Army gives up ACUs...AF next?

[Eclipse]

The Coast Guard is the smallest of the Armed Forces.

By weight or volume?

[jimmydeanno]

I find it hard to believe that the smallest of the armed forces would be in a position to dictate to branches, like the Army, what pattern they are allowed to use and what they aren't.

The Coast Guard is the smallest of the Armed Forces.

Fine, whatever, the point still stands.

[cap235629]

I have yet to see any credible information that strongly concludes the Armed Forces will save money by switching to a common field uniform pattern.  The sheer size of outfitting any one of the services is large enough that I can't imagine economies of scale are going to save any additional money.   Plus, if you force the Marine Corps to switch from field uniforms that they're already using and completely okay with just so everyone can look the same then you're actually wasting money and perfectly good unforms and matching equipment and accessories.

It is not just about the uniform, it is the amount of money spent on equipment and accessories as well.  When the Air Force adopted the ABU they made the decision to issue Army ACU field gear because of the cost vs. benefit of issuing matching gear in the ABU pattern.  Field gear is easily way more expensive than the actual uniform.  I say that unless you have a reason to be issued field gear, you shouldn't need anything camo at all.  Put those service members in their respective services service dress and drive on.....

[Sapper168]

Multicam is a great pattern, but it doesn't seem promising that it is designed for Afghanistan because once we leave Afghanistan, it may not blend in well with other regions. .....

The Multicam was NOT designed for Afghanistan, it was a commercially available pattern that was part of the camo pattern test that the UCP(Universal camoflage pattern) ended up winning for political reasons.  It was a pattern designed for a variety of environments it just happens to work better in that particular theatre of operation than the UCP does.

[cap235629]

Multicam is a great pattern, but it doesn't seem promising that it is designed for Afghanistan because once we leave Afghanistan, it may not blend in well with other regions. .....

The Multicam was NOT designed for Afghanistan, it was a commercially available pattern that was part of the camo pattern test that the UCP(Universal camoflage pattern) ended up winning for political reasons.  It was a pattern designed for a variety of environments it just happens to work better in that particular theatre of operation than the UCP does.

Here is the actual study


[attachment deleted by admin]

[lordmonar]

Yes....well.....if we want to point fingers.....we have to point them to the USMC.

The USMC unilaterally changed their uniform.  The did it in such a way that made it impossible for the other services to follow.

It opened the door for the ACU and ABU and the USN monstrosity we have today.

Beyond that.......there is not a lot anyone can do.

A)  The USMC decided that they weren't happy with the BDU and DCU status quo that everyone else was complacent with and spent some of their own budgeted money on R&D for a distinctive Marine pattern that camoflagued better in a variety of environments.  Pointing a finger at the USMC is like the record companies blaming Apple for pushing development ahead of the status quo and making music buying more convenient because the record companies were content just selling CD's for eternity.


B)  Aside from, yes, putting a patent on the one pattern (with two color variants) among a literal infinite number of camouflage patterns possible the Marine Corps had nothing to do with the Army and other services picking camouflage patterns that people generally dislike and/or work poorly.

No......pointing the finger at the USMC is exactly right.  The MARPAT is no better the the three color DCU or the BDU.  It was started first and formost as a "we want to be distinctive".  Then it was carried through with the [darn] globe and anchors embedded in the pattern to make it USMC only! 

The services had finally gotten to a single combat uniform......a single logistics train....truely leveraging the large buy option.
When the USMC broke out of the BDU.....they did so...not because they were not happy with the pattern/camo/fabric....but they were not happy with being just like everyone else....(forget that they had a different hat, did not wear patches/badges, rolled their sleves differently).

When they went south....it opened the doors for the Army, Air Force and USN to follow suit.

Your analogy about the record companies does not even come close.

The army's "failure" was that they were looking for a one size fits all camo.......and as with all multi-role solutions.....there will ALWAYS be something that does it better.....in specific situations.

The USAF's failure is that anything the Army Does......we can screw up better!.......just be glad they did not choose to follow the army down their service dress uniform change (egads!)

[AngelWings]

Multicam is a great pattern, but it doesn't seem promising that it is designed for Afghanistan because once we leave Afghanistan, it may not blend in well with other regions. .....

