# New Scorpion Pattern Uniforms **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 24, 2014, 9:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-scorpion-pattern-uniforms/689172 "2014-05-24T09:39:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Chihuahua](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dec6dc/32.png) [@Chihuahua](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chihuahua)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2014, 9:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-scorpion-pattern-uniforms/689172/1 "2014-05-24T09:39:30Z")
So the Army finally got around to buying the uniforms they should have bought ten years ago: > **[U.S. Army uniforms to get new ‘Scorpion’ camouflage pattern](https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/23/us-army-falls-love-scorpion-soldiers-getting-new-c/)** > > U.S. Army soldiers are getting a new standard camouflage pattern to give them concealment on missions: Scorpion. I did some Googling, and it turns out Scorpion and Multicam are essentially the same thing. They were both developed by Crye and the only difference is that Multicam has vertical spots. Like so: [http://www.hyperstealth.com/scorpion/index.html](http://www.hyperstealth.com/scorpion/index.html) Question for the Group: If the difference between Scorpion and Multicam is so marginal, why did the Army buy Scorpion? I’ve read that Multicam is Scorpion updated for the commercial market. Did the Army already own the rights to Scorpion? ---
**Author:** ![Fishtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ed655f/32.png) [@Fishtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fishtar)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2014, 10:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-scorpion-pattern-uniforms/689172/2 "2014-05-24T10:13:01Z")
“The Scorpion pattern was developed by Crye Precision with the Army for the Objective Force Warrior program in 2012, and the maker made small adjustments for trademark purposes and called it MultiCam. Because Scorpion is similar to MultiCam, the same color Velcro, buttons, and zippers can be reused” I think the Army objects to anyone use using their exact official stuff so Crye had to change it a bit for the civilian market. And since the Scorpian was not being produced everybody who did not like the Universal started buying the Multicam. I prefer the looks of the Canadian CADPAT myself. But not so good in the desert. ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2014, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-scorpion-pattern-uniforms/689172/3 "2014-05-24T12:12:12Z")
> [@Fishtar](#): > > "The Scorpion pattern was developed by Crye Precision with the Army for the Objective Force Warrior program in 2012, and the maker made small adjustments for trademark purposes and called it MultiCam. Multicam has been around for over a decade. This quote seems to imply that it was created in 2012? > [@Chihuahua](#): > > If the difference between Scorpion and Multicam is so marginal, why did the Army buy Scorpion? I’ve read that Multicam is Scorpion updated for the commercial market. Did the Army already own the rights to Scorpion? This is my understanding: Multicam is a transitional pattern. The Army was looking for a “family” of patterns to replace the current universal pattern. They were looking for a pattern that would just use different colors for desert, woodland, and transitional environments. Companies needed to submit a camo pattern with three different color combinations to be tested in each environment. Crye either did not submit the woodland and desert versions, or those versions were too similar to the transitional colors used in MultiCam. Without submitting 3 different uniforms, they were no longer considered. ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2014, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-scorpion-pattern-uniforms/689172/4 "2014-05-24T12:15:23Z")
To be clear, Scorpion is the “pattern” chosen. There will be three Scorpion uniforms: Scorpion Desert, Scorpion Woodland, and Scorpion Transitional. Each using the same pattern but with different colors appropriate for the operational environment. I’m guessing the new garrison uniform will be the transitional version. ---
**Author:** ![JKilez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e5b9ba/32.png) [@JKilez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKilez)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2014, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-scorpion-pattern-uniforms/689172/5 "2014-05-25T15:41:07Z")
Could someone clarify what the problem was with MARPAT patterns? I thought that they were the top performers in various camo tests. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2014, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-scorpion-pattern-uniforms/689172/6 "2014-05-25T16:22:27Z")
> [@JKilez](#): > > Could someone clarify what the problem was with MARPAT patterns? I thought that they were the top performers in various camo tests. Current camouflage patterns are not only expected to be difficult to detect by the unaided human eye but must also be difficult to detect by various electronic vision enhancement devices. \*Night Vision Device comparison photos of US4CES and some of the U.S. Army Phase IV camouflage patterns \* [http://www.hyperstealth.com/GenIII-NVG/index.html](http://www.hyperstealth.com/GenIII-NVG/index.html) \*So the Answer to Why not just use MARPAT (Marine Pattern) is multiple. A) While very effective in the visual spectrum, there is much room for improvement in the NIR (Near Infrared) and SWIR (Short Wave Infrared) spectrums where even the failed UCP (Universal Camouflage Pattern) performs better than MARPAT Woodland in the NIR. B) The Green and Coyote colors in MARPAT Woodland combine into one color with no contrast between the two into both the NIR and SWIR spectrums. C) The Canadians found an increase in the Macropattern (large Blobs) for Arid/Desert increased overall effectiveness and that a different color palette was more effective than what they used for their Desert Trial pattern (what would essentially become Desert MARPAT). As CADPAT TW (Canadian Disruptive Pattern) was designed for both Visual and NIR, we can safely assume that CADPAT AR was also designed with both visual and NIR and our internal tests on CADPAT AR show it to be very effective within the NIR spectrum. The color change with AOR1 from Desert MARPAT did adjust some of this into the CADPAT AR color range. D) AOR1 and AOR2 outperformed Desert MARPAT and Woodland MARPAT in the U.S. Army’s 2009 study. Then the question becomes “Why not just use AOR1 and AOR2?” E) See answers A and B regarding the NIR and SWIR issues and color separation requirement. Can’t they just apply a coating the uniform to make it match the background reflectance in the NIR and SWIR? F) This adds cost to the fabric and in some cases it works until washed, then you have a uniform that is worse in the NIR then it would have been had the NIR coating not been applied in the first place, (I won’t name which country this occurred to). It is always best to keep it simple and use a set of colors (with the proper inks) which will get you close before having to turn to additives and coatings\*. [http://www.hyperstealth.com/coyote/index.html](http://www.hyperstealth.com/coyote/index.html)