Wow! The new ACU cammo really works! (pic) UPDATE page 22 - Page 2

Armory » Tactical Gear

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Wow! The new ACU cammo really works! (pic) UPDATE page 22 (Page 2 of 18)

Posted: 8/19/2006 1:15:32 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Lets face reality here. ACU was designed to be effective against night vision equipment. .

I hear you...how many insurgents have night vision equipment though..?

my unit captured several caches with night vision RPG sights in them for the record.

Posted: 8/19/2006 1:25:11 PM EDT

[#2]

Under the right circumastances, I'd say it works pretty damn good.

ETA: I'd say this is decent too considering it's an open and cleanly mowed field.

Posted: 8/19/2006 1:52:51 PM EDT

[#3]

Wow! Can't even see the guy! Just his shadow! That is some damn good cammo! All that Multicam hype must be true!

Posted: 8/19/2006 2:01:48 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Okay, fine, I'll go along with your statement.

But, it still doesn't answer the question of why army brass decided to issue a uniform that screams 'IM RIGHT HERE SHOOT ME!'
Along those lines, the Marine Corps gets the older shit and still does a better job with it, while the army gets the new stuff and they don't perform as well.

Older shit!?

You're gonna spend $70million+ per Osprey!
It was a USMC decision to keep moving with the Cobra/Huey platform. Not a bad decision, but the USMC wasn't gonna face the Soviet hordes in Eastern Europe.
The Navy bought you nice new Hornets. There's a freebie.
It was a USMC decision to pick up that POS Harrier. Them ain't cheap, either. And the underperforming replacement F35B VSTOL is gonna cost over a hundred million a copy, just so the USMC can keep their own "carriers".
New M777 light guns for my fellow gunners.
Should I go on?

The USMC hasn't taken hand-me-downs for decades, but the bitching still goes on.

The only "old" things you're getting are fat, ugly women after the Army's smoothed out their bores.

When the USMC stops sucking on the US Army's logistical teet, then I'll listen to the bitching.

You clearly have no idea of the Marine Corps Naval Department relationship and concept. The Marine Corps has ALWAYS gotten hand me down chit! I love how you try to use the cost of naval FLEET equipment as an indicator of "times achangin"....pfffft. Only in the last 5-7 years have things changed and that has been very gradual and purely due to real world requirements due to Afghanistan and Iraq. Both of these areas of conflict have been a BOON for all services and new gear.

ACU, is crap....just admit it already. The Marine Corps did the right thing in sticking to TWO different variants just like they did in the past.

Posted: 8/19/2006 3:46:29 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Okay, fine, I'll go along with your statement.

But, it still doesn't answer the question of why army brass decided to issue a uniform that screams 'IM RIGHT HERE SHOOT ME!'
Along those lines, the Marine Corps gets the older shit and still does a better job with it, while the army gets the new stuff and they don't perform as well.

Older shit!?

You're gonna spend $70million+ per Osprey!
It was a USMC decision to keep moving with the Cobra/Huey platform. Not a bad decision, but the USMC wasn't gonna face the Soviet hordes in Eastern Europe.
The Navy bought you nice new Hornets. There's a freebie.
It was a USMC decision to pick up that POS Harrier. Them ain't cheap, either. And the underperforming replacement F35B VSTOL is gonna cost over a hundred million a copy, just so the USMC can keep their own "carriers".
New M777 light guns for my fellow gunners.
Should I go on?

The USMC hasn't taken hand-me-downs for decades, but the bitching still goes on.

The only "old" things you're getting are fat, ugly women after the Army's smoothed out their bores.

When the USMC stops sucking on the US Army's logistical teet, then I'll listen to the bitching.

You clearly have no idea of the Marine Corps Naval Department relationship and concept. The Marine Corps has ALWAYS gotten hand me down chit! I love how you try to use the cost of naval FLEET equipment as an indicator of "times achangin"....pfffft. Only in the last 5-7 years have things changed and that has been very gradual and purely due to real world requirements due to Afghanistan and Iraq. Both of these areas of conflict have been a BOON for all services and new gear.

ACU, is crap....just admit it already. The Marine Corps did the right thing in sticking to TWO different variants just like they did in the past.

..uhm, i think this entire thread was about how the ACU is crap, or did the Corps not require reading comprehension?

Posted: 8/19/2006 4:00:03 PM EDT

[#6]

Whatever the failings of the pattern, at least the ACU was not made in that god-awful heavy as fuck, hot as fuck material that the MARPAT uniforms were. That shit was even heavier than the old temperate weight twill woodland uniforms.

Posted: 8/19/2006 4:16:09 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Whatever the failings of the pattern, at least the ACU was not made in that god-awful heavy as fuck, hot as fuck material that the MARPAT uniforms were. That shit was even heavier than the old temperate weight twill woodland uniforms.

The fabric MARPAT was or is made of? Has there been a change?

