Army Taps Scorpion to Replace UCP camo for ACU

http://kitup.military.com/2014/05/army-taps-scorpion-replace-ucp.html#more-28171

"The U.S. Army is going to dust off its old Scorpion pattern as a
replacement for its much criticized Universal Camouflage Pattern."

"I ran a story about the selection this morning on Military.com. I have been
told that Sgt. Major of the Army Raymond Chandler III is quietly telling all
of the senior sergeant majors around the Army that the service's new
camouflage will be Scorpion - a pattern similar to MuliCam that was
developed for the Objective Force Warrior program in 2002."

The Army has been considering replacing UCP with Crye Precision's MultiCam -
a pattern that has demonstrated consistent performance in multiple tests and
was selected in 2010 for soldiers to wear in Afghanistan.

But Army officials balked at MultiCam's price tag. They didn't want to pay
for "printing fees" the company receives on MultiCam - a small figure that
amounts to about one percent of the 20-percent price hike uniform companies
want to charge the Army for MultiCam, according to Caleb Crye, the owner of
CP.

Army officials even tried to buy the rights to MultiCam. Crye told the Army
it would cost $25 million if the service wanted to buy the rights to the
pattern, which would essentially put Crye Precision out of business, he
said.

So with that option off the table, the Army is now going to use Scorpion
since the service has owned it for the past 12 years. The pattern is very
similar to MultiCam because Crye developed for the OFW program.

"MuliCam's appearance is slightly different for trademark purposes."

See the article for a comparison of what the Multicam and Scorpion
camouflage patterns look like. They actually look a lot alike, as the employ
the same colors.
The muted pastel colors in Multicam seem to blend in better with the
background more different environments than any other pattern. This is
because there are really few bright colors in nature; most background
colors, in soil and vegetation, are subdued . Multicam actually works better
in forest and jungle than the "woodland" pattern , particularly when you are
lying the forest floor, where there more browns and tans colors and fewer
bright greens. The Universal Camouflage Pattern (UCP) for the Army Combat
Uniform (ACU) was touted to work better than any other pattern when it was
first fielded, on the grounds that the pixelated "digital" pattern  was
supposed to "fool the brain" and cause the pattern to blend into the
background. In reality the color scheme of the UCP clashed with nearly every
background and thus caused the ACU wearer to stand out like a blob to the
observer. The Lesson Learned here is that for camouflaged combat uniforms,
the colors used in the scheme matter much more than the geometry of the
pattern when it comes to blending in with the terrain. As I suspected, the
Army Brass went with the UCP over Multicam for the ACU originally because
uniforms printed with UCP, designed by the Army's Natick Laboratory, would
have a  cheaper per unit price than ones printed with the copyrighted
Multicam scheme. Another case of the services being penny wise and dollar
foolish.

However, in the big scheme of things this is not the egregious waste of
money that some in Congress and the media are touting. Many times in the
past the Army invested considerable money on special purpose  uniforms only
to promptly discard them when the time passed for their use. For example, so
far the Army has actually used the ACU with the UCP for at least a year
longer than it used the Vietnam olive drab colored Jungle fatigues, the
Vietnam Jungle "cammies" and the Vietnam Jungle boot as well. During the
invasion of Normandy in World War II the Army deployed several Divisions
wearing the "spot" camouflage fatigue uniform, like the one developed for
use in the Pacific theater. The Army promptly replaced the "cammies" when
our British Allies complained that they looked too much like the camouflage
uniform worn by German Waffen SS soldiers. Anyway if you ever wondered where
"SGT Saunders" on the old "Combat" TV series got his camouflage helmet cover
from, well now you know.

 Members of Congress have expressed the opinion that it doesn't make sense
for the armed services to each have a different camouflage combat uniform.
Actually in the 21st Century it makes perfect sense for each service to each
its own unique combat uniform since each service operates in different
environments and performs vastly different functions. What does not makes
sense in the 21st century is for the services to spend millions of dollars
on elaborate and archaic dress uniforms, for any troops save the handful
performing ceremonial functions. After all the function of the military is
first and foremost is to fight and win wars. Elaborate and brightly colored
dress and service uniforms with neck ties and shiny shoes no longer serve a
purpose in war fighting. For example, did the Viet Cong lose their war
because they lacked fancy dress uniforms? In any event, I know that any
proposal to do away with dress uniforms would be opposed by the service
chiefs AND Congress and quickly dismissed on the grounds of "morale" and
"tradition". But it no longer matters what our troops wear, as Columnist
Mark Steyn accurately observed, America has lost the political and strategic
will to win wars.

By Epictetus