Army Releases Photos of New Camouflage Pattern

Op Cam Patt frontal

At long last, the U.S. Army has released the first images of its new Operational Camouflage Pattern, the replacement for the service’s Universal Camouflage Pattern. Army Times was the first to post the new pics yesterday.

The service plans to print Army Combat Uniforms in the new pattern and make them available at at Military Clothing Sales Stores next summer.

OCP is also known as Scorpion W2, a revised version of the original Scorpion pattern that Crye Precision LLC developed for the Army’s Future Force Warrior in 2002. Crye later made small adjustments to the pattern for better performance and trademark purposes and called it MultiCam.

The new OCP is very similar to MultiCam, the pattern the Army chose in 2010 for soldiers to wear in Afghanistan. Army officials maintain however that there are differences between the two patterns.

Stay tuned for future updates.

About the Author

Matthew Cox
Matthew Cox has been a defense reporter since 1998 and is an associate editor for Military.com. He traveled to Afghanistan and Iraq numerous times from 2002 to 2008, covering infantry units in combat. Matthew was an infantryman in the 82nd Airborne Division.
  • Luke

    Okay, so I notice some differences. But if you weren’t paying attention you’d totally think “MultiCam”. Of course, as long as it works, it makes no difference to me.

    • shipfixr

      I agree; that brings us to our next question……why did we bother??

  • SSG VD, 11B3P

    I foresee a copy right infringement or some other lawsuit by Crye Precision against Big Army.

    • Holland USAF

      Crye made the Scorpion pattern originally, When the army did not like it he added and tweaked the pattern and thus made multicam.

      • http://twitter.com/SoLoRoNiN @SoLoRoNiN

        Lawsuit and injunction will mean the Army won’t be able to roll it out till 10 years from now!

    • DarkLotus

      The Army contracted Crye Precision to make the pattern so the Army owns the rights to it. Crye pretty much just added little white dots to it and called it MultiCam.

      • CSARmedic

        Doesn’t matter who contracted whom. What matters in intellectual property cases is who owns the patent/copyright and who copies it without contractual agreement. My guess (hope) is that Crye is laying low until it is officially rolled out and sold and then will let lose the (legal) dogs of war. Looks like a pretty blatant imitation. Let’s just see if Big Army ever got Cryes permission to do so.

        • Annoyed

          The Army owns the Scorpion pattern, with the right to modify it as they wish. Crye had to add elements to the pattern in order to market it as Multicam.

        • Mick

          It DOES matter who contracted whom. If I hire someone to create something for me, and I’ve got half a brain, I have them sign something called a “work for hire” agreement, which means I own stuff they create.

          It’s the reason Batman is owned by DC Comics, instead of Bob Kane, the guy who came up with Batman, to use an entertainment example.

          Now, it’s possible the Army never thought to have them

          • http://gruntsandco.com/ majr0d

            I don’t want anyone to sue anyone but maybe it’s the Army that could sue Crye?

            Be careful what you wish for when you let loose the legal hounds.

          • JCitizen

            Maybe Guy Cramer is the one the Army should be focusing on next; However, I think he’s even pulling Yale’s leg here!

            http://www.yalescientific.org/2013/04/the-next-frontier-real-life-invisibility-cloaks/

            I seriously doubt this ‘guy’ has the credentials to invent such an astounding development – so my stance is, if it looks too good, it probably is. If it IS for real, we won’t be having these debates anymore! (doubt it though – Pfft!)

          • Common Sense

            Credentials have nothing to do with intelligence. Also, though he is eccentric look through his website- he has many patents and has designed patterns for years. Doubt his company- which is reputable- would release some BS statement which would get them nowhere.

          • JCitizen

            I did look at his web site, but it looked more like someone who is just a good observer and artist, tailor kind of guy. He did say he found it by accident! I just have a hard time suspending my disbelief when researchers in quantum physics can’t solve that science! If it is true, and he isn’t assassinated by shadowy figures like Dr. John Bull was, and more data comes out, I’ll be joyous to say the least. I bet it gets confiscated for national defense like Cheney did for early HDTV display technology.

          • Common Sense

            Fair enough, we will have to wait and see.

        • Carl

          Your comment “My guess (hope) is that Crye is laying low until it is officially rolled out and sold and then will let lose the (legal) dogs of war.”

