# Army May Replace Pixilated Camo with MultiCam



## Boondocksaint375 (Aug 17, 2009)

Better late than never I suppose.  But seriously....wtf were they thinking?
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/08/army_camo_081709w/

The Army is eyeing MultiCam, a camouflage pattern preferred by special operations forces, to replace the pixilated pattern on the combat uniforms soldiers wear in Afghanistan.

The hunt for a new camo design follows a growing groundswell of rank-and-file criticism that the current pattern on the Army Combat Uniform is ineffective in the rugged Afghan terrain — and elsewhere.

“The general consensus on the ACU pattern among many, many soldiers is that it is ineffective in breaking up a soldier’s outline in just about every environment except in urban areas and the local gravel pit,” Army Chief Warrant Officer 2 mark Ulsh wrote to Army Times. “As an aviator, I can tell you that from the air most other nations’ camouflage masks a soldier better than the ACU does.”

Similar complaints made their way to an influential member of Congress, who gave senior Army leaders a Sept. 30 deadline to present a plan that includes the budgetary and logistical details for outfitting roughly 40,000 soldiers serving in Afghanistan with a new camouflage pattern.

The directive to find an alternative to the Universal Camouflage Pattern comes just five years after it was introduced as the one-and-only camo design. It replaced both the Desert Camouflage Uniform and the woodland-patterned Battle Dress Uniform. Though the move to streamline soldiers’ clothing bags was generally applauded, many complained the result was a pattern that was not particularly effective in either desert or woodland surroundings.

Complaints about its ineffectiveness have grown as the Army has increased the number of soldiers deployed to Afghanistan.

Program Executive Office Soldier, the command responsible for developing uniforms and equipment, declined to be interviewed for this story.

“PEO Soldier and the Army continually strive to provide the best to our soldiers,” Army spokesman Maj. Jimmie Cummings said in an Aug. 6 written statement. “As such, a team led by Training and Doctrine Command is working an effort to determine if a change is required to our Universal Camouflage Pattern in support of soldiers operating in many different environments. It is premature to go into any detail on this effort at this time.”

Army officials, however, held a July 23 meeting with Crye Precision LLC, the company that developed MultiCam, to ask detailed questions about the availability of different MultiCam fabrics for making uniforms and soldier equipment, according to a source familiar with the issue who commented on the condition that he not be identified.
This meeting, however, was not the first time Army uniform officials saw the pattern that features seven shades of brown, tan and green. MultiCam, formerly known as “Scorpion,” was a top contender among a dozen experimental patterns when the Army began looking for a new camouflage design in early 2002 to replace the DCU and BDU.

But the Army passed on MultiCam in favor of a new pattern that PEO Soldier created with a digitized version of another contender, the “urban track” pattern. The Army modified that pattern by stripping out the highly visible black shade. The ACU’s mix of green, tan and gray would later become known as the Universal Camouflage Pattern.

In going with a digitized UCP, the Army followed the lead of the Marine Corps, which began fielding its new digitized pattern in 2002. The Army also considered the woodland and desert versions of the popular Marine digital uniform, but rejected the design in favor of a single, multiuse pattern.

*Investigating complaints*

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., launched the congressional camouflage mandate in mid-June, saying that he had heard complaints from “a dozen” Army noncommissioned officers that that ACU’s pattern is ineffective in Afghanistan.
Since then, dozens of soldiers have responded to an Army Times query seeking opinions of the Army’s current camouflage.

“The Army needs a new uniform, period. Not just for Afghanistan,” wrote 2nd Lt. Chris Cahak, who is serving in Iraq at Forward Operating Base Future. “The ACU uses ‘universal camouflage,’ meaning it doesn’t blend into anything. The article [‘Get new camo, Congress says,’ June 29] says the ACU works fine in Iraq, but that is a myth. There is no natural setting that I have seen anywhere that blends in with the ACU.”

Sgt. Ricky Hill of Fort Carson, Colo., agreed with Cahak that soldiers in Afghanistan aren’t the only ones who need a new camouflage pattern.

“The ACU pattern is horrible,” Hill wrote. “Whatever happened to the MultiCam pattern that was tested a few years ago? I don’t know who came up with this current ACU pattern, but it has failed miserably.”

A few soldiers who have written to Army Times defended the ACU pattern’s performance.

Sgt. 1st Class Ryan Hendricks wrote that the ACU’s performance was “spot on” when he was a platoon sergeant serving in Khost, Afghanistan.

“The ACUs we wore were perfect for the job of mountain warfare and in the towns and roads that we patrolled,” he wrote. “A lot of the time, I would have to use optics to find my squads patrolling in the distance.”

Capt. Joe Corsentino offered a different view.
“Being an aviator, I get a top-down view of the battlefield, and I can tell you 100 percent that the ACU stands out like a sore thumb in the Afghan environment,” he wrote.

Many Army special operations units such as Delta Force, the 75th Ranger Regiment and some Special Forces teams apparently feel the UCP is not the best pattern in either war zone as they are wearing the MultiCam pattern in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Army Special Operations Command has tested MultiCam in different environments worldwide, including Iraq and Afghanistan, and found that it outperformed the ACU’s pattern, a senior Army officer with Special Forces told Army Times. The officer added that MultiCam is being considered as the future pattern of Army SOF.

Corsentino said in his letter that he also prefers MultiCam.
“I have worked with units who wore the MultiCam uniforms, and they were camouflaged much more effectively than soldiers wearing the ACU,” he wrote.

Soldiers participating in a Future Force Warrior Assessment in 2006 had the same opinion of MultiCam.

The nine-man squad that participated in the Air Assault Expeditionary Force experiment in fall 2006 at Fort Benning, Ga., wore MultiCam-patterned, Future Force Warrior uniforms in addition to a number of high-tech gadgets and gear. The force-on-force exercise was designed to assess how the experimental soldier kit would affect the performance of soldiers going against soldiers with the current-issue kit.

One of the questions in the post-exercise survey read, “Was the camouflage pattern of the FFW uniform not as good, about the same or better than the camo pattern on the ACU?”

