Find a Security Clearance Job!

Military

Is Our Camouflage Adequate?
CSC 1993
SUBJECT AREA - General
                         EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Title:   Is Our Camouflage Adequate?
Author:  Major Richard W. Spencer, United States Marine Corps
Thesis:   The Marine Corps does not have a suitable method to
rapidly change the camouflage color on military equipment.
Background:  In an attempt to counter the Soviet doctrinal use of
chemical and nuclear weapons, the Department of Defense adopted
chemical agent resistant coating as the material  for painting
military equipment.  Chemical agent resistant coating (CARC) is
designed  to prevent  chemical  impregnation  and  aid  in  rapid
decontamination of equipment.  CARC is also the material used to
camouflage military equipment.   CARC, because of its numerous
restrictions and availability, prohibits the local commander from
rapidly changing the color of his equipment when faced with a
contingency response.  Because CARC is considered environmentally
hazardous, local paint facilities are restricted from painting CARC
in volume.   This restriction further degrades the commander's
choices when faced with a rapid response situation.
Recommendations:  The Department of Defense should discontinue the
use of CARC paint and allow local  facilities to paint  their
equipment when operational necessity dictates.
                   IS OUR CAMOUFLAGE ADEQUATE?
                            OUTLINE
Thesis:   The Marine Corps does not have a suitable method to
rapidly  change the camouflage color on military equipment. The
problem is exacerbated by the requirement to use chemical agent
resistant coating (CARC).  The solution requires the Department of
Defense to discontinue the use of CARC and allow local facilities
to paint their equipment when operational necessity dictates.
     I.   Why did DOD adopt CARC paint?
          A. Countering Soviet doctrinal use of chemical and
             biological weapons.
          B. CARC engineered to aid in decontamination.
     II.  Explanation of USMC camouflage patterns.
          A. Majority of USMC equipment is Standard pattern.
          B. No plan exist to change color rapidly.
     III. CARC restrictions.
          A. CARC is environmentally hazardous.
          B. CARC is applied at depot-level facilities.
          C. CARC is expensive and has limited shelf life.
          D. CARC is not available on short notice.
          E. Transportation costs for equipment is prohibitive.
          F. Other paints more suitable for contingency response.
     IV.  Corrosion control for equipment.
          A. CARC use results in excessive maintenance hours.
     V.   Why should we care about this problem?
          A. Color is preferred over chemical protection.
          B. CARC does not provide an adequate chemical defense.
          C. Many factors affect the visual detection of targets.
          D. Background on three color camouflage pattern.
          E. Test results of desert color scheme.
     VI.  Why should DOD discontinue the use of CARC?
          A. Controlling VOC emissions is costly.
          B. The commander faces a legal dilemma.
          C. Depot facilities can not provide support.
     VII. Why should local facilities paint equipment.
          A. Surge efforts are more responsive.
          B. Materials are obtainable quicker.
          C. New technology is not available today.
                   IS OUR CAMOUFLAGE ADEQUATE?
     On August 6, 1990, elements of I Marine Expeditionary Force
began preparations for deployment to Saudi Arabia.  During mission
analysis, the determination was made to change the camouflage color
of the equipment from green to desert tan.  Consultation with the
depot-level maintenance experts revealed that the depots could not
handle the enormous volume of painting required. Additionally, the
materials required for the painting task were not available in
sufficient quantities.
     As various  staffs worked diligently to  find a  suitable
alternative to the green camouflage paint scheme, the evidence
indicated that this was a service-wide problem.  Specifically, the
problem is that no suitable method exists to rapidly change the
camouflage color on military equipment.(4:1)   The cause of the
problem is exacerbated by the requirement to use chemical agent
resistant coating (CARC).  The solution to this problem requires
the Department of Defense (DOD) to discontinue the use of CARC
paint and to allow local facilities to paint their equipment when
operational necessity dictates. (5:3)
     Why did DOD adopt CARC paint?  The U.S. military adopted CARC
paint to counter the expected Soviet use of chemical weapons.
Soviet doctrine integrated chemical and nuclear weapons employment.
