Improved Combat Uniform

[buzgo]

Interesting....

Improved, not new and NO MULTICAM.

Although I wasn't holding my breath for us adopting it, it is really starting to look like Multicam is becoming the ABCA camouflage pattern of choice!

 

[PuckChaser]

I converted the Powerpoint to a PDF file.....

Thanks!

 

[Lerch]

MGD?  Is that a kind of military bridge?  I heard the Canadian Military Engineers put up a military bridge at a place called Trouty last year...

...Miller Genuine Draft? 

 

[BDTyre]

Why wait to get this new, ICU? I'm pretty sure Dave's Surplus already sells it, in CADPAT.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Interesting....

Improved, not new and NO MULTICAM.

Although I wasn't holding my breath for us adopting it, it is really starting to look like Multicam is becoming the ABCA camouflage pattern of choice!

Why would you want it to be "multicam"?

 

[OldSolduer]

Why would you want it to be "multicam"?

Good question.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Interesting....

Improved, not new and NO MULTICAM.

Although I wasn't holding my breath for us adopting it, it is really starting to look like Multicam is becoming the ABCA camouflage pattern of choice!

Why would you want it to be "multicam"?

Good question.

The rest of the uniform seems directly stolen from the Yanks, the colour scheme might as well be also.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I've been describing it to friends who keep asking for details as "ACU but in CADPAT."

Yup. We've gone from 'Innovator' to 'Imitator'.

 

[Wolf117]

Multicam really would be an improvement but CADPAT is still very good.  Wouldn't be very cost effective to spend all that time and money developing CADPAT to just replace it in such a short period of time.  Although multicam is the superior of the two I really don't think it's enough of an improvement to replace all our kit again.

Though I am psyched about us going with the US ACU style clothing.  That program really spent a lot of time being innovative and researching how to make a combat uniform more practical in the field rather than stick to traditional garrison styles.  It's become such a popular design that we are now joining a growing list of nations who are adopting it but in their own unique camo patterns.

Our style of combats hasn't changed much since Korea other than in colour and materials.  Hopefully whenever they do a FULL replacement program they finally start using a material which is more fire resistant.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Although multicam is the superior of the two

How so?

 

[vonGarvin]

Although multicam is the superior of the two

You make this statement based on what?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Our style of combats hasn't changed much since Korea other than in colour and materials. 

That's hogwash and you're talking through your hat on that point also. Bush, battledress and the TW's of the Korean era don't even equate to combat clothing,  OD or CADPAT. A few of us around here can attest to the difference in those uniforms and that your statement is dead wrong.

 

[Wolf117]

Based on the plethora of terrains in which Multicam can stay an effective camo pattern.  Desert, semi-arid, tropical, temperate, boreal etc.  Whereas our CADPAT TW really is best suited to pine forest and the spring/summer seasons in temperate climates.  I use multicam to hunt with and find it far more effective than CADPAT in the fall timeframe because at that time vegetation is dying off and there is far more dry grass, bark and brown tones to stay blended with than the very green CADPAT.

Even our OD green was better at blending with the dry prarie grass or almost tan grass that much of Canada becomes after the summer passes.

So because CADPAT TW is really more of a niche climate/timeframe camo and because Multicam can consistently perform in a multitide of terrains at various times of the year, I feel that's an appropriate statement.

Let me give you this example as well.  In Kandahar, we regularily went from barren wasteland terrain to very green farmland.  The CADPAT AR was well suited to the first, however, you stuck out like a sore thumb in Pot fields and farmland.  If you had multicam, you could be safe in the assertion that you'd be able to transition between these different zones and maintain the same level of concealment.

That's why the Aussies are switching to multicam, the Brits and US already have and the special forces of many different nations are using it.  Even the Polish Army adopted their own version of the pattern.

Don't misunderstand me here.  I am not saying we should switch.  CADPAT is a fine pattern and will work well for what we need it for.  However, if you compare the two objectively it's hard to say that CADPAT is better than multicam because it just can't cover the same level of variety of environments that multicam can.

 

[Wolf117]

That's hogwash and you're talking through your hat on that point also. Bush, battledress and the TW's of the Korean era don't even equate to combat clothing,  OD or CADPAT. A few of us around here can attest to the difference in those uniforms and that your statement is dead wrong.

Well I certainly didn't mean to create any hostility here.  But if you want to discuss my statement then fine.

What I was saying with that very short, generalization is this.  That many features of our combat dress has either stayed the same or not changed a hell of a lot since the 1950s.  Other than in material used or pattern or colour.

So since you have a problem with me making that assertion, I'll break down the reasons why I made that generalization.

1. The colar on combat dress has maintained the "gentleman's" style since the battle dress of the 1950s.  Illustrated here pretty plainly.

