Army scraps eye-catching pixel camo uniforms

[Sidewinder]

After eight years and a reported $5 billion in development, the U.S. Army is ditching its pixelated-looking uniform in favor of something that doesn't look like it was borrowed from the "Contra" Nintendo game. The design, known as the Universal Camouflage Pattern (UCP), has failed at doing what camo should do: Hide our soldiers. "If we can see our own guys across a distance because of it, then so can our enemy," one Army specialist said. According to insiders, the design was selected after the Marines had switched to an eye-catching pixel-driven pattern. "That's what this really comes down to," the editor of Soldier Systems Daily said. "'We can't allow the Marine Corps to look more cool than the Army.'"

Frankly, I'm amazed it took this long to realize how useless the camo pattern was. Why wasn't its effectiveness tested and revealed BEFORE the Army spent billions procuring the damn things for its soldiers?

[Mr Bean]

This is because both Bush and Obama refused to knock heads on the issue, they did not care enough to care. The correct move would have been to relieve all those responsible from command responsibilities and remind them that the United States military is not to envy other branches. But then we've had fifty plus years of procurment being done by insane people so this news does not surprise me.

Who cares about fucking "unique army identity" the purpose of camo is to hide you, not look fashionable! That it is is only a happy side benefit not the entire purpose for existing!

[PeZook]

So...they chose a retarded color scheme because they wanted something cool like what the Marines had, but separate for unique brand identity?

What the hell was wrong with the woodland/desert/urban/black set, anyways? Surely there had to be a better way to solve the problem of mismatched body armor kits?

[Highlord Laan]

Does the Marine version work? I mean, is this a case of getting on a broken bandwagon, or taking something that works and breaking it?

From what I've read and heard, yes. The Marine version actually does it's job, but the Army would never use it.

[Block]

Does the Marine version work? I mean, is this a case of getting on a broken bandwagon, or taking something that works and breaking it?

From what I've read and heard, yes. The Marine version actually does it's job, but the Army would never use it.

It's not particularly effective, no. People like to claim it is, but you can pick them out pretty easily unless the color scheme matches the terrain exactly, which it rarely does.

[Skgoa]

Fake edit: Block, camoflage is not a stealth shield. Marpat doesn't fail as hard and as universally as UCP, thus it is superior.




"Pixelation" is just one way of generating a semi-random pattern of blobs. The german "Flecktarn" pattern has essentially been the same thing for decades, though it has been updated over time. So yes, the principle works very well. That's why the Army's new pattern will actually be a very close relative, namely Multicam in ACU/USP colours. Now, the with the Universal Camoflage Pattern wasn't the pattern itself but the colours: they simply never worked that well in most environments.


To illustrate for those who aren't into gun-porn:

This is ACU/UCP:


This is Multicam:


This is the Marine's pattern Marpat in woodland and desert version:


This is the german Flecktarn in woodland and desert version:



Note how UCP sticks out like a sore thumb in either environment due to its colours, compared to the relatively successful applications of the principle.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

Hallelujah. I still mourn for US Woodland/3-color Desert. The uniform update I get, but I never understood why anyone felt the need to replace the patterns/colors themselves. Those two patterns (and perhaps 6-color "chocolate chip" as well) were the iconic face of the US military.

[Sidewinder]

So...they chose a retarded color scheme because they wanted something cool like what the Marines had, but separate for unique brand identity?

What's worse, the Marine Corps owns the patent to MARPAT, refused to let other services use this camouflage pattern, or others like it (see the Marine Corps' reaction to the Navy Working Uniform).

What the hell was wrong with the woodland/desert/urban/black set, anyways? Surely there had to be a better way to solve the problem of mismatched body armor kits?

According to an Army Times article on the Army Combat Uniform (printed way back when the uniform was being issued), the color black makes one more visible to night vision goggles and infrared sensors.

[UnderAGreySky]

What's worse, the Marine Corps owns the patent to MARPAT, refused to let other services use this camouflage pattern, or others like it (see the Marine Corps' reaction to the Navy Working Uniform).