          Why would you hope the Army gets sued? More money spent (only lawyers win), delay in rolling out the cammo, it would be a mess.

          Maybe you work for Crye?

        • Nance, Elliot

          The Army owns Scorpion. Multicam was made from Scorpion without Crye paying for or getting permission to use it. So if anything Crye can’t sue but the Army technically could sue over Multicam if they really wanted to. Crye is really losing out now. The Army wont be buying the rights to Multicam and they shouldn’t be able to take any legal action agaisnt the Army.

          • seans

            First, the Army has been buying multicam from Crye for a while, and tried to buy them out. From a legal precedence, that’s not good for the Army. Second, the Army has already said Scorpion and Multicam are compatible, so Crye will still be sellers loads of multicam for decades.

          • Nance, Elliot

            I never said the Army would try to sue, I said that if either had legal standing to sue it would be the Army. So the legal precedence doesn’t matter. If the Army cared about suing I’m sure they would have done it years ago.

            Unless they make the gear in Scorpion. In which case the Army will most likely buy their gear in Scorpion rather than Multicam. If for no other reason than it being cheaper. They said they will buy ACUs in Scorpion to replace worn out ones rather than just dumping their Multicam ACUs IIRC. So it wouldn’t surprise me if they do the same with their gear.

            Now Crye will still sell a lot of Multicam, if only due to airsoft, but I really doubt the Army will continue to buy it once Scorpion is made.

  • JCitizen

    “Army officials maintain there are differences between the two patterns.” Uh-Huh – barely!

    • RADoug

      The only difference is the amount of the “kickback” they get from the new OCP.

    • boyd

      My G.I. Joe had that pattern camo back in the 70s,

      • JCitizen

        HA! Good one boyd!
        Undoubtedly RADoug!

  • Parabellum36

    So we get zippers for our pockets now?

  • Gunny R

    What is the Army Of One too lazy to button the shirts and flies on their trousers, and not to mention their pockets. It only figures that the doggies wants zippers instead of buttons.

    • Carl

      Only ma-Reenies love velco pockets which kills your noise discipline. Maybe you want buttons for your pockets, yup they’ll last about two weeks in the field.

    • sensible soldier

      Velcro wears out. This forces increased sales of uniforms. Defense contractor sees profit!

    • D.G. Marso

      As a former Grunt, you can’t fix a zipper in the boonies, for that matter you can’t fix a zipper at all,you can always sew a button back on. Semper Fi. Gysgt D.G. Marso

    • SGM PaCo

      We’re special like that.

      I agree, zippers on a field uniform is pretty damn stupid, though back when we had OG107’s some had zippers on the escape hatch for your junk to take a leak.

    • SSG Rockhead

      That’s the problem Gunny, the people in charge are choosing the uniform, not the soldiers in the field. Imput should come from field soldiers, not officers trying to impress superiors. I, personally, had no problem with BDU uniforms, but the ACU was the worst pattern ever. Lets let the grunts choose the pattern, then the officers can take the credit for it, a win win situation.

  • Herbert Levinson

    Any painter (artist) can tell you that the eye sees edges of different hues. The problem with this camouflage as with many others is the mans profile is still distinct. The edges should be broken up with a sky blue variations. More fractals like patterns.

    • seans

      One of the stupidest things I think I have ever read. This has nothing similar to painting. Honestly can’t tell if you are trying to troll

      • 18D

        +1. This guy is pictured on a white background. Of course his profile is distinct. Sky Blue?? Really?

  • lance

    Looks good and is alot more sane than crappy grey uniforms are. But remember congress passed a law saying military has to all a all together universal pattern. SO this is a improvement but politic may end this and they may just like the USAF and Navy adopt USMC Multicam soon, by law.

    • lance

      Sorry MAR digi pattern sorry for mistype.

    • seans

      It said no service can design a new service specific pattern, the Army has owned this pattern for a while now. So it is compliance with the law. The services also don’t have a timeline to change to a common one.

  • mpower6428

    It looks like cheap, washed out multi-cam that totally misses the point….. go army.

    • guest

      They’ll probably correct that with next weeks model.

    • sguido

      I’m thinking that too…and I’m also thinking it looks like a washed out ‘woodland’ pattern that somebody’s been wearing while painting the garage.