I have heard criticism the the ACU material wears out fast and rips easily.

Posted: 8/19/2006 4:21:04 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Whatever the failings of the pattern, at least the ACU was not made in that god-awful heavy as fuck, hot as fuck material that the MARPAT uniforms were. That shit was even heavier than the old temperate weight twill woodland uniforms.

The fabric MARPAT was or is made of? Has there been a change?

I have heard criticism the the ACU material wears out fast and rips easily.

I have heard that the USMC started issuing the MARPAT in a lighter material, but I never saw it before I got out in 2005.

Posted: 8/19/2006 4:22:46 PM EDT

[#9]

MCCUUs still are made the same weight as before. They also purposely made with a heavier weight bottom.

Posted: 8/19/2006 4:37:19 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Under the right circumastances, I'd say it works pretty damn good.

www.multicampattern.com/img/img23b.jpg

Is there a guy in this pic? Where the hell is he at? seriously

Posted: 8/19/2006 5:36:56 PM EDT

[#11]

Let me stress: this is an ACU discussion thread (digresssions into MARPAT allowed), not an ACU bashing thread per se.

To recap: IMHO only one thing needs to be done to make the ACU viable: change the very pale Sand color to a darker Tan.

In other words, from this:

to this:

thanks for the photo work, topgunpilot20!

Posted: 8/19/2006 7:01:57 PM EDT

[#12]

IMHO- Army ACU SMOKES A POLE...

The USMC did it right.

Pilk

Posted: 8/19/2006 11:19:01 PM EDT

[#13]

I have to concure on that.... Im in the army and I think it sucks... We should have gone with the MARPAT uniforms they work much better. Or just modified our old uniforms like what SF and Ranger BAT has done.

Posted: 8/19/2006 11:30:37 PM EDT

[#14]

Pefect example of why the Marine pattern works so well against different backgrounds. Observe the difference between the Marine on top and the Marine below and their respective backgrounds.

Posted: 8/20/2006 12:02:40 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
While in ACB mode (Air Contingency Bn.), shit packed, ready in 18 hours. We had two sets of woodland and two sets of desert and there was plenty of time to change should the need arise.

However, the overwhelming majority of warfighters are not on such short notice and command knows just where they are going well ahead of time. Even short notice people (SF,etc.) have shit pre-positioned for different climatic and tactical settings.

C'mon - we STILL have folks in the Desert with woodland gear. It isn't just BDUs - it's body armor, web gear, helmet covers, ruck sacks, etc.

Quoted:
I believe topgunpilot20 got it right about the "improved" ACU pic I posted; the values in the pic are off, the cammo has not been improved at all
.

Too bad

What kills me is how the Crye advocates fail to see how similarly manipulated the photos on their site are.

Posted: 8/20/2006 9:35:24 AM EDT

[#16]

height=8

Quoted:
height=8

Quoted:
While in ACB mode (Air Contingency Bn.), shit packed, ready in 18 hours. We had two sets of woodland and two sets of desert and there was plenty of time to change should the need arise.

However, the overwhelming majority of warfighters are not on such short notice and command knows just where they are going well ahead of time. Even short notice people (SF,etc.) have shit pre-positioned for different climatic and tactical settings.

C'mon - we STILL have folks in the Desert with woodland gear. It isn't just BDUs - it's body armor, web gear, helmet covers, ruck sacks, etc.

height=8

Quoted:
I believe topgunpilot20 got it right about the "improved" ACU pic I posted; the values in the pic are off, the cammo has not been improved at all
.

Too bad hinking.gif

What kills me is how the Crye advocates fail to see how similarly manipulated the photos on their site are.

Most of those are Pogues that have no need to blend with their office chair or maintenance bay. The overwhelming majority of those outside the wire get what they need.

Posted: 8/20/2006 9:46:47 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:
While in ACB mode (Air Contingency Bn.), shit packed, ready in 18 hours. We had two sets of woodland and two sets of desert and there was plenty of time to change should the need arise.

However, the overwhelming majority of warfighters are not on such short notice and command knows just where they are going well ahead of time. Even short notice people (SF,etc.) have shit pre-positioned for different climatic and tactical settings.

C'mon - we STILL have folks in the Desert with woodland gear. It isn't just BDUs - it's body armor, web gear, helmet covers, ruck sacks, etc.

Quoted:
I believe topgunpilot20 got it right about the "improved" ACU pic I posted; the values in the pic are off, the cammo has not been improved at all
.

Too bad

What kills me is how the Crye advocates fail to see how similarly manipulated the photos on their site are.

what next your gonna tell me those mossy oak/ real tree pics are kosher either

IMHO.... its a fad.... you stick with basics you blend in.. there is no magical blend all anywhere pattern,,,

find the guy guess the camo.....distance is under 50 yrds and he aint tryin all to well to hide!

