Jump to content

Talk:MultiCam/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

Yes please merge, they mean the same thing

Carbacca 04:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Mall ninjas and Blackwater

Enough of this multicam fanboyism. The pattern was rejected by the Army for a reason, it's ineffective. I'm removing the tagged statements in the article if I don't get a good reason (involving factual citations) not to in a week. (Kensai Max here, not logged in)

Deleted the dubious statements. I believe the Military Morons site promotes Multicam to the point that if the people running it aren't being paid by Crye they're being cheated. Hence the term "viral advertising". Kensai Max (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

?13Tawaazun14 (talk) 02:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh, you do realize that Multicam is in use by SOCOM, no? ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Him or me? I personaly like both types but I prefer Multicam (yes I have used both). If it's me, BTW, I do.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Used by SOCOM? Horseshit. Kensai Max (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have pictures, and sources. [1][2][3] [4], and this one from Army.mil. So take your horseshit back to the farm. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 04:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

None of those show American forces using Multicam in a combat environment. It was used to an extremely limited extent in Future Force Warrior demonstrations, that's it and that's what those photos show. You want me to take breezy claims by Crye or their proxies about their crap seriously, give me some real sources.

Allow me to elaborate.

1. FFW demo.

2. FFW demo or training exercise (note BFAs).

3. Crye ad, I think.

4. They're wearing DCUs.

5. FFW demo.

While SOCOM probably has a few sets of Multicam gear for eval purposes (and may have had pictures taken of them evaluating it), they have a few sets of practically everything for eval. Doesn't mean they actually fight wearing it. Kensai Max (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read the article more carefully. Nobody said anything that they actually fight wearing it. However, it is indeed in use, for some limited purposes by SOCOM. I've provided my sources; and they clearly show SOF units in exercises wearing Multicam, from US Army official websites. You sound like you have a grudge against Crye, but this is not the place for it. Thanks ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"For some limited purposes by SOCOM" = as a temporary demonstrator pattern for Future Force Warrior before the current Army pattern came in ONLY. The way the article was phrased and the common claim that people bandy around without any kind of substantiation is that Special Forces troops actually USE the pattern operationally. By those standards I could easily say that skull-print facemasks are "used" by American troops, with considerably more justification! Kensai Max (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Strawman arguments do not work. You are conceding that it has been in use by SOCOM for some purposes : the article does not say, nor does it need to say, what those purposes are. Thus, you've conceded that the information belongs in the article. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
See also, use with USAF CCTs, [5] ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 04:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed. The pattern is not issued and is not in use by SOCOM for any purpose related to their military mission. Some operators may (and I say MAY as I have yet to see ANY evidence that this is true beyond some dude with a ball cap below) wear it given their latitude with uniforms much in the same way that they can wear blue jeans if they want to, but that's as far as it goes. Continuing that line of reasoning constitutes an attempt to insert false and misleading information into Wikipedia and it will not be tolerated.

That USAF dude is wearing a brown vest, not a multicam one. Christe, this is ridiculous. Given the absolute lack of evidence that American military personnel use this pattern in any substantive way (substantive means beyond baseball caps and outside of FFW demos) I see no reason why any assertion of official usage should be made in the article. Kensai Max (talk) 10:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw both Rangers and Seals in Iraq, and guess what. The Rangers wore ACUs and the Seals DCUs. No Multicam. And last time I checked the 3rd Infantry Division doesn't fall under SOCOM. I'm very surprised and disappointed that the consensus of editors allows the article to read that the SOCOM community is using this stuff. Ultratone85 (talk) 05:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Original research doesn't work here. It's referenced that SOCOM does use it. Sorry if you disagree but I worked with both Rangers and SF in Iraq, and I've personally seen them use it. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 16:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Original Research Alert

Well, there seems to be a nice little discussion here about Multicam.

Since wikipedia has strong rules against original research, I will post this in the talk page, and not the actual article.

I wear Multicam, at work, in the Army, during war.

In defense of Kensai Max, there is no gear that I have been able to find that has an NSN for Multicam patterned equipment. On the other hand there are plenty of people who buy the pattern out of pocket and use it. SOPs for some particular unnamed units actually have ACU patterned equipment blacklisted in favor of DCU and/or other non ACU apparel (any tan, coyote brown, civilian clothes, etc.).

Final verdict of my original research? People who shoot for a living and do not have restrictive commands, will drop the ACU for either civilian clothes, tan/coyote brown fabrics, and believe it or not, the Multicam pattern.