  • Sgt Hard as Nails USMC

    I like it. Except for the zipper closure. WTF is that about?

  • moondawg

    Buttons have worked well for over a thousand years, suddenly we have to have zippers, or noisy velcro. Why??

    • 1966USMC

      BUTTONS ARE INEXPENSIVE, SILENT AND FIELD REPAIRABLE.

    • Carl

      Buttons snag, and break off to easy and who wants to continue sewing them back on, especially in the field. I’ll take the zippers.

      • winslow

        then WTF does velcro do? wears out, gets dirty, becomes near useless when wet, and was such a PITA that the army reintroduced buttons on the trouser cargo pockets.

        Its fucking useless on a uniform, unless you are velcroing IRR patches on your uniforms (which is special operations stuff, not big army) or wearing a “strobe” on your dome.

        Whoever decided on velcro should have their legs broken.

  • Stefan S.

    Ain’t gonna hate. 1K times better than that POS UCP those idiots created! Oh, its good to be retired!!!

  • a3738294

    Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes.

  • moondawg

    Those boots the male model is wearing, don’t look like high quality, really support your feet and ankles boots. Are they issue? In fact from the expression on the model’s face, his feet hurt.

    • Joshua

      Looks like Bates or any number of other companies standard issue boots. They are fine, sole is a bit thick but is good for if you step on nails and such.

      Pretty comfortable with good insoles. Though the standard insoles are generally junk.

  • Terry B

    Racist much John? You sound a lot like an asshole who called himself “ted” over on SSD recently. In any case you are an ignorant dick.

    • Terry B

      Too bad the words get blocked….but you get the idea.

    • Terry B

      If you are referring to all that talk about equality that is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. Yea, I sure do still believe in that. Its sad that there are still so many like you who don’t read the words or apparently can’t comprehend what they mean..

  • doc

    anyone else notice the pants look faded compared to the blouse?

    • rick

      yes ,looks like two different patterns.

    • tesla

      yup, looks like two different color p

    • chris

      Thats because your eyes take you his right, your left. It is a lighter color on that side but if you look to your right its not as faded. They eyes do horrible trick to you!

  • WWR CW3 SF ret

    I remember when they got rid of zippers and went to buttons so they could be fixed in the field- I still have my sewing kit and use it all the time. Some stupid general with stock in a company sold this to the army but it’s way better then the gray crap! Velcro and zippers are stupid and make noise. I guess most of the army don’t wait in ambush so noise is not a problem.

    • rick

      if you can hear then , you can’t shoot then if you cant see them (unless they move)

    • WRC

      Spot on comment!

      WRC, CW4, SF ret.

    • Dave14

      If your dicking with your Velcro or zipper during an ambush you are in the wrong!

  • JohnD

    This means all that Multicam gear is still usable, great savings!!get rid of enough soldiers you won’t have to buy anymore gear! Too bad you didn’t buy this stuff in 2002 when it was available!!

  • Pat

    This looks like nothing more than a redo of the old woodland camouflage! Could have done this 30 years ago and not wasted so much money.

    • LightOwl

      Ya know…that’s exactly what I was trhinking when I first looked at it!!!

  • Jerry

    Looks like the old faded pairs of BCUs that I still have in my locker in the attic. A couple of days in the motorpool then a good wash gave me the exact same look as you have there. Gee, I guess we were already wearing these OCPs back when I was still in, back in the 90s. Or at least that is what it looks like.

  • winslow

    I like.

    Dark boots, dark t shirt. It seems like the pattern is enlarged, which i like.

    The only thing I hate, that the army will never rid itself of, is the velcro pockets for unit patches. They should have left them bare and had soldiers sew on unit patches or get rid of patches altogether.

    • MAJ.D

      Lord. You said dark boots and I had to check the photo again out of fear they were black leather. I could spit shine boots again if I had to, but between deployment and the shift to ACUs, I’m about 10 years out of practice.

    • Mark

      Thank you! I HATE the velcro shoulder patches. It’s a HUGE PITA. Every time you drop your ruck in the field, the effing shoulder strap rips the patch off. Plus, if you have anything in those stupid shoulder pockets the ruck strap gets caught on it and hangs up. Field soldiers obviously have no say in uniform design!

