armycamo1

Army uniform officials will present the results of the service’s Phase VI Camouflage Improvement Effort to the Army Uniform Board on February 28.

I spotted this on the Predator Intelligence blog and confirmed it with Program Executive Office Soldier. It’s hard to say if this will mean anything or not. PEO Soldier officials are tight-lipped as ever. They would only say it may be a recommendation or a path forward to where to take the effort that started out as an attempt to find a replacement for the Army Combat Uniform’s Universal Camouflage Pattern.

The Army launched its massive camouflage improvement plan in 2009 when its pixellated UCP came under scrutiny from soldiers, lawmakers and the Army test community. Two studies conducted by the U.S. Army Natick Soldier Systems Center — one completed in 2009 and the other in 2006, showed that the UCP performed poorly when compared to multiple camouflage patterns such as the Marine Corps desert pattern and MultiCam.

Late last year, the Government Accountability Office put out a report, urging Defense Department leaders to work together and avoid the “fragmented approach” the different services have taken on camouflage development in the past. Each service has developed its own camouflage uniform over the past ten years. Military service leaders have introduced seven new patterns — two desert, two woodland and three universal — since 2002.

The Army’s camouflage effort achieved some success in the summer of 2010 when the service selected MultiCam to replace the UCP in Afghanistan. Since then, the pattern has performed extremely well — not a big surprise to the special operations forces that have been wearing it into battle for years now.

 Whatever happens, the Army’s decision will likely hinge on whether the mandatory defense spending cuts for all the services under Sequestration take place on March 1. I can’t imagine the Army replacing anything if it has to cut training money for up to 80 percent of its combat units.

We will update you as soon as we know something.

{ 87 comments… read them below or add one }

Lance February 13, 2013 at 2:51 pm

I still say its best and cheapest to adopt Afghan theater multicam camo and for Europe and North American use old woodland. Be best. And save money in a time when the army wont have any.

Reply

Nate February 13, 2013 at 5:48 pm

Why the hell would they do that, that would be something that actually makes sense, don't you know that isn't allowed in big Army?!

All joking aside this whole camo thing is a joke, the amount of money being pumped into it could go to way better uses.

Reply

Paul February 14, 2013 at 8:24 am

Roger thet!!!!!

Reply

oscar d February 14, 2013 at 3:40 am

amen Lance.

Reply

Peally February 13, 2013 at 6:22 pm

Holy. Crap. They're still working on this? Must be the same people spending all that money to find a replacement rifle to the m16. I shouldn't be surprised at the government's efficiency this far into life, but for the love of God…

Reply

Billywhat? February 14, 2013 at 2:17 am

lots of money down the drain when the best army in the world (wait for the flamewar) is just walking around in OD greens. And around Israel you have every sort of environment you can imagine.

So apparently the real UCP is just plain old OD green

Reply

Steve Roberts February 14, 2013 at 7:16 am

OD Green is a great base color. Leave the eye-spy camo colors for spec ops and grunts. Most everyone else drives around in vehicles that can be camo-painted with 3 or 4 colors of spray paint.

Reply

Lance February 14, 2013 at 11:01 am

The army wasted millions into a GCV which we dont need M-2/3 and even M-113 doing fine and the army is upgrading Bradley anyway. Same for the M-4 they got the SCAR craze but found out it offered nothing over the M-4 so they waste millions on a program they dont want as they spend millions upgrading M-4s. Same for camo they spend millions on a new camo only to find out Multicam and original woodland will work the best.

The Army needs to get new blood at PEO solder. We dont need new carbines but we need to dump a ineffective grey camo that will not work out of Baghdad.

Reply

Doc February 14, 2013 at 3:05 pm

I dont know where you have been but M113s suck.

Reply

Lance February 14, 2013 at 5:51 pm

For a front line APC you got a point But for a base security Vehicle or a Armored ambulance it still fine.

Reply

Burkhalter February 14, 2013 at 2:41 am

So…someone want to explain what was wrong with the old woodland and desert patterns again? Didn't the army say something about how they didn't want to look less cool when the Marines adopted the Marpat pattern (no, im serious. I think I remember reading that in an article somewhere talking about the ACU projects)? Even better, why don't they just use Marpat for the whole armed forces, since it's actually shown to be an effective patter

Reply

navbm7 February 14, 2013 at 7:46 am

The Marines copyrighted their camo pattern, they did not want to share it with the Army.

Reply

TheGeeker February 14, 2013 at 10:07 am

i don't know where you heard that from but the Marines are open to any branch using Marpat the Navy's blue Camouflage pattern is the same as Marpat just blue just like the Army won't use the air forces Camouflage pattern either the Army doesn't want to use any Camouflage pattern that they did not come up with on there own.

