Support our mission
 

In regard to "U.S. troops testing British-style camo" (article, Dec. 28): The Army’s attempt to save money by having a versatile pattern that is good for both desert and jungle situations has ended up in a uniform that is good in neither — the Army Combat Uniform.

We need two battle uniforms: one for jungle and desert conflicts. Why is the Army still looking around for different camouflage patterns when we could just adopt the patterns the Marine Corps is using? What’s wrong with adopting one good set of uniforms that can be used by all the services?

The staggering amount of time and resources that has been poured into separate service choices for uniforms could have been avoided if we had not ignored the camouflage testing results from as far back as 2004. I am not even going to go into the long list of cons regarding hook and loop fasteners.

"The most recent Natick report raises questions as to why the Army’s Program Executive [Office] Soldier rejected the Marine desert digital, MultiCam and Desert Brush patterns in 2004 and chose the Universal Camouflage Pattern for its Army Combat Uniform, a decision that resulted in $5 billion in uniform and equipment costs." ("UCP fares poorly in Army camo test," Army Times, Sept. 18, 2009.)

Second Lt. Danial SingerTallil, Iraq

Migrated

around the web

Sign Up for Daily Headlines

Sign-up to receive a daily email of today’s top military news stories from Stars and Stripes and top news outlets from around the world.

Sign up