      • Sgt Hard as Nails USMC

        So glad the Marine Corps does use patches. We do have pockets on the arms which I rarely used, even in the field.

  • SFODACDR

    The problem isn’t with the camouflage pattern but with the overall design of the uniform. The Big Army came up with this “combat” uniform concept because of SOF units in the field wearing modified BDU’s. However, in garrison SOF units always wore starches and spits. The breast pockets on the ACU (and they look the same on this new uniform) are laughable as are the sleeve pockets with the velcor – designed to save the soldier money but now patches cost 3x what they did before – and that was with them being sewn on. Completely worthless – also the velcro itself is the cheapest on the block – it is like plastic. Not to mention the “French” style rank. As for officers when you walk into a JOC you can’t tell who’s who because there isn’t any branch insignia being worn. Don’t get me started on the stupid ASU – The COS of the Army is taking away all uniform history and heritage – what made the US Army the US ARMY is slowly fading away.

    • seans

      Who in SOF is wearing starch and spit in garrison? Maybe the 80s and 90s but that crap hasn’t been seen in awhile. And if you work in a JOC and can’t figure out what branch somebody is in from the service specific uniform they are wearing you probably shouldn’t be working in a JOC.

      • SFODACDR

        I said WORE starches and spits in garrison – and yes that was when we wore BDU’s. I said branch of the army – not branch of the service Einstein.

        • Common Sense

          Can’t you just ask them? Is it really that big a deal?

    • winslow

      because it looks “operator-ish” thats why. damn functionality and common sense.

      I have no problem with a no-starch, no press uniform. I also think the pocket layout is very intelligent, although I fail to see the value in the pocket velcro when patches can just be sewn on (or we smarten up and get rid f the patch nonsense, leaving only specialized tabs).

      Big army basically copied the modified BDUs that were intended for special operations forces and outright copied by Stryker troops (the “close combat uniform”). WTF is the problem with buttons btw? Like big British-style buttons that are practical, inexpensive, and functional. More field/soldier repairable than velcro (and if someone corrects me with “hook and loop” again, im going to filet them alive with my trench spade)

      • JCitizen

        What is the problem with buttons? Well nothing if they are placed correctly on the uniform. We might be forgetting that ground radar can pick up buttons that are exposed on the surface of the uniform – not because they are metal but because of the unique microwave acoustic signature that they advertise when hit with a radar beam. We were always told that was why the pockets on the first BDUs had covers over the button locations; but also the covers helped muffle the noise buttons make when your LBE was rattling against them in the bush. We were up against a more sophisticated enemy back then, that is even more sophisticated now, with digital computer analysis of operational sensors. Like I already implied, we won’t always be fighting cave men with turbans on their heads.

        • SFC Earnán

          If buttons are going to give us away to radar, how’s that M4 going to be doing, reflectivity-wise? Or the buckles on load-bearing gear, the lenses on eye protection, and all the rest of the stuff we’re wearing or carrying?

          Velcro and zippers are a stupid idea on the uniform. The covered buttons on the BDUs were cheap and simple, and they worked.

          • JCitizen

            Of course all the other equipment is going to reflect radar more – this little fact was just one of the stupid reasons given at the time, for the change from OG 108 to the then new BDU woodland camo utility uniform.

            There were times when we ditched all our metal gear save cloth ammo bandoleers, and put camo cloth tape on our weapons in OPFOR exercises – it seemed to work very well, and even made detection by star light enhancement scopes hard to assess by the ‘enemy’ forces. We also made use of radar blocking ghillie suits made of camo net that has that built in.We usually kicked butt in all but one operation where one of my bud’s got thrown off a cliff! HA!

    • chris

      It doesnt really matter what ” Branch” of army you are in, if a high ranking official enlisted or officer comes up to you, you go to parade rest or attention; not ” oh what branch of the army are you in, then i might listen to you.” Branch of the Army is a pride thing, I agree that the Velcro is stupid, but it is what it is. As for the ASU topic, there really is not heritage being taken away. The Color Blue actually refers to our roots during the revolutionary war when we wore blue to distinguish ourselves from the british. Thats where our heritage is, not the late 50’s when the green was selected because it was the only color that was taken by another public service

    • PaCo

      Airborne!

