World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Universal Camouflage Pattern

Article Id: WHEBN0012701466
Reproduction Date:

Title: Universal Camouflage Pattern  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Equipment of the United States Army, Bulletproof vest, Army Combat Shirt, Uniforms of the United States Army, Airman Battle Uniform
Collection:
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Publication
Date:
 

Universal Camouflage Pattern

The Universal Camouflage Pattern
Two soldiers wearing the Army Combat Uniform in the Universal Camouflage Pattern.

The Universal Camouflage Pattern (UCP), also referred to as ACUPAT (Army Combat Uniform PATtern) or Digital Camouflage ("digicam"), is the military camouflage pattern used in the United States Army's Army Combat Uniform.[1] The pattern was chosen after several laboratory and field tests that occurred from 2003 to 2004, although it has been established that UCP may well have been adopted without field testing against other patterns.[2] Its pixelated pattern is a modification of the United States Marine Corps' MARPAT camouflage pattern which is similar to the Canadian CADPAT scheme.[3][4] Several research programs were conducted to modify or replace the current standard issue pattern.[5] The Army selected Scorpion pattern as the replacement for UCP.[6]

In July 2014, it was officially announced that the new Army Combat Uniform pattern for the Army is the Scorpion W2.[7]

Selection

Phase I

Initial patterns and colors

Three patterns were developed, called All Over Brush, Track, and Shadow/Line.[8] For each pattern, there were four color combinations, which corresponded to a specific type of terrain, however, all four patterns used tan as their base color.[8] The three remaining colors were green, brown, and black for the Woodland pattern, dark tan, khaki, and brown for the Desert pattern, light gray, medium gray, and black for the Urban pattern, and dark tan, light gray, and brown for the Desert/Urban pattern.[8]

Test sites

There were fifteen evaluations, which took place at Fort Benning, Fort Polk, Fort Irwin, Fort Lewis, and Yakima, Washington.[8] The camouflage patterns were then rated on their blending, brightness, contrast, and detection by US Army Soldiers, during the daytime, and also at night using night vision devices.

Elimination of patterns

Following testing, the Shadow Line pattern was eliminated entirely, along with the urban and desert/urban patterns of All Over Brush. All four of the Track patterns were accepted along with All Over Brush's woodland and desert patterns.[8]

Phase II & III

The patterns were then modified and tested alongside a newly introduced "Contractor-Developed Mod" pattern, MultiCam. Near Infrared testing determined that black, medium gray, and medium tan were the only colors that gave acceptable performance.[8]

Phase IV (system level)

All four remaining patterns, desert Brush, MultiCam, Woodland Track, and Urban Track were then tested alongside each other in urban, woodland, and desert environments.

Results

The desert Brush design received the best overall mean daytime visual rating. Contractor developed pattern received highest rating in woodland environments, but low ratings in desert and urban environments. Urban Track was generally the 3rd or 4th worst performer at each site, but was the best performer in nighttime environments. Infrared testing showed negligible differences in the performance of the four patterns. Natick rated the patterns from best to worst as: Desert Brush, Woodland Track Mod, Contractor-Developed Mod, and Urban Track.[9]

Color selection

The color scheme of the Army Combat Uniform is composed of a gray (officially named Urban gray 501), tan (Desert sand 500) and sage green (Foliage green 502) digital pattern. The pattern is noticeable for its elimination of the color black.[10] Justification given for the omission of black was that black is a color not commonly found in nature, however this appeared to ignore the artificial digital nature of the design, also not found in nature.[11] Pure black, when viewed through night vision goggles, can appear excessively dark and create an undesirable high-contrast image. This argument was not accepted by the Canadian forces or the Marine Corps when they adopted the preceding CADPAT and MARPAT patterns respectively.

Controversy

U.S. Army soldiers in May 2006, wearing the Universal Camouflage Pattern in Kunar province, Afghanistan.

The U.S. Army reported to the media that the basis for the UCP was the Urban Track pattern, which had been modified through the removal of black from the pattern and pixelated. Why the Urban Track pattern was used, given that it received the poorest ratings in visual detection from the Natick Soldier Center's testing,[9] was unexplained.

