U.S. Air force personnel in Afghanistan have been buying (or scrounging from kindly army supply sergeants) the new MultiCam pattern uniforms. That’s because the air force uses a different camouflage pattern for their field uniforms, and when air force air controllers (who call in air strikes) move through the hills with army troops, it’s obvious from a distance who the air force personnel are. Actually, it makes all the troops more visible, because the MultiCam is pretty good at hiding those wearing it, but the difference between the air force camo and the MultiCam is so striking that the entire group of troops becomes more visible. The air force brass eventually got the message, and have started buying MultiCam uniforms for air force troops operating in combat along with army troops.
This was not the first problem of this sort. While the MultiCam was a an improvement on the older ACU pattern uniforms, the troops did not get new packs (which also use cano pattern cloth) at the same time they received the MultiCam uniforms. Thus when troops went off into the hills, the combination of MultiCam uniforms and ACU pattern packs did a lot to ruin the camouflage effect.

The U.S. military has been having a tough decade when it comes to camouflage uniforms. Since September 11, 2001, the U.S. Army has changed camouflage patterns for their combat uniforms twice. First it was the adoption of digital patterns, then the current move to MultiCam.

It was SOCOM (special operations command) troops who first had second thoughts about the older digital camo pattern. The digital camouflage pattern uses “pixels” (little square or round spots of color, like you will find on your computer monitor if you look very closely), instead of just splotches of different colors. Naturally, this was called “digital camouflage.” This pattern proved considerably more effective at hiding troops than older methods.

For example, in tests, it was found that soldiers wearing digital pattern uniforms were 50 percent more likely to escape detection by other troops, than if they were wearing standard green uniforms. What made the digital pattern work was the way the human brain processed information. The small “pixels” of color on the cloth makes the human brain see vegetation and terrain, not people. One could provide a more technical explanation, but the “brain processing” one pretty much says it all. Another advantage of the digital patterns is that they can also fool troops using night vision scopes. American troops are increasingly running up against opponents who have night optics, so wearing a camouflage pattern that looks like vegetation to someone with a night scope, is useful.

But digital doesn’t rule, at least not when price is no object. The runner-up in the competition was a non-digital pattern called MultiCam (cleverly designed to hide troops in many different environments). Many in the army preferred this one, but the difference, in tests, between it and the winner, digital ACU, was not that great. Moreover, MultiCam was about three times more expensive.

However, SOCOM operators have their own budget, and had many of their guys out in the field wearing MultiCam, rather than the digital ACU. Now SOCOM has always had a larger budget, per capita, than the rest of the army, and its operators had a lot of discretion to use whatever weapons or gear they thought best for the job. Apparently, on some jobs, MultiCam was considered more suitable than digital ACU. That said, there have been few complaints from soldiers about ACU, which measures up to MultiCam in most particulars, and it a lot cheaper.

Eventually, the services decided that if MultiCam provided even a small advantage over digital, than MultiCam was the way to go. The British Army thought the same thing, and are now sending new uniforms, using a version of MultiCam, to their troops. But for the new MultiCam to work, everything the troops wear has to be MultiCam. And everyone out with the troops, especially air force air controllers, need to be dressed in MultiCam as well.

Soon, when soldiers stalk the enemy in Afghanistan, they may be harder to see.
The Army this month began issuing new uniforms printed with a camouflage pattern called MultiCam, which is designed to blend in better with the varied landscapes of the country’s mountainous terrain.

“MultiCam was selected as being the best pattern suited to Afghanistan,” says Lt. Col. Mike Sloane, product manager for soldier clothing and individual equipment for Army’s Program Executive Office Soldier.

The first to get the clothing is the 2nd Brigade 34th Infantry division, an Iowa National Guard unit preparing to deploy overseas from Camp Shelby, Miss. Brigades will get the uniforms as they deploy. Those that have already deployed will begin turning in their uniforms for new ones in December.

The current camouflage has been in use for six years and consists of hundreds of tiny squares bearing shades of tan, green and gray.

The MultiCam uniforms (as well as backpacks and other gear) are a patchwork of seven shades, including greens, tan and brown interspersed with dark brown splotches.

One significant difference between the two patterns is that MultiCam is designed not only to blend with the environment but also to reflect some surrounding colors, taking on an overall green appearance under a forest canopy and a tan look in the open desert, according to Crye Precision, the Brooklyn company that created the pattern.

The pattern also benefits U.S. troops who fight mostly under the cover of darkness. It is less reflective of infrared and near-infrared colors, “so at night you’ll blend into the background a little bit” when seen through night-vision goggles, Sloane says.

In designing the pattern, makers took hundreds of photographs of the Afghan terrain and studied how animals use camouflage in nature, company founder Caleb Crye says.

The change is costing between $200 million and $270 million, Sloane says. He said the switch to MultiCam was ramped up after soldiers complained that their camouflage uniforms were ineffective in Afghanistan.

Capt. Joe Corsentino, an aviator, told the Army Times that the current combat uniform “stands out like a sore thumb” in Afghanistan.

“It doesn’t blend into anything,” 2nd Lt. Chris Cahak said.

The switch is at least the third Army battle uniform change in the past 20 years, says security analyst John Pike, director of Globalsecurity.org.

Previous patterns included the six-color “chocolate chip” desert pattern that had patches of dark brown, gray and black flecks and was worn in the Persian Gulf War in 1991, followed by a three-color desert uniform of light tan, dark tan and brown swaths. The current camouflage uniform was adopted in 2004.

Soldiers who tested MultiCam in military exercises at Fort Benning in Georgia said comrades were much harder to see among trees, or from a distance when on patrol and in mock battle situations, according to a 2007 report from the Army Research Laboratory.

The new uniforms will also have features such as buttons on pockets instead of Velcro, which can clog with sand. They also are made with a built-in bug repellent, called permethrin, to counter sand fleas and mosquitoes, Sloane says.

The quest to better cloak our fighters will continue, though. The Pentagon says it is soliciting ideas for camouflage that works well in other areas of the world.

“Somebody might come in with chameleon pattern,” Sloane says. “We’re hoping they will, but we don’t know if the technology is there yet.”