2. Since the introduction of the nylon combat dress in the 1960s, the angled pockets have changed little other than in minor ways such as the addition of material to cover where the buttons are and slight resizing.  However, if you compare the overall design of the OD combat shirt and the various generations of the CADPAT ones, you'll see that very little changed in design.  The angled pockets on the breast stayed, the large cargo pockets as well stayed.  The angled breast pockets which were initally meant as a means of carrying some magazines stayed, even though this is nowhere near an acceptable means of carrying ammunition in combat today.

3. The use of drawcords stayed over this same time period.

4. The cuffs and shirt closure buttons did not change except for being concealed by material in the later generations of CADPAT shirts.

The designers of this new ICU even admit in the powerpoint that's been posted here that this will be the biggest departure in combat clothe design for Canada since the 1950s.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

You can try justify your statement all you want. The fact that a jacket has two breast pockets fails to equate those uniforms. Eisenhower jackets are not near the same cut as combats either, gentleman collars be damned. However, I'm sure you'll discuss night is day as been your practice here so far and that's ok, it's only an opinion. I'll agree not much has changed since the introduction of combats, but you can't equate it to Korea dated uniforms, no matter what the 'designers' say. Those would be the same 'designers' that just copied someone else's uniform, right? In literature, it's called plagiarism.

I've worn it all and you can't fool me ;D

 

[Wolf117]

You can try justify your statement all you want. The fact that a jacket has two breast pockets fails to equate those uniforms. Eisenhower jackets are not near the same cut as combats either, gentleman collars be damned. However, I'm sure you'll discuss night is day as been your practice here so far and that's ok, it's only an opinion. I'll agree not much has changed since the introduction of combats, but you can't equate it to Korea dated uniforms, no matter what the 'designers' say. Those would be the same 'designers' that just copied someone else's uniform, right? In literature, it's called plagiarism.

I've worn it all and you can't fool me ;D

Not justifying a statement, simply clarifying it since you seemed to take it as I was saying they are the exact same uniform.
The statement I made was a generalization.  I did not at any point say they are the same uniform.  What I did say was they have not changed much.  Save for some materials, colours and slight variations in design.

Other than the collar, sleves, use of buttons for closure, epaulet placement on that particular shirt, there are other designs that date to Korea you are overlooking.  The cargo pocket design Canadian uniforms have been characterized by over the past half century and which remain on today's combat clothes were also designed and worn on Korea era uniforms.  I'll give you the example of a combat coat worn by Canadians in Korea.

The general principle in design of our uniforms have kept with the gentleman's combat uniform.  (be it the collar, cuffs, sleve design, epaulet placement)  In that for a soldier to look 'good' on parade is equal or more important than taking into account changes in tactics, feedback in functionality from the field etc.  Clearly someone is listening as we can see by this new initiative.

Thankfully the design of military equipment is not literature and adopting practical changes that have now been validated through real world experiences is not a bad thing, regardless of who came up with them first. 
We also won't be the first allied nation to go this way with our uniforms.  There have been many adopting copies or slight variations of this style.  For good reason, it works for current soldiers under fire.
Latvia

Poland

Slovakia

Italy

Croatia

Estonia

Yes EVEN Afghanistan and Iraq

This improved CADPAT uniform actually has design features that will be useful to current soldiers.  The most important in my mind would be the collar which actually serves a use as a means of protecting your neck from chaffing when wearing body armour and load bearing gear for extended periods of time.  Pockets on the sleves, which are actually accessible when wearing body armour (as opposed to the dated FN C1 mag breast pockets which serve no use to me other than soaking up sweat under my armour.)  And pleates at the shoulders to let the sleves move with your arms as opposed to the current design which only tightens around your wrists as you bring your weapon up.  In short, this is a uniform based on current day needs and functionality in the field.  That's why I and every other troop I've spoken with about this are happy to see this sort of change coming.

I've been proud to wear the OD combat uniform, the CADPAT TW uniform, the CADPAT AR uniform and I'll be just as proud to wear this Improved Combat Uniform.  Regardless of where the original inspiration for its design came from.
All of these deficiencies have been noted and clearly dealt with.  It will be good in the future to be able to unblouse pants in the field because the new uniform incorporates this into its design with velcro cuffs at the pantleg.  (regardless of if you acknowledge that was an issue or not, it's clear enough troops did seeing as it was listed as a deficiency to fix.)  Or be able to use sleve pockets for a compass or notepad.  Or be able to secure a collar to reduce chaffing on my neck.

It should be noted that there have been some additions to the ACU uniform design that our Canadian designers have incorporated.  Ones that will be helpful.  That this is not just a CADPAT carbon copy.

 

[McG]

Although multicam is the superior of the two

How so?

You make this statement based on what?

