" 

 ==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 u