U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)

Post by seanw444 » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 3:49 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #33

function_seven wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 vehicl…

Post by denton-scratch » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 3:51 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #33

function_seven wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 vehicl…

Post by denton-scratch » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 3:54 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #32

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by jcranmer » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 3:56 PM UTC

dotancohen wrote: post #26

jcranmer wrote: post #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…

> 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."

Post by ghaff » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 3:59 PM UTC

dotancohen wrote: post #26

jcranmer wrote: post #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…

> 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."