Wait.... PATENT WARS in the Military? WTF? Why aren't there any laws / rules against this? If one service devises new ways to heal wounds, can they patent them so that the others can't use it?

[Ryan Thunder]

So...they chose a retarded color scheme because they wanted something cool like what the Marines had, but separate for unique brand identity?

What's worse, the Marine Corps owns the patent to MARPAT, refused to let other services use this camouflage pattern, or others like it

Meh. Charge the brass with treason or something. Ought to get the hint.

[RogueIce]

So...they chose a retarded color scheme because they wanted something cool like what the Marines had, but separate for unique brand identity?

What's worse, the Marine Corps owns the patent to MARPAT, refused to let other services use this camouflage pattern, or others like it (see the Marine Corps' reaction to the Navy Working Uniform).

Indeed. As far as this:

separate for unique brand identity?

Blame the Marines again, because that's part of why they switched: "This was demonstrated by a Marine Spokesman who, when MARPAT was launched, said, 'We want to be instantly recognized as a force to be reckoned with. We want them to see us coming a mile away in our new uniforms.'"

That last sentence is especially hilarious when you think about it.

So basically the Marines started off with their special snowflake utility uniform, and since then the other branches have jumped off the deep end to do the same. The only one that even made partial sense was the NWU, because it was never meant to be a tactical uniform anyway. But when the Navy tried to replace the old BDUs and DCUs with something that looked kinda but not really like MARPAT, well...Sidewinder already posted that link.

So I really have no idea whether or not the Army would have used MARPAT, but it seems highly likely that the Marines would have bitched a fit if they tried. Which is amazingly stupid because it's a camouflage uniform and you're not supposed to stand out in it but apparently something got into the water at the Pentagon and they all went stupid.

I'm with Bean in the sense that one of the prior SECDEFs or any of them should have knocked heads, told them to cut the crap and adopt a DOD-wide camo pattern like before. If they still wanted 'distinctness' they could have done it, because fun fact they did so with BDUs:

Army had black writing and a patrol cap, but they were the only ones with shoulder unit patches and (later) the US flag
Air Force also had the patrol cap, but they had blue writing on the name/service tapes and had sleeve insignia for enlisted ranks
Navy has black writing, but wore the eight-point cover so there's that. Also no shoulder/sleeve patches.
Marines also had the eight-point cover but they added an EGA to their left breast pocket.

So yeah, they were still "unique" but not really in a way you'd tell at a distance, aside from the difference between Army/Air Force and Marine/Navy covers. But in combat they'd likely be in helmets so it wouldn't make a difference anyway.

Also the Army's known UCP sucked for awhile: units deploying to Afghanistan have been issued Multicam ACUs for awhile now. But for some reason the Army insists that's deployment only and won't be the new uniform. Instead they want another 'design program' to give them woodland, desert and "transitional" patterns. Which will probably go about as well as the one where they tested UCP against a bunch of others and it came in last but they went with it anyway.

[Mr Bean]

Exactly, the Sec-Def during the Bush Years or the Obama years should have knocked heads and forced a uniform.... uniform. About the only two groups that need different work and battle uniforms are the Navy for our flight decks and ships/The Airfield for their airfields and the shooty groups for camouflage. The Army/Airforce/Marines/Navy/Coast guard should share a standard in theater uniform (Something that blends in well everywhere somewhat) plus a desert/forest/winter set of camo. So four possible uniforms and we might just make Forest the standard uniform for ease of use given how much of America Forest covers.

So three uniforms, a desert uniform for the middle east, a Winter uniform for Russia and... winter elsewhere and a Forest camo uniform for everyone all the time. Each branch can have one dress uniform... and bam end of fucking story. No sixteen uniforms still on the books like the Army and Navy both had until mid 2006 (I shall miss you officers between O1 to O4 and Warrant officer only shorty short shorts) and still have to this day. Add in a jumpsuit for flight ops and your done, five (Plus each uniform gets a dress uniform so nine total) uniforms a million men rather than forty nine uniforms for a million men.

