Digital vs Conventional Camouflage

[Firn]

Some fair points.

Personally I believe that trying to create a single solution to match all the different complex realities or terrains is akin to square a circle. To do it with digital patters rather than with conventional ones is just an even greater waste of money.

 

[sgtgunn]

The only good thing about the current ACU pattern is that they got rid of black as a color (black just doesn't occur in nature often enough to blend in to any enviornment) and it does work well in twilight/dusk conditions. Other than that it's proven to pretty much worthless. I suspect that some Whiz Kid bean counter at the Pentagon came up with a brilliant plan to save the Army bundles of money by having a "one-size-fits-all" pattern. And like most such plans, they only managed to develop a camo pattent that works equally poorly everywhere.

And don't even get me started on the stupid "Fashion" camo that the USAF and USN have adopted. The irony there is that in both services, the people that actually have to wear camo to hide somewhere i.e. special operations forces - use other uniforms like the ACU, DCU or MARPAT instead of thier new "distinctive" uniforms.

If the military wanted to really save money, the Sec of Def needs to MANDATE a universal combat uniform, available in at least two patterns (woodland/jungle and desert) to be worn by all branches of the US military, and put a stop to this silly digitital camo fashion arms race.

Hmmm....didn't we used to that already?.... so much for progress.

Adrian

I have to admit that I think that digital patterns don't work better, too.

First I don't see much of a difference between a good old style camo pattern and a new digital design just as rik said.

Second in the past when armies wanted to have smaller structured patterns they developed something like the german Flecktarn. I don't see why small digital squares should be better than small classical dots. As if my eye could make out the difference at more than a few meters.

And especially for the US Army adopting different camo patterns for different environments shouldn't be much of a problem.
Heck, armed forces which have a budget like the rest of the world combined are not able to settle on one style of camo pattern with different versions for different environments?
That's ridicoulus. Especially when one sees institutions like the USAF introducing their own pattern.
I ask why? As if there is a need for an air force to have it's own special camo pattern.

The Armed Forces would save alot more money if they would just all buy versions of the same pattern vice versa each one having it's own way with the army having the least effective one...

 

[Vajt]

I (along with several other enlisted soldiers in my unit) participated in one of the US Army Natick Labs evaluations of the possible camo patterns to be adopted for the ACU. We each viewed hundreds of sets of photos on a laptop, each one showing a soldier in each of the different camo patterns against different backgrounds (arid, forest, urban, day, night, etc.) and were asked to rate which pattern worked best in each photo set. We were all pretty surprised when the current digital pattern was adopted, since outside certain urban and rocky backgrounds, it did not work that well. I have a sneaky suspicion that the decision had already been made - and it was the one that had been developed "in house". Experience in OIF and especially OEF has shown just how ineffective the current pattern is, and the US Congress has ordered the US Army to adopt a new pattern for use in Afghanistan (and presumably everywhere else eventually). The Army's attempts at saving money by having a "universal" pattern is just going to end up costing them more money as they eventually have to replace all of the uniforms and kit that they have purchased in the current digital pattern.

Rumor mill has it that the Crye Precision Multi-Cam pattern is a strong contender to replace the current pattern as it has already seen use by US Special Operations forces to some extent.

Adrian

Maybe they could already sense the future and knew where was going to be the next battlefield...rocky, mountainous terrain...hmmm.

Do you remember which pattern was the most effective? Was it the Crye one or another pattern?

-----JT-----

 

[sgtgunn]

I don't recall off hand - though I do remember that Multi-cam was one of the better ones.

Well if they can sense the future, we must be planning on invading a gravel pit, becuase thats the one place the ACU digital camo would work great...

Adrian

Maybe they could already sense the future and knew where was going to be the next battlefield...rocky, mountainous terrain...hmmm.

Do you remember which pattern was the most effective? Was it the Crye one or another pattern?

-----JT-----

 

[Waylander]

I know it's old but I can't resist the urgent need to post this picture...

http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_may2007/CamouflageCouch.jpg

 

[eckherl]

The only good thing about the current ACU pattern is that they got rid of black as a color (black just doesn't occur in nature often enough to blend in to any enviornment) and it does work well in twilight/dusk conditions. Other than that it's proven to pretty much worthless. I suspect that some Whiz Kid bean counter at the Pentagon came up with a brilliant plan to save the Army bundles of money by having a "one-size-fits-all" pattern. And like most such plans, they only managed to develop a camo pattent that works equally poorly everywhere.

And don't even get me started on the stupid "Fashion" camo that the USAF and USN have adopted. The irony there is that in both services, the people that actually have to wear camo to hide somewhere i.e. special operations forces - use other uniforms like the ACU, DCU or MARPAT instead of thier new "distinctive" uniforms.

If the military wanted to really save money, the Sec of Def needs to MANDATE a universal combat uniform, available in at least two patterns (woodland/jungle and desert) to be worn by all branches of the US military, and put a stop to this silly digitital camo fashion arms race.

Hmmm....didn't we used to that already?.... so much for progress.

Adrian

One of the main reasons why they have done away with the color black is because it is easy to detect with newer generation night vision devices, not only are we shying away with using this color on uniforms but also on LBE gear, talking in terms of U.S Army.

Question for you Adrian,

Knowing that you have served in different parts of the world I would like to ask you what type of camo pattern have you seen that is in use, be it from the U.S or any other country that you like. I think that we will end up using two different types of battle dress color patterns for uniforms, one for woodland and the other being desert.

 

[sgtgunn]

Hmmmm...

Well I thought the old woodland BDU pattern worked well enough in temperate areas - I've seen it be effective in places like Korea, Germany and the Balkans. In Iraq I though the British desert camo looked effective, though honestly no-one was doing much in the way of hiding over there. That sort of urban counter-insurgency rarely calls for much in the way of camouflage or concealment. The various operators we worked with on occasion typically wore either the three color DCU uniforms or tan nomex flight suits. I've also seen multi-cam in used over there to a very limited degree - and it also seems like an effective pattern for arid areas. I had a multi-cam base ball hat with a Velcro US flag on the front, but I just wore that to look cool....

I agree that the logical thing for the US Army to do is to chose a pattern with two different color variations - one with more green for jungle/forested areas, and one with more tan and brown for arid climates, though multi-cam might have enough of both colors to be a reasonably effective universal pattern. I'd have to see it used in woods first though before I made up my mind.

Question for you Adrian,

Knowing that you have served in different parts of the world I would like to ask you what type of camo pattern have you seen that is in use, be it from the U.S or any other country that you like. I think that we will end up using two different types of battle dress color patterns for uniforms, one for woodland and the other being desert.

 

[Firn]

I agree that the logical thing for the US Army to do is to chose a pattern with two different color variations - one with more green for jungle/forested areas, and one with more tan and brown for arid climates, though multi-cam might have enough of both colors to be a reasonably effective universal pattern. I'd have to see it used in woods first though before I made up my mind

Seems like the digital universal camouflage will get replaced at least in the Afghan theater of war. From the army times.

Sometimes a relative simple thing as a camouflage pattern which is useful for most parts of the regions in which the soldiers fight seems to be more difficult to get than much more fancy stuff.

By Matthew Cox - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Aug 18, 2009 11:38:31 EDT

The Army is eyeing MultiCam, a camouflage pattern preferred by special operations forces, to replace the pixelated 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.”

Several 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.”

———