Reply

majrod February 14, 2013 at 2:31 pm

No the Marine Commandant Gen Jones stated MARPAT was limited to The Marines. The technology for printing fabric was shared but the colors were not. This was reiterated by the USMC's SGM Kent when the Army started looking at a UCP replacement and MARPAT was being considered as a baseline comparison.

http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/showthread.php?… http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/12/marine-marp

Reply

Lance February 14, 2013 at 10:57 am

Nothings wrong with BDU era camo 95% of the world uses those types. The DiGi craze gone far enough fact is its not pixel or pattern that make you stand out its movement and small to a passing person. Over blown.

Most solders wanted to stay with BDU woodland and 3 color desert and was forced to go with Grey ACUs.

Reply

Greg February 15, 2013 at 3:14 pm

Marines went to MCCUU.

Army says "Hey! wait a miniute, we want something "new looking.".

They ended up with UCP.

Reply

AURanger February 14, 2013 at 4:53 am

Wish we would just announce multicam OCP as the winner and move on. It is probably the best camo pattern available now and does well in all environments – even woodland. However, I think we are stuck with the awful ACU pattern for a while because congress cannot pull their heads out of their butts and pass a budget. I bet you their pay will not be interrupted no matter what they do. Got to love politicians.

Reply

Pistol762 February 14, 2013 at 6:30 am

Who among us is really surprised?

We continue to use a sub-standard weapon for several generations with the M-16 & M-4 variant. NOW we finally recognize we have failed to develop a combat uniform (across the services) that meets the needs of those in the fight? IF tradition holds we will reintroduce the blue wool 1860's uniform made in China for us.

We have "leaped in technology" in many areas, (ships, propulsion, armour, stealth, aircraft) but we have done little to add that technological leap to the combat soldiers uniform and load bearing equipment.

Reply

TheGeeker February 14, 2013 at 10:17 am

we need to start making infantrymen the priority after all they are the ones out in the field fighting the enemy day and night.

Reply

Lance February 14, 2013 at 5:41 pm

There is no 5.56mm weapon the the market better than the M-4 or M-16, that's why ICC is failing. As for uniforms its inter service rivalry making life miserable.

Reply

Ken L February 15, 2013 at 12:50 am

Maybe a better choice would be the Grey use by the CSA during the Civil War. It was less visible than the Union Blue.

Reply

captaindoc February 14, 2013 at 6:41 am

7 uniform changes in the last 10 years is a total lack of leadership, leaders are now running around (like chicken little) cutting maint. on existing equipment for a uniform change. which company is supplying money, under the table, for this silly ass b/s. all the armed services of the USA should be using the same battle dress uniforms, no exceptions. the ridiculous amount of money wasted is something someone should be taken to task for. they could be updating/maintaining weapons with the money. this brings to light the fact that the military doesn't need more money, just stop spending money on projects like this. they could stop crying about the .7 increase in wages they are trying to stop and give this money for that. combat experience shows that the uniform does not change the outcome, firepower does. clerks/maint. etc. with new uniforms will not stop the enemy, just waste money.

Reply

Beslagsmed February 14, 2013 at 6:49 am

I am so glad I've retired and don't have to put up with all this stupitidy. Like so many have said, sooooo much has been wasted on this subject. Don't they know there will never be the perfect cammo, unless your a little 4 legged creature.

Reply

desk_pilot February 14, 2013 at 7:01 am

I am not one of the grizzled or seasoned "old guys", but I will advocate the same thing many of them do.

It is simple folks, 50/50 NYCO uniforms in either OD, or tan (or some other shade of brown) depending on the amount of vegitation where you are operating. If you need FR uniforms then get FR uniforms in OD or some shade of brown. That is effectivly the "pattern" that everyone puts pilots in, and hiding can be very inportant to them. Especially if they wind up on the ground unexpectedly.

Single color BDU's cost about $50 a set on the regular maket. OCP is no where near that. Even UCP or the AF tiger stripe unifroms cost twice as much. No body owns the pattern for single color uniforms, unlike Multicam or Marpat. That means no royalty fee and no one can get upset that someone else is wearing it. FR uniforms would be a bit more expensive, but would probably be worth it. But, an FR (or some other specail fabric) uniform in a solid color would be cheaper and easier to make than the same uniform in any patterm since there would be no printing and dying would be a uniform color.

For the most part if you roll around in the dirt a bit, and you should be good to go. Heck if you bring the cost down enough, you can just hit the uniforms with a rattlecan like guys have been doing with their helmets and weapons of late. If I recall correctly that was done in Vietnam.

As for gear color, the Marines got it right, or rather kept it right. For decades gear came in light brown and then switched to green. I do not see why it needed to change. By having gear made in all these different patterns all we are doing is ensuring the services are constantly either rebuying the same pouches in the color of the day, or forcing our troops to have kits done up in multiple patterns. Mismatches of gear may clash and wind up less useful camo wise or worse offer aiming points for the bad guy. A UCP pouch sorounded by MC everything else is a great point of aim.