Posted: 8/20/2006 10:18:43 AM EDT

[#18]

"find the guy guess the camo.....distance is under 50 yrds and he aint tryin all to well to hide!"

Straight in front, center on the picture. Looks like woodland camo to me.

Posted: 8/20/2006 10:36:42 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:
While in ACB mode (Air Contingency Bn.), shit packed, ready in 18 hours. We had two sets of woodland and two sets of desert and there was plenty of time to change should the need arise.

However, the overwhelming majority of warfighters are not on such short notice and command knows just where they are going well ahead of time. Even short notice people (SF,etc.) have shit pre-positioned for different climatic and tactical settings.

C'mon - we STILL have folks in the Desert with woodland gear. It isn't just BDUs - it's body armor, web gear, helmet covers, ruck sacks, etc.

Quoted:
I believe topgunpilot20 got it right about the "improved" ACU pic I posted; the values in the pic are off, the cammo has not been improved at all
.

Too bad

What kills me is how the Crye advocates fail to see how similarly manipulated the photos on their site are.

Most of those are Pogues that have no need to blend with their office chair or maintenance bay. The overwhelming majority of those outside the wire get what they need.

EVERY size large interceptor vest issued to the 3d ACR for our OIF 3 rotation was in woodland camo. I suppose the Cav is all pogues, though. And the fact that the entire regiment moved over land twice to new AOs, from the cooks to the admin pukes, means nothing to you.

You are talking out of your ass.

Posted: 8/20/2006 11:37:23 AM EDT

[#20]

height=8

Quoted:
height=8

Quoted:
While in ACB mode (Air Contingency Bn.), shit packed, ready in 18 hours. We had two sets of woodland and two sets of desert and there was plenty of time to change should the need arise.

However, the overwhelming majority of warfighters are not on such short notice and command knows just where they are going well ahead of time. Even short notice people (SF,etc.) have shit pre-positioned for different climatic and tactical settings.

C'mon - we STILL have folks in the Desert with woodland gear. It isn't just BDUs - it's body armor, web gear, helmet covers, ruck sacks, etc.

height=8

Quoted:
I believe topgunpilot20 got it right about the "improved" ACU pic I posted; the values in the pic are off, the cammo has not been improved at all
.

Too bad hinking.gif

What kills me is how the Crye advocates fail to see how similarly manipulated the photos on their site are.

Most of those are Pogues that have no need to blend with their office chair or maintenance bay. The overwhelming majority of those outside the wire get what they need.

EVERY size large interceptor vest issued to the 3d ACR for our OIF 3 rotation was in woodland camo. I suppose the Cav is all pogues, though. And the fact that the entire regiment moved over land twice to new AOs, from the cooks to the admin pukes, means nothing to you.
Allow me to restate my previous post. I suppose not ALL of those outside the wire get what they need, however movement in vehicles doesn't require a matching interceptor. I was refering to those dismounted for the most part and as for the ACU's ability to "blend well accross the board". In the sandbox it isn't the best but it will suffice. My concern was it's being issued to the Army as a whole and what will happen to that infantry squad doing a security patrol somewhere like the Phillipines or other forested area where the ACU's glowing deficiencies (no pun intended) may/will cost lives. IMHO, the Army is making a huge mistake by trying to be different with the keeping up with the Jones' attitude and jumping on the digital bandwagon.

You are talking out of your ass.

hock.gif

Posted: 8/20/2006 12:03:45 PM EDT

[#21]

height=8

Quoted:
height=8

Quoted:
While in ACB mode (Air Contingency Bn.), shit packed, ready in 18 hours. We had two sets of woodland and two sets of desert and there was plenty of time to change should the need arise.

However, the overwhelming majority of warfighters are not on such short notice and command knows just where they are going well ahead of time. Even short notice people (SF,etc.) have shit pre-positioned for different climatic and tactical settings.

C'mon - we STILL have folks in the Desert with woodland gear. It isn't just BDUs - it's body armor, web gear, helmet covers, ruck sacks, etc.

height=8

Quoted:
I believe topgunpilot20 got it right about the "improved" ACU pic I posted; the values in the pic are off, the cammo has not been improved at all
.

Too bad hinking.gif

What kills me is how the Crye advocates fail to see how similarly manipulated the photos on their site are.

Most of those are Pogues that have no need to blend with their office chair or maintenance bay. The overwhelming majority of those outside the wire get what they need.

EVERY size large interceptor vest issued to the 3d ACR for our OIF 3 rotation was in woodland camo. I suppose the Cav is all pogues, though. And the fact that the entire regiment moved over land twice to new AOs, from the cooks to the admin pukes, means nothing to you.

You are talking out of your ass.

What the hell ever I was in OIF III with the 82nd over there with 3rd ACR and I saw a lot of your cav and tanker pukes with the desert ones. Anyways the war in Iraq isn't really about Camo. Its urban warfare! Unless your in a tank or armor of some sort then it is just ruckus warfare. Oh yeah we could hear you 3rd ACR ass hats a mile away. Just imagaine how well HAJI could hear you!

