Jump to content

"stupid and dangerous camouflage patterns of the U.S. military"


Bob Hudson
 Share

Recommended Posts

Now that I have your attention....

 

The full headline of the story is:

 

The irresponsibly stupid and dangerous camouflage patterns of the U.S. military

You'd think the military would want uniform patterns that keep its members safe. And yet somehow, "distinctiveness" has trumped safety

 

The story is at http://theweek.com/article/index/238909/the-irresponsibly-stupid-and-dangerous-camouflage-patterns-of-the-us-military# and is interesting reading for all of us who have wondered about such things as, "Would you want to get washed overboard wearing the Navy camo uniform looks like the storm-tossed ocean?"

 

Here's ab excerpt from the story:

 

 

"When the Marine Corps selected a digital pattern for its combat uniform in 2002, the U.S. military as a whole seemed to fracture, with each branch wandering aimlessly in a bizarre search for sartorial identity. It's been a long, strange trip since. So let's take a brief look at the camouflage patterns of the U.S. military, and the sorry stories of their adoptions.

 

Universal Camouflage Pattern (U.S. Army)

The only other country that uses the Universal Camouflage Pattern (see the photos here) for its military is Kazakhstan. That's pretty much everything you need to know about its effectiveness. Make no mistake — it looks nice. The problem is, everybody can tell, because it doesn't actually blend into anything. The pattern was designed to work in urban areas, forested areas, and desert environments. Such a perfect camouflage would save a fortune, as the Army wouldn't have to issue a new pattern every time it went to war. Of course, there was actually a war going on at the time — two, in fact — and the universal pattern didn't work adequately in either of them. The Army's solution? To issue specially-patterned "MultiCam" combat uniforms to soldiers in Afghanistan, but to also continue issuing universal pattern combat uniforms to soldiers coming out of basic training. Combat uniforms, in other words, that would be used everywhere except combat."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HolyHappiness

In defense of the Navy's design (even though I don't like it), the ideology behind it is if oil is spilled on the uniform it is less noticeable of a stain and can still be used. That's what I was told by a seaman. Anyways this camouflage grab by the branches has been pretty ridiculous. However, this post reminded me of an article I read two weeks back...

 

"The U.S. House approved a measure Friday that would require all branches of the military to share the same camouflage uniforms — instead of the 10 different camouflage patterns in use today."

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-approves-measure-to-have-military-branches-share-one-camouflage-pattern/2013/06/14/017700f6-d4ff-11e2-bc43-c404c3269c73_story.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In defense of the Navy's design (even though I don't like it), the ideology behind it is if oil is spilled on the uniform it is less noticeable of a stain and can still be used. That's what I was told by a seaman.

I have heard the same thing and that sort of makes sense to me. On the other hand, after reading the article HolyHappiness links to in his post, it points out that the colors of the Navy camouflage pattern are exactly what you wouldn't want to be wearing if you fell overboard from a ship at see and they were searching for you in the water.

 

On a different note, and also referenced in the same article, the Marine Corps has apparently patented its MARPAT camouflage and will not allow the other branches to use it even though it is quite effective. Huh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HolyHappiness

To a degree I support the "one uniform fits all" ideology. The separate patterns have, believe it or not, done a toll on the joint force ideology. Some branches feel better than others just because of their camo and this can hurt a joint force operation when everyone needs to work together. It would serve as a reminder that we all are part of the US armed forces and not JUST some branch of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.............On a different note, and also referenced in the same article, the Marine Corps has apparently patented its MARPAT camouflage and will not allow the other branches to use it even though it is quite effective. Huh?

That Is correct! If the other services want to use it, then credit a royalty back to the Marine Corps R&D budget!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That Is correct! If the other services want to use it, then credit a royalty back to the Marine Corps R&D budget!

 

Actually the Marines got it from the Canadians CADPAT, so all royalties would have to be in the form of hockey tickets or giftcards to Tim Hortons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Navy pattern is "man overboard" cammo

 

 

what the whole deal is, is that in the 80's everyone identified cammo uniforms with elite troops. So, just as everyone got a beret for morale, everyone needs cammo so they feel special. In fact, one of the reasons they went to woodland was that it was found to be major boost to troops morale as they felt 'they could not be seen' and thus felt safer- rather than actually providing more protection for them (and this directly from one of the Natick researchers).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the navy is issuing 3 distinct camo patterns concurrently. The USAF has decided the ABU is too hot and is not authorized to actually be worn in a combat theater (Afghanistan) even though it was developed DURING OEF. The whole situation is ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Navy pattern is "man overboard" cammo

 

 

what the whole deal is, is that in the 80's everyone identified cammo uniforms with elite troops. So, just as everyone got a beret for morale, everyone needs cammo so they feel special. In fact, one of the reasons they went to woodland was that it was found to be major boost to troops morale as they felt 'they could not be seen' and thus felt safer- rather than actually providing more protection for them (and this directly from one of the Natick researchers).