Whatever they decide to do, I hope the change over is gradual and a function of attrition of old stocks. And I hope what ever the Army does, the AF follows suit. It would simplify logistics and save money if the two services used the same uniform. The AF already uses most of the same gear, outside of some Battlefield Airmen specific gear for special radios and the like.

I doubt we will be able to talk the Marines into going back to a uniform uniform. They absolutely thrive on being different and set apart, but that should be neither supprising or a big deal. Those guys love having their own seperate everything. Besideds what they have works, unlike the Army and AF failures. I would take just two of the four services embracing a KISS approach a huge victory.

(I excluded the Coast Guard from this rant because they already wear solid uniforms.)

Reply

Atlatl February 14, 2013 at 7:39 am

Burkhalter………One of the reason's no other service branch uses MarPat (other than the Marines) is because the Marines have copy rights to it and refuse to allow anyone else to use it. The fact that it might save lives means nothing to the narrow-minded Corps.

The other part of this is that Multi-Cam actually performed better than MarPat in the field.

To save money all U.S. service branches should use the same camo pattern.

Reply

mudpuppy February 14, 2013 at 11:02 am

I also seem to remember the marines emblem is part of the camo design.

Reply

BRASS February 14, 2013 at 12:32 pm

You're wrong.

The US Navy currently uses the exact same pattern minus the EGA logo in a blue/green color.

The narrow minded Marines have developed much of what the other services use for tactics & equipment for over a hundred years.

Reply

Lance February 14, 2013 at 1:20 pm

No the navy uniform is a different pattern from USMC. Many land based seamen still use older woodland BDUs and only last year front line units got a MARPAT knock off uniform with a brighter OD green shade to legally appease the Marines. Most cases the Navy had it right to stay with woodland and 3 color desert.

Reply

BRASS February 14, 2013 at 1:55 pm

I had the opportunity to compare them side by side and talk to program managers. The USN digital camo is Marpat minus Eagle, Globe & Anchor and in a different color.

Matter of fact, they are wearing the Marines 8 point utility cover, again, minus the EGA, have adopter the same 'Piss Cutter' cap, three pleat dress shirts and a couple of other items. At a distance it's hard to tell them apart in they're in the shade and color is not apparent (uniforms that is). First it was the Seabees wearing Marine uniforms, then Corpsmen attached to the FMF, that was okay as they were an integral parts of Marine units but now it's most of them.

As a retired Marine who served four in the Navy first and one who spent much time aboard ship I have seen the copy cat routine many times. Aboard the USS Kennedy 85-88 we got permission to use (flight deck only) and ordered then & now obsolete olive drab Marine Utilities still in war stocks to avoid ruining the expensive then Marine woodland camouflage utilities with impregnated chemical thermal protection that were standard issue with hydraulic fluid, etc. The Navy objected and then when they couldn't stop us they ordered camouflage utilities for their flight deck enlisted. The Navy CAG tried to force our SNCOs to wear Khaki uniforms on the flight deck like their Chiefs so they could tell enlisted from SNCOs like they do Chiefs from Navy enlisted. We refused, (we don't differentiate between ranks like that).

Navy aviation personnel attached to Marine (A6 squadrons) during forward deployed training at 29 Palms, excepting exchange pilots, often wore Marine uniforms instead of their own while Marines in opposite situations never do the same.

When TAD to Kadena AFB, the Air Force tried to force SNCOs to wear flight suits but of course I as the senior enlisted refused and it drove them stupid. The Navy has more uniform board revisions, proposals and acquisitions and have for decades than one can keep track of. They need to pick a uniform that says Navy and stick with it. When I was a sailor I was proud of it and my uniform and never wanted to dress like another service. The Navy should stop trying to look like Marines and be who they are.

Lance February 14, 2013 at 5:50 pm

The OD green color is way lighter shade on Naval workman uniforms used for ground seamen. But I agree the navy has alot of woodland BDUs most sailors like them only some dumb admiral wanted Digi pattern uniforms for a really small group of men (seebees).

Reply

BRASS February 14, 2013 at 8:18 am

MultiCam for everyone? Leave the Marines alone, they now what they need. Marines are the best buy for the buck in every category including and especially uniforms. While the Navy is a never ending request for new uniforms at taxpayer expense and the Air Force and Army less so, the Marines rarely change, are notorious for frugality and only when truly necessary. The Marines wisely patented their unique MarPat and everyone else has been trying to copy or steal it since. The Navy even went so far as to steal their items of service uniforms and unique utility cover with only color changes.

So leave the Marines alone, let them decide on what they need and not force MultiCam on everyone. Let the Air Forces, Army and Navy do what they must but within reason, there is no money for a new uniform every couple of years.