All nine soldiers indicated that the MultiCam pattern was better than the ACU’s pattern, according to the July 2007 report from the Army Research Laboratory’s “Future Force Warrior: Insights from Air Assault Expeditionary Force Assessment.”

Here are the soldiers’ comments as they appeared in the report:
• “It blends better in the woods than the ACU.”
• “Got 5 feet from the OpFor and they didn’t see us until after we fired. With the ACUs, you’ll be seen a mile away.”
• “Numerous amount of times, we snuck within 10 feet of the enemies.”
• “I even lost my own guys a couple of times it worked so well.”
• “I’m telling you this uniform is way better in the field than ACUs. In fact, ACUs are nothing but a garrison uniform.”
• “It’s obvious; just look at it.”
• “The camouflage pattern is 50x better than the ACU uniform. When stationary or on the move it is hard to pick out in the tree line. The squads behind ours had trouble following us because they would lose sight of us so easily. We always knew where they were.”
• “We were having trouble seeing our guys when we would stop in the wood line, whereas anyone wearing ACUs was easy to spot. It is a far superior camouflage pattern than the ACU.”

Crye Precision began working on camouflage in 2002, two years after Caleb Crye formed the company. The company had already been working with the Army to develop new soldier equipment. Then Crye became interested in designing a camouflage pattern that would allow soldiers to operate in multiple environments.

“We saw guys being deployed to a war in Afghanistan with a combination of camouflage patterns that just wasn’t effective,” Crye said, describing how soldiers at the time wore DCUs with woodland pattern body armor vests.

No one in the small company, including Crye, had military backgrounds, said Crye, who has a fine arts degree. The Crye team traveled extensively, taking pictures of terrain features, rocks and vegetation.

“We didn’t look at camouflage so much; we looked at a lot of environments, and we tried to find a lot of things that were common in as many environments as possible,” he told Army Times.

“If you start looking at pictures of rocks all day, there are just these shapes that show up.”

They also paid attention to the way animals use camouflage.

“We knew it was going to be half science, half trial and error,” Crye said. “Before we settled on printing real fabric, we probably had about 12 patterns. The first ones were really different.”

Still, MultiCam alone may not be the answer, some soldiers say.
“The Army should have one desert pattern and one woodland pattern, at a minimum,” Sgt. Adam Houtkooper wrote in a letter to Army Times. “Afghanistan varies widely in the amount and type of vegetation, so no one uniform will work for the entire country. … The bottom line is that bad camouflage risks soldiers’ lives, and the decision to force every soldier to wear a pattern that is ineffective has reduced the effectiveness of our force.”


----------



## AWP (Aug 17, 2009)

I'll believe it when I see it. They've spent so much money on ACU/ ABU nonsense that I can't see them just discarding the UCP.

They should, but I can't see them doing it.

SoldierSystems has followed this and even had a picture of a soldier in UCP talking to a sniper in his hide. It was almost comical.


----------



## Boondocksaint375 (Aug 17, 2009)

Very much so


----------



## 8'Duece (Aug 17, 2009)

Well, that picture say's it all. :uhh:


----------



## BLACKMags (Aug 17, 2009)

I am praying for the day when I can burn all this ACU crap !


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 17, 2009)

You guys do relize the downside of Army-wide Multicam?
Badges, nametags, rank, unit patches, etc all becomming a required item.
Let the fobbits wear ABU/ACU and let the operators switch to multicam as they go out the wire.


----------



## Looon (Aug 17, 2009)

Ive only seen one instance where the ACU actually blended into the background: A pic on the net showing a soldier laying on a couch that had a apholstery pattern that matched...sort of.

ACU is a crock of shit.


You can go to bass pro shops and find better camo.

There should be different patterns for different environments.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 17, 2009)

Hell I would love to have my BDU/ DCU's back... I don't need nothing special, and I never had problems trying to hide in either unifrom... Multicam would be cool though, as long as they do away with the velcro bullshit...


----------



## formerBrat (Aug 17, 2009)

Looon said:


> Ive only seen one instance where the ACU actually blended into the background: A pic on the net showing a soldier laying on a couch that had a apholstery pattern that matched...sort of.
> 
> ......



You mean this one?


----------



## Looon (Aug 17, 2009)

formerBrat said:


> You mean this one?


That's the one.


----------



## EverSoLost (Aug 17, 2009)

SOWT said:


> You guys do relize the downside of Army-wide Multicam?
> Badges, nametags, rank, unit patches, etc all becomming a required item.
> Let the fobbits wear ABU/ACU and let the operators switch to multicam as they go out the wire.



I'm not sure I understand this.  Don't the Cool guys do whatever they need to regardless?  I know in MI our SM's adapt their Uniform and Grooming Standards per the AO, and their individual or "team" missions.  

How would issuing this across the board diminish "Operator" effectiveness?


----------



## Trip_Wire (Aug 17, 2009)

IMO, the USA needs equip all of it's Armed Forces in one style of utility/combat uniform. I see no reason, for each service to have it's own unique uniform of this type.

If a specific camouflage pattern is needed to suit the theater of operations, such as Desert, Forest or Snow, etc. the same pattern should be used by all services on the same basic uniform. I do not think that any one camo-pattern is going to be good in every environment that we might be fighting in future conflicts.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 17, 2009)

EverSoLost said:


> I'm not sure I understand this.  Don't the Cool guys do whatever they need to regardless?  I know in MI our SM's adapt their Uniform and Grooming Standards per the AO, and their individual or "team" missions.
> 
> How would issuing this across the board diminish "Operator" effectiveness?



Easy, multicam is an "Operator only" uniform, so the general uniform regs don't apply.  If it goes Army wide, then big Army will try to push it's rules on the Operators.  Yeah, I can get a 2nd set of uniforms, but that's a hassle too.


----------



## EverSoLost (Aug 17, 2009)

SOWT said:


> Easy, multicam is an "Operator only" uniform, so the general uniform regs don't apply.  If it goes Army wide, then big Army will try to push it's rules on the Operators.  Yeah, I can get a 2nd set of uniforms, but that's a hassle too.



