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

181–190 of 309 posts

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

#181

Post by bumby »

jessaustin wrote: post #150
bumby wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your first comment was about suspended development, implying you think the system should be part of a continuous R&D cycle. Yet this comment implies you think the system should be outside of development. It's hard to tell what you're criticizing when your points are inconsistent. I question some of the critiques in your link. For example, they claim the JSFs 61% availability rates are far below the standard of 75-80%…

I don't agree that any of my statements have had any of those implications. USA citizens have the right to complain about any expensive government program. F35 is a $1.7T program, which qualifies as expensive. It's perfectly ordinary to see administrators of non-military programs called before Congress and raked over the coals for spending that seems excessive to some legislator playing to the basest instincts of vot…

I agree with much of what you say. The citizenry have every right to criticize and lobby for their tax dollars to be spent differently. But it appears you've already come to the conclusion that the JSF isn't worthwhile. Put differently, what would the JSF need to show capability-wise in order to change your mind?

I would like to see us spend less in the military if it goes to better use instead. Particularly when commanders are advocating getting rid of programs and Congress keeps them anyway. The US is effectively subsidizing NATOs military capability and mitigating the blowback requires more thoughtful analysis than just slashing the budget. I'm not convinced yet that POGO are the experts worth listening to because they seem a bit out of touch (see my last comment about what they claim the availability should be vs. the parity that matters).

As one of those service members who was supported by the A10 overseas, you're right. Grunts on the ground love the sound of that cannon overhead when close air support is needed. But you are comparing the one very specialized thing the A10 was designed to do. I don’t think it’s a slight to a decathlete to point out there’s faster, specialized sprinters at the Olympics. Stray in any direction away from that and it loses the comparison miserably. Compare avionics, speed, maneuverability and munitions capability etc. (really, anything outside of the cannon) and the JSF is just far superior. In other words, if I was only allowed to have one plane in theater, it wouldn't be the A10.

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

#182

Post by jessaustin »

jcranmer wrote: post #151
volumetric wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get why the branches in which very few folks are likely to need camo (basically anyone other than the army, then, and some sub-divisions of other branches like the marine corp) don't go with old-school olive drab or navy or something. Those single-color uniforms with a slightly dressy cut looked damn slick. I'd think that'd be better for recruiting or improving morale or whatever than the camo uniforms (which…

One advantage of camo uniforms for working utility uniforms is they tend to be effective in hiding things like grime and mud, which consequently means you need to launder them less frequently to keep up the same appearance. If you've got a solid single-color uniform, chances are that these will stick out like a sore thumb. That was one thing that sailors liked about the old US Navy NWU (the one that camouflaged you v…

...camouflaged you very effectively if you fell in the water...

This seems good in some situations and very bad in others?

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

#183

Post by jessaustin »

munificent wrote: post #109
mensetmanusman wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be funny to have chairs and desks with the same pattern so you would actually blend in…

Relevant famous old photo: https://soldiersystems.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/img_64...

Who left his boots on the couch?!

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

#184

Post by Sharlin »

rtkwe wrote: post #168
Sharlin wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Very very few things in nature actually are made of large blobs of a single color (unless you're very shortsighted). Honestly, it baffles me why militaries didn't realize this earlier.

The ability to easily print and create those patterns has likely improved over the years to where it's cheap enough to be worth the mild improvements vs the cost of the printing of the uniforms. Plus, like another commenter said camouflage is a last to second to last line of defense. Most units aren't moving stealthily in close proximity to their enemy and those that do adopt better camouflage techniques like ghillie…

As a Finn, my conception of warfare is probably biased towards a specific type that happens in woodlands with short sightlines and lots of natural concealment. Direct-fire engagement distances tend to be short, infantry tactics are informed by the desire to get as close as possible without being seen, and by unit movement (possibly under aerial surveillance) while giving away as little information as possible.

I do think that the Finnish M05 woodland camo [1] is one of the best in the world =)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M05

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

#185

Post by jcranmer »

rtkwe wrote: post #172
nordsieck wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

In addition to things other people have said there's a lot of roles that aren't combat so increasing the number of women who can qualify can fill out those roles (logistics, the reams of sundry clerical work, maintenance, etc) where physical strength isn't as critical helps fill out a volunteer army.

There's a concept called 'tooth-to-tail ratio' which is the ratio of combat personnel to non-combat personnel in an army. The modern US army has a tooth-to-tail ratio of about ~1:8. This isn't necessarily a great correlation to physically demanding versus not-physically-demanding jobs, it does illustrate how tiny the front-line portion of the military actually is.

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

#187

Post by rtkwe »

Sharlin wrote: post #179
rtkwe wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah for a fraction of the cost in complexity, weight and issues with consumables a suppressor does all of what they were talking about and more. The US army is in theory going to a new rifle and issuing suppressors to every (frontline) infantry unit with the NGSW contract. (We'll see how widely the new system and everything actually gets deployed but it was an important part of the whole program at least)

Why not just build one in? I guess I'm accustomed to assault rifles having flash suppressors because the one that I've actually handled and lugged around and shot with, the Valmet RK 62, does have a suppressor built in, a distinctive feature [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RK_62

I'm not seeing anything about a built in sound suppressor just a flash suppressor which is a fairly common feature on modern assault rifles and their civilian variants. You don't generally build in a suppressor because they're technically wear items as the hot gases will slowly erode the baffles over time. That plus their extra weight and cost meant most militaries only issued them to units that were built for stealth missions in the past.

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

#188

Post by jcranmer »

imwillofficial wrote: post #140
Taniwha wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that seeing 'Space Force' going around in camo is even more asinine ....

Space force is still in many ways still a child of the Air Force, and follow Air Force uniform refs.

Space Force does have its own dress uniforms.

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

#189

Post by Armisael16 »

jessaustin wrote: post #180
some_random wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Please link to any source that indicates "Luddite" shouldn't be capitalized or "reformer" should, especially with Capt. Grazier cited as some sort of exemplar of the concept. You've had lots to say ITT but haven't cited a single authority to indicate you're not just making it all up.

The Reformers were/are a group arguing for a particular class of weapons and vehicles in procurement, mostly focusing on relatively low-tech solutions. They’re most famous for their influence in the Fighter Mafia and in the Bradley (see: Pentagon Wars). They’re… controversial.

That one gets capitalized because it’s a proper noun (is that a confusion name? sure).

Luddite strictly should be capitalized as well, but there isn’t any confusion around that one and it isn’t the focus, so I can understand why it wasn’t capitalized. I wouldn’t’ve.

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

#190

Post by tomcam »

Sharlin wrote: post #99
danielvf wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really so much about the pixels being square as the fractal-ish nature of mordern pixel camos that result in a "scale invariance" effect. There's details and contrast at the level of the small pixels, and there's details and contrasts are medium levels, and then again at large levels. Previous US army camo mostly had detail at only one scale level. As jcranmer says, there's more details on the reasons it wor…

Exactly. Very very few things in nature actually are made of large blobs of a single color (unless you're very shortsighted). Honestly, it baffles me why militaries didn't realize this earlier.

Sadly I'm a large blob of a single color
Post reply on HN