Reply

majrod February 14, 2013 at 2:40 pm

That's funny. No one accused the Marines of steallng WWII duck hunter camo, willow pattern Nam helmet covers, Name era ERDL or woodland BDUs. They were all developed and at times copyrighted by the Army.

BTW, did the Marines steal CADPAT which leveraged Army 1970's tech in fractual camo?

Marines frugal? Heard of the F35B, EFV, Osprey, CH53K and a unique bayonet, helmet, rifle and boot that all cost more than the Army counterpart? You've got a unique definition of frugal.

The Marines are a great organization but the chest thumping is over the top.

Reply

fxdidan February 14, 2013 at 8:22 am

more garbage uniforms,bring these jobs back to America,why should this stuff be made in pakieville or china?

Reply

TheGeeker February 14, 2013 at 10:21 am

no other even moderately powerful country on earth outsources the manufacturing of there armed forces equipment more than America China must be laughing all the way to the bank.

Reply

Moondawg February 14, 2013 at 11:54 am

Most all the clothing manufactures in America were put out of business because their costs were so high. They had to move offshore to compete in the world marketplace. Texas used to have several clothing manufactures, they all moved offshore because of lawsuits from the workers and paying out fradulent workers comp claims was too expensive. We had a lot of trial lawyers that got rich off it though.

Reply

Elena February 14, 2013 at 8:43 am

Can we please just STOP. STOP spending money, we are after all down sizing and pulling out. STOP buying new uniforms and the "S!#T" that goes with it. Assult bags, IFAK, poncho liners and even sleeping bags. Lets stop spending. I do the same with my household budget. No unnessary items till eventhing is PAID. Do you really need to have people saying this all the time??!!

Reply

Shardik February 14, 2013 at 9:20 am

Yes – 100% agree with you!

Reply

Glenno February 15, 2013 at 6:04 am

Unfortunately, combat uniforms and equipment aren't fashion statements to those who actually wear then in combat (unlike some of the wannabes who strut around the streets pretending they just got back from Abbotabad). The design of camoflage, the cut of the uniform and the comfort and durability of associated equipment can mean the difference between survival or death. So you see, buying the right stuff is not optional. It is imperative!

If you want to save money, there is plenty of fat to be cut in the defense budget that will have far less of a direct impact on the life or death of frontline soldiers than uniforms. Foot soldiers have been closing with and killing the enemy for thousands of years. They deserve the best protection we can reasonably provide them in that most primal of arenas.

What I would truly like to see is the morons who make the bad decisions that waste money and cost lives brought to account for those decisions. The military these days seems to have lost its sense of accountability. The brass put their hands up for promotions when they get it right. What about owning up to their mistakes when they get it wrong?

I have my views of what an effective combat uniform should look like, but they are only my views. They are no more worthy of consideration than those of the next joe. It is the military should do the appropriate research and get it right, instead of turning the whole thing into some Paris fashion show event. I am reminded of the words of a Vietnam vet former colleague who pointed out that the further away the brass get,from things 'military', the more they become obsessed about things 'millinery'.

What he meant was that if he brass actually had to search the caves of Torah Bora for Taliban, you could pretty well count on them making sure they had the uniform, weapon and equipment necessary to do the job with reasonable prospects of survival. Instead, they seem obsessed with the current crap about ACUs, MARPATS, Multicams, ABUs, 6 color, 3 color, coyote, khaki, foliage green, camo versus solid color, etc.

The way things seem to be heading, can we expect the services chiefs to be running their own competing shows on the catwalks of Paris with Chanel, Lagerfeld, YSL, Dior et al when the spring fashion season begins? I hope not!

Reply

Moondawg February 14, 2013 at 10:19 am

I vote to go back to OD green it worked fine for a big war and several multi year smaller wars. Let the spec ops have the cammies, and if some kind of cammoflage is essential issue a reversable winter/summer smock like the Germans did in WW2. KISS

Reply

Michael February 14, 2013 at 12:26 pm

I agree with "Moondawg"….go back to solid OD and or the WWII German smock…I was in W. Germany in the early 60s for 30 months and we were taken aback when seeing some tiger striped Green Berets out of Bad Tolz. Hell, we thought they were French troops at first…berets?

Reply

majrod February 14, 2013 at 2:43 pm

Thanks for the update Matt

Reply

Norman February 14, 2013 at 3:15 pm

Have you noticed the Army has more uniform changes in the past few years than a modle in a fashion show. This is where our taxpayers dollars are going.

Reply

Glenno February 15, 2013 at 5:31 am

I may be stupid, but it seems to me that the US Government owns the intellectual property in MARPAT -or more correctly, the people of the United State of America, as represented by their government. Not the USMC.

