All about Camouflage & BCU (inc cartoons)

[Hacksaw]

Woodland

[Van]

Hyperstealth Biotechnologies did the research that led to the development of the Marine Corps camo, Canadian Camo, Jordanian Camo and many others. They use an extensive body of knowledge from diverse disciplines to develop sophisticated camouflage patterns.

Let's hear what they have to say about the Army pattern:

Designed for multiple environments ARPAT was derived from the U.S. Marines digital MARPAT, however one main difference with ARPAT was the removal of black in the pattern leaving it with three colors and with only one color scheme for Woodland, Desert, and Urban we believe it is equally ineffective in each environment, we affectionately refer to ARPAT as the Alternate Reality Pattern as we cannot determine on what scientific basis it was developed.

(Source)

As near as I can tell, the Army acquisition corps determined that all of Hyperstealth's experience and research wasn't as credible as the 'feeling' that black was unnecessary in the camo pattern.

The problem is that a pattern needs dark speckling to create the illusion of depth. Without the dark speckling, the colors will appear flat and stand out against the background (the complaint against the current pattern). Note that the discontinued six color "desert day pattern" (AKA "The Chocolate Chip Pattern") had this type of speckling, but was discontinued due to manufacturing costs.

[reed11b]

My inner geardo votes for multicam...
Reed

[Ken White]

IIRC, the Natick rationale was that 'there is no black in nature...' one of the more brilliant statements by any Army proponent for something.

As for Woodland, one would hope not but the Army can be about that stupidly stubborn when someone tells them they have or had a bad idea. Scroll through the picures at the Multicam site (LINK) and note the Woodland - Multicam contrasts. The ACU has the same problem Woodland has as it is washed more or in harsh water /soaps, it fades badly and not only loses it anti IR properties but has an enhanced IR / thermal problem. Multicam seems to have found a solution to both problems.

The Army probably will not be willing to pay Crye for a license and will then develop its own pattern -- probably Woodland II which will be about as poor as Woodland was / is. Maybe they'll surprise me and do this right...

I'm with Rifleman and Reed, Multicam's about as good as it gets nowadays.

Added: and with George:

the responsible bean counters should be summarily fired.

[IntelTrooper]

I've always been a fan of the Afghan Border Police pattern, although I don't think it is any more effective at camouflaging the wearer than ACUs.

[Rifleman]

There's always OG 107s.

After a few days in the field they usually looked like the last thing you had been rolling in, especially if they were a little faded out to start with.

[William F. Owen]

There's always OG 107s.

After a few days in the field they usually looked like the last thing you had been rolling in, especially if they were a little faded out to start with.

Worked and worked well. Nothing wrong with OG's. The IDF has thought about Camo clothing and always rejected it, because it reality, it never works, once its out of its intended environment! ACU is the dumbest thing I have ever seen. Any expeditionary army needs 3 kinds of cammo, if it want's to play dress up.

If I was King, and some folks (congress) wanted something other than OG, I's suggest looking the old WW2 Pattern SAS Smock.

[Ken White]

with mold?

[slapout9]

Why don't they camouflage themselves like the Afghan population

[George L. Singleton]

Hyperstealth Biotechnologies did the research that led to the development of the Marine Corps camo, Canadian Camo, Jordanian Camo and many others. They use an extensive body of knowledge from diverse disciplines to develop sophisticated camouflage patterns.

Let's hear what they have to say about the Army pattern:
(Source)

As near as I can tell, the Army acquisition corps determined that all of Hyperstealth's experience and research wasn't as credible as the 'feeling' that black was unnecessary in the camo pattern.

The problem is that a pattern needs dark speckling to create the illusion of depth. Without the dark speckling, the colors will appear flat and stand out against the background (the complaint against the current pattern). Note that the discontinued six color "desert day pattern" (AKA "The Chocolate Chip Pattern") had this type of speckling, but was discontinued due to manufacturing costs.

I vote to spend whatever it takes for effective camo uniforms. Petty penny counting in this time of trillions at war mega costs is stupid and absurd, the responsible bean counters should be summarily fired.

[Schmedlap]

As near as I can tell, the Army acquisition corps determined that all of Hyperstealth's experience and research wasn't as credible as the 'feeling' that black was unnecessary in the camo pattern.

I always wondered what the rationale was for not just copying the Marine camo, rather than wasting money on our own R&D. Once again, the Army does not let me down. I expected nothing any more logical.

IIRC, the Natick rationale was that 'there is no black in nature...' one of the more brilliant statements by any Army proponent for something.

I recall a Ranger Instructor saying something similar. He said that "nothing in nature is completely black." Someone raised his hand and asked, "what about shade?" Pretty good question for someone who probably hasn't slept in 3 days and thinks that his notebook is a candy bar. Regardless, the RI told him to STFU. I forget what the significance of the claim was or what point he was trying to make. There is black everywhere in nature. Maybe he meant that nothing is completely black from head to toe, or from root to stem, or something like that.

[IntelTrooper]

There is black everywhere in nature. Maybe he meant that nothing is completely black from head to toe, or from root to stem, or something like that.

I am so disillusioned... if the Army isn't an authority on zoological matters, what else could they be wrong about??

[patmc]

Somewhere along the line I remember hearing that the Marines offered to share their new camo, but the Army declined bc they wanted something unique, and multi-purpose for all environments, to save on the number of uniforms (just like badges save money on patches and sewing, even though they wear out and have to be replaced). The Army said no, the Marines said, your loss, patented it, and now its theirs. Who knows if that is true, but RUMINT is sometimes right.

My first field training experience as a cadet, wearing BDU's, we conducted STX lanes. When we halted, we took up positions and pulled security. I couldn't see the guy 10 ft from me in the woods. When we arrived in Kuwait for the mandatory trainup, we went to a range in our DCUs. Guys blended in with the desert and sand. Couple range pax wore ACUs and stood out clearly in the sand. That new stuff on the website looks really good, but our old stuff wasn't that bad.

I always wondered what the rationale was for not just copying the Marine camo, rather than wasting money on our own R&D. Once again, the Army does not let me down. I expected nothing any more logical.