So we got a new camo huh?
 

Take this with a grain of salt, maybe a can or 5lb bag of it. But RUMINT has it that SOCOM has selected a new camo pattern for us all to wear. There are even pics of it.

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/459...ompatterne.jpg

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/3687/mpaor.jpg

So in a effort to sort out some sort of accuracy, has anyone seen it, seen anyone in it or heard any new details about it?

The images you linked are to a digital version of Multi-cam that isn't from Crye.

Same colors and similar pattern, but digitized.

They are avalible online.
No link, or experience .

Ever since the ACU's came out everybody thinks they're getting a new uniform next month.... :rolleyes:

So where is the authentication of this RUMINT from USSOCOM. Who or what Document, e-mail ?

Facts play better than rumor........

I don't consider this authentication,, But it may lead somewhere..

http://domhyde.wordpress.com/tag/arid-camo

Thats not the digital multicam. The digital multi cam has two additional colors in it that this pattern lacks.

New pattern:

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/459...ompatterne.jpg

Multicam digital

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/359...ulticamey6.jpg


So I guess that is the best documentation we will get until they issue it. IF they issue it.

What - another officer stuck in an out-of-branch good deal R&D slot needing to push something unnecessary through the system to justify his LOM? :rolleyes:

Richard's $.02 :munchin

be advised that there is no such thing as "Digital Multicam"

there is a commercial pattern that knockoffs the pattern organization, coloration and then pixelates the result

this is NOT from CRYE nor is it Multicam (tm)

re: the AOR patterns - Eagle, and LBT both had gear samples made up in these colors displayed at the SHOT show. I was not terribly impressed, but as long as the color does the job, then no worries.

New uniforms/patterns??? I'm going to hold my breath. Someone wake me up when I pass out in a minute or two.

Look guys,It's great if they can come up with a camo pattern that can make you almost invisible by blending in to the terriain to the enemy....... :rolleyes: But, with all your armor nowadays,does it really make a difference? :confused: I never had an opportunity to wear the gear so please forgive me if I'm stepping on toes here...... ;)

GB TFS :munchin

I recommended to the CDR that we hold a GOSSEX (gossip exercise), wherein we assign NAIs to validate intel derived from RUMINT.

:rolleyes:

LMAO!
 

Stay safe.

Wew, I'm back. That was a rough one. I must have been out at least 22 hours. Did I miss any news releases from SOCOM on the uniforms?

Very Good....... Hope the CDR got this set up.:p

He's working on it. We would really like some resolution before we LD, or we'll have to rely on GUESSINT (which, when corroborated several times, turns into RUMINT).

:D

I hear the new generation camo will be shape-shifter capable. You can look like a tree, a rock, Bin Laden, a water buffalo, a warrant officer, etc. at the flip of a switch.
I think they call it Chameleoflage but I could be wrong.

Batteries not included.:rolleyes:

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

OcdtADF, I won't speak for TR, but I believe his request for sources was in reference to your statement above. The Natick document you later linked makes no mention of the Universal Camouflage Pattern (UCP), let alone the fact it was chosen for the reason you cite. Please either put up a reputable, perferably official, reference that proves that UCP was chosen for its superiority in desert-specific environments, or stop stating "facts" about how things are decided in the US Army.

KG:

Night Desert pattern.

Gene

Razor

If you like I can provide further clarification on the subject.

The patterns tested in the report I linked to are the basis of the currant ACU.

The Urban Track Pattern listed in the report is the Universal Camouflage Pattern. It was digitised after the trial and the colour black was removed. This gave it the capability of the All Over Brush Pattern. Thus the UCP was born.