I must be having some kind of disconnect with what you're saying.  I find your perspective "Narrow" for lack of a better term.  It would seem to me that the Army in it's entirety believes that Multi-Cam is better suited for all Soldiers.  Than it benefits the Army to distribute it to all Soldiers.  

I'm not convinced that "Operators" wont do what they need to regardless, and it appears to me that issuing it Force wide benefits all Soldiers regardless of Career Field.  Therefore if it benefits the greater good I'm not sure why SOF would give a shit.  One would think they would embrace providing all Soldiers with adequate gear.

While I understand that the SOF types are currently the majority using this pattern in the Army; I know of quite a few HUMINTERS that have used and prefer it themselves.  

Now the fiscal argument I understand and agree with.  Your point I must  be missing something as it appears you're saying "Becaues it's a hassle for us".  Which seems like a strange argument from "Operators" who are accustomed to having Mama Army adopt their success to some degree as they're the tip of the spear for all areas.

In short I think if it benefits the group as a whole it should be done.  I'm with Trip on this.  I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 17, 2009)

At least we'll have ACUs ready for when we fight on the surface of the moon...


----------



## Poccington (Aug 17, 2009)

Viper1 said:


> At least we'll have ACUs ready for when we fight on the surface of the moon...



Word.

You never know when the First Lunar War is gonna kick off, so better safe than sorry.


----------



## JJ sloan (Aug 17, 2009)

Viper1 said:


> At least we'll have ACUs ready for when we fight on the surface of the moon...



Hilarious.

I love how all equipment, weapons and uniforms are inspired by SOF guys and their innovative nature, yet when the time comes to make a decision involving the whole army, SOF guys are never a part of the decision.  Seriously?  I mean really.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 17, 2009)

JJ sloan said:


> Hilarious.
> 
> I love how all equipment, weapons and uniforms are inspired by SOF guys and their innovative nature, yet when the time comes to make a decision involving the whole army, SOF guys are never a part of the decision. Seriously? I mean really.


 
Acquisitions is broken, plain and simple. Goes the same with doctrine too. 

Case in point. My Captain's Career Course is the first class to do a module/classroom exercise on Afghanistan. The war has been going on since 2001. Meanwhile, JFKSWCS changes the POI from AAR comments, theater-TTPs, etc, just about every cycle or so. There was an article about doctrine change in one of the Special Warfare magazines. Bottom line is that SOF's input-process-output-assess (and re-assess) cycle is much faster than conventional Army.



Poccington said:


> Word.
> 
> You never know when the First Lunar War is gonna kick off, so better safe than sorry.


 
I think we've all seen James Bond's MoonRaker...it can happen


----------



## HeloMedic1171 (Aug 21, 2009)

and "Soldier" with Kurt Russell.  

as for multicam in the regular army, I'd love to have it, but I doubt the army will move quickly on this.  like Free said - too much time and money down a shitter-hole to admit dismal failure.


----------



## txpj007 (Aug 25, 2009)

well the army needs to hurry up.  because of course the air force will just follow suit a few years later..however idk if crye would be able to incorporate enough pen pockets in the design for big blue. 

most annoying thing about multicam is some AF O's asking me if i used to work with the aussies.:doh:


----------



## TheSiatonist (Aug 27, 2009)

This is for all you ACU haters!   















Seriously, kudos if the Big Army does get MC. Regt. got them already.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 27, 2009)

HeloMedic1171 said:


> and "Soldier" with Kurt Russell.
> 
> as for multicam in the regular army, I'd love to have it, but I doubt the army will move quickly on this.  like Free said - too much time and money down a shitter-hole to admit dismal failure.



not to hijack, but I think the Army as a whole has a cultural problem with admitting to failure.


----------



## HeloMedic1171 (Aug 27, 2009)

Sand Man - Congrats.  I think those are the first pics of ACU pat actually in action that show it's plus side... and as for short-stack in the bottom pic... the AT4 he's carrying is as big as he is.  awesome.  

(I keed, I keed :) )

Viper - x2000000000000 bro.


----------



## zushwa (Aug 28, 2009)

Viper1 said:


> not to hijack, but I think the *Army* as a whole has a cultural problem with admitting to failure.



I'd take it a step further and say America, but that is definitely a hijack.

There is enough Congressional pressure, combined with enough positive feedback from enough end users ("operators" is a bit specific for my taste) to potentially push Multicam through.  Multicam is already being used by SOF units in the Army, Navy, Air Force, as well as a couple conventional units in the "big Army".  I know because I sold them the uniforms.  :)

Multicam is our second best selling pattern across the board for gear, behind Coyote Brown.  To me that says something.  One, we don't cater to Airsoft and our customer base is largely skewed toward military and contractors, and two, it's way out in front of ACU, green, black, etc.  Now granted, our location and clientele obviously have an influence on that rating, but it shows to me that Multicam is here to stay for the foreseeable future.

Unfortunately, everyone with the new hot cock in camouflage wants a shot which only slows down the process.


----------



## TheSiatonist (Aug 28, 2009)

HeloMedic1171 said:


> Sand Man - Congrats.  I think those are the first pics of ACU pat actually in action that show it's plus side... and as for short-stack in the bottom pic...



Yep. Unfortunately, these guys are in our backyard (Mindanao) and they're stuck with it.





They need to 'borrow' some of the stuff our lads are wearing.


----------



## HeloMedic1171 (Aug 28, 2009)

agreed.  I'm not sure who's more obvious - the girls in the back or the dudes in the front.


----------



## JJOIFVET (Aug 28, 2009)

I am down range right now, wearing Multicam and wouldn't have it any other way. Big Army needs to wake up and stop letting Generals who are not in harms way make these decisions. Get us Multicam.


----------



## CBTech (Sep 4, 2009)

Still rockin' the BDU/DCU's. It aint broke either but change is a comin'.


----------



## JollyGreen (Sep 4, 2009)

Air Force is slowly coming to the realization that MC will be the way to go, at least for the operators. 
Our PJ's from Moody got the full Crye get-up approved for our rotation down range, and it worked out really well for them. I hope it catches on and the rest of the guys who need it, get it.


