"A camouflage pattern isn't necessarily all-important to survival on the modern battlefield": from experience, this is totally false. This was the very mindset that allowed for UCP to be selected in the first place; if you stand out in your surroundings to the extent many of the "modern" patterns cause you to, then you lose much of the ability to use concealment as a means of flanking and engaging your enemy... a very fundamental fact of battlefield survival.
"[W]e should work more on field gear (vests, pouches, comms, armor) more at the moment": why? WE (as in our military) have several excellent vest/armor systems that we use depending on the environment and mission; there is no immediate need to field anything different, nor much better available at this time. Our comms are the most effective in the world, and thanks to the MOLLE system there are more pouches and pack combos on the market than I can count, so using our funds to develop more would be a waste of taxpayer dollars and pointless to the soldier.
No offense, but please leave the military camouflage debate to those of us who are actual combat veterans, whose lives truly are affected by these things. You are welcome to start another thread on all of this, and in fact could be an interesting topic of discussion, but this thread was simply to answer a question I was asked in reference to the potential adoption of the A-TACS line by the military.
