All about Camouflage & BCU (inc cartoons)

[awesome]

You are right. There is one other environment the ACU works extremely well in.

[John T. Fishel]

Kevin, you pushed a button of mine. The only services who regularly need camo uniforms are the army and Marines. While elements of the USAF (some of their special ops people and security police) need camo, mostly they don't. Likewise the navy - only SEALS and Seabees. If elements of these services are going to operate where they need camo, they can use other services like they did prior to the current camo craze. That brings me to the army and Marines: they operate on land in the same environments. Why do they need distinct camo uniforms? This camocraze costs me money as a taxpayer, is stupid and unnecessary. Sec Gates, can you please tell the service secretaries of the army and the navy to come up with a single (or like the Marines two) camo pattern that all services will adopt. Personally, as an old army guy, I'd make the Marines executive agent on the project.

Cheers

JohnT

[Fuchs]

Army and Marines operate both on land - why do you need both?
Most likely none goes away, so there's at least the opportunity to let them compete for quality.

The navy camo patter is afaik not meant to camouflage, but to hide dirt such as lubricant stains - in order to defeat whatever is left of the 'spit and polish' school.

The air force needs a camo pattern in order to let their troops feel like soldiers. There's not that much else, after all.


Now about combat troops camo patterns (and all of this with the exception of snow camo):

They're overrated. A really good camouflage is not some pattern - no matter digitized or not - but three-dimensional objects that emulate the surroundings in shape and/or make the silhouette less human.

The Israeli helmet covers are an example of the latter, while ghillie suits are an extreme example of the former.








The BDU colours should only be the basis of the actual camouflage - and could even be returned to dark grey, for a really well-camouflaged soldier wouldn't expose much of his basic BDU camo.


Btw, wouldn't this be a nice camo for every air force?

[Kiwigrunt]

Huh? From one to three?

New camo
The Army wants three new combat uniforms — a woodland variant, a desert variant and a “transitional” variant that covers everything in between.

[Fuchs]

Yes, that was known for some time.
They don't seem to plan for arctic warfare these days.

[SJPONeill]

To a certain extent the colours become irrelevant except the lowest level of adversary...possible in this century how the combat uniforms conceal signatures other than visual will be more important...

[SethB]

Realistically we ought to have a khaki uniform for garrison, three patterns for in the field (woods, desert, snow), a dress uniform (long sleeve, short sleeve and jacket) and a mess uniform.

That would actually be cheaper than messing around with uniforms that work in all environments. Because they don't.

The US Army could save millions if we simply didn't wear flair.

[Van]

They don't seem to plan for arctic warfare these days.

The white over-jackets and trousers are still in the system. If the terrain is snow covered, you would have to really work to convince me that there is a significant benefit to re-engineering that camo (side-by-side tests like Natick finally did on the ACUs).

And while you are right, that we should plan for everything, the current crop of threats inspires greater interest in better sunscreen and cooling systems than new skis.

[BushrangerCZ]

The navy camo patter is afaik not meant to camouflage, but to hide dirt such as lubricant stains - in order to defeat whatever is left of the 'spit and polish' school.
The air force needs a camo pattern in order to let their troops feel like soldiers. There's not that much else, after all.

They can´t feel enough like soldiers in plain khaki or "feldgrau" overalls, or BDU´s or whatever?? Come on man... Are they children or what?? Look at Israelis, they do not seem to suffer from "not feeling like soldiers" syndrome. I had a good laugh when I read that Air Force and Navy uniforms justifications :-). And for land forces - if you sit in a MRAP or do obvious presence patrols (which is what majority of combat troops do), it does not matter anyway. No one does long range dismounted recce patrols in A-stan these days, due to exertion when wearing all ballistic protection. But that´s different thread.

[Van]

Army and Marines operate both on land - why do you need both?...The navy camo patter is afaik not meant to camouflage...The air force needs a camo pattern in order to let their troops feel like soldiers.

Fuchs (et al), the camo patterns are branding, pure and simple. The Marine corps started it by breaking step with the "U.S." woodland pattern, to make themselves clearly identifiable as Marines (and yes, this was part of their official reasoning). And the floodgates opened. I'm am relieved and proud (as a former Coastie) that the one service that hasn't given in to this fad is the U.S. Coast Guard. Relieved, because the "logical" color scheme would involve the current shade of blue and international orange.

The "branding" piece of the puzzle is why the Army is loath to adopt Multi-Cam™. The "™" is the problem, it is not the Army's "™".

Did you hear the rumor that the Navy's camo is actually a cost cutting measure? It blends with the sea so well that if someone goes overboard, there is no point in looking for the sailor.. So why waste the fuel and time to turn the ship around to make a futile effort?

[Kiwigrunt]

Did you hear the rumor that the Navy's camo is actually a cost cutting measure? It blends with the sea so well that if someone goes overboard, there is no point in looking for the sailor.. So why waste the fuel and time to turn the ship around to make a futile effort?

That makes sense. It is cheaper than issuing body armour to sailors.

[SJPONeill]

That makes sense. It is cheaper than issuing body armour to sailors.

Well, actually no, issuing body armour to a sailor who then goes over the side takes care of the burial at sea as well...

[JM2008]

The air force needs a camo pattern in order to let their troops feel like soldiers. There's not that much else, after all.

That's funny because the last stats I saw said the Air Force had over 1/3 of the KIAs in OEF/OIF. If your logic were true that the Air Force doesn't do anything to need camo because we sit on our bases then the Army and Marines would split that number and the Air Force and Navy might have one or two from IDF attacks. And to add to that I, as an Airman, have over 150 combat missions under my belt in Afghanistan... on the ground... outside the wire.

Now off my soap box and to answer the ACTUAL question posed in this thread. Both the Air Force and Army have realized that while the ACU/ABU patterns provide good concealment in the rocky terrain of Afghanistan, the vast difference in color palettes between that and the lush green vegetation in the valleys present the need for a camo pattern that can virtually change colors based on the environment around it and that is was multicam does. It does that through reflecting light from the surroundings that can change the colors actually seen by the human eye. It is truly a camo for MOST environments in Afghanistan at least.

As far as costing the tax payer more money: multicam was not developed through R&D from any of the services and it already in productive use in other countries, i.e. the UK.