I’m sorry; I assumed that most people would have known this.
Here is another source that confirms my statement.

http://www.armytimes.com/legacy/new/...ER-2997500.php

Cadet,

Again, the statement that UCP was chosen because it performed better in a desert environment is misleading at best, and outright wrong at worst. Read the sources you've listed a bit more carefully, and you'll find that Urban Track (and yes, I had heard that UCP is a modified version of Urban Track, but kudos for the catty passive-aggressive swipe, regardless) finished dead last among the Phase IV finalists, bested by Desert All Over Brush, Woodland Track and Scorpion (aka Multicam). Further, the overall "winner", Desert All Over Brush, was chosen for its performance across the spectrum of the three tested environments (desert, woodland and urban), not for outstanding performance in a single environment, although unsurprisingly it peformed better in desert and urban terrains. In others words, it was a better "jack of all trades; master of none" than the other patterns, in the opinion of the selection panel. Interestingly enough, however, Desert All Over Brush was not one of the two finalist patterns, which were the two bottom performers--Multicam and Urban Track.

Razor

Your right about everything you say in your post. Though I’m not sure what you’re arguing. Yes urban track did not finish first in any area of the testing. Except one of the urban tests. The weaknesses associated with it during the trials were put down to the use of black on the uniform. Criticising the prototype before adjusting is a bit premature. Though the use of black remains a contentious issue amount camouflage developers and testers its removal from the urban track pattern was judged to have fixed the flaws associated with it.

PEO Response to criticism of the UCP
‘There has been much discussion about the Universal Camouflage Pattern used on the ACU. Extensive laboratory and field tests were conducted on 11 candidate patterns and colors during development. MultiCam, then called Scorpion, was one of the patterns subjected to a series of laboratory and field evaluations, in multiple, realistic, operational environments under varied terrain and lighting conditions in 2003-04. The camouflage pattern selected was determined to provide the best overall effective concealment in multiple, operational environments, including urban, woodland, and desert scenarios.’
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003418.html


While I will accept criticism of the assumption the testers made in relation to black; namely that its removal would remove urban track’s flaws. I’m not sure I can be so accommodating in relation to your assumptions about my argument.

For an interesting article by hyperstealth biotech on the use of black in uniforms
http://www.hyperstealth.com/acupat/

Note there is an opposition argument about black arguably more detectable when moving. I’m not sure what side of the black in uniform debate I’m on.

My assertion, one that I’m not sure you’ve spoken to is that testing in desert, woodland, urban and desert urban was not sufficient to provide a decent camouflage outcome for the future force warrior program. Within the parameters set, the UCP was the best pattern they could get. I’m sure if they tested it again with a more diverse set of terrains they would have discovered that the patterns flaws were probably broader than the use of black in its texturing. Almost all PEO responses to the discussion of the camouflage choice sight its ‘tested’ superiority in the mentioned areas. My statement about the Camo being the best for the desert should be taken in that context. What the PRO responses don’t do is discuss whether those areas are the ones being encountered by soldiers under fire.

There has been a lot of conspiracy debate over the decision to use the Urban Track pattern. It seems to me that the discussion for the most part needs to be about the testing procedure itself. Considering the amount of money involved the United States Military probably should have seen this coming. Most of my familiarity with this issue is from the position of an outsider. My knowledge about testing procedure comes from my own country and may not be totally applicable. Also our Aussie desert camouflage (DPDU) looks like a packet of brown jelly beans. Probably why were using Auscam in parts of Afghanistan. My country needs a discussion like this, because Auscam, though surprisingly effective (this is luck, because we have a similar coloured environment, the Brits would be screwed if they tried to use DPM) was not designed for Afghanistan nor does it take advantage of a digitised pattern. I wish the discussion about camouflage was like this in our country.


As previosly stated it also seems that the argument has already been made about the ACU in Afghanistan

Recently the army has decided to order a new combat uniform for Afghanistan. An article in the army times, quoting HR2346 pointed out that while functional in Iraq it was not suited for Afghanistan. The House Resolution Ordered The DOD to:

There is also a report on the matter floating around. It was attached to HR 2346. Have not been able to find it.

‘Take immediate action to provide combat uniforms to personnel deployed to Afghanistan with a camouflage pattern that is suited to the environment of Afghanistan’
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/0...forms_061509w/



Here is an interesting little piece on the UCP, it gives some discussion (unofficial) of the bias towards what the trails saw as ‘currant and future operating environments’
http://www.slate.com/id/2106359/

Deciding that black swatches contributed to Urban Track's failure is perfectly fair. Deciding that removing black from the pattern would improve it, is a logical next step. The decision to adjust one pattern without considering adjustments to the other patterns, strikes me as odd.