Since when does one arm of government sue another arm of government for IP breaches, when they are both simply extensions of that single government? Perhaps a lawyer could steer me straight, but it seems to me that if there is a decision that the Marines have the best overall pattern, then why doesn't the Secretary of Defense simply issue a directive that the pattern is to be used by all branches of the service? After all, they all answer to POTUS as their CiC through the Secretary. Perhaps someone should tell Panetta how to do his job.

But then again, I may just be stupid.

Reply

galloglas February 15, 2013 at 7:36 am

Glenno: The powers that be could just as well issue and make every service member wear ACU in all branches of the armed forces.

Or Pink leotards for that matter!

The Marines made some good decisions on Digies MARPAT and it's their pattern I do not believe the Army wants MARPAT Digies because they are a Marine uniform.

You wouldn't make Army wear USMC Forest Green Class A's would you?

Reply

Glenno February 15, 2013 at 2:35 pm

I belive you may have missed my point, so i may not have put it well enough.

I never reached the exalted level of "brass" so I wouldn't be making anyone do anything. My point is that if Marpat has wider application (and that ought to be decided by qualified people based on real evidence in an accountable manner), then the question of intellectual property ownership as between the various services should not be an issue.

Camouflage is about personal concealment. We are not talking about parade ground uniforms. We are talking about providing the troops with the most appropriate equipment for the task at hand to help them stay alive in the face of enemy fire. Yet I keep seeing mention of the USMC 'owning' Marpat and not liking others using it. That sounds more like fashion bitchiness to me than sound strategy. The sort of thing a bimbo would say at a party if she saw another woman wearing the say dress as she was wearing. Surely the USMC is not run by bimbos!.

I don't care which pattern is ultimately selected as I have no dog in that fight. I do care that it is the best thing available for the troops, based on empirical evidence And I also care if some tin god tries to stop the troops getting the best simply on the basis that the IP of the pattern in question is allegedly 'owned' by a small part of a very large government that only exists to represent the people of the United States of America.

This is neither a hit at the USMC nor at any other service. It is a hit at people who mistakenly think that IP as between different parts of the US government should have any influence whatsoever in getting the best deal for the troops who put their lives on the line to defend the country.

Reply

galloglas February 15, 2013 at 7:30 am

Gay agenda, clothes a soldier does not make.

Issue Olive Drab for all units not in actual combat, issue camo of the appropriate blend for the terrain the battle/war/mission will be fought.

Unable to refuel one carrier but still able to buy clothes, sounds like a woman thing to me.

Reply

Glenno February 15, 2013 at 2:50 pm

Not sure about the gay agenda. I find it hard to argue with your idea concerning the issue of olive drab as general issue and mission specific camo for war-fighting. I believe they could call it BTTF pattern – back to the future! It makes eminent commonsense so you know what will happen! Nothing!

There is also the option of issuing environment-specific camo smocks for use by those in transitional environments. A number of armies have used this approach as an economic way of applying terrain relevant camo to the largest part of the soldier -the torso- for the time he/she is operating in a particular environment. Again, I am no expert, but the research deserves to be done properly and not in some half-*ssed way as seems to be the current 'vogue' (sorry, I couldn't resist the fashion-related pun).

You will notice that I left that "woman thing" comment alone. Sorry, but you are on your own there. My wife sometimes reads my posts;),

Reply

sigmund February 16, 2013 at 7:25 am

The M113 is certainly miles better than the Stryker and the Bradley chassis in many circumstances. Our mistake was not adopting the "A4" variant, which could fulfill the bradley and stryker role. now the army has three different vehicles with different chassis and parts :(

It amazes me that multicam has been around since 2005. They should have forced all branches to adopt it.

this bullshit has to stop.

Reply

majrod February 16, 2013 at 10:23 am

"It amazes me that multicam has been around since 2005. They should have forced all branches to adopt it. this bullshit has to stop."

Agree on the BS! Multicam was actually out before '05. You might be surprised to find that MARPAT which was out before multicam is even more effective.

Check out the ’08 analysis

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19823845/Photosimulatio

I was very surprised and even more curious about the near total lack of reporting about how well MARPAT performed when compared against Multicam! From the ’08 analysis (p15), ELEVEN of twelve tests a version of MARPAT beat Multicam! In EIGHT of twelve (75%) Desert MARPAT beat Multicam. In three tests BOTH MARPAT patterns beat multicam. We always hear how Multicam is better than UCP. UCP was more effective than Multicam in ONE test, the same number of times Multicam was more effective than MARPAT. That’s incredibly strange that no one picked up on that and that so many are willing to settle for a pattern that is less effective.

It’s like Multicam fans and journalists are as partial to it and blind to the effectiveness of MARPAT as allegedly the Army was with fielding a digital pattern. Wonder if there will be any empathy for the Army’s poor decision making or questions about why a pattern (MARPAT) was restricted for use by the majority of our services for the first time in our history?

