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.

{ 119 comments… read them below or add one }

Luke August 2, 2014 at 4:32 pm

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.

Reply

shipfixr August 4, 2014 at 10:28 am

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

Reply

SSG VD, 11B3P August 2, 2014 at 4:47 pm

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

Reply

Holland USAF August 2, 2014 at 7:52 pm

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

Reply

@SoLoRoNiN August 3, 2014 at 3:30 am

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

Reply

DarkLotus August 3, 2014 at 12:27 am

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.

Reply

CSARmedic August 4, 2014 at 7:35 am

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.

Reply

Annoyed August 4, 2014 at 9:55 am

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.

Reply

Mick August 4, 2014 at 2:49 pm

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

Reply

majr0d August 4, 2014 at 3:04 pm

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 August 4, 2014 at 6:05 pm

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!)

Carl August 4, 2014 at 5:11 pm

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?

Reply

Nance, Elliot August 5, 2014 at 10:04 am

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.

Reply

seans August 5, 2014 at 10:28 am

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.

JCitizen August 2, 2014 at 4:48 pm

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

Reply

RADoug August 6, 2014 at 11:08 am

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

Reply

boyd August 6, 2014 at 4:10 pm

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

Reply

JCitizen August 6, 2014 at 5:10 pm

HA! Good one boyd!
Undoubtedly RADoug!

Reply

Parabellum36 August 2, 2014 at 4:55 pm

So we get zippers for our pockets now?

Reply

Gunny R August 2, 2014 at 8:28 pm

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.

Reply

Carl August 4, 2014 at 5:16 pm

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.

Reply

sensible soldier August 4, 2014 at 9:58 pm

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

Reply

D.G. Marso August 7, 2014 at 9:50 am

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

Reply

SGM PaCo August 7, 2014 at 5:26 pm

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.

Reply

SSG Rockhead September 2, 2014 at 12:49 pm

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.

Reply

Herbert Levinson August 2, 2014 at 8:44 pm

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.

Reply

seans August 3, 2014 at 1:01 am

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

Reply

18D August 3, 2014 at 2:09 pm

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

Reply

lance August 2, 2014 at 10:19 pm

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.

Reply

lance August 2, 2014 at 10:21 pm

Sorry MAR digi pattern sorry for mistype.

Reply

seans August 3, 2014 at 12:32 am

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.

Reply

mpower6428 August 2, 2014 at 10:35 pm

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

Reply

guest August 4, 2014 at 6:06 pm

They'll probably correct that with next weeks model.

Reply

sguido August 5, 2014 at 3:52 pm

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.

Reply

Sgt Hard as Nails USMC August 3, 2014 at 3:55 am

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

Reply

moondawg August 3, 2014 at 4:19 am

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

Reply

1966USMC August 3, 2014 at 6:00 am

BUTTONS ARE INEXPENSIVE, SILENT AND FIELD REPAIRABLE.

Reply

Carl August 4, 2014 at 5:19 pm

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.

Reply

winslow August 5, 2014 at 4:26 am

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.

Reply

Stefan S. August 3, 2014 at 12:12 pm

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

Reply

a3738294 August 3, 2014 at 12:48 pm

Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes.

Reply

moondawg August 3, 2014 at 3:26 pm

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.

Reply

Joshua August 3, 2014 at 11:10 pm

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.

Reply

Terry B August 3, 2014 at 4:42 pm

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.

Reply

Terry B August 3, 2014 at 4:44 pm

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

Reply

Terry B August 3, 2014 at 9:05 pm

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..

Reply

doc August 4, 2014 at 2:11 am

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

Reply

rick August 4, 2014 at 3:45 pm

yes ,looks like two different patterns.

Reply

tesla August 5, 2014 at 10:46 am

yup, looks like two different color p

Reply

chris August 6, 2014 at 2:18 pm

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!

Reply

WWR CW3 SF ret August 4, 2014 at 8:47 am

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.

Reply

rick August 4, 2014 at 3:47 pm

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

Reply

WRC August 6, 2014 at 5:38 pm

Spot on comment!

WRC, CW4, SF ret.

Reply

Dave14 August 11, 2014 at 11:34 am

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

Reply

JohnD August 4, 2014 at 9:37 am

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!!

Reply

Pat August 4, 2014 at 9:39 am

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.

Reply

LightOwl August 6, 2014 at 11:18 am

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

Reply

Jerry August 4, 2014 at 9:56 am

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.

Reply

winslow August 4, 2014 at 9:59 am

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.

