Death of the UCP.

Yossarian

Yossarian

Forum Resistance Leader
So rumors have been floating about concerning the replacement of the U.S. Army's go at pixelated "digital" camo patterns for general use, which many claim was spurred by the development of the MARPAT.

Is this true? Also, is the U.S. Army looking towards more recent patterns such as the mulitcam project, which even the general press has mentioned units selected to test the pattern on deployment along side UCP pattern soldiers.

Thoughts on what you feel the future of camoflague for military use maybe or how the UCP project should have been handled are all welcome.

Also I post this with developmental security concerns in mind. So if this topic infringes on security measures at all please let me know and I will refrain from inquiring about it.

-Yo.
 
Last edited:
captiva303 said:
I always disliked UCP it is universally useless everywhere but a pit of gravel.
Click to expand...


For a while the Army put the UCP on everything, so it wasn't hard to come by some UCP pattern book covers, which I placed over various surfaces and stood at various distances away to see how hard I had to squint my eyes for it to "blend In".

I honestly feel whoever signed off on the pattern was more in the swing of business and aesthetics than practicallity. I am hard pressed to see how it's an improvement over older patterns.
 
Personally I find the UCP completely useless other than to show off and stick out like sore thumbs. But I have to suck it up and wear it. :|
 
lolwhassup said:
Personally I find the UCP completely useless other than to show off and stick out like sore thumbs. But I have to suck it up and wear it. :|
Click to expand...


Any thoughts on the possibility of Multicam as a successor?

I think digital may work, it's just all down to the coloration, the UCP didn't nail it. And for now it seems nobody really has a perfect formula.

However MARPAT with it's right scheme for the right enviroment approach still seems more fitting than the UCP one scheme fits all idea.

I did notice that the UCP pattern has difficulty blending in at all with foilage, and can be spotted 100 yards away on a grassy parade field, almost instantly a passerby can think, "hey look at the soldiers".
 
Last edited:
Yossarian said:
Any thoughts on the possibility of Multicam as a successor?
Click to expand...

Eh multicam works pretty well, but as the successor for the UCP which is used for everyday duties in garrison and what not, I don't really think the army will go for it.

Yossarian said:
I think digital may work, it's just all down to the coloration, the UCP didn't nail it. And for now it seems nobody really has a perfect formula.

However MARPAT with it's right scheme for the right enviroment approach still seems more fitting than the UCP one scheme fits all idea.
Click to expand...

I agree, I don't have a problem with digital, just the impracticality of the UCP. There is that one new camo that works exceptionally well and it isn't digital but for the life of me I can't remember what it's called. :bang:
 
Heard the British Army has some interesting patterns for the 21st century that do not use either the digital nor the one pattern fits all concepts.

If you ask me more traditional patterns seem far from obselete just yet, should the U.S. Army choose to abandon ditigal patterns all together.

Either one in my opinion with proper shading could work.
 
Well ****, to be honest with you, I'm kinda ticked because by the time i return from AIT with several new sets of ACUs, they're gonna make me turn them all in and get new Multicams. But hey, at least uniforms won't look like **** anymore after we switch. :jump:
 
lolwhassup said:
Well ****, to be honest with you, I'm kinda ticked because by the time i return from AIT with several new sets of ACUs, they're gonna make me turn them all in and get new Multicams. But hey, at least uniforms won't look like **** anymore after we switch. :jump:
Click to expand...


Hopfully this is a more permenant solution this time, 8 years doesn't seem like a long service record for a uniform pattern.
 
The U.S. General Accounting Office recently issued a report critical of the U.S. Armed Forces in general and the U.S. Army in particular over the waste and duplication in camouflage clothing programs. The report, however, praised the U.S. Marines for developing an effective pattern at minimal cost.
The U.S. Army has used a number of camouflage patterns and none have been entirely satisfactory. About five billion dollars have spent on these programs. The Air Force and Navy were criticized for not simply adopting an existing design instead of insisting on a unique pattern of their own.
Congress has made it known that they will not support any more of this nonsense, although I'll bet that they would if it benefitted a powerful members district. In any case, with the forthcoming deep budget cuts, there is likely to be no more new patterns emerging. It probably also means that the existing patterns, even those that are known not to be effective will be around for while.
It interesting to note that a private company, Crye Assoc. has developed most of the better como patterns, including Multi-Cam. The British simply purchased the rights to that pattern from Crye.
 
I don't know why the Army just doesn't go to the Multi Cam as the standard camo pattern for duty and deployment. The UCP has been a disaster and I can honestly say it is universally hated throughout the Army because of its' ineffectiveness. The Multi Cam has been used successfully by SOF throughout the duration of the GWOT and is currently the pattern issued to soldiers going to Afghanistan with great success and feedback. Why they insist on reinventing the wheel with all this stuff is beyond me...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top