Doctrine also called for the use of persistent chemical agents to
contaminate specific facilities and terrain, and non-persistent
chemical agents to support an attack.  CARC, scientifically known
as pigmented polyamide paint, is designed to counter the Soviet
doctrinal  use  of  chemical  agents  on  the  battlefield.(15:40)
Another tactic called for the use of non-persistent lethal agents
just prior to  an attack.   The goal  was to  inflict  maximum
casualties while temporarily contaminating an area.  The key to
survival with persistent chemicals  is the ability to rapidly
decontaminate personnel  and their  equipment.   CARC paint  is
engineered to prevent chemical impregnation and to aid in the rapid
decontamination of equipment. Other coatings require more time and
effort to decontaminate, making them less desirable than CARC in
the Soviet scenario.   CARC paint, because it is a non-porous
coating, offers additional benefits such as corrosion protection
and service life extension. (8:1)
     To understand the magnitude and significance of the problem,
the following background information is offered.  In   the   late
1970s, the Marine Corps began painting its equipment in camouflage
patterns rather than the basic green color.   There are three
camouflage  color  patterns  used  today.    They  are  Standard
(black/green/brown),    Desert    (tan),    and    Winter    Snow
(black/white/brown). The pattern choice for the Fleet Marine Force
(FMF) depends on where the Unified Commander (CINC) plans to employ
the Marines, or other services, in his theater of operations.  Due
to the requirement that the MAGTFs, and potentially the Selected
Marine Corps Reserve (SMCR), be able to respond to a wide spectrum
of world-wide crisis, the Marine Corps uses the Standard color for
its major end items.   Equipment included  in the Norway pre-
positioning program is also painted the Standard pattern since the
Norwegian weather throughout most of the year calls for it vice the
Winter Snow pattern.
     The exception to this Standard pattern is the equipment
aboard MPS-3, stationed in Diego Garcia. This equipment is painted
the Desert pattern because its primary mission involves the desert
regions in multiple operations plans.  While MPS-3 was utilized in
Southwest Asia, it should be asked what the plans are to paint
other equipment to a Desert color if used in a different area.
Currently, there is no plan to rapidly change colors and this
challenge is further complicated by the requirement to use CARC
paint. (5:3)  With the proposed reduction of military forces, it is
highly probable that military units will be combined to handle any
significant  threat.    This will  cause  the majority of  units
responding to a desert scenario to change the  color of their
equipment.
     Why should DOD discontinue the use of CARC?  While it appears
that  CARC  is  the  ideal  paint  for  camouflage  and  chemical
protection, it is important to realize this relationship directly
contributes to the problem.  Several disadvantages are obvious when
attempting to rapidly change color. CARC paint  is considered
environmentally   hazardous,   and   its   application   requires
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved safety equipment and
facilities. (11:2)  EPA regulations restrict the use of CARC to one
quart per site per day. (6:2)   Only approved facilities, such as
depot-level maintenance facilities can dispense CARC in volume.
This restriction on volume painting is attributed to the amount of
volatile organic compounds (VOC) released into the atmosphere when
spraying. (9:2)  Other paints, such as polyurethane or alkyd base,
also have to meet state and local emission standards.  The solution
to the emission problem  lies  in  the use of  a  low pressure
mechanical spray system combined with a low emission paint. (11:2)
     CARC paint is expensive and has a limited shelf life.   In
fact, CARC is approximately four times more expensive than a low
emission alkyd or polyurethane paint.  (10:2)   The expense and
storage requirements of CARC limit the amount of paint that can be
procured on short notice.  Manufacturers supply CARC on a scheduled
basis,  requiring  sufficient  lead  time  and  forecasting  of
requirements.  Manufacturers can significantly increase production
and delivery  of  alkyd or  polyurethane  paint within  days  of
notification.  The flexibility of use, and the relative ease of
procurement of non-CARC paint, make them more suitable for the
rapid change of camouflage color.
     Another disadvantage of CARC is the huge transportation costs
incurred when transporting equipment to a depot-level facility.
State and federal intra-state transportation laws require large
pieces of equipment be transported, by rail or truck, to the paint
facility.  Tanks, for example, require special trailers that have
the necessary weight bearing capacity. Additionally, transit times
are restricted on week-ends and holidays.  Special permits, which
add  to  the  total  costs,  are  required  prior  to  movement.
Transportation costs account for nearly fifty percent of the total
painting cost.  Transportation costs can easily exceed $2,000 per
major end item, making this alternative cost prohibitive.  Local
painting eliminates the need to transport large quantities of
equipment to a depot-level facility for painting.
     A significant challenge for most units is the requirement to
protect equipment from the effects of corrosion.   Corrosion is
accelerated when equipment is exposed to salt water or spray in a
marine environment. (13:6-1)  The best protection is to completely
seal a surface from exposure to such elements.  (3:2)   Once a
surface is corroded, the corrosion must be removed before the
surface can be prepared for sealing.  Power grinders or sanders can
not be used to remove corrosion from CARC painted equipment since
hazardous dust is released to the work space.  This creates an
environmental hazard to personnel.  The requirement to manually
sand areas, and the restriction placed on the volume of CARC that
can be applied at each site, inhibits effective corrosion control.
The use  of CARC paint,  with  its restrictions,  significantly
increases the maintenance man-hours required to combat corrosion.