  • Phil Karn

    What’s the point, the way Obama is shrinking our military we can just issue our soldiers and sailors jean shorts and tee shirts. And why do Navy personnel wear blue mottled camo attire on board their ships, as depicted in recent movies such as Pacific Rim, The Last Ship and Battleship? How do you hide on a ship? If they need any kind of camo it should be totally grey!

    • Riceball

      The blue camo is to, according to the Navy, to help better hide grease and paint stains allowing sailors to wear their uniforms longer between cleaning as well as to keep them from having to replace their uniforms because it has a spot of paint or grease that can’t be washed out. This information was mentioned when the Navy first announced this new pattern yet everyone seems to not have read it and make stupid comments about hiding onboard ship or how it blends in with nothing even though it’s for shipboard use and not as field uniform.

  • gunnygil

    Feet at wrong angle for the position of “Attention”. Maybe that’s why he looks bow legged

    • Doug LeKander

      Pretty unsat for a MSgt!

  • Tim

    Wonder why no lower side pockets on the shirt/blouse since it looks designed to be worn outside the pants? I remember using the lower pockets of my BDU blouse for stuff that I needed to keep close but could lie down on when I had to hit the deck, which opened up more room in the cargo pockets (one of God’s greatest creations for field use).

    • Annoyed

      The lower pockets have not been part of the ACU shirt design since it was originally issued, over a decade ago.
      The lower pockets were removed from the uniform after numerous Army soldier surveys showed the force did not want them, and found them to be nearly useless.

      • Tim

        Well, that’s what they get for not asking me! ;-) Thanks.

    • moondawg

      Amen to that. I used the lower pockets on my jungle fatiques and later BCUs. They were handy to have.

    • Sgt Hard as Nails USMC

      You don’t need pockets on the front of the blouse since you should be wearing body armor or an LBV in the field on a “combat uniform”.

      I suppose thats why there are pockets on the shoulder/arms. But like I said in a previous comment, I rarely used the sleeve pockets.

      • SFC Earnán

        Except that this new uniform is still being made with 50% nylon fabric, so it’s not safe to wear in combat and we’ll need a fire-resistant version for deployment.

  • Damian

    Finally Multicam

  • aggie

    Sorry for the blunt comment, but this is stupid—-anyone that was in the actual fight in Iraq and Afghanistan knows that Velcro is not good, the pockets that you have on the blouse are not reachable with body armor on ( they should open from the outside edge), zippers make lots of noise and yes all uniformed personnel should have a better means of clearly identifying an officer, i.e. specialist rank can clearly be confused as LTC at a distance. This uniform will soon become starched and required to be pressed once all combat operations have ceased. I am very happy to be retired now and it has become clear, that we never do learn from history or we just refuse to read history.

    • chris

      Aggie, very good and logical points. That is why the Army did the exact opposite.

    • Airborne_fister

      So I have never seen a spc. At the age of an LTC. Now let’s talk about SGM’s and msgs and 1sg. Some times the pattern is dark inside a MSG and you say 1sg. But then you have SGM and they all look the same if there is a dark spot there in the dank. Now I loved the zippers on my cyre combat pants. And the field jacket the pockets were amazing. But all you do is break or cut off the pull tab on the zipper. Replace with gutted 550 ang good to go. Plus if you get a big enough loop you can unzip in a real hurry to pee. But I highly recommend getting a set of the combat pants and the field pants. Nothing better.

    • Riceball

      I’ve never heard a zipper that was all that loud and some plastic zippers can be pretty quiet, esp. if you unzip or zip slowly. The big issue is that they can jam up and aren’t easily repaired in the field if they break.

      Rank insignia is a something of an issue but not that big of an issue really. If I’m not mistaken, aren’t all enlisted rank insignia that go on ACUS black where as officer insignias are a in subdued silver or gold depending on rank? Seems pretty simple to me and the only potential problem is on the officer side of things but even then it shouldn’t be that hard to tell the difference between a single bar, twin bars, oak leaves, and a silver chicken. Still, if it’s really a problem the simplest remedy would be to have the rank insignia embroidered on to a solid color backing of green or tan instead of a camo background to make it that much easier to see.

  • Chris

    Thank God!!!!! Now I can sleep tonight. I have been worried sick.

