E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
AP file
The Army unveiled a redesigned combat uniform with a digital camouflage pattern on June 14, 2004.
Ask the man dubbed “the father of digital camouflage” about fatal flaws in the U.S. military's uniform-concealment choices and he’ll give you a punch line. Then he’ll mention the bottom line.
“Never decide Pattern A just looks cooler than Pattern B. The Marine Corps call that a ‘CDI factor’ – chicks dig it,” said Timothy O’Neill, a former professor of engineering psychology at West Point who has spent 37 years concocting and analyzing the latest in military camouflage.
More critical: Never let cost dictate how you hide your combat troops, added O’Neill referring to the Universal Camouflage Pattern, or UCP, the Army’s primary uniform pick in 2004. American soldiers in Afghanistan openly bashed the green-gray, pixilated fatigues for making them stand out, not blend in. The Army now is busy gauging an array of new camo looks to likely replace UCP, an effort that will continue into this autumn.
"Everybody got in trouble with the very problematic idea that you can come up with one pattern that can work equally well everywhere," said O'Neill, a retired Army officer who had no part in the Army's decision. "These patterns (UCP) generally don't work well anywhere - and for reasons that have nothing to do with the skill of the designers. It was just a dumb requirement.
“I don’t think I’ll be shot for saying that because I’ve said it a number of times. And in any case what can they do? Send me to Vietnam? Everybody understands now that the Universal Pattern was a bad idea. It was really a strange case of designing down to cost.”
Four companies are competing to become the Army’s new combat-camo designer. Guy Cramer, a consultant to one of those firms, ADS, Inc., said the intense scientific scrutiny of the four proposed patterns shows “the Army is bending over backward – probably more than they even need to – so no one can point a finger at the Army and say: ‘You didn’t do this right.’
“They don’t want another problem like they had with UCP,” Cramer added. “ADS may not win. And so be it. Whatever works best is what we want for the soldiers. At least, (the new camo) will give the soldiers more survivability than what they have right now.”
Military camouflage testing is typically top secret and lengthy, using a blend of computer simulations and – out in the field – cloaked men ducking in thick brush or dusty deserts to measure precisely how many milliseconds trained observers need to spot and identify the “targets.” The evaluation process blends the intricacies of brain and vision science with the evolving art of textile deception – a battlefield gambit first used in World War I.
Stay informed with the latest headlines; sign up for our newsletter
But it all begins indoors, usually at the United States Military Academy at West Point. There, O’Neill helped design a 120-degree, curved screen onto which three ceiling-mounted, high-definition projectors beam, he said, “calibrated digital images” containing – somewhere – a small picture of a rifle-toting soldier wearing the latest camo pattern under exploration. The spotters include cadets, faculty members or active-military troops who supply their 20/20 (or better) vision plus a wide range of combat experience, from zero to many years.
“The observer sits in the sweet spot. A picture comes on of a tree line, or something like that, and the person searches the tree line to find a target,” said O’Neill, who in the mid-1970s created the first “digital” camouflage pattern and then successfully tested it at West Point. O’Neill is not part of the current camo assessment.
Observers wear modified, large eyeglasses equipped with two tiny video cameras. That eye-tracking technology allows Army testers to follow the observers’ screen scanning in real time and to record how long it takes them to find the hidden soldier or “bad guy.” They’re then asked to decipher in which direction the on-screen “target” is pointing his rifle.
“Having detected it, (then we want to know) how easy it is to recognize what it is,” O’Neill said. “From our point of view, the question becomes: Is it worth pulling the trigger?
“If we have a variety of different camouflage patterns we’re comparing for effectiveness, we’ll just run the hell out of them in the laboratory and look at how much difference (in detection time) we’re getting,” O’Neill added. “Then, we move to the field.”
Testing the same patterns in open terrain can take place at U.S. military bases or at locations abroad – for example, in Qatar, near the Saudi border where O’Neill said he once ran an assessment of a potential camo formation.
“You’re looking at (natural) extremes and every place in the middle,” O’Neill said. “That means dense jungle versus low desert, Saharan desert, boreal rain forest and western scrub.”
In the field, observers are often soldiers who have volunteered for the duty. Initially, camo samples may be printed onto fabric then placed on man-sized frames and planted in the bush – a sort of ominous-looking scarecrow. In later phases, O’Neill said, “you’re going to make up uniforms and put them on soldiers.”
