User Panel
User Panel
View Full Site
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/14/2006 7:59:18 PM EDT
 Blends right in against that cinder block wall!  Not so good with the grass though... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2006 10:17:47 PM EDT
[#1]
LOL
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2006 7:47:35 AM EDT
[#2]
Somone better check for turds in their pants*** edit, upon closer inspection somone looks likes he trying to make a move
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2006 11:19:03 AM EDT
[#3]
Good...now they are fine as long as they don't move.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2006 1:13:00 PM EDT
[#4]
I like the ACU camo for M.O.U.T, but prefer the Marine Marpat for jungle and desert conditions. The ACU patern kinda sticks out in a dense forest back drop. If I was to chose I would go with Marpat.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2006 1:46:19 PM EDT
[#5]
I still like the Multicam better.More Multicam images here
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2006 6:41:01 PM EDT
[#6]
One of the Marines on the board has said that Army SF prefers the Desert MCCU for desert missions.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2006 7:12:55 PM EDT
[#7]
Why is it that Marines are always so jealous of Army guys? Always have to say they are better. Just a mystery to me. Must be some deep seated insecurity or something.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2006 7:23:31 PM EDT
[#8]
I share your amusement--ACU was PEO Soldier turf, so by God, even if there was a better design, it wasn't going to see production or issue....
 while we're at it let's talk about the F-22, C130J, and a thousand other government/military boondoggles 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2006 7:59:07 PM EDT
[#9]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2006 8:10:02 PM EDT
[#10]
Specialty Defense Systems just got the contract to produce the full MOLLE line in UCP; that is where I got the above pic. I ordered my Woodland MOLLE stuff directly from them, but I sold it...UCP is actually better for my area of California than Woodland...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2006 8:57:08 PM EDT
[#11]
+1 I though multi camo was tacti cool, not a fuctional camo. ACU and Marpat wouldn't even come close to that kind of concealment. naturally the environment is perfect for multi cam, but I'm still impressed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2006 11:03:36 PM EDT
[#12]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2006 11:11:51 PM EDT
[#13]
What you DON'T see is the sergeant standing between the 2 crouching guys.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2006 7:16:38 AM EDT
[#14]
I just returned from A-stan where we were on of the last units to be issued DCU's. When the ACU's started showing up there was quite a stink about the "multi environment" claim as it stuck out badly. The SF guys would wear the "target identification cloth" (ACU) inside the wire but when on an operation would wear BDU or DCU depending where they were going. Only the office and supply pogues at Bagram thought the ACU's were the "hip" thing to wear.
Back here in the states, I personally heard a salute report where a SGT had spotted a patrol 1100 meters distant because they were wearing their bdu's inside out, come to find out they had ACU's. I am a former Marine that is now in the Army Reserve and I honestly have to say that in this particular matter the Army screwed the pooch. The Marines recognized the need to stay with two seperate uniforms for different AO's. The Armys attempt at making one uniform that "works well across the board" succeeded in making a uniform that works next to nowhere. I have four sets of that garbage in my closet and thats where it's going to stay until I absolutely am forced to wear it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2006 9:43:20 AM EDT
[#15]
If they wanted a one-camo deal they should have gone with MultiCam, why the ACU still amazes me when there was a better option
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2006 10:59:00 AM EDT
[#16]
Hence why the army is stupid and the marines are better 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2006 2:43:36 PM EDT
[#17]
Amen brother.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2006 2:46:49 PM EDT
[#18]
The latest issue of Army Times has a picture of some kind of new body armor the Army is developing.
In Multicam. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2006 6:47:31 PM EDT
[#19]
That is an older armor set from when Crye did their homework and came up with MultiCam and a whole system of field gear and protective clothing.
The higher echelons thought otherwise however. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2006 7:02:00 PM EDT
[#20]
Man...how can you knock the F-22...that thing is worth every cent and then some that they've put into it. The F-22 is the most lethal aircraft ever dreamed of and is going to dominate the sky. The F-15 remains undefeated in air-to-air combat and the F-22 puts the F-15 to shame. The F-22 makes the F-15 look like a Model T in terms of cockpit layout, reduced radard signature, and performance. Anyways...ACU does kind of work well in Afghanistan believe it or not, but there is just to many types of terrain where you almost glow. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2006 7:50:41 PM EDT
[#21]
The UCP really is very effective for urban terrain...
Anyone care to speculate wether the Army will ever admit that it is not a "universal camouflage pattern"? The pattern is fine, but IMHO they really need to emulate the MCCU and adopt two more color mixes for verdant and arid terrains...I mean, can you picture ACU clad troops in the jungle? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2006 3:07:50 AM EDT
[#22]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2006 3:25:40 AM EDT
[#23]
Maybe they should call the UCP the "Unknown Camouflage Pattern"....because no one knows where it works......
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2006 10:00:40 AM EDT
[#24]
If we fight our next war in a gravel pit, we will be invisable.
Maybe that's why the Army is graveling every FOB in Iraq, and I thought it was to keep the mud down. I'm glad I had DCU's for my deployment. the ACU's blend into a very solid OD at distance. Which in the desert makes Soldiers very much resemble a standard pop-up target. Yeah, Great Idea Big Army  Wpns Man |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2006 10:03:25 AM EDT
[#25]
When the USMC wanted digital camo, to whom did they go? That's right, Beeyotch ... to The United States Army!!!! We invented digital camouflage. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2006 10:14:00 AM EDT
[#26]
Actually, it was the canadians, beeeyotch!
