. You would think the marines would be happy enough with their physical apppearance and navy style cover and other obvious marine gear saying who they are. Maybe they don't buy into the hype and had to take desperate measures. Idk. Just saying.

Reply

Greg February 23, 2012 at 8:57 pm

Whats wrong with the jungle pattern sole, the newer soled versions suck in thick mud they get no traction.

Reply

Lance February 23, 2012 at 11:42 am

Yuck that's one ugly camo pattern! This is becoming a waste in money MARPAT with the addition of Multicam would be logical or just returning with original woodland 3 color desert and multicam would be just as good. And the fact is the Army may still stay with ACU so this is blowing money away for nothing.

Reply

Dan Gao February 23, 2012 at 12:57 pm

I thought they were supposed to make the final decision in October this year?
Why the **** does this take so long??

Reply

Thursday February 23, 2012 at 1:45 pm

You remember what happened last time they didn't think things through, we got the current ACU…

Reply

majrod February 23, 2012 at 3:40 pm

Dan, check out my points to SFC Young above ref the same observation.

Reply

Deacon February 23, 2012 at 5:48 pm

Remember when woodland and "chocolate chip" worked poorly in their intended environments?

Me neither.

The army needs to correct the abortion that is the ACU without it taking five more years and hundreds of millions of dollars.

Reply

brandon February 23, 2012 at 7:15 pm

True but there can be better…

Reply

slag February 23, 2012 at 6:15 pm

O.D, Khaki & Black…

Reply

Greg February 23, 2012 at 9:04 pm

1. This isn't a fashion show

2. The jarheads will never cough up MARPAT

3. Multicam like UCP dosn't blend in "everywhere"

4. Of course they will stay with the ACU it will just have much less velcro, sew on stuff, no zippers, and different camo patterns.

Reply

Greg February 23, 2012 at 9:05 pm

Like Thursday said

Reply

Greg February 23, 2012 at 9:18 pm

F!!! it, tell all the service branches including the Corps to man up and stop with the looking different, ******* match, interservice fighting it's cause getting real old. You all fight under the same flag now get it togeter and use it together, or else we will disband you like yesterday's trash and bring back the militia for a sole defense, atleast they won't fight over camo or a reason to look different like a bunch of whiny spoiled brat little kids in toy store.

Reply

Riceball February 24, 2012 at 1:25 pm

You think it's bad here, have you seen how many different camo and uniform patterns the Russians field? They make us look positively uniform by comparison.

Reply

xcalbr February 24, 2012 at 5:32 pm

greg, i agree with you 100%.

Reply

Greg February 25, 2012 at 1:13 am

Totally

Reply

Greg February 23, 2012 at 9:21 pm

Oh they'll shell out alright, if WWIII breaks out they will.

Reply

majrod February 23, 2012 at 10:12 pm

Actually there were complaints about chocolate chip at the time. That camo was developed to go with our deserts and the chips didn't blend in too well in non rocky deserts like Saudi and Iraq. Also ther was a desire to get a more pink tone in the color to blend better with that area of the world resulting in the coffee stain DCUs.

Reply

Lance February 23, 2012 at 10:26 pm

I liked three color desert, worked well in Somalia and Iraq, and I know a friend who was in Gulf War One and loved Chocolate chip camo. MARPAT desert isn't much different just digi pattern.

Reply

Matt February 23, 2012 at 10:28 pm

I wouldn't say that the Marines are going the "cheaper route"- they are going the route that makes the most sense and is the most effective.
Marpat + Coyote Brown- is effective and modular vs. Full UCP- not effective, not modular, and a waste of money
M16A4 Rifle (500m)- is effective in combat in Afghanistan vs. M4 Carbine (300m)- is ineffective due to lack of range

Reply

Lance February 23, 2012 at 10:28 pm

Only Seebee units attached with Marines have the digi pattern most stand alone units use M81 Woodland or 3 color desert still.

Reply

John February 24, 2012 at 11:39 am

Then how come I was just at a conference (stateside) with a bunch of SeaBees from NCD wearing green NWU? Some still had woodlands, but they said it was because they are fielding the unform by region/unit.