“They’ll take the soldiers out and place them (wearing the test design) at a certain distance,” added Cramer. In addition to consulting for ADS, Cramer founded the Canadian camouflage company HyperStealth Biotechnology through which he has produced more than 2 million uniforms for the armed forces of several countries, including Jordan and the Afghanistan National Army.
In 2004, Cramer devised a snow-pattern uniform to conceal U.S. Marines and later teamed with O’Neill to test that design, which ultimately was issued to Marines in 2006. (The two men also teamed up to develop OPTIFADE, a hunting-camo product for Newark, Del.-based W. L. Gore & Associates.)
Where O’Neill is known for digital patterns, Cramer was the first to incorporate fractals and mathematical algorithms into his designs. (Fractals are shapes with uneven contours that mimic the irregularities found in nature – like twigs, branches and leaves.)
During field tests on a Cramer military-camo design, “snipers were saying our patterns were giving them over 30 seconds of delay from the start of the test to when they recognized the target,” Cramer recalled. “They told us that most of the camouflage they run into takes eight to 12 seconds to detect, to know what it is. That's when we knew we were onto something (with fractals).”
“And that,” added O’Neill, “is how it goes from a theory to a suit.”
More content from NBCNews.com:
- 'No relief' from drought as heat returns to Midwest, Northeast
- Boy Scouts: We're keeping policy banning gays
- Missing Iowa girls' families fear they were kidnapped
- Video: Bus driver catches girl, 7, in three-story plunge
- 17 hurt, four critical, in Alabama bar shooting
Follow US News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
Only way to increase the effectiveness of camo.... wear it in the local dirt a few days. Doesn't matter it you're in red clay, light powdery sand, grey dust....local dirt color is the only truly effective camo. The rest of it is just porkbarrel contractors trying to get millions of dollars in revenue and porkbarrel politicians wanting their campaign contributions.Bland color uniforms mixed liberally with local dirt are almost invisible.
Been there and done that on multiple occasions during my R&S days... Now tell our REMF superiors that we are SUPPOSED to get dirty when we are forward deployed!
Oh, BTW, until the U.S. Army starts operating textile factories and does the analyses themselves, leave the manufacturing to us 'porkbarrel' contractors...Most of us that do the things that keep the military machine moving used to wear the uniform at one time and made the same sacrifices today's military member makes. It is the cycle of life for a military member/veteran and we all need to work to satisfy the mission.
TRANSLATION: Lighten up, Francis.
>:-/
When the cost plays as large a role as the function, someone is not paying attention. Just like when the cost is ignored completely and we get $600 hammers and $1500 toilet seats.
Corporations know exactly what they need to say to get past most screens. From there, they can work the rest of the Generals.
Money is the key that fits all locks.
Porkbarell or no.... anything to keep our men and women in uniform safe. Better camo, rifles, ammo, vehicles... The one thing we (as a nation) should spend money were it counts... This is where it counts. Now.. the Congress (if no budget is passed) will consider major cuts in defense spending.... Lord help our troops, Lord help the US.
Judging from the picture in this article, someone screwed up big time. One design doesn't fit all applications, no genius involved. This looks like another exercise in squandering money and putting the Boots at risk.
It sounds just like the typical Bush administration lack of attention to detail and concern for the actual (not the perceived ) welfare of the service personnel.
How did Bush have anything to do with this? The President does not approve uniform changes, it is done way below him. The people responsible for the garbage "digi" uniforms out today lined their pockets with the money sent out for testing. The blue junk the Navy has; who needs to be camoflauged with the water? Fall overboard, now you are lost at sea. The Army was constantly getting fired at in Iraq. The uniform looked different from the uniform worn by the "Devil Dogs" and the insurgents knew who wore what. Uniforms should be designed for the terrain and location, everyone wears the same. It's cheaper and safer all the way around for the government and the troops on the ground. Everyone had the same cammies for years. More money wasted.
You got a problem with pork, mister?!?
We all know the next major (not secret) conflict will be in Africa. So the new camo will be either a combo of desert Chocolate chip and the 'ol Tiger stripe pattern. Maybe something like a basic pattern that you can turn inside out depending on the day of the mission and a over coat or lite smock that can be worn over the uniform for even more concealment when moving in terrain not normally patrolled.
Just a thought.