  • retired462

    Cancel and Keep the Captains and Majors getting “pink slipped”!

  • Les

    Anyone who has been in the army more than one enlistment must be swimmong in obsolete uniforms. As a veteran of the army Imremember a sharply uniformed military unit that displayed pride. In my days “fatigues” off post were al but banned, and now they are the accepted dress for even visits to the US supreme Court. The Marines arrived in dress uniforn – what a shame.

    There must be a better way to spend ever decreasing funds. When congress can agree there is a need for control,you know the problem is real.

  • Doug LeKander

    Hell I thought we would be in Mech suits by now…smh!

  • wtpworrier

    Kinda like like the old BDU’s, but with a lot more green. I still wish the Army would go back to rolling up their sleeves though, it look much better in the summer time.

  • Lovegov.

    Interesting! No more digital pattern. Kinda looks lake the BDU of old with more brown the green. Seems we could have saved Billions……………Lets just pink slip officers instead. Man I love our government.

    • Riceball

      Multicam and, presumably, Scorpion are actually digital patterns since they were designed on/with a computer, they’re just not pixelated like UCP and MARPAT are but they’re still digital.

  • Vito

    Back when they first fielded the patterns to update the old woodland camo, the ACU pattern came in last in testing, but was selected to be the new pattern. I’ve never seen anybody in the Army report a good explanation as to why that happened. However, Crye, had submitted their own pattern for those tests. they ended up updating the pattern a bit and releasing it as Multicam pattern. Which the Army finally started using a few years back for Afghanistan. Obviously, the Army realised their mistake and want to use the Multicam pattern. However, because they didn’t negotiate the contract back when they could have, they now pay a high price for the pattern. So, it makes sense that they “tweek” it a bit, call it something new, and wiggle out of paying Crye; even though, you can’t really tell the difference between the two patterns. Samsung had to pay billions to Apple because their gadgets supposedly looked similar to apples; and most people can tell the difference, but I’m sure the government will not be found guilty of any infringement. in the end though, I’m glad this pattern will be the new pattern. It will be nice to actually be “Army green” again. The army has made some really stupid uniform decisions in the recent past-choosing ACU pattern in the first place, taking the black beret away fro the Rangers and making the whole Army wear them, replacing the iconic green class A uniform with that awful blue uniform; It’s ridiculous.

    • Riceball

      Scorpion, which is what the Army just now adopted, was created by Crye on behest of the Army during the first camouflage tests that resulted in UCP. This pattern is owned wholly by the Army so there was no “wiggling” out of paying Crye because it was never Crye’s in the first place. What the Army did wiggle out of by adopting Scorpion is paying a winner from the last Camouflage Improvement effort since they dragged their feet on it and the Senate bill about no new camo patterns came into effect, They also avoided paying Crye further licensing fees for Multicam as well as not paying them to buy out Multicam altogether by not turning Crye’s initial buyout price without submitting any sort of counter offer.

  • Steele

    Looks like a faded set of my old BDU’s. Minus the stupid zipper and missing lower front pockets. Who picked the designs for this garbage anyway?

  • barnibear

    I think the “camo uniform” should be standard/same for all services. save money.
    (second the motion of other commenter, I’m glad am retired).

  • Charlie

    That’s the stupidest camo pattern / uniform I have seen in along time. All the services should stop wasting millions on changing uniforms every couple of years and just go back to the BDU’s. They used them for 20 years.

    • Riceball

      And in those 20 years technology has improved and we are now able, thanks in part to computers, come up with better camouflage patterns than the old M81 woodland pattern. By your logic we should have kept the old M1 Garand since it was a good rifle that we won WW II with. Just because something works doesn’t mean that will work forever and that you can’t find something that works even better.

      • SFC Earnán

        There’s no such thing as “M81” woodland pattern. That’s a term airsoft kiddies invented.

        And where’s the evidence that this pattern is any better than woodland? It’s certainly an improvement on the “universal” pattern that simply sucked in all environments, but it’s still too brown for heavily vegetated areas, and too green for the desert.

