6 ms·

> it was decided that the design should work in all terrains to be more cost-effective. I'm not sure they know what "camouflage" means, because that sounds lik

• elliekelly 7y ago
  I also to have to wonder about the cost difference in dollars of specialized camouflage vs all terrain. Saving (what I would I guess is) at most a few dollars per uniform in production is hardly justified when the trade-off is a risk to human life.
  • C1sc0cat 7y ago
    Especially when compared to the cost of a full set of body armour
  • chrisseaton 7y ago
    > Saving (what I would I guess is) at most a few dollars per uniform It really doesn't make a material difference to your point, but just to note that it isn't just a few dollars per uniform. A soldier's webbing, bergen and day sacks (all their battle load carrying equipment) is highly personalised, takes a lot of time to break-in, and takes up a lot of space. Maintaining three or four sets of that in different patterns for different environments would be a huge hassle. A single pattern effective almost everywhere makes more sense than in just simple money.
    • sgt101 7y ago
      How many soldiers are deployed to three or four different environments? I guess that the ones that are (based on my extensive knowledge of TV) will be looking for the extra advantage that a slight improvement gives.
      • chrisseaton 7y ago
        > How many soldiers are deployed to three or four different environments? A pretty normal year for a regular, non special-forces, soldier could be an exercise in the bush in Kenya, in the artic circle in Norway, in the jungle in Belize, in European temperate mountains, in the desert in Oman...
        • smogcutter 7y ago
          *arctic, just fyi.
          • matt_the_bass 7y ago
            I assume that is what was meant. But FYI I have seen US military in uniform in Artic (a place in Rhode Island)
        • PhilWright 7y ago
          The idea that more than a vanishingly small number of regular troops are visiting so many environments in a year is hilarious.
          • chrisseaton 7y ago
            This is typical for a basic unit in my experience. I don’t know if you’re in the military, but people don’t just sit around at home even if there isn’t a major operation on. Units are regularly well go to different environments deliberately to keep their skills up.
      • novembermike 7y ago
        If you're in California you could probably drive to a desert, mountain, forest or urban area in less than a day.
        • idoh 7y ago
          The saying in San Diego is that you can surf in the morning, ski in the afternoon, and camp in the desert at night.
          • deleted 7y ago
            [deleted]
  • EpicEng 7y ago
    Play carriers, mag pouches, and all other wearables tend to match.
  • craftinator 7y ago
    You don't know all that much about the US military I'm guessing? I've attended mission planning sessions that included the net cost of replacement for warfighters lost in regards to cost minimization. The fact is, people will die at times (due to both training and combat), and they have to factor that in to their budget. It's cold and calculating, which is EXACTLY what our military does. It makes it a great military, but a very bad employer.
• jasonwatkinspdx 7y ago
  The cynical answer is they didn't care because it was a good contract to throw to friendly companies. The one that gets me is how the Navy insisted on getting a digital pattern too. What's the point of wearing cammo on a freaking giant ship?!
  • jschwartzi 7y ago
    The navy has land troops as well.
    • drblast 7y ago
      The Navy's camo is blue and would be useless on land. It's not typically worn much on ships where blue coveralls are the norm, at least as of ten years ago. The idea that this was a gift to clothing manufacturers is pretty much the only logical explanation for the Navy's uniform...uh...situation.
      • dragonwriter 7y ago
        > The Navy's camo is blue and would be useless on land There are three different color patterns for the NWU, soon to be reduced to two because the blue one is being eliminated. > It's not typically worn much on ships The blue NWU was intended for ships (it was the first of the three, and the name “Naval Working Uniform” is indicative of it's intended role); it proved poor in that role because of the lack of flame resistance, which is why it became rarely used and is scheduled to be eliminated.
      • jonathankoren 7y ago
        The navy’s blue camo was intended to hide stains, not people. The colors match the paint of the ships. It’s sole purpose is to extend the life of uniforms longer than khakis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navy_Working_Uniform https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navy_Working_Uniform
  • pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    >What's the point of wearing cammo on a freaking giant ship?! // Harder to analyse crew numbers from satellite or aerial imagery?
• chrisseaton 7y ago
  The new Multicam, MTP, and equivalents, do genuinely seem to be pretty good in all terrains. It's extraordinary. I think it's party because it's lighter so it picks up local dust or mud and adapts. Artic is probably the only exception - doesn't work well there so people were a white overlayer. But you need layers anyway in the artic so it's fine.
• jcranmer 7y ago
  For a long time, I could see how the UCP pattern could be the "best" overall, mostly on the basis of being horrible nowhere. (It's actually pretty decent in the arid/semi-arid environments where there's minimal greenery--basically Iraq/Afghanistan, where it's probably better than the old desert camo). But the UCP wasn't even the best universal pattern in its original tests: the Scorpion pattern (which eventually became Multicam) was better on a universal basis. So... kickbacks were probably involved in the original UCP contract.
  • not-corrupt 7y ago
    I remember when it came out, and I sincerely doubt that there were bribes to get this design through. It was just a sign of the times. Knowing the military for what it is, there’s just this incapacity to parse what’s appealing, and a push to grab the interest of young recruits. It’s pretty obvious that the digital pixel pattern fed into any marketing campaign involving buzzwordy digital cyber information superhighway bullshit, and that gave it the advantage. It definitely felt like the kind of groupthink decision that falls out of focus groups. Just boring enough to not completely suck, but still reek obvious pandering to the core of a particular target audience. The fundamental question being: Would a high school student be caught dead in this? Which is to say, what can we ask recruiters to wear in public school gymnasiums and auditoriums that will provide an opening so they feel like they’ll be able to connect and sell to the kind of kid that we can get to sign up? Digital, pixels, information technology, cybercommand. Gentlemen, take a look at the future.
  • rwj 7y ago
    Hanlon's razor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor)
• michaelcampbell 7y ago
  > work in all terrains What they get is "works in no terrain equally badly".
• ianbicking 7y ago
  "[...] deployed troops were given desert camouflage. While this concealed the soldier, their additional equipment made them more noticeable as it was darker than the camouflage." My reading is that they found camouflage clothing isn't sufficient, and they wanted a pattern that could be applied to all equipment, which is where the cost of multiple patterns would go up.
• Havoc 7y ago
  I read that too and my first reaction was thinking of the "oh no it's retarded" meme Camouflage 101 is adapt to surroundings. That by definition excludes one solution for all scenarios.