We have been covering the camouflage developments in Australia for quite some time and there is definitely some interesting twist and turns they have taken along the way. After all was said and done they were finally settled on some camo options for their different services, or were they? One of our sources down under sent us some information about new camouflage developments, which really rose an eyebrow. He has given his breakdown on the main aspects of the US Army Camouflage Improvement Effort and its parallels with his own country's comedy of errors.
Though this be method, yet there is madness in it |
| DOD Photo: CPL Moore |
June 29, 2010: US Army
Research, Development and Engineering Command (RDECOM) indicated a need for a
family of camouflage patterns suitable for uniforms and personal equipment. And
lo! The US Army Camouflage Improvement Effort was underway. The stated purpose
of the CIE was to procure a family of camouflage patterns including one for
woodland, one for desert, one for transitional terrain and one for personal
equipment in all operating environments.
June 28, 2012: Army uniform
experts and scientists were still evaluating the handful of patterns that made
it to field trials when the news broke that officials running the CIE had hit
upon two options. One was to declare MultiCam the Army's official camouflage
pattern. The other was to make MultiCam the pattern for garrison and general
deployment use, but to also have a family of approved camouflage patterns that
could be issued for specific operating environments.[1]
OK, so MultiCam hadn’t been
one of the official contenders. But there was still some small hope that one of
the four remaining submissions would prevail and all the time, money and effort
that went into CIE wouldn’t be wasted — right?
Wrong. On February 27, 2014, Military.com
revealed that none of the CIE finalists had been selected. What’s more,
US Army was also balking at the hefty royalties Crye Precision wanted for the
use of MultiCam. So now Army is reportedly thinking about creating a
MultiCam-colored version of UCP or MARPAT[2]
— but you already know all this. And if you’re not one of the few who stand to
make some serious change out of this sad farce, I imagine you feel confused,
angry and maybe just a little bit embarrassed about it all.
The good news is: You’re not
alone. The USA isn’t the only country that’s hemming and hawing about
camouflage. Enter Australian Defence …
November 2001: Operation
Slipper kicked off and, almost immediately, the Diggers deployed to Afghanistan
remarked that there were problems with their issued uniforms. Disruptive
Pattern Camouflage Uniform (DPCU) worked well enough in and around the “green
belt” but was too green for open terrain. Disruptive Pattern Desert Uniform
(DPDU) was great for open areas but was too light for the “green belt.”
Something needed to be done — and fast!
 |
| SOTG Frces in DPDU Camo |
August 2010: Nine short years
later, the Disruptive Pattern Mid-point Uniform (DPMU) was proposed as a
solution. The pattern was the same as DPCU and DPDU but the colourway had been
adjusted, to answer the needs previously mentioned. However, it was not without
its shortcomings. One criticism was that the new colorway was still slanted
toward operations in the desert. Another was that initial trials showed
standard DPCU performed better in most areas[3].
Whatever the case might actually have been, DPMU was quickly and quietly
withdrawn.
November 2010: Meanwhile, it
had been noticed that members of Australia’s Special Operations Task Group
(SOTG) in Afghanistan had taken to wearing MultiCam. Sources, who have asked
not to be identified, told me that this was done not because the camouflage
effect was vastly superior to DPCU but because MultiCam created a distinctive
identity of appearance[4];
apparently insurgents were more likely to behave when they knew Special Forces
were on the scene. Be that as it may, the Gillard Government jumped to the
obvious conclusion and announced a 12-month trial of MultiCam for all Diggers[5]
going “outside the wire.”[6]
 |
| SOTG Forces in MultiCam Photo: Commonwealth of Australia |
May 2011: Seven months later,
the 12-month trial had been such a resounding success that the Gillard
Government directed Australia’s Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) to license
the rights to manufacture Crye G3 Combat Uniforms locally. DMO was also ordered
to commission and license “a uniquely Australian” version of the highly
successful MultiCam pattern, which was to be “recognizably Australian.” Brigadier
Mike Phelps, then Director-General of Integrated Soldier Systems, said the
first prototype of the new uniform should be available in about five weeks’
time.[7]
October 2012: The Australian
MultiCam Pattern (AMP) made its tastefully understated debut just a whisker
under 73 weeks later. Still, the wait had been worthwhile. For the princely sum
of AU$3.1 million, the Gillard Government had purchased its very own version of
MultiCam, which featured adorable little hearts and bunnies just like the ones
on the original DPCU. And the camouflage really worked, too; at all but the
closest ranges, AMP was practically indistinguishable from its famous precursor.