Reply

sigmund February 16, 2013 at 6:15 pm

The comparison between TWO marpats and one multicam isnt fair either. I agree. the results did favor MARPAT. Multicam was still a better "universal" camouflage than UCP and certainly versatile. Comparing one "universal" camo pattern with two specialized environment camos is certainly not a apples to apples comparison. Perhaps it shines on the idea that perhaps universal camos arent such a great idea, that we need a woodland and desert pattern.

There is always the NWU woodland and desert patterns…yet nobody in the Army has even considered adopting that or the SECDEF making all branches (adopt that).

The Marines really screwed shit up, thats all i can say. They copyrighted a very effective pattern and thumbed their noses at the other branches. Apparently theyre not good enough to wear their sacred MARPAT :(

Reply

sigmund February 16, 2013 at 7:27 am

Make everybody adopt multicam!!! done. finished. end of interservice rivalry with 20 different uniforms.

Multicam, coyote brown boots, coyote brown t-shirt/thermals. Done. Inexpensive, effective, and simple.

Reply

majrod February 16, 2013 at 10:36 am

Why should we go to multicam if MARPAT tested as better?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19823845/Photosimulatio

Frankly I don't care but multicam fans are as blind to the facts as the Army was when it selected UCP. I wonder if anyone will be just as condemning of the Army's myopia and poor decision making?

Reply

sigmund February 16, 2013 at 6:30 pm

I agree to a extend, although I dont agree with comparing one pattern with two patterns.

Multicam, while inferior to both MARPAT patterns, was the best performing "universal" camouflage while MARPAT, with its two colors, simply annihilated the other patterns overall.

If the Army is seeking to go to different environment camouflages, then Multicam is not desirable.

If they are still on the universal camouflage bandwagon, then it is the most desirable pattern available.

Reply

sigmund February 16, 2013 at 7:28 am

those uniforms are made in the US. its called the berry amendment. prisoners and the blind.

Reply

sigmund February 16, 2013 at 7:30 am

they are different. lance is right.

different shades. Perhaps the alternative to multicam is to make all services (if the marines want to keep their stupid marpat) adopt that one.

or do what the IDF does and issue simple OD green uniforms (no black boots for fucks sakes) and have highly breathable camouflage oversuits.

Reply

majrod February 16, 2013 at 10:26 am

Greg, the Marines were the first ones to say, “Hey! wait a miniute, we want something “new looking.”

The Army "ended up with UCP" after the Marines refused to share after half a century of borrowing Army patterns.

Reply

majrod February 16, 2013 at 10:29 am

"It is probably the best camo pattern available now and does well in all environments – even woodland."

Uh, no. Check out my post above and the ’08 analysis

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19823845/Photosimulatio

"From the ’08 analysis (p15), ELEVEN of twelve tests a version of MARPAT beat Multicam! In EIGHT of twelve (75%) Desert MARPAT beat Multicam. In three tests BOTH MARPAT patterns beat multicam."

Seems that Multicam fans are as blind as those who selected UCP?

Reply

majrod February 16, 2013 at 10:33 am

Did you notice if the Marines didn't restrict their camo pattern for the first time in our history that we all might still be using common camo patterns?

Who caused eight different camo patterns and a huge waste of money?

Reply

sigmund February 16, 2013 at 6:37 pm

LOL youre right. the Marines are NOT frugal.

That EFV debacle is something epic!

I remember reading about the duck hunter camo. It was reversible right!?

Reply

majrod February 18, 2013 at 10:28 am

Yes it was

Reply

Rhys February 17, 2013 at 1:28 am

Correction, there are plenty out there that are better than the M4/M16 family. it's that there are none that are better ENOUGH to be worth the re-equipping, armourer re-training, infantry re-training, replaing duty racks, replacing clamps and racks in vehicles, printing costs of entirely new manuals. Plus many other costs that will show up that no-one has thought of yet.

The very first M16s out in Vietnam sucked, and the ammo sucked worse with a very dirty powder. with the -A1, -A2, -A3, revisons and the M4, plus modern CLEAN burning powder, better plastic tech and all the other changes, the current issue M-4s work well enough and are far better than the first 'Nam issue weapons that it's simply not cost effective to replace the lot across the service for what is would cost versus the benefit involved.

Reply

Kan February 17, 2013 at 9:48 am

Adopt Multicam for the basic fact that it's already in the inventory. Pretty much anyone going to the stan is getting issued the OCPs. It's been considered effective as a quote unquote universal camo. The whole idea should be to save as much at they can with during a switch, since the OCP uniform is already in the inventory, has been issued, and most likely stockpiled. Since folks will be coming back with ocps why not replace the current UCP ACU through attrition?