Posted: 8/20/2006 12:17:39 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:
While in ACB mode (Air Contingency Bn.), shit packed, ready in 18 hours. We had two sets of woodland and two sets of desert and there was plenty of time to change should the need arise.

However, the overwhelming majority of warfighters are not on such short notice and command knows just where they are going well ahead of time. Even short notice people (SF,etc.) have shit pre-positioned for different climatic and tactical settings.

C'mon - we STILL have folks in the Desert with woodland gear. It isn't just BDUs - it's body armor, web gear, helmet covers, ruck sacks, etc.

Quoted:
I believe topgunpilot20 got it right about the "improved" ACU pic I posted; the values in the pic are off, the cammo has not been improved at all
.

Too bad

What kills me is how the Crye advocates fail to see how similarly manipulated the photos on their site are.

Most of those are Pogues that have no need to blend with their office chair or maintenance bay. The overwhelming majority of those outside the wire get what they need.

EVERY size large interceptor vest issued to the 3d ACR for our OIF 3 rotation was in woodland camo. I suppose the Cav is all pogues, though. And the fact that the entire regiment moved over land twice to new AOs, from the cooks to the admin pukes, means nothing to you.

You are talking out of your ass.

What the hell ever I was in OIF III with the 82nd over there with 3rd ACR and I saw a lot of your cav and tanker pukes with the desert ones. Anyways the war in Iraq isn't really about Camo. Its urban warfare! Unless your in a tank or armor of some sort then it is just ruckus warfare. Oh yeah we could hear you 3rd ACR ass hats a mile away. Just imagaine how well HAJI could hear you!

I've got news for you Senor White Falcon, a cav Troop can patrol dismounted just as easily as a grunt company - they just has more options available to them.

I see your mouth and attitude is setting an incredible example as to the professionalism of the Airborne in general

.

Size medium and XL Interceptors were desert - size Large were woodland. I didn't say "all." My point was, it is not as easy as some are suggesting to equip a force for a particular camo scheme. Heck, even IN Iraq I know od units who patroled in woodland, because it was far better than desert int he hedges and orchards they were operating around.

ACU may not have been the best compromise - but a compromise was needed.

Posted: 8/20/2006 12:34:08 PM EDT

[#23]

height=8

Quoted:
height=8

Quoted:
While in ACB mode (Air Contingency Bn.), shit packed, ready in 18 hours. We had two sets of woodland and two sets of desert and there was plenty of time to change should the need arise.

However, the overwhelming majority of warfighters are not on such short notice and command knows just where they are going well ahead of time. Even short notice people (SF,etc.) have shit pre-positioned for different climatic and tactical settings.

C'mon - we STILL have folks in the Desert with woodland gear. It isn't just BDUs - it's body armor, web gear, helmet covers, ruck sacks, etc.

height=8

Quoted:
I believe topgunpilot20 got it right about the "improved" ACU pic I posted; the values in the pic are off, the cammo has not been improved at all
.

Too bad hinking.gif

What kills me is how the Crye advocates fail to see how similarly manipulated the photos on their site are.

Most of those are Pogues that have no need to blend with their office chair or maintenance bay. The overwhelming majority of those outside the wire get what they need.

EVERY size large interceptor vest issued to the 3d ACR for our OIF 3 rotation was in woodland camo. I suppose the Cav is all pogues, though. And the fact that the entire regiment moved over land twice to new AOs, from the cooks to the admin pukes, means nothing to you.

You are talking out of your ass.

What the hell ever I was in OIF III with the 82nd over there with 3rd ACR and I saw a lot of your cav and tanker pukes with the desert ones. Anyways the war in Iraq isn't really about Camo. Its urban warfare! Unless your in a tank or armor of some sort then it is just ruckus warfare. Oh yeah we could hear you 3rd ACR ass hats a mile away. Just imagaine how well HAJI could hear you!

I've got news for you Senor White Falcon, a cav Troop can patrol dismounted just as easily as a grunt company - they just has more options available to them.

I see your mouth and attitude is setting an incredible example as to the professionalism of the Airborne in general heme.even IN Iraq I know of units who patroled in woodland, because it was far better than desert int he hedges and orchards they were operating around.

ACU may not have been the best compromise - but a compromise was needed.

Thats sort of the point I was trying to make, at least that option was available, same in A-stan. However, with the ACU now being the standard "across the board", that will not be an option for much longer.

Posted: 8/20/2006 12:58:00 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Under the right circumastances, I'd say it works pretty damn good.

www.multicampattern.com/img/img23b.jpg

Is there a guy in this pic? Where the hell is he at? seriously

Look at this one and you'll see the person with out their coat on.

Now look where I highlighted in red. You'll see him. He's got his head down and his arms over his knees.

