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

191–200 of 309 posts

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

#191

Post by tablespoon »

Axien wrote: post #165
bityard wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source: former military member. In combat, camouflage is really the VERY last line of defense possible, and a fairly weak one at that. If the difference between staying alive and being dead is the pattern of your clothing, a lot of things have already gone seriously wrong and your chances of survival are not great. In the grand scheme of things, camo relatively high-hanging fruit. Money and time have mostly been spen…

With thermal imaging, do snipers still rely on camouflage?

> With thermal imaging, do snipers still rely on camouflage?

Does everyone on a battlefield have thermal imaging? Even if there's a technology X that can defeat Y, if X can't be deployed widely, then X can still be useful.

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

#192

Post by samstave »

mechanical_bear wrote: post #161
samstave wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just had a really odd thought cross my head and want to just document here before I forget it: The way rifles work with recoils driving the expulsion of a shell after firing and using that force to load the next round to chamber (the famous AK47 design) -- Would there be a method of attaching a compressed water bottle with valve with a donut nozzle with vents out at angles to the optimal suppression of the muzzle f…

I think TempleOS started in a similar fashion…

No post body was provided.

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

#193

Post by jimmygrapes »

fartcannon wrote: post #149
lwansbrough wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CADPAT is the basis for MARPAT. It's the most effective generic pattern that has been produced (according to the article.)

Thanks. Is MARPAT what the Canadian soldiers showed up to Afghanistan in? Edit: looks like the wore the forest green stuff to Afghanistan. The only articles I can find suggests they did it on purpose, to stand out for peace keeping reasons, but that could easily be damage control. Anyone know the real story? GP suggests they just didn't have an arid design at the time (which I would believe).

I can't comment on Canadian forces, but I can, with some reasonable level of confidence, say that some number of U.S. forces arrived with old forest green BDU pattern (despite the existence and previous use of the "chocolate chip" pattern) simply because that's what we had.

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

#194

Post by notatoad »

denton-scratch wrote: post #45
chrisseaton wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That doesn't explain why early-modern generals adopted costumes with extremely distinctive hats. Napoleon's hat, for example, was meant to allow troops to discern him instantly.

part of the benefit of a distinctive hat is that you can take it off for an instant disguise.

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

#195

Post by samstave »

abrokenpipe wrote: post #157
samstave wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just had a really odd thought cross my head and want to just document here before I forget it: The way rifles work with recoils driving the expulsion of a shell after firing and using that force to load the next round to chamber (the famous AK47 design) -- Would there be a method of attaching a compressed water bottle with valve with a donut nozzle with vents out at angles to the optimal suppression of the muzzle f…

A flash hider such as a "3 prong" achieves the same affect with no moving parts, also suppressors can pretty much eliminate all flash and offer hearing protection and additional signature reduction by reducing the db levels and changing the pitch of the noise.

I want to compare the modern versions of suppressions with the old designs of one-way-fluidic valves.

The reason:

Davinciy was cabable of documenting the vortices of variues pulses of fluidicsbut the vortices expecticed creates the fluid dynamics

Hopw the fuck in 400 years have these guys come NOT up with better?

I dont trust a single structural eng.

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

#196

Post by bendur_ »

shard wrote: post #176
happyopossum wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most hunters in the US wear a blaze orange vest or hat to identify themselves to other hunters. In some states it's codified by law, and in others it's strongly encouraged (in California it's a big part of the mandatory hunter safety course, but is not legally required). Many big game animals are color-blind (or more specifically, see color differently than we do), so a camo pattern with orange can still hide one fro…

What if the deer is also color-blind? What colors do deer see anyway?

Deer have a hard time with orange and red, which makes the blaze orange work well for deer hunting. Deer don't notice, and people really notice.

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

#197

Post by bendur_ »

happyopossum wrote: post #154
malkia wrote: post #138

Why do (US?) hunters go in camouflage? Would that trick the animals... or rather trick other hunters, and not see them... always seemed weird going in full camouflage... for hunting.

Most hunters in the US wear a blaze orange vest or hat to identify themselves to other hunters. In some states it's codified by law, and in others it's strongly encouraged (in California it's a big part of the mandatory hunter safety course, but is not legally required). Many big game animals are color-blind (or more specifically, see color differently than we do), so a camo pattern with orange can still hide one fro…

For deer (with guns), yes. For things like turkeys, ducks, geese, deer with bows, etc they do not. In hunter safety they really stressed to be careful hunting turkeys.

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

#198

Post by mindcrime »

denton-scratch wrote: post #159
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…

Well, I'm now much better informed! It does sound as if there's not much methodology in this business, beyond empirical testing. Like, is there a science of 'camouflagology'? [oops, when inventing words, never mix latin and greek] It just seems like it's basically lore, gathered from talking to fgillies and field experience, augmented by tests (which may be omitted, or the results ignored). Anyway, it might be fun to…

Like, is there a science of 'camouflagology'? [oops, when inventing words, never mix latin and greek]

I don't know if there's a more specific term or not, but camouflage is studied (along with other things) under the general subject of "Crypsis".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypsis

Note that this seems to be more particularly about natural forms of camouflage / etc., as opposed to military camouflage used by humans. But the two areas are clearly related.

Regardless of what you call it, it does appear that there is some science that goes into at least some aspects of this. See, for example:

https://phys.org/news/2021-01-camouflage-arbitrary-environme...

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

#199

Post by blt »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #135
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…

That still doesnt answer the question of why pixels. You can scale invariance and fractals with squares, triangles, or whatever shape you want.

Maybe it's easier to implement the pattern generation algorithm for pixel output?

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

#200

Post by Sharlin »

rtkwe wrote: post #187
Sharlin wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 stealt…

Ah, when you said "suppressor" I thought you meant "flash suppressor" but rereading I realize you meant "sound suppressor" like the GP.
Post reply on HN