Reply

Gqshire February 18, 2013 at 5:36 pm

You are correct. The United States of America as represented by SECNAV owns the copyright to MARPAT and the associated technology to produce it.

http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails

The process that came up with MARPAT is considered government sponsored research. The government can use it for official purposes without paying royalties. Technically the SECDEF could order all services to start issuing MARPAT tomorrow (EGA and all). The Marines would be pissed, but all they could do is complain.

Reply

Gqshire February 18, 2013 at 5:42 pm

MARPAT is a copyrighted pattern, but the Marines don't own it. The United States of America as represented by the SECNAV owns it.

http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails

Reply

alexander capon February 27, 2013 at 2:19 pm

We need to adopt a similar camo to what the Marine Corps has. It works great in desert environments. The ACU makes you stick out like a sore thumb, also they need to do any with the Velcro, that is getting annoying. Every time I put on my uniform it sticks together

Reply

marty mar February 28, 2013 at 12:03 pm

exactly. alos how are we all suppose to train to be tactical if u cant open one dam pocket without waking up the whole animal kingdom

Reply

marty mar February 28, 2013 at 11:00 am

any updates on this subject today? i hope they decide to change the asu's too we look like dam boy scouts in heat. too much shit on them!! go with something simple and bring back the old army green and khaki. thats the armys original colors its always been green! and i hope they just burn all those pt uniforms. stop trying too keep up with the "times" they look like they were made for midgets or stumpy fat people. bring back pride and discipline in ones self image and youll begin to bring back the old army. i hope theyre atleast smart enough to make a camo uniform for the field, and then one for the gayrison life. and oh god will someone have to give me one of them ace cards if they have velcro!!

Reply

David Craft January 3, 2014 at 12:08 am

The Armys orginal color was blue not green. Leave the dress uniforms alone! The Army has 95% of the force wearing the ASU’s. It would not fly to Well change dress uniforms, when we are struggling to find cash gor new cammo! The only reason we got rid of the greens was to cut back in dress uniforms and the factthe greens were never popular.

Reply

Coty February 28, 2013 at 11:15 am

Any update on this after the submissions today?

Reply

CamoReader March 1, 2013 at 5:44 am

Seems that the MARPAT fan base are blind to fact that MARPAT isn't that good anymore. MARPAT is just a copy of CADPAT in different colors. There is nothing really orignal about MARPAT. CADPAT has been around for about 12-17 years. So technically speaking we are using 12-17 year old camoflauge pattern. In the 2010 Natick Sandy Desert Terrain and Cropland/Woodland tests, The U.S. Navy's AOR camo (another copy of CADPAT) was better than MARPAT. Today, there are better patterns now that are significantly better than CADPAT. Guy Cramers/ADS's US4CES pattern is one example of such.

On the topic of multicam, it is a effective overall pattern. It has been shown in other tests that it has decent/good peformance in various enviroments. So to compare a Specifically designed pattern for one enviorment such as MARPAT and then one that was designed for multiple enviroments is like comparing apples to oranges.

Reply

Paralus March 1, 2013 at 1:10 pm

UCP doesn't work at all.

They'll ditch the M4 carbine improvement program before they ditch the camo effort.

The M4A1 is functional whereas UCP sux. easy choice imo.

Reply

Mick March 4, 2013 at 6:43 pm

Updates, updates, updates!

KitUp, it's time for an update! Let us know what's happening, even if what's happening is "no update b/c of sequestration."

Reply

Jeff March 13, 2013 at 8:46 am

If we just want to save money, pull historical hand reciepts off those who are currently in and see who has been issued bdu's, and switch back to those. (sarcasm)

Reply

John April 14, 2013 at 7:05 pm

Sorry the marines are not god! They have an effective pattern but that does not mean the best. You have to find a balance and not copyright it! Is the ego so big you are not happy with the blues?

Reply

Gqshire April 16, 2013 at 2:54 pm

MARPAT is copyrighted by the United States of America as represented by the SECNAV. The government can use the pattern and the methods used to make the pattern for official use without royalties (since they own it). SECDEF could put all DoD personnel in MARPAT MCCUUs tomorrow if he chooses. All the Marines could do is complain.

Reply

Darius137 April 16, 2013 at 2:07 pm

The Marines have found that solid color gear on top of stuff actually hurts camouflage efforts.

Also they are finding that they have no transitional middle pattern. They need something in the middle like Multicam for their gear and theaters such as Afghanistan.

Reply

SFC Earnán April 24, 2013 at 6:58 am

The real function of camouflage uniforms isn't to hide the wearer — human shape is easily recognizable to other humans, we're wired to spot it, and movement is a certain give-away — camouflage uniforms' function is to make it hard for the opposition to get a fast accurate sight picture on our people.

Solid color uniforms — like the ODs that the dinosaurs keep whining about re-adopting — make it easy to aim center-mass.

Contrasting field gear — armor vests and so on — makes it easy to aim center-mass.