 Besides, the army still went with the retarded camouflage. Why didn't they just issue blaze orange 'camouflage'?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2006 10:15:01 AM EDT
[#27]
yikes...my naked white ass is better camo in those enviroments than ACU is... ..almost as if they hunted around for a good photo spot... -MY VERSION OF THE PHOTO OP SET-UP- "let's take the photo here, Sgt." "Hell, no, Pvt, don't you see all those trees and green things?" "What about by that sand pit, Sgt?" "Fuck no! Would you want to look iike a bright green booger in a blond kid's hair, Pvt?" Wait, I see a cinder block wall, Sgt.!! Those are all over the fuckin' woods and desert!" "Good eye, Pvt!!" |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2006 12:15:10 PM EDT
[#28]
My question was as to why the Army made such a poor choice. I know units were issued the new uniform in a DCU pattern for field tests and evaluation in Iraq, and the Army listened tosome of their concerns, however I don't recall ANYONE being asked about the colors selected or of any field trials in different environments of the uniform as issued.
For the majority of MOS's this is not a concern, but as a infantryman, I worry about it's ability to effectively blend anywhere besides MOUT. In a desert area it beats woodland hands down (but not DCU), in a woodland area it screams day-glo. I might just as well wear a Hawaiian shirt, bermuda shorts and flip-flops, same effect. I don't know, from my experience I guess I shouldn't be suprised. I won't be looking for any change until people die because of it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2006 12:28:03 PM EDT
[#29]
The Army decided to omit black from the pattern because it "catches the eye", well, they succeeded in making the whole damn uniform catch the eye, and if you catch the eye, you'll soon catch rounds. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2006 12:37:02 PM EDT
[#30]
Sorry. The Canadians also came to The United States Army, which had used digital camo as early as the early 1980s in the 3rd ACR. When two USMC snipers were charged with spearheading a new uniform, they bypassed Canada and went straight to the source, The United States Army. One of the snipers wrote a brief article about it and gave the US Army and the Natick Soldier Support Center no small credit. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2006 12:40:31 PM EDT
[#31]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2006 1:07:35 PM EDT
[#32]
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2006 1:13:40 PM EDT
[#33]
LOL.
:Jack sparrow voice: You smell funny. Well, duh about the navy, the Marine Corps is a department of the Navy. The Osprey is viable technology, but with all technologies, they need work before they are functional. Look at the M16. As for the women, you keep telling yourself that. We're the ones who look good in our uniforms. :edited to add: Damn, I haven't this much fun on a forum in a long time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2006 1:25:47 PM EDT
[#34]
Uhh, I thought the conversation was about the shitty ACU's?
All you air farce, swabbies and doggies just calm down and lets continue with the trashing of the ACU, please. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2006 1:30:02 PM EDT
[#35]
Yes sir.
I can understand a little bit of the logic of the pattern in regards to desert urban environments. But the concept of using it as a universal pattern boggles my mind. I simply do not get it. Perhaps the army was thinking, 'whose going to care when they're dirty'? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2006 7:03:36 PM EDT
[#36]
To be absolutely serious, I think the Army officers who chose this uniform picked it because it just looks futuristic, what with the digital pattern and all..and, lest we forget, the first iterations to be issued were even worse: they were just various Grey tones, they had no Tan or Green colors. I really do think this was meant to be a morale-booster, and symbolic of the highest tech force on the globe.
The second iteration is an improvement, here is mine:  If they punched up the colors a bit, it would be extremely effective. The "tan" is much too light; if they made it the same shade as the Tan in the ACU, and used a darker Green, all would be well as is IMHO. Different spec dye; that's all they would have to do.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2006 7:14:28 PM EDT
[#37]
No, the Soviets predated the Canadians by more than a decade. And if you really want to go to the wayback machine, there were some WWII German patterns that could be considered "pixelated". Lets face reality here. ACU was designed to be effective against night vision equipment. Considering it bears NO resemblance to any of the finalists in camo trials, it's obvious that it wasnt designed with human vision camo performance in mind in ANY environment. IMHO the Army ROYALLY screwed the pooch here.
I've read (dont have a citation handy) that they are actually up to version nine of altering the colors. You'd think they would realize the error by now. |
||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2006 7:37:57 PM EDT
[#38]
Prolly. I've seen some pics on Army Images that have ACU's that look greener.
Bet the gear manufacturers are pissed! Costs good money to keep up with all those changes! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2006 7:42:31 PM EDT
[#39]
I hear you...how many insurgents have night vision equipment though..? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2006 8:14:29 PM EDT
[#41]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2006 9:00:21 PM EDT
[#42]
I didn't know such an animal exsisted. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2006 9:07:33 PM EDT
[#43]
I rather like that version. Are those side SAPI plate pouckets on the sides of the armor vests?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2006 9:10:00 PM EDT
[#44]
The publisher could have just upped the saturation of the original photo. ETA: Here's a quick and dirty example: Original pic: Modified pic: 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2006 9:12:35 PM EDT
[#45]
Those are side SAPIs, they suck ass to wear. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2006 9:14:03 PM EDT
[#46]
That was my impression. I've seen plenty of photos where the ACU appears to "blend" with the terrain, however real life is a different story.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2006 6:28:52 AM EDT
[#47]
Some units like the 101st and 82nd, have almost all their shit packed onto pallets, secured wtih cargo nets and sit at the airfield ready to load onto planes. How do you intend to get them theater specific camo when they have to be wheels up in 18 hours? And don't give me this BS that they'll have plenty of time to get the proper dtuff issued. Maybe in large scale conflicts where there are plenty of warnings, but Panama, Grenada, Haiti, were all short notice with units picking up and going with whatever they had on hand.
Not to mention the need then to have two covers for the IBA, and two sets of load bearing gear for each person. Then each troop would have to spend the time, and probably their own money to get it set up the way they want. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2006 8:41:39 AM EDT
[#48]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2006 8:47:07 AM EDT
[#49]
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
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2006 1:05:26 PM EDT
[#50]
 the facial expression says it all
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