The Multicam was NOT designed for Afghanistan, it was a commercially available pattern that was part of the camo pattern test that the UCP(Universal camoflage pattern) ended up winning for political reasons.  It was a pattern designed for a variety of environments it just happens to work better in that particular theatre of operation than the UCP does.

Here is the actual study

http://www.multicampattern.com/about/

Maybe not exactly designed for, but inspired by the area. They designed it so it would overseas in multiple desert environments well, and woodland if need be, or atleast the basis of the pattern was made to help out the camouflage situation in A-Stan and Iraq.

[Major Carrales]

In having studied military uniforming, it would seem that having a "universal" design/cut would be the best option with variation in color or camo available (thus, woodlands for "the wooded," desert patterns for the "desert" and urban grays for that theater.  There need not to be a color (some people I have talked to called for olive drab for working out the the field) for "office wear" because service dress is for that purpose.

As CAP people, who scrounge for uniforms for cadets and ourselves, one would think we would all (unless in active duty or reserve/guard positions who would have to wear them and entitled to more of an opinion for that reason) should want a universal uniform from which we could draw for our purposes.

Never the less, things went wrong when incorporating  the "company logo" was a more important than its use in the field.  This is, in my opinion, reflective of the contemporary preoccupation with style over function.  The idea that the "cart is before the horse."

[SarDragon]

I'd say the NWU is on life support as well.  I've spoken to more than a couple Navy guys who have pointed out that at sea, the boats they are on stand out pretty well (vs. the camo'ed sailors), but when someone in the NWU falls in the water, they effectively disappear.

They aren't much different from the olde dungarees, and replacement working uniforms (whatever they were called). You pretty much disappeared in the water wearing those, too.

At least the pants from the Old Dungarees, you could use as a flotation device.  Does that show my age?

Yes, but I think the NWU pants are equally functional. The blousing drawstrings will do the trick just fine, and actually allow a larger amount of air to be trapped.

[Pylon]

The MARPAT is no better the the three color DCU or the BDU.

Actually, field tests prove they are better.

It was started first and formost as a "we want to be distinctive".

They were pretty up front about this.  SgtMajMC Kent publicly said that part of the goal was to create a distinctive USMC uniform.   But I don't see distinctive as a bad thing.  In the entire history of the US Armed Forces, the 3-color BDU/DCU was the only period the services shared a single field uniform.  We've been distinctive much longer than we've not been.

Then it was carried through with the [darn] globe and anchors embedded in the pattern to make it USMC only!

The Marine Corps has been putting the eagle, globe & anchor on its field uniforms since before WWII.  This is nothing new.  The Navy embeds a naval insignia into its blue digital pattern, too.  No big deal.

......a single logistics train....truely leveraging the large buy option.

Except the services have had separate logistics systems and separate purchasing before, during, and after the BDUs.  It didn't change the way DoD supply worked.

(forget that they had a different hat, did not wear patches/badges, rolled their sleves differently).

Sooo... we wear distinctive headgear and choose not to wear patches and (used to—not even applicable anymore) roll our sleeves with a different technique.  I still fail to see how this is a bad thing.  The Armed Forces each have distinctive dress, service, and mess uniforms, too.  And different ways of wearing them.  The Army uses velcro on field uniforms and the Air Force doesn't.  Does that make one of those bad, too?


At least they weren't arbitrary decisions to force ourselves to be distinctive.  Those choices are rooted in heritage that's older than the Air Force is as a service.  The Marines have always eschewed extra doodads and accouterments on their uniforms.  We didn't put unit patches on our jungle fatigues or BDUs either.  So what?


Heck, the Marine Corps not wearing any patches actually saves money.

When they went south....it opened the doors for the Army, Air Force and USN to follow suit.

Actually, the Army could have kept using the BDU if they wanted.  Nobody stopped them from staying with it.  The Army owns the woodland BDU pattern. 

Your analogy about the record companies does not even come close.

You're right, it would be more closely related to pointing the finger at Apple for introducing the popular iPod and iTunes to their customers because then Microsoft felt compelled to keep up and introduced the Zune, which was terrible and few people liked.


