Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)

hyperstealth.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 309 posts

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

#71

Post by chrisseaton »

the_af wrote: post #66
Majromax wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What advantage would it provide to make it harder to distinguish individual soldiers? Distinguishing individual soldiers is an important step in counting the size of a line. Accepting "red coats blend together" as truth, that would make it more difficult for an opposing general to determine which parts of a battle line were stronger or weaker, thus making it more difficult to preposition forces to exploit weak sect…

When determining weaker sections visually, wouldn't you go by "mass" of soldiers? I don't think anybody would count individual soldiers. In any case, given the technology of the time, if you were beyond engagement range, I don't think you would have been able to pick out individual soldiers by sight regardless of which uniforms they were wearing... My theory is that vibrant color uniforms were chosen simply to make i…

It helped to identify friend-vs-foe yes, but not formation, as formations were distinguished by the lining of their uniform, which wasn't very visible!

Also red was just an easy colour to get hold of and to dye with, and it hid blood.

The red mass of undistinguished soldiers created an imposing sight on the battlefield. It's not about wanting to hit individuals (why would you?) it's about the shock factor.

This is only infantry as well - where shock action was even more important - cavalry - and distinction didn't apply - you had less uniform more elaborate uniforms.

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

#72

Post by _petronius »

retSava wrote: post #68
denton-scratch wrote: post #37

I 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 foun…

An interesting macro-variant is the Berlin brigade tank camo pattern, which is surprisingly cool! No idea where that comes into uniform camo pattern history nor how efficient it is, but who cares. It's cool beans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Infantry_Brigade#/media...

Maybe it is related to dazzle camoflauge used on ships? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazzle_camouflage

There the goal is less to avoid detection and more to make it hard to determine direction/orientation.

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

#73

Post by autokad »

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…

when I was playing paintball, some people would wear that junk. they may as well wear bright orange hunting jackets. I can see them easily.

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

#74

Post by jessaustin »

bumby wrote: post #64
jessaustin wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, my first comment on the thread, consisting entirely of a quote from expert analysts, and already I'm a "luddite Reformer". (Idiosyncratic capitalization also doesn't help you seem balanced and rational.) This turkey was designed in the 1990s. The contract was awarded in 2001. The first f35 flew in 2006. When will this "technology" no longer be "new"? Presumably it will be some time, since the entire fleet was gr…

You do understand that most new airframes take a decade or more of R&D before they are put in service, right?

This thing is in service, so conventional wisdom about how long it takes to do stuff before that is irrelevant. From the introduction of my original link:

Despite more than 20 years and approximately $62.5 billion spent so far on research and development alone, program officials still haven’t been able to deliver an aircraft that can fly as often as needed or to demonstrate its ability to perform in combat, which places military personnel in jeopardy.

I would have said the "R&D decade" was the 1990s since JAST began in 1993 and developmental contracts were awarded in 1996, but POGO are conservative in their judgments.

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

#75

Post by kingofpandora »

retSava wrote: post #68
denton-scratch wrote: post #37

I 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 foun…

An interesting macro-variant is the Berlin brigade tank camo pattern, which is surprisingly cool! No idea where that comes into uniform camo pattern history nor how efficient it is, but who cares. It's cool beans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Infantry_Brigade#/media...

Honestly, the first thing that came to mind was the pattern used on V-2 rockets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-2_rocket ...

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

#76

Post by cwillu »

retSava wrote: post #68
denton-scratch wrote: post #37

I 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 foun…

An interesting macro-variant is the Berlin brigade tank camo pattern, which is surprisingly cool! No idea where that comes into uniform camo pattern history nor how efficient it is, but who cares. It's cool beans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Infantry_Brigade#/media...

Wrong photo: this just shows a bunch of disembodied heads floating down a street.

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

#77

Post by esaym »

the_af wrote: post #56
chrisseaton wrote: post #13

Earlier 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.

What advantage would it provide to make it harder to distinguish individual soldiers? Wouldn't their enemies just volley fire into the mass of red coats, instead of picking and choosing?

I don't know, maybe ask a zebra.

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

#78

Post by some_random »

PastaArt wrote: post #53
some_random wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They said their guess is "money". This looks like your trying to put words in someone elses mouth. The examples of corruption in government seems to be just that, examples. Im not sure why you try to act like they all need to be tied together somehow? Seem pretty defensive & weird.

Alright so to avoid putting words in anyone's mouth, please outline how corruption could have caused the US to fast track a pattern it developed itself rather than one of the superior commercial patterns that they would have had to pay royalties on.

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

#79

Post by some_random »

jessaustin wrote: post #55
some_random wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's so interesting how luddite Reformers hold such a sway over the usually techno-optimist HN. Turns out that new technology has teething problems, what a shocker.

Wow, my first comment on the thread, consisting entirely of a quote from expert analysts, and already I'm a "luddite Reformer". (Idiosyncratic capitalization also doesn't help you seem balanced and rational.) This turkey was designed in the 1990s. The contract was awarded in 2001. The first f35 flew in 2006. When will this "technology" no longer be "new"? Presumably it will be some time, since the entire fleet was gr…

As far as I know you're not a Reformer, which is a proper noun and therefore capitalized, but the "expert analyst" you quoted is. Honestly that tells me enough about your familiarity with this subject

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

#80

Post by ryanmercer »

denton-scratch wrote: post #37

I 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 foun…

>Why did they try them in the first place?

With no knowledge what so ever my gut reaction is to simply point to nature. Leaves get eaten/bitten/broken/ripped, a branch might be in front of another adding depth with similar patterns, rocks and sand in a desert can vary sharply at different focal depths, urban environments can have dozens of materials in use along with random detritus and objects at various focal depths.

Pixilation was probably a logical step towards recreating these varied environments. Look at a ghillie suit that has leaves incorporated, they'll have a pixilated appearance - example: https://static5.gunfire.com/eng_pl_Ghillie-Suit-camouflage-s...

Post reply on HN