Negative, they have a union.

TR

I think we should just go for broke and use the Army Blue Service Uniform.

Dress greens for the field. Sence Army Blue Service Uniform will be used instead.

A little update....

http://strikehold.wordpress.com/2009...r-user-review/

It has been a while since I have been on here. Here is a link to an apparent manufacturer already attempting production of kit in the one of newer patterns.

http://soldiersystems.net/2009/06/11/boonie/boonie/

I have heard this same rumor over at 5th. We do need a better uniform than that piece of shit ACU. Whoever come up with that color is an idiot.

Edit

I have seen this camo worn in combat, but only issued to select units.

Apparently a few are roaming around Ft.Campbell w/Multicam...... Unkwn unit.

ACU was chosen over the other camouflage patters because apparently it functions better in the desert. Multicam however would be better for operating in the green zones of Afghanistan.

Aussies have recently been wearing their standard DPCU in the green zones of Oruzgan province in place of the DPDU.

I defiantly agree the ACU has had its day; great idea in theory, a universal camouflage but I don’t think it will really work.

Source?

TR

Sure thing TR

The debate in the discussion of this area can go on forever since no perfect uniform exists.

This is in part because of the way the United States tested its new uniform camouflage patterns. I was at a defense technology conference a little while ago where the Australian Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO) our rough equivalent of DARPA was discussing future appropriations for our armed forces. Its a partnership program with the academics in our universities.

One of the major points of discussion was the potential of following the United States lead in the use of a universal camouflage pattern. Several options were discussed most settling on the use of some sort of Multicam derivative but this was pretty idle speculation since we have not carried out any official testing like the US military has.

What was however discussed were the green zones of Afghanistan. A convincing argument was made that the US military trials did not take into account that terrain during testing.

The full report ‘Universal Camouflage for the Future Warrior’ can be retrieved here
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...c=GetTRDoc.pdf

What is known is that the testing procedure was not set up to foresee the green zone terrain in which a large portion of combat takes place in Afghanistan (due in part to the thick terrain and river systems). In fact the testing dealt only with Woodland, Urban, Desert and Desert/Urban. Nothing like the brighter greens and dark browns associated with the green zones were tested during the trials. It is also worth noting that jungle terrain was also not tested.

So when the testing was done the currant pattern on the ACU was selected because of its high marks in the afore mentioned terrains. This is obviously correct when considering what those terrains look like, it won the battle within the set context. This is why multicam was not selected; it did not meet the testing standard set. As the DSTO people pointed out, if the testing were done again with a more wide variety of terrains a better cam pattern may have emerged.

Wasn't CRY not being large enough to fulfill a big Army contract. The main reason they didn't pick MC? IMO, I have not seen any other pattern blend in both Desert and Woodland as good as MC.

Hit the links in this link related to Camo testing.
http://www.milspecmonkey.com/articles.html

Uniforms
 

Recent directive issued to us regarding uniforms:

"Wear what makes sense."

That is exactly what we needed to hear. I will interpret that broadly.

Granted, the rest of the force doesn't get the latitude that we do.

BBRA, until someone abuses it.

TR