Army Camouflage That Failed to Hide Its Soldiers(warhistoryonline.com)
warhistoryonline.com
Army Camouflage That Failed to Hide Its Soldiers
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/history/army-camouflage-that-cost-more.html
110 comments
So me andere my friends went airsofting ons time, just for fun. Everyone got issued woodland camouflage and I got the "cool" US camouflage (ie. The camouflage of the article). Wooohooo! ....or so I thought.
The refs came to me mid game and told me to get a normal woodland camouflage because everyone could see me from a mile away...
The refs came to me mid game and told me to get a normal woodland camouflage because everyone could see me from a mile away...
I wore this everyday for 5 years, including in Iraq, and I always felt that it was horrible at actually camoflauging anything. One main reason was that it would get brighter and brighter over time, as the colors tended to fade -- a well worn was incredbily light-looking that Soldiers would pop out at you against a darker background. We were told eventually that you can't use regular detergent on it because it has brighteners, that you should use Woolite. It was also supposed to be a benefit to have velcro for nametapes, rank, and unit insignia so that soldiers didn't need to pay to get things sewn on, but it made for very noisy and inconvenient examples of people sticking to each other in close quarters.
> Military dumps billions into magic multirole capability.
> It falls and billions need to be dumped into it's single function replacements
You can almost replace UCP with F-35 and have an accurate article.
You can almost replace UCP with F-35 and have an accurate article.
An episode of Shark Tank recently featured a camo design made out of real photographs of natural backgrounds. Does the military not know about this option?
Only a small percentage of camouflaged deployments are about blending in with the background; observation, snipers and static roles like that.
Infantry and vehicles move too much to make background-matching practical, so the primary purpose of their camouflage is to break up identifiable outlines.
Infantry and vehicles move too much to make background-matching practical, so the primary purpose of their camouflage is to break up identifiable outlines.
While there's the easy joke about "army intelligence" it's also true that camouflage is hard to get right. Not only do you need to blend in/be non-obvious to the naked eye but also infrared, thermal, and other aspects. This is why JSOC has "Camouflage Scientists" for outfitting their Tier 1 units, sometimes on a mission-by-mission basis.
URL: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/27/photo_camo/
URL: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/27/photo_camo/
>While there's the easy joke about "army intelligence"
They did the best they could given that the only colors available were the crayons that nobody had eaten.
The Marines are picky eaters, that's why they got better camo.
They did the best they could given that the only colors available were the crayons that nobody had eaten.
The Marines are picky eaters, that's why they got better camo.
The US Army got awful uniforms because someone (or multiple someones) were making money from the deal. Never-mind the only thing an ACU pattern blends in with is grandma's couch [0].
[0] https://www.funker530.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/ACU-cou...
[0] https://www.funker530.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/ACU-cou...
I'm sure you're right that it's not an easy problem to solve but it also doesn't sound like they put a whole lot of effort in:
> With these problems, the pattern should never have been chosen. However, there was no testing of the design before it was implemented. Research found that there were no studies done on the effectiveness of the camouflage in combat zones.
I'd be willing to bet their users could have quickly pointed them in the right direction if anyone had bothered to ask but the military has a strong preference for information to flow top-down rather than bottom-up.
> With these problems, the pattern should never have been chosen. However, there was no testing of the design before it was implemented. Research found that there were no studies done on the effectiveness of the camouflage in combat zones.
I'd be willing to bet their users could have quickly pointed them in the right direction if anyone had bothered to ask but the military has a strong preference for information to flow top-down rather than bottom-up.
The actual problem is covered in the article: they planned something else, tested that, made a last minute change to adopt a pixelated pattern because the Marines did it (without the Army testing the particular choices made in adopting their specific pixelated pattern), and got a poor design.
The ACU itself was an improvement over BDUs, despite the UCP being not good for anything other than hiding in gravel roads.
For example, getting rid of the absurdity of boot shining and pressing the same uniform you’re supposed to wear in the field (and EVERYONE starched their BDUs to cardboard consistency for garrison use).
Starching was truly idiotic, it turns your uniform in to kindling, makes it less breathable, and prevents it from absorbing bug repellents. Completely defeated the purpose of having a utility uniform, looking good is what the service uniform was for. We Marines got the same benefits with better camouflage by adopting the MCCUU. Making all our gear coyote was smart too, it takes on the color of the soil around you once you spend some time on the ground. Although that is true for all gear, it works particularly well with coyote.
