I tried to stay out of this since I work at Natick Labs but I'll throw my
PERSONAL opinion in here.
(NOT IN ANY WAY ENDORSED OR REPRESENTATIVE OF US ARMY POLICY)
Ten years ago during the original testing, the UCP (ACU) pattern did not test well overall. It did very well in urban environments, particularly in the Middle East. That was the focus of Army Doctrine. The Multi-cam pattern did test high throughout multiple environments. HOWEVER, that pattern was a patented pattern owned by Crye Industries. Crye offered to allow the Military to use the pattern at a cost per uniform that would have TRIPLED the cost of the uniform! That 8 billion would have been 24 billion. Additionally, they (Crye) did not want to allow outside vendors to manufacture the uniforms or associated TA-50, but they were not able to manufacture everything themselves at that time. So it would have been a long spin up to meet requirements.
The decision to issue that pattern in Afghanistan (and only in Afghanistan as of now) is based on 1.) significant improvement over the UCP in country, 2.) the variety of terrains and environments in country (lowland lush green valleys to rocky mountain) 3.) the expiration of the Crye pattern allowing for the US Army to seek out additional supplies reducing costs.
As for the other Services (since they're testing is done here as well), the Navy went with their "camo" uniform to serve aboard ships, NOT to use in combat theaters. The pattern was chosen because it hid oil and other stains (common among Sailors) thereby increasing the wearlife of the uniform. No more having to replace your shirt every time you get a drop of something on it. It also launders better and has a better lifespan.
The USMC uniforms...yes they have two color schemes. It would make sense, EXCEPT for the issues with TA-50 and other equipment. Basically, it boils down to money/cost. Do you issue every Marine two different sets of TA-50, one for DCU and one for BDU? THe current issue (Coyote Brown) works with both patterns but completely ruins the camo effect. Back to the same issue.
The Military has done extensive testing on commercial patterns. Most did well in one area or another but overall, they don't do that well. Some of the patterns that tested well here in Mass, failed miserably in VA. The nature of camoflauge.
As for the old Woodland pattern, shiny boots, and berets...The only place that the Woodland camo was/is effective is the Fulda Gap in Germany. That was the only place that it was ever tested or intended to be worn. It's a Cold War relic that needed to be replaced. The shiny boots issue is a cost factor. The only place for shiny boots is in Garrison. Are you going to issue two sets of boots for Garrison and two sets for field? It's the same with the beret. It has NO lifespan (I killed one typically every four-six months) and was COMPLETELY worthless for any form of outside activity (field, motorpool, etc). Yes, it looks nice on a poster and in a ceremony if it's done correctly, but good luck with that. The reason that dry-cleaning the ACU and newer uniforms is banned (just like it was originally with the BDUs) is that the process completely eliminates the IR reducing and build in bug replenent. It bleaches out the coloring ("cook whites") and makes the uniform combat ineffective. Once again, it's a cost factor.
Do I personally think that the US Army should look at multiple patterns for multiple environments? Yes I do. But I'm also a realist that understands the costs and logistical issues that go into that.
If the decision to go with the Multi-cam pattern is made, then that's great. Of the 86 different patterns that we've tested (commercial, foreign, and protoypes), it consistently tested the best at all of the areas we tested it, both CONUS and OCONUS. BUT, we have to remember that technology and camofluage is always changing. There will always be something else in the pipeline.
Aloha
(NOT IN ANY WAY ENDORSED OR REPRESENTATIVE OF US ARMY POLICY)
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
(it masked common stains seems to be the explanation).
