Talk:Universal Camouflage Pattern

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

[edit] Controversy

A criticism section is not going to be written on the basis of source #17. "Critics within the Army"? Like I said earlier over on the ACU page, I have no problem with substantive criticism written adhering closely to the sources available, but this ain't it.

Dubious claims and implications

1. Whether the earlier "urban track" pattern's performance means anything about UCP's performance. They do not resemble each other.

2. That the urban track pattern's performance was substantively poor enough to invalidate it for further consideration. The criteria used in the test referenced for determining a winner at the time may not have been suitable for choosing a universal pattern for actual distribution in real life.

3. That "critics in the Army" know what they are talking about. The article cited is laughable.

4. That the SERGEANT MAJOR OF THE ARMY is lying his highly-qualified ass off when he mentions in his article (cited later) that UCP is effective.

5. That the SGM's article supports the final sentence, it doesn't.

6. That UCP is "biased towards the current operating environment", whatever the hell that is. Iraq and Afghanistan are not featureless deserts and mountain ranges.

All this eventually adds up to imply that the Sergeant Major of the Army (among others), a major part of whose job is to be an advocate for common soldiers among the brass, is part of a conspiracy to supply American soldiers with poor camouflage. That goes beyond insane.

Kensai Max (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

argument from authority. Does the SMA have specific training in camouflage or optics? I'm not aware of that being in the MOS standards. Ranking soldiers have been wrong on occasion. Witness the Garand, the M14, the Trapdoor Springfield, the Chauchat, the M1 Carbine, Little Bighorn, flammable aluminum vehicle armor, the M3 Lee tank...Mzmadmike (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, no one is accusing anyone of a conspiracy. I'm pretty sure being "biased towards the current operating environment" is a good thing. I propose that the controversy section be changed to this:

Controversey: The Urban Track pattern, which received the poorest ratings from the Natick Soldier Center's testing, was modified and selected as the basis for the Army's Universal Camouflage Pattern.[1] The pattern was digitalized and the color black was removed.[2] Although the Urban Track pattern faired poorly in Natick Soldier Center's tests, the pattern was changed following the testing, and its effectiveness compared to others in the competition is unknown. Soldiers have reported that while the pattern is effective in an urban or desert environment, it is less effective in others.[3] As the Army is currently involved in the Iraq war, the uniform may have been biased towards the current operating environment.[4][5]

What do you think? -Tmaull (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I like that wording better, but I still think the Defensetech article cited is too breezy to be included in an encyclopedia. How about the ones you put into the ACU article instead? Kensai Max (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think what I'll do is keep the Defensetech article (its not the greatest, but it is a source) but also add the sources from the ACU article. - Tmaull (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds cool to me. I don't have any problem with well-cited criticism. Kensai Max (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)