I have always found starching clothes hilarious: cloth was soaked in starch to make it easier to cut and sew; you want to wash it out before use to make it comfortable.
The conceit of adding starch back in later to make something look new is already funny; to do it routinely is absurd.
Of course anyone who has been in the military of any country knows "absurd" is a pretty frequent factor.
The conceit of adding starch back in later to make something look new is already funny; to do it routinely is absurd.
Of course anyone who has been in the military of any country knows "absurd" is a pretty frequent factor.
The effect is more pronounced for someone who has never been in the military, but has had occasion to observe military personnel going about their daily tasks, for the purpose of partially automating their jobs with custom-built software.
I'm not certain that "absurd" is a strong enough word for it.
I was frequently reminded of Tevye the milkman singing "TRADITION!" at the top of his lungs. The only thing worse than participating in absurd and obsolete traditions as an insider is to be forced as an outsider to completely ruin an otherwise rational workflow in order to accommodate them.
If you have ever taken calipers to a software-generated printout, in order to compare it to a paper form that was last revised in 1980, and printed in bulk ever since, you deserve to wear starched underwear.
I'm not certain that "absurd" is a strong enough word for it.
I was frequently reminded of Tevye the milkman singing "TRADITION!" at the top of his lungs. The only thing worse than participating in absurd and obsolete traditions as an insider is to be forced as an outsider to completely ruin an otherwise rational workflow in order to accommodate them.
If you have ever taken calipers to a software-generated printout, in order to compare it to a paper form that was last revised in 1980, and printed in bulk ever since, you deserve to wear starched underwear.
The purpose of tradition and drill is to encourage people to take action without thinking (this is why the officer/enlisted distinction still exists). In addition, idle hands are the devil's tool, and when you have a bunch of young men doing nothing you need to keep them busy.
True absurdity in the military is an orthogonal axis and runs from, indeed, vestigial rules such as you imply, all the way up to ordering enormous weapons systems the military doesn't even want simply for political reasons.
True absurdity in the military is an orthogonal axis and runs from, indeed, vestigial rules such as you imply, all the way up to ordering enormous weapons systems the military doesn't even want simply for political reasons.
Kind of a shame we can't think of better busywork for the troops. Sending them out to patch up roads and bridges or cleaning up streams or something. It's such a shame to spend so much time and effort on obsolete and silly uniform regulations.
I'd probably end up turning the Army into a grindy JRPG-style augmented-reality game, and the enlisted would eventually end up referring to civilians as the NPCs.
But we'd also have viable gunblades and dozens of rare uniform crafting recipes, and our military would be well prepared to repel zombie pandemics, space-alien invasions, and goblin sieges, as well as to defeat S-class daikaiju.
...So there is something to be said for letting experienced professional soldiers run the military. They might know what they're doing behind the facade of repetitive busywork, like Mr. Miyagi teaching Daniel-san karate. Or they might not. It's hard to tell from where I sit. A lot of the budget is not freely auditable by the public, and I have certainly seen firsthand a very small portion of it totally wasted on absolute nonsense.
But we'd also have viable gunblades and dozens of rare uniform crafting recipes, and our military would be well prepared to repel zombie pandemics, space-alien invasions, and goblin sieges, as well as to defeat S-class daikaiju.
...So there is something to be said for letting experienced professional soldiers run the military. They might know what they're doing behind the facade of repetitive busywork, like Mr. Miyagi teaching Daniel-san karate. Or they might not. It's hard to tell from where I sit. A lot of the budget is not freely auditable by the public, and I have certainly seen firsthand a very small portion of it totally wasted on absolute nonsense.
We do, but in other countries.
I always liked the pictures of it blending into couches: https://havokjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ACU-couc...
i was in the 70's era with baggy solid green fatigues and they you usually got one or two wears out of them before they needed to be starched again. They looked good for about the first hour after new starch and then terrible. Apparently there was no need for camo during the cold war.
that said, I did see that Avengers End Game got the 70's fatigues right. And also the hideous baseball cap we had to wear.
that said, I did see that Avengers End Game got the 70's fatigues right. And also the hideous baseball cap we had to wear.
"Apparently there was no need for camo during the cold war."