Based on the plethora of terrains in which Multicam can stay an effective camo pattern.  Desert, semi-arid, tropical, temperate, boreal etc.  Whereas our CADPAT TW really is best suited to pine forest and the spring/summer seasons in temperate climates.  I use multicam to hunt with and find it far more effective than CADPAT in the fall timeframe because at that time vegetation is dying off and there is far more dry grass, bark and brown tones to stay blended with than the very green CADPAT.

Even our OD green was better at blending with the dry prarie grass or almost tan grass that much of Canada becomes after the summer passes.

So because CADPAT TW is really more of a niche climate/timeframe camo and because Multicam can consistently perform in a multitide of terrains at various times of the year, I feel that's an appropriate statement.

Let me give you this example as well.  In Kandahar, we regularily went from barren wasteland terrain to very green farmland.  The CADPAT AR was well suited to the first, however, you stuck out like a sore thumb in Pot fields and farmland.  If you had multicam, you could be safe in the assertion that you'd be able to transition between these different zones and maintain the same level of concealment.

That's why the Aussies are switching to multicam, the Brits and US already have and the special forces of many different nations are using it.  Even the Polish Army adopted their own version of the pattern.

Don't misunderstand me here.  I am not saying we should switch.  CADPAT is a fine pattern and will work well for what we need it for.  However, if you compare the two objectively it's hard to say that CADPAT is better than multicam because it just can't cover the same level of variety of environments that multicam can.

Multicam attempts the "jack of all, master of none" thing.  There may be somewhere in the world that it is the best, but we would only find ourselves operating in that environment by chance.  We are better served with separate temperate and AR patterns than trying to fit a universal pattern to all theatres & operations ... in fact, the limitations of trying to go with a universal pattern is a weakness of the US ACU.  Arguably, we could have a CADPAT hybrid for theatres of closely mixed environments (or late fall in a temperate deciduous environment) and we should have the ability to rapidly code and then produce uniforms in a CADPAT theatre specific (so everyone after roto 0 has a more optimal uniform).

 

[Jungle]

The US Army did not switch to Multicam; they adopted Multicam specifically for the Afghan theater of ops, the rest of the US Army is sticking to ACU until the future pattern is decided and adopted.

There are serious considerations by the US Army to adopt the USMC MARPAT, so they would go back to a 2-pattern system, which is in my opinion the best way to go. What we should do is offer more flexibility to mix items in the 2 patterns to adapt to each situation.

 

[dapaterson]

What we should do is offer more flexibility to mix items in the 2 patterns to adapt to each situation.

And somewhere, an RSM has suddenly dveloped a splitting headache, with tremors and a deep sense of fear.

 

[Pusser]

Based on the plethora of terrains in which Multicam can stay an effective camo pattern.  Desert, semi-arid, tropical, temperate, boreal etc.  Whereas our CADPAT TW really is best suited to pine forest and the spring/summer seasons in temperate climates.  I use multicam to hunt with and find it far more effective than CADPAT in the fall timeframe because at that time vegetation is dying off and there is far more dry grass, bark and brown tones to stay blended with than the very green CADPAT.

Even our OD green was better at blending with the dry prarie grass or almost tan grass that much of Canada becomes after the summer passes.

So because CADPAT TW is really more of a niche climate/timeframe camo and because Multicam can consistently perform in a multitide of terrains at various times of the year, I feel that's an appropriate statement.

Let me give you this example as well.  In Kandahar, we regularily went from barren wasteland terrain to very green farmland.  The CADPAT AR was well suited to the first, however, you stuck out like a sore thumb in Pot fields and farmland.  If you had multicam, you could be safe in the assertion that you'd be able to transition between these different zones and maintain the same level of concealment.

That's why the Aussies are switching to multicam, the Brits and US already have and the special forces of many different nations are using it.  Even the Polish Army adopted their own version of the pattern.

Don't misunderstand me here.  I am not saying we should switch.  CADPAT is a fine pattern and will work well for what we need it for.  However, if you compare the two objectively it's hard to say that CADPAT is better than multicam because it just can't cover the same level of variety of environments that multicam can.

Interestingly, you present the same basic argument that kept us in OD as long as we were.  For the most part, starting in the 1970s, many nations switched to dispersed pattern camouflage clothing, readily acknowledged to provide better concealment.  When the question was raised in Canada as to why we did not, the official answer was that dispersed patterns were only effective in select environments and we could not afford to have separate sets of combat clothing for use in all the different environments in which we expected to operate.  In fact, testing showed that the plain OD we used was the best compromise.  This was a logical argument right up until the point where we became the only Army in the world that had a dispersed pattern jacket for use in garrison, but continued to use a plain pattern for use in the field. :facepalm:

I tend to agree with the argument that one needs different patterns for different environments.  Compromise solutions that try to satisfy all requirements are rarely fully successful.

As for the development of combat clothing, I would argue that it has indeed been an evolutionary process and that even today there are elements that still exist that find their roots in many generations past, hence pockets originally designed for use with a weapon that has been out of service for over 25 years...