WWTBAM Bored

Once again, new camo for the Army. More money spent on more uniforms. Until the next time.

http://www.army.mil/article/149543/Oper ... le_July_1/



It seems like every few years, the Army decides its "one camo fits all" scheme doesn't work, and they have to do it all over again. The other services seems to change camo patterns regularly too. Captain Son-Of-Spiff has complained about the somewhat ineffectiveness of them in the field in some cases -- not officially, of course, but he says he heard about it all the time during his two deployments.

At least there have been some Congressional attempts to resolve this. http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014 ... iform.html

And for an interesting recent history, read this: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/p ... flage/140/

And I'm still trying to figure out why the Navy needs camo at all. (Their semi-official response -- to hide the dirt. Really. They're only allowed to wear this on the ships or on base, never off base.)

Two years ago, an article in US News said

"The Navy 'blueberries' – I don't know what the name is, that's what sailors call them – the great camouflage it gives is if you fall overboard," said Navy Secretary Ray Mabus at a Thursday meeting with reporters. Mabus points to what has become a macabre joke among sailors, highlighting the dangers of a shipmate falling into the sea wearing a sea-colored uniform.

Sorry, end of rant for the day.

This new uniform for the Army is similar to what soldiers (and indeed other services as well) have been wearing in Afghanistan for some time (Now referred to as "operational camouflage pattern" or OCP, it is a variation of a pattern style called "multicam"). The old predominantly grayish "universal camouflage pattern" ACU was a disaster from the start (almost as bad as the original Air Force ABU before the current still very poor tiger stripe style ABU they wear now) and proved to be equally ineffective in jungles, forests and desert environments (and just about any other type of environment). This new pattern is a more effective pattern. The Air Force, which has been wearing the multicam style in Afghanistan, needs to make a change soon too but for now are sticking with their silly looking ABU except when they have to go into a combat zone. In that case they too will wear the new Army uniforms style.

I would think Captain Son-Of-Spiff might rather be happy to hear he now has a better uniform option although it is hard to blame him for being upset about buying that stinker that is the current ACU. Good chance that he and other officers will get at least a one time payment to help pay for this new uniform (enlisted personnel get an annual allowance for uniforms). I didn't get an extra penny when my service changed to a completely new operational duty uniform (it is a working uniform similar in style to the ACU but all blue that is worn by the Coast Guard and now us).

As for the Navy, the NWU, or Navy Working Uniform Type I, which I hear referred to as "Aquaflage" was never intended as combat camouflage. It was intended to hide "dirt" as you noted whether they want to admit that publically or not. Basically grease and paint stains from working on a ship. The old blue coveralls and the Denim shirt and pants uniforms they used to wear on ship easily showed stains and sailors complained about how often they had to be replaced. If you fell overboard wearing blue coveralls or a blue denim outfit you were no easier to find than you would be in the NWU type I. The key, I suspect, is not to fall overboard in the first place!

The Navy does have need for a camouflage uniform for specific forces like special ops, Seabees, base security and occasions when they are working closely with other services in a combat theater on land (which happens more often than one might think). As a result they have developed two additional uniforms for combat called the NWU type II and type III. One is jungle pattern and one is desert pattern. It is very similar to the Marine Corps desert pattern. So much so that the Marines objected to it! Aren't they all supposed to be on the same side???

http://www.navfac.navy.mil/products_and ... s/nwu.html

Of course they could just have easily adopted a pattern already in use (Like the Marine Corps MARPAT, whether the Marines liked it or not) rather than making a completely new one. But they made new ones anyway at great expense.

Also, the assertion that the blue NWU Type I can't be worn off base, while true briefly when they were first developed, is no longer accurate and hasn't been for several years. It is now their basic daily working uniform for most places outside the DC area.

http://www.npc.navy.mil/bupers-npc/refe ... V11366.txt

The reason why every service has to have its own different uniform is a different issue. Every service managed to do fine with the BDU for some 20 years but they all tend to feel a need to look "different". While that is perfectly fine in garrison it was always a bit of mystery to me why the combat uniforms all needed to be different.