Posted: 8/20/2006 9:24:33 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Okay, fine, I'll go along with your statement.

But, it still doesn't answer the question of why army brass decided to issue a uniform that screams 'IM RIGHT HERE SHOOT ME!'
Along those lines, the Marine Corps gets the older shit and still does a better job with it, while the army gets the new stuff and they don't perform as well.

Older shit!?

You're gonna spend $70million+ per Osprey!
It was a USMC decision to keep moving with the Cobra/Huey platform. Not a bad decision, but the USMC wasn't gonna face the Soviet hordes in Eastern Europe.
The Navy bought you nice new Hornets. There's a freebie.
It was a USMC decision to pick up that POS Harrier. Them ain't cheap, either. And the underperforming replacement F35B VSTOL is gonna cost over a hundred million a copy, just so the USMC can keep their own "carriers".
New M777 light guns for my fellow gunners.
Should I go on?

The USMC hasn't taken hand-me-downs for decades, but the bitching still goes on.

The only "old" things you're getting are fat, ugly women after the Army's smoothed out their bores.

When the USMC stops sucking on the US Army's logistical teet, then I'll listen to the bitching.

You clearly have no idea of the Marine Corps Naval Department relationship and concept. The Marine Corps has ALWAYS gotten hand me down chit! I love how you try to use the cost of naval FLEET equipment as an indicator of "times achangin"....pfffft. Only in the last 5-7 years have things changed and that has been very gradual and purely due to real world requirements due to Afghanistan and Iraq. Both of these areas of conflict have been a BOON for all services and new gear.

ACU, is crap....just admit it already. The Marine Corps did the right thing in sticking to TWO different variants just like they did in the past.

..uhm, i think this entire thread was about how the ACU is crap, or did the Corps not require reading comprehension?

Maybe you missed the part where SJSAMPLE was attempting to suggest the Marine Corps no longer suffers the use of old chit. I’ve left the afore mentioned topic attached for your reading pleasure and “reading comprehension study. “ It pays to read items in their entirety rather then pretending to actually have a clue. Sarcasm being what it is, yes, the entire point was ACU sucks.

Posted: 8/20/2006 10:05:52 PM EDT

[#26]

if u cover them in mud they kinda work

Posted: 8/20/2006 10:27:37 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:
While in ACB mode (Air Contingency Bn.), shit packed, ready in 18 hours. We had two sets of woodland and two sets of desert and there was plenty of time to change should the need arise.

However, the overwhelming majority of warfighters are not on such short notice and command knows just where they are going well ahead of time. Even short notice people (SF,etc.) have shit pre-positioned for different climatic and tactical settings.

C'mon - we STILL have folks in the Desert with woodland gear. It isn't just BDUs - it's body armor, web gear, helmet covers, ruck sacks, etc.

Quoted:
I believe topgunpilot20 got it right about the "improved" ACU pic I posted; the values in the pic are off, the cammo has not been improved at all
.

Too bad

What kills me is how the Crye advocates fail to see how similarly manipulated the photos on their site are.

Most of those are Pogues that have no need to blend with their office chair or maintenance bay. The overwhelming majority of those outside the wire get what they need.

So you are saying that you had two IBA covers, two rucks, two sets of MOLLE or at leat ammo pouches, two sets of knee and elbow pads, etc, etc.?
And how do you change the stuff that already palletised?
And there was NO, that means zero, time to have changed when Panama and Grenada were invaded, and Haiti was almost invaded. Sort of ignoring those aren't you? Even the 7th ID (L) didn't have notice, and they were just a regular ole' light division (for Panama). Luckily those were all green environments so it didn't matter. I guess that we'll never have to do a quick invasion of a desert type nation. Only South America, and maybe the Carribean.

Posted: 8/21/2006 2:46:20 PM EDT

[#28]

Two sets of woodland and two sets of desert. The IBA and and pouches are coyote which does a hell of alot better in multiple environments than day-glo ACU.

Posted: 8/21/2006 7:34:11 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Okay, fine, I'll go along with your statement.

But, it still doesn't answer the question of why army brass decided to issue a uniform that screams 'IM RIGHT HERE SHOOT ME!'
Along those lines, the Marine Corps gets the older shit and still does a better job with it, while the army gets the new stuff and they don't perform as well.

Older shit!?

You're gonna spend $70million+ per Osprey!
It was a USMC decision to keep moving with the Cobra/Huey platform. Not a bad decision, but the USMC wasn't gonna face the Soviet hordes in Eastern Europe.
The Navy bought you nice new Hornets. There's a freebie.
It was a USMC decision to pick up that POS Harrier. Them ain't cheap, either. And the underperforming replacement F35B VSTOL is gonna cost over a hundred million a copy, just so the USMC can keep their own "carriers".
New M777 light guns for my fellow gunners.
Should I go on?