----------



## zushwa (Sep 5, 2009)

JollyGreen said:


> Air Force is slowly coming to the realization that MC will be the way to go, at least for the operators.
> Our PJ's from Moody got the full Crye get-up approved for our rotation down range, and it worked out really well for them. I hope it catches on and the rest of the guys who need it, get it.



Not just the guys from Moody.....;)


----------



## 275ANGER! (Sep 14, 2009)

So I got an email from a buddy with a link to Army Times

UCP-Delta Looks like someone shotgun blasted shit all over the ACUs. If they were going to do that to the ACUs why not put up Mirage against MC since it has been field tested already? This whole uniform debate is comical.


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 14, 2009)

275ANGER! said:


> So I got an email from a buddy with a link to Army Times
> 
> UCP-Delta Looks like someone shotgun blasted shit all over the ACUs. If they were going to do that to the ACUs why not put up Mirage against MC since it has been field tested already? This whole uniform debate is comical.



Watch-UCP Delta will win; that way the DA Staff can take credit for the idea, and they can point out that the basic ACU pattern is versatile enough that only minor mods are needed.


----------



## JollyGreen (Sep 15, 2009)

SOWT said:


> Watch-UCP Delta will win; that way the DA Staff can take credit for the idea, and they can point out that the basic ACU pattern is versatile enough that only minor mods are needed.



Fact....
and sadly enough, depending on where our next conflict takes us, we will be having this same conversation the next time around because the guys in DC wont get off their High horse, and admit that they screwed up with both ABU/ACU....:doh:

But, of course, just making the switch to MC would make too much sense, So I suppose we should just be ready for that never too happen.
:2c:


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 16, 2009)

8'Duece said:


> Well, that picture say's it all. :uhh:



Reminds me of a pic we took at Pathfinder school- me in ACUs and everyone else in BDUs... guess who stood out like a sore thumb against the woodline? :doh:


----------



## moobob (Sep 16, 2009)

This is getting ridiculous...


----------



## pardus (Sep 16, 2009)

My thoughts on the BS ACU pattern are well known on the board.

MC gets my vote but the other pattern isn't terrible either, i'm just glad 'Army' is moving on this subject finally.
I'd just like to say again to the NCO's/Officers and others that pushed ACUs in the first place, I still think you are retards.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Sep 17, 2009)

I still don't understand what was wrong with the BDU/ DCU's I liked them...


----------



## stupid_rope (Oct 19, 2009)

Interestingly enough, 'Big Blue' worries so much about _NOT_ being like our former mother Army that everything decided is based upon individuality.  Tiger stripe?  Are you fucking serious?  Completely useless and a big waste of money.  Multiple pen pockets?  Inner map pockets for our non existent maps?  Awesome - now the rest of the military has yet another reason to laugh at us.  There's a hilarious video on youtube regarding the ABUs functionality, or lack thereof.  

I've hated these things since the day they came out.  Finally there are summer weight versions available if you want to shell out your own coin for them.  And my understanding is the uniform board has done away with blousing straps and only tuck our pants into our boots, which raised quite a stink on the operational level.  I still wear my BDUs because, well, I can and I like highly polished boots (when I'm at home station).

I'm with Trip Wire on this one.  The military needs to have a standard issue uniform accross all branches _as deemed appropriate_ for mission req's.  I.E. all finance, cook, admin, supply, etc. troops have the same uniform.  If a group needs different uniforms (SOF, pilots, etc) issue them on a mission required basis.  That way, you can still have pride in being different from the rest of gen pop AND you are able to function better downrange.:2c:

Question: does the USMC have any problems with their shit?  I've always liked their patterns.


----------



## Headshot (Oct 19, 2009)

Boondocksaint375 said:


> Very much so



I remember we used to have to DX our BDU's when they started looking like that.

A lot of this BS has to do with appropriations.  Just like when a chow hall doesn't use all the food allotted to it, they will face a cutback.  Since they are cutting budgets in other places in the military, they have to find somewhere to justify spending money and this is as good a place as any.:2c:


----------



## AWP (Oct 19, 2009)

stupid_rope said:


> Interestingly enough, 'Big Blue' worries so much about _NOT_ being like our former mother Army that everything decided is based upon individuality.



I know of one AF general that put the word out how he didn't like to see airmen wearing ACUs. Therefore, when he is known to be in the area all of those airmen working with the Army have to go change out of their ACUs. Some have taken to bring a set of ABU's to the office with them to cover impromptu visits.....


----------



## Tyrant (Oct 19, 2009)

I almost cried today when I saw a poncho liner in ACU pattern. The Army that I joined is now officially dead to me.


----------



## 8'Duece (Oct 19, 2009)

Tyrant said:


> I almost cried today when I saw a poncho liner in ACU pattern. The Army that I joined is now officially dead to me.



Did you stow it in your gear box ???


----------



## Tyrant (Oct 19, 2009)

8'Duece said:


> Did you stow it in your gear box ???



Absolutely not. I have to take a 2 hour shower after I take my ACUs off everyday. That pattern is the antichrist.


----------



## 8'Duece (Oct 19, 2009)

Tyrant said:


> Absolutely not. I have to take a 2 hour shower after I take my ACUs off everyday. That pattern is the antichrist.



Get your Crye shit on once you get to where ever your going and dump those fuckers. :cool:


----------



## Tyrant (Oct 19, 2009)

8'Duece said:


> Get your Crye shit on once you get to where ever your going and dump those fuckers. :cool:



I would love to but Uncle sugar aint payin for it and I aint buyin it.


----------



## koz (Oct 19, 2009)

Tyrant said:


> I would love to but Uncle sugar aint payin for it and I aint buyin it.



Op-fund low?


----------



## TheSiatonist (Oct 20, 2009)

So all those Crye stuff in the SOF pics (TF-Khowst) come off their pockets?


