How do you guys feel about this trend of including branding in camouflage patterns? Two immediate military examples come to mind; the EGA (Eagle, Globe, and Anchor) in MARPAT and the ACE (Anchor, Constitution, and Eagle) in the Navy’s NWU (Navy Working Uniform) patterns.
On the commercial side we’ve seen Kryptek embed their helmet logo and the Honor Camo for the upcoming video game title Medal of Honor Warfighter includes a couple of brand embellishments as well.
So, what do you think? Good idea or bad?
Good idea in theory but being prior af and deploying with army and marines and having to utilize their specific camo patterns it would just be another headache or another expense on the GTC…
Bad! Save the US taxpayer lots of money and make one per season or AOR that is used by all services. Woodland did the job and is recognized as American, but not tacticool by the fobbits. I know marines that hated being mistaken as soldiers by the public, but we are one team, that serves the constitution and paid by the treasury.
double sided coin. generally the idea is its bad because if your captured then your country of origin and in your examples, even the branch of service can be obtained. however since everyone these days has their own brew of camo, its usually very easily discernible from the get go. ie. how many countries use Canada’s CADPAT? So it makes no difference on the military viewpoint in today’s world, but it would potentially have bad consequences for captured Special Forces who wish not to have their origins known.
It was awesome as a Marine to find the EGA in our issues uniforms.
Bad. One Force One Fight right? One uniform one camo family for all US Forces.
I get interservice rivalry and in some instances it is food and healthy. But not here. Too much time, energy and other resources is wasted as the service branches try to one up each other.
Good. We’re not wearing the same uniform so branding it makes it no worse. Branding does prevent knock offs to a certain degree and just looks cool.
Different uniforms and branding are two different issues.
So What happens when the Army makes the switch?
I think there should be standardization of patterns used across all branches, as it would save tax dollars.
I also think that if that’s NOT going to happen (which it’s not likely to anytime soon) then branding is OK, just so long as it’s subtle.
The EGA and ACE are pretty subtle but the Kryptek logos stand out too much IMHO. That said, I don’t foresee anyone actually using either of those Kryptek patterns for anything other than looking “cool”.
Bad idea. If the consequences of petty rivalries and other political games were not significant, then I have no problem with it. But this is an issue of survivability of our warfighters and this overides all other considerations. The MARPAT was shown to be one of the best camo patterns available using objective testing methods. However, it was not even considered for Army use because of the embedded globe & anchor. Hence, this led the Army to pursue their own camo pattern, which turned out to be a huge waste of time, effort and money. We used to be able to afford to waste a lot of things. Not anymore. It’s time we think about prioritizing what’s important and consider the total cost of our decisions.
“…huge waste of time, effort and money.” Don’t forget lives.
Army brass wants to conduct a “cost benefit analysis” before fielding the upcoming camo contest winner. Really? I hope avoidance of prescription meds, medical retirement pensions, and prostetic limbs are factored into the figures being considered.
The point? If the appearance of a manufacturer’s logo saves dollars, but helps in getting the most effective pattern into the supply system, I say go for it.
…if the civilian side used the manufacturer logo and the Army used their own; everyone gets the appropriate recognition. That’s all I am saying.
Its a cute idea to “brand” a pattern, I am not fond of the idea, particularly if you have to work clean/sterile. There are a lot of companies that produce imitation patterns out there, that are available to everyone on the market, and I would prefer to blend in, for security reasons, rather than blow cover or announce who/where I’m from. . .
What I don’t get is: why have the EGA in Marpat and then permit plenty of other nations to have copies that look exactly like Marpat? The EGA hardly makes a difference. Interestingly you don’t see any Cadpat copies issued by other Armies.
The question raised isn’t so much of ‘Should the services go to a single family of patterns?’, but the strengths and weaknesses of incorporating a brand identity/trademark type logo into a camouflage pattern.
Nobody has brought up one the fact that one of the most successful commercial camouflage patterns incorporates their trademark name into the pattern at regular intervals: Crye Precision Multicam.
From the standpoint of protecting intellectual property and brand integrity, I see no issue with incorporating some sort of brand logo into the pattern. It gives the owner of the trademark recourse against illegal copies or versions of their pattern.
From a DOD/service specific brand identity, it does give complete control that the materials available are mil-spec.
The main downside with regard to branded camouflage patterns (particularly from a DOD owned pattern) is the variety of materials available printed in that pattern, especially in non mil-spec forms. Just because something isn’t mil-spec doesn’t mean it’s no good. Quite often there are more technically advanced materials out there that will never be incorporated into military textile programs due to cost, or whether they can be produced within a certain locality i.e. Berry amendment considerations. It’s unlikely that the Marine Corps would ever allow MARPAT or USSOCOM with AOR 1 and 2 to be licensed to a manufacturer who produced the materials or finished product outside of the US.