Reply

Lance February 24, 2012 at 12:01 pm

Most units attached to work with the USMC will have the NWU in digi woodland others that are independent or in reserve or on state side way from Marine units will stay with old woodland.

Reply

JBAR February 24, 2012 at 6:03 am

Same for me. Disappointed A-TACS did not make it.

Reply

JBAR February 24, 2012 at 6:11 am

Why cant they just continue using the same pattern, but just different colors? MARPAT for woodlands, The Navy AORII for transitional (or multicam colors), and AOR I (or desert MARPAT) for desert/arid? The pattern seems to work. Just change the colors and be done with it. How difficult and expensive is that? I hope everyone gets what is best in the end and politics stays out. Also, I hope all branches go back to similar uniforms. Who can tell who is who on the battlefield now? Also, if they are getting too crazy with micro patterns, etc., how much does it matter when the uniforms will get dirty anyway?

Reply

majrod February 24, 2012 at 9:05 am

Matt good read. The input from Cramer was especially informative. Thanks.

Reply

Matt February 24, 2012 at 9:19 am

-Majrod
I find it funny that whenever the Army selects a new cammo to wear, they have to print all of their kit in it and that they had to replace the M203 with a hunk of plastic that most soldiers dont even like (from what I've heard).
Using the M16A4 doesn't cost the Marines anything extra unlike the Army with apparently has to outfit every soldier with an M4.
I will not try to explain the IAR because one would have to go to the 4th dimension for that to make sense.
I don't think the LWH costs anymore than the ACH so?
You can't complain about the Marines not hopping into the – "if you ask for it, HK will give you a magical, bulky, useless solution- in about 5 or more years" basket with the Army. The M32 is usefull and feildable now.
We can nit-pick the choices of each service apart but in the end, both have made mistakes and both do their jobs well so we can't complain too much.

Reply

Riceball February 24, 2012 at 1:17 pm

Minor nitpick here, the new Cobra is not the Yankee Cobra but the Zulu Cobra, the Y is for the UH-1 only.

Another thing, the Corps and the Army didn't wear the same uniforms during WW II, very similar in appearance but there were differences. The Corps also had a camouflage uniform that saw use in WW II that, I don't think, the Army never adopted either.

Reply

xcalbr February 24, 2012 at 5:09 pm

The marine corps had that leaf pattern, which was reversible. Apparently the Army soldier's wear of camouflage patterns was forbidden, as they feared fratricide might increase due to the Germans wearing their own camouflage uniforms. Of course, the difference in effectiveness between disruptive camouflage patterns and solid colors is obvious. There is a reason why armies constantly deployed to a combat environment have ditched solid colors long ago.

Reply

Lance February 24, 2012 at 5:50 pm

I know the US Army did experiment with camo in for the ETO in the war but in exercises found troops in camo got murdered by friendly fire most of the time so that's why they dumped camo in Europe. OD did fine for that period and in some ways can still.

At Riceball I mistyped your right the Z is the newest Cobra though Ws will be around for a while to come. The USMC had some camo in certain units but many also had OD uniforms like the Army in the Battle of Guadalcanal is a prime example.

Reply

majrod February 25, 2012 at 9:51 am

Riceball – minor detail correction here. The pattern worn by Marines in the Pacific was developed by the Army and worn by 2 AD troops in the ETO for a short time (same pattern, different uniform). There was concern about fratricide in the ETO because of camo but I've never seen a documented case. Some exaggerate what they don't know. Here's a picture of the repro. It's not reversible like the Marine version. http://www.atthefrontshop.com/searchresults.asp?c

It was also quite common for Marines to wear Army uniforms in the Pacific. True there were different uniforms but the Marine version was not available enough in quantity. The Army was never concerned about "uniqueness" and the Marines just used what worked. Here's a reference: http://atthefront.com/historical_reference_us_USM

Reply

Riceball February 24, 2012 at 1:23 pm

FYI, ACU is the pattern/design of the Army's uniform, hence the name Army Combat Uniform. The camouflage pattern that it comes in for Stateside and garrison wear is called UCP for Universal Camouflage Pattern.

