Was the change in camouflage from MultiCam to OCP really necessary?

2015-01-08T00:29:10-05:00

During a period of fiscal constraints and challenges when everyone is looking to cut costs, reduce benefits, decrease BAH rates, and reduce the force to save money, do we really need a new high-speed camouflage pattern that looks almost exactly like the last one? Even the Chief of Staff, during yesterday's townhall called the new OCP camouflage uniform "MultiCam" accidentally.

And the fielding plan according to the SMA is to issue the new uniforms to deploying troops while non-deploying Soldiers will have to use their clothing allowance because "[e]nlisted Soldiers receive an annual clothing allowance for new uniform purchases". How far is $435 - $464 suppose to go when we are still purchasing new Dress Blues, new PT uniforms and a combination of ACU, MultiCam and now OCP pattern uniforms? Clothing allowance is suppose to go towards replacing portions of a Soldier's uniform, not complete fielding.

Thoughts?

Read more: http://kitup.military.com/2015/01/army-chief-adds-confusion-camouflage.html#ixzz3OChlctnZ
Kit Up! uniforms

Response by SSG Jason Neumann made Jan 16 at 2015 12:11 PM

2015-01-16T12:11:59-05:00

I do believe that there should be a transfer exchange program. If we are suppose to purchased these uniforms, but is currently not in our clothing inventory, then why should Soldiers have to purchase these items if they have never received them in the first place? I remember when the military came out with the IPFU when we had the old cotton PT's. We had to head to the Clothing & Sales on Fort Campbell to stand in line to purchase pieces of these. Once the whole company had at least one pair of all items we could wear it, it was insane. Again, I do agree with our clothing allowance is to upkeep what we currently are issued; not purchase new gear.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 16 at 2015 1:29 PM

2015-01-16T13:29:52-05:00

Depends on what the goal was.

Issuing it for deployments to keep people safe is a worthy goal.

Being concerned that we have a different pattern at home? Not so much.

If the goal, on the other hand, was to simply jack up the amount of money spent, well mission accomplished, but worthy? I think not.

Its my personal conspiracy theory that these things are done deliberately to make it too expensive to project force so that we have to give up the capability.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 16 at 2015 2:03 PM

2015-01-16T14:03:44-05:00

I wouldn't mind to have field uniform and garrison uniform like WW2. Save the combat patterns for combat. Or.... Scrap all new uniforms, go back to BDUs. You could tell a high drag, low speed Soldier from a mile away.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 16 at 2015 4:49 PM

2015-01-16T16:49:33-05:00

I have heard that the Army is considering units/personnel that already have Multicam, being allowed to continue to use that pattern with option to replace items over time as natural wear and tear takes place. This would be done through normal clothing maintenance allowance. The rest of us ACU wearing folks will be uniformed in the OCP.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 16 at 2015 4:51 PM

2015-01-16T16:51:48-05:00

I thought we were past the wear date of the Dress Greens. Everyone should have the ASU now. I don't see why there would still be soldiers using clothing allowance to purchase that item