From: Stephen Grammont (islander@midmaine.com)
Date: Mon Aug 15 2005 - 20:28:15 PDT
On Aug 15, 2005, at 9:17 PM, Ryan Gill wrote:
> The write-ups I've heard have been mostly of disdain for the new
> features that many European armies have seen for some time (Rank tab
> on the front).
Change is rarely ever met without a fair amount of grumbling :-) As a
uniform collector I have a lot of different styles on hand to compare
to. The Europeans have been ahead of us for the last few years,
thought the 1980s BDU style remains the most widely copied uniform
design in the world. The Marines MARPAT uniform was a huge leap
forward in functional improvements, even over recently issued European
uniforms and the fairly recent Canadian CADPAT uniform. The Army's
ACUPAT uniform is a big leap forward from a construction and design
standpoint for the Army, but also an improvement over other designs
currently fielded around the world. And MAJ Scherrer agrees (thanks
for the review!). The problem is the choice of camouflage.
For about a year the Army trialed many patterns at home and in the
field. No digital patterns were included, though the design of the
uniform was tweaked during this long process (SPECOPS custom made
uniforms served as the base model). After all this time, and money, at
the last minute they introduced ACUPAT. From what I can tell it was
rammed through for political reasons (want to look modern!) because
there certainly was no field trials of any sort like the other
patterns. And it was rushed into production so quickly that they have
since changed the colors, even though the uniforms have still only
reached a fraction of the active duty soldiers (most of whom are buying
the commercial sets due to lack of official supply). If they had
trialed it instead of swapping it in at the last minute the colors
would have been tweaked before introduction (that is the point of
trails after all!)
It is a compromise pattern in order to not issue two distinctly
different uniforms, which was the original plan (they even toyed with 3
styles). That means it is pretty much semi-effective/ineffective in
all forms of terrain instead of very effective in some and not
effective in others. When looking at pictures of our troops in Iraq it
is clear the now phasing out 3 Color Desert DCU is superior to ACUPAT
in terms of camouflage effect. MARPAT Desert is also superb in both
urban and open areas in arid conditions. The pictures I see of
soldiers wearing the ACUPAT in Iraq don't stick out as badly as I
though they would, but they do stick out compared to the other uniforms
mentioned. The new colors make it a little better (less gray, more
brown).
> Now they just need to get all the web gear and PASGT gear in the ACU
> pattern vs the Fulda Gap Woodland they all have....;-)
Already in theater in ever growing numbers. There is a swap out
program out of Kuwait where you take your issued Desert or Woodland
Interceptor vest and trade in the covers for ACUPAT covers. Good plan
and I'm sure it is working out well. Some smart logistics work going
on there! ACUPAT MOLLE II equipment, on the other hand, is apparently
far more difficult to find. Even official base PX have COTS
(Commercial Off The Shelf) equipment holders for troops to purchase.
How it is that the commercial stuff is readily available while gov't
contracted stuff isn't is beyond me. In most cases both are produced
to the same specifications by the SAME company. Strange!
Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 28 2005 - 23:25:28 PDT