Explain! Why will the next conflict be in Africa! I read quite a bit about geopoitics and never read where Africa will be a the next area of conflict!
Perhaps small kinda sticky 1/4 inch by 3 inch strings (kinda like tire plugs) all over the garments. You drop on the ground and your instantly matching the local terrain. A lite version of the sniper wear??
Actually we've been in Africa for quite a while but the most recent acknowledge/participation was in Libya coordinating NATO air strikes. Also the patrolling of the Arabian Sea against Somali pirates and heighten HUMIT in Egypt and and advisors in Ethiopia.
I said major conflict. We've been in and out of Africa more times than a sailor on shore leave for decades.
Remember those little headlines? Oh, by the way the potential oil reserves off the coast of Somalia and Eritrea will be the next cash cow for who ever can pacify I mean befriend the region.
China wants all of the ore in Africa and we want the oil and Russia is trying their best to catch up, as always.
Nothing ever changes, well the camo might.
sounds like you're talking the original OD green or maybe one of the first camo uniforms. makes to much sense.
Gear up for Western Africa, boys and girls...Mali, Nigeria and points in-between...THAT is the new breeding ground for al Qaeda...
Google those two countries and select 'News' and you will see what has been going on recently...
PS: We are no where done with Somalia either...
You ain't kidding!
WW2 brown camo is excewllent pattern, have various jackets and pants in that pattern, in fall/spring even winter, pattern really works....quit with the computer crap and go to a cabelas and check out gear for bowhunting....industry spends millions on camo patterns, if you can't find it there they don't make it..
A perfect example of another boondogle . All they needed , was to give a few dozen vets the first samples and let them field test them . The pencil pushers , are just that !!! The final judges , are the vets in the field ... KGK
For stupid, this rivals when they put women's' rank right between their tits.
@Cheetah-822547-
NO- this is a good thing; that way they cannot accuse us of staring at their tits; we were just checking the rank to see if we should salute them...
>;-)
And you act surprised guys? How long the manufacturers of the AR-15 had to fight with the Army until McNamara forced them to take the freaking gun? With respect to the ACU, that is what happens when they want to be original by copying someone else. In order to counteract the MARPAT from the USMC, they came up with this piss-poor attempt of uniform. I wonder though, why every branch must have an individual uniform? (I know, contractors, and bribes...)
Bribes, yes. Poor cost control, yes.
But the really disturbing thing about this is that somebody thought that one style of camo would suit all environments. That is so profoundly, mind numbingly stupid that you have to think: if these are the people in charge of our national defense, we have no national defense.
It's like Rummy-Dummy and the rest of the Bushy-woooshies sending soldiers into a PURELY VOLUNTARY WAR OF CHOICE with body armor that didn't work and Humvees that had no armor at all.
And then the rumsfeld filth justifies it by saying, as if he were an Athenian king, "you go to war with the army you have...." Some victim of that army he CHOSE not to equip properly should have fragged him.
Hey mas098 check out great story about US operations. Trust me it wasn't US Marshals who conducted the "arrest" it was D-boys.
Bush may not have signed off on it personally, but the screw was a decission made on his and Cheny's watch. They put our troops at even greater risk.
With all the fighting in cities, where is the camo that looks like brick walls, sidewalks, car grills, etc.?
To select the correct carpet for your home, take all your samples out into the yard and throw them down. The one that matches the dirt the closest, is the one you want to buy. I'd think the same rule of thumb should apply to camo. Having a "one-color-fits-all" singular camo uniform is ridiculous. Different locations require different colors. Why is it I need to tell people these things? I guess that's why we have the "Duh" factor.
"Designing to cost" when lives are at stake is NEVER a good idea...
When you are talking about effective camouflage there's a couple different scenarios to consider. When you do testing with an object standing still and blending in with the background, that's one thing. But when the object is moving, that's another. You can design camo to look like a tree standing still in the woods and it's going to be difficult to detect. But if the tree is walking, it tends to stand out.
If you are a sniper or otherwise hunkered down waiting in ambush, the goal with camo is a bit different than for troops on the move. Movement isn't so easy to disguise, but the right camo can help and often in this case what you are looking for is something that provides for a "fuzzy" target. Camo that looks good standing still can also potentially clearly define the object when moving. With the right camo, you may see movement but have only a vague outline of the silhouette.