Well, you were going to be fighting in western Europe and living in NBCW suits all the time anyway....
Well, you were going to be fighting in western Europe and living in NBCW suits all the time anyway....
Of course, there is the idiocy of using Velcro for field uniforms. Most of those patches aren't going to get swapped out all that often.
I heard from a military friend that the Velcro was useful for being able to discard patches in case it looked like they might be captured, so as to deny information to the enemy.
I'm skeptical that there's much utility there, but maybe someone better informed than me can chime in.
I'm skeptical that there's much utility there, but maybe someone better informed than me can chime in.
It's also (marginally) useful for saving costs and time from sewing and having to purchase badges and patches for each uniform. This was pretty helpful while deployed IMO, since you'd just get new uniforms and could immediately put on your nametapes and patches.
Velcro pockets, though... those were terrible. Both in durability (their "grip" would weaken over time) and noise.
Velcro pockets, though... those were terrible. Both in durability (their "grip" would weaken over time) and noise.
I was at Benning in the circa 2004 era and in my unit, we expressly forbid starching. However, that was definitely not true for many other units.
not everyone.
You need to be pretty close to tell if a BDU is dirty or stained. That has advantages.
The biggest pain with BDUs was keeping the sleeves rolled up properly.
Most military personnel are working in offices anyway, and this new uniform probably saved $5B worth of repetitive uniform maintenance in man-hours (ironing, shining, etc).
I would hope spec-ops in the field aren't just wearing standard issue ACUs but rather are highly adapted to the specific terrain they are working in.
I would hope spec-ops in the field aren't just wearing standard issue ACUs but rather are highly adapted to the specific terrain they are working in.
The pop-up video ads after every single paragraph effectively camouflaged the contents for me...
Try an ad blocker:
https://github.com/ghostery/ghostery-extension
https://github.com/ghostery/ghostery-extension
What are my options on Android? Switching browsers and side loaded apks?
Just use Firefox, they allow extensions on mobile and you can download Firefox from the regular app store.
I use ad-away. It requires root, but it can block ads in any browser or app.
I think Firefox Focus has ad blocking built-in.
I think Firefox Focus has ad blocking built-in.
Regular Firefox Mobile can have uBlock Origin added.
If you are on android 9 you can set a Private DNS that will stop loading of most ads on the whole system.
the one I use is dns.adguard.com
the one I use is dns.adguard.com
If you use Firefox as your browser app you can install all the same add-ons as the desktop version. uBlock Origin is great.
I prefer Ad Nauseum since it effectively generates garbage data on the ad platforms while giving the content creators the clicks they want.
https://adnauseam.io/
https://adnauseam.io/
This article got me thinking. Would it make sense to train a GAN to generate camouflage? With the generator generating textures for the objects you want to hide and the discriminator trying to spot them in scenes rendered with a differentiable renderer like "neural renderer" [1]?
The 2D-to-3D style transfer examples almost look like camouflage already.
[1] http://hiroharu-kato.com/projects_en/neural_renderer.html
[1] http://hiroharu-kato.com/projects_en/neural_renderer.html
You can buy civilian camouflage that takes actual photographs from the area you will be hunting in, replaces a range of greens in it with hunter's orange, and prints it on field-appropriate clothing. As long as you launder it correctly (no UV whiteners), it is near-perfect camouflage versus dichromat prey animals, while still standing out to the trichromat animals [with the guns].
If you skip the green-to-orange replacement step, it's already great military camouflage for the exact spot shown in the source photograph. So if you trained a GAN on many photographs from the same area, I imagine it could make camouflage that functions like a printable ghillie suit.
Then you could also take the output images, wrap them around a human model, pose the model randomly in front of a real terrain background, and penalize any camouflage image that cannot prevent an object classifier from detecting the camouflaged human model, in any pose, in front of any background image in the terrain corpus.
Though I'd expect that the more variety you have in the terrain image corpus, the less effective the camouflage is against the object classifier.
If you skip the green-to-orange replacement step, it's already great military camouflage for the exact spot shown in the source photograph. So if you trained a GAN on many photographs from the same area, I imagine it could make camouflage that functions like a printable ghillie suit.
Then you could also take the output images, wrap them around a human model, pose the model randomly in front of a real terrain background, and penalize any camouflage image that cannot prevent an object classifier from detecting the camouflaged human model, in any pose, in front of any background image in the terrain corpus.