Declaring the adjusted Urban Track prototype to be the winner without testing the adjusted pattern would be more premature than criticizing the original Urban Track.

This is based on 30 years of military experience, not on any Natick study.

Black, in a uniform intended to be laundered, will never stay black, it quickly fades to shades of charcoal and gray, which frequently occur in nature.

Beyond very close ranges, the colors of camo lose their individual identity and become a conglomeration recognized only as the overall shade of the individual colors. BDUs become a brownish green. DCUs appear tan, ACUs appear a greenish tan, which I have not often seen in the areas I have operated, with the possible exception of a savannah or chaparral, in certain seasons.

The overall color of the ACUs made it a liability in a forest or jungle environment. It was also not particularly effective at night, due to its light colors, which means that it stood out about half of the time, in any environment.

I did not see the problem with having different uniforms for different theaters. We isssued overwhites for snowy areas, didn't we? We have cold weather gear for cold climates, and hot weather gear for hot environments. The overall cost to DA to maintain extra uniforms, plate carriers, rucks, etc. would likely be a drop in the bucket, in the big picture.

The Crye MC looks good and seems to perform well in almost all environments. I do not think that there is a better pattern if we are limited to a single uniform. On the other hand, the costs are very high, and Crye may have some issues making enough for a refit of half a million troops.

Time will tell, but IMHO, the ACU is flawed in camo and in design, and was a mistake.

TR

This is based on 30 years of military experience, not on any Natick study.

Black, in a uniform intended to be laundered, will never stay black, it quickly fades to shades of charcoal and gray, which frequently occur in nature.

Beyond very close ranges, the colors of camo lose their individual identity and become a conglomeration recognized only as the overall blended shade of the individual colors. BDUs become a brownish green. DCUs appear tan, ACUs appear a greenish tan, which I have not often seen in the areas I have operated, with the possible exception of a savannah or chaparral, in certain seasons.

The overall color of the ACUs made it a liability in a forest or jungle environment. It was also not particularly effective at night, due to its light colors, which means that it stood out about half of the time, in any environment.

I did not see the problem with having different uniforms for different theaters. We isssued overwhites for snowy areas, didn't we? We have cold weather gear for cold climates, and hot weather gear for hot environments. The overall cost to DA to maintain extra uniforms, plate carriers, rucks, etc. would likely be a drop in the bucket, in the big picture.

The Crye MC looks good and seems to perform well in almost all environments. I do not think that there is a better pattern if we are limited to a single uniform. On the other hand, the costs are very high, and Crye may have some issues making enough for a refit of half a million troops.

Time will tell, but IMHO, the ACU is flawed in camo and in design, and was a mistake.

TR

Well, I am getting RFI in about 3 weeks en-route to Afghanistan with the 82nd ABN...dime to doughnuts I get more ACU:rolleyes:
I'll post up after issue...

Eagle

Let me clarify it for you:

Note your bolded words. From the Natick sources listed in this thread, UCP/Urban Track was not the best pattern for use in the desert, as you asserted in the quote above; rather, Desert All Over Brush (DAOB) outperformed Urban Track in both desert and urban environments, during the day and at night, according to Natick's testing. According to test results, Urban Track only beat DAOB in the daytime woodland environment test at Ft. Benning, and the night IR woodland environment tests at Ft. Benning and Ft. Polk. I've spent quality time in the woods at Ft. Benning, and I have a hard time accepting that UCP adequately concealed its wearer against the daytime colors that predominate there, but that's neither here nor there.

My argument is that your statement that UCP was chosen for its superior performance in desert environments is both unsupported and incorrect.

Further, using a Slate article written by an art, design and automotive author gives the appearance of grasping at straws, rather than strengthening your position.

As a self-admitted outsider to the R&D and selection processes of the US Army, it may be a better choice to simply remain silent regarding them, than make definitive statements based on conjecture.