This ACU vs. Multicam battle is mainly waged by non military personnel who love to shoot 6mm plastic balls at each other. But the big battle that was fought between Multicam vs. ACU by the Army is even more ridiculous. I have not been given an official answer why Multicam was dropped from the trials when it was tested and was gaining momentum. My personal opinion? It was not a digital pattern. The USMC had their own digital version of their uniform (and smartly, designed for different environments), so the Army did not want to be the only kids in the block without the latest iPod. They went digital, and adopted the pattern that had the cute little nintendo pixelated pattern. Now the Air Force has their own digital version, and I am waiting for the Navy to actually issue their version of the modern camouflage. The Army should have been smart and commissioned Crye to develop their own version of Multicam in a digitized pattern and saved everybody a lot of typing. But I digress.

FWIW, Jerry.mills (talk) 08:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I respect your opinion on the subject, the sole source on the Army's camouflage trials available online (go see the Universal Camouflage Pattern article, it should be available there) shows that Multicam failed BADLY as a universal camouflage. In the test it's listed as a "contractor-developed pattern". It performed well in the forest (where most airsofters play, incidentally) and poorly in all other environments. I don't buy into the various conspiracy theories floating around on the subject - the Army would not knowingly issue poor gear to be "cool" and would not keep poor gear in circulation years after the fact.

What do I think on the subject? That Army UCP works wonderfully for what it was designed to do and soldiers who don't wear it because they have latitude with uniforms do so for reasons unrelated to its values as camouflage. ACUs are very distinctive "US Army" gear and Special Forces people (blatant generalization warning) generally try to keep a lower profile than that. I doubt the guy in the photograph you provided was trying to camouflage himself with khaki, brown pouches and a UCP vest, or that his multicam ball cap was worn for concealment value instead of to be cool. You're proving my point when you mention that Special Forces people are wearing khaki, brown, or civvies instead (Multicam = camo civvies). None of those are very effective as camouflage unless you're trying to blend into a crowd - which is often part of their mission!

In short, the requirements of SOCOM are not the requirements of the Regular Army. So, yes, some people with uniform latitude may use Multicam IRL. If that picture's all you have for sources, I'll chalk it down to the pattern being trendy rather than effective. Kensai Max (talk) 11:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

More Original Research

Here is a photo of a guy in OEF wearing unit sanctioned Multicam http://www.tadgear.com/tgia_156.htm Jerry.mills (talk) 08:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not original research, that's a legitimate source. Kensai Max is now violating policy by continually removing the referenced material, and if he continues, he'll be blocked. Simple. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 21:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Try it. =D Kensai Max (talk) 00:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Point Taken?

That was the point I was trying to make. Not officially sanctioned, but used for other reasons. But you would be amazed at how many times I've heard people at work bitching and whining about the ACU pattern. And believe me that these people are not airsofters, and never heard of Multicam (MC). And the Army is famous for issuing gear that is not well thought out or push developmental programs for fiscal reasons. I am not going to start the whole 5.56 vs. 7.62 argument, or the 9mm vs. 45ACP. Or the gas system vs. the piston system (M4). The Army continues to do the wrong thing, thinking they are being progressive and advanced, without listening to what the end user wants. Look a the freaking black beret fiasco. Everybody I talked to did not want it, were offended by it, and finally followed orders. The M16 has been troubled from the get go, and issued to quickly. If the ACU pattern was so good, then the Army would not have changed the color scheme from a greener tone to a more tan toned one (after so much testing).

I mentioned the SOP issue. These units do not ban the ACU pattern because it goes against their operational posture. They ban them because "in their experience" it does not camouflage the operator appropriately. They use the old DCU pattern, and end up spray painting their official issue kit so that it properly blends with their operational environment.

The couple of things that the ACU does very very well is: disrupt the pattern and thus, mess up the observer's pattern recognition and aid in concealment. The ACU is also very good in desert environments and pretty good in urban terrain. When it comes to infrared detection, the ACU is also very good, and also when wet. For the war we are fighting right now, it is an acceptable pattern. But when we go and fight in a greener environment, I would like to see the excuse the army uses in order to "develop" an even better pattern than the ACU.

So would the army issue equipment that is not appropriate to its user? Yes. I crossed the bern in 2003 wearing nothing but a Vietnam Era Flack Jacket (when level IV armor was available and mass produced). Well, I was not naked, but you know what I mean. Would the Army be thick headed and not listen to the end user? (the shooter). Yes. One typical example is the removal of the HK416 from CAG. Or the fact that we now carry between 10 to 14, 30 round mags in order to have enough stopping power to drop personnel (versus the TRADOC 7 mag load). Will the army train its people in obsolete ways? Yes. Look at the way we qualify for weapons marksmanship. One shot, one kill (which is a great way to learn marskmanship, but a pathetic way to fight a war).