The USMC hasn't taken hand-me-downs for decades, but the bitching still goes on.

The only "old" things you're getting are fat, ugly women after the Army's smoothed out their bores.

When the USMC stops sucking on the US Army's logistical teet, then I'll listen to the bitching.

You clearly have no idea of the Marine Corps Naval Department relationship and concept. The Marine Corps has ALWAYS gotten hand me down chit! I love how you try to use the cost of naval FLEET equipment as an indicator of "times achangin"....pfffft. Only in the last 5-7 years have things changed and that has been very gradual and purely due to real world requirements due to Afghanistan and Iraq. Both of these areas of conflict have been a BOON for all services and new gear.

ACU, is crap....just admit it already. The Marine Corps did the right thing in sticking to TWO different variants just like they did in the past.

..uhm, i think this entire thread was about how the ACU is crap, or did the Corps not require reading comprehension?

Maybe you missed the part where SJSAMPLE was attempting to suggest the Marine Corps no longer suffers the use of old chit. I’ve left the afore mentioned topic attached for your reading pleasure and “reading comprehension study. “ It pays to read items in their entirety rather then pretending to actually have a clue. Sarcasm being what it is, yes, the entire point was ACU sucks.

FunFact --> The Marines have also given up on MOLLE and are procuring their own ILBE (Improved Load Bearing Equipment).

Posted: 8/22/2006 8:18:02 AM EDT

[#30]

The only thing ACU's blend into well is concrete/grayish terrain. The stick out like sore thumbs anywhere else.

The reasons for going with one uniform is to save the Army money. They only have to provide us with one set of uniforms now.

In the open lands of Kuwait I could spot our guys well over 1k away. In Iraq they are even worse becuase the terrain tends to be darker. There is no green in the uniform. The "tan" is like an ivory white. Many of the buildings here are tan to dark tan in color.

We should have two sets like before. Make them in the acu pattern with the pockets and everything but have the desert using the DCU colors. Make the woodland with the old BDU woodland sans black and we've have some kickass uniforms.

The material although not thick has proven good enough to me. The crotches rip out on some people. I havnt had that problem. From what I hear they added stiching to newer ones to help that problem. Ive felt the Marines uniforms and I think they are too thick but they would be durable.

Right now if I used my issue gear Id be wearing 3 different color patterns...

Posted: 8/22/2006 8:59:25 AM EDT

[#31]

height=8

Quoted:
The only thing ACU's blend into well is concrete/grayish terrain. The stick out like sore thumbs anywhere else.

The reasons for going with one uniform is to save the Army money. They only have to provide us with one set of uniforms now.

In the open lands of Kuwait I could spot our guys well over 1k away. In Iraq they are even worse becuase the terrain tends to be darker. There is no green in the uniform. The "tan" is like an ivory white. Many of the buildings here are tan to dark tan in color.

We should have two sets like before. Make them in the acu pattern with the pockets and everything but have the desert using the DCU colors. Make the woodland with the old BDU woodland sans black and we've have some kickass uniforms.

The material although not thick has proven good enough to me. The crotches rip out on some people. I havnt had that problem. From what I hear they added stiching to newer ones to help that problem. Ive felt the Marines uniforms and I think they are too thick but they would be durable.

Right now if I used my issue gear Id be wearing 3 different color patterns...

+1, I knew I wasn't the only one.

Posted: 8/22/2006 9:09:54 AM EDT

[#32]

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n107/akrebs71/acu-pic02.jpg
Hmmmm. Worse than a sore thumb

Posted: 8/22/2006 9:36:59 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
i110.photobucket.com/albums/n107/akrebs71/acu-pic02.jpg
Hmmmm. Worse than a sore thumb

While I am no fanboy of the chosen pattern (just the concept), I do not recognize the uniform frequently shown in this - and other - pics. I can only assume it must be the result of the intense flash used by photographers, but the uniform hanging next to me would actually blend in quite well to the ground, and be a little lighter than the background.

Another problem may be Soldiers ignoring the instructions not to use detergent with optical brighteners.

Posted: 8/22/2006 10:45:22 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
The only thing ACU's blend into well is concrete/grayish terrain. The stick out like sore thumbs anywhere else.

The reasons for going with one uniform is to save the Army money. They only have to provide us with one set of uniforms now.

In the open lands of Kuwait I could spot our guys well over 1k away. In Iraq they are even worse becuase the terrain tends to be darker. There is no green in the uniform. The "tan" is like an ivory white. Many of the buildings here are tan to dark tan in color.

We should have two sets like before. Make them in the acu pattern with the pockets and everything but have the desert using the DCU colors. Make the woodland with the old BDU woodland sans black and we've have some kickass uniforms.

The material although not thick has proven good enough to me. The crotches rip out on some people. I havnt had that problem. From what I hear they added stiching to newer ones to help that problem. Ive felt the Marines uniforms and I think they are too thick but they would be durable.