[PeZook]

It's almost as if the various service branches are acting like their own little feudal fiefdoms, their Lords demanding their soldiers wear specific livery of their noble house. And proudly so!

[Mr Bean]

It's almost as if the various service branches are acting like their own little feudal fiefdoms, their Lords demanding their soldiers wear specific livery of their noble house. And proudly so!

Welcome to military procurement since McNamara where the branches fully embraced the budget fight. And I emphasis fight as the Airforce only gets so many planes because the Army needs so many tanks and every branch tries to badmouth the other branches R&D efforts as once a program is cut the funds are up for grabs.

Do you begin to grasp the mindset that breeds?
Now add in the fact that after everything is hashed out by those who at least are involved in using those ships, those tanks and those planes.... Now it's time for Congress to get involved, and of course 80% of the Representatives know nothing about anything beyond the fact that if they have a weapon system being built in their district they back it 100%. Meanwhile the Senate knows only what Lockheed Martin tells them about how great weapon system X will be, and how bad weapon system Y (Not made by Lockheed Martin) is and needs to be cut so Congress can buy more X.

And after all of that is done they give it to Congress as a whole so after being run over by a group that fights each other, a group owned by lobbyists they finally hand it to a group that literally knows nothing about anything who feel compelled to suggest changes so they can say they were involved.

[ChaserGrey]

AIUI the problem with the ACU was that the Army wanted it to be "universal", so when they evaluated camo patterns (which includes color combinations) they picked one that was mediocre in all environments rather than good in some and worse in others. Protests from those who pointed out different environments have different predominant colors were met with a wall of ignorance.

[Sea Skimmer]

The universal pattern did exactly what it was designed to do, which was make people very difficult to see at night with passive image intensification gear. The pattern plus its anti IR treatment worked well for that purpose. The main downside is... Taliban in the mountains don’t have NVGs in the first place, but as expected they have proliferated heavily to conventional forces even among the smaller powers.

[Skgoa]

Well, it DOES work in the right environment:

[Winston Blake]

The universal pattern did exactly what it was designed to do, which was make people very difficult to see at night with passive image intensification gear. The pattern plus its anti IR treatment worked well for that purpose. The main downside is... Taliban in the mountains don’t have NVGs in the first place, but as expected they have proliferated heavily to conventional forces even among the smaller powers.

I have a quick question. I've assumed for a long time that a reason for the continued use of this pattern was its possible suitability for urban warfare. I.e. In Iraq, surrounded by concrete etc, the 'flatness' and 'greyness' were serendipitous benefits. Is this true?

[Patroklos]

Despite the belly aching it was not a bad idea on its face...

1.) As stated already the uniform was meant to take into account modern NVGs and it was successful to those ends. Just because the Taliban doesn't have many of them doesn't mean many other enemies don't.

2.) The concept of a uniform effective in both woodland and desert environments, meaning there was no need to maintain an inventory of two battle uniforms was seen as a cost saving measure, and it did save money. Unfortunately the demonstrated reality is that it is hard to have a camo pattern optimally effective in these two very different environments. Not all ideas pan out.

3.) The idea that branch identity is somehow not important is ridiculous. The simple fact is that pride in unit and branch is a time tested mechanism to keep moral up and enforce standards. And when you already have an excellent battlefield reputation that becomes a weapon in and of itself, which is what the Marines meant when they said they wanted people to know they were Marines WHEN THEY SAW THEM (not make themselves seen intentionally).

The process has gone overboard, especially in the Air Force and the Navy where they both came up with a ridiculous GI JOE fashion statement rather and a useful or inspiring uniform. That's what happens when you have 60 year olds making decisions on such things.