----------



## surgicalcric (Oct 20, 2009)

Sand Man said:


> So all those Crye stuff in the SOF pics (TF-Khowst) come off their pockets?



Some yes, some no.

Guys purchase gear, out of pocket, all the time.  Some guys just spend more than others...


----------



## stupid_rope (Oct 20, 2009)

Freefalling said:


> I know of one AF general that put the word out how he didn't like to see airmen wearing ACUs. Therefore, when he is known to be in the area all of those airmen working with the Army have to go change out of their ACUs. Some have taken to bring a set of ABU's to the office with them to cover impromptu visits.....



Again, another fine example of tax dollars hard at work to appease some general.  Not to mention the fact that time is spent away from accomplishing the mission to keep said general from getting his panties in a bunch.  I may take pride in my job, but I can still be embarrassed by the Air Force as a whole.


----------



## talonlm (Oct 20, 2009)

stupid_rope said:


> Again, another fine example of tax dollars hard at work to appease some general.  Not to mention the fact that time is spent away from accomplishing the mission to keep said general from getting his panties in a bunch.  I may take pride in my job, but I can still be embarrassed by the Air Force as a whole.



Too right about that.  The Air Force is completely out of touch when it comes to this subject.  (Several others, too!)


----------



## stupid_rope (Oct 23, 2009)

talonlm said:


> (Several others, too!)




Absolutely agree.  There is a huge power struggle between the 'old school' people who remember when the Air Force was like a boys and girls club and the 'new school' way of thinking, which is 'fit to fight.'

The Air Force began realizing the need for a PT standard late last century.  On January 1, 2004, the fitness program was established.  In January of 2010, the newest regulations regarding fitness standards will be implemented and AF Times is hypothesizing a 40% fail rate.  No more pencil whipping your PT test!

Unfortunately, there are still people who have skirted by their entire career.  I still see extremely large people walking around in uniform.  Of course, the first thing that comes to mind is, 'how are they still in?'  While I know that every branch has its issues, my hope is that with tighter PT standards and longer projected deployments, two things will happen: the AF will filter out these non-working leeches and our image will improve as a whole.  I know a lot of very hard working Airmen who get it done - day in, day out.  Slowly but surely, we are working our way from up from the 'Chair Force' reputation.


----------



## Crusader74 (Oct 29, 2009)

275ANGER! said:


> So I got an email from a buddy with a link to Army Times
> 
> UCP-Delta Looks like someone shotgun blasted shit all over the ACUs. If they were going to do that to the ACUs why not put up Mirage against MC since it has been field tested already? This whole uniform debate is comical.



Have to agree with ya bro!!


----------



## HeloMedic1171 (Oct 29, 2009)

I can do that now, all i need is to roll around in the mud....


----------



## w45vaa (Oct 29, 2009)

Irish said:


> Have to agree with ya bro!!



The ACU is proof that some shit just cant be fixed. Use "coyote" in the colors,do whatever you want to it,it is still a huge mistake,and IS NOT better than the BDU/DCU that it replaced,ESPECIALLY if they are going to keep the ACU,but just revise it and issue a "altered" ACU uniform to those in Afghanistan.
The purpose of the ACU,supposedly,was to do away with several different uniforms,but yet,we are right back where we started,now to have the ACu and another more suited for A'stan!?! Shitcan all of it and go back to BDU/DCU.

Multicam is very good,but has anyone priced a full set of the stuff??!!!??
NO CAMO is worth what they charge.
The same can be accomplished,with the BDU or DCU and proper camofladge pattern extending to equipment.
With the money units are spending to issue multicam to their troops,all that money for Multicam could be spent  on stuff more important I would think;some toughbooks,NVGs whatever they wanted,instead of a stupid camo uniform that is just currently "all the rage" and "looks cool".


New isnt always better. Evidence is the ACU.
New isnt always better,just more expensive.Evidence is Multicam.


----------



## lockNload (Oct 29, 2009)

w45vaa said:


> The ACU is proof that some shit just cant be fixed. Use "coyote" in the colors,do whatever you want to it,it is still a huge mistake,and IS NOT better than the BDU/DCU that it replaced,ESPECIALLY if they are going to keep the ACU,but just revise it and issue a "altered" ACU uniform to those in Afghanistan.
> The purpose of the ACU,supposedly,was to do away with several different uniforms,but yet,we are right back where we started,now to have the ACu and another more suited for A'stan!?! Shitcan all of it and go back to BDU/DCU.



Not true. The Marine's MARPAT is shit hot and is the same pattern as ACU only different colors. I'd love to see the Army use that. They wont adopt the same exact pattern out of political bullshit and not wanting to admit the Marines had it right, but they could simply issue their new AOR 1 and 2 which is basically the same thing. I've seen pics of a pattern called Mirage which I hear some Rangers tested out a few years ago and it blends quite well. I also saw pics on another forum where a member just photoshopped current ACU pics of soldiers deployed and it looked pretty damn good. I'll see if I can find them and post them here.


----------



## pardus (Oct 29, 2009)

w45vaa said:


> instead of a stupid camo uniform that is just currently "all the rage" and "looks cool".
> 
> 
> New isnt always better. Evidence is the ACU.
> New isnt always better,just more expensive.Evidence is Multicam.



Have you seen how effective MC is? 

That is the issue here that too many people are missing, this is about giving our Soldiers the best available tools to do the job.

MC is the best general cammo on the market at the moment IMO.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 29, 2009)

Irish said:


> Have to agree with ya bro!!



This photo proves my earlier beliefs, DA will go with the modified ACU pattern so all the ACU patterned shit won't need to be replaced quickly.

Multi-cam is the way to go.

Expensive if bought from Crye, but I bet they's sell pattern rights to DoD and we could get uniforms for the same price we pay today.


----------



## Mac_NZ (Oct 30, 2009)

SOWT said:


> Expensive if bought from Crye, but I bet they's sell pattern rights to DoD and we could get uniforms for the same price we pay today.



You mean buy them back from Crye...


