Talk:Universal Camouflage Pattern/Archives/2021/April

Controversy
A criticism section is not going to be written on the basis of source #17. "Critics within the Army"? Like I said earlier over on the ACU page, I have no problem with substantive criticism written adhering closely to the sources available, but this ain't it.

Dubious claims and implications

1. Whether the earlier "urban track" pattern's performance means anything about UCP's performance. They do not resemble each other.

2. That the urban track pattern's performance was substantively poor enough to invalidate it for further consideration. The criteria used in the test referenced for determining a winner at the time may not have been suitable for choosing a universal pattern for actual distribution in real life.

3. That "critics in the Army" know what they are talking about. The article cited is laughable.

4. That the SERGEANT MAJOR OF THE ARMY is lying his highly-qualified ass off when he mentions in his article (cited later) that UCP is effective.

5. That the SGM's article supports the final sentence, it doesn't.

6. That UCP is "biased towards the current operating environment", whatever the hell that is. Iraq and Afghanistan are not featureless deserts and mountain ranges.

All this eventually adds up to imply that the Sergeant Major of the Army (among others), a major part of whose job is to be an advocate for common soldiers among the brass, is part of a conspiracy to supply American soldiers with poor camouflage. That goes beyond insane.

Kensai Max (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, no one is accusing anyone of a conspiracy. I'm pretty sure being "biased towards the current operating environment" is a good thing. I propose that the controversy section be changed to this:

Controversey: The Urban Track pattern, which received the poorest ratings from the Natick Soldier Center's testing, was modified and selected as the basis for the Army's Universal Camouflage Pattern. The pattern was digitalized and the color black was removed. Although the Urban Track pattern faired poorly in Natick Soldier Center's tests, the pattern was changed following the testing, and its effectiveness compared to others in the competition is unknown. Soldiers have reported that while the pattern is effective in an urban or desert environment, it is less effective in others. As the Army is currently involved in the Iraq war, the uniform may have been biased towards the current operating environment.

What do you think? -Tmaull (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I like that wording better, but I still think the Defensetech article cited is too breezy to be included in an encyclopedia. How about the ones you put into the ACU article instead? Kensai Max (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think what I'll do is keep the Defensetech article (its not the greatest, but it is a source) but also add the sources from the ACU article. - Tmaull (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds cool to me. I don't have any problem with well-cited criticism. Kensai Max (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

In any case, the links to all the criticisms are dead links.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

HR 2346
Changed the wording somewhat. The Army appears to be testing a UCP-derived pattern and Multicam to remain in compliance with the law, neither of which are going to beat basic UCP on functionality grounds (IMO the "controversy" is manufactured by Crye Precision to sell their overpriced camouflage) so talk of anyone getting a new uniform on anything besides a trial basis is premature. The Army can simply say, "based on our field trials UCP is the best" and it would be full stop from there. Doesn't hurt that UCP is in fact close to ideal for Afghanistan in the first place. 74.71.215.148 (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know how you figure it's "ideal" for A-stan when quite a few units were private purchasing Multicam, the Army is now officially using it, and pretty much every think tank on the planet is calling UCP a debacle at best. That, and Multicam is now adopted by several nations in addition.  I think "overpriced" is spending $5 billion on crap that demonstrably doesn't work.  Nor does it matter how loud the cheerleaders shout about UCP.  It's going down in history as a bad joke.  But I defer to your expertise. Or would, if Original Research were acceptable.  This is not to say Multicam is ideal.  It is, however, infinitely better than worthless, which is UCP.Mzmadmike (talk) 08:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

From reviewing recent news articles on this topic, it appears that the above comment may want to be revised.

Also, this quote... "Until the new pattern is put in the field in approximately one-year, soldiers will be issued a temporary uniform, a greenish, blended replacement called MultiCam."

...was previously cited as having been reported in "The Daily" article on this...source #18. That information was NOT included in that article...I looked over it and read it many times and it just simply does not say any such thing, so I removed the citation.

If whomever entered this information has a CORRECT source for it, please add it because I would truly like to know if/when I may wear my Multicam uniform over the stupid UCP one stateside...and I would prefer an OFFICIAL source for this information, if possible. I cannot find anything definitive about this anywhere and believe me, I have looked! WarFighter (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A different article mentions 2013 as the official date for the new pattern. Of course, that very well may be revised furtherMzmadmike (talk) 08:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Dead links
should be fixed

Phd8511 (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Update?
This article is in need of an update, since it has indeed been dropped: http://breakingdefense.com/2012/06/25/army-drops-universal-camouflage-after-spending-billions/

--70.50.237.250 (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

UCP-D
No mention of the UCP-D pattern is made on this page. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 08:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)