Right now if I used my issue gear Id be wearing 3 different color patterns...

Thank you for the field report.

As far as the uniform cost, this from the Army that a few years ago spent lots of money to change the shade of the dress uniforms

Posted: 8/22/2006 11:06:46 AM EDT

[#35]

height=8

Quoted:
height=8

Quoted:
i110.photobucket.com/albums/n107/akrebs71/acu-pic02.jpg
Hmmmm. Worse than a sore thumb

While I am no fanboy of the chosen pattern (just the concept), I do not recognize the uniform frequently shown in this - and other - pics. I can only assume it must be the result of the intense flash used by photographers, but the uniform hanging next to me would actually blend in quite well to the ground, and be a little lighter than the background.

Another problem may be Soldiers ignoring the instructions not to use detergent with optical brighteners.

I do agree about the flash and /or intense sunlight, It makes the uniform brighter than the norm, however I still don't see the colors used as a viable compromise.

1+ the optical brighteners, some soldiers don't read the instructions for proper care and use the wrong detergent, hot water etc. It makes a huge difference only after a few washings.

Posted: 8/22/2006 7:07:12 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
i110.photobucket.com/albums/n107/akrebs71/acu-pic02.jpg
Hmmmm. Worse than a sore thumb

That is the very first version (which indeed had no Green), but as has been said, there have been several versions since they with different colors...here is mine, new from Clothing Sales:

Much less Grey. Plus the flash kinda washed it out. Looks greener to the eyeball.

This pic was on Army.mil today:

link to hi rez

More photo manipulation? The flag looks right.

This color combination would be good to go IMHO.

Posted: 8/22/2006 7:45:35 PM EDT

[#37]

I agree, however, every photo I've seen on army.mil makes the ACU appear darker than what I see in person. Your first photo more resembles what I have and see walking around on a daily basis. Personally, I have never seen a "darker" version other than photos which leads me to believe it's just the camera. Also, I don't know of any other color variations as others have claimed to have "seen" or are in development.

As far as I know, what I have is the official adopted version. If you know something I don't, please give me hope.

Posted: 8/22/2006 8:01:23 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:
i110.photobucket.com/albums/n107/akrebs71/acu-pic02.jpg
Hmmmm. Worse than a sore thumb

That is the very first version (which indeed had no Green), but as has been said, there have been several versions since they with different colors...here is mine, new from Clothing Sales:

i11.photobucket.com/albums/a197/AyeGuy/DSCN0364.jpg

Much less Grey. Plus the flash kinda washed it out. Looks greener to the eyeball.

This pic was on Army.mil today:

www4.army.mil/OCPA/uploads/medium/2006/CSA-2006-08-22-091024.jpg

link to hi rez

More photo manipulation? The flag looks right.

This color combination would be good to go IMHO.

This is probably more accurate:

Posted: 8/22/2006 8:02:55 PM EDT

[#39]

I give you Hope

My best friend just came back from his AT at Camp Roberts and said he saw darker versions there. He is a gearhead too, so he was on the lookout.

Posted: 8/23/2006 7:30:56 AM EDT

[#40]

Again, I hear some who have claimed to have seen darker versions only to find out they're looking at them new vs. washed several times with the wrong detergent. I have to see it personally to believe it. Which I won't until the Army realizes it still need two seperate uniforms. IMHO, the Marines have it right, with two uniforms and gear in coyote that actually does do well in different environments. It's obvious to me that politics and/or a serious dumb-ass attack happened at the top because even a blind man can see multi-cam beats ACU hands down. So much for the press release bullshit about the ACU designed "for the soldier, by the soldier".

I just don't see the Army admitting it fucked up. It is a valiant attemp, but a utter failure.

Posted: 8/23/2006 8:16:03 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
Again, I hear some who have claimed to have seen darker versions only to find out they're looking at them new vs. washed several times with the wrong detergent. I have to see it personally to believe it. Which I won't until the Army realizes it still need two seperate uniforms. IMHO, the Marines have it right, with two uniforms and gear in coyote that actually does do well in different environments. It's obvious to me that politics and/or a serious dumb-ass attack happened at the top because even a blind man can see multi-cam beats ACU hands down. So much for the press release bullshit about the ACU designed "for the soldier, by the soldier".

I just don't see the Army admitting it fucked up. It is a valiant attemp, but a utter failure.

So what is it? Use two patterns or use MultiCam?

Does anyone even have ONE picture of multicam in nature that DID NOT come from the guys trying to sell it? Those obviously doctored photos always leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Posted: 8/23/2006 8:17:12 AM EDT

[#42]

There is a big difference between unwashed ACU's and washed ones. One washing and any semblance of green is gone.

As far as detergent goes keep in mind we have a very small selection to choose from or nothing at all. The FOB Im at now has no washers or dryers. We have to turn our clothes in to a hadji laundry place. And if we have to use a special detergent then they are shit uniforms IMO. Not field expidient.