Effective camouflage uniforms cause the wearer to blend into both himself and his background. It is much harder to pick out a target when there is no easily recognized torso, head or limbs that shout "human!" and guide the shooter's eye towards center-mass.

The leadership of the Marine Corps should be flogged with chains for their MARPAT nonsense. They placed Marine Corps "specialness" over the lives of other Americans. If MARPAT is the most effective, then all US forces should be wearing it and the Marines can cry themselves to sleep. If it's not the most effective option, then why in the Hell are Marine leaders handicapping their troops and placing not just their (our) Marines' lives but America's military effectiveness at risk?

Reply

Primus June 4, 2013 at 9:02 pm

It wouldn't be us Marines who would be crying… But the Army personnel who had to wear a MarPat uniform – like trying to keep two brothers from fighting. The reverse is true… No way would a Marine be caught dead in an Army uniform with all the gaudy K-Mart patches, etc all over them!

Reply

Rbit January 2, 2014 at 12:28 pm

Amen

Reply

IAC May 29, 2013 at 2:09 pm

#1- Effing Army, just adopt MultiCam already ! With all of the money you have invested in it; it would be stupid to start over from scratch! But then again; it is the US Army !

#2- People are asking "What's wrong with the old 4 color or OD BDUs?' They're obsolete patterns, Gents ! The US Continental Army wore BLUE uniforms in combat, partly because it was considered a good concealing color. Who wants to switch to solid blue BDUs ?

Reply

Dave August 21, 2013 at 3:47 pm

I think the ups delivery guy uniform would be a great disguise, nobody would ever shoot at them ,(kinda like ( Santa Claus )

Reply

LJW October 14, 2013 at 9:34 pm

A certain General that I won't name, but he's the same guy responsible for the black beret being everyone's head gear, is one of the key people responsible the UCP/ACU pattern. MultiCam was originally intended to be the Army's next pattern. MultiCam was developed though the Army's Future Soldier program by a company called Crye Precision.
But this General at the time didn't like the MulitCam pattern and thought it was too expensive. If you look at the dates the Marines had released their digital pattern so the General wanted a universal digital pattern developed ASAP. The result is the current UCP/ACU pattern in an attempt to rush something out the door to field the Army with a "digital pattern" that the General wanted.
MultiCam was developed in somewhere between 4 and 6 years, the UCP/ACU in about 1.

Reply

Bill Sims January 1, 2014 at 11:04 am

In-case nobody knows this already, the MARPAT uniform was actually an ARPAT (Army Pattern) designed by a U.S. Army Soldier during Desert Storm – where a few uniforms were actually developed for SF guys. The Soldier left the service, but the Marines actually grabbed the design many years later and decided to put a patent on it when they realized the former Soldier didn't have a patent on it. So, the truth here is that the Marines seized an opportunity – and essentially committed plagiarism / copyright infringement and stole an idea already owned by a Soldier in the Army, and the Marines try to pretend this is their uniform because they have a patent on it. Remember, having a patent doesn't necessarily mean an original idea or concept was created! Additionally, National Security is every branch of service's business, so what makes the Marines think they can decide which uniform servicemembers can and cannot wear?

Reply

Ron Bittner January 2, 2014 at 11:33 am

It is great to have a discussion such as this with everyones opinion out there but the only true opinion are from the ones who operate on the ground. If a new Camo pattern such as the MUTI-CAM will save lives as it has been proven then this is the choice. The current ACU pattern glows in the dark as we sadly found out in IRAQ when we lost 3 Soldiers due to being seen in the dark with no optics used by the enemy.

Reply

RBit January 2, 2014 at 11:34 am

It is said we own the Night because of our technology so we operate at night alot. With that being said if a new camo pattern will improve our non visability at night and in the daylight and that it does proven with the MULTI-CAM uniform we had worn in Afganistan then how do you question that.

Reply

RBit January 2, 2014 at 11:35 am

Solid colors donot blend with anything as it produces a silhouette in the datlight and dark so the saying fire power wins wars well the fire power is brought fought with and deployed in the war by Soldiers such as myself and the more of us that stay alive doing so saves money, keeps combat power at its peek, and get the job done more effeciently and faster. By all means i'm more than willing to give you a set of ACU's and let you go for a midnight stroll in the ANBAR Povidence try this out for your self then we can revisit this subject if you come back.

Reply

Mike H. February 23, 2014 at 12:45 pm

Simple solution: Navy back in blue chambray shirts & Dungarees, everybody else not involved in actual ground combat in O.D.Green. I was a 19D10 in Germany from 77 to 79, and always stayed hidden in in the field, even in those Korean-War-vintage wool OG green shirts & field pants. A well-trained soldier/marine can make his own camo better than he can buy from Clothing Sales. And lose that ".22 on steroids"…7mm or better…!

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: