Jump to content


Photo

More new camo uniforms?


  • Please log in to reply
722 replies to this topic

#721 thekirk

thekirk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,440 posts

Posted 16 October 2012 - 1230 PM

The Marine Corps took a good idea and soiled it with their "patented" copy of the pattern developed by CADPAT. Seriously, globe and anchor camo? The Army then followed that with the rushed through "Universal Camoflage Pattern", and then was forced to come out with a "combat - combat uniform" using the expensive Multicam. Then came the Air Force with their equally bad tiger-stripe UCP. Not to be outdone the Navy had to join the folishness with their utilities, but then acutally made sense with their land pattern.

Replacing two patterns with seven new ones was never going to be cost effective. Now the Army is developing three more to replace it's $5Billion failure. SECDEF and the Joint Chiefs should have squashed this before it got started.


You miss the best part: Multicam was developed by Crye on a Natick contract for the Force 21 systems. It was literally sitting on the shelf, probably in the same building, when they picked out the gawdawful UCP pattern. And, we paid for it to be developed... <sigh>
  • 0

#722 X-Files

X-Files

    1211st Desantsofter Legion

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,308 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 October 2012 - 1235 PM

And, we paid for it to be developed... <sigh>


Always follow the money.

Bancroft, purveyors of those fine black berets, used to be headquartered in .... Little Rock, AR. :D
  • 0

#723 Paul G.

Paul G.

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,483 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 16 October 2012 - 1355 PM


The Marine Corps took a good idea and soiled it with their "patented" copy of the pattern developed by CADPAT. Seriously, globe and anchor camo? The Army then followed that with the rushed through "Universal Camoflage Pattern", and then was forced to come out with a "combat - combat uniform" using the expensive Multicam. Then came the Air Force with their equally bad tiger-stripe UCP. Not to be outdone the Navy had to join the folishness with their utilities, but then acutally made sense with their land pattern.

Replacing two patterns with seven new ones was never going to be cost effective. Now the Army is developing three more to replace it's $5Billion failure. SECDEF and the Joint Chiefs should have squashed this before it got started.


You miss the best part: Multicam was developed by Crye on a Natick contract for the Force 21 systems. It was literally sitting on the shelf, probably in the same building, when they picked out the gawdawful UCP pattern. And, we paid for it to be developed... <sigh>


Yes and no.

Crye developed "Scorpion" pattern for the Army program. Multicam was a further commerical development by Crye, based on Scorpion. The Army does not own the licence for Multicam.

Scorpion was the "Government" pattern recently dropped from the current round of testing.

So yes the Army dropped the ball on Adopting Multicam back in 2000!

Edited by Paul G., 16 October 2012 - 1359 PM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users