which is better ACU or Multicam

[ryn1523]

The area we play in has lots of sage brush that has a blueish-green tint. It also by a river with plenty of dead wood and stone. My ACU's dissapear in this environment.

It may not be good for every enironment but, where it works, it blends better than anything else.

[teetee]

Um... wow.

 

ACU will never work where multicam works.

 

Multicam will never work where ACU works.

 

How can you compare the two?

[PennerAufBank]

I think Id rather wear...

http://www.nexternal.com/armynavy/images/ultraviolet.gif

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And I want to wear...this:

Showing the german fun metal band J.B.O.

 

(sorry for off-topic)

[Dentonboy]

You can't beat good field craft.

 

But my top camo's for European-type temperate environments would be...

 

1) Temperate Flecktarn

2) Multicam

3) Temperate UK/Dutch DPM

4) Danish BDU

5) CADPAT

6) MARPAT

7) Temperate US BDU

8) French BDU

-

-

-

90) Yellow 'Urban' BDU

91) Red 'Urban' BDU

92) Palestine 'Midnight Blue' BDU

93) ACUPAT

[GuzziHero]

I was thinking of mixing a set of yellow and red BDUs to camoflage me at the regular boy racer meets down Festival Park. With all the garishly stupid cars, it'd probably work there

 

On a side note, this is an interesting site:

http://members.at.infoseek.co.jp/mortar/

 

Babel fish it (Japanese -> English) and if you need to know the nationality of the flage, right click and look at its name under 'properties'. Im interested in a set of Indianflage.

[Skorn]

Go for multicam. It works a charm

[WaveSeeker]

I have DPM, MARPAT woodland and ACU. In UK woodland DPM is king followed by Marpat, ACU is good in urban (copehill, longmoor, ford) and superb at night, which is when the smart guys go to war

[aznsk8s87]

Effectiveness? You'll get more places using Multicam.

 

But ACU looks better. Which is why I got it, I use it for certain scenarios (games with newbies, CQB where concealment is a non-issue, etc), and I don't mind whether I'm seen or not.

[RSP1]

Here's a brief post I made on a US airsoft forum, where it was promptly ignored by some people saying how digital camouflage was "the shizzle":

 

ACU is the cut, ARPAT is the pattern.

 

ARPAT is, in my own opinion, a very poor pattern. At relatively short distances the colors blend together, forming what appears to be a solid grey. This is not to be confused with blending into the background, just blending with each other. The last pattern I saw that happening with was East German Strichtarn, which made that pattern essentially solid OD.

 

One can not, I repeat, one cannot achieve an "urban camo" pattern via coloration. Note what Meulder was saying about the effective pattern he saw. The way to urban concealment is by a disruptive pattern, and the more it confuses the eye, the better. The elimination of black in ARPAT removes the simulated depth from what might have been a decent pattern, thus accenting the user's outline and removing any disruptive capabilities the pattern might have had.

 

For examples of patterns that disrupt, here are two types of the Filipino pattern referenced by Meulder:

http://www.kamouflage.net/camouflage/en_00081.php

http://www.kamouflage.net/camouflage/en_00198.php

 

British DPM is also rather good. Actually, the old US woodland was a decent pattern as well, and a lot better than the new ARPAT.

 

In defense of digital camouflage, it can be somewhat good. CADPAT, for example, is a usable pattern, as are several of the digital patterns offered by Hyperstealth [http://www.hyperstealth.com]. In the case of ARPAT, however, the concept has failed, partially due to some misguided attempt at creating an "all-around" pattern.

 

One might notice several people noting that ARPAT is still good for desert and winter evironments. However, it is still only just adequate there, and purpose made patterns are much better. Since it cannot succeed in woodland, its "multi-purpose" approach is no longer an advantage, and thus the purpose made patterns are the better choice. Unless, of course, you are in an environment that has both sandy, scorching desert and ice and snow. Interestingly, studies have shown that most military operations take place in ecospheres that actually exist, which somewhat dismantles that argument.

 

MARPAT is alright, but overrated. Its coloration is better and it confuses a bit more, but I still find it slightly sub-par when compared to other uniforms.

 

It should be noted that Multicam is quite possibly the most overrated of them all, however. It is, I find, merely a relatively ineffective desert pattern with some features added that make it also work as a horrid woodland uniform, and decrease its already-mediocre performance in a sandy environment. Any time you hear that one pattern can operate in two very different areas, you should be quite skeptical. If you take an OD jacket and 3-color desert camouflage pants, all you have is a uniform that doesn't work well for either. Take that concept to more subtle levels, and you have the essence of Multicam.

 

I'm now editing my post to show some examples of good patterns, and describe each a bit in brief:

http://www.kamouflage.net/camouflage/en_00009.php

The well known Flecktarnmuster is a good pattern with excellent coloration for the German woodland. However, it is worth noting that to some extent one does get the "blends with itself" effect, which noticably decreases effectiveness.

