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

81–90 of 309 posts

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

#81

Post by muro »

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…

Shining under different light (e.g. IR) is nothing new. I think it was Soviet paint on tanks that was highly visible early in WW2 through a filter.

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

#82

Post by ahazred8ta »

corrral wrote: post #60
sillysaurusx wrote: post #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.

> Doctors and soldiers get such cool uniforms, but us programmers are just business casual. Programmers' uniforms are excessively-expensive hiking clothes, or selvedge jeans with flannel and full-grain leather boots, ideally in a work- or jump-boot style.

"his colleagues, a gender-parity posse of young, smart-looking people, along with one graybeard (literally -- he had a Unix beard of great rattiness and gravitas) who had no fewer than seven devices on his belt, including a line tester and a GPS." -- Cory Doctorow

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

#83

Post by adolph »

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…

In development since 1983, the camo saw no use in the field until it was deployed during the first Gulf War (1990-1991).

The purpose was to disrupt primitive Soviet-era night vision. The grid pattern was intended to interfere with the generated grid used by these devices for targeting.

Even after plenty of research I could find no cases of this pattern ever disrupting anything. By the early 90’s, night vision technology had progressed greatly and this green grid was completely ineffective. There is even some anecdotal evidence it made detection easier!

https://guide.sportsmansguide.com/gulf-war-desert-night-camo...

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

#84

Post by jrochkind1 »

chasebank wrote: post #63
yboris wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WWI & WWII related: the Dazzle Camouflage for ships! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazzle_camouflage

Thanks! That was interesting! Now I know where the phrase razzle dazzle came from!

the term seems to pre-date the camo.

> The expression was then always in the form of 'give someone the razzle-dazzle', that is, confuse them. The earliest use that I can find of that sense of 'razzle-dazzle' is the US newspaper The Saint Paul Globe, April 1885:

>> Sir: As you seem to be in earnest in your efforts to give someone the dazzle-dazzle... [I think that's a typo and the original source is indeed razzle-dazzle as being discussed!]

> The expression very quickly came to be used with a more positive intent, that is, where 'razzle-dazzle' was considered to be indicate enjoyment rather than deception. That's found in the Pennsylvania newspaper The Daily Republican, June 1887:

>> A meeting at City Hall resolved to celebrate the Fourth [of July] by a general old-time razzle-dazzle.

https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/razzle-dazzle.html

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

#85

Post by guessbest »

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…

I personally find the who camouflage switch to every branch of service, including the navy to be bizarre. Who thought it was good idea for navy seamen to be camouflaged in the water? With that line of reasoning why didn't the airforce get their own camouflage to look like a flight line? hah

> After six years in the fleet and some controversy, the blue-and-gray cammies could be headed for Davy Jones' seabag.

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2016/04/23/the-navy...

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

#87

Post by wyager »

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…

One thing I was surprised to learn about NIR requirements is that it apparently doesn't just mean "dark". I have some coyote brown NIR compliant gear (water carriers etc) and under NIR it has the same shade as grass (which is quite bright, relatively speaking).

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

#88

Post by _tomcat_ »

some_random wrote: post #78
PastaArt wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[dead]

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

#89

Post by wyager »

An interesting evolution in the camouflage meta is the proliferation of inexpensive thermal cameras. Chinese companies like Infiray are producing reasonably-priced thermal monoculars that defeat all colour-based camo. Low-spec monos and COTI-style devices start around $2k and high-spec (around 720p 50Hz) for around $5k, same price as a nice omni VIII NVG mono.

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

#90

Post by nordsieck »

guessbest wrote: post #85
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…

I personally find the who camouflage switch to every branch of service, including the navy to be bizarre. Who thought it was good idea for navy seamen to be camouflaged in the water? With that line of reasoning why didn't the airforce get their own camouflage to look like a flight line? hah > After six years in the fleet and some controversy, the blue-and-gray cammies could be headed for Davy Jones' seabag. https://w…

> I personally find the who camouflage switch to every branch of service, including the navy to be bizarre. Who thought it was good idea for navy seamen to be camouflaged in the water? With that line of reasoning why didn't the airforce get their own camouflage to look like a flight line? hah

Not everything the military does is about effectiveness. Sometimes senior NCOs want the enlisted to "look military", not just be effective.

Here's another example: why is the military PT (physical training) test varied by sex and age? If it was only about combat effectiveness, presumably there'd be 1 set of values that determine if someone had sufficient fitness relative to the rigors of combat (or whatever their job requires).

Post reply on HN