----------



## Ajax (Oct 30, 2009)

w45vaa said:


> The ACU is proof that some shit just cant be fixed. Use "coyote" in the colors,do whatever you want to it,it is still a huge mistake,and IS NOT better than the BDU/DCU that it replaced,ESPECIALLY if they are going to keep the ACU,but just revise it and issue a "altered" ACU uniform to those in Afghanistan.
> The purpose of the ACU,supposedly,was to do away with several different uniforms,but yet,we are right back where we started,now to have the ACu and another more suited for A'stan!?! Shitcan all of it and go back to BDU/DCU.
> 
> Multicam is very good,but has anyone priced a full set of the stuff??!!!??
> ...



New isn't always better, but it is in the case of Multicam.  I agree that it is expensive.  If you had invented it, I'm sure you'd want to get your dollar out of it.  Also, a multicam uniform in the same style as the current ACU uniform is not the same as purchasing the Crye combat shirt and pants.  Don't confuse the two (BTW, the combat shirt and pants are worth every penny).

In the case of whether this works or not, I recently completed a sniper course in which I used only an MC uniform and a veil.  The only mods I made were removing the velcro blanket from the sleeve pockets and cutting off that stupid mandarin collar.  No ghillie.  100% go on all stalks.  It is newer.  It is better.  The Army has known this for a long time.  It's taken a spanking by congress to do something about it.

Incindentally, it wasn't "cool" until SOF units started using it.


----------



## demo18c (Oct 30, 2009)

Ajax said:


> New isn't always better, but it is in the case of Multicam.  I agree that it is expensive.  If you had invented it, I'm sure you'd want to get your dollar out of it.  Also, a multicam uniform in the same style as the current ACU uniform is not the same as purchasing the Crye combat shirt and pants.  Don't confuse the two (BTW, the combat shirt and pants are worth every penny).
> 
> In the case of whether this works or not, I recently completed a sniper course in which I used only an MC uniform and a veil.  The only mods I made were removing the velcro blanket from the sleeve pockets and cutting off that stupid mandarin collar.  No ghillie.  100% go on all stalks.  It is newer.  It is better.  The Army has known this for a long time.  It's taken a spanking by congress to do something about it.
> 
> Incindentally, it wasn't "cool" until SOF units started using it.



Not to be stingy but I want multicam to stay with SOF. It adds to the eliteness...LOL. Part of being SF is looking cool and Crye Ps enhances that. I too used multicam and the Viper hood and was never seen on any on my stalks. I was danger close(50m) on my last graded stalk and received 100%.


----------



## HeloMedic1171 (Oct 30, 2009)

eh - truth be told, there will be enough gay rules with any new uniform for those in big army that you'll still be all tacticool and shit.  the PT belt will fuck it up for us if nothing else.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 30, 2009)

demo18c said:


> Not to be stingy but I want multicam to stay with SOF. It adds to the eliteness...LOL. Part of being SF is looking cool and Crye Ps enhances that. I too used multicam and the Viper hood and was never seen on any on my stalks. I was danger close(50m) on my last graded stalk and received 100%.



Trust me, big Army will go UCP-Delta, and you'll keep multi-cam.  The downside is you'll be adding name/rank tapes to conform with the new uniform rules.


----------



## pardus (Oct 31, 2009)

SOWT said:


> This photo proves my earlier beliefs, DA will go with the modified ACU pattern so all the ACU patterned shit won't need to be replaced quickly.


 
Sadly I think you are correct, there are too many people who don't want to look bad and admit they got it wrong with the ACU.

The DCU is an improvement for sure but it's nothing more than a half arsed measure.

The DCU reminds me of cammo from southern Africa, can't quite place it yet.

I'm thinking maybe some 32 Bn stuff... :uhh:


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 2, 2009)

Kiss multi-cam goodbye.  SOF gets screwed again.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/10/military_uniforms_103109w/

Lawmakers have dropped the idea of making everyone in combat wear the exact same uniform and camouflage pattern.

But out of concern for safety, function and performance, they want more cooperation between the services over ground combat and utility clothing.

The key concern is that U.S. personnel wearing different uniforms in a combat zone raise the risk of friendly fire.

The services raised enough of a fuss about having different needs that lawmakers dropped from the 2010 defense authorization bill a proposed requirement to standardize combat uniforms in the future.

In a report accompanying the defense bill, congressional negotiators agreed that the services may have uniforms that “uniquely reflect the identity of the individual services.” But the report says lawmakers still want uniforms that minimize the risk of mistaken identity and share technological advances and improvements across all services.

*Lawmakers also directed the services to establish joint criteria for ground combat uniforms, and expect special operations forces to be covered by the joint standards.*

To prod more cooperation in uniforms, lawmakers ordered a quick, 180-day assessment by the Government Accountability Office that will look at what uniforms are now in use, their advantages, similarities and differences.


----------



## AWP (Nov 2, 2009)

SOWT said:


> Lawmakers have dropped the idea of making everyone in combat wear the exact same uniform and camouflage pattern.
> 
> But out of concern for safety, function and performance, they want more cooperation between the services over ground combat and utility clothing.
> 
> In a report accompanying the defense bill, congressional negotiators agreed that the services may have uniforms that “uniquely reflect the identity of the individual services.” But the report says lawmakers still want uniforms that minimize the risk of mistaken identity and share technological advances and improvements across all services.



WTF? You can't have the same uniform pattern but they must be similar? What kind of shit is that?


----------



## Boondocksaint375 (Nov 2, 2009)

ARLINGTON, Va. (Oct. 30, 2009) -- Nothing says pride like a Soldier in uniform. Today's Soldier has much to be proud of in the current Army Combat Uniform (ACU). (LOL)

As Sgt. Maj. of the Army Kenneth O. Preston said, the ACU was designed by Soldiers, for Soldiers. Developed with functionality in mind, many design aspects of the uniform lend themselves to low maintenance, such as the 50/50 cotton/nylon wrinkle-free fabric and the shine-free boots. The uniform also has pockets for elbow and knee pad inserts for added protection, and drawstring at the ankles and waist for improved comfort and fit. 