Though I'd expect that the more variety you have in the terrain image corpus, the less effective the camouflage is against the object classifier.
That is super interesting! Could you share the app/website for such a service?
I saw a flyer at an outdoor-activities retail store. I didn't take one, but they had samples set up in a little diorama-type display.
So I guess you could go to a Bass Pro Shop or Cabela's or Gander Mtn. (if yours is still open), and look near the hunting gear? I'm not sure that it made a viable business, but it sure looked cool when I saw it.
So I guess you could go to a Bass Pro Shop or Cabela's or Gander Mtn. (if yours is still open), and look near the hunting gear? I'm not sure that it made a viable business, but it sure looked cool when I saw it.
How good would this be for a 'general' solution to the problem?
Specifically, a good uniform must function across a wide variety of environments; see the USMC uniforms for a good example.
If we had 'active' camouflage that was updated on the fly, this might make some sense?
Specifically, a good uniform must function across a wide variety of environments; see the USMC uniforms for a good example.
If we had 'active' camouflage that was updated on the fly, this might make some sense?
You do get what are effectively very large inkjet printers that can print patterns on materials - might be easier to "print" custom camouflage for a particular environment?
Repaint / reprint when deployment orders are received? How durable is the print, though? The current paint used on most vehicles is incredible stuff. You can't even mar it with a super-high pressure water cannon.
As for uniforms; I'm not sure any military regular with clout would be willing to do something as practical as custom uniforms based on deployment environment. Too much change, too much innovation.
As for uniforms; I'm not sure any military regular with clout would be willing to do something as practical as custom uniforms based on deployment environment. Too much change, too much innovation.
Well, I wasn't being entirely serious - but did visit a place where they were printing cloth for use in furniture so it looked pretty heavyweight material.
That's way too custom to work for the current army supply and would require a different uniform for a single soldier as they get assigned and moved to different missions. The whole point of the new camo was to be relatively generic so a soldier could be issued one and keep it and also to issue everyone the same pattern.
Asked the other way around: Why should it result in less 'general' solutions compared to other methods?
Now that I thought about it some more, building a generator might be problematic because unless you want to hide toroids, there wont be a continuous mapping with reasonable amounts of distortion from the surface of the object in question to the 2D plane. That would mean that CNNs can't really be used.
Now that I thought about it some more, building a generator might be problematic because unless you want to hide toroids, there wont be a continuous mapping with reasonable amounts of distortion from the surface of the object in question to the 2D plane. That would mean that CNNs can't really be used.
I guess that should work. You could generate universal camo that way if you run the discriminator multiple times each round on the camouflage rendered on soldiers in different environments and either average the discriminator results (to get camo that's good on average) or pick the one from the environment where the discriminator performed best (to get camo that's never terrible). It might be interesting to see which of those two choices performs better.
Edit: on second thought, the maximum version is continious but not differentiable, so you would want the version taking averages.
Edit: on second thought, the maximum version is continious but not differentiable, so you would want the version taking averages.
> 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 like it should be impossible.
I'm not sure they know what "camouflage" means, because that sounds like it should be impossible.
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.
So... kickbacks were probably involved in the original UCP contract.
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:
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?
Hanlon's razor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor)
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.
"[...] 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.
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.
> work in all terrains
What they get is "works in no terrain equally badly".
What they get is "works in no terrain equally badly".
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.
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.
Play carriers, mag pouches, and all other wearables tend to match.
Especially when compared to the cost of a full set of body armour
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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...
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...
The idea that more than a vanishingly small number of regular troops are visiting so many environments in a year is hilarious.
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.
*arctic, just fyi.
I assume that is what was meant. But FYI I have seen US military in uniform in Artic (a place in Rhode Island)
If you're in California you could probably drive to a desert, mountain, forest or urban area in less than a day.
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]
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.
Camouflage 101 is adapt to surroundings. That by definition excludes one solution for all scenarios.
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?!
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?!
> What's the point of wearing cammo on a freaking giant ship?!
Navy personnel don't serve exclusively on ships, and people on the decks of ships can be individual targets when the ship is within smallarms range of land or another vessel.
Navy personnel don't serve exclusively on ships, and people on the decks of ships can be individual targets when the ship is within smallarms range of land or another vessel.
