A Digitized Army
Posted February 13, 2007 by John Menick
I have had an ongoing interest in the culture of camouflage, particular when camouflage stops performing its primary function—hiding soldiers—and becomes something else. Soldiers protecting a gray Western city while dressed in green jungle camouflage provide a perfect example of how camouflage not only becomes divorced from its original purpose, but also reverses its role by drawing attention to soldiers.
So, while reading a recent article the Times published on the new Army Combat Uniform [ACU], this paragraph caught my attention:
The most obvious change is its digital-pixel camouflage, a blur of muted tones that many soldiers say seems best suited to desert combat. The old uniform, by contrast, came in bold black, brown, tan and green blotches. In Iraq, many soldiers have worn the older Desert Combat Uniform, a variation on the standard one, but with desert hues. But the new uniform, which will replace both the old one and its desert counterpart, has colors and a camouflage pattern that its designers say is effective in desert, “woodland” and urban combat. Having just one combat uniform saves the Army money.
Effective in three different contexts? Sounds doubtful, especially when the reporter reminds us about the added economic benefits of a three-in-one uniform.
I looked up more information on the uniform today and found that the excellent and indefatigable Tom Vanderbilt had written about the change back in September of 2004 for Slate:
The design energy applied to the ACU went mostly into making a uniform that would be invisible to foes but visible to comrades. Even a ceremonial detail like the traditional U.S. flag emblem has been khaki-ized into muted tan-and-blacks on some uniforms; no longer a symbol intended to be recognizable across the battlefield, it’s an infrared feedback element visible only to those equipped to see it.