So it is not far fetched to think that the Army committed to soon to a pattern that everybody in the Army hates. Granted, JOEs love to bitch and whine about everything. If you gave them an invisibility cloak, they will find something to bitch about that too. Hopefully, the Army will stop messing about, and begin to fight this war on terror as it should be fought, and develop patterns that are designed for the right environment, and not to pretend that they are saving money or thinking about the shooters.

One last thought. Every time somebody sees my MC gear, they say: "Hey, is that the new pattern the Army is thinking about using?" That gives so many statements at once that I have a headache thinking about it. Why would they think the Army is going to use another pattern? Because ACU works so well? Why would they associate MC as the replacement pattern? Because the Army actually use it some of its development programs? Why would we even think about a new pattern anyway, if the one we have is the "best". Tell that to the USMC.

Oh well. This is just the harsh reality that there is never one solution to a multifaceted problem. You cannot have your cake and eat it too when it comes to cover and concealment. Oh, and by the way, MilitaryMorons is in no way affiliated with Crye Precision and is not advertising for them. I know the guy and e just loves current military equipment and is a good person all around. (^_^)

And about the statement of soldiers using the pattern because it's trendy? LOL, I seriously doubt people would camouflage themselves in a trendy fashion, and risk their lives with an ineffective pattern because it looks cool. But Kensai Max, you are correct. You will not see a battalion formation any time soon with MC clad soldiers. The reason you will not see many people wearing anything at all, is because finally the JOEs got the OPSEC thing right. I have not seen a photograph from the SOF front lines in a long time, and thank God for that.

So how does this preceding paragraphs enhance the article? I hope it brings validity that the pattern is in very, very limited use for various reasons, and that there seems to be a very clannish behavior for, or against the pattern. But this clannish attitude should in no way be used to credit or discredit the pattern. Some people like it, some people hate it, but it is not officially sanctioned by the DOD (by the lack of NSNs) and who knows what the future will bring.

Jerry.mills (talk) 09:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside baseless, extremely speculative ACU/Army procurement bashing (given the amount of idiotically high-speed gear American soldiers have carried into combat over the last century you'd think people would stop bitching) and adressing your specific point about Multicam, you are basically saying that the only people in the military who ever use the pattern do not have photographs taken of them and never have been photographed wearing it. This is a dubious assertion in the first place and serves as an excuse to insert uncited information into the article based on nothing more than internet scuttlebutt.

Based on the photographs, "sources" and so on provided, I can at this point conclude that SOCOM does not use Multicam in any substantive way. Given the amount of fanboyism out there for the pattern I am confident that if real, non-airsoft special forces used it there would be a large number of photos out there. The one that I just kicked off the article page is a picture from "Combat and Survival" magazine (unreliable source as far as I care) that looked a lot like an advertisement for Blackhawk. The picture you provided earlier is of a chubby, bearded guy wearing of all things a multicam (I'm not even sure if it's actually multicam or another camo that could pass for it at that angle) baseball cap with a SMILEY FACE PATCH on it. Give me a break here. Reliable sources, believable and substantive pictures showing substantive (beyond baseball caps and mag pouches) usage. Kensai Max (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The reliability of a printed magazine is not affected by your opinion or not; it is a reliable source. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 15:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Factual Error

It states ZOA uses multicam. ZOA in the article links to the Zionist Organization of America, which, to my knowledge, is not a paramilitary organization and would probably not need multicam. Perhaps ZOA is a Polish agency which was improperly linked in the article. Outlaw289 —Preceding comment was added at 18:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm undoing the link13Tawaazun14 (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I am confused

Man Kensai, I do not know what part of my statement you did not understand. I stated that it is not sanctioned, it is in limited use, and it does not have NSNs. That means that it is not in use "substantively" and it is not official. The chubby guy in the photograph is in Afghanistan working in the US Army, and that is all there is to it. And I am confused as to you being so well versed in military related topics, but does not understand the common usage of OPSEC. So I say again: "not sanctioned, limited use, with no NSNs in the system. And it is widely known (at least in military circles) that people use "morale" patches for photographs. The smiley face is nothing but that, a fun thing people do in theater for photographs and things alike. Oh, and by the way, the softball cap is indeed multicam, but the more prominent multicam item is the chest rig. If you like a photograph without the smiley face, then http://www.tadgear.com/tgia_159.htm will be more suitable to your taste. I do not know why the personal affronts are necessary, but I am on your side stating that this freaking pattern is not in large use. Wow. And I do not know what ZOA stands for, but the Polish military is indeed using the pattern. So I guess a lot of kids playing airsoft will have to pretend they are Polish Special Forces from now on, since it seems to have been adopted by them, at least in OEF. Jerry.mills (talk) 07:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Morale Patches