By the time an enemy belligerent could actually see the “recognizably
Australian” bits, I imagine a Digger could’ve kicked him square in the nuts.
 |
| AMP Camouflage: LCPL Doyle Photo: Commonwealth of Australia |
April 2014: Yet it seems that
the pattern we bought still wasn’t “uniquely Australian” enough.
Beginning at the end of last year, I started to hear rumors that a DPCU-colored
version of AMP was in the works. And while the thought of such a thing might
fill your heart with fear and loathing, I am sad to say that the rumors have
since been confirmed; some of my associates (who shall remain nameless) were
privileged enough to see a sample, earlier this month. I’ve been told the
original AMP pattern has been scaled down and two more colors have been added
to the five from DPCU.
Now, here’s how I see things:
The Gillard Government really really really wanted Diggers to wear what all
the cool kids were wearing — so much so that they were willing to forego the
usual process of tender and trial and ignore home-grown options like the
pattern Bruck Textiles had developed[8],
or the design Roggenwolf supposedly prepared. But after spending millions of
dollars to get “the look,” someone, somewhere, finally realized that our
Australian Diggers might actually lose their distinctive identity of
appearance. So the current Government is busily investing even more time and
money in an effort to “fix” its predecessors’ mistake, by making AMP look more
like DPCU — the camouflage pattern we had in the first place!
I tell you, it makes me proud
to be a tax-payer. — FUBAR
[1] Cf.
Matthew Cox, “Army to Recommend MultiCam for Entire Force,” Military.com,
Jun. 28, 2012 <http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/06/28/army-to-recommend-multicam-for-entire-force.html>
(retrieved April 27, 2014).
[2] Cf.
Matthew Cox, “Army Considers Marine Corps Camo for New Uniforms,” Military.com,
Feb. 27, 2014 <http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/02/27/army-considers-marine-corps-camo-for-new-uniforms.html>
(retrieved April 27, 2014).
[3] Cf. Dan
Oakes, “Sniper apologises to chief over camouflage criticism,” The Age,
August 30, 2010 <http://www.theage.com.au/national/sniper-apologises-to-chief-over-camouflage-criticism-20100829-13xmx.html>
(retrieved April 27, 2014).
[4] This
practice was in place before MultiCam was designated “Operation Enduring
Freedom Camouflage Pattern” (OCP) and authorized for wear by US Army forces
deployed to Afghanistan.
[5] An
unconfirmed rumor has it that SOCOM promptly switched to A-TACS, when it was
announced that MultiCam was to be worn by the common run of soldiers.
[6] Cf. Ian
McPhedran, “Australian troops to get US uniforms,” The Advertiser,
November 19, 2010
<http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/national/australian-troops-to-get-us-uniforms/story-e6frea8c-1225955915874>
(retrieved April 27, 2014); “Uniform to put troops in the background,” “New
combat uniform makes troops job easier,” Defence News, November 19, 2010
<http://www.defence.gov.au/defencenews/stories/2010/Nov/1119.htm> (retrieved
April 27, 2014); The Sydney Morning Herald, November 19, 2010
<http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/uniform-to-put-troops-in-the-background-20101119-1808v.html>
(retrieved April 27, 2014).
[7] Cf.
Max Blenkin, “New defence uniforms on the way,” The Sydney Morning Herald,
May 30, 2011
<http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/new-defence-uniforms-on-the-way-20110530-1fcay.html>
(retrieved April 27, 2014).
[8] Cf. Kate Coughlan, “180
times cheaper ‘if Bruck won’,” The Border Mail, June 3, 2011
<http://www.bordermail.com.au/story/58739/180-times-cheaper-if-bruck-won/>
(retrieved April 28, 2014).
