US backtrack on Camo pattern

Discussion in 'Weapons, Equipment & Rations' started by Yeoman_dai, Aug 6, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. saw some of "them" wearing multicam, looked ally as, somewhere in dorset the other week . Top gear were there recently too.
  2. The multicam clothing seems far better made and designed than the stuff the regulars and TA have (ie C95) re-inforced elbows and knees etc
  3. We as in British MOD is looking at other styles of cam. I sent some of my blokes to do field trials. Others have tried it in Cyprus. And in Canada I think.
  4. "We, as in British MOD", meaning it will be over priced, unsuitable on multiple grounds and appear a decade late?
  5. Nearly every custom bit of kit I'm doing for Regulars is in Multicam Cordura. It goes very extremely well in either Desert or temperate. - That includes die hard uniform units like the Guards too! The logic seems to be "whatever gets the job done" at unit level.
    Why can't the Govt just bite the bullet and purchase a licence off Crye to reproduce it in this country?

    Mod edit - stop slagging off other kit suppliers.
  6. Old news and raised its head a couple of times in different threads but as far as I know the situation today is:

    US: The troops are complaining about the Universal Cam pattern in Afghanistan (also about its weight and therefore heat retention). The short term answer is a multi-cam that looks like Crye but is far enough away that it can be patented US forces.

    Meanwhile 16 Cams are being assessed at NATICK as part of a routine review of cam; half of them are non-digital (no proven benefit apart from look which is now dated). Many of them are environmental specific (IE not universal cam) as there was already an increase in the usage of the old US woodland cammos which were never completely withdrawn from service as Universal cam (UCP) was being found to be less and less operationally sound.

    A few facts: Buying off the shelf (ie Crye Multicam) is a non-starter for most Nations as the ability to patent and therefore restrict the manufacture of products in that pattern is an essential requirement. So USMC, US Army CADPAT and others are patented and licenses given out by the MoDs. Do we want to look the same as anyone with a couple of $ to buy from Crye?

    Multicams / Universal cams are neither. You might be able to take a few pictures in certain deserts and woodlands (care to define exactly what you mean by desert or woodland?) and claim a match. At the bigger level, informed by int, you are presented with a much wider range of environments. If you produce a cam that is good in 8 out of 10 environments but terrible in the other 2 the casualty savings in the 8 will be far outweighed by the increased losses in the remaining two. So what do you do? You take a few more casualties in the 8 and add colors and patterns to stop the high casualty rates in the 2 thereby achieving reduced casualties across the environmental ranges.

    However the result is not a multi or universal cam but a 'least worst cam'.

    The third party cam designers like Crye (of which I have the up most respect for) don't have to worry about this; programme managers and capability teams do.

    Thats not to say there is no argument for going down this route, especially if you accept that you may have to change your cam rapidly to match the environment (every couple of years) or if you frequently transit from one environment to another (Green Zone and the valley walls). But saying the MoD should bite the bullet and license from Crye simplifies the problem and ignores the real issues. Anyway if you are a Brit and you think you like universal cam be careful what you wish for.
  7. When i was back in the UK the other week one of the regulars walked in wearing his fishing camo gear. It was like a boiler suit with jacket printed with a lakeside reed bed scene in realistic colours. He looked a complete pillock.
  8. chrisg46

    chrisg46 LE Book Reviewer

    Obviously doesnt work that well then???
  9. most fishermen do; its the wellies and crispy cod jumpers
  10. You know I hate to admit it but I must be getting an old tw@t. How about using a bit of the old magic, ripped hessian,green towel, old scrim or whatever to break that shape of our's up. The stuff that I think still gets taught in training! The problem is is doesn't look ally anymore (scrim net on helmets with out fcuking job). From my last tour in Afghan I coulndn't believe how much we stand out in the surroundings (possible contributer to casualties). Anyway back to the point digital,traditional,cam for all seasons. It matters not eventually things will go back to basics.
  11. We could always go back to Red/Blue Coats? Maybe we'd stand out but dammit would we look smart!!
  12. You know you, I thing you've got something there. How about me and you Dragons Den 50/50?
  13. To the drawing board!
  14. I agree that bereaking up your shape is more important than the camouflage pattern.

    The Israeli mitznefet seems like a good idea to me:

    Breaks up the shape of the head, can be quickly reversed between desert and woodland and keeps the sun off your head.

    It may be a poor choice if you want to look smart, but it is a good choice if you want to live.