Some Soldiers have reported that the pattern is less than ideal in most environments,[12] particularly jungle and tropical terrain.[13] As the U.S. Army is involved in the Middle East, the uniform may have been biased towards the current operating environments.[14][15]

When passed by the Senate, House of Representatives Bill 2346 required the Department of Defense to "take immediate action to provide combat uniforms to personnel deployed to Afghanistan with a camouflage pattern that is suited to the environment of Afghanistan.” The Army is evaluating alternative camouflage patterns to determine if this was a necessary action.[16] In recent tests conducted by the U.S. Army's Natick Soldier Center, results indicated that three other patterns did significantly better than UCP in desert and woodland environments.[17] Four commercial submissions were tested to replace UCP for Army use.[18][19]

Cancellation of UCP and replacement

As of 2014, the United States Army is cancelling the Universal Camouflage Pattern,[20] and Army researchers worked on a new and better camouflage.[20] Four new patterns were tested to give soldiers different patterns suitable for different environments, plus a single neutral pattern, to be used on more expensive body armor and other gear.[20] The selection involved hundreds of computer trials as well as on-the-ground testing at half a dozen locations around the world.[20] In May 2014, the Army announced that a pattern called Scorpion, a pattern similar to MultiCam that was developed for the Objective Force Warrior program in 2002 and modified in 2009 (W2 version) had been chosen as the replacement for UCP.[6] On 31 July 2014, the Army formally announced that the Scorpion W2 pattern, officially named the Operational Camouflage Pattern, will begin being issued in uniforms in summer 2015. The name "Operational Camouflage Pattern" is to emphasize its use beyond Afghanistan to all combatant commands, with a family of versions including a dark jungle-woodland variant and a lighter pattern for deserts.[7] The Universal Camouflage Pattern will officially be retired by the Army in the summer of 2018.[21]

See also

References

  1. ^ ACU Presentation (ArmyStudyGuide.com)
  2. ^ Defense Tech: Singing the ACU Blues
  3. ^ New uniform details
  4. ^ Dual Texure (Dual-Tex) U.S. Army Digital Camouflage History
  5. ^ Engber, Daniel (6 July 2012). "Lost in the Wilderness, the military's misadventures in pixelated camouflage". State. Retrieved 27 September 2012. 
  6. ^ a b Army Selects New Camouflage Pattern - Military.com, 23 May 2014
  7. ^ a b Army announces rollout date for new camo - Armytimes.com, 31 July 2014
  8. ^ a b c d e f Dugas, Anabela; Kramer, F. Matthew (15 December 2004). "Universal Camouflage For The Future Warrior". U.S. Army Natick Soldier Center. p. 27. 
  9. ^ a b [1] Universal Camouflage
  10. ^ New Digital U.S. Army Combat Uniform eliminates Black in pattern
  11. ^ https://peosoldier.army.mil/faqs/acu.asp
  12. ^ UCP is a fiasco caused by incompetent, meddlesome political hacks
  13. ^ New Army Uniform Doesn't Measure Up
  14. ^ Camo Articles
  15. ^ Defense Tech: New Army Camos: No Place to Hide?
  16. ^ Maze, Rick (21 June 2009). "Troops in Afghanistan would get new uniforms". ArmyTimes (Army Times Publishing Company). Retrieved 13 August 2009. 
  17. ^ Cox, William (17 September 2009). "UCP fares poorly in Army camo test". Army Times (Army Times Publishing Company). Retrieved 17 September 2009. 
  18. ^ Lance M. Bacon (10 March 2012). "Army weighs 4 options to replace current camo". Army Times. Retrieved 15 March 2012. 
  19. ^ Eloise Lee (2 March 2012). "The Army Is Eyeing These Cool New Camouflage Patterns". Business Insider. Retrieved 15 March 2012. 
  20. ^ a b c d The Army’s $5 Billion New Uniform Already Being Replaced
  21. ^ Army Unveils Design Changes for New Camo Uniform - Military.com, 6 August 2014

External links

  • Army testing combat boots, camouflage patterns
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 


Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.