Since introduction of the ACU in 2004, the Army has made more than 25 improvements to the uniform and associated equipment based on Soldier input. These include a reinforced seat, buttons on the cargo pockets, and better attachment of the infrared tab. This improvement process is ongoing, as Soldiers keep suggesting new ways to adapt the uniform to their needs. 

Now the Army is focusing on the concealment the ACU provides to Soldiers operating in Afghanistan's unique environment of mountains, deserts, and woodlands. 

"The Army is all about taking care of Soldiers," said Command Sgt. Maj.Jeffrey J. Mellinger of Army Materiel Command. "That means providing Soldiers with the best equipment. In this case, it means evaluating what is the best camouflage for uniforms in current operating environments."

The Army is exploring alternate camouflage patterns in two ways. First, the Army is equipping two battalions in Afghanistan with uniforms and personal equipment in alternate camouflage patterns. One battalion is receiving uniforms in MultiCam, a pattern worn by some Special Forces troops in Afghanistan. The other battalion is receiving uniforms in Universal Camouflage Pattern - Delta (UCP-Delta), a variant of the current ACU camouflage pattern that incorporates the Coyote Brown color and reduces the percentages of sand and gray colors. The battalions also will retain their standard ACUs.

Second, the Army is evaluating six candidate camouflage patterns, including the currently used Universal Camouflage Pattern. The intent is to determine which of the six currently available patterns, with corresponding personal protective equipment, provides Soldiers with the most effective concealment in Afghanistan.

"We already have extensive data on the performance of various camouflage patterns in particular environments, but we need to keep building the science for Operation Enduring Freedom," said Brig. Gen. Peter N. Fuller, the Program Executive Officer Soldier. "For example, we need more information on how the uniform camouflage blends with the Soldier's combat equipment in specific environments."

While the issue of camouflage patterns has recently been in the news, the Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center (NSRDEC) has studied and reported on the effectiveness of different camouflage patterns for many years. The current ACU provides Soldiers with concealment in a variety of environments, from urban to desert, both during the day and at night. 

A team has deployed to Afghanistan to collect data in the various environments, outside the Forward Operating Bases, where Soldiers are fighting the enemy. The team includes representatives from the Program Executive Office Soldier, Army G-4, U.S. Army Infantry Center, U.S. Army Special Operations Command, the Asymmetric Warfare Group, the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, and NSRDEC.

Feedback from the two battalions, as well as results of additional tests being conducted by NSRDEC on multiple camouflage patterns, are expected to be presented to Army leadership in early 2010.

http://www.army.mil/-news/2009/10/3...ts-to-combat-uniform/?ref=news-science-title2


----------



## Rock42 (Nov 20, 2009)

There are 2 battalions here of the 82nd , one is getting the acu with some coyote patches, and the other multicam... i wonder which one they will prefer. 
Multicam isnt dead yet, hold your breath.


----------



## AWP (Nov 21, 2009)

Rock42 said:


> There are 2 battalions here of the 82nd , one is getting the acu with some coyote patches, and the other multicam... i wonder which one they will prefer.
> Multicam isnt dead yet, hold your breath.



The 82nd? I thought they were both with 4th ID up in Kunar.


----------



## pardus (Nov 21, 2009)

Clothing and sales in Ft Hood have been told that they will start stocking Multicam in a few months.

I was told that by a mate who is posted there, he said that came from someone in clothing sales.

We'll see...


----------



## Tyrant (Nov 21, 2009)

Freefalling said:


> The 82nd? I thought they were both with 4th ID up in Kunar.


 
Dont know about the 4th ID guys but Ive seen some 82nd guys with 2 different types of camo running around out here. Neither types were ACU and I know one of them was Multicam type camo. FWIW...


----------



## 8'Duece (Nov 21, 2009)

Rock42 said:


> There are 2 battalions here of the 82nd , one is getting the acu with some coyote patches, and the other multicam... i wonder which one they will prefer.
> Multicam isnt dead yet, hold your breath.



If it's not Crye it's just another cheap knock off.  It's a shame the damn stuff is so expenisive.


----------



## AWP (Nov 21, 2009)

Tyrant said:


> Dont know about the 4th ID guys but Ive seen some 82nd guys with 2 different types of camo running around out here. Neither types were ACU and I know one of them was Multicam type camo. FWIW...



Come to my country, you don't call, you don't write.....

Here's where I read it, I missed 3/61 by a few weeks it seems. I need to get back up there before I leave for vacation.

http://soldiersystems.net/page/3/



> Our friends over at Defense Tech spoke with COL Cole, Program manager for Soldier Clothing and Individual Equipment at PEO-Soldier and he revealed the units who will be involved in testing of Crye’s MultiCam and the Army developed UCP-Delta as possible supplemental camouflage patterns.
> 
> The unit sporting UCP-Delta is the 3d Squadron of the 61st Cavalry of the 4th Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division and they have already received their test equipment. The 2d Battalion, 12th Infantry of the 2d Brigade Combat Team, 2d Infantry Division will soon be receiving their complement of MultiCam. Both bat*tal*ions currently oper*ate in Afghanistan’s east*ern Kunar province. Each Soldier involved in testing will receive four uniforms and associated individual equipment in the respective test pattern in addition to a standard RFI issue.


----------



## M25BeastShooter (Nov 21, 2009)

Not Again!!  25 F$$%ing years 11 active, 2 mobilized and the rest Reserve. I'm getting tired of buying uniforms!  They are also changing the Class A to Army blues, crap!  The BDU's were great, the DCU was made for the desert.  

Just like the Army to try and make something do many special jobs with one solution.  NEVER WORKS

Oh well maybe I'll be retired before the ACU's get the mandatory wearout date.


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 22, 2009)

Trip_Wire said:


> IMO, the USA needs equip all of it's Armed Forces in one style of utility/combat uniform. I see no reason, for each service to have it's own unique uniform of this type.
> 
> If a specific camouflage pattern is needed to suit the theater of operations, such as Desert, Forest or Snow, etc. the same pattern should be used by all services on the same basic uniform. I do not think that any one camo-pattern is going to be good in every environment that we might be fighting in future conflicts.