Your apparent anger over the Marine Corps wanting to be distinctive is silly to me.  The services have always found ways to be distinctive and that's part of each service's identity.  If I recall correctly, the Air Force has spent a lot of time in its short history trying to make its service and dress uniforms distinctive from its Army roots.  I don't see that as a bad thing, either.


If that was really your bone of contention —that distinctiveness is bad and a single uniform for all the services saves money— then why aren't you arguing that the Air Force and everyone else give up their dress uniforms and adopt the Army's new dress uniform?  After all, the Army is the biggest service so might as well just wear whatever dress uniform they have and get on it without distinctiveness. Right?

[MSG Mac]

It is also patented to the Corp.  The reason the AF went to the ABU was because the BDU was an Army gig we picked up.

Last I heard the Defense Department was established 65 years ago to maintain a working relationship among the three Service departments and four Armed Forces under it.  Seems to me that someone in all the services didn't stop to check what others had in the works, or tried to develop a common field uniform. Ego's may have dictated something different from what services A, B, or C were developing. Of course people died from being in a non-camoflage uniform, and many millions of dollars were wasted in the effort. But it was all right because "We look better than the other services.

[lordmonar]

Look at the millions we have spend....millions of our tax dollars.....affecting this change.


I knew way back when....when the USMC decided to change....that the rest of us would follow suit.....the USAF could have stayed in the ODs!

I am not "angry".....but I can certainly point the finger where it needs to be pointed.
Not that the US Army, USAF or USN leadership was any better.  Any one of those organisation could have said...."good enough for us...have fun".  But sometimes it just does not work that way.

[ol'fido]

Where is....Dare I invoke the name .....RADIOMAN? This would seem to be right up his alley.

[blackrain]

Combat is not a fashion show.

I got to say I'm suprised  any service can patent or "own" a particular pattern. It's all developed and purchased with taxpayer funds by services that fall under the DOD.  If I was the SECDEF (maybe Congress too)I would say you can have distinctive  insignia(s) of your particular service but if the pattern is effective then anyone can use it.......end of story.


Any decision based on anything other than safety and effectiveness for the troops in the field is the wrong answer.

[Private Investigator]

Uniform changes help support the industrial military complex. Troops do all the sweating, bleeding and dying and fat cats get fatter.

JMHO   

[BuckeyeDEJ]

If anything, the ACU is a failure because you can't tell what anyone's grade is easily. Collar and sleeve insignia work. Looking at someone's chest doesn't. Failed to salute? Probably because you couldn't figure out what the soldier was easily or readily enough.

[Stonewall]

I don't care who is to blame.  The fact is, ACUs (and ABUs) suck.

Fact:  no single camouflage color scheme works for all enviornments
Fact:  patches cost money, but to the Army, they are an important part of unit history
Fact:  the only true wear test is the environment in which we fight
Fact:  when uniform or equipment is used for the first time in combat, expect feedback from the troops
Fact:  individual equipment costs a lot more than uniform (IBA, pouches, gore-tex, etc)

Opinion:  we need at least 3 camouflage color schemes
Opinion:  army units have been around longer than some service branches, let them keep their unit patches
Opinion:  you can test uniforms all you want, but when they are sent to combat, expect to have to make changes
Opinion:  learn from mistakes, accept them, and fix them...swallow pride...mission first
Opinion:  as for individual equipment, go with solid colors (coyote, OD, sand, whatever) so you won't have to create new gear for new camouflage

[Майор Хаткевич]

Opinion:  as for individual equipment, go with solid colors (coyote, OD, sand, whatever) so you won't have to create new gear for new camouflage

This is what I never understood about the military. What is the point of having concealment anything, if you're just going to cover it up with a solid green/black/brown, etc blob on your chest?

How often do soldiers sneak up on someone without anything BUT the uniform ?

[a2capt]

Another interesting thing with a recent ACU change, feedback said they wanted to sew the stuff on, so they changed it to allow tapes, rank, patches to be sewn on.

Right on top of the velcro.

I suspect one of the biggest reasons sewing was desired ..because a velcro sandwich just looks awful.

Pockets sealed with velcro? Can't open 'em without making noise. How did that one get past the review?

[Stonewall]

This is what I never understood about the military. What is the point of having concealment anything, if you're just going to cover it up with a solid green/black/brown, etc blob on your chest?

Seems to work for these guys...