Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)

hyperstealth.com

11–20 of 309 posts

Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)

#11
post #3

It appears that someone circumnavigated the scientific process and forced UCP in. That would be whoever benefitted financially from the decision to fuck our soldiers over.

Seeing as UCP is owned by the US government, I'm very curious to hear who could have financially benefited from its selection. If anything, HyperStealth here is the one with the financial motivation seeing as their US4CES pattern was not selected.

Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)

#12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What law was broken?

idk, but it seems to undermine national security. Maybe in here somewhere, "Various statutes supplement the provisions of Chapter 37 to criminalize activities that jeopardize the national defense or national security." IANAL ;)

I'm sure the senior military officials pushing UCP through were doing so to intentionally handicap the organization they spent their entire life working for. Rather than just making a mistake based on overestimating their own knowledge. If that's criminalized, all of HN is going behind bars.

Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)

#13

Today's camo is so much better than the red coats the British were wearing in the 18th century. chuckle

The British red coats were a kind of dazzle camouflage, making it hard to see individuals within the group. People weren't stupid back then - they just had different design goals to what we have now.

Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)

#14
post #3

It appears that someone circumnavigated the scientific process and forced UCP in. That would be whoever benefitted financially from the decision to fuck our soldiers over.

Much more likely is that multiple entities just wanted something done quickly and didn't follow all the right procedures the way they should have been.

Don't presume malice when incompetence will do.

Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)

#15
Now I want to show up at our Zoom meetings in full camo. Doctors and soldiers get such cool uniforms, but us programmers are just business casual.

Plus then you could convince a few of your coworkers to show up in camo with you and make your manager nervous you’re about to do a hostile takeover of the company.

Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)

#16
post #3

It appears that someone circumnavigated the scientific process and forced UCP in. That would be whoever benefitted financially from the decision to fuck our soldiers over.

Are these people in prison yet?

You're assuming malicious intent, multiple co-conspirators, and illegal action.

None of that information is available to you.

Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)

#17
If I'm reading this correctly, the decision process that resulted in the horribly-ineffective UCP pattern amounts to: "We want one pattern. So let's pick one color from the best camo patterns in every environment [the only one that has good NIR performance], and the result will somehow work well!" Which is... yowzers.

(For what it's worth, the Multicam pattern, which is slightly modified to the OCP pattern now in use by the US Army/Air Force, manages to do a better job than the UCP pattern at actually being universal camo, and it's not even the best of the tests.)

The NIR requirements means you can almost see how the decision might be justifiable... but that no one actually tested the resulting pattern as a check? I mean, one of the most salient facts about human color processing is that we evaluate colors based on their surrounding context, so even if individual colors work well, you would need to check their performance in their context to make sure they still work well.

Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)

#18

Now I want to show up at our Zoom meetings in full camo. Doctors and soldiers get such cool uniforms, but us programmers are just business casual. Plus then you could convince a few of your coworkers to show up in camo with you and make your manager nervous you’re about to do a hostile takeover of the company.

I really like the mandatory programming socks my company prescribes. Waaaay better than business casual

Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)

#20

Today's camo is so much better than the red coats the British were wearing in the 18th century. chuckle

The British red coats were a kind of dazzle camouflage, making it hard to see individuals within the group. People weren't stupid back then - they just had different design goals to what we have now.

Camouflage was absolutely not a goal of 18th century uniforms. When you are wheeling around infantry units like big blocks camouflage is more or less tactically irrelevant.

Furthermore, if they were trying to blend in with each other like one big homogeneous mass of infantry they wouldn't have given everyone hats in a contrasting color.

Post reply on HN