 
Could not agree more.  One universal ground combat uniform for all services, like BDU/DCU used to be.  And while we're at it, DX the black beret.


----------



## Boondocksaint375 (Nov 22, 2009)

If that was the case, our lovely decision makers in Washington would probably end up giving the entire military the Navy's blue camo.  I like that each can select from what is best for them and their mission.


----------



## Pete S (Nov 22, 2009)

Marpat.
Everybody goes with the Marpat pattern camo, but the cut of the uniform can vary between services.

Navy and Air Force can have frickin glowstraps sewn everywhere if they want. 
Army can have all their fricken patches everywhere, who cares.

C'mon lets be realistic, ACU, ABU, and NavyCU aren't camouflage. 

I hope we don't have to fight in the jungle anytime soon. 
Tan vehicles and blue cammies. 

I have no idea why you Army guys wear berets with a *combat* uniform anyway. :uhh:

Is there cammie paint in the ACU colors? :)


----------



## Boondocksaint375 (Nov 22, 2009)

Pete S said:


> I have no idea why you Army guys wear berets with a *combat* uniform anyway. :uhh:


 
They aren't worn in the field.


----------



## Pete S (Nov 22, 2009)

I know. 
It's still sets a bad precedent. 
If you wear a combat uniform you need to have a combat mindset. 

Keep berets with the Class A's (if at all). 

Me thinking crazy.


----------



## Boondocksaint375 (Nov 22, 2009)

A combat mindset in garrison? That just screams Nidal Hassan.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Nov 22, 2009)

Pete S said:


> I know.
> It's still sets a bad precedent.
> If you wear a combat uniform you need to have a combat mindset.
> 
> ...


 
I say we bring it back old school and roll like the IDF! :doh: 

Now thats crazy! lol


----------



## pardus (Nov 22, 2009)

Ah, the Brits have been wearing a beret like that since WWII, they have no prob with a "combat mindset". :2c:  



Pete S said:


> I know.
> It's still sets a bad precedent.
> If you wear a combat uniform you need to have a combat mindset.
> 
> ...


----------



## Poccington (Nov 22, 2009)

pardus said:


> Ah, the Brits have been wearing a beret like that since WWII, they have no prob with a "combat mindset". :2c:


 
Sure the RM's were marching around the Falklands while wearing berets.


----------



## pardus (Nov 22, 2009)

Poccington said:


> Sure the RM's were marching around the Falklands while wearing berets.


 
There is a great pic of a Para in the Falklands, wearing his beret while manning a GPMG.


----------



## Mac_NZ (Nov 22, 2009)

We still wear them occasionally during SASO, just clip the helmet on the webbing for when the unwashed masses start throwing rocks.  Overseas currently it tends to be the black ball caps so all you poor yanks think that the Band 4 cook is some type of SOF dude.

Strangely enough we are now seeing 22 & Kiwi Group blokes wearing Multicam.


----------



## pardus (Nov 22, 2009)

Mac_NZ said:


> We still wear them occasionally during SASO, just clip the helmet on the webbing for when the unwashed masses start throwing rocks.  Overseas currently it tends to be the black ball caps so all you poor yanks think that the Band 4 cook is some type of SOF dude.
> 
> Strangely enough we are now seeing 22 & Kiwi Group blokes wearing Multicam.


 
"Yes, I used to wear a green beret"

""oh wow you were really high speed then!"

"Nah mate, I just wore a green beret" lol

I'm a little surprised to hear about 22 and group wearing multicam, our DPM is pretty bloody good, our desert is OK though not great IMO.
Good that they can use it if needed though.


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 22, 2009)

Pete S said:


> I know.
> It's still sets a bad precedent.
> If you wear a combat uniform you need to have a combat mindset.
> 
> ...



There are many VN era photo's showing SF Soldiers, and Special Boat Unit Sailors wearing their berets during combat ops, do you think they were not focused?


----------



## Mac_NZ (Nov 22, 2009)

pardus said:


> "Yes, I used to wear a green beret"
> 
> ""oh wow you were really high speed then!"
> 
> ...



I think it's more the features on the uniforms they like, elbow and knee pads, better pockets and less likely to melt to your skin when some POS sets of a 152mm shell under your wagon.

We changed from the old green to rifleman green now, one Army or some shit.  Still got my old one in a trunk somewhere.
Old pic but youll get the idea.


----------



## pardus (Nov 22, 2009)

Ugh, A fucking signal corps beret on a grunt! :doh:

What the hell uniform is that? I'm guessing the new Dacron uniform? Used to be a dark green uniform with a short sleeved shirt for summer use.


----------



## Mac_NZ (Nov 22, 2009)

At last someone else feels my pain 

Yeah its the one that replaced Dacrons, Service Dress Uniform All Ranks.  Universally hated.


----------



## pardus (Nov 23, 2009)

Pain is right brother, I still have my Infantry beret an original with the leather head band, faded and cool :cool:

Dacrons were not bad, why the fuck they went to this gay shit is beyond me, I guess so its the same colour as the ... fuck I forget the nomenclature now is it class As? :uhh:

I see your rank is still on the shoulder so no one can see it and thinks everyone is an officer  the most retarded move ever in NZ uniforms.

The Yanks/Brits got is right with the chest rank, though I'm old school and always wore and always liked it on my arm, where it belongs! ;)

At least your beret is worn correctly, I hate the way the yanks wear it (yes, yes I'm biased, its how I was brought up, fucking bite me  ).


----------



## Mac_NZ (Nov 23, 2009)

Yeah its called Dress 1A off the top of my head, I have some MLWs here but I'm not lifer enough to keep a copy of the P23 at home


----------



## Rock42 (Dec 13, 2009)

Freefalling said:


> Come to my country, you don't call, you don't write.....
> 
> Here's where I read it, I missed 3/61 by a few weeks it seems. I need to get back up there before I leave for vacation.
> 
> http://soldiersystems.net/page/3/



I will be running around RC-S for the next 9 months,  hit me up on greyops1@gmail
Drinks are on me.


----------