To think that there can be such a thing as universal camouflage is misguided. What works nicely in one situation may be terrible in another so you end up with compromises. Unfortunately, those compromises mean mediocre performance in most all situations. There are some electronically based concepts that adapt to the environment, but the practicality of these conceptshas yet to become battlefield ready. You really need multiple types for multiple environments and even in a particular theater of war, having a few different types available may be the best answer to fit different scenarios.
You hit the nail on the head, 1NewDay. Different camo for different situations, not just environments.
if lenses in glasses can be made that turn dark in the sun and clear in the shade how about camoflage that does the opposite. by this I mean brighter in the sun, obviously clear uniforms would be a bad idea.
I haven't read everything, but it is strange that no one has brought up Predator armor.
Hey Gunner 3867236 !!
"Bush Administration"
Learn to read to understand context and content.
I've never understood all the hype with camo when the vast majority of weapons combat troops use are "look at me, look at me" jet black. At the least not camouflaged at all and stand out like a sore thumb.
Nobody says you can't mark up and even add vegetation to your weapon to further blend in...Most of the weapons you see being employed are at a FOB at the edge of the wire. I have served with units that take great pains at making their weapon blend in as much as possible the surrounding areas...
Take a look at what they are doing with hydrographics even for the personal AR-15 that you can buy on the economy; there are some serious camouflage patterns going on...
I spray painted my M-4 and accessories on my last trip to Afghanistan. A little tan and brown paint goes a long way! Now where did I put that thing?????
Dammit, I HATE when that happens!
LOL!
LOL Todd!
Todd, don't make me break out the 550 cord and secure it to your person.
Wonderful. Camo that basically says: "Aim Here". I'm with Dave: the best camo is a dirty uniform, so you blend with the scenery. If you want to impress chicks, buy leather pants, don't shave and get some ink.
The article is absolutely correct. He nailed it, "Everybody got in trouble with the very problematic idea that you can come up with one pattern that can work equally well everywhere," said O'Neill, a retired Army officer. "These patterns (UCP) generally don't work well anywhere - and for reasons that have nothing to do with the skill of the designers. It was just a dumb requirement.
There is NO one size fits all in camouflage. I can still put on my original green BDUS up here in Washington State, put on my make up, smear a little fir sap on for the scent, stand two feet away from you in one of our forests and you would not know I was there until I cut your throat. But...lay flat on the ground behind a rock in Afghan and I am a corpse. Gotta dress for the party.
Plenty of fun up in Spokane during SERE training...How right you are, BobW...
I remember my first field experience with the old "Olive Drab" uniforms/BDU's. Just solid, ugly green, but, in the woods, even that made it difficult to see soldiers, especially if they were any distance away. The notion that camo has to make you "invisible" is flawed. It only has to make it a tad hard for someone to see you and fix on you and, if you are "hopping and popping", that means it only has to work for a few seconds at a time.
The problem with the current uniform is that it really blends with nothing and, against a desert background, it actually stands out. That gets people killed.
Read the article. Thats exactly what they are saying. THe thing is,some things will make you harder to see than others. Does a half a second make a difference between life and death. Absolutly. If someone is shooting at you,you want that half a second to shoot them first. So they test it. Camoflage is not so much about coloring yourself like your environment. A lot of it is tricking the eye and brain of the observer,breaking up the outlines and such. There is a reason no one uses solid colors anymore. There are much better alternatives. The real problem is,in 2004,they chose the wrong uniform,nothing more nothing less. Time to get it fixed. Was it Bushes fault. Well,yea,it was,becuase he was the president. He appointed people who were supposed to keep an eye on this stuff. Remember good old Rummy,it was his fault too. Now,if it had been chosen,found to be bad and quickly fixed,then it would have been a indication of GOOD leadership on Bushes part. It was not. He had four years,and didnt fix it,and neither did any of his people. Now if this is not fixed very soon,it will be Obamas fault too,and if Romney is elected in November,and it drags on another few years while he spends his time in a futile attempt to repeal Obamacare, while ignroring the real problems we have,then it will be Romneys fault as well.
Cruise missles, drones, and smart bombs don't need camo. Stop using humans and the problem goes away.
Cruise missiles, drones and smart bombs can clear ground but they can't hold ground.
The hipness of the camo is very important for recruiting posters.
im scared of bobw...
No need really...I am retired now. But there was a time...
made me laugh, though!!! Thanks opionsrlikeummm!