Reply

MAJ.D August 4, 2014 at 1:38 pm

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.

Reply

Mark August 4, 2014 at 5:53 pm

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!

Reply

Sgt Hard as Nails USMC August 6, 2014 at 1:45 am

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

Reply

SFODACDR August 4, 2014 at 11:12 am

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.

Reply

seans August 4, 2014 at 12:00 pm

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.

Reply

SFODACDR August 4, 2014 at 12:25 pm

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.

Reply

Common Sense August 4, 2014 at 5:59 pm

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

Reply

winslow August 5, 2014 at 4:24 am

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)

Reply

JCitizen August 5, 2014 at 10:38 am

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.

Reply

SFC Earnán September 15, 2014 at 5:59 pm

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.

Reply

JCitizen September 16, 2014 at 12:42 am

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 August 6, 2014 at 2:49 pm

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

Reply

PaCo August 7, 2014 at 5:20 pm

Airborne!

Reply

Phil Karn August 4, 2014 at 11:18 am

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!

Reply

Riceball August 7, 2014 at 4:14 pm

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.

Reply

gunnygil August 4, 2014 at 1:51 pm

Feet at wrong angle for the position of "Attention". Maybe that's why he looks bow legged

Reply

Doug LeKander August 5, 2014 at 9:43 am

Pretty unsat for a MSgt!

Reply

Tim August 4, 2014 at 2:31 pm

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).

Reply

Annoyed August 4, 2014 at 3:36 pm

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.

Reply

Tim August 4, 2014 at 3:39 pm

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

Reply

moondawg August 4, 2014 at 8:20 pm

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

Reply

Sgt Hard as Nails USMC August 6, 2014 at 1:58 am

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.

Reply

SFC Earnán September 15, 2014 at 6:01 pm

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.

Reply

Damian August 4, 2014 at 4:42 pm

Finally Multicam

Reply

aggie August 4, 2014 at 4:48 pm

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.

Reply

chris August 4, 2014 at 7:48 pm

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

Reply

Airborne_fister August 5, 2014 at 1:58 am

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.

Reply

Riceball August 7, 2014 at 4:29 pm

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.

Reply

Chris August 4, 2014 at 7:47 pm

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

Reply

retired462 August 4, 2014 at 8:13 pm

Cancel and Keep the Captains and Majors getting "pink slipped"!

Reply

Les August 5, 2014 at 7:13 am

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.

Reply

Doug LeKander August 5, 2014 at 9:40 am

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

Reply

wtpworrier August 5, 2014 at 10:39 am

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.

Reply

Lovegov. August 5, 2014 at 11:17 am

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.

Reply

Riceball August 7, 2014 at 4:31 pm

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.

Reply

Vito August 5, 2014 at 12:01 pm

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.

Reply

Riceball August 7, 2014 at 4:45 pm

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.

Reply

Steele August 5, 2014 at 12:41 pm

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?

Reply

barnibear August 5, 2014 at 1:45 pm

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).

Reply

Charlie August 5, 2014 at 2:27 pm

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.

Reply

Riceball August 7, 2014 at 4:52 pm

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.

Reply

SFC Earnán September 15, 2014 at 6:08 pm

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.

Reply

Bob August 5, 2014 at 6:02 pm

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.

Reply

Tim August 5, 2014 at 10:05 pm

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.

Reply

Major Hassle August 5, 2014 at 10:38 pm

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

Reply

Ranger Rick August 6, 2014 at 1:57 am

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.

Reply

Riceball August 7, 2014 at 4:56 pm

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

Reply

JCitizen August 7, 2014 at 6:59 pm

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!!

Reply

S.K. August 6, 2014 at 2:08 pm

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?

Reply

Tfunk August 6, 2014 at 6:46 pm

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

Reply

2warabnvet August 6, 2014 at 11:23 pm

They wasted years and millions of dollars for this?

Reply

smith August 7, 2014 at 12:22 pm

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.

Reply

PaCoSGMr August 7, 2014 at 5:30 pm

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

Reply

Mark August 9, 2014 at 2:28 pm

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.

Reply

smith August 10, 2014 at 3:25 pm

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.

Reply

Mike . L August 21, 2014 at 2:53 am

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…

Reply

Common Sense August 4, 2014 at 5:53 pm

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.

Reply

JCitizen August 5, 2014 at 2:02 am

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.

Reply

Nance, Elliot August 5, 2014 at 2:59 pm

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.

Reply

Common Sense August 5, 2014 at 6:08 pm

Fair enough, we will have to wait and see.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: