(The Marine Corps has also warned the Army against infringing on its design.) Essentially, the branches of the U.S. The Navy has since restricted its digital desert pattern to Special Warfare units. But when the Navy decided to migrate to a digital pattern three years ago, it chose a desert scheme a few shades too close to that of the Marines, and the Corps balked. The Marine Corps has remained loyal to the effective MARPAT, and rightfully so. The new uniform did, however, have the benefit of being ' winter weight' only, which was just perfect for service in Iraq. (You know, to blend in with the trees on Pandora.)Īfter an outcry in the ranks, the leadership settled on a color scheme slightly more subdued. It's first choice? A Vietnam-era blue tiger-stripe pattern. Naturally the Air Force wanted in on that action, and set about to make its own mark on the camouflage world.

MARPAT was a success not only in function, but also in adding distinction to the Marines wearing it. Such dysfunction is not unique to the Army. The Army began issuing MultiCam combat uniforms to deployed soldiers, but continued (and continues to this day) peddling universal pattern combat uniforms to soldiers stateside - a combat uniform that will never again be used in combat. Stitching techniques were revisited the following year, and in 2007, uniforms already in circulation were tailored to compensate for the frustrating and distracting deficiency.Īs it would turn out, MultiCam - a pattern that the Army had originally passed over in favor of the universal pattern - was discovered to work quite well in Afghanistan. Rather than fix the problem, however, the Army simply shipped more boxes of defective uniforms to supply sergeants. In designing a uniform for wear in every environment, it designed a uniform that was effective in none.Īs a baseline, uniforms should have a pattern that blends into the environment stitching that doesn't rip at the crotch material that doesn't melt onto the skin.Īs for durability, not long after the Army combat uniform appeared in Iraq, soldiers discovered that the uniform's crotch seams were prone to ripping open on the battlefield. The 'universal' in UCP refers to jungle, desert, and urban environments. In fact, not only did the Army dismiss the requirements of the operating environments, but it also literally chose the poorest performing pattern of its field tests. Three years after the Marines made the change, four years after the invasion of Afghanistan, and two years after the invasion of Iraq, you might think the Army would have been loaded with data on how best to camouflage soldiers in known combat zones. Not to be outdone, the Army drew up digital plans of its own, and in 2005 issued a redesigned combat uniform in a 'universal camouflage pattern' (UCP). Rigorous field-testing proved that it was more effective than the splotched woodland pattern in use at the time, and the Combat Utility Uniform (of which it was a part) was a striking change for such a conservative institution. In 2002, the Marine Corps adopted a digital camouflage pattern called MARPAT. It should follow that when such a uniform is developed, the entire military should transition to it. It stands to reason that there's only one 'best' pattern, and one best stitching and manufacture. Military combat uniforms have two purposes: to camouflage soldiers, and to hold together in rugged conditions.

Ucp camouflage