The problem with the camo in the photo isn't the color or the size and type of patterning. It is in the value range. Look at the scene as a whole. The man stands out from the woods behind him because his uniform is lighter in value than the woods behind him. You need some darker areas mixed in with the lighter areas on the uniform. You can keep the same colors and design.
He looks like standing duck. I don't see how it can be better.
Universal saves money but costs lives. F universal and create a design for each theatre of operation. I'll accept a tax hike for that.
Good post, but even better would be reversible units like the old helmet covers with green side/brown side. After a few weeks in the mud or dirt they both look the same, but they have a good base from the start. Shirts, jackets, they can all be designed and made reversible. It also cuts costs to the taxpayer and the troopies.
Me too I'll pay tax for that.
Pay my share since you are fond of big gov't boondoggles. Thanks.
They could just watch the Monty Python skit 'How not to be Seen' and save millions of dollars.
Too many illegals were passing themselves off as Americans.
Really?!? Where are illegals mentioned anywhere in this article. Go find a forum that fits your views and stop trying to hijack others!
Careful the patriot act patrol will tag you for saying the "hiJ" word!
I was on active duty when the Army switched and at the time, everyone knew it was not a great choice. The new MultiCam that the troops deploying to Afghanistan are getting are the way to go.
When the Army dressed up some Soldiers in the new "ACU" uniforms to gather feedback, I don't know anyone who liked them. When compared to the Multi-Cam uniform now being used in Afghanistan, the Multi-Cams won hands down. Why did the brass decide on a flawed design that does poorly in all environments (except a gravel pit)? Pay Off. Someone got paid to make a bad decision and is now enjoying a lavish retirement with many benefits available only to a 4-star who sold his Soldiers out. It's utter bull@!$%# that we went with the ACU uniform. We were much better off with the DCU (desert pattern) and could have saved billions of tax payer dollars. Think about this, it's not just uniforms that we had to buy, it's MOLLE ruck sacks, body armor, pouches, patches, etc. All that equals BIG money and an even BIGGER waste.
Hey it could be worse we could still have those dam berets!
Amen Brother!
Why stick with one pattern? Take afghanistan for example. Some climates are dusty deserts, others are high up in the mountains with just grey rocks, and other times lush and fertile farm lands. Then you have the towns and villages. 1 pattern isn't going to work for all of those.
Then there's the argument do we even need camoflage? Doesn't really matter what you're wearing when you're being ambushed by combatants dressed as civilians, or when IEDs and suicide bombs are going off.
Hopefully not a lot of money is wasted on trying to figure out the perfect pattern. Just pick something versatile and spend the rest on training and equipment.
hope they get rid of the velcro part of the uniform as well. who's idea was that?
Velcro (such as predominates in the current MOLLE system rucks and other "battle rattle" gear, as well as on the uniforms) seems like such a great idea, in theory. No fumbling with snaps or buttons or jammed zippers, however, there is no sound more noticeable out in the boonies than the "rip-zip" of velcro. Short of shouting "HERE I AM, SHOOT ME!", I can't think of any noise more likely to garner unwanted attention. What works well in civilian life ain't always what works best in the field.
Not to mention when you get dirt or mud or fibers mushed into it, it's as useless as tits on a boar for securing much of anything.
There was a recent article on that subject. The military decided the cure for the noise problem of velcro (not to mention the dirt making it not work) was a great new invention! They decided to replace velcro with something called buttons.
BUTTONS? BUTTONS YOU SAY!!!!! What an outrageous, ridiculous idea....Priceless.
Plenty of money to spend on war and killing people...nothing for people who need help living.
Those men and women that wear the uniform and go into harm's way deserve much more than anyone else...It's the least we can do for them. We live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? They have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for people who need help living and you curse the Military. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what they know. That people who need help living, while tragic, probably saved lives. And the military's existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want the Military on that wall, you need the Military on that wall. They use words like honor, code, loyalty. They use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. They have neither the time nor the inclination to explain themselves to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that they provide, and then questions the manner in which they provide it. They would rather you just said "Thank you," and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think they should spend money on.
-Adaptation from the movie, A Few Good Men, 1992, by Jack Nicholson as Colonel Jessep
>:-)
Please spare us the emotional flaggasms. It's only Big Gov't.
@DOU44-
What- you never saw A Few Good Men? How could you not? You're not living under a rock, are you?