I know someone who served on aircraft carriers over the past few years, and was in charge of close-in ship defense on one tour. He said the camo was no tactical help at all, but was a real safety issue when people fell overboard, which occasionally did happen.
I was on a carrier for a year, and we had a large number of false alarm Man-Over board events. The pilots were incredibly frustrated at the Navy's camo, because they would have to fly around looking for a blue sailor in a blue ocean until we finally finished counting everyone on ship. The reason the Navy has those is because they look cool and "carry the honor and tradition of the US Navy", the reason the military does most things. All in all, it gets kids fresh out of high school to sign up.
[deleted]
From what I've heard, the Navy's camo pattern does a really good job of hiding the various kinds of dirt and grime you get from being in a manual labor job, especially compared to the older uniforms.
>What's the point of wearing cammo on a freaking giant ship?! //
Harder to analyse crew numbers from satellite or aerial imagery?
Harder to analyse crew numbers from satellite or aerial imagery?
My wife was in the Navy, served a year I'm Iraq outside Baghdad. The Navy doesn't exclusively operate on ships.
Did she wear blue camo in Iraq? If so, did it help her blend in?
No, but the blue digis were mothballed almost three years ago now, so it was obviously regarded as a mistake. You may be right about the blues, I have no idea.
The blue camo, discussion of its mothballery, and its greenish replacement:
https://www.stripes.com/news/us/navy-announces-end-of-blue-c...
https://www.stripes.com/news/us/navy-announces-end-of-blue-c...
Make you harder to see if you fall overboard.
Makes force reductions a breeze. /s
The navy has land troops as well.
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.
The idea that this was a gift to clothing manufacturers is pretty much the only logical explanation for the Navy's uniform...uh...situation.
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
> 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.
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.
Grease stains don't show so badly.
Because Marines are in the Navy
The marines are their own branch of the military. Maybe you're thinking of the navy seals?
Technically, they're part of the Department of the Navy. The only practical consequence I know about is that they're under the Secretary of the Navy rather than having their own civilian-in-charge.
They also have different camouflage, which was never blue.
They also have different camouflage, which was never blue.
UCP looked great as the background of recruiting ads. That was its greatest utility until people realized how stupid it was in practice.
I bet after fiascos such as this, if we had some of the contractors and their Pentagon collaborators executed for treason for endangering our soldiers, the situation with procurement would rapidly improve.
If by 'rapidly improve' you mean 'become even more mired in regulation, over-analysis and responsibility-shedding behavior' then sure, I guess.
Fucking up is not treason, though. But demotions and loss of benefits would dispell the air of untouchability and lack of accountability that pervades the military bureaucracy.
If we executed every developer that committed code that introduced new bugs, do you think software quality would be better or worse in the long run? Would there be any tradeoffs?
The article doesn't mention that USMC included their logo in their new and effective camo so other services couldn't/wouldn't use it.
Otherwise, the Army could have used the same patterns developed by the Marine Corp.
Otherwise, the Army could have used the same patterns developed by the Marine Corp.
UCP camo blends in well in some areas... https://i.redd.it/68lxwxjrbe001.jpg
Why is using United States citizens as live test subjects with their lives at stake, "cost-effective"?
I often complain about a lack of test coverage in code, but I cannot fathom how testing was COMPLETELY skipped on a $5 BILLION dollar project that directly impacts lives.
Disclaimer: 4 year USAF veteran
I often complain about a lack of test coverage in code, but I cannot fathom how testing was COMPLETELY skipped on a $5 BILLION dollar project that directly impacts lives.
Disclaimer: 4 year USAF veteran
I called it internet camo and told my friends who were in the military at the time that the USA was preparing to invade cyberspace.
The only environment where it possesses some applicability is complex urban terrain.
We face exactly the same problem in NZ with our MCU pattern.
Jack of all trade, master of none.
Seeing US ACP/ACU and NZ MCU in forestry/jungle, especially in low light, is like seeing a person wearing a white sheet over their head. Ineffective.
Multicam is the most flexible cam pattern I’ve seen as a one size fits all.
US Marine Corps’ and Canadian Army’s two types(each) of digital cam for desert and temperate climates are pretty effective.
Blue navy camouflage I’ve seen worn by US and Australian Navy personnel make no sense.
You don’t want to be camouflaged if you’re ships crew, you want to be seen/found. Should be hi-viz.