Here are some examples of personnel wearing Morale Patches for funny photo ops:

http://www.milspecmonkey.com/patches/milspecmonkey1.jpg http://www.milspecmonkey.com/patches/100_1772.jpg

And probably the one that started it all:

http://www.specwargear.com/images/saleboard-fun%20meter%208.jpg

Cheers, Jerry.mills (talk) 08:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Italian SF

It seems that also Italian SF units are using the pattern in Afghanistan. Wow. I wonder why? LOL.

http://www.sodgear.com/gallery.html

Jerry.mills (talk) 07:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Updates Multicam used by US Troops

The 173d Airborne Brigade will deploy to Afghanistan wearing Multicam, Congressional inquiries about the ACU's effectiveness have sparked new interest in MC, Cited from http://soldiersystems.net/category/multicam/.

65.201.95.162 (talk) 10:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Doc (SFC,USA), 0525 30June2009

Kensai Max will deny that at once, insisting it is original research.
Now, I've deployed twice myself, haven't met anyone who thinks UCP or the ACU uniform is worth a fuck, pardon the language, but they seem to have an AMAZING fanboi presence on Wikipedia. "Tests" aside, Mark 1 Mod 0 eyeball proves that UCP is only slightly better than say, blaze orange, as camouflage. But you're not going to convince the fanbois even after it's completely ditched. FYI, not only the SpecOps community, but LRS are also buying/unit issuing MultiCam, and it's pretty well understood in the Pentagon that it will be much more prevalent very quickly. As someone noted above--it wasn't digital, so the Army didn't think it would be cool looking enough. Then, they chose the worst fabric possible for the environment in question, and the USAF followed a close second. Then, they figured to save the money they'd wasted by going with one pattern.
Soldiers in Afghanistan will soon test two different camouflage uniforms to help the Army find a more effective pattern for the rugged, mountainous country. After years of soldier complaints about the Army Combat Uniform’s camouflage pattern in the war zones, the Army is trying something new. http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/09/army_new_camo_091409w/
"UCP" is shit. It was shit when it was adopted on the cheap, it is shit now, and it will be shit when it's all consigned to trash cans and airsoft fields.Mzmadmike (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's two more links, both official US Army (The chart is reposted), showing how wunnaful UCP is compared to Multicam, and even Syrian uniforms. snicker. http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/09/army_camo_test_091509w/ http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk297/M777A2/Camo%20Patterns/overall_performance.jpg When a third world country has more effective camo than we do, perhaps court martials and firing squads are in order.Mzmadmike (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

4ID in afghanistan wearing all multicam. looks good to me.

http://www.army.mil/-images/2010/02/12/64153/army.mil-64153-2010-02-12-060213.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.53.144 (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Army Use

Is it true that the army has adopted Multicam as a ACU replacement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halofanatic333 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No they have not. Please reference the above discussions. They are field testing the pattern in A-stan due to complaints about the ACUPAT. Secondly they will need an act of congress and will probably be issuing TWO or MORE sets of uniforms to save face over the ACUPAT decision. It is even being kicked around that the ACUPAT will be modified to the ACUPAT-Delta pattern they are also attempting to field in A-stan. Basically its the same ACUPAT with foliage and urban grey. However the Desert Tan will be replaced Coyote Tan. Long story short dont hold your breath. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.222.120 (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I was majorly confused if they had or had not. Halofanatic333 (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


Sup? http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/02/army_multicam_030110w/ 173.64.84.108 (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Images, aka: guy who needs to poo.

Can we find a better image of multicam in use where the wearer doesn't look like he's taking a dump in his pants? His facial expression of needing to poop is so laughable that it detracts from getting the point across. Idk if he's trying to be all HURR IM SO HARDCORE, or whether he legitimately is about to defecate, but perhaps we could crop his head out of it or find a better example?

It's become a bit of a meme in my social circle, so I figured I should probably point it out that no one sane could take that photo as a serious example, because once you've intimated his pooping you just can't see anything but his face when looking at it. :< BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on MultiCam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on MultiCam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MultiCam/Archive_1&oldid=1136253034"