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

261–270 of 309 posts

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

#261

Post by fho »

ncmncm wrote: post #218
fho wrote: post #177

Question (from somebody who only skimmed the article): how much variance exists of that fabric? Is that pattern repeated after x meters if fabric? If so: wouldn't knowing what to look for greatly increase the ability to automatically extract the pattern from image data? (Like how it is possible to extract signals from below the noise floor in LoRa communication?)

My thought too: a cheap, simple NN attached to the raw image in scopes and sights, programmed to highlight anything it recognizes. Now I imagine uniform fabric with adversarial patterns added, for those.

Doesn't even have to be any fancy ML stuff. Just convolute the input images with the camo pattern.

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

#262

Post by avereveard »

vopi wrote: post #36
dotancohen wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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."

The F-35 ended up being great though. Even now, it's cheaper on a per unit basis than other aircraft that are worse.

Funny coincidence how as soon as we isolated Russians after their invasion of Ukraine the bullshit surrounding the f35 dropped dramatically.

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

#263

Post by Doxin »

bloqs wrote: post #19

Random but does anyone know where to buy a official Crye precision multicam texture for game dev? Their website gives the impression they just sell fabrics to the US market

That'd probably be rather hard since the texture is exactly where the profit is. For a game you don't need an exact 100% match, just something that looks right. I'd go looking for stock photos of people in the cammo, and then collaging a bunch of it together using GIMPs resynthesizer plugin. That should get it to look right without it being the exact pattern.

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

#264

Post by Sharlin »

rtkwe wrote: post #238
Sharlin wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Yeah mine is probably colored by being from the US and it's recent wars where overall stealth wasn't a huge consideration because the force disparity was so great Finland also has some interesting doctrine in anti-tank which leads to fun images like [0] of people absolutely COVERED in anti-tank mines or launchers. Part of being next to a much larger country I guess. [0] https://twitter.com/jmkorhonen/status/150401633…

Yep, and the Finnish doctrine has been pretty much vindicated by the Ukraina invasion (although a full-scale land assault against Finland has long been seen as a rather improbable scenario, that hasn’t stopped us from hoarding AT weaponry and maintaining a large artillery force).

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

#265

Post by avereveard »

spywaregorilla wrote: post #126
qbasic_forever wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing useful to deploy it on though--the 'future soldier' concept of the 90s never went anywhere ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Soldier ) and we don't have a computer platform on every soldier. IMHO I'd stick to using machine learning to detect stealth aircraft and missiles to improve intercepting them.

I've heard the javelin missile launchers have been great in ukraine because they can double as night / thermal vision. This concept seems similar to me. Never been on a battlefield but I guess it seems dubious that most modern soldiers don't have some form of digital aid?

High res termal are still significantly heavy.

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

#266

Post by fho »

fho wrote: post #177

Question (from somebody who only skimmed the article): how much variance exists of that fabric? Is that pattern repeated after x meters if fabric? If so: wouldn't knowing what to look for greatly increase the ability to automatically extract the pattern from image data? (Like how it is possible to extract signals from below the noise floor in LoRa communication?)

Or ... just detect this specific patch that seems to on every variation of the pattern: https://www.hyperstealth.com/camo-improvement/cadpat-us-vari... :-)

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

#267

Post by WooAndMayIAdHoo »

kragen wrote: post #229
imwillofficial wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The table stakes are uniforms here, lets not blow it out of proportion.

Until the Javascript cool kids invade your country because the USans elected a guy with a family grudge against your president. Then the Javascript cool kids decide whether to blow you into assorted body parts and pink mist in front of your parents because you tried to help a wounded child.

Don't forget......

.... the USans will also come back in 20 years to make a film about how invading your country and blowing you into a pink mist in front of your parents made their solders feel sad.

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

#268

Post by WooAndMayIAdHoo »

kingofpandora wrote: post #75
retSava wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ...

That pattern was only ever used in testing, so any spin or yaw could be easily identified.

V2 rockets used in anger all used "ordinary" camouflage to hide their location prior to launch.

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

#269

Post by Sharlin »

chrisseaton wrote: post #212
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…

> camouflage is really the VERY last line of defense possible Doesn't it go: 'don't be seen, if you're seen don't be acquired, if you're acquired don't be hit, if you're hit don't be penetrated, if you're penetrated don't be killed'? Camouflage ('don't be seen') is the first layer on the onion, not the last!

The first layer is probably "don’t be there" but yeah.
Post reply on HN