 

http://www.kamouflage.net/camouflage/en_00024.php

This Swedish M/90 uniform has a pattern great for disruption, although the colors are slightly bright for some types of woodland. You may find it reminiscent, to some extent, of the Filipino pattern noted earlier.

 

http://www.kamouflage.net/camouflage/en_00027.php

TTsKO 88 is an old Soviet pattern, but is still in use as standard with Ukraine and to some extent in Russia. This is the summer variation, another version simply replaced the lime green base color with a light brown, creating two effective patterns for different environments. I prefer this approach to the one-size-fits-all attempts of the West. You'll note that it looks a bit washed out, the Ukrainian variant is rather sharper and in my opinion more effective. The Ukrainian type also uses a bit of black, which adds depth.

 

http://www.kamouflage.net/camouflage/en_00048.php

British DPM is a good mix of disruption and fairly conventional patterns. Although it is hard to really see in whole on Kamouflage.net, it can be a bit confusing. Here's a pic pulled off tridentmilitary.com:

http://www.tridentmilitary.com/New-photos16/bcjb.jpg

 

I really can't say enough, but there a quite a few other patterns I find excellent. Danish M/84, Russian Partizan, Berezka, and flectar-d, Australian Disruptive Pattern camouflage [AKA "hearts and bunnies pattern"], the list goes on and on. As you may have noticed, I find Kamouflage.net to be an excellent resource for finding out more about any patterns you spot. Here's a link to their thumbnail search:

http://www.kamouflage.net/en_030000.php

[Rogue845]

Multicam over Arpat any day, but I'd take other patterns over the both of them first.

 

I've only ever seen ACU work against a grey gravel parking area, over a distance of about 50m it blended into the grey quite well, but let's face it, that is still useless. It's got too much of the wrong colours to work in any one environment.

 

Multicam looks the business, especially when you look at the multicam website. They've got loads of images of multicam in various environments, and it looks superb. However, the areas in the photo shoots look like they've been carefully selected to suit multicam.

 

Like RSP1 says, be skeptical about any pattern that claims to work anywhere.

 

Pick your pattern for the environment. In wooded areas, go for the proven Brit DPM, Flecktarn, or the Danish M84. US woodland works too. If you want to look Gucci, go for Cadpat over Marpat rural.

 

In sandy/desert conditions, I'd go for Marpat desert.

 

My opinion, for what its worth.

[Maple-Leaf]

Its official name is actually Universal Digital Camouflage Pattern - not ARPAT (or ACU). But otherwise, a good post.

 

Also, in reference to the Filipino camouflage: "its main purpose was not to conceal PSG soldiers, but to distinguish them from the rebels."

[The Waco Kid]

I've suspected for a long time that the actual aim of ARPAT/UCP & the introduction of ACU's for the US Army was actually to a move toward more traditional uniform for identification purposes.

That fact that the US Airforce & Navy are getting some quite non-camouflage utility clothing seems to support this.

 

On the point of choosing a camo pattern buy what you like. If you want to skirmish in the woods in all black kit then do so.

I happen to often wear MC as I bought it sometime ago when it was pretty much unknown & I wanted something different, it works fine for me. There will always be players that think wearing a ghille will make them invisible and argue endlessly about "What camo am bestest?" but then have no idea of fieldcraft....

I have collected a lot of patterns over the years and previously used various Russian & Soviet kit. I still like plain old OD enormously, US woodland & UK DPM are perfectly serviceable.

Currently my favourite "look" is CB kit & civie clothing, a completely eclectic set up and somewhat non-camouflage.

[Dentonboy]

It really is an 'each to their own' thing when it comes to buying camo.

 

Obviously for teams, you have to reach a compromise!

[El_Greco]

The only time I've really seen ACU (for simplicities sake I'll just call it that) work is when it gets dirty, and I mean dirty. My local field has a very fine particulate dusty sort of soil under the initial leaf cover which is wonderful at giving your entire loadout a brown tint to it. After a good roll in the in dirt after a skirmish or two the camo becomes workable in the U.S. north-western forests. But compared to flecktarn theres just no comparison as far as what works better. I've also found it works pretty well for urban areas with a lot of concrete (if its an urban site with brick your out of luck though)

 

Overall, ACU does work better compared to wearing a pair of jeans and a black shirt, but other than that its mediocre at best for most enviornments without an oppertunity to get dirty and blend in a bit.

[Maple-Leaf]

Here's something to think about...

 

Military camouflage clothing patterns are tested for effectiveness at the following distances:

Daylight

60

90

120

180 meters

(60-90 being the usual criteria)

 

Night-time

30

70 meters

(30 meters being the usual criteria)

 

In my experience, the usual engagement distances in airsoft are less than 30 meters. Its also been my experience that at these ranges most camouflage patterns are easy to spot and identify. Also, its usually movement that gives away the players location much more than bad camouflage.