[Zaune]

The idea that branch identity is somehow not important is ridiculous. The simple fact is that pride in unit and branch is a time tested mechanism to keep moral up and enforce standards. And when you already have an excellent battlefield reputation that becomes a weapon in and of itself, which is what the Marines meant when they said they wanted people to know they were Marines WHEN THEY SAW THEM (not make themselves seen intentionally).

That's what unit insignias and colour-coded berets are for, though.

[Block]

The idea that branch identity is somehow not important is ridiculous. The simple fact is that pride in unit and branch is a time tested mechanism to keep moral up and enforce standards. And when you already have an excellent battlefield reputation that becomes a weapon in and of itself, which is what the Marines meant when they said they wanted people to know they were Marines WHEN THEY SAW THEM (not make themselves seen intentionally).

That's what unit insignias and colour-coded berets are for, though.

Within a single service, yes. But the same color scheme can mean two different things in the air force and the army.

[Simon_Jester]

2.) The concept of a uniform effective in both woodland and desert environments, meaning there was no need to maintain an inventory of two battle uniforms was seen as a cost saving measure, and it did save money. Unfortunately the demonstrated reality is that it is hard to have a camo pattern optimally effective in these two very different environments. Not all ideas pan out.

Since people have been designing different-colored camouflage for different environments for something like sixty years, one might reasonably criticize the Army for having forgotten this basic lesson. It would be like forgetting to design a ship with watertight compartments to keep it from totally flooding and sinking instantly. People have been doing it for so long that it should now be the standard, instead of being something that one might reasonably ignore and then go "it turned out is important, oops" eight years and several billion dollars later.

3.) The idea that branch identity is somehow not important is ridiculous. The simple fact is that pride in unit and branch is a time tested mechanism to keep moral up and enforce standards. And when you already have an excellent battlefield reputation that becomes a weapon in and of itself, which is what the Marines meant when they said they wanted people to know they were Marines WHEN THEY SAW THEM (not make themselves seen intentionally).

Branch identity is important, but that comment was just hilarious in context- it's the sort of thing that leads some people (especially the Army) to mock the Marines for their own intense sense of how BADASS HOOAH WARFIGHTER they are.

[Captain Seafort]

Within a single service, yes. But the same color scheme can mean two different things in the air force and the army.

Which defeats the point of the colour-coding. Although I'm sure the USAF would be amused if their bog-cleaners wore the same berets as Delta Force.

Ultimately, you can have distinct uniforms without compromising effectiveness or wasting money on a hundred different patterns of basic uniform. If the Paras and RM can put up with wearing the same pattern DPM as each other, then so can the US Army and USMC.

Since people have been designing different-colored camouflage for different environments for something like sixty years, one might reasonably criticize the Army for having forgotten this basic lesson.

The idea of having a DPM pattern that works OK in either without being as good as one designed for a specific environment does have a logical base - in Helmand (for example) a unit could go from patrolling the Green Zone in the morning to desert in the afternoon. A pattern that doesn't stick out like a sore thumb in either is therefore an advantage. Of course, that doesn't excuse a pattern that works great against all the wizzy kit the world's best armies use, but is ineffective against the Mk 1 Eyeball.

[Panzersharkcat]

Yeah, it was the Rangers who were furious about it. To keep a distinct look, they switched to tan berets.

[Zaune]

Within a single service, yes. But the same color scheme can mean two different things in the air force and the army.

So have one service pick a recognisably different shade of the same colour, or stick a large and distinctive regimental or squadron cap badge on it. Problem solved.

If the Paras and RM can put up with wearing the same pattern DPM as each other, then so can the US Army and USMC.

It was those two units, particularly the Parachute Regiment, whom I was thinking of when I brought up berets. They're quite useful PsyOps tools for COIN operations; civilians apparently find them less intimidating than ballistic helmets, but any insurgent spotting them gets a loud and clear message of "these people are very, very good at their job and taking them on will be extremely unpleasant".

Not much good at protecting your head, of course, but not many helmets will stop rounds from a proper designated-marksman's rifle anyway.