(3:1)  Equipment painted with non-CARC paint required extensive
surface preparation before it could be repainted with CARC. (6:2)
     Why should we care about this problem?   The commanders'
decision for a desert tan paint scheme was unanimous.   Their
decision was made after fully considering the ramifications of
operating in a chemical environment.   Color is preferred even
though Iraqi  forces were known to possess a chemical weapons
threat.   The operations officer of  the 9th Engineer Support
Battalion, in charge of training chemical decontamination teams,
states:
     I can say that the crucial  issue in decontamination
     operations is the availability of trained decontamination
     personnel, appropriate water supply equipment, and large
     quantities of water.  Most vehicles that would require
     decontamination would be dirty.   The paint would be
     scratched in many areas  ... or would be inaccessible
     behind canvas or attached equipment. CARC paint, of
     itself, is not going to provide an adequate chemical
     defense. (8:2)
     Why is  camouflage  so  important  to  the commander?  The
importance of proper camouflage is stressed in basic military
training.   Commanders realize that proper camouflage directly
enhances  the  survival  of  their men.  (7:149)    Additionally,
camouflage patterns disrupt the normal appearance of the equipment,
making the recognition of high-value targets more difficult.  Many
factors affect the visual detection of targets.   Some of the
fundamental research in the field was performed by Blackwell in
1946. (12:2-3)  He was concerned with discovering what makes things
detectable (e.g. signals, displays, life-rafts, etc.). Others have
extended his work to the application of camouflage, that is the
making of otherwise detectable objects undetectable.  However, no
one has disputed his fundamental  finding that at a reasonable
contrast ratio and illumination level, the threshold detectability
of targets corresponds to a target size of one minute of arc.
(12:2-3)
     The three color camouflage pattern is significantly different
in  concept  from previous  patterns.    While  earlier  patterns
attempted to match background colors and texture, thereby causing
the object to have a minimum contrast with its background, the
three color pattern breaks the vehicle up into barely discernable
objects which  do not  correspond to  vehicle features.  (2:16)
Pattern placement and color disrupts those cues which assist in
shape recognition (lines, curves).  This leads to the significant
result that the camouflage pattern should disrupt objects larger
than one minute of arc (30 cm at 1000 meters), while itself being
at least one minute of arc in size. (12:2-4)  The only exception to
this pattern theory is the results obtained by the Saudi Arabian
National Guard (SANG).  Their test showed, that in a sparse desert
environment, a solid color was preferable to the three color
pattern.  Fortunately, this helped to lessen the time required to
change the green pattern to desert tan.
     Why should the DOD discontinue the use of CARC paint?  The
industrial engineer at the Marine Corps Logistics Base,  (MCLB),
Barstow, California states:
     This paint was over designed.  Despite what may be valid
     laboratory results that demonstrate CARC is effective in
     shedding   chemical   agents   during   a   deliberate
     decontamination process, we -- the DMA at MCLB Barstow --
     can not afford to pay for the prohibitively expensive
     equipment required to apply and control the emissions
     from CARC paint. (8:1)
Additionally, when painting large quantities of CARC, it is
exceptionally costly to control the VOC emissions. Controlling VOC
emissions  involves  some of  the most  complex and  inefficient
technologies ever devised (carbon absorption, incineration, etc.).
(8:1)
     The unit commander is faced with a dilemma.  While regulations
determine  painting  schedules  and  location,  the  commander  is
responsible for the preparedness of his men and equipment.  State
and federal jaws hold the individual responsible for the violation
of EPA statutes.  The commander,  at any level, can be prosecuted
for violating the local and federal laws regarding clean air. (9:1)
When responding to a crisis that requires a different paint scheme,
the commander is faced with violating the law to prepare his
equipment.   The statute of  limitations makes him liable for
prosecution long after the crisis has been resolved.  Imagine the
turmoil caused when faced with legal action while attempting to
prepare equipment for combat.
     As mentioned previously,  the depot maintenance facilities
could not provide the painting support, and local laws prohibit the
use of CARC paint.  What is the commander to do?  When faced with
the same problem for Desert Storm, members of I MEF completed the
painting tasks by using low emission water based latex paint.  The
paint was procured from local vendors and applied with a commercial
grade mechanical sprayer.  This painting was completed with EPA
approval.  (6:2)   The equipment was painted by a mobile team,
travelling to various locations, where the equipment was staged for
embarkation.  This method caused the least impact on the units
preparing to leave the base.  After many months in the extreme
desert environment, the equipment showed remarkably little wear.