Wasnt the class a shade change done pre OIF?

Posted: 8/23/2006 8:30:17 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
There is a big difference between unwashed ACU's and washed ones. One washing and any semblance of green is gone.

As far as detergent goes keep in mind we have a very small selection to choose from or nothing at all. The FOB Im at now has no washers or dryers. We have to turn our clothes in to a hadji laundry place. And if we have to use a special detergent then they are shit uniforms IMO. Not field expidient.

Wasnt the class a shade change done pre OIF?

I get the impression that the official laundry places fade stuff way faster than you could on your own - the fact has always bothered me. The uniforms really do seem to have impractical colors for long term use. Their really isn't requirement for "special" detergent, its just that most consumer detergent has optical brightener that screw up any uniform - you will see the clothes washed in such if you go to a club with blacklights - shit washed with brighteners will glo. It makes your whites look whiter, though - so the housewife crowd apparently digs it.

Cheer is the best all around name brand detergent without that brightener nonsense.

The Class A shade change was a long time ago - maybe 1995 or 1996. What a goatfuck that was.

Posted: 8/23/2006 9:14:51 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Again, I hear some who have claimed to have seen darker versions only to find out they're looking at them new vs. washed several times with the wrong detergent. I have to see it personally to believe it. Which I won't until the Army realizes it still need two seperate uniforms. IMHO, the Marines have it right, with two uniforms and gear in coyote that actually does do well in different environments. It's obvious to me that politics and/or a serious dumb-ass attack happened at the top because even a blind man can see multi-cam beats ACU hands down. So much for the press release bullshit about the ACU designed "for the soldier, by the soldier".

I just don't see the Army admitting it fucked up. It is a valiant attemp, but a utter failure.

So what is it? Use two patterns or use MultiCam?

Does anyone even have ONE picture of multicam in nature that DID NOT come from the guys trying to sell it? Those obviously doctored photos always leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Multicam second from the left in both photos. US Army photos.

I have a few more of multicam collected from the 'net but they're airsofters and I don't want to get flamed.

Posted: 8/23/2006 10:11:24 AM EDT

[#45]

height=8

Quoted:
height=8

Quoted:
Again, I hear some who have claimed to have seen darker versions only to find out they're looking at them new vs. washed several times with the wrong detergent. I have to see it personally to believe it. Which I won't until the Army realizes it still need two seperate uniforms. IMHO, the Marines have it right, with two uniforms and gear in coyote that actually does do well in different environments. It's obvious to me that politics and/or a serious dumb-ass attack happened at the top because even a blind man can see multi-cam beats ACU hands down. So much for the press release bullshit about the ACU designed "for the soldier, by the soldier".

I just don't see the Army admitting it fucked up. It is a valiant attemp, but a utter failure.

So what is it? Use two patterns or use MultiCam?

Does anyone even have ONE picture of multicam in nature that DID NOT come from the guys trying to sell it? Those obviously doctored photos always leave a bad taste in my mouth.

How hard can it be to change the colors in the fabric printing process. Keep the pattern just change the damn colors.

Posted: 8/23/2006 7:27:47 PM EDT

[#46]

From the army.mil images today. I really don't know what to say about this one:

Staff Sgt. Jay Antenocruz, from the Guam Army National Guard, and a Kenyan soldier participate in Exercise Natural Fire in Nginyang, Kenya. This photo appeared on www.army.mil.

Posted: 8/23/2006 7:51:32 PM EDT

[#47]

Ding, ding, ding... A perfect example of the ACU's shortcomings.

Hey, at least we don't have to wear cammie paint on exposed skin anymore, what would be the point?

Posted: 8/23/2006 8:03:36 PM EDT

[#48]

In this case I think the NG guy would be better off bare naked...

Posted: 8/24/2006 4:05:38 AM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
Ding, ding, ding... A perfect example of the ACU's shortcomings.

Hey, at least we don't have to wear cammie paint on exposed skin anymore, what would be the point?

a buddy of mine who was a medic with the 173rd AB told me his entire battalion (the inf. batt. he worked for) was forced to face paint up in GREEN paint when they jumped into N. Iraq in 2003

Posted: 8/24/2006 9:07:44 AM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
From the army.mil images today. I really don't know what to say about this one:

Staff Sgt. Jay Antenocruz, from the Guam Army National Guard, and a Kenyan soldier participate in Exercise Natural Fire in Nginyang, Kenya. This photo appeared on www.army.mil.

www.army.mil/imagesource/2006/CSA-2006-08-23-084836.jpg

I would say you cant really judge camo' from close up when comparing to the background and other camo'.

Its meant to blend in and break up the silhouete at long distances, not make a person disapear at 10 feet.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Wow! The new ACU cammo really works! (pic) UPDATE page 22 (Page 2 of 18)

Armory » Tactical Gear

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us