Today's camo is so much better than the red coats the British were wearing in the 18th century. chuckle
Just a little context here! I was just adding a little humor to the thread. I did not actually think they were wearing camouflage.
U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)
31–40 of 309 posts
Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I said dazzle camouflage, and it was.
The goal of their uniforms wasn't to hide individuals within the environment, but to make it hard to discern individuals within the imposing mass of soldiers.
Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
"Lieutenant! We're sticking out like sore thumbs here! Why did we go with bright-fucking-red as our uniform colour? The enemy can clearly see us coming!" "Corporal, your job is to bang on that drum as we march, not complain about military fashion."
> We're sticking out like sore thumbs here!
As I just said, the design consideration wasn't to not stick out.
'Shock action' is a modern military term, but that's partly what they were trying to achieve in those days through visual impact. 'Shatter the enemy's cohesion and will to fight' is something they were trying to achieve through visual impact.
As another example today, think about why the UN paint their vehicles white. It's because their visibility and presence on the battlefield provides a tactical effect.
Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)
#34If 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…
> the decision process that resulted in the horribly-ineffective UCP > pattern amounts to: "We want one pattern Just wait until you read how the F-35 was procured. "We want one airplane for the Air Force, Navy, and Marines. Oh, and it had to include parts from almost all NATO allies, even those who we won't sell it to."
Tell me you want a jobs program without telling me you want a jobs program.
Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)
#35Feels like a great application for adversarial generative networks
Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)
#36If 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…
> the decision process that resulted in the horribly-ineffective UCP > pattern amounts to: "We want one pattern Just wait until you read how the F-35 was procured. "We want one airplane for the Air Force, Navy, and Marines. Oh, and it had to include parts from almost all NATO allies, even those who we won't sell it to."
The F-35 ended up being great though. Even now, it's cheaper on a per unit basis than other aircraft that are worse.
Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)
#37I was hoping to learn why the pixelated designs started appearing. Author says they work; but what led anyone to think that those designs might work? Why did they try them in the first place? And actually, why do they work?
I find it bizarre that this is all done by private companies, competing in public competitions, with royalties to be paid for the chosen design. And I'm quite surprised that some designs were found wanting because they don't work under IR (e.g. the soldier shines against the background). That sounds like they're using the wrong dyes; surely a decent design methodology would lead to such problems being remedied by incremental improvement?
Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the decision process that resulted in the horribly-ineffective UCP > pattern amounts to: "We want one pattern Just wait until you read how the F-35 was procured. "We want one airplane for the Air Force, Navy, and Marines. Oh, and it had to include parts from almost all NATO allies, even those who we won't sell it to."
The F-35 ended up being great though. Even now, it's cheaper on a per unit basis than other aircraft that are worse.
If you had stopped with the first sentence, we could have written it off as sarcasm.
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program appears to be in a state of suspended development, with little progress made in 2021 toward improving its lackluster performance. The latest report by the Pentagon’s Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E) reveals stagnation and even backsliding in some fleet reliability measures.
And that’s just the public DOT&E report.
In an unprecedented move, DOT&E is concealing many of the key details of the F-35’s poor performance. For the first time ever, the testing office created a non-public “controlled unclassified information” version of its report, and although there is much overlap between the two versions, the meaningful details about the ever-troubled program are only included in the non-public one.
https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2022/03/f-35-program-stagnated...
Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)
#39Anyone reading should check out the links at the bottom: the nightvision images in particular really highlight the issue with having poor NIR performance.
Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
thats a weird take, very defensive. But, since youre sure about it I guess everyone should be too. I'm sure no one is trying to destroy US democracy either or stage insurrections, etc. oh wait... If I had to guess, I'd say it was intentional and all about money. That could make it illegal. Even if they didn't intend to lose in combat, it still gave US soldiers a handycap.
So to sum things up, you're suggesting that either US army officials in 2004 chose UCP to weaken the US military in preparation for a fascist coup in 2020 OR they chose a US gov owned pattern over commercial patterns to make money (somehow)? And you're calling my response defensive and weird lmao