kamouflage.net camouflage data

Uncover your potential', indeed! Once you stop ogling the girl, though, you might notice that this Australian Special Air Service (SAS) recruiting poster shows Australian Disruptive Pattern Camouflage to very good effect. [Image courtesy Brad Turner collection.]

Universal Camouflage Pattern
United States of America

In 2004, the U.S. Army finally unveiled a new uniform, the Army Combat Uniform (ACU). Set to become the standard issue for all deployed troops by April 2005, the ACU featured its own distinctive digital camouflage pattern, which was originally designated ARPAT. Inasmuch as ARPAT is a three-colour adaptation of MARPAT, which is used by the United States Marine Corps, ARPAT bears more than a passing resemblance to Canada's digital CADPAT camouflage, on which MARPAT is based — see Guy Cramer's online article 'Who did it first: Canada or the U.S.?', for more information.

The ARPAT prototype had a distinctly bluish colour cast. However, based upon feedback received after extensive trials, the U.S. Department of Defense made minor changes to ARPAT, which resulted in the so-called Universal Camouflage Pattern (UCP). UCP comprises aliased blocks of olive grey, light brownish grey and light greyish yellowish brown.

One of the stated goals of the change from U.S. woodland pattern was to provide a camouflage uniform that is effective in all environments. However, soldiers have complained about UCP since it was first issued. In his article 'New Army uniform doesn't measure up' (Military.com, 5 April 2007), for example, Eric Coulson remarks:

The ACU in universal camouflage is just not a very attractive camouflage pattern. Admittedly that's a poor reason to choose such utilitarian clothing; especially if I was convinced that it is a highly effective pattern. But I am not.

The pixilation [sic] assists in breaking up the shape of the Soldier — particularly through night vision — but in general, it stands out against anything except a concrete wall.

Ongoing complaints about the effectiveness of UCP were finally brought to a head by a U.S. Congressional Conference report which accompanied Bill H.R. 2346: Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009. The report stated:

The conferees understand that soldiers deployed to Afghanistan have serious concerns about the current combat uniform which they indicate provides ineffective camouflage given the environment in Afghanistan. Accordingly, the conferees direct that within funding made available the Department of Defense 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 conferees further direct the Secretary of the Army to provide a report on the program plans and budgetary adjustments necessary to provide appropriate uniforms to deployed and deploying troops to Afghanistan. The report shall be submitted to the congressional defense committees by the end of fiscal year 2009.

H.R. 2346 became Public Law No. 111-32 on 24 June 2009. As a result, the U.S. Army is now undertaking a four-phased initiative to explore alternative camouflage patterns for the ACU. The objectives are to identify a camouflage pattern that provides effective concealment for soldiers serving in Operation Enduring Freedom, and to evaluate a long-term camouflage plan for the U.S. Army.

At the time of writing, five UCP variants were under evaluation: UCP A, UCP B, UCP C, UCP D (modified), and UCP E (modified).

kamouflage.net is grateful to Cool Kit Australia and Hyperstealth Biotechnology Corp., for their invaluable contributions to this article.

camouflage data