Absolutely. Army berets in the 1990s were for 'special' troops; airborne, rangers, and SF. So along comes the miserable ACUs and someone decides, "If berets are for special troops, then we will issue one to everyone and they'll all feel special!" which completely negated the original purpose of having distinctive headgear. The uniform decisions of the US Army in particular since I got out in the 1990s have baffled me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the navy is issuing 3 distinct camo patterns concurrently. The USAF has decided the ABU is too hot and is not authorized to actually be worn in a combat theater (Afghanistan) even though it was developed DURING OEF. The whole situation is ridiculous.

 

Wonder how much it costs the taxpayers to keep creating new combat fashions that can't be used in combat? With the exception of some special forces guys wearing exotic camo, all services pretty much used the same utility/combat uniforms for what, about 40 years from about 1962 to 2002 or so (when the Marines rolled out MARPAT)?

 

Granted the Navy had its dungarees, but when they went into riverine or land combat situations they wore the same cotton sateens, tropical combat, ERDL and Woodland/Desert uniforms as everyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HolyHappiness

 

With the exception of some special forces guys wearing exotic camo, all services pretty much used the same utility/combat uniforms for what, about 40 years from about 1962 to 2002 or so (when the Marines rolled out MARPAT)?

 

 

It looks like the military is going back in that direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it points out that the colors of the Navy camouflage pattern are exactly what you wouldn't want to be wearing if you fell overboard from a ship at see and they were searching for you in the water.

 

Two current myths of the US Navy that should be tossed. First, the thing about 26,000 sexual assaults...never happened (read: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323582904578484941173658754.html if you are interested). That discussion, of course, is best fit for other forums.

 

The other myth (even mentioned by the SECNAV, no less) is the one about falling overboard in aquaflage. From someone who has done more man overboard drills than I ever would care to count, it's almost impossible to see "Oscar" (the man overboard practice dummy) in the water when he is wearing fluorescent orange! (Even at that, there have been plenty of fluorescent-orange wearing Oscars who were never recovered...) No matter what color you are wearing...the NWU "blueberries", navy blue fire-retardant engineering coveralls, or the standard "underway" coveralls we all used to wear, the chances of being seen at sea are slim (to none), especially if no one is looking for you! At least with the old-school dungarees and khakis that were scrapped a decade ago, you had a chance in the water with the really light blue (depending on how much they were washed) shirt or khaki shirt. But no...those weren't "cool" enough, apparently...

 

Sigh...

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a friend who is a major in the Army Acquisition Command. It took 5 years to completely replace all field gear (rucks, helmet covers, canteen covers, ammo pouches, body armor, first aid pouches, compass pouches, etc.) from woodland to ACU pattern in the supply system. Now, they are going to have to start over. $3.2 million to implement ACU, plus another $3.4 million to develop and $38 million to field Multi-Cam in 2010-2011. What a waste. http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/09/28/report-slams-militarys-recent-camouflage-uniforms.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting to this whole thing about the Navys "Man Overboard" pattern. Couple of things to remember. For the last 200 years or so, US Navy Sailors have worn some shade of blue at sea. I have participated is 6 Man overboard rescues at sea. I'm telling you, it does not matter what you are wearing when you go over the side. All that can be seen any way is your head from your chin up. Orange flight suits wor if you are being searched for by air craft (and they are VERY low to the water). So, what color clothing, what camo pattern or what ever, has absolutely nothing to sdo with being rescued or not being rescued if you go over the side. It's all about sharp look outs, skilled ship drivers and a fast professional rescue boat team.

 

All that being said, I do not like the Navy NWU. Other than to make shore duty guys at Joiont commands feel good when they fall in with the other services and they all have some cammy stuff or another on, it serves no purpose. Dungarees were fine until the Navy decided they needed to be all "Badged" up with embroidered insignia, pressed and creaesd with shiney boots and belt buckles. They were originally working clothes, meant for dirty work, carried no insignia, and a name stenciled on them "somewhere" so you got your own stuff back from the laundry. The boon dockers were not to be shined, just caked in polish to protect them from water, grease and oil. Low cut so you could kick them off if you did go over the side. I had a Chief early on who despised the sight of pressed dungarees and shiney shoes. Thought that meant you had no intention of doing anything that day!

 

And, I agree, all these assorted service patterns and what not need to be tossed, one pattern setteled on and used by every one, if for no other reason than logististics. It's stupid to have this much crap in the system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Good article. Wonder how many troops this waste would pay for?

 

"Critics allege that the Army has wasted $5 billion on uniforms and equipment all printed in the inadequate UCP. The GAO estimates that the Army will have to spend another $4 billion on uniforms and equipment over the next five years when it selects its new family of camouflage patterns."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was standing near the square in Ste Mere Eglise awaiting the D-Day commemorations. The US airborne contingent numbering some 30 or so GIs were "on parade" in their shapeless ACU "battle pyjamas" and "desert sneakers". I can remember thinking how "unmilitary" they looked (no offence!) especially when compared with the spiffy US Army band! I was also struck by how their camo stood out against the buildings in the background, despite the claim that ACU was good urban camo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HolyHappiness

Here's an interesting video presentation of the world's best 70 camos. Actually, I think the Russkies have almost as many variants as the US...if not more?! The Israeli camo is very "interesting" too!

 

 

That was a pretty sick presentation. I'm pretty sure the only foreign stuff I own that was featured on that video was the German Fleck-tarn and the Brazilian Lizard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...