With government owned patterns, there’s also the issue of obtaining a license agreement and permission to produce goods in the pattern. These restrictions essentially kill innovation in product development due to all the hoops that manufacturers have to jump through in order to obtain ‘official’ material for their products, and then often have to request permission to use that material for the specific product they want to market. Then they may have further restrictions in terms of who they’re allowed to sell products to with the ‘Official’ pattern.
So, to answer the question raised:
For COTS patterns, I think branding is a good idea.
For MOTS patterns, I think it’s a good idea if you’re the government and you want complete control over what your service members are wearing and using, but bad for aftermarket manufacturers and the end user.
Bad. Go back to the days when everyone wore one pattern stateside (Should probably be desert now) and were issued theater specific when they deployed. Also bring back the days when as a Marine you only needed to iron on your “Club Patch”. Also, dump the female specific sizes and go back to a generic “Short, Regular and Long” matrix. I really don’t care that they don’t like the fit of the waist and hips of the standard uniform. If you have to size up because of your hips and the waist is loose, put on a belt, its not a fashion show. We should go back to a service common Armor and Load Bearing Suite akin to ALICE and PASGT for conventional forces. SOCOM seems to have no issue in doing this with SPEAR outside of a few minor kit differences.
At the moment British uniforms are ‘male’ sizes although there is supposed to be a plan to introduce for female appropriate sizing.
It’s not a matter of how it looks but of how it wears. Inappropriately fitted clothing can impact of how comfortable and functional it is.
Bob clearly doesn’t care about the welfare of those he serves with. I don’t know if Bob has any experience with women but, fortunately, they are not usually the same shape as men.
@MattF Crye puts the “Multicam” name on LICENSED Texcel printed webbing. Otherwise they put little seam tags to vouch for authenticity (which I have also seen on counterfeit Multicam gear).
If you have to do it, put everyone in a USA Eagle.
Overall BAD IDEA, because, as MattF also pointed out, it will likely find its way into personal equipment and become the go-nogo standard. The likelihood that a “logo’d” USGI 3-mag shingle will ever be as good (in terms of quality OR utility) as something like the First Spear commercially manufactured equivalent is somewhere between slim and none.
We’re already sliding back to some of the bad things about the peacetime mentality; I had a close encounter recently with a Garrison CSM who looked at my AR-670-1-compliant boots made by a reputable German manufacturer and asked if they were “uniform-board approved.”
Uniform board approved. Guess someone slept through the one hour block of instruction on AR 670-1 at USASMA.
Staps – was he “your” CSM? If not, who the f**k cares? This is exactly what I’ve been saying for awhile now. As soon as the hostilities wind down, the E-9 mafia will have it’s revenge.
Shitty idea! PERIOD! Enough said. If marines didn’t like wearing the same thing as everyone else, thats too bad. (Caps, Sleeves, EGA stencil is all you really need to look different) From the tax payers footing you jarheads have cost us dearly for your decade long camo escapade BS. Truth is they are special, Fact is they are not that special, and that goes for all the other branches. It’s often amazing to think how some forget that it was the Marines who started this insane idea of “branding.”
I don’t think you can really blame the USMC for wanting updated, more effective cammo patterns.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but before the USMC branded MARPAT didn’t they offer it to the Army as well? Then the Army turned their nose up at it, so then the USMC went ahead with branding.
So if that is indeed the case, then one could easily argue that it’s actually the Army’s fault that we currently have all these different patterns in service.
I don’t know where you heard that, but it is absolutely untrue. The CMC at the time, Gen Jones wanted something unique to the Corps, and he got it, ushering in a decade of pet patterns.
Thanks for correcting me. I seem to recall reading it in an article somewhere….Obviously written by someone far less in the know than SSD. Sorry.
I just think it’s kind of tacky.
It’s stupid because we issue the type II and type III for garrison but AOR1 and AOR2 for deployment. Just make it the same.
Over time AOR 1 and 2 and NWU Types II & III will be indistinguishable.
Over time AOR 1 and 2 and NWU Types II & III will be indistinguishable.
the embedded EGA was placed there to make knock-offs easy to identify. however, to be the patented MARPAT the EGA has to be there…without it, its not the patented pattern. it will be interesting to see what happens in a few years when the MARPAT patent expires….
The problem with that line of thinking is that someone was simple enough to think that anyone who would be able to knock off the pattern wouldn’t have the ability to also embed the EGA.
I remember looking at the myriad uniforms and colors the USSR used to issue, it seemed every different military, border guard and police unit had their own color. When they went “out of business” I figured it was due to that kind of wastefullness. Now the US seems to be doing the same. I realize that is a ridiculous oversimplification of the cause of the breakup of the USSR, but it seems smarter to issue a hot weather uniform, and a cold weather one, in a couple colors period. Let SOF wear civilian clothes or whatever they need/want. IMO munitions and war gear should be treated as critical, important national stuff, not a “brand”.