All about Camouflage & BCU (inc cartoons)

[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.

[Fuchs]

I want to see those KIA stats before I even consider the related argument.

Besides; air force personnel should only be employed in ground combat after transfer to the army. The German Luftwaffenfelddivisionen experience with poorly trained Luftwaffe troops being pressed into service in Luftwaffe line divisions is a damning one.


About the two different area necessitating two different camo patterns; there's a solution, if overgarments à la winter over-garment camo are acceptable at all.
Said solution is 70 years old; reversible camouflage smocks, over-trousers and helmet covers.

Keep the webbing, pouches, boots and weapons in a "light or medium grey with darker spots" pattern and you'll have one set of personal equipment that's ready for two completely different environments.


More elaborate single-type camo suits that go beyond mere patterns (see earlier post of mine) are even superior, of course.

[Ken White]

That's funny because the last stats I saw said the Air Force had over 1/3 of the KIAs in OEF/OIF.

By that do you mean opponent KIAs or US KIAs? If the former, I suspect that would be extremely difficult to determine with any accuracy. If the latter, US, the Stats seem to disagree with you. LINK. Though I do note that the first listed Killed in Afghanistan is indeed USAF. Scroll down to the very bottom of the list at this LINK. Iraq casualties can be back linked from that page.

Having said all that, I have no doubt that the USAF -- and the guys and gals it sends over there -- do their jobs in combat on the ground as well as in the air -- and then some. Many other nations do not use their AF people as do we and the Security Squadron folks, the loggies who do convoys and most of all the FACS, JTACs and TACPs who go with the Infantry, SF and SOF certainly go out and get among 'em.

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.

It'll still cost more, it's a proprietary pattern and those who use it have to be willing and able to buy it from Crye or their designated suppliers who pay a license fee for for each inch of fabric and pass that cost on to the customer. For the UK, the determination was that it's affordable for about 150K troops. For the US, you're looking at probably four or more sets for over 1M or about ten times or more as many uniforms -- even if it's only a nickel a uniform it'll cost big bucks over a Natick developed pattern.

Plus, you've got the US Army and their "It wasn't invented by us" stupidity...

[Rifleman]

Am I the only one who misses OG107 jungle fatigues? They weren't always the best option when new but my faded-out ones usually looked like the last thing I had rolled in.

[IntelTrooper]

Am I the only one who misses OG107s? They weren't always the best option when new but my faded-out ones usually looked like the last thing I had rolled in.

I am very much a fan of the OGs. I say bring them back -- it would solve all of this nonsense.

[Ken White]

and even though the material wasn't IR suppressive they were more than adequate -- plus they're a whole lot cheaper...

[Chris jM]

I think someone on this forum mentioned in a post last year that the OD concept could be taken a step further and integrated with the distribution of fabric paint/ spray to allow customisation at the lowest levels. If the fabric paint was relatively temporary and washed out or faded after a few days of wear then that's no problem, reapply when possible. For recognition purposes it could be applied through a cut-out template to preserve uniformity. It wouldn't be parade-ground pretty, but it would be a darn sight cheaper than the patented stuff and would be limited in effectiveness only by the adaptability of the soldiers and organisation employing it. Again, I think someone else on this board raised this idea first a while back so there is no originality here on my behalf. I do, however, think it holds merit.

[Rifleman]

It was common for MACV-SOG Recon Teams to wear OGs and add some spray paint touches before a mission. This was often their choice even though tigers and the like were available.

Link: http://rallypointmilitaria.com/page/29

But I can't see conventional units going that way. The 1SGs I knew would have a fit.