  • Bob

    The problem with these uniforms is they are way too expensive and do not serve the purpose for which they were intended. We should go back to the green fatigue uniform. As what the 82nd used to do, they provided a camy uniform as part of their TA-50. If a unit were to deploy into a cold weather environment, the Army would provide them with a uniform that is best suited for that enviornment. It seems to me a big waste of money to have these uniforms that everyone hates, are expensive to replace and wear out just as fast as the old green fatigues. Additionally, when a soldier is in garrison, they don’t need to be wearing camies. Way too much money and resources are put into developing the perfect uniform when infact due to various deployed locations and climates that we can be deployed to a one size fits all uniform doesn’t work. It is best to have a basic general uniform for the base/post and a targeted uniform for deployed soldiers going down range.

    • Tim

      Agreed! All the Services could wear the old green “jungles” in garrison, with Service-specific covers as they used to. Regional / seasonal specific camouflage uniforms could either be issued as organizational property or required as part of the Service members uniform allowance and only worn when in the field or for specific events (parades, inspections, etc.). The question that would need to be addressed is how many of each type of camouflage uniforms, especially if they come out of the Service member’s pocket.

  • Major Hassle

    I’m 60 years young, and if it moves, I’ll spot em… even in the lush green hills and hollers of Arkansas…

  • Ranger Rick

    When I sit back further from the computer screen and compare Multicam and Scorpion W2, the Multicam seems to have a more brownish cast compared to the greener cast of Scorpion W2. Maybe it’s just me, but does anyone else see this? Just curious.
    By the way, I hope they retain the camouflage name tags on the uniform. It sure beats single color name tags. I wish they’d also use camo straps on all accessories like the Brits.
    Well, I can’t get away without one gripe – Velcro sucks. Buttons all the way.

    • Riceball

      The main differences lies in that Scorpion lacks the vertical elements that Multicam has and it has been suggest that overall pattern of Scorpion has been scaled up slightly. For a side by side comparison you should go over to Soldier Systems Daily: http://soldiersystems.net/2014/08/05/ocp-side-sid

      • JCitizen

        If that picture comparison is accurate, I literally can’t tell the difference. They have them split into three sections it looks like – I assume there is examples of both of them somewhere in there, but they all look exactly the same to me!!

  • S.K.

    I propose the dog test. Camo so real, even a dog will hike up its leg and pee on it. Solution found! Why waste the tax payers money?

  • Tfunk

    Man, with that camo pattern we would have been INVISIBLE in Iraq! Or not…

  • 2warabnvet

    They wasted years and millions of dollars for this?

  • smith

    It does not matter who started or did not start the hunt for better camouflage. It is incumbent on each and all services to be good stewards of taxpayer money as well as providing a serviceable working uniform that would protect their service members.

    The other services leadership failed to do either.

    They put their soldiers, sailors, and airman’s lives in danger because they did not exercise due diligence. They did not make sure that the uniforms that they purchased would get the job done. It is sad that some members on this site are attempting to shift the blame for this fiasco to the marines when it was clearly, failed leadership by the other branches of the services that bought uniforms that they knew would not provide concealment. Causing their uniforms to “not meet mission requirements.” As well as wasting tax payer dollars.

  • PaCoSGMr

    His rank is crooked, someone needs to square this cat away he is making everyone look bad in his new uniform.

  • Mark

    Someone please just tell me if I can still wear my OCPs issued to me last year on my deployment. That’s all I want to know.

  • smith

    The U.S. army is replacing its current Universal Camouflage Pattern with a pattern the service has owned for more than a decade. If the army had selected the Scorpion initially they would not have wasted taxpayer money and put their soldiers’ lives in jeopardy.

  • Mike . L

    Man, now we are almost look like paint we used for our vehicle in the motor pool. This is the same pattern for our HUMVE or something like that…

  • Craig

    This is just another example of spending money to fill the pockets of some insiders. How many Air Force and Army uniform changes have we seen since Vietnam? I guess it keeps some folks economy growing.

  • likehesaid

    To be a soldier in any environment requires a great deal of expertise and diversication. To say this is what is best, we all know that better things come along all the time. Your suggestions for side opening under armor has been noted but what would be best in your opinion to make this happen w/o hampering the protection of the soldier? All things aside I believe that our soldiers get the best gear we can provide. If you can make a sugesstion that will help you as the soldier stay alive and more comfortable please send in your suggestions to the DOD web site http://www.defense.gov/