Granted it was 20 years ago, but you got to admit, that was a decent adaptation wasn't it?
BTW, who the @!$%# made you the spokesman for this thread? "us"??? Come down off your high horse, Matilda; your one liners are getting old and you DON'T speak for everyone on this thread...
>:-/
I hoe this time they are made in the U.S., I hate the idea of China making any of our military equipment, Look at the disaster caused by having them make our guided missile chips.
After they stole them in the 1980's by a bunch of traitors! Can you say Silkworm?
My brother in Canadian Forces has had that awesome digital foilage
cammo pattern for YEARS WAY BEFORE you guys in the USA.
Unbelievable how effective it really was until he stood by some
evergreen trees near his base and I had a hard time picking
him out from the surroundings. The key thing is staying VERY STILL!
The human visual system is DESIGNED for detecting movement
and if you're all cammoed up and staying still, there ain't no one
can find you!....
...HOWEVER...my 64,000 objects per second multi-spectral 6-HDTV camera,
2000 fps vision recognition system I designed WILL FIND YOU IN LESS THAN
a quarter second, then it will target you and then it will calculate and evaluate
various ammunition trajectory/velocity scenarios and an optimum target-killing
ammo-spread pattern before firing the 6000 rounds per minute Gatling gun
it's attached to in only 16 milliseconds afterwards...so cammo is UTTERLY USELESS
against a fully autonomous vision recognition machine!
Okay Mr.Arty we're impressed.
Give me the time of day, humidity level, temperature, wind direction, wind speed, range, and azimuth and I will place a .50cal round from my Barrett M-82 Sniper Rifle in your dohicky-magigic contraption's sensor and you will have nothing but a Gatling gun that is as effective as suppressive enemy fire. If you are still a nuisance, I will take out the operator that is holding the mash button down spewing all that lead. If you continue to piss me off, I will just call in a 9-line and drop a JDAM on your ass because those are probably cheaper than your Gatling noisemaker...
BTW, we know how to stay still in one position for a long, Long, LONG TIME.
>:-)
Anyone else want to pull out their cranks and see who's is the biggest? LOL!
I can do all that and I don't need humidity level, azimuth, time of day, etc....If your good, and i am, you just need a steady pull on trigger...the rest comes naturally through a lifetime of killing things at all ranges in all weather situations....remember 0.0, its not how big it is...its how well you use it.
RVN-69-70-71
Touche, Mr. Coyotehunter-
M-82 is for long range sniping and you DO need all that when you employ that weapon a mile out...You know as well as I do that round will do a LOT of squirrelly things from that range...
PS: Thank you for your service, Sir; my father spent quality time over their at that timeframe as well...
Your $10,000 Barrett is ridiculous. Bragging about it makes it moreso.
If the enemy is in range, so are you !
@DOU44-
You sound jealous because you haven't shot one...First time I squeezed that trigger I knew what to expect, but until you actually do, you have NO IDEA...
Man, what a rush!
:-)
Your 10 grand would've been better spent on an actual penis enlargement.
Okay, JSaff-
I will give that one to you; that was funny. But it was a figure of speech when everyone talks about how to negate a specific threat...Between camouflage and an M-82/M-107 what would you bring to the fight? Besides a recommendation for a penis enlargement that is?
Snipers are a goundpounder bestfriend/worst fear. It all depends on which side the shooter is on. Only thing that makes me feel safer on a patrol besides a sniper overwatch, is having a Apachee in the air ready to respond.
The A-TACS pattern is pretty interesting
I agree, their approach is similar in concept to the marpat design but unique to A-Tacs and can be designed for many types of environments. Time to stop re-inventing the wheel. BTW, well done to the Marines for having their snipers come up with the solution. Adapt, improvise, overcome.... oorah!
Do you see me now?
"No."
"Well, OPEN YOUR EYES!"
"Oh...Well how was I supposed to know?"
:-)
icevailed...most times it doesn't matter what battle-rattle you drag along with you, if the bad guys see you when you arrive, they'll pretty much know where you're at. However, there are times when blending in delays the bad guys locking on and that helps mucho. But you're right for the most part, something universal is usually the best way to go and make adaptations locally (dirty it up, smoke it and crumple it up some), look like the people around you or like the stuff around you. Bad designs don't work, but too much time and effort can be placed on specific types of uniforms. This argument comes up in every war. Gary Larson published a cartoon showing knights wearing uniforms with big crosses on them and the caption was "these new uniforms suck".
should also wear two different patterns breaks up human outline better, use it bowhunting and critters may see you but they stand for a couple seconds trying to figure it out...TWANG....come with the knife "Slimbo"
Im glad that the Army is getting rid of those ACU's. The only thing they are good for is fighting in a rock quarry. Other than that, they are useless. Go back to the Desert Camo's. Soldiers don't need that digital fellbercarb!
I was drafted before camo uniform days, but when we went to BDUs I could see the wisdom of large, irregular patterns in contrasting colors being useful to break up the recognizable human outline. To me, the current megapixel design suffers because the pattern is so small that it blends into one color and ignores this outline-breaking principle.
From the Spanish-American War through the early parts of WWII, the Army wore khaki, a proven color cribbed from colonial battlefields all over the world. That was replaced, during WWII, with "olive drab", a color which lasted until the 1980's (even if troops during Vietnam experimented with things such as the French "Tiger Stripe" camo). Then, in rapid succession, we went with "Woodland Camo" and its "Desert Camo" version (basically blotches of colors favoring either green or brown tones according to the expected terrain). At some point, someone in the Army hierarchy decided to replace the desert version with the "Chocolate Chip" pattern made famous during Gulf War I - which, whatever its effectiveness as camouflage, was still one of the coolest looking patterns ever fielded. BUT, by Gulf War II, that had been replaced, wholesale, by the revised "Desert Pattern" camouflage, a washed out version of the original, post-Vietnam desert dispersed pattern, which offered little advantage over the plain khaki worn by the great grandfathers of the men wearing it. Meanwhile, while the Army Brass played "Fashion Police", the Marines put a lot of time, effort, and testing into what became known as "Digital" camouflage - designed to be effective both in regular light as well as against enhanced sensors, such as night vision (the pattern being computer designed to confuse the pixels in night vision equipment). The Marines, however, being ever practical, realized that they needed to offer that pattern in both a woodland (chiefly green) and desert (chiefly brown) version. Then they copyrighted it. The Army COULD have copied the Marine pattern (I'm sure they could have gotten past the copyright) but, instead, decided to mimic the pattern without the effectiveness, choosing, moreover, to render it in hues of grey which work against nothing in nature at all. And, having blown their budget by their incessant clothing changes, they decided that they'd make that one color and pattern work for all environments, with the result that it works in none. It is, without a doubt, the least effective camo pattern ever conceived, short of painting a red target on one's soldiers.
NOW, it IS possible to create a camo system that works in most, if not all environments. In fact, about 15-20 years ago, there was a company offering a pattern called "ASAT" ("All Season, All Terrain") for hunters, which pattern did a surprisingly good job at disguising its wearers in everything outside of a snowfield. I'm sure that the Army, if they wanted, could buy the rights to it, but this is not about combat effectiveness, this is about somebody "making a mark" - "Oh, look, I'm the guy who created the NEW Army camo uniform". It's the same attitude which caused the Army to forsake the proven Marine Corps pattern for its own interpretation of it. And it's stupid. Someone needs fired - or, better yet, put in his own, horrid camo uniform and dumped into a hostile area for a little real life "escape and evasion". Maybe then he would be a bit more serious about creating a workable camouflage system instead of getting his name on a project.
The sad thing is that these fashion generating ego trips are not only hugely expensive (considering how much gear and clothing has to be replaced with every change in pattern), but it is also dangerous to the men and women forced to wear these ineffective patterns. Heads should roll and the current uniform should be dumped onto the surplus market for whatever money the Army can recoup.
You are so right, oldefarte... I was thinking the same thing; put those 'designers' in their camo and send them out in the field - see how long they last.
Next thought - ask the men and women in the field what they want -
And then.... give me back my old blue denims Go Navy
and Bless all the Troops
I had forgotten that pattern. But then again I was waiting for the new rifle that had won the ACR tests that was back in 1989 thru....well I still waiting.
It all basically boils down to some REMF, that never ate dirt in battle, making a decision in a lab environment that he never left.
What the hell, it was only 5 billion or so. Less than a days deficit in today's world.
All very interesting. However, a color blind person, will be able to see you
hiding behind your camouflage. They were worth their weight in gold in the
jungles of Vietnam.
Never would have occurred to anyone who never served...great point.