Why can't this method be used for future contingency response?  In
fact,  this method can be used, but  it will  require changing
regulations and discontinuing the use of CARC paint.  Ultimately,
use of low emission paint and mechanical sprayers allow the rapid
change  of  camouflage  color  that  is  considered  critical  for
battlefield survival. (1:149)
     Why should local facilities paint equipment? Local commanders
can control the hours of operation of local facilities, causing
them to surge when necessary.  The local commander can augment a
facility with  additional  manpower when required.   The  depot
facilities, manned mostly with civilians, incur tremendous costs
when forced to surge.  Additionally, qualified labor may not be
available on short notice.  The greatest benefit of having local
facilities paint equipment is shortened turn around time,  This is
critical when faced with contingency deployment schedules.
     Other solutions involve the use of new technology.   For
example, 3M Corporation is developing a system of adhesive decals
that would provide rapid color change.  Because the technology is
still  in development,  few facts are known regarding cost or
suitability.  Undoubtedly, the research and development cost would
be absorbed by the military if this system is adopted.  Another
solution, being proposed, is the development of low emission CARC.
While this may eliminate the VOC problem, it will continue to be
very costly and have a limited shelf life.  (10:2)   All other
solutions involving new technology are not currently available,
making them unsuitable for today's needs.
     In conclusion, the problem of rapidly changing the camouflage
paint scheme to match the area of hostilities is perplexing.  The
current methods simply do not work for contingency operations.
With current regulations requiring CARC paint, options for rapidly
changing color are not existent.  With the end of the Cold War, do
we really need the costly protection that is derived from CARC?
When taken in the context of force reductions and weapon systems
cancellations, CARC is an expensive option that has out lived its
usefulness.  Two of the pillars of our national defense strategy
are forward presence and crisis response.  Remaining tied, to the
numerous restrictions and encumbrances associated with CARC, does
not allow the force to adequately prepare for crisis response.
Huge monetary savings can be realized by discontinuing the use of
CARC.  DOD's adoption of a suitable low emission paint, such as
alkyd or polyurethane, allows local facilities to comply with EPA
regulations and complete their tasks.  Future budget reductions
will not allow the huge expenditure of funds to continuously change
the color scheme.  Most importantly, allowing local facilities to
paint equipment with a suitable substitute for CARC would provide
the commander with the responsiveness required to complete his
mission.  DOD can quickly solve the problem of changing camouflage
color  by  discontinuing  the  use  of  CARC  and allowing  local
facilities to paint equipment.   The solution, when viewed  in
today's rapidly changing military posture, is practical, feasible
and acceptable.
                          BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.   Breckenridge, Robert. Modern Camouflage. New York: Farrar
          and Rinehart, Inc., 1941.
2.   Chesney C.. The Art of Camouflage. London: Robert Hale
          Limited, 1941.
3.   Corrosion Prevention and Control (CPAC) Guide.
          I Marine Expeditionary Force.  Camp Pendleton,
          California, March 9, 1990.
4.   Davis, C.. Maintenance Officer, Marine Air Group 40.
          Marine Corp Lessons Learned System. MCLLS number:
          22461-55274.
5.   Department of the Army Technical Bulletin.  General Paint
          Standards for Overhaul of Military Vehicles.
          Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C.,
          December 20, 1989.
6.   Duda, John. Maintenance Management Officer, 1st Marine
          Division.  Reading Paper for the Commanding General.
          "Corrosion Control and Repair".  Camp Pendleton,
          California, July 31, 1992.
7.   Hartcup, Guy. Camouflage, Charles Scribner's Sons,
          New York 1980.
8.   Hestir,  W..  Industrial  Engineer,  Repair  Division,  MCLB
          Barstow, California.  Letter to the Commanding General.
          "Life Cycle Cost for Chemical Agent Resistant
          Coating (CARC) Paint."  June 7, 1991.
9.   Hetterwik, Don. Director, Environmental and Natural
          Resources Management Office, Camp Pendleton,
          California.  Letter concerning painting records and
          VOC content of solvents. December 31, 1991.
10.  Judge, B.. Logistics Officer, 11th Marines, Camp Pendleton,
          California.  Letter about problems with CARC.
          August 23, 1991.
11.  Naval Message, Commanding General, IMEF, Camp Pendleton,
          California. "Camp Pendleton/San Diego County Painting
          Update." December 29, 1988.
12.  Technical Report.  Camouflage Modernization/Standardization
          Program.  U.S. Army Belvoir Research and Development
          Center, Fort Belvoir, Virginia.  April 30, 1984.
13.  U.S. Marine Corps Technical Manual.  Corrosion Prevention
          and Control for Marine Corps Equipment.  Commander,
          Marine Corps Systems Command, Code PSE. Quantico,
          Virginia. March 31, 1992.
14.  United States.  Defense Intelligence Agency.  Soviet
          Biological Warfare.  1986.
15.  Weinstein, John, and Henry Gole.  Chemical Weapons
          Rearmament and The Security of Europe:Can Support
          Be Mastered?  Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army
          War College. Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania.
          January 20, 1983.



NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list