Reply

xcalbr February 24, 2012 at 5:18 pm

the jungle pattern sole (altama brand) would get shreaded in the mountains in a month. the desert boots also had poor cushioning, though I remedied this issue by wearing true wool socks. Of course, our counterparts wore commercial hiking boots from germany because my unit was more strict on uniformity (which is f–king stupid considering uniformity means **** when you are patrolling in the Hindu Kush)

Reply

xcalbr February 24, 2012 at 5:26 pm

Or the Army and Air Force can ditch their uniforms and adopt the NWU type III in woodland and desert. It seems to me like that would be sensible.

Reply

Greg February 25, 2012 at 1:21 am

Love both the Navy's AORs I and II, but they should **** can the all over blue digi pattern. It kind of brings back awful memories of UCP.

Reply

JBAR February 25, 2012 at 8:05 am

The Navy wanted to keep tradition with blue and choose the grays to help cover up paint blemishes to keep cost down for sailors. Ironically, ships are gray, so wouldn't the ACUs be a better uniform for the Navy (fleet sailors)?

Reply

Stefan S. February 29, 2012 at 3:41 pm

After Obummer's cuts the military's budget, it is back to OG-107's, Alice Packs and LCE's.

Reply

Tlocken March 1, 2012 at 2:30 am

what is going to happen is after all this spending of money they are going to take Marpat and change it just a hair so that we in the army can use it and keep multi cam for transitional. I do like the idea of a reversible plate carrier, from green to tan, although I think flat dark earth would prob be better than coyote tan, and just take OD green and Ranger green come up with a green in the middle and presto there ya go all done. I don't under stand why they make things so complicated some times

Reply

C.Downie March 1, 2012 at 2:51 am

Any one else think that US4CES uniform looks too much like the Marines Woodland, it looks amazing but i think some people would get mixed up. I honestly would prefer the Multicam, as long as it gets rid of that awful grey ACP, that looks terrible.

Reply

Greg March 1, 2012 at 1:30 pm

Believe us it's not, this version is entirely diffrent from MARPAT. MARPAT woodland uses black, tan, brown, deep green. US4CES patterns use a mix in of light and dark brown, dark green and sandy beige. Similar to the BDU but without the the randomly placed black splotches, witch is where the darker shade of brown comes in to play. Plus the digital blocks that make up the patterns are 2x bigger than the MCCUU or ACU, there are other similar pictures of US4CES around some where that give a slightly better look of all three camo's than the one on here. So givin the shape size of the blocks, the different shades of color, i for one would love to see the Corps moan and groan with a lame excuse about how similar this version looks compared to their's, if they do then they would just be blowing smoke because the two are so very different. Remember the Navys AORs I and II, the corps got butthurt about how the arid version looked the same as MARPAT desert. Unlike them me and many others have a trained eye on different shapes and colors, it all comes down to knowing what your looking at to tell them apart. And i swear on my mothers soul that AOR desert was much more different than MARPAT desert.

Reply

C.Downie March 1, 2012 at 3:16 pm

Looking on it, It really does look different….THIS SHOULD DEFIANTLY SHOULD BE THE NEW UNIFORM. This has got my vote! And looking at these Variants: http://www.adsinc.com/solutions/clothing-programs

I really think it should be made official.

Reply

Greg March 1, 2012 at 1:32 pm

Also from what i'm told, keep on the look out for new US4CES news in the weeks to come.

Reply

US Soldier March 4, 2012 at 3:47 pm

All the uniforms are now shown in the Army Times and hands down this is the best pattern which is outperforming multicam in tests.

Just make the decision in a couple of months and start putting this pattern on the UCP.

Reply

GearScout March 5, 2012 at 10:41 pm

Majrod, if you want the truth about why ATACS got cut, lay all rumors aside and send me a "contact us" on my website scoutsnipersystemsstore.com… I can name names and show you exactly where to go to verify everything I will tell you. It is some SHADY business how they got cut and how I KNOW exactly who will win since one of the board members from NATICK has stock in a camo company theyre currently bidding on.

Reply

Elbridge Wilson March 7, 2012 at 12:11 pm

Let's end this all. Agreed the uniform should fit the environment and all serving in that particular environment should have it. The Marines got it right with two styles. My Air Force is still behind the times with the most uncomfortable uniform. Take this into consideration, figure out a couple of patterns based on the environment you're in and have all US forces serving in that area wear the same uniform. The name tags distinguish the branch of service, enlisted wear their rank on a middle tab (like the Army) or on their sleeves, officers wear theirs on the collar (as usual). We could save a lot of money that way. The individuality of the service is by the service tapes i.e; US AIR FORCE, US ARMY, US MARINES, US NAVY

Reply

Greg March 7, 2012 at 3:37 pm

Yep, the Army, Marines, Air Force, Navy, Coast Gaurd had different hats, sleeve styles and service name patches/tapes. And thats all they need to be distinguished from one another.

Reply

Ben Branam March 7, 2012 at 1:03 pm
Rhet April 4, 2012 at 7:03 pm

This is just dumb!!! They should either all wear the same uniform or have a uniform for each branch that is different in color but has the same pattern! JUST PICK A F****** UNIFORM!!!!

Reply

Matt April 20, 2012 at 1:58 pm

Ive worn 4 camo patterns in my career, woodland BDU, the DCU, ACUs and multicam.

I was never on the muliticam bandwagon however, I think ACU is and was a huge mistake for the army….probably the biggest since they adopted the Krag in the 1890s over a Mauser design.

In this age of austerity we need to just stick with what we have for now…the money to plant camo games is not there.

Reply

Bobby Bowman June 2, 2012 at 2:40 am

I like the new camouflage pattern for the army is great, but I think that it should be used in all four branches of the armed services to show that we are united.Also, I don,t like the thought of selling it to other nations so we can recognize our own troops, and not mistake our troops for theirs.

Reply

Bobby Bowman June 2, 2012 at 2:46 am

I think that the new camouflage pattern for the army is great, but I think that it should be used in all four branches of the armed services to show that we are united.Also, I don,t like the thought of selling it to other nations so we can recognize our own troops, and not mistake our troops for theirs.

Reply

Bryan July 7, 2012 at 6:54 am

As a current wearer, get rid of the velcro. Was walking through some trees the other day, flag patch hooked a branch and a very loud rip was heard as the patch came off.

and while we are at it, get rid of that zipper as well.

As far as the pattern goes, that US4CES looks pretty decent, but still a fan of BDU's. ACUs, no thanks. Multicam, better, but still not there

Reply

SGT Robert A De Sand September 10, 2012 at 9:02 am

I have worn it hunting before it came on the market at BDU.COM I shot 3 dear.My buds could not see me nor find me.It works great.This yr I will use my A-TACS so far you can not even see me either.I guess its the uniform,and my sniper skills that also helped.I would love to get my hands on the 3d uniforms.OH y the way I just inherited the newest night vison scope What and where can i get a mount for this scope the rifle will be a AR-15 bushmaster?thanks fellow warriors

Reply

fiveSIERRA December 10, 2012 at 2:23 pm
Rick December 18, 2012 at 6:15 pm
John December 18, 2012 at 9:46 pm
John May 11, 2013 at 2:10 pm

Kryptec has their products made in Ho Chi Mihn City. What a slap in the face to all the Viet Nam Vets. Can't we give the business to a company in the U.S. rather than going Communist. I am contacting my Congressman about this travisty.

Reply

LEE WW3 August 4, 2013 at 12:28 pm

Idk about everyone else but to blend in to your suroundings why not just wear what the enemy is wearing or interchangable uniforms, in side out.

Reply

msg R. G Cox August 30, 2013 at 9:47 am

Time for the competition among the services to stop, one uniform for all, and for state side duty Camouflage isn't needed. the plane old uniform of the past will serve just fine-look at the cost of the uniforms used in nam vs the camouflage of today, our local sheriffs and police departments for the most part use solid colors and they work just fine for 20% of the cost and who needs Air Force personnel setting in offices all day with camouflage and bloused boots on , just plane damn stupid..not many years